Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

June 21 2017

10:06

Planet Money #381: When Business Loves Regulation

Shared Article from NPR.org

Episode 381: When Business Loves Regulation

One in three American jobs require a license. Today on the show, why those licensing rules hurt the U.S. economy.

Jacob Goldstein @ npr.org


The problem is not freed markets; the problem is what Molinari described as owned markets. Owned not because the owners bought them, or won them in competition; but rather through the proprietors’ exploitation of the political process of state regulation.

June 20 2017

11:43

Sartwell, the Principle of Hierarchical Coincidence and Actually-Existing Socialism

Crispin Sartwell has a great new article recently at Splice, on “The Newnew Left and the Principle of Hierarchical Coincidence.” Quoth he:

The classical socialism of people like Corbyn and Sanders had been developed, in detail, by the middle of the 19th century. It was designed as a response to the rise of rapacious industrial capitalism, and it specifically proposed to rein in capital by vast expansions of state power, or the annexation of more and more resources, powers, segments of the culture by government.. . . The concrete proposals amount to increased state control of many or even all segments of human life, from cradle to grave.

I think you’re going to need some new ideas, because there’s one breathtaking theoretical and practical problem with classical socialism. It proceeds in massive unawareness of a fundamental principle in political theory and political reality, which I call the principle of hierarchical coincidence (PHC): the idea that, in more or less every case and in the long run, political and economic hierarchies tend to coincide. Economic power leads to political power; political power leads to economic power.

. . . For this reason, and for the most part and in the long run, ever-increasing state power as recommended in socialism will tend to increase rather than ameliorate economic inequality. And though governments do sometimes and to some extent reduce economic inequality, they do so in a situation in which the seemingly intractable political/economic structure is largely produced, held in place, and enforced by these governments themselves. The structure of economic inequality rests to a large extent on political and police power, and certainly couldn’t be maintained without it.

This is the incoherence at the heart of classical socialism: that intensifying political power, at least of a certain kind, will in the long run reduce economic inequality. But if you start nationalizing or socializing various segments of the economy—that is, if you give these powers to the state–you don’t move toward an egalitarian paradise, you simply create a new ascendant class. . . .

–Crispin Sartwell, The Newnew Left and the Principle of Hierarchical Coincidence
SpliceToday, 13 June 2017.

Read the whole thing.

Shared Article from SpliceToday

The Newnew Left and the Principle of Hierarchical Coincidence

There’s one breathtaking theoretical and practical problem with classical socialism.

Crispin Sartwell @ splicetoday.com


What I want to add here some responses to the pat rejoinders that I think are most likely to get thrown out quickly in response to the problem Sartwell raises, but which are really idle as objections to Sartwell’s point.

First, it is entirely idle to point out that state socialism is intended to combat hierarchical coincidence, and if only it could be properly politically implemented, it would tend to reduce inequality more and more and hence more and more make the problem evaporate rather than stabilizing or spiraling out of control. Whatever its theoretical intent, the effect in actually-existing state socialism is entirely different.

If there were some way to implement state socialist programs exactly to the ideological socialist’s specification, without serious political complication, bureaucratic redirection and mission creep, or unintended consequences, then sure, we’d have to hash out whether the total effects of the system tend to reinforce or to weaken the problem of hierarchical coincidence, on net, over short-term and long-term time spans. But there is no such way.[1]

Second, there’s a lesson which many socialists today might take from a point like Sartwell’s, which does represent some progress, but which really goes a lot less far than they might think. In particular, it’s really easy to look at Sartwell’s discussion of the problems posed by increased state economic control, and conclude that the easy solution to the problem is to become an anarchistic socialist, instead of a state socialist. No state, no state power to back up economic power. And of course I’d hardly want to ward anyone off of anarchistic socialism — since that is, after all, what I believe in some forms.

But if you think of the structure of a socialistic anarchy as combating inequality with more or less the same sorts of socialization and collectivization proposed by state socialists — just in the hands of grassroots collectives, administered locally and democratically without state power by the same people who work in them — then I would argue that you have not eliminated the problem of hierarchical coincidence by eliminating the state police power, or by moving from electoral power to social capital as your means of administering the distribution of economic resources. Because, of course, there are such things as hierarchies of social power and prestige, even outside of state structures. Substituting social capital for political power brings some obvious benefits, because political power involves greater institutionalization, more formalized excuses for legitimacy, literally lethal repertoires of force to exert, etc. But the ability to wield social power within collectivized economic institutions, and so to continuously reinforce economic and social power, does not easily disappear even with the removal of the state. It becomes easier to combat; and maybe an easier fight is the best we can realistically hope for. But maybe, on the other hand, the goal should be to make sure that realistic alternatives to existing collective entities, dissent, exit, open competition, and other routes for centrifugal economic and social forces to dynamically express themselves, are firmly incorporated into our economic activities and our socio-economic institutions.

  1. [1]You might say, “but the lack of immaculate conception is a problem for any duty proposing serious changes to the political system — including libertarianism, including market anarchism, including everything.” And you’d be right. It’s a really serious problem for any form of reformist libertarianism, and a major explanation for why it often degrades into standard right-wing business regulation politics. Anarchism doesn’t eliminate the problem; but it ameliorates it, precisely to the extent that the anarchist deliberately breaks from political strategies that open up the largest opportunities for political complication, bureaucratic redirection and mission creep, or unintended consequences. But if solving the problem were easy, revolution would be easy, and it’s no surprise that it isn’t.

June 15 2017

17:00
Supercharge your Computer Vision models with the TensorFlow Object Detection API
07:07
ISP Doesn’t Have to Expose Alleged BitTorrent Pirates, Finnish Court Rules

June 14 2017

20:22
“Top ISPs” Are Discussing Fines & Browsing Hijacking For Pirates
19:37
Die „Tagesthemen“ beim Weltkongress der Homöopathen
19:30

Your Freedom Is My Freedom: The Premise Of Anarchism

Sometimes words are just words — interchangeable and discardable — but sometimes a word belies a knot in our thought, tightly wound and tensely connected. “Anarchy” is one such word.

Centuries ago the English peasantry rose up to overthrow the king and radically remake society. The vanguard of this revolution, the levellers and the diggers, sought to demolish the feudal hierarchy, to revise property and the division of land. In their revolt they were joined by opportunists who sought the overthrow of the king to assert their own power. Naturally these factions clashed. It was in this civil war that the word “anarchy” was leveraged to great effect. Those with the audacity to explicitly oppose anyone ruling over anyone were characterized as desiring “anarchy,” and when this happened the idealistic rebels were forced to backpeddle, to stumble and prevaricate on a trap built into their very language.

The word “anarchy” originates in the Greek word “an-archia” (“without rulership”). Over the last couple millennia it has grown two simultaneous associations: 1) the absence of domination and constraint and 2) a war of competing would-be-rulers. The latter redefinition inspired by the constant conflict between princes and small lords that had gripped Europe during the middle ages in the absence of a single ruler. While the first definition is clearly the better fit to the word’s etymology the latter signified something more properly akin to “spas-archy” or *fractured* domination than the absence of domination. But in practice these two definitions grew to be lumped together as the same thing, functionally serving as an orwellianism. Like a more condensed version of the phrase “freedom is slavery” the invocation of “anarchy” thus served to write out of our language the ability to speak of a world that wasn’t characterized by domination. To desire the end of domination was thus transmuted into merely desiring a different, more decentralized, configuration of domination.

This perspective mirrors that of our rulers and would-be-rulers who cannot conceive of anything besides rule-or-be-ruled. It’s the fascistic or authoritarian perspective in which there exists nothing besides the game of power. If rulership is all there is — if it is inescapable — then the “without rulership” of “an-archy” signifies a senseless and incoherent concept, and the word should, in the authoritarian mind, be reassigned to more productively characterize a less centralized set of power relations.

This reframing of anarchy in terms of centralization rather than domination is an obvious trick because decentralized expressions of rulership or interpersonal domination can clearly be quite severe. Parental abuse of children, partner abuse, sexual violence, community ostracization, and many other informal power dynamics of social capital are often far more visceral and constraining in many people’s actual lives than war, taxes, and police repression. Exploitation at the hand of the thief or bandit, the mugger or rapist, the brigand and minor warlord, is hardly any different than at the hand of a cop or bureaucrat.

Centralization and decentralization each have their own efficiencies and inefficiencies when it comes to domination and constraint. Centralization allows one to take advantage of certain economies of scale, but decentralization can allow more intimate and attentive abuse. It makes little sense to quibble over whether the decentralization of the Rwandan genocide made it more efficient at horror than Third Reich. Decentralization may be a necessary condition of liberation, but it alone is hardly sufficient — the real issue is domination itself.

Similarly, domination can be quite sharply constraining even without a clearly defined hierarchy. Two people can chain each other down, sometimes without either ever getting an advantage. Indeed we often interact in ways that are mutually oppressive. More complex or balanced dynamics of domination that defy description in terms of a simple hierarchy do not necessarily diminish the domination at play.

For those of us who seek the abolition of such dynamics altogether, who strive in the direction of a world entirely without domination, without rulership over one another, it is impossible to avoid a contest over the definition of anarchy. Language channels and focuses our thoughts; a definition determines what can be expressed succinctly and what presumptions we will gravitate towards. So it was like a thunderclap when in the nineteenth century someone finally declared that “Anarchy is order, government is civil war” and a movement promptly grew like wildfire. We declared ourselves “anarchists” as a provocation, but also as a corrective. Because we will never be able to make serious headway towards freedom unless the concept itself is conceivable.

Unfortunately just as the term “anarchy” has been saddled with negative associations, so too has our concept of “freedom” become muddied in ways that often keep us chained. In wider society “freedom” is often used in very loose ways; if we dislike something we’ll characterize the absence of it as “freedom from” it. This “freedom” refers to nothing more than negation of a given thing. And obviously “not” can never coherently function as a general ideal — “negation” is meaningless when not paired with some specific concept. The absence of one thing always means the presence of another thing.

Thus is this sense of “freedom” invoked by authoritarians of all colors. The soldiers and the cops beating us are said to “protect our freedom” — which is to say a freedom from disruption, the freedom to exist in a certain state of affairs, no matter how noxious. The “freedom” to maintain a certain static culture or set of traditions, “free” from change and challenge. This sort of freedom is never anything more than the securing and preserving of some kind of identity, some specific static world. Thus does the conservative quite seriously declare that two gay men holding hands in the public square violates his freedom.

To survive conflicts of such “freedoms” a number of systems of detente have been proposed. The most common today is a propertarian resolution wherein the world is physically divided up and within each clearly demarcated bubble owners may structure things according to their unique desires or identities.

There are certainly many practical upsides to giving everyone their own garden to play in! But — as an abstract — the negative concept of “freedom” obscures the positives to collaboration as well as the innate arbitrariness and constraint of static identity.

To worship a notion of freedom as isolation from outside forces would leave us all chained in prisons, frozen statues walled off and incapable of engagement and development. This notion of freedom as rigamortis — the “freedom” of the coffin — is innately authoritarian. But it’s also deeply arbitrary. It’s not clear which authority or identity we should adopt. There are many different corpses we might strive to reduce ourselves to, forever “free” of further external influence. What mere “freedom from” deprives from us is active agency. True freedom is of course not about retreating from or walling off outside influences but rather having *choice* in our interactions with the world.

Not a single isolated “choice” of a certain identity or role, but continual, engaged, active choice, every moment of our lives.

When we truly live we are hurricanes of self-reflection, pulling in knowledge and influences from the wider world — the universe wrapping in on itself in a self-awareness that expands the scope of what is possible. To truly be free — liberated of constraints — can only mean to have more options. Not confined within some arbitrary box, but radiating ever outward into the world.

Note that such freedom *isn’t* a zero sum game. Every single person can remake the world. Creation and discovery are not exclusive acts. A society where every person was equally unleashed, to discover titanic insights or create profoundly moving art, would not be a gray world of mediocrity because impact and influence is not a scarce good. We can each be heroes, we can each change everything, we can each bring more options into the world.

In this proper light there is no inherent conflict between the freedom of individuals because freedom is a larger and more general phenomenon. To fire a gun at your neighbor’s head would gravely deprive the world of possibility. True freedom is not predicated on the imprisonment of others but rather their liberation.

In our muddied and corrupted language it’s often easy to mistake power and freedom as the same thing. Yet unlike power — which is a kind of directed capacity, a relation between distinct entities — freedom resists disentanglement. To slice the world apart into arbitrary selves and arbitrary structures is to curtail what is possible. Rulership is always relation of constraint. Domination over another person is often assumed to expand the capabilities of the ruler at the expense of the ruled, in practice power usually constrains both. On some occasions the ruler does expand their personal freedom at the cost of overall freedom but the anemic and arbitrary sense of self required for such a trade-off is its own prison.

To divorce yourself from the spark of freedom in another is to identify with something other than freedom — to reject the active spark that gives you life as an actor in this world and consign it to death in the name of some happenstance idol. Ultimately you can either value freedom or some random dead static thing. Some specific state of affairs rather than motion and agency. To identify with freedom, to truly live, to embrace possibility, is to reject and overcome all walls, including those between one another.

Your freedom is my freedom because freedom tolerates no divisions, accepts no adjectives, belongs to no one. There is simply freedom or constraint. Liberation or rulership. This common empathy in liberty is the foundation that makes anarchy a coherent idea, that makes a world without rulership conceivable.

Anarchism is more sweeping and more ambitious than any of the political platforms it is often compared with. As you can see we can never make a simple list of demands because our aspirations are ultimately infinite. By declaring ourselves for the abolition of rulership itself we have created a space for striving; the furthest particulars will always be unsettled. Anarchism does not represent a final state of affairs, but a direction, a vector pointing beyond all possible compromises. As the old saying goes we don’t want bread or even the bakery, we want the stars too. And anarchists have gone in many directions, exploring many concerns and dynamics.

However there are some unavoidable conclusions to our embrace of freedom.

Most famously we oppose the state. Government is defined by its monopoly on coercion — it cannot act but through aggression, every law or edict it passes is imposed by a centralized apparatus of violence. The state is in short a forcible simplification of human relations, a system caught up in feedback loops that strengthen its tyranny. Rather than building tolerable and fluidly responsive agreements from the ground up, the state imposes one rigid vision from the top down. Its monopoly on overwhelming violence provides a shortcut to accomplishing things that bypasses full negotiations; not only does this approach suppress freedom in the name of expediency it encourages everyone to do the same. Once the state exists it presents a tool that cannot be ignored — if you want to get a given task done the state makes it enticing to do it through competing for, seizing, and directing the state’s coercion. Nearly everyone becomes invested in expanding the power of the state so that it can assure or enact their desires.

The state that is so often defended as a means of solving collective action problems is itself a catastrophic collective action problem, with mass murderous consequences. The state suppresses us all, chains us in service to a limited number of tasks, inherently simplistic directives that can never fully reflect our complex array of desires. The state rules us, but it always seems easier to fight for control of the state, to struggle to win the lottery for its hamfisted power, than to dissolve its chains.

States formed historically from brutal domination and have persisted so virally because they are mistakes hard to unmake. Nevertheless at different points enlightened people throughout history have successfully dissolved states — to varying degrees and with varying permanence. In our era it lies before us to dissolve not just one state but the entire global ecosystem of cancerous power systems (both formal nationstates and the smaller state-like entities they encourage from corporations to gangs to cliques) and establish a more decentralized and responsive society with not just a few token checks and balances against power, but countless social structures acting as antibodies and an entire populace committed to fighting its emergence.

There are many possible norms, instincts, and patterns of organization that impede and check relations of domination, but those that worked in the past have atrophied in our society and those approaches that show new promise are — like any radical change — challenging to establish and popularize.

This is obviously no trivial task, statism is reinforced not merely through the violent threat of the police but through a culture that embraces domination and an infrastructure that encourages centralized social relations. The state nurtures organizational and technological forms in its image — simplistic and centralized — so as to more easily engage with them, and its heavy hand distorts economic relations in similar directions, encouraging hierarchy and monopoly.

We are not allowed to create or interact except in ways that are easily visible to and controllable by the state. You are either forced to work under the state itself or under a business reflective of it and compliant to it. Everyone else is shuffled into a pool of desperate “unemployed” or given welfare under intense constraints — we are in countless ways barred from providing for ourselves rather than begging before a boss or bureaucrat. Under the guise of “public quality” individuals are violently suppressed for selling tamales or cigarettes, and most collective endeavors that treat all participants as equals are banned unless they can grease enough hands and jump through enough red tape. We have been systematically dispossessed of almost all means of living out from under the thumb of one tyrant or another by centuries of genocide, slavery, and imperialism. Repeated theft in countless arenas has concentrated control into the hands of the few and curtailed our opportunities.

This ecosystem of power also nurtures a psychology of brutal competition, not only among those who seek its power, but also among those it represses, twisting them into seeing the world as it does, in terms of power rather than freedom. It violently simplifies our relations with one another into centralized structures and encourages us to struggle to dominate one another.

Statism isolates. Its centralization is just another way to say that power severs and impedes our connectivity. Instead of distributed resilient social networks statism stokes hierarchy and segregation, giving us each fewer options in our relations with others and holding back what is possible on the whole.

This point about connectivity is an important one that strikes deeper than the specific problems of centralization. It’s not enough to not be imprisoned or held down by clear chains, you have to have channels by which to act in the world. A wall has the same effect as a chain. It’s not enough to be able to say “no” to a handful of options, we must have more options to choose from — deeper and richer in their scope and impact on the world around us.

And just as it severs our capacity to connect in direct ways, power cuts us off from truth. It encourages manipulation and constraints on the flow of information, which necessarily oppresses us all because a lack of accuracy means a lack of agency. The less grounded our models of the world are the less actual choice we truly have to act within it, the more futilely our actions grasp at empty air rather than connecting and moving the world. A lie is often a complex knot that binds and ignorance can seem to provide complex options, but simple truths open real possibilities.

This focus on deeper realities rather than abstract or ‘practical’ rules of thumb is, incidentally, why we are called radicals. “Radical” stems from “radix” the Latin word for root, and signifies not necessarily an *extreme* position but rather a view that gets to the fundamentals of things. To be a radical is to seek to identify and address the most basic, the most deeply rooted dynamics. To start from the foundations. The radical is only an extremist from the perspective of a world that has abandoned earnest inquiry and lost sight of the most basic truths.

Ours is sadly a world of “good enough”, of the “practical”, of the immediate at the expense of all else. We have all seen what such a world creates. Misery and encircling mutual enslavement. Too often we worship and cling to the barest of impressions, the most superficial of identities and common banners. We look for quick fixes again and again, hoping to solve myriad social problems and conflicts with the blunt instrument of the state, ignoring the collateral damage and deepening crises such means create. We recoil from the longer, harder, more painstaking path of building a new world in the shell of the old — of spreading and nourishing new relations, projects, norms, and technologies that increasingly make unsustainable our world’s instruments of domination — a path that requires complex resistance, continual struggle, with no easy resolution, no comforting collusion.

Our world is gripped in shortsightedness, not just in means but in its ends. We are caught up in a myopia that obscures the freedom to be found in others, that tells us to identify with the limits set for us — to see freedom as another flavor of domination, and tyranny as liberation from the complexities of true engagement. It tells us that we are the clothes we happen to wear and not the conscious act of choice between them. It pleads with us to believe that freedom is a thing impossible, incoherent, irreconcilably fractured.

Anarchism is not and has never been a proclamation that if we overthrow a given state — wherever the extent of that state is to be drawn — utopia will immediately result. Anarchism is not a claim about “human nature” or a simplistic reflex of negation. Anarchism is daring to see beyond the suffocating language of power.

Anarchism is the lifting of our eyes beyond our immediate preoccupations and connecting with one another. Seeing the same spark, the same churning hurricane, same explosion of consciousness, within them that resides within us. Anarchism is the recognition that liberty is not kingdoms at war, but a network interwoven and ultimately unbroken — a single expanse of possibility growing every day. Anarchism is the realization that freedom has no owners. It has only fountainheads.

19:24
MobileNets: Open Source Models for Efficient On-Device Vision
19:07
Video: „Grüne Esoterik und braune Philosophie?“
18:59
Jetzt als Video: „Esoterik für alle – Wie Ersatzreligionen an unser Geld kommen”
17:24
„Achtung! Verschwörung“ jetzt in der MDR-Mediathek
15:55
Man Faces Prison For Sharing Pirated Deadpool Movie on Facebook
13:52

„Humbug“: Natalie Grams zum Homöopathen-Kongress

Bei Spiegel-Online gibt’s heute ein Interview mit Dr. Natalie Grams zum homöopathischen Weltärztekongress in Leipzig.

leipzig

Ein Auszug:

Spiegel Online: Frau Grams, warum sind Sie nicht beim homöopathischen Weltärztekongress in Leipzig?

Grams: Ganz ehrlich, ich würde dort wahrscheinlich nur beschimpft werden. Außerdem ist von einer so unwissenschaftlichen Veranstaltung leider kein wissenschaftlicher Diskurs zu erhoffen. Ich erlebe ja seit zwei Jahren, dass ein sachlicher Dialog mit den meisten Homöopathen nicht möglich ist.”

Und statt eines Grußwortes sendet Keine Ahnung von Garnix ein “Festtags-Bullshit-Bingo” nach Leipzig:

DCResr9XUAQ_k33.jpg large

Zum Weiterlesen:

  • Homöopathie-Kongress in Leipzig: “Humbug”, Spiegel-Online am 14. Juni 2017
  • Kritisches zum homöopathischen Weltärztekongress in Leipzig, GWUP-Blog am 13. Juni 2017
  • Homöopathie-Kongress in Leipzig: Trommeln für Kügelchen und Tinkturen, Spiegel-Online am 13. Juni 2017
  • Bullshit-Tag, Keine Ahnung von Garnix am 13. Juni 2017
  • Das Gespräch in der Medizin, INH am 12. Juni 2017

flattr this!

12:31

Video: „Reichsbürger und Selbstverwalter“

Interessantes Video vom Berliner Verfassungsschutz:


Direktlink zum Video auf Youtube

“Reichsbürger und Selbstverwalter” wollen keine Angehörigen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland sein. Welche Vorstellungen liegen den Reichsbürgern zu Grunde? Wie lässt sich die Szene beschreiben und wie gefährlich sind sie?

Welche Handlungsempfehlungen gibt es im Umgang mit Reichsbürgern? Kurz und kompakt widmet sich der Film diesen Fragen.”

Zum Weiterlesen:

  • Wie geht’s wirklich unter Reichsbürgern zu? perspective daily am 31. Mai 2017
  • Jetzt als Video: “Reichsbürger” und die BRD GmbH bei Skeptics in the Pub Köln, GWUP-Blog am 7. Juni 2017

flattr this!

12:21

Video: Hochhausbrände, Stahlträger und Feuerschutz

Der Hochhausbrand in London ist noch nicht ganz gelöscht, da kommen schon Aluhüte und andere mit ihren “Expertisen” und obligatorischen 9/11-Vergleichen an:

wtcc

Ja klar – jedes Feuer ist auch völlig gleich und sämtliche Hochhäuser auf der Welt wurden vom selben Architekten nach exakt demselben Prinzip gebaut.

Welche Rolle Hitze- und Feuerschutz bei Stahlträgern spielen und warum manche Konstruktionen schneller kollabieren als andere (oder auch gar nicht), erklärt kurz dieser Lehrfilm der Interessengemeinschaft Stahl Brandschutzbeschichtung:

IGSB from big7.net gmbh on Vimeo.

Zum Weiterlesen:

  • Mal wieder: Der Mythos vom “freien Fall” von WTC 7, Psiram am 30. Mai 2017
  • 11/9: Warum stürzte WTC 7 ein? GWUP-Blog am 1. September 2011
  • WTC 7 und die “Truther”, GWUP-Blog am 1. Oktober 2013
  • Daniele-Ganser-Fans und ihr Posterboy: “Selbstverschuldete Unwissenheit”, GWUP-Blog am 10. Juni 2017
  • Cooles Video: Ein Schmied plättet die 9/11-Truther, GWUP-Blog am 17. Dezember 2015

flattr this!

09:17
Pirate Bay Facilitates Piracy and Can be Blocked, Top EU Court Rules
07:20

Jetzt online: Amardeo Sarma bei der ARD-Themenwoche

Die SR3-Talksendung mit Amardeo Sarma ist jetzt als Podcast online.

sr

Glaube versus Wissen. Oder muss es nicht immer ein Gegensatz sein? Gibt es auch „guten“ Glauben? Und was tun, wenn die Instrumente der Wissenschaft hier und dort (noch) stumpf sind? Ist Glaube gefährlich? Über dies und mehr hat sich Amardeo Sarma mit SR 3-Moderator Uwe Jäger unterhalten.”

Heute Abend (14. Juni) gibt es drei weitere interessante Beiträge im Rahmen der ARD-Themenwoche “Woran glaubst Du?”:

Zum Weiterlesen:

  • ARD Themenwoche “Woran glaubst du?”: Wissenschaft statt Glauben, sr-online am 13. Juni 2017
  • GWUP-Interview in der Welt: Anything goes? Nicht mit uns, GWUP-Blog am 8. Juni 2017

flattr this!

07:20
UK Police Claim Success in Keeping Gambling Ads off Pirate Sites

June 13 2017

21:17

Aachen 15.07.2017: "Was ist intersex? Eine Einführung" – mit Markus Bauer (Zwischengeschlecht.org)

Bild: Markus Bauer auf ABC Nightline, Aufnahme von den "I-D$D 2013" Protesten in Glagow

FrançaisEnglishVerein Zwischengeschlecht.orgSpendenMitglied werdenAktivitäten

Zwischengeschlecht.org on Facebook

Wann: Donnerstag, 15 Juni 2017, 20:00 Uhr

Wo:  Queerreferat an den Aachener Hochschulen e.V., Trichtergasse 14

Markus Bauer, Gründungsmitglied der internationalen Intersex-NGO Zwischengeschlecht.org und Mitverfasser zahlreicher thematischer Berichte für die UN sowie Sachverständiger bei Menschenrechtsorganisationen, Ethikgremien und in den Medien, wird die folgenden Fragen beleuchten:

1.) Was ist intersex (biologische Grundlagen)?
2.) Häufigste IGM-praktiken (Intersex Genital Mutilations) und ihre Folgen?
3.) geschichtlicher Überblick zu intersex und IGM
4.) Intersexbewegung und Menschenrechte

Der Eintritt ist frei. Jede*r ist herzlich eingeladen!

>>> Veranstaltungshinweis auf Facebook

>>> Zwischengeschlecht.org: Offener Brief an Uniklinikum Aachen, 30.05.2011

>>> Intersex-Genitalverstümmelungen: Typische Diagnosen und Eingriffe
>>> Zwangsoperierte Zwitter über sich selbst und ihr Leben
>>> IGM – eine Genealogie der TäterInnen

Siehe auch:
"Schädliche Praxis" und "Gewalt": UN-Kinderrechtsausschuss (CRC) verurteilt IGM
- "Unmenschliche Behandlung": UN-Ausschuss gegen Folter (CAT) verurteilt IGM
- UN-Menschenrechtsausschuss (HRCttee) untersucht IGM-Praktiken
- "Nur die Angst vor dem Richter wird meine Kollegen dazu bringen, ihre Praxis zu ändern" 
- UN-Behindertenrechtsausschuss (CRPD) kritisiert IGM-Straflosigkeit in Deutschland
- CAT 2011: Deutschland soll IGM-Praktiken untersuchen und Überlebende entschädigen

Input von Daniela Truffer zum "Fachtag Intersex"
  • IGM Überlebende – Danielas Geschichte
  • Historischer Überblick:
     "Zwitter gab es schon immer – IGM nicht!"
  • Was ist Intersex?  • Was sind IGM-Praktiken?
  • IGM in Hannover  • Kritik von Betroffenen  • u.a.m.
>>> PDF-Download (5.53 MB)

20:08
US Opposes Kim Dotcom’s Supreme Court Petition Over Seized Millions
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl