Mike Daisey Assaulted on Stage
by tdaxp ~ April 25th, 2007
Mike Daisey, the hillarious author of 21 Dog years: Doing Time @ Amazon.com, had his notes ruined during an assault during a walk-out. The whole thing is on Youtube, and Mike’s blog.
Aftermath
Apparently, the criminal (Mike calls him a terrorist, and it’s hard to disagree with that term) is a self-described Christian. Of course the assalut wasn’t Christian. The assault was the opposite of Christian. This isolate crime — this particular act of terror — has a more in common with the Muslim cartoon riots. Which, perhaps, is appropriate. The assault against Mike Daisey is a perversion of a Christian, as Islam is an heresey of Christianity.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Also, the Paris Hilton and NYC bits were funny. I did not see the whole thing, I just went straight to the walk out and water spilling.
TDL
April 28th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jay & TDL,
Terrorism, for lack of a better definition, is organized, symbolic, political, sub-state violence.
The attack was surely violent.
The attack was designed to influence what speakers may say in public forums. So it surely was political.
The attack was symbolic. It was not some attack to drive up the cost of paper or water through scarcity.
The question of whether the attack was terrorism ultimately comes down to whether it was organized. The attacker was part of an ideological insurgency and had been involved in the preparations for the walk-out before-hand. But the Christian club was clearly not a terrorist organization.
Ry,
Of course the walk-out was intolerant. But freedom means the freedom to be intolerant. There's plenty of filth I wouldn't sit down and listen to. The outrage isn't that there was organized intolerance. It was that there was violence.
Lastly,
The monologue was funny, but 21 Dog Years @ Amazon.com is a classic. I remember listening to it on unabridged audio while walking when I was getting my computer science degree…
April 25th, 2007 at 12:00 am
It was certainly a shallow show of blatant intolerance, but I wouldn't call it “terrorism.”
Though I do agree that such intolerance is hardly a Christian ideal.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Okay, being on dial-up this is taking forever to load and play. Just got to the part where water is dumped on the notes.
Ouch. Reading the blog it's the only set. Ouch.
But terrorism? That's a bit much, no? About on par with 'Feminazi' in eradicating the meaning, removing the true evil embodied in the term, by lowering the bar to criminal or rude behavior. Or the reflexive use of the word fascist to attack political enemies. That's pretty lame, Dan. You're better than that.
Calling people who leave because they object cowards? Being a shock artist and being shocked when people are trully shocked? He plays, like Imus, at the edge of decent. He shouldn't be surprised if people walk out. Calling them cowards really undercuts the message of his NYC rant. 'I'm so cool, but you aren't cool because you're leaving and not talking to me. If you only recieved my message you too could be cool. Cowards.' Hypocritic.
Yeah, destroying the guys notes is probably criminal, and simply walking out might be rude(depends on situation). The guy was pretty stupid to have only one set of notes, even if I'm sorry his work got trashed. But terrorism is way over the top, Dan. As is the shock and horror that people walked out. Nothing intolerant about leaving something you find offensive—He said to turn the other cheek, not to sit there and be verbally pummeled.
Intolerant to destroy the notes, yeah, but not to leave. There's other ways he could've made the 'they're arrogant' point without using sex that the people who walked out could've enjoyed. I don't get his outrage over the people walking out. Anger over the guy destroying his notes, sure, but not walking out. When you play at that edge of decent conversation and shock comedy you best expect that.
LEsson to be learned here. read about Andy Kauffman who experienced similar things and eventually went from being the coolest comic to out of work because he simply pushed to hard to be hip. You play in this area of wanting to shock people, or worse by wanting to be king of hip with disdain for the non-hip, be prepared for walkouts or angry stares. You're playing with heady stuff. You're intentionally pushing buttons.
But have your stuff destroyed? No. That's simply wrong. The civil thing is to walk out. Not sit there and argue back and forth with the guy. Just leave. All he's going to do is spin a yarn about you being bumpkins who ain't hip and don't get it. Leave. If it offends, 'turn the channel' and leave.
I'm disappointed Dan. THe same thing as 'Freedom Fries'? No. Same as changing the name of the Danish? No way. Same as making signs saying 'Death to those who insult Islam'? You're out of your freakin mind. Leaving was changing the channel. Pouring water was beyond rude and possibly criminal(destruction of property), but nowhere near the level of a death threat or calls for death of a whole class of people. Jackassery, but not the same.
Calling this terrorism is on the same plane as people who call Catholics 'The American Taliban'. Demonization of those you don't agree with is so f'n lame. About on par with Naomi Wolf(http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html )
I agree with the guy in what he says about NYC and Paris Hilton. You could map that to SF, CA as well–they're The City. But I wouldn't call those who don't like it terrorists or Taliban. That's just such fake outrage.
Oh, and the Wife could so look like the hot chick with the notes if she wanted. Damn.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Dan,
I don't know about terrorism. Although this could probably be termed as an act of violence (no matter how mild) in order to further some political/religious point. The only problem with me seeing it that way is that I lack any context. I do not know who this guy is and why a “Christian” group would want to do this to him.
As far as the terror angle plays; these types of acts typically embolden groups to push on to further and more violent acts. Overtime, a political/religious group will begin to radicalize and two or more factions will form. Internally these factions will begin to argue over further acts of violence or just maintaining the status quo. A fragmentation will occur and the more radical faction will break away and escalate the acts of violence. This continues to occur until you have a hard core cohort that becomes very proficient and effective (think the Weather Underground, or Baider-Meinhoff, or any other proficient terror group.) In order to accurately describe this event as a terrorist act, one would have to delve into the m.o. of the group (as well as the individual who actual committed the violent act) that committed it. My guess is that this event, although obviously well organized, was a bit of a lark. Again, context matters and I do not understand any of this.
Regards,
TDL
April 30th, 2007 at 12:00 am
“The attacker was part of an ideological insurgency and had been involved in the preparations for the walk-out before-hand.”
Huh? Where'd you get that? I didn't pick up on that at all. Care to direct me to what leads you to make that call?
I also think the premeditation element a bit weak of any def'n of terrorism. So to disrupt a GWB or HRC speech is terrorism if enough people are in on it and it's premeditated? Round up Code Pink! Hang the chick who shouted during Pres Hu's address! THat's a bit far Dan. I find actions like the folks who decided to stand up and disrupt a minuteman speech distasteful, maybe even criminal, but not terroristic. That's pushing the def'n a bit too far I think.