Deciding not to decide is a valid decision. So who is Switzerland with? Us or the terrorists? You need to go hang out with the other jingos. There is this guy with no teeth and a gut that hangs out of his belt that would love you.
Erek
Anti-globalization protester checking in… Please forgive the lengthy post.
Although I have never worn a mask (except when being tear-gassed), I have known people who have. The reasons expressed are varied, and fear of identification by the police is one of them. Of course, I don’t know anyone who wears a mask to “smash shit.” One fear is fear of government surveillance of activists. Local cops have been known to take pictures of perfectly peaceful demonstrators (hell, I’ve been photographed by cops). While some may find this acceptable police behavior, others don’t.
Some reasons why protesters might fear cops:
Police behavior around many demonstrations has raised many questions. In Seattle during the WTO, police used force without rhyme or reason. I can report from personal experience that the police did not always warn people, or instruct them to leave before using tear gas. Was this to go after violent offenders? Lori Wallach, a lawyer for public citizen, in her published report says “And our people actually picked up the anarchists [who were smashing windows]. … We’d walk him over to the cops and say this boy just broke a window. … Please arrest him. And the police wouldn’t arrest anyone.” (1)
In April 2000, people mobilized against the IMF/WB meeting. The day before the protest was to begin, the police announced a surprise “fire inspection” of the activist workspace. They closed the building.
When the Republicans held their national convention. Thousands of people showed up to protest. Police responded with another raid. This time they claimed there were acid filled balloons and C4. But they had to use a building code violation to make the closure legal. The police admitted they had been spying on activists there (but didn’t know that there were puppets not bombs in the building?). It has later come out that PA police infiltrated peaceful organizations with undercover officers (2).
At the Democratic National Convention police shut down an Independent Media Center (IMC) satellite truck five minutes before it went live with coverage.
Finally (and only because I’m tired of typing) in Genoa, Italy, police shot one G8 protester (admittedly of a more violent variety is desirable). They also raided two workspaces being used by activists. During that raid, they also beat and arrested a British journalist during those raids, when he was (possibly) mistaken for a protester. The long and short of it, though, he wasn’t violent.
Do activists have some fear of police when they go to a protest? Yep. Is that a good reason to wear a mask? Certainly, a mask won’t stop you from getting beat-up, but the police will not have a picture of you on file either. Myself, I think I can see the argument for wearing a mask. But it is not the only reason.
Other reasons to wear a mask
All I have written about thus far is fear about police. Many demonstrations also have ordinary citizens who vehemently disagree with the protesters. Myself, I have been threatened once (a very vague “someone like me will someday kill people like you”), personally condemned to hell twice and yelled at more times than I can count. Am I particularly worried I might run into these people, and that they might recognize me? Not really. But I can see how some people might be.
Some people also wear masks to be “in solidarity” with groups who also wear masks. For example, the Zapatistas wear masks, so some people who support their movement do too. I’m not saying I agree with the Zapatistas, but some perfectly peaceful people do. And they have every right to demonstrate this agreement in a peaceful way. This includes, in my view, dressing like them, mask and all.
Some masks are also satirical, part of a message, or otherwise communicative.
In other words, there are lots of reasons to wear masks. I hope this clarifies the mask issue.
Best Wishes
-Short
Notes:
(1)Wallach, Lori “Lori’s War” in Foreign Policy Spring 2000, pp49.
(2)Phillips, Michael and Yaroslav Trofimov “Police go undercover to thwart protesters against globalization” in Wall Street Journal Sept. 11 (sic), 2001. pp A-1
A final bit of comment. I have tried to cite what I thought would be controversial. My intent was not to argue for or against any of the protests, police reactions or justifications for wearing masks to protests. Rather I was simply pointing out that reasonable people may wear masks for reasons other than a desire to “smash shit.”
gobear
Not all masked people in banks are by definition robbers. Robbers may wear masks but that doesn’t automatically mean anyone masked is a robber. Not all bank robbers wear masks. It’s probably more likely that someone in a bank wearing a mask is there to rob it, but since robbing a bank and demonstrating for peace are different things, I don’t believe the analogy carries over.
I previously referred you to Patricia Nell Warren’s article in the October 2001 issue of Out magazine.
Some of the police are bad guys. Or do you somehow believe that 1965 Selma led to the purging of bad cops from the ranks?
Bricker
I would have to do some searching for it. The one I recall most clearly involved the Klan’s right to wear their hoods at demonstrations. The reasoning was that their First Amendment right to demonstrate could be chilled by being forced to march unmasked and face potential backlash. I will do some further checking.
Lemur: Short effecively dealt with your nonsense, so I will add nothing to his/her post except to note that you have once again displayed your idiocy for all to see.
I asked “Do you have a cite for RICO prosecutions of protesters?” to which OTTO responds, “I previously referred you to Patricia Nell Warren’s article in the October 2001 issue of Out magazine.”
Not having a copy of Out magazine handy, I looked up Ms. Warren, “protest,” and “RICO” on Google and came up with *url=“http://www.bidstrup.com/speech.htm”]this, which I will assume is the same or similar to what she wrote in the article. In the link, Ms. Warren says:
I think this paragraph is darn close to intellectually dishonest. Warren states that the government considers protesting to be akin to harassment of abortion clinics, and then cites a case – the clear inference being the inference OTTO reasonably drew: that protesting is prosecuted, or prosecutable on the same basis that abortion clinic harassment cases are – namely, under RICO. In fact, if you look at Scheidler, it is an abortion clinic harassment case, not a protesting case, where RICO prosecution was held to be theoretically permissible if those attempting to shut down clinics did so through illegal means amounting to racketeering, including extortion.
In other words, the case has nothing to do with run-of-the-mill protesting, peaceful or otherwise, and certainly does not stand for the proposition that protesters may be prosecuted under RICO. But OTTO said “the reason some demonstrators go masked is because prosecutors have developed a nasty habit of filing RICO charges when they can’t find a legitimate charge that will stick.” I ask again – Do you have a cite for this? Because I have never heard of a protester being arrested for RICO violations, simply for protesting. RICO is a big deal. They don’t charge people right off the street with RICO.
MILLER –
If you could read, you would realize that I criticized neither an underlying belief nor a base belief, which I have said. To which you reply, “yes, you did,” even though it is clear to any who can read, that I did not. I said the statement (statement, not belief) A=notA does not make any sense. Because it does not. Construe this as an attack on a belief if you will; I apparently cannot dissuade you from willfully misreading my posts, so I won’t bother to try.
First of all, can we knock off the literacy slams? Three times in one thread is more than this trite little snipe can bear. If you want to be insulting, there are more creative ways to do that than writing someone a note telling them they can’t read.
Secondly, it’s not clear that “anybody who can read” can see that you aren’t being insulting, because two people so far have read your statements as insulting, even if gobear has better things to do than argue about it (the lucky bastard). Maybe your posts aren’t as crystal clear as you like to think.
Anyway, you did more than just say that the quote doesn’t make sense. That’s self-evident, and pretty much the point of the quote (and a lot of Eastern philosophy in general). But you didn’t just say “that makes no sense,” you said the whole quote was “self-evidently bullshit,” that “what it says is actually stupid.” Hell, you don’t bring up context until three posts in, at which point you make an admirable effort to make it sound like you’re complaining that it doesn’t have anything to do with the OP, not about the quote in and of itself. Hell, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that’s true. I can kinda see how one could get that your posts, although its easier wringing any kind of sense from Lao Tzu than it is to get that particular interpretation from what you’ve written here.
Hold on there, cowboy. I in no way said or thought Jodi was being insulting. Unnecessarily literal, yes, but insulting, no. Don’t enlist me in your argument; I’ll pick my own fights, thank you.
Short, can I ask you to explain a little bit about the reasons you are anti-globalization and the reasons you go to the protests? Not looking to argue, I’m genuinely curious. I’ve read a good bit of the literature, but have seldom gotten the chance to discuss the issues with someone who is actively involved.
Thank you.
DaLovin’ Dj
MILLER –
Actually, no, I can’t. That is because it pisses me off that I post several times what I mean, and you continue to construe it as something it manifestly does not say – ie, that “statement” and “belief” are synonyms, and that by talking about one I am talking about the other. What am I to conclude except that you cannot read or you are a moron? Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I assume you cannot read. If you don’t like the “literacy slams,” then stop willfully twisting my words.
Oh, I think they generally are pretty clear, if not crystal clear. And I believe a head-count will reveal that the only one misinterpreting them is you. Furthermore, since I have clarified what I was addressing, even if the point wasn’t “crystal” clear initially, it was pretty clear after clarification, which is why I must assume your misinterpretation is willful.
Allow me to clarify yet further: “Self-evidently bullshit” in this case equals “doesn’t make sense.” It also equals “this is stupid.” Why is it stupid? Why is it bullshit? Because it doesn’t make sense. Am I talking about the belief? No. The statement itself. And I frankly don’t give a rat’s ass if it took me three whole posts to explain the context; the question at this point is whether you see it or not. May I assume that you do, or would you like to continue to attack what you’d like to think I meant, as opposed to what I pretty obviously meant?
Jodi:
No, I will second Miller’s feelings on the subject of your treatment of the quote. I’ll quote him a bit:
I agree wholly with the above statement. You seemed at first to attack the meaning of the statement without reference to context:
And then again in your next post here:
This is a real nice one. You state that you understand the accepted meaning of the phrase, and yet for some reason you continue to say it is stupid based on a literal interpretation of what is obviously not meant to be a literal statement. You continue with a mathematical analogy :rolleyes::
And then later in this post (and several posts after the one in which you brought it up), you finally come up with relating it to the OP:
Interesting backpedal. You went from “It’s stupid” to “I agree with the underlying statement”. You also bring up the OP. Well, it wasn’t in the OP. It was provided with a link to an article. I further defined the context by saying this is a good quote for the SDMB. It’s a good quote for this board because you have to come in here accepting there are people here who know more than you, and you need to listen instead of talk sometimes.
But I don’t think explaining why I posted it is really what is called for here. I think it’s pretty damn obvious why I posted it. The real issue to me is your constant petty attacks, based on semantics, and then trying to find new reasons for your disdain when people call you on it. I’m not sure what has brought out this ugly behaivior, but I hope you give it a rest soon.
After stating that you agree with the quotes “underlying sentiment”, you later leave us with this lovely quote:
I think you’re just attacking for the sake of attacking, and that is so annoying. Unless it’s done well, then it can be entertaining. But you don’t do it very well because you cotradict yourself. Just looks foolish from here. Please let the “quote” complaints go. They have no legitimate basis.
DaLovin’ Dj
DJ –
I was attacking the statement itself. Not what it is philosophically taken to mean when it is interpreted to mean something other than what it actually says. Seriously, which part of this do you not understand? Which word is tripping you up?
Because – follow me closely here – as a literal statement, it is stupid. It only makes sense, even on a philosophical or “belief” level, if you interpret it to say something it manifestly does NOT say. I have no quarrel with the underlying belief. The statement is STUPID because it does not SAY what it is interpreted to SAY. I as speaking now of the LITERAL STATEMENT. This is not that hard.
Do you understand the difference between the statement itself and the underlying philosophy? Do you see that one can point out that the statement itself is nonsensical and yet not quarrel with the underlying philosophy? Again, what part of this is escaping you?
If only I gave a shit what you thought . . . but wait! I don’t.
Rest assured that I do not give a shit whether or not I look foolish in your eyes. I don’t know you as either a person or a poster, and your opinion is therefore not one I have reason to care about. The quote you used IMO made no sense in the context you used it. That is still my opinion. As for the rest of it, I would be delighted – delighted – to let the matter go, but I am not the one refusing to do so. I must come back and defend myself so long as my words are twisted. Stop twisting them, and I assure you that we will be done here.
Though I do appreciate you taking the time to address me, knowing how busy you are with telling people what movies they have to watch and informing us all what is and is not “cool.” You may not appreciate my “constant petty attacks” but at least my words are my own, instead of belonging to such august philosophers as, say, the Fly Girls.
And why would you do this? Why attack it literally when you can see the underlying sentiment. The sentiment which does not seem to be hard for anyone to see. It is an example of the art of language. It is beautiful that it allows such contradictions to make such wonderful sense. If you understand the meaning, then why argue about it being used in a way that no one used it?
So is your problem with the statement not making any sense by itself, or not making any sense in the context I use it? Or is it both? I’ll address both, just in case you are being so silly:
The statement by itself:
It’s not meant to be taken literally, but you keep “attacking” it because it doesn’t make literal sense. I don’t understand why you would do this. gobear skillfully related the statements meaning. If you insist on making it a mathematical/literal examination let me explain how it works by defining the following words in context:
Not-knowing (A)= Accepting the fact that you have much to learn
true knowledge (B)= Wisdom
Presuming to know ©= Believing you know everything
So A is a good thing, and so is B. C is bad and you(U)= sick(S) if you partake in C.
So:
Where U=C then U=S. Where U=A then U=B.
I don’t think any of this is so confusing as to warrant an attack against it’s sentence structure. That’s one of the beauty’s of language. It doesn’t have to be literal. I don’t see why you insist on forcing it to be. Language can use metaphors, and they are powerful tools. This is all High School english lit shit.
The statement as I used it:
The reason I posted this cool quote has nothing to do with the OP. The article in the link was partly related to the OP. The comment about Lao Tzu’s words being appropriate for this board was a minor aside. I basically was stating that you should come here humble and ready to learn. I don’t see how you missed that, but I hope you understand now.
DaLovin’ Dj
:rolleyes: Better wordsmiths than yourself have taken up this issue. <whoosh> is my answer. I’m not going to start this here as there are plenty of old threads you can pull up on the subject if you wish to persist with your pettiness.
Wisdom can be found in the strangest of places. You seem to have a real problem with quoting people. I find the words of others to be a valuable tool for both learning and relating information. I guess that makes me worthy of attack too. :rolleyes:
You really are pleasant.
DaLovin’ Dj
DJ –
Because I think the literal statement is nonsense, and I think it is stupid to expect people to infer an entirely different meaning from a sentence that makes no sense. It is not as if you can read that phrase in any way that does make sense; you have to interpret it to mean something else entirely.
And It’s not as if Lao Tzu didn’t have some shining words of wisdom. He was the one who said “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.” But “not-knowing is true knowledge” is not one of his finer efforts.
I obviously disagree. And do not bother to “define” the terms for me when you “define” them as meaning something other than what they mean, i.e., “Not-knowing = Accepting the fact that you have much to learn = true knowledge.” By this rationale, I could say “red = a color = green; therefore red = green.” This is not IMO a philosophical discussion but rather a logical fallacy. I do not attack Lao Tzu or his philosophy when I state – and continue to state – that his minimalism got away from him in this case, leaving us with a phrase that makes no sense, and that only can be made to make sense by totally redefining it.
Jesus Christ. The sentence doesn’t make any fucking sense! I am not assaulting all Chinese philosophy in pointing that out. I am not attacking its “structure,” I am attacking the whole thing. I didn’t say “he used a passive verb; he split an infinitive;” I said, “this makes no sense.” It is not a metaphor, nor is it a simile; it is a contradiction. Ugliness=beauty. Fat=thin. Up=down. Now, I’m sure you can come up with some philosophical machinations by which each of these can be made to make sense – by defining one or both terms as meaning other than what they really mean – but as is, they are nonsense.
I understand that now.
The problem, Jodi, is that not everyone feels that there is a deep disconnect between the words of one one particular phrase and the entire belief system it represents.
This view is in part justified: a short quotation from Lao Tzu implies a depth of context and a certain understanding of an underlying belief system. Even if you have very little knowledge of LT’s literary works, it isn’t too hard to read three lines and infer a nonwestern, nonmaterial mode of thinking and being. It seems rather unnatural to divorce the quotation from its apparent meaning for the purposes of criticism.
FWIW, I definitely do not believe that you attacked any belief systems here whatsoever. I just question the utility of your method of criticism. It seems to come dangerously close to context-free lines of literary criticism that I particularly dislike.
MR
I guess that all depends on who you’re quoting, and whether what you’re quoting makes sense.
No, you make yourself worthy of attack by attacking me.
Right back atcha.
MAEGLIN –
Why? Why does posting something that makes no sense on its face imply a depth of context not appearing or a “certain understanding of the belief system” that you can by no means assume your reader has? This is my point – this is why the more impenetrable of Eastern philosophical quotes do not lend themselves to distillation to bon mots or quick quotations – because if you don’t know the context and only read the words, they don’t make any sense.
Which still doesn’t mean the statement makes any sense, of course. Though if your point is that one should read it and think “there must be another way to read this so that it makes sense,” I will of course grant you that.
Sigh. It has no apparent meaning. That’s the whole point. If it had any apparent meaning whatsoever, it wouldn’t read as nonsense.
Jodi,
Because the poster knows that you are aware of the nature of the quotation’s source. Rendering the entire context by means of a thorough discussion of Lao Tzu would not have exactly been appropriate. Readers without the necessary awareness of the context can do what ignoance fighters usually do: ask questions. Detaching words from context and reducing them to symbolic logic are not the proper tools for handling this particular job, namely, figuring out what this means.
The same is entirely true of western philosophy. Even the old hobboglin “know thyself” is hideously misinterpreted, for in reality Socrates’ exhortation is more nuanced than it first appears.
Of course. That’s the point of the exercise: LT is presenting a contradiction that any thinking person should want to try to reconcile, for through its reconciliation comes wisdom and acceptance. Perhaps it is just in my nature to try to dissect the meaning of even three lines before dismissing it as nonsensical.
No, it doesn’t “have no apparent meaning,” it is a contradiction or paradox. If you don’t accept it, well, fine. But if you are willing to grant its truth for a few moments and attempt to puzzle it out, you might find that the statement does in fact have meaning. Apparent meaning.
I don’t even know why I jumped on to this. No one is really disagreeing over anything all that substantive. I have no desire to quibble endlessly; I suppose I just wanted to express my discomfort with the idea of, for lack of a better term, prima facie meaning.
MR
OK, you two, back in your corners.
DalovinDJ, you can’t expect everyone to instantly understand the same things you do at the same level you do. This argument is unharmonious and against the best spirit of Lao Tze.
Jodi, your point about the absurdity of oppsoites being identical, i.e., cold=hot, is well-taken, and, believe me, I get your point. The thing is you two are arguing past each other. You’re focusing only on the literal meaning while DalovinDJ is focusing solely on the deeper significance.
Taosit philosophy is dualist, and many of its teachings come from the balance of opposing, yet, equal forces. You have to have that context in order to wring meaning from that sentence.
So can we agree that you are both right, hug, and part friends?
You see, one uses context and experience to define what anything means. I find it so strange that you state you understand what it is supposed to mean, and yet continue to attack it because it doesn’t mean anything. Why do you so begrudge the author his intent? Because he used a paradox to relay it? It just shows his skills with language, it in no way is a flaw.
Words don’t exist in a vacuum. This is nitpicking at it’s worst: “I understand, but if you look at it this way it doesn’t mean anything”. Just because he used a paradox, does not invalidate the underlying meaning which you claim to see. If you can’t see the meaning, that’s one thing. But in the face of explanation you insist on having your own way of reading it, which in no way takes into account the author’s intent, nor the use of literary tools such as metaphors. Both of which are important.
If intent is unimportant to you, and you don’t accept that authors can use metaphors to relate ideas, you are missing out on a whole lot of what’s great about reading.
And the quote in question DOES make sense to everyone but you (if you wanna get into headcounts). I’ve yet to see another person weigh in who has a problem with this quote and the authors use of language. You don’t like the quote, fine. But to say that it is “bullshit” and doesn’t make any sense is just you being ignorant. It is beautiful and it makes perfect sense. Diss the sentiment if you want to, but the form is on point.
DaLovin’ Dj