Occupy Wall Street. Police vs people in NY.

Malor wrote:

It's also interesting how quickly the fact that the police, in the United States, will beat the f*ck out of peaceful protestors, has receded from public awareness. Everything's Just Fine(tm).

Last time I looked you guys have enacted no new laws regulating banks (not that Europe has either) and all the big multi-national banks are more profitable today than they were prior to the bail outs. So... Go Consciousness and Valuable Discussion!!!!

Also absolutely true. Yet again, nothing happens -- but we're now explicitly footing the bill when the banks blow themselves up again.

Yeah, sadly, Occupy didn't really accomplish anything of substance beyond proving to the authorities that they can utilize more unjustified police brutality and the populace won't genuinely take them to task for it.

Farscry wrote:

Yeah, sadly, Occupy didn't really accomplish anything of substance beyond proving to the authorities that they can utilize more unjustified police brutality and the populace won't genuinely take them to task for it.

Minus that whole million dollar fine.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Farscry wrote:

Yeah, sadly, Occupy didn't really accomplish anything of substance beyond proving to the authorities that they can utilize more unjustified police brutality and the populace won't genuinely take them to task for it.

Minus that whole million dollar fine.

For one university's private security force.

What about the NYPD? Seattle PD? Etc?

Occupy did work... It did change the debate. It helped ward off austerity measures in the US.

Occupy people are and were mostly idealists who would probably disagree that it worked. But from my pragmatic eyes, I thank them.

Occupy is intentionally an unfocused movement with a broad scope. It's explicitly not about individual heroes or a single great cause. It would be strange for that approach to lead to specific, defined change.

goman wrote:

Occupy did work... It did change the debate. It helped ward off austerity measures in the US.

How so?

Actually it cost CAL quite a bit more in legal and other fees. It was pretty big news in the SF bay area. Most newscasts were reporting the total was close to $2.2 million. (with only $1 million paid to the protesters)

Judge throws out mass Occupy Chicago arrests as unconstitutional

The city singled out the Occupy demonstrators for violating the park's 11 p.m. curfew on two consecutive weekends in October 2011, arresting hundreds of people, but made no arrests when 500,000 people stayed past the curfew at the 2008 election night rally for President Barack Obama "that electrified the world," Associate Judge Thomas M. Donnelly wrote.

That selective enforcement of the curfew, combined with the Chicago Police Department's harassment of the protesters in the days leading up to the arrests, supports "a finding that the city intended to discriminate against defendants based on their views," Donnelly wrote.

The immediate impact was to throw out the arrests of 92 Occupy protesters on charges related to violating the curfew. But the judge went beyond that in staking out his opinion that the city is violating the public's right to free assembly under the state and U.S. constitutions by restricting late-night access to Chicago's most famous lakefront park, which he called "the quintessential public forum."

Noting the park's long history of political rallies going back to Abraham Lincoln, the judge quoted early city leaders who resolved in 1835 that the land that would become Grant Park "should be reserved for all time to come for a public square, accessible at all times to the people." Because parks are a critical forum for free speech and free assembly, local ordinances restricting access to them must be "narrowly tailored" to serve a specific "government interest," such as park maintenance, Donnelly wrote.

there's a bizarre video out on video on demand channels taht talk about the Occupy movement being orchistrated by Obama.

ranalin wrote:

there's a bizarre video out on video on demand channels taht talk about the Occupy movement being orchistrated by Obama.

They start with the same letter!

.... and so does Osama!!

(It's funnier if you read it in James from SMBC theatre's voice)

An older article (from July) but a good one: NYPD 'consistently violated basic rights' during Occupy protests – study

"Report by NYU and Fordham law schools found 'shocking level of impunity' and department that acted beyond its powers"

Farscry wrote:

Yeah, sadly, Occupy didn't really accomplish anything of substance beyond proving to the authorities that they can utilize more unjustified police brutality and the populace won't genuinely take them to task for it.

Several direct action groups have been organized in the wake of the Occupy protests. http://www.nycga.net hosts a number of them, notably the Immigrant Worker Justice and Alternative Banking Working Groups. Occupy the SEC is also still around.

I would also argue that groups like OUR Walmart owe a lot to Occupy. (They may also have Occupy veterans working for them, but I don't really know.) Certainly their refusal to seek union recognition from Wal-Mart or the NLRB recalls the way Occupy resisted calls for them to make demands and be politically categorized.

Occupy legitimized dissent. In my mind, at least, that's a pretty big accomplishment.

pgroce wrote:

Occupy legitimized dissent. In my mind, at least, that's a pretty big accomplishment.

But organized dissent has always been legitimate. Striking workers isn't a new phenomena, nor is people protesting policies they don't like. You can't look over at the gay rights movement over the past 20-30 years and tell them that they didn't know how to organize and protest until Occupy Wall Street organizers showed them the way. They've had a very real set of accomplishments to point at during that time.

Funkenpants wrote:
pgroce wrote:

Occupy legitimized dissent. In my mind, at least, that's a pretty big accomplishment.

But organized dissent has always been legitimate. Striking workers isn't a new phenomena, nor is people protesting policies they don't like. You can't look over at the gay rights movement over the past 20-30 years and tell them that they didn't know how to organize and protest until Occupy Wall Street organizers showed them the way. They've had a very real set of accomplishments to point at during that time.

I don't want to speak for pgroce, so please correct me if I'm wrong. But I took what he said to mean that it "re-legitimized" dissent. As in post 9/11 America has been a country where any kind of dissent was considered unpatriotic and harmful to the country.

I don't want to speak for pgroce, so please correct me if I'm wrong. But I took what he said to mean that it "re-legitimized" dissent. As in post 9/11 America has been a country where any kind of dissent was considered unpatriotic and harmful to the country.

I agree with this.

DSGamer wrote:

As in post 9/11 America has been a country where any kind of dissent was considered unpatriotic and harmful to the country.

We had huge protests against the war in 2003 and 2004, despite rhetoric against war protesters. If we had a war tomorrow and people were protesting it, you'd still see pro-war people telling the protestors they were being unpatriotic. I saw Hilary Clinton say something like that during the Libya operation. That's kind of a separate style of protest/response that springs up during wartime.

OWS protested against a hugely unpopular target- the banks. There's no political danger in that. They generated a huge amount of publicity, and yet here we are in late 2012 with half the country or more still ready to vote for a guy who made $250 million in the financial industry.

Plus, the labor movement and protesting existed long before OWS showed up. I see OWS people on Chris Matthews show all the time, and I generally agree with their critiques of the financial system. But it seems like they talk and hold meetings and symposiums while the government and financial system ignores them.

DSGamer wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
pgroce wrote:

Occupy legitimized dissent. In my mind, at least, that's a pretty big accomplishment.

But organized dissent has always been legitimate. Striking workers isn't a new phenomena, nor is people protesting policies they don't like. You can't look over at the gay rights movement over the past 20-30 years and tell them that they didn't know how to organize and protest until Occupy Wall Street organizers showed them the way. They've had a very real set of accomplishments to point at during that time.

I don't want to speak for pgroce, so please correct me if I'm wrong. But I took what he said to mean that it "re-legitimized" dissent. As in post 9/11 America has been a country where any kind of dissent was considered unpatriotic and harmful to the country.

This is a good point, and I agree specifically here.

To elaborate on my comment, the issue I see is that while yes, Occupy did give a stronger dissenting voice, the resultant ratcheting up of police and authorities running roughshod over our basic rights and turning into a new, more authoritarian "normal" makes the end result a net negative in my eyes.

Farscry wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
pgroce wrote:

Occupy legitimized dissent. In my mind, at least, that's a pretty big accomplishment.

But organized dissent has always been legitimate. Striking workers isn't a new phenomena, nor is people protesting policies they don't like. You can't look over at the gay rights movement over the past 20-30 years and tell them that they didn't know how to organize and protest until Occupy Wall Street organizers showed them the way. They've had a very real set of accomplishments to point at during that time.

I don't want to speak for pgroce, so please correct me if I'm wrong. But I took what he said to mean that it "re-legitimized" dissent. As in post 9/11 America has been a country where any kind of dissent was considered unpatriotic and harmful to the country.

This is a good point, and I agree specifically here.

To elaborate on my comment, the issue I see is that while yes, Occupy did give a stronger dissenting voice, the resultant ratcheting up of police and authorities running roughshod over our basic rights and turning into a new, more authoritarian "normal" makes the end result a net negative in my eyes.

While I largely agree with DS, I think that the negative that Farscry talks about is not something to be underestimated. There is a large section of the country that saw that as a perfectly valid example of how to handle peaceful dissent. 10%, 20%, 30% of the country? I don't know. I know that my parents at the very least thought that Pike was completely and totally justified in spraying all of those protesters down (my dad is a cop, does that make it more understandable or worse)?

Of course 10, 20, 30% of the nation may have thought that sicking attack dogs on black protesters was perfectly fine and we still got civil rights.

Yonder wrote:

Of course 10, 20, 30% of the nation may have thought that sicking attack dogs on black protesters was perfectly fine and we still got civil rights.

Yup, that's one of my biggest concerns; we don't know how much of the population condoned the violation of protestors' rights. I'm also concerned about how these actions may play out legally.

Yeah, DSGamer pretty much nailed it. Although I'd place the delegitimization a good bit further back; the beginning of the end was probably when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers. Not that labor and protest movements are the same thing, but outside of the Sixties, the labor movement has historically been the most visible form of organized public protest. (Though Occupy clearly takes many of its cues from the Sixties, too.)

Farscry wrote:
Yonder wrote:

Of course 10, 20, 30% of the nation may have thought that sicking attack dogs on black protesters was perfectly fine and we still got civil rights.

Yup, that's one of my biggest concerns; we don't know how much of the population condoned the violation of protestors' rights. I'm also concerned about how these actions may play out legally.

This raises a question in my mind: historically, what has been the distribution of public opinion on protest? I wouldn't be surprised if America has historically been very polarized in its attitudes toward labor strikes, with some people ardently in favor of it (because they see themselves in the protestors) and some against (either because they identify with the Establishment or because they have racial/ethnic/whatever animus toward the protesters.)

My general sense of things is that the postwar twentieth century was a deviation, not a new normal. It would be interesting if the current attitudes, which seem so foreign to me, are really a reversion to the mean.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/10/...

Such a wondrous group that is so worth praising.

I'm still dumbfounded by the support this movement has received after all the derision that the Tea Party received.

Ulairi wrote:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/10/...

Such a wondrous group that is so worth praising.

I'm still dumbfounded by the support this movement has received after all the derision that the Tea Party received.

I would imagine because the Occupy movement was largely a protest that seemed worthwhile, if poorly executed, whereas the Tea Party often came across as sore losers who were just rabblerabbling because the Republican Party lost the election and suddenly the nation was going to Hell.

Not everything the Occupy movement has done is sacrosanct, but I really grow weary of the eyerolling derision that usually comes with the "look at example X, the whole thing was just useless and terrible, obv."

The Occupy movement does not compare with the Tea Party mostly because the Tea Party had a specific goal of electing people who were... like... gonna make America good again. And those people, with their anointed representatives, proved to be stark lunatics in the worst cases, and just really excellent examples of social and political ignorance at best. What the Occupy movement was against - privatized gain at socialized risk, broadly - was something that most of America could get behind until everyone decided it was a Democratic movement and drew their battle lines accordingly.

My wife's law firm just moved into the Bank of America building downtown. She got to deal with one lasting effect of OWS.

She has to show her ID on her way in and out of the building everyday. And they are not allowed to use the street entrance, but rather the walkway from the garage. This all to keep the protesters from entering and causing problems.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/10/...

Such a wondrous group that is so worth praising.

I'm still dumbfounded by the support this movement has received after all the derision that the Tea Party received.

I would imagine because the Occupy movement was largely a protest that seemed worthwhile, if poorly executed, whereas the Tea Party often came across as sore losers who were just rabblerabbling because the Republican Party lost the election and suddenly the nation was going to Hell.

Not everything the Occupy movement has done is sacrosanct, but I really grow weary of the eyerolling derision that usually comes with the "look at example X, the whole thing was just useless and terrible, obv."

The Occupy movement does not compare with the Tea Party mostly because the Tea Party had a specific goal of electing people who were... like... gonna make America good again. And those people, with their anointed representatives, proved to be stark lunatics in the worst cases, and just really excellent examples of social and political ignorance at best. What the Occupy movement was against - privatized gain at socialized risk, broadly - was something that most of America could get behind until everyone decided it was a Democratic movement and drew their battle lines accordingly.

The OWS is against privatized gain. They are for public gain and privatized risk. American's aren't for that. They are for privatized profits and privatized risk.

OWS accomplished nothing of value. After the election, it will be a joke in the halls of history. They couldn't elect a single individual from their cause. It was a movement worthy of more derision than the Tea Party because the OWS has far more examples of the people just being jerk offs.

These are not isolated examples. There are many more. With the tea party, there were nutty and crazy folks but they didn't rape anybody, harass people who work for a Church who are trying to clean the streets, break into buildings and harass employees.

Ulairi wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/10/...

Such a wondrous group that is so worth praising.

I'm still dumbfounded by the support this movement has received after all the derision that the Tea Party received.

I would imagine because the Occupy movement was largely a protest that seemed worthwhile, if poorly executed, whereas the Tea Party often came across as sore losers who were just rabblerabbling because the Republican Party lost the election and suddenly the nation was going to Hell.

Not everything the Occupy movement has done is sacrosanct, but I really grow weary of the eyerolling derision that usually comes with the "look at example X, the whole thing was just useless and terrible, obv."

The Occupy movement does not compare with the Tea Party mostly because the Tea Party had a specific goal of electing people who were... like... gonna make America good again. And those people, with their anointed representatives, proved to be stark lunatics in the worst cases, and just really excellent examples of social and political ignorance at best. What the Occupy movement was against - privatized gain at socialized risk, broadly - was something that most of America could get behind until everyone decided it was a Democratic movement and drew their battle lines accordingly.

The OWS is against privatized gain. They are for public gain and privatized risk. American's aren't for that. They are for privatized profits and privatized risk.

OWS accomplished nothing of value. After the election, it will be a joke in the halls of history. They couldn't elect a single individual from their cause. It was a movement worthy of more derision than the Tea Party because the OWS has far more examples of the people just being jerk offs.

These are not isolated examples. There are many more. With the tea party, there were nutty and crazy folks but they didn't rape anybody, harass people who work for a Church who are trying to clean the streets, break into buildings and harass employees.

Ulairi wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/10/...

Such a wondrous group that is so worth praising.

I'm still dumbfounded by the support this movement has received after all the derision that the Tea Party received.

I would imagine because the Occupy movement was largely a protest that seemed worthwhile, if poorly executed, whereas the Tea Party often came across as sore losers who were just rabblerabbling because the Republican Party lost the election and suddenly the nation was going to Hell.

Not everything the Occupy movement has done is sacrosanct, but I really grow weary of the eyerolling derision that usually comes with the "look at example X, the whole thing was just useless and terrible, obv."

The Occupy movement does not compare with the Tea Party mostly because the Tea Party had a specific goal of electing people who were... like... gonna make America good again. And those people, with their anointed representatives, proved to be stark lunatics in the worst cases, and just really excellent examples of social and political ignorance at best. What the Occupy movement was against - privatized gain at socialized risk, broadly - was something that most of America could get behind until everyone decided it was a Democratic movement and drew their battle lines accordingly.

The OWS is against privatized gain. They are for public gain and privatized risk. American's aren't for that. They are for privatized profits and privatized risk.

OWS accomplished nothing of value. After the election, it will be a joke in the halls of history. They couldn't elect a single individual from their cause. It was a movement worthy of more derision than the Tea Party because the OWS has far more examples of the people just being jerk offs.

These are not isolated examples. There are many more. With the tea party, there were nutty and crazy folks but they didn't rape anybody, harass people who work for a Church who are trying to clean the streets, break into buildings and harass employees.

I'm not even sure where to start with that. You do realize that just by the very nature of the OWS movement, that in some places people with ZERO interest in OWS hung around the campsites, right?

Ulairi wrote:

The OWS is against privatized gain. They are for public gain and privatized risk. American's aren't for that. They are for privatized profits and privatized risk.

Well, wait. Are we treating them as an entity or as a scattering of examples? Because as an entity, they actually had several things on their list of demands that were about reforming the corrupted/broken system, not about socializing it. But then, if you want to just cherry pick statements and actions that line up with your opinion, I can also do the same. So that's a bit of a wash at best, or you're just actually wrong. Depending on how you wanna see it.

OWS accomplished nothing of value. After the election, it will be a joke in the halls of history. They couldn't elect a single individual from their cause. It was a movement worthy of more derision than the Tea Party because the OWS has far more examples of the people just being jerk offs.

"They had more jerks" is not exactly something I'm going to bother to address except to point out that it's not a really good way to equate the movements or compare them. How many more jerks? What kind of jerks? Who was being a jerk? This is just silly.

These are not isolated examples. There are many more. With the tea party, there were nutty and crazy folks but they didn't rape anybody, harass people who work for a Church who are trying to clean the streets, break into buildings and harass employees.

It's true, no one in the Tea Party ever raped anyone or ever committed any acts of violence. I mean, I guess that never happened at a Tea Party rally.. except the acts of violence part. And I guess it's worth mentioning that the rapist that everyone likes to point out was was a previously convicted violent criminal. So if you want to say that the Occupy movement had criminals but none exist in the Tea Party I... uh... dunno what to say to that.

Look, it's worthless to get into the whole "Occupy is just a bunch of losers and morons" debate again, because it's a huge straw man. "There were jerks and buttholes in that large, multi-layered group of people" is not exactly some sort of unique or particularly damning charge. "Didn't get anything done," is a fair thing to say. But no, it doesn't compare to the Tea Party for reasons I explained above, except in the ways that are common to all large movements and groups.

Bloo Driver wrote:
OWS accomplished nothing of value. After the election, it will be a joke in the halls of history. They couldn't elect a single individual from their cause. It was a movement worthy of more derision than the Tea Party because the OWS has far more examples of the people just being jerk offs.

"They had more jerks" is not exactly something I'm going to bother to address except to point out that it's not a really good way to equate the movements or compare them. How many more jerks? What kind of jerks? Who was being a jerk? This is just silly.

The answer is 7. Not sure why, but that's how the math works out.