Some black bloc man bigger than me with bandana tried to take my camera from me violently fuck that! Smash the state not my cameraIt's one thing to be an outlaw if you're prepared to live outside the law. But if you smash the state, dear lady, who's going to protect your camera? Twitter?
Stephanie Keith (@Steffikeith) May 1, 2012
Source: @Steffikeith
Outlaws!
I have to say I find this really, really funny.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I saw some sort of 'protest' meandering down a street in Philadelphia on May 1st. The crowd, (about 40-50) were a bunch of whitebread, hipster twenty-somethings. They looked like the usual college student freak-show to me.
"Some black bloc man bigger than me with bandana tried to take my camera from me violently fuck that! Smash the state not my camera"
No respect... Did she resemble Rodney Dangerfield?
"They looked like the usual college student freak-show to me."
For some of these folks it seems to be the mid to late sixties all over again. A worst of compilation no less. Whoda thunk?
In my fantasies, when Anarchists attack, the police would openly declare that since the Anarchists want no government that they will take no actions against any that harm the Anarchists. Basically declare open season on them. Then the citizenry gets to take up arms against the Anarchists. Watch how fast those dudes start screaming about their "rights" (which, again, according to their belief system they don't want to exist since that's a function of government).
Alas and alack, such will never happen.
You know, I saw an episode of that series "Sons of Anarchy." It started off with a scene where two of the bikers come outside and find a punk twentysomething sitting on one of their Harleys. They clobber him, and tell him, "Never sit on another man's bike."
Then later in the show, there's an emotional reading of an Emma Goldman quote on the value of being liberated from the shackles of property.
I'm not sure people are really thinking all this through.
I'm not sure people are really thinking all this through.
Oh I know they're not. Example of the young lady's message in the original post as a case in point. And it was true for Marxists I've known as well. They were all about "property is theft", until I pointed out that they were talking about it on their personal computers. And let me tell you, they weren't so keen when I suggested that they let others use their "property".
Marxism has nothing to do with any moral component. It has to do with "who decides". They make up the rules and others comply.
Essentially, Marxism is the bastard offspring of Envy and Power.
"What is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine too."
I'm not sure people are really thinking all this through.
This is the counterargument to the notion that it's biased for us to say, "If the other side just thought that through, they'd agree with me" :)
I'd agree in general, Cass, but in this case they're clearly not thinking their own policies through. The Anarchist who complains that his "rights" are violated don't understand that "rights" (such as protection under the law) are functions of government. The Marxist who wants to retain sole possession of an item he "worked hard for and bought with his money" doesn't seem to understand that this is in direct contradiction with the fundamental tenets of Marxism.
Essentially, Marxism is the bastard offspring of Envy and Power.
Actually raven, I'm going to disagree with you. Marxism (as laid out in the Communist Manifesto by Marx) is, at it's core, an idealistic philosophy. In that it says that man should share completely with his fellow man to eliminate want and suffering. And in theory, it's actually a beautiful idea. The problem is, we don't live in an ideal world that such a theory requires. It requires that no one is ever lazy, or willing to ride off of the work of others... you know... human nature. And the fact that it fundamentally requires the surrender of individualism. So it has that going against it too. But I will say, theoretical Marxists are generally not power hungry folks. Instead they're (again, I'm sure there are exceptions, but generally speaking) very nice and altruistic folks... they just refuse to believe that human nature prevents their plans from working (without absolutely crushing freedom).
Citizen Journalist has a piece by someone at Seattle describing how the Black Bloc attacked a reporter's cameraman there, too. Apparently free speech only works one way. I wonder if this is now an "official" part of the movement, in order to try and control how the larger public get to see the "protests?"
LittleRed1
If it isn't, it should be. Among the first formal military units that Ho Chi Minh erected when he took up arms against the Japanese in 1944 -- the first military action of the long Vietnamese war -- was the Armed Propaganda Brigade. As he correctly understood, the political narrative is fundamental to the outcome of the war.
Take two" --New/improved, now with proofreading prior to posting!
"the political narrative is fundamental to the outcome of the war."
Indeed, only today, controlling that narrative is not nearly as easy as it once was.
Even more so when a burly and surly Bubba is totin' a camera along with an assortment of personal defense accoutrements and said Bubba has the training and mental/emotional wherewithal to use em.
Such a combination makes for a Bad Day at Black Bloc. Apologies to John Sturges, Spencer Tracy, and film fans everywhere.
A Bad Day at Black Bloc.... Apologies...
No need to apologize. That film sounds like it'd be worth the price of admission!
Apparently free speech only works one way.
I don't theink Black Bloc cares about "free speech" given that they're more of the "break stuff and run away" mindset. I'm sure if they get nabbed, they'd try claiming it was free speech, but there's no First Amendment protections for breaking other people's property.
MikeD, maybe if you were in CA and tried calling it "performance art." There are enough oddities there that I suspect a judge could be found who might be willing to listen to the argument that breaking other people's stuff is protected as a form of artistic self expression. But only in CA, and only in a very few limited jurisdictions.
LittleRed1
One of my fundamental requirements for a social philosophy is that it function well when its proponents require no more of other people they require of themselves. I am no great philanthropist myself, but I can admire people who advocate for a more sharing society and can themselves be seen to give very generously of their limited time and money -- tithing, volunteering, writing quite big checks in relation to their incomes, and refusing charity (or the dole) when they can see they are less in need than many around them. In other words, people who live much more simply than they might if they weren't devoting resources to cure some of the ills they see around them. I draw the line at people who advocate charity paid for with other people's money, especially if they are in the habit of being on the receiving end whenever humanly possible.
Similarly, I'm big on people planning ahead for their own risks, buying their own insurance, accumulating their own savings, and deferring gratification so as to minimize their risk of getting in the kind of jam that forces others to rescue them very often. I expect these things of myself, and I expect them of conservatives, because this is the only way conservatism works.
By this standard, anarchists who want the corner cop to enforce their property rights are a big fail. Libertarians who tend to minimize government whenever another solution is reasonably practicable are not.
This isn't the only requirement for a workable philosophy, of course. It also has to take into account what happens when other people don't live up to the ideal standard. Therefore I support a society and a government that can be shown to succeed without pretending people are not what they are. Not that I have a pessimistic view of human nature, really, but I do know that there are incentives that work disastrously for a big enough percentage of people that we can't afford to ignore them. That's why we don't allow heroin to be sold at convenience stores, right? So why we expect good results from allowing a bare majority of voters to vote themselves a right to a share of the wealth of the bare minority is a mystery to me. In what universe is that going to end well?
Post a Comment