5 ms·

a protest has defied the law and the Government has reacted by giving the protesters what they want http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Town_peace_march http://e

by GavinB 16y ago

a protest has defied the law and the Government has reacted by giving the protesters what they want http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Town_peace_march http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Town_peace_march http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_wall#The_Fall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_wall#The_Fall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_parks#Her_Refusal_to_Move http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_parks#Her_Refusal_to_Move http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Satyagraha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Satyagraha I think you make a good point--the reaction to an attack is generally a stronger counterattack, not reconciliation--but there are certainly counterexamples.

Aaronontheweb 16y ago
Just wanted to point out that the reasons for the fall of the Berlin wall were TREMENDOUSLY more complicated than just protestors complaining about it. Comparing the fall of the Berlin wall to a DDoS attack on MasterCard feels like a slap in the face to history.
- rapind 16y ago
  Most things are complicated. All I took from his reply was to say that protests have led to success in the past, and that the DDoS attacks are a form of protest (debatable). I didn't see anything trying to belittle the fall of the Berlin wall. Drawing extreme conclusions like this reminds me of "Unamerican" arguments from a few years ago.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    I think a reference to Solidarnosc would have been much more appropriate.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
TomOfTTB 16y ago
You make valid points but I don't think they support your conclusion. I'll go down the list. Cape Town Peace March, The Berlin Wall & Salt Satyagraha: In these cases the Government felt it didn't have a choice but to capitulate lest it be overthrown completely. The Cape Town article makes that point and in the case of the Berlin Wall the Government of East Germany did dissolve. But I'll happily add the caveat "where the government believes it is capable of doubling down on its efforts without being overthrown". Still doesn't change the point though (unless you seriously think Anon is capable of overthrowing the U.S. Government) The same was true of the Indian independence movement. In the end the British Government didn't so much capitulate as it withdrew (which goes back to my first point of Governments doubling down until they can't anymore) Rosa Parks : In my post I said it would work if you are willing to let the Government take a pound of flesh and that's exactly what happened in the case of Rosa Parks. Parks was arrested and convicted. People who protested in her name were beaten as well as being arrested and convicted. The very section you point to says that MLK's house was bombed and churches were burnt down.
- bertil 16y ago
  I think Anonymous want to force third parties to oppose the rule of law to government's “suggestions” — no political overthrow per se, but trying to force a judge to stand to the precedent of NYTimes vs. USA on Pentagon papers. “Victory” here would be to have some press (done — if a coverage worthy of Olympic games is satisfying) and a stable URL (done), or better: the 1st link on Google search and an active Facebook page where they can safely link to articles about Nobel prize, Obama's hypocrisy and PayPal reversal (done, done and done).

by GavinB 16y ago

Aaronontheweb 16y ago

Just wanted to point out that the reasons for the fall of the Berlin wall were TREMENDOUSLY more complicated than just protestors complaining about it. Comparing the fall of the Berlin wall to a DDoS attack on MasterCard feels like a slap in the face to history.

rapind 16y ago
Most things are complicated. All I took from his reply was to say that protests have led to success in the past, and that the DDoS attacks are a form of protest (debatable). I didn't see anything trying to belittle the fall of the Berlin wall. Drawing extreme conclusions like this reminds me of "Unamerican" arguments from a few years ago.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  I think a reference to Solidarnosc would have been much more appropriate.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

TomOfTTB 16y ago

You make valid points but I don't think they support your conclusion. I'll go down the list. Cape Town Peace March, The Berlin Wall & Salt Satyagraha: In these cases the Government felt it didn't have a choice but to capitulate lest it be overthrown completely. The Cape Town article makes that point and in the case of the Berlin Wall the Government of East Germany did dissolve. But I'll happily add the caveat "where the government believes it is capable of doubling down on its efforts without being overthrown". Still doesn't change the point though (unless you seriously think Anon is capable of overthrowing the U.S. Government) The same was true of the Indian independence movement. In the end the British Government didn't so much capitulate as it withdrew (which goes back to my first point of Governments doubling down until they can't anymore) Rosa Parks : In my post I said it would work if you are willing to let the Government take a pound of flesh and that's exactly what happened in the case of Rosa Parks. Parks was arrested and convicted. People who protested in her name were beaten as well as being arrested and convicted. The very section you point to says that MLK's house was bombed and churches were burnt down.

bertil 16y ago
I think Anonymous want to force third parties to oppose the rule of law to government's “suggestions” — no political overthrow per se, but trying to force a judge to stand to the precedent of NYTimes vs. USA on Pentagon papers. “Victory” here would be to have some press (done — if a coverage worthy of Olympic games is satisfying) and a stable URL (done), or better: the 1st link on Google search and an active Facebook page where they can safely link to articles about Nobel prize, Obama's hypocrisy and PayPal reversal (done, done and done).