5 ms·

I hope a bunch of stoned teenagers show up in the author's office to explore the pleasures of trespassing. (Owned by evil corporations! Private not personal pr

I hope a bunch of stoned teenagers show up in the author's office to explore the pleasures of trespassing. (Owned by evil corporations! Private not personal property! Fair game!)

GuiA 7y ago
Trespassing != breaking and entering
- sandoooo 7y ago
  are you assuming that the author is suggesting the former while I am suggesting the latter? I even explicitly used the word trespassing!
marricks 7y ago
Their first example is entering a hotel meant for the uber wealthy and going to the top floor, but go ahead and build you straw man I guess...
- sandoooo 7y ago
  "According to Forbes, not only is Brookfield the biggest office landlord in London and Los Angeles, it “quietly owns entire city skylines in places like Toronto and Sydney.” In New York, it owns the massive World Financial Center complex (whose real name is Brookfield Place) in Manhattan, along with the enormous skyscraper at One Liberty Plaza (which was built atop the bones of the Singer Building, the tallest building ever torn down)."
  - casefields 7y ago
    *Other than the 2 World Trade Center towers.
BLKNSLVR 7y ago
Specifically addressed in the article: "I’m not talking about breaking into your neighbor’s house at 3:00 a.m. to rummage through their stuff for drugs or money. This is the mental image that most of us probably associate with trespassing—" However if you were making a "tragedy of the commons" reference, then I'd be more inclined to agree. Edited to add: But, yes, the article's headline and intro is a front for the author's argument against growing corporate ownership of the planet. I tend to agree with the point being made, so I'm less likely to get snarky about "evil corporations" etc.
- sandoooo 7y ago
  The author specifically differentiates between personal (neighbour-owned and not ok to trespass) and private (corporate-owned and fair game) property. Presumably his office is in the latter category.
  - meej 7y ago
    Realize, you are talking about a publication that was started by a Kickstarter campaign that raised $16,000 [1], which is assembled in the living room of the EiC's apartment [2], and has a handful of full-time employees at most. The author doesn't have the sort of office you presume he does. [1] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/804992239/current-affairs-a-colorful-political-magazine https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/804992239/current-affai... [2] https://www.theringer.com/2017/3/23/16044958/new-left-media-current-affairs-chapo-trap-house-crooked-media-9cb016070532 https://www.theringer.com/2017/3/23/16044958/new-left-media-...
    - sandoooo 7y ago
      Well I do have an office of the sort that you're presuming that I'm presuming that he does, and so does most of the people in this thread, even the ones railing against the evils of The System. Unless he's doing this thing out of his mom's basement, I'm sticking with my wish for stoner teens.
      - 7y ago
zeba22 7y ago
Whoosh
pietroglyph 7y ago
You are attacking something the author did not say. I will assume that this strawman was unintentional (if I were to instead assume that you were acting in bad faith then there would no point responding to you; if you are in fact acting in bad faith, please take a moment to consider why it is that your argument requires a distortion of the truth to be defensible). The author does say that trespassing on private property, owned by corporations, is not wrong like other forms of "trespass" may be. His argument has one critical nuance that you ignore, however: he says that trespass is not wrong when it is an act that reclaims fundamentally public spaces from private ownership to make them accessible to everyone. A park, a corner between two buildings, and even a view of the city are deeply public things. Your office (especially the specific area in which you work and the items there) are not, and have never been, public spaces. These specific areas and items are also (by most interpretations) private property, which is another criterion that author has for property that should not be violated. To say that the author suggests that your office should be trespassed upon is an assertion ignorant of these components of the author's argument.
- sandoooo 7y ago
  The author also singles out a corporation for owning a large number of prestigious offices (quote below). Why do you think that is?
- terryf 7y ago
  Quote from the article: "Needless to say, this kind of trespassing is usually bad, unless you’re breaking into one of Jeff Bezos’ homes." So it's ok to break into your house as long as you are very rich?
  - cerberusss 7y ago
    Rumor has it, that Jeff Bezos has homes that are being renovated for years on end, and that aren't used for living in. I think that's what the author meant.
    - sandoooo 7y ago

I hope a bunch of stoned teenagers show up in the author's office to explore the pleasures of trespassing. (Owned by evil corporations! Private not personal property! Fair game!)

GuiA 7y ago

Trespassing != breaking and entering

sandoooo 7y ago
are you assuming that the author is suggesting the former while I am suggesting the latter? I even explicitly used the word trespassing!

marricks 7y ago

Their first example is entering a hotel meant for the uber wealthy and going to the top floor, but go ahead and build you straw man I guess...

sandoooo 7y ago
"According to Forbes, not only is Brookfield the biggest office landlord in London and Los Angeles, it “quietly owns entire city skylines in places like Toronto and Sydney.” In New York, it owns the massive World Financial Center complex (whose real name is Brookfield Place) in Manhattan, along with the enormous skyscraper at One Liberty Plaza (which was built atop the bones of the Singer Building, the tallest building ever torn down)."
- casefields 7y ago
  *Other than the 2 World Trade Center towers.

BLKNSLVR 7y ago

Specifically addressed in the article: "I’m not talking about breaking into your neighbor’s house at 3:00 a.m. to rummage through their stuff for drugs or money. This is the mental image that most of us probably associate with trespassing—" However if you were making a "tragedy of the commons" reference, then I'd be more inclined to agree. Edited to add: But, yes, the article's headline and intro is a front for the author's argument against growing corporate ownership of the planet. I tend to agree with the point being made, so I'm less likely to get snarky about "evil corporations" etc.

sandoooo 7y ago
The author specifically differentiates between personal (neighbour-owned and not ok to trespass) and private (corporate-owned and fair game) property. Presumably his office is in the latter category.
- meej 7y ago
  Realize, you are talking about a publication that was started by a Kickstarter campaign that raised $16,000 [1], which is assembled in the living room of the EiC's apartment [2], and has a handful of full-time employees at most. The author doesn't have the sort of office you presume he does. [1] https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/804992239/current-affairs-a-colorful-political-magazine https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/804992239/current-affai... [2] https://www.theringer.com/2017/3/23/16044958/new-left-media-current-affairs-chapo-trap-house-crooked-media-9cb016070532 https://www.theringer.com/2017/3/23/16044958/new-left-media-...
  - sandoooo 7y ago
    Well I do have an office of the sort that you're presuming that I'm presuming that he does, and so does most of the people in this thread, even the ones railing against the evils of The System. Unless he's doing this thing out of his mom's basement, I'm sticking with my wish for stoner teens.
    - 7y ago

zeba22 7y ago

Whoosh

pietroglyph 7y ago

You are attacking something the author did not say. I will assume that this strawman was unintentional (if I were to instead assume that you were acting in bad faith then there would no point responding to you; if you are in fact acting in bad faith, please take a moment to consider why it is that your argument requires a distortion of the truth to be defensible). The author does say that trespassing on private property, owned by corporations, is not wrong like other forms of "trespass" may be. His argument has one critical nuance that you ignore, however: he says that trespass is not wrong when it is an act that reclaims fundamentally public spaces from private ownership to make them accessible to everyone. A park, a corner between two buildings, and even a view of the city are deeply public things. Your office (especially the specific area in which you work and the items there) are not, and have never been, public spaces. These specific areas and items are also (by most interpretations) private property, which is another criterion that author has for property that should not be violated. To say that the author suggests that your office should be trespassed upon is an assertion ignorant of these components of the author's argument.

sandoooo 7y ago
The author also singles out a corporation for owning a large number of prestigious offices (quote below). Why do you think that is?
terryf 7y ago
Quote from the article: "Needless to say, this kind of trespassing is usually bad, unless you’re breaking into one of Jeff Bezos’ homes." So it's ok to break into your house as long as you are very rich?
- cerberusss 7y ago
  Rumor has it, that Jeff Bezos has homes that are being renovated for years on end, and that aren't used for living in. I think that's what the author meant.
  - sandoooo 7y ago