Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tack]

Yeah, the radicals in Australia are expecting us to fall under Sharia law any day now, too.
But we've always been a cultural melting pot with a rather small native population.

I've commonly considered that the easiest way to take our country would literally be to just usurp us in democratic majority.
Seriously, it would take 3% of America's population to outvote us.

[Descan]

Does "The more you are the more you can get away with" mean what I think it means, i.e. majority rule, or what are you trying to say there if not that?

[Sheb]

That if 100 person do an undeclared protest in the street, they'll get rounded up and arrested or obstructing traffic, but if 10,000 people do it, they'll get away with it.

[SalmonGod]

That if 100 person do an undeclared protest in the street, they'll get rounded up and arrested or obstructing traffic, but if 10,000 people do it, they'll get away with it.

Sort of... only on the basis that arresting 10,000 people would be troublesome.  So they'll do some mass arrests.  Load up a few buses.  Get a few hundred.  Harass and intimidate the rest as much as they can.

So when considering joining a protest, potential participants have to consider "Will the crowd be large enough to make my chances of getting arrested and losing my job fairly slim?  How much risk am I willing to take?"  And there is a chilling effect.

[smeeprocket]

recently the police used crowd control devices that they had insisted before they wouldn't use on things like peaceful protests, they've used tear gas and such. They are finding ways to disperse even larger crowds, which they did during the occupy movement (though even then, they didn't use the sound device, I don't think.)

The protests have to continue, and I think it will cause the police to become more violent, regardless of the size. One of their tactics has been cops going undercover to work as agitators. Two of them got revealed, and the cops involved then proceeded to pull firearms on the crowds and threaten them. It actually dispersed the crowd because they were so scared of getting shot.

If people let it go, or the message becomes muddled, nothing will come of it.

[SalmonGod]

One of their tactics has been cops going undercover to work as agitators. Two of them got revealed, and the cops involved then proceeded to pull firearms on the crowds and threaten them. It actually dispersed the crowd because they were so scared of getting shot.

Just FYI  (I get the impression you're presenting this as if it represents a new development), agent provocateurs are a tactic as old as protests.

They are finding ways to disperse even larger crowds, which they did during the occupy movement (though even then, they didn't use the sound device, I don't think.)

If people let it go, or the message becomes muddled, nothing will come of it.

And the problem here, not just with protest but with activism in general, is that engaging in activism is a matter of serious personal sacrifice and risk.  For law enforcement and politicians, it's just another day at work.  It's a very one-sided war of attrition.

[smeeprocket]

One of their tactics has been cops going undercover to work as agitators. Two of them got revealed, and the cops involved then proceeded to pull firearms on the crowds and threaten them. It actually dispersed the crowd because they were so scared of getting shot.

Just FYI  (I get the impression you're presenting this as if it represents a new development), agent provocateurs are a tactic as old as protests.

They are finding ways to disperse even larger crowds, which they did during the occupy movement (though even then, they didn't use the sound device, I don't think.)

If people let it go, or the message becomes muddled, nothing will come of it.

And the problem here, not just with protest but with activism in general, is that engaging in activism is a matter of serious personal sacrifice and risk.  For law enforcement and politicians, it's just another day at work.  It's a very one-sided war of attrition.

I'm not, but it bothers me that this is considered acceptable police behavior for peaceful protests. They agitate things, what if it works? what if the cops then shoot someone involved?

Cops shouldn't be working to incite violence to win a war against protesters.

[Graknorke]

Well you can't fight a war against someone who isn't being violent. It makes sense to escalate it to violence, since that way they are able to use force in return which is the thing they want to do.

[smeeprocket]

Well you can't fight a war against someone who isn't being violent. It makes sense to escalate it to violence, since that way they are able to use force in return which is the thing they want to do.

well they seem pretty good at using force against non-violent people. You'd think they wouldn't even need the agitators.

[Baffler]

They actually want to clean up a mess, not make it worse. If protests turn violent they will potentially cause a lot of damage, so the authorities can disperse them with force and nobody who isn't there will bat an eye. If they violently disperse peaceful demonstrators, then they've got a nasty PR incident that takes even more time to clean up and sweep out of the public consciousness, and people complain about their 1st amendment rights, and generally make a lot of uncomfortable noise. Using provocateurs to make a protest "violent" is an exceptionally convenient way to solve the problem, people voicing dissent, while avoiding the pitfalls of both martyrdom and destructive riots.

[Graknorke]

Well I was going to post a reply but Baffler said it better while I was writing.

[smeeprocket]

They actually want to clean up a mess, not make it worse. If protests turn violent they will potentially cause a lot of damage, so the authorities can disperse them with force and nobody who isn't there will bat an eye. If they violently disperse peaceful demonstrators, then they've got a nasty PR incident that takes even more time to clean up and sweep out of the public consciousness, and people complain about their 1st amendment rights, and generally make a lot of uncomfortable noise. Using provocateurs to make a protest "violent" is an exceptionally convenient way to solve the problem, people voicing dissent, while avoiding the pitfalls of both martyrdom and destructive riots.

I think we've already got a nasty PR situation, and they keep making it worse.

Now they want to get crimes against police classified as hate crimes...

They all need to be re-evaluated and mostly gutted. It's clear they are half of the problem with crime in the first place. Less, sane and stable and not racist, officers would serve the community far better.

[Baffler]

Oh I'm not denyin' that there's a problem. But I also realize that people who also don't deny that there's a problem are not the majority (yet, but we can make it happen.) Until a significant portion of the population is ready to really stand up and call to curtail police militarization, the systematic mistreatment of the disadvantaged, and the other excesses of our emerging brand of corporate capitalism, the suppression of people publicly calling for these changes will continue to happen and it will continue to succeed. It probably won't be pretty, but it's the only way to bring about meaningful change. And such change must necessarily come from the ballot box.

[smeeprocket]

http://reverbpress.com/justice/black-panthers-vs-nra/

I don't know, I'm starting to prefer this kind of change.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Dutchling]

You prefer domestic terrorism?