Police clash with anti-NATO protesters outside the NATO Summit in Chicago; 45 arrested - Polidicks

[QUOTE=King Tiger;36051777]What did the cops do wrong here? What is the problem? How did the CPD commit police brutality?[/QUOTE] The cops didn't do anything wrong. They held themselves with professionalism in the face of protesters who came prepared for fighting.(ear plugs, gas masks, fake blood, literally everyone has a camera)

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;36051211]And they don't, but people will call them out as if they did. They can not win, people will get on them about everything they do, no-matter what they do.[/QUOTE] All I hear is bawww Yes, 'people will get on them no matter what they do', though half this thread is defending the state and its dogs 'no matter what they do', because people don't care about 'what they do' but 'who they represent and defend' People don't like the state, and of course people use violence against it. It's all the state understands and violence/coercion is its foundation. You take a shit on cops, and on private property. That's just how it works in protests like these. It boosts morale and is a massive expression of discontent. I don't know what the problem is.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36049224]If they're constantly scrutinized, even when doing the job they're suppose to, then there will be constant distrust.[/QUOTE] the population being naturally distrustful of the intentions of anyone in a position of power is a good thing, yo

[QUOTE=Conscript;36054736]All I hear is bawww Yes, 'people will get on them no matter what they do', though half this thread is defending the state and its dogs 'no matter what they do', because people don't care about 'what they do' but 'who they represent and defend' People don't like the state, and of course people use violence against it. It's all the state understands and violence/coercion is its foundation. You take a shit on cops, and on private property. That's just how it works in protests like these. It boosts morale and is a massive expression of discontent. I don't know what the problem is.[/QUOTE] For one, there's a problem with "take a shit on cops and on private property". In fact, that's the exact problem it is. I don't want, say, my car to get fucked up during a protest just because it's parked on a street I need to be when they have it. Protests should not be violent. If they are, it's not a protest - it's a riot.

[QUOTE=Conscript;36054736]All I hear is bawww Yes, 'people will get on them no matter what they do', though half this thread is defending the state and its dogs 'no matter what they do', because people don't care about 'what they do' but 'who they represent and defend' People don't like the state, and of course people use violence against it. It's all the state understands and violence/coercion is its foundation. You take a shit on cops, and on private property. That's just how it works in protests like these. It boosts morale and is a massive expression of discontent. I don't know what the problem is.[/QUOTE] OK grandpa. It's time to go back inside now.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;36054742]the population being naturally distrustful of the intentions of anyone in a position of power is a good thing, yo[/QUOTE] It also slows shit up when its important. Like Global Climate Change.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36054951]For one, there's a problem with "take a shit on cops and on private property". In fact, that's the exact problem it is. I don't want, say, my car to get fucked up during a protest just because it's parked on a street I need to be when they have it. Protests should not be violent. If they are, it's not a protest - it's a riot.[/QUOTE] They usually target police vehicles, but shit happens. It's regrettable, yes, preventable? Not really. Dissent is never organized in such a fashion that organizers can control everything that happens. I really don't see the problem with using coercion/violence against a repressive institution that wholly bases itself on 'legitimate coercion'. It's a morale booster and opens up a lot of new options. In greece the black bloc would not only smash windows, but distribute goods inside to the needy. The presence of the bloc meant the presence of street medics and a wall of people to protect each other from cops, and they could de-arrest people. The state relies on coercion, the black bloc is there to even the odds. Black blocs are fantastic things and indicate the presence of real solidarity and direct action. They aren't content standing around holding up signs while the state does its business, that does nothing. Can you imagine haymarket square with a bunch of whipped, pacifist liberals? Also, by private property, I mean capital. Not the same thing as personal property.

Can you please explain how this black bloc was helpfull at all? Why are you even mentioning the Greek black blocs in this thread? There was nobody to protect or de-arrest because there were no arrests being made. The only ones arrested were those who attacked the police. How does this violence accomplish anything? The NATO leaders had no knowledge of the actions outside McCormick Place (where the Summit was held) and so the attacks on "the state and it's dogs" as you called it accomplished nothing besides hurting a few innocent bystanders and one police officer.

[QUOTE=Conscript;36054736]...the state and its dogs *plus other ridiculous dribble*[/QUOTE] You're coming off as a paranoid radical who thinks you're on the eve of a revolution. You're also sounding a little warped with your perception of reality.

[QUOTE=Jim_Riley;36055442]You're coming off as a paranoid radical who thinks your own the eve of a revolution. You're also sounding a little warped with your perception of reality.[/QUOTE] He believes in old 19th Century communist rhetoric and he believes violent revolution is the only way for progression.

[QUOTE=Conscript;36055288]They usually target police vehicles, but shit happens. It's regrettable, yes, preventable? Not really. Dissent is never organized in such a fashion that organizers can control everything that happens. I really don't see the problem with using coercion/violence against a repressive institution that wholly bases itself on 'legitimate coercion'. It's a morale booster and opens up a lot of new options. In greece the black bloc would not only smash windows, but distribute goods inside to the needy. The presence of the bloc meant the presence of street medics and a wall of people to protect each other from cops, and they could de-arrest people. The state relies on coercion, the black bloc is there to even the odds. Black blocs are fantastic things and indicate the presence of real solidarity and direct action. They aren't content standing around holding up signs while the state does its business, that does nothing. Can you imagine haymarket square with a bunch of whipped, pacifist liberals? Also, by private property, I mean capital. Not the same thing as personal property.[/QUOTE] The problem is that these acts are generally ineffective, especially in this day and age. It removes legitimacy from a movement and gives police a justification to use force against protesters. While I may respect the fortitude or determination of these guys, I don't respect the actions because it gives fuel for propaganda, institutional violence, and hate targeted against the people who are outraged with our system. There are more effective ways to show determination and solidarity that don't include violence. [img]http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/pepper-spray.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/n/n/nns5039/Art101/civilDisobedience/greensboro-sit-in.jpg[/img] [img]http://movingimages.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/tank-man-by-jeff-widener.jpg?w=780[/img] [img]http://sfist.com/attachments/SFist_Brock/GayMarriageProtest_chun.jpg[/img] Protest does not have to be "peaceful" in the traditional sense, but it must not be violent. The act of breaking the law in a civil fashion adds legitimacy to a movement because it shows all the solidarity, outrage, and non-cooperation with a broken system as a violent protest, without giving unnecessary fuel to the spin machine.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;36055384]Can you please explain how this black bloc was helpfull at all? Why are you even mentioning the Greek black blocs in this thread? There was nobody to protect or de-arrest because there were no arrests being made. The only ones arrested were those who attacked the police. How does this violence accomplish anything? The NATO leaders had no knowledge of the actions outside McCormick Place (where the Summit was held) and so the attacks on "the state and it's dogs" as you called it accomplished nothing besides hurting a few innocent bystanders and one police officer.[/QUOTE] It's an example of how it can be empowering and how pacifism and respect for the state is disarming. Unlike other protests, the police had something to stand around defending. In others they're more on the offensive, herding protestors and such. So of course the black bloc was on the offensive, which is essentially what you're saying (and complaining about). What does this do? It empowers, boosts morale, I don't know how else to describe it. It's direct action. Shit happens, but then again you don't conditionally support protests like that if you want them to move forward, that's just being a hindrance because these things happen. That's where you make a mistake. Also saying the black bloc ruined it for everyone else is kinda pointless. Ruined it for liberals maybe, but everyone else who wants to take direct action joins the bloc. All kinds of people get in on it. There's no point in complaining about how it was ruined for 'everyone else' if there's divides in the protest movement which the protestors themsleves don't want to reconcile. I mean, would you care if I just bitched all day about how the peaceful protestors ruined it for everyone else and squandered an opportunity? Some people don't want to sit and look pretty for media. All I have to say to people who are so intent on playing that game and forcing others to do the same, is go fuck yourself. Also people bitching about violence are hypocritical when they turn around and support the state and its actions. It's as if when the state commits acts of coercion, it's a 'special' case and always forgivable. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Jim_Riley;36055442]You're coming off as a paranoid radical who thinks you're on the eve of a revolution. You're also sounding a little warped with your perception of reality.[/QUOTE] I don't really care how I come off as, especially on a forum where communication isn't like it is in real life and things seemed spoken differently, etc. The only thing that matters is if its true. Ill never understand all the people that care more about appearance and coming off x way than content.

Content doesn't matter if the cause is perceived to be illegitimate.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36048147]An alliance of countries to wage war is 'cool'?[/QUOTE] As long as it's against violent theocratic regimes,then yes.

[QUOTE=Conscript;36056158]It's an example of how it can be empowering and how pacifism and respect for the state is disarming. Unlike other protests, the police had something to stand around defending. In others they're more on the offensive, herding protestors and such. So of course the black bloc was on the offensive, which is essentially what you're saying (and complaining about). What does this do? It empowers, boosts morale, I don't know how else to describe it. It's direct action. Shit happens, but then again you don't conditionally support protests like that if you want them to move forward, that's just being a hindrance because these things happen. That's where you make a mistake. Also saying the black bloc ruined it for everyone else is kinda pointless. Ruined it for liberals maybe, but everyone else who wants to take direct action joins the bloc. All kinds of people get in on it. There's no point in complaining about how it was ruined for 'everyone else' if there's divides in the protest movement which the protestors themsleves don't want to reconcile. I mean, would you care if I just bitched all day about how the peaceful protestors ruined it for everyone else and squandered an opportunity? Some people don't want to sit and look pretty for media. All I have to say to people who are so intent on playing that game and forcing others to do the same, is go fuck yourself. Also people bitching about violence are hypocritical when they turn around and support the state and its actions. It's as if when the state commits acts of coercion, it's a 'special' case and always forgivable. [/quote] "Shit happens" is the most god-awful idiotic excuse for anything in the world. I'd like to see your reaction when a riot fucks up your private property. You gonna just sit back and say, "Oh, well, shit happens"? I doubt it. [QUOTE=Conscript;36056158]I don't really care how I come off as, especially [B]on a forum where communication isn't like it is in real life and things seemed spoken differently[/B], etc. [/QUOTE] "la la la I'm ignoring what you say la la la" [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=znk666;36056393]As long as it's against violent theocratic regimes,then yes.[/QUOTE] Iraq and Afghanistan were not theocracies. In fact, Iraq was secular as hell. As for violent - there's a hell of a lot more bloodshed there now after NATO invaded than before. And if that's NATO's sole purpose, why have we yet to invade Iran, the only [I]actual[/I] theocracy in southwest Asia?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36056354]Content doesn't matter if the cause is perceived to be illegitimate.[/QUOTE] Then that's a problem with the perceivers, not the content. Maybe if 'appearing legitimate' didn't mean actually being willing to work with the state to achieve reform, something could be done. There's a reason why political 'legitimacy' is derived from how compatible your politics are with the state's and how many powerful constituents you have. Until then, it's not worth sacrificing content for appearance.

[QUOTE=Conscript;36056583]Then that's a problem with the perceivers, not the content. Maybe if 'appearing legitimate' didn't mean actually being willing to work with the state to achieve reform, something could be done. There's a reason why political 'legitimacy' is derived from how compatible your politics are with the state's and how many powerful constituents you have. Until then, it's not worth sacrificing content for appearance.[/QUOTE] No, that's a problem with the protesters because they are an impedance upon progress and liberty. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] If they aren't willing to be legitimate, they will never achieve their goals. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] And by the way, legitimacy has nothing to do with playing by the state's rules. Legitimacy is making your cause appear righteous and justified.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36056537]"Shit happens" is the most god-awful idiotic excuse for anything in the world. I'd like to see your reaction when a riot fucks up your private property. You gonna just sit back and say, "Oh, well, shit happens'? I doubt it.[/QUOTE] I might be pissed, doesn't make me any less reactionary if I support the state. Maybe you're an idiot or something but that's not a hard concept to grasp. Are we going to say justified coercion ceases to be coercion at all? I said these things happen, not that you wouldn't be right in being angry. But when you start supporting the state, you're doing a lot more then satisfying anger.

[QUOTE=Conscript;36056727]I might be pissed, doesn't make me any less reactionary if I support the state. Maybe you're an idiot or something but that's not a hard concept to grasp. Are we going to say justified coercion ceases to be coercion at all? I said these things happen, not that you wouldn't be right in being angry. But when you start supporting the state, you're doing a lot more then satisfying anger.[/QUOTE] I'm an advocate for small government and such, but I don't believe that "the state" is so inherently evil that it warrants complete and utter rebellion and resistance to it at every corner. Are you an anarchist?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36056810]I'm an advocate for small government and such, but I don't believe that "the state" is so inherently evil that it warrants complete and utter rebellion and resistance to it at every corner. Are you an anarchist?[/QUOTE] He sounds like an Anarcho-Communist. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] Or some form of Socialist Anarchism.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36056658]No, that's a problem with the protesters because they are an impedance upon progress and liberty. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] If they aren't willing to be legitimate, they will never achieve their goals. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] And by the way, legitimacy has nothing to do with playing by the state's rules. Legitimacy is making your cause appear righteous and justified.[/QUOTE] Legitimacy is nice, but it's not the end goal. Whats righteous and justified is relative, in some circles its OWS action that's legitimate and the state's actions just an example of thuggery and injustice. Same with goals, and you're being entirely arbitrary with that claim. The rest of your post is meaningless phrasemongering. What 'progress and liberty' is, is relative. What you're really saying they're an impedance on liberal methods and solution. Which seems to be the root of what people are bitching about with 'no legitimacy' et al.

Are you an anarchist or communist or what? You seem to assume that the state is an inherently negative construct. Or is it only the American state that you have a problem with?

[QUOTE=King Tiger;36056878]Are you an anarchist or communist or what? You seem to assume that the state is an inherently negative construct. Or is it only the American state that you have a problem with?[/QUOTE] I think he's one of those kids who think it's cool and edgy to be a rebel "against the state".

[QUOTE=King Tiger;36056878]Are you an anarchist or communist or what? You seem to assume that the state is an inherently negative construct. Or is it only the American state that you have a problem with?[/QUOTE] "Anarchist communism (also known as anarcho-communism and occasionally as free communism) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, markets, money, private property (while retaining respect for personal property)[188], and capitalism in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[189][190] direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"." That seems to fit the bill of Conscript's posts pretty well. He may be a straight socialist, but his posts here and elsewhere imply anarcho-communism. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] Also insurrectionary anarchism also applies. [quote]"Insurrectionary anarchism is a revolutionary theory, practice, and tendency within the anarchist movement which emphasizes insurrection within anarchist practice.[1][2] It is critical of formal organizations such as labor unions and federations that are based on a political programme and periodic congresses.[1] Instead, insurrectionary anarchists advocate informal organization and small affinity group based organization.[1][2] Insurrectionary anarchists put value in attack, permanent class conflict, and a refusal to negotiate or compromise with class enemies."[/quote]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36057000]"Anarchist communism (also known as anarcho-communism and occasionally as free communism) is a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, markets, money, private property [B](while retaining respect for personal property)[/B][188], and capitalism in favor of common ownership of the means of production,[189][190] direct democracy and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"." That seems to fit the bill of Conscript's posts pretty well. He may be a straight socialist, but his posts here and elsewhere imply anarcho-communism.[/QUOTE] But, "shit happens"!

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36056810]I'm an advocate for small government and such, but I don't believe that "the state" is so inherently evil that it warrants complete and utter rebellion and resistance to it at every corner. Are you an anarchist?[/QUOTE] I don't believe the state is inherently evil or coercion is immoral, I leave that to anarchists. I just believe the state protects the interests of the wrong people, making me very averse to supporting state action or calling it legitimate. I also don't believe that can be changed through the ballot box (there's not really any logic to believing it can anyway, depending on the change you want). I've seen truly violent dumbasses with a destruction fetish before, there's always at least one at protests like these. But am I going to let that make me suddenly switch sides and support the state? There's far more bad implications that come out of that then not caring over outbreaks of violence that happen anyway, and I'm being far too conditional. It's not about morals or 'whos the worse victim', it's about what interests are being advanced. As a worker, nothing bad is going to come to mine when people protest capital or 'its influence on politics' and beat up the state's enforcers along the way.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36057042]But, "shit happens"![/QUOTE] See insurrectionary anarchism. Conscript seems like an insurrectionary anarcho-communist. Ideologically, personal property is respected, but to achieve a free communist system, no respect must be paid to the state or the enemies of your class. Through an insurrectionary methodology, "shit happens", and while not necessarily right, it's still considered necessary to dismantle the state.

[QUOTE=Conscript;36057085]I don't believe the state is inherently evil or coercion is immoral, I leave that to anarchists. I just believe the state protects the interests of the wrong people, making me very averse to supporting state action or calling it legitimate. I've seen truly violent dumbasses with a destruction fetish before, there's always at least one at protests like these. But am I going to let that make me suddenly switch sides and support the state? There's far more bad implications that come out of that then not caring over outbreaks of violence that happen anyway, and I'm being far too conditional. It's not about morals or 'whos the worse victim', it's about what interests are being advanced. As a worker, nothing bad is going to come to mine when people protest capital or 'its influence on politics' and beat up the state's enforcers along the way.[/QUOTE] I have a feeling that to your perception, the "state" will always "protect the wrong people", even if it's The People.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, Conscript. I don't want to be making broad judgements on your political ideology if I'm missing something.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36057128]I have a feeling that to your perception, the "state" will always "protect the wrong people", even if it's The People.[/QUOTE] The state protects and works for national capital. It always has, it is now. There's a reason why nobody is looking towards workers to bring the nation out of its economic crisis, they aren't the true constituents. It's always about making it easier for capital to invest and serving labor on a ever more silver platter. The state will only protect the interests of 'the people', which is made up by the working class, if 'the people' seize all private property and defend it as their own. Otherwise, you just get a state trying to manage a bunch of classes and relying on the money it can tax from national capital, what we have now.