- Like most people, I have participated in this story countless times, either as a nameless spectator or a faceless avenger. It feels very different, however, to be a main character. Friends and strangers alike sent me video of JD’s crying wife in a spirit of absolute delight, and I am having trouble connecting with that emotion.
That wife's video is so sad along many axes. There is no enjoyment to find in that whole situation.
You can choose to believe that. I choose to believe that this situation isn’t quite as simple as bad guys vs good guys. I believe in dialogue and restorative justice with paths to redemption, not reveling in the suffering of others, even if they are jerks.
Something I've noticed about Twitter is that it's a bunch of snarkpugilists eager to slag the other side for any reason whatsoever and yeah, the Red Rose Mafia are the worst I've seen. At least the Tankies try for ideology from time to time. We've had that discussion before. I've been following Linda Tirado since she was shot in the face with a beanbag during BLM protests and despite that book spending serious time on the bestsellers' list, she's still on food stamps.I know she's a writer or whatever but generally successful writers don't need to beg for donations.
It wasn't stupid, it was an exploration of motivation and fulfillment. I viewed it as such. If anything, I think you hurt yourself by insisting in right vs. wrong in discussions of motivation. It's like you're either a sell-out or a martyr in your cosmology and you either need to embrace the selling or smile while sacrificing yourself and anything less than 100% pure acceptance reflects spiritual weakness or some shit. You also practice a peculiarly transparent form of relative morality: the purity test doesn't matter, it's whether the subject did better or worse than you. Not only that, but your standards are where you are now, how you feel now, not where you were nine months ago. Because nine-months-ago you totally slagged on anyone who had to "get a job" while yesterday you is totally slagging on anyone who hasn't. Break this down to the facts: an activist went to a rally and posted the threatening interaction she had with multiple people. The knowledge of those threatening interactions cost a family their livelihood. The only thing this "journalist", to use your implied scare quotes, did was reflect on her place in the event. I could make a career of this. Go check what Andy Ngo's Wikipedia page says and report back about "jobs". Keep in mind that Jadeed didn't even write his name.There’s a path forward for me here — something a friend describes as “Kabuki politics.” I could keep this going forever. My face will increasingly provoke reaction at these events, whether I want it to or not. This could easily become the only thing I’m known for.
I've followed Jedeed on Twitter for a long time. She gets a lot of respect around town from the socialist and otherwise. She has been working super hard to make our community a better place. I doubt she or anyone who regularly engages with her work will give a shit if you and other twitter socialist think that she fucked up. I either don't understand most of your comment or I think it's kind of ridiculous and I wonder why you think anyone would give a shit about your shtick. She's been out there doing real work for a long time. I have found value in that work and I respect her for doing some tough reporting in often dangerous situations.
Scarcity is not morality. When you are saying "she" you are referring to Laura Jedeed? Who you are criticizing for confronting an angry mob? You are... arguing that fascism should flow unchecked? That racism should not be confronted? It is better, after all, to let destructive, antisocial behavior to celebrate itself unwitnessed because the problem here is the confrontation? Elaborate on that. I dare you. Take it to its logical conclusion. And that is your choice. You made a personal decision on your personal content based on your personal ethics. Your personal ethics are incorrect, by the way: recording a person in a public place is entirely legal and entirely ethical. There is nothing obligating you from sharing your content but not doing so doesn't make you morally superior. The argument has long been that "legitimate" news organizations are not accurately reflecting the facts on the ground. Thus the "activist" in "activist journalism." Your argument here is again one of poverty: if you don't make money at it you can't be an authority. Now, granted: there's an inertia to professional newscasting that sets a threshold. But that threshold is very much in flux, especially when a million dollars worth of broadcast gear is suddenly in jeopardy of this shit: "chilling effect" is a term of art in US and Canadian law. This is an example. Thus, activist journalism becomes more important, not less. Just because your heart isn't in it doesn't mean others' aren't. And you just finished telling me that your three-months-ago heart was in it entirely too much.Does this sound like someone who has ever had a genuine fear of where their next meal might be coming from?
But Christ, she went out of her own way to buy a plane ticket to confront what is essentially an angry mob.
We never aired it because we thought it was unethical to show hundreds of possibly inebriated people without consent.
This is why legitimate news organizations exist, and why they clear these things.
And let me tell you, the only reason me and my college buddies got up to that was because we clearly had way too much free time on our hands.
This entire event would not exist if JD had backed off when asked. You know this, it's just inconvenient to your narrative. The rest of your prevarications are an attempt to mask the fact that a thug lost his job for thugging in public. Anyone who flies across the country for a parade must assume a basic level of exposure, I don't care if it's Macy's. The exposure is the point. You will gleefully bend your morality past the snapping point to win an argument. That's bitten you in the ass before, and will continue to do so. All it does is demonstrate that you care more about winning than about being correct.Recording people in public places makes people very uncomfortable for a reason. They don't know where that's going to end up.
I don't see the left as agents of creation and hope. Bio, case and point: Creation and hope is where the left ought to be. That's where possibility and the big solutions are. As Jedeed notes, the right has a solution. Late stage capitalism is early stage something.The left is, at present, the master of small solutions to big problems.
Writer, videographer, folklorist of the Portland protest scene. Come, let us walk into the apocalypse together.
I don't think it's fair to criticize the Left for fatalism when the best they've been able to do is attempt to preserve the globalist dystopia created by 40 years of neoliberalism. I also think it's fatuously obtuse to observe that the right has a "solution" when they're literally deporting US citizens, throwing kids in cages and withdrawing from every international cooperative and regulatory agreement of the past 40 years. Creation and hope is where the Left ought to be but you're talking about a group whose political party has failed to secure (1) the Equal Rights Amendment (2) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (3) any reasonable minimum wage reform (4) any comprehensive healthcare reform (5) electoral protections for citizens (6) minority protections (7) indigenous protections (8) environmental protections or (9) any other "liberal" reform other than gay marriage for as long or longer than any of them have been alive. The Left lost the South to racism in 1966. For anyone under 30, that was two generations ago. Where, exactly, is this hope supposed to come from?
That's their solution: nationalism and authoritarianism. To me, it's an abomination, but it provides comfort to many. Our hearts and a shared desire for justice and prosperity for all?I also think it's fatuously obtuse to observe that the right has a "solution" when they're literally deporting US citizens, throwing kids in cages and withdrawing from every international cooperative and regulatory agreement of the past 40 years.
The Left lost the South to racism in 1966. For anyone under 30, that was two generations ago. Where, exactly, is this hope supposed to come from?
Can you honestly say the nationalism and authoritarianism of the right is being presented as a solution, though? Their solution-space is basically "tax breaks for the rich" and "owning the libs." We're talking "creation and hope" here - the border wall was always far more of a totem than a solution and the only other thing the Trump administration created was Space Force. Which is literally AFSOC. Hope? Has the right offered anything resembling hope? More than that, what comfort is it providing, exactly? Do these guys look comfortable? A fundamental part of building up is stopping others from tearing down. That's been impossible for the past four years. This is not a failing of the left.
I think MAGA is exactly that, a nationalistic, authoritarian solution. It’s hope for poor white folk that are cool with scapegoating. I don’t blame the left for where we are. But march into the apocalypse sounds awful. End stage capitalism is an opportunity to shape what comes next. The left could be excited about a vision for the future. Make America Better Than Ever. It’s a jump ball atm IMO.
We're arguing over the definition of "solution." You haven't made a compelling argument that MAGA offers one. They offer something - on that we can agree. But I don't think even the most hard-core MAGAt would describe their cosmology as a "solution." Not while the collapse is still ongoing. You cannot build a foundation on shifting sands. The trick is to know when the ground will hold and I don't think anyone of any credibility would say the dust is settling yet.End stage capitalism is an opportunity to shape what comes next.