Forum Post: The Occupy movement is against cops. Why?
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 22, 2011, 9:48 a.m. EST by TechJunkie
(3029)
from Miami Beach, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
A lot of Occupiers have tried to convince cops that they're part of the 99% and that they would be welcome within the Occupy movement.
But when I read people here cheering at the Anonymous hackers who posted cops' personal information online, calling them "scum bags", after a couple of months of constant clashes with police, all of that seems pretty disingenuous. It seems obvious in retrospect that Occupiers were telling self-serving lies to police officers to attempt to manipulate them.
Why does this movement need to be against cops? How does that further the Occupy cause? The risk is alienating potential supporters. People who sympathize with the concerns of the movement, but who are not anti-authoritarian anarchists. People who value the cops and fire fighters and EMTs who protect and serve us every day, who keep our society functioning. Cops don't work for the 1%, they work for all of us.
I know that there are people who will say, "Those people calling cops scum bags don't represent Occupy", but really that's not true. If you've got a group of a hundred people and 90 of them are cop haters, then you've got a cop-hating group.
Why are there not cooler heads trying to focus this movement's energy on constructive issues, instead of cop-baiting and clashing with law enforcement just for the sake of expressing anti-authoritarian angst? Why are so many people in this movement so willing to fight useless battles while losing the war?
Three items
The vast majority of cops are good, sane, honorable human beings
A tiny number have "evil" "crazy" "violent" tendencies
This job attracts & enables that tiny number to do some very awful things
Spraying the students, sprying the two women, Rodney King
just to name three
SCREAMS POLICE ARE EVIL
they all are not
but the system that protects them is
just like the church pedophile protectors
just like the college sport pedophile protectors
THE SYSTEM MUST PROTECT THE PEOPLE -
NOT THE CRIMINALS
Is Occupy Wall Street a movement about Rodney King? You seem to be searching so hard for rationalizations for why Occupy should be a cop-hating group that you're totally missing what I'm saying about e overall problem: Occupy is not about police brutality.
Or is it, now? Has the Occupy movement really been so weak that it allowed itself to get lost along they way? Have protesters gotten so caught up in the act of protesting that they have forgotten what they were protesting against in the first place?
TechJunkie, you seem to be searching hard to call bensdad a cop-hater. Your question is silly, you know the movement is not about Rodney King or cop-hating. bensdad clearly says that there are only a tiny number of cops which react violently to non-violent protesters. The premiss of your post is that most Occupiers are cop-haters, it is a false premiss.
Are you sure about that? I posted the original message because I was curious about that. My impression based on the responses on this page is that a significant percentage of Occupiers really are against cops.
Actually I don't think Occupy should have a "cop hater" stance. I think Occupy should hold out an olive branch of peace to these thugs and keep pushing the olive branch towards their faces. What happens later is on them, not on OWS.
Unfortunately, due to a lack of discipline on the part of Occupy, what has happened to Occupy is on Occupy, not on law enforcement. Occupy intentionally violates laws during their protests. Not as civil disobedience, because they're not violating an unjust law as a political statement. Breaking a law with no clear justification other than clashing with authority is not civil disobedience, it's just illegal.
Cops are not mandated to issue on the spot punishment for law breaking. When I think of Bull Connor's attack dogs and fire hoses i don't think to myself that the lawbreakers brought it upon themselves.
What are you about?
If just about finding fault with OWS, then you might try drugs. Same waste of time with faster Darwinian Payoff.
"Faster Darwinian payoff" seems to imply that finding fault with OWS will get me killed?
What I am NOT about is clashing with law enforcement for the sake of clashing with law enforcement. I'm objecting to that idea because it's a diversion from Occupy's message that alienates people, and so it's counterproductive.
Cops should thank protesters for keeping cops in check and therefore helping to preserve free speech for all.
We don't hate cops, we pity them. Dumb stupid animals that obey their worst enemies. They need to think of their pensions, the benefits their union has gained for them, their union rights, their middle class lifestyle, the possibility of a middle class lifestyle for their children and grandchildren, the status of newbie cops in the future, etc.
Protesters should thank cops for defending the First Amendment as interpreted by our legal system for more than two centuries.
Nope, and it is more than cops to blame. It is cities who leave no place for a protester to take a stand.
BlueRose, I hate to sink down to the lowest common level, but I am left with no choice. You are a moron. NYC, where this "movement" started allowed OWS to take over a public park, and, in turn cut it off from all the public with the exception of a few angry 20 somethings (anyone older than that in there is beyond sad) for nearly a month. Bloomberg allowed them to stay in that park despite the fact that they were breaking the law for weeks.
While it sickens me, the KKK is allowed to march through the streets freely to protest, pro lifers are allowed to hold up pictures of baby fetuses in front of abortion clinics and pro choicers are allowed to scream horrible epitaphs at their opponents. Cities dont prevent this because the first amendment doesnt allow it. The difference between these and the OWS supporters are the above mentioned are fighting for a legitimate cause (as opposed to a bunch of loafers looking for handouts), be it right or wrong, and doing it legally. (Please note, I do not associate legitimate with right, personally the KKK disgusts me and I wont take a stand here on abortion) They get their permits, stay within their boundaries, and obey the law. The OWS 'movement' folks are neither fighting for a cause, unless one considers an easy solution to their own ineptitude and laziness a cause, and they have broken the law repeatedly. The police and the govt do deserve to be blamed for not squashing this sooner. Those who 'occupied' Zuccotti Park should have been arrested their first night there as all NYers know it is illegal to spend the night in a NYC park. Instead, Bloomberg decided to humor these people because he believed in exactly what you claim cities no longer believe in, that being that cities DO LEAVE A HUGE place for a protester to take a stand.
So, quit your bitching, stop your blaming, and get a job.
You have no idea the hoops people have to jump through to receive "proper permitting" to speak freely.
No. I do actually. It is remarkably easy provided you plan ahead. All you need is, usually 30 days to get the permit. Sometimes you need signatures from individuals in the neighborhood. But, unless you are some sort of derelict who spends their time camping out in a park in lower Manhattan, one wouldnt find it all that hard to get said proper permitting. Trust me, Ive done it.
Justice delayed is justice denied. 30 day wait to exercise free speech? Wow! Talk about being "restrictive in scope"!
Spoken like someone who cannot plan ahead. How long has the economy been in the crapper? 8 years? And you guys are just now getting off your asses? Where were you in 2003 when this all began. Where were you when the mayor of Detroit was bulldozing foreclosed homes in the city as a means of preserving land value rather than giving families a chance to get them back?
"Justice delayed is justice denied," you claim. Spoken like someone who is content to bitch and moan after the fact rather than actually do something. You had 8 years. And you complain about 30 days. And, to be honest, that 30 days was a conservative estimate. Either way, justice has never been actually denied. OWS "protests," although they have all been technically illegal, have all been tolerated by local governments at least for a few weeks. Again, as I stated in a previous post, Bloomberg allowed you glorified homeless whiners take over a park that hard working people used to enjoy for over a month before doing anything. And again, you were there illegally all along. The only justice that was denied was that to the individuals who deserved to be able to enjoy that park yet were deprived that fact because of people like you.
Get your facts right or shut up. I can only hope a raccoon gnaws out your heart as you sleep in your tent tonight. It will do society a massive favor.
So we would have to wait 30 days to protest SOPA or NDAA? Outrageous. It effectively stifles free speech, show me who enforces a 30 day wait period. If it is some parade that shuts down traffic, that is one thing, but to protest? There is no way a 30 day wait is enforceable, anyone arrested would walk.
Thank you for proving me right. Youre just an idiot. Beyond pitiful. Thank god you are a voice piece for this movement and not something that will actually impact anything. Lord knows if you were whispering in Ghandi's or MLK's ears a boat load of people would have been screwed.
Agreed, I'll bludgeon this idiot if I ever get close enough to smell her stench.
This is another imposter post, most likely from Frog who claims to be Christian, yet loves to say misogynistic things to all the posters he THINKS are women. The real GirlFriday makes Frog look like an idiot. I have said, anyone with an L in their name is subject to this fraud. Capitol i and little L look the same.
[Removed]
Why would any establishment provide a place for an anti-establishment group?
There is no reason any establishment would provide a place for an anti-establishment group. In the U.S.A. an anti-establishment group can assemble and speak by virtue of the First Amendment. Use it of lose it.
They do, provided permits are applied for in advance. And said permits are very easy to get. But keep it up with your anti-establishment rhetoric. It allows me to keep getting promotions while you keep handing me my mail.
That was cute I guess, but FYI you missed your target completely. I'm the CTO of a technology startup, and I was asking a devil's advocate question about something should have been obvious to the guy to whom I was replying. Would the Palestinian Authority issue a permit for an Israeli extremist settlement group who planned to camp out indefinitely and the plot against the destruction of the PA? Sorry if my question was too abstract for you...
Aha, but protest is VERY American. Presidents, politicians come and go.
Not an answer, but I do agree.
Exactly, not an answer, he (or she, I could care less) is actually disproving his/her previous points. It takes a truly stupid person to admit fault without realizing/acknowledging that they were wrong. Well done Bluerose, you went from saying there is no longer room in the US for protest to admitting that protest is still very American. Keep it up.
The rational people seem to have mostly given up on this web site, if not in Occupy in general. That leaves some unbelievable zealots and crackpots behind. Which makes me, personally, even more interested, because far-left extremist crackpots who regurgitate groupthink blindly are just as fascinating as far-right Christian fundamentalists, or Scientologists, or any other cult. There are people all over this web site who blindly reject the economic model of supply and demand because it conflicts with their rigid belief systems, in exactly the same way as a creationist rejects evidence that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. Liberals like to think that conservatives have a monopoly on this kind of faith-based thinking, but it's all over this site.
Agreed.
This is a major issue in America, police misconduct, if you somehow did not know.
Childhood obesity is a major issue in America too, but is the movement that's supposed to be about the injustice of wealth inequality going to alow itself to get distracted by breaking into a McDonald's and calling fast food executives "scum bags"? What does police misconduct have to do with Occupy's message? The cop haters are alienating potential supporters -- for what purpose?
Have you EVER tried to protest in public?
Yes actually I have, and the cops were on our side because we had our permits in order.
How does something that happens to a protester affect the original message? Do you see the problem here? Occupy had a message about the injustice of wealth inequality, but then some of the protesters had problems with law enforcement because they didn't make any effort to protest legally, and the critical problem happened right after that. When the protesters got static from law enforcement over them breaking the law willfully, flagrantly, the protesters allowed themselves to forget about their original message. The new message became: feel sorry for us because look at what the cops are doing to us. The original message got a lot blurrier at that point.
Now Occupy's original message has mostly been forgotten by average Americans who know that there is a protest movement that likes to clash with cops, but who don't really know anything else about the movement. Because there is no competing message.
Nobody is working to keep protesters on-message, so the message has become a mixture of traditional liberal issues. "Free Mumia!" (What does he have to do with Wall Street?!?) "Legalize pot!" (Wealth inequality? Remember that??) "cops are scumbags!" "The US is the Great Satan!" (Actual quote from this web site from yesterday, no joke.)
There is a big difference between what Occupy has become, and a "movement". A movement about everything that is moving in every direction is actually a clusterfuck about nothing that doesn't move anywhere.
A boat being rowed in different directions will go in circles. But I think you said it better in just one word. I don't think I need to repeat it. : )
Happy Holidays Tech.
Happy holidays, April!
I don't like to curse in general, especially in this context, where it could easily escalate into all kinds of pointless name-calling. But this "clusterfuck" term is becoming more and more inescapable.
I'm not against Occupy any more than you are. I still remember back in October when you and I had a nasty flame war because you were a die-hard supporter and I was a few weeks further into the disillusionment stage than you. Neither of us are the anti-OWS government psy-ops agents or whatever that people like to accuse us of being. We both support Occupy's original ideas, but not the clusterfuck that the movement became, instead of becoming an organization aimed at achieving objectives. We'll continue to take more grief for our criticism, but we're increasingly rare. Most people who get attacked after contributing constructive criticism just give up and leave, they don't stick around for more pointless drama like you and I do.
This has become a group for the unruly kids at the back of the bus. They shout down anybody with constructive criticism who tries to get the movement to focus, and so all of the smart, productive kids move away from them, leaving them to shoot spit balls at each other and give each other wedgies and plot pranks against teachers and bus drivers and any available authority figures. But we know that the kids at the front of the bus get the last laugh over time, when the loogie-hawkers at the back of the bus end up flipping burgers for a living while the kids at the front of the bus run the country.
Oh my gosh, you're so funny! Did we really have a flame war?? That is hilarious! I wish I could remember that. I wonder what kinds of stupid things I was saying!! Obviously, you helped me understand the situation better, even if I can't precisely recall a specific conversation. I'm sure you left an impression that helped me see things in a more rational common sense manner!
Love your school bus analogy! I think this movement needs more kids at the front of the bus though. lol!
Permits? What state do you live in? Did they tell you to stand in a 2x2 foot box, maintain conversational tone, get one million dollar insurance policy, no signs, no leaflets, 25 feet away from ingress and egress, have workers stack merchandise on 3 sides of you? Did you abide by all blackout dates? Some cops will flat out tell you they don't give permits, others will deny, others will make you get one one month in advance. WHAT were you protesting, I wonder? WHERE were you standing to need PERMIT? Did the opposition need a permit, was there any? "Cops were on our side." Of what issue?
I wrote this specifically for you: http://occupywallst.org/forum/government-does-have-the-authority-to-restrict-spe/
A lot of people here need to understand that, but you're the one who finally inspired me to write it.
You confuse civil disobedience with reasonable freedom of speech restricitons.
You confuse civil disobedience with lawful behavior.
Tell that to Rosa Parks.
Your entire message seems to come from the point of view that says that government should never be allowed to restrict speech? You're aware that our legal system has spent hundreds of years establishing exactly how our government CAN restrict speech?
I see a lot of Occupiers who are content to read the First Amendment and then stop reading, as if one paragraph were the final answer, with total disregard for how constitutional law has evolved over centuries of legislation and case law. People who don't understand the first thing about the role that the courts play in interpreting the Constitution often like to pretend that they are entitled to interpret the First Amendment however they see fit, oblivious to the careful legal process that contributes to constitutional law.
It's like the people who think that they don't really have to pay income tax because they can't find a statute anywhere that says, "You have to pay income tax.". So guys like Wesley Snipes end up in prison because they don't understand the difference in legal weight between their own weak interpretation of the law, and the LEGAL interpretation of the law produced by our legal system. People who consider themselves above the legal system who go around accusing cops of illegal actions are walking oxymorons. You can't rally people around the idea that government, or cops, are doing something illegal when you, yourself, are the one ignoring the conclusions of the legal system. That's an inherent contradiction that just doesn't fly.
What would you do if a cop told you you did not have the right to protest on a street corner, yet you clearly did? Would you lick his boots, or say "I am not leaving." I have trespassing tickets, all dismissed to show my stance. You would let the cops shut you down, tuck your tail, and scurry away.
I'll tell you what I would NOT do. I would NOT completely forget about my protest message and start whining about the police. That's weak. It seems to indicate that the message was never that important in the first place. Not a single person on this page seems to be even slightly concerned about the injustice of wealth inequality. That's just sad, man. Are these protesters so weak and feeble-minded that a cop could make them completely forget about their protest message by pulling out a pair of handcuffs! FOCUS, man, FOCUS! If you can't stay on message after clashing with cops, then you're showing very little dedication to you protest message, and maybe you're not cut out for protesting. In general.
It would be an unbelievably sad tragedy for Occupy to fail to make any progress on its central message of the injustice of wealth inequality, due to a bunch of ADHD protesters who can't even remember that they're supposed to be protesting against the injustice of wealth inequality. I mean, if the Occupiers are such sheep that a cop pulling out a pair of handcuffs can make them totally forget about the 1%, then maybe that's why the 1% are in charge of everything? If the 99% is so hopelessly ineffective and easily distracted? They seem to be winning, because Occupy has almost totally forgotten about them. Too busy whining about cops.
If it were not for protestors who stand up to authority day in and day out, you would effectively have no recognized free speech. I will not be unlawfully silenced. You might though.
Any authority? Is that what you're doing? You're simply opposing any authority figure that you encounter? Cops, politicians, teachers ... Traffic signals? Is that what Occupy is about, for you? "Fight the power"?
Authority could be a shopkeeper, police officer, manager, security guard, if I'm in my right to be somewhere, I will not leave willingly.
Security guards protect private property, so if a security guard tells you to leave then you do not have the right to be there. And if you're blocking a road way or camping in a park after it closes and a cop tells you to leave, then you do not have the right to be there.
Flagrant rejection of the law is hardly a symbolic or inspiring act. And aimless anti-authoritarianism is not a mass-market idea. Talking like that harms Occupy by alienating average, law-abiding citizens.
You are wrong, if I am in CA on private property such as a shopping center circulating a petition and a security guard asks me to leave, HE is in the wrong, and can be held civilly liable.
Wow, okay. So these petitions, are they about cops?
I am not doing any petitions.
According to the law of every state (including CA), if you are on "private property" and are asked to leave, then you must LEAVE - if you refuse, you are trespassing, and are subject to arrest. The property-owner does not need a valid reason for asking you to leave - in fact, he/she doesn't need ANY reason whatsoever.
That's the point: it's PRIVATE PROPERTY... even if it's someplace that's "publicly accessible" or normally "open to the public" like a bank or a shopping center or a coffee shop... If the property-owner (or authorized representative) asks you to leave, and you refuse, then you are TRESPASSING.
And it doesn't matter whether or not you were doing anything wrong... even if the owner's reason for asking you to leave was something racist or sexist or otherwise discriminatory, it doesn't matter.
Your permission to enter private property is granted by the owner, and can be revoked at their discretion - at any time, and for any reason. Imagine that the private property in question is YOUR HOUSE.. does anyone have a right to enter against your will and circulate a petition? And if you ask him to leave, should you be held "civilly liable"?
Yeah, I had a suspicion that you were baiting for Pruneyard v Robins... (CA, shopping center, petition)... So yeah, you're right about shopping centers in CA (and a handful of other states)... But, the "free speech" established in the Pruneyard ruling is not without constraint, as I'm sure you know. The mall-owner is afforded the modest "right" to specify reasonable restrictions regarding time, place, and manner for such activities.
Still, the ruling's overwhelming unpopularity over the years stems from its extraordinary divergence from established law. Specifically, what happened to the property-owner's authority to require that all guests abide by a certain set of rules, standards, and policies... or their ability to ask violators to leave... or their basic "right" to exercise sovereign control over the property or establishment that they rightfully own?
Pruneyard classifies shopping malls as "public forums" and therefore overrides the rights of the property-owners in favor of the "free expression" rights of the patrons. Strangely, the ruling doesn't impact the property rights of those who own stand-alone retail establishments... in virtually all other instances and jurisdictions, "private-property" remains exactly that: PRIVATE... stand-alone retail stores, residences, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, banks, theaters, hair/nail/tanning salons, auto-body shops, sports arenas, etc....basically, anything that isn't owned by the federal, state, or municipal government is most likely "private property" - and in 99% of cases, the property-owner's rights to allow or refuse admittance supersede the guests' rights to stage their own bullshit.
You are wrong. Pruneyard v Robins.
You should need a permit just to prevent decent people from being able to freely take a ball bat to your stupid ass. It would be a productive way for people to vent frustration.
You see, you THINK I am a woman, Frog. You love to harass the "women" on here, while claiming to be Christian. I am actually a 300 lb gay black man, I think you are flirting with me. You are the imposter GirlFriday, not the real one.
[Removed]
VERY well said. This has become an "insert your grievance here" movement. "We're mad about stuff, if you're mad about stuff too, come join us, and well be mad about stuff together." Occupy Everywhere is code for Protest Everything, and movement that protests everything will change nothing.
And I resent their capturing and holding hostage yet another word from use in "normal" conversation.
"Occupy" will eventually get assigned for "official" use only by this group, much like the "N" word, the "F" word, the "C" word. We'll probably be issued a warning to only say "O" word when refering to the "group".
from Tech... "There is a big difference between what Occupy has become, and a "movement". A movement about everything that is moving in every direction is actually a clusterfuck about nothing that doesn't move anywhere."
Probably the best synopsis ever, and absolutely on target.
Now your original, common sense questions will be vehemently turned against you personally . . .very difficult to have a conversation . . .let alone , point vs counterpoint debate with Occupy hardcores. Keep trying . . .its become an ongoing challenge . . .to pull reason from this cluster . . . as you say. good luck . .and now I'll watch for a while.
Oh, thank you for ypur concern, but I'll be okay. Almost every single day, some Occupy supporter accuses me of being a government spy-ops agent, or a Fox-News-watching neo-con, or a troll, or they call me names like somebody on this page has already done. What the paranoid crackpots and mud-slinging teenagers don't understand is that those actions drive people away. Not just me, but the growing number of people who know little more about Occupy than what they hear from me. Every time this group alienates one person, they actually drive many more people away, because those people have friends, they influence other people's opinions. I spend a lot more energy trying to understand the movement than any of my acquaintances, so they learn through the lens of my opinion. The same goes for every alienated cop, soldier, Episcopalian, small business owner, Jew, or any of the other various demons that this group has polarized itself against. Every single ignorant, counter-productive comment made out of hate further marginalizes the entire movement. So the people calling me names are only hurting themselves if they really care about the movement.
Yeah ; ; ;I have been called the dreaded spy-troll for engaging on their chats and here. For a group that claims everyone should have a voice . . . they are very quick to censor any thoughtful question or opposing views that are posted. Specifics are far and few with OWS'rs
You punk, why don't you grow a spine and help the police? You fraud.
Click on GirIFriday's name, you will see in the left tab up top that the L is an i. This is the imposter.
[Removed]
This is why we are here this is why you are needed.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/inside-job-documentary/
Share, circulate, educate, inspire.
So then do Occupiers think that it's inspirational to clash with cops? What's the point? It's a distraction from what you just posted.
The answer to that question would be . . . NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The whole idea is peaceful protest.
Because if the movement wanted to go Animal house it would most definitely get coverage. It would also be very counter productive.
So we prefer to go with things like:
This is why we are here this is why you are needed.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/inside-job-documentary/
Share, circulate, educate, inspire.
A statement from Memphis authorities reaffirming their policies relating to their citizens' right to lawfully protest, could help prevent another abuse of power. Quotes below are from the epilogue of the book "Protectors of Privilege: Red Squads and Police Repression in Urban America" by Frank Donner (a civil liberties lawyer)
"...Mayor Wyeth Chandler ordered the police to burn all the files of the Domestic Intelligence Unit (DIU, as the local red squad was called) and to abolish the unit altogether."........"In compliance with the mayor's order, 180 boxes of files were reportedly destroyed on September 10, 1976, at the very time the ACLU was in court to obtain a restraining order to preserve the files..."..............."embarrassing documents were unearthed in the basement of a building formerly used by the red squad that had escaped the mayor's destruction order..."...........(result:) "...a restrictive settlement decree used as a model in other litigation and legislative efforts." Source: Google Books http://books.google.com/books?id=FR1ogMhofc0C&pg=PA348&lpg=PA348&dq=memphis++Wyeth+Chandler+destroys+files+kept+on+citizens&source=bl&ots=Ia1MVqF-Uv&sig=dBd_54kwj0uQ_ddhEDIMn0P4qyE&hl=en&ei=kbeNTpzKKsuPsAKzopCgAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
In terms of strategy, I tend to think the movement could do a better job in handling the police. Despite the abuses of power by the police, which do exist, the movement should take the high road when dealing with them.
This even should be open their eyes instead of hurting them.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupy-new-year-eve-and-day-2012/
You're right. Law enforcement does not work for the 1%, they are loosely controlled by the 1%. However it's like trying to control a wild animal, easier said than done. Anyways, law enforcement and OWS are natural enemies. Anyways, law enforcement leaves much to be desired.
Because anarchists have a problem with authority figures.
Yes. The same anti-establishment mentality that led people to protest the 1% naturally also applies to cops, in the mind of an anarchist. But it doesn't make a lot of sense to a person trying to focus on the original message about government corruption at the hands of the wealthiest 1%. If you have vague, rudderless anti-establishment sentiments then it's all the same, cops, rich dudes, teachers, prIncipals, school bus drivers, mall cops. But that isn't what this movement is supposed to be about, is it?
Too many people are drinking the anarchist koolaid. Caught up in the moment, rationalizing it somehow - that it is necessary to demonize the establishment in order to improve their own situation???
And this is exactly what the anarchists running this movement want. All they have to do is fan the flames a little bit, and more and more people become anti-authority and anti-establishment anything and everything.
The tension continues to escalate. More and more regular protesters become more anarchist like (anti-authority). The tension and mobs take on a life of their own. The anarchists can no longer control the anarchy. It's an anarchist dream! Then there's some horrible act of violence. In a split second - that can never be undone. This is my worst fear of what could happen.
I think this IS what this movement is supposed to be about. It is an anarchists experiment in direct democracy. David Graeber's own words. And I think while they (the anarchists) are at - they want to see how far they can push the envelope. How much tension can they create? How many people will follow in their anti-authority, anti-state footsteps? How much anarchy can they create? It's all part of the same experiment - that IS what the movement is about.
Deep down I think most people know better. Gosh, at least I hope so. I hope most people will not fall into the trap. I hope that some of the legitimate protest messages about ending government corruption are not drowned out by the anarchy and any escalation in violence.
We all have a roll to play. Flames just happen to need fanning at the moment. We can act like adults once we have some real results. If we do nothing, what will it be like for my son when he is my age?
Agree we all have a role to play. I don't think anarchists should be in a leadership role. Credit to them for starting this thing. They've fanned the flames enough.
We will get results by acting like adults. Not acting like imbeciles in the streets. We'll get results be getting our act together. Having some real leadership, a solid organizational structure, a focused agenda. A willingness and realization that it is necessary to work with and through government for change.
http://www.the99declaration.org/
I operate two projects, True I was approached by someone assuming a leadership role and implied I needed their permission, but in the end, I don't. I am operating fine. I am helping to promote other people and projects also not under anyone's control except the participants for each project. I think this is the best way to approach the situation for now. We all empower the 99% movement and at the same time, we all use that energy to independently take on the challenges we see fit. We have far more power and can effect far more areas this way. Networking is key to the outcome of this movement, not organization.
Networking is fine by me. Having substantive discussions about problems and solutions is a wonderful byproduct of this movement.
But organization is important. Because lack of organization is disorganization/anarchy. Anarchy and chaos, demonizing authority, and the possible violence that could come as a result of that, is not ok.
I think if that was going to happen, it would have by now. The initial shock value has passed. The flip side of that is that it takes a lot to rip people away from their TV sets in this country and unless you are ok with seeing this fizzle out, it is in your interest as well that there is less organization at this point. Over organization will kill this movement as the energy would then be spent by individuals jockeying for rank and importance and all the things we are tuned as humans to do within an organized system instead of furthering the movement itself. The psychology of disorganization frees people from their routine long enough to think for themselves. Some for the first time in their lives.
I think if this movement had it's act together it would attract more supporters.
The marketing plan of this movement is a disaster. It plays right into the hands of any detractors. Who in their right mind wants to be a part of a movement that is all over the place, whining and complaining, has no direction, has no real leadership or organization, demonizes authority, calls itself a "revolution" (hello? most people see no need for a revolution), says it doesn't need politicians? Really?? How does that make any sense?? Uses anarcho/communist images! Ugh - I don't even have any other words for this. If this thing is going to be huge, this is NOT the way to go about it. If you want to attract anarchists and communists, radicals, fringe elements - YES. By all means! Continue on this same disaster course. If this movement wants to reach out to the average mainstream person, this is not the way to do it. You have to meet people where THEY are! Not expect them to come to where YOU are. Which right now is a disaster of a movement.
Please richard, don't tell me you're drinking the koolaid too!! This movement will fizzle out because it is disorganized and all over the place. Tell me one successful movement that had those characteristics?
Let's see, I'm best with recent history - Civil Rights. Had Martin Luther King. Went through 4 steps of nonviolence, before taking direct action. Had leadership, organization, plan of action, focused agenda. It was big, it was organized, there is strength in numbers. Worked with government to affect change. Success.
OWS has none of these things. It is an experiment! OWS ptb idea of success is to create anarchy.
Comon now. You know I know better. Why do you think the news project doesn't touch the OWS brand? There are many other projects like plainsite.org and many others that are using different names. When the smoke clears, these are the things that will have been born of what OWS started and will be what makes a difference in the long run. I know you don't like links but you should watch This , at least the intro. It speaks to the point far better than I could ever.
Exactly correct. We should all be bold, and take initiative. This is NOT leadership. We also do not have to work through government. It is best, as you say to network. Approach government people on a one to one basis, Anyone can do this. We are led by the Movement's philosophy, which is to end the "monied corruption of our Democracy".
Come check us out tech - occupypolice(dot)org
It appears that not a single law enforcement officer anywhere is the world is willing to openly associate with Occupy Police. Not surprising. Interesting site though, thanks.
The only way that a nonviolent revolution can win when the state has a monopoly on violence and more sophisticated arms than any revolutionary movement could ever hope to obtain or accumulate is to win over at least some section of those institutions in society that have a sanctioned monopoly on violence (the police and the military). Of course that is completely outside the conceptual framework of whoever began this thread,
I agree with what you just said. Occupy is failing to win over cops. That much is within my conceptual framework.
How do you think that Occupy is going to win over cops now, after all of the cop-baiting and clashes with law enforcement? What do you think a cop would think if they were to come to this web site and read this thread? There is a fairly good chance that the really are cops reading this page, so do you think that if you were a cop then you would be supportive of Occupy after what has been written on this page by Occupiers, about cops? How are all of these people rationalizing ways to position law enforcement as the enemy supposed to win over cops?
As far as the military, somebody on this site yesterday said that,"the US is the Great Satan." If you were a service member then how would you feel about seeing American protesters adopting the rhetoric of the Islamc revolution in Iran and demonizing the US and its military?
I know that you're one of the people who thnks that Occupy Wall Street is more about the "Occupy" than the "Wall Street", since we had a conversation about it recently. And so maybe within that 'conceptual framework' it makes sense to treat cops as the enemy. But there is a contradiction within your conceptual framework if you think that a movement that's all about unlawful occupation of property is somehow going to win over cops. That conceptual framework contradiction is new criticism aimed directly at you, in addition to my original criticism of the movement in general for allowing itself to get distracted by clashing with cops instead of staying on message and accomplishing tangible objectives.
Size matters. We are a tiny tiny movement. Of course I am not for gratutiously alienating cops on the one had, but I'm not for gratuitously deferring to them either. In terms of size OWS is very in between. On the one hand it is far too small yet to really have any significant consequence with regard to fundamentally changing society. On the other hand it is much too large to be able to control the behavior of individual activists, especially given its horizontal organizational structure,
That said, it seems to me truely amazing that there have not been more violent incidents originating from demonstrators than has been the case. Incidents of real violence coming from the demonstrators seem very few and far between, Incidents of personal hostility toward individual police are somewhat more widespread, but not significantly so, or at least that is my perception from the demos I have participated in. In nearly 50 years of participation in activist movements I've always seen some personal hostility toward police but very seldom has it been wide spread and systematic, If anything personal hostility toward the police is less signficant in OWS than in other movements I have been involved with, at least that is my personal experience,
In terms of the police or some other institution in society with a sanctioned monopoly on violence coming over to the side of the movement. That may happen in individual cases but it won't be significant until whole sections of those institutions defect en masse and that is unlikely to happen until OWS and whatever other oppositionist currents develop are expodentially larger and seriously capable of contesting for power against the existing institutions of the status quo and we are a very very long way from that,
In the mean time our project is to organize and again of course gratuitous insults toward individual police are ill concieved but in my experience they are not very significant compared to the movement as a whole either,
Of course they're significant! To the cops. In exactly the same way as the photo of the cop at UC Davis with the pepper spray was significant to the protesters, even though there have been relatively few incidents like that. One incident is sufficient.
The Occupy movement has already missed its chance to win over cops. That ship has sailed. The window is closed.
I simply do not think it is true that some police will not support the movement because of isolated incidents hostile to police and In my experience they are isolated incidents. Violence by the police against demonstrators however, I don't think has been isolated in the sense of a few over aggressive cops, Rather, police violence to me looks more like it is institutional, that is, like it is ordered from above,
As bare bones as Zuccotti is now there are still a few protesters there all the time and an overwhelming presence of police and on a day to day basis I have not noticed any exagerated hostility from the protesters toward the cops or vice versa,
In terms of winning over the police or the military on an institutional basis, that ship has no only not sailed, it has not even arrived at port yet, I expect that time will come when there are several tens of millions of people occupying or there is some equally militant but related movement of opposition of similar massive proportions of not mere sympathizers, but at a point when the vast majority go from passive sympathy into activism,
I cannot speak for the US, but can for Edinburgh. Here there police support the Movement, and we support the police also. We are concerned at some of the pictures coming out of the USA, showing police aggression against non violent protestors. As for calling policemen "scum bags", you will get this of course. Some protestors get carried away at the time. Of course, the police should be professionals and ignore this. I do wonder at some of the actions of the NYPD though. So most of the police there really consider us "the enemy". If so, that really is a major problem for us.
Once again, Edinburgh police are on our side. We are beginning to think that Edinburgh may be a great model for the rest of the world. After all, everyone does respect the Scots.
A lot of cops have been injured in the US by Occupy protesters, so that has a lot to do with the NYPD's attitude. If the protesters were legal and peaceful then it would probably be a different story, but remember that a cop's job is to enforce the law. So if a protest group violates the law then they become a problem for cops to deal with. Cops wouldn't care if there were no violations of law. And if people who are breaking the law also start to injure cops, then that also affects their attitudes. This is not rocket science.
Where? Who?
And don't say "Black Block anarchists." There's no such thing except as a costume for rightie thugs trying to defame the Occupy crowds.
Here is just one example from the top of a Google search:
And if the Black Block anarchists don't really exist, then it was Occupy protesters who vandalized a Whole Foods and shattered store front windows, captured by AP photographers for everybody who reads a newspaper to see? You do realize that this would be a case for cops to treat Occupiers with even more caution, as potentially violent criminals?
"Black Block anarchists" has been a costume used by agent provocateur teams going back at least 10 years. We have films and stills from Oakland to cover the most of 40 significant arsons and large numbers of vandalism events. The arrest pool had a number of individuals who were identified immediately as possible provocateurs.
Again, there is no such thing as a Black Block gang.
We were aware of several officers falling down and the wet mess where the tents had been pitched was a hazard to everyone. Broken glass was all over the place, too. There weren't any fights.
The allusion to "vinegar" down at Broadway and Wall is new to me. That is 2 blocks south out of Zuccotti Park.
In fact, the negotiated status of Occupy crowds under crowd management protocols is that our kids are treated as though they were a sports crowd going to a game. Standard procedure as per Park Police and PERF recommendations. OWS crews are required to avoid the phony "Black Block" costume and other sensible precautions. Film from Oakland made that deal a no-brainer. I'm not sure whether there is a New York Terrorists sports team, though with hockey and roller blade anything goes.
I'll have to check and get back to you.
Generally our Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s had a similar relationship with police management teams and most officers.
Nonviolence is the fulcrum. Discipline is the lever.
Here is the core message from Dr. King as he translated the ideas of Mahatma Gandhi:
Pledge For Nonviolence
Resource Group is here:
http://www.nycga.net/groups/occupy-nonviolence/
That worked quite well. Yelling at cops... not so much.
"Not so much" definitely.
Here's some more of what Martin Luther King, Jr, a man who was successful at accomplishing objectives, had to say about it:
What you mentioned is the "purification" step. The problem with Occupy is that they skipped the first three steps and went immediately to direct action without thinking about it first. Without selecting a sound strategy in the first step. Without negotiating with anybody to ensure that direct action creates leverage to achieve some objective. (You can't do step 2 without first picking an objective in step 1.). And without the purification step of getting the fringe, anarchist, anti-social, anti-authoritarian, opportunists under control.
Acting without thinking will accomplish nothing. Direct action for the sake of direct action, without the prerequisites, will accomplish no objective. You can't accomplish any objective if you can't even manage to pick one and focus on it. Clashing with cops shouldn't be the objective, bit it has become the objective by default, through lack of leadership.
Wall Street stole a total of $7.3-trillion dollars that we can account for in the period 2003-2008-present.
Our kids miss a bath here and there. It's primal scream time. The country has been sold out.
Take the 1950s to think about it. Then the 60s to act. Or not....
However, you are right that Dr. King's Nine Principles will have to be incorporated with Occupy nonviolent direct actions by next spring and summer.
For the core group, you betcha.
[Removed]
I am a member of the Occupy Movement, and I don't hate the cops.
I don't do drugs either - that may be a significant factor. Some may be predisposed to dislike of the PD simply because of their recreational choices.
I don't have any doubt that abuse by the PD has taken place in some instances, just as there have been instances of excess on the part of protesters.
I also have no doubt that there are those who would capitalize on divisions that exist, exacerbate them to our harm.
A demonstration, if you will:
TROLL ALERT
If your parent is police, ask them why some police beat upon the unarmed and non-violent. Posted 5 hours ago on Dec. 24, 2011, 4:09 p.m. EST by FawkesNews
Thrasymaque
Muppetmaster
foreeverLeft
"The whole problem with the protests is there hasn't bee enough violence! We try to put people in a position for some good old fashioned skull cracking but nada! We can't get ma and pa America on our side until there are some dead babies in the street! We need to see some protestor on TV with half her face torn off to get the attention we need to further the cause!"
"Kent State won Vietnam for us, we need a Kent State now!"
What's the point of posting the same comments repeatedly, especially if they are nothing but logical fallacies; ad hominem. How will insulting people who have a different opinion than yours or who criticize certain aspects of Occupy help the movement in any way? It just drives people away. You don't even offer counter-arguments? Were's the serious debate?
Making Occupy look like a bunch of teenagers who can't discuss issues seriously and, instead, having to resort to name calling is only hurting the very movement you are trying to help by using name calling as your primary weapon. It makes you look desperate; like you don't have strong arguments to defend your movement. I'm sorry, but you're not going to change the world and make it a better place if you counter criticism by calling people names and trying to label them as psyops.
I was for Occupy at the beginning, but this was one of the major turnoffs. When I realized it was impossible to criticize certain aspects of the movement in the hope of making it better, I also realized the movement had no place for me. I like to think critically. Going around giving others high-fives and only accepting those who return high-fives is not my cup of tea.
Your opinion is clearly that the Occupy Movement is violent.
It is not.
Such a position embodies the possibility of scaring people away. It is not ad hominem, nor is it logical fallacy.
It's your own position.
Which now you have placed in doubt - so why don't we clear that up?
.
TROLL ALERT
You haven't anwered my previous question, from here
Now you say:
Contrast that with:
Which is it?
I never said this. I said my belief is that if things continue the way they do, Occupy will become violent. There's not other way to topple the US government. Unlike you, I don't have the fantasy that this will walk down peacefully and hand the governing key to OWS.
So far, OWS and the police have been quite peaceful. There have been bad apples in both camps, but I don't consider them as being representative of either movements.
Saying Occupy is not a non-violent movement, does not mean it is violent. I mean non-violent in the sense of a Ghandi type movement. The style of the movement. Hippies were not a non-violent movement. They were a peaceful type movement. It's very different.
You're putting words in other peoples mouths and resort to ad hominem instead of providing proper counter-arguments. All over the boards, what I see from you is name calling. You're only hurting your own movement. Try providing arguments without using the word TROLL left and right. I never insult others when engaging in serious debates. The only time I use name calling here is when I deface the post of conspiracy theorists. I don't want to discuss matters with them. I think they are mentally ill.
you stated in specific:
I saved it, link and everything. I'll keep repeating it and you can deny it if you want - but unless you edit the original everyone can see exactly what you said.
You did not say will become you said is not non-violent
And you certainly did not qualify that remark when you made it with any reference to Ghandi. On the contrary.
you voiced support for others who are clearly intent on provocation, and discrediting the movement.
I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth - I'm simply restating what you said.
Here is it in it's original context:
If your parent is police, ask them why some police beat upon the unarmed and non-violent. Posted 5 hours ago on Dec. 24, 2011, 4:09 p.m. EST by FawkesNews
Thrasymaque
Muppetmaster
foreeverLeft
"The whole problem with the protests is there hasn't bee enough violence! We try to put people in a position for some good old fashioned skull cracking but nada! We can't get ma and pa America on our side until there are some dead babies in the street! We need to see some protestor on TV with half her face torn off to get the attention we need to further the cause!"
"Kent State won Vietnam for us, we need a Kent State now!"
I don't plan on editing the original. The fact that you allude to this idea is yet another logical fallacy and shows the paranoid conspiracy type thinking you use to argue against those who criticize Occupy in part of in whole. You can repost this large posting of yours all you want. All you are doing is polluting the forum by trying to associate me with foreeverLeft and Muppetmaster; two posters I know nothing about and with whom I disagree on many points. You are just trying to create simplistic dichotomies of the us vs. them kind. The truth is, there are many people here with many various opinions. It's not black and white like you might think; it's not occupiers vs "agents".
It's sad to see a person with your intellect as become nothing more than a spammer spewing logical fallacies and conspiracy theory type thinking.
it's no conspiracy -
you said yourself -
You are here to shape opinion and turn people away from the Occupy Movement. That is your aim. It's clear.
That is your opinion. You have provided no evidence, and, even if this was true, you would still be using a logical fallacy to counter my claims: appeal to motive.
In truth, it doesn't matter what the motives of a proposer are, what matters are his arguments. You can either counter these with proper counter-arguments, or simply ignore them and not enter into a debate. Proposing logical fallacy after logical fallacy like you are doing is not productive in the least.
Let's agree to disagree and let the other readers decide for themselves. Nobody here needs a savior and your attempt at saving the others from an "agent" are not very creative anyhow. Many people have accused me of being a psyops paid by the government. That's fine. I know there are many conspiracy theorists here that enjoy dabbling and indulging in assumptions. I let them have their fun. Meanwhile, there are a few posters with which I engage in serious debates and I learn from them as they do from me.
If you think it's important to save the other readers from my comments, I suggest you start a post about this very issue. That would be a better solution than to pollute this posting of TechJunkie with an off-topic storm of logical fallacies against me.
Who the hell are these people who are trying to convince cops? Must be secret agents. No true revolutionist is going to be holding hands with the lap dogs of there oppressor.
I can't speak for my ancestors, but I know some of them would probably say "Daloy Politzei"
Publishing of their personal information was an immature overreaction. It could prove to be disastrous...
Cops are doing their job... and god knows that you need a job in this economy... I bear no ill will towards them for carrying out the orders forced onto them by their superiors...
These people probably do want to join us, but know that doing so will put their livelihood at risk... In the end, they are also part of the 99%... We should not lose focus and fight each other... that is what allows the real manipulators get away with their BS...
Why would cops, or anybody who supports cops, like firefighters, EMTs, or just average law-abiding citizens, want to "join us", when it's kind of obvious that e general consensus is that Occupy is against cops? Have you seen the other thread that's on the front page of this site right now that's gloating over the Anonymous hackers publishing cops' personal information online? It's one of at least two of those threads on this site, and obviously more cop haters are replying on this page than cop supporters. Why would any cop or any other kind of civil servant want to have anything to do with this group?
Would you want to be the only black guy at a Ku Klux Klan rally?
Agree!
1 reason is because they have no idea on who to mad at. Another is because they feel the need to break the law and act like asses, because they can hide behind a piece of paper.
When the cops tell them they have misinterpreted these rights (peaceful assembly is not screaming at a cop 3 inches from their face, nor disrupting court auctions), they then get all pissy. Someone then hits a cop, build illegal structures, or when they are asked nicely to leave after a couple of months of loitering in a park, they say no and start singing. Now the OWS people start filming after someone did something to piss off the cops to show their "excessive use of force".
Even though they are part of this made up 99%, they still have a job to do with out being called Nazis for just going to work. This is the reason as to why this whole thing will fizzle out. Eventually the cities will be fed up and mass removal(or evictions as these idiots call it) will get more and more common.
It's easy to perpetuate a cycle if you position cops as your enemy. You just keep clashing, they'll keep arresting, and if you're aggressive enough then you can provoke police brutality and then use it as your rationalization for the next cycle of clashes.
But that only impresses people who hate cops. Anti-establishment anarchists. What about the people who sympathize with the wealth inequality concerns, but who don't think that it would be 'super awesome' to burn society down to ashes?
If this movement wants to become bigger then it needs to learn to appeal to the mainstream. And that means getting some of the anti-social elements under control, because those people frighten average Americans watching from home. Clashing with cops for the sake of clashing with cops is an easy thing to do, but it's a counterproductive waste of time. Not only does it accomplish nothing, it alienates potential supporters.
I think part of it is a reflection of the schism that exists in society already over the war on drugs.
I also think the imagery of college kids sitting calmly on the grass and then getting pepper sprayed doesn't help.
Nor does the fact that the various kinds of fraud are so rampant in the housing market bubble implosion, and yet few if any of those guilty of crime have been punished.
I'm not a cop hater myself - but you know. I'm just one voice.
The fact is that Congress has let law enforcement down - on issues like immigration, the War on Drugs, and now with the NDAA.
When did Occupy become about the war on drugs? Is your vision for Occupy that it should become a meltng pot of the entire panoply of traditional liberal causes? That Occupy should not worry so much about that inconveniently-difficult wealth concentration issue? That Occupy should become about "Legalize Weed!" and "Free Mumia!" and all of the other issues that college dropouts have been discussing in between hackey-sack marathons and bong rips on the student union lawn for the last four or five decades? Whatever happened to the issue that supposedly started all of this?
I've been saying for a long time that we must either enforce the law, or we must change the law.
Here
Can't You See
Crimes of War
That does not mean:
that I do drugs
that I advocate their use
I do neither.
It is simply one issue where Congress has let down law enforcement with their bi-polar policy.
Do I think the Occupy Movement needs to get active on that issue? We could I guess. If sufficient numbers of people want to show up on a single day at the cop shop with a bag of their favorite stuff, and demand processing, I'm all for it.
I'm not getting arrested in that manner - like I said. I don't use drugs. I would support the effort though.
Do I think it should become a central theme of the Occupy Movement at this time?
Not really - I think it is an issue that could be a bit divisive on a national scale - and we don't really want to divide the electorate as much as unite them at this phase.
On the other hand, once three quarters of a million people are released from jail, currently incarcerated for minor drug offences, we will have the resources to incarcerate those who are guilty of fraud and or discrimination in the sub prime lending scheme.
Because they want the publicity. They want people to feel sorry for them. Quite often their videos are edited leaving out what the occupiers did to cause confrontation. The pepper spray incident at UC Davis is a perfect example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y
I noticed a really big difference between the edited video provided by Occupy's media relations group of the break-in at Duarte square, and the un-edited videos where you could see protesters violently shoving cops into a fence and pushing the fence down.
Un-edited: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z38p4XpiWqU
As I watch the un-edited videos, I just can't understand why a bunch of people would even presume to think that they're doing something good by getting violent with police in the name of breaking into private property owned by a CHURCH. It's baffling. The movement is against churches and law enforcement? I thought that the movement was supposed to be about the injustice of wealth inequality?
A mindless mob.
I'm on dial-up so the video is out - but CBS ran a spot on that incident - and you can clearly see the kids were just sitting in the grass.
The cops mobility was not compromised in any way.
Those who train officers in the use of pepper spray have come out and said this was an improper application of the technique.
get a grip.
Wouldn't that mean that your issue in that case is with specific cops and not with their department or cops in general?
well, yeah
and people like perspective who don't have any . ..
Truth hurt?
well I dunno . . .
does it?
Well if you can get access to a higher speed connection you really need to watch the video of the whole incident. The police were surrounded with no way to exit. The crowd actually told them if they let the people who were arrested go they would let the police leave. They were warned repeatedly about what would happen if they didn't move but chose to ignore it and at one point began chanting "fuck the police". Try your local library Zen they should have a faster connection you can use. I know you and I agree on very little but when you see the whole video it is an eye opener.
They were so surrounded... but he appeared to have no trouble walking around them to get his pepper spray. You can even see the look of sheer terror in that cops eyes as he waltzes around them a second time and starts casually spraying them in the face.
Who are you trying to kid here? Those cops do not even look remotely concerned about the fact that they were supposedly surrounded. Probably it was the "fuck the police" that got them sprayed, but as dumb as that was, there is nothing in that video that excuses point blank pepper spraying in their faces.
Oh I'd say their refusal to move was adequate. They're lucky all they got was sprayed.
None of what you said makes sense. The protesters were peaceful, attacking them with pepper spray only escalates the situation. The cops were not hostages, spraying sitting protesters in the face was not their exit strategy, it was punishment and torture for the protesters.
So you didn't watch the video? You didn't hear the protesters shouting "set them free and you can leave"? Why not open a path for the police to leave? All they had to do was move off the sidewalk and let police pass. The protesters got exactly what they wanted.
You have really convinced yourself to accept your twisted version, haven't you? You should never serve on a jury, nor do any scientific work that requires honesty.
And who can forget this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OODuhQ1p6qA
Then there's this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KA9fqPSXZM&feature=related
Here's a friendly Occupy Dayton protester.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0umIdz-aR4
Wow. I know what I saw. Thanks for the insults,OWS is always good at those. Here's another fine example of OWS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prgkEAuSQT0
Yeah knock those old ladies down. Big protesters huh?
What I saw on CBS is all I really needed to see. Regardless of what went on before hand, just prior to the use of pepper spray, the kids were sitting, the cop stepped over them, turned around, paced back and forth in front of them,
And there has been at least one California expert on the use of pepper spray who said this use was not consistent with the training and is an example of excessive force.
I don't know what else to tell ya.
Insert the phrase "Fox News" in place of CBS into your first sentence and put it ithe mouth of a Tea Partier, and how would you respond? Give me a break, zen!
CBS is a right leaning organization - when Katie Couric was anchor she provided a left leaning face.
Now with Scott Pelly they are attempting to increase their level of credibility, and I think so far it is working.
The comparison between Faux nuuz and CBS isn't even realistic.
I keep forgetting that the definitions of "right"and "left" change when I'm in these forums. Here, anything short of anarchy is "right-leaning." Only in OWS-land would the former home of Dan Rather be considered right-leaning. I' ll try to keep that in mind in future interactions.
Dan Rather did not reflect corporate policy or ideology.
Examine Chip Reed's political analysis sometime
"What I saw on CBS is all I really needed to see. Regardless of what went on before hand, just prior to the use of pepper spray, the kids were sitting, the cop stepped over them, turned around, paced back and forth in front of them" --------------------------------------------end quote--------------------------
This is why it has become appropriate to define OWS'er as Zombies in a CULT . . .
The truth don't matter. . .I have my mindless mind set . . . I have my Mantras . . . I have been given my instructions . . . .
Imagine a group of people surrounded you, locked arms and began shrinking the circle . . .shouting . . . WE ARE PEACEFUL . . .yet closing in . . .tighter and tighter . . .you can smell them . . .feel their spit spraying your face . . .closer . . .closer . . . we are the 99 . . .we are peacefull . . .and YOU ARE TRAPPED . . . . . here comes the spay .. . quick . . .start recording "OWS media team" and the interview later "Those big bad police sprayed me for NO REASON" whine. . .sniffle . .
. .. . .great thing instant "social" media . . .
Then why did he pepper spray the people sitting on the ground he had no trouble stepping over, and who appeared to have no intention of doing anything except sitting there locking arms until the cows came home?
If they were concerned about the rest of the crowd perhaps they would have sprayed them instead of the peaceful protesters, but they didn't because they knew they were not in any danger.
Watch the video, dog. Five minutes before the spraying, the students had the police surrounded and were chanting (about those already arrested) "if you set them free, we will let you go.". How would that chant make any sense if the police were not blocked from leaving? It's chilling - you need to see it.
I repeat:
and further repeat:
And I repeat...watch the video, dog. Nothing changed in the five minutes between the chant and the spraying. The cops were still surrounded by protesters who had declared they were not free to leave. Students were told to clear a path so the cops could leave peacefully. In refusing, they were basically holding the cops hostage to their demands. The protesters outnumbered the cops on all sides. Wading into the crowd, trying to step over the protesters who were sitting on the concrete blocking their path, would have been incredibly dangerous. Sorry, the students provoked this one.
If you keep talking about it without seeing it, you are just looking silly. Watch it.
That is exactly what the cop did who used the pepper spray. It was shown on national tv.
The debate over freedom of movement has already been addressed by the experts in California, and their take is the police were not significantly prohibited from performing their duty.
So you don't want the whole story? You just want to take a little slice and scream police brutality? It certainly does matter what went on beforehand.
Not in this case it doesn't, no.
If the kids behaved in a manner before hand dictating the use of force, then that is when the use of force should have been used.
Since the use of force was not used, this use is mis use.
You've been used.
You just can't accept the facts I guess.
Why didn't that cop just zip tie those protestors and carry them away? Pepper spray was not justified in that case.
I could only justify pepper spray if the protestors were punching/attacking the cops. Then the cops would be obliged to defend themselves. It is clear in the video that the cops had no reason to believe that they were in physical danger.
Did we watch the same video? Surrounded by a mob shouting "set them free and you can leave" They were warned it was going to happen and still refused to move.
Wasted breath on OWS . . .they only see one side . . . try resisting a cops orders during a traffic stop . . . Why is this breaking of the law any different than speeding. . . .or DUI... You resist . . .you get force. . . .you can't claim you are "Occupying" the highway for a personal protest . . . . but OWS defies logic . . .actually they don't know the meaning of the word.
A lot of cops have been injured in the line of duty by Occupy protesters, you're conveniently ignoring that when you pretend that those protesters were no threat to the cops.
But regardless of that, how could any Occupy supporter stand by and allow the Occupy movement to become distracted with its own self-interests? Boo hoo, protesters got pepper-sprayed -- they were PROTESTING! There is risk involved!
Allowing yourself to totally forget about the original message because you're whining about what the cops did after you did something illegal is WEAK and PATHETIC. Protesters disrespect their own message when they allow themselves to forget that message and get distracted by their own problems.
If you go out to break the law In order to protest something and spread a message, and you forget about that message and stop trying to spread it the moment that the consequences for your civil disobedience become real, then you have failed as a protester. You have failed in your goal of spreading your message, because you allowed yourself to be distracted by your own insignificant human problems, which you brought on yourself when you willfully broke the law. You allowed your own self-interest to trump your broader message.
"A lot of cops have been injured in the line of duty by Occupy protesters"
Its a few "bad apple" cops that started it. They are the ones who have been overly aggressive, not the protestors. If the cops did their job the way that they are supposed to and only use force in self-defense, then there would not be this kind of hatred towards the guys in blue.
In grade school, if a kid punched you and you defended yourself, who got suspended? The person who punched first. The difference here is that we CAN'T fight back, because those who we are fighting against are also the ones who hand out "suspensions." The cops abuse their powers to bully citizens and get their way all of the time. How quick are we to forget Rodney King and the other victims of police abuse?
http://newsone.com/newsone-original/jothomas/top-5-police-brutality-incidents-caught-on-tape/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cases_of_police_brutality_in_the_United_States
http://www.policebrutality.info/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality_%28United_States%29
I don't want the movement to shift to an anti-police brutality movement, but I completely understand the anger that people are having. If elected as a delegate in the NDA, I will work to give citizens rights to recall individual police officers, mandate citizen police review boards for each PD (with the caveat that citizens elected to that board cannot have any policemen in their family) and improve citizens' arrest rights. I want to provide enough disincentives to make the police think twice about attacking anyone unless they are in physical danger. The brutality has to stop!
If you're breaking the law, then it's a cop's JOB to bully you into submission. That's what we pay cops to do. I'm fully aware that you're fully aware of that, and you're seeking rationalizations for positioning law enforcement as your enemy. But is a cop going to wake up on his day off to go down to Zuccotti to beat up a protester? Do you really think that they do it just for fun, and not because we pay them to enforce our laws?
We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I don't think that part of a cop's job description is to assault anybody unless that person is threatening physical harm. Cops don't have to attack peaceful protestors in order to enforce the laws. They could have easily zip-tied the violators and put them into the paddy wagons, like nearly every PD in the nation does in these situations.
Cops aren't the enemy, most of them anyway. We just need the police force to be more regulated so that the "bad apples" pay for their actions. I hope that we can regulate as a preventative measure, so that these cops will not initiate the assaults in the first place.
If you recall, asking the New York Occupiers nicely to go home didn't work. There is a word for the sort of professional who our society sends in to get physical with lawbreakers who don't respond when you ask them nicely. The word is "cop". People who aren't breaking the law are rarely "assaulted" or zip-tied by cops. You can't willingly put yourself into a physical confrontation with a cop and then whine about police brutality. Everybody knows that you took a risk and you paid the consequences. And if you're part of an un-disciplined movement with a history of injuring cops, intentionally, then they're going to have to treat every single person in that movement as a potential attacker.
When you skip what Martin Luther King Jr referred to as the "purification" step, you expose your group to the risk of being defined by your most radical and extreme elements. The Occupy movement has little interest in policing itself to ensure that violent acts don't occur. A large percentage of Occupiers forgot about the "Wall Street" part and got distracted with the "Occupy" part, allowing themselves to pretend that clashing with cops is the objective. That means that cops have to treat every single Occupier as a dangerous criminal, because the Occupy movement can't police itself to ensure that cops are NOT dealing with violent criminals when they deal with Occupy.
This is why the FBI got involved, because the movement has no interest in policing, or "purifying" itself. Conspiracy theorists want to believe that the FBI got involved because the 1% ordained it, to defend themselves against a threat from Occupy. It was actually much simpler than that. The FBI got involved because the Occupy movement allowed itself to become a threat by intentionally avoiding getting its fringe elements under control. The Occupy movement doesn't have the discipline of a truly non-violent movement because it harbors and supports people who commit acts of violence.
If the Ku Klux Klan claims to be a non-violent organization, but it unapologetically harbors guys who go out and lynch people, then is the Ku Klux Klan a violent organization? That question is irrelevant. Law enforcement has to treat every klansman as a potential murderer because some of them really are murderers, and because the group in general supports the idea of racial violence. Therefore, anybody with a white sheet over hs face is a potential criminal according to law enforcement. Can you spot the similarity here?
certainly I can -
and the fact is that when a group of people are armed with weapons like pistols and tasers, and they are paid by the public to perform a service, and that service contemplates the use of deadly force within the confines of a civilian population, something very odd happens.
and that is:
This use does not meet the test.
Pinhead, you would have redeemed your time and effort by reading (with COMPREHENSION) the First Amendment. Before you take a deep breath of victory and pounce, the First Amendment does NOT qualify location for the redress of grievances. Stop eating the gruel.
I wrote an explanation for the government's legal authority to require permits for protests that you apparently need to read:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/government-does-have-the-authority-to-restrict-spe/
Which part of the First Amendment means that I should hate police?
The part that says WE must obey an unlawful order. See, that's what you're having trouble with. The students were not disobeying a lawful order, they were ignoring an order. Big difference.
Are you somehow under the impression that government cannot legally place limitations on First Amendment rights? For example, the right to protest? Are you summarily dismissing the actual conclusions of our legal system, in declaring police actions to be "unlawful orders"? Isn't that an oxymoron? Ignoring the legal system to declare something that's legal to be "unlawful"?
Tech, I won't put a whole lot more energy into this ... Remember Lt. Calley? His subordinates following his orders to wipe out an entire village was NOT a defense. Calley's direct orders were UNLAWFUL. Try to grasp the difference.
You somehow linked cops, in general, to the My Lai massacre? That makes sense in your mind? Somehow you think that this kind of un-focused anti-authoritarianism is going to advance the Occupy movement?
Let's try to focus you ... the issue is lawful order versus unlawful order. Work on that for a few days ...
Let's try to focus YOU ... Occupy Wall Street was supposed to be about Wall Street and the wealthiest 1%, not about lawful or "unlawful order" whatever that term is supposed to mean.
That's my criticism here: focus. The Occupy movement dropped the ball. It failed to focus on its central issue. It derailed during the process of intentionally clashing with cops, and completely forgot what it was about before that. Lack of focus has allowed the "Free Mumia" people to co-opt Occupy and turn it into a liberal activist's playground, instead of a protest movement against the injustice of wealth inequality.
FOCUS is exactly what this movement lacks.
Lawful means legal, or, legislated. Riotthugs are not allowed (by law) to interpret law. That is for the judicial branch, hence the three branches of our government. Illegal, or nonexistant law means not lawful, or, not legislated. Thus, there is no need to enforce (police), no need to interpret (judicial) as there was no law written.
Again, the First Amendment, the right of the people to peacefully assemble for a redress of grievances shall not be infringed. It does NOT specify WHERE (on purpose for a REASON so NO law could be written to inhibit location of assembly) and the students were peaceful. The First allows for boisterous speech, as it is NOT prohibited by the First, it does NOT specify against people in a group setting.
The police (enforcers NOT interpreters) made themselves out to be interpreters, and their interpretation was wrong, hence, they issued an order with no legal precedent. The students KNEW the order was without any legal basis, and rightfully so opted to ignore the order. They were well within their rights and legally stood their ground against an unlawful order.
OWS IS about the wealthiest 1% and it has NOT derailed. Rogue elements have participated but the original message is intact. I have posted topics here affirming the 1% are starting to crack.
Here you go, a whole page about the government's legal authority to restrict assembly:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/government-does-have-the-authority-to-restrict-spe/
I found your comment and I have addressed it. You seem hell bent on making a void point. Please go find something to do.
You just did a funny thing, possibly without even realizing it: you said that cops are not the people who are supposed to interpreting the First Amendment (that's true, that's what courts are for) but then right after that, you interpreted the First Amendment. Which is also not YOUR job.
There are an unbelievable number of Occupiers who don't understand how our legal system works, who don't understand that centuries of legislation and case law have interpreted the First Amendment. They think that they get to interpret the First Amendment, not the courts. They ignore Supreme Court decisions that clearly give government the authority to restrict speech (and assembly) under certain conditions, insisting that their own self-serving interpretation is what matters.
Given that Occupiers love to interpret the First Amendment when they're not entitled to do that, it's ironically hypocritical for you to base your case against law enforcement on an objection to somebody interpreting law when that isn't their job.
There you go with the names.Does it make you feel good to try and belittle people? The 1st amendment had nothing to do with what went on. Watch the video if you dare,it shows what really happened.
I DID watch the video. You're the one that said "they want people to feel sorry for them". Don't come out talking smack if you don't want it right back. The First Amendment was certainly being exercised. You really should get some help with weaning off the gruel.
Apparently you haven't. All they had to do was make room for the police to get by with the people they had arrested. Instead they chose to surround the police and ignore repeated warnings about what would happen if they didn't disperse. !st amendment guarantees free speech,not holding police hostage trying to get them to release people they have arrested. Sad.
they can walk around. This is nothing more than control by the thuggery. Nothing more, nothing less. I have to walk around people all day.
Oh, and we MUST go back to a lawful order vs. unlawful order. The individuals were arrested UNlawfully.
Got it?
No they were lawfully arrested. There was no room to walk around they were surrounded by protesters. Honestly they're lucky they just got pepper sprayed.
Well, we can argue the legality of their arrest all day. Fact remains, supervisor and pepper thug were placed on leave. Had anything more than pepper spray occured, school would be speaking with the DA's office. You still won't grasp First Amendment. Tough concept for you. Oh, well.
Lol okay we agree to disagree. I grasp the 1st amendment well but everyone has their own perspective.(sorry I had to)
Merry Christmas!
That's fair enough. Caught your pun!
Merry Christmas to you and yours! Perhaps the new year will bring peace and relief.
Thank you for this link. I now have even greater admiration and respect for the rebel youth of today, and hope that they may rescue the future. So dignified and disciplined. Wow. Again, thanks.
Wow, perspective,, thanks for posting this. It's chilling to watch. Not the spraying part, but the part where the cops are surrounded after having arrested several protesters, and the students are chanting "if you set them free, we will let you go.". The cop-haters who are increasingly dominating these pages need to see this video. I think the cops showed restraint, given the circumstances, and I didn't think that way prior seeing the whole thing. Classic case of taking stuff out of context to support your views, OWS.
Demonizing the police has been a primary objective of Occupy since the movement began. They use many tactics to achieve this aim. The idea of occupying a territory is meant to create a clash with authorities; a clash that raises the tension. If Occupy had not taken over parks by force and simply protested in a traditional way by picketing during the day and going back home at night, they would have gone unnoticed for the most part. The movement always gets a lot of press when the tensions between itself and the police are high. The people who started the movement know this. They are smart. Occupy is about the rich who control our nations, the 1%. However, Occupy has painted the police as being the protectors of the 1%. They created the notion that if these protectors fall, the 1% will be left vulnerable. It's just a way of creating a tension and of maintaining it. The hope is that the cops mess up and that more and more people will join the movement when they feel the normal citizen is being oppressed by the authorities, by the police. We are oppressed by the 1%, but it's difficult to put an image on that. The image of a cop hitting a protester is easy to capture and speaks volumes. The problem is the cops have generally been pretty good so I feel this tactic didn't work that well. It worked for Ghandi and for the Arab Spring protests where people are not free like in US; where citizens don't have strong human rights like in America.
Nevertheless, the rhetoric of antagonism seems to hit the mark more often than not... plenty of susceptible minds out there that see these images, and hear anti-cop tirades about "police brutality" and "our new police state" and "fascist jackboot power-hungry thugs" who are "in the pockets of the big corporations" as they "violate the constitutional rights of honest well-intentioned citizens who are trying to stage a peaceful assembly".. .etc etc.. A lot of people hear all that crap over and over again, from all different angles, and they begin to believe that it's the indisputable truth. And it gets passed around again and again, getting more distorted, more vitriolic, and more close-minded with each repetition.
Remember when a bunch of protesters staged a demonstration in a manhattan Citibank a couple months ago, resulting in a bunch of arrests? The headline on the youtube video, and all the related posts was "Customers Arrested for Trying to Close Their Accounts!" And people read that and were like "OMG! That's messsed up!" and "Well, that's the police state that we live in now..." or "That's just more proof of how corrupt and greedy these people are..." and everyone else was just like "Yeah, man... totally!"
But no one ever stopped to figure out what REALLY happened. They didn't understand WHY the protesters were arrested... they were unwilling or unable to acknowledge the fact that the protesters' actions were wrong and illegal, or the fact that the cops' actions were justified and legal.
Same thing happened with all the various park evictions...
Basicallly, anytime there were cops around, there was a mood of hostility and antagonism toward them that swept over the protesters..
Does that mean that there were NO instances of police misconduct? No... I'm sure there were individuals who crossed the line on occasion. but not nearly as often as the propaganda would have people believe... and these protests were rarely as "peaceful" as everyone was insisting... (Shouting obscenities and threatening to do serious bodily harm to cops doesn't qualify as "peaceful"... nevermind all the grappling, spitting, and throwing objects of objects by protesters) ...
Distortion, deception, misrepresentation, and indoctrination... provoke incidents to create a spectacle, and use that spectacle to further radicalize the base.
If you have doubts, just step back and try to be reasonable and objective for a minute, and look at all the hateful, venomous belligerence that people post, applaud, and echo on these forums. That's not the way rational well-informed people behave... it's how indoctrinated partisan ideologues behave.
I certainly agree with you. Most people are influenced by easy conspiracy theory type thinking and will not demand proof or insight concerning videos or articles that have similar views and conclusions as their own. Most people are extremely biased in this regard. Few are those that care about the scientific method and about proper research.
You might be as interested as I was in this astonishing example of faith-based thinking:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/where-is-the-incentive-to-work-at-low-paying-jobs/#comment-536095
People think that the right has a monopoly on truthiness, but that guy simply rejects the economic model of supply and demand. No justification or evidence necessary, he just flat-out refuses to accept it because it apparently conflicts with his belief system. Exactly like a creationist rejecting the fossil record and choosing to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
TROLL ALERT
If your parent is police, ask them why some police beat upon the unarmed and non-violent. Posted 5 hours ago on Dec. 24, 2011, 4:09 p.m. EST by FawkesNews
Thrasymaque
Muppetmaster
foreeverLeft
"The whole problem with the protests is there hasn't bee enough violence! We try to put people in a position for some good old fashioned skull cracking but nada! We can't get ma and pa America on our side until there are some dead babies in the street! We need to see some protestor on TV with half her face torn off to get the attention we need to further the cause!"
"Kent State won Vietnam for us, we need a Kent State now!"
Indeed. I posted this and stand by my words. It doesn't contradict the arguments I have posted here. This is something I have been saying for a very long time.
I did not post what Muppetmaster and foreeverLeft have said, so I'm not sure why you are including them in your rebuttal that is based on the logical fallacy of ad hominem.
If you want to counter my claims, you should show us how Occupy does not want a revolution and how it does not promote clashes with the police. You can do this by using proper counter arguments. I'm not sure using logical fallacies is very productive for this debate started by TechJunkie.
You did not post what the others posted, this is true. You did however, support them, as a look at that forum post will clearly establish, and the link to that post is included.
I've been in Occupy Protest Marches, and have seen neither rock nor excrement thrown by any of us.
I have seen a great deal of effort go into the support of the principle of non-violence - both at the GAs and at the City Hall Park campin in Burlington.
I've seen it myself.
The words of Muppetmaster and foreeverLeft speak for themselves, they are obviously in the business of provocation, and you stand in support of them, asserting that falsehood that the Occupy Movement is indeed violent.
it is not.
You point to the statement "The only solution is world revolution" to mean violence is called for.
Was the Industrial Revolution a violent revolution?
No doubt, since I have asked in this context you will attempt to present the issue as if it were.
I do not care.
YOur own words speak for themselves.
Iv'e never supported the idea that protesters have thrown excrements and rocks. You can make hyperbole all you want, that's fine. I'll let the readers read what I write and make up their own minds. You can play the game of trying to put words in my mouth, but in the end most people who come to this forum are able to read for themselves.
Now you try to put words in my mouth before I even speak. How is this promoting serious discussion?
If you do not care, then why bother replying? Indeed, my own words speak for themselves and I stand by them. No where have I promoted the idea that protesters threw excrements at the police. These are your own words, and if anybody reads what we both have written they will know without a doubt you are trying to put words in my mouth and only resort to ad hominem when you call me a troll.
The Industrial Revolution was not a political revolution. Occupy wants to topple the government and replace it with their system of direct democracy with general assemblies. They write this on their own site. I don't know if they will turn to violence, but it seems to me that we can't expect the current US government to simply step down peacefully. If you think this will happen then we simply have a different opinion. There's no need to call me a troll because I express an opinion that is different than yours.
Hence the link back to the original. They certainly can read for themselves.
Now you say:
Contrast that with:
Which is it?
Both. There is no contradiction. Non-violent is used here to refer to the type of movement, no what the movement does. There is a tradition of non-violent movements. I'm not using the term in its literal meaning. The hippies from the 70's were not a non-violent movement. They were a peaceful movement. Did they not promote violence or engage in it, but that does not mean they fall under the umbrella of what we call non-violent movements.
You are attempting to redefine the terms of non-violent activism.
The Occupy Movement is a Non-Violent Movement
Occupy is essentially dead now, but if they had kept going strong my belief is that the ultimate plan was to become violent and cause a civil war at some point. Iv'e said this before. If you look at the imagery Occupy has produced, they were not a non-violent movement. I'm not talking about violence in a sense restricted to physical violence, but in the larger sense of the word. When you have posters showing handcuffed bleeding wrists, I consider this to be violent. It's an opinion, and many don't share it. That's fine. We all express different opinions. That's what the forum is for. The only difference between my opinion and yours is that I'm deemed a troll. That's not important to me. If the best retort you have against those who don't share your opinions is calling them a troll, then so be it. I'm not for republicans as I vote far left, but I don't go around calling them repelicans. I just don't feel this is productive for serious discussions. Again, just my opinion.
All Told ; When The Chips Are Down ; You were, are and will remain ... A Negativist Troll and you do NOT wish OWS well ! and This, Despite Your Numerous Claims and Protestations To The Contrary !! Oy Vey !!! ~{:-p)
It depends on how you define Occupy.
If you define Occupy by its past practices of printing violent type imagery, of clashing with the cops, of demonizing said cops, and of trying to engage the US population is a world revolution, then you are right, I do not wish for Occupy to succeed.
On the other hand, if you consider Occupy a movement for the masses where everyone is encouraged to express their opinions in the hope of finding the proper solutions to the problem of corrupt governments, then I do wish Occupy all the best.
The problem is I don't think Occupy is like I have described in my second paragraph. It does not seem to want to be a movement for the 99%, but only for the people who agree with all its tactics as is. I think the governments of many nations are highly corrupted, especially in US. However, I do not agree with all that Occupy has done and I believe the republic can be fixed with the correct laws. I don't think a revolution is needed. And I don't believe a general assembly on each street corner is the solution to the problems of our modern world.
You may call me a troll, but what you are doing is only pushing away someone who shares the same concerns as yourself. The only difference is that I don't feel all the solutions proposed by Occupy are the best ones. I believe criticism is important and I believe Occupy could become a better movement if it encouraged its protesters and the rest of the 99% to seriously discuss issues instead of asking them to only provide high-fives for OWS or be considered trolls or "secret agents".
eYe ; i ; I !!! me ; Me ; ME !! BLAH ; Blah ; blah ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A102xE-Wnfk {:-p)
Nice counter argument. A predicable ad hominem from a predictable protester.
YAWN !!! Find A Psychic-Mirror !! And Like "Alice" ; Step On Through ! verbum satis sapienti ...
You're proving him right. Accidentally, apparently. And people refer to him as the troll. It's a hilarious example of doublespeak.
His response was actually evidence toward your assertion. Maybe not everybody can see that, but I do. Because I get the same kinds of playground bully responses to serious posts all the time around here.
Ya, it's always funny when these people don't realize they are just helping our claims. shadz66 is just a simple conspiracy theorist. I don't consider him as being representative of the Occupy protesters. He's a particularly pathetic example.
I don't believe you at all. I really do suspect you are a straight up liar.
Why?
Your analysis of the Occupy Movement for starters. It's way the fuck off - and you are a bright guy.
Were you a genuine leftie, it isn't likely you would claim the Occupy movement is dead - especially when it so obviously isn't.
You are here to shape opinion.
And as far as the imagery goes - it's nothing compared to lil' Sarah's imagery of cross hairs over dem voting districts during the last Presidential election.
One of which was right over Gabrielle Giffords district.
piss off
Palin is a major problem. No doubt about that. Conservatives are generally problematic in many various ways, especially when they bring religion into politics. I'm not sure why you're talking about Palin? What does she have to do with our discussion? Are you trying to excuse Occupy's use of violent imagery by saying that conservatives are doing it too? If so, that's a logical fallacy: two wrongs don't make a right.
I'm a leftist in the sense that I vote for the NDP party in Canada. Does that mean I should support violent rhetoric and posters? Does that mean I have to support anarchists and their idea of a political revolution? No, I don't believe so. It's quite possible to be a leftist and not agree with Occupy's goals and tactics. The issue is not black and white like you paint it.
I believe in the republic and that our governments can be improved. The NDP party I vote for also believes this. They are trying to solve the system from within, they are not anarchists trying to topple the government and replace it with general assemblies using direct democracy to arrive at decisions through consensus. They believe in taxing the population to pay for things such as health care for all, etc... I share these beliefs.
However, and most importantly, the points I raised in this particular posting from TechJunkie really have nothing to do with a political vision or another. I'm simply stating the ideas that Occupy has already stated. It's not my message that Occupy wants to topple the government with a revolution and replace it with general assemblies. That's Occupy's message, and has been all along. I'm quite surprised you support the movement, but don't agree with this. It's a contradiction.
I hope your friends in Canada are keeping a close eye on you - I'm sure you are quite likely attempting to undermine their efforts up there just as you are here - if in fact any of what you said happens to be true.
If you are aware of the advocacy for GAs then you are also aware of the issue of consensus - it's how the GAs work.
Supporting a consensus driven GA is not contradictory at all - will something like direct democracy work as a means of governmental organization? We'll see.
Will the GAs even create wide enough consensus to try it on a governmental level?
we'll see.
I'm perfectly happy to support the kids and their methods - they are rejecting everything that is in favor of something else. I find that to be an excellent place from which to begin any negotiation with those who support what is
Precisely because what is is so completely fucked
You aren't here to help foster positive change
You are here to undermine those efforts. It's fairly clear.
I'm not here to undermine any efforts, only to discuss issues. The sad part is that I'm realizing protesters such as yourself are not interested or capable of serious discussion. Luckily, there are posters on here who are.
Occupy does not and will not enter into discussions. They are only interested in a revolution. They have made this clear on many occasions.
Re-read my post. What I said what that it was contradictory for you to support Occupy which supports general assemblies and a revolution, but not support the claims I make in this post which are exactly the same. I just stated what Occupy has been stating all along. Perhaps you should take the time to re-read the comments I have made in this particular posting. I think you are confused.
right - start another thread Thrashing Thrasy -
nope.
not gonna.
not gonna feed your ego
and this is the last time I'll bump your thread.
Whatever you wish, just don't pollute the postings of others with off-topic personal attacks based on nothing but ad hominem and logical fallacies. Try to stay on topic when you post comments in someone's posting. There are people here who wish to engage in serious discussions and this is a serious and interesting posting.
If you don't wish to create a post to make your attack on me, then I suggest you at least chose a posting of conspiracy theorists or of spammers like richard to post in. I have no problem going off-topic in such lame postings that contravene the forum rules anyhow. Just pick one of those next time around, and I'll be happy to discuss matters to your little heart's content.
ending the principle of corporate personhood is indeed revolutionary - regardless of how that happens.
There is no contradiction in my support of the Occupy Movement.
What is contradictory are your claims -
and so I repeat:
Contrast that with:
Which is it?
I already explained this, and I'm not interested in polluting the thread of another poster with repetitious statements. If you wish to discuss this further, please start a new thread dedicated to your attack on Thrasymaque. I'm sure you'll get many supporters and you can all form a choir and call me a troll in unison.
You haven't contributed anything to the particular questions raised by TechJunkie in this posting of his. Your attack is misplaced. It really deserves a post of its own. You shouldn't pollute the postings of others in this way. Try to stay on topic and discuss the issue at hand, or start new posts.
The images of the protestors throwing maltov cocktails at police officers is a pretty powerful image too.
Yes. That seems like an accurate synopsis to me. It's sad because it's so counterproductive, because are part of the 99% also. I'm not a cop, but I was a firefighter/EMT, and from my point of view the idea of a movement aimed at picking fights with law enforcement is a threat to society and a waste of resources, not a force for good.
Why does Occupy require me to adopt a childish and anti-social mind set in order to join in the movement against government corruption by the wealthiest 1%?
OWS is not interested in solving governmental problems from within the system. They want a revolution. Their main goal is to topple the government and replace it with "general assemblies on every street corner". OWS is inspired by the Arab Spring protests where three revolutions have thus far taken place.
Many people are confused. They wonder when OWS will propose concrete solutions to current problems like how to get money out of politics to end the corruption of the people's representatives. The truth is they already have proposed a solution and that is to do without the whole system by dismantling it completely and replacing it with another one.
I'm against the tactics and main goals of Occupy, but I must defend their honesty. They have been forthcoming since the beginning. For example, this paragraph as always been posted on the main page of this site:
The question protesters have to ask themselves is not simply if they agree that there is a problem with government corruption, but also if they agree with the solutions Occupy is proposing. One could easily imagine other solutions for the same problem. There's no reason another movement could not be created to attempt to deal with this problem from within the system. There's no such thing as a perfect movement because different people have different ideas as to what the best solutions might be.
Occupy occupies parks and buildings because it wants to create clashes with the authorities. It's the first step towards a revolution, and for a revolution to take place a civil war will most likely be in the cards. It's hard to imagine the US government agreeing to step down in a peaceful manner. I think it's fair to say we can expect some resistance.
Drama Queen. I love how you sprinkle in facts to legitimize your opinions. You would make a great politician, or at least fit in really well with the ones we have now.
he is a paid agent- and this site, supports his message= what really is this site?
The old ad hominem and appeal to authority in one statement. Do you think this somehow rebukes my arguments? Please. If you want to enter the discussion and counter my arguments, you will need to propose strong arguments of your own which are not based on logical fallacies. You should try serious debating sometime. It's more productive than throwing assumptions in the wind.
If you can't impress people with brilliance- baffle them with BULL SHIT. Everyone knows that you are insane!
He actually appears to me to be one of the clearest thinkers on his site. I might have a differen opInion if there were people engaging him in thoughtful debate and addressing his points. But he's the only one making any points in this example. Other people are dismissing him without any real substance.
People are dismissing him "and you" because neither of you have any real substance- but its great to talk at you.
Very few people on this site make any effort to respond to the copious quantities of substance that I have contributed. My recent post about the First Amendment is a pretty amazing example.
But they're called me lots of names. Lots and lots of creative names. That's mostly what I get for responses. Referring to that name-calling as "substantial" and referring to me as a "troll" is an example of doublespeak.
Baffle them with bullshit? I'm only saying what Occupy has stated on all their sites. I'm sharing Occupy's message. It's not even my own.
It seems to me you're the one who has no arguments and must thus resort to ad hominem in an attempt to counter my claims. This is quite weak. It only makes your position look all the more desperate. If you had clear and strong counter-arguments that Occupy was not about doing a revolution, then I would assume you would post them. Instead, you simply use ad hominem. Why?
The message I am making comes from this very site, so of course they support it. Occupy has always been clear about their want for a revolution. I'm not making this up, I'm simply repeating what's written on this site, and on all other OWS sites. It's not my message, it's Occupy's message.
What did you think? That Occupy was about making demands and proposing solutions on how to fix our current government by advocating new laws?
occupy has been taken over- just like the us government. pleasant dreams
The fact is Occupy has always said they wanted a revolution. They have been honest about this from the very beginning. You don't agree with this? It's written on this site's homepage. Do you think it's a mere joke? They clearly state "we don't need politicians".
Why do you think OWS hasn't made any demands and proposed clear solutions other than the idea of a revolution.
Some protesters have produced a list of demands and offered solutions that would work from within the current government structure. However, they are not being represented and supported by OWS.
rev·o·lu·tion
1.an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
2.Sociology . a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence. Compare social evolution.
3.a sudden, complete or marked change in something: the present revolution in church architecture.
4.a procedure or course, as if in a circuit, back to a starting point.
5.a single turn of this kind.
You have used selective listening and reasoning the entire time you have been on this site. By the responses you get from others, I would say it's a failed tactic. Yet you persist as if you have no ability to decide for yourself to change it. I figured out John was a narcissist that feels OWS has let him down. I also know you have a covert agenda but at this time not figured out more than that. The more you continue, the closer I will get.
You know I have a covert agenda? How? Where's your evidence? Is this how you counter people who criticize Occupy? How's that working for you? Is that how to promote serious debating? You provide no evidence for your claim, you're only dispatching ad hominem like a small child trying to win an argument with his older brother. If you can't debate seriously, why bother at all? You're just making your position look weaker than it has to be. If you can only offer logical fallacies, we must assume you have no counter-arguments of worth. If you had some, I assume you would be posting them.
I'm just expression my opinion. Whether there is some truth to it or not is for the readers to decide.
Occupy has stated many times that they are heavily influenced and inspired by the Arab Spring protests where three governments have been toppled. They have stated on more than one occasion that they seek a revolution. They do not make demands. They do not propose solutions to work within the current government structure. They state they do not want to work with politicians.
I'm not sure what you don't understand about this. It's not even my message, but Occupy's official statements.
Every suggestion for working within our existing democratic political system for making government more responsive to the concerns of the 99% has been very aggressively shot down. Not just not supported, but actively slammed.
Indeed. Slammed to the point that we can't even say they have been slammed without being called an "agent". I criticize Occupy and simply state what is written on their own site and I am being attacked by three or four forum posters for doing so. It's quite funny and revealing. This doesn't seem like a movement with protesters interested in engaging in adult like debates. If you criticize Occupy, you will be attacked with a thunderstorm of logical fallacies and name calling. It's really sad. All the more so because I had great hopes for Occupy. When I read the types of replies I get for my arguments and my attempt at a serious discussion, I'm left wondering how this movement will every manage to change the world and make it a better place.
I understand and agree completely. I'm in the exact same position. I sympathize with the fundamental concerns that inspired Occupy, but I find it impossible to support the clusterfuck that Occupy became. People who can't even handle respectful, constructive criticism are ill-equipped for success.
I've seen plenty of your posts and I'm sure that you've seen plenty of mine, and it seems unlikely that very many people would have the kind of patience that you and I have for all of the dysfunction here, without descending into name-calling and flame wars like the people trying to bully us do. It's kind of ironic how a group that's so obsessed with giving everybody a voice and defending the right of the marginalized to share their opinions would bully us the way that they do. I do it partly for stimulating entertainment and I can tell that you do also. But if it weren't for our warped senses of humor, we would just give up and go away. Leaving only the bullying name-callers who all already agree with each other behind.
Occupy has trapped its rhetoric in its self-created hard dichotomy; the idea of the 99% vs. the 1%, of us vs. them. Such restricted black and white thinking can be seen in various contexts: 1) In cults where everyone must agree with the leader, 2) In conspiracy theories where the government is considered evil from the onset, 3) In movements where there is nothing to discuss because the issue or issues are clear cut.
Occupy is closely inspired and modeled after the Arab Spring protests, and more broadly inspired by Ghandi's movement. In both of these cases, the issues were more or less clear cut. There isn't much to discuss when your country is lead by totalitarians or invaded by a foreign nation. Everyone pretty much agrees these are negative situations that must be changed, and people will rally behind this idea without much discussion.
Thus, it does not surprise me that some here try to create a hard dichotomy of us (the protesters) against them (the "agents"). These are people who believe the situation is US is clear cut like it is in the Arab Spring protests and like it was in Ghandi's time. Surely, if an Indian had told Ghandi that his movement was ill conceived, he would have been considered a traitor, just like someone telling the Jews that Hitler killing them was a discussable practice. (I don't like talking about Hitler and invoking Godwin's law, but in this case it is a very good example of a non-discussable dichotomy.)
The problem for Occupy is that it's not a clear cut solution to demand a revolution because of the corruption in the government. It's not clear that the US republic cannot be improved or fixed. However, the message Occupy is passing along is that there is no other solution; that the government is broken beyond repair. That's why they have not tried to offer constructive solutions to remedy the government's problems from the inside, but have instead tried to force matters by using direct action, by occupying public spaces like parks and buildings.
Eventually, people will realize that you can't simply say that everyone who disagrees with some or all of Occupy's methods are "agents" working for the 1%. It will become obvious that there is much more than 1% of the people who do not fully agree with Occupy's proposed solution and their idea that it is not discussable.
Occupy needs to open itself up to auto-criticism and outside criticism if it wants to survive much longer. It needs to realize that the solution it has offered is not clear cut, and that there is a lot of leg room for discussing. If they continue to shut the door by calling critical thinkers trolls and "agents", they will only continue to shrink.
The hard dichotomy they have created is only an illusion. It's not working to rally the vast majority of the people around the movement.
It really is amazing how our thoughts mirror one another because I've been saying the same exact things for months. The way that I like to put it is that the creation of an artificial us-versus-them mentality is a tactic of extremists. To a member of Al Qaeda, anybody who disagrees with the organization's unique flavor of orthodox thinking is an "infidel", and that makes them the enemy. To a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, the enemy is gay people. The Nazis had Jews for a scapegoat. Extremists need an enemy to justify their extremism. Every kind of extremist has some kind of pet scapegoat.
Identifying a problem that's worth acknowledging and addressing would be the less-extreme, more-productive, more mainstream tactic. The Tea Party identified a problem: big government, debt. They had extremists in their midst who dressed up in revolutionary soldier uniforms and babbled about "Second-Amendment remedies" to the problem. But the Tea Party didn't allow the extremists to define the group as a whole. They stayed focused on the original problem, they developed a consensus, they published their Contract From America and rallied around it, and then they elected candidates who represented their concerns. And that's why they have been so successful at advancing their agenda. That's why there have been two different budget standoffs in Congress recently, because that's the problem that they are focused on with laser-beam intensity. They never could have accomplished these tangible wins for their cause if they lacked discipline and they had allowed themselves to become an anti-government group that treated all politicians and government as their enemy.
Occupy has so far been a counter-example, demonstrating the dysfunction and ineffectiveness that results after sliding down the slippery slope toward extremism that's focused on an enemy instead of on a problem. The problem is government corruption caused only partly by wealth inequality. It isn't necessary or productive to take the next step, declaring the wealthy to be the enemy. We're all in this together and there doesn't need to be an enemy. That mind set is counterproductive because it leads people to treat anybody who disagrees with the orthodox thinking as the enemy, when many of them are potential friends who might have useful ideas to contribute. Like you and I, both.