Comments on: Revised Statement of Non-Violence http://takebacknyu.com/2009/02/20/revised-statement-of-non-violence/ Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:31:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Of Secret Meetings and Meager Eating: My Final Thoughts On The Kimmel Occupation | NYU Local http://takebacknyu.com/2009/02/20/revised-statement-of-non-violence/#comment-2360 Of Secret Meetings and Meager Eating: My Final Thoughts On The Kimmel Occupation | NYU Local Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:51:00 +0000 http://takebacknyu.com/?p=526#comment-2360 [...] they broke out, they dropped the abstention from property damage language from their non-violence statement with this [...] [...] they broke out, they dropped the abstention from property damage language from their non-violence statement with this [...]

]]> By: The Protest Continues « Music for Misanthropes http://takebacknyu.com/2009/02/20/revised-statement-of-non-violence/#comment-1488 The Protest Continues « Music for Misanthropes Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:24:06 +0000 http://takebacknyu.com/?p=526#comment-1488 [...] for Take Back NYU as none of their demands were met, negotiations broke down, and they slowly began revising and updating their guiding [...] [...] for Take Back NYU as none of their demands were met, negotiations broke down, and they slowly began revising and updating their guiding [...]

]]> By: AVMANM http://takebacknyu.com/2009/02/20/revised-statement-of-non-violence/#comment-958 AVMANM Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:46:33 +0000 http://takebacknyu.com/?p=526#comment-958 BASTARDS. YOU DELETED ALL MY POSTS. FUCK YOU. TRANSFER OUT OF NYU AND NEVER COME BACK. BASTARDS. YOU DELETED ALL MY POSTS.

FUCK YOU.

TRANSFER OUT OF NYU AND NEVER COME BACK.

]]> By: nonviolence supports the state http://takebacknyu.com/2009/02/20/revised-statement-of-non-violence/#comment-956 nonviolence supports the state Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:30:01 +0000 http://takebacknyu.com/?p=526#comment-956 Ben, your follow-up comments above are well taken. I did read your original comment carefully, and my post (#10) was meant as a reply to the three of you, not to equate you to each other, but to be concise. I also want to make a broader intervention to the arguments throughout many posts on this blog that have been circulating so as to preempt further like comments (on the nonviolence purity note). Nonetheless, I disagree with the idea that a position that decides it is "necessary to change tactics as the situation changes: ... is what makes action based on belief specifically not ideological". the issue here is with what constitutes ideology, but let's agree to leave that for another time as it is a broader discussion that I unfortunately do not have time for right now, nor is it immediately pertinent to the unfolding events at NYU which we both support. On the matter of opening up "a dangerous passage to the potential for actions that would undermine their cause," this is still relevant and on this I also disagree. Comment 14 is very instructive on this point, so for now I will just add a recent example you may be familiar with. In Oakland, a young Black man, Oscar Grant, was killed by a BART transit pig on New Year's, a killing caught on various cell phone cameras... No action on the part of BART, Oakland PD or Mayor, DA, or nat'l media for a week. DA flat out refused to meet with Black 'leaders' mostly mid-class, elected officials and clergy early Jan. 7. Black and Brown youth, knowing they could easily suffer the same fate, "riot" that night, over 100 eventually arrested, yet those actions got BART, Oakland PD, the Mayor, DA, and nat'l media moving, leading to the actual arrest of the now ex-officer. It did not undermine or discredit the more moderate push for justice, it complemented it (though with a long important internal battle over the "riot"/rebellion that was internally resolved: see indybay.org for this extended discussion that I won't repeat here). A poster now circulating in Oakland shows an image of the officer behind bars with two simple words: Riots Work. The point is diversity of tactics complement each other, though obviously always with the need to be in a thoughtful and organized way... Ben, your follow-up comments above are well taken. I did read your original comment carefully, and my post (#10) was meant as a reply to the three of you, not to equate you to each other, but to be concise. I also want to make a broader intervention to the arguments throughout many posts on this blog that have been circulating so as to preempt further like comments (on the nonviolence purity note). Nonetheless, I disagree with the idea that a position that decides it is “necessary to change tactics as the situation changes: … is what makes action based on belief specifically not ideological”. the issue here is with what constitutes ideology, but let’s agree to leave that for another time as it is a broader discussion that I unfortunately do not have time for right now, nor is it immediately pertinent to the unfolding events at NYU which we both support. On the matter of opening up “a dangerous passage to the potential for actions that would undermine their cause,” this is still relevant and on this I also disagree. Comment 14 is very instructive on this point, so for now I will just add a recent example you may be familiar with. In Oakland, a young Black man, Oscar Grant, was killed by a BART transit pig on New Year’s, a killing caught on various cell phone cameras… No action on the part of BART, Oakland PD or Mayor, DA, or nat’l media for a week. DA flat out refused to meet with Black ‘leaders’ mostly mid-class, elected officials and clergy early Jan. 7. Black and Brown youth, knowing they could easily suffer the same fate, “riot” that night, over 100 eventually arrested, yet those actions got BART, Oakland PD, the Mayor, DA, and nat’l media moving, leading to the actual arrest of the now ex-officer. It did not undermine or discredit the more moderate push for justice, it complemented it (though with a long important internal battle over the “riot”/rebellion that was internally resolved: see indybay.org for this extended discussion that I won’t repeat here). A poster now circulating in Oakland shows an image of the officer behind bars with two simple words: Riots Work. The point is diversity of tactics complement each other, though obviously always with the need to be in a thoughtful and organized way…

]]> By: analysta http://takebacknyu.com/2009/02/20/revised-statement-of-non-violence/#comment-771 analysta Fri, 20 Feb 2009 04:47:27 +0000 http://takebacknyu.com/?p=526#comment-771 Adhering to the capiitalist & bourgeois idea that property is sacred will only leave/lead you to the death trap that is bourgeois capitalism. Destroying property that is oppresive and repressive to democratiic liberatiion seems like a rational and logical course of action to be acceptable to all seeking a democratic and liberated existence. If an action occurs with not a single part of living tissue results in, or is intended to be, harmed how is such an action violent? Violence is what non-democratic institutions like NYU, CUNY, the New School, NYPD, US DOD, Israeli IDF and their supporters perpetuate on a daily basis. Violence is fundamental to their dominance and their existence. Abolish them as need be! Hope to assist as capable and needed. Peace, Love, Solidarity & Democracy for all who want it and need it Adhering to the capiitalist & bourgeois idea that property is sacred will only leave/lead you to the death trap that is bourgeois capitalism.

Destroying property that is oppresive and repressive to democratiic liberatiion seems like a rational and logical course of action to be acceptable to all seeking a democratic and liberated existence.

If an action occurs with not a single part of living tissue results in, or is intended to be, harmed how is such an action violent?

Violence is what non-democratic institutions like NYU, CUNY, the New School, NYPD, US DOD, Israeli IDF and their supporters perpetuate on a daily basis. Violence is fundamental to their dominance and their existence. Abolish them as need be!

Hope to assist as capable and needed.

Peace, Love, Solidarity & Democracy for all who want it and need it

]]> By: Ben http://takebacknyu.com/2009/02/20/revised-statement-of-non-violence/#comment-769 Ben Fri, 20 Feb 2009 04:40:03 +0000 http://takebacknyu.com/?p=526#comment-769 Furthermore, I did not say that the change did inherently undermine their cause. I just said that in allowing property damage they opened a dangerous passage to the potential for actions that would undermine their cause. I do not know if any such actions have in fact occurred. Generally speaking, damage of any unnecessary sort is a blight upon an otherwise well-intentioned protest. I have seen too many good protests spoiled by bad behavior, and I do not want this one, as no other responsible people, particularly those truly dedicated to these demands, to follow these bad examples. Furthermore, I did not say that the change did inherently undermine their cause. I just said that in allowing property damage they opened a dangerous passage to the potential for actions that would undermine their cause. I do not know if any such actions have in fact occurred. Generally speaking, damage of any unnecessary sort is a blight upon an otherwise well-intentioned protest. I have seen too many good protests spoiled by bad behavior, and I do not want this one, as no other responsible people, particularly those truly dedicated to these demands, to follow these bad examples.

]]> By: Ben http://takebacknyu.com/2009/02/20/revised-statement-of-non-violence/#comment-766 Ben Fri, 20 Feb 2009 04:36:45 +0000 http://takebacknyu.com/?p=526#comment-766 I don't want to start a brouhaha here, but comment 10 seems to suggest that I, along with two other people whose comments I do not agree with, want some kind of ideological or ethical "purity." If you did in fact read my comment you may see that I said nothing of the sort; rather, I find it absolutely necessary to change tactics as the situation changes: this is what makes action based on belief specifically not ideological, and I believe that no actions based on belief should be inexorably ideological. My comment says this very explicitly. But what I wonder is why is there the sudden change in this plan? It seems that the property damage clause should stand, so as to set a boundary, but that, as comment 5 states, certain tactical and logistical necessities may demand leeway. Where and how to judge this leeway is another problem, and perhaps they should announce how this would be agreed upon. This is exciting: the protesters seem to be listening to worries that others have and generally responding in a mature way. Good luck to everyone maturely and sincerely involved. I don’t want to start a brouhaha here, but comment 10 seems to suggest that I, along with two other people whose comments I do not agree with, want some kind of ideological or ethical “purity.” If you did in fact read my comment you may see that I said nothing of the sort; rather, I find it absolutely necessary to change tactics as the situation changes: this is what makes action based on belief specifically not ideological, and I believe that no actions based on belief should be inexorably ideological. My comment says this very explicitly. But what I wonder is why is there the sudden change in this plan? It seems that the property damage clause should stand, so as to set a boundary, but that, as comment 5 states, certain tactical and logistical necessities may demand leeway. Where and how to judge this leeway is another problem, and perhaps they should announce how this would be agreed upon. This is exciting: the protesters seem to be listening to worries that others have and generally responding in a mature way. Good luck to everyone maturely and sincerely involved.

]]> By: Sarah http://takebacknyu.com/2009/02/20/revised-statement-of-non-violence/#comment-687 Sarah Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:24:24 +0000 http://takebacknyu.com/?p=526#comment-687 I for one support many of the things that this group is doing or has done during this occupation. I do not believe that a revision of their statements in any way discredits them. I also know that some of those students pay their own tuition and expenses and are thus not even close to trust fund babies. Loans and financial aid are a must-have for many people at this school. I do not believe that TBNYU pretends to speak for everyone. It is, however, important that the University Administration understand that it needs to start listening to the voices of their students. The administration did not even consider or listen to their demands when peacefully given thus some more radical action was needed. Even if you do not believe that what they are doing now constitutes the right course of action, I think that transparency within the administration/corporation that is NYU and a place for students' voices to be heard in more meaningful ways is needed (and JSex's town hall meetings certainly do not accomplish that). Critique me all you like. I stand by what they are doing and greatly appreciate the fact that they are standing up for what they believe in. They are trying to make something happen at this school. They do not sit idly by or behind their computer screens while they feel something should be done or changed. I for one support many of the things that this group is doing or has done during this occupation. I do not believe that a revision of their statements in any way discredits them.

I also know that some of those students pay their own tuition and expenses and are thus not even close to trust fund babies. Loans and financial aid are a must-have for many people at this school. I do not believe that TBNYU pretends to speak for everyone. It is, however, important that the University Administration understand that it needs to start listening to the voices of their students. The administration did not even consider or listen to their demands when peacefully given thus some more radical action was needed. Even if you do not believe that what they are doing now constitutes the right course of action, I think that transparency within the administration/corporation that is NYU and a place for students’ voices to be heard in more meaningful ways is needed (and JSex’s town hall meetings certainly do not accomplish that).

Critique me all you like. I stand by what they are doing and greatly appreciate the fact that they are standing up for what they believe in. They are trying to make something happen at this school. They do not sit idly by or behind their computer screens while they feel something should be done or changed.

]]> By: nonviolence supports the state http://takebacknyu.com/2009/02/20/revised-statement-of-non-violence/#comment-667 nonviolence supports the state Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:35:13 +0000 http://takebacknyu.com/?p=526#comment-667 Ben, mangrilla, and Pat McGroin... There is an important, indeed crucial, distinction to be made between "ideological consistency" and "ideological 'purity'" TBNYU's revising of their statement does not undermine anything (even, if they for a second questioned whether it does) nor does this signal they are hypocrites or trust fund hippies. Instead, they recognized that what they were espousing in the first statement was positing some form of claim to "ideological purity", which they realized was problematic. Now, they have pulled back on the 'purity' claim, and i would say in a totally ethically consistent manner.... They opened up an opportunity to be second guessed, with their open and public questioning of themselves, and that is a good thing--transparency for the sake of open debate--but their consistency remains and should be supported and acknowledged, as they are on to something good... Let's see how they develop this, rather than undermining them by forcing them into a fundamentalist position of ideological or ethical "purity" that you seem to yearn for. (see comment #5 on the original statement in older posts) Ben, mangrilla, and Pat McGroin…
There is an important, indeed crucial, distinction to be made between “ideological consistency” and “ideological ‘purity’”
TBNYU’s revising of their statement does not undermine anything (even, if they for a second questioned whether it does) nor does this signal they are hypocrites or trust fund hippies. Instead, they recognized that what they were espousing in the first statement was positing some form of claim to “ideological purity”, which they realized was problematic. Now, they have pulled back on the ‘purity’ claim, and i would say in a totally ethically consistent manner…. They opened up an opportunity to be second guessed, with their open and public questioning of themselves, and that is a good thing–transparency for the sake of open debate–but their consistency remains and should be supported and acknowledged, as they are on to something good… Let’s see how they develop this, rather than undermining them by forcing them into a fundamentalist position of ideological or ethical “purity” that you seem to yearn for. (see comment #5 on the original statement in older posts)

]]> By: X http://takebacknyu.com/2009/02/20/revised-statement-of-non-violence/#comment-632 X Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:35:28 +0000 http://takebacknyu.com/?p=526#comment-632 Yeah, democracy means breaking shit! Fuck that system! Rage against the Kimmel Machine, you fucking unwashed animals. Yeah, democracy means breaking shit! Fuck that system! Rage against the Kimmel Machine, you fucking unwashed animals.

]]>