It wouldn’t sound so dumb if Mad Hatter, Lum, and I hadn’t all kept it civil.
I was being a tad facetious. I guess I don’t take these things very seriously.
Yep. I’m not sure how you can’t step back and look at what American society has become and not draw this same depressing conclusion.
Complaints about different treatment between OWS and the Tea Party are again missing an important point-- Tea Party rally organizers generally went to the authorities and got the proper permits for their events (leaving aside the issue of whether or not a protest permit is appropriate). Occupy protesters generally haven’t.
Hmm it appears that they’veupgraded their pepper spray for the OWS crowd. Instead of the 0.2% (capsicum content) authorized for tactical deployment they’re using 0.7%, which has a recommended range of 6 ft not point blank. It’s effective up to 18-20 feet.
So yeah using something 3x stronger than normal 6x closer than recommended, definitely standard procedure there.
If you agree about complaining about the groupthink, that makes you the groupthink!
Food for thought.
Edit: Also, speaking seriously, that is a very transparent ad hominem: “I can’t talk with you crazies because you defend craziness!”
No, FB and Scuzz, some of actually think the movement is in the right and are willing to argue in favor of it. Are you so childish and immature that you literally cannot stand people disagreeing with you? How embarrassing.
Scuzz
1668
and I just had lunch. :)
I heard on the news an hour ago that the guy spraying the pepper spray actually was the guy who made the call on it’s use. There was no higher up telling him to do it.
I never said that it has to be violence that results in police action, but in the case of UC Davis, the protestors refused to leave when instructed to by the police force. Again, if you want to claim that police gave preferential treatment to the Tea Party, you would have to find an example of Tea Party members doing the same thing as OWS, and not getting a response by police. So far, no one has come up with any.
To make this relevant to the discussion, I’d have to ask when OWS protestors were arrested for simply protesting.
And in the cases you cited, there was one man treated for minor injuries after a scuffle, and another incident where arrests were made. So you have shown conclusively that police do take actions against Tea Party members.
Well, it’s not “occupation” as defined by the Occupy Wall Street events.
If you’re not suggesting that the Tea Party got preferential treatment by police, then I guess we’re in agreement. That was my main point, so if we agree, then there’s really nothing to discuss.
I don’t know who has been suggesting that, but I certainly haven’t. I was simply looking for examples of A) violence at a Tea Party event where it was clear that B) the police did not respond to it.
I hate to break it to you, but this is an internet forum. Even though I’m specifically replying to a post of yours, I am also generally responding to arguments made by others as well.
It’s not “occupation” as defined by the OWS protests. And since you agree that it’s not the same thing as trespassing in a public park for three months, then the argument (MADE BY OTHERS NOT YOU) that police were preferential to the Tea Party (or that they were “afraid” of the “angry extremists”) is just nonsense.
Jibble
1670
I haven’t found a case where a Tea Partier was pepper sprayed, even though I found an incident where they assaulted a woman by stomping on her head, an incident where they were spitting on members of Congress, and an incident described as a “near riot”.
I guess it’s cool so long as they didn’t do any trespassing or resisting arrest.
And this, just for humor’s sake:
You do realize you posted this in the same post:
This is only tangentially Occupy-related, but xkcd has an amazing Money chart…where it all comes from and where it all goes. A lot of it tongue-in-cheek, but damn, it looks like a ton of work went into it. It’s work just to figure it out:
Sources here:
So are you now claiming that the Tea Partiers were given preferential treatment? Because you said that you never claimed that, but you now appear to be arguing that side. It would help if you let me know if you actually believe the points you are making.
As for the use of pepper spray, you do realize that pepper spray is used in specific circumstances, right? It’s not just used as a general response to any sort of criminal activity. So, again, the fact that police did not use pepper spray in any of those circumstances is not proof of anything. And for the cases above: The first guy was arrested; the second was an unproven allegation of one person being spit on by one Tea Party member (far from “they were spittings on members of Congress”, and the claim was never proven), and the third one (a “near riot”) is not actually a criminal activity. So, in all those cases, police took the appropriate action. What was your point again?
Since those are the cases where pepper spray would actually be necessary: Yes, those would be the cases that would lend some weight to the argument that police treated Tea Party members preferentially.
You accused me of erecting a strawman, when I was actually responding to something that someone else said in this thread. On the other hand, I did not accuse you of erecting a strawman, even though you responded to something that no one has said in this thread.
By the way I love how you’re playing with words here to be right. To whit: you can’t be an “angry extremist” without violence.
I consider the Phelps to be “angry extremists” but I don’t think they’re violent. And yeah, I’d consider the Tea Baggers to be angry extremists, they want things THEIR way, they want what THEY want and to hell with anyone else, that’s a pretty extreme point of view. And angry? Yeah. Bringing guns, threats of violence, the Hitler posters. That’s pretty angry. And extreme.
Yeah, so I gather - you’ve spent the last few days telling me how FUCKING much you don’t GIVE A SHIT about how I FUCKING feel about your feelings.
I have no problem with a nuanced approach to an issue. But you have to understand that “nuanced” doesn’t mean, “espousing a clear point of view, then backing off with a ‘I don’t give a shit, really,’ when challenged.” Mostly, you seem intellectually challenged and tend to fall back on lazy assumptions and talking points, which is fine, of course, but don’t get angry when people call you on it.
And listen, really, I think we can all summarize your thoughts on OWS: “They should expect trouble from the police, they don’t have a clear message, they’re not noble enough, and besides it’s all over for them anyway.” That about right? There, no need to post about them anymore!
The question here is one of perspective. While everybody seemingly agrees that the UC Davis chancellor and big-city elected officials have the authority to order the protestors dispersed or relocated (which we can a priori accept as effective dispersion, and thus “death of message”), there is a debate over whether it was morally acceptable to do so given the utility of calling attention to class disparity.
A lot of the value judgment to be made here depends upon whether one identifies class disparity (read: income inequality) as a serious political issue that needs urgent attention and therefore justifies civil disobedience. I’ve certainly heard compelling arguments about the political maleffects of the hyper-concentration of wealth, although I’m inclined to lay blame at the foot of the congressional committee system and lobbying laws rather than with lobbyists. I think the solution is to insulate the system to a better degree, rather than to heavily tax the wealthiest citizens.
I suppose there could also be a second argument about the role of the police in society, their potential subordination to particular political or class interests, and especially about whether or not this was justifiable in light of other compliance alternatives. Frankly, given their orders, which were to disperse rather than negotiate, I think they behaved appropriately, with the clear exception of deploying the pepper spray improperly. It is unclear to me whether that was due to negligence or malignancy. With respect to whether the police have a vested interest in clearing all crowds, regardless of the value of their message, to preserve the deterrent effect of shows of force (rather than actual application), I think there’s a discussion to be had, but that probably one single case would not a slippery slope prove.I guess the question then becomes, “Who decides when a particular protest should no longer be privileged over convenience?”
No, the threat of violence (or lack thereof) was brought up specifically because someone said that the police would be “afraid” to face down “angry extremists” like the Tea Party, when they have absolutely no history of resisting the police, or even disobeying them.
But not the kind of “angry extremism” that would provoke or prevent a police response, which was the entire point.
I commend the movement, however, I think it will be better served if we organise to occupy congress with non-political and non-idiological people who will get this country going in the right direction. The movement should look for the brightest and people with integrity who realize that lobbing is the evil that is bringing our country to its knees. These people should be vetted and endorsed by the movement so that the layman know who they are. Now is the time to take a page from the tea-party and place congressman and senators in congress that includes all Americans, rich or poor, old or young, black or white. There are a lot of college students out there that have graduated and not able to find meaningful employment. I think the effort should come from the students and graduates because those students have the most at stake. They will be the ones who must find there way through the mess that is, so it behoves them to get organized and change the integrity of our congress. Congress is the problem at this point.
I don’t know if I would call lobbing evil. I sometimes think it’s cheap and I know a lot of old men who do it so I tend to think of it as lazy, but there’s no question it can be effective, especially against someone who can’t time an overhand smash.
That glorious cop has been suspended without pay.
http://www.metro.us/newyork/national/article/1029606--john-pike-uc-davis-pepper-spray-cop-suspended-without-pay-updated
I hope they will also fire his ass. But I am afraid they will come to the conclusion that he did nothing wrong, and then spraying
peaceful sitting protesters at point blank with upgraded pepper spray will become normal police routine in our free and democratic country…
