tain.totalcodex.net

punkUser wrote:Governments simply do not have the same power that they used to to completely restrict the flow of information, so there's really no compelling reason why any violent action has to be taken to get your points out.

They are trying to get the power back though. Power hates to give up power. I think the internet blacklist bill here (though it's supporters are smart enough not to call it a 'blacklist') in the US is one of the early salvos in the war to regain control - if passed it would allow the government to force ISPs and search engines to redirect or dump users' attempts to reach certain websites' URLs - e.g. any website the government doesn't want people to see.

oogaBooga wrote: They werent rioters. There was no rioting. It was a combination of overzealous cops and a few bad apples (anarchist fuckwads and radicals) who did something dumb enough to trigger the cops and their poor judgement. The mass majority of protesters were nonviolent and I myself witnessed the start of it.

I agree, but that's always how it starts. Once a "riot"/situation breaks out - which is always only a few people doing it - the many spectators are really just as much of an issue. Consider: had there not been so many people standing around there, would the police really have needed much force to round up the half dozen people actually committing crimes? More importantly, if there hadn't been so many people watching, would those people even have continued committing crimes? Like I said, people are spurred on by the confidence that being in a group gives and as the articles that I linked discuss, the larger the crowd, confusingly the *less* likely that anyone will intervene.

Again - read my responses. I'm not saying don't go there in the first place or anything. As long as it remains totally peaceful it's all good. But *be prepared*. If it turns violent - even if just a few people are doing it - it's time to leave/disperse. Staying/watching once asked to leave is making yourself a part of the problem.

Quit making the statement 'staying once asked to leave' cause really that's BS, and a moot point. If you see shit going down at all, leave. Asked or not. Just leave. Common fucking sense in my mind. Something I learned working in retail though, is that on the whole... "people" are stupid. So I guess it's not much of a surprise "people" don't use common sense.

Graydon wrote:If you see shit going down at all, leave. Asked or not. Just leave.

Sure, agreed; I just wanted to give a bit of latitude to cover the case of ignorance.

punkUser wrote:I agree, but that's always how it starts. Once a "riot"/situation breaks out - which is always only a few people doing it - the many spectators are really just as much of an issue. Consider: had there not been so many people standing around there, would the police really have needed much force to round up the half dozen people actually committing crimes? More importantly, if there hadn't been so many people watching, would those people even have continued committing crimes? Like I said, people are spurred on by the confidence that being in a group gives and as the articles that I linked discuss, the larger the crowd, confusingly the *less* likely that anyone will intervene.

Again - read my responses. I'm not saying don't go there in the first place or anything. As long as it remains totally peaceful it's all good. But *be prepared*. If it turns violent - even if just a few people are doing it - it's time to leave/disperse. Staying/watching once asked to leave is making yourself a part of the problem.

I completely disagree. Not leaving is the point of this protest, as in 'occupy'. If protesters left every time they were asked they'd all be gone. Id rather the cops in question be singled out and dealt with due to all the footage being taken - oakland (and the rest of the world) has enough overzealous power-hungry ex-bully victims as it is. This "if anyone forces a confrontation with you just leave" attitude is completely ineffective. If you want to get something done you have to take a risk. The cops handled it worse than the protesters, random troublemaker fanatics and all.

Today was a significant day in the protests, as thousands marches from just down the street from my house (Mosswood Park) to downtown, and it was and so far has remained peacful, even after shutting down the port. I think the real deal is that the mayor and the police learned their lesson about aggression and intimidation tactics like the ones used during the raid on Frank H Ogawa's tent city (and the nights repercussions) that caused our mayor to almost resign in disgust.

As much as I loathe the type of "camp followers" that any large gathering has and always will attract, the actual heart of the movement is, contrary to popular conservative belief, more than just a bunch of lazy kids who want a handout. There is actual, legitimate civil unrest on a very large scale due to some very real issues, and it really sucks that a bunch of drunken vagabonds have to divert, disrupt and discredit what could potentially be the next big civil rights movement (this time class-specific and not race- or gender-specific). What they need is a leader, or several leaders, and a more cohesive plan. And a way to identify and oust those who are obviously just hangers-on or troublemakers. What they DON'T need is to crumple under the first sign of pressure from the establishment.

Hey, this is the forum police. Everyone in this thread disperse now!

::prepares the tear gas::

Again, I have nothing against the movement, but I completely disagree that without basically supporting violent protest no change can happen. That is directly contradicted by some very significant change that has happened totally peacefully in the past.

Just realize that it's not an win-win tactic... movements gain as many enemies as support by causing violence and civil unrest. Many of us would rather you appeal to our reason instead. Like I said - nothing is preventing open communication here so it's a stretch to say there's any need for violent action, or really forceful action of any type.

I'm not a US native but I agree there are significant issues to be dealt with. That said, my support for the protests wanes quickly when they turn nasty.

PS: Nice Pyro

Absolutely valid points Ooga. I think in general, protests are FAR less likely to come to violent fruition if there's some sort of figurehead leading the demonstration who has a good grasp on the issues at hand and no intention of a violent demonstration. I said before that "people" are stupid. "People" are also sheep, and if there's a shepherd, they will follow willingly. It's when there's no leadership that the one-off troublemakers get to demonstrate their piece and gain the 'glory' of having people watch them do it.

Nobody said anything about "supporting violent protests", PunkUser, not sure where you keep getting that idea.

Its unfortunate oakland has a lot of 'anarchist' types. Lot of squatters, too.

This is the first time I checked this forum since I started the thread. And if I had the time to read all of your posts I would still not have the time to post a good reply. But if I did have this sort of time I would probably be spending it playing myth or something constructive. However I did read Punkuser's first post. Sometimes the only way to remove tyranny is to turn a protest violent.

Now here is the phrase everyone has probably heard so many times.

Do you like your freedom? What freedom you have, you have only because Americans 200 years ago were willing to riot and rebel.

Unless you arnt American, but if you are posting in english here you are possibly in a former British Empire colony which means you should still appreciate the value of refusal to bend the knee.

P.S.

VR, you are aware of government encroachments on the freedom of speech on the internet?

O Frabjous day! Calloo! Calah!

Omicron wrote: Do you like your freedom? What freedom you have, you have only because Americans 200 years ago were willing to riot and rebel.

Yeah probably a bad example as Canada's split from Britain was quite non-violent

Of course I'm not saying that Canada's peaceful independence was completely unrelated to stuff going on in the rest of the world (i.e. USA), but it'd also be hard to argue that violence was absolutely *required* either. Looking at a situation where violence produced a desired outcome historically does not necessarily prove (or even imply) that the same end could never have been attained peacefully.

And even if you believe violence is necessary to attain an end, you can hardly cry foul when violent protest is met with forceful opposition.

punkUser wrote:And even if you believe violence is necessary to attain an end, you can hardly cry foul when violent protest is met with forceful opposition.

Again, a small series of disenfranchised youths jumping on top of cars, vandalizing and taunting police is not representative of the movement on a general scale. Check who was actually injured and on what side and in what numbers and you'll get a better idea of the lack of restraint and eagerness towards violence that the oakland PD has shown. I'm not sure what news you subscribe to but the movement and protesters (the real ones, not the inevitable fanatics that make up roughly 0.02% of any protest) have all advocated nonviolence. You seem to be blanketing the entire movement with judgement based on the actions of a very very small minority of people.

oogaBooga wrote:You seem to be blanketing the entire movement with judgement based on the actions of a very very small minority of people.

Not at all, but I'm not going to repeat what I've written. And in all honesty, question whether you're doing the same with the police/government.

punkUser wrote:

oogaBooga wrote:You seem to be blanketing the entire movement with judgement based on the actions of a very very small minority of people.

Not at all, but I'm not going to repeat what I've written. And in all honesty, question whether you're doing the same with the police/government.

It's true that there are a lot of good police officers, but since they hold the power in terms of law, it only takes one to start a fight, and in the end, they wont get in trouble for it.

Now, it's true that crowds attract assholes that will destroy stuff/cause trouble, but if you disperse because of that, then all it would take is a few assholes to ruin anything. We don't pull up the roadways because some people crash on them.