Talk:Hakim Bey

From ZineWiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Let's cut the guy some slack, shall we?)
(Supporting rape and explotation?: new section)
Line 14: Line 14:
*On the subject of pedophilia, i may not be the best judge, as i haven't read any piece written specifically for the NAMBLA and such, but i can speak about the part of his work that is relevant to our business. TAZ, for example, comes with its imagery of naked adolescent boys masturbating playfully in the sun, which is not my favorite thing in the world, but never does it even hint at violence, or domination. None in their right mind could call it "propaganda for child rape, sex abuse". The guy has weird tastes, right, but what he writes about is extatic breakthroughs from normative society. Not how to justify raping children with classy anarcho rhetorics. He's inspired by Allen Ginsberg's mad and flamboyant gay poetry. Not by Sade's oppressive perversity.
*On the subject of pedophilia, i may not be the best judge, as i haven't read any piece written specifically for the NAMBLA and such, but i can speak about the part of his work that is relevant to our business. TAZ, for example, comes with its imagery of naked adolescent boys masturbating playfully in the sun, which is not my favorite thing in the world, but never does it even hint at violence, or domination. None in their right mind could call it "propaganda for child rape, sex abuse". The guy has weird tastes, right, but what he writes about is extatic breakthroughs from normative society. Not how to justify raping children with classy anarcho rhetorics. He's inspired by Allen Ginsberg's mad and flamboyant gay poetry. Not by Sade's oppressive perversity.
*Long story short, i think his contribution to anarchist culture, especially the DIY approach, largely outweighs his advocacy of pederastic 'love'. So, the article should mention his pedophilia and activism, of course, there's no brushing it under the rug, but even the disclaimer seems a little over the top to me. I mean, this is an ''encyclopedia'', of course an encyclopedia does not endorse or condone the views of everyone. "Controversy" or "criticism" sections serve just that purpose, but the rest of the article should be more neutral and factual :) [[User:John Carpaccio|John Carpaccio]] 23:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
*Long story short, i think his contribution to anarchist culture, especially the DIY approach, largely outweighs his advocacy of pederastic 'love'. So, the article should mention his pedophilia and activism, of course, there's no brushing it under the rug, but even the disclaimer seems a little over the top to me. I mean, this is an ''encyclopedia'', of course an encyclopedia does not endorse or condone the views of everyone. "Controversy" or "criticism" sections serve just that purpose, but the rest of the article should be more neutral and factual :) [[User:John Carpaccio|John Carpaccio]] 23:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Supporting rape and explotation? ==
 +
 +
I think is a gross misreading of Bey pedophile writings. He never supports explotation or rape, as far as the bibliography goes, he celebrates boys' beauty, not rape or explotation. Is being a pedophile the same as advocating those atrocious acts? There is no proof whatsoever of Bey supporting those actions. [[User:Bumbury|Bumbury]] 06:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:29, 16 July 2012

I have a problem with this article. Articles about pedophiles should not be included on this site. InvisibleFriend 04:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

I kinda think the idea behind a Wiki is to document everything without taking a political opinion on it. We have some articles on other zinesters that have been accused of some not so nice things like sexual assault and battery. And I'm sure this sort of thing will crop up when someone lists a white power zine at some point, so it's good to have a discussion about it now. Do we want to delete articles because their subjects are things we morally object to or are criminal? Where to we draw the line? Do we set up guidelines or take them on a case by case basis? I don't know how Wikipedia addresses these types of issues, maybe Alan can shed some light, it's definitely a conundrum.

I personally think the article should be kept, but it should definitely include information about his pedophilia and the controversy it's caused in the anarchist community. I'd support putting a disclaimer in the article spelling out that including the article in no way shows the editors of ZineWiki support it's subject, but that it's included because even though this dude is a creepy motherfucker, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia-like resource and serve as a history and snapshot of the entire zine community, which isn't always nice and well-meaning. The way it's written now seems to ignore the controversy and brush it under the rug. I also think it should be edited down to focus more on his contributions to zines and the zine community if the article is kept. dan10things 12:03, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

"He is a public propagandist for child rape, sexual abuse and exploitation" feck that's terrible. It depends on Zinewiki's policy. I think there is a difference between being accused of something, like Dan mentioned above, and advocating that stuff that it appears this guy does. Accusations could be included on a zinesters page, if there are such zinesters like that written about on zinewiki and if such accusations have been documented.... it is a tough one. I think this page could be deleted because of his open advocacy of such things....--Eugenepunk 06:56, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

I agree with dan10Things. Keep the article, and keep in his views on pedophilia. It's not right to not have a page about him because people disagree with some of his life choices. He has obviously been extremely influential (sounds like someone else huh?) But it would be foolish not to mention what he advocates. That's my two cents. Joshmedsker

Hi, I haven't been here for long, but I personally think that it's important to keep this article here, with all the disclaimers intact. Until I viewed this page (earlier in the year) I was completely unaware of Hakim Bey's peadophila, and had only ever heard of him discussed (usually in positive terms) in regards to T.A.Z. I have even, in the past, recommened the theory of T.A.Z to people, as a way of understanding things like rave culture. I would definately not have done that if I'd known the full picture about Hakim Bey! It makes me sick to think that I have unintentionally supported the work of a paedophile. So, in the interest of promoting awareness of the full picture, I think it's worth keeping this article.--Queen Ludd 01:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

  • While i understand that Hakim Bey is a somewhat controversial character to the zine community, i think that considering the HB article for deletion on a wiki about zines would be a tragic mistake. If the subject that interests us here is radical, free thinking self-published litterature, then like it or not, HB and his buddies are historic to the development of our culture. He was very active in the mail-art communities, contributed to a truckload of notable zines, he basically inspired the birth of the Burning Man. And though his work does not appeal to everyone, it's undeniably some serious mind-altering illuminating shit.
  • On the subject of pedophilia, i may not be the best judge, as i haven't read any piece written specifically for the NAMBLA and such, but i can speak about the part of his work that is relevant to our business. TAZ, for example, comes with its imagery of naked adolescent boys masturbating playfully in the sun, which is not my favorite thing in the world, but never does it even hint at violence, or domination. None in their right mind could call it "propaganda for child rape, sex abuse". The guy has weird tastes, right, but what he writes about is extatic breakthroughs from normative society. Not how to justify raping children with classy anarcho rhetorics. He's inspired by Allen Ginsberg's mad and flamboyant gay poetry. Not by Sade's oppressive perversity.
  • Long story short, i think his contribution to anarchist culture, especially the DIY approach, largely outweighs his advocacy of pederastic 'love'. So, the article should mention his pedophilia and activism, of course, there's no brushing it under the rug, but even the disclaimer seems a little over the top to me. I mean, this is an encyclopedia, of course an encyclopedia does not endorse or condone the views of everyone. "Controversy" or "criticism" sections serve just that purpose, but the rest of the article should be more neutral and factual :) John Carpaccio 23:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Supporting rape and explotation?

I think is a gross misreading of Bey pedophile writings. He never supports explotation or rape, as far as the bibliography goes, he celebrates boys' beauty, not rape or explotation. Is being a pedophile the same as advocating those atrocious acts? There is no proof whatsoever of Bey supporting those actions. Bumbury 06:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal tools