After the ACTUP GG/SF split in 1991, ACTUP SF disintegrated while GG kept up its very narrow focus activism. What happened then follows a pattern of disruptive infiltration where folks who came into the open movement for the VI AIDS conference. The number of folks in ACTUP SF quadrupled after that activism. A small number of very charasmatic and well off gay white men with no apparent means of economic support took the lead in exploiting divisions between the 'AIDS as a social justice pandemic' and 'get drugs in the arms of white gay men with health insurance as soon as possible' camps. As if there as any contradiction or incompatibility between the two.

The reason why ACTUP SF was successful 25 years ago is for the same reason that Occupy showed signs of life 2 years ago, because the community had skin in the movement and the movement reflected broad consensus of the community.

In the intervening two decades, post Seattle 99, the government has changed its posture towards protest, ignoring it all.

Without an organic base of support from the community and without reflecting the needs of the entire community, not just those with nonprofit coverage, it is going to be impossible to test what new forms of activism, adaptations to increasing state intransigence and violence, can be successful.

But that would involve old school activism, putting the community and its needs first, rather than the domesticated catch and release advocacy for "the most vulnerable" of the nonprofits. 25 years ago, everyone was the most vulnerable.

Please consider a reading comprehension test as a requirement to post comments onto this website. Nothing too hard, maybe elementary school level.

Otherwise, illiterate commenters will misunderstand or misrepresent your articles and reader comments.

For a glaring example, look no further than the above comment posted on Feb. 25 at 4:21 pm, which completely distorts the earlier comment posted on Feb. 20 at 8:02 am.

Sincerely,
SFASC

I am not a pacifist.

will provide an analysis showing the distorting nature of the illiterate commenter's statement.

Marcos' original comment read, "...it is going to be impossible to test what new forms of activism, adaptations to increasing state intransigence and violence, can be successful."

The illiterate commenter, anon, began his reply by misquoting the original comment: "Impossible to test what forms of violence can be successful"?

Note how anon deleted the words "of activism, adaptations to increasing state intransigence and" in order to claim that marcos' original statement about responses to state violence is actually advocating activist violence.

At best, anon's actions display a lack of reading comprehension. More likely, he deliberately misquoted marcos' statement for his own nefarious reasons.

This example is why the SFASC is reluctantly advocating the passing of a reading comprehension test as a prerequisite for posting onto this website.

For a long period of time, the SFASC has been closely monitoring this and other San Francisco websites for examples of stupidity as part of its campaign to combat stupidity and its ill effects on internet communication.

From its copious analysis, the SFASC believes unequivocally that anon is the most stupid commenter on any San Francisco website.

of this website's comments, the SFASC notes that commenter anon uncritically supports the most violent aspects of American society; that is, aggressive warfare and unbridled police power.

Anon's attempt to deflect his own prediliction for violence by misrepresenting someone else's comments reinforces the SFASC's finding that anon is the most stupid commenter on any San Francisco website.

Down with stupidity!!!

Power to the thoughtful!!!