On Sun, Aug 30, 2020 at 01:36 PM, Mark Lause wrote: > > IThis after-the-fact explanation that it was cops or right-wingers might > well be correct. But it asks people to follow you into the woods with lots > of tangled underbrush. > > It distracts from the main discussion we want to have. The purpose of tu > he demo. > > >
First of all, I want to make it clear that I do not support the fashionable nonsense about looking and arson that one finds in the works of the rebarbative Cotton et al. This is a very big problem, and I wholeheartedly second the desire of the moderator and others to see it somehow controlled by the Kenosha organizers and organizers nationwide. I'll overlook the decidedly uncivil implied personal swipe at me. If "The discussion we want to have" includes gems such as Ryan's inarticulate but heartfelt post earlier (which I don't regard either as stupid or inappropriate, though I entirely disagree with it), what I wrote is clearly within the parameters. The subject of the discussion is the incitement to riot and looting or at least the approval thereof being offered by the likes of the execrable Joshua Clover, possibly the editors of Cosmonaut, and other deplorably prolific authors of "left" and "ultraleft" (if one may be permitted that term) books and articles. (Frankly, given their recent championing of "revolutionary sobriety" I am surprised to hear that they may be seconding the "orgiastic" nonsense promoted by the authors under discussion.) This breaks down into a number of further questions, including the responsibilities of the Kenosha demonstration organizers for restraining the criminal acts that have accompanied the events there this week--which you BTW address for the first time in your response to my post, while suggesting that it is somehow inappropriate to "the kind of discussion we want" to mention this, since "everybody knows" it. How can the Kenosha organizers take responsibility for the looting and arson, as you decree, if some significant part of it is being carried out, incited, or otherwise facilitated by provocateurs and saboteurs? If this is relevant--as it must be granting your premise--then surely how to do it must be an issue worth discussing. Provocateurs and saboteurs, IMO will not be deterred by organizers deploring looting and arson--their best option, on the contrary, will be to "double down." What could be or should be the response to this? This is why I also raised the question of what the extent and actual degree of looting and arson in Kenosha actually has been so far. Some estimation of this is essential to a factual discussion of the actual situation on the ground--are the reports exaggerated, and if so, by how much? How should "we" (or "they") combat the tide of lies? If all "we" want to discuss is whether "we" endorse the Clover et all defense of riots etc., then the discussion is over. "We" don't. End of discussion. If there is more to be said, then a broader discussion might very appropriately include the points I have made. And that is why I civilly raised those matters in the first place. QED. > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1010): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/1010 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/76495839/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES<br />#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.<br />#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.<br />#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
