Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
That's OK
By John Costello
Fri, 03/27/2015 - 2:20pm
We all saw them blocking traffic in Milton and Somerville a few months back anyway.
Don't forget Thursday April 9th everyone. The pre-trials for the trustafarians will be on at Quincy District Court.
Why, you're reminding people
By Dot net
Fri, 03/27/2015 - 2:42pm
Why, you're reminding people to go out and support them?
Free Grimace
By anon
Fri, 03/27/2015 - 2:55pm
.
We all saw them blocking traffic
By spin o rama
Fri, 03/27/2015 - 2:57pm
I know! And it hasn't stopped, even after arresting those "activists."
Intersections all over the city are blocked at rush hour and with traffic/poor snow removal, emergency vehicles have to be diverted/delayed. Where is the outrage?!
Which is great and all,
By erik g
Fri, 03/27/2015 - 3:20pm
Which is great and all, except for the fact that the records in question are from the original Occupy movement several years ago, include nothing about any of the 2014 protests, and were illegally created and stored. They're mostly concerned with things like Wake Up The Earth attendees, and surveillance of wakes and vigils. Real hard-boiled stuff.
Anything else you want to paint with that broad brush of yours?
It'll be a sad day in America
By Nick
Fri, 03/27/2015 - 7:25pm
When stopping hippies from blocking traffic is an acceptable justification for state surveillance.
I bet that is not all the BPD
By anon
Fri, 03/27/2015 - 3:05pm
I bet that is not all the BPD has done!
Hey man why is the surveillance taped in slow
By bulgingbuick
Fri, 03/27/2015 - 3:50pm
motion..i don't know man...wow dude thats weird...
How JP is it?
By moxie
Fri, 03/27/2015 - 4:50pm
It's sooooo JP that the news story has been edited so that all language referring to the Occupiers is gender neutral/gender fluid, so as not to offend any past, current, or future genders. And the story about these 99% is on a page that includes an ad for a $950 unisex Canada Goose parka.
I know, right?
By Scratchie
Fri, 03/27/2015 - 5:16pm
'Cause not offending people is so lame.
I know, right?
By nightmoves
Sat, 03/28/2015 - 7:32am
'Cause thin-skinned whiny losers are so cool.
Whiny?
By Jeff F
Sat, 03/28/2015 - 2:54pm
You mean like people who complain about 'gender-neutral' newspaper stories? (rolls eyes)
Hi moxie!
By B
Fri, 03/27/2015 - 10:21pm
I rarely come out of my lurk hole, but I'm feeling just the right mixture of sanctimonious and baffled to do so.
1. My ad on the article was for PayPal, as I had just been there to register an account, so I think the ad choice is probably more reflective of your browsing history than Jamaica plain.
2. Other than using the non-gender fluid pronoun 'she' to describe Robin, where else is there a part of the article linked in Adams post that would require a gender specific pronoun? Or... Where is the gender fluid language of which you speak?
If anything, I feel like the gazette could have done some better sourcing and attribution (see: 'graf about 'most activists don't belive BRIC). But the reporting was generally pretty solid, albeit with an agenda.
"Gender fluid?" The article
By gotdatwmd
Sat, 03/28/2015 - 10:15am
"Gender fluid?" The article seemed safe for work for me?
Huh?
By Waquiot
Fri, 03/27/2015 - 11:44pm
There was only one occupier mentioned, and her gender is definitely out there, mainly by the article referring to her as "she".
What else do you want? Or did I miss something?
EDIT- I swear the comment above wasn't there before I wrote mine, but in short ditto.
It was caricature
By moxie
Sat, 03/28/2015 - 8:16am
There were no Canada Goose parkas and no gender fluidity in the Jamaica Plain Gazette's piece on it's own dear trustfunded ninety-nine percenters. But given the source and topic of this "news" I really felt like there should have been. Or will be next time. So I inserted it.
What's scary here is that I can lay something out that's so over the top ridiculous, and people look at our own little JP and think: Yup, sounds right.
Okay
By Waquiot
Sat, 03/28/2015 - 3:09pm
I'll give your second paragraph this- brilliant use of "made you look."
I had to look up those Canada Goose parkas
By Sally
Sat, 03/28/2015 - 5:39pm
recently just to confirm to a friend that yes, there are idiots in the world who actually spend $750-1300 on a stupid jacket so they can have the same little patch on their arm that all of their friends have. Honestly, people...like your $350 Patagonia wasn't warm enough? Waahhhhh.
They all look alike anyway
By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 03/28/2015 - 7:21pm
Like a sleeping bag for walking in. Otherwise, they wouldn't work.
I got mine in early January 2014 on an after Xmas sale at Eddie Bauer. $130 very well spent, given the last two winters. I have yet to see a patagonia or LL Bean or North Face jacket that isn't nearly identical.
My SIL has a Canada Goose one, but she's had that for 20 years and will probably be buried in it, as that is when the warranty expires. Then again, she lives at the edge of the Canadian Rockies, so, there's that. They aren't terribly useful unless it is below -10C/15F.
Who deleted the loser file?
By nightmoves
Sat, 03/28/2015 - 7:34am
Was it you?
Add comment