> 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."
I wasn't talking to black students at Brown. I was talking to you and reacting to a specific thing YOU said. You are not all students of color, Yoshie -- or are you?
> >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?
You want my fellow workers names? SS #'s? Would you like me to conduct a poll while we're dragging garbage bags to the dumpster?
> 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.
Yoshie, for the FOURTH fucking time I did not say that Horowitz's "free speech" was violated. I said that the Brown paper had a right to accept or not accept the ad, and I questioned the Brown students' tactics in reaction to it. That is all. But since you have trouble grasping this point, I'll toss you a bone to show you where I stand.
Years ago, when I was involved in Central American activism, I knew a guy (still know him, in fact) who went through the NY subways and bus terminals and slightly, artfully altered Coors ads from "Ride the Silver Bullet" to "Ride the Contra Bullet." The word "Contra" was spelled out in the same typset, so it looked original; and it pointed to Coors' support for the contras. Was Coors' "free speech" violated? Not in my view. This was a true act of culture jamming. It altered the meaning of Coors' propaganda and made a political point that all could see. All the students at Brown did was to grab a bunch of newspapers and run off. Not the best example of "culture jamming" that I've seen. Perhaps you're more easily impressed.
> 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.
I don't despise them. I questioned their tactics. And if the "masses are not homogenous," then how do you know that what I've been saying won't persuade "many blacks & may anger many of them"? (Also, weren't the students who pulled this stunt of a variety of hues?)
> By your standards, blacks should do nothing that may alienate whites
> who after all outnumber them vastly, including talking about
> reparations.
I've said nothing of the kind. In your desperation to cobble together some kind of argument, Yoshie, you've resorted to putting words in my mouth. What kind of grades do you get?
> By framing the question as a matter of "free" speech, you have
> already agreed with Horowitz' definition of it in this case.
For the FIFTH fucking time . . . ah, forget it.
DP