Print

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

[Nadaka]

http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/16/obama-administration-allegedly-helped-co

http://ideas.time.com/2011/11/16/the-straw-man-comes-to-zuccotti-park/?xid=newsletter-daily

yea...

[Truean]

Curious 84-year-old bystander pepper sprayed.  My impression from the picture is that she got hit quite directly and intentionally.

Clearly, the 84 year old women are the problem creators.... I'm just sorta holding my breath until one of these stupid officers gets shot  (with a real bullet, cause no one else has the rubber ones) and hoping it doesn't happen.... That would be terrible.

Peaceful protests aren't societal problems, they are society....

[MetalSlimeHunt]

At this point, the police of this nation should be astounded at their luck so far. You can only push people so far before they snap and stop caring about the morality of their actions, so long as they succeed.

[Aqizzar]

http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/16/obama-administration-allegedly-helped-co

This neither surprises me, nor perturbs me.  Of course, when a local police force believes it cannot handle a local problem, they turn upwards for help.  It's not a natural disaster, it's not foreign agents, it's not a smuggling cartel, it's not money laundering, and it's not armed gangs.  So who's left to ask but the FBI?  And Homeland Security, because their bloated fucking charter means they have to respond to everything, mostly doing nothing.

Whatever you can say about what a local authority like Oakland is doing to its residents, and you can say a lot, the federal police force is legally bound to respond appropriately when asked.  And when a a city wants to clear out a large mob of people as efficiently as possible, the FBI is going to act in some way.  The FBI doesn't have the authority to get into the weeds and say whether shoving people off public land is illegal or not, likely conflicting at different levels of jurisdiction.  And while I certainly don't think Obama was sitting in on the conference call deciding what to do, it's hard to think hasn't been informed after the fact at least.  But think about it, the President can't exactly make a policy of telling his agencies to selectively enforce the law over something this high profile.  That's exactly his job.

I say be thankful it seems like they acted as benignly as they did, in what sounds like nothing but an advisory capacity, possibly for exactly that reason - it fulfills their requirement as a federal agency without getting stuck in the mud along with the local police.

[Gantolandon]

At this point, the police of this nation should be astounded at their luck so far. You can only push people so far before they snap and stop caring about the morality of their actions, so long as they succeed.

Probably because USA is a country where almost everybody owns a gun (or at least knows where to buy one). If something nasty happens, it will spiral out of control really fast, so at least the protesters seem to be cautious. The police, unfortunately, not so much.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

At this point, the police of this nation should be astounded at their luck so far. You can only push people so far before they snap and stop caring about the morality of their actions, so long as they succeed.

Probably because USA is a country where almost everybody owns a gun (or at least knows where to buy one). If something nasty happens, it will spiral out of control really fast, so at least the protesters seem to be cautious. The police, unfortunately, not so much.

Most people here don't actually own guns. It's just that the ones that do own guns tend to own several of them. But yes, most people could probably get guns if they wanted to.

[SalmonGod]

I've been thinking that for so long, wondering "When the hell are people going to snap???"  I always chalked it up an abundance of complacency-inducing mechanisms.

Now I'm seeing this behavior rooted in integrity and composure.  It's been a little difficult to process.

[Luke_Prowler]

I've been thinking that for so long, wondering "When the hell are people going to snap???"  I always chalked it up an abundance of complacency-inducing mechanisms.

Now I'm seeing this behavior rooted in integrity and composure.  It's been a little difficult to process.

The civil rights movement proved that, if anything, He who throws the first punch, loses

[RedKing]

I've been thinking that for so long, wondering "When the hell are people going to snap???"  I always chalked it up an abundance of complacency-inducing mechanisms.

Now I'm seeing this behavior rooted in integrity and composure.  It's been a little difficult to process.

The civil rights movement proved that, if anything, He who throws the first punch, loses

Unless it's a hell of a good punch.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I've been thinking that for so long, wondering "When the hell are people going to snap???"  I always chalked it up an abundance of complacency-inducing mechanisms.

Now I'm seeing this behavior rooted in integrity and composure.  It's been a little difficult to process.

The civil rights movement proved that, if anything, He who throws the first punch, loses

Congress wasn't as for sale in the 50's. The Civil Rights Movement, MLK's branch specifically, had their nonviolent determination because it made them the good guys in the eyes of the nation. The police have already ruined their own image, and the Occupy movement already has plenty of support. Nothing is happening. Someone is going to get tired of it and strike the other side eventually. Maybe that's just how it has to be, unfortunately.

[Gantolandon]

I've been thinking that for so long, wondering "When the hell are people going to snap???"  I always chalked it up an abundance of complacency-inducing mechanisms.

Now I'm seeing this behavior rooted in integrity and composure.  It's been a little difficult to process.

It's more complicated. A small movement is somewhat easy to police and, most likely, composed of people who won't do anything stupid. It also needs to build more support, so the protesters can't afford to look like the bad guys. But the larger it gets, it's more likely to draw some belligerent people (which is not ultimately bad, it's just what happens). It still can remain peaceful, but the people involved have less reason to comply - they are numerous, after all, and they feel they can apply some more pressure. And it's always easier for something random happening which could turn everyone apeshit.

Brutal crackdowns are not ultimately stupid if someone really wants to get rid of the movement - if there's a riot, is a lot easier to justify more radical countermeasures deployed. It would also help to paint the protesters in bad light.

[Luke_Prowler]

Congress wasn't as for sale in the 50's. The Civil Rights Movement, MLK's branch specifically, had their nonviolent determination because it made them the good guys in the eyes of the nation. The police have already ruined their own image, and the Occupy movement already has plenty of support. Nothing is happening. Someone is going to get tired of it and strike the other side eventually. Maybe that's just how it has to be, unfortunately.

It's only been, what a month or so? The civil rights movement took YEARS. So long as people have the determination to see this through, things will change.

[SalmonGod]

I'm 95% certain that for real change to happen, it's going to eventually come to blows.  I don't know how widespread and deadly it's going to get, but people are going to have to get violent to some extent.

Another way that this is different from the civil rights movement: 

That movement was about confronting widespread cultural attitudes and behaviors, and confronting them and their unjustified blessings from official institutions.  It was about combating discrimination.  Winning people's hearts and minds was a large part of their goal.

What we're fighting today is the fact that a relative handful of people own most of the planet and don't want to share, even if it means impoverishing 90% of the global population.  This can only go one of three ways.  Incredible numbers of people meekly resign themselves to starvation and homelessness, we convince the 1% to limit their greed, or we hurt them.

Also note,

The police have already ruined their own image, and the Occupy movement already has plenty of support.

In spite of this, there's still a significant amount of people who cheer on the lazy hippy bashing.

[RedKing]

I've been thinking that for so long, wondering "When the hell are people going to snap???"  I always chalked it up an abundance of complacency-inducing mechanisms.

Now I'm seeing this behavior rooted in integrity and composure.  It's been a little difficult to process.

The civil rights movement proved that, if anything, He who throws the first punch, loses

The police have already ruined their own image, and the Occupy movement already has plenty of support.

You'd be surprised. There are a disturbingly large number of people who vocally wonder why the cops don't just shoot all those dirty socialist hippies. I have a few friendships that are nearing their end as a result of attitudes like that. And one of them is a cop. 

[Nadaka]

Congress wasn't as for sale in the 50's. The Civil Rights Movement, MLK's branch specifically, had their nonviolent determination because it made them the good guys in the eyes of the nation. The police have already ruined their own image, and the Occupy movement already has plenty of support. Nothing is happening. Someone is going to get tired of it and strike the other side eventually. Maybe that's just how it has to be, unfortunately.

It's only been, what a month or so? The civil rights movement took YEARS. So long as people have the determination to see this through, things will change.

I also see this taking years. Or it could be that things are far worse than we have realized and there will be a brutal murderous crackdown like the end of the Green Revolution in Tehran. I really, really hope I am just paranoid.