4 ms·

Or you can have protests but not use force against them. Or more specifically do not use force against the journalists. Of course one goes with the other, if yo

by hristov 15y ago

Or you can have protests but not use force against them. Or more specifically do not use force against the journalists. Of course one goes with the other, if you want to beat up some peaceful protesters you have to beat up the journalists covering your original beating too. The occupy protests were peaceful and they generally did not break shops and vandalize things. There was no reason to treat them that way.

jquery 15y ago
I'm sorry, the Occupy protests have NOT been peaceful. Just last week in SF, a couple police officers ended up in the hospital. Nevermind the amount of property they managed to trash. They were also lucky they didn't kill anyone, they were throwing bricks and objects off an abandoned hotel near where I live.
- Symmetry 15y ago
  Upvoted (back to 1) for being able to give an example, but though there have been a few violent incidents associated with Occupy, for the most part they've been remarkably restrained - more so than I would have guessed. To the extent that police violence is justified by what Occupiers do we should ignore it[1], but was a single one of those 25 incidents of violence against reporters justified? Certainly few if any. [1] e.g. if you surround a group of police and tell them you aren't going to let them leave until they release their prisoners, I'm not going to cry over you getting tear-gassed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y
- tripzilch 15y ago
  Link?
JumpCrisscross 15y ago
Occupiers in Seattle and Oakland have broken into homes. There is also a post by a Seattle Occupy organiser who boasts about running around disrupting traffic: "Get the music blaring and then march aimlessly, blocking traffic the whole way, for hours" * I support the NYC Occupiers (I live in NYC) because they voice their cause while trying to minimize collateral disruption. If the NYC Occupiers were causing random destruction I would find it difficult to continue empathising. The police should be gentler in their force escalation by issuing plenty of warnings and then gently arresting for short detainment (as a cool-down). But as another comment mentions, sometimes their hands are forced, e.g. SF and Seattle protesters hurling bricks. I would prefer an early crackdown than let the dynamic spiral beyond legitimacy as it did in London. Temporary fix to the press problem may be the press wearing clearly identifying clothing. That dampens the police's excuse that they blend in with the hooligans (every protest, regardless of how legitimate, will attract its unfair share of these). *http://www.portlandoccupier.org/2011/12/15/occupy-portland-outsmarts-police-creating-blueprint-for-other-occupations/ http://www.portlandoccupier.org/2011/12/15/occupy-portland-o...
- nitrogen 15y ago
  Disrupting traffic is an essential element of any peaceful protest you don't want ignored. For the most part it makes people angry, but at least they notice you instead of drive right past with their protester blinders on. Breaking into homes and property destruction can in no way be regarded as peaceful protest. However, I don't see how you draw the connection in your first paragraph between breaking into homes and disrupting traffic. I do wonder what led people to break into homes in those settings, and why they're calling themselves (or others are calling them) Occupiers. As for the press wearing distinguishing clothing, that strikes me as something that is ostensibly for a good cause, but is used for evil. For example, if reporters are wearing identifying clothing, that either gives the police an easier time removing all reporters before doing whatever it is they do, or gives protesters an easy way of masquerading as reporters to get greater access.
  - JumpCrisscross 15y ago
    Disrupting traffic is a "rally the base" move. It energises supporters but pisses of moderates - note how the Seattle mayor had to break his support for the protesters following their act. Since the protesters' actions have material negative externalities they trigger a necessary cost-benefit analysis. I for one lose respect for someone who thinks they have to spit in my face to get my attention. I agree regarding identifying press, but more so in terms of protesters donning it and this diluting the effect. I don't think the US is at the point of cattle-herding journalists yet.
    - nitrogen 15y ago
      I agree regarding identifying press, but more so in terms of protesters donning it and this diluting the effect. I don't think the US is at the point of cattle-herding journalists yet. In general, probably not, but I think we've already had enough exceptional cases to take notice. I seem to recall seeing a video of a reporter at a pre-Occupy protest surrounded by police and arrested in a parking lot, and reading about a few other cases where reporters were told by police to leave. I don't want to make a strong argument one way or the other, and this thread's probably long enough, so I'm not going to take the time to look up sources.
mohene1 15y ago
I was just trying to make the point, restrictions of the press are usually in response to reporting on the crackdown of protesters as was even stated in the article itself. For this I am losing a karma point every 15 minutes I only commented on the ranking methodology. As for politics. We have 120 different countries on here with differing experiences; I'm not touching that issue on this thread
- Symmetry 15y ago
  I think that if you had phrased your comment as something like "Shouldn't we try to avoid ranking systems that penalize countries that happen to be having a lot of political protests in a given year?" It wasn't at all obvious to me that the point of your comment was the ranking methodology, as opposed to trying to blame the protesters for the decrease in ranking or just trolling.

by hristov 15y ago

jquery 15y ago

I'm sorry, the Occupy protests have NOT been peaceful. Just last week in SF, a couple police officers ended up in the hospital. Nevermind the amount of property they managed to trash. They were also lucky they didn't kill anyone, they were throwing bricks and objects off an abandoned hotel near where I live.

Symmetry 15y ago
Upvoted (back to 1) for being able to give an example, but though there have been a few violent incidents associated with Occupy, for the most part they've been remarkably restrained - more so than I would have guessed. To the extent that police violence is justified by what Occupiers do we should ignore it[1], but was a single one of those 25 incidents of violence against reporters justified? Certainly few if any. [1] e.g. if you surround a group of police and tell them you aren't going to let them leave until they release their prisoners, I'm not going to cry over you getting tear-gassed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhPdH3wE0_Y
tripzilch 15y ago
Link?

JumpCrisscross 15y ago

Occupiers in Seattle and Oakland have broken into homes. There is also a post by a Seattle Occupy organiser who boasts about running around disrupting traffic: "Get the music blaring and then march aimlessly, blocking traffic the whole way, for hours" * I support the NYC Occupiers (I live in NYC) because they voice their cause while trying to minimize collateral disruption. If the NYC Occupiers were causing random destruction I would find it difficult to continue empathising. The police should be gentler in their force escalation by issuing plenty of warnings and then gently arresting for short detainment (as a cool-down). But as another comment mentions, sometimes their hands are forced, e.g. SF and Seattle protesters hurling bricks. I would prefer an early crackdown than let the dynamic spiral beyond legitimacy as it did in London. Temporary fix to the press problem may be the press wearing clearly identifying clothing. That dampens the police's excuse that they blend in with the hooligans (every protest, regardless of how legitimate, will attract its unfair share of these). *http://www.portlandoccupier.org/2011/12/15/occupy-portland-outsmarts-police-creating-blueprint-for-other-occupations/ http://www.portlandoccupier.org/2011/12/15/occupy-portland-o...

nitrogen 15y ago
Disrupting traffic is an essential element of any peaceful protest you don't want ignored. For the most part it makes people angry, but at least they notice you instead of drive right past with their protester blinders on. Breaking into homes and property destruction can in no way be regarded as peaceful protest. However, I don't see how you draw the connection in your first paragraph between breaking into homes and disrupting traffic. I do wonder what led people to break into homes in those settings, and why they're calling themselves (or others are calling them) Occupiers. As for the press wearing distinguishing clothing, that strikes me as something that is ostensibly for a good cause, but is used for evil. For example, if reporters are wearing identifying clothing, that either gives the police an easier time removing all reporters before doing whatever it is they do, or gives protesters an easy way of masquerading as reporters to get greater access.
- JumpCrisscross 15y ago
  Disrupting traffic is a "rally the base" move. It energises supporters but pisses of moderates - note how the Seattle mayor had to break his support for the protesters following their act. Since the protesters' actions have material negative externalities they trigger a necessary cost-benefit analysis. I for one lose respect for someone who thinks they have to spit in my face to get my attention. I agree regarding identifying press, but more so in terms of protesters donning it and this diluting the effect. I don't think the US is at the point of cattle-herding journalists yet.
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    I agree regarding identifying press, but more so in terms of protesters donning it and this diluting the effect. I don't think the US is at the point of cattle-herding journalists yet. In general, probably not, but I think we've already had enough exceptional cases to take notice. I seem to recall seeing a video of a reporter at a pre-Occupy protest surrounded by police and arrested in a parking lot, and reading about a few other cases where reporters were told by police to leave. I don't want to make a strong argument one way or the other, and this thread's probably long enough, so I'm not going to take the time to look up sources.

mohene1 15y ago

I was just trying to make the point, restrictions of the press are usually in response to reporting on the crackdown of protesters as was even stated in the article itself. For this I am losing a karma point every 15 minutes I only commented on the ranking methodology. As for politics. We have 120 different countries on here with differing experiences; I'm not touching that issue on this thread

Symmetry 15y ago
I think that if you had phrased your comment as something like "Shouldn't we try to avoid ranking systems that penalize countries that happen to be having a lot of political protests in a given year?" It wasn't at all obvious to me that the point of your comment was the ranking methodology, as opposed to trying to blame the protesters for the decrease in ranking or just trolling.