There's also something to be said about tact. Are you really going to win
anyone over by berating people while they're shopping for Christmas gifts?
Be disruptive, but not obnoxious.

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 12:49 AM, Caleb James DeLisle <cjd@???> wrote:

> Wanna paste that up on a website somewhere so I can tweet it?
> Or if not, can I put it in some pastebin or something ?
>
> On 12/24/2014 07:13 AM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 09:09:25AM -0800, Seth wrote:
> >> On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 00:11:40 -0800, Robert Jakob <rsjakob@???>
> wrote:
> >>> I was very surprised with what a small percentage of people said yes
> they
> >>> should be allowed to protest. How did the Mall of America get
> >>> $250 million
> >>> in taxpayer money?
> >>>
> >>> Freedom of assembly is in the constitution. You don't get to
> >>> protect those
> >>> rights only when it's convenient for you.
> >>
> >> It's a weird situation. The argument or principle advanced that if a
> >> legal person accepts taxpayer $$ (is there a threshhold?) from the
> >> government they therefore automatically forfeit certain property
> >> rights and must allow political protest on what is ostensibly their
> >> property is not one I'm comfortable with.
> >>
> >> At the same time I have no great love for malls, mall culture, or
> >> welfare of any kind, especially corporate.
> >
> > Some more background:
> > http://www.startribune.com/business/208425631.html
> >
> > And now it gets weirder.
> > http://www.startribune.com/local/west/286734251.html
> >
> > It's not the *mall* filing civil suits. The Bloomington city attorney
> > is wasting taxpayer money going after organizers. It was not *the
> protestors*
> > that caused shut downs and loss of business, it was the police, on the
> > request of the mall owners.
> >
> > There is also this amusing commentary:
> >
> http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2014/12/after-mall-protest-a-threat-of-overplayed-hands/
> >
> > which I think basically says if mall management had taken a nonviolent
> approach
> > and allowed the protestors to stand around and sing, it would have been
> another
> > protest that nobody cared about. But now we have an overplayed hand by
> one of
> > the singular examples of conspicuous overconsumption, and it's almost
> like
> > someone who hated working at the mall *wanted* this to become a political
> > firestorm, and indeed it did, because it's now a huge urban/suburb
> political
> > battle between Minneapolis and Bloomington (where the mall is), and
> people like
> > me are throwing "why do I have to pay taxes for this crap if it's
> private"
> > rocks.
> >
> > I don't have a good answer for you on the property rights issue. The
> mall is
> > taking public tax money for infrastructure for what I think most people
> consider
> > a public space. The place exists to be open to anyone that wants to
> spend money
> > and buy something there. Now if a group of people that don't want to buy
> anything
> > show up, is that really the Bloomington city attorney's problem, or just
> bad
> > marketing and PR on the part of the mall?
> >
> > One store has had better sales because their employees joined in, so why
> is
> > tax money being used to cover the bad marketing decisions of the owners?
> >
> http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2014/12/22/lush-employees-mall-of-america-protesters-sales-up.html?page=all
> > _______________________________________________
> > unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
> >
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>