> > >This is the third post in which I said ad dollars DO NOT equal free
>speech.
>> >I said that the Brown paper has a right to take money from whoever they
>want
>> >and print or not print whatever they want, just as leftwing papers do. If
>> >the Brown paper had rejected Horowitz's ad, I would not criticize them.
>It
>> >would not be censorship. But they accepted it, as is their right. You
>don't
>> >like it? Quit school, get a working-class job and help to overthrow
> > >capitalism. Until then, spare me your paper darts from the academy.
>
> > Doesn't the above sound awfully like, "if you don't like America &
>> free enterprise, go to Soviet Russia!"
>
>Not at all. Does it to you?
Worse, in that being a Marxist is just a matter of political conviction, while being black isn't only that. I can imagine myself as a black student who has to hear a white student saying, "They don't like it? Quit school, get a working-class job, etc."
> > Resisting violent scabs with force may likewise alienate the majority
>> of today's workers. In fact, that's very likely.
>
>What kind of workers do you hang around? I'm around workers 5 days a week
>and I doubt many of them would be put off by resisting scabs.
Evidence?
> > Anarchists used to be fond of people like Henry David Thoreau who were not
>afraid of the
> > "majority opinions." What happened?
>
>Anarchism isn't a doctrine. It is a tendency that encompasses a wide-range
>of views, philosophies and modes of action. It is not a fear of "majority
>opinions" that drives me (is the idea of armed guards at women's clinics a
>mainstream one?), but the ability and political subtlety to undermine
>mainstream assumptions and replace them with concepts of freedom.
How do you undermine "mainstream assumptions" while agreeing with Horowitz that what happened is a violation of his "free speech" when it isn't, not even by standards of liberal democracy? The first amendment doesn't protect free newspapers from being picked up wholesale by activists & getting trashed.
>The way you strut about, Yoshie, suggests that subverting and
>ultimately convincing the mass is of little interest to you.
The masses are not homogenous. The Brown students of color evidently didn't persuade you & in fact made you despise them, but they probably found many allies among blacks. Likewise, what you have been saying won't persuade many blacks & may anger many of them. Opinions are not determined by race, but on questions that concern racism, there tends to be a large racial divide. Reparations, racial profiling, affirmative action, etc. are good examples.
>Reparations is a different topic, and I'd be glad to discuss it.
By your standards, blacks should do nothing that may alienate whites who after all outnumber them vastly, including talking about reparations.
>We were talking about the tactics at Brown and
>what constitutes "free" speech.
By framing the question as a matter of "free" speech, you have already agreed with Horowitz' definition of it in this case.
Yoshie