Tuesday, February 28, 2006
DC Indymedia Watch Dirt
More on their 'problems' here.
According to the site's mission statement:
"DC Indymedia watch focuses on exposing the false progressivism of the DC Indymedia editors".It's a common problem.
Looking at the links provided (which are the same I have linked to in the parent post) I cannot see what you are talking about.
Explain yourself, or stop repeating yourself.
And you are wrong.
How that comment could be described a as a "threat" (subtle or otherwise) is as ridiculous as you feeling genuinely threatened by my saying that your head may fall off for thinking such things.
DC Indymedia then had featured (central column) absolutely zero stories about the cartoons OR the protests, either pro or con. The features at that point were about the Minutemen and Walmart.
Judge for yourselves.
Wake up, dude. Personal attacks only come back to attack the attacker. "What goes around comes around." The law of karma.
1. The remark that "if 'anti-racists" gave into their 'impulses the houses of the DC Indymedia editors would have burned down long ago." ... is not a personal threat. It's flashy, melodramatic rhetoric that's making an argument about hypocrisy. i.e.: "If you really wanted to fight racism on all fronts, you'd need to put yourself on the list of folks to confront, because you, friends, have a serious problem with it. "
2. It was a crappy way to make a point I personally agree with: the DC Indymedia editors aren't particularly fair-handed when it comes to recognizing and combating anti-semitism as a form of racism on their web site, and claims of being anti-racist are tinged with hypocrisy as a result.
3. I think it's totally fair for DC Indymedia editors to perceive that DC Indymedia Watch is waging a campaign to make them feel personally threatened.
There is a long-standing recipe and pattern for how hate groups arrange for violence against people they disagree with:
Step A: Make a website that vilifies and makes character assassinations about individuals, and with that gives out private information about them that would be helpful for someone who wanted to commit acts of violence against them.
Step B: When, inevitably, violence occurs against the individuals, the person running the website disavows any responsibility for the situation. Frankly, this pattern has been repeated so often that even without "the other shoe following" and a violent act getting carried out, it's reasonable and expected for the people to feel worried about their safety.
If DC Indymedia Watch is interested in important critique, not personal threat and intimidation, then it should stop following in the footsteps of that pattern. (And DC Indymedia editors, lest you feel too self-righteous about this, please consider that you've run articles that gave out private information on individuals, which could fairly be construed as being the same morally-questionable behavior).
4. Holy crap, stop with the argument about it being particularly wrong that some of the editors named were women. If you can't understand why this sort of paternal particularism is sexist then get thee to any women's studies department and have a chat. Unless we're talking about some specific threat of violence against women, stop treating women as delicate flowers. (It's like yelling "save the women and children!"--with has the implied argument that women are, you got it, like children. Yuck!)
Making people feel threatened is wrong, no matter what their sex or gender. (I will say that I'm assuming that the same information was given about men and women editors. If I'm wrong, and DC Indymedia Watch has made a point about only identifying women editors, then I take it back, and clearly sexist-driven violence would be a factor and should be called out.)