5 ms·

As someone who generally believes in free markets, I am already unsympathetic to these people. However the venom directed at tech employees strikes me as somet

As someone who generally believes in free markets, I am already unsympathetic to these people. However the venom directed at tech employees strikes me as something more than just economics. People are having a go at nerds because they can. The scales of social status haven't changed since high school, but it turns out that nerds can earn a good salary, and in the "fascist" free market economy, this means they can live where they like, and the police will even protect them! I wish I knew about this so I could show up in my Google sweater.

sp332 13y ago
There's a difference between free-market economics and saying that poorer people don't deserve a voice in local government because they don't have money. I don't believe a particular public sidewalk should get preferential treatment just because richer people walk on it.
- mc-lovin 13y ago
  How do poorer people lack a voice in local government? It seems to me their issue is that they want to extend their control over local affairs far beyond what is their right. It is simply not the right of local residents to determine what kind of person gets to live in that neighborhood. This was a block "party" to make a very specific kind of person feel unwelcome. And then they think of themselves as oppressed when the police break it up.
  - markdown 13y ago
    > How do poorer people lack a voice in local government? ... And then they think of themselves as oppressed when the police break it up. Police breaking up a non-violent protest of only 40 people... yes, that's the definition of oppression. I don't like what you have to say so I'll shut you up is oppression. Have you ever read your constitution? These people are douchebags, but what they were doing should not have been stopped.
    - mc-lovin 13y ago
      I agree with you about the right to protest. I wasn't aware that was an issue: pretty sure that's not what the person I was replying to was talking about. Certainly none of the articles on the issue claimed that the police were acting outside the law. Maybe the guy beating a pinata with a pole was the issue, I don't know.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - jopof 13y ago
      Depends who is cleaning the area -- government, or shop owners?
potatolicious 13y ago
> "I wish I knew about this so I could show up in my Google sweater." I disagree very much with your notion that this is people pummeling at nerds because of some remnant of high school social pecking order, but please don't do this. This is the corner of 16th and Mission. The local police station is literally two blocks away and still have zero control over this intersection. It is a mad house. It is the Mos Eisley of San Francisco. The level of class warfare (from both sides) in the Mission is pretty intense, and the area is already a bit lawless to the point where the police have little control over an open-air drug den just two blocks from the station house. You don't fuck around with that intersection, the cops can't protect you well there, and everyone knows it.
- mc-lovin 13y ago
  You seem to know much more about this situation than me, but given my experience in the left, I would be very surprised if the people involved in an open air drug den had much to do with the people attending and organizing this protest. And there seems to be a discrepancy between the extreme danger you claim I would be in, and the claims of other people that this is a harmless gathering. Can you shed some light on this? No sarcasm intended there, I really am surprised by how you characterize the situation because in my experience, no one provoking left wingers is ever in serious danger.
  - potatolicious 13y ago
    These aren't left wingers in the liberal left winger sense. Practically everyone in San Francisco is a liberal left winger. These are militant left wingers (the photos of the event seem to suggest this, based on my experiences in the neighborhood). I would not be surprised if there were more than a few violent folks in the crowd. Keep in mind what happened the last time there was an anti-gentrification protest in the Mission. Ostensibly it's a peaceful gathering to march against gentrification. It turned into smashing windows of local independent businesses and massive vandalism. Every leftist protest or demonstration in San Francisco seems to have a bad habit of turning violent. This isn't to say that everyone there is violent, or that their cause isn't worthwhile, but rather that if you see these marches or protests, the Black Bloc is always close at hand, so I'd watch right the fuck out. > "I would be very surprised if the people involved in an open air drug den had much to do with the people attending and organizing this protest." There's not much of an intersection. The whole open-air drug den thing isn't to associate the protesters with the crackheads of the neighborhood, but rather to say that this isn't like any street corner in San Francisco. This is a street corner that the police effectively have no control over. If you get jumped by a Black Bloc asshole with a bone to pick with Googlers, you are fending for yourself. Though, reading the article, it looks like the cops were on hand for this one, which is a nice change for the corner of 16th and Mission. All in all, don't be so cavalier with your own safety. While San Francisco isn't ruled by the Khmer Rouge, the Mission is not a safe neighborhood. Don't let the bistros and boutique coffee shops fool you. If you mind your own business you'll be fine. If you go looking for trouble, the Mission has no problem delivering trouble to your face, fast.
a3n 13y ago
This is A against B. B may or may not be affecting A negatively, but A is having a negative experience, and it's bad enough that they'll protest against anyone that seems related to the problem. What you should be worried about is groups of people angry at groups of people. Protests, jostling, fights, deaths. Showing up in your Google sweater is just fanning the flames, irresponsible and unempathetic. These people have a problem, and it's real to them. You might want to keep that sweater at the bottom of a drawer, lest it get caught on a pitchfork and burned by a torch. I'll feel sorry for you (I will) as you unjustly burn.
- mc-lovin 13y ago
  Perhaps group B have legitimate complaints, but I somehow doubt they are serious enough to justify violence against anyone who makes light of their "struggle". If it's true that these people have organized an event where someone would be physically assaulted for wearing a Google sweater (if there were no police there) then that's precisely why I would want to do it. People have a right to express themselves, they don't have a right to make other people feel unsafe.
vacri 13y ago
Hearing that you would knowingly and consciously choose to antagonise upset people for absolutely no reason beyond your own entertainment, I am already unsympathetic to you should the situation escalate beyond your control.
- mc-lovin 13y ago
  The funny thing is, I never considered when I posted that that there would be violence beyond the usual getting in your face that I've seen at left wing protests. Why does the fact that these people are upset make their cause any more just? Why do my rights (and more importantly the rights of any tech employees who might happen to pass through there) end where their feelings begin? Also, how sympathetic would you feel towards a Black man who "antagonized" white people by passing through a White neighborhood, and was attacked by Whites who were already upset by the civil rights movement.
  - vacri 13y ago
    Please stop with the libertarian slogans. It's not about ending your rights or those of the passersby. It's about a set of people being upset, and you wishing you were there - willing to go out of your way - to upset them further. These people are upset with change. Hard luck to them, I never said their cause was just. But you antagonising them has nothing to do with anything but your own amusement. I wouldn't condone physical violence for you wearing a particular sweater - and if you notice, I never suggested that I did. I merely used your high-horse dismissive language against you: I would be unsympathetic to you should you run into trouble. If you went out of your way to antagonise aggressive, upset people just for your own jollies, I'm not going to coddle you and say "there there, poor guy, those mean protesters". If a kid sticks a knife into a power socket and gets seriously hurt, I'll be sympathetic. But if an adult does a Jackass-style "won't this be fun!" version and gets seriously hurt, no, I won't be sympathetic. I'll call an ambulance and apply first aid, but why should I care how that adult feels because they got hurt knowingly doing something stupid? Also, how sympathetic would you feel towards a Black man who "antagonized" white people by passing through a White neighborhood "I wish I knew about this [so I could go and antagonise them]" is not merely 'passing through'.

sp332 13y ago

There's a difference between free-market economics and saying that poorer people don't deserve a voice in local government because they don't have money. I don't believe a particular public sidewalk should get preferential treatment just because richer people walk on it.

mc-lovin 13y ago
How do poorer people lack a voice in local government? It seems to me their issue is that they want to extend their control over local affairs far beyond what is their right. It is simply not the right of local residents to determine what kind of person gets to live in that neighborhood. This was a block "party" to make a very specific kind of person feel unwelcome. And then they think of themselves as oppressed when the police break it up.
- markdown 13y ago
  > How do poorer people lack a voice in local government? ... And then they think of themselves as oppressed when the police break it up. Police breaking up a non-violent protest of only 40 people... yes, that's the definition of oppression. I don't like what you have to say so I'll shut you up is oppression. Have you ever read your constitution? These people are douchebags, but what they were doing should not have been stopped.
  - mc-lovin 13y ago
    I agree with you about the right to protest. I wasn't aware that was an issue: pretty sure that's not what the person I was replying to was talking about. Certainly none of the articles on the issue claimed that the police were acting outside the law. Maybe the guy beating a pinata with a pole was the issue, I don't know.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - jopof 13y ago
    Depends who is cleaning the area -- government, or shop owners?

potatolicious 13y ago

> "I wish I knew about this so I could show up in my Google sweater." I disagree very much with your notion that this is people pummeling at nerds because of some remnant of high school social pecking order, but please don't do this. This is the corner of 16th and Mission. The local police station is literally two blocks away and still have zero control over this intersection. It is a mad house. It is the Mos Eisley of San Francisco. The level of class warfare (from both sides) in the Mission is pretty intense, and the area is already a bit lawless to the point where the police have little control over an open-air drug den just two blocks from the station house. You don't fuck around with that intersection, the cops can't protect you well there, and everyone knows it.

mc-lovin 13y ago
You seem to know much more about this situation than me, but given my experience in the left, I would be very surprised if the people involved in an open air drug den had much to do with the people attending and organizing this protest. And there seems to be a discrepancy between the extreme danger you claim I would be in, and the claims of other people that this is a harmless gathering. Can you shed some light on this? No sarcasm intended there, I really am surprised by how you characterize the situation because in my experience, no one provoking left wingers is ever in serious danger.
- potatolicious 13y ago
  These aren't left wingers in the liberal left winger sense. Practically everyone in San Francisco is a liberal left winger. These are militant left wingers (the photos of the event seem to suggest this, based on my experiences in the neighborhood). I would not be surprised if there were more than a few violent folks in the crowd. Keep in mind what happened the last time there was an anti-gentrification protest in the Mission. Ostensibly it's a peaceful gathering to march against gentrification. It turned into smashing windows of local independent businesses and massive vandalism. Every leftist protest or demonstration in San Francisco seems to have a bad habit of turning violent. This isn't to say that everyone there is violent, or that their cause isn't worthwhile, but rather that if you see these marches or protests, the Black Bloc is always close at hand, so I'd watch right the fuck out. > "I would be very surprised if the people involved in an open air drug den had much to do with the people attending and organizing this protest." There's not much of an intersection. The whole open-air drug den thing isn't to associate the protesters with the crackheads of the neighborhood, but rather to say that this isn't like any street corner in San Francisco. This is a street corner that the police effectively have no control over. If you get jumped by a Black Bloc asshole with a bone to pick with Googlers, you are fending for yourself. Though, reading the article, it looks like the cops were on hand for this one, which is a nice change for the corner of 16th and Mission. All in all, don't be so cavalier with your own safety. While San Francisco isn't ruled by the Khmer Rouge, the Mission is not a safe neighborhood. Don't let the bistros and boutique coffee shops fool you. If you mind your own business you'll be fine. If you go looking for trouble, the Mission has no problem delivering trouble to your face, fast.

a3n 13y ago

This is A against B. B may or may not be affecting A negatively, but A is having a negative experience, and it's bad enough that they'll protest against anyone that seems related to the problem. What you should be worried about is groups of people angry at groups of people. Protests, jostling, fights, deaths. Showing up in your Google sweater is just fanning the flames, irresponsible and unempathetic. These people have a problem, and it's real to them. You might want to keep that sweater at the bottom of a drawer, lest it get caught on a pitchfork and burned by a torch. I'll feel sorry for you (I will) as you unjustly burn.

mc-lovin 13y ago
Perhaps group B have legitimate complaints, but I somehow doubt they are serious enough to justify violence against anyone who makes light of their "struggle". If it's true that these people have organized an event where someone would be physically assaulted for wearing a Google sweater (if there were no police there) then that's precisely why I would want to do it. People have a right to express themselves, they don't have a right to make other people feel unsafe.

vacri 13y ago

Hearing that you would knowingly and consciously choose to antagonise upset people for absolutely no reason beyond your own entertainment, I am already unsympathetic to you should the situation escalate beyond your control.

mc-lovin 13y ago
The funny thing is, I never considered when I posted that that there would be violence beyond the usual getting in your face that I've seen at left wing protests. Why does the fact that these people are upset make their cause any more just? Why do my rights (and more importantly the rights of any tech employees who might happen to pass through there) end where their feelings begin? Also, how sympathetic would you feel towards a Black man who "antagonized" white people by passing through a White neighborhood, and was attacked by Whites who were already upset by the civil rights movement.
- vacri 13y ago
  Please stop with the libertarian slogans. It's not about ending your rights or those of the passersby. It's about a set of people being upset, and you wishing you were there - willing to go out of your way - to upset them further. These people are upset with change. Hard luck to them, I never said their cause was just. But you antagonising them has nothing to do with anything but your own amusement. I wouldn't condone physical violence for you wearing a particular sweater - and if you notice, I never suggested that I did. I merely used your high-horse dismissive language against you: I would be unsympathetic to you should you run into trouble. If you went out of your way to antagonise aggressive, upset people just for your own jollies, I'm not going to coddle you and say "there there, poor guy, those mean protesters". If a kid sticks a knife into a power socket and gets seriously hurt, I'll be sympathetic. But if an adult does a Jackass-style "won't this be fun!" version and gets seriously hurt, no, I won't be sympathetic. I'll call an ambulance and apply first aid, but why should I care how that adult feels because they got hurt knowingly doing something stupid? Also, how sympathetic would you feel towards a Black man who "antagonized" white people by passing through a White neighborhood "I wish I knew about this [so I could go and antagonise them]" is not merely 'passing through'.