Just to add a little clarification: MS discontinued support for Mac IE when their contract with Apple ran out. Apple had a new browser in development for some time before that because they knew Mac IE would be discontinued. It's not as if MS changed course.
Wait, the environmentalist in this scenario is the one who *doesn't* recognize the reality of the conflict between the economy and the environment? As an environmentalist myself, I am fascinated by that. There is an entire radical wing of the environmental movement concerned with this (and the sociopolitical dimensions of the problem as well).
My experience has been that for the most part the conclusions of radical environmentalists are generally accepted by more mainstream environmentalists, but set aside as politically inconvenient. (With friends like that, as they say, who needs enemies?)
So if I pay 20% more for the same product, is the environmental impact of all the workers who built the car (and their dogs) included in the 20% increase? 9_9
What about e.g. "we can turn off a power plant if you, the 60M people, would turn your TV off rather than leaving it on standby"? Many things, multiplied by a large population, would have a significant effect.
Well, I was talking about atomized personal decisions. Organized public decisions are another matter entirely, and getting 60 million people dedicated to consistent action is a tactic wholly apart from getting a single person to alter their habits. I don't know enough about the details to say whether your claim is true, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if you're already at the point of organizing 60 million people, it'd be worthwhile to set your sights higher than turning off electronics standby. At that point, my project goals would be something more along the lines of simultaneously making electricity production publicly available, removing dependence on electricity to a much more drastic degree, and educating about the consequences of each technology for electricity production (because even the "green" alternatives have great environmental cost).
I wonder how many more power plants we'd need if we swapped every CFL bulb for incandescents, or removed all the extra insulation people have put in their houses?
My guess is that it would result in greater cost externalization for corporations/public sector (that is, higher cost for "consumers" but little difference in consumption overall). I don't know all of the details, again, but I do know that production of those resources does consume energy and that they pose other environmental problems besides energy consumption.
My electricity company sent me two good-quality CFLs. I'm sure they're not doing it to be "green". Presumably, if people have used them, then it's reduced their peak and base load.
I think your reasoning is on the right track here, toward understanding the real priorities of greenwashing campaigns. It's actually astonishing, if you think about it, that capitalists didn't get on board with "environmentalism" much earlier—after all, preserving "your" resources means greater longevity of profit. Preservation of property is a basic feature of true (free market) capitalism anyway.
That said, again, take your CFLs to the bank (so to speak) and be glad of it, but don't be under any illusion that it's going to stop the sea from rising (even if everybody switches).
We can ask a 95 year old human who, thanks to pills or physical deterioration, is "alive" but no longer participating in life in any way that's meaningful to them.
Or we can conclude that we can't "know" what birds feel and go on treating longevity as an indicator of quality of life.
Total population and per capita impact are both important, but it's important to understand that different populations have different impacts, and that these differences can be traced to social systems (corporate, state, cultural) which are not rooted in population or individual impact.
Family size is a product of more than just value systems. And it's also a product of more than just education. It's astonishing to me that family size and poverty (and other forms of oppression) can so clearly be linked, but that those analyzing these links rarely draw meaningful conclusions as to why.
From an outside perspective, it's easy to say that it's "unwise" for a poor family to increase their burden by raising more and more children, but the fact of the matter is that there is an absolutely practical motivation for a family with limited means to increase its size: more bodies provide more labor. It's the same rationale that businesses use when hiring employees.
And poor families with many children (which account for the vast majority of what's called "overpopulation", despite being an entirely separate issue), in most conditions, do not produce a proportionately greater impact on the environment. This is because poor people do not create the same impact that wealthy people do.
I'm *not* arguing that population isn't an issue. Indeed, in a finite system, there is always a maximum population which can be sustained. What I'm arguing is that it's simplistic and wrong to blame population for the excesses of excess, and to heap responsibility on those who are not only unable to curb excess but unable to indulge in it as well.
In a sense though, all of these can be tied together around the system which produces them all, which is (to oversimplify, myself) global capitalism. A system which promotes and rewards "growth" and swallows the whole world into it... will inevitably produce gluttons and paupers, all of whom are victims in a sense, and all of whom can conveniently blame one another and their personal choices while ignoring the threads that bind them together.
While all of this is good enough advice for your pocketbook, you'd be remiss to think it has any impact on environmental destruction. The vast majority of environmental harm originates from industry, and happens regardless of disorganized consumer choice. In no case can atomized individual behavioral decisions offset organized systems with massive power and investment behind them.
How does cost have anything to do with environmental impact? Is the same product going to have a 20% greater environmental impact if I pay 20% more for it? Or am I just a stupid consumer?
I don't think that was Morgaine's point, but it's a point that stands on its own merit and is worth discussing. To me, it's a perfect lens through which to examine the sham of industrial greenwashing, and to explore the possibility that industrial economies and true environmental responsibility can't coexist.
Are you suggesting that it's an entirely non-man-made catastrophe, which was in the works long before industrialism? If so, got any citations to back that up? If not, will you clarify?
It's become trite by now to have to make this point anytime the word "lawsuit" comes up, but you should actually read the details of the McDonald's case. The person who sued was severely injured by coffee that was much hotter than any reasonable person would expect, and packaged in a cup that popped open much more easily than any reasonable person would expect. It was absolutely a case of criminal negligence on the part of McDonald's, and the temperature of the coffee is only one relevant detail underscoring that. I would think that the "may be hot" disclaimers are likely insulting to the victim in that case more than anything.
I was charged with "pedestrian interference" (which is a fancy term for "jaywalking"). I was released on bail (*not* personal recognizance) within a few hours of arrest, but didn't hear my charges until my first hearing, weeks later. My case was dismissed (but not after accumulating substantial legal fees), and we are currently suing the city for violation of my Constitutional rights.
I guess couchslug isn't going to come back and tell me why I deserved this treatment, though.:P
"Plus, seems like some $0.50 earplugs would be a good defense against this, if someone had the forethought to bring them..."
First, no one had the forethought to bring any defenses against a weapon which had never been deployed. Second, even if you find earplugs that protect you from hearing damage, that is not the extent of the harm the weapon can do, and it increases other risks.
This meme makes me wonder if people used to jokingly say, "don't murder me bro!" after Kent State, or Fred Hampton, or the countless Pinkerton battles. Somehow I doubt it. Look, offensive humor is pretty funny, but it really makes me sad that some kid has become a laughing stock for basically asking not to be brutalized.
They may not have been part of an officially sanctioned military agency, but they were certainly (like their riot police cohorts) engaged in military action (neutralization of target), in military uniform. Nonetheless, even if they'd been "dressed in blue", the act performed was criminal abduction.
"I do, and I'm so old I remember when neighborhoods hadn't upped the stakes by becoming violent hellholes where cops didn't need military gear."
1. Internal community violence is nowhere near new, and has never been promoted as a response to police. The framing of escalating community violence as "upped stakes" is absolutelyÂnonsense.
2. Cops do not deploy in neighborhood patrols with these accoutrements. Apart from the psychological warfare of dark dress (and increasingly, dark squad carsâ"more and more of which I've seen with black identifying lettering on black paint), they reserve the militarization for political demonstrations. It's clear from this that the purpose of these accoutrements is not to deal with supposed "violent hellholes", but to deal with political opposition.
"The only answer to force is superior force."
Nonsense. An entirely reasonable answer to the sort of disorganized violence you're speaking of is to address the underlying and reasonable complaints and conditions that inspire and fuel said violence. Which is to say, addressing marginalization of options besides violence.
Further, saying that the answer to force is superior force presumes that said superior force is inherently and unerringly justified.
"The cops do protect me and my "turf", so me and millions like me don't mind if they inflict casualties on the enemy while they hold the thin blue line. I live a peaceful life and do not prey on others."
Since we're getting anecdotal... I will forego my preferred point, which is to point out that the concept of well-off predators is largely a fairy tale and that the real predators are by and large akin to Eichmann (I don't ship bodies to death camps, I just arrange the train schedules!). Instead, I'll respond with personal anecdote:
I was once beaten by a police officer, using a bicycle as a weapon. I was, at the time, on a city sidewalk, clearing pepper spray out of a kid's eyes with antacid. I witnessed the pepper spraying of this kid (and at least a couple hundred others like him), who was (like the rest of those around him) doing nothing resembling predation or force, and was indeed only exercising his right to express grievances against a government official (Tom Ridge, if you must know... and he and his Homeland Security cohorts were spotted watching out of a hotel window, drinking beers and cheering). I'll skip asking what act of predation, or force, these protestors committed to deserve victimization by "superior force". I'll ask: what did I do, by providing first aid, that constitutes predation or force? Why did I deserve to be beaten with a bicycle?
To add another anecdote, I was once arrested while marching in a permitted demonstration (and here I'll add, as I did in another comment, that the requirement for parade permits to assemble has been ruled unconstitutional; but nonetheless, the permit had been secured). I was toward the end of the march, and was being pushed and ordered by police officers out of the street. I asked why, and was told that I would be arrested if I did not vacate the street. I asked what law I was breaking, at which point a cop asked what he could say or do to get me out of the street. My response: "you can tell me what law I'm breaking." HIs response: "okay, you're under arrest." Again, what was I doing that constitutes predation or force?
The subtext of your comment says a lot more, though, than the actual text of the comment. What you're saying, to me, is this: "I am privileged, and police protect that privilege. I think they're right to do so, and those who don't are my enemies. Force should be used to prevent them from vocalizing any challenge to this arrangement."
It's also not a reasonable defense for a cop to say "I wasn't the one who clobbered that kid", when that cop did nothing to prevent it. If their job is to enforce the law, their first priority should be to ensure that others who are employed to enforce the law are not violating it. If their job is to serve and protect, they should serve and protect those who are being victimized by their colleagues, rather than serving and protecting their colleagues and power.
I'm not a fan of cops, and having been brutalized by them myself on more occasions than I can count, I generally find it traumatic to even look them in the eye, much less interact with them. But I would personally thank and shake hands with any cop who made a successful (or even concerted) attempt to prevent their colleagues from committing this kind of brutality. Sadly, I've never heard of such a cop, much less encountered one.
Which goes a long way to demonstrating that the assaults on left protestors has little to do with "violence"; just as the assaults on Iraq, rather than Iran or North Korea, had little to do with deterrence weapons like nukes.
Please forgive the double reply. The first reply didn't show up on the page after submission, so I tried to reconstruct it. I think the reconstruction better addressed the point anyhow.
1. Being an anarchist has nothing to do with wearing a mask; 2. Wearing a mask has nothing to do with committing vandalism; 3. Committing vandalism has nothing to do with violence; 4. The violence in question was committed by the state, not those resisting the state.
The violence in Pittsburgh began when police began using "less lethal" weapons against a Constitutionally protected (and morally defensible) public demonstration in the form of a march. Police declared this march an "unlawful assembly" in order to justify their assault, but never cited any legislation to this effect, nor how it interfaces with the relevant Constitutional law. The context is that the march organizers did not seek a police-granted "parade permit", which many jurisdictions have begun to require since the Seattle WTO protests. These "parade permit" restrictions have been struck down by many courts (including those concerning Seattle) as unconstitutional. All of this is relevant only if you consider state violence the appropriate response to an "unlawful assembly" which is causing no harm.
Further, it's wrong to blame victims of state violence for "inciting" their victimization by engaging in perfectly reasonable actionsâ"just as it's wrong to blame victims of parental violence for "inciting" their victimization by similarly questioning the authority's actions. It's even more wrong to blame some of the victims, who are in principle opposed to the state violence, when those who are not in principle opposed to the state violence become "collateral damage". It is the state, not the anarchists, wielding weapons and committing acts of violence.
But don't take my word for it. I'm an anarchist and clearly can't contribute to a "serious debate", the framing of which you've set with phantoms of wily black bloc coyotes, not much different from the caricatures of "bomb throwing anarchists" used to justify mass imprisonments and deportations of radical European Jews and Slavs in the early 20th century. And that caricature, too, had no basis in reality.
When discussing the "thoughtful arguments against much of what goes on in the G20 conferences", dismissing those who take their opposition to the level of principle and apply those principles consistently, referring to them as a "lunatic fringe", is the surest way to prevent any meaningful dialogue about the "thoughtful arguments" you think are being obscured by those advancing them. It may be helpful to keep in mind that the protestors in the streets in Pittsburgh, or Seattle, or whereverâ"and here I'm excluding myself, as I find these huge conferences and the trendy "tourist activism" of attending them strategically unsoundâ"don't vanish when the streets are cleared. The serious debate you don't consider them capable of engaging in... they helped to open it in the first place.
1. Being an anarchist has nothing to do with wearing a mask; 2. Wearing a mask has nothing to do with committing vandalism; 3. Committing vandalism has nothing to do with violence; 4. We're discussing this in the context of police violence, not protestor violence.
The use of violence in Pittsburgh by police against protestors began when protestors initiated a Constitutional (and morally defensible) public demonstration in the form of a march. The police declared this an "unlawful assembly", without ever explaining what that means. The presumed background is that the march organizers did not obtain a [parade] "permit" from the city police; courts have routinely ruled these "permit" regulations as unconstitutional.
Exercising legal (and morally defensible) rights does not "incite" state violence. It is wrong to blame the victims of state violence for the victimization that they oppose, simply because they exercised these rights; it's even more wrong to blame them for the fallout that the state visits upon others who *don't* oppose these policies on principle.
With all of that said, I'm an anarchist, so I can't positively contribute to any serious debate. So feel free to dismiss my reasoning on the basis of my principles.
"You can't see how someone calling out racism over a clearly non-racist marketing decision is a hypocrite?"
Nope, explain to me how I'm a hypocrite. Explain to me exactly what is hypocritical about saying it's racist to make a marketing decision that says, "Polish people don't identify with people who have black skin, let's target that identification with our marketing materials".
Slashdot Mirror
Just to add a little clarification: MS discontinued support for Mac IE when their contract with Apple ran out. Apple had a new browser in development for some time before that because they knew Mac IE would be discontinued. It's not as if MS changed course.
Wait, the environmentalist in this scenario is the one who *doesn't* recognize the reality of the conflict between the economy and the environment? As an environmentalist myself, I am fascinated by that. There is an entire radical wing of the environmental movement concerned with this (and the sociopolitical dimensions of the problem as well).
My experience has been that for the most part the conclusions of radical environmentalists are generally accepted by more mainstream environmentalists, but set aside as politically inconvenient. (With friends like that, as they say, who needs enemies?)
So if I pay 20% more for the same product, is the environmental impact of all the workers who built the car (and their dogs) included in the 20% increase? 9_9
Well, I was talking about atomized personal decisions. Organized public decisions are another matter entirely, and getting 60 million people dedicated to consistent action is a tactic wholly apart from getting a single person to alter their habits. I don't know enough about the details to say whether your claim is true, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if you're already at the point of organizing 60 million people, it'd be worthwhile to set your sights higher than turning off electronics standby. At that point, my project goals would be something more along the lines of simultaneously making electricity production publicly available, removing dependence on electricity to a much more drastic degree, and educating about the consequences of each technology for electricity production (because even the "green" alternatives have great environmental cost).
My guess is that it would result in greater cost externalization for corporations/public sector (that is, higher cost for "consumers" but little difference in consumption overall). I don't know all of the details, again, but I do know that production of those resources does consume energy and that they pose other environmental problems besides energy consumption.
I think your reasoning is on the right track here, toward understanding the real priorities of greenwashing campaigns. It's actually astonishing, if you think about it, that capitalists didn't get on board with "environmentalism" much earlier—after all, preserving "your" resources means greater longevity of profit. Preservation of property is a basic feature of true (free market) capitalism anyway.
That said, again, take your CFLs to the bank (so to speak) and be glad of it, but don't be under any illusion that it's going to stop the sea from rising (even if everybody switches).
Agreed, again. Still doesn't have anything to do with the environment.
We can ask a 95 year old human who, thanks to pills or physical deterioration, is "alive" but no longer participating in life in any way that's meaningful to them.
Or we can conclude that we can't "know" what birds feel and go on treating longevity as an indicator of quality of life.
Total population and per capita impact are both important, but it's important to understand that different populations have different impacts, and that these differences can be traced to social systems (corporate, state, cultural) which are not rooted in population or individual impact.
Family size is a product of more than just value systems. And it's also a product of more than just education. It's astonishing to me that family size and poverty (and other forms of oppression) can so clearly be linked, but that those analyzing these links rarely draw meaningful conclusions as to why.
From an outside perspective, it's easy to say that it's "unwise" for a poor family to increase their burden by raising more and more children, but the fact of the matter is that there is an absolutely practical motivation for a family with limited means to increase its size: more bodies provide more labor. It's the same rationale that businesses use when hiring employees.
And poor families with many children (which account for the vast majority of what's called "overpopulation", despite being an entirely separate issue), in most conditions, do not produce a proportionately greater impact on the environment. This is because poor people do not create the same impact that wealthy people do.
I'm *not* arguing that population isn't an issue. Indeed, in a finite system, there is always a maximum population which can be sustained. What I'm arguing is that it's simplistic and wrong to blame population for the excesses of excess, and to heap responsibility on those who are not only unable to curb excess but unable to indulge in it as well.
In a sense though, all of these can be tied together around the system which produces them all, which is (to oversimplify, myself) global capitalism. A system which promotes and rewards "growth" and swallows the whole world into it... will inevitably produce gluttons and paupers, all of whom are victims in a sense, and all of whom can conveniently blame one another and their personal choices while ignoring the threads that bind them together.
While all of this is good enough advice for your pocketbook, you'd be remiss to think it has any impact on environmental destruction. The vast majority of environmental harm originates from industry, and happens regardless of disorganized consumer choice. In no case can atomized individual behavioral decisions offset organized systems with massive power and investment behind them.
How does cost have anything to do with environmental impact? Is the same product going to have a 20% greater environmental impact if I pay 20% more for it? Or am I just a stupid consumer?
I don't think that was Morgaine's point, but it's a point that stands on its own merit and is worth discussing. To me, it's a perfect lens through which to examine the sham of industrial greenwashing, and to explore the possibility that industrial economies and true environmental responsibility can't coexist.
Really? Intensive construction projects seem more "sane" than purchasing real estate?
Are you suggesting that it's an entirely non-man-made catastrophe, which was in the works long before industrialism? If so, got any citations to back that up? If not, will you clarify?
It's become trite by now to have to make this point anytime the word "lawsuit" comes up, but you should actually read the details of the McDonald's case. The person who sued was severely injured by coffee that was much hotter than any reasonable person would expect, and packaged in a cup that popped open much more easily than any reasonable person would expect. It was absolutely a case of criminal negligence on the part of McDonald's, and the temperature of the coffee is only one relevant detail underscoring that. I would think that the "may be hot" disclaimers are likely insulting to the victim in that case more than anything.
I was charged with "pedestrian interference" (which is a fancy term for "jaywalking"). I was released on bail (*not* personal recognizance) within a few hours of arrest, but didn't hear my charges until my first hearing, weeks later. My case was dismissed (but not after accumulating substantial legal fees), and we are currently suing the city for violation of my Constitutional rights.
I guess couchslug isn't going to come back and tell me why I deserved this treatment, though. :P
"Plus, seems like some $0.50 earplugs would be a good defense against this, if someone had the forethought to bring them..."
First, no one had the forethought to bring any defenses against a weapon which had never been deployed. Second, even if you find earplugs that protect you from hearing damage, that is not the extent of the harm the weapon can do, and it increases other risks.
This meme makes me wonder if people used to jokingly say, "don't murder me bro!" after Kent State, or Fred Hampton, or the countless Pinkerton battles. Somehow I doubt it. Look, offensive humor is pretty funny, but it really makes me sad that some kid has become a laughing stock for basically asking not to be brutalized.
They may not have been part of an officially sanctioned military agency, but they were certainly (like their riot police cohorts) engaged in military action (neutralization of target), in military uniform. Nonetheless, even if they'd been "dressed in blue", the act performed was criminal abduction.
"I do, and I'm so old I remember when neighborhoods hadn't upped the stakes by becoming violent hellholes where cops didn't need military gear."
1. Internal community violence is nowhere near new, and has never been promoted as a response to police. The framing of escalating community violence as "upped stakes" is absolutelyÂnonsense.
2. Cops do not deploy in neighborhood patrols with these accoutrements. Apart from the psychological warfare of dark dress (and increasingly, dark squad carsâ"more and more of which I've seen with black identifying lettering on black paint), they reserve the militarization for political demonstrations. It's clear from this that the purpose of these accoutrements is not to deal with supposed "violent hellholes", but to deal with political opposition.
"The only answer to force is superior force."
Nonsense. An entirely reasonable answer to the sort of disorganized violence you're speaking of is to address the underlying and reasonable complaints and conditions that inspire and fuel said violence. Which is to say, addressing marginalization of options besides violence.
Further, saying that the answer to force is superior force presumes that said superior force is inherently and unerringly justified.
"The cops do protect me and my "turf", so me and millions like me don't mind if they inflict casualties on the enemy while they hold the thin blue line. I live a peaceful life and do not prey on others."
Since we're getting anecdotal... I will forego my preferred point, which is to point out that the concept of well-off predators is largely a fairy tale and that the real predators are by and large akin to Eichmann (I don't ship bodies to death camps, I just arrange the train schedules!). Instead, I'll respond with personal anecdote:
I was once beaten by a police officer, using a bicycle as a weapon. I was, at the time, on a city sidewalk, clearing pepper spray out of a kid's eyes with antacid. I witnessed the pepper spraying of this kid (and at least a couple hundred others like him), who was (like the rest of those around him) doing nothing resembling predation or force, and was indeed only exercising his right to express grievances against a government official (Tom Ridge, if you must know... and he and his Homeland Security cohorts were spotted watching out of a hotel window, drinking beers and cheering). I'll skip asking what act of predation, or force, these protestors committed to deserve victimization by "superior force". I'll ask: what did I do, by providing first aid, that constitutes predation or force? Why did I deserve to be beaten with a bicycle?
To add another anecdote, I was once arrested while marching in a permitted demonstration (and here I'll add, as I did in another comment, that the requirement for parade permits to assemble has been ruled unconstitutional; but nonetheless, the permit had been secured). I was toward the end of the march, and was being pushed and ordered by police officers out of the street. I asked why, and was told that I would be arrested if I did not vacate the street. I asked what law I was breaking, at which point a cop asked what he could say or do to get me out of the street. My response: "you can tell me what law I'm breaking." HIs response: "okay, you're under arrest." Again, what was I doing that constitutes predation or force?
The subtext of your comment says a lot more, though, than the actual text of the comment. What you're saying, to me, is this: "I am privileged, and police protect that privilege. I think they're right to do so, and those who don't are my enemies. Force should be used to prevent them from vocalizing any challenge to this arrangement."
It's also not a reasonable defense for a cop to say "I wasn't the one who clobbered that kid", when that cop did nothing to prevent it. If their job is to enforce the law, their first priority should be to ensure that others who are employed to enforce the law are not violating it. If their job is to serve and protect, they should serve and protect those who are being victimized by their colleagues, rather than serving and protecting their colleagues and power.
I'm not a fan of cops, and having been brutalized by them myself on more occasions than I can count, I generally find it traumatic to even look them in the eye, much less interact with them. But I would personally thank and shake hands with any cop who made a successful (or even concerted) attempt to prevent their colleagues from committing this kind of brutality. Sadly, I've never heard of such a cop, much less encountered one.
Which goes a long way to demonstrating that the assaults on left protestors has little to do with "violence"; just as the assaults on Iraq, rather than Iran or North Korea, had little to do with deterrence weapons like nukes.
Please forgive the double reply. The first reply didn't show up on the page after submission, so I tried to reconstruct it. I think the reconstruction better addressed the point anyhow.
1. Being an anarchist has nothing to do with wearing a mask;
2. Wearing a mask has nothing to do with committing vandalism;
3. Committing vandalism has nothing to do with violence;
4. The violence in question was committed by the state, not those resisting the state.
The violence in Pittsburgh began when police began using "less lethal" weapons against a Constitutionally protected (and morally defensible) public demonstration in the form of a march. Police declared this march an "unlawful assembly" in order to justify their assault, but never cited any legislation to this effect, nor how it interfaces with the relevant Constitutional law. The context is that the march organizers did not seek a police-granted "parade permit", which many jurisdictions have begun to require since the Seattle WTO protests. These "parade permit" restrictions have been struck down by many courts (including those concerning Seattle) as unconstitutional. All of this is relevant only if you consider state violence the appropriate response to an "unlawful assembly" which is causing no harm.
Further, it's wrong to blame victims of state violence for "inciting" their victimization by engaging in perfectly reasonable actionsâ"just as it's wrong to blame victims of parental violence for "inciting" their victimization by similarly questioning the authority's actions. It's even more wrong to blame some of the victims, who are in principle opposed to the state violence, when those who are not in principle opposed to the state violence become "collateral damage". It is the state, not the anarchists, wielding weapons and committing acts of violence.
But don't take my word for it. I'm an anarchist and clearly can't contribute to a "serious debate", the framing of which you've set with phantoms of wily black bloc coyotes, not much different from the caricatures of "bomb throwing anarchists" used to justify mass imprisonments and deportations of radical European Jews and Slavs in the early 20th century. And that caricature, too, had no basis in reality.
When discussing the "thoughtful arguments against much of what goes on in the G20 conferences", dismissing those who take their opposition to the level of principle and apply those principles consistently, referring to them as a "lunatic fringe", is the surest way to prevent any meaningful dialogue about the "thoughtful arguments" you think are being obscured by those advancing them. It may be helpful to keep in mind that the protestors in the streets in Pittsburgh, or Seattle, or whereverâ"and here I'm excluding myself, as I find these huge conferences and the trendy "tourist activism" of attending them strategically unsoundâ"don't vanish when the streets are cleared. The serious debate you don't consider them capable of engaging in... they helped to open it in the first place.
1. Being an anarchist has nothing to do with wearing a mask;
2. Wearing a mask has nothing to do with committing vandalism;
3. Committing vandalism has nothing to do with violence;
4. We're discussing this in the context of police violence, not protestor violence.
The use of violence in Pittsburgh by police against protestors began when protestors initiated a Constitutional (and morally defensible) public demonstration in the form of a march. The police declared this an "unlawful assembly", without ever explaining what that means. The presumed background is that the march organizers did not obtain a [parade] "permit" from the city police; courts have routinely ruled these "permit" regulations as unconstitutional.
Exercising legal (and morally defensible) rights does not "incite" state violence. It is wrong to blame the victims of state violence for the victimization that they oppose, simply because they exercised these rights; it's even more wrong to blame them for the fallout that the state visits upon others who *don't* oppose these policies on principle.
With all of that said, I'm an anarchist, so I can't positively contribute to any serious debate. So feel free to dismiss my reasoning on the basis of my principles.
"You can't see how someone calling out racism over a clearly non-racist marketing decision is a hypocrite?"
Nope, explain to me how I'm a hypocrite. Explain to me exactly what is hypocritical about saying it's racist to make a marketing decision that says, "Polish people don't identify with people who have black skin, let's target that identification with our marketing materials".
Your example is a strawman.
Can you point me to it? I must have missed it.