From: Adam Trowbridge (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Aug 24 2006 - 11:38:11 PDT
On 8/24/06, Cari Machet wrote:
>> > hmmn i don't know
>> > i don't think that seeing a problem as too large for any one
>> > 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.
>> 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
> 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.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.