Occupy Wall Street

• Yoorah wrote on 2011-09-27 21:13
  I did watch 'em. Like I wrote in my first post, I don't have much to say about the pepper spray incident. As mentioned, the high ranking officers (like the one who used the spray) are under pressure to put this costly mess under control and end it. It's easy for us to judge the officers from the comfort of our computer chairs, playing it on youtube. In the officer's shoes, it's a very different situation.
  
  While I don't support police brutality, in a situation like the one happening there, I also cannot blame police for resorting to it (and unfortunately, sometimes going overboard).
• Kueh wrote on 2011-09-27 21:21

  Quote from Yoorah;601517:

  I did watch 'em. Like I wrote in my first post, I don't have much to say about the pepper spray incident. As mentioned, the high ranking officers (like the one who used the spray) are under pressure to put this costly mess under control and end it. It's easy for us to judge the officers from the comfort of our computer chairs, playing it on youtube. In the officer's shoes, it's a very different situation.
  
  While I don't support police brutality, in a situation like the one happening there, I also cannot blame police for resorting to it (and unfortunately, sometimes going overboard).

  
  
  Shame.
  
  It's shameful to say that it's okay to beat another person just because you're getting some heat from the big guys upstairs. This kind of behavior is exactly the kind of stuff under protest.
  
  If someone told me to handle any situation by using physical violence against another human being, I would be losing my job.
• Yoorah wrote on 2011-09-27 22:13
  You're being way too naive about it.
  
  As is often the case where people make poor judgments, it's usually due to a lack of context and broad view. It doesn't take much thought to realize that "beating another person = bad," but you have to think a bit more than that. More specifically, you have to take into account the atmosphere, the location of the protests, the anti-terrorism operations in the area and how it's all set up and affected by such actions. Law enforcement in the area is on edge 24/7 even without those idiots gathering there and making everything way more difficult than it already is. In terms of logistics, it is a nightmare. Do you have any idea how much all of this will cost? How will it be paid for, and at the expense of what?
  
  It's not like the officers are inflicting serious injuries for the most part, either. It's more an effective psychological way of persuading them noobs to go home.
  
  In the end, the protest does cause significant harm. Not only is it costing the city massive amounts of money, much like a riot would, but it's also using up security personnel that would otherwise be doing important work elsewhere, to ensure the security of the residents. This is almost like pulling fire alarms all over the place for the lulz--I mean, srs protest.
  
  What's a shame is that you don't seem to understand this.
• TA wrote on 2011-09-27 22:34

  Quote from Yoorah;601589:

  You're being way too naive about it.
  
  As is often the case where people make poor judgments, it's usually due to a lack of context and broad view. It doesn't take much thought to realize that "beating another person = bad," but you have to think a bit more than that. More specifically, you have to take into account the atmosphere, the location of the protests, the anti-terrorism operations in the area and how it's all set up and affected by such actions. Law enforcement in the area is on edge 24/7 even without those idiots gathering there and making everything way more difficult than it already is. In terms of logistics, it is a nightmare. Do you have any idea how much all of this will cost? How will it be paid for, and at the expense of what?
  
  It's not like the officers are inflicting serious injuries for the most part, either. It's more an effective psychological way of persuading them noobs to go home.
  
  In the end, the protest does cause significant harm. Not only is it costing the city massive amounts of money, much like a riot would, but it's also using up security personnel that would otherwise be doing important work elsewhere, to ensure the security of the residents. This is almost like pulling fire alarms all over the place for the lulz--I mean, srs protest.
  
  What's a shame is that you don't seem to understand this.

  
  
  I won't lie to say that I'm finding your posts in this thread very offensive.
  
  You seem to somehow completely disregard the rights of the people, refer to them as idiots, "noobs," and worse, and you instead try as hard as you possibly can to place the blame on them. And for what? Participating in a peaceful protest? Peaceful protests are protected by our Constitution, whether you like them or not is irrelevant. It really seems you have an egg to pick with protests in general, as you're more concerned with the disruption of the norm, redistribution of police force and the cost of such a demonstration will cause the city. You're thinking like the corporations these people are protesting against. Are these people just numbers and money to you?
  
  I don't know what kind of tyrannical rule they have in your country (though I hear those mounties are crazy and trigger happy to taze people to death), but in this country police cannot intimidate or "physically encourage" the breaking up of peaceful protests. The only time people can even be asked to leave are under specific circumstances like a certain distance from a funeral, or disrupting the entrance of a business, or blocking off city streets, and a few other things, though I don't pretend to know the exact specifics of each within the New York state statutes and/or city ordinances.
  
  What are these people supposed to do, if not protest their grievances? Just simply go home, smile, and forget anything is happening? Sure, it wouldn't cost the city anything, there wouldn't be "idiots gathering" or logistical nightmares. But nothing would get done. There is a reason for protests.
  
  To compare this protest to "pulling fire alarms all over the place for the lulz" and mockingly joke as if it isn't even a legitimate protest... that's just inconsiderate and rude.
  
  Many protests have lead to great change. It was a protest movement that lead to rights for women, and blacks. Protests over unfair wages, or tyrannical oppression. Just look in the Middle East. Would you also call them idiots in need of "persuading" to go home, by being physically abused? Gaddafi did that. The entire world looked on in horror, and now he's wanted for war crimes (if he's not dead, I haven't been following Libya). And what about Egypt?
  
  Were those protests, too, too costly and causing too much "significant harm," "costing the city massive amounts of money, much like a riot would, but it's also using up security personnel that would otherwise be doing important work elsewhere, to ensure the security of the residents"?
  
  You seem to have a severe lack of respect for people's rights, namely the right for peaceful protest and the freedom of speech. Now that's what the real shame is, that you don't seem to understand any of this. It's downright offensive the way you talk about these people...
• Chillax wrote on 2011-09-27 23:07
  I saw this on Knowyourmeme a few days ago, lol.
• TA wrote on 2011-09-27 23:25

  Quote from Chillax;601653:

  I saw this on Knowyourmeme a few days ago, lol.

  
  
  Just so this doesn't seem completely bizarre and off topic... http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/occupywallstreet
• Yoorah wrote on 2011-09-28 02:20
  Well, I'm sorry you find it very offensive, but it's simple common sense, so there's not much that can be done about it. :(
  
  I don't disregard the rights of the people, but there are times when the people can abuse said rights. You have to take that into account and strike a balance between ideals and reality. You're right that I don't hold those people, as a group, in high regard--I equate them to the noobs that show up to protest/riot during G8/G20 summits. The last summit cost Canada somewhere between $800 million and a billion in security costs, for merely 3 days worth of meetings. They literally deployed an army of riot police and it still wasn't enough when riots broke out. <_< Massive protests rarely stay peaceful, and you have to plan accordingly.
  
  Your other examples don't apply because they happened prior to 9/11. It made things a lot easier than now.
  
  Canada has no tyrannical rule. :v (What's up with that comment? srsly.) But 117 noobs did get arrested today during that pipeline protest, it seems:
  

  [Image: http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/9094/115917834web8column.jpg]

  
  v
  

  [Image: http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/4030/115917823web8column.jpg]

  
  derp.
  
  And perhaps I am thinking like those corporations. Being an engineer/analyst might have something to do with that. I'm sorry for thinking logically, rather than passionately. xP
• Hiccup wrote on 2011-09-28 02:23

  Quote from Lyre;601327:

  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!

  
  
  Heard about it on Colbert Report weeks ago. But not from anywhere else considering I don't watch the news.
• Osayidan wrote on 2011-09-28 10:10

  Quote from Yoorah;601823:

  
  Your other examples don't apply because they happened prior to 9/11. It made things a lot easier than now.
  

  
  
  The Libya, Egypt and other middle east protests were this year though.
  Also in countries that don't particularly give much of a damn about 9/11.
  
  I don't see why it's okay for people in those countries to protest against their leaders yet in north america it isn't.
  
  pre-9/11 or post-9/11 doesn't matter. Yes it wastes money and the time of security personnel, but where does that money come from? The same people who are protesting. For every one person protesting you have to imagine how many countless others are pissed at the same issue but either don't have the time, means or balls to attend the protests.
  
  Protests against government means a large enough percentage of the people aren't particularly pleased, those people who elected them, and who pay their salaries with their taxes. If protesting is the only effective means to have them listen and do something, so be it. The fact that a few idiots take advantage of the situation to break the law doesn't mean the basic idea behind the protest, or the protest itself, is in its entirety a bad thing.
  
  I much rather people protest than stay silent.
  I don't want to gradually find myself in a larger version of north korea.
• Athde wrote on 2011-09-28 10:20
  Maybe if they turn it into a sit-down they're wont be so much brutality?
  I mean honestly if you think about it, it would make a lot of sense. Sitting down is a lot less hostile than standing up moving around and such. It tends to make people think easier if they're not constantly looking out for the slightest chance of violence. The point of a protest is to protest not to try and ellicit police action.
  
  That being said, the police have taken it too far. As far as beatings though, that's not a good idea, especially for protests. If they were assaulted I wouldn't mind. But seeing as how they're just kinda getting caught up in the moment doesn't mean you have to beat some sense into them. Of course pepper spray should be used first.... But not freely as some of them tend to think. Then again it's kinda of like a leak. If they let one person through then it will get bigger, and in the worse case scenario erupt into a stampede of sorts.
  -.-
  
  In the end, I just hope they will get this over with soon.
• Adelynn wrote on 2011-09-28 13:27
  Personally I don't see how it's logical to go out of one's way to hurt someone else when they weren't doing anything dangerous in the first place.
  I didn't hear about this until yesterday. Granted, I only follow news through the internet, but usually, I run into things like this a lot quicker.
• Yoorah wrote on 2011-09-29 02:02

  Quote from Osayidan;601974:

  The Libya, Egypt and other middle east protests were this year though.
  Also in countries that don't particularly give much of a damn about 9/11.
  
  I don't see why it's okay for people in those countries to protest against their leaders yet in north america it isn't.
  
  pre-9/11 or post-9/11 doesn't matter. Yes it wastes money and the time of security personnel, but where does that money come from? The same people who are protesting. For every one person protesting you have to imagine how many countless others are pissed at the same issue but either don't have the time, means or balls to attend the protests.
  
  Protests against government means a large enough percentage of the people aren't particularly pleased, those people who elected them, and who pay their salaries with their taxes. If protesting is the only effective means to have them listen and do something, so be it. The fact that a few idiots take advantage of the situation to break the law doesn't mean the basic idea behind the protest, or the protest itself, is in its entirety a bad thing.
  
  I much rather people protest than stay silent.
  I don't want to gradually find myself in a larger version of north korea.

  
  
  You cannot compare the US to Libya and Egypt. >_> The only similarity is that people were unhappy to some degree in all cases--that's where the similarity ends. Everything else about the cases is completely different and incomparable.
  
  9/11 matters because that is when law enforcement in the US (and even more so in NYC itself) went into overdrive to try to stay ahead of the terrorists. And even with those extensive efforts, there have been failures, such as the failed Time Square bomber not too long ago. Needless to say, they work harder than ever as a result, and a protest set in one of the most sensitive areas is not helping matters at all.
  
  The waste of funds that results in this isn't only paid by the protesters. It's also paid by people who either don't care or are against it, which are far larger groups. In the end, they will have to cut something from the budget to pay for this, and I think that that's unfortunate.
  
  Yea, I understand the importance of protests. Some of them are important, productive and carried out in a responsible manner. This one wasn't one of them. It would seem that most people who bothered to show up in the first few days agreed, as their numbers dwindled quickly.
  
  Canada won't be turning into a North Korea, lawl. And if by some strange reason it were, protests wouldn't stop it.
• Phunkie wrote on 2011-10-13 22:25
  People are frustrated, so they're taking it to the streets.
  
  Power to the people, IMO. You wouldn't see me there, because I need to work and I fear getting arrested. But there are some people who would throw all of that away simply to make their voices be heard.
• Osayidan wrote on 2011-10-14 19:30
  This isn't occupy wallstreet anymore. It's happening everywhere, even my own city has one planned, for tomorrow I think. I see posters for it everywhere.
• Craddle wrote on 2011-10-18 21:09

  Quote from Osayidan;620305:

  This isn't occupy wallstreet anymore. It's happening everywhere, even my own city has one planned, for tomorrow I think. I see posters for it everywhere.

  
  
  They should change it to "Occupy the curb."