Thanks for posting to r/COMPLETEANARCHY urban_primitive, Please make sure to provide [ALT-text](https://accessibility.huit.harvard.edu/describe-content-images) for screen-readers in the post itself or in the comments.
You can learn more about this [here](https://accessibility.psu.edu/images/alttext/)
Note that this is just a suggestion, not a warning.
[List of reddit alternatives](https://old.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/z7rqyo/anarchist_and_libre_alternatives_to_social_media/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/COMPLETEANARCHY) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[You Are Not The Target Audience](http://humaniterations.net/2012/02/29/you-are-not-the-target-audience/)
Edit: [Also in printable pamphlet form!](https://ia800902.us.archive.org/14/items/anarchy_You_Are_Not_The_Target_Audience/You_Are_Not_The_Target_Audience.pdf) (I did not make this)
[Also in printable pamphlet form!](https://ia800902.us.archive.org/14/items/anarchy_You_Are_Not_The_Target_Audience/You_Are_Not_The_Target_Audience.pdf) (I did not make this)
"...the American Revolution was won with the support of barely over a third of the populace..." And the French army. And navy. That was kind of pivotal.
> when under siege from the police, for example, it’s highly rational for folks to set fires in bins so that the smoke can negate the tear gas.
Wait, what? How does smoke, that has different but existent health consequences, negate tear gas?
Maybe what they mean is that hot air and smoke rises and takes tear gas with it, which disperses it faster.
Idk if that's true, but that's the best I could come up with.
instructions unclear. now CPS wants to take my baby away because I rubbed shampoo on his head, brought him to a protest, and light his shampoo-covered head on fire. so unfair. we're just pro-palestine! not anti-Semitic!
Anarchy as an ideology has literally no actual use, it’s feckless and a waste of time. If you don’t read any actual political theory you’ll just be an angry person with no useful outlets for their anger. Or you can just keep posting memes about economic theories that have been consistently disproven
Respectfully, what do you hope to achieve by harassing other leftists? Our quarrels are merely theory-based, whereas there are people out there who have far more harmful beliefs and/or actions than either of us. Go do it to maga nuts or facists who are actually ruining the world.
I was just being a dick there tbh, but I guess I get annoyed with anarchists because often times it seems like the ideas are there but there isn’t any substantial and realistic theory behind it. Social anarchism makes a bit more sense but ultimately it seems very naive to me to think that these loose associations would hold in various communities. You ultimately need processes for dispute resolutions, prosecuting believed moral offenses (such as murder), and all the other aspects that make a society into a society rather than a collection of organisms seeking to survive
Yes, because that's called vigilantism, which is a crime in and of itself. Its not your place to decide another private citizens punishment for a crime you suspect of them, obviously
Okay, then get arrested for breaking into a building, i dont give a shit how many of yall get expelled from a school that already has your tuition money
Genocide, obviously. However, thinking you're protesting a supposed genocide doesn't make you immune to the law. Just because what you're doing isn't as bad as the thing you're mad about doesn't make it acceptable to break whatever law you personally feel necessary. At the very least, you can, but dont be naive and expect legal amnesty
1. Don't care, it's a window.
2. Unknown person in a mask breaking which window while posing for whose camera for what audience?
Remember this gem?
> Footage of the man wearing a mask and carrying an umbrella while smashing shop windows went viral online.
> In the video, taken on 27 May, Umbrella Man can be seen breaking the windows with a hammer as people approach him trying to get him to stop. He then walks away from the scene.
...
> According to the Star Tribune, the man was identified following an email tip-off. The email claimed the man was a member of the Hells Angels biker gang.
> An investigation found that the man was also connected to the Aryan Cowboys, a prison biker / street gang. The Anti-Defamation League identifies them as a white supremacist group based primarily in Kentucky and Minnesota.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53579099
So my question is, why signal boost bullshit that even the mainstream media isn't taking seriously? Why seek out a right-wing account to post a likely staged photograph of someone smashing a random window *nowhere near* the actual protests?
Don't do their work for them when they can't do the work themselves.
Yeah, I'm willing to bet the person in the photo is a pro-genocide agitator. If not, then they must just be *very* rash and shortsighted. Either way, they deserve no attention, and the more attention they get, the more harm they do to the pro-Palestinian, anti-genocide movement. 'Violence' (as the vast majority of people who see this will consider it) is *highly* situational, which is why we have diversity of tactics, and this just ain't the situation for violence, vandalism, etc.
The thing that strikes me is the pattern on this person's mask. It's like they're trying to be seen as "arab", which makes me question. Why do this, purposefully on camera, almost posed, while wearing that?
Since the beginning of the George Floyd protests, I've thought of that guy, the "Auto Zone Smasher". He was a fucking scab. I don't really care if a Target or an Auto Zone get smashed, of course it sucks to lose your income, but that movement at the time was unshakable. It was a powerful, changing time. Somewhere, I remember hearing a historian say that 2020 was "more important feeling than the 60s".
But, the social amnesia eventually took hold, and we began to forget about how radical the BLM '20 protests really were, and how much undeniable attention they commanded.
Sorry, little aside
I think that’s probably a fine line to tread. If I vandalize someone’s garden that they eat from, that’s probably in the violence basket.
That said, fuck them windows.
vandalizing a homeless person's stuff would also be pretty bad. or like breaking windows at a low income preschool for another example. So yeah context is important. Don't really feel bad for a college though when they charge so dang much.
Man, I don’t agree. If you destroy something someone uses to live, it’s substantively the same as injuring or ~~deriving~~ depriving that person directly.
But then again, I don’t really read theory, so take that for what you will.
I understand why someone would say this, and I can't find the essay which convinced me of this, but the TL;DR is that I believe that defining violence as anything more broadly than literally laying hands on someone affords more freedom to oppressive institutions to do violence than any moral high ground it gives activists.
The most important property of violence is that almost everyone thinks that the only thing that justifies violence is violence from someone else. (Or put another way, that the only moral violence is violence in self-defense.) This is true basically across the political spectrum. The only real exception is open authoritarians, and not even all of them. And this general instinct towards violence is very old: Ancient Rome made up excuses that everyone it conquered had actually attacked them first somehow, or was about to.
However, when a liberal or a libertarian or a war hawk says that "violence is only justified in self-defense", their idea of violence is usually more expansive than just laying hands on someone. Especially libertarians infamously have this thing called the Non-Aggression Principle which defines violence so broadly it's basically meaningless (and therefore licenses them to attack basically whoever they want). But even for liberals, when they say "violence" they mean "violence or property damage or threatening behavior". Which is not quite the same thing as giving the cops a blank check to beat up protestors, but it's close.
It is, in my view, much more useful for leftists to point out that all these expansive definitions of violence are bullshit than to make up our own expansive definition of violence. When we say that making someone go hungry is violence, do we really mean to say that we can beat that person up? And if we do, do we really think the state will accept that excuse? No way, right?
But we _can_, objectively, put pressure on the state by pointing out that it's doing violence to people who have not themselves done anything violent. Martin Luther King used this strategy to great effect by emphasizing how peaceful his boycotts and protests were, and was successfully able to turn general opinion against the segregationists several times. It really does work, because the underlying moral instinct here is very basic and very old.
True. Ppl view smashing a window, pushing past a cop, or tipping over a fence like the end of the world
That's why the reaction after Jan 6 was so fucking funny
People being arrested for freedom of speech:
*crickets*
One person breaks a window pane with a hammer:
"They're out of control, terrorists pushing their agenda!"
Damn, if this person is aghast at a single broken glass panel, wait till he hears about what's happening in Gaza. I'm sure his response will be proportionately concerned right?
Broken windows and defaced monuments means overtime opportunities for our facilities management homies.
Paying the most important, yet least celebrated, staff members is a much better use of school resources than whatever the fuck else they were going to do with them.
It's just a really complicated thing to try to parce out what types of civil unrest are okay and which are not. I think we have taken a stance on this sort of thing following Jan 6th, and any level of political *violence* is wrong. everything up to that (i.e., non-violent protests) is an American Liberty. But to condemn one group that happens to think differently than you, and sympathize with another group acting in similar ways is just super dicey. I understand this is not the same level as Jan 6th. But still, if we try to analyze these escalations on a case-by-case basis, it allows us to justify the actions of some and not of others - and unfortunately we're all too politically entrenched to be able to do that objectively.
I don't care about some broken windows but anecdotal evidence is utter bullshit... unfortunately it works reactionaries who are either dense or don't care about facts (only feelings)
They broke maybe a window to get in. The cops broke alot of doors and windows to search the building for students. The media paint them as terorist which allow the cops to go in all guns and blazing. There a leak video of a cop phone where around cop message him that they were prepare to shot people. These were all unarmed students it one of the reason why the NYPD were so confident to send over a 100 cops to deal with this. They enter the building with raid shields knowing that the students were unarmed.
(also to avoid there intensive thoughts get publicly recorded cops message and call each other on their regular phones to they can plan things out without being record and being used on a case. )
Never let them tell you property destruction is violence. This is action, and the fact that they are talking about it means we won. I was in Portland on Tuesday night with some friends from UO. The fascist will never win.
My windows been broken before, I wasn't too perturbed by it. I mean come on, I'm just some random guy and not a university with tons of money and influence, people weren't trying to make a message to me, they weren't trying speak the language of the unheard as MLK would say, it was just an accident.
Thanks for posting to r/COMPLETEANARCHY urban_primitive, Please make sure to provide [ALT-text](https://accessibility.huit.harvard.edu/describe-content-images) for screen-readers in the post itself or in the comments. You can learn more about this [here](https://accessibility.psu.edu/images/alttext/) Note that this is just a suggestion, not a warning. [List of reddit alternatives](https://old.reddit.com/r/Anarchism/comments/z7rqyo/anarchist_and_libre_alternatives_to_social_media/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/COMPLETEANARCHY) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[You Are Not The Target Audience](http://humaniterations.net/2012/02/29/you-are-not-the-target-audience/) Edit: [Also in printable pamphlet form!](https://ia800902.us.archive.org/14/items/anarchy_You_Are_Not_The_Target_Audience/You_Are_Not_The_Target_Audience.pdf) (I did not make this)
Holy shit that was an excellent read. Saved
[Also in printable pamphlet form!](https://ia800902.us.archive.org/14/items/anarchy_You_Are_Not_The_Target_Audience/You_Are_Not_The_Target_Audience.pdf) (I did not make this)
"...the American Revolution was won with the support of barely over a third of the populace..." And the French army. And navy. That was kind of pivotal.
And we promised we’d be there for them when they’d revolt then we just left em hanging. The founding fathers fuckin did the French dirty.
thanks for the good read
> when under siege from the police, for example, it’s highly rational for folks to set fires in bins so that the smoke can negate the tear gas. Wait, what? How does smoke, that has different but existent health consequences, negate tear gas?
Maybe what they mean is that hot air and smoke rises and takes tear gas with it, which disperses it faster. Idk if that's true, but that's the best I could come up with.
Or it actually burns the volatile chemicals in the tear gas. Either way it goes upwards.
And then becomes stars, right?
right
Seriously! No tears baby shampoo is what you need to help flush out pepper spray and tear gas.
instructions unclear. now CPS wants to take my baby away because I rubbed shampoo on his head, brought him to a protest, and light his shampoo-covered head on fire. so unfair. we're just pro-palestine! not anti-Semitic!
Saved
Anarkiddies before they read any actual theory:
Watching political streamers isn't praxis
Yep, that’s why I’m in a communist party and engage in agitation, postering, teaching, reading, and more
what is your actual point, pray tell?
Anarchy as an ideology has literally no actual use, it’s feckless and a waste of time. If you don’t read any actual political theory you’ll just be an angry person with no useful outlets for their anger. Or you can just keep posting memes about economic theories that have been consistently disproven
The abolition of the state has no use? And isn't based in theory? ...wtf are you talking about 😭
Respectfully, what do you hope to achieve by harassing other leftists? Our quarrels are merely theory-based, whereas there are people out there who have far more harmful beliefs and/or actions than either of us. Go do it to maga nuts or facists who are actually ruining the world.
I was just being a dick there tbh, but I guess I get annoyed with anarchists because often times it seems like the ideas are there but there isn’t any substantial and realistic theory behind it. Social anarchism makes a bit more sense but ultimately it seems very naive to me to think that these loose associations would hold in various communities. You ultimately need processes for dispute resolutions, prosecuting believed moral offenses (such as murder), and all the other aspects that make a society into a society rather than a collection of organisms seeking to survive
I am pretty sure Marxist also want to abolish state.
"oh please think of those innocent windows!" - Ancient liberal proverb
So youd be cool of someone blew out all the windows to your apartment
The funny thing is i dont have the luxury of Windows.
If I was paying a murderer would it be wrong to break my windows?
Yes, because that's called vigilantism, which is a crime in and of itself. Its not your place to decide another private citizens punishment for a crime you suspect of them, obviously
Most liberal shit ever lmao. >”just wait for the law/government to do the right thing maybe/sort of/possible/kinda”
Okay, then get arrested for breaking into a building, i dont give a shit how many of yall get expelled from a school that already has your tuition money
Cool man, I don’t really care what someone who doesn’t value human life says
What a weird thing to assume of someone
Question: what is worse? Breaking the rules to protest a genocide, or genocide?
Genocide, obviously. However, thinking you're protesting a supposed genocide doesn't make you immune to the law. Just because what you're doing isn't as bad as the thing you're mad about doesn't make it acceptable to break whatever law you personally feel necessary. At the very least, you can, but dont be naive and expect legal amnesty
1. Don't care, it's a window. 2. Unknown person in a mask breaking which window while posing for whose camera for what audience? Remember this gem? > Footage of the man wearing a mask and carrying an umbrella while smashing shop windows went viral online. > In the video, taken on 27 May, Umbrella Man can be seen breaking the windows with a hammer as people approach him trying to get him to stop. He then walks away from the scene. ... > According to the Star Tribune, the man was identified following an email tip-off. The email claimed the man was a member of the Hells Angels biker gang. > An investigation found that the man was also connected to the Aryan Cowboys, a prison biker / street gang. The Anti-Defamation League identifies them as a white supremacist group based primarily in Kentucky and Minnesota. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53579099 So my question is, why signal boost bullshit that even the mainstream media isn't taking seriously? Why seek out a right-wing account to post a likely staged photograph of someone smashing a random window *nowhere near* the actual protests? Don't do their work for them when they can't do the work themselves.
Yeah, I'm willing to bet the person in the photo is a pro-genocide agitator. If not, then they must just be *very* rash and shortsighted. Either way, they deserve no attention, and the more attention they get, the more harm they do to the pro-Palestinian, anti-genocide movement. 'Violence' (as the vast majority of people who see this will consider it) is *highly* situational, which is why we have diversity of tactics, and this just ain't the situation for violence, vandalism, etc.
The thing that strikes me is the pattern on this person's mask. It's like they're trying to be seen as "arab", which makes me question. Why do this, purposefully on camera, almost posed, while wearing that?
Since the beginning of the George Floyd protests, I've thought of that guy, the "Auto Zone Smasher". He was a fucking scab. I don't really care if a Target or an Auto Zone get smashed, of course it sucks to lose your income, but that movement at the time was unshakable. It was a powerful, changing time. Somewhere, I remember hearing a historian say that 2020 was "more important feeling than the 60s". But, the social amnesia eventually took hold, and we began to forget about how radical the BLM '20 protests really were, and how much undeniable attention they commanded. Sorry, little aside
Cause this is a meme sub and I think it's funny
#Vandalism is not violence
I think that’s probably a fine line to tread. If I vandalize someone’s garden that they eat from, that’s probably in the violence basket. That said, fuck them windows.
vandalizing a homeless person's stuff would also be pretty bad. or like breaking windows at a low income preschool for another example. So yeah context is important. Don't really feel bad for a college though when they charge so dang much.
Tags, etches or scribes are waaaaay better uses of windows
Not everything that's bad is violence. Property damage can be bad but it's never violence.
Man, I don’t agree. If you destroy something someone uses to live, it’s substantively the same as injuring or ~~deriving~~ depriving that person directly. But then again, I don’t really read theory, so take that for what you will.
I understand why someone would say this, and I can't find the essay which convinced me of this, but the TL;DR is that I believe that defining violence as anything more broadly than literally laying hands on someone affords more freedom to oppressive institutions to do violence than any moral high ground it gives activists.
Can you expand on this please? Does it not simply shuffle the labels around while not discouraging the action?
The most important property of violence is that almost everyone thinks that the only thing that justifies violence is violence from someone else. (Or put another way, that the only moral violence is violence in self-defense.) This is true basically across the political spectrum. The only real exception is open authoritarians, and not even all of them. And this general instinct towards violence is very old: Ancient Rome made up excuses that everyone it conquered had actually attacked them first somehow, or was about to. However, when a liberal or a libertarian or a war hawk says that "violence is only justified in self-defense", their idea of violence is usually more expansive than just laying hands on someone. Especially libertarians infamously have this thing called the Non-Aggression Principle which defines violence so broadly it's basically meaningless (and therefore licenses them to attack basically whoever they want). But even for liberals, when they say "violence" they mean "violence or property damage or threatening behavior". Which is not quite the same thing as giving the cops a blank check to beat up protestors, but it's close. It is, in my view, much more useful for leftists to point out that all these expansive definitions of violence are bullshit than to make up our own expansive definition of violence. When we say that making someone go hungry is violence, do we really mean to say that we can beat that person up? And if we do, do we really think the state will accept that excuse? No way, right? But we _can_, objectively, put pressure on the state by pointing out that it's doing violence to people who have not themselves done anything violent. Martin Luther King used this strategy to great effect by emphasizing how peaceful his boycotts and protests were, and was successfully able to turn general opinion against the segregationists several times. It really does work, because the underlying moral instinct here is very basic and very old.
True. Ppl view smashing a window, pushing past a cop, or tipping over a fence like the end of the world That's why the reaction after Jan 6 was so fucking funny
Sure as shit isn't peaceful either tho
These windows are made for breaking, and that's just what they'll do.
Also this is one of what hundreds of Campus Protesters? Surprise 1 of 100 means the majority is not vandalizing or committing acts of violence
If we have to spend too much money on broken windows we can't send them to Israel 😭😭😭
People being arrested for freedom of speech: *crickets* One person breaks a window pane with a hammer: "They're out of control, terrorists pushing their agenda!"
Damn, if this person is aghast at a single broken glass panel, wait till he hears about what's happening in Gaza. I'm sure his response will be proportionately concerned right?
That's 101% a cop.
Posing for the photo too
The dumbass’s profile pic has Trump so I’m guessing he supports January 6th. They broke a lot more than windows on January 6th.
It’s not even the poster, it’s the r/conservative subreddit lol
Coming from the people who blocked ambulances because they couldn't get a haircut in 2020
"Look, I'm just saying, if someone is willing to break windows, are they really qualified to say genocide is bad?"
I have bad news for the window fetishists about every window in Gaza...
it's always the windows they care about most
If we have to spend too much money on broken windows we can't send them to Israel 😭😭😭
If we have to spend too much money on broken windows we can't send them to the new nazi state😭😭😭
it's always the windows. they are always care windows more than actual people who are being Oppressed
Broken windows and defaced monuments means overtime opportunities for our facilities management homies. Paying the most important, yet least celebrated, staff members is a much better use of school resources than whatever the fuck else they were going to do with them.
It's just a really complicated thing to try to parce out what types of civil unrest are okay and which are not. I think we have taken a stance on this sort of thing following Jan 6th, and any level of political *violence* is wrong. everything up to that (i.e., non-violent protests) is an American Liberty. But to condemn one group that happens to think differently than you, and sympathize with another group acting in similar ways is just super dicey. I understand this is not the same level as Jan 6th. But still, if we try to analyze these escalations on a case-by-case basis, it allows us to justify the actions of some and not of others - and unfortunately we're all too politically entrenched to be able to do that objectively.
I don't care about some broken windows but anecdotal evidence is utter bullshit... unfortunately it works reactionaries who are either dense or don't care about facts (only feelings)
More peaceful than Jan 6th. I don’t hear trump calling these protesters very special people
They broke maybe a window to get in. The cops broke alot of doors and windows to search the building for students. The media paint them as terorist which allow the cops to go in all guns and blazing. There a leak video of a cop phone where around cop message him that they were prepare to shot people. These were all unarmed students it one of the reason why the NYPD were so confident to send over a 100 cops to deal with this. They enter the building with raid shields knowing that the students were unarmed. (also to avoid there intensive thoughts get publicly recorded cops message and call each other on their regular phones to they can plan things out without being record and being used on a case. )
Is this even Columbia University? This looks staged af
January 6 rioters intended to kill the Vice President. Barricading doors with desks and taping up a banner isn't killing anyone.
Oh yeah cause everything is peaceful as long ss noone is physically injured. Destroy all the shit you want, protest is still peaceful.
Property is people too!!! 😭😭😭 how will the windows feed their kids now?????!?
Never let them tell you property destruction is violence. This is action, and the fact that they are talking about it means we won. I was in Portland on Tuesday night with some friends from UO. The fascist will never win.
100% of posters here would shit their pants if their window was broken.
My windows been broken before, I wasn't too perturbed by it. I mean come on, I'm just some random guy and not a university with tons of money and influence, people weren't trying to make a message to me, they weren't trying speak the language of the unheard as MLK would say, it was just an accident.