You want to know what really pisses me off about this whole thing? Well, I'll tell you - it's that a pseudo-philosopher crank like Ayn Rand should even be mentioned in the same sentence as a great thinker like John Locke. If that "ultimate warrior" believes in that goofy nonsense, "Objectivism", he's even more fucked up than I thought he was.

A couple of points about last night-
2 students were kicked out of the event for pointing out that Hellwig was violating the student handbook and harassing students.
Students continued to leave the event one by one as they became disgusted with the speaker.
During the Q & A, 40 students stood up and left at once.
All those students who left met and compiled their accounts and are forming a coalition to decide what steps to be taken next.

Follow www.depaulasu.net for more updates.

I think events like this are best understood as political theater, where an outraged element of the audience, large or small, is part of the speaker's props, script and performance. More often than not, we dutifully play our role to a tee, but in the speaker's drama.

If the proper creative energies were flowing, we would flip it around, and use the speaker's hate-speech as our prop in a counter-drama with a different conclusion. Make his or her hate rant a play-within-a-play, so to speak.

Otherwise, just don't go. Pass out a flyer outside to inform those who do attend, but don't join the cast.

And yes, I wouldn't put John Locke on a par with Ayn Rand, by any means. Locke's teachings on political and religious tolerance, though, are both problematic and instructive. He favored a breakthrough grassroots tolerance among Protestants, but didn't have much for 'Papists.'

Makhno,

So you are a dogmatic simpleton. Ayn Rand a pseudo-philosopher crank? Only because she stands for everything you disagree with. See, unlike you, I can read and enjoy authors that I reject on a philosophical level without belittling their ardous work. You won't see me calling Bakunin, Gramsci or Marx "cranks".

QUEER IS NOT A BAD WORD! Yes queer can be used in a derogatory way, just as the word gay can be. But to say that the word queer in itself is the same as using a racial slur is crap. A large portion of activists describe themselves as queer, meaning their sexuality is more complex than simply GAY or STRAIGHT. In fact it is quite insulting to many in the QUEER community that the new name of CABN is the GAY Liberation Network. COmpletely leaving out "Lesbians" Trannies Dykes Fags Bisexuals Pansexuals and everything in between and seperate. The word Gay describes only ONE society approved gender (male) and delegitamizes all other sexual identities. For instance all of the people listed in this letter are male indetinfying people. Dont you think something is wrong with this? Maybe you should look inward and change what lies underneath the skin before you challenge others, who may be hateful, but who are you to call out someone when you yourself have issues with acceptance?

Also...Ayn Rand? Rand was a capitalist pig who supported the right of CORPORATIONS to fire and discriminate against Queer people becuase she valued property rights over human rights.

Sorry, Kurt, but as someone who went through my Ayn Rand phase a long time ago, I am quite confident in consigning her third-rate pseudo-philosophy to the dustbin of history. She simply doesn't possess the depth or originality of thought to be taken seriously as a thinker, and she shows little comprehension of the major philosophical currents in Western culture over the last two thousand years. Her writings are barely any better than the pop psychology of L. Ron Hubbard.

All i have to say is that even though I didnt agree with everything Warrior said, and I was somewhat disappointed in the fact that the majority of the time that the crowed became rowdy was because warrior didnt explain his viewpoint fully, which if done would be much milder and tamer than everyone was interpreting. In general though I was extremely pleased with the way not only warrior stood his ground, but how he held nothing back, and did exactly as he told us he would, and present his viewpoint withholding nothing back and presenting no PC. Its about time this university got a little shaken up from a conservative viewpoint. Lastly I think that Doyle was way out of line and completely disrespectful towards warrior. He knew what he was coming here to speak about, so why at the end of the Q&A would he try to point out that he felt the WHOLE speech warrior was disrespectful. I'm glad Warrior didnt back down and put Doyle in his place, since if he didnt he would be going against what he had just spoke about for the last 3 hours. I find it amazing that DePaul Administration at a catholic university can get offended at the word "queer", but when Ward Churchill was here with his anti-American theme and especially when he would make comments that disrespected the troops that are fighting over in Iraq today, no administration was anywhere to be found. I guess thats just not as offensive.

My biggest dissapointment was how the DePaul student body projected themselves during this event. I got real pissed when all the coughing was going on. That's ridiculous!!!

Also, take a chance to compare our event and how the crowd behaved with how the DCA behaved when Ward Churchill came. We didn't have any *coughing* eruptions, not one outburst, not one person kicked from the event. Compared with last night, where at least 4-6 people were booted from the event and many more created unnecessary hysteria. I don't know who was behind a lot of the organized kookiness last night, but ASU is certainly being eyed right now. Personally, I could care less that these people made fools of themselves, because we have it on video and they surely don't create a good name for themselves by sulking about every other comment Warrior made.

Again, I think DePaul has some serious issues it needs to deal with. I think they do have a backwards idea of tolerance and diversity. Their idea of diversity is to have everyone look different but only present a certain viewpoint in thought. So the campus looks like a rainbow but marches to beat of the same drummer. And to me, that is the shallowest form of diversity.

permiso, chulo <i>whitesox</i>, pero no quieremos culeros gringos usar la nombre de nuestro equipaje.

permiso, chulo <i>whitesox</i>, pero no quieremos culeros gringos usar la nombre de nuestro club de beisbol.

And most working class LGBT people, and LGBT people of color, are insulted by use of the term "queer," in spite of repeated attempts over many years by some to popularize the term (in contrast to the word "gay," which rapidly caught fire following the Stonewall Rebellion).

You don't have to take my word for it, Captain Queero. According to a recent National Lesbian & Gay Task Force study of African American LGBT people, conducted in association with nine African American LGBT organizations:

"When respondents were asked which one label out of a very extensive list…comes closest to how you describe your sexual orientation, 42 percent of the sample self-identified as gay, 24 percent chose the label lesbian, 11 percent checked the category bisexual, and 1 percent marked transgender... In contrast to the high levels of agreement on the labels gay and lesbian, Black GLBT people do not readily, or even remotely, identify as 'queer.' 'Queer' was one of the least popular options, receiving few responses (1 percent)."
--Pages 25-26, "Say It Loud: I'm Black & I'm Proud", The Policy Institute of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, 2002.

So actually, it is your use of the term "queer" which is insulting to most LGBT people, Captain Queero, and not the other way around. You'd do better to get your facts "straight" before slamming other groups in the community, whether on the internet or in private whispering campaigns (yes, things you say do get back to us).

The Gay Liberation Network is quite proud of our new name as it harkens back to the best traditions in radical LGBT activism, when people unabashedly said what their politics were (as opposed using euphemisms like "Human Rights Campaign," etc) and made it a point of politcal principle to offer direct solidarity to other oppressed groups, against racism, against the war, etc. So that people don't get the idea that we're just about solidarity with gay men alone, on most of our literature and website, www.GayLiberation.org, we have the additional monicker of being "A Lesbian, Gay, Bi & Trans direct action group." Our record in solidarity with other communities, in police brutality activism, etc. bears this out.

No one term, "Gay, "Queer," etc. is going to be seen as inclusive by everyone, but most working class LGBT folks, having grown up having the "queer" and "faggot" words thrown at us as term of abuse, not unlike how the "n-" term is thrown at Black people, are not going to embrace these words to describe ourselves, our organizations, or our movement.

To the right-wingers posting about students response and free speech issues- when Churchill came #1- he did not insult or demean students. #2- The DCA and republicans were calling for the event to be cancelled before it happened. ASU and DSAW never called for the warrior event to be cancelled, unless he harassed students. Further any "disclaimer" doesn't count because it's still school property. You can't say "ok we're going to start beating people with baseball bats and anyone who objects to this has been warned and can't complain later." Doesn't float.

To Captain Queero and GLN- chill. I think we can all agree that there is a big difference between Captain Queero using the word in a positive way to reclaim it, and the "Warrior" using it in a way to undermine LGBTQA rights. While not the same, it's simelar to the difference between a socially aware rap group like Dead Prez using the N word as compared to some white conservative using the N word.

captain queero-
If you were at the event I think you would have a better understanding about the issues at stake in the discussion of queer labeling that went on there.
What was contested was not the use of the word queer by self-identified LGBTQ people and allies, but the use of it by the "Warrior" in a derogatory way. Some students brought up that as a homophobic straight person who repeatedly spoke hatefully about LGBTQs and said that all queers are mentally and emotionally unstable, that they are unnatural, and who himself related his usage of the word "queer" to its definition of abnormality, he had no claim to the word and could only use it in a discriminatory and prejudiced way. He also compared "queers" to pedophiles, among other things. His speech was hateful and violent.
Many queers have reclaimed the term as empowering or the most fitting label for their identity, but reject its usage as derogatory. Again, the example used by others, its the difference between a woman self-identifying as a dyke and being called a dyke by a homophobe.
That was the issue.

captain queero-
If you were at the event I think you would have a better understanding about the issues at stake in the discussion of queer labeling that went on there.
What was contested was not the use of the word queer by self-identified LGBTQ people and allies, but the use of it by the "Warrior" in a derogatory way. Some students brought up that as a homophobic straight person who repeatedly spoke hatefully about LGBTQs and said that all queers are mentally and emotionally unstable, that they are unnatural, and who himself related his usage of the word "queer" to its definition of abnormality, he had no claim to the word and could only use it in a discriminatory and prejudiced way. He also compared "queers" to pedophiles, among other things. His speech was hateful and violent.
Many queers have reclaimed the term as empowering or the most fitting label for their identity, but reject its usage as derogatory. Again, the example used by others, its the difference between a woman self-identifying as a dyke and being called a dyke by a homophobe.
That was the issue.

Makhno,

I am surprised that you would brush off Objectivism taking into consideration that Ayn Rand’s writings are highly popular among businesspeople. You would be surprised by the amount of politicians and CEOs of S&P 500 that she influenced through her writings. Let me just drop one name: Alan Greenspan. Although I personally enjoy her works, I have to admit that I prefer Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises.

Captain Queero,

Capitalist pig? This is a very old concept called dehumanizing your enemy. If you can see the enemy as less human than yourself, you can readily excuse fighting and killing them.

Regardless of your statistics Andy, queer is a legitamite description of ones sexual expression and by not recognizing that you are spitting in the faces of all the people that do describe themselves that way... and as for the NGLTF and it's surveys... im sure they really went really far to find their statistics, like the capitalist pride parade or the everyone wear all designer clothes and prance around with perfect hair or we will outcast you market days.

Let's break this down:

"Regardless of your statistics Andy"

No, Captain Queero, they're not my statistics, they're those of NINE BLACK LGBT organizations and the NGLTF.

* * * * *

"queer is a legitamite (sic) description of ones (sic) sexual expression and by not recognizing that you are spitting in the faces of all the people that do describe themselves that way"

Where, pray tell, did I say the "queer" label was not "legitimate"? As an anarchist, I thought you would think such considerations were irrelevant. What I did say was that the vast majority of LGBT people reject the "queer" label in favor of the very label, "gay," which you attack as illegitimate.

Speaking from myself, I take great offense at anyone other than other LGBT people calling me "queer," as it is popularly understood to be a term of abuse, which is why the really nasty bigots like Fred Phelps et al make a point of calling us "queers" and "faggots," not unlike how Klansmen make sure to refer to African Americans by using the n- word.

You never hear the more "respectable" bigots, like Peter LaBarbera, referring to us as "queers," as he knows that using such slurs would help label him in the public mind as a bigot. LaBarbera, the Washington Times, Focus on the Family and other respectable bigots also refuse to use the term "gay," as they see that as a positive reference to us, preferring instead to use the term "homosexuals," a term which was rapidly rejected following the Stonewall Rebellion in 1969.

* * * * * *

"as for the NGLTF and it's surveys... im sure they really went really far to find their statistics, like the capitalist pride parade or the everyone wear all designer clothes and prance around with perfect hair or we will outcast you market days."

Here you deride the NGLTF for not going "really far" to find its sampling, but then you're too lazy yourself to go on the web to see how "far" they actually went. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Here's the URL for the survey: www.thetaskforce.org/reslibrary/list.cfm

If you bother to go there you'll find out that NO, they didn't go to "capitalist pride parades" or "market days" to get their info. All of the surveys were taken at Black Pride events held in major cities around the country. If you've ever been to any of them (I've been to Chicago's a few times), you would note that they're about 99% African American in attendance and a far cry from the corporate feel of Lakeview's Pride Parade and Market Days. They're overwhelmingly working class, and nary a Jewel shopping cart in site. If you go look up the study you'll also find that one of its five co-authors is one Cathy Cohen, one of the most respected voices in Chicago's Black Lesbian community.

It's very easy sit behind a keyboard and lob rhetorical bombs at other groups and individuals, Captain Queero. It's another thing to take the time to back up our arguments with some thought and a little research. If we're going to make any headway in this town against the true "evil doers," I'd suggest we concentrate much more on doing the latter rather than the former.

You "gay" people are acting just like the "straight" people.

I am queer and proud of it.

(I love you, Captain!)

the most ironic of this argument is that captin queero is saying queer is a term for people who want to get away from the male dominated gay culture. so the irony is that is is two males having this argument on the definition of queer. Ha

In our youth, Kurt, it was somewhat natural to want to be 'John Galt' and want change the world a la Ayn Rand. That's what romance, heroism and being young is for. Back in the days, I wanted to be a nuclear physicist and bring unlimited free energy to the world.

Objectivism's 'law of identity' axioms, however, imprison you in a cul-de-sac. The truth is, you can't change the world by yourself, nor is a world were 'a' is always just equal to 'a' very open to being changed.

Our selves are in fact profoundly social. It is a new born organism's transactions with other selves that allows a self to grow into being at all. George Herbert Mead, Dewey's sidekick at the University of Chicago, is the mother lode on this topic, if you don't want to go all the way back to the Buddha.

As an antidote to Rand's A=A Aristotleanism, I like pondering an aphorism from a medieval Irish monk, John Scotus Erigena, condemned for heresy. He said, contra St Anselm, 'God is all that is and all that is not.' A = A and not A, the law of contradiction, a la Hegel.

As to the other topic, non-heterosexual folks can call themselves what ever they want, and hardly need my approval in any case, but where I come from, 'queer' is a nasty put-down and I have no intention to start using it in these late days of my life.

Warrior tells it like it is!! Just to speak out against perversion like "homosexuality" does not make you "homophobic", which would mean that you are AFRAID of queers. No, I'm not afraid of them, but I don't agree with their perverse way of life.

This need to "speak out against (so-called) perversion" is not innate, not present from birth. Isn't there a political or religious motivation to identify and denounce "perversion?"

Preachers rake in the bucks by denouncing "perversion." Politicians and other rightwing nuts like has been wrestlers sometimes organize or rally gangs of not so enlightened killers by condemning "perversion."

The greatest "perversion pimp" of them all, Adolph Hitler. Guess you're in good company, Mr White.

There's our boy Schwartzie, right on cue and never without the Hitler reference! OMG that's just like Stalin and stuff!!!1!

BLACK BOB

Seems pretty clear that the student who was ejected was simply creating a disturbance. Presumably he was not forced to attend, nor was attendance requested by any faculty, so I fail to see how even the most vulgar speech could be deemed harrassment. Indeed, it seems that the student(s) in question intended atnd attempted to harass the speaker!

Having been ejected and prevented from completely sabotaging the event (which cost someone money, and presumably others wished to enjoy without interruption by hecklers), he and his troublemaking friends choose now to continue making a spectacle. Seeking public approval of their disruptive behaviour from authorities at DePaul, when they should be facing reprimand for their own anti-social behaviour.

Seems pretty clear that the student who was ejected was simply creating a disturbance. Presumably he was not forced to attend, nor was attendance requested by any faculty, so I fail to see how even the most vulgar speech could be deemed harrassment. Indeed, it seems that the student(s) in question intended atnd attempted to harass the speaker!

Having been ejected and prevented from completely sabotaging the event (which cost someone money, and presumably others wished to enjoy without interruption by hecklers), he and his troublemaking friends choose now to continue making a spectacle. Seeking public approval of their disruptive behaviour from authorities at DePaul, when they should be facing reprimand for their own anti-social behaviour.

I think we're all missing one major thing -- this guy used to be a proffesional wrestler! Who cares what he thinks about anything. Same goes for george clooney and bono. If you really wanted to shut him up -- a stone cold stunner would do the job. Totally a better move than that gorilla press he used to do. Coincidentally I think the same move would also take out Bono and Clooney.

On a kinda funny side note -- the ultimate warrior used to get all oiled up with his muscles rippling, paint his face in bright rainbow colors, he'd tie his armbands so tight and sexy, he'd run so fast you could see even his ass muscles bulging, too bad we could all tell he had a small cock under those skimpy wrestling shorts. But, I'd let him suck me off.

Ozzie,

"permiso, chulo <i>whitesox</i>, pero no quieremos culeros gringos usar la nombre de nuestro club de beisbol."

You wanted to say: "Permiso, chulo whitesox, pero no QUEREMOS QUE culeros gringos USEN el nombre de nuestro club de beisbol."

Please contact me for some Spanish classes. ;) Ah, and "culero" is not a very gay-friendly term. Do your research.

I think we're all missing one other major thing - how come so many of you even know who the Ultimate Warrior is? I had never heard of the guy before seeing this thread; I lost interest in professional wrestling when I was a kid. I would suggest watching Ultimate Fighting, instead; you'll see some real ass-kicking there - none of that phony pro-wrestling shit.

Makhno,

Well, Jesse Ventura became governor. So there's a link between wrestling and politics. ;)

Let's break this down:

"Regardless of your statistics Andy"

No, Captain Queero, they're not my statistics, they're those of NINE BLACK LGBT organizations and the NGLTF.

* * * * *

"queer is a legitamite (sic) description of ones (sic) sexual expression and by not recognizing that you are spitting in the faces of all the people that do describe themselves that way"

Where, pray tell, did I say the "queer" label was not "legitimate"? As an anarchist, I thought you would think such considerations were irrelevant. What I did say was that the vast majority of LGBT people reject the "queer" label in favor of the very label, "gay," which you attack as illegitimate.

Speaking from myself, I take great offense at anyone other than other LGBT people calling me "queer," as it is popularly understood to be a term of abuse, which is why the really nasty bigots like Fred Phelps et al make a point of calling us "queers" and "faggots," not unlike how Klansmen make sure to refer to African Americans by using the n- word.

You never hear the more "respectable" bigots, like Peter LaBarbera, referring to us as "queers," as he knows that using such slurs would help label him in the public mind as a bigot. LaBarbera, the Washington Times, Focus on the Family and other respectable bigots also refuse to use the term "gay," as they see that as a positive reference to us, preferring instead to use the term "homosexuals," a term which was rapidly rejected following the Stonewall Rebellion in 1969.

* * * * * *

"as for the NGLTF and it's surveys... im sure they really went really far to find their statistics, like the capitalist pride parade or the everyone wear all designer clothes and prance around with perfect hair or we will outcast you market days."

Here you deride the NGLTF for not going "really far" to find its sampling, but then you're too lazy yourself to go on the web to see how "far" they actually went. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Here's the URL for the survey: www.thetaskforce.org/reslibrary/list.cfm

If you bother to go there you'll find out that NO, they didn't go to "capitalist pride parades" or "market days" to get their info. All of the surveys were taken at Black Pride events held in major cities around the country. If you've ever been to any of them (I've been to Chicago's a few times), you would note that they're about 99% African American in attendance and a far cry from the corporate feel of Lakeview's Pride Parade and Market Days. They're overwhelmingly working class, and nary a Jewel shopping cart in site. If you go look up the study you'll also find that one of its five co-authors is one Cathy Cohen, one of the most respected voices in Chicago's Black Lesbian community.

It's very easy sit behind a keyboard and lob rhetorical bombs at other groups and individuals, Captain Queero. It's another thing to take the time to back up our arguments with some thought and a little research. If we're going to make any headway in this town against the true "evil doers," I'd suggest we concentrate much more on doing the latter rather than the former.

You didnt have to say that queer was not legitamite, it was heavily implied... you said that most LGBT people were insulted by the word queer, even though the poll had nothing to do with which word you are insulted by, but rather what you label yourself as... the poll also said 1 percent label themselves as trans, but you never went on to say that most people are insulted by the word trans, thereby making it clear that you and your group do not think that queer is a legitmate sexual identity... and as for backing up an argument with thought, maybe next time your shouldnt use a pro-capitalist, pro-discrimination through business bigot (Rand) when making a case for equality. and how come i dont see you complaining about our use of the word queer when we come to your events? oh right... maybe its because every year and every event you have less and less people show up OR maybe its because you have the same boring chants and speakers at every single one, and in order to get anyone to attend you invite the anarchists, who you also insult in this post, to actually draw attention to the cause by cheering. PS good job being the pigs' lap dog on m18 andy!

You wrote:
"you said that most LGBT people were insulted by the word queer, even though the poll had nothing to do with which word you are insulted by"

Again, stop being lazy, and read the study, rather than just spouting off. Here's what part of the narrative of the study reads:

"What do these findings mean? Some argue that the term 'gay' largely represents the experiences and identity of men, specifically White men. The empirical evidence shows, however, that among those most likely to self-identify as non-straight in the Black Pride sample, the term 'gay' (and, among women, 'lesbian') is primarily chosen and readily used. Nearly two thirds of men, and even 12 percent of women, chose 'gay' to describe themselves. Six in 10 women chose the term 'lesbian.' The evidence also indicates that there is a strong reluctance among Black GLBT people to use the term 'queer' as a primary identifier of their sexual orientation..."

And here's the kicker:

"The lack of identification as 'queer' might reveal the racism that Black GLBT people experience from White 'queer identified' activists in their organizations and campaigns, including their lack of outreach to Black GLBT communities. These White 'queer' activists are often thought to have greater access to resources and privilege, and to embrace a greater fluidity concerning their sexual practices and sexual identities, than most Black Pride respondents. These qualities are luxuries often missing in communities of color. Second, the rejection of the term queer might indicate that the radical promise that the term queer holds has not been embraced by Black GLBT individuals as an alternative way (and politics) of sexual identification. As Cathy Cohen states, 'In its current rendition, queer politics is coded with class, gender, and race privilege, and may have lost its potential to be politically expedient organizing tool for addressing the needs—and mobilizing the bodies—of people of color.'"

Coming from Cohen, someone who had previously self-identified as "queer," I'd say that's a pretty harsh judgment. One might even hazard to say that it's a view of the term "queer" as pretty damn insulting, to put it mildly.

As for your use of the term "queer" at our events, I didn't say anything in public the times you've done it as your use of the term is far different than when bigots use it, as has been discussed in several of the posts above. It may not be the term that I would recommend using to self identify, but I'm not going to tell others how they self-identify.

You write:
"... maybe its because every year and every event you have less and less people show up... and in order to get anyone to attend you invite the anarchists "

Get a grip on reality. Re: the war, the March 18th Chicago protest was the largest anti-war protest this city has seen since the March 20, 2003 march on Lake Shore Drive at the start of the war, which we also had a big hand in organizing. By many accounts Chicago's protest was also the largest protest in the country on the 3rd anniversary of the war. So hardly a case of "less and less people show up."

We heard through the grapevine that you were pissing on the whole notion of a Michigan Avenue march – fine – then organize your own alternative, rather than piss and moan AFTER the event like you do every year. Oh, sorry, you didn't do that because you knew that even LESS and LESS people would have shown up for your event!! For all your talk about me being "the pigs' lapdog on M18," I didn't exactly see you charging the barricades, macho man. You had tough talk about direct action and delivered exactly: NOTHING. I make no apologies about M18 being a "legal" march, because that's what people democratically decided to do. Now if you had used those people who had come to the event wanting to participate in a legal event as a shield for direct action, I would have had a huge problem with that. That's not what they had signed up for, and it would have been extremely manipulative for you have done so. So don't piss and moan about us keeping the thing legal. As it was, we had a running battle all day long with the police, with several shouting matches with them (while they videotaped us for "evidence"), with Ralph Chiezewski (sp?), Deputy Cmdr of the Central Business District, implicitly threatening to arrest me as late as 8:30 PM that night. Thank you very much, I'm still dealing with three charges from last year, with a court date on Monday, and Chiezewski testifying against me probably sometime next month.

If you're talking about attendance at equal marriage rights events, our last protest was virtually over when your group finally decided to show up, so don't judge the turnout there by what you (finally) showed up to see. I happen to know that not all of your number were very thrilled with your intervention at that event, so I wouldn't be so quick to speak for all of "the anarchists," if I were you. By the way, it was one of your folks who contacted us about attending, we said "great, let's talk about it," and then never heard back.

Speaking more generally, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why attendance is smaller today at marriage equality events than it was in the Spring of '04. People tend to show up for political events when they see a real possibility for imminent victory, or imminent clamp down. In several states over the past two years we've been dealt severe setbacks, numbing the earlier anticipation of imminent victory, and the marriage issue has subsided somewhat in Illinois due to the threat of a constitutional amendment being squelched for the time being, this likewise leading to lower turn out. Unfortunately, thanks to the efforts of our opponents, this is probably a temporary state of affairs.

To conclude, it's very easy to simply show up at events organized by others and make potshot criticisms, it's a completely different thing to initiate the organizing of large events and then bear responsibility for what happens. If you don't like the nature of activism in this town, become something more than a professional critic. Spend that energy organizing a better alternative. Then your criticisms will have far more credibility.

Captain Queero,

"PS good job being the pigs' lap dog on m18 andy!"

Again... This is a very old concept called dehumanizing your enemy. If you can see the enemy as less human than yourself, you can readily excuse fighting and killing them. I am not Bobby Schwartz, so I won't use the Hitler analogy. But you can see my point.

"Our selves are in fact profoundly social. It is a new born organism's transactions with other selves that allows a self to grow into being at all. George Herbert Mead, Dewey's sidekick at the University of Chicago, is the mother lode on this topic, if you don't want to go all the way back to the Buddha."

It depends on how you define social. Is it homo or heterogenius. While one should avoid crude subjective narcisism, the monolthic 'real' existing social needs to be avoided as well. If there is a social it is a contingency of subjects. It is not something that can put on a black board or codified in constitutions. Immanant Multiplicity is what I would call it. There is a line to be drawn between the likes of Stirner and Marx(though Stirner for me is better overall). The subject constructs as much as it is constructed by power.

Here you go, 'Wolverine,' this is as good a summary as any, from wikipedia. As I said, Mead is the mother lode on this topic, and if you ponder it a bit, it says a lot about how 'Warrior' got the way he is:

Thanks to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The social construction of 'social self' a la George Herbert Mead:

The 'I' and the 'me' are terms central to the social philosophy of George Herbert Mead, one of the biggest influences on the development of the branch of sociology called symbolic-interactionism. The terms refer to the psychology of the person.

In Mead's understanding, the 'me' is the socialised aspect of the person. It is what is learned in interaction with others and (more generally) with the environment. This includes both knowledge about that environment (including society), but also about who he or she is: his or her 'sense of self'. This is because the person learns to see who he or she is (man or woman, old or young, etc.) by observing the responses of others to himself/herself or his/her actions. If others respond to the person as (for instance) a woman, the person develops a sense of herself indeed as a woman.

The 'I' is the active aspect of the person. This acts creatively, though within the context of the 'me'. (Mead notes that it is only after we act or speak that we know what we were going to do or say.) People, he argues, are not automatons. They do not blindly follow rules. They construct a response on the basis of what they have learned, the 'me'.

Taken together, the 'I' and the 'me' form the person or the 'self' in Mead's social philosophy.

Reference

* George Herbert Mead, Mind, Self and Society, (1934), Edited by Charles W. Morris, Chicago: University of Chicago.

"PS good job being the pigs' lap dog on m18 andy!"

What is that? how come it has to come down to personal atacks this is an inapropriate response to an open debat. ha andy my little suburban anarchist ass can't hold up my argument so i throw personal insults at you, how pathetic, sad and pathetic.

Well that's just another way of saying nothing avoids the text. Something I don't dissagree with. Nonetheless the question of the individual and social is for me a chicken and egg question.

出会い出会い系出会い系サイト出会い喫茶出会い掲示板ナンパ出会いカフェ人妻出会い無料系サイト優良出会い系攻略完全無料。アダルトビデオアダルト動画アダルトアニメアダルト画像アダルトサイト無料DVDアダルト風俗サンプル無料風俗優良アダルトサイト比較海外。人妻画像人妻パラダイス知合い人妻援護会人妻SMコレクション風俗告白。熟女画像東京熟女掲示板動画熟女ビデオおまんこオナニー。エロ画像エロフラッシュアニメエロ動画エロゲームエロ漫画無料エロサイト。エッチ画像エッチ動画エッチ小説写真エッチアニメエッチ0930。セックスアナルセックス画像セックス動画カーセックスセックスフレンドスワッピングSEX写真セックスボランティセックス体位東京セックス仕方SEX。おっぱい画像おっぱい村長おっぱい楽園掲示板おっぱい命おっぱいゲーム。巨乳動画巨乳画像アイドル巨乳掲示板風俗。セフレ募集セフレ掲示板セフレ画像掲示板セフレの作り方出会い無料素人セフレ。童貞狩りエロ漫画童貞狩り童貞喪失童貞オークション素人童貞逆援。不倫パートナー不倫出会い人妻不倫