Read on Twitter
I think where a lot of abolition theory goes off the rails in praxis is where ppl say "abuse is an ongoing pattern of control" yet still, after the initial abuse has ended, it's somehow "carceral" to insist that, perhaps, your safety cannot be enforced with words alone.
It is true that once we have survived, transformative repair is possible. But before that, all survival tactics are good because they're the ones we have. And we're still…in this "before" stage. Even when *one* instance of harm has had a good resolution.
There is, simultaneously, humility amongst those who practice transformative justice to "build the plane as it flies", but ALSO, sometimes, incredible arrogance that a perpetrator who has gone through them once, is somehow above the consensus on abusers in general.
If you have managed to reach a transformative resolution with your abuser, great. But how can you believe that one person's transformation is more important than the safety of people who you cannot protect, cannot see, cannot ever hope to know?
One process in one community (whose parameters are also unique) cannot be assumed to have any generalizing power in this atomized society we live in. Somehow, we "get this", but not enough to not bob and weave when people are getting mad and yes, vengeful again.
I don't get this bizarro parallel world where abusers only have to endure the consequences and submit to accountability for their actions one time, one setting, while it's normal and expected for survivors to be traumatized, triggered, & victimized repeatedly their whole lives.
I'm a bad survivor! I want to yell at and punch and kick my abusers! I am terminally incapable of shutting the fuck up and I'm NOT good at being a survivor and you know what, I believe in abolition but letting your praxis think we're someplace we're not doesn't make me feel safe.
