NATO Chicago

[StrangeSox]

LAST WARNING, since you folks apparently didn't read the first one. This is the end of the political B.S., or else I'm moving the thread.

 

Why not just split out the active political discussion and be done with it?

[NorthSideSox72]

Why not just split out the active political discussion and be done with it?

Because if I can avoid sifting through 9 pages of posts trying to decipher which ones to move and which not to, I will. It takes a lot of time. I may still have to though.

 

[StrangeSox]

Start here and move everything afterwards:

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?s=...t&p=2600342

[southsider2k5]

I'm done. You can leave it if you want.

[BigSqwert]

Also, this s*** pisses me off:

 

 

 

If you're going to protest, have the balls/labia to show your face.

 

Totally!

 

Why can't they be more peaceful looking like these folks?

 

 

 

[CanOfCorn]

All of your answers are in this thread:

 

Both sides are going in HOPING nothing happens, but EXPECTING it to happen. No one wins in this scenario as it is a vicious circle...

[Jenksismyhero]

Totally!

 

Why can't they be more peaceful looking like these folks?

 

 

Yeah my issue isn't with them looking menacing. It's hiding behind a mask. Note that the people in the photo you linked are clearly visible.

[GoSox05]

Anarchists enjoy bandanas. I think you are just going to have to accept that.

[StrangeSox]

It's a fashion statement to an extent.

[StrangeSox]

All of your answers are in this thread:

 

Both sides are going in HOPING nothing happens, but EXPECTING it to happen. No one wins in this scenario as it is a vicious circle...

I won't disagree with this.

[GoSox05]

Do you think violent protest is ever justified in a democracy?

[StrangeSox]

Possibly.

[Jenksismyhero]

No. Violence does nothing but draw attention away from the issues. That's my problem with the "left" protests - they want the news where people get pepper sprayed or arrested or whatever and that shows how much "the man" sucks. But it overshadows that actual issue. The "right" protests, meanwhile, generally about informing and gathering momentum to make actual changes - by vote.

[Texsox]

Why protest? Somewhere near the top of the list is to get attention for your cause. How do you get attention in America? With so much information, so much stuff flying at consumers, getting their attention is a challenge. In fact, in an information economy, our attention is probably the most valuable commodity out there.

 

Sex and violence sells. We pay attention to that. So wear the masks and get naked!

[Balta1701]

Which is why so many of them had guns.

 

Cause you know, voting.

 

[StrangeSox]

"My guys do it right while their guys do it wrong!"

[southsider2k5]

"My guys do it right while their guys do it wrong!"

 

And if not, it is their fault.

[Jenksismyhero]

"My guys do it right while their guys do it wrong!"

 

Well, you can't deny which style ends up with the change the respective group wants.

[StrangeSox]

Underlying this is still the assumption that whatever force the police use that these protesters supposedly desire is actually justified. Even if protesters organize a sit-in fully anticipating being sprayed in the face with pepper spray and welcome the media attention it brings to whatever their cause is, it still doesn't excuse unjust use of force.

 

Yeah, those women who were arrested in NC fully expected to be handcuffed and detained for filing for a marriage license. Yeah, the marchers in Birmingham fully expected to be beat by police and sprayed with fire hoses. That doesn't make their protest less legitimate or ineffective or legitimize injustices. Now, in the case of the NC couple or the 60's civil rights marchers, the link between their cause and the police action was direct--being removed from the court house or from the lunch counter that they're trying to gain equal access to. In a case like UC Davis, the students aren't primarily protesting for access to the quad. In that instance it is clear that they did not expect the use of chemical weapons before the protest began, but even if they had the police aren't suddenly justified.

[Balta1701]

Underlying this is still the assumption that whatever force the police use that these protesters supposedly desire is actually justified. Even if protesters organize a sit-in fully anticipating being sprayed in the face with pepper spray and welcome the media attention it brings to whatever their cause is, it still doesn't excuse unjust use of force.

 

Yeah, those women who were arrested in NC fully expected to be handcuffed and detained for filing for a marriage license. Yeah, the marchers in Birmingham fully expected to be beat by police and sprayed with fire hoses. That doesn't make their protest less legitimate or ineffective or legitimize injustices. Now, in the case of the NC couple or the 60's civil rights marchers, the link between their cause and the police action was direct--being removed from the court house or from the lunch counter that they're trying to gain equal access to. In a case like UC Davis, the students aren't primarily protesting for access to the quad. In that instance it is clear that they did not expect the use of chemical weapons before the protest began, but even if they had the police aren't suddenly justified.

But those policemen turning firehoses on the marchers were just enforcing the law. Obviously they were doing the right thing and those marchers should have gone back and done something else.

[StrangeSox]

Well, you can't deny which style ends up with the change the respective group wants.

 

Plenty of leftist and liberal protest movements have been successful, plenty have been unsuccessful. The same is true of rightist and conservative protests.

[Jenksismyhero]

Underlying this is still the assumption that whatever force the police use that these protesters supposedly desire is actually justified. Even if protesters organize a sit-in fully anticipating being sprayed in the face with pepper spray and welcome the media attention it brings to whatever their cause is, it still doesn't excuse unjust use of force.

 

Yeah, those women who were arrested in NC fully expected to be handcuffed and detained for filing for a marriage license. Yeah, the marchers in Birmingham fully expected to be beat by police and sprayed with fire hoses. That doesn't make their protest less legitimate or ineffective or legitimize injustices. Now, in the case of the NC couple or the 60's civil rights marchers, the link between their cause and the police action was direct--being removed from the court house or from the lunch counter that they're trying to gain equal access to. In a case like UC Davis, the students aren't primarily protesting for access to the quad. In that instance it is clear that they did not expect the use of chemical weapons before the protest began, but even if they had the police aren't suddenly justified.

 

I dunno, IMO the arrests/violence aspect of it does nothing but detract from the message and embolden those people against it. Can you tell me what the UC protestors were protesting for/against? I have no clue. All I know is some people that sat down and wouldn't leave despite being told to do so were hit with pepper spray, perhaps in an excessive amount.

[Jenksismyhero]

Plenty of leftist and liberal protest movements have been successful, plenty have been unsuccessful. The same is true of rightist and conservative protests.

 

Name me a single violent/disruptive protest that has led to some new progressive change.

[StrangeSox]

But those policemen turning firehoses on the marchers were just enforcing the law. Obviously they were doing the right thing and those marchers should have gone back and done something else.

 

That's what's so silly about saying direct-action, unjust-police-response-inducing protests are ineffective or that this strategy somehow legitimize injustice.

 

You don't have to label the 60's civil rights movement with any modern political labeling since what's being questioned is the efficacy of a certain type of protesting. Those protesters knew that they were going to face violent police action when they engaged in their non-violent direct-action protests. They knew the dogs would literally be released, that they'd be beaten and blasted with fire hoses, that they might even get killed. And though they strove to remain non-violent throughout, their intention was to draw attention to the violence inherent in the system of oppression. That's why some of these photographs are so powerful to this day.

 

Even within the civil rights movement, there was disagreement over this strategy, less-confrontational strategies and more extreme confrontational strategies. It was ultimately a mix of them that worked.

[StrangeSox]

I dunno, IMO the arrests/violence aspect of it does nothing but detract from the message and embolden those people against it. Can you tell me what the UC protestors were protesting for/against? I have no clue.

 

It was part of the OWS protests. Police were clearing tents off the quad and a group of students formed a line on the sidewalk by interlocking arms and sitting down.

 

All I know is some people that sat down and wouldn't leave despite being told to do so were hit with pepper spray, perhaps in an excessive amount.

 

You can read that report that I linked to several times that discusses the entirety of the known facts surrounding the incident, including the days leading up to it. The report found that the order to leave is not even well-established as a legal order, let alone the excessive use of force by deploying chemical weapons officers were not trained to use and didn't use correctly on non-violent protesters who posed no threat to person or property.

 

"Not obeying a police command unquestioningly" does not justify any police response that follows.