Convince Me To Care

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

So eco-terrorists torched an unoccupied apartment complex. No one was injured. Something like $20million in damages.

And yet, I just can't really say that I care.

Why should I condemn the act?

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 01:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Burning buildings helps the environment?

― bnw (bnw), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 02:03 (twenty-two years ago)

You should care because the fires have released greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, increasing the global warming of the earth.

Was the apartment complex a new or old?

― fletrejet, Wednesday, 6 August 2003 02:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, I'd care because I'd want to know WHAT THE POINT WAS apart from now denying people of housing and fucking up the atmosphere...

― Trayce (trayce), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 02:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah what exactly is the context here?

― s1utsky (slutsky), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 02:19 (twenty-two years ago)

burning stuff is cool but i wouldntve done that myself

― unknown or illegal user (doorag), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 02:39 (twenty-two years ago)

'stuff'

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 06:41 (twenty-two years ago)

congratulations - you hate the homeless

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 06:44 (twenty-two years ago)

$50 million. It was still under construction.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/08/05/national2330EDT0777.DTL

Environmental terrorists - because they terrorize the environment? if they know anything about the environment they would realise that fires can spread. the financial cost: insurance costs and/or jobs lost. that's why acts such as this must be condemned.

― peter james, Wednesday, 6 August 2003 08:04 (twenty-two years ago)

anyone wondering why the left is so ineffective in america - look no further

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 08:13 (twenty-two years ago)

anyone seen Calum lately?

― dave q, Wednesday, 6 August 2003 08:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Eco-terrorists in hating humanity non-shocker.

(and yes, that's a period -- it's just that non-thrilling)

― Just Deanna (Dee the Lurker), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 16:11 (twenty-two years ago)

News media in presenting story without context non-shocker.

(The story implies that the ELF had some reason to think that the construction was damaging the environment but declines to share that reason with us.)

― Chris P (Chris P), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 17:34 (twenty-two years ago)

left in whining about being misrepresented by the news media and then choosing methods that guarantee they'll be misrepresented by the news media shockah

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 18:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Um, am I the "left" whining about being "misrepresented"? The ELF did the action, and I haven't heard them complain about being misrepresented; I am not part of the ELF and don't particularly approve of their strategies.

But the thread is "convince me to care" and people are asking what the point of this action was. And the newspaper was very careful not to include any rationale for the action, which would probably be seen as justifying the destruction, and making it "ok". So instead it is presented as a pointless act of willful destruction, and encourages people to link "the left" or environmentalists or whatever with randomly blowing shit up.

Which you'd think would be seen as kinda cool.

If you're arguing that the ELF is using tactics which set itself up for this kind of pickle, then yes, I agree with you.

― Chris P (Chris P), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 18:21 (twenty-two years ago)

I thought apartment living was the most efficient, cost effective and least damaging to the environment (as compared to single detached dwellings). I'm missing the point of everything as usual.

― lawrence kansas (lawrence kansas), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 18:27 (twenty-two years ago)

it may have to do with the location rather than the building itsself.

― gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 18:32 (twenty-two years ago)

oh come on. 'the left'
denounces radical shit
like this: too icky!

'left' is NPR,
voters with hybrid cars, not
ecoterrorists

― Haikunym, Wednesday, 6 August 2003 18:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Which methods would guarantee that "the left" gets fairly represented in the media?

What, exactly, would a bunch of, say, anarchists have to do to be treated well by CNN or FoxNews? A fairly mild outfit like Adbusters has trouble buying airtime for its anti-capitalism commercials. BUYING. They'll sell ads to phone sex lines after midnight, but if you're anti-globalization, fuck off!

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 18:40 (twenty-two years ago)

hint: actually get people elected. the far right can't get their ads on tv either (even foxnews won't run the 'here's an aborted fetus - suck on this' ads), but have still managed to get a significant portion of their platform enacted. how? - gotv!

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 18:53 (twenty-two years ago)

(even foxnews won't run the 'here's an aborted fetus - suck on this' ads)

This explains why my FetusPops Inc. stock is doing so poorly.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:08 (twenty-two years ago)

The conservative Christian types are indeed well organized right now, but surely "get out the bling bling" also helps.

― Chris P (Chris P), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:09 (twenty-two years ago)

plus they realize the prize isn't neccesarily 'changing people's minds / opening people's eyes / etc', it's winning races. the far right's concerned with getting converts too, but most of their efforts are geared toward firing up the base and focusing that power at the ballot box.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually get people elected?

So a group that's not related to electoral politics, or in some cases, opposes them completely, should get people elected for their message to be heard?

Should viewpoints outside of the mainstream be ignored, because they're unelectable? How many black civil rights workers got elected to Congress in the early '60s? How many Vietnam protesters?

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:13 (twenty-two years ago)

how many people who favored civil rights got elected to Congress? how many people who opposed the vietnam war? I mean, if they're genuinenly against democracy and want to overthrow the govt then do that, but don't burn empty buildings and pretend it makes you a revolutionary.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:22 (twenty-two years ago)

put up or shut up

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:24 (twenty-two years ago)

are you saying that right wing theocrats are the mainstream? and if so, how come they can't buy ads either?

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Very few, on both counts.

How much would have been accomplished by black protesters trying to get Martin Luther King Jr. elected to Congress, instead of staging protests and boycotts and so on?

The history of progressive movements in the United States has been one of exerting pressure on "the System" from outside. And the minute "the Left" stopped trying to work that way - circa 1968 - it became ineffectual. They tried your "get elected" tactic, and it has failed.

You're looking for power to spread from the top out - get some power and use it wisely! - when that's never been the way it works.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:28 (twenty-two years ago)

very few - than how exactly did the civil rights act pass since 'very few' congressman supported it? and are you actually comparing the tactics of the sclc with half assed anarchists? I can point at the laws passed as a result of the sclc's actions - show me the laws passed as a result of the weathermens

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:32 (twenty-two years ago)

When did John Lewis get elected to Congress?

1986.

Now, let me get my calculator here, but that's 18 years after MLK was assassinated (and the death of the main '60s civil rights movement).

In the '60s, Lewis was one of those nasty unelectable protesters you were just criticizing.

***

Who are these "right-wing theocrats"?

Where did I say they're mainstream? I said they aren't far outside of it.

John Ashcroft is the fucking AG. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and Billy "Fuck the Jews" Graham and... You really want to argue that hard-right evangelical Christians are an extremist minority?

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:32 (twenty-two years ago)

oh and thurgood marshall to thread since his approach (pre-68, when the left decided they'd rather see nixon elected and feel self-righteous then actually look at the bigger picture) 'never worked'

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:33 (twenty-two years ago)

very few - than how exactly did the civil rights act pass since 'very few' congressman supported it?
You asked how many got elected who supported it. There's a difference in voting for it, and getting elected supporting it.

How many black Congressmen were there in 1964?

and are you actually comparing the tactics of the sclc with half assed anarchists? I can point at the laws passed as a result of the sclc's actions - show me the laws passed as a result of the weathermens
Where did I compare anyone's tactics or effects.

You said that you had to get elected to be taken seriously. Now you admit that the civil rights movement didn't elect anyone, and still changed the nation.

Meaning it could happen again, no?

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:34 (twenty-two years ago)

oh and thurgood marshall to thread since his approach (pre-68, when the left decided they'd rather see nixon elected and feel self-righteous then actually look at the bigger picture) 'never worked'
And Thurgood Marshall is relevant to questions of electability because?

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:35 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, I have no problem arguing that hard right theocrats are an extremist minority - I have the numbers and the facts to back it up. however, as you pointed out, they're an extremist minority that's nonetheless willing and able to get their views turned into action - by gotv.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I didn't say you had to get elected to be taken seriously - I said you had to be able to get someone else elected to be taken seriously.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:36 (twenty-two years ago)

So what I'm seeing here is that you now admit that change is possible from outside electoral politics - through protests, mass movements or from the Courts.

Would you like to rescind your previous statements about having to 'get elected'?

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:37 (twenty-two years ago)

I didn't say you had to get elected to be taken seriously - I said you had to be able to get someone else elected to be taken seriously.
Not quite:

Me: "What, exactly, would a bunch of, say, anarchists have to do to be treated well by CNN or FoxNews?"

You:"hint: actually get people elected."

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:39 (twenty-two years ago)

the sclc's actions worked precisely because they put pressure on congressman, got/cost votes, ie. even from outside the system worked on change from inside the system. they also chose tactics that required sacrifice, hard work, instead of just fighting head on becuz these tactics would actually work - your would be anarchists tactics work in precisely the opposite way: to parrot what the cw response to them is gonna be (and the cw just may be the truth) they're more concerned with feeling good about themselves than actually getting anything done.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:40 (twenty-two years ago)

right actually get people elected - how fucking dumb are you?

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:41 (twenty-two years ago)

is this just gonna be another thread where you don't actually read anyone else posts and demand that everyone else say exactly what you say in the way that you say it otherwise they're not meeting your terms of the debate?

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:42 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean, milo, your method's of debate are very very similar to the methods of "anarchists" (scare quotes cuz they don't have the nerve to actually start a revolution) in that they have more to do with assuaging your ego than actually convincing anyone of anything.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:44 (twenty-two years ago)

ie. they do the right's work for them

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:44 (twenty-two years ago)

No, I'm reading your posts. Primarily the ones where you say "get someone elected to be taken seriously" and then go "OK, you don't have to get elected" and then "Well, I never really said you had to get elected, even though you can find a post a half dozen up where I said you did."

Let's cut to the chase here.

You've got a bone to pick with the modern "Left." Whatever that happens to be. What you really mean is "I'll take you seriously when you're not on the far-Left."

Right?

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:46 (twenty-two years ago)

You're right, I'm not too worried about convincing you of anything. Am I really going to convince you that you should open your arms to whatever leftist stereotypes you're tilting at this week?

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:47 (twenty-two years ago)

milo, again: ""hint: actually get people elected." - what do you not understand about gotv?

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:49 (twenty-two years ago)

you can convince me that the far left will never resist confirming said stereotypes.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:49 (twenty-two years ago)

again, show me these posts - "Primarily the ones where you say "get someone elected to be taken seriously" and then go "OK, you don't have to get elected" and then "Well, I never really said you had to get elected, even though you can find a post a half dozen up where I said you did."

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:50 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean do you think the right looks at the left with fear and thinks 'gee, they're really effective at getting out the message'?

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:51 (twenty-two years ago)

or do you think they just laugh and say 'this'll make great fodder for hannity/limbaugh/savage/coulter/boortz/whoevah'

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:52 (twenty-two years ago)

ie convince the modern far left isn't just a conspiracy by the far right

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:53 (twenty-two years ago)

milo, again: ""hint: actually get people elected." - what do you not understand about gotv?
If your goal is to change Congress, absolutely, get people elected. But your assumption here - though you've now contradicted yourself - is that the only way to effect change is through Congress (and electoral politics).

you can convince me that the far left will never resist confirming said stereotypes.
So the first step is convincing you that your irrational bigotry is wrong? Thanks, but no.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:55 (twenty-two years ago)

ie convince the modern far left isn't just a conspiracy by the far right

What "modern far left"?

Describe this collective for me, because they seem to exist only as strawmen for you to pull out and play with at will.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:57 (twenty-two years ago)

too late milo

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Tee-hee.

"I've made up my mind and I like my strawmen!"

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 19:59 (twenty-two years ago)

if your goal is to pass laws ie. accomplish anything politically, then yes, change congress. again, as you've shown, the far right understands this, the far left refuses too. the far left is more concerned with feeling right than winning, the far right realizes nice guys finish last.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:00 (twenty-two years ago)

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST BOTH OF YOU SHUT UP AND STOP STRAWMANNING EACH OTHER.

Ahem. Lovely day outside...

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:01 (twenty-two years ago)

milo feel free to argue with yourself and think you're changing the world. the far right thanks you.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Where have I suggested that I'm changing the world?

if your goal is to pass laws ie. accomplish anything politically, then yes, change congress.
Once more your assumption is that working directly to "pass laws" is the only possible way to effect change.
And you assume that "getting elected" is the only way to "change Congress," at that.

again, as you've shown, the far right understands this, the far left refuses too. the far left is more concerned with feeling right than winning, the far right realizes nice guys finish last.
And Bolsheviks and fascists realized that they were better off seizing power. I guess they were even smarter than right-wing zealots. If the sum total of your goals is to "get in power," then you're right - that's the only thing that matters.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:11 (twenty-two years ago)

who said it's the sum total of the goals?

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:14 (twenty-two years ago)

"So what I'm seeing here is that you now admit that change is possible from outside electoral politics - through protests, mass movements or from the Courts."

Change outside the electoral system is also possible by ethnic cleansing, mass murder, bribery, blackmail, or say burning down buildings.

How a group chooses to push their cause will effect how their cause is viewed.

― bnw (bnw), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:16 (twenty-two years ago)

and again, tell me how the far left's methods help them more than they help the far right

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:16 (twenty-two years ago)

And you assume that "getting elected" is the only way to "change Congress"

what?

― g--ff c-nn-n (gcannon), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:25 (twenty-two years ago)

who said it's the sum total of the goals?
At a minimum it's the primary goal, and thus far the only thing you've referred to.

You have a positive view of power - power is a good thing to have. And as I've said, if getting power is what you want to do, then your advice is great. Get someone elected. Moderate and cave in and get elected. But, in addition to the various other assumptions, you seem to assume that "getting power" is and should be everyone's goal.

and again, tell me how the far left's methods help them more than they help the far right
I'd respond, but I'm not sure which "far left" strawman I'm supposed to be defending.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:27 (twenty-two years ago)

You do know your original post asking "Why should I condemn the act?" is still up there, right?

― bnw (bnw), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah. I don't care either way about the building.

The last word I'd use to describe my political leanings is environmentalist.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:42 (twenty-two years ago)

"moderating" and accomplishing your goals vs. 'not selling out' and accomplishing nothing ie. the right vs. the left

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:44 (twenty-two years ago)

anyone wondering how Bush is gonna get reelected look no further

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:45 (twenty-two years ago)

So you just like the idea of burning down buildings? Are you like Bevis?

― bnw (bnw), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:45 (twenty-two years ago)

So you just like the idea of burning down buildings? Are you like Bevis?
Odd, I think I said "I don't care either way."

How that translates to "I like," who knows?

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:46 (twenty-two years ago)

milo in 'I'll never actually take a position on anything so don't accuse me of doing so' shocker

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 20:57 (twenty-two years ago)

If ELF (or similar) burned down the building, what did they accomplish besides creating ashes and making themselves look like stupid arsonists?

A far-right group could burn down a building, claim ELF did it, and succeed nicely in discrediting ELF.

― Layna Andersen (Layna Andersen), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 21:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Or a far-left group could burn down the building, claim a far-right group did it with the intent of discrediting ELF, and kill Vizzini with the Iocaine powder.

― Tep (ktepi), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 21:06 (twenty-two years ago)

I like how no one is grappling with the core issue of this, namely that a radical group has given itself the acronym ELF and still expects to be taken seriously.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 21:08 (twenty-two years ago)

milo in 'I'll never actually take a position on anything so don't accuse me of doing so' shocker

Taking a position - an end unto itself!

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 21:10 (twenty-two years ago)

talking loud and saying nothing

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 21:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Maybe you can add that to your strawman du jour?

"Burns down buildings, hates white people, TALKS LOUD!!!"

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 21:24 (twenty-two years ago)

"is unfamiliar with the funk"

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 21:26 (twenty-two years ago)

"thinks the new bag is in fact a drag"

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 21:26 (twenty-two years ago)

"takes issue with subsets two and three of 'get up, get into it, get involved'"

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 21:28 (twenty-two years ago)

"long haired, doesn't shave, smells funny"

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 21:28 (twenty-two years ago)

"hot, needs to be loved, loved, loved"

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 21:35 (twenty-two years ago)

"gots ants in his pants and needs to dance"

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Wednesday, 6 August 2003 21:36 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.