Another ex-volunteer? I doubt. But since you chose anonymity (without explaining why), I can only guess. Anyway.
> The callout has been publicised anonymously. The reason for that is
> the atmosphere in ACU where people fear the reaction for open
> criticism.
No. The call-out has been publicised anonymously because the author doesn't seriously want to take responsability for what he or she is
claiming. Just admit it instead of trying to blame 'the atmosphere in the ACU'. This is an embarassing way of trying to avoid answering the critique.
> The assumption that it is very few people is wrong. if it
> were so few people the discussion wouldn't be so big.
Actually I don't think the discussion is that big. So if we were to follow your logics, I would now be allowed to think it is indeed a call-out of only a very few people. Publicising a similar text several times on Indymedia doesn't make a discussion big. Generating buzz on Face Book doesn't make a discussion big. Using big words like racism, fascism, attempted rape, trauma, secrecy, doesn't make the discussion big - what it does do is trigger the attention of leftist or anti-authoritarian people who read this call-out. But the call-out fails to deliver any convincing details or to propose any alternatives or even hint at some possible way to solve this conflict, so we do not see not much discussion developing at all. It remains painfully obvious that this is the work of only a few isolated people or even one individual. Now, the critique voiced in the call-out could be nevertheless just as valid - but pretending that you represent many people when you don't is not only weakening your argumentation, it is simply a wrong thing to do. Just take responsability for your dissenting opinions and voice them as your own instead of hiding behind the evil ACU or some hypothetical numbers of sympathisers that you wish you had.
> It was a wise choice not to go into individual cases. Apparently it
> would not be your choice. Going into individual cases online tends to
> spiral out of control. The expectation is that more details and
> possibly individual cases will be discussed the 6th.
Calling out on Indymedia for people to go crashing the door of the monthly volunteers meeting is a deliberate attempt at spiraling things out of control. People who want to achieve things with meetings plan those meetings and send proposals, they don't "expect details to be discussed". Stating that the choice you made to not go into individual cases is "a wise choice" is a ridiculous way of trying to avoid discussion on this point.
> ACU has stated they object to a public meeting. This is part of the
> lack of accountability ACU wants to take. There is no reason to
> respect this. How the meeting will go will depend highly on the
> behaviour of all people attending. Hopefully this meeting will be a
> fresh start for ACU where people will work on all the present
> problems.
No. ACU didn't comply to your one-sided decision of turning an internal, regular volunteers meeting into a random public rally. It's downright false to blame them for your 'lack of accountability'. Trying to turn things in this way shows an alarming machiavellist tendency that definitely has nothing to do with anti-authoritarian, emancipating politics.
> The people who are untouchable because of their positions of power
> aren't only criticized for outdated routines, but also for being part
> of many of the other problems described. The fact that you call on
> people to become part of the problem by gaining seniority shows how
> you miss the point.
No. It simply shows, or says, that I strongly disagree with you. It also questions the use of a complex concept such as 'gaining seniority' without ever giving a clue as to what you actually mean with it and why you apparently see it as something bad. Saying that I miss the point is a poor way of trying to avoid giving an answer.
> Also people in a position of seniority should be
> open for criticism. The nuance that not everybody in a position of
> power had malicious intent to end up in that position is misread by
> you as saying they are willingless victims of a process.
Funnily enough, it was perfectly read by me. Now you try to do as if you don't get the nuance of my analysis of your argumentation method. I'm afraid I read it very well indeed, and I rethorically put the question wether you really meant to say they are willingess victims. Instead of saying I have been misreading, you could admit that I was asking a pertinent question, and try to answer why you chose to describe the phenomenon of power-positions in this way. Could it be for instance that you have no evidence whatsoever that these 'powerful seniors' are misusing their power, but that you still need a way of describing their position that makes them look suspicious? Alas, I think it's pretty clear why you avoid answering here: presumably you are not in a position of seniority, so you find that you do not need to be open for criticism.
> There is no unwillingness to master skills by ACU-volunteers there is
> active discouragement of this by the people who have those skills.
> This is done by both not answering training requests and over
> complicating and frequently changing things. The fact that you can't
> imagine how there can be secrecy around the ordering of drinks points
> out how bad the situation in ACU is that even that problem has
> developed.
Does it? Or does it point that you are willing to master skills, but are not willing to make any efforts to actually learn them? Your constant pointing at wrongs in the functioning of the ACU without giving a single example, even up to the point where you fire back the drinks-ordering question as an example of how right you are, is in fact exactly that: actively discouraging your readers from understanding what is going on and over-complicating things on purpose.
> The problems mentioned are experienced by lots of people. There are
> frequent conversations by people experiencing these problems. These
> conversations are impossible in ACU however.
For me as a random Indymedia reader it is impossible to check any of these claims. If you would have chosen to unveil your identity, there could be some kind of assessment for readers wether they trust your authority to make such claims. Now they are just completely unverifable claims without any evidence to support them. Rather unconvincing and not different than any random anonymous rant.
> Amongst the verbal abuse
> is name calling and cursing at people. The fact that problems are
> denied because they are to serious is startling. Again: discussing
> individual cases online tends to spiral out of control.
Again, making heavy accusations anonymously and without giving even a hint at what are the incidents vindicated is the perfect way of spiraling things out of control. If when asked for details you can only manage to describe the alleged verbal abuse as 'name calling and cursing', we are to conclude that again, you chose vague generic description by lack of serious evidence.
> The public debate about ACU might be perceived as more aggressive
> than overshouting one another in meetings. The alternative seems to
> be accepting ACU will no longer be a place for activists and activist
> groups.
Says you. You seem to be adamant that a ACU where your vision is not granted and revered is 'no longer a place for activists'. What about the alternative where people don't accept your insidious ways of making accusations and tearing apart a collective that already has enough problems to deal with, and where ACU does remain a place for activists, who are able to see through your poor argumentation methods? Obviously such an alternative would either mean that you accept evolving your opinions and the way that you try and get your points across within the collective - or, in the worst case, it would mean that you leave the collective. In such case we can only hope that you will at least be honest enough to not go on ranting around about how you have been 'excluded' and 'forced to leave'.
> If you want a list of racist slurs, there are plenty online. I am not
> writing one here.
Not sure what you are trying to say here.
> Strange that you see an anti-discrimination statement as "zelfspot".
Do you mean 'strange' as in 'queer'? I'm rather proud of that, then. I also deem 'zelfspot' a quality, really.
> Some people tried to reduce discrimination by having an
> anti-discriminatory message clearly visible in ACU. Sadly that has
> been sabotaged by other volunteers. I agree it's rather strange this
> was not mentioned in the first post.
But you still fail to deliver the whole story about this sign.
> The fact that there are some rare cases where ACU doesn't tolerate
> harassment makes it OK that the normal situation is that harassment
> is tolerated in ACU? There are no statistics on harassment in ACU,
> but any friday or saturday you will see a lot of it in ACU. This is
> widely known around Utrecht.
Again, hiding behind 'things widely known' makes your plea rather untrustworthy. Please come up with a more convincing story. Now you are only feeding those who dismiss complains about harassment by saying that it's a choice to see it everywhere if you want to. I can only hope this is not a deliberate choice of yours, and that you will start making serious work of documenting your claims and reaching out to the ACU volunteers and public about this resilient problem in 'alternative' places.
> About the disbelieve over harassment and rape in ACU: Again:
> discussing individual cases online tends to spiral out of control,
> especially in these subjects.
>
> It is sad to hear that finances are more important than physical and
> emotional abuse.
Yes, it is sad that you choose to give the finances question more weight than the alleged physical or emotional abuse (whatever that may be). After reading this call-out again and reading your answer here, I can only conclude that the only serious claim you have been able to bring forward is the one about the possible lack of transparency regarding the finances. It seems that you don't take harassment and physical violence very serious, since you keep denouncing it generically but consistently avoid putting any work into actually describing it and make it possible for a wider audience to discuss about it.
> It is sad that ACU facilitates a lot of the wrongs we fight against
> in mainstream society. If you want more details educate yourself,
> talk to people from Utrecht, come to the meeting the 6th. A large
> part of activism is coming to places where you are not invited to
> right the wrongs, lets do that within the movement too! Lets fight
> not fight the messengers, but the sources of the problems in ACU.
Interesting that you should think that activism equals 'coming to places where you are not invited to right the wrongs'. Even if I'd see myself as an "activist" (whatever that may be), I definitely do not feel invited by you to the ACU volunteers meeting. Again, I can only hope the ACU will make work of trying to tackle the different problems that arise in a long standing collective - obviously you chose of not being of any help in this process. It is sad and it actually allows people to doubt your politics, even though you claim to be a dedicated anti-everythingist activist, and probably see yourself as such.
Even less convincing. Pity.
Another ex-volunteer? I doubt. But since you chose anonymity (without explaining why), I can only guess. Anyway.
> The callout has been publicised anonymously. The reason for that is
> the atmosphere in ACU where people fear the reaction for open
> criticism.
No. The call-out has been publicised anonymously because the author doesn't seriously want to take responsability for what he or she is
claiming. Just admit it instead of trying to blame 'the atmosphere in the ACU'. This is an embarassing way of trying to avoid answering the critique.
> The assumption that it is very few people is wrong. if it
> were so few people the discussion wouldn't be so big.
Actually I don't think the discussion is that big. So if we were to follow your logics, I would now be allowed to think it is indeed a call-out of only a very few people. Publicising a similar text several times on Indymedia doesn't make a discussion big. Generating buzz on Face Book doesn't make a discussion big. Using big words like racism, fascism, attempted rape, trauma, secrecy, doesn't make the discussion big - what it does do is trigger the attention of leftist or anti-authoritarian people who read this call-out. But the call-out fails to deliver any convincing details or to propose any alternatives or even hint at some possible way to solve this conflict, so we do not see not much discussion developing at all. It remains painfully obvious that this is the work of only a few isolated people or even one individual. Now, the critique voiced in the call-out could be nevertheless just as valid - but pretending that you represent many people when you don't is not only weakening your argumentation, it is simply a wrong thing to do. Just take responsability for your dissenting opinions and voice them as your own instead of hiding behind the evil ACU or some hypothetical numbers of sympathisers that you wish you had.
> It was a wise choice not to go into individual cases. Apparently it
> would not be your choice. Going into individual cases online tends to
> spiral out of control. The expectation is that more details and
> possibly individual cases will be discussed the 6th.
Calling out on Indymedia for people to go crashing the door of the monthly volunteers meeting is a deliberate attempt at spiraling things out of control. People who want to achieve things with meetings plan those meetings and send proposals, they don't "expect details to be discussed". Stating that the choice you made to not go into individual cases is "a wise choice" is a ridiculous way of trying to avoid discussion on this point.
> ACU has stated they object to a public meeting. This is part of the
> lack of accountability ACU wants to take. There is no reason to
> respect this. How the meeting will go will depend highly on the
> behaviour of all people attending. Hopefully this meeting will be a
> fresh start for ACU where people will work on all the present
> problems.
No. ACU didn't comply to your one-sided decision of turning an internal, regular volunteers meeting into a random public rally. It's downright false to blame them for your 'lack of accountability'. Trying to turn things in this way shows an alarming machiavellist tendency that definitely has nothing to do with anti-authoritarian, emancipating politics.
> The people who are untouchable because of their positions of power
> aren't only criticized for outdated routines, but also for being part
> of many of the other problems described. The fact that you call on
> people to become part of the problem by gaining seniority shows how
> you miss the point.
No. It simply shows, or says, that I strongly disagree with you. It also questions the use of a complex concept such as 'gaining seniority' without ever giving a clue as to what you actually mean with it and why you apparently see it as something bad. Saying that I miss the point is a poor way of trying to avoid giving an answer.
> Also people in a position of seniority should be
> open for criticism. The nuance that not everybody in a position of
> power had malicious intent to end up in that position is misread by
> you as saying they are willingless victims of a process.
Funnily enough, it was perfectly read by me. Now you try to do as if you don't get the nuance of my analysis of your argumentation method. I'm afraid I read it very well indeed, and I rethorically put the question wether you really meant to say they are willingess victims. Instead of saying I have been misreading, you could admit that I was asking a pertinent question, and try to answer why you chose to describe the phenomenon of power-positions in this way. Could it be for instance that you have no evidence whatsoever that these 'powerful seniors' are misusing their power, but that you still need a way of describing their position that makes them look suspicious? Alas, I think it's pretty clear why you avoid answering here: presumably you are not in a position of seniority, so you find that you do not need to be open for criticism.
> There is no unwillingness to master skills by ACU-volunteers there is
> active discouragement of this by the people who have those skills.
> This is done by both not answering training requests and over
> complicating and frequently changing things. The fact that you can't
> imagine how there can be secrecy around the ordering of drinks points
> out how bad the situation in ACU is that even that problem has
> developed.
Does it? Or does it point that you are willing to master skills, but are not willing to make any efforts to actually learn them? Your constant pointing at wrongs in the functioning of the ACU without giving a single example, even up to the point where you fire back the drinks-ordering question as an example of how right you are, is in fact exactly that: actively discouraging your readers from understanding what is going on and over-complicating things on purpose.
> The problems mentioned are experienced by lots of people. There are
> frequent conversations by people experiencing these problems. These
> conversations are impossible in ACU however.
For me as a random Indymedia reader it is impossible to check any of these claims. If you would have chosen to unveil your identity, there could be some kind of assessment for readers wether they trust your authority to make such claims. Now they are just completely unverifable claims without any evidence to support them. Rather unconvincing and not different than any random anonymous rant.
> Amongst the verbal abuse
> is name calling and cursing at people. The fact that problems are
> denied because they are to serious is startling. Again: discussing
> individual cases online tends to spiral out of control.
Again, making heavy accusations anonymously and without giving even a hint at what are the incidents vindicated is the perfect way of spiraling things out of control. If when asked for details you can only manage to describe the alleged verbal abuse as 'name calling and cursing', we are to conclude that again, you chose vague generic description by lack of serious evidence.
> The public debate about ACU might be perceived as more aggressive
> than overshouting one another in meetings. The alternative seems to
> be accepting ACU will no longer be a place for activists and activist
> groups.
Says you. You seem to be adamant that a ACU where your vision is not granted and revered is 'no longer a place for activists'. What about the alternative where people don't accept your insidious ways of making accusations and tearing apart a collective that already has enough problems to deal with, and where ACU does remain a place for activists, who are able to see through your poor argumentation methods? Obviously such an alternative would either mean that you accept evolving your opinions and the way that you try and get your points across within the collective - or, in the worst case, it would mean that you leave the collective. In such case we can only hope that you will at least be honest enough to not go on ranting around about how you have been 'excluded' and 'forced to leave'.
> If you want a list of racist slurs, there are plenty online. I am not
> writing one here.
Not sure what you are trying to say here.
> Strange that you see an anti-discrimination statement as "zelfspot".
Do you mean 'strange' as in 'queer'? I'm rather proud of that, then. I also deem 'zelfspot' a quality, really.
> Some people tried to reduce discrimination by having an
> anti-discriminatory message clearly visible in ACU. Sadly that has
> been sabotaged by other volunteers. I agree it's rather strange this
> was not mentioned in the first post.
But you still fail to deliver the whole story about this sign.
> The fact that there are some rare cases where ACU doesn't tolerate
> harassment makes it OK that the normal situation is that harassment
> is tolerated in ACU? There are no statistics on harassment in ACU,
> but any friday or saturday you will see a lot of it in ACU. This is
> widely known around Utrecht.
Again, hiding behind 'things widely known' makes your plea rather untrustworthy. Please come up with a more convincing story. Now you are only feeding those who dismiss complains about harassment by saying that it's a choice to see it everywhere if you want to. I can only hope this is not a deliberate choice of yours, and that you will start making serious work of documenting your claims and reaching out to the ACU volunteers and public about this resilient problem in 'alternative' places.
> About the disbelieve over harassment and rape in ACU: Again:
> discussing individual cases online tends to spiral out of control,
> especially in these subjects.
>
> It is sad to hear that finances are more important than physical and
> emotional abuse.
Yes, it is sad that you choose to give the finances question more weight than the alleged physical or emotional abuse (whatever that may be). After reading this call-out again and reading your answer here, I can only conclude that the only serious claim you have been able to bring forward is the one about the possible lack of transparency regarding the finances. It seems that you don't take harassment and physical violence very serious, since you keep denouncing it generically but consistently avoid putting any work into actually describing it and make it possible for a wider audience to discuss about it.
> It is sad that ACU facilitates a lot of the wrongs we fight against
> in mainstream society. If you want more details educate yourself,
> talk to people from Utrecht, come to the meeting the 6th. A large
> part of activism is coming to places where you are not invited to
> right the wrongs, lets do that within the movement too! Lets fight
> not fight the messengers, but the sources of the problems in ACU.
Interesting that you should think that activism equals 'coming to places where you are not invited to right the wrongs'. Even if I'd see myself as an "activist" (whatever that may be), I definitely do not feel invited by you to the ACU volunteers meeting. Again, I can only hope the ACU will make work of trying to tackle the different problems that arise in a long standing collective - obviously you chose of not being of any help in this process. It is sad and it actually allows people to doubt your politics, even though you claim to be a dedicated anti-everythingist activist, and probably see yourself as such.