community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
Indymedia post used in trial
by Andy Horbal
Friday, Apr. 11, 2003 at 6:46 PM
arh6@pitt.edu Oakland
D.A. attempts to introduce Indymedia post into protester trial . . .
This is just an initial heads up, I'll write more on the subject and on the trial in general later tonight . . .
As many of you by now probably know the Pittsburgh 122 went to court today. The D.A. made a generous offer to drop charges in return for $85 and 80 hours of community service per person and most protesters took it.
Four of us who were able to though decided to stand trial, believing that having done nothing that is not our constitutional right we should not be punished.
Anyway, because I am pressed for time I will make a long story short (and add the rest later):
During my cross-examination the D.A. tried to use an Indymedia post I made during a discussion on tactics against me. Out of nowhere she produced a print-out of the post and tried to use it to establish one of her points.
Let this enter into consideration when discussing things like posting anonymously. What you say on Indymedia can and will be used against you in a court of law.
More later. Peace.
also...
by Andy Horbal
Friday, Apr. 11, 2003 at 10:53 PM
arh6@pitt.edu
I forgot to mention in my original post that I still feel M20 was a useful event and we need to continue to disrupt any and all city functions any chance we get. If that means blocking traffic, ignoring the orders of a violent and oppressive police force, or running through stores and other private property to get attention we need to do so. I also think we need to get more people out there using wheatpasting and spraypaint to get our messages across. Feel free to contact me for help and/or info.
bad idea
by me
Saturday, Apr. 12, 2003 at 1:34 AM
that is a terrible idea. destroying property (which includes spraypainting) is counterproductive when we are urging PEACE. violence will discredit our movement and faction it. when you threaten people with violence, they don't listen to you. think, people.
??
by commentorite
Saturday, Apr. 12, 2003 at 1:37 AM
how is spraypainting threatening anyone with violence?
Hey...
by Rovin' Workman
Saturday, Apr. 12, 2003 at 7:55 AM
Of course, he means using spraypaint as a medium...like on poster boards.
nothing wrong with graffiti
by brian
Saturday, Apr. 12, 2003 at 9:26 AM
artriotmedia@aol.com
Sure, maybe middle class white conservatives will feel offended by the graffiti, but fuck them, they're the source of all our problems anyways. Urban youth and the poor can be positively affected by the use of graffiti, it's been a respected urban artform for years now. People like Dream(RIP) in California have been using it to display a political message for years now. Ever hear of the Black Panther Party? We need to follow their tactics and start to relate to the common people, not just making sure to impress the yuppies. Use methods that people can relate too, not sophisticated liberal jargon and protests with signs the people on the streets can't understand. Make this shit relate to the people it affects. The people offended by the graffiti will most likely never have to fight in a war.
That is just plain STUPID !!
by Graf Ziti
Saturday, Apr. 12, 2003 at 9:48 AM
So all of that scribbling and BS on the walls in East Liberty is part of a neighborhood beautification project???? That nonsense makes the area less desirable for housing and business. If you want to positively affect a community try respectign it for a change. Yes your spraypainting is violent. It is an assualt on property and depending ont he mesage can be threatening or an assualt on a person or group. And that does nto make anyone comfrtable about the community or you or your message. If you need to make a statement do it in an organized non-disruptive manner. Take out an ad in a newpapre, rent a billboard, start our own newspaper. But destroying other peoples property makes you a criminal not an activist.
The reason your mesage does nto get out or respected is becasue you treat it and present it in a manner that is not worthy of respect. And quit hiding behind the "activist" shield. Your tactics are detrimental to teh cause. You don't wlak into a store and start doing damage (as was filmed in the Shadyside march) and then expect people not to treat you like a bunch of street thugs. Where the hell was the message in "F#$@ Starbucks." BS to you. You were doing nothing other than asaulting people just trying to get on wiht their lives. Your mesage was never articulated.
I DID NOT POST SECOND COMMENT
by Andy Horbal
Saturday, Apr. 12, 2003 at 11:45 AM
arh6@pitt.edu Oakland
Another good argument for remaining anonymous:
That second comment was not my post.
In regards to false post:
by Andy Horbal
Saturday, Apr. 12, 2003 at 12:02 PM
arh6@pitt.edu Oakland
Someone decided to post a follow-up in my name. To address specific points:
"I forgot to mention in my original post that I still feel M20 was a useful event and we need to continue to disrupt any and all city functions any chance we get. If that means blocking traffic, ignoring the orders of a violent and oppressive police force, or running through stores and other private property to get attention we need to do so."
Absolutely I think that M20 was an effective act of civil disobedience that brought attention to our views. I do not think it was useful merely BECAUSE it disrupted city functions, though; I think it was useful because it disrupted city functions to some effect (i.e. - bringing to the public's attention the fact that many people disagree with the war). I think that this sentence wrongly makes it seem like I advocate mischief for the sake of mischief.
"I also think we need to get more people out there using wheatpasting and spraypaint to get our messages across. Feel free to contact me for help and/or info."
Wheatpasting rules and I have always thought that graffiti is a wonderful thing. I took about two rules pictures of basque and catalonian separatist graffiti when I was in Spain over spring break. I don't necessarily disagree with anything in this sentence.
So, to the person who posted this: why did you use my name? If this ends up in court when I appeal my obstructing public passage charge . . . well, suffice it to say that I will at least frown :) Seriously, though. It really sucks that people have to post anonymously to avoid nonsense like this.
alternatives
by me
Saturday, Apr. 12, 2003 at 12:11 PM
well, to whoever posted that second post, and whoever thinks that spraying grafiti on public or private property is a good idea:
it is people like you that the media focuses on when they comment on our protests. instead of saying positive things like we "are banding together in a show of solidarity against this war," they say "The protesters got out of hand (even when it was ONE person) when they started throwing newspaper boxes in the street." and what do the people who always swallow what the media feed them think? protesters are a bunch of street thugs with nothing better to do.
we cannot lose sight of our goal. innocent people are dying. i think, in addition to marches, we should create flyers--factsheets--about (including, but not limited to) what the US has done to aid Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war, the fact that despite the US having control over most of Iraq that there STILL has been no sign of the WMD that powell and the gang are justifying the war with, and the numbers of innocent Iraqis that have been killed. I recently saw a news article on Reuters of a group of about 20 Iraqis, mostly small children, who had been incinerated by Coalition bombs.
If we mass distribute these factsheets to passersby on the sidewalk or at stop lights to people in cars, people will respect us. we would be doing something productive. show me one successful movement that has used violence as a tactic to create massive change. take a lesson from gandhi and mlk. only by educating people will we begin to change our world, city by city.
andy
by .
Saturday, Apr. 12, 2003 at 12:30 PM
Wheatpasting rules and I have always thought that graffiti is a wonderful thing.
Obviously that's because you've never had to clean it off a building. As someone who has had to clean up this garbage let me say that wheatpasting does not rule and graffiti is only art if you get permission.
.
by .
Saturday, Apr. 12, 2003 at 12:34 PM
So, to the person who posted this: why did you use my name? If this ends up in court when I appeal my obstructing public passage charge . . . well, suffice it to say that I will at least frown :) Seriously, though. It really sucks that people have to post anonymously to avoid nonsense like this.
I used your name to prove two points:
1.) Posting anonymously is great until you realize it means anyone can become you.
2.) Anonymous posting creates a vacuum of accountability. If what indymedia is doing is so important and moral and right then every single person on here should be willing to say their name.
Basically I think Indymedia should log IPs and force everyone to register in order to post.
.
by .
Saturday, Apr. 12, 2003 at 12:37 PM
what do the people who always swallow what the media feed them think? protesters are a bunch of street thugs with nothing better to do.
Er, I was downtown for M20 and I didn't need the media to feed me anything to think that. You collectively got together to clog up traffic downtown for hours! You, by definition, are a bunch of street thugs! It took me 1 1/2 hours to get out of downtown (and then I had my usual 45 minute commute) so I'm sorry, but I feel no pity for you getting arrested. You are all common street criminal who think because you're against the war makes you more righteous. No different than the nazi's or the KKK or the crusaders. What you believe does not give you more rights than those who don't believe the same.
KKK and Protesters
by Dan
Saturday, Apr. 12, 2003 at 12:43 PM
For as long as people fail to see the difference between the KKK and peace protesters, peace advocacy and work (incl. protests) need to be continued.
If you want peace protests to stop, start understanding the message. It's a healthy message.
Be very careful...
by Vance
Saturday, Apr. 12, 2003 at 4:59 PM
First off, IANAL, so bear that in mind. It is my understanding that:
-As posts to this site are anonymous, they are hearsay and generally not admissible as evidence. If you choose to authenticate them, they will be admitted.
-As we have seen here, it's entirely possible for someone else to post under your name. If you authenticate something written by another, it's difficult to impossible to retract that later.
-You can't be sure that what has been printed out is exactly what you wrote. Even assuming that they haven't been deliberately tampered with, a simple computer glitch could still change the statement "we should never use violence" to "we should use violence." Before authenticating something, read it in its entirety and make sure it says what you remember writing.
-Saying under oath that you didn't write something you actually wrote is perjury. You can exercise your right not to testify. Or you can go the Ollie North route and say "I don't recall." I consider that route to be ethically questionable, at best.
-There are circumstances where hearsay can be admitted. I don't pretend to know all of them. Get a real lawyer, and don't rely on anonymous advice posted on the 'Net. :-)
Not just conservatives
by Sam
Saturday, Apr. 12, 2003 at 6:17 PM
The problem isn't really white middle class conservatives, but white middle class liberals (or social-democrats, whatever... reformists of all stripes) who think that throwing a few crumbs to the have-nots is the same thing as revolution. To paraphrase Warren Beatty in the movie Reds, they think Bakunin was a guy who wrote a good anti-trust law.
Legal advise from a non-lawyer
by Dan
Saturday, Apr. 12, 2003 at 6:45 PM
I'm not a lawyer either, but an anonymous post isn't hearsay (as the post can be accessed directly), it just has no credibility. Hearsay is for when someone testifies to something that they were not a witness of (i.e. a friend told me that the suspect said he wanted to kill his wife).
I'd suspect that once prosecutions fully understand what little evidence an indymedia name is they wouldn't even try to bring it up at a trial, because one expert testimony would immediately make them look like idiots.
Productive discourse
by Andy Horbal
Saturday, Apr. 12, 2003 at 8:54 PM
arh6@pitt.edu Oakland
"Obviously that's because you've never had to clean it off a building."
I like graffiti because it makes your opinion visable. Iike wheatpasting for the same reason. When I go to a city for the first time and I see flyers and graffiti I know there is an active resistance culture and I am much happier to be in that city. It is a sign that there are people like me waiting to be found, that there are friends waiting to be made.
We have these cultural ideas that a building is finished once it is built to the architects plan. That any graffiti somehow tarnishes this building, dirty's it. I do not agree with this sentiment. Buildings reflect upon the culture that erects them. By spray painting their ideas on this building someone can put their own individual imprint on that building. They make the building more than just some architect's building, they make it the public's building. Rather than looking at graffiti as "damaging" the building, let's look at graffiti as something not undesirable. Why shouldn't walls be a site for public discourse? In ancient Rome they wrote on the walls, this was regarded as perfectly acceptable.
If graffiti was legal I think you would see an improvement in its quality. Also, guidelines could be set. For instance, I think that writing on a building with a substance that will, for instance, corrode a metalic surface should not be allowed. But to my knowledge spray paint does not in any way shorten the life span of a wall and I do not see why it should be illegal.
This argument is one tied inextricably to the issue of private property and I know an accept the fact that my opinion is a minority opinion. But it is my opinion.
Freeper at work
by S. Odaminsane
Saturday, Apr. 12, 2003 at 8:59 PM
It's pretty obvious that someone is impersonating Andy again in the last post about the merits of spraypainting.Star verifying your on email address or something. This twit has it in for you.
Mmm this is going to make life interesting . . .
by Andy Horbal
Saturday, Apr. 12, 2003 at 9:18 PM
arh6@pitt.edu Oakland
Actually, that really was me. I guess most of the opinions I've expressed on the board are pretty moderate but I do have a few different-type notions about things and that's one of them. Thanks though for the concern, S. :)
Just for the record: I'm really unhappy with the two spelling/grammar mistakes in that last post and one I made yesterday. I'm just obsessive-compulsive enough to publically apologize. Er . . . right.
Hey, Now Cut That Out
by S. Odamninsane
Saturday, Apr. 12, 2003 at 9:27 PM
Now someone is impersonating S. Odamninsane. THe unmitigated gall. Dear Mr. Law Enforcement Officer, please remember that the last post was an imposter.
Turning into Vegas?
by myself
Saturday, Apr. 12, 2003 at 9:36 PM
We have more celebrity impersonators around here tahn Sin City itself. It's cartoonish in a bad drag show sort of way.
Admission as evidence
by teamsterturtle
Saturday, Apr. 12, 2003 at 10:00 PM
I think a DA would have a hard time entering postings into evidence (especially those without e-mail verification). A good attorney would immediately object to the admission of this information, on the grounds that their authenticity would be highly questionable. Might also be heresay problems. Let's keep in mind that we need to make sure our attorneys know why something would be questionable, and make sure they are familiar with our cases and do a "test run" at retelling events in question.
To Vance
by teamsterturtle
Saturday, Apr. 12, 2003 at 10:10 PM
Vance,
The postings would not be hearsay because they are anonymous. They would be hearsay because they are out of court statements which would be coming into court to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. A hearsay exception would be when the statement is a "declaration against interest," though that usually comes in if made *after* the acts in question (in this case, the "criminal act"). That's what I recall from reading a book on Evidence.
Hearsay
by Vance
Sunday, Apr. 13, 2003 at 10:31 PM
tt-
As I said, IANAL. My knowledge on this topic is based mainly on a similar situation in which the Church of Scientology sued people for statements made on Usenet.
These were civil cases, and in California, so I'm sure that somewhat different rules applied to that situation. You can read more on Google groups.
Middle Class White Conservatives
by Jackel
Wednesday, Apr. 16, 2003 at 3:54 PM
How are they the source of "your" problems? What if they are black middle class conservatives or asian? As you well know, they have NOTHING to do with "your" problems or anyone else's problems. You're just an ungly rebel kid not fitting in elsewhere and needing a place to vent because you don't make enough money to be "middle class." What happens if you win a lottery and become "middle class?" Would you then be the source of others' problems? I can't believe I'm lowering myself to even respond to this crap. Ok, go spraypaint some walls and run through private property -- however, if you come uninvited on my private property, you will succeed in doing nothing but collecting a flattened .38 slug in your forehead. You idiot.
street thugs
by 2b615a70de0305d7f71d28ced358f7ba
Wednesday, Apr. 16, 2003 at 4:09 PM
> You, by definition, are a bunch of street thugs! It took
> me 1 1/2 hours to get out of downtown
boo-fucking-hoo.
and for the jackass who promises .38 slugs for grafitti
writers: while making such a claim might comfort your
penile insecurities, shooting someone for defacing your
property is not a valid legal defense. murder who you will, but don't let's pretend they had it coming.
--md5sum.
.
by .
Wednesday, Apr. 16, 2003 at 4:09 PM
You're just an ungly rebel kid not fitting in elsewhere and needing a place to vent because you don't make enough money to be "middle class."
The real irony is that he's probably from a white middle/upper class family and probably going to college right now on daddy's dime.
.
by .
Wednesday, Apr. 16, 2003 at 4:42 PM
the real irony is that you pretend to have any idea about the world outside your living room
Hey Brian...
by paint pro
Friday, Apr. 18, 2003 at 1:53 PM
"Sure, maybe middle class white conservatives will feel offended by the graffiti, but fuck them, they're the source of all our problems anyways."
What class do you fit in?? Likely a colleg kid, which would put you either into the middle or upper class. Just going by the fact that you have the opportunity to sit here and whine on the internet.....Come to think of it, "middle class white consevatives" built the net..so Fuck them?? Fuck you.
" Urban youth and the poor can be positively affected by the use of graffiti, it's been a respected urban artform for years now. "
tell ya what, Sparky.....give me your address and I'll come over and graffiti your house and see how much you like it. I think some of the graffiti IS beautiful.....however, even the Mona Lisa, if spray painted on the side of someones building when they dont want it there is blight.
" We need to follow their tactics and start to relate to the common people, not just making sure to impress the yuppies."
Thats it...alienate further the people that EMPLOY putzes like you........
" Use methods that people can relate too, not sophisticated liberal jargon and protests with signs the people on the streets can't understand. Make this shit relate to the people it affects."
You mean like "Fuck the middle class conservatives" ?? Oh..thats catchy.
" The people offended by the graffiti will most likely never have to fight in a war. "
What the PISS are you babling about??? It is MUCH morel *likely* they WILL, since the BULK of the voluntary armed services today come from middle class America (do the research before you babble), your statement here holds no water....
This passes for legit protest?
by Paint pro
Friday, Apr. 18, 2003 at 2:06 PM
"I like graffiti because it makes your opinion visable. Iike wheatpasting for the same reason. When I go to a city for the first time and I see flyers and graffiti I know there is an active resistance culture and I am much happier to be in that city. It is a sign that there are people like me waiting to be found, that there are friends waiting to be made. "
Oh...THATS a refreshing thought...more people who want to destroy others' property WAITING to converge together....nice thought.
"We have these cultural ideas that a building is finished once it is built to the architects plan."
That any graffiti somehow tarnishes this building, dirty's it. I do not agree with this sentiment. "
It's fine you disagree....and its fine if you believe that "an architects plan" isnt the final look of a building...however, unless you OWN that building it is not yourdecisions to make. Are you serious????
"Buildings reflect upon the culture that erects them. "
No, buildings represent (and belong to) the owners and money that build them.....
"By spray painting their ideas on this building someone can put their own individual imprint on that building. They make the building more than just some architect's building, they make it the public's building. "
But its NOT the publics building! dont you get it??? How would you like it if I came over and spraypainted graffiti all over your car (assuming you are old enough to drive and that you have a job enough to own a car yourself).....
"Why shouldn't walls be a site for public discourse? In ancient Rome they wrote on the walls, this was regarded as perfectly acceptable. "
"If graffiti was legal I think you would see an improvement in its quality. Also, guidelines could be set."
There ARE guildelines. It is not legal. It will NEVER be legal unless you OWN the building/structure.
"But to my knowledge spray paint does not in any way shorten the life span of a wall and I do not see why it should be illegal. "
Let me know where you aprk your car or where you live so I can come and "express my opinion" on your car or home....if you own your own of either I mean.
reply to a reply
by Andy Horbal
Sunday, Apr. 20, 2003 at 10:47 AM
arh6@pitt.edu Oakland
"But its NOT the publics building! dont you get it???"
That is exactly what I'm saying. I "get" the fact that it is "not" the public's building in the sense that our culture is founded on ideas of private property. According to these ideas, whoever pays for the building "owns" it. By extension, the government that "owns" the land that a national park is on "owns" the rock on that land, and thus can prosecute anyone who paints on that rock.
I disagree with that idea. I do not choose to respect that law.
"Let me know where you aprk your car or where you live so I can come and "express my opinion" on your car or home....if you own your own of either I mean."
Once again, with all due respect, you are choosing to completely miss the point. When you assume that it would upset me if you graffited my car you assume that despite the lip service I pay to the ideas I'm expressing I would still get upset and call the police if one morning I found paint on my car. If I had a car, I would gladly tell you where it was parked. I really honestly (and I say this with the full knowledge that you won't believe it) would not care. I can very easily paint over whatever you have painted. Sure, the car would lose that "custom job" look but what do I care? Who am I trying to impress?
"if you own your own of either I mean."
When I see this at the end of a post I know that even though you are "replying" to me, you aren't speaking to me. You are speaking to the people who will laugh at your insults, make a few snide remarks about "hippies" or "communists" to their friends . . . people who use this site just to hear what "they" are saying now. Excuse me if I misread that statement; the point I'm making is that if you want to be taken seriously you shouldn't end your replies with an insult.
I do not own a car. I do not own a house. I do not feel that I am defined by my possessions. I do not believe in private property. I would much rather ride a bike, use public transportation, or walk than drive a car. I think that you closed that way because you know these things about me. I think that you think these are "stupid" and "childish" ideas. I do not think that you actually considered any of my arguments with an open mind. Again, excuse me if I have misjudged you.
Why is everyone on this site so bloody MEAN all the time?
andy
by .
Sunday, Apr. 20, 2003 at 12:36 PM
If you don't believe in private property than obviously you wouldn't mind if i just came over, picked the lock on your apartment, and took what I wanted, right? Or what if I just piss on your couch. Sure it will stink but once it dries it will still be functional. Hell, with no private property the cops could just walk into anyone's house to look for contraband. This sounds like a really swell idea!
I think that you think these are "stupid" and "childish" ideas. I do not think that you actually considered any of my arguments with an open mind.
I've considered them, quite a bit actually. I don't find them stupid, but childish and naive describes them pretty well. But you're young, and will most likely grow out of this phase.
private property
by Andy Horbal
Sunday, Apr. 20, 2003 at 12:55 PM
arh6@pitt.edu Oakland
touch�.
All I'm trying to say is that notions about graffiti are tied to ideas about private property. I am not necessarily advocating ABOLISHING private property. Obviously, lines need to be drawn. I reference my initial post on the subject when I said that if legalized, graffiti could be regulated.
My main point is that viewing graffiti as violent, and viewing a graffited building as damaged demand the assumption that private property means that the person who pays for something owns it. I suggest that the exterior of buildings could be considered public domain.
re: the defacing of my hypothetical car. Okay, that was a bad move. I don't suggest that that is the "proper" way to look at the situation. I will stand by my claim that it wouldn't bother me to find graffiti on my car. I'll also suggest that if you can afford to build a building you can probably afford to hire someone to clean graffiti.
Let's talk about building exteriors as private property. Again, this IS cultural: in Rome it was perfectly acceptable to write on walls. Granted, they did not have avenues like the press or the internet; this was how they could communicate. But why should this practice now be taboo? What I want to know is what about our culture makes this unacceptable.
From Never Never Land, over and out.
but...
by .
Sunday, Apr. 20, 2003 at 3:24 PM
I reference my initial post on the subject when I said that if legalized, graffiti could be regulated.
So those who defy the regulations would be breaking the law? Sounds like what we have now. It's legal as long as you get the building owner's permission, otherwise it's illegal. I don't see how else you could regulate it.
My main point is that viewing graffiti as violent, and viewing a graffited building as damaged demand the assumption that private property means that the person who pays for something owns it.
It's not that I view graffiti as inherently violent, just that areas where it is all over are higher crime areas so I avoid them. That's not to say crime causes graffiti or graffiti cause crime, but graffiti is definitely an indicator. So with that in mind why wouldn't the value of a building go down in a heavly graffiti'd area? Obviously you can try to challenge the notions that cause this to happen, but really when it comes down to it the areas with graffiti just lack some common respect for others. So while graffiti may not cause crime they seem to share common sources.
I suggest that the exterior of buildings could be considered public domain.
Public domain means anyone can do anything with it they wish, which would toss out your idea of regulating it if it were legal. What I think you're advocating is a public BBS type system where only registered users can post (have to be registered if we want to regulate it.) But now the problem becomes "How do we regulate it?" Are we going to regulate the content, the type of paint used, the colors? Who gets to decide what is ok to paint and what isn't?
I'll also suggest that if you can afford to build a building you can probably afford to hire someone to clean graffiti.
OK, let me tell you a story:
Several months ago I spent an entire day helping to paint the doors on my boss' building. They looked great and we were really happy with them. That weekend someone wheatpasted a bunch of crap all over on of them, requiring us to repaint the door. So while my boss can afford to do that occasionally, it doesn't change the fact that my hard work was pissed on by someone who doesn't respect other people's things. The end result was someone who works really hard and is extremely busy (me) was given even more work to do by an ignorant pile of crap too lazy to set up a webpage for his message.
But why should this practice now be taboo? What I want to know is what about our culture makes this unacceptable.
You keep citing Rome, but I don't see how it's important. As you said we have MANY more avenues of communication available to us today. The large majority of what Romans were writing was either election announcements or advertisements, both of which we have ample means of distributing today. What makes it unacceptable today is we've grown and have a better understanding and respect for the feelings of others.
proud of cops
by chuck
Tuesday, May. 20, 2003 at 4:11 AM
why have you clowns stopped talking about the edgewood police. it was such an impotant issue for you jag offs at first and then after a couple days you just let it go. that's why there are few of you tree huggin idiots. you guys don't care what your protesting against just so you piss off hard working professionals that would like to get home to see their families after a long days work. if i would have been stuck in that traffic that you piss ants caused during your little protest in swissvale then i probably would of asked a cop to hit you upside the head with something(i.e. flash light, car, kitchen sink, etc.) and then i would have nicely requested that they arrest as many of you idiots as their lack of man power would have permitted. the cops do a job everyday that requires more responibilty then any of you protesting punks will ever know. maybe instead of pissing them off you should try to work with them.
4:11 AM Posting?
by -
Tuesday, May. 20, 2003 at 10:26 AM
Chuck, lay off the crack...
BULK of the voluntary armed forces DOES NOT comes from the middle clas
by James Allen Bressem
Thursday, Aug. 21, 2003 at 1:38 PM
1854316@SprintMail.Com 323 691 4279
You people need to study some history. The middle class is a result the incipience of finance and industrialization. How in the world do all these idiots come to the conclusion that every joe with a job is a member of the middle class?
The middle class is the class of the bourgeois. In this day and age it represents mainly the millionaire class. Middle class has nothing to do with WORKERS OR THE WORKING CLASS, it is a class of socialites, and in my oppinion foools
JAB
by Warren
Thursday, Aug. 21, 2003 at 2:58 PM
Damn! You people are stupid.
>we need to continue to disrupt any and all city functions any chance we get. If that means blocking traffic, ignoring the orders of a violent and oppressive police force, or running through stores and other private property to get attention we need to do so. I also think we need to get more people out there using wheatpasting and spraypaint to get our messages across.
>Sure, maybe middle class white conservatives will feel offended by the graffiti, but fuck them, they're the source of all our problems anyways.
>Use methods that people can relate too, not sophisticated liberal jargon and protests with signs the people on the streets can't understand. Make this shit relate to the people it affects. The people offended by the graffiti will most likely never have to fight in a war.
>>The middle class is the class of the bourgeois. In this day and age it represents mainly the millionaire class. Middle class has nothing to do with WORKERS OR THE WORKING CLASS, it is a class of socialites, and in my oppinion foools
You idiots have no clue who the working class is. The manger of the grocery store is a member of the working class. The check-out girl at K-Mart is part of the working class. The insurance salesman is a part of the working class. The branch manager at the bank is a member of the working class. The secretary in the magistrates office is a member of the working class. The owner of the hardware store is a member of the working class. The union leader is a member of the working class. The owner of the apartment building is a member of the working class. All these people you see downtown wearing ties and coats or nice dresses are members of the working class.
When you disrupt traffic because you believe your message is more important than someone's else's time, then you are not bonding with the working class. When you spread graffitti on buildings or wheatpaint, which to most people are unsightly, you are not connecting to the working class. When you believe that middle class white Americans are not worth your time and effort, you are dismissing a large majority of the working class. If you believe that the middle class are a bunch of millionaires and are not part of the working class, you are way out of touch.
Until you begin to understand who the working class is and how to effectively communicate to them, your movement will go nowhere. Because there's one thing for sure, without the working class behind you, you don't stand a chance. The people you are fighting are smart, well bunkered in, and armed to the teeth. You can't hope to take them on without the working class, and that's the very people you are pissing off. Idiots!!
>If you want peace protests to stop, start understanding the message. It's a healthy message.
How arrogant! Just because you think your mesaage is worth listening to doesn't mean that it is. You try and force people to listen to you, and they're going to turn you right off. Grow some brains!
>> You, by definition, are a bunch of street thugs! It took me 1 1/2 hours to get out of downtown
>boo-fucking-hoo.
That's it! That's how you can appeal to the working class: Spit in their face!! Have no sympathy towards their plight. Oh, yeah!! That'll work!!
>Ever hear of the Black Panther Party? We need to follow their tactics and start to relate to the common people, not just making sure to impress the yuppies.
Follow the Black Panthers tactics and you'll end up just like the Black Panthers.
>>Basically I think Indymedia should log IPs and force everyone to register in order to post.
Dumbass! You got a board full of paranoids who believe that if they register their name that one day someone will stand up and say "In my hand I hold a list......"
I'll state it again. Until you start recognizing who the working class is and stop pissing them off you are going to contine to be stuck in neutral.
The real problem
by -
Thursday, Aug. 21, 2003 at 3:36 PM
The working class doesn't realize that they are indeed the working class. They think that because they can get credit cards, SUV's, and second mortgages, that they are middle class.
This disconnect also leads them to believe that the ruling class has common interests with them. Bin Laden and Bush have alot more to talk about than Bush and I. Both of them are pampered, religious nuts who the children of millionaires.
I know who is working class, but do they?
??????????
by Warren
Thursday, Aug. 21, 2003 at 3:53 PM
>The working class doesn't realize that they are indeed the working class.
>religious nuts
I just warned that you can't insult and spit on the working people, and here someone goes and does it. Is there any ability to comprehend here?
Warren's warning
by -
Thursday, Aug. 21, 2003 at 5:38 PM
As the preamble of the IWW constitution begins, "The working class and the employing class have nothing in common"
Reminding working people that they are not middle class or that social classes even exist in North America is "spittting on working people"?
Pointing out that overprivileged assholes like Bush and bin Laden who publicly state their belief that god wants them to kill people is "spitting on the working class"?
As a proud worker, I feel as if you are spitting on me. I know where I stand, and I spit back...
Stop It!
by Geez
Thursday, Aug. 21, 2003 at 11:59 PM
Warren and "-",
Perfect. You're doing exactly what the fascist rulers want you to do, fight among yourselves.
As the government defines "middle class", most working people fall into that category, and most working people will agree they fall into that category. To try to tell them otherwise will only cause futher friction with the working class people.
And I must agree with Warren. When someone says "religious nuts" when refering to Bush, they will immediately view that as a slight towards Christians, which once again will only harden the hearts of the very people we are trying to reach. We are not helping our cause by making comments like that.
How 'bout secular nut?
by -
Friday, Aug. 22, 2003 at 9:48 AM
There are places and medications for people who like Bush, and his family friend and campaign manger Osama, believe that god wants them to kill people.
There is a term to describe people like that, and that term is serial killer, except that they kill individual hookers and not entire ethnic groups and religious groups.
How 'bout secular nut?
by Sheepdog
Friday, Aug. 22, 2003 at 10:00 AM
i'm having to lean towards warren and geez
we've tried these other ways and we seemingly
just get shut out
'secular nut' will be just another phrase
that will come across as angry radicalism
and will drown out the rest of the message
maybe just say we strongly disagree with
bush and his policies and then calmly
tell why
we cant isolate the working class
and so far that's been one of our
biggest successes in the struggle
howbeit unintentional
peace
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)