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.
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'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.
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.
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.
I guess it's cool so long as they didn't do any trespassing or resisting arrest.
And this, just for humor's sake:
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:
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 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.
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?"
LISTEN TO OLD MAN
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 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...
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.
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 makeBut not the kind of "angry extremism" that would provoke or prevent a police response, which was the entire point.
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.
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.