ads without products

pennyred / thedailymail

with 15 comments

Noticed that Laurie Penny has taken down some of the breathless and blood-soaked tweets. It was getting towards “Someone’s frontal lobe is lodged in my hair! Eeeek!” So probably a good idea. As someone in the LRB posted, it’s unlikely that she can run and tweet and be beaten at quite the pace that she’s let on. Somehow she was a direct witness of every interesting thing that happened anywhere and everywhere amidst the protests Thursday

Funny thing is: everyone, everyone now has a story about LP fucking them over / fabricating a quote. It’s become a trope of occ and post-occ meetups. They call her, now, “The Daily Mail.” Just desserts.

Written by adswithoutproducts

December 12, 2010 at 11:43 am

Posted in occupations

15 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I think ‘The Daily Mail’ would be just desserts [sic] for you, wouldn’t it? After all, you both write for The New Statesman. Really incredible. At least she’s not cowering and shaking with fear. What I still haven’t been able to figure out about your disabled identities is why your real name wasn’t bandied about more. So what are you doing with it now? Why isn’t now the time to go non-pseudonymous, is it some desire to be ‘like the radical students on the blog here’, plus talk about your new article on the other one? Because there really isn’t any reason why you shouldn’t be mentioned by name elsewhere, even if you don’t want to here. It seems even the ones you polemicize don’t ‘betray you’. Or is it just that they don’t read you?

    Surely, everybody now knows your identity. I’m sure they all read this blog and don’t care that much. But at least Mark Fisher and Laurie Penny are writing all their things under their own name, at some point Richard Seymour even stopped forcing people to call him the preposterous ‘lenin’, although his writing does continue to descend into a kind of ‘sow in heat’ syndrome these days.

    But what’s to lose? I can’t see how this hiding makes you credible, if that’s what you intend to be. Nobody cares to ‘make you nervous’ about anything. But I haven’t ever seen this extreme a syndrome of separated identities. Just curious, and the commenter who said it wasn’t difficult to find was right, so I finally just spent a few minutes. Maybe you want to wait until the books are in print before you proclaim yourself, or my guess is that you are about ready to get rid of this bleug as a kind of residual adolescent thing you don’t need anymore. Because the real stuff is what you say the real stuff is (regardless of what I think about it, and some of it I think well of), not this. In any case, if there are people who shouldn’t know who still don’t, why don’t you just synthesize the two somehow. Even Molly wrote that Ms. Penny had come up with ‘a good piece’, and she ought to know, shouldn’t she? Well, she should and she doesn’t, although that has nothing to do with Ms. Penny’s piece. People will feel free to quote you elsewhere, though. Why shouldn’t they? Okay, maybe they have, and I just haven’t seen it.

    pjm

    December 12, 2010 at 8:29 pm

  2. I don’t know Ads’s non-blog identity but then I haven’t researched it. He might be my half-brother or something, that would be interesting for a day or so. Or maybe he’s some other person pretending to be the person who’s easy to identify as him.

    Ray Davis

    December 12, 2010 at 8:39 pm

    • I know some people don’t care who bleugers are, that’s part of post-modernism’s problem. But this is pure shit: “Or maybe he’s some other person pretending to be the person who’s easy to identify as him.”

      It’s obvious who he is, if you do look it up. I looked it up a couple of weeks ago, maybe a month, it took about 10 minutes. I don’t think there are that many ‘easily identifiable’ people writing exactly the same things about writing in the same mags, but that’s his business. I won’t speak his real name on here, but I certainly will elsewhere, if there’s ever occasion to. Anyone who feels free to polemicize people who use their real names (and I feel the same about some of the people Ads has polemicized as he does) should, at some point, take responsibility in their own name.

      So you can enjoy someone without knowing their identity. I assure you, the person always values his identity. It’s a way of creating aura, and in that way, it’s irresponaible after a certain point. Or they get their ‘just desserts’ (whether a moeulleux or a mousse I wouldn’t be able to tell you.) In any case, I do not hate ads. He is likable, though imbalanced.

      pjm

      December 12, 2010 at 9:24 pm

      • I guess that was a [sic] of my own. I think I mean ‘unbalanced’.

        pjm

        December 12, 2010 at 9:25 pm

      • Furthermore, Mr. Davis, it goes like this: Ads has known who I was for some five years, and we’ve had numerous half-conversations during that time. I didn’t know who he was during that time, and it’s not a wonderful way to discuss anything if you’re known and the other isn’t. Maybe you and certain other types like that sort of thing, but this way, both get to take responsibility for their real identities. The other way, I could be played with; this way, it’s still possible, but much more limited. I can see why one does something like this when it involves outside institutions, but then you talk about the institutions themselves on here, it would be nearly impossible for all but the most stupid to miss even before that. But that’s just to tell you that don’t say the ‘shit part’, viz., “Or maybe he’s some other person pretending to be the person who’s easy to identify as him” to ME. Sure, so what reason for the other site where he identifies himself? Hell, if it works, fine. But it’s the responsibility of the person who wants to play these identity games to make it work for him, not one like me who is not doing them.

        pjm

        December 12, 2010 at 10:24 pm

  3. Dude, do not be such a hater. Is there something else here than that? Not so much.

    mpharris

    December 12, 2010 at 8:51 pm

  4. Don’t see what this has to do with who blogs anonymously/half-anonymously and who doesn’t.

    For anyone halfway involved with what’s going on right now, this stuff needs to be said.

    Quite aside from it being just annoying when journos misrepresent or misquote you, these people who don’t get it, of whom LP is one, are a liability, a dangerous one.

    It’s bad enough those who have one foot in and one foot out of our movement are speaking for us. But it’s even worse when they’re on the front lines asking us for our names for quotes in front of cops. Or trying to draw boundaries on our politics that aren’t really there. Or performing a sanitised version of the radicalism we’re actually living for mainstream consumption.

    Listen up journalists: if you support us, help us speak for ourselves. Otherwise, you’re no better than the Murdoch press, and certainly not activists.

    zetkin

    December 12, 2010 at 10:48 pm

    • “Listen up journalists: if you support us, help us speak for ourselves. Otherwise, you’re no better than the Murdoch press, and certainly not activists.”

      Fine for the type that’s worried about what leftists guilt-giving might cause them (distress.) I actually do support your cause, but it is not the only thing in the world right now.

      Here’s expert thought on Laurie Penny, by the most vulgar Marxist on all the bleugs (you know, supports the 9/11 truth movement, et alia):

      11 AM

      Qlipoth said…
      what do you think of all this?

      what grounds do you suppose laurie penny actually has for identyifying the perps of violence as she does, the evocation of this violent way of life? that tell-tale portraiture – they’ve grown up dreaming of escaping poverty through ballet, and now….

      i think she really has no evidence at all and is just recycling the packaged tv sociology.

      11:52 PM

      Qlipoth said…
      i think it would be very hard to deny the police at least are deliberately provocative even if you insist they are all marked and identified.

      12:01 AM

      Qlipoth said…
      its possible this is the wrong bet on the part of the government though – if the idea was to escalate in order to drum up public antipathy to the protestors against the cuts as a substitute for the impossible drumming up of approval of the cuts. but it’s not wroking – the public are in sympathy with the kids despite the reports of violence, however accurate or not; i also think participation in this kind of thing radicalises; being under those mounted cops is very scary and it radicalises

      12:12 AM

      Qlipoth said…
      itake it back about laurie penny – it’s a good piece

      1:04 AM

      So everybody’s not going to agree on your way of doing the number. And some of us don’t give a shit what you say either.

      pjm

      December 12, 2010 at 11:29 pm

  5. hey pjm. fuck off. Careful. I’ll have a drink with you next month in soho and cold clock you at the end of it.

    Qlipoth is whatever. I don’t care. This is otherwise. This is leading to a general strike, first since 1926. You should be at bars I am at.

    adswithoutproducts

    December 13, 2010 at 1:11 am

    • Not bad. I thought we had another [sic] there, and we well may: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105×1384460

      You think I’ll just soooooo do anything for that drink, don’t you? Well, there were some others that got me all serious about the protests today by devious means as well, and they like getting the Beauty Contest, you know, even while being serious.

      pjm

      December 13, 2010 at 1:28 am

    • Well, I don’t really know that much from Laurie Penny, but I just think if some of them, like Nina Power, don’t quite say the words right around the kid who had the brain damage, they should shut up–Ms. Power no more perfect than anyone else, but she’s doing stuff, and it’s not worthless.

      pjm

      December 13, 2010 at 1:32 am

      • This is the kind of thing that irks me, and is not unlike IMO what you were saying about k-punk awhile back, in his ‘strategizing’ about the horses:

        “yuor reading i think of nina power in the guardian was that she was championing violence against the ridioculous liberal squeamishness, but clearly that can’t be right since her view today is:

        “Alfie is not a violent person. He wouldn’t have done anything silly. He’s not the sort of person who would have been carrying weapons.

        “He’s very political, engaged and passionate, but he’s not a violent person at all.”

        incredible -is this really constructive in your view? the pose just vanishes as if it were nothing but puff; this is the radical subversive shifting of the discourse of dissident action, force and violence? this is what you want to establish – there are violent types of person, you are or you aren’t the type, only such people would carry weapons, their conduct would be silly and only rightly rewarded with a possibly fatal beating in the head?”

        THAT is what I happen to think is disgusting, and it is very obvious that Ms. Power (and I’m no close buddy) would be upset about this colleague’s kid’s misfortune, and not be thinking only about ‘what is the correct party line?’ And if it leads to a ‘general strike’, that still doesn’t mean everybody protesting is a dyed-in-the-wool Socialist. In fact, that contorting of Ms. Power’s words was just to turn it into another racist diatribe, which had NOTHING to do with what this was about.

        pjm

        December 13, 2010 at 1:39 am

      • Patrick what the fuck are you talking about? Who was talking about Nina Power / Alfie Meadows on here? You seem to have schizophrenic conversations with yourself in my comment boxes….

        adswithoutproducts

        December 13, 2010 at 11:06 am

  6. You know exactly what I mean. Just remember that, okay? Because I don’t want to have that drink all that bad, you know. Obviously, I was quoting from somebody who DID SAY IT, it’s quite immaterial that it wasn’t here. Okay, we wish you a half-decent week.

    pjm

    December 13, 2010 at 6:38 pm

  7. Don’t see what this has to do with who blogs anonymously/half-anonymously and who doesn’t. For anyone halfway involved with what’s going on right now, this stuff needs to be said. Quite aside from it being just annoying when journos misrepresent or misquote you, these people who don’t get it, of whom LP is one, are a liability, a dangerous one. It’s bad enough those who have one foot in and one foot out of our movement are speaking for us. But it’s even worse when they’re on the front lines asking us for our names for quotes in front of cops. Or trying to draw boundaries on our politics that aren’t really there. Or performing a sanitised version of the radicalism we’re actually living for mainstream consumption. Listen up journalists: if you support us, help us speak for ourselves. Otherwise, you’re no better than the Murdoch press, and certainly not activists.

    Sharron Clemons

    December 21, 2010 at 9:07 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: