I obviously do not support this:
Terrible throw, too.
The pamphlets thrown by the male accomplice identified the pair as the “Greenwash Guerillas,” who wrote that they were acting “on behalf of the earth (sic) and all true environmentalists.”
One side of the pamphlet contains an excerpt from a September 2006 review of Friedman’s book, “The World is Flat,” written by Raymond Lotta for the journal “Revolution,” which styles itself as the “Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA.” The review is highly critical of Friedman, who the review claims cannot see his own errors while “seated in the business class of his analytical jetliner.”
The other side contains five bullet-points explaining why “Thomas Friedman deserves a pie in the face,” which include reasons like “his sickeningly cheery applaud for free market capitalism’s conquest of the planet,” and “for helping turn environmentalism into a fake plastic consumer product for the privileged.”
The pamphlet declares “Thomas Friedman’s ‘Green’ as fake and toxic to human and planetary health as the cool-whip (sic) covering his face.”
79 Responses to “Hope the pie was imported”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I don’t know. I pretty much agree with their assessment of Friedman and groan anytime I hear a well-meaning liberal/moderate name-drop his work.
But at the same time, I think that whole Black Bloc protest tactic of throwing pies in people’s faces is pretty dumb. Accomplishes nothing, makes the group look juvenile, and wastes energy demonizing people (often well-meaning fellow travelers) rather than working towards something constructive.
I disagree with the tactic, too. A personal assault remain an assault no matter how much whimsy you pile onto the top of it.
That being said I must confess that my first reaction to the video was, “oh well, his clothes will be clean in six months”.
MMm, like most communists, I agree with their criticisms, but not their solutions.
I think business does have a role to play in innovating our way out of a crisis. If government can change the market forces through tax policy and corporate responsibility to make sustainability, carbon neutrality and environmental responsibility cheaper than pollution and unrestrained growth, I think we’ll see market forces respond well to the crisis.
Naturally, leaving it purely to the “Invisible hand of the market” is pure folly, but I don’t think centrally planned economics are going to do the job.
Seriously, it makes us look dumb. Better protest is to pass out flyers attacking his positions and/or having really pointed questions after the lecture.
It might not be possible to generate sustained profits without widespread destruction. If it is possible, it is unlikely to happen anyway, because market incentives will never deter golden-parachute-equipped execs from creating externalities and then running off to let someone else clean up the mess.
We need strict pollution laws and hyper-reactive punishments in place. People found responsible for polluting must be fined into abject poverty and imprisoned for the rest of their lives. Otherwise there is no real possibility of reaching the levels of deterrence we need to survive.
And of course that’s a political impossibility in this nation. Too bad delicious cream pies won’t whip up a revolution.
Thank you for posting this video. My first thought when hearing about this story was “where’s the movie of this?”
It’s just too bad they didn’t write “suck on this” in sprinkles on the pies.
THAT was funny. I love this kind of ecotage. While I agree that these tactics sometime do more harm than good - as is the case with Earth Liberation Front, for example - shock tactics do have a place in the larger environmental movement. Sometimes they shake us out of our complacency or help us look at an environmental issue differently.
Free market capitalism is the fundamental scourge on both the natural and human world. If we are serious about solving environmental problems and helping to sustain the planet, we are not going to find the answers in market-based approaches. So Friedman deserves this pie because of all his pro-capitalist bullshit.
But I’ve never thrown a pie in my life!
Oh wait. We’re not talking about me?
Pie throwing was a tactic ‘pie-’oneered by the Biotic Baking Brigade, and has no relationship to the black bloc.
The black bloc is not an organisation, but a tactic itself. It consists of anarchists at a protest purposedly grouping together en masse, with visible clothing, banners and signs and such, to show solidarity AS A GROUP. The point:
1) We are part of your left-wing and solidarity organisations all year long, but we are part of them as invisible generic activists, and we want to show our strength as part of a movement
2) We seek to do this by preserving our anonymity in the face of state repression
Radical queers have also used the tactic, showing at protests as well as at traditional gay marches in ‘pink blocs’. This is used as a mean to ‘come out the closet’ as radicals within the queer community (GBLTQAetcetc) being in favor of more than just, say, gay marriage, but radical change in gender relations.
Rioting, molotovs and smashing buildings may be correlated to the assemblage of a black bloc, but it is not caused by it.
Affinity groups within the anarchist community may find it tactically useful to engage in urban guerrilla warfare, sabotage, and other actions during a particular protest. But the black bloc itself is used as a mean of solidarity and diversity of tactics between all anarchists, whether pacifists or not. If it is true that it has the tactical advantage to ‘mask’ certain forms of illegal actions by certain anarchists during protests, it is not the purpose or goal of the black bloc to provide that obfuscation. It’s a secondary advantage, or inconvenient, depending on your POV.
has no relationship to the black bloc.
Everyone I’ve ever known who bragged about pie-ing someone (political, not comedic) was a black bloc-er. Maybe they didn’t invent it, but they sure do participate avidly in it. And, yep, I know all about black bloc, what it is, who it describes, etc. etc.
I agree in a lot of ways with the black bloc folks and other anarchists. But I still think pie-in-the-face political theater is a waste of perfectly good whipped cream.
There is a pie-in-the-face wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pie_in_the_face
I don’t think it’s funny, and I don’t think it contributes to any discourse. I reflexively want to oppose the goals of anyone who resorts to this kind of tactic. I’ve been conscious about reducing my carbon footprint. I have cut way back on beef and I walk everywhere I can. I am assiduous about recycling.
Seeing something like this makes me want to buy an SUV.
Universities should take a stronger line on people who do this. There is too much effort put into bringing people to campuses, and offering a forum for guest speakers is too central to a university’s mission, to allow people to try to silence ideas in this way.
These guys should be charged with assault and kicked out of school.
Physical assaults (even with pies) should not be welcome in any movement. I’ve read accounts of Ann Coulter getting pied, and even that is wrong, even if she is, in fact, a tool.
I was hoping the pie was frozen.
Seriously though, at least do something clever. Hack the PA system so a few strategically placed fart noises can be interjected into his speech or something. Make people laugh at him not feel sorry for him.
I like your thinking, Sarcasto. I can’t get behind the criticisms that “this is juvenile,” because I’m too juvenile to care about that. But it didn’t occur to these tossers that anyone could feel sympathy for the shithead, and that mistake fucked up everything afterward.
The threat of delicious pie is not going to deter Friedman or anyone else from picking up speaking fees. Being publicly mocked might not either, but at least it’s the desired reaction from the audience.
You know what happens when people get a pie in the face?
The next time some major speaker accepts an invitation to address this student audience, they’re going to ask for security. University officials and student body representatives are going to have to promise some level of security to guest speakers so that they don’t think they’re the next victim a’ la Friedman. Granted, his positions aren’t really progressive, but they’re also not the kind of crazy that universities *could* be bringing into their midst for debates or to appease certain parental groups who insist children aren’t being fully indoctrinated into their dogmatic capitalist utopian ideals. What’s going to happen when the next Constitution Party presidential candidate shows up, or Bill Kristol? Campus police with tasers? Can’t have spirited debate when it’s possible you’ll get dragged out of a room and shocked with electrical current for asking tough questions.
I don’t want intellectual debate at our universities to be militarized or policed or reduced or stopped altogether, as the case may be, because the speakers (or even the students) feel unsafe expressing unpopular opinions. If you can’t express your opinion in a place where it’s supposed to safely undergo inquiry and scrutiny, then where can you?
If the mission of the university is to educate, then the very presence of a tool like Friedman on campus runs counter to that mission. Just like that time the Campus Crusade for Christ organized a creationist conference on our campus.
But it’s like Chomsky said. The purpose of higher education is to manufacture consent, not to inform the citizenry.
Oh and just noticed, their pamphlet is quoting from the organ of the RCP USA. So not only is this not a black bloc action, it’s one by our mortal enemies, the mustache twirling Maoists! (Because only the Maoists actually read the journal of the RCP USA. All 30 of them.)
Did they miss the flat earth guy? Too bad.
He was all hip about invading Iraq. What’s a few pie here and there.
i enjoyed that. but yes; they need to come up with something short of assault. there are countless ways to humiliate a person –& assholes like friedman need to be humiliated, whichever way they turn. rice, a staple of my mostly grain-based diet now, is going to be rationed,right in my hometown now, because of WORLDWIDE FOOD SHORTAGES. fuck him. fuck him to the moon.
so short of hurting the man, & short of more creative ideas of humiliating him, then YES, absolutely he should get hit in the face with a fucking pie.
i would vote for dropping a bucket of menstrual blood on him ( i cant condone the killing of pigs to pay for his sins).
Sorry, I just can’t consider getting a pie (or a drink, for that matter) in the face as “assault”. When I learned from a law-student friend of mine back in college that this was actually legally considered “assault” I almost choked. I think it reduces the concept of what assault REALLY is. How injured can you get from a PIE?
OT, I’m not sure that this really helps any cause, for reasons stated above by deep6 (future speakers requesting security that may in turn REALLY assault audience members with tasers and such).
Is there a single soul on Earth who is now saying this to himself or herself:
“Why, I always thought Thomas Friedman was an astute, clever, perceptive commenter on political and economic trends, but now that he’s taken a pie in the face, I see him for the shallow, egomaniacal poseur he truly is! Thanks, Greenwash Guerrillas!”
That’s considered Assault (or Battery, or both depending), and rightfully so.
If some college republican dumped a bunch of red paint on me and called me a commie, I’d want to be able to do something about it, not just stand there and sputter while the jackasses giggled about it.
It doesn’t have anything to do with injury (that’s what aggravating factors are for), it has to do with a violation of your personal space.
bluebonnet April 24, 2008 at 7:01 pm
i enjoyed that. but yes; they need to come up with something short of assault. there are countless ways to humiliate a person –& assholes like friedman need to be humiliated, whichever way they turn. rice, a staple of my mostly grain-based diet now, is going to be rationed,right in my hometown now, because of WORLDWIDE FOOD SHORTAGES. fuck him. fuck him to the moon.
relax. Inflation is choking Israel like they wouldn’t believe. He’ll start whining about bailing out Israel and trade barrier soon enough. With Asia going full blow Free Trade Agreement, it’s only time Petrol Dollar trade equilibrium start eating the “ownership society” class.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208870481096&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
“As inflation continues to accelerate, there are expectations the central bank will leave rates on hold,” pushing up the shekel, said Shraga Stern, a bond trader at Prisma Investment House Ltd. in Ramat Gan.
The shekel rose to NIS 3.43 per dollar and was at NIS 3.4388 in Tel Aviv, from 3.45 on Tuesday. It climbed the most versus the Romanian leu and Bulgarian lev of 11 emerging-market currencies in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
Inflation quickened to 3.7% in March, from 3.6% the month before, according to a government report April 15. The central bank has a 1% to 3% target range.
What deep6 said.
shartheheretic feels that “I just can’t consider getting a pie (or a drink, for that matter) in the face as `assault’.”
Sorry, but you are wrong, simply wrong, and very wrong. It may be a low-grade assault, but an assault it remains in both law and, more importantly, ethics. It is a statement that the physical integrity of a person can be violated at the discretion of another. Your position implicitly sanctions that a person who steps forward to engage you or others with ideas can be struck by objects. Your position demeans discourse, and gives license to the view that “if I don’t like you or what you have to say then you’re fair game”, and that way lies a happy route for every pig, thug and bully whose brain cells can’t engage at any other level.
Take this very blog for example. Do you think that Pam should get a pie in the face as a dadaist statement that every lesbian should be just another woman in the kitchen? Should Amanda get a glass of booze thrown in her face because some frat boyish knucklehead wants to make a statement that if feminism means equal rights and responsibility then a symbolic payback is in order for every man who’s had a drink thrown in his face in a bar?
Sorry, shartheheretic, but it’s more than a pie. It’s a direct statement that the attacker can touch you, can throw things at you, just to make a symbolic point. We all have a right to go about your business without that.
I must confess, also, underneath the reason and the ethics, there remains a bit of a the hockey player left. I’m betting that if that pie prat had been decked by Friedman then he would have felt himself quite aggrieved, that Friedman had done something “wrong”. I’d lay $100 right know that he’s a spineless narcissist who’d be horrified if his own rules were applied to him. One might say that a punch is different than a pie. But what was that line from The Merchant of Venice?
“The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction”
Is that the way that you really want to go?
I agree it’s an assault, however counterintuitive that sounds at first.
Now, does that mean that a victim of a pie can legally counterattack with fists and successfully argue it was self-defense?
Your point is well taken, Grammar RWA, and I’m not actually advocating striking anybody outside of self-defence, even a prize wanker like the pie thrower. There’s no legal ground for retaliation and a lack of a continued threat negates any self-defence argument. I was just making an emotional point about what my own reaction would have been (and what my initial anger would have made me want to do), my guess as to the hypocrisy of the pie thrower, and a point about the slippery slope.
Assault? He should press charge then. That’ll be interesting don’t you think? The backlash alone will worth several weeks o blogging fun.
I see, seeker. I don’t know much about the law, so I asked just from curiosity.
Self-defence is one of those weird areas of the law, Grammar RWA. While the underlying principles are roughly consistent across N.Am actual treatment by the law and juries varies widely from jurisdiction and is dependent on a multitude of factors. Take here in Canada, for example: I’ve had defence lawyer friends complain (and cop friends admit off the record) that there is a real police hostility to self-defence. It is almost a shop steward mentality: it’s your job under the contract to be assaulted, it’s the cop’s job to arrest the perpetrator; defend yourself and he’ll arrest you. Compare, for example, to that notorious case in Louisiana were some paranoid loon gunned down a Japanese student dressed as John Travolta who walked (gasp!) up to his carport, and was permitted to walk away.
“Varies widely” indeed! Thanks for the summary.
seeker6079 April 24, 2008 at 8:30 pm
treatment by the law and juries varies widely from jurisdiction and is dependent on a multitude of factors.”
right, since he is advocating global worker exploitation, export of externalities and justifying immoral war. And generally be a propaganda of neocon junta. Why should anybody cry and defending over a pie?
Shouldn’t the mass just round him up, nail him on a plank or shot and hang him upside down in public park? I would love to see him to give his speech in the middle of Baghdad square in front of public where everybody is donning rocket propelled grenade. See if he still believes all his lies.
He should face the public he condemned to death.
Thomas Friedman Sums Up the Iraq War: “Suck. On. This.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOF6ZeUvgXs
One more. I would like to hear what that flat earth/free trade guy has to say about “Bailing out banks” in recent credit crisis. hah… that would be hilarious. See if he still believes free market.
squashed, I am not saying that Friedman isn’t a deceitful or deluded shill who has been cheerleading a stupid war, sublimely indifferent to the sufferings of millions. He is. I’m merely saying that we can’t permit one asswipe to attack another a person — even another asswipe — just so that the attacker can make a point. If we say that’s okay then were do we go from there? The frothers and the lunatics are always going to be more eager to leap to violence — and in far greater numbers — than people who believe in compassion, respect and reason.
I am just saying. Standing in front of public is the ultimate “trial by jury”.
Since Friedman is advocating changing the natural order of human justice, then he should reap the exact “rules/laws” that he advocates. Why should he get protection of justice system that he himself seek to destroy, albeit for other people.
So he should stand in front of bagdad public, nevermind a pie at Brown U..
Sound’s like the most “basic” law of them all to me. He should be threated just like the social rules he preaches.
since he is advocating unjust war and violence, why should human justice protects him at all?
Sounds to me it’s the ultimate answer of justice. The system equilibrate and start snuffing the exact agent that seeks to destroy society. Obviously current law system is incapable of sorting out justice. It’s part of the system that protects the destructive seed.
So not only is this not a black bloc action, it’s one by our mortal enemies, the mustache twirling Maoists!
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. While I realize that this particular group have not openly affiliated themselves with the black bloc movement/strategy, every other pie-er I’ve ever heard of has done so. Including many friends and fellow activists. Pie-ing is a tactic I associate almost completely with anarchists and direct-action proponents who also tend to be part of black bloc activism.
You don’t want people associating pie-in-the-face “actions” with your posse? Stop pie-ing people in the face. You don’t want to personally be tarred with the ‘potential pie-er’ brush? Stop using ‘Black Bloc’ as a screen name.
Oh no! Some black-hooded anarchist just ran in here holding a bomb and demanded that everyone recite in perfect chorus, “anarchists don’t throw pies, only Maoists throw pies!”
BlackBloc, put down the detonator! Surely you can just civilly explain your point of view, without insisting that everyone who’s had a different personal experience is a Stalinist lackey!
Oh, when will you anarchists learn to respect free association???
You there! The one who said you’ve never thrown a pie at anyone in your life! Stop throwing pies! You don’t want people to think you’re a pie-thrower, do you?
You there! The one whose screenname makes me think of pies! Stop talking about pies so much! Stop triggering my idiosyncratic cognitive reflexes, or everyone will think you’re a pie thrower!
Squashed, you’re scaring the hell out of me (assuming you’re sincere here, which I have absolutely no reason to doubt). Does human justice defend only those who are popular, or who have ‘decent’ ideas? Sweet sweet majority rule, here we come!
Hell, I’m training to be a prosecutor and I would go to the mats to defend this guy if nobody else was willing or able. And I think he’s a jackass and personally repellent.
If he’s the warmonger you claim, the proper response is to ridicule him and point out the facts. This is a columnist, here, not some vicious killer.
Violence against human beings is not the way to go, not for a freakin’ speech.
squashed, if nothing else, consider this:
Justice is not only willfully blind, but also stupid, and usually impervious to nuance. This is true of multi-tiered formal judiciaries as in the USA, and of ad hoc kangaroo courts like the one you advocate.
Precedent is a double-edged sword.
If the justice system, or any social system, does not protect Friedman’s right to free speech, then it can not protect my right to free speech either, nor yours.
I offer this consequence-oriented argument only because I hope you will take it. (I personally believe in inalienable rights.)
As a tort, it was both an assault and a battery. When the guy starting running at Friedman and it looked like Friedman shit himself, that was an assault. When he threw the pie and it hit Friedman, that was a battery.
As a crime, it was probably a battery, or an assault and battery, depending how the state defines it. Some states define assault as an attempted battery.
I seriously doubt Friedman will sue the kids, but I would like to see him press criminal charges. I remember a few years ago some guy spit in Jane Fonda’s face at a book signing. She declined to press charges, which made her look good and him look even worse.
Still, I would have like to see the spitter and the pie throwers spend about a week in lock up. That way at least the next pie throwing dumbass will give it some thought prior to the act.
theopoponax, I use BlackBloc as my nym because I fully support black bloc actions, and in solidarity with anarchists of all persuasions. My only intent was in accuracy in reporting. I am not going to apologize for my politics. I’m not a classroom anarchist. I respect the beliefs of pacifists, but I find the necessity of political violence in social struggle to be undeniable. I usually do not enter into details on the subject on feminist blogs, because I know that for many women any talk of violence can be triggering. This is especially true on forums where women are explicitly aware of, or involved in, feminist struggles, because some will be involved due to direct experience with patriarchal violence. But again, I’m not gonna apologize for my politics. This is the only time I will mention my position on political violence on this blog. If you want to pursue this line of talk, take it to my blog or email.
As things get worse and people get more and more pissed about being ignored and hushed, be thankful for pies. It is better pies than bullets and knives. As the economy worsens and more people hit poverty, more catastrophic events occur resulting in more desperate circumstances merely increase the reactions get deadlier.
Let’s be honest, “please”, “listen”, “hear us”, have not worked. It’s good that it still only pies.
It does not matter whether or not one condones the pie or not, civil unrest only gets more violent the more the people are ignored and dismissed with their concerns. The more negative factors involved the meaner it gets. America is not exception to the human factor.
If Thomas Friedman had sprayed his attackers with Reddi-Whip, could *that* be considered self-defense?
Lurker 2.0 April 24, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Squashed, you’re scaring the hell out of me (assuming you’re sincere here, which I have absolutely no reason to doubt). Does human justice defend only those who are popular, or who have ‘decent’ ideas? Sweet sweet majority rule, here we come! ”
no, justice in larger scheme of thing favors rules that protects everybody.
Just like we in the end learn we don’t permit hate crime, hate speeches, learn not to start a war, curb blind nationalism, etc …
War mongering should be as nasty as hate crime. The reason we don’t ban them and put it in a law… well it is directed against people external of national boundary.
This is not about popularity or unpopular. But about pushing the idea of killing people, how to justify it. That’s criminal. In the end of course, people like Friedman creates war machines and fascist states. Using slogan like “spreading freedom” to take away self determination and freedom. Changing laws, rigging the system ever so slightly, twisting interpretation, until finally we arrive at totalitarian state. Legally protected to kill people and start war.
PS. Iraq war was popular. Thanks in part to media propaganda.
So, It seems to me arguing about a pie while we happily let the machine that kill several thousand people a day run is fairly absurd justice system. That’s not humane nor just. That’s twisted.
Grammar RWA April 24, 2008 at 10:22 pm
If the justice system, or any social system, does not protect Friedman’s right to free speech, then it can not protect my right to free speech either, nor yours. ”
We don’t protect all sorts of speech. Would you tolerate speech that justify killing of blacks or gays? (Degenerate and mime?)
See how time change? We did ban those type of speeches.
It is ABSOLUTELY absurd to say “warmongering” is protected “free speech”. As if somebody is talking about naughty poetry or talking nasty about Jesus.
PS. we also ban a lot of academic discussion about a lot of subjects. (cryptography, advance bomb simulation, etc.) Why is that?
oh, and we don’t protect libel as free speech either. Why? The result of those type of speech are infinitely insignificant than warmongering.
Here is a good one.
Suppose Friedman’s exact same speech is changed a little. ( names, country of target: US, Israel, and speech by some guy name mohammad. Justifying war and destruction of US and Israel.)
I seriously doubt ANY of us here will pretend that sort of speech is acceptable.
Why? It’s just exact same speech with some minor alteration right?
We don’t protect all sorts of speech. Would you tolerate speech that justify killing of blacks or gays?
Would I tolerate it? My friend, I have stood right in front of such speech while it was directed at me. And I have defended it.
See how time change? We did ban those type of speeches.
Not in my country. I understand “hate speech” laws are somewhat popular in Europe, but they do not exist in the US. I hope we keep it that way.
It is ABSOLUTELY absurd to say “warmongering” is protected “free speech”.
If it is not permissible to talk about attacking another nation, then the people of a nation which is soon to be attacked cannot even discuss their own defense, which would involve attacking the aggressor.
And don’t pretend that you can draw a clear line and say “this nation was talking about attacking the other one first, so they are at fault, but not the other.” International politics is constantly a question of who’s about to get the jump on whom. Simply asking “is Kanuckistan preparing to attack? Should we ready our military?” would be illegal.
PS. we also ban a lot of academic discussion about a lot of subjects. (cryptography, advance bomb simulation, etc.) Why is that?
The US has (absurd) laws about exporting cryptography to other nations. I am not aware of any laws or other policies that prevent the discussion of crypto among US citizens. Policies against the technical discussion of advanced weaponry are also stupid; see the recent article “Secret Science” by Michael Levi in Seed Magazine.
oh, and we don’t protect libel as free speech either.
Because libel constitutes an immediate assault on the integrity of an individual, while discussions of “should we do this or should we do that” do not.
Suppose Friedman’s exact same speech is changed a little. ( names, country of target: US, Israel, and speech by some guy name mohammad. Justifying war and destruction of US and Israel.)
I seriously doubt ANY of us here will pretend that sort of speech is acceptable.
I honestly do not see what the problem is. I would wish that people would not discuss the merits of such attacks, but I would not consider preventing them from having the conversation.
I would like to stop them from actually implementing any plans, but that’s an entirely different matter.
Look, I understand why you’re upset, but I think there are more effective and more creative strategies than limiting discussion.
And I’m not a pacifist; I would advocate the use of force, deadly force if necessary, to prevent war architects from actually implementing their plans. If that is possible, limiting speech is unnecessary. And if it isn’t possible, then limiting speech is insufficient. It’s too much or not enough.
who knew being hit with a pie was assault and battery?
If Thomas Friedman wants to advocate invading a country and killing millions, then shits himself when a person runs at him in civilised USA holding a pie - well, I don’t really think he deserves any respect or consideration.
I’m sure the people who got their bodies torn apart in his wore were more than a little scared for several months before it happened, and for the few seconds after. Squashed is right - the Friedman’s of the world need to go walk down a few Baghdad streets before they start crying foul over a thrown pie.
And if Friedman is what passes for “liberal” in modern America, you guys are in worse shape than I thought. I always read him as a right-wing concern troll war-porn cheerleader.
Friedman argued that attacking Iraq was good even if Iraq wasn’t a threat, because we had to attack someone, anyone to show that we were still the big dog.
Sounds like a great defense for the pie-throwers. “We just had to show we were still relevant.”
Throwing a pie at him is juvenile and likely counterproductive but I’d be lying if I said it doesn’t make me smile.
I am not going to apologize for my politics.
Oh, for the love of jeebus.
I am not asking you to “apologize” for anything.
As I’ve said, I’m in full support of anarchists, including black bloc-ers. Those terms describe many friends and fellow activists. As does the term “pie-er”. I think pie-in-the-face is silly, but hey, you wanna throw pies in people’s faces? Sure, whatever, you just go right ahead.
Alls I’m saying is that, regardless of whether this group is anarchist/black bloc affiliated or not, the activist tactic of throwing pies is one I strongly associate with black bloc types. Because I know lots of black bloc-ers who do it and support it. I had never heard of this particular tactic outside of anarchists until this particular post.
Regarding anarchism, violence, pacifism, etc. that’s neither here nor there. Again, all I’m saying is that I know lots of black bloc folks, and they tend to be big proponents of this pie-ing thing. That is my actual experience, not some rumor I heard. If that puts your nose out of joint, you need to think about why it bugs you so much (hint: “anarchists never pie anyone, EVER!” is not the answer) and figure that out for yourself.
And now I am officially late for work.
(hint: “anarchists never pie anyone, EVER!” is not the answer)
Spoiler alert: BlackBloc never said that.
Grammar RWA -
Me, upthread: I think that whole Black Bloc protest tactic of throwing pies in people’s faces is pretty dumb.
Black Bloc, also upthread: But I’ve never thrown a pie in my life! … Pie throwing was a tactic ‘pie-’oneered by the Biotic Baking Brigade, and has no relationship to the black bloc.
I would have no issue here had Black Bloc not specifically said that black bloc-ers (and later anarchists) don’t pie people. When I know anarchists and black bloc-ers who have. As I’ve said like 20 times already, I have no particular beef with anarchism, black bloc activism, etc. Aside from the fact that they use this one particular tactic that I find pointless.
If you’re an anarchist, and you find yourself prone to getting your panties in a twist because some people might not agree with everything you do/believe, you might want to Grow. A. Pair. because otherwise life is going to be one uphill battle after another.
Are we really arguing over who throws pies?
C’mon now. There is no need to get testy over fucking pies of all things.
I’ve been reading a lot of bullshit in the last few weeks, please don’t turn a fun thread about some gasbag getting hit with a pie into a war of sorts.
Nobody needs to grow a pair. We’re talking about pie-throwing. Chill.
I obviously do not support this:
Yeah, me neither.
That pie needed a few nails in it.
Grammar RWA April 25, 2008 at 1:38 am
… , but they do not exist in the US. I hope we keep it that way.
“The protections afforded by the First Amendment … are not absolute,” O’Connor wrote for herself and four other justices.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/07/supremecourt/main548121.shtml
High Court Upholds Cross-Burning Ban
I didn’t know O’Connor is a French.
The US has (absurd) laws about exporting cryptography to other nations. I am not aware of any laws or other policies that prevent the discussion of crypto among US citizens.
well, now you know. (not all, but some aspect of it.)
——-
oh, and we don’t protect libel as free speech either. //
Because libel constitutes an immediate assault on the integrity of an individual, while discussions of “should we do this or should we do that” do not.
It’s not general “do”, but advocating killing people. “warmongering”. A set of speech directly to incite war.
We have a lot of laws against insurrection, inciting violence (terrorism), surveillance, sedition/espionage law, etc, etc
The law exist. (I doubt they are constitutional, but they exist.) They are designed to suppress or ban various types of “speech”
——-
Suppose Friedman’s exact same speech is changed a little. ( names, country of target: US, Israel, and speech by some guy name mohammad. Justifying war and destruction of US and Israel.)
I seriously doubt ANY of us here will pretend that sort of speech is acceptable. // Look, I understand why you’re upset, but I think there are more effective and more creative strategies than limiting discussion.
yeah. I don’t believe it’s a big deal either. But I guarantee such speech will result in a LOT of state surveillance, no fly list, etc. (de facto ban)
And what’s more creative than bringing up the absurdity of “pie” as if it’s automatic weapons? lol
It’s absolutely absurd right? As if Friedman is going to melt after getting a pie. The WORST he got is smelly clothes, pie all over his face, and disrupted speech. (something that should happens in the first place anyway) …
It’s not bio/chemical weapon. It’s a friggin pie!
Grammar RWA April 24, 2008 at 10:22 pm
If the justice system, or any social system, does not protect Friedman’s right to free speech, then it can not protect my right to free speech either, nor yours.
I offer this consequence-oriented argument only because I hope you will take it. (I personally believe in inalienable rights.)
what are you saying that incitement of war has no “consequence”? Then I beg you to define “consequence” in all type of speeches.
Cryptography, false advertisement, hate speech, government propaganda … etc.)
WHY do we ban “government employee” to do propaganda? (advocating politics and mixing it with policy) Why do we ban “Pentagon to do propaganda and manipulating public opinion directly?
Why? IF those has no effect, then all those laws are absurd and should be taken out of book right?
Maybe some of those laws are unconstitutional or whatever. But the point is: they exist and they are enforced in a lot of cases.
Grammar RWA April 25, 2008 at 1:38 am
We don’t protect all sorts of speech. Would you tolerate speech that justify killing of blacks or gays?
Would I tolerate it? My friend, I have stood right in front of such speech while it was directed at me. And I have defended it.
sounds pretty absurd to me. Either you don’t a) believe the speech has negative consequence, to which why do you bother defending speech. or b) if you believe the power of speech, then you are putting generalizing idea and putting it above actual potential of physical harm.
doesn’t seem logical to me, just a strange fetish over some notion.
(I understand the importance of freespeech. That there are a lot of nasty ideas that needs to be discussed and brought up. But protecting an action that is directly designed to advocate killing people is fairly strange idea to me.
I also understand the danger of slippery slope. To which I have to admit, it’s far harder thing to figure out.)
“Physical assaults (even with pies) should not be welcome in any movement. I’ve read accounts of Ann Coulter getting pied, and even that is wrong, even if she is, in fact, a too”
Physical Assault? Come on, lighten up. A pie in the face is hardly a physical assault. The word “assault” has many applications. Free market economics, and disciples like Friedman who promote it, assault the human and nonhuman world (particularly in “developing” countries) everyday. A pie in the face while attempting to speak at an Ivy league school in the privileged U.S. hardly counts as “assault” in comparison.
Sorry, but I just can’t see this guy as a victim.
Grammar RWA April 25, 2008 at 1:38 am
And don’t pretend that you can draw a clear line and say “this nation was talking about attacking the other one first, so they are at fault, but not the other.” International politics is constantly a question of who’s about to get the jump on whom. Simply asking “is Kanuckistan preparing to attack? Should we ready our military?” would be illegal. ”
ehrrr. yes we can … not in absolute ways. but reasonable.
1. the idea of self determination in a country (you don’t mess with other country’s internal politics. no regime change no nothing.)
2. seek peaceful non violence resolution, not war. (need oil? don’t attack other country stealing it, do trade. Need to protect Israel, .. well who knows what to do that doens’t involves violence)
those two alone seem pretty OBVIOUS directive to me. It doesn’t impede a nation ability to protect itself.
THE POINT of warmongering is “aggression”, advocating killing people. (The killing part.) It has nothing to do with “self defense” most of the time. It’s the hate speech.
Do military parade or deterrence talk if all a country wants is defense.
There are a million ways to protect a country. Warmongering isn’t the only one, nor is it the most effective one.
What has the world come to? A century ago anarchists were “bomb-throwers”, now they’re “pie-throwers”? Those aren’t anarchists, those are snot-nosed kids.
Anyways, as Bakunin said, violence should be directed at the institutions of the state not the people who maintain them. If you do not respect the humanity of others you have no humanity of your own.
lol. exactly. It’s FRIGGIN’ PIE …
It is not designed for physical harm, but public humiliation! If this isn’t an indication how TWISTED and absurd the law is, I don’t know what else.
There is an entire comedy act consisting of nothing but giant foot throwing. (Gallagher?)
I’d say…..MORE PIES !
Industrial strength food coloring! Make his face cherry green and Raspberry blue for entire month.
What they gonna do? ban food coloring too?
—-
JUST REMEMBER,
The state has NO PROBLEM throwing TEAR GAS Grenade when people are doing their speech on the street.
and these fuckers are trying to ban “PIE”?
Where are the future DA defending public speech there?
I’d say, we should bring in the riot police and start tear gassing Friedman and entire FoxNews building.
the opoponax, I don’t care one way or the other whether black bloc activists throw pies. I have no particular reason to doubt your honesty, so when you say that you know for a fact that some of them do, I’m taking you at your word.
What I take issue with is the unfounded assumptions about BlackBloc’s mental state, which I see as a consequence of the more general problem of you putting words in BlackBloc’s mouth.
Specifically: after you said “everyone I’ve ever known who bragged about pie-ing someone (political, not comedic) was a black bloc-er,” BlackBloc never contradicted you, never said that your experiences and aquaintances did not count as evidence, never explicitly or implicitly impugned your honesty, never raised his e-voice to all caps, nor called you names, nor implied that you were stupid or childish, etc., etc.
Yet you have in turn suggested that BlackBloc has been “pie-ing people in the face” contrary to his word, is upset because your truth “puts [his] nose out of joint,” “need[s] to think about why it bugs [him] so much,” and has continued to insist that “anarchists never pie anyone, EVER!,” even though he dropped any such assertions as soon as you offered your counterevidence.
It seems to me that while BlackBloc has been cordial to you, you have implied that he is dishonest, hyper-emotional, and irrational in the face of evidence.
And now you turn that attitude toward me; I’m “getting my panties in a twist,” because I can’t handle preschool-level revelations that “some people might not agree with everything [I] do/believe,” and I need to “Grow. A. Pair.”
Please. I want to believe that this is all the result of some misunderstanding or misreading. Please tell me that you are above trying to discredit people based on flimsy suppositions of their emotional states.
Margalis and everyone else who’d prefer that I drop this: I’m sorry. I hope you already skipped this post.
squashed, I guess you’re right. Virginia v. Black upholds a hate speech law. I don’t agree with the law, but you’ve caught me in ignorance.
The law exist. (I doubt they are constitutional, but they exist.) They are designed to suppress or ban various types of “speech”
I hope you’re not suggesting that because some unconstitutional laws are already on the books, we might as well add more of them.
But I guarantee such speech will result in a LOT of state surveillance, no fly list, etc. (de facto ban)
Well, I guarantee that enforcing laws prohibiting such speech will necessitate a lot of state surveillance.
And what’s more creative than bringing up the absurdity of “pie” as if it’s automatic weapons? lol It’s absolutely absurd right? As if Friedman is going to melt after getting a pie. The WORST he got is smelly clothes, pie all over his face, and disrupted speech.
So if it’s okay to hit someone with a pie, shouldn’t it be okay to hit them with a tennis ball? They’ll be fine. It’s just a tennis ball, not an automatic weapon. If a tennis ball, why not a foam bat? Then why not a rubber bat? Or rubber bullets? Or a Taser? Tear gas? Sonic weaponry? Low intensity microwaves? They’ll be fine after they heal up.
Hitting a person with a pie is still hitting a person. This is the use of physical force to silence an enemy. Force is not justified unless that person is posing an imminent threat to another.
I don’t have time to respond to everything else you’re bringing up here (and I think the examples of government funds being diverted to political speech is an obvious red herring).
sounds pretty absurd to me. Either you don’t a) believe the speech has negative consequence, to which why do you bother defending speech.
I defended it because someone attacked it. … ..? I don’t know what you’re saying, actually. Sorry. This is probably just ESL language barrier, though.
or b) if you believe the power of speech, then you are putting generalizing idea and putting it above actual potential of physical harm.
Talking about killing people does not cause physical harm. Killing people does. Again, I already said we should stop the war architects from actually waging war. If we can do that, we don’t need to limit their speech as well; it’s irrelevant. If we can’t stop them from actually killing, then limiting their speech doesn’t do a damn thing to stop them; it’s irrelevant.
lol. exactly. It’s FRIGGIN’ PIE …
Not “exactly.” Sarcasto just contradicted you. Read again…
Lurker 2.0 April 24, 2008 at 7:43 pm
That’s considered Assault (or Battery, or both depending), and rightfully so.
will you be around defending mass peaceful protest when the riot police start throwing tear gas? Will you be there start suing the state for “Assault”?
I doubt it. You are being trained to protect the state and the status quo.
You are not defending peace or justice. Yer just a state tool, a small cog, to maintain smooth functioning of war machine.
Squashed, you fucking asshole, how dare you put your judgments in others’ mouths here? You have no basis on which to claim that Lurker 2.0 defends state violence against individuals. You have no evidence on which to “doubt” anyone’s integrity here.
Just shoving your most convenient rhetoric into others’ mouths to argue against strawmen, then, eh?
Well fuck, I’m sorry I took any time to respond to you. Punt off.
Grammar RWA April 25, 2008 at 10:14 am
I hope you’re not suggesting that because some unconstitutional laws are already on the books, we might as well add more of them.
I am suggesting. Some laws are not created to sustain “peace and justice” some laws and notion is nothing but tools to perpetual war, destruction and suffering.
naturally, I am not equipped to say which is which in great technical detail. I am just pointing out the obvious absurdity of it all.
lol. exactly. It’s FRIGGIN’ PIE …//
Not “exactly.” Sarcasto just contradicted you. Read again…
he said pie isn’t a bomb. I don’t see it. A pie is not intended to cause physical harm. It is to cause humiliation and attracting attention.
I’ll take pie fight ANY TIME over tear gas, aerial bombing or fist fight.
And what’s more creative than bringing up the absurdity of “pie” as if it’s automatic weapons? lol It’s absolutely absurd right? As if Friedman is going to melt after getting a pie. The WORST he got is smelly clothes, pie all over his face, and disrupted speech.
So if it’s okay to hit someone with a pie, shouldn’t it be okay to hit them with a tennis ball? They’ll be fine. It’s just a tennis ball, not an automatic weapon.
I don’t know about you. But I take getting hit by pie and tennis ball over automatic weapon.
If you don’t know the difference between tennis ball, pie or automatic weapons. WHY should I believe you you know the difference between “public interest” and “state fascism”? How should I believe you you know the difference between “national security” and “corruption and treason cover up”?
Sounds like you are selling yourself short.
———-
sounds pretty absurd to me. Either you don’t a) believe the speech has negative consequence, to which why do you bother defending speech.
I defended it because someone attacked it. … ..? I don’t know what you’re saying, actually.
- if you don’t believe hate speech has negative consequence (advocating killing black or gay isn’t all that bad. that they are merely empty rambling and ineffective gestures) Then why do you defend speech in general? It seems to me rather absurd.
———
or b) if you believe the power of speech, then you are putting generalizing idea and putting it above actual potential of physical harm.
Talking about killing people does not cause physical harm. Killing people does.
throwing pie doesn’t actually harm a person. (as in hitting. hitting/slapping is.)
Again, I already said we should stop the war architects from actually waging war. If we can do that, we don’t need to limit their speech as well; it’s irrelevant. If we can’t stop them from actually killing, then limiting their speech doesn’t do a damn thing to stop them; it’s irrelevant.
We can’t stop them from actual killing because the justification of war keeps being perpetuated, while opposing speech is NOT allowed to enter the channel.
The speech IS controlled. Only warmongering speech is dominant in the media.
Some of the most effective way to underline this is to throw pie. to call out media attention and create a scene. (no harm done. you can’t show pie is lethal. It’s edible.)
Grammar RWA April 25, 2008 at 10:30 am
Squashed, you fucking asshole, how dare you put your judgments in others’ mouths here? You have no basis on which to claim that Lurker 2.0 defends state violence against individuals. You have no evidence on which to “doubt” anyone’s integrity here.
you can’t tell the difference between pie, tennis ball and machine gun. Why should anybody take you seriously? How can anybody know you even able to grasp larger more complex issue? instead of merely spouting state guideline to suppress people?
Will you be around defending freespeech when the riot police start throwing TEAR GAS ?
.
A Person can’t tell the difference between
PIE, TENNIS BALL, and AUTOMATIC WEAPONS …
.
HOW absurd is that? This is the meta thinking underlying the future individual who will execute the interpretation of law …. ???
WTF?
MORE PIES!
And equip the troops with pies too! Freedom and Peace on the march! (hey, he did implay pie and automatic weapons are the same. Why not use the idea to stop the war?)
GIANT PIE FIGHT.
It makes for nice writing but it’s sort of a cop out. Institutions are not just made of material infrastructure, they’re made of people too. Maybe it might assuage your conscience to think of it as violence against an abstract ‘institution’, but I’d rather be fully aware of what I’m doing. Violence against institutions is by nature going to include violence against people. There’s no point in whitewashing it. Liberals or moderates are not duped by this sort of high minded theoretical obfuscation.
Bionic Baking Brigade 4 life
Institution consists of more than just people. There are ways. Otherwise, Union wouldn’t be able to bring down an industry just by walking out.
But anyway, violence in general, IMO, is just lazy thinking. It’s no fun. It’s reserved for neocon idiots who advocates war for everything.
I for one advocate more PIE for everything, from now on.
Future DA of AMERICA playing tennis and lost..
YOU ASSAULTED me…YOU ASSAULTED ME!!@!!
Mommmyyyyyyy…..!!!
I appreciate your words, Grammar RWA. Personally, I’m writing off Squashed off as someone not worth my time.
yeah, the “la la la, I can’t hear you” argument works too.
… and MORE PIE !
…
We, in the ages lying
In the buried past of the earth,
Built Nineveh with our sighing,
And Babel itself with our mirth;
And o’erthrew them with prophesying
To the old of the new world’s worth;
For each age is a dream that is dying,
Or one that is coming to birth.
- Arthur O’Shaughnessy.
Yeah but we were talking about violence, and violence by nature can only be done against persons, or at the very least a living being. “Violence against institutions” is just weasel words used as a way to abstract that out. Oh, I’m not really throwing a brick at Mark B. the policeman, I’m attacking the *institution* of police? Nah. If I believe in the necessity (or at least, inevitability) of political violence, I neither celebrate it nor wish to minimize its impact through theoretical delusions.
Violence is the exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse. The word is used broadly to describe the destructive action of natural phenomena like storms and earthquakes. More frequently the word describes forceful human destruction of property or injury to persons, usually intentional, and forceful verbal and emotional abuse that harms others. Johan Galtung defines violence as “avoidable insult to basic human needs”: survival, well being, identity, and freedom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
—
definition is quite broad, and unfortunately you are not in position to define it. It’s solely in state/status quo hand to define what constitute violence.
torture — is not violence/ justified state necessity
throwing pie — violence/ poor momma’s boy gotta collect engagement fee.
anyway, the point if because of continuous pie-ing, the cost of bringing Friedman to campus becomes astronomically unreachable. In my book. It’s an absolute win far anti war cause.
The most elegant solution is of course, playing the inconsistencies in laws, and imperfection of the system to take them out of the talking circuit.