Mayday events (1 Viewer)

[jane]

"prick bunny"




funniest two words ever uttered round these parts.I'm gonna get fired.

I had two bunnies. George was sweet and funny and died suddenly of a heart attack (stop fucking laughing, I was heartbroken). Angel was a complete cunt, not sweet or cuddly or friendly, and she's the one who sprayed her shit all over the rug and made me allergic. I had to give her away to a family, and when she eventually died (as bunnies do, the transient capitalist symbols that they are), it was the middle of winter, and too cold to bury her.

The family I'd given her to had two kids who were devastated at the loss of the bunny, whom they had renamed with something fucking retarded, and I was forced to go to the 'funeral' when it finally took place.

It was done with little ceremony, but I think the other kid read out some shitty poem, after which, the freezer in the kitchen was opened, the ice cream and some frozen meat moved aside, and the bunny pulled out, all stiff and icicled in a freezer bag. Then it dawned on them: it's easier to bury a dead rabbit when you've let it defrost for a while. She wouldn't fit in the shoebox like that.

So I left before she was placed in the ground, went home and laughed until my arse fell off. Bloody capitalists.

 

[Shorty]

Why do you keep trying to point out what someone might infer from what I write that is actually the opposite of what I -- quite clearly -- said? Why are you pretending I wrote something that I didn't and that I didn't write something I did. The 'tone and content' of what I said were very clear: I SAID that more people should speak up about things that are wrong. The only way you could misread that is if you pretended you didn't see it, which would amount to not actually reading it.

Because it was only after I posted and in your subsequent replies that you proceeded to actually proffer any alternatives rather than criticisms, albeit there were a few positive aclamations amidst the "tirade" . And from reading the thread it seemed like (SEEMED like as I have pointed out) that it was merely two ppl criticising piece by piece, the original post. I normally like my criticism taken with a bit of positive alternatives and proposals. Again, I don't even feel you were the one partaking in it the most, and I'm sorry if you think I have taken some sort of personal offence to you, because i haven't.

And thank you SO much for 'commending' me on what I do. I wasn't looking for your approval, thank you. I was merely pointing out that some of us are busy actually doing things in our daily lives that are positive and beneficial, and we don't have time to go running around town, passing out badly-punctuated leaflets.

I know that you were merely pointing that out, I still don't see why I can't "commend" you for doing something like that, as I feel and am sure you feel that you are doing something to bring about positive change. I don't run around town passing out leaflets either. One organisation I'm involved in, is Food Not Bombs, an organisation that I feel is doing something positive and active that also seeks to highlight certain politics that I feel reflect my own views and beliefs (what little I have ), such as horizontal organisational structures.

Why was the anti-capitalism thread inane? Do you feel that it is your domain alone to discuss? And why, then, didn't you contribute? the first thing I asked was for someone to define capitalism: show me what the monster looks like and what can be used to kill it, and I might understand better what 'anti-capitalism' actually means. Doesn't mean I will agree, but it might help if those of us who are interested in learning more about what you're doing were actually acknowledged. No one responded. Instead, you jsut sat there and said it was 'inane'. That's productive.

I've already discussed this off thread via PM with broken arm and he or she doesn't seem to have any ill feelings towards me. As I have explained I don't feel an internet message board is an ideal form of communication and that in fact attempting to try and debate rather than discuss "anti-capitalism" may in fact have been more unproductive than productive. In fact I find these threads become incredibly boring and serve very little purpose other than alienating ppl who aren't already interested in politics.

No one is trying to stifle dissent. It is crucial to have it, but I just want to know what you're dissenting against. It's not an easy question to answer, but you should at least be able to attempt it without resorting to slogans. I don't mean to sound patronising (yes, yes, I do), but I was out protesting in the street before you were old enough to piss, honey, and I know all about this shit. Instead of listening to the experience -- and sometimes, even the cynicism -- of someone with more than 15 years of political activism under her belt, you just went around saying, 'Do you know how someone MIGHT read that!?'

We are already in a world (the internet) in which sarcasm and being patronising don't exist (or at least are hard to recognise) due to the lack of subtle nuances, etc., which is why I don't feel this is the best medium for communication (at least in any meaningful way). So you acknowledge that you were being cynical then? This is the main point of what I have been saying. Perhaps the reason I have taken "offence" (for lack of a better word) to this is because, at the moment I am trying to dissent or struggle against my own increasing feeling of cynicism (that I have unfortunately been taking out on others, both close to me and on internet message boards , something which I am not prone to do and have never before been known to do). And at this moment in my life, rather than challenging "capitalism" I am more so trying to challenge my own cynicism as well and my own feeling of alienation and/or fragmentation from society, culture etc. as well as actual bouts of disassociation. While at the same time trying to further my education and perhaps increase my self knowledge/understanding/analysis/etc.

In addition, I am quite aware of who you are, and that you work in UCD (of which I am a student), so if you are interested in discussing this in real life in a meaningful form of communication, I'm sure that it would be possible. I'm the crusty,lefty,studenty looking one by the way !ironyyy

 

[Latex lizzie]

In addition, I am quite aware of who you are, and that you work in UCD (of which I am a student), so if you are interested in discussing this in real life in a meaningful form of communication

..eco stalker..heh.

 

[Shorty]

..eco stalker..heh.

Yeah, that's it.

Jane; isn't finbar dwyer one of your students, or at least you know who he is, he will also know who I am, but I think he would be slightly better versed than I, in discussing with you any of your questions about "capitalism" and "anti-capitalism". Although, I think he's fairly busy with his masters at the moment.

 

[Latex lizzie]

prolly better to put that kinda thing in a p.m.

 

[Shorty]

He's the Accommodation & Employment Officer in ucd SU, so I think it's okay to mention him on a public forum.

 

[Latex lizzie]

whatever..I was talking about mentioning janes job and students and whatnot.

 

[Alan Remorse]

self righteous punk rock bullshit

 

[Shorty]

self righteous punk rock bullshit

What?



Lizzie; http://www.thumped.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=9682

 

[Shorty]

In fact, looking back over this thread, it may appear that I'm singling out Jane for some sort of attack, when I wasn't and merely asking her questions because of some perceptions I had from what she said. Questions in which I was genuinely interested in finding answers to. It seems that Jane also has questions, that she wants answers to, and that this is something in which she is interested in. Yet somewhere along the line I think confusions have arisen, primarily I think because I chose to quote from Jane, when in fact of the two, she was the most positive in response to the initial post and the one person, who can say that the issues that are being attempted to highlight are directly related to her. And yet, all these faults/problems seem due to misconceptions on my own part, misconceptions which I asked questions to clarify, yet now I am some sort of "self righteous" asshole. (?)

Again, I never ASSUMED anything, I merely pointed out that if I wanted (which I didn't) I could infer from what you are saying that I shouldn't do anything,

That was my main problem,that I thought you were saying ppl shouldn't do anything, which I asked about and you subsequently clarified. Consider this a form of apology, (I'm sorry) though I think some of what I was saying has been taken the wrong way, me being genuinely interested as being an attack, highlighting some of the problems I have with the internet as a means of communication

Also

Because it was only after I posted and in your subsequent replies that you proceeded to actually proffer any alternatives rather than criticisms, albeit there were a few positive aclamations amidst the "tirade" . And from reading the thread it seemed like (SEEMED like as I have pointed out) that it was merely two ppl criticising piece by piece, the original post. I normally like my criticism taken with a bit of positive alternatives and proposals. Again, I don't even feel you were the one partaking in it the most, and I'm sorry if you think I have taken some sort of personal offence to you, because i haven't.

is more in reference to lizzie than to you, I can't edit my post now but, it appears to be directed at you (jane) when it is more so at lizzie.

 

[broken arm]

And yet, all these faults/problems seem due to misconceptions on my own part, misconceptions which I asked questions to clarify, yet now I am some sort of "self righteous" asshole. (?)

well, I don't think your an asshole and i think/hope other people were joking - thumped stylee.

this guy is an asshole

 

[Alan Remorse]

no shorty, i didnt mean you (seriously). I meant the mayday stunts. I actually didnt read any of the other posts, just the first one.

 

[nlgbbbblth]

I had two bunnies. George was sweet and funny and died suddenly of a heart attack (stop fucking laughing, I was heartbroken). Angel was a complete cunt, not sweet or cuddly or friendly, and she's the one who sprayed her shit all over the rug and made me allergic. .

tomorrow is the 20th anniversary of Joey's (family budgie) death

heart attack caused by our cat's intimidation of him

 

[Keeror]

Don't worry lads, Mayday is cancelled.
See here:
http://diy.spc.org/ourmayday/

Jane, how come with all your reference books and UCD Library at your disposal you can't find a definiton of 'free-market capitalism'? Maybe you don't want to find one? Maybe you don't have time 'cos you spend so long posting on Thumped?

 

[jane]

Don't worry lads, Mayday is cancelled.
See here:
http://diy.spc.org/ourmayday/

Jane, how come with all your reference books and UCD Library at your disposal you can't find a definiton of 'free-market capitalism'? Maybe you don't want to find one? Maybe you don't have time 'cos you spend so long posting on Thumped?

I'm not asking what capitalism is because I don't have an idea of what it is, I'm asking because there are so many different ways to define it and perceive it. I want to know what definitions are being used because to me, the monster known as 'free-market capitalism' is too complex and too deeply-rooted to even put into words, so how can it be 'fought'? What can people do on a realistic, day-to-day basis, that can help to establish a fair and equal society? What would constitute a fair and equal society, since one has probably never existed? I'm not saying that it can't exist, but that there should be some idea about what 'fairness' is. To what extent will people have ownership over what they do and earn in their lives? Where is the balance between being fair to them and being fair to everyone else?
The more I think about how complex the political and socioeconomic conditions of the world actually are, the less I can see how one can really isolate the economic system as being the root of it all.

There are lots of things in the world that are not driven by economic concerns, and social relations are more complex than a simple matter of 'dominant' and 'oppressed'. I think the important thing to recognise about what Mayday represents is that very complexity: that despite definitions of power and class being largely based on economics, all people have social and political agency. Mayday is the day to exercise that, even to celebrate it. I'm all for it. I think it's great. I said some good things about it. Of course, you ask one question, and those good things go out the window. Plus, because I didn't write it all in your language, when you scanned it for the 'proper' rhetoric and didn't see it, I was grouped with the naysayers, when I haven't been one.

'Maybe you don't want to find one?'

Oh, yeah, I'm shaking in my politically ignorant boots. I'm too scared to face my deeeeemons. Save me, Jeebus!

What's funny is that people keep getting so defensive about me genuinely asking a question about how you define what it is you oppose. I agree with so many of the principles, and yet you continue to attack me for no apparent reason. I think my criticism has been quite constructive, you just can't handle that someone who isn't a right wing bastard doesn't agree with everything you say.

I ask again: how do you define capitalism? I really want to know what the parameters are for people who define themselves as being 'against' it. Why can't you tell me what you're fighting against? Is it a secret?

 

[taubstumm]

He's the Accommodation & Employment Officer in ucd SU, so I think it's okay to mention him on a public forum.

he also used to have the nickname 'tripod' because he's got a big willy.

 

[taubstumm]

I ask again: how do you define capitalism? I really want to know what the parameters are for people who define themselves as being 'against' it. Why can't you tell me what you're fighting against? Is it a secret?

would

"an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market"

be too controversial?

 

[Latex lizzie]

how base. !cheezy

 

[jane]

would

"an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market"

be too controversial?

Too vague -- too many possible interpretations of it, and no acknowledgement of how it relates to social and political matters.


That definition could be interpreted to include a collectively-run squat, where the 'reinvestment of profits' could be someone buying the bog roll.

How can it be defined, how does it apply, and what exactly has to change to make it better?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I really struggle with the same questions when it comes to understanding my own feminism, which is fucking fiery sometimes. The depth at which these ideas about gender -- and this is also related to an idea of 'capitalism' -- penetrate the way we speak with, move through and see the world are so mind-boggling that it is important to set realistic parameters.

I just want to know what those are. Really. GEnuinely. If someone asked me where feminist activism begins and ends, I would really try to answer it (don't make me do it today -- I have to finish this conference paper), and I don't think I would get so defensive. I have been asked that, and I've been glad to have the opportunity to discuss it with people who aren't just nodding and going, 'Yeah!'.

I don't know why that has been warranting so many attacks from people who either haven't read my posts or just get defensive for no apparent reason. CAn't take criticism? Well, then that kinda stinks. If people can't establish positive political relationships with those outside of their own little cabal, then they're not going to get very far.

 

[taubstumm]

Too vague -- too many possible interpretations of it, and no acknowledgement of how it relates to social and political matters.


That definition could be interpreted to include a collectively-run squat, where the 'reinvestment of profits' could be someone buying the bog roll.

How can it be defined, how does it apply, and what exactly has to change to make it better?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I really struggle with the same questions when it comes to understanding my own feminism, which is fucking fiery sometimes. The depth at which these ideas about gender -- and this is also related to an idea of 'capitalism' -- penetrate the way we speak with, move through and see the world are so mind-boggling that it is important to set realistic parameters.

I just want to know what those are. Really. GEnuinely. If someone asked me where feminist activism begins and ends, I would really try to answer it (don't make me do it today -- I have to finish this conference paper), and I don't think I would get so defensive. I have been asked that, and I've been glad to have the opportunity to discuss it with people who aren't just nodding and going, 'Yeah!'.

I don't know why that has been warranting so many attacks from people who either haven't read my posts or just get defensive.

well, yes. obviously.

but in setting terms of debate, it is usually sensible to start with something vague to facilitate discussion, and then use the discussion to add precision to the definition.

doing it the other way around leads you up the path of "but everything is subjective!" and all that jazz (which, in itself, is also useful and important, but secondary to actually facilitating discussion).

and yes, you were jumped on unfairly in this thread, as far as i can see.

people need to have their assumptions challenged every now and then, or else the assumptions become catechism and the thought becomes dogma.