Occupy Wall Street

• Kueh wrote on 2011-09-27 18:04
  What could be an important development in the US, which I am very surprised to be only hearing about it now, from a friend of mine who lives in HongKong.
  
  The official site:
  occupywallst.org
  
  As the ninth day of organized peaceful protests goes on, tensions are getting pretty high. Already more than 80 arrests have been made and several accusations of police brutality against non-aggressors, including women.
  
  If you live in the US, you should do a google search for "Occupy Wall Street" to read more, as well as check the link, which is being updated constantly. The current top post has videos of police arrests and macings.
  
  The purpose of the protest is to raise awareness of corruption in the government, and to voice the general discontent of the unanimous public.
• TA wrote on 2011-09-27 18:30
  Wow, I hadn't even heard about this...
  
  They're macing people for just standing around behind barriers they set up, beating people for no apparent reason, dragging people into the street and cuffing them at random... what the hell...
• Kueh wrote on 2011-09-27 18:41

  Quote from TA;601314:

  Wow, I hadn't even heard about this...
  
  They're macing people for just standing around behind barriers they set up, beating people for no apparent reason, dragging people into the street and cuffing them at random... what the hell...

  
  
  My reaction exactly.
  
  And why the hell did I have to hear about it from someone in HongKong? This should be basic coverage and the protests have been going on for more than a week already!
• TA wrote on 2011-09-27 18:46
  I have heard absolutely nothing about this on the news... You'd think it would be the top story...
• Yoorah wrote on 2011-09-27 18:55
  Meh, dunno about the pepper spray thing, but people are stupid and one of the best ways to teach them a lesson is to kick their asses. Protesters that are truly peaceful don't get targeted. It's the assholes and those who break the law who do, and sometimes innocent bystanders do get caught in the mess as a result.
  
  The police have a job of maintaining order and security. They have more important things to do than babysit a bunch of troublemakers and thrill-seekers. They probably protested in a way that created problems for the area, so police were forced to waste resources to manage it, which is a shame.
  
  Protesting against Wall Street seems like a dumb idea in the first place, but I digress...
• Kueh wrote on 2011-09-27 18:57

  Quote from Yoorah;601342:

  Meh, dunno about the pepper spray thing, but people are stupid and one of the best ways to teach them a lesson is to kick their asses. Protesters that are truly peaceful don't get arrested. It's the assholes and those who break the law who do, and sometimes innocent bystanders do get caught in the mess as a result.
  
  The police have a job of maintaining order and security. They have more important things to do than babysit a bunch of troublemakers and thrill-seekers. They probably protested in a way that created problems for the area, so police were forced to waste resources to manage it, which is a shame.
  
  Protesting against Wall Street seems like a dumb idea in the first place, but I digress...

  
  
  You obviously haven't even followed the link just to look at the page, so I have nothing to say, since most of what you're saying doesn't even apply. Just for your edification, in case you still don't want to do any of your own research, they're not protesting against Wall Street. They're protesting AT Wall Street.
• Yoorah wrote on 2011-09-27 19:05
  Everything I said does apply because the big issue here is the alleged police brutality. And they are protesting at Wall Street for a reason. lol
  
  Also, it seems that you didn't hear about it because you don't follow the news:
  [video=youtube;Wg9v3EGzI7Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg9v3EGzI7Q[/video]
  
  Google and you will probably find plenty more.
• Kueh wrote on 2011-09-27 19:15

  Quote from Yoorah;601360:

  Also, it seems that you didn't hear about it because you don't follow the news:

  
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_(fallacy)
  Just because I didn't see it in any of my news sources does not mean I don't follow the news. Of course you're going to find hits when you google it. But go to any news page. Any of them. This should be on the front page. The fact remains that news outlets and the general media are largely ignoring this.
  
  And, no, what you said doesn't apply, because the people who were being arrested weren't being violent, they weren't carrying themselves in a way that would suggest aggression, and they weren't inciting violence or causing a need for any other person to be protected in any way. The protests are quite peaceful. (Aside from police involvement.)
• TA wrote on 2011-09-27 19:23
  Well, I watch the weather in the morning and evening and I haven't heard a word about it.
• Yoorah wrote on 2011-09-27 19:39
  lol @ wiki link. I was just pointing out that it's been out there on multiple news media and you simply missed it. You were making it sound like there was some conspiracy to cover it up. I also think that stuff like the UN meeting and the economic crisis in Europe (and the US) are more newsworthy stories than a bunch of hippies getting their butts kicked because they couldn't behave themselves.
  
  I came across this post which put it nicely:
  

  
  That's why the white-shirts are macing people, because the white shirts are the ones under pressure to get this shut down. Instead of having slap fights with low level cops, the protests are hitting the department where it hurts, the budget, where the ones who suffer will be higher up the food chain. This constant police presence, not funded out of an anti-terror budget, has to be wreaking havok on their shift schedules and OT budgeting. The fact is, because of the sensitive nature of the location, the department HAS to respond disproportionately by expending massive resources and, yes, perpetrating violent reprisals. They have to have a constant extra detail of cops watching the protesters, at least a one to one ratio, 24/7. A long grind like this has to be a big, weeping hole in the department's budget.
  
  The fact that the protesters are breaking out and randomly walking around the city - poo poo, what a loving mess to have to deal with from a police staffing perspective.
  
  The rank and file aren't the ones macing the protesters because the rank and file are scoring sweet, sweet limitless overtime, which they desperately need to supplement their $24,000 entry level wages. Babysitting nonviolent hippies in a safe location with plenty of decent restaurants around is a really sweet OT gig if you can get it.
  
  Spit in a patrolman's face and the big blue machine doesn't sweat it - that's what it's there for. Hit it in the pocketbook and you'll get white shirted high ranking types under pressure to shut it down. That's why the white shirts are the ones with the mace.
  
  No more perfect location could have been chosen, in my estimation. This protest is a big, blank check on the department's bottom line, and these stupid, disorganized, unemployed loving hippies, just by sitting around and eating peanut butter, are tacking on the zeroes. This is the very definition of an ideal strategy when facing such a gross asymmetry of power.

  
  From SomethingAwful. x3
• Kueh wrote on 2011-09-27 19:52

  Quote from Yoorah;601408:

  lol @ wiki link. I was just pointing out that it's been out there on multiple news media and you simply missed it. You were making it sound like there was some conspiracy to cover it up.

  
  
  No, I wasn't. I was just surprised by the lack of coverage. This really should be top story news, but it isn't. That's all there is to it, and I'm not the only one to notice.
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/23/keith-olbermann-michael-moore-occupy-wall-street_n_978052.html
  I never said I thought anyone was covering it up.
  Whatever your intentions were, it was still a logical fallacy to say that just because I missed the coverage that was there means that I don't follow the news.
  
  

  Quote from Yoorah;601408:

  I also think that stuff like the UN meeting and the economic crisis in Europe (and the US) are more newsworthy stories than a bunch of hippies getting their butts kicked because they couldn't behave themselves.

  
  
  You are entitled to however many opinions that you want. If that's how you feel, go make a thread.
  
  

  Quote from Yoorah;601408:

  I came across this post which put it nicely:

  
  
  That post actually does put it nicely. It does it in sort of a surreptitious way, but it admits that the reason people are being maced is NOT because they were being violent, but because the protests are being effective. Also, if you would read the front page, or just do a little google search of your own (or maybe even watch your own video that you posted), you wouldn't call them a bunch of hippies.
  
  The people involved in the protest come from a diverse scope of backgrounds, and it's another fallacy to just call them all hippies and say this shouldn't surprise us. It should surprise us, even if they are all hippies!
  
  Even one link you go to would explain the huge variety of involved members. They come from all religious groups, all political groups, and all social groups, and pretty much every article I've read so far has at least one or two paragraphs devoted to listing the various histories of protesters. (In fact, many ex-cops are protesters, and many currently enlisted cops have refused to go to work over the unjust brutality.)
• TA wrote on 2011-09-27 20:22
  Yoorah, the people aren't doing anything illegal. There's no reason for the police to get violent with them like that. These aren't rioters or looters.
  
  The people have a right to a peaceful protest. This is just police brutality.
• Yoorah wrote on 2011-09-27 20:35

  Quote from Lyre;601416:

  No, I wasn't. I was just surprised by the lack of coverage. This really should be top story news, but it isn't. That's all there is to it, and I'm not the only one to notice.
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/23/keith-olbermann-michael-moore-occupy-wall-street_n_978052.html
  I never said I thought anyone was covering it up.
  Whatever your intentions were, it was still a logical fallacy to say that just because I missed the coverage that was there means that I don't follow the news.

  
  It should have been easy enough to understand that I meant that you didn't look well enough. xd
  
  

  Quote from Lyre;601416:

  You are entitled to however many opinions that you want. If that's how you feel, go make a thread.

  
  Nope, it's relevant to this thread because it's a possible explanation for why this event wasn't covered as much as you thought it should have been.
  
  

  Quote from Lyre;601416:

  That post actually does put it nicely. It does it in sort of a surreptitious way, but it admits that the reason people are being maced is NOT because they were being violent, but because the protests are being effective. Also, if you would read the front page, or just do a little google search of your own (or maybe even watch your own video that you posted), you wouldn't call them a bunch of hippies.
  
  The people involved in the protest come from a diverse scope of backgrounds, and it's another fallacy to just call them all hippies and say this shouldn't surprise us. It should surprise us, even if they are all hippies!
  
  Even one link you go to would explain the huge variety of involved members. They come from all religious groups, all political groups, and all social groups, and pretty much every article I've read so far has at least one or two paragraphs devoted to listing the various histories of protesters. (In fact, many ex-cops are protesters, and many currently enlisted cops have refused to go to work over the unjust brutality.)

  
  Just because the protest is causing damage in terms of massive unnecessarily taxpayer costs, it doesn't mean it's an effective protest. Well, I suppose it's effective at causing damage, but I don't see how that's a positive outcome. It creates a significant problem for the city both in terms of finances and in terms of security. If the police have to beat up a few idiots (many of whom started fights with police themselves) to diffuse this mess, then it's worth it.
  
  You have to understand that the protest was a mess from the beginning because it was so unorganized. The protesters didn't even know what they were going to protest against when they got there. There seems to be quite a bit of discussion going on about it on Reddit, and I liked this post:
  

  I probably express the view of almost every moderately minded person in America when I say that there should be some change in society. There should be an outcry of frustration at some elements of the destruction of the working and middle class. But I do not agree with the protest. I live in the NYC area and I work in Manhattan. I have seen the protests up close. I am disturbed at the disorganized element that exists within. I am frightened at the lack of understanding that those kids (the majority seem to be disillusioned 20somethings) have about life and how things work.
  
  It has been increasingly difficult to read what has been posted on reddit about these protests, and even more difficult to comment on them. I find myself sucked into a downward spiral of name calling when I do not mean to and I am accused of being right wing for raising questions about certain ideas and elements.
  
  The idea that we should have more protests of this type is just plain wrong. The organizers of this protest (if they can even be called that with such lack of organization) have shown little tactical ability and a dearth of understanding in how to deal with police, the media or the public at large.
  
  For people on reddit in r/politics who seem to revel in their political knowledge, particularly of a left wing nature, they seem to have no understanding of how to put together a powerful or meaningful political movement.
  
  So that brings me to my real point: The protest I would like to see, the protest that would work.
  
  First: pick a point or goal and stick to it. Tell everyone to stick to it. This isn’t the free Troy Davis protest, this isn’t the anti republican protest, this should be the “Wall street has wronged us” protest. That’s it. Period. Get rid of all other signs.
  
  Second: organize, organize, organize. Tell everyone to wear the same color, for instance. Make a visual impact. That imprints itself on the psyche of people who see it. If you are going to march, march in a controlled way (meaning, know where you are going and be sure to keep the group together and on target). Get people to make signs with the same message, so that there is uniformity.
  
  Thirdly: The police are your friends, if you want them to be. If this is really a focused protest, with organization, then the police will respond accordingly. Talk to them, the more you engage them the more they work with you. They probably agree with you, but they are there to maintain order. If they see you are organized, and you communicate, then they aren’t going to beat you or mace you. But they must also know that you are firm in your goals (see point #1).
  
  Forth: You must, MUST embrace the movements of MLK and Gandhi. This can’t look like a hippie movement. Mainstream America doesn’t like hippies any more than they like right wing racists. Its just a plain fact, and you waving your hippienessin in our face just makes us happy when the cops mace you. Take a page from MLK. Wear a tie. Walk arm in arm. If not a tie, then at least a uniform color to look organized. Look NEAT, presentable. As movement, you must express a quiet anger. Not shouting and blowing whistles. This isn’t a soccer game.
  
  IF IT WERE MY MOVEMENT: Taking all of the above, here is what I would do if it were my movement. I would make my stated aim a sitdown protest on the stock exchange floor. I would then organize all of my protesters at Bowling Green (subway stop downtown in a park). I would instruct everyone to wear the same color, and be neat and presentable. I would state our aim on a website. I would ensure there were ony a few signs, stating our aim, and requesting economic change on wall street. I would tell the police, politely but firmly that we would be marching. I would then march… arm in arm, 4 to a row, towards the stock exchange. I would use the sidewalks as not to block traffic.
  
  HERE COMES THE HARD PART: No movement is successful or has impact without the hard part. We must march, slowly, nonviolently towards the Exchange, arm in arm. We must force the police to bodily restrain us, mace us, do whatever they want to, without ever raising a hand. We must do this in a row, person after person, row after row… must be seen being dragged away without raising a finger. Without screaming, or acting in any way other than passively. America must have a visual of Wall Street blocking access to the middle class, to the people it is supposedly here for. Common ordinary Americans must be made to sympathize and must realize how badly our economy has split between the haves and have nots.

  
  
  

  Quote from TA;601461:

  Yoorah, the people aren't doing anything illegal. There's no reason for the police to get violent with them like that. These aren't rioters or looters.
  
  The people have a right to a peaceful protest. This is just police brutality.

  
  Well, to be honest, I don't know the technicalities of the law there. But today, here in Canada, we had protests going on against the major oil pipeline project, at Parliament Hill. Police set up a security perimeter and it was illegal to cross it, but people did anyway, so they got arrested. Maybe it's a similar deal with those nets they use in NYC.
• TA wrote on 2011-09-27 20:43

  Quote from Yoorah;601474:

  Well, to be honest, I don't know the technicalities of the law there. But today, here in Canada, we had protests going on against the major oil pipeline project, at Parliament Hill. Police set up a security perimeter and it was illegal to cross it, but people did anyway, so they got arrested. Maybe it's a similar deal with those nets they use in NYC.

  
  
  If you watch the videos, that's clearly not the case. Hell, they're even pulling people from outside the perimeter into the perimeter, beating them, then arresting them. People just standing around. There were some innocent girls just standing around, and a cop walked up and maced them. They were like 3 ft from a barrier and nobody said anything to them. There was no reason for it.
  
  The police are dragging people into the street and beating/arresting them just for talking to them or recording what's going on, or for no particular reason even.
  
  Watch the videos in the OP link.
• Kueh wrote on 2011-09-27 21:03

  Quote from Yoorah;601474:

  It should have been easy enough to understand that I meant that you didn't look well enough. xd

  
  
  You should say what you mean.
  
  

  Quote from Yoorah;601474:

  Nope, it's relevant to this thread because it's a possible explanation for why this event wasn't covered as much as you thought it should have been.

  
  
  I'm not even sure how to respond to this. First off, just possible? You're going to not make a thread on something you feel over on the possible chance that it explains some small part of another thread? Second, I went to a few random news sites, and I haven't seen any of that other stuff either. So that really shows signs of negligence if the reason why they haven't covered one event is because of devoting resources to cover a more important event that they aren't covering. Third, if it's more important enough to draw resources from coverage away, it's at least important enough for its own thread, even if it is relevant
  
  

  Quote from Yoorah;601474:

  Just because the protest is causing damage in terms of massive unnecessarily taxpayer costs, it doesn't mean it's an effective protest. Well, I suppose it's effective at causing damage, but I don't see how that's a positive outcome. It creates a significant problem for the city both in terms of finances and in terms of security. If the police have to beat up a few idiots (many of whom started fights with police themselves) to diffuse this mess, then it's worth it.

  
  
  So, all you've done is harp over my choice of the word effective, to distract from the fact that most of these people are not being violent, yet are being brutalized. I know you say that most of them are starting fights, and that most of them are idiots, but that's not only not true (where are you getting this that most of the encounters come from people that start fights?), but also yet another fallacy. So what if someone is an idiot. That is not and never will be an excuse to physically harm them.
  
  

  Quote from Yoorah;601474:

  You have to understand that the protest was a mess from the beginning because it was so unorganized. The protesters didn't even know what they were going to protest against when they got there.

  
  
  There has been quite a bit of organization, actually. I don't really feel like citing the same source twice, but this article covers it.
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tracey-e-vitchers/occupyingnot-riotingwall-_b_980003.html
  

  Additionally, the demonstration was not as disorganized as some media outlets have argued. Rather, it was highly organized and based on consensus.

  
  
  The second sentence is so subjective, I can't really say anything about it other than point out the fact that it's subjective.
  
  

  Quote from Yoorah;601474:

  There seems to be quite a bit of discussion going on about it on Reddit, and I liked this post:
  
  
  
  Well, to be honest, I don't know the technicalities of the law there. But today, here in Canada, we had protests going on against the major oil pipeline project, at Parliament Hill. Police set up a security perimeter and it was illegal to cross it, but people did anyway, so they got arrested. Maybe it's a similar deal with those nets they use in NYC.

  
  
  I'm not actually there, so I can't comment on how reliable or accurate that person is when he comments on the level of organization. He might be right, he might be wrong. I'll just pretend he was right and go on to say that being loud is not the same as being violent.
  
  Could the people have stood to model themselves more after MLK and Ghandi? Of course. Those were some of the most influential people leading some of the most influential movements of their times. Does not following their model warrant being beaten? Of course not!
  
  I'll remind you that MLK and Ghandi were dealing with issues of genocide. These were just supposed to be people disgruntled with being overlooked. There shouldn't have been a need to take such lengths.
  
  In closing, as TA has kindly pointed out, these people were not being belligerent, they were not being hostile, and they were not causing any sort of chaos. They were just a little loud because of the fact that they were seeing people being literally beaten in front of their eyes.
  
  [Edit: I'd just like to make and addendum. I don't think that none of the arrests were instigated. There will always be excited idiots who join the the bandwagon just for the adrenaline rush. Even if you were to go so far as to say that most of the arrests were instigated, there would still be a major crime being committed, because none of the police should let themselves get caught up in the moment so much that they abuse an innocent person.]