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

[QUOTE=Conscript;36057272] 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. [/QUOTE] Woo! I was right!

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36057217]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] I'm no anarchist. Guys, an anarchist would be offended if you associated me with them. I would be a 'statist' just like the rest of you.

I'm not sure how this is relevant at all. Conscript just wanted somewhere to spew his warped ideals and try to justify violence that leads to nothing.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;36058491]I'm not sure how this is relevant at all. Conscript just wanted somewhere to spew his warped ideals and try to justify violence that leads to nothing.[/QUOTE] ...while you justify state violence and coercion. This thread is a clusterfuck of cheering on the police and them using force, but when someone defends the protestors' use of it, suddenly I'm the one spewing ideals and justifying violence. Liberals are tremendous hypocrites, but at least they're 'legitimate' (i.e. commonplace). I never had any control over the flow of this thread anyway.

[QUOTE=Conscript;36058649]...while you justify state violence and coercion. This thread is a clusterfuck of cheering on the police and them using force, but when someone defends the protestors' use of it, suddenly I'm the one spewing ideals and justifying violence. Liberals are tremendous hypocrites, but at least they're 'legitimate' (i.e. commonplace). I never had any control over the flow of this thread anyway.[/QUOTE] When have I justified state violence or coercion?

[QUOTE=Conscript;36058649]...while you justify state violence and coercion. This thread is a clusterfuck of cheering on the police and them using force, but when someone defends the protestors' use of it, suddenly I'm the one spewing ideals and justifying violence. Liberals are tremendous hypocrites, but at least they're 'legitimate' (i.e. commonplace). I never had any control over the flow of this thread anyway.[/QUOTE] They fucking picked up metal rails and charged at the police. What would you do in that situation if you were a Police officer?

[QUOTE=Zambies!;36058747]They fucking picked up metal rails and charged at the police. What would you do in that situation if you were a Police officer?[/QUOTE] Get out of the way. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=King Tiger;36058723]When have I justified state violence or coercion?[/QUOTE] When haven't you? In every related thread I see you in you're bashing anything left and praising police action. You certainly haven't condemned any use of force on the state's part.

[QUOTE=Conscript;36058808]Get out of the way.[/QUOTE] How do they get out of the way when the anarchists are attacking them? What do you think, they are going to ram down McCormick Place with a metal barricade? They attacked the police, they didn't try to get past them. And the police did not use force until they were assaulted by the anarchists. So stop trying to act like "the state" (and you act like all local, state, and federal levels of government are one giant conglomeration that acts with a singular goal) is the attacker here. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Conscript;36058808]Get out of the way. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] When haven't you? In every related thread I see you in you're bashing anything left and praising police action. You certainly haven't condemned any use of force on the state's part.[/QUOTE] What the hell are you saying? I'm bashing anarchists who attack people. I completely support the NATO protests. They are legitimate and the protesters have legitimate concerns. I will not support violent riotous activity.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;36058859]How do they get out of the way when the anarchists are attacking them? What do you think, they are going to ram down McCormick Place with a metal barricade?[/quote] You think they wouldn't if the cops weren't there? What a dumb question, obviously the state already thinks so. It's a police line and it's meant to obstruct. If they didn't want to obstruct, maybe they shouldn't have shown up? Are you really asking them to be responsible for the police's actions? [quote]They attacked the police, they didn't try to get past them.[/quote] This is so dumb it doesn't deserve a response. I'll be sure to teach people to blink through police lines. [quote]And the police did not use force until they were assaulted by the anarchists.[/quote] Obstruction is just as coercive and forceful as moving someone. [quote]So stop trying to act like "the state" (and you act like all local, state, and federal levels of government are one giant conglomeration that acts with a singular goal) is the attacker here.[/quote] Without the state there would be none of these governments and no Union for them to be tied together in (so yea, they do act together with a single goal, the best interests of the union). As I've already said, obstruction is coercive and it's not victimless. I don't know why you're trying to make the 'self-defense' appeal. [quote]What the hell are you saying? I'm bashing anarchists who attack people. I completely support the NATO protests. They are legitimate and the protesters have legitimate concerns. I will not support violent riotous activity.[/QUOTE] Well, I wouldn't say completely, but [i]conditionally[/i], especially with the 'legitimate' concerns part since you've already demonized a chunk of the protesters' ambitions. When you say 'legitimate' it's like a thinly veiled bias. You're like many other detached centrists, you want to channel this spontaneous unrest into just another reform initiative which will of course have to soften its demands because of other political groups in the government, if not just latch on to one of the parties.

[QUOTE=Conscript;36059438]You think they wouldn't if the cops weren't there? What a dumb question, obviously the state already thinks so. It's a police line and it's meant to obstruct. If they didn't want to obstruct, maybe they shouldn't have shown up? Are you really asking them to be responsible for the police's actions? This is so dumb it doesn't deserve a response. I'll be sure to teach people to blink through police lines. Obstruction is just as coercive and forceful as moving someone. Without the state there would be none of these governments and no Union for them to be tied together in (so yea, they do act together with a single goal, the best interests of the union). As I've already said, obstruction is coercive and it's not victimless. I don't know why you're trying to make the 'self-defense' appeal. Well, I wouldn't say completely, but [i]conditionally[/i], especially with the 'legitimate' concerns part since you've already demonized a chunk of the protesters' ambitions. When you say 'legitimate' it's like a thinly veiled bias. You're like many other detached centrists, you want to channel this spontaneous unrest into just another reform initiative which will of course have to soften its demands because of other political groups in the government, if not just latch on to one of the parties.[/QUOTE] You are a radical who thinks that people have to be hurt in order for progress to be achieved. And you have no concept of government. You clearly believe that the state acts as a singular individual at all levels and acts with a single goal. This is convenient for you because you can focus your attacks on the entire government, which you want to be gone for some reason or another. In reality (at least modern reality, where logic pulled from late 19th Century communist leaflets does not apply), the government is made up of many different levels and they do not follow orders from a single person as you would have everyone believe. You are clearly deluded if you think that the anarchists are justified in their attacks because the police just standing there was just as much of an attack. You have no idea what these peoples goals were and so you cannot speak for them. They spoke of attacking the police and they demonstrated that and that only.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;36059648]You are a radical who thinks that people have to be hurt in order for progress to be achieved. And you have no concept of government. You clearly believe that the state acts as a singular individual at all levels and acts with a single goal. This is convenient for you because you can focus your attacks on the entire government, which you want to be gone for some reason or another. In reality (at least modern reality, where logic pulled from late 19th Century communist leaflets does not apply), the government is made up of many different levels and they do not follow orders from a single person as you would have everyone believe. You are clearly deluded if you think that the anarchists are justified in their attacks because the police just standing there was just as much of an attack. You have no idea what these peoples goals were and so you cannot speak for them. They spoke of attacking the police and they demonstrated that and that only.[/QUOTE] This is just a whole bunch of meaningless assertions, misquotes, and very irrelevant crap, when I have said anything about a single omnipotent guy? Since when do 'levels of government' matter? The USSR was made up of a shitload of governments, yet nobody disputes the fact they didn't act as one and held a common interest. You are a liberal, you don't need to be lecturing me about hurting people. States are derived from violence and coercion and historical liberalism + its modern currents embraces the use of one. It's hypocritical of you to consider state coercion/violence legitimate and coercion/violence on the part of dissenters somehow deserving of a special, condescending exception. It's also amazing you don't think obstruction is coercive, or the victim is whoever was less coercive. I'm done with you, sorry.

[QUOTE=Conscript;36059941]This is just a whole bunch of meaningless assertions, misquotes, and very irrelevant crap, when I have said anything about a single omnipotent guy? Since when do 'levels of government' matter? The USSR was made up of a shitload of governments, yet nobody disputes the fact they didn't act as one and held a common interest.[/quote] That's nice, but this is not the U.S.S.R. Great job citing a completely irrelevant example for your claim. I never mentioned a "single omnipotent guy" and I never stated that you believed the state was run by a single person, but you act as if all levels and channels of government (called "the state" by you) act as one single entity. In the U.S., local, state, and federal governments usually have little to do with each other. Here, the City of Chicago is the target of interest, as it was the Chicago Police Department that was attacked by anarchists. [quote]You are a liberal, you don't need to be lecturing me about hurting people. States are derived from violence and coercion and historical liberalism + its modern currents embraces the use of one. It's hypocritical of you to consider state coercion/violence legitimate and coercion/violence on the part of dissenters somehow deserving of a special, condescending exception. It's also amazing you don't think obstruction is coercive, or the victim is whoever was less coercive.[/quote] I fail to see how embracing liberalism (you put that tag on me, I never mentioned it) would correlate to causing or condoning violence, but OK. I think that the fact that you consider any type of government to be coercion or obstruction means that you lack an understanding of law and order, and why attacking people is bad regardless of whatever justification they may have. But you're the guy who thinks we should kill people for their political opinions, so it's understandable that you lack a basic understanding of these things. [quote]I'm done with you, sorry.[/QUOTE] OK, have fun in the 19th Century!

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36048147]An alliance of countries to wage war is 'cool'?[/QUOTE] An alliance of countries designed to make joint military action possible. It is a structure to allow allies to fight together. There is really nothing to protest here. If you don't like the actions of NATO, then protest the nation who leads that particular effort. NATO itself has no interests or desires outside of serving as a central command structure. What possible goals could you achieve by protesting NATO? A dissolution of a close alliance? Less cohesion when fighting with close allies? I honestly don't understand protesting NATO. Which isn't to say that there isn't a reason to protest NATO, but all of the information I have encountered suggests that it is not only a futile action, but a terribly misguided one. But if you have a reason, I would honestly be glad to hear it.

[QUOTE=Conscript;36059941]This is just a whole bunch of meaningless assertions, misquotes, and very irrelevant crap, when I have said anything about a single omnipotent guy? Since when do 'levels of government' matter? The USSR was made up of a shitload of governments, yet nobody disputes the fact they didn't act as one and held a common interest. You are a liberal, you don't need to be lecturing me about hurting people. States are derived from violence and coercion and historical liberalism + its modern currents embraces the use of one. It's hypocritical of you to consider state coercion/violence legitimate and coercion/violence on the part of dissenters somehow deserving of a special, condescending exception. It's also amazing you don't think obstruction is coercive, or the victim is whoever was less coercive. I'm done with you, sorry.[/QUOTE] Please leave facepunch.

I imagine Conscript living Phantom-of-the-Opera style, living in a cold deep underground dwelling with paintings of various communist leaders whilst singing a serenade to Anarchism.

[QUOTE=GunFox;36060275]An alliance of countries designed to make joint military action possible. It is a structure to allow allies to fight together. There is really nothing to protest here. If you don't like the actions of NATO, then protest the nation who leads that particular effort. NATO itself has no interests or desires outside of serving as a central command structure. What possible goals could you achieve by protesting NATO? A dissolution of a close alliance? Less cohesion when fighting with close allies? I honestly don't understand protesting NATO. Which isn't to say that there isn't a reason to protest NATO, but all of the information I have encountered suggests that it is not only a futile action, but a terribly misguided one. But if you have a reason, I would honestly be glad to hear it.[/QUOTE] I doubt we need to require all of our allies into Afghanistan or Iraq simply because they're part of NATO. There have been French soldiers that have died - for what? A problem that was between America and Al-Qaeda?

[QUOTE=Zambies!;36061812]I imagine Conscript living Phantom-of-the-Opera style, living in a cold deep underground dwelling with paintings of various communist leaders whilst singing a serenade to Anarchism.[/QUOTE] I believe he's already said he doesn't consider himself an Anarchist.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36061851]I doubt we need to require all of our allies into Afghanistan or Iraq simply because they're part of NATO. There have been French soldiers that have died - for what? A problem that was between America and Al-Qaeda?[/QUOTE] That's part of a military alliance. You get involved in your allies' wars, and in return your allies will get involved in your wars. In the long run these sorts of alliance are [i]generally[/i] mutually beneficial.

[QUOTE=Megafan;36061862]I believe he's already said he doesn't consider himself an Anarchist.[/QUOTE] I believe it's pretty clear that he is, regardless of what he calls himself. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;36061875]That's part of a military alliance. You get involved in your allies' wars, and in return your allies will get involved in your wars. In the long run these sorts of alliance are [i]generally[/i] mutually beneficial.[/QUOTE] "I can go to war a lot easier now because I always have my friends to back me up" just breeds violence and more war. War becomes [I]easier[/I] to make. That is not right. War should be the completely absolute last-resort, and then some.

[QUOTE=Megafan;36061862]I believe he's already said he doesn't consider himself an Anarchist.[/QUOTE] He is though. His rhetoric regarding the state as being an entity of coercion and violence, and having no justification for the obstruction of protesters fits the bill of anarchism pretty much perfectly. He might consider himself a statist, but his views coincide with anarchism so well that there is very little distinction, if any. I don't consider that an insult, necessarily. Some anarchist philosophy is interesting(the reason why I am even somewhat familiar with anarchism). [editline]23rd May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36061882]I believe it's pretty clear that he is, regardless of what he calls himself. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] "I can go to war a lot easier now because I always have my friends to back me up" just breeds violence and more war. War becomes [I]easier[/I] to make. That is not right. War should be the completely absolute last-resort, and then some.[/QUOTE] Actually military alliances are often a deterrence. That's why NATO and the Warsaw Pact were created to begin with. Having these big military alliances helped to counter-balance each other. The problem is that there is no counter-balance to NATO anymore. However, the failure of these alliances to deter war can often result in some horrible shit(see: WW1). [editline]23rd May 2012[/editline] I think protesting NATO as an entity is missing the point. The point should be focused on these wars, not on the fact that other countries lend aid to their allies.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36061906]He is though. His rhetoric regarding the state as being an entity of coercion and violence, and having no justification for the obstruction of protesters fits the bill of anarchism pretty much perfectly. He might consider himself a statist, but his views coincide with anarchism so well that there is very little distinction, if any. I don't consider that an insult, necessarily. Some anarchist philosophy is interesting(the reason why I am even somewhat familiar with anarchism).[/QUOTE] This is what Conscript sees himself as [QUOTE][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Bakunin.png[/img][/QUOTE] This is what Conscript actually is [img]http://anarchism.pageabode.com/sites/anarchism.pageabode.com/files/anarchist.jpg[/img] My thoughts, at least. [QUOTE=yawmwen;36061906][editline]23rd May 2012[/editline] Actually military alliances are often a deterrence. That's why NATO and the Warsaw Pact were created to begin with. Having these big military alliances helped to counter-balance each other. The problem is that there is no counter-balance to NATO anymore. However, the failure of these alliances to deter war can often result in some horrible shit(see: WW1).[/QUOTE] They're horrible at deterrence, then. History has shown that they only make you feel more comfortable to go to war, not fear it more.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36061965]This is what Conscript sees himself as This is what Conscript actually is [img]http://anarchism.pageabode.com/sites/anarchism.pageabode.com/files/anarchist.jpg[/img] [/QUOTE] good job adding to the conversation dude really convinced me!

[QUOTE=thisispain;36062113]good job adding to the conversation dude really convinced me![/QUOTE] I already added a ton of commentary on this. I think I can afford to post simple pointless pictures of ridicule now :v:

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36062117]I already added a ton of commentary on this. I think I can afford to post simple pointless pictures of ridicule now :v:[/QUOTE] not really, all i've seen is juvenile assertions. why don't you argue with conscript instead of pulling strawmen out your arsehole. i think by now it should be very sore. fyi, he's a marxist. that's different from anarchy, yet it is also stateless. if you're gonna argue for something at least make sure you know your shit, Mr. history major.

[QUOTE=thisispain;36062238]not really, all i've seen is juvenile assertions. why don't you argue with conscript instead of pulling strawmen out your arsehole. i think by now it should be very sore. fyi, he's a marxist. that's different from anarchy, yet it is also stateless. if you're gonna argue for something at least make sure you know your shit, Mr. history major.[/QUOTE] Eh I'm not really following this. But for pity's sake thisispain if you're going to call out a logical fallacy don't follow it with a logical fallacy of your own that is just silly.

[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. [editline]22nd May 2012[/editline] 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.[/QUOTE] Thats how protests turn into a riot and then a blood bath. The 'direct action' you have imagined your taking does nothing but hurt your cause. It Makes you all come across as disrespectful, violent, hateful animals and even furthers the want for heavier armed police officers to deal with protests because to all of us, people who value our property and communities, your just an angry mob. For people who think what they are doing is smart, your all pretty fucking stupid.

Bring violence in a protest would just make it easier for the media to make the whole movement look like the bad guy. Just recently there was a protest that turned violent in my country,their cause for the protest is good but then some idiots thought it was a good idea to break down the barricades which the goverment CLEARLY says is off limits and then they got aggravated when the police hose them down with water cannons and give them tear gas so they could disperse and attacked police cars and police officers.The only thing violence caused is lost of respect to the movement from people who wasn't involved or wanted to protest peacefully,some people being injured and property being damaged.