Why would one concern themself with nitpicking others' dramas?

Question

If you don't have enough drama for yourself, then get busy.
(pardon the rhetoric)

Answer 1

while it is true that the woman pied was not an anarchist, and the pie-ers were not anarchists (or at least were not acting as anarchists, or in the name of anarchy), the SF book fair is a significant event in the lives of anarchists in the region.  
And there are questions alluded to, and sometimes asked directly, in the face of these kinds of controversies.
What is the role of the sponsors of the bookfair? What is the role of the speakers (especially non-anarchist ones)? What is the relationship of the *audience* to the *organizers*? what are the actual vs apparent power dynamics at play? what is the best way for anarchists/audience members to express their distaste? how much are these events for us, and how much for people-who-are-selling-stuff?
these are tensions that exist in many interactions and have been roiling about the SF bookfair in particular for a while, which makes events like the pie-ing more relevant than they would otherwise seem.

edit: (since everyone else is answering generally, i guess i will add a general--non sfbf related--answer)...
my comment above questions whether something is "others' drama" (the "others'" part).
and while medea has attended to the bad (or buzzy's "90%") part, i will say that gossip can be good. most of us are plenty isolated from each other. the threads of relationships that connect us work through informal and unofficial forms of communication as much as (or more than) through conscious and intentional ones. networking sites and texting and tweeting adds a twist to this, but does not negate it, apparently.
tl/dr: we (re)create relationships partly by talking about them. that can be good or bad.

Comments

Actually, while most of this may be true, my answer below is better and shorter and most questions of 'relevance' or 'importance' can be reduced to it! So there.

Answer 2

The good reason: Because it's fun!!!!!

The bad reason: because 90% of anarchists are totally addicted to it.

Answer 3

The anarchist milieu is overrun by morality and a "more anarchist than though art" approach to social capital. We subscribe to an ideology that has us constant questioning ourselves (our actions, our values, our motivations, our histories, your thought processes) almost to the point of paralysis. This obsession with critique has it's advantages, after all it is the basis of anarchist ideas. But left unchecked it has ran rampant, and we feel the constant desire to pick apart everything.  It seems as though we have developed a coping mechanism of over analyzing others' as a way of taking focus off of ourselves.
And we are, after all, all products of a capitalist value system that teaches us that we are only good so long as we are better than someone else, we must constantly put others down in order to maintain our place on the social hierarchies. Is is so strange to think that we are still practicing this.
But, as a subculture, as long as we compulsively pick at and rip open eachother's wounds, we will never be healthy.

And more on this, there is an article called "Infighting the Good Fight: Why We're Right and You're Wrong" that is pretty good, and deals with this "nitpicking". http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/atoz/infighting.php

Comments

Perhaps there are many who rip others apart in order to make themselves feel superior, but there are also those among us who know that we are also being merciless with ourselves.

---

I agree, and find that equally problematic.

---

You find self-examination and self-critique problematic?

---

When it becomes an obsession, when it paralyzes us, when it interferes with our ability to interact with others, when it stifles creativity, yes.
It is quite healthy to self-examine and self-critique, but to what end. When it is critique for the sake of construction, to better ourselves, I am all for it. But when it becomes critique for the sake of critique, I question it.

---

I do not understand how you can make any such distinction except for yourself; this kind of subjectivity undercuts the validity of your observation. How can you tell if it's self-examination and criticism that's interfering with our interactions rather than some other thing(s), like self-loathing and self-doubt, which are the lingering effects of authoritarian indoctrination. They are the results of what others have forced us to believe; self-appraisal can only come from within.

---

This is more than just a personal thing. As communities, a subculture, etc we can over-critique ourselves.
And I cannot "make any such distinction" for anyone but myself, but I can call out common themes when many people discuss such distinctions with me.
And sometimes the line between the self-loathing and doubt and "self-examination" is less than clear.
But I am kinda over this conversation, so I'm going to let this end here.

---

I have no idea what "over-critique" would look like other than the alleged paralysis you stated exists. What are the "common themes"? And I know the lines between self-loathing and self-examination are blurry, but they do exist, and are worth appraising.

You started this conversation, and when I try to pin you down with questions that you can't answer right away without being even more vague than before, you decide you're tired of it. Way to go. A little more self-examination might be in order.

Is it like the judge who couldn't define smut but knew it when he saw it? How are totally subjective categories supposed to help people out of their alleged over-critical paralysis?

---

I agree with what I think Medea is saying. One of my favorite stories is Dostoyevski's Notes From Underground. His passage on the inertia of an over-acute consciousness seems to be exactly the sort of paralysis that Medea is speaking about. Fairly, I think it is good to question the cause in this though... is it self-loathing that is causal, or is the extensive self-conscious examination a cause for self-loathing? Well, of course one can criticize themselves into self-loathing and doubt to the extent of inertia... I'm not sure how someone would get to a point of inertia without first doubting themselves to some degree or in some way having an extreme difficulty getting from reflective thinking to conscious acting. But that could just be poorly conducted self-analysis. I think it is safe to say that because behavior can be impulsive, compulsive, or purposive ...it is from something happening between impulsive or compulsive urges and what would be necessary for purposive action that inertia would stem. And, that this something would take the form of self-restraint. So if one gets to such a severe point of inertia that they find it difficult to act (like Sartre's Boudellaire), it is from a consistent self-criticism or at least an internalized criticism of so much of ones behavior that they can't think around it.

The irony is that while I'd put a good bet on people generally being self-critical to some degree, it is only with a certain sort of self-criticism (or analysis) that one can overcome inertia that is learned in authoritarian settings. So on the one hand, self-criticism can lead to inertia and on the other, self-criticism can deconstruct the super-egoic forces (for lack of a better term right now) that are creating inertia. The underlying assumption is that purposive action stems from a permissiveness towards the conceived act and that what prevents the act (forces of inertia) are generally doubts, criticisms, fears, aversions, phobias, and other such content-positive phenomena.

---

Okay, Squee you made my brain hurt with the complications and vagaries of all the contributing factors that result in (immobile) inertia. Maybe I don't have the training or patience to deal with all the nuances of your argument, but at least it's not completely vague, which was my problem with Medea's posts. All these blanket condemnations due to negative experiences with "over-critique" mean nothing to me without at least a little more specificity about what it's supposed to look like.

---

it looks like someone complaining about shit but not doing anything about it and when asked - they have a million excuses. :)

I was agreeing with both of you btw.

---

But isn't that an "overarching critique" rather than the "over-critique" (since "excuses" imply some sort of negation of "blame" for some presupposed negligence)? Or perhaps these are two sides of the same imaginary coin (or maybe it's a grave stone). Does some ethereal objective preside in judgment over the complainer for which he/she must have a million excuses?  The would-be doer-of-deeds may find the constraints and obstacles more real than any nebulous moral compulsion, no?

---

Yes - the judging self can manifest as an ethereal presence... usually like a dark blob, a demon, cloud, or some other ominous thing. There is a certain internal dialogue some have with themselves in which they justify their own thoughts and actions before the majesty of some other part of themselves. Sometimes, this judgmental manifestation can beat one up so viciously that life becomes a series of 'accidents': no bathing, no eating, no getting out of bed... on purpose. So that's an extreme scenario. The appropriate demon takes care of that blasted impulsiveness children can be prone to. The lack of a demon at all is interesting too... polymorphous perversity is no joke!

HEY OH