community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
I hate IndyMedia.
by durutti
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 4:40 AM
I'm so sick of IndyMedia anymore.
I'm so sick of IndyMedia anymore. It was great when it first started out back in '99. But it's outlived its usefulness.
Many of the newswires are overrun with FReepers and cops. This is especially true of my local site, Pittsburgh.
Anyone share my frustration?
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&top...
DUer
by (A)
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 4:47 AM
I was tipped onto this by a comrade who regularily monitors such sites as DU in order to prepare to fend off attacks from those who would infiltrate us and prevert our causes.
I'm not sure what handle this agent proveceur "durutti" posts under when he/she's here, but he/she's got a lot of nerve to air out his/her complaints to a bunch of fascist calling themselves "progressives" and/or "Democrats". It's things like this that cause division and riffs in our movement, exactly the type of thing this person is accusing FReepers and cops of doing to us. With friends like this among us, who needs enemies.
In Solidarity.
I like free speech as long as it agrees with me
by bedwetter detector
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 5:17 AM
I'd love to see IndyMedia die as this point.
It's become just as much an organ for right-wingers, anti-Semites, and conspiracy nutters as progressives.
And even if it was more organized, I don't think they'd do anything about it. Their idea of "free speech" means letting people spread slanders and use up their bandwidth for all kinds of pointless crap. They really do believe that they'd be hypocrites if they do anything to moderate it.....
bedwetter- may I suggest
by Mary
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 6:07 AM
mary@indypgh.org
...if you don't like it, don't read it! surf elsewhere...
as for the complaint about us *not* moderating, that's kind of a no-win situation. People complain if you "moderate", others complain if you don't.
I never thought I'd say this
by Irving
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 6:32 AM
This is the only IndyMedia where the moderators have any sense, where they apparently understand that this is an arena of ideas, (as Limbaugh likes to say), and nobody has yet posted a list of obituaries where people have died because of phosphor dots assembled into recognizable words and image patterns.
If they can put up with me, then free speech is safe, at least in the Pittsburgh indy. You damn sure can't say that about most others, (especially about SF).
I knew I would say it
by No Name
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 6:42 AM
Yeah, Pitt Indymedia cries about represseion, but try positng "free" expression on the NYC IMC. No Way will the "editors/moderators" allow that. Guys like Durutti are the true oppressors out there. They cry about not getting their way and everyone has to listen to them and agree with them. Yeah, well listen to me Durutti "You are a bigger threat to free speech than John Ashcroft."
...
by ...
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 7:34 AM
...if you don't like it, don't read it! surf elsewhere...
as for the complaint about us *not* moderating, that's kind of a no-win situation. People complain if you "moderate", others complain if you don't.
_________________________________________
I understand what you're saying Mary, but I would still argue for stricter moderation. Insofar as complaints go you may be correct that you will get them either way, the important thing however is that with stricted moderation IMC could actually be used as an organizing tool, whereas it's very difficult to right now.
organizing tool?
by Mary
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 7:57 AM
mary@indypgh.org
Is "organizing tool" the main purpose of IMC? Not that I'm against organizing, but my guess would be that there would not be general agreement on that, and there do seem to be a lot of posters who will argue that their free speech rights are of paramount importance, and that's what IMC shold be about.
The policy documentation says that IMC is here so that news that is not found in the mainstream media can be published somewhere.
Personally, I've gotten burned out with abuse and worse from a variety of posters (and much of it has come in response to moderating), and am beginning to see the "comments" page as fairly unproductive and contributing little in the way of content or methodology that is novel; I think it's unfortunate that the actual publishing of articles (which anyone can do), as opposed to comments (which are often unproductive at best) is underutilized.
organizing
by Irving
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 8:10 AM
What a goofy line of thought.
Who stops anybody from posting their latest "Let's gather at Hollywood and Vine for the 2003 Stop The War VomitFest � ?
Who stopped you from posting this Whine-O-Rama? Who stopped you from going to the DU and crying the blues? Who will stop you from responding to me if you so choose?
What you can't handle is opposing thoughts. You are a control freak. It's your way or else.
People like me understand we throw our thoughts and ideas out there and either they're accepted or ridiculed and in some places obliterated. But we won't "die". And even if we did die, we died fighting instead of whining.
Your kind is just going to have to accept the hard truth that when there's a winner, there's also a loser. That's evolution in action. That's LIFE. Where's the "proof" things "should" be any different?
no, irving
by Mary
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 10:27 AM
it's not that I can't stand opposing points of view. I have no propblem with opposing points of view. it's that I have no interest in engaging in pseudo-communication with folks who lack appropriate communication and social skills.
you are quite welcome to your opinion, as is everyone else. if all of your communication is, however, expressed in the form of verbal abuse, it's of no interest to me. it probably won't get you too far with most other folks either. (not to mention, good luck making a living if you can only communicate by bashing other folks. most employers don't consider that a job skill).
btw, I think you made my point for me.
not "Mary"
by Irving
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 11:07 AM
Not sure who you are.
And, Little Precious, I'm just as sorry as i can be that you don't like my combative style. But like I said about another moron the other day, it's insane that people that hate my country and align themselves with terrorists and perverts and race baiters want respect.
I'll never respect a Collaborator that puts my life in danger.
puzzled
by curious
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 12:08 PM
Why would someone want to make a point yet use Mary's name?
SAY NO TO ENCROACHMENT OF CENSORSHIP AT INDYMEDIA
by Ewan Kenkesmearse
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 1:07 PM
Indymedia SHOULD NOT moderate or censor. The entire purpose of Indymedia is to be an open forum. Strength of purpose comes only when we are each able to deal with all pinions and personalities without resorting to arbitrary exclusionary tactics. Having been on the receiving end of Indymedia�s attempt at censorship I appreciate this better than most people here. But I will still support the right of Irving and his rude friends to post here just as the several equally rude posters that post in opposition to the Tribe of Irving.
Just because someone like Irving is sometimes offensive in their presentation of their ideas, or he is combative, or he makes rather feeble and sophomoric attempts at humor (such as his bizarre references to a certain �Little Precious��), is no reason to preclude his statements and opinions from the Agora of Indymedia. It is also not a reason to out of hand ignore him or his statements (or those of the rest of his Tribe).
Indy media is a most interesting forum, which provides a unique opportunity for insight into not only the stated opinions of those on each side, but also of some very interesting personality traits and group dynamics. All of the talk of �moderating� for example makes those that call for greater protection from the Tribe of Irving sound like those that claim that the corporate media does not allow enough deference to their alternative news items. The closed forum of thought will have an impact on the group dynamic similar to inbreeding in closed cultures. Indymedia�s around the country have taken a very closed approach to the discussion boards, and this has diminished the credibility of those IMC outlets.
I must admit that the discussion boards here at Pittsburgh IMC are some of the most active, interesting and at times entertaining of all of the IMC�s. None of us should take our selves so seriously that we can not find humor in what we are doing, or more easily, in the likes of Irving/2beers/[Freeper Name Here].
How would it be possible to moderate these discussions if you want news to be open? Wouldn�t you then have to moderate the news that is posted? Wouldn�t that kind of defeat the stated purpose of IMC? What editorial policy could be easily and uniformly enforced? I mean, could Irving use �Little Precious�� (clearly some derogatory statement at least in his mind), but would the person that was attacking 2beers a couple of weeks ago when they called him a �fuckwit� be censored for a personal affront to another participant here. I use that example because 2Beers response, while using �fuckwit�, was quite memorable and pretty funny, even if he is a lout that pissed me off to no avail in the past. So what could the policy be? If it is funny it can stay, if it is stupid it must go? Then who decides these things.
As long as we are all permitted to contribute here, without having to identify ourselves to some political movement, I must say that the idea of moderating or �editing� is only censorship under a different title and should be avoided. If Duruti wants better moderation he can also surf elsewhere, such as DU.
say wha....????
by tribal elder
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 3:34 PM
You really don't understand the "Little Precious" thing?
Seems I've already explained it to someone else, but - just imagine little children, pre schoolers, little spoiled prima donnas, all dressed up in their sequins and tiara, flashbulbs a-popping, a banner draped across the shoulder, heels clicked three times....
There's no place like me. There's no place like me. There's no pla....
Okay, now I understand ...
by Ewna Kenkesmearse
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 4:04 PM
but I still don't get it. I guess it isn't really all that poignant of a statement. Of course, you are repeating a rather common right-wing theme that liberals are spoiled and have not had to truly try their wings on their own, and if they did they just complain about the weather for making the flight so rough. Indeed, I may agree that to immediately run to the battle cry of "more moderating and editorial oversight" as the preferred method of dealing with the likes of you and the others that seem to come here for no other reason than to stick their finger in the eye of those that you believe weaker than yourself, would seem to fit that broad generalization that you put forth.
Yet, if these persons are "Little Precious" in your mind, would you not be "Sluggo" the uncouth schoolyard bully who, seeing something he does not understand and cannot easily process within his own experience and value structure, immediately turns to acting out violent behavior and social frustration with his bombastic rants.
to irving
by Mary
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 4:48 PM
mary@indypgh.org, mh5r@andrew.cmu.edu
yes, it is me.
Sluggo versus Little Precious
by tribal leader
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 4:50 PM
As has also been said, these little prima donnas get out there and visibly aid and abet our Enemies, and I'm supposed to respect them? I should thank them as the shiv goes in my back?
None of that polite Chip and Dale crap for me, thank you very little.
let's have a dialog
by tribal leader
Monday, Dec. 01, 2003 at 5:04 PM
"Yet, if these persons are "Little Precious" in your mind, would you not be "Sluggo" the uncouth schoolyard bully who, seeing something he does not understand and cannot easily process within his own experience and value structure, immediately turns to acting out violent behavior and social frustration with his bombastic rants".
Lemme get this straight - you want I should take a Prozac and make whoopee with these DeathCult wackos?
What's to "understand"? They're Collaborators, in case you didn't read yesterdays paper. They have no values!
And what's the crap about "violent behavior"? Give proof.
You read like a classic case of Appeasement in the making. How about changing your moniker to Rodney King. Can't we all just get along?
Thank you, Mary!
by Sam
Tuesday, Dec. 02, 2003 at 6:55 PM
My thoughts exactly.
It's not that there are opposing viewpoints. It's that there's a deluge of BS that its hard to wade through if you want to use IndyMedia for the purpose for which it was intended.
IndyMedia used to be great. Now, though it's still occasionally useful, it's overrun by people who have no interest in using it for the purposes of communication. They have nothing in mind but disruption.
INDYMEDIA, YOUR GREAT!
by kL
Tuesday, Dec. 02, 2003 at 7:08 PM
THIS IS LIKE A TWO HOUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION TALKING ABOUT HOW YOU HATE THE PHONE.
INDYMEDIA, YOU'RE GREAT!
Clarifications
by Sam
Tuesday, Dec. 02, 2003 at 8:02 PM
First of all: this isn't a news item. It's a link to a post that I made on another board by a disruptor who wants to sow division.
Secondly, I don't advocate censorship. I don't have a problem with people expressing opposing views. I *do* have a problem with people expressing them in an inflammatory and abusive manner.
IndyMedia is closely associated with the progressive community, and has been since its inception. I still read IndyMedia because it's indispensable for news about local actions. But because it's pretty much been overrun by FReepers, it's ceased to be a forum for discussion of serious issues among activists.
I respect and appreciate the local IndyMedia collective and all the hard work it does. But to embrace an idea of "free speech" that includes the right of obvious disruptors to spew invective is ridiculous.
Good point, Ewan
by Sam
Tuesday, Dec. 02, 2003 at 8:12 PM
You raised a pertinent point when you talked about someone calling 2beers a "fuckwit".
I wouldn't propose that either progressives or people like 2beers have their views censored -- only that they do so in a civil fashion.
Good point, Ewan
by Sam
Tuesday, Dec. 02, 2003 at 8:13 PM
You raised a pertinent point when you talked about someone calling 2beers a "fuckwit".
I wouldn't propose that either progressives or people like 2beers have their views censored -- only that they do so in a civil fashion. That goes for both the left and the right.
(A)
by Sam
Tuesday, Dec. 02, 2003 at 8:41 PM
With all due respect, FReepers and cops *have* infiltrated this IMC before.
For the most part, the IMC collective has handled it well. But don't accuse DUers of being "agents provacateurs" just because they state the obvious.
yeah, right
by disruptor
Wednesday, Dec. 03, 2003 at 4:46 AM
So now the crybaby is saying someone else posted the link?
Oh, but I do believe it. really. No kidding. I really do believe someone else posted that link, and incognito Sam feels the need to defend it. Makes perfect sense to me.
Disclaimer
by The Real Sam
Wednesday, Dec. 03, 2003 at 7:41 AM
Someone else is posting under my usual handle. Most of the comments (outside of the "Right Wingnut Debating Dictionary" thread) posted under my name are not mine.
a dishonest man
by Sam
Wednesday, Dec. 03, 2003 at 7:58 AM
Is the IMC editorial collective, which I ran to another site to wet my Pampers over, going to allow someone to use my name?
The fact is, I haven't posted for a while now, ever since Irving absolutely stomped me on another thread, (one I'm avoiding, by the way).
somebody's using my name
by the REAL Sam
Wednesday, Dec. 03, 2003 at 8:17 AM
I go to the DU and whine, and expect to be taken seriously here. I know you'll all believe me when I say it's the real me, won't you?
Irving's got my number
by durutti
Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2003 at 10:12 AM
"BTW, conservatives accusing progressives of being "hateful" or "angry" is a great example of projection."
defend this
by Irving
Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2003 at 10:16 AM
Here's a lot bigger image. Defend this, Sam. Please shock and awe us with your intellectual prowess. Please write a rambling and incoherent defense that Leftists don't hate, when it's obvious that Leftists hate Life itself.
Easy to defend.
by True Leftists a/k/a CalTech Guy
Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2003 at 10:51 AM
It has been some time since I posted here, but this guy Irving the typical simpleton of a neocon just draws it out of me.
Irving, the statement of the poster that you provide is not a statement of liberals "hating life" as you so simply assert. It is a biologically accurate statement that a fetus exists only at the privilege of its host. A life is a protected life when it is supportable on its own. The poster is a statement that the life choices of a woman are her own and are not dictated by a pre-existent person in the stage of a fetus. That is what liberals support, the freedom and respect of every LIFE. What the neocon fetus-fetishists support is the subjecation of the sovereign life of a woman to the attachment of a few cells to the woman's body. Unless sperm is freely floating around in the atmosphere (as I may suspect it is in your bathroom), the attachment of those cells results only after and at the action (or conquest of) a man. This is a noteworthy fact in our patriarchical society that believe it the right of the male dominated legislative bodies to establish laws that limit the control which a woman has to and over her own body.
Think of it this way Irving (if you can think on your own), that you should wake up one morning to find yourself in a hospital bed wired to a medical device equivalent of an umbilical cord. You are confused as to how or what has occured to your body. Your freedom of movement and choice is restricted. You then learn that during the night someone that you do not know was about to die unless they received a living transfusionof your blood. The judges ordered the police to find someone to provide this life support to save the life of that dying person. The person they selected was you.
Now you may ask, why not just let that person die. Besides, it is the natural order of life that people die. But you learn that the judges find life to be so sacred that the life of one must be protected even if at the expense of the life of another. But you wonder, "hey I don't even know this person. And I am a very important neocon so my time is more valuable." But the judges tell you that this person is a very famous symphony conductor, or may be a reknown surgeon, or may even become president. And for these reasons of unknown variables of circumstance and environment that you must remain attached to this person until they recover, which should be sometime within the next 12 months.
This is no different than you and the rest of the neocon fetus-fetishists imposing their will upon a woman. Is it that you and your friends in the patriarchy beleive that women are not capable of making important decisions about their own bodies. Or is it (the more likely problem) that you believe that women are property of the patriarchy to be controlled and legislated.
So think a little on your own. Try it. You may like not being such an asshole. You just post a picture and think that makes your point, like some cavedweller of prehistoric times drawing a petraglyph. Why didn't you offer some explaination as to why the picture was not accurate? Because you haven;t thought about it. You just want to bash in and bash around. That is why you and the rest of your neocon pals have NO CREDIBILITY. (Notice I did not attack your intellect, just your credibility. But in case you need explaination Big Little Precious, the two usually go hand in hand.)
I agree with Irving. . . God help me
by Matt
Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2003 at 11:16 AM
Wow,
Cal Tech Guy, that is the worst analogy I have ever been unfortunate enough to read. And you, a student at a fine university! In no way is getting pregnant remotely similar to being forced to be attached to a fully grown person. For one thing, no one forces a woman to get pregnant, unless, of course, she is an assault victim. Hey I'm pro-choice. . . choose between a condom, the pill, the shot, or the patch, but once a fetus has a brain and a heart, it's alive. And suggesting that the natural order of life is that things die? Are you kidding me? The natural order of life is to stick a vacuum in a vagina and suck out a fetus? Sounds natural to me. You people try to use the "anti-feminist" platform to justify the heartlessness inherent in any abortion (excluding, of course women who are victims and those who need to protect their own lives).
What you really should say is that abortion is the easy way out for many women who did not take precautions in the first place. Hey, here's another "A" word: ADOPTION. There are thousands of people who want to adopt a child who are on waiting lists. But lets follow the "natural order of life" instead. . . wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone.
(this post applies not to the women who have extraordinary circumstances, such as being the victim of a rape or when her life is threatened by pregnancy)
If that's the case, not even God could help you.
by True Leftist a/k/a CalTech Guy
Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2003 at 11:33 AM
Matt,
The analogy is quite appropriate. Many women do not choose to get pregnant. They are ussually the one's who then loose their ability to choose to terminate that condition. many woman who do choose from your patriarchical selection of options, find that the medical or synthetics technology did not work. Matt, you sound like you have totally bought into the patriarchy.
You and Irving are prime examples of neocon neandrathal metality. Matt and Irving will NEVER have to face the reality of the choice that they want to deny to women. But I would bet that if either of them could and did get pregnant we would hear a different tune. As someone who can never face that decision and can therefor HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of the realities and complexities of that choice, you have NO right to mandate the constraints of that decision process for the women who have to face that decision. Tell you what Irving and Matt, if not getting an abortion is fine for you, then don't get an abortion. But don't deny some women the right to make up her own mind.
i
by i
Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2003 at 12:00 PM
"Many women do not choose to get pregnant."
Really? How many? By what means did they become pregnant? How many had abortions only after learning there was a chance their child had Down's Syndrome or some other 'undesirable' trait?
BTW, who took your SAT's for you? Your less than stellar command of the English language would seem to have enjoined your admission to Cal Tech.
I'm CalTech Durutti - and my brain was vacuumed out
by Irving
Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2003 at 12:55 PM
Where to begin?
First off, "USS Liberty" (yeah, it's you, easily recognized from your typically junior high stupidity and your sentence structure and cadence and your not so subtle still seething anger at my calling you out concerning wasting bandwidth over images) that was not a Photoshop. It's from a web site, and that Leftist display of "respect" for the profoundness of being was at the University of Delaware. I don't know the date it was taken, admittedly.
Concerning the clown from "CalTech", I think it's the DU'er 'durutti". I didn't post the image as a means to open up the never ending debate over abortion. I'm one who feels there are "legitimate" times for it, for lack of a better word. I damn sure don't approve of it as a procedure that simply erases the burden of one night stands. And I don't like how Planned Parenthood brainwashes kids with "genocide is okay" messages.
My point was simply to post such a heinous image as a response to "Sam's" incredibly stupid comment that "progressives" don't hate, that it's all in my head, blah blah. This image goes far beyond the pale. Leftists don't have a caring or sentimental cell in their bodies. Yet they pretend to care about the human rights of everything else, from blacks to Muslims to trees.
One look at this, and there's no way I can ever take a Leftist and it's causes seriously.
Well, whoever the "Caltech" thing is, it's relegated to observing Life from the vantage point of a cold and soul-less freak. It likely never once and never will feel it's very existence is profound. It gives me reson to think, to actually agree with it, that it's really nothing more than a mass of cells, a complete and utter waste of DNA.
I dunno, maybe Ewan will find a reason to defend and embrace it.
the projections of Sam's guilt
by Irving
Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2003 at 1:15 PM
Or is it (the more likely problem) that you believe that women are property of the patriarchy to be controlled and legislated.
Funny you said that, seeing as how you've never defended the burka or the complete absense of protest signs in favor of the womyn's rights you Leftist fakers crow about.
And I thought you were so educated and worldly wise, Sam. Doesn't pictures paint a thousand words? Must I spell everything out for you? can you not see for yourself how vile and disgusting a message that is?
If you agree with it's message, then you have not a single right to complain if someone murders one of your kind, or to shout "racist" or "homophobe". Either you respect Life, or you don't.
You're no better than Hussein. No wonder your kind defended him.
one last thing
by Irving
Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2003 at 1:21 PM
Sam the Neanderthal didn't address us mean widdle patriarchs who might discover our girlfriend is pregnat and want to marry her, who wants the baby, etc.
No, Sam is a fantastically mentally diseased Borg who only is able to robotically utter what it was brainwashed in Womyn's Studies.
Or it's an Andrea Dworkin groupie. You know, romance and consensual sex is rape and all that sicko shit....
In defense
by Ewan Kenkesmearse
Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2003 at 3:48 PM
Okay Irving, I'll bite. What I can defend is the position that CalTech Guy takes. He makes some very valid arguments. IN fact, his analogy is not unique. I think he stole it from Cynthia Mickinnon, a law professor at the University of Michigan. At least I think that is her provenance. Sometime in the mid-1990's she wrote a now famous thesis in a law review that followed the same premise. The right then called it absurd, but it was thoughtful. Mr. CT has made me think about this so I may go back and find the article. I think Prof. Mickinnon was somewhat more artful and fleshed out the arguments in excruciating detail, so it is probably worth a Google search.
I happend to side more with Mr. CT on this issue. Although abortion would not be my personal choice (and a very personal choice it is), I do not have any right to imit the ability fo anyone else to make their own personal/ethical choice. I more importantly do not have the right to dictate how anyone else makes decisions with respect to their own health and body.
Would you Irving appreciate teh argument that I should say that you should not drink alcohol, smoke, or eat fatty foods because it affects your body adversely? Take it a step further, would you like if I were to have a law passed that said you could not drink Bourbon, eat fatty foods or wear tight underwear since these all can lead to lower sperm count and thus the potential termination of a potential life?
regulations
by Irving
Wednesday, Dec. 10, 2003 at 4:30 PM
Again, I same as said it wasn't an etched in stone argument.
My point was that, according to the extremely diseased rotting yet ambulatory corpses who made that sign, that life isn't anything but an argument in abstraction, and that our resident DU'er made the stupid claim that I project when I think leftists don't get angry or feel hate.
Please, don't expect me to discuss this any further. After all, you're nothing special.
You're only a tapeworm with the ability to type. 
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)