|Sent time:||Wednesday, October 19, 2011 9:05:00 PM|
|Subject:||[september17discuss] Re: One rape is one rape too many. I quit the OWS movement|
>Shame on you for shooting the messenger and not the perpetrator.
And what is shooting at the Occupy movement instead of the
Don't forget to reflect on yourself as well.
On Oct 19, 9:35 pm, Deadfish <deadfish...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Amazing. Rather than criticize the rape of one of your own members,
> you personalize this debate and turn it against me.
> The instincts of this movement's members is to avoid intellectual
> honesty and to attack the opposing views of the minority. This is
> clear in the much swaggered "we are the 99 %" signs. To turn populous
> anger and common frustration against a small percentage of members of
> our society is to scapegoat a minority. This is what the Nazis did.
> This is what the KKK did. You get my point.
> Congratulations. You outed a person participating in an open, online
> conversation with members of a group who claim to represent all
> people. You have not outed me as a spy. Nor have you outed me as a so-
> called "concern troll." You have outed me as a member of your society
> who disagrees with your point of view and your movement and now you
> aim to isolate me from that society.
> To Gail Zawacki: Your conclusion that I have used the knowledge of
> the rape of another human to discredit your movement is correct.
> However, by saying you "resent" my original post suggests my
> intentions are insensitive to the victim. This, you have based on the
> assumption that I have not lived a modern life, that I have never
> known or cared for a woman who has been a victim, that I am one-
> dimensional and that I fit neatly into your definition of the
> opposition. Shame on you for shooting the messenger and not the
> A question none of you will dare answer honestly: If this movement
> were to achieve its goal, what place in your idealized society have
> you reserved for the fellow 99 percent-ers who disagree with you?
> I'm not leaving. I would rather suffer the dignity of being a minority
> voice silenced by those in power. Kick me out. I dare you.
> On Oct 19, 9:18 am, rob hollander <les...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, disingenuous, Thadeaus, but still open and not hiding. Deadfish thinks
> > we're ridiculous and is having fun abusing us. Yes it is provoking. But it
> > hasn't undermined OWS at all. So as long as the Deadfish blog is openly
> > hostile and there to see, I still recommend just directing people to the
> > blog so we all know what's up.
> > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Thadeaus <thade...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Deadfish has not been openly hostile on the list, but elsewhere on the
> > > internet, yes. On the list Deadfish has disingenuously tried to pass
> > > themselves off as being part of this movement while simultaneously
> > > mocking and deriding us elsewhere.
> > > I am not advocating removing anyone from the list for having
> > > right-wing politics but for lying about who they are.
> > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:04 AM, rob hollander <les...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Well, one can't both be a spy and openly hostile. :-)
> > > > Deadfish is openly hostile, but not a spy.
> > > > Now, if the Deadfish blog were suddenly to disappear, so that occupiers
> > > > couldn't see the Deadfish rants against OWS, then I'd be suspicious. But
> > > as
> > > > long as that blog is there for all of us to see, I'd call Deadfish just a
> > > > gadfly.
> > > > So...am I right, Deadfish?
> > > > Reading Deadfish is actually useful. You'll get to see another side's
> > > > perspective on OWS. Not for everyone, but useful. And Deadfish sparked a
> > > > discussion to which a lot of listserv members responded with great
> > > interest
> > > > (on whether occupiers should use corporate products like ipods --
> > > confused
> > > > question, I thought, but it struck a nerve, nevertheless, with many on
> > > the
> > > > listserv).
> > > > I don't like internal accusations or efforts to remove. It's counter to
> > > the
> > > > spirit of an open movement. Sends a bad message internally and
> > > externally.
> > > > It should be enough to direct people to the Deadfish blog and let them
> > > > figure it out for themselves.
> > > > Again, if the Deadfish blog disappears, then maybe you have reason to
> > > remove
> > > > Deadfish.
> > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Thadeaus <thade...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> How can you quit something that you were never part of "Deadfish?"
> > > >> Deadfish...@gmail.com is the email address of a right-wing a troll and
> > > a
> > > >> spy who is openly hostile and attempting to disrupt this movement. You
> > > can
> > > >> see this clearly by reading their blog or tweets:
> > > >>http://deadfish520.blogspot.com/http://twitter.com/#!/Scipio_Nasica
> > > >> We need to be vigilant against anti-social pariahs who prey on and seek
> > > to
> > > >> exploit our sometimes too welcoming and open movements. We should watch
> > > out
> > > >> for each other and guard against those who only aim to take advantage of
> > > us
> > > >> sexually or otherwise.
> > > >> Still we must also not let allegations like this (even well founded
> > > ones)
> > > >> divide and weaken us. Those of us involved in OWS would be wise to be
> > > aware
> > > >> of the history of repression of radical movements in this country.
> > > >> Brian Glick in his book War at Home, outlined a number of tactics that
> > > the
> > > >> FBI employed against activists and movements in the past:
> > > >> 1. Infiltration: Agents and informers did not merely spy on political
> > > >> activists. Their main purpose was to discredit and disrupt. Their very
> > > >> presence served to undermine trust and scare off potential supporters.
> > > The
> > > >> FBI and police exploited this fear to smear genuine activists as agents.
> > > >> 2. Psychological Warfare From the Outside: The FBI and police used a
> > > >> myriad of other "dirty tricks" to undermine progressive movements. They
> > > >> planted false media stories and published bogus leaflets and other
> > > >> publications in the name of targeted groups. They forged correspondence,
> > > >> sent anonymous letters, and made anonymous telephone calls. They spread
> > > >> misinformation about meetings and events, set up pseudo movement groups
> > > run
> > > >> by government agents, and manipulated or strong-armed parents,
> > > employers,
> > > >> landlords, school officials and others to cause trouble for activists.
> > > >> -t
> > > >> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Lauren <celli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> > To be quite honest given your posting history, I'm starting to suspect
> > > >> > you might be a concern troll.
> > > >> > On Oct 19, 12:24 am, Deadfish <deadfish...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> Sorry guys, one rape is one rape too many. This is not what I want to
> > > >> >> be a part of. A woman at the Cleveland OWS protest says she was
> > > raped.
> > > >> >> I'm out. I quit. I'm done. No ideology or philosophy can justify shit
> > > >> >> like this.
> > >http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2011/10/18/occupy-cleveland-protester-a...
> > > > --
> > > > Rob Hollander
> > > > Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Development
> > > >http://savethelowereastside.blogspot.com/
> > > > 622 E 11, #10
> > > > NYC, 10009
> > > > 212-228-6152
> > --
> > Rob Hollander
> > Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Developmenthttp://savethelowereastside.blogspot.com/
> > 622 E 11, #10
> > NYC, 10009
> > 212-228-6152
|< PREV||INDEX||SEARCH||NEXT >|