Operation Occupy Wall Street

[Jibble]

But what did they actually DO that was violent or a protest? Stop talking about "But they said things!" and "But they carried guns!" When did they actually defy police orders, or do anything that would in any way require a police response?

Yeah, they never did anything violent. Ever.

And tell me, how is attending a meeting considered "occupying"??

So you're downgrading the organization of a group of people to shout down a meeting as "attendance". Cute.

I get that you want to justify the claim that Tea Partiers got preferential treatment from police, where OWS does not.

Not so much, no. I'm simply putting the lie to the suggestion that the Tea Party was a completely benign event.

But to make your case, you have to argue that a name is violent

Wrong poster. I'm not arguing that. I pointed out that the name was simply a cute slogan given to them by a business reporter. It gave them an excuse to get out their tri-corner hats and "Don't Tread on Me" flag and get together for Founding Fathers Super Fun Cosplay Time.

or that speaking out is the same as resisting arrest

I didn't suggest that at all. You're propping up strawmen all over the place here.

or that attending a meeting is the same as "occupying."

Again, "attending". Going into a public space, spreading out to get maximum effect, and screaming at the top of your lungs to drown out any meaningful chance of debate seems like an occupation of the space to me. Before you try to prop up another strawman, I'm not suggesting that it's the same thing as trespassing in a public park for three months, but let's please stop pretending that the Tea Party was innocent of any wrongdoing.

[Fishbreath]

Like I said, I've no problem with OWS, but my own sense of scale forces me to point out the absurdity of comparisons with groups that are fighting brutal dictatorships. The United States has many problems, but it's not a dictatorship or any kind of police state.

It's really not worth defending yourself. There are about four schools of thought on OWS, two of which are relevant here:

1. People with sympathy toward the problems that they see, who think that there are some criticisms the movement deserves. You seem to go in this one. People here are generally okay.
2. Rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth, any-negative-comment-deserves-a-pile-on supporters of the movement. A lot of the posts in this thread come from members of this group, and no matter how much you agree with them, if you're saying anything that's not glowingly positive about Their Movement, then you're the enemy.

[Fishbreath]

When you get to countries like Russia, you start to get close, and that should trouble everyone.

Curiosity: what's your experience with Russia?

[mrmolecule88]

blah blah blah Qt3 groupthink bullshit

It wouldn't sound so dumb if Mad Hatter, Lum, and I hadn't all kept it civil.

[The Mad Hatter]

That's nice; when I went to Occupy Baltimore, they seemed like a friendly bunch, and I got into a great hour-and-a-half long 3way argument with a history professor at UMD and a doctor who owns a family practice.

The difference between me and you is that you take your shallow anecdote and don't bother to even hesitate in applying it to everyone everywhere, not to mention the fantastic digs at people believing "similar things".

I guess I'm in that phase of my life where I believe "similar things", like incorporating externalities into the cost of doing business and eliminating subsidies for large agricorps. Naive, crazy things that only a hippie would believe, amirite.

I was being a tad facetious. I guess I don't take these things very seriously.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Even aside from the militarization of the police under the banner of the charming agency above, arguing that the US isn't "any kind of police state" is eloquently disproven by the relative treatment of tea party protesters (who were given run of wherever they went with police protection and the usual protest infrastructure such as PA systems, lighting, and sanitation) and OWS (who from day one were harassed by police, prevented from using any bullhorns much less PA systems, and who were eventually put down with brutal force).

Is the US as oppressive as North Korea? Burma? or China? Of course not.

When you get to countries like Russia, you start to get close, and that should trouble everyone.

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.

[Fishbreath]

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.

[Morberis]

Here's a somewhat enhanced copy of that photo:



I can't vouch for the identification, of course.

Hmm it appears that they've upgraded 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.

[Scuzz]

It's really not worth defending yourself. There are about four schools of thought on OWS, two of which are relevant here:

1. People with sympathy toward the problems that they see, who think that there are some criticisms the movement deserves. You seem to go in this one. People here are generally okay.
2. Rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth, any-negative-comment-deserves-a-pile-on supporters of the movement. A lot of the posts in this thread come from members of this group, and no matter how much you agree with them, if you're saying anything that's not glowingly positive about Their Movement, then you're the enemy.

Bingo!

[mrmolecule88]

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]

If you agree about complaining about the groupthink, that makes you the groupthink!

Food for thought.

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.

[Andy Bates]

So, what is this violence that OWS has perpetrated that resulted in their treatment by police? This argument is skewing off into a weird territory.

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.

Again, I ask why there weren't more arrests of the more energetic protesters at the town hall meetings.

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.

So you're downgrading the organization of a group of people to shout down a meeting as "attendance". Cute.

Well, it's not "occupation" as defined by the Occupy Wall Street events.

Not so much, no.

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'm simply putting the lie to the suggestion that the Tea Party was a completely benign event.

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.

Wrong poster. I'm not arguing that.
...
I didn't suggest that at all. You're propping up strawmen all over the place here.

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.

Again, "attending". Going into a public space, spreading out to get maximum effect, and screaming at the top of your lungs to drown out any meaningful chance of debate seems like an occupation of the space to me. Before you try to prop up another strawman, I'm not suggesting that it's the same thing as trespassing in a public park for three months, but let's please stop pretending that the Tea Party was innocent of any wrongdoing.

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]

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.

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:

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.

You do realize you posted this in the same post:

I don't know who has been suggesting that, but I certainly haven't.

[charmtrap]

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:

http://xkcd.com/980/

Sources here:

http://xkcd.com/980/sources/

[Andy Bates]

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".

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?

I guess it's cool so long as they didn't do any trespassing or resisting arrest.

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.

And this, just for humor's sake:

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.

[Valentine]

By the way, I love how you characterize the Tea Partiers who do not do anything illegal as the "angry extremists."

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.

[Kolonial]

I realize that not going total lefty or total righty somehow confuses many of you but I really don't give a shit. I don't have to swear by either extreme.
If that bothers you put me on ignore, I really don't give a damn.

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!

[Desert Journeyman]

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?"

[Andy Bates]

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.

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.

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.

But not the kind of "angry extremism" that would provoke or prevent a police response, which was the entire point.

[Jason McCullough]

LISTEN TO OLD MAN

[amerihero]

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.

[Kolonial]

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.

[David Erikson]

Hmm it appears that they've upgraded 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.

That glorious cop has been suspended without pay.

http://www.metro.us/newyork/national...ut-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...

[Valentine]

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.

"Calmly pepper spraying a bunch of non violent young men and women sitting on the ground is one thing, trying to do the same against angry extremists who feel the need to point to the fact that they are carrying a gun is another. "
I can go back and reread what's being said so...I'm not sure what you think you're doing.
I just quoted exactly what you responded to up above, it's there in quotations. I don't see any mention of Tea Baggers or Occupiers.

Yet you SOMEHOW knew exactly which group was being referred to as "angry extremists"

Now, two possibilities: you remember all the "We came unarmed (this time) signs and actual rifles present at Tea Bagger rallies and are playing dumb to suit your cause.

Or you're the new evolution in humankind that's unlocked the mysterious human brain and have harnessed it's awesome power to read mens minds, nay their very soul, and we should all bow BOW BEFORE YOUR MIGHTY MIND POWERS FOR YOU ARE DOCTOR BRAINO, MAN OF THE FUTOORE!!

Honestly I just wanna know if we even need elections or if you'll be holding mankind's puny fate in your magnificent grasp.

But not the kind of "angry extremism" that would provoke or prevent a police response, which was the entire point.

No, the point is one side is angry and armed, the other is angry and has drum circles and the police response is overwhelmingly heavy handed toward the non-armed than the other. The kind of eye-rolling-obvious-but-still-funny observation people are going to make

[David Erikson]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...prss=arts-post

[Fishbreath]

I don't see any mention of Tea Baggers or Occupiers.

Then you're either being massively disingenuous or you're literally one of the stupidest people I've ever come across.

[Andy Bates]

"Calmly pepper spraying a bunch of non violent young men and women sitting on the ground is one thing, trying to do the same against angry extremists who feel the need to point to the fact that they are carrying a gun is another. "
I can go back and reread what's being said so...I'm not sure what you think you're doing.
I just quoted exactly what you responded to up above, it's there in quotations. I don't see any mention of Tea Baggers or Occupiers.

Yet you SOMEHOW knew exactly which group was being referred to as "angry extremists"

Now, two possibilities: you remember all the "We came unarmed (this time) signs and actual rifles present at Tea Bagger rallies and are playing dumb to suit your cause.

Or you're the new evolution in humankind that's unlocked the mysterious human brain and have harnessed it's awesome power to read mens minds, nay their very soul, and we should all bow BOW BEFORE YOUR MIGHTY MIND POWERS FOR YOU ARE DOCTOR BRAINO, MAN OF THE FUTOORE!!

Or I read the one sentence that you deliberately cut out:

Tea party rallies were also full of people VERY openly carrying firearms in an attempt to get attention as well.

Calmly pepper spraying a bunch of non violent young men and women sitting on the ground is one thing, trying to do the same against angry extremists who feel the need to point to the fact that they are carrying a gun is another.

Or I read your earlier post:

I didn't see these type of police tactics used at Tea Party rallies.

Yes, I have developed the awesome power to read what is written. Amazing!

No, the point is one side is angry and armed, the other is angry and has drum circles and the police response is overwhelmingly heavy handed toward the non-armed than the other.

No, the point is that one group is obeying the law, and the other group is defying the law. You ignore that fact, then act incredulous that the police respond differently to the two groups. That's your own disingenuousness, not any sort of police conspiracy.

[madkevin]

I never conceded that the Boston Tea Party was violent; I asked if they ever did something AS violent as that. Since you can't find anything that Tea Partiers did that was as violent as the Boston Tea Party, the whole question about whether or not that event was violent is, again, moot.

That's your totally arbitrary framing of the question, Andy, not mine. I'm not sure why you think the only possible valid way to make a connection between the two groups is if the current one, I don't know, burned down a EPA office or something. They chose the name deliberately to invoke the anger at their (wrongly) perceived tax burden; the name "Tea Party" is supposed to convey to the people they think are in power to watch it, or the people will rise up. Why do you think they chose the name?

I mean, I suppose they could just be fans of bad Canadian rock groups, but I sorta doubt it. I sorta doubt they even know where Canada is.

Let's remember, before you decided to start heaving goalposts up and down the field, I was responding to your claim that the Tea Party is characterized as "angry extremists". If they didn't want to be thought of as angry, then they should have called themselves "The Ladies Auxiliary Tea Time Luncheon & Social". Because I think the original Tea Partiers were kinda angry.

[Andy Bates]

That's your totally arbitrary framing of the question, Andy, not mine. I'm not sure why you think the only possible valid way to make a connection between the two groups is if the current one, I don't know, burned down a EPA office or something.

Because it was argued that police were afraid to act against Tea Partiers because they are afraid of "angry extremists who feel the need to point to the fact that they are carrying a gun." I pointed out, accurately, that the current Tea Party does not have any history of acting against police, or disobeying the law through any sort of resistance, and in fact they make sure to get legal permits before any sort of event or protest. If your only argument is, "Well, the original Boston Tea Party involved people breaking the law," that is no kind of argument whatsoever.

They chose the name deliberately to invoke the anger at their (wrongly) perceived tax burden; the name "Tea Party" is supposed to convey to the people they think are in power to watch it, or the people will rise up. Why do you think they chose the name?

Given that the Boston Tea Party did not involve threatening or resisting police officers, I'm sure they didn't choose it to threaten police.

Let's remember, before you decided to start heaving goalposts up and down the field, I was responding to your claim that the Tea Party is characterized as "angry extremists".

So you're saying that police feel threatened by Tea Partiers, because they feel threatened by the name of a 200-year-old political event? Okay, good luck with that.

[Valentine]

Then you're either being massively disingenuous or you're literally one of the stupidest people I've ever come across.

Or I was being deliberately obtuse to prove a point!
You see how your options just open up when you're not so close minded! That should be a lesson to you.

However, the simple fact remains that you can clearly tell whom I'm talking about in that paragraph even taken out of context "One side is angry and has guns and threats, one side is angry and has drum circles and Star Wars themed protest signs"
Which group would you be more comfortable around?

But wait! One side is...is...in a park for longer than the owners wish!!!!! Oh those terrible, terrible criminals and their terrible, terrible right to assemble! How can you possibly feel safe around them??
All this bombastic talk of "criminals" and "illegal activity" is wildly over the top language.
Most of these people don't NEED "permits" or "permission", most are in PUBLIC parks or on public streets.