My God, you are an idiot.

[Gattigap]

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

I do enjoy your undying faith in reason. Even if it is irrational.

(yes, that was intentionally circular)

Cool. A recursive joke.

Hank - what about adding one of these to your repertoire?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

when he posts shit like that, and you support it, you harm the board.

I seriously don't understand why you think it's valuable to keep pointing out that some protester, somewhere, might have done something violent, or justifying the use of violence by the police. As an intellectual matter, that's true.* But: So what? Why is that a good question to be dwelling on right now? I haven't follow the New York situation closely, and frankly am more offended there by the PD's casual disregard for property rights -- the pictures of smashed laptops, the books that were thrown away -- than by the recent violence -- how quickly we forgot Lt. Bologna. But from Oakland, Berkeley and Davis, I have watched videotape of police resorting to unacceptable violence to suppress non-violent political protest. In Oakland, people were marching. In Berkeley, they were standing with their arms locked, when the campus policy started hitting them with batons (and pulling people down by the hair). In Davis, well you saw it.

In the face of all of those facts, why do you keep harping on the abstract possibility that someone, somewhere, might have deserved it?


* You could even say that the inchoate organization of the Occupy movements sets this problem up -- because no one is clear what the movement is or who runs it, it's all the harder for them to say that someone who acts in a violent way does not represent the movement. That would be a fair point.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

by the way, does her job status imply that hurting her is somehow worse than hurting poor people to you? I really don't understand your point.

Her job status makes it less likely -- to me, anyway -- that she is a reckless youngster who did something warranting that response. Actually, that question is moot for me in any event, because I've watched video of those events and it's absolutely clear to me that she wasn't doing anything that warranted that reaction from the police. But since you seem hung up on the abstract possibility that she was a bad actor, I thought I'd tell you who she actually was.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I seriously don't understand why you think it's valuable to keep pointing out that some protester, somewhere, might have done something violent, or justifying the use of violence by the police. As an intellectual matter, that's true.* But: So what? Why is that a good question to be dwelling on right now? I haven't follow the New York situation closely, and frankly am more offended there by the PD's casual disregard for property rights -- the pictures of smashed laptops, the books that were thrown away -- than by the recent violence -- how quickly we forgot Lt. Bologna. But from Oakland, Berkeley and Davis, I have watched videotape of police resorting to unacceptable violence to suppress non-violent political protest. In Oakland, people were marching. In Berkeley, they were standing with their arms locked, when the campus policy started hitting them with batons (and pulling people down by the hair). In Davis, well you saw it.

In the face of all of those facts, why do you keep harping on the abstract possibility that someone, somewhere, might have deserved it?


* You could even say that the inchoate organization of the Occupy movements sets this problem up -- because no one is clear what the movement is or who runs it, it's all the harder for them to say that someone who acts in a violent way does not represent the movement. That would be a fair point.

i made one point- the one guy bleeding wasn't proof of police misconduct. we have oodles of other proof of police misconduct- why do you feel the need to puff it?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

You have to put it in terms Hank understands:

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Her job status makes it less likely -- to me, anyway -- that she is a reckless youngster who did something warranting that response.

because a person with a degree is "better" than the hypothetical poor person? you can't be serious. it seems to me pointing out that one of them is "less deserving" of punishment because she is of the elite goes contrary to one of the few uniting tenants in the movement.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You have to put it in terms Hank understands:

2. this also gets the politics of the sufferers correct.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

because a person with a degree is "better" than the hypothetical poor person? you can't be serious.

Jesus Fucking Christ, read what I actually said. Not because she's a better person, but because her age and occupation makes it less likely that she did something reckless that would make a cop justifiably pull her down by her hair.

it seems to me pointing out that one of them is "less deserving" of punishment because she is of the elite goes contrary to one of the few uniting tenants in the movement.

Yes, good point. That little thought you had that maybe your interpretation of what I said was not quite right -- that little thought was warning you than you had misunderstood me. Listen to it next time.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Her job status makes it less likely -- to me, anyway -- that she is a reckless youngster who did something warranting that response. Actually, that question is moot for me in any event, because I've watched video of those events and it's absolutely clear to me that she wasn't doing anything that warranted that reaction from the police. But since you seem hung up on the abstract possibility that she was a bad actor, I thought I'd tell you who she actually was.

If you watch the video closely, you can see that she offers up her wrists to be arrested before she is pulled by her hair out of the line of protesters, violently thrown to the ground and then, well, arrested.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I seriously don't understand why you think it's valuable to keep pointing out that some protester, somewhere, might have done something violent, or justifying the use of violence by the police. As an intellectual matter, that's true.* But: So what? Why is that a good question to be dwelling on right now? I haven't follow the New York situation closely, and frankly am more offended there by the PD's casual disregard for property rights -- the pictures of smashed laptops, the books that were thrown away -- than by the recent violence -- how quickly we forgot Lt. Bologna. But from Oakland, Berkeley and Davis, I have watched videotape of police resorting to unacceptable violence to suppress non-violent political protest. In Oakland, people were marching. In Berkeley, they were standing with their arms locked, when the campus policy started hitting them with batons (and pulling people down by the hair). In Davis, well you saw it.

In the face of all of those facts, why do you keep harping on the abstract possibility that someone, somewhere, might have deserved it?


* You could even say that the inchoate organization of the Occupy movements sets this problem up -- because no one is clear what the movement is or who runs it, it's all the harder for them to say that someone who acts in a violent way does not represent the movement. That would be a fair point.

I watched the video. There is no dispute the cop's actions were unwarranted. The proper response would have been to amass enough officers to remove the people. Instead, the police took the cheap route and decided to use a chemical agent to do the job.

And the stupidity of the cop with the spray is breathtaking. Have these people never heard of Youtube? My God. Ya think, you granite-skulled oaf, that maybe - just maybe - video of you pepper spraying cowering college kids kids might go viral? They should fire that dumb fuck yesterday.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

If you watch the video closely, you can see that she offers up her wrists to be arrested before she is pulled by her hair out of the line of protesters, violently thrown to the ground and then, well, arrested.

This shit always happens in melees. The police become football players in the pile scrambling for a fumble. Bite, scratch, kick-in-the-nuts... it's all suddenly fair game. I guess it's to be expected, to some extent. I don't think I'd be supple or constrained in my efforts if told to get control of a mass of people fighting removal from a space. One might resort to the cheap, lazy tactics like hair-pulling. And recall, these are local cops. You'll look long and hard to find lazier, less creative public employees.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I do enjoy your undying faith in reason. Even if it is irrational.

(yes, that was intentionally circular)

Nothing is worth believing in.

(Does that 'top' the joke?)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This shit always happens in melees. The police become football players in the pile scrambling for a fumble. Bite, scratch, kick-in-the-nuts... it's all suddenly fair game. I guess it's to be expected, to some extent. I don't think I'd be supple or constrained in my efforts if told to get control of a mass of people fighting removal from a space. One might resort to the cheap, lazy tactics like hair-pulling. And recall, these are local cops. You'll look long and hard to find lazier, less creative public employees.

But what about a crowd that has rich educated people? Rich educated people deserve better!


Conf to Ty I realize I'm being a dick. I'm trying to show you all why you shouldn't engage in this type posting.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This shit always happens in melees. The police become football players in the pile scrambling for a fumble. Bite, scratch, kick-in-the-nuts... it's all suddenly fair game. I guess it's to be expected, to some extent. I don't think I'd be supple or constrained in my efforts if told to get control of a mass of people fighting removal from a space. One might resort to the cheap, lazy tactics like hair-pulling. And recall, these are local cops. You'll look long and hard to find lazier, less creative public employees.

Watch the video. That isn't at all what happened. There was no melee at all. Just cops "nudging" protesters and making almost no attempt to remove anyone.