Oct 30, 2011
commented on Three Nazis Kicked Out of Occupy Seattle
Several commenters have suggested just "ignoring" the Nazis as a good option. It's not a good option, not if you want to build a movement of more than just straight white people. Thank you, @25, for sharing your experience; I'm sure you're not the only person who felt that way. For a lot of folks, a camp that tolerates (or "ignores") the presence of Nazis isn't going to feel safe or welcoming. (Neither is a camp surrounded by cops, by the way.)
The last sentence of the article reads: "Not only does that distract them from the issue—Occupy Wall Street isn't less about the internal politics of a few campers and more about the economy of the 99 Percent—it could force police to end their experiment in self-reliance." Typo aside, I have to disagree. To me, the part where occupiers are figuring out how to take care of ourselves and one another, without the aid of the corporations, is much more important and exciting than the part where occupiers hold up signs about the banks and corporations. The signs are nice, but they're not transformative. What will be transformative is ending our reliance on the banks and corps.
You know that slogan of May '68, "The boss needs us; we don't need the boss"? Still true. The endgame here isn't that the banks read our signs and reform themselves, nor that Congress reads our signs and passes a reform bill. I think it's something more like taking direct democratic control of our communities and the systems we need to live -- a process the occupiers have already begun, albeit on a small scale. Their "experiment in self-reliance" isn't just a game; it's building the tools we need to break free.
Also, you don't "force police" to shut you down. Police decide that their own selves. Just to be clear.
Oct 19, 2011
commented on SL Letter of the Day: Pain Slutting Around
I agree they seem to be a mismatch in that they clearly want different things. But I disagree with Dan's inference that the partner is necessarily getting a better deal than the letter-writer here. I think @5's point is well taken: it kinda sounds like the partner didn't want an open relationship at all. Maybe their conversation went:
Letter Writer: I want to open up our relationship while we're apart.
Partner: I don't know, I guess I wouldn't mind x, but I think I'd be pretty uncomfortable knowing you were doing y or z with other people.
Letter Writer: Well, I don't care what you do. As far as I'm concerned you can do anything you want.
Or maybe that wasn't it at all, of course; I wasn't there. But I feel like I've been in that kind of situation. As the jealous monogamy-oriented partner, it feels like a lose-lose. Freedom to do something you don't really want to do is no great boon. Sounds to me like these two should split up.