SFist whomps Indybay upside the head over the four dead Oakland cops


Oh, Indybay.org, you know we like you. Why? Because you’re so hot-headed and loopy; the flipside to zombietime, if you will. But this takes the soy-based vegan carrot cake.

“This” being the deranged lefter-than-thou response of Indybay to the murder of four Oakland police Saturday. They quite seriously said the cops overeacted after the first two were shot and thus caused the death of the second two. That Lovell Mixon shot the four cops dead doesn’t appear to penetrate their little pinhead anarchist brains, but hey, they no doubt managed to outrage Mommie and Daddy, and that’s surely the important thing for them.

There’s looking at all sides of a situation, acting carelessly yet irresistibly flip, and being downright delusional. This is a case of the latter. Really, Indybay, this kind of faux-social justice speech gives all of us real anarchist liberal hippie nut fruitcakes a bad name.


  1. You’re not kidding, I can’t believe that they published that, and I’m from Berkeley!! What makes it worse is that if you post a response on their comment section that disagrees with them, they delete it! Indybay.org seems to be practicing the worst type of 1984 censoring that there is.

  2. censorship?

    i think that the coverage on indybay is often hit or miss, but that’s the point: those aren’t paid journalists, and there is usually little to no editorial control. even if comments on indybay are deleted, the language of the article was cut and pasted to be hosted on sfist, with critical commentary. you repeated it here.

    how was anyone “censored”? to me, the point of censoring someone is so their words can’t be seen, and this article comes up in a google search for indybay as the third result.

    i always thought the strength of internet journalism is that the real estate is so cheap that you can go put your thoughts up on a million more websites besides the one that pissed you off. i agree that the fringe can be cartoonish and intolerant, but that should just make it much easier for reasonable people to make their views heard. it pains me to see that genuine free speech is called censorship. if everyone must adhere to one set of publishing rules, then the first amendment is pretty meaningless, isn’t it?

  3. Hi! I noticed that my website isn’t appearing well just in case you want to read what I think about social issues being an activist myself. Cheers!

Comments are closed.