Gothic.net News Horror Gothic Lifestyle Fiction Movies Books and Literature Dark TV VIP Horror Professionals Professional Writing Tips Links Gothic Forum




Go Back   Gothic.net Community > Boards > Politics

Politics "Under democracy, one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule -and both commonly succeed, and are right." -H.L. Menken

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-24-2011, 11:09 AM   #176
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acharis View Post
I'd still prefer a firemans lift or a frogmarch. Or if the officers back may be hurt by carrying weight, the institutional pinch.
I'm sure you would have preferred that, though I suspect you understand that wouldn't have done anything.

They did not move after being told to move. They did not move after being physically pressured to move. They did not move after being told the police were going to use pepper spray. They even did not move after the police used it. It was only after the police used it and physically moved them that they got up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO4406KJQMc

Quote:
(Can't find a definition for that; but it's a compellingly uncomfortable grip on the pressure point/muscle under someones armpit, which with minimum force and very easily allows you to force someone to walk. Basically it's a restraint technique, and if it sounds slow or ineffective just try it on some of the others in your platoon.)
Didn't work.

Quote:
If so - I don't deny that there has been and is racism perpetrated by the police, and neither do I condone it. Just because I denounce one thing doesn't mean I think another is okay.
But it obviously doesn't bother you enough to denounce it as well.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/oct/26/oakland-police-department-black-community



Quote:
True... but I do think it's possible that some may have panicked or lost their tempers. It happens.
I already said that.

Quote:
But the execution of that response should be watched and moderated.
It was.

Quote:
I don't know... It could be that different definitions apply to the Westboro Church demonstration. (I'm thinking of 'harassment' and 'hate speech'.)
You really can't call it anything else. Abortion clinics could call pro-life protests harassment. Hate speech is still expression.

Quote:
How do you think those changes are brought about? By protest and the support of the people. By agitating for change.
Again, I did not say they should stop. I just said that they should still be arrested for violating the law.

Quote:
Beating someone to death isn't the same as sitting in a park, even if passive resistance is involved in both.
It is the exact same crime. Don't be dense.

Quote:
I do understand the police were duty-bound to act, but I just can’t see beyond the sheer imbalance of power and the zeal with which they carried out their orders. I’m used to seeing police officers protecting the unarmed citizens.
I'm getting really tired of repeating myself.
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 11:09 AM   #177
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grausamkeit View Post
Bring out the elephants?

Shit themselves, more likely. I get what Acharis is saying, that being polite won't do fuck all and I always thought getting permits for protests was weird (I've been to marches that had police escorts, that was really weird), I just don't get how they hope to organize a militia and overthrow the powers that be before violence against them is justified.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 11:11 AM   #178
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Something about the master's tools. I can't remember. I think they were really expensive?
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 09:54 PM   #179
Acharis
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
That's a really cartoonish way of thinking of nonviolent protest. What I don't get from people who say that nonviolence doesn't do anything is what they plan to do to overthrow a heavily armed police force and possibly the army.
I’m not suggesting anybody take on a heavily armed police force or the army. I’m merely observing wryly that if one side is more forceful than another the more forceful side will always have the advantage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
I'm sure you would have preferred that, though I suspect you understand that wouldn't have done anything.

They did not move after being told to move. They did not move after being physically pressured to move. They did not move after being told the police were going to use pepper spray. They even did not move after the police used it. It was only after the police used it and physically moved them that they got up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO4406KJQMc
I still don't accept that might equals right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
But it obviously doesn't bother you enough to denounce it as well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/oct/26/oakland-police-department-black-community
Dude, why is this an issue? I am Australian and was not familiar with events associated specifically with Oakland police – so did not realise that you would have a problem with a random link bringing the Oakland force up.
Don’t get on my case for not specifically mentioning a racial component before you did, because most of my posts are reacting straight to yours on the direct topic of Occupy. I’m sorry you feel angry about one of the articles, but it was lifted directly from another list as a general illustration along with the others.

We’ve agreed that police can abuse power. It’s true that the Oakland police do unfairly target black people. I am aware of the greater severity and more chronic nature of mistreatment that black people have had to suffer. I am aware that white Australians are relatively more fortunate in only dealing with this harassment now. It is not being ignored, and if I’m arguing against pepper spray I’d think it obvious that I do also denounce harassment/predation of black communities.

One less than carefully chosen example in a borrowed list does not mean I think a white veteran is more important than the black community. Jeebus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
You really can't call it anything else. Abortion clinics could call pro-life protests harassment. Hate speech is still expression.
It is harassment, and intended to interfere with a womans autonomy and prevent her accessing health care. It’s been going for sixteen(?) years daily, with a special parade monthly. There have been assaults carried out by the pro-lifers, filming of patients entering the clinic, telephoning the clinic, and even a shooting of a security guard named Steve Knight by a pro-life activist.

I don’t think hate speech is allowed as free expression, I don’t know the details by country but there is some form of legislation. There has been a recent scandal here around racial vilification by Andrew Bolt, and he’s crying about his freedom of speech after the ruling by the judge. /OT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
Again, I did not say they should stop. I just said that they should still be arrested for violating the law.
Not injured or traumatized. I’m not demonising the police, simply not accepting what sounds like apologism for some extreme actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
It is the exact same crime. Don't be dense.
Except for the beating to death bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
I'm getting really tired of repeating myself.
Me too. Here, have a picture instead.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net...12905522_n.jpg


Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
Shit themselves, more likely. I get what Acharis is saying, that being polite won't do fuck all and I always thought getting permits for protests was weird (I've been to marches that had police escorts, that was really weird), I just don't get how they hope to organize a militia and overthrow the powers that be before violence against them is justified.
Yeah, that's it. I think people should be sensible rather than aggressive, because the aim is for change not to start riots. But the idea of a protest is that you aren't going with the flow, you don't accept the power they hold over you.


Bahaha. I can see the protest now.
"WE DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE DOING! er....We can has permit plz?"
"No. Respect our authority."
"Okay." https://fbcdn-photos-a.akamaihd.net/...77258477_a.jpg


But you're right, there's not much that can really ever be done against superior physical, legal and economic forces. Except protest peacefully. Waaaait... That still results in economic, legal and physical duress!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
Something about the master's tools. I can't remember. I think they were really expensive?
The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. Nice one.
Acharis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 10:15 PM   #180
Miss Absynthe
 
Miss Absynthe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Hell, it's other people & both of them are you
Posts: 1,001
I'm pretty sure that the way it works is that hate speech is allowed as free expression, as long as it doesn't incite violence towards anybody. So, if you stand up and say fags should be shot, then it's ok until someone takes you seriously and shoots a queer person.

But they aren't my laws, so I'm not too sure about it.
Miss Absynthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 10:58 PM   #181
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
No, you're right in the case of the States. Its why Westboro haven't gotten arrested yet and pro lifers can get away with protesting, provided they keep it off private property.

However, if you say you should kill so and so, and someone does, you incited it.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 11:49 PM   #182
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acharis View Post
The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. Nice one.
Oh. Right.

__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 02:15 AM   #183
CuckooTuli
 
CuckooTuli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
That's a really cartoonish way of thinking of nonviolent protest. What I don't get from people who say that nonviolence doesn't do anything is what they plan to do to overthrow a heavily armed police force and possibly the army.
Considering the source, I'd consider the relative sanity of that statement unimpeachable. Then again, that's Burroughs for you. Gotta love the mad bastard.

As for your question though, I don't think there's really a clear-cut answer to that - the truth is, unless the vast majority of people were prepared to risk injury for their beliefs, we wouldn't have a hope in hell.

Then again, the alternative is to stop trying and bend over. In practice, it's often just stuff like this: the police tell you to move. You don't consider them to have a salient reason to do so, so you stand your ground. Or people get kettled, and instead of standing around meekly for however many hours the police choose to keep them there, they kick off.

Now if it's an organised London protest with a large police presence, chances are they've allowed enough officers to squash such incidents - I mean, that's sort of the point of their presence. But now and then people are just all "OH HELL NO". I saw some SWP members break a kettle in Luton once, protesting against the English Defence League and their harrassment of non-white locals. That was pretty badass, especially considering the kettle was born of blatant harrassment in the first place (the police didn't seem too keen on either group) and also caught quite a few passers-by just trying to get home.
CuckooTuli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 03:44 AM   #184
CuckooTuli
 
CuckooTuli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 708
You kknow, thinking about it - does violence in protests work? Ask France, who are notorious for smashing some shit up whenever more than about three people gather and get pissed off about something. Their citizens wouldn't stand much more chance than ours or yours if the police tooled up and the army got involved, but the establishment is a lot more wary of pissing them off or fucking with their standard of living, which was recently rated as the higest in Europe. Because when they get lose their shit and take to the street, they don't form orderly lines to wave signs around - they smash some shit up. On that basis, you don't need to be able to crush the people oppressing you - just to keep them wary of pissing you off any more than they REALLY have to.
CuckooTuli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 04:22 AM   #185
Acharis
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
No, you're right in the case of the States. Its why Westboro haven't gotten arrested yet and pro lifers can get away with protesting, provided they keep it off private property.

However, if you say you should kill so and so, and someone does, you incited it.
Oh right. I think the laws are different in my country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
Oh. Right.

Not really clear exactly what you mean there. You mean that you are Chuck Norris' big brother and will figuratively take apart the Master's House? Or simply boasting about your weapon?
Heh. But as far as accidental innuendo goes it's great


Quote:
Originally Posted by CuckooTuli View Post
You kknow, thinking about it - does violence in protests work? Ask France, who are notorious for smashing some shit up whenever more than about three people gather and get pissed off about something. Their citizens wouldn't stand much more chance than ours or yours if the police tooled up and the army got involved, but the establishment is a lot more wary of pissing them off or fucking with their standard of living, which was recently rated as the higest in Europe. Because when they get lose their shit and take to the street, they don't form orderly lines to wave signs around - they smash some shit up. On that basis, you don't need to be able to crush the people oppressing you - just to keep them wary of pissing you off any more than they REALLY have to.
Well we're disagreeing on that at the moment.
Mostly everyone complies or uses passive resistance, but one guy without consulting the others calmly broke a camera which was being used to film the protesters (also bumping the officers face with his arm apparently) and was arrested for assault.

This loose cannon seems to think it helped the cause, saying the camera is a weapon to their advantage and what he did was technically non-violent because he didn't hurt a human....
But no, I and others think it's much better to turn the use of the camera to advantage by telling the lense about Occupy etc. Smashing things hurts the cause and gives justification for reprisal.

I think the answer isn't to be overly compliant or aggressive, but somewhere in the middle. Be very annoying, but not to the point of risky reactive behaviour.


In the good news, the police have calmed way down since the eviction. I missed the raid this morning, but I'm told it's the council driving the removal of equipment now... the police tend to wait until they get there to do anything. And the judges are getting annoyed at all the people being dragged in front of them from council complaints re petty violations of red tape.

Best moment of the day was when a fleet of cyclists rode through the Treasury Gardens and stopped to talk/make donations to replace kit. That was awesome.
Acharis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 04:35 AM   #186
CuckooTuli
 
CuckooTuli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 708
You know, I used to think violence hurt the cause, too - and don't get me wrong; it can and often does. It doesn't help that the media zooms in on acts of vandalism and violence whenever large-scale protests take place over here. The simple fact is, though, if you protest peacefully, the people you're fighting quite simply have no reason to give a flying fuck. They send a few coppers down, the students wave some signs, everyone goes home and it's business as usual the next day. The French, on the other hand, have a way of getting shit done when they hit the streets. Even when the French government patently ignored them over retirement age, they didn't dare raise it over 62, which still leaves it among the lowest in Europe.

Is it pretty? Of course not. But does it get results?... well, take a look at their standard of living compared to countries that haven't made rioting a national pastime.
CuckooTuli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 04:49 AM   #187
Miss Absynthe
 
Miss Absynthe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Hell, it's other people & both of them are you
Posts: 1,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acharis View Post
Oh right. I think the laws are different in my country.

Not really... although, the big thing to consider is that Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights, so technically we don't have the right of freedom of speech. A certain amount of freedom is held as precedent, though.

The Andrew Bolt issue really had nothing to do with freedom of speech, it was about his breech of the Racial Discrimination Act (1975) as he was stating that it had become fashionable for "fair-skinned people" who had Indigenous ancestry to choose to identify as Aboriginal because it gave them an advantage over non-Indigenous people. To quote the Chaser boys - yeah, because if you had wanted to gain advantage in Australia, you'd clearly choose to become an Aboriginal.'


Quote:
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin
(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Note: Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

(b) is done in a public place; or

(c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

(3) In this section:

"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.

The interesting thing about the judgement in this case was that it didn't so much rely on the fact that Bolt made racist statements in a public forum (it was because of an article that he had written on his blog), but that he couldn't actually back up any of the comments that he had made with facts. There is nothing to stop anyone from making the most atrociously hate-filled statements as long as they have some sort of grounding (even if it is the most tenuous basis) in fact.
Miss Absynthe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 06:09 AM   #188
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Violence begets violence. It doesn't matter what your cause is, or how effective your methods are. If you don't want to live in a culture that values violence, then you can't create one that considers the justification for it. Period.
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 06:18 AM   #189
CuckooTuli
 
CuckooTuli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 708
Yes, violence DOES beget violence. That includes the socioeconomic violence that has been perpetrated on the many by the few. That doesn't lay the bulk of the responsibility at the feet of the respondents just because their brand of violence involves the breaking of shit. And yes, whose fault it is DOES matter when you're talking about the fucking of entire generations at a time. It matters a LOT.
CuckooTuli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 11:21 AM   #190
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuckooTuli View Post
You kknow, thinking about it - does violence in protests work? Ask France, who are notorious for smashing some shit up whenever more than about three people gather and get pissed off about something. Their citizens wouldn't stand much more chance than ours or yours if the police tooled up and the army got involved, but the establishment is a lot more wary of pissing them off or fucking with their standard of living, which was recently rated as the higest in Europe. Because when they get lose their shit and take to the street, they don't form orderly lines to wave signs around - they smash some shit up. On that basis, you don't need to be able to crush the people oppressing you - just to keep them wary of pissing you off any more than they REALLY have to.
I asked a friend in France about this and she says since Sarkozy took power, protests have been far less effective. And like I said in a previous thread, it only privileges the white and the many, Muslims can't get away with it, and see their rights trampled anyway, and I don't think a union and socialist backed movement could get away with it in the states either. It really depends on the mentality of the rulers. In The Peaceful Revolution in East Germany, on the other hand, the Communists tried everything they could to get the protesters to instigate violence, but in the end the army refused to harm them. I don't think the establishment enjoys love and nonviolence, it makes them look heartless. I think they love it when rioting begins because finally, they can respond in turn without looking terrible. And it accumulated to the most celebrated act of peaceful destruction, the fall of the Berlin Wall.

And you seem to be confusing property damage with violence. Direct action often involves property damage but no violence.

Quote:
Considering the source, I'd consider the relative sanity of that statement unimpeachable. Then again, that's Burroughs for you. Gotta love the mad bastard.

As for your question though, I don't think there's really a clear-cut answer to that - the truth is, unless the vast majority of people were prepared to risk injury for their beliefs, we wouldn't have a hope in hell.
Because peaceful protesters never are harmed or do anything dangerous? Shit, people were willing to light themselves on fire for their beliefs, the difference is though that they knew the meaning of their action would change dramatically if they made it a murder-suicide. Nonviolent revolutionaries say "We're prepared to risk injury for what we believe in," the violent say "we're prepared to risk injury for what we believe in, and we'll harm as many on the opposite side as we can in the process."

Quote:
Then again, the alternative is to stop trying and bend over. In practice, it's often just stuff like this: the police tell you to move. You don't consider them to have a salient reason to do so, so you stand your ground. Or people get kettled, and instead of standing around meekly for however many hours the police choose to keep them there, they kick off.
For a lot of protests, depends. For strikes? Not really. For peaceful revolutions? No.

Quote:
Now if it's an organised London protest with a large police presence, chances are they've allowed enough officers to squash such incidents - I mean, that's sort of the point of their presence. But now and then people are just all "OH HELL NO". I saw some SWP members break a kettle in Luton once, protesting against the English Defence League and their harrassment of non-white locals. That was pretty badass, especially considering the kettle was born of blatant harrassment in the first place (the police didn't seem too keen on either group) and also caught quite a few passers-by just trying to get home.
Kettling is one of the worst ideas I heard of trying to pacify a crowd, eventually they're going to get claustrophobic. But again, I wouldn' think tearing down a net so you can free yourself is the same thing as violent revolution.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 11:58 PM   #191
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuckooTuli View Post
Yes, violence DOES beget violence. That includes the socioeconomic violence that has been perpetrated on the many by the few. That doesn't lay the bulk of the responsibility at the feet of the respondents just because their brand of violence involves the breaking of shit. And yes, whose fault it is DOES matter when you're talking about the fucking of entire generations at a time. It matters a LOT.
Just so we're clear, what you're saying is "They started it and they have it coming to them."
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2011, 12:00 AM   #192
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Also, there is a really good song by Kreator called Violent Revolution. It pumps me up.
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2011, 11:44 PM   #193
Acharis
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 729
Ah, thanks for the clarification of hate speech Absynthe.

That the Bolt case is centered around the specific Racial Vilification Act does change things considerably... I actually did know that from skimming articles, but lazy recollection and loose association got the better of me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
Violence begets violence. It doesn't matter what your cause is, or how effective your methods are. If you don't want to live in a culture that values violence, then you can't create one that considers the justification for it. Period.
WE AGREE ON SOMETHING. TAKE A SCREENSHOT!

That basically sums up my objection to the events of the eviction and other uses of force by police.

Yes the law should be obeyed. Yes some things I disagree with are the law.
But I don't want to live in a world where certain acts of violence/coercion are acceptable and justified, even from those in charge. Especially from those in charge.

(I'm aware that in most cases the police are compelled to do these things or they get fired. OK. Fair enough. But there's an amazing quote from 'Transmetropolitan' on the role of police, which is an excellent summary how I think it should be. I'll post it when I can grab the issue and find it.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
I don't think the establishment enjoys love and nonviolence, it makes them look heartless. I think they love it when rioting begins because finally, they can respond in turn without looking terrible. And it accumulated to the most celebrated act of peaceful destruction, the fall of the Berlin Wall.
There is that as well. I guess it depends on the rulers and also the public support...

On that note, apparently police are starting to get a bit sick of the farce that hassling OccupyMelbourne is becoming, and becoming a bit ashamed when they act. It seems to be the council pushing them on now.

(This is only what I've been told because I was too busy running off with the tent. Um... yeah.

What happened yesterday was the police came from different directions, so the protesters simply picked up the tents and swarmed off the grounds of Treasury so the tents couldn't be confiscated.

I had a corner of the First Aid tent, we were going like the clappers down the street - then within minutes the police sheepishly left and everybody just poured back.
Now imagine that to Yakety Sax. )

I guess you have to be disruptive enough to make a stink and piss authorities off, but not give them a justification to get forceful or act in a way the public can't support.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
And you seem to be confusing property damage with violence. Direct action often involves property damage but no violence.
True, it's not exactly violence; but if you're got people in authority trying to hold anything they can against you, it will be construed as an act of aggression. (Unfortunately they don't seem to recognise taking or destroying protesters possessions the same way.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
But again, I wouldn't think tearing down a net so you can free yourself is the same thing as violent revolution.
Yeah, it isn't the same... I guess I wouldn't grab someones camera off them to break it, but I would free myself from a net.

I feel bad about calling that guy a loose cannon now, maybe some are ok with that kind of direct action and I don't know it... but yeah, he didn't discuss it with anybody else beforehand and I wasn't the only one disagreeing.
Acharis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2011, 01:31 AM   #194
Alan
 
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
[size="7"]Violence begets violence.
Then why are you surprised a violent system creates violent resistance?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by KissMeDeadly
You fucking people [war veterans] are only a step below entitled rich kids, the only difference being you had to do and witness horrible things, instead of being given everything.
real classy
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2011, 07:49 AM   #195
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan View Post
Then why are you surprised a violent system creates violent resistance?
I'm not? spookyblacktext
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2011, 03:42 AM   #196
CuckooTuli
 
CuckooTuli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
I asked a friend in France about this and she says since Sarkozy took power, protests have been far less effective.
This doesn’t counter my argument, though. Even if protests have become less effective under Sarkozy, the fact remains that the French standard of living was recently rated the highest in Europe, and the business end of protesting has played a significant part in achieving and establishing that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
And like I said in a previous thread, it only privileges the white and the many, Muslims can't get away with it, and see their rights trampled anyway, and I don't think a union and socialist backed movement could get away with it in the states either.
That's true. However I'm just giving an example in which violent protests have in fact been a positive force, used to protect rights rather than to impinge on them. I am not advocating the spread of a more violent French protest model. Obviously it would be stupid to suggest the rest of the world simply imitated them, especially the States - your police are crazy, yo.

I also think this goes back to the same argument you and Despanan were having before about OWS. I’d have to come down on the side that dismissing any movement or attempt to create positive change on that basis is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Most movements could stand to be more inclusive, but that doesn't have to mean the whole thing is worthless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
And you seem to be confusing property damage with violence. Direct action often involves property damage but no violence.
I’m not confusing anything – property damage is commonly considered a violent crime, and this view is reinforced by mainstream news sources in the UK. Throwing a petrol bomb at a car is very much considered an act of violence, as was smashing in the windows of London’s Lloyds head office during the student protests last year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
Because peaceful protesters never are harmed or do anything dangerous? Shit, people were willing to light themselves on fire for their beliefs, the difference is though that they knew the meaning of their action would change dramatically if they made it a murder-suicide. Nonviolent revolutionaries say "We're prepared to risk injury for what we believe in," the violent say "we're prepared to risk injury for what we believe in, and we'll harm as many on the opposite side as we can in the process."
Well, of course there have always been people prepared to risk injury for what they believe in. But not really the vast majority of people. The vast majority of people just want to live their lives the easiest way they can – and why not? It’s no easy business as it stands. Those prepared to light themselves on fire are in the minority; and in the grand scheme of things, so are both nonviolent revolutionaries and the overtly violent. Someone has to watch all that media coverage of two or three violent incidents over four days of protests involving hundreds of people, after all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saya View Post
Kettling is one of the worst ideas I heard of trying to pacify a crowd, eventually they're going to get claustrophobic. But again, I wouldn' think tearing down a net so you can free yourself is the same thing as violent revolution.
Hey, I’m not saying we should all get out there and start kick-bombing fire trucks. I’m just saying, the idea that violence can never achieve results in any context is simply not true when you take a country like France as your example. Personally, I think it’s morally naive to consider all acts of violence qualitatively identical as Versus did, “period”, without even weighing circumstances, consequences or results achieved. Responsive violence and antagonistic violence are not necessarily the same thing, whether it’s breaking a kettle or chucking a petrol bomb at a bank in response to having your pension taken away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
Just so we're clear, what you're saying is "They started it and they have it coming to them."
No; I’m not talking about retribution because fuck them. I’m not even saying we should make violence a part of our remit when we organise against the establishment. What I’m saying it that it’s true that the people in power are not going to lie down and give back what’s been taken from the many by the few.

I think we’re looking at this is very different ways. You are saying that two wrongs don’t make a right. It’s a good approach for dealing with other individuals in everyday life, but I don’t believe it applies here – I see no “wrong” in people protesting, breaking a kettle if they are being detained in one, or refusing to obey rules that are unjustly conceived or imposed. The simple fact is that mild and measured responses, however thoughtful – however LEGAL, if you look at something like the Iraq conflict or UK terrorism detention laws – are ignored. The people in charge don’t care what we think, want or lose, because there is a bigger game being played with our lives; and we are not privy to the winnings, but we sure as fuck end up footing the bill every time.

The issue I have with the views you’re expressing here is that you seem to be holding the establishment and the protesters to very different standards. On the subject of protesters using violence, you proclaim that violence is inherently destructive and needs to nipped in the bud. I can understand this view (and used to share it); but then you also dismiss complaints about the use of pepper spray on nonviolent protesters as pussy whining. These two views are incompatible. The only thing they have in common is that both have to ring of Stockholm Syndrome about them: Accept the judgment of the establishment. If you must respond, do it in a polite, orderly fashion that the people you are actually addressing when you protest (because of course, you aren’t marching against the police) can ignore at their leisure.
CuckooTuli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2011, 08:01 AM   #197
Grausamkeit
 
Grausamkeit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,271
I think it's almost time to release the elephants!
__________________
I'd rather label myself than have a million other people do it for me. ~ Pathogen

...I've been accused of folly by a fool. ~Antigone

Grausamkeit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2011, 09:52 AM   #198
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuckooTuli View Post
This doesn’t counter my argument, though. Even if protests have become less effective under Sarkozy, the fact remains that the French standard of living was recently rated the highest in Europe, and the business end of protesting has played a significant part in achieving and establishing that.
Its also a pretty racist country with a currently homophobic government where I wouldn't particularly want to live.

Quote:
That's true. However I'm just giving an example in which violent protests have in fact been a positive force, used to protect rights rather than to impinge on them. I am not advocating the spread of a more violent French protest model. Obviously it would be stupid to suggest the rest of the world simply imitated them, especially the States - your police are crazy, yo.
Yeah, threatening violence sometimes gets you your way. Not anymore there, though, and it hasn't really worked here. What benefits have you noticed since the London riots?

Quote:
I also think this goes back to the same argument you and Despanan were having before about OWS. I’d have to come down on the side that dismissing any movement or attempt to create positive change on that basis is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Most movements could stand to be more inclusive, but that doesn't have to mean the whole thing is worthless.
It becomes too exclusive for certain marginalized populations to participate in if it is made difficult for them, and becomes a farce of "true democracy" that way. Its true that movements that weren't inclusive went on to get things done, like the second wave of feminism, but the criticisms of homophobia and racism in the movement are well deserved and I certainly can't blame lesbian women and women of colour for not wanting to participate in organizations where white middle class women defined the issues.

I haven't stopped supporting Occupy since, but I will if it becomes violent. One thing that people forget when it comes to violence is that in the end it easily backfires on women and children. When violent revolutions happen, when wars happen, sexual assault rates skyrocket. Its easy to talk of violence when we think of innocent casualties as poor people merely caught in the crossfire, but no one talks about the real risk of **** casualties. And I'm not particularly willing to cause violence and destruction that will harm so many innocents in such a way for men who dismiss other's rights as "pet issues".

Quote:
I’m not confusing anything – property damage is commonly considered a violent crime, and this view is reinforced by mainstream news sources in the UK. Throwing a petrol bomb at a car is very much considered an act of violence, as was smashing in the windows of London’s Lloyds head office during the student protests last year.
Generally by the public and the police but pacifist movements have had diverse opinions on the issue.

And if property damage constitutes an act of violence, is graffiti violent?

Quote:
Well, of course there have always been people prepared to risk injury for what they believe in. But not really the vast majority of people. The vast majority of people just want to live their lives the easiest way they can – and why not? It’s no easy business as it stands. Those prepared to light themselves on fire are in the minority; and in the grand scheme of things, so are both nonviolent revolutionaries and the overtly violent. Someone has to watch all that media coverage of two or three violent incidents over four days of protests involving hundreds of people, after all.
So who would the vast majority of people who don't care be more willing to support and sympathize with? The peaceful protesters or the violent mob?

[quote]
Hey, I’m not saying we should all get out there and start kick-bombing fire trucks. I’m just saying, the idea that violence can never achieve results in any context is simply not true when you take a country like France as your example. Personally, I think it’s morally naive to consider all acts of violence qualitatively identical as Versus did, “period”, without even weighing circumstances, consequences or results achieved. Responsive violence and antagonistic violence are not necessarily the same thing, whether it’s breaking a kettle or chucking a petrol bomb at a bank in response to having your pension taken away.
[quote]

Throwing that bomb won't get you your pension back. I would sympathize with someone who did so out of frustration, but I don't think a whole lot of other people would, I very much doubt the media would report that was even your reason. What revolution could you hope to accomplish that way if the popular discourse is against you?

The thing about using that kind of violence is that its hard to know what you're achieving by doing so. In the end, what are the long term consequences of tipping over a police car or bombing a bank? The bank can probably afford to close the branch or repair damage, the police can probably now justify brute force and cracking down. Those who tore down the Berlin Wall? Again, most celebrated act of vandalism I've heard of. That act of property damage meant a lot of change, and even if they did attack property with sledge hammers without government sanction, they're still considered nonviolent revolutionaries.

Quote:
No; I’m not talking about retribution because fuck them. I’m not even saying we should make violence a part of our remit when we organise against the establishment. What I’m saying it that it’s true that the people in power are not going to lie down and give back what’s been taken from the many by the few.
The quote you made was specifically saying that nonviolent protest is something the establishment loves and encourages. There's problems with that. One being its not true; they love to troll you into becoming violent because it justifies their own violence. The outcry against the pepper spray would hardly be an outcry if those students were fighting. There's already been accusations that, like during the Peaceful Revolution in Germany, agitators have been implanted into the crowds to try and stir shit up. Why would they ever do that if they want Occupy to remain a peaceful protest?

Quote:
I think we’re looking at this is very different ways. You are saying that two wrongs don’t make a right. It’s a good approach for dealing with other individuals in everyday life, but I don’t believe it applies here – I see no “wrong” in people protesting, breaking a kettle if they are being detained in one, or refusing to obey rules that are unjustly conceived or imposed. The simple fact is that mild and measured responses, however thoughtful – however LEGAL, if you look at something like the Iraq conflict or UK terrorism detention laws – are ignored. The people in charge don’t care what we think, want or lose, because there is a bigger game being played with our lives; and we are not privy to the winnings, but we sure as fuck end up footing the bill every time.

The issue I have with the views you’re expressing here is that you seem to be holding the establishment and the protesters to very different standards. On the subject of protesters using violence, you proclaim that violence is inherently destructive and needs to nipped in the bud. I can understand this view (and used to share it); but then you also dismiss complaints about the use of pepper spray on nonviolent protesters as pussy whining. These two views are incompatible. The only thing they have in common is that both have to ring of Stockholm Syndrome about them: Accept the judgment of the establishment. If you must respond, do it in a polite, orderly fashion that the people you are actually addressing when you protest (because of course, you aren’t marching against the police) can ignore at their leisure.
They're not ignoring it. They're doing everything in their power to make it go away and discredit them, and they become justified if there's a riot. And the thing about what Versus was saying is true, a lot of people were unaware and/or okay with the police being able to pepper spray at will for years and years and years, and now only because white middle class kids are getting it in the face is anyone upset. Pepper spray actually is considered very low on the range of force police are allowed to use, and I tried to find stories where it was used against Native protesters like that and had no one complain, but sadly I couldn't find a story involving Native protesters that didn't also involve beatings. Its shocking to look at but as far as police violence goes, its really tame. Its not right but its been tolerated til now, I can only hope this makes people rethink about the ways we empower police to use violence.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2011, 12:00 PM   #199
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
I'll get to this when I'm more coherent.
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2011, 01:17 PM   #200
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by CuckooTuli View Post
Well, of course there have always been people prepared to risk injury for what they believe in. But not really the vast majority of people. The vast majority of people just want to live their lives the easiest way they can – and why not? It’s no easy business as it stands. Those prepared to light themselves on fire are in the minority; and in the grand scheme of things, so are both nonviolent revolutionaries and the overtly violent. Someone has to watch all that media coverage of two or three violent incidents over four days of protests involving hundreds of people, after all.
I disagree with this. If the vast majority of people couldn't find it within themselves to fight for what they believe in, or simply for their lives and their future, then nothing would have gotten accomplished from the passing fancy of a few people. If this isn't the case, then Occupy protesters might as well pack their shit and go home.

Quote:
Hey, I’m not saying we should all get out there and start kick-bombing fire trucks. I’m just saying, the idea that violence can never achieve results in any context is simply not true when you take a country like France as your example. Personally, I think it’s morally naive to consider all acts of violence qualitatively identical as Versus did, “period”, without even weighing circumstances, consequences or results achieved. Responsive violence and antagonistic violence are not necessarily the same thing, whether it’s breaking a kettle or chucking a petrol bomb at a bank in response to having your pension taken away.
Dude, seriously?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Versus View Post
Take your time.

And it really bothers me how one sided people look at this stuff. I'm not a police officer, but I know what they have to deal with because it's the same for me a lot of the time.

As an extreme, there was a soldier who was court marshaled for something he did in Iraq. His platoon was out on patrol and somehow a child had stole one of their machine guns and started to run away with it. The soldier took out his handgun and fired a controlled pair into the child's back, killing him.

Looks pretty awful, doesn't?

Most people don't consider that it's impossible to chase anybody when you're wearing 60-80 pounds of equipment (most people don't even know what *that* is like). Most people don't consider that military age males that often fight Americans are anywhere between 10 years of age and 50 years of age. Most people don't consider that the soldier used his handgun instead of his rifle. And most people don't consider that he didn't know what the child's intentions were and simply decided it was too dangerous to find out.

The only thing that people consider is that a soldier shot a child to death.
And further,

Don't talk to me about circumstances, consequences, or results achieved. I have a very vivid memory of killing people. It is completely asinine for you to call me morally naive because I, more then anybody on this forum, know about the shades of gray and justification of violence. The difference is that I condemn it, regardless of all of that, while YOU justify one form of violence and condemn another. It is hypocritical beyond explanation.


I never said it was wrong for the protesters to break the law of practice civil disobedience. I said it was wrong for them to get away with it because it IS wrong to chose what laws to enforce. That doesn't mean that I think they should stop doing it simply because it's illegal. I think they should continue to do so, despite the legality.

Like the monk that sets himself on fire and is willing to die for what he believes in, the protesters should take inspiration and at least recognize that they can't believe in something only so far as their comfort is assured.
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:44 AM.