Re: Anarchist/liberal violence (Updated)
RyanBooth: “I’m not particularly concerned whether they are members of your particular collective…”
For reference, I am an Anarchist, I’ve lived in Santa Cruz in the past, and I’ve corresponded with some of the kids at SubRosa. But I am not a member of the SubRosa collective.Â
RyanBooth: “Anyway, you’ve confirmed what I thought: that trust-fund college dropouts aren’t enjoying their funemployment … “
Well, if that’s the conclusion you want to draw, have fun drawing it. But whether or not that’s what you originally thought, it’s not what you originally said, and this strikes me as moving the goalposts. What you claimed was that there were specific organizational connections and “coordination” between (1) the possibly Anarchist rioters at the May Day riot; (2) the definitely Anarchist organizers in the SubRosa project; (3) the non-Anarchist organizers of the unrelated, permitted immigration/worker’s rights rally that was held earlier in the day.Â
After the first round of questions and comments you silently dropped the claim about formal connections between (2) and (3). Now you seem to be dropping the claim that there is are any formal ties between (1) and (2) as well, in favor of some vague hand-waving based on some impressionistic sketches of dirty ingrate hippies, dirty immigrants, and effete liberals all “confluing” with each other, perhaps on a spiritual level or something, even though there are no formal ties or organizational connections between the groups you’re lumping together. Well, OK, whatever. But then we’re back to the original question. Say X is violent, and X happened to meet Y one day in Y’s public place of business, while X was passing through, and while X was there they saw a flyer about this other event, which Y didn’t organize, and which is not actually the event that Z organized, either, but which was scheduled to take place on the same day as the event that Z organized, and which was inspired by political ideas that maybe kind of loosely remind you of Z’s political ideas, if you squint at them hard enough, and none of these guys have any actual personal or organizational connections with each other, except for casual acquaintances or some kind of vague resemblance when viewed by Ryan Booth, and at the end of all this, there’s some big deal to be made about the “confluence” of X’s violence and Z’s political rally and by the way X also kind of creeps you out because it reminds you of this fictional story you once read or saw or whatever. No doubt you have some serious political concerns about each of the folks being discussed individually — problems with the rioters, problems with SubRosa and Anarchists in general, problems with immigrants-rights activists, and problems with political liberals. Fine; I even agree with you about some of that (I have problems with the rioters too, and plenty of problems with political liberals.) But these problems are problems you can address individually, to the person or group actually responsible for the thing you have a problem with, without drawing some kind of fantasy org chart based on “strong confluences” that allows you to act as if SubRosa or liberals or whoever is somehow responsible for acts they had nothing to do with. And I have to wonder what purpose this kind of guilt-by-free-association game is supposed to serve.Â
You rightly complain about this kind of cheap rhetorical trick when it’s used to smear people in the Tea Party for violence committed by unhinged loners, whose subculture or statements happen to kinda sorta remind Keith Olbermann of something he once heard about Republicans which kinda resembles the signs at a Tea Party rally. You’re right to complain about that kind of nonsense; so why not hold yourself to the same standards that you expect of others, even when it comes to people that you like less?
For reference, I am an Anarchist, I’ve lived in Santa Cruz in the past, and I’ve corresponded with some of the kids at SubRosa. But I am not a member of the SubRosa collective.Â
RyanBooth: “Anyway, you’ve confirmed what I thought: that trust-fund college dropouts aren’t enjoying their funemployment … “
Well, if that’s the conclusion you want to draw, have fun drawing it. But whether or not that’s what you originally thought, it’s not what you originally said, and this strikes me as moving the goalposts. What you claimed was that there were specific organizational connections and “coordination” between (1) the possibly Anarchist rioters at the May Day riot; (2) the definitely Anarchist organizers in the SubRosa project; (3) the non-Anarchist organizers of the unrelated, permitted immigration/worker’s rights rally that was held earlier in the day.Â
After the first round of questions and comments you silently dropped the claim about formal connections between (2) and (3). Now you seem to be dropping the claim that there is are any formal ties between (1) and (2) as well, in favor of some vague hand-waving based on some impressionistic sketches of dirty ingrate hippies, dirty immigrants, and effete liberals all “confluing” with each other, perhaps on a spiritual level or something, even though there are no formal ties or organizational connections between the groups you’re lumping together. Well, OK, whatever. But then we’re back to the original question. Say X is violent, and X happened to meet Y one day in Y’s public place of business, while X was passing through, and while X was there they saw a flyer about this other event, which Y didn’t organize, and which is not actually the event that Z organized, either, but which was scheduled to take place on the same day as the event that Z organized, and which was inspired by political ideas that maybe kind of loosely remind you of Z’s political ideas, if you squint at them hard enough, and none of these guys have any actual personal or organizational connections with each other, except for casual acquaintances or some kind of vague resemblance when viewed by Ryan Booth, and at the end of all this, there’s some big deal to be made about the “confluence” of X’s violence and Z’s political rally and by the way X also kind of creeps you out because it reminds you of this fictional story you once read or saw or whatever. No doubt you have some serious political concerns about each of the folks being discussed individually — problems with the rioters, problems with SubRosa and Anarchists in general, problems with immigrants-rights activists, and problems with political liberals. Fine; I even agree with you about some of that (I have problems with the rioters too, and plenty of problems with political liberals.) But these problems are problems you can address individually, to the person or group actually responsible for the thing you have a problem with, without drawing some kind of fantasy org chart based on “strong confluences” that allows you to act as if SubRosa or liberals or whoever is somehow responsible for acts they had nothing to do with. And I have to wonder what purpose this kind of guilt-by-free-association game is supposed to serve.Â
You rightly complain about this kind of cheap rhetorical trick when it’s used to smear people in the Tea Party for violence committed by unhinged loners, whose subculture or statements happen to kinda sorta remind Keith Olbermann of something he once heard about Republicans which kinda resembles the signs at a Tea Party rally. You’re right to complain about that kind of nonsense; so why not hold yourself to the same standards that you expect of others, even when it comes to people that you like less?
<strong>RyanBooth:</strong> <em>”I’m not particularly concerned whether they are members of your particular collective…”</em>
For reference, I am an Anarchist, I’ve lived in Santa Cruz in the past, and I’ve corresponded with some of the kids at SubRosa. But I am not a member of the SubRosa collective.
<strong>RyanBooth:</strong> <em>”Anyway, you’ve confirmed what I thought: that trust-fund college dropouts aren’t enjoying their funemployment … “</em>
Well, if that’s the conclusion you want to draw, have fun drawing it. But whether or not that’s what you originally thought, it’s not what you originally said, and this strikes me as moving the goalposts. What you claimed was that there were specific organizational connections and “coordination” between (1) the possibly Anarchist rioters at the May Day riot; (2) the definitely Anarchist organizers in the SubRosa project; (3) the non-Anarchist organizers of the unrelated, permitted immigration/worker’s rights rally that was held earlier in the day.
After the first round of questions and comments you silently dropped the claim about formal connections between (2) and (3). Now you seem to be dropping the claim that there is are any formal ties between (1) and (2) as well, in favor of some vague hand-waving based on some impressionistic sketches of dirty ingrate hippies, dirty immigrants, and effete liberals all “confluing” with each other, perhaps on a spiritual level or something, even though there are no formal ties or organizational connections between the groups you’re lumping together. Well, OK, whatever. But then we’re back  to the original question. Say X is violent, and X happened to meet Y one day in Y’s public place of business, while X was passing through, and while X was there they saw a flyer about this other event, which Y didn’t organize, and which is not actually the event that Z organized, either, but which was scheduled to take place on the same day as the event that Z organized, and which was inspired by political ideas that maybe kind of loosely remind you of Z’s political ideas, if you squint at them hard enough, and none of these guys have any actual personal or organizational connections with each other, except for casual acquaintances or some kind of vague resemblance when viewed by Ryan Booth, and at the end of all this, there’s some big deal to be made about the “confluence” of X’s violence and Z’s political rally and by the way X also kind of creeps you out because it reminds you of this fictional story you once read or saw or whatever. No doubt you have some serious political concerns about each of the folks being discussed individually — problems with the rioters, problems with SubRosa and Anarchists in general, problems with immigrants-rights activists, and problems with political liberals. Fine; I even agree with you about some of that (I have problems with the rioters too, and plenty of problems with political liberals.) But these problems are problems you can address <em>individually,</em> to the person or group actually responsible for the thing you have a problem with, without drawing some kind of fantasy org chart based on “strong confluences” that allows you to act as if SubRosa or liberals or whoever is somehow responsible for acts they had nothing to do with. And I have to wonder what purpose this kind of guilt-by-free-association game is supposed to serve.
You rightly complain about this kind of cheap rhetorical trick when it’s used to smear people in the Tea Party for violence committed by unhinged loners, whose subculture or statements happen to kinda sorta remind Keith Olbermann of something he once heard about Republicans which kinda resembles the signs at a Tea Party rally. You’re right to complain about that kind of nonsense; so why not hold yourself to the same standards that you expect of others, even when it comes to people that you like less?
Anticopyright.