[*BCM*] anarchist summit needs 5min cm presentation

[rogerbwinn at letterboxes.org]

hey matt,


On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:44:40 -0500 (EST), "Matthew Arcidy"
<marcidy at cs.bu.edu> said:
> 
> 
> Alright, I'm going to reply to everyone since everyone flipped out at me.
> 
> First of all:
> empower   Audio pronunciation of "empower" ( P )  Pronunciation Key
> (m-pour)
> tr.v. empowered, empowering, empowers
> 
>    1. To invest with power, especially legal power or official
> authority. See Synonyms at authorize.
> 

where did you get that definition of "empowerment" ?!?  i went to the
merriam-webster website (www.m-w.com) and found this:

One entry found for empower.
Main Entry: em·pow·er
Pronunciation: im-'pau(-&)r
Function: transitive verb
1 : to give official authority or legal power to
2 : ENABLE 1a
3 : to promote the self-actualization or influence of <women's movement
has been inspiring and empowering women -- Ron Hansen>
- em·pow·er·ment /-m&nt/ noun


sure, one use means offical authority or legal power, but 2 or 3
(especially 3) apply to anarchism.  and last i checked merriam-webster
was a pretty reputable dictionary.  you made a weak, crappy point.  get
over it. 


> Second of all:
> I've read plenty about anarchism because I was interested in it.  I
> understand it, but realized that we do not yet possess the technology to
> make it happen.  People will disagree with me here, this is not my
> point.  My point is, if you're going to use terms, use them correctly or
> your going to get someone like me who thinks that you don't know what
> you're talking about.  What was said is that you wanted to be empowered,
> felt empowered, etc, whatever.  To me, that means you are taking it upon
> yourself to make decions for me, to speak for me.  So you tell me if I
> don't understand it.  Maybe I'm wrong, maybe anarchy is all about
> thinking
> I'm free instead of being it.


what the hell are you talking about.  let's go back to (cited)
definition of empower: "to provide self-actualization or influence". 
maybe you need a new dictionary, because you're slaggin' us for using a
term corretly.  maybe you should take some of your own advice. 
self-actualization has nothing to do with what you're talking about. 
you're just spouting absolute nonsense, as you did about anarchism in
your previous post.  

> 
> Third of all:
> My arguemnts were abstract and I applied situations to generalized
> structures to make a general point.  That is how it's done.  It's call
> philosophy by some people.  I provided counter examples to where people
> were stating beliefs for facts.  It's called rhetoric.

you know if being patronizing could win arguments, you might be getting
somewhere.  i don't appreciate a tone that treats us like we're 4 years
old.  the reason people disagreed with you is because your points were
disagreeable to them, not because they didn't understand how you were
arguing. 


> 
> Fourth, and most importantly, the arguement was started when I called
> someone an asshat for thinking that he was somehow above the law.  We
> made
> it though the parade crap, we made it through the law breaking crap, and
> now we're debating something else entirely, if at all.  Look at how angry
> and empassioned you are at someone who disagrees with you.  

we angry and empassioned because 1) you're extremely patronizing and 2)
you're using weak strawman agruments to try to make yourself right (see
your bastardized definition of "empowerment" above).  if you presented
thoughtful arguments in a respectful way, people wouldn't come down on
you so hard.  but you're not some liberal martyr, so get off your high
horse.

This is the
> attitude that comes out during the mass.  This is the self-reinforcing
> procedure that I'm talking about.  

yeah, if people are assholes to me while they're driving i'll be an
asshole back.  if people are patronizing assholes in email, the same. 
it's not some self-reinforcing attitude.  

I've explained it in previous emails,
> and I'm giving you a concrete example right now of the phenomenon.  I can
> continue making some of you angry.  This is the anger you feel when you
> are cut off, and yet you maintain that you are allowed to cut people
> off?  I'm sorry, where do you get off thinking that?


look, there are plenty of safety reasons i feel for not following
traffic laws or exerting myself and cutting people off.  it's not the
way i like it, but that's the way i feel safest in the streets of
boston.  me not cutting people off doesn't make a difference, except
hinder my safety.  cars are bigger, heavier, and faster, so it makes
more of a difference.  that's where i get off thinking that.

> 
> Why can't you people suck it up and do something good for the cause
> instead of hurting it?  

what are you doing?  what's your big master plan?  poorly constructed
emails on the internet.  that'll change the world.  and thanks for the
take that we're hurting the movement. i feel fine about my decisions.  

You think I dont know you, that I don't know what
> it's all about.  You think that the peace that you feel AT OTHER'S
> EXPENSE
> is costless.  You claim that the arger you create is somehow different
> than the anger that you feel inside when you are in the minority.
> 
> Stop creating situations of injustice if you truly beleive you are
> anarchist.
> 

i wouldn't call riding together with a group of people a "situation of
injustice"  jeez, it's not like we block ambulances (when they have come
everyone quickly and respectfully gets ouf the way).  thanks for another
high horse claim.  

well, the work day is over.  i'm off to ride 7 miles home.  on my bike. 
what about you, matt?




> -Matt
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Boston Critical Mass mailing list
> list at bostoncriticalmass.org
> http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
-- 
  
  rogerbwinn at letterboxes.org