The Occupation of Wall Street Spreads

[Terralthra]

But hey, this thread apparently operates on black and white principles. If you think the OWS is wasting their time because they're not influencing the ballot box - despite being sympathetic to the overall idea that wealth inequality is bad - you're a dirty redneck Republican who advocate murder and genocide.

So...all the protesters should just go home until election day? I'm trying to figure out what exactly you advocate they do. They're trying to bring the issues of wealth inequality and crony capitalism into the public foreground by being highly visible in cities across the country (and world). I don't see how you can criticize them for not "influencing the ballot box" when elections aren't held until a year from now. This isn't a parliamentary system; they can't call for a general election.

Elections are not merely limited to the election day. There are things called "campaigning" and "primaries" - and you're gonna influence the vote much more by participating in these than by rallies that have had very little clear direction (or are you going to start saying they have a clear message?).

The fact that you think elections are limited just to the election day is yet another demonstration of the slavish adherence to black-and-white principles I'm talking about. You cannot even consider that there are third options or middle grounds. This is little different from the single-minded shit that Shroom is trying to pull by pretending that there are no varying levels of non-violent protest - there's only "violent" and "non-violent". There's no campaigns, lobbying, or primaries. There's apparently only "Go home and wait for election day!" or "Support OWS BECAUSE IT'S SO AWESOME!"

Of course I don't think elections are limited to election day. I'm trying to figure out what the fuck you propose. There are campaigns, and lobbying, and primaries, and also this thing called "publicity," and "framing the issues," and "shaping the debate," all of which are things that Occupy is doing. So what the fuck is your point?

[K. A. Pital]

Zinegata, you must be absolutely crazy if you think any major reform comes through "a vote". The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and desegregation in the 60s in general was not decided by "choosing another party in the primaries" - it was decided by making the leaders fearful of the protests and enacting new legislation post-facto.

That is all. If I hear once more the bullshit argument that "reforms only end at the ballot box", this shit might be flushed.

[Shroom Man 777]

No you fucking moron. For the last time, I'm talking specifically about Gandhi-style non-violence. Which is very specific that you do not do anything to resist the authorities.

If you actually had half of a fucking brain you'd realize that there are many different levels of non-violent protest. Just because you're resisting to some extent doesn't mean it's automatically a violent protest.

But nooo. You're so fucking retarded that your only counter-argument to this to date is "NAZIS!".

Weren't you also shrieking about cannibals because some shmuck was going Oscar Wilde? Maybe that shmuck, that carnoshmuck, bit some other guys, and spreaded the hunger for human flesh and brains, and like he unhinged his jaws around my head like a snake gulping down an egg and took a huge ass chunk off my skull, and now I don't actually have half a fucking brain and now I'm also slavering for the flesh of the living. Zinegata Romero's Occupation of the Dead (also known as: Occupy Dead Street)!

[Then maybe like Kamikaze Sith and SVPD can set up an outpost with a radio broadcast going "the answer to infection is here!" Holy shit. That'd be awesome. A zombie movie, wherein the zombie virus patient zero thing initiated in the middle of an Occupation camp. Rage-infected hippies suffering from human flesh munchies. That'd be all so trendy and topical and shit.]

"Just because you're resisting to some extent doesn't mean it's automatically a violent protest."

Didn't some asshole in this thread explicitly say the opposite? That sitting down and not complying with the police already counts as violence? Because if you didn't say that, then obviously I'm making fun of someone else rather than you, and you shouldn't be all uuurgh.

"You're so fucking retarded that your only counter-argument to this to date is "NAZIS!""

I think to this date that shooting rubber bullets and spraying mace and beating with batons is also a fucking retarded counter-argument to a bunch of shmucks sitting on their asses and holding hands.

But hey, this thread apparently operates on black and white principles. If you think the OWS is wasting their time because they're not influencing the ballot box - despite being sympathetic to the overall idea that wealth inequality is bad - you're a dirty redneck Republican who advocate murder and genocide.

Really, this thread is getting reduced to ad-hominem shit like this. Disguising it at satire doesn't make it clever. It just goes to show what a bunch of retarded single-minded shits are now populating this board.

Hey, there are shitloads of not necessarily dirty and possibly quite well-groomed redneck Republicans who do advocate murder and genocide.

And the amount of scorn and derision the Occupiers face, not to mention the amount of pepper spray and rubber bullets - some guys should make a GRAPH on the quantities of capsaicin and rubber bullets used by law enforcement agencies these last few months, and compare it to normal levels of capasaicin and rubber bullet quantity usage! - means that there really is a need for people out there to make fun of those who deride and ridicule the OWS movement. Those deriders and ridiculers, and actual physical assaulters, who might not be here in this very thread, but who are elsewhere all too very real to those people they are mocking and belittling and undermining and actually physically injuring, and these people need to be strakked.

If it makes you all unhappy, well, too bad.

"If you think the OWS is wasting their time because they're not influencing the ballot box"

I think there's a lot of ways they can influence things without directly influencing the ballot box. Their displays of braving all sorts of nasty things coming their way might not scrawl more ink on more voting paper and might not directly press more buttons on some shitty Diebold machine, but they can change the way the common man sees things and can perpetuate some kind of cultural revolution where, once more like in the 70s, the long-haired unshaven anti-authority artsy feely guy on the street becomes the icon of America and change, not the soldier fighting against communism fundamentalistic muslimistic muslimism in a foreign land. This could totally lead to some kind of groovier time or something, where the pressures of the 2000s just spews out and people chill out.

And people changing their minds and attitudes after seeing all this might be able to influence the ballot box I think.

I think it should be seen from a broader, less-narrow, less "quantificate XYZ" perspective. Things can be changed in many different ways.



Besides. In lots of other countries that aren't America, lots of angry people on the streets sometimes were able to change their countries without a ballot box. I hear the American government even praised the guys in those other countries that did this. :v

[PainRack]

They weren't denied the right to protest. They're being denied the option of camping out. As for the use of pepper spray. I only see that being necessary if other less intrusive means are unavailable or ineffective. In other words, if they go right to the pepper spray then that is excessive.

I'm not entirely sure the order is valid but my position is based on the assumption that it is valid. As I pointed out earlier the government has the right to dictate the time, place, and manner of assembly but not the content. When making this decision it must consider four things; 1. Does the regulation serve an important governmental interest? 2. Is the government interest served by the regulation unrelated to the suppression of a particular message? 3. Is the regulation narrowly tailored to serve the government's interest? 4. Does the regulation leave open ample alternative means for communicating messages?

Indeed, the fact that this is being carried on a University campus adds another level to these discussions.

I would like to simplify my question.
1.Was the use of pepper spray on non violent protesters sitting in an arm linked chain a valid escalation of force?

2. Pray justify the reasons for escalation of force in this manner. What was the overriding factors that meant chemical agents had to be utilised as opposed to lower echelon scale of force, from a display of force, negotiation or waiting out the protesters........

The issue in that situation was that they were preventing officers from taking arrested persons out of the area. Basically, they were interferring in police duties. Not that they were surrounded. If it were simply them just surrounding officers not engaged in any action it is pretty obvious that they could have just stepped over those people.

And? In terms of the use of force, potential options from tackles to the three man take down is possible even if the protesters had linked arms.

I will once again clarify that my question is what justified the escalation of force in this situation.

Is the immediate execution of the order to disperse protesters from university grounds so important that pepper spray had to be used? The escalation was relatively rapid with no aggravation on the part of the protesters. The Chancellor gave notice, days later after a core of campers refused to budge, the police was sent in, hours after an order to disperse was ignored, the police escalated force by using pepper spray after a show of force in the form of a police line......

I would like you to explain how and where the police actually used lesser echeolons of force to effect an arrest here. If the police didn't, then please explain why such a force level was appropiate for non violent protesters who were of no immediate danger to themselves or others, nor were able to do imminent damage to property.
The last possible reason to justify the use of such a force level would be the importance of the order. I fail to see what could had been so important, so immediate about evicting student protesters that this force level was appropiate and was the first line adopted after display of force/verbal orders to disperse.

Well, it's based off the idea of having an effective police force. Basically, using that logic of limiting tools means an arrest can be defeated by a sufficiently motivated person.

Oh bollocks. The whole reason why Rules of Engagement and Force Spectrum come about is to guide officers in using the appropiate level of force to actually effect an arrest.

Pepper spray and Tasers have been in the police arsenal for over a decade, what you're suggesting to me now is that the US police force has not evolved any effective guidelines and training to tell officers when its appropiate to use a taser/pepper spray and when its not.

AGAIN. Why was it appropiate to use pepper spray to effect an arrest in this case straight after verbal orders to disperse and then display of force via a police line?

If we're assuming that the officers went right from verbal > OC spray then I'm behind you in saying that is excessive force. There was a video posted in this thread earlier showing officers order people away then eventually encircling protesters sitting on the grass. The officers conduct was verbal dialogue > physical force > more verbal dialogue to those that physical force failed against > OC spray.

I'm sorry, are we viewing different videos here? What I saw was the use of verbal orders and display of force, a police line against protesters and then the use of pepper spray on non violent students who simply linked arms.

Any use of physical force is derived purely from the statements of witnesses who stated that police officers tore down the tents, but students refused to be evicted and linked arms and sat down. Nowhere was it stated that police actually laid hands on students to break the chain before the use of pepper spray. Indeed, the statements from police officers and witnesses, along with video testimony was that they were "surrounded" by onlookers, stepped out from the circle and then started using pepper spray on the arm linked protesters.

Also, I want to point out that I agree with Simon_Jester that the real question is "should the police be arresting them at all?" Not "should the police be using violence to back up the arrests?" I don't think that's a simple question because I do believe that there are legitimate concerns for camping overnight for long periods of time especially with falling temperatures.

Stop twisting the question. The question isn't should the police be using violence. The question is are the police using EXCESSIVE force to effect an arrest.

You know. Let's use the appropiate term.

POLICE BRUTALITY.


I could very well imagine why the police officers used pepper spray here. Its much easier to break up an arm linked protester mob and poses less potential harm and damage to you. After all, tackling a sitting down protester exposes you to being kicked in the face or crown jewels. This action STINKS of expediency as opposed to being the right force level.

[Skgoa]

[The Yosemite Bear]

Also note: The Stanford Prison Experiment and the reason it got shut down can also explain a good deal of the police behaviour too.

[NoXion]

Obamacare as an example of policy changing for the better? No way. You guys got fobbed off, it's nothing like a universal healthcare system and if anything benefits the insurance companies more than anyone else. This is because insurance companies and the financial lobbyists have a lot more money than the average Joe which they can use to influence politicians. Until politicians In the US are able to run for high office without having corporate sugar daddies finance their campaign, Americans will continue to suffer from legislation that is variously neutered, anaemic and subverted by interests willing to buy the votes of so-called "representative" politicians.

To be honest, I think the overall behaviour of our corporate and political "betters" is indicative that they don't have an interest in things changing for the better for the 99%.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Obamacare as an example of policy changing for the better?

Zinegata asked about "changed", not "changed for the better".

Zinegata gets entertained by the powerful using chemical weapons and physical force to suppress dissent and freedom, therefore his argument is invalid. I have my doubts he's arguing in good faith. After all, Yosemity Bear cited the Stanford Prison Experiment. The police response to Occupy is just a special jumbo economy-size one.

[Bakustra]

Okay, Zinegata, you see, your posts are vomit. Straight-up puke on the screen. That is what they are. If you really want honest debates or communication (hahahaha no you don't, and you never did), then you probably shouldn't post godawful shit. But I'll do my best to respond to this without turning this post into "Opus 31: Variations on a Middle Finger, Standing Alone". However, I am going to break this down into a point-by-point, because I can.

I ignore your feeble attempts at intmidation, and instead will dissect your pathetic attempt at counter-argument.

That's not intimidation. It's an expression of disgust, directed at you, with the form of a musical insult. If you took it as an attempt at being intimidating, I weep for your incredible paranoia.

This is why I made a post that consisted of nothing but yelling at you. You're so fucking far from "reasonable" that I fail to see how I can frame things beyond saying "You're wrong" only with more swears and feeble jokes. Your tone is not the problem. What is the problem is that you're either absolutely fucking insane, or you're deliberately playing dumb in order to call me vaguely nasty names. And since you could be calling me a fucking Nazi pedophile coprophiliac and making as much sense at this point, I could only conclude insanity.

You have still yet to actually disprove that your "end state" has any alternative that is not stupid or not a revolution. Therefore, ad-hominem.

No, that's an expression of confusion at why you're calling me an anarchist and a Jacobin when those are far from the opinions that I have expressed and so strange that people are calling you out on them. So if you're really a sane man, then you might as well call me a pedophile Nazi coprophiliac and get the same reaction of confusion out of people, and at least those are more viscerally disgusting than Jacobin or anarchist. But you don't, which is why I'm calling you fucking crazy. But you are crazy like a fox, it seems, since you snipped off the part where I pointed out you were wrong about anarchism.

PS: That's not how it works. The default assumption is not that any alternative to solo suffragiato is ultimately revolutionary you stupid fuck, and so you can't actually call on me to disprove it without first providing proof of your assertion. Which you have not, because you're a lunatic who believes that this is the default assumption and thus incapable of actually doing it, much like a mathematician trying to justify addition on first principles without the benefit of the mathematician's sanity.

What the fuck? What the fuck? You think that power is all hard power. This is exactly what you are fucking saying here- that the only way to direct power (which is what "seizing the reins" means, as a figure of speech, have you never read a book with horse-riding in?) is through control, aka hard power. You can also make use of soft power. Mass letter-writing campaigns, protests, and so on are all means of using soft power, aka influence, to convince politicians to do what you want. So are campaign contributions. E.g., in daily life, you can either threaten people, or ask them nicely. Threatening is hard power, asking them nicely is soft power. So are other non-coercive attempts to convince people. Revolutions are exertions of hard power. There are some clear differences between the two.

Okay, some attempt to address it now. Except you never presented any actual evidence.

So cite one instance wherein "debate" or "asking nicely" resulted in a change of government without ultimately having to go through either the ballot box OR extra-judicial methods like a revolution.

I'm waiting.

No need to address the rest of your shit until you can actually prove that my position is wrong. I'm not saying "all power is hard power". I'm saying that debate, in itself, is not the end state. Never was. Never will be. And if you deny that the end state is a vote, the alternative is invariably extra-judicial.

So again, seriously. Cite an instance wherein debate changed an entire national government policy WITHOUT needing a vote or revolution of sorts to back it up afterwards.

"I'm waiting", huh? First of all, you're cleverly (crazy like a fox!) reframing this so that you can claim that any election that doesn't reject previous legislation was "backing it up afterwards." Well, I'm not going to stand for that sort of dishonesty, and if you do attempt to use those weasel words, I guess I'm going to have to start reporting your posts for being a liar and a bastard of the first water. So keep that in mind when you try to answer. But let me simplify for the benefit of your crazed mind- dismiss through "vote afterward didn't reject it mean vote backed it up", get reported.

Well, I've got a couple legislative examples that show you know shit-all about American history. Every civil rights bill before the 1965 Voting Rights Act and 24th Amendment could not have been done via vote because the majority of African-Americans were disenfranchised in the South. The 18th Amendment was largely promulgated by temperance organizations, which were dominated by women, who could not vote at the time. So that couldn't have been done by vote. The 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, also literally had to be done via debate, since women could not vote in national elections at the time. None of these were followed by revolutions, and if you try to claim that hippies were a revolution to disqualify civil rights, I'm afraid I'll have to unveil my status as an undead abomination and raise your great-great-grandparents from the grave to torment you, and also I'll stop trying to communicate with you and go back to insults.

But on the broader front, the acceptance of these measures- the shift so that people accepted that women should be allowed to vote, that Jim Crow laws were unacceptable, that blatant segregation was wrong, came about through discussion and debate. It was not dictated from on high, and it didn't happen through a vote. There are plenty of other examples, too, and many, many judicial decisions have changed major policies through discussion rather than through votes or revolutions, but I won't bring them up because it would be dishonest to take advantage of the fact that you broadened things into "debate" from a discussion of protest and non-electoral political activism.

Finally, I love how you took my example of the difference between soft power and hard power through the use of human intercourse and used it in an attempt to insult me. That just validates my argument that you view all political power as hard power- because you see things as either ending in votes or revolutions, and indeed you sneer upon those plebes with their communicative powers. Zinegata doesn't need such things as the "first person", "adjectives", "prepositions", or even "language". Zinegata get by with grunts. Inexpressive grunts.

[Molyneux]

PS: That's not how it works. The default assumption is not that any alternative to solo suffragiato is ultimately revolutionary you stupid fuck, and so you can't actually call on me to disprove it without first providing proof of your assertion. Which you have not, because you're a lunatic who believes that this is the default assumption and thus incapable of actually doing it, much like a mathematician trying to justify addition on first principles without the benefit of the mathematician's sanity.

Sorry, but I can't find any definition of this via Google; what exactly does "solo suffragiato" mean? Is that "One Man, One Vote", or something else?

[Bakustra]

It's terrible Latin for "votes/voting only". It's an obscure pun on sola scriptura, which is the position of Protestantism- the Bible only is admissible, none of the interpretative texts developed around it are admissible in terms of defining the faith.

[Zinegata]

Obamacare. Some representatives who voted for it knew they were losing votes by angering people, but felt it was the right thing to do anyway.

Are you on crack?

That's not debate resulting into "change". That's a couple of folks deciding to railroad legislation that satisfied no one, and got a massive backlash in the elections PRECISELY because they were such dumbfucks.

Try again, because you're citing a completely backwards example. Show an example wherein a debate resulted in a national change without eventually requiring a vote or some kind of extra-judicial shit to back it up.

It's Debate -> Successful Implementation!

Not Debate -> Got Ass Kicked In Elections!

Obamacare does not do it, because a lot of the Obamacare provisions don't kick in yet and are ALREADY getting hit left and right with threats of repeal and legal challenges (mostly stupid ones, but again it's still there). You can certainly claim that the people who pressed for it are standing on principle; but the fact that they got creamed in the elections that followed only re-affirms my position, it does not degrade it - because people can in fact argue that the protests against Obamacare (i.e. by the Tea Party) is what propelled them to win and again power in the next election cycle.

[Zinegata]

Obamacare as an example of policy changing for the better?

Zinegata asked about "changed", not "changed for the better".

Zinegata gets entertained by the powerful using chemical weapons and physical force to suppress dissent and freedom, therefore his argument is invalid. I have my doubts he's arguing in good faith. After all, Yosemity Bear cited the Stanford Prison Experiment. The police response to Occupy is just a special jumbo economy-size one.

No, I get entertained by fools in this message board who think they're changing things by pointless protests and by convincing themselves that their opponents are Nazis instead of actually fucking reading.

[Zinegata]

That's not intimidation. It's an expression of disgust, directed at you, with the form of a musical insult. If you took it as an attempt at being intimidating, I weep for your incredible paranoia.

Keep telling yourself that; when this board operates on the principle of "GATHER A POSSE AND SHOUT DOWN WHAT WE HATE! WE MUST ALL LOVE THE OWS!"

No, that's an expression of confusion at why you're calling me an anarchist and a Jacobin when those are far from the opinions that I have expressed and so strange that people are calling you out on them. So if you're really a sane man, then you might as well call me a pedophile Nazi coprophiliac and get the same reaction of confusion out of people, and at least those are more viscerally disgusting than Jacobin or anarchist. But you don't, which is why I'm calling you fucking crazy. But you are crazy like a fox, it seems, since you snipped off the part where I pointed out you were wrong about anarchism.

PS: That's not how it works. The default assumption is not that any alternative to solo suffragiato is ultimately revolutionary you stupid fuck, and so you can't actually call on me to disprove it without first providing proof of your assertion. Which you have not, because you're a lunatic who believes that this is the default assumption and thus incapable of actually doing it, much like a mathematician trying to justify addition on first principles without the benefit of the mathematician's sanity.

I'm ignoring the rest of your post as it's just you masturbating how awesome you are all over this thread, but I will focus on this because you make the most laughable attempt to avoid presenting evidence and again engage in "I AM RIGHT YOU ARE WRONG" shithead games that makes "debate" with you pointless.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence, this is true. But if we operated on the principles of pure logic, we should consider the idea that a civilization of lizardmen exists near the center of the Earth as "possible" simply because we've never actually sent a probe down the center of the Earth to take a look.

Therefore, in any debate what we must discuss is what we can actually rationally see and evaluate. And again, I can post an enormous number of examples (which I already have) wherein protests that do not change the vote ultimately lead to extra-judicial changes of power - some peaceful (i.e. EDSA, Velvet), and some violent (i.e. French Revolution). That you focus on the violent ones even though I cited peaceful examples... I'll let the readers decide what's triggering this episodic panic attack.

Meanwhile, you have NOT posted any "alternatives" which we can look at and evaluate. As bad as Destructionator's example is, that was at least an attempt to post "alternatives" - albeit in the end it was proved to be an example that supported my argument - as the protests against Obamacare ended up helping propel a Republican victory in the polls. By contrast, the failure of the Democrats to garner public support for the measure ended up costing them power - thus jeopardizing the implementation of Obamacare and therefore cannot be seen as a successful alternative.

If you are unable to present counter-evidence that an alternative model exists, then as rational people we must conclude that no alternatives do indeed exist until such time that new evidence is presented to show otherwise.

You have not presented any evidence.

[Zinegata]

Weren't you also shrieking about cannibals because some shmuck was going Oscar Wilde? Maybe that shmuck, that carnoshmuck, bit some other guys, and spreaded the hunger for human flesh and brains, and like he unhinged his jaws around my head like a snake gulping down an egg and took a huge ass chunk off my skull, and now I don't actually have half a fucking brain and now I'm also slavering for the flesh of the living. Zinegata Romero's Occupation of the Dead (also known as: Occupy Dead Street)!

That wasn't me. However, if your sort of ad-hominem shit is allowed here, then perhaps we should just spam each other to death with insults, because apparently it's now okay to do so.

I think there's a lot of ways they can influence things without directly influencing the ballot box. Their displays of braving all sorts of nasty things coming their way might not scrawl more ink on more voting paper and might not directly press more buttons on some shitty Diebold machine, but they can change the way the common man sees things and can perpetuate some kind of cultural revolution where, once more like in the 70s, the long-haired unshaven anti-authority artsy feely guy on the street becomes the icon of America and change, not the soldier fighting against communism fundamentalistic muslimistic muslimism in a foreign land. This could totally lead to some kind of groovier time or something, where the pressures of the 2000s just spews out and people chill out.

And people changing their minds and attitudes after seeing all this might be able to influence the ballot box I think.

Why do you think I advocated Gandhi-style non-violence? Which gives the authorities NO excuse for violent behavior?

Really, you cannot pretend to be a happy, hippy, non-violet movement that is trying to change the minds of the common man, when the majority of its supporters here think Gandhi-style non-violence is not gonna work for a variety of reasons, and instead favor methods that are the real-life equivalent of trolling.

"I want to sit down and create a mess so that the police will be brutal on me!" isn't a great narrative for the common man.

[SCRawl]

Zinegata, you more than anyone right now are the one fouling up this thread. I contemplated barreling most of the more recent posts, but settled on just the most recent one, yours. Your proposal has not gotten traction here, that's no reason to start flinging your fecal matter around.

As for the rest of you: I know you can do better, and I'm going to insist that you make the effort. There are genuine issues to discuss on this topic. Get to them, or find something else to gibber about.

[Questor]

When's that picture from? Just want to point out every car in it is styled like the '50s and '60s, and its black and white.

When looking for photos of Berkley protests, don't forget that there have been many protests at UCB over the decades.

I'm also curious about the lack of news coverage. I remember listening to play-by-play of the breakup of the Occupy-LA on KNX, one of CBS's founding radio stations. Is the coverage really that different in other parts of the country, and if so, why?

[Losonti Tokash]

It's a photo of Civil Rights protesters.

A large reason for the lack of coverage is that the media is owned by the people we're protesting against. It's directly against their interests to promote awareness of our message or activities.

[Questor]

It's a photo of Civil Rights protesters.

Thought so.

A large reason for the lack of coverage is that the media is owned by the people we're protesting against. It's directly against their interests to promote awareness of our message or activities.

Then why's it different in LA? Or is KNX (again) flexing its independence from CBS corporate? (I don't discount this, as there have been a number of times that their coverage has been drastically different, and from what I understand the people who run the station like to take a different position than most other parts of CBS.)

[Bakustra]

Zinegata, I provided several examples. Please don't be so dishonest as to pretend that they didn't exist.

1. The 18th and 19th Amendments to the US Constitution.

2. The Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the 24th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Both of these groups of laws were pushed for by disenfranchised groups denied the right to vote (women and African-Americans), through actions like political protest. They did not result in revolutions.

I'm ignoring the rest of your post as it's just you masturbating how awesome you are all over this thread, but I will focus on this because you make the most laughable attempt to avoid presenting evidence and again engage in "I AM RIGHT YOU ARE WRONG" shithead games that makes "debate" with you pointless.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence, this is true. But if we operated on the principles of pure logic, we should consider the idea that a civilization of lizardmen exists near the center of the Earth as "possible" simply because we've never actually sent a probe down the center of the Earth to take a look.

Yes, we should consider it as possible, but the information we can gather about heat, pressure, and all that tells us it is supremely unlikely. Therefore, we shouldn't give it much credence. Similarly, we shouldn't give anything that falls forth from your sphincterial lips much credence either, since the information we can gather about your insanity, your refusal to cope with dissent, your persecution complex, and so on tells us that you are not a particularly good observer. But if you had some good evidence to suggest that the inevitable result of protest is either votes or revolutions, as you have put forward, then we could overlook your multitude of defects.

Therefore, in any debate what we must discuss is what we can actually rationally see and evaluate. And again, I can post an enormous number of examples (which I already have) wherein protests that do not change the vote ultimately lead to extra-judicial changes of power - some peaceful (i.e. EDSA, Velvet), and some violent (i.e. French Revolution). That you focus on the violent ones even though I cited peaceful examples... I'll let the readers decide what's triggering this episodic panic attack.

Meanwhile, you have NOT posted any "alternatives" which we can look at and evaluate. As bad as Destructionator's example is, that was at least an attempt to post "alternatives" - albeit in the end it was proved to be an example that supported my argument - as the protests against Obamacare ended up helping propel a Republican victory in the polls. By contrast, the failure of the Democrats to garner public support for the measure ended up costing them power - thus jeopardizing the implementation of Obamacare and therefore cannot be seen as a successful alternative.

If you are unable to present counter-evidence that an alternative model exists, then as rational people we must conclude that no alternatives do indeed exist until such time that new evidence is presented to show otherwise.

You have not presented any evidence.

Let's begin with a simple catchphrase- the plural of anecdote is not data. You have posted examples of protests leading to revolution, with the implication that they inevitably do so or lead to votes, along with the further implications that this is a bad thing, so you can drop the naif act. It makes you look more like Alfred E. Neuman, to tell you the truth. But I digress. The point is that you have not posted every single protest movement in the history of the planet, which would be necessary to produce data from a multitude of anecdotes. But if we look at the examples you're bringing up, (French Revolution, Velvet Revolution) we see that they were built on a goal of forcing a change of government. It's almost as though protest movements have goals that they are trying to accomplish, and that you're being an idiot/reductionist (they're really the same thing).

You don't have a "model". You don't have much of anything. You have an insistence that all protest movements must go to the vote or become revolutionary, and you view revolutionary as anarchism and a pejorative (if you realized that you were wrong, I demand that you admit it in one of your posts).

In short, you support anarchy; because you are advocating going outside of pre-defined peaceful means of resolving issues and instead make up new rules are you go along.

There is also no widespread clamour in America to solve its internal problems via anarchy. Therefore, even bringing it up is stupid.

But since I see you're willing to run all the way with "debate" as opposed to protest, I will leave you with some other examples:

1. Griswold v. Connecticut and Miller v. Connecticut- determined that the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments implied a fundamental right to privacy, which has shaped American law massively since then.

2. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas- determined that segregation was inherently unequal.

There are many more, but here's three to start. No votes, no revolutions for any of them. What will you come up with next? Will you progress from ignoring swathes of my posts to ignoring them altogether? Will you fully degenerate into a ball of paranoia, whimpering about how "Destructionator... Bakustra... Shroom Man... the posse... they're coming..." and inspiring horror directors for years to come? I look forward to whatever it will be.

[madd0ct0r]

"I want to sit down and create a mess so that the police will be brutal on me!" isn't a great narrative for the common man.

It's effective though.

No, I mean it. Being effective is NOT sufficient argument for a means of protest, but as Stark said the whole reason for these protests is to show how important this idea is to you - to show that you will keep going; will keep protesting; will keep ,um, sitting down for your rights.

As you have said, and as is pretty obvious, the natural result of a sit down protest at the moment is Mr Policeman pepper spraying you in the face.

the natural result of that is big, disturbing photos.

the natural result of that is more pissed off people, and others going 'Are we doing this the right way?'

the natural result of which is the elected politician peeking out of his window and going, 'Hmm, seems like a lot of people are riled up over this. Lots of people means lots of votes, perhaps I should try to appeal to them?.'

You encourage the politicians to come to you. Because meekly following them has not exactly produced stellar results the last decade or so, has it?



oh and LOS, here's a slogan for you. "We support the 1%."

[SirNitram]

That is the least threatened man ever to spray irritant into people's faces, ever. He's practically just walking alone, one-handing it.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

That is the least threatened man ever to spray irritant into people's faces, ever. He's practically just walking alone, one-handing it.

Yup. Lazy cop is lazy, or just a sadistic fascist. Also, I saw your post at the end of this thread and came to see you going nuclear on Zinegata's troll ass. I'm a bit let down, but c'est la vie.

Also, video:



Chancellor Katehi walks to her car amid a furious silent protest. You can see the look of death upon the students' faces for what was done in her name. You can scoop the burning contempt for her with a spoon. She must resign now!

[Zinegata]

Zinegata, you more than anyone right now are the one fouling up this thread. I contemplated barreling most of the more recent posts, but settled on just the most recent one, yours. Your proposal has not gotten traction here, that's no reason to start flinging your fecal matter around.

No, what's apparent that it's okay for other posters to accuse me of supporting police brutality when I did no such thing.

How "Zinegata supports Gandhi-style non-violence" (which you KNOW is my proposal) became "Zinegata supports police brutality" remains a mystery to me that nobody has yet to explain, but you know what? Fuck it. Have fun with your echo chamber.

[weemadando]

So the cop who did the UC Davis pepperspraying is on administrative leave (or something like that) now.

But the bigger questions (in my mind) remains:

Who ordered it? Either the direct deployment of pepperspray or the order to break the protest group up.
Why did they order it? What did they hope to achieve by breaking this particular line? Did it NEED to be broken?

Seriously, can no one in the police do cost:benefit analysis on this kind of action?