If OO decided democratically to start running amuck, that's their affair.
I think it's stupid for reasons I've given, but it would not fall under my animus towards drawing police assaults and then running into crowds who had no role in such adventures.
I make no claims as to who agrees or not with me. Never did. Obviously I think I'm right and the case is strong. So what?
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Joseph Catron <jncatron at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Max Sawicky <sawicky at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Any movement that is not willing to defend their own meetings and
> demos from disruption is not going to sustain itself. You wouldn't let
> a right-winger, a lunatic, or anyone uninvited take over the stage at
> a rally.
> >
>
> Who is this persistent "they" and "you"? From 7,422 miles away, I notice
> that the OO Web site features BB "riot porn" videos uncritically (
> http://www.occupyoakland.org). You carry on as if there were some broad
> consensus against property destruction within OO, and the only question
> were how to enforce it. That's clearly not the case.
>
> My point remains the same: You can engage politically with trashers, figure
> out their logic, and argue against it, or you can piss and moan. Not
> everyone agrees with you, and those who disagree - and act accordingly -
> have perfectly reasonable thought processes behind their decisions. Deal
> with it, or don't, but please don't insult all our intelligence by
> pretending that your case is self-evident, or that everyone who's anyone
> agrees with it. Obviously neither is true.
>
> --
> "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen
> lytlað."
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>