User Profile

I like this because it's great to see some anarchists in other regions. This book focuses on essays from a group of anarchists in Israel. There are a few that highlight some of the issues within organising groups (excessive machismo among them).

However, my issue is that though they are ostensibly against the Israeli state's treatment of Palestinians? There is a distinct lack of Palestinian voices. It's one more thing that I'm left questioning about decisions that were made by publishers and relevant academic anarchist organisations.

A collection of essays with an almost-clever title but too many detours.

Far too often, I found myself having to re-read parts of essays in order to understand whatever the main point was. There were so many times that the content just meandered somewhere, tried to build into the point, and created confusion about whatever he was trying to describe.

At one point, I was 40 pages into an essay with another 10-20 to go, and it started feeling like he was trying to justify why it was okay to like fantasy literature and games despite the bureaucracy within them. I doubt that was his intent, but that was precisely the way they felt due to the way he writes.

So much of what was said was entirely superfluous, which... is fine. But again, for someone who was touted as being the 'most readable' theorist, this was pretty unreadable.

He hasn't, at any point, defined who the 'weak' and 'strong' are, but these comments ooze of eugenics-based intelligence discussion that must underlie most of this (particularly for the common usage of terms like 'idiocy' and 'moronic' and a failure of truly critiquing much of the system or his own actions). This sounds like the way that a lot of Silicon Valley bros speak when they're hit with any form of criticism.

Something else that he's highlighting by accident quite a lot is this weird power dynamic, acting as if he (someone who apparently is well-known enough to be invited to all these little conferences and expensive dinners with CEOs of news sites) is powerless to anything happening around him? While also discussing all the ways in which he manipulated it, even after being caught many times over? It's very bizarre.

This is a rich comment coming from someone who is two years younger than I am and of the same generation. Not only is that rich, but he's also someone who literally keeps talking about how he built his (and American Apparel's) brand off of these shady tactics that he's now "confessing" to have done... and is upset about having encouraged that.

And has done what to make it better? Written a book? A book in which he (amusingly) snarked at the very people he's mad at for snarking at him? It's perplexing.

This sounds entirely nonsensical because no one needs this by any stretch of the imagination. Even in the system we currently live in, no one needs things done like this. It's interesting that the very things he's frustrated by are things that he keeps claiming are "necessary" or "required."

This part is really hitting some notes that feel like it's going to lean into blaming employees for being disgruntled (rather than company policies and... well, the world) and lend itself to the union-busting behaviours of these companies.

When so many of them have worker rights' protections issues and so many of us have gone through these things, it's hard not to side with the employees... because we know there's a lot of truth in what they say. While Mr Brand Management here wants to silence them because profits.

I feel like he could've done better to spend time looking at the 'why' of this issue. If this is how it is, why? And how do we get out of this? How do we build systems and webs of responsibility and accountability?

Rather than rely on the same tired tropes of "cancel culture" (which is a term he doesn't use because the book was written in 2012, but the feeling in how people unironically use it now is there), why not actively go through ways to change that? To push it? To prompt something else?

This entire part is infuriating. Starting from "we'd worked so hard to support" and ending with a $5 million dollar lawsuit, it feels difficult to see their 'support' as being anything other than tenuous at best and not anything they 'believed in'.

There's also the implication that they left this apparent 'mom-and-pop' manufacturer to deal with the fall-out that American Apparel had the resources to deal with? It's a very bizarre scenario that basically feels as if they had no choice but to have a lawsuit against them for "missing deadlines" and so-called "losses" (which weren't actual losses, mind you). How is that supporting a company that you "really believed in?" It's very strange.

Both sides of this specific issue feel like a problem.

This comment also feels really self-serving, as if it's trying to get someone to view American Apparel with positive emotions. I feel like there are a lot of infamous American Apparel controversies that were true and he didn't fake; I think there are probably many that were literally fed to 'news bloggers' by people at the company.

This requires me to believe that this is a severely ethical company despite the entirely unethical news campaigns they supposedly created with their resident media manipulator. I find it hilarious that someone would think we should believe this statement wholesale.

Here is the repeated idea that is really driving me up all the walls. He repeatedly says that this "luxury of time" is not available online and doesn't stop, at any point, to question it. It just is, and he accepts that as truth. At no point does he stop and consider any possible ways to which this shouldn't be and how that can be made real.

He just repeats that this is how it is! And so it's okay to manipulate the ecosystem in order to game it! Even if it's harmful for others and he finds it annoying (when he's not in control of it).