Re: Occupy Wall Street
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SFL32k5Imk
Even you guys will have to admit this one is funny.
Sorry can't stand that stuff...but I have two questions.Originally Posted by Tiaexz
1) Where does this dreamy use of the word "space" come from?
2) Who started this trend of saying things that are optimistic but blatantly untrue as a rhetorical device? "We don't torture", "We are all occupiers" etc.
Re: Occupy Wall Street
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Wqh...tailpage#t=33s
Here's one for CR, I would put it in police abuses, but, well...
Protester: I will not sit!
*struggles to stand up while police try to put him into the backseat, his head bumps*
Camera man: They are running his head into the car! Is that your use of force policy?
Protester: I will sit for no man!
Re: Occupy Wall Street
Those are the kinds of people who enable the worst sort of tyranny.
Re: Occupy Wall Street
Thomas Sowell sums it up nicely.
The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." *Jim Elliot*
Re: Occupy Wall Street
Brilliant!The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling.
Hmm, how come you gang have not already brought up the UC Davis events? By the by, the second article I link below has the video of Katehi's walk of shame embedded; really worth the watch, especially the very end as her companion drives her away, where you can see even the driveway is packed with students in the same cross-legged-on-the-ground position their fellow students were in the day before.
Police officer pepper-sprays seated, non-violent students at UC Davis
One day after pepper spraying, UC Daivs students silently, peacefully confront Chancellor Katehi
Re: Occupy Wall Street
We discussed those mindless twerps in another thread because CR insists on posting that stuff in the "police abuses" thread
We cannot have these ridiculous camps that have nothing to do with free speech...we have seen exactly how that plays out in the other cities. Where's the "rape free zone" in this picture I wonder?
The police rightfully tell these people that while they are 100% free to protest, they cannot protest here...this picture shows the officer warning those people...
Did they move because of that? No, they said "**** yeah, this'll look good on youtube". I mean, look at it--everyone around just wants to see the spectacle.
It sickens me that people take this kind of thing at face value. It's not that hard to see. Don't people have any notion of personal responsibility?
It's very simple. Using pepper spray like that on people who are trying to exercise their right to free speech, to make a protest is wrong. Everyone agrees on that. Where people go terribly wrong is thinking that this is what these people were doing. It's disgusting that people don't understand the basics of free speech--and no one who takes the side of these protesters does.
It looks like they are going to spout enough propaganda to get people fired, since people are sucking it up. Good job. You are supporting a dangerous ideology. Can you think what will happen if this propaganda technique is successful?
Protest groups that don't have popular backing try and make up for it. Those phelps people with the military funeral protests for example. If you guys let the things the ows people are doing slide (which you ARE), you have to admit the consequences. It could easily become the default protest tactic. Just forget about about the political message and showing how many people care--work as hard as you can to get a conflict with the police, and blare the news everywhere when you do. If you care at all about the idea of free speech and protesting you should despise these people--not out of any dislike for their looks or even politics, but simply because you understand and like free speech.
That is true, by the way, EVEN IF you despise the police officer, and think he is a "violent torturer" or whatever it is CR thinks.
Re: Occupy Wall Street
I really don't see what the threat is Sasaki. Even if they are trying to provoke the police into attacking them so they look good, why doesn't the police just let them sit where ever they want? Let the protesters look bad by blocking whatever it is they are blocking while no one is touching them. Having the cops stroll by with pepper spray is ******* asking for bad press.
If the police were to hold off until the protests became violent, or until the popular opinion of them had shifted heavily into the red (more dislikes than likes), everything would be fine, it would just take more time.
To me this is a case of free speech and protesting being used in a way I disagree with, but it isn't a threat to free speech. I have never heard the logic that only by restricting further how we can use free speech it becomes saved.
Re: Occupy Wall Street
Actually I'm being very unfair. I don't despise or even feel negatively towards most of these people who are just teenagers anyway. I despise the people who are old enough to know better, the journalists who report on it, the politicians who try to harness the hate instead of being honest. I was actually most disgusted by a comment from one of the professors at the school.
If there's anything that inclines me towards being conservative it's looking back at the fact that they lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. A terrible decision, maybe it seemed good at the time, but now it seems completely impossible to undo.
No, the police have the right to remove camps and say that certain areas are off limits. For example, the brooklyn bridge, where these jokers also try to protest.If the police were to hold off until the protests became violent, or until the popular opinion of them had shifted heavily into the red (more dislikes than likes), everything would be fine, it would just take more time.
It is a threat. Protesting works as free speech by showing just how many people care enough to do it. When the numbers are too small (which it often is for groups with no ideas/bad ideas) they should accept it, and work on convincing people of their ideas in a democratic way. Instead they try and manipulate the news through propaganda--that goes directly against the principle of free speech.To me this is a case of free speech and protesting being used in a way I disagree with, but it isn't a threat to free speech. I have never heard the logic that only by restricting further how we can use free speech it becomes saved.
Here's a comparison for you. Politicians often do town hall meetings. This gives regular citizens the chance to ask a question to a possible future president, for example. That's great--they have a chance to either make the politician answer their question, or prevaricate and dodge it which makes him look bad. They could ask, for example, "What about the income inequality in this country?"
But if they weren't satisfied with the effect that would have they might try something else. The "don't tase me bro" guy may have done that, I don't remember the details. They could create some kind of ruckus to the point where they had to be escorted out so that the other people could continue with the town hall meeting. Then they could try and spread the message in the news that they were thrown out because the politician didn't want to talk about their issue. That's a very decent analogy for the OWS protests. They are deliberately stepping out of the normal democratic framework (I'm not sure they would even deny this, perhaps they would say that it's all corrupt or something) and trying to get things done via media story. The elements of the story involve camps to keep it in the news, and trying to catch conflicts with the police on camera to say that the "police state" is cracking down on the protesters.
Last edited by Sasaki Kojiro; 11-20-2011 at 23:45.
Re: Occupy Wall Street
Sasaki, would you say that free speech is locationally-dependent? Free speech in some places, but not free speech in others? That seems to form the crux of your argument and to me is logically indefensible.
Rest in Peace TosaInu, the Org will be your legacy
Re: Occupy Wall Street
Post some swear words then.
Are you saying you think people can protest wherever they want to? Even they don't think that.
Re: Occupy Wall Street
More peaceful non-violence:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15818724
Legal documents have listed "defecation and drugs" among problems at a protest camp outside St Paul's Cathedral, it has been revealed.
...
Local business takings had fallen by up to 35%, the documents claimed.
The protesters' legal team denied the claims and said many of the accusations were without basis.
Occupy London said civic authorities "have not engaged in a transparent dialogue" with activists.
Within the documents a statement given by John Zuber, a City of London police inspector who visited the camp, said urination and defecation were "major issues".
...
Police received complaints from the cathedral about "members of the camp continually urinating through the fence of the Chapter House and the Cathedral itself", Mr Zuber said.
The protesters say the UBS buildings will be opened for "creativity rather than cash"
On one occasion "a member of the camp had urinated through the window of the Crypt Restaurant".
Re: Occupy Wall Street
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all
http://www.ringospictures.com/index.php?page=20111028
Two interesting anthropological studies...
Re: Occupy Wall Street
In all public places yes.
But you're saying that they don't even have the right to use their freedom of speech because there are too few of them. You're blaming them for all the media attention they get (which is the choice of that media (and of the population as a whole))
Re: Occupy Wall Street
I'm blaming them for the way in which they get media attention, and so should you.
With freedom of speech you have to accept that if there aren't many of you, you won't make an impact.
What these people are really going for is the "Right to be listened to". But there is no such thing.
Re: Occupy Wall Street
This sounds like the kind of direct democracy, populist crap that I thought you were so vehemently against. The minority should always accept their outnumbered and won't make an impact? What percentage of the population does a group need to achieve before you bestow upon them the term "relevant"?
Why can't a group try to force its message unless it already has a substantial amount of public support?
I still don't understand how OWS is killing America.
This also makes no sense. People listen because they chose to listen. The media does not have to report on them, it chooses to. You act as if people have no ability to stop listening to them. All I did today was simply limit my reddit browsing to r/starcraft and somehow I went the whole day without seeing r/politics reports on OWS: The Freedom Fighters.What these people are really going for is the "Right to be listened to". But there is no such thing.
They shout and protest and we can ignore and close our ears. Lots of people do it every two years when the other sides politician starts talking in the debate.
Re: Occupy Wall Street
No, this is exactly the fault of populism...swaying masses of people through propaganda.
What I said is along the same lines of saying that a politician should directly address the issues in his speech rather than say a bunch of empty feel good rhetoric, or that politicians who find they are running behind shouldn't run a dishonest smear campaign to help out their numbers.
If you have a minority belief, you have to convince other people that you are right. But you DON'T try to convince people you are right by attempting to make it look like the "fascist police are being directed by the government to crack down on the protesters".
How the heck are they killing America?I still don't understand how OWS is killing America.
Most of their press has been from the camps and the arrests and the rubber bullet stuff.This also makes no sense. People listen because they chose to listen. The media does not have to report on them, it chooses to. You act as if people have no ability to stop listening to them. All I did today was simply limit my reddit browsing to r/starcraft and somehow I went the whole day without seeing r/politics reports on OWS: The Freedom Fighters.
They shout and protest and we can ignore and close our ears. Lots of people do it every two years when the other sides politician starts talking in the debate.
How do you feel about that phelps guy who protests at funerals?
Re: Occupy Wall Street
Isn't it the duty of individuals to disseminate information for themselves? If the protesters have no substances and are just crying wolf, shouldn't the public recognize it for themselves? Why do we need to have the government act for the public? Why should the government have the power to decide when a group is legitimate and which are wannabe martyrs.
Maybe not America, but my impression of what you are saying is that you think they are a threat to free speech and the health of the countries discourse.How the heck are they killing America?
The Phelps guy can go ahead and get as much press as he wants from conflicts with police. When the public reads about him camping in a park, they should know that he is actually a crazy person with no substance. Same goes for OWS, the public should take individual responsibility for learning about legitimacy of a movement and chose to ignore/participate for themselves. The government should not be tear gassing students, even if they are wannabe martyrs.Most of their press has been from the camps and the arrests and the rubber bullet stuff.
How do you feel about that phelps guy who protests at funerals?
Re: Occupy Wall Street
The government isn't doing that. It's closing down camps and keeping bridges open and trying to stop vandalism and so on.
Yeah, if people believed in them. It's certainly degrading to both of those things.Maybe not America, but my impression of what you are saying is that you think they are a threat to free speech and the health of the countries discourse.
And they wouldn't be, if it weren't for specific actions by the protesters (which have nothing to do with a real protest) that the police SHOULD put a stop too.The Phelps guy can go ahead and get as much press as he wants from conflicts with police. When the public reads about him camping in a park, they should know that he is actually a crazy person with no substance. Same goes for OWS, the public should take individual responsibility for learning about legitimacy of a movement and chose to ignore/participate for themselves. The government should not be tear gassing students, even if they are wannabe martyrs.
Imagine that you were a small business owner by St. Paul's, and worshiped there. How would you feel with the huge hit to your income, the noise, the people harassing you (that might have been a different camp), and the fact that people were pissing on your church's grounds? Why does the government not have any business putting a stop to the camp?
Re: Occupy Wall Street
Students at UC Davis had no camp, the tents were already dismantled. Why the pepper spray?
I personally think freedom of speech is stronger than a bunch of teenagers 'degrading' it.Yeah, if people believed in them. It's certainly degrading to both of those things.
Government should have came by with inspectors and gave fines and tickets to those living in tents, with piss everywhere. They should have sent an ambassador not in riot geat to tell them that fines will be given for not keeping up a hygienic state and for creating an illegal camp, but that they are still welcome to use the park to protest. Instead the had a media blackout and moved in with riot police and rubber bullets. It really was not the proper way of handling things.And they wouldn't be, if it weren't for specific actions by the protesters (which have nothing to do with a real protest) that the police SHOULD put a stop too.
Imagine that you were a small business owner by St. Paul's, and worshiped there. How would you feel with the huge hit to your income, the noise, the people harassing you (that might have been a different camp), and the fact that people were pissing on your church's grounds? Why does the government not have any business putting a stop to the camp?
Re: Occupy Wall Street
That's not true. I can't remember exactly, but I believe they are sitting in a big ring around the tents. That's how it appears in the video.
And it's much much stronger than riot police removing a camp of said teenagers.I personally think freedom of speech is stronger than a bunch of teenagers 'degrading' it.
They did all that. Some people left. Others didn't.Government should have came by with inspectors and gave fines and tickets to those living in tents, with piss everywhere. They should have sent an ambassador not in riot geat to tell them that fines will be given for not keeping up a hygienic state and for creating an illegal camp, but that they are still welcome to use the park to protest. Instead the had a media blackout and moved in with riot police and rubber bullets. It really was not the proper way of handling things.
Doesn't it bother you that people's idea of free speech is "the concept I invoke to defend something bad I said/did"?
Re: Occupy Wall Street
Take it with a grain of salt but http://studentactivism.net/2011/11/2...lice-violence/ says that the tents were gone. I don't see any tents in the video.
Not necessarily since we are now talking about the power of the government here.And it's much much stronger than riot police removing a camp of said teenagers.
So continue to make fines, and reimburse those negatively affected by the protest. If it still is happening, ramp up the fines.They did all that. Some people left. Others didn't.
Doesn't it bother you that people's idea of free speech is "the concept I invoke to defend something bad I said/did"?
Yes, but it bothers me that people think that they have a right to not be offended and justify policies that prohibit speech that way. It bothers me when people think that it is ok to have "free speech zones" where it is ok to exercise your rights, as long as you stay within the square.
It bothers me more to think of a country ruined by being too cautious with our liberties than a country ruined by being too liberal with them.
Re: Occupy Wall Street
6 of one, half a dozen of the other.
Why do you think it will have a negative effect on free speech?Not necessarily since we are now talking about the power of the government here.
But we don't have to think in the abstract. We can decide whether something is too cautious or too liberal.So continue to make fines, and reimburse those negatively affected by the protest. If it still is happening, ramp up the fines.
Yes, but it bothers me that people think that they have a right to not be offended and justify policies that prohibit speech that way. It bothers me when people think that it is ok to have "free speech zones" where it is ok to exercise your rights, as long as you stay within the square.
It bothers me more to think of a country ruined by being too cautious with our liberties than a country ruined by being too liberal with them.
Re: Occupy Wall Street
Anyway, check this out from Occupy London:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p...article/11648/
"To get a better understanding of the kind of society Occupy would like to see, then, it’s worth analysing their rules of engagement, the living processes they have adopted in their tent city. One of the most striking examples is their 13-point ‘Safer Space’ policy, which they use to regulate debate and discussion in the camp. Here it is in full.
1) Racism, as well as ageism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, ableism or prejudice based on ethnicity, nationality, class, gender, gender presentation, language ability, asylum status or religious affiliation is unacceptable and will be challenged.
2) Respect each other’s physical and emotional boundaries; always get explicit verbal consent before touching someone or crossing boundaries.
3) Be aware of the space you take up and the positions and privileges you bring, including racial, class and gender privilege.
4) Avoid assuming the opinions and identifications of other participants.
5) Recognise that we try not to judge, put each other down or compete.
6) Be aware of the language you use in discussion and how you relate to others. Try to speak slowly and clearly and use uncomplicated language.
7) The group endeavours as much as is feasible to ensure that meeting spaces are as accessible as possible to the widest range of people.
8) Foster a spirit of mutual respect: listen to the wisdom everyone brings to the group.
9) Give each person the time and space to speak. In large groups, or for groups using facilitation, raise your hand to speak.
10) Respect the person; challenge their behaviour.
11) If someone violates these agreements a discussion or mediation process can happen, depending on the wishes of the person who was violated. If a serious violation happens to the extent that someone feels unsafe, they can be asked to leave the space and/or speak with a person or process nominated by those present.
12) While ground rules are collective responsibility, everyone is also personally responsible for their own behaviour.
13) Occupy London is an alcohol- and drugs-free space."
Re: Occupy Wall Street
At least we're getting some quality comedy out of all this ...
Re: Occupy Wall Street
Compare:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/21/occupy-london-camp-eviction-bid
Protest has degenerated to squatting in London.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: Kim Jong Il Dead
what is the difference between north and south korea?
Find out a 0:45s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L08...layer_embedded
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Re: Kim Jong Il Dead
Lulz the loony left. But at least the occupy movement doesn't seem to be as prone to using violence as they are here, kinda surprised he can walk of with his camara
Re: Kim Jong Il Dead
lol, too many cameras around, that is the only reason. You should have tried wearing a Bush/Cheney pin during the 2004 elections. I am a pretty big guy, and even I had people at school giving me crap over it and trying to push me around. I know a lot of conservatives (such as my sister) who are too afraid to wear such marks of political support around campus because of the physical consequences; it is usually on the large guys who do, because no one messes with them.
Hammer, anvil, forge and fire, chase away The Hoofed Liar. Roof and doorway, block and beam, chase The Trickster from our dreams.Vigilance is our shield, that protects us from our squalid past. Knowledge is our weapon, with which we carve a path to an enlightened future.
Everything you need to know about Kadagar_AV:
Re: Kim Jong Il Dead
I don't believe I've seen one like this before.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: Kim Jong Il Dead
Wow... well played Internet.I don't believe I've seen one like this before.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Rest in Peace TosaInu, the Org will be your legacy
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks