>Or should we wear pistols in holsters and hope that visible deterrence is worth a damn against hardened criminals who might be cranked up on meth?
open carry is now illegal in the state of california, but I hear more concealed carry permits are being issued by alameda county sheriffs due to reduced local PD staff, should you choose to go that route.
also, reactionary ranting is usually not worth reading. might want to reconsider whether generating these text walls is the best use of your time as more and more people skip over them.
i MEAN what i've SAID here btw ;) it really is baffling to me that anyone would use so much of their time this way.
cheers,
hol
Dec 2, 2013 08:13:26 PM, g2g-public01 at att.net wrote:
>
>
ChrisBee: What you SAID was this:
>
>
"Feel free to disagree with me, but when I hear/read discussions
about this based around "how safe is so-and-so compared to
such-and-such area" I think "Wow, if that isn't
privilege/entitlement/self-absorption then I don't know what is."
Not saying that any of you are, but I'm just saying."
>
>
So if what you SAID is not what you MEANT, now's your chance to
un-SAY it.
>
>
As my friends around here know, my safety-sense is calibrated to
err on the side of false-positives, and on that particular
occasion I got a false-negative, with the result that I and the
person I was with got held up at gunpoint. The gal who was
physically assaulted and robbed of her tablet was sitting in front
of DeLauer's, and three assailants were involved. The guy who got
his windows smashed (twice) was parked outside SR.
>
>
So: How much paranoia is justified, or should we get
concealed-carry permits and shoot any random JoeBob who approaches
us on the streets at night? Or should we wear pistols in holsters
and hope that visible deterrence is worth a damn against hardened
criminals who might be cranked up on meth?
>
>
The fact that you've been robbed, you've had friends who've been
robbed, and had a couple of friends die (presumably shot) (someone
I knew also died from a gang shooting) should, if anything,
disabuse you of the attitude that "being aware of your
surroundings" is sufficient to avoid an early meet-up with the
Grim Reaper.
>
>
But instead you come up with this in your latest missive:
"[don't'] assume everything is going to be fine if, say, you
decide to send some drunk texts while walking through Ghost Town
at 3 am."
>
>
Excuse me but I've never been drunk in my life, and I don't even
own a cellphone (I get all the surveillance I want for my taxpayer
dollars, why pay another $600/year for even more?). The guy I was
with wasn't drunk or texting either. The gal who got assaulted
and robbed wasn't drunk; she was reading on her tablet, but it was
at a bus stop in a brightly lit area with lots of people coming
& going. The guy whose car windows got smashed: hmm, should
his car have been more paranoid?, or should his car get a
concealed-carry permit?
>
>
In point of fact some parts of Oakland ARE safer than others.
Look up the crime maps and see for yourself. Whether, on balance,
SR should locate in whatever-neighborhood depends on a lot of
things including affordable space and access to public transport,
and I'm not opposed to taking calculated risks or making
tradeoffs. But there's a world of difference between _that_ and a
smug callous attitude toward other people's safety and other
peoples' lives.
>
>
As for keeping the personal attacks out of it, you bloody well
fired the first shot, or rather, tossed a big honking hand-grenade
of a personal attack with your line about
"privilege/entitlement/self-absorption." So don't be surprised at
the blowback.
>
>
-G.
>
>
>
=====
>
>
>
>
On 13-12-02-Mon 7:17 PM, Chris Bee
wrote:
>
>
What I meant was that if you spend any amount of time in
Oakland it behooves you to be aware of your surroundings and
not assume everything is going to be fine if, say, you
decide to send some drunk texts while walking through Ghost
Town at 3 am. I realize that not every "I got robbed in
Oakland" story starts like this but you'd be surprised at
how many do.
>
>
BTW I am not the douchebag you seem to think I am. I've
been robbed (in Temescal no less), had close friends robbed,
even had a couple friends die as a result of shit like this
so it's something I'm pretty familiar with. I'm not saying
what I'm saying lightly, I'm saying this because I don't
want sudoers to think that one part of Oakland is
necessarily safer or less safe than another part. So let's
keep the personal attacks out of it, it's a shitty thing to
go through but we shouldn't take shots at each other.
>
>
-chrisbee
>
>
>
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:54 PM, GtwoG
PublicOhOne g2g-public01 at att.net>
wrote:
>
>
>
Re. Sonja:
>
>
Exactly what I've done: not gone back to SudoRoom after
having had a gun pointed at my guts right in the
doorway. Chances are at least one person reading this
is pleased with that outcome, but at least four I know
aren't.
>
>
Re. ChrisBee:
>
>
Right, blame the fucking victims, three or four of us
that I know of who've been robbed, assaulted, or had car
windows smashed and stuff stolen coming & going from
SR or parked nearby, and possibly one or two I missed.
>
>
Let's see, where have we heard your line of bullshit
before?... she shouldn't have been wearing those clothes
either...? I take it you agree with that too.
>
>
I'll quote you directly for what comes next, just so the
context of my reply is clear:
>
>
"Feel free to disagree with me, but when I hear/read
discussions about this based around "how safe is
so-and-so compared to such-and-such area" I think
"Wow, if that isn't
privilege/entitlement/self-absorption then I don't
know what is." Not saying that any of you are, but I'm
just saying."
>
>
So it's "privilege/entitlement/self-absorption" to value
being in a safe location where you're less likely to be
subjected to violence on the street? I'm going to say
something to you that I haven't said to anyone in a damn
long time: Go fuck yourself.
>
>
-G.
>
>
>
=====
>
>
>
On 13-12-02-Mon 6:02 PM, Sonja Trauss wrote:
>
>
Yeah but what if taking
responsibility for your safety means not going
where you've been robbed before?
>
>
On Monday, December 2, 2013, Chris Bee wrote:
>
>
(shakes head, sighs)
>
>
I've said it before and I'll say it
again...in most cases, putting the onus of
personal safety on a neighborhood is
totally missing the point that YOU ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY, full
stop. Saying that you are (relatively)
more or less safe depending on where you
are is...is...well, it's wrong thinking on
so many levels that I don't even know
where to begin.
>
>
Feel free to disagree with me, but when I
hear/read discussions about this based
around "how safe is so-and-so compared to
such-and-such area" I think "Wow, if that
isn't privilege/entitlement/self-absorption
then I don't know what is." Not saying that
any of you are, but I'm just saying. I like
and respect my sudo peoples...a lot. That's
why I'm pointing this out. I don't want
anyone to be lulled into a false sense of
security/anxiety by thinking that just
because you're in one area bad shit is less
prone to happen to you, or vice versa. It's
on all of us to be aware of what's going on
around us and to be prepared to deal with
whatever situations may come our way, alone
or otherwise. Good Samaritans
notwithstanding, the cops are...well, the
odds of them being there when you "need"
them (I personally don't) are next to nil,
and they only seem to make things
complicated after the fact.
>
>
What we should be focused on is locating
an affordable space that meets the needs of
BAPS/sudo/CCL.
>
>
Sorry if I seem a little impatient but
I've seen too many important discussions get
derailed like this, and right now I think
this is pretty high on our list of immediate
concerns.
>
>
And again, If anyone wants to straighten
me out on this issue I'm all ears/eyes.
>
>
Respectfully,
>
>
-chrisbee
>
>
>
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Sonja
Trauss sonja.trauss at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Oh man I'm I
total idiot, I just realized where 8th
and Alice is - I saw "8th st" and "near
BART" and thought you were talking about
w Oakland BART.
>
>
On Tuesday, November 26, 2013,
Pete Forsyth wrote:
>
>
Sonja, given
that -- as you say -- West
Oakland is "pretty mixed"
racially and culturally,
what is it that leads you to
conclude that Amber was
talking about black people,
and commenting on race?
>
Pete
>
>
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at
10:13 AM, Sonja Trauss sonja.trauss at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>Yeah
you need to give black
people more credit. Did
you know, some of them
like coffee shops also?
some of them can read?
Some of them have
computers? Some of them
might become sudo
members? Black people
are pretty similar to
white people and like
lots of the same
things!!! Wow.
>
In any case w. O.
Is pretty mixed. There
are lots burners and
anarchists there that
would like sudo room
too. My roommate
Randall will be there
every day if you move
to 8th and Alice.
>
Listen if anyone
on this list is
actually worried about
the harmful effects of
gentrification, I'm
happy to brainstorm
how to accomplish
these two specific
goals:
Under no
circumstances should
the west
Oakland housing
projects move or be
converted. (This will
not be a real concern
for 25 years, but
still)
Make new building in w o
very very easy. The main
attractive feature of w
O is cheapness of rent.
We still have plenty of
empty space. There is no
reason that supply
tightness should cause
rents to rise for 50
more years SO LONG AS
ANTI GENTRIFICATION
concerns DONT
PREVENT NEW BUILDING.
>
>
>
On Tuesday,
November 26,
2013, Pete
Forsyth wrote:
>
>
Everybody
has different
views on
gentrification.
But speaking
for myself,
the kind that
bothers me is
the
high-security
condos with
on-site
parking where
rich people
get cheap real
estate and
then have zero
incentive or
inclination to
engage with
their
neighbors.
They drive to
work, drive to
Whole Foods,
and in between
sit behind
bars on their
balconies
while their
neighbors push
shopping carts
by their
fortresslike
front doors to
the recycling
center.
>
Sudo Room
*exists* to
build
community. It
may not build
the kind of
community that
everybody
wants to
participate
in, but it
does offer
opportunities
that don't
exist absent a
hacker space.
It's hard for
me to imagine
Sudo Room
doing damage
to its
neighborhood,
and even if
something
unexpected
happened, I
think its
community
would act
quickly to
correct the
problem.
>
Pete
>
>
On Tue,
Nov 26, 2013
at 8:45 AM,
AnimationAmber
. amberyadaanimation at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
It
should be
noted that
aiming for a
space in a
"less-gentrified"
neighborhood
does overlook
the
possibility
that Sudo's
presence would
have a
gentrifying
effect.
Thoughts?
>
-amber
>
>
On Mon, Nov
25, 2013 at
9:06 PM, Marc
Juul juul at labitat.dk> wrote:
>
>
Matt,
Jenny and
myself went
and looked at
another space
that could
potentially be
a new sudo
space.
>
>
We've started
gathering
information
about it here:
>
>
https://sudoroom.org/wiki/8th_and_Alice
>
>
My
personal
feeling about
the space is:
>
>
This is
an awesome
space with
lots of
natural light.
It addresses
two of the
major concerns
raised about
The Omni in
being two
blocks from
BART in a
neighborhood
that
seems/feels
safer than the
area around
MacArthur
BART, and in
being located
in a less
gentrified
neighborhood.
The one
drawback in
comparing it
to the current
space and The
Omni is the
lack of a big
separate
common area
for events. It
is _very_
similar to
Noisebridge in
almost every
way.
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>sudo-discuss mailing list
>sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>