4 Replies to “Law of unintended consequences”

1. sdferr says:

   November 2, 2011 at 9:28 am

   Another unintended consequence: getting arrested means being pinned on a map:

   Some of the homes where “Occupy” arrestees reside, viewed through Google Maps and the Multiple Listing Service real estate database, are the definition of opulence.

   So what the owwies are like their hero Bill Ayers, wealthy son of a business titan? Just shows their commitment to the movement all the more, right? Hatin’ on Daddy is a rough deal, psychically speaking.

2. dicentra says:

   November 2, 2011 at 9:48 am

   Who says it’s unintended?

   The more people on the gubmint dole, pissed off and idle, the better!

3. dicentra says:

   November 2, 2011 at 9:49 am

   Though I’d love to see those 21 people stage their own protest by the tents.

   “YOU LOST US OUR JOBS YOU BASTARDS!”

   21 signs, 21 times.

4. dicentra says:

   November 2, 2011 at 9:59 am

   In other news (well, actually the same news), David Thompson provides his usual trenchant observations. From the comments:

   “When they start a riot by throwing rocks and bottles at people it’s just ‘social justice’ – but when the police fight back it’s ‘brutality’.”

   And it’s a pattern we’ve seen again and again and again. It’s practically the default setting: “Whatever we do, we are righteous. Whatever we do, we are the victims.” Hence the common pretence of never being “the powerful,” even when grouped in large numbers and intimidating others, or, as in the video linked above, smashing their belongings and making them bleed. Like you say, it suggests the psychology of an overindulged child. But then, leftist thinking often encourages neoteny. For some, that’s the appeal.

   See also this farcical episode. “Militant action” and property damage are cool, see, and radical, and very, very exciting. Until the favour is repaid, at which point it’s “sadism” and “domination.”

   One rule for thee…

   And from “this farcical episode,” also in the comments:

   It’s the standard dishonesty. The vain little shits who shut down lectures by smashing windows, or who vandalise Starbucks and Tesco – thus degrading the lives of staff and those who live nearby – can’t bring themselves to confront their own power fetish and the adolescent thrill that “radical” belligerence no doubt provides. Ms Keith believes the assault on her was cowardly, though it’s not clear what she makes of similar assaults on other people or on other people’s property.

   and

   “The desire to escape any form of responsibility for your actions and the selfish belief that causing problems for others is perfectly acceptable provided you know *you* are right.”

   Again, it’s a standard conceit. It’s illustrated quite vividly by the events linked below, in which the very first demand of those causing the damage and disruption is “full legal and disciplinary amnesty for all parties involved in the occupation.” It’s the very first demand and so presumably the one that really matters. So who do we think the “activist” pantomime was actually about?

   http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2009/02/when-children-roar.html

   Apparently these pretentious little pricks imagine it’s righteous to disrupt dozens of classes, make threats, assault police officers, wield bolt cutters and vandalise property – all at someone else’s expense and with no comeback of any kind. Because they’re of such geopolitical importance, see? It’s moral masturbation and those responsible deserve expulsion followed by a public hosing, ideally delivered by the people who’ve been left with the job of clearing up and a bill for $80,000.

   Tossers indeed.

   and

   “It’s funny how all that radical caring causes so much fighting.”

   Isn’t the fighting and aggravation all part of the theatre? I mean, how could anyone tire of playing More Radical Than Thou?

   It’s worth noting that such movements appeal very strongly to certain types of personality. For some, the ostensible cause – whether communist, “anarchist,” radical vegan or whatever – is almost beside the point. The Great Cause may in effect be little more than a license to behave in a certain way. (When “anti-capitalists” go out of their way to smash shop windows,* do they imagine society will be transformed as a result? Or is it more likely that they enjoy the thrill of vandalism, albeit vandalism in ideological drag?) And people who embrace one ostentatiously radical cause may shift to another, then another, even one at odds with their previous fixation. In many cases, it’s the role-play and collective dynamic that matter most.

   * http://davidthompson.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451675669e20120a96fe4c8970b-pi

   Which is why it’s possible to encounter “radicals” who loudly announce their contempt for “bourgeois” social hierarchies while manoeuvring continually to elevate their status within their own in-group.

   David’s got their number, oh yes he does. Too bad he doesn’t have a wider readership of, say, half the anglosphere. Or more.

Comments are closed.