http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/05/02/why-all-the-smashy-smashy-a-beginners-guide-to-targeted-property-destruction Comments On: Why All the Smashy-Smashy? A Beginner's Guide to Targeted Property Destruction. by Brendan Kiley en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 22 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Wed, 22 May 2013 12:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss I got what you mean , thanks for posting .Woh I am happy to find this website through google.
Good Relationship With Thing Thing

Posted by roger1122]]> Wed, 22 May 2013 07:08:30 -0700 The Stranger Please continue this great work and I look forward to more of your awesome blog posts.
restaurant in clarke quay
Posted by roger1122]]> Thu, 16 May 2013 04:17:51 -0700 The Stranger Very useful post. This is my first time i visit here. I found so many interesting stuff in your blog especially its discussion. Really its great article. Keep it up.
Hand Dryer
Posted by Jon carter111]]> Sun, 14 Apr 2013 06:17:59 -0700 The Stranger
Instead, once we understand trashing as a neutral act, then we enter a discussion of strategy and tactics. The example given about the student smashing a window to get into a meeting is a really good one. In that case, smashing kind of made sense, and I think most people would see it as a reasonable action, which is obvious since all the charges were thrown out, and courts are not exactly the most radical institutions. On the other hand, it's pretty hard to make a case about what smashing accomplishes at an anti-G20 demo like in Toronto, for example. Look at the outcomes: the media and government demonized not just the "thugs" who broke windows, but also the entire movement, while simultaneously using the smashing as an excuse to ignore the protesters' arguments and demands. Plus, the smashing provided a rationale for the police to flex their muscle, and they proceeded to crack down on people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the smashing--because the smashers had all run away, leaving others vulnerable. That, in turn, just created more heat and distrust inside the movements and organizations, which makes activists even more isolated and less effective than we already are. Apart from ideological tap-dancing about "exposing the weakness of the state" and similar arguments, it's really hard to see what good the smashing did. Okay, maybe it "exposed" the state, but to whom? The ones doing the smashing, obviously, not the general public who turned on their TVs or opened the papers and saw/read all the demonizing coverage of the events. And finally, making "smashing" and "anarchism" synonymous just slanders anarchism, which has always been at its core about challenging illegitimate authority so that people can be free to decide their own fate. That's a good principle. Unfortunately, smashing obscures and confuses that and makes anarchism seem like it's about mindless "violence" rather than positive individual and collective freedom. Elites have always tried to portray anarchism as the former, as some dangerous, violent, chaotic ideology. We shouldn't do the work of elites for them.

So, again, it comes back to tactics and strategy. In order to achieve aims, tactics have to be carefully thought through to see if they're going to help achieve those aims. And, in the first place, we need to have an understanding of how aims are won, too. We win with big, powerful, numerous, well-supported, long-term, deeply committed social movements with clear goals and strategies. We always have and we always will. Conversely, we don't win with a random smattering of actions with no specific aim--or if we do, it's pure coincidence. So our first goal should be building and broadening movement participation and support, and that's really what we should evaluate our actions based on: Does X action help grow the movement, or does Y action do it better? Until a movement is large enough to pressure elites to give in, that has to be the primary calculation. So clearly smashing doesn't do much to help in that regard, at least not now. But at a certain point, under certain circumstances, maybe it would, who knows.

Just like we shouldn't take marches and letter writing for granted as supreme tactics, we shouldn't take smashing or burning for granted as supreme tactics. Tactics don't propel change, movements applying them strategically do. We always, in every situation, have to carefully and collectively discuss our aims, our values, what we want to win, the barriers to doing so, and how to overcome those barriers. If we're serious about social change, that is, that's what we'll do.
Posted by Andre Guimond]]> Mon, 07 May 2012 03:27:27 -0700 The Stranger
There is much to discuss about all the unsound logic, but the most obvious case is the "vandalized banks help people see state as weak". If that's true, then it means the average citizen will hope to strengthen that state. Otherwise, Occupy support would grow when windows are smashed in its name - instead, it has dwindled. In Oakland, I've heard two working class neighbors say they "understand" the police, because Occupy is so pointless and violent. This is very different from how people saw Occupy in the fall.

The main difference between theory and practice being that in theory, there is no difference.
Posted by Tiktoktiktok]]> Sat, 05 May 2012 18:37:21 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Tiktoktiktok]]> Sat, 05 May 2012 18:28:20 -0700 The Stranger
Ooh, pick me! I know the answer!

This odd, ritualized costume drama is a reenactment of late-cold-war protests in Western Germany. And the reason neo-smashists are doing reenactment pageants of those anti-nuclear, squatters' rights, and atonomen battles is pretty much the same reason southern whites reenact Civil War battles: they want to return to the last point in history where people like themselves were free to physically express their sense of moral superiority over others.

Posted by robotslave]]> Fri, 04 May 2012 19:59:54 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Yani]]> Fri, 04 May 2012 18:39:49 -0700 The Stranger
People own property. From a moral perspective, damaging someone's property is hurting them.

Moreover, in our world, people are property; we are fortunate enough to own ourselves. This is the basis for the 'price' of 'labor', as it is the basis for all of the rights that we have to our person.

------

"Did today's vandalism detract from the protests?"

I wasn't there, but I can say that if it was anything like Chicago, protests like these feel like reenactments more than anything else. Some people even take this to be the goal (the spectacle).

If they are reenactments--what are they reminding us? If they are meant as something more than a reenactment, what are they trying to achieve?
Posted by gabe_chicago]]> Fri, 04 May 2012 13:22:18 -0700 The Stranger
HOw totALLy DUmb.


Posted by EroticArtist]]> Fri, 04 May 2012 07:13:52 -0700 The Stranger
Enter in "Zappa Torture Never Stops Zoot Allures" without the quotation marks.

Click on the one at the top posted by GoinToSleepBIATCH

HOW DARE YOU QUESTION OUR CUTTING EDGE COOKIES!!!

That is not what I meant.
Posted by The Gubbler]]> Fri, 04 May 2012 07:07:14 -0700 The Stranger
The link is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0QmrbHE6…


Posted by The frustrated but determined]]> Fri, 04 May 2012 06:59:29 -0700 The Stranger
Here we go again...

@ 159 & 160

How dare you question our cutting edge coolness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0QmrbHE6…

if that doesn't work try...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0QmrbHE6…
Posted by The Gubbler]]> Fri, 04 May 2012 06:53:12 -0700 The Stranger
@ 159 & 160

How dare you question our cutting edge coolness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0QmrbHE6…
Posted by The Gubbler]]> Fri, 04 May 2012 06:42:34 -0700 The Stranger
How dare you question our cutting edge coolness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0QmrbHE6…


Posted by The Gubbler]]> Fri, 04 May 2012 06:31:34 -0700 The Stranger
If you want to put a hurt on the system, smashing a couple of windows owned by some corporation doesn't do shit. These attention-grabbing actions are the work of cowards who piggy-back their immature actions onto demonstrations created by hundreds hard-working organizers and activists, the destruction only giving the media one more excuse to gloss over the real issues when they cover these events.

If you really want to make a difference that hits them where it hurts -- organize a general strike. If 50% of the citizens in this country stopped participating and going to work for a week, that would make much bigger difference than smashing up a Nike store. Oh, but that would take a lot more actual work and commitment, wouldn't it.
Posted by playon]]> Fri, 04 May 2012 02:58:01 -0700 The Stranger
If you want to put a hurt on the system, smashing a couple of windows owned by some corporation doesn't do shit. These attention-grabbing actions are the work of cowards who piggy-back their immature actions onto demonstrations created by hundreds hard-working organizers and activists, the destruction only giving the media one more excuse to gloss over the real issues when they cover these events.

If you really want to make a difference that hits them where it hurts -- organize a general strike. If 50% of the citizens in this country stopped participating and going to work for a week, that would make much bigger difference than smashing up a Nike store. Oh, but that would take a lot more actual work and commitment, wouldn't it.
Posted by playon]]> Fri, 04 May 2012 02:53:49 -0700 The Stranger Posted by thirdeyepdx]]> Thu, 03 May 2012 16:49:03 -0700 The Stranger Posted by a in the bay]]> Thu, 03 May 2012 15:10:38 -0700 The Stranger
What is it???

Why is it so effective???

Did MLK smash windows??? After all, smashing shit isn't violence. Or is it???

My dictionary says 1. swift or intense force: the violence of a storm. 2. rough or injurious physical force, action or treatment: to die by violence. 3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence. 4. a violent act or preceeding. 5. rough or immoderate vehemence as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred 6. damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text.

One might even say that this articles assertion that property damage is not violence is in fact doing violence to the word violence.
Posted by TheGubbler]]> Thu, 03 May 2012 12:42:07 -0700 The Stranger http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-new…
Posted by michijo]]> Thu, 03 May 2012 12:31:49 -0700 The Stranger
Posted by michijo]]> Thu, 03 May 2012 12:27:59 -0700 The Stranger Posted by willown]]> Thu, 03 May 2012 12:15:31 -0700 The Stranger
No I admit I wasn't actually at any of the Occupy events that day. But it just seems to me like the situation in NYC would be a lot tougher and that people who cause "problems" would be dealt penalties that are closer to punishing terrorism than civil disobedience.

I could be off, though.
Posted by stuntdive]]> Thu, 03 May 2012 11:42:11 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Waltlaw]]> Thu, 03 May 2012 11:04:06 -0700 The Stranger