From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Aug 24 2006 - 12:41:05 PDT
On 8/24/06, Adam Trowbridge <email suppressed> wrote:
>
> > On 8/21/06, Adam Trowbridge <email suppressed> wrote:
> >>
> >> > hmmn i don't know
> >> > i don't think that seeing a problem as too large for any one
> >> organization
> >> > or one person leads us to effective action
> >>
> >> What sort of action? Effective at what, for who?
> >
> >
> > lets put it this way if ghandi or mlk (and alot of artists)
> > thought the way u do
> > alot of crap would be in way worse a space than it is now so...
> >
> > i don't really 'understand' ur confusion here
>
> I see no connection whatsoever between making sarcastic comments on a
> listserv and the civil rights movement (or any example of effective
> political action or attempt at discussion). This is my confusion here.
ok
what i was talking about was you stated
(para) that it was too large of a problem for any one organization or person
to solve
so the connect was that that type of thinking
is problematically inaccurate
and gets us no-where
again
the thinking that any problem is too large for one organization or person to
solve
is very problematic for effecting change in any increment or degree
-although -
the malaise within keeping ur mouth shut about issues
that need to be handled worked out and solved
is directly correlated with issues of civil rights (presently)
voice w/ or w/ out sarcasm is deeply needed in all dark corners
>> Voicing disagreement is a neutral activity that can be effective or
> >> ineffective, depending on the goal. In the case of the Tank
> >> criticism, I missed the intent. I didn't see any specific questions
> >> raised.
> >
> >
> > you say voicing disagreement is nuetral
> > just bcause u say that doesn't make it fact
> > all subversive activity disagrees w/ u
> > do u know nothing of political activity whatsoever?
> > (let alone alot of other activity)
>
> I know nothing about the act of disagreeing by snide remarks being
> effective political activity. It seems to be the sort of discourse that
> passes for political activity now, especially on right-wing internet
> message boards and blogs, but I don't know that it's a positive thing.
how is it that u produce 'political' subversive activity
please let us know
i am not saying that all such activity is wholly positive
( i do not believe such black and white activity is reality)
but i think it is super problematic to get hung up in the
superficial 'tone' of anyone's post
while ignoring the meat of the discussed
- further i think that hinders discourse -
also i think i can respect that others have different ways of expressing
themselves
for varying reasons
and i attempt toward non-judgement
rather looking deeper at the content
and the underbelly - subtext for the trueth of what is being said
c
-at
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.