Breaking news: Zuccati park, evacuated by police raid NOW - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Contag;33282781]Jesus christ protests tend to be effective when they are illegal it's a symbol of "hey, this is so fucked I'll break your laws" legal formalists everywhere just because it infringes on their rights, doesn't mean it is immoral and shouldn't be done I'm pretty sure that their rights to not be fucked over by wall street ranks a [I]little[/I] fucking higher than private property rights[/QUOTE] Heard if Dale farm? Travellers camp in the UK where gypsies didn't own the land but refused to move. It's pretty much the same thing here, I think the fact that the private owners of the park allowed them to stay so long is good enough on it's own. You wouldn't like it if they came and sat on your front lawn.

[QUOTE=Swilly;33285475]Why do you think Ghandi started starving himself? He didn't want a violent revolution. He was a lawyer after all before he started doing the protests.[/QUOTE] He was certainly fine with disregarding law by not paying salt taxes along with quite a few others about a decade later

[QUOTE=Callius;33285512]Heard if Dale farm? Travellers camp in the UK where gypsies didn't own the land but refused to move. It's pretty much the same thing here, I think the fact that the private owners of the park allowed them to stay so long is good enough on it's own. You wouldn't like it if they came and sat on your front lawn.[/QUOTE] You're comparing a huge open park to a front lawn? Maybe after the Councilman was arrested, he will support the movement. Hopefully that will start to turn things in Occupy's favor.

[QUOTE=teslacoil;33285525]You're comparing a huge open park to a front lawn? Maybe after the Councilman was arrested, he will support the movement. Hopefully that will start to turn things in Occupy's favor.[/QUOTE] It's private property I don't care if it's a fucking forest. If I go on a farmer's field is it still trespassing regardless of the size or distance from him?

[QUOTE=Callius;33285512]Heard if Dale farm? Travellers camp in the UK where gypsies didn't own the land but refused to move. It's pretty much the same thing here, I think the fact that the private owners of the park allowed them to stay so long is good enough on it's own. You wouldn't like it if they came and sat on your front lawn.[/QUOTE] as stated before, it was the Mayor who ordered them out. The owner didn't want them taken out. It was classified as public land and they can't decide who it's "public" to.

[QUOTE=Callius;33285545]It's private property I don't care if it's a fucking forest.[/QUOTE] They waived alot of their rights when they said "yea, were fine with them there"

I am genuinely surprised that this happened. I thought of all the occupy protests across the world the ones in the US would be okay.

[QUOTE=Contag;33282655]enjoy your constitutional rig- welcome to the post 9/11 world[/QUOTE] Terrorists won. They really did. Of course a smart terrorist leader doesn't aim for maximum deaths in the first place but for shit like this: fear, change in power, insecurity.

Your example of the sit-ins is impossible to discount, as refusing to leave the private property of those store-owners was, indeed, illegal. Perhaps you are right in arguing that laws must sometimes be broken in order to provoke change, as a law is only a symptom of ideologies, sometimes the very ideologies you are trying to change. However, you've made two mistakes on your own part: arguing that violence is necessary for change is extremely naive. Violence and change often come hand-in-hand, but that violence is a symptom, not a means. Change comes from widespread and persistent demand of it, not from violence and untargeted aggression. Secondly, your example of blockading a port, for example, seems terribly unfocused. At this point, it sounds as if you're arguing to break the law just for breaking-the-law's sake. What would that accomplish, but to damage the city as a whole? Strikes and other such discordance is viable and correct, but only if properly focused. King's sit-ins appropriately targeted businesses and institutions which were in direct opposition to his cause, which had their unconstitutional segregation of races. Are public supply routes in opposition to your cause? Perhaps if you explained your reasoning behind this, I would better understand why shutting down a major port is beneficial to anybody. Please keep in mind that I am not arguing against the legitimacy of the cause, only the legitimacy of some of the tactics you are suggesting, and some of the tactics being employed by the more "empassioned" protestors. For the most part, I have zero qualm with the manner in which most of the OWS movement has conducted itself thus-far.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;33285649]Your example of the sit-ins is impossible to discount, as refusing to leave the private property of those store-owners was, indeed, illegal. Perhaps you are right in arguing that laws must sometimes be broken in order to provoke change, as a law is only a symptom of ideologies, sometimes the very ideologies you are trying to change. However, you've made two mistakes on your own part: arguing that violence is necessary for change is extremely naive. Violence and change often come hand-in-hand, but that violence is a symptom, not a means. Change comes from widespread and persistent demand of it, not from violence and untargeted aggression. Secondly, your example of blockading a port, for example, seems terribly unfocused. At this point, it sounds as if you're arguing to break the law just for breaking-the-law's sake. What would that accomplish, but to damage the city as a whole? Strikes and other such discordance is viable and correct, but only if properly focused. King's sit-ins appropriately targeted businesses and institutions which were in direct opposition to his cause, which had their unconstitutional segregation of races. Are public supply routes in opposition to your cause? Perhaps if you explained your reasoning behind this, I would better understand why shutting down a major port is beneficial to the cause. Please keep in mind that I am not arguing against the legitimacy of the cause, only the legitimacy of some of the tactics you are suggesting, and some of the tactics being employed by the more "empassioned" protestors. For the most part, I have zero qualm with the manner in which most of the OWS movement has conducted itself thus-far.[/QUOTE] I don't contend that violence is necessary in a revolution, as the bloodless transitions that occurred in some former USSR states attests. However, when you are dealing with an entrenched and powerful political entity it becomes far more difficult. Earlier in this thread I advocated that they get arrested en masse in order to effectively incapacitate the justice system, while showing how oppressive and how powerful what they are protesting against has become. Violence also tends to arise organically, as it did with the African American civil rights movement, and the various independence movements of India. This is not a good thing, but it is understandable. In blockading a port, it significantly disrupts the day-to-day life and forces some kind of action. The action may not be a positive response (as the Indians who spent years in jail can attest), but it is still action. Strikes are one of the better non-violent methods, but in this scenario it's problematic because unemployment and underemployment is one of the big issues. They can hardly strike if they don't have jobs. The global financial system is so integral to everything in modern society that if they were to conduct sit-ins at say, the NY stock exchange, it would cause significant market fluctuation and volatility to the point where some government regulation is necessary in order to prevent a dive in the market. Another problem is that it's an entirely domestic issue - the police officers arresting the protesters are also part of the 99%, and were fucked over by the 2008 global financial crisis. That makes violent options particularly distasteful. At the same time, what option do the protesters have? Be expelled until they are arrested, or should they attempt to fight back and possibility delegitimize their movement? Of course, there aren't really any clear answers, but the judgment "it is illegal; therefore it is wrong" doesn't really allow critical reasoned analysis of the situation (as you mentioned). [editline]16th November 2011[/editline] What you mentioned about the protests being seen in a negative light is also particularly interesting for the outcome of the movement. Telling people you're protesting for their rights, even when they disagree with you isn't really effective at all. So what should they do? Give up and move to Canada, continue to protest, attempt to expose and increase awareness of corporate and political corruption?

[QUOTE=Contag;33285742]I don't contend that violence is necessary in a revolution, as the bloodless transitions that occurred in some former USSR states attests. However, when you are dealing with an entrenched and powerful political entity it becomes far more difficult. Earlier in this thread I advocated that they get arrested en masse in order to effectively incapacitate the justice system, while showing how oppressive and how powerful what they are protesting against has become. Violence also tends to arise organically, as it did with the African American civil rights movement, and the various independence movements of India. This is not a good thing, but it is understandable. In blockading a port, it significantly disrupts the day-to-day life and forces some kind of action. The action may not be a positive response (as the Indians who spent years in jail can attest), but it is still action. Strikes are one of the better non-violent methods, but in this scenario it's problematic because unemployment and underemployment is one of the big issues. They can hardly strike if they don't have jobs. The global financial system is so integral to everything in modern society that if they were to conduct sit-ins at say, the NY stock exchange, it would cause significant market fluctuation and volatility to the point where some government regulation is necessary in order to prevent a dive in the market. Another problem is that it's an entirely domestic issue - the police officers arresting the protesters are also part of the 99%, and were fucked over by the 2008 global financial crisis. That makes violent options particularly distasteful. At the same time, what option do the protesters have? Be expelled until they are arrested, or should they attempt to fight back and possibility delegitimize their movement? Of course, there aren't really any clear answers, but the judgment "it is illegal; therefore it is wrong" doesn't really allow critical reasoned analysis of the situation (as you mentioned). [editline]16th November 2011[/editline] What you mentioned about the protests being seen in a negative light is also particularly interesting for the outcome of the movement. Telling people you're protesting for their rights, even when they disagree with you isn't really effective at all. So what should they do? Give up and move to Canada, continue to protest, attempt to expose and increase awareness of corporate and political corruption?[/QUOTE] I understand where you're coming from now, and thank you for clarifying. I must disagree with your assessment of the situation, however. Things are far far from hopeless! With the exception of some damaging rioting incidents, OWS has already garnered massive worldwide support using almost entirely legal methods. I think your frustration here is a result of impatience. OWS is in the spotlight, and can remain in the spotlight so long as they remain vocal and present. They're being [I]seen[/I] and [I]heard[/I], and that is the single most important element of promoting their cause. People are already starting to realize how huge the issue has become, simply as a result of the sheer force of numbers behind these movements. I understand your reasoning behind blockading a port now, and similar tactics, but that action would only bring negative publicity to the cause, give fuel to its detractors, and cause its more moderate supporters to question its legitimacy. You ask what should be done? The same thing that's being done right now, I say. Rallies, speeches, essays, letters, and simple [I]presence[/I]. These tactics are [I]working[/I]. The very fact that they're grasping at "sanitation and fire safety" laws to move this protest along proves their desperation. Regroup the protests and keep going strong. Damaging publicity stunts will not bring about change any quicker than simple persistence and visibility.

[QUOTE=JamesRaynor;33285485]For the people complaining about them being on 'Private Property' by being at the park answer this, where else re they going to protest? Occupy NYPD? No wait that sounds like a fun idea.[/QUOTE] I dunno, the streets? Or even a public park? It's not like there's one AND ONLY ONE place they can possibly protest.

Closing a port might not have been the best thing to do, but it got the message across: the American people are fed up and are now willing to take action against corruption.

Guys, it's not like this was a permanent removal, they were doing this because the place was getting unsanitary and dangerous for the public health. That was in like, the first paragraph. [QUOTE=Conspiracy;33285239]@BreakingNews - New York judge says Occupy Wall Street protesters can return to park for now; hearing scheduled for today - @NYTMetro nyti.ms/uUreSF[/QUOTE] Like that.

Someone posted the guy's phone number on the other 99% live-stream, he keeps losing connection because of spam. That or he keeps walking out of the service area :v:

Good. These 'protests' need to stop. They lack a leader, and they are disorganized. They are not helping anyone.

[QUOTE=Canuhearmenow;33285974]Guys, it's not like this was a permanent removal, they were doing this because the place was getting unsanitary and dangerous for the public health. That was in like, the first paragraph.[/QUOTE] Those articles were added after the point, it was regionally just the one stream and grew from there. Also that may have been stated but no one was warned and from watching it live the protestors weren't even told why they were being forced out.

[QUOTE=Burgervich;33285989]Good. These 'protests' need to stop. They lack a leader, and they are disorganized. They are not helping anyone.[/QUOTE] Sir, I believe you may have dropped your frontal lobe a few pages back.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;33285954]Closing a port might not have been the best thing to do, but it got the message across: the American people are fed up and are now willing to take action against corruption.[/QUOTE] The Occupy Oakland incident was extremely damaging to the public image of the OWS movement, though. The port closure led to inevitable police intervention, and the protesters' refusal to cede to the demands to reopen the port led to rioting. The reason I am so opposed to these tactics is because the introduction of police elements in the face of illegal protest activity forces a reaction from the protesters. As we've seen several times already, that reaction oftentimes takes form as rioting. This violent behavior hurts the cause in the eyes of everybody but the already-staunch supporters. If the objective is to get the attention [I]and[/I] support of the general public, then rioting is the absolute last thing you want to do. It might make your message heard, but only at the cost of casting your cause in an extremely negative light.

I just read that a New York judge has stated that the protestors are to be allowed a return to the park with their tents.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;33286023]The Occupy Oakland incident was extremely damaging to the public image of the OWS movement, though. The port closure led to inevitable police intervention, and the protesters' refusal to cede to the demands to reopen the port led to rioting. The reason I am so opposed to these tactics is because the introduction of police elements in the face of illegal protest activity forces a reaction from the protesters. As we've seen several times already, that reaction oftentimes takes form as rioting. This violent behavior hurts the cause in the eyes of everybody but the already-staunch supporters. If the objective is to get the attention [I]and[/I] support of the general public, then rioting is the absolute last thing you want to do.[/QUOTE] There seems to be a double standard when it comes to scrutiny of police and protester action. When the police make a wrong move such as a misplaced tear-gas grenade or a rubber bullet fired at someone, it's dismissed by those not already on the protester's side as "we don't know who did it or why", and then at the same time when even one protester or a small group of them do something even remotely violent, it's looked at with a ridiculous attitude of "I knew they'd turn violent". [editline]15th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=V12US;33286053]I just read that a New York judge has stated that the protestors are to be allowed a return to the park with their tents.[/QUOTE] I find it very hard to believe they forced them out of the park solely for cleaning. The last time they issued a health hazard warning protesters were all over the place cleaning it up.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;33286023]If the objective is to get the attention [I]and[/I] support of the general public, then rioting is the absolute last thing you want to do.[/QUOTE] The thing is, at this point they have attention and support. The movement just needs to utilize it in a way that will start affecting money.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33286055]There seems to be a double standard when it comes to scrutiny of police and protester action. When the police make a wrong move such as a misplaced tear-gas grenade or a rubber bullet fired at someone, it's dismissed by those not already on the protester's side as "we don't know who did it or why", and then at the same time when even one protester or a small group of them do something even remotely violent, it's looked at with a ridiculous attitude of "I knew they'd turn violent".[/QUOTE] Occupy supporters aren't much better though. If there's a misplaced tear-gas grenade etcetera they scream 'police brutality' (which admittedly is right too many times) but when news reaches of Occupiers being violent people shout 'i bet it's an undercover cop that's there to give them a bad image'.

[QUOTE=Contag;33285742] So what should they do? Give up and move to Canada, continue to protest, attempt to expose and increase awareness of corporate and political corruption?[/QUOTE] Even canada has occupy protests right now. The local news is talking about occupy toronto and some late bullshit about anonymous. Man, toronto local news is really behind.

This cannot afford to get violent. As soon as they start rioting/fighting is when they start to loose face in the public eye.

shit, hope this doesn't end the movement

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;33286183]shit, hope this doesn't end the movement[/QUOTE] You can't throw an idea in jail.

[QUOTE=OvB;33286200]You can't throw an idea in jail.[/QUOTE] No, but apparently you can throw them out and bulldoze all their stuff.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpq-moDIkl8[/media]

[QUOTE=3com111;33282666]Someone has to start a small ring of extremists. Like in Egypt, start some revolutions like that.[/QUOTE] A vanguard party? Anybody interested?