Print

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

[SalmonGod]

I don't think the time is right for defiant law-breaking or violence.  The movement isn't big enough or well-liked enough to pull that off yet.  I think the time will come, but right now that would alienate a lot of people and give authorities justification to shut things down for good.

I used to wonder what the point of peaceful protest was, and thought it should always be a bit more about directly threatening the establishment.  Occupy has made me a true believer in the idea that the establishment doesn't know how to deal with a non-violent threat.  It turns the thing into an information war, which is possible to win.  All they can do is abuse the media to blatantly lie to the public.  Those who want to believe the lies will, but everyone else will begin to see that things aren't right.  Or they can mobilize the police state like they did in Oakland, but that only violates most people's sensibilities even more.  The benefits might not be immediately as obvious or cathartic, but non-violence forces the state into a lose-lose situation.

[Zangi]

Peaceful protest met with violence further legitimizes the protest, at least in this day and age where information travels at the speed of now and can't be so easily regulated.

Violent protest, without the backing of the populace, is met with ridicule and marginalization, allowing them to turn the populace against you.

Law-abiding protest, is met with red tape, but... there is a catch, you need popularity and presence to effectively ignore the red tape, if too small, they can put you down legit.

Really, its all about the media war, spread the word.. communicate... bide..
The intended results may not be to the scale of the Middle Eastern uprisings, but, media warefare is an integral part of how they changed things, for better or worse.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Peaceful protest met with violence further legitimizes the protest, at least in this day and age where information travels at the speed of now and can't be so easily regulated.

See: The Martin Luther King Strategy

[palsch]

East coast snowstorm moving in. Current reported forecast snow;

New York City: 2-5 inches
Philadelphia: 1-2 inches
Albany, NY: 4-8 inches
Baltimore, MD: 2-4 inches
Newark, NJ: 3-7 inches
Providence, RI: 4-6 inches
Bridgeport, CT: 3-7 inches
Portland, ME: 5-10 inches

I'm pretty sure all those cities have some level of protest ongoing. Hopefully they are prepared for this level of weather.

EDIT: Yep, just checked this live stream and heard an appeal for all sorts of cold weather gear, supplies and various other items.

[RedKing]

Peaceful protest met with violence further legitimizes the protest, at least in this day and age where information travels at the speed of now and can't be so easily regulated.

See: The Martin Luther King Strategy

See: April 4, 1968. 

I'm not dismissing the power of nonviolent protest. But I do feel like it's lost a lot of its power in the forty+ years since the 60's. Hell, even since the 1980's. Saying to the powers that be, "We're asking you for X, Y and X and we're asking nicely" doesn't do much good without the implicit "...and if you ignore us, we'll ask not-so-nicely."

Protests and marches have become so commonplace and overused in four decades that they've lost a lot of their impact. It's gone from "Wow, look at all those people waving signs, they must have a real grievance to actually protest our wonderful government!" to "Huh...bunch of hippies trying to save a whale or something. What's on TBS?"

I'm not advocating violence, I'm just saying I can understand the school of thought that says demanding strict adherence to nonviolence/pacifism in all circumstances may not be the best idea either.

[SalmonGod]

There needs to be that implicit threat, but there needs to be the potential to actually back it up first.  There needs to be disobedience, but it needs to be about doing things that appeal to people's common sense of freedom and what is right even when they're forbidden, rather than directly seeking confrontation.  Resisting evictions are the perfect example.

[scriver]

I think this calls for a hunger strike. After the few first starvations, people might start realising how serious this is and that you aren't going to just go away again.

Edit: since I'm immediately overcome with doubt about whether people get me or not, I'm only serious about the hunger strike, not the people dying because it part.

[SalmonGod]

I could be wrong, but I think hunger strikes are only effective if the person is at least a little bit famous.  I don't know any influential cases of hunger strike by a previously unknown person.

This is why I don't have any respect for anyone in power.  If I were in a position of influence or high visibility, I would be on hunger strike.  I would be going to whatever extremes I could think of to exert pressure, or I would have zero respect for myself.

[Montague]

Self-immolation gets a lot of media attention, even world-wide attention regardless if the person is famous or not. If you survive, you might be famous enough to pull off a hunger strike at the hospital later.

I don't think there is anybody that committed to the cause to do that, though.

[RedKing]

Self-immolation gets a lot of media attention, even world-wide attention regardless if the person is famous or not. If you survive, you might be famous enough to pull off a hunger strike at the hospital later.

I don't think there is anybody that committed to the cause to do that, though.

In the Western world, at least. It's worth noting that the proximate trigger for the Tunisian uprising (which kicked off the "Arab Spring") was an act of self-immolation.

Sadly, in this country it would just be seen as a sign of mental illness and mocked by FOX News.

[SalmonGod]

Pictures from last year's Halloween party thrown at the office of "foreclosure mill" law firm Steven J Baum, which represents many major mortgage lenders.

Sick... just fucking sick.

[RedKing]

Behind the paywall, unfortunately.

[SethCreiyd]

Google "halloween steven j baum" and it's the first result, though it seems to require a login after the first viewing...?

Here's the same story briefly by TPM.

On a related note, here's the Wikipedia page for Psychopathy.

[SalmonGod]

Sorry I didn't realize what was meant by paywall.  I get it now.

This is how I got in.  The link at the bottom of should take you past the paywall.

[Truean]

Unfortunately, I'm afraid the kind of change desired would require an organized front akin to a political party, because they you could elect members with direct lawmaking/administrative authority. The problem being that the views currently being expressed are so wide in range that one doesn't quite know what to make of them sometimes. Though "inequality in the distribution of wealth" is a historical one people seem to agree on here, I dunno. Moreover, there's a danger of being Ross Perot as a spoiler party that takes democratic votes away and thereby hands the election to the party you least agree with. In this case, that would be Rick Perry....

Also, it might interest you that in certain legal circles, a lot of discussion has been made about the Officer who shot the protester in the head with a "non lethal" round. This is especially true if he dies from complications to that shot. Criminal charges against the officer would probably be limited to excessive force and he would probably (legitimately?) beat any manslaughter charges for one simple reason. He was told it was a non lethal round and probably honestly believed that. Now, an argument could be made that he knew not to shoot to the head and if it can be proved that was intentional, then it might stick. Simply, he probably lacked the intent to kill. This speaks only to criminal rather than disciplinary charges such as him getting fired.