No, we wouldn't, because you are reading things into what I am saying that I am not.
I did not, even once, suggest that we should legislate peace.
There is a difference between that which is "peaceful" that which is "just" that which is "legal" and that which is "good."
These are separate concepts.
For no apparent reason, you are tying every comment I make about what it means to be peaceful into a normative value that should be spread across America as the law.
You're literally spouting nonsense. Peaceful means non-violent, means legal. If you're accusing a protestor of not being peaceful you're inherently discussing the legality of the matter. Based on your first post i'm just amazed at how far you've back-tracked and wandered off the beaten path.
No, I did not. You are not comprehending the difference between moral condemnation and causation.
I never once excused the violent person, or gave the violent person a moral justification.
I guess you didn't get your own sarcasm then? Or are you implying that both parties can be guilty, as thought that were a meaningful concession? Either way, you should be aware that if I call you a name in public and you stab me, they're not going to care what I said in court.
I'm was not trying to explain incitement, I'm trying to explain causality.
That's even worse. I was hoping you were going to debate a supreme court case with me. Turns out you're just indicting the innocent because words are dangerous.
No! Justification has to be based in either moral principle or some sort of law - I am talking about causality and the control we have, as individuals, over situations.
Shame on you for not understanding causality and misinterpreting everything I say into a moral or legal philosophy when in reality we have the exact same view on what ought to be the law, and what is the moral course of action.
The relationship to the event a priori has no bearing on the action taken. If you think we agree on who's to blame, why are you dragging out of the (aformentioned) concept of causality as though it were some kind of revelation on what I had said? "Fighting words," haven't been admissable in court since the 1800's. I'm not debating what "ought," to be the law with you. I know what the law is and i'm explaining it to you.
No thanks, after reading biographies on em for a leadership class I took a year ago, and the several times I went over civil rights movement in undergrad, and the brief one episode rant by Penn Jellete on his recent tv show, and the oral history passed on to me by acquaintances, I'm not very interested.
So you watched bullshit and you're an expert? I'm not suprised you aren't interested given your disposition.
You are misinformed, not on my understanding of the civil rights movement or Ghandi, but on the very things I am saying in this thread.
You seem incapable of separating a point of fact on an abstract concept from a moral imperative or an argument for legal change.
Who's mis-informed? I'm well versed in the history of both men and my doctoral thesis was on the civil rights movement. If you want to lay me out some "fact," to combat the arguments i've made you're more than welcome to. Unfortunately I'll want it cited and I won't take "saw it on Penn and Teller's Bullshit," for an answer.
The thing is though, Proletaria, is that I didn't.
I agree that social inequality is a tangent issue, I brought it up to show what my personal normative values are.
Most of what I said in this thread was not about what I thought was right or wrong, or what I thought was constitutional or unconstitutional, or what I thought was legal or illegal.
And I am positive that there are other lurkers out there who read what I wrote and understood that I was not suggesting policy.
At least one other person in this thread has recognized that your responses are disjointed to what people are actually saying - it upsets me because your characterization of what I am preaching is libelously incorrect.
We have the exact same beliefs about everything but what it means to be peaceful, and you just can't see it
My responses are disjointed? I'll file that one away under "sweet irony." I agree we have a pretty simply point of contention, one that you seem unable to adress directly. That point is, does the speaker bring violence upon himself with his words? The answer is obviously yes, he can, but no it's not legal to harm him. Therefor, the speaker in protest is peaceful. This is the moral answer, it is the ethical answer, and it is the legal answer.
So let me get this straight in order to peacefully protest in most occasions, you need to just lie down and let them walk over you?
It's this apathetic, non-confrontational stance that allows our rights to be stripped away slowly. Don't step aside and be silent when you see a injustice just out of fear that they may harm you.
So let me get this straight in order to peacefully protest in most occasions, you need to just lie down and let them walk over you?
It's this apathetic, non-confrontational stance that allows our rights to be stripped away slowly. Don't step aside and be silent when you see a injustice just out of fear that they may harm you.
I had a caveat a long time ago in this thread, basically saying non-violence only works when the zeitgeist allows or the opressor has a conscience.
So yeah, not always the right answer. And before i'm prompted on it: Yes, fighting for freedom of expression (among other basic human rights) is most certainly justified.
So that is why I think "peaceful protest" needs to be separated out into protests where people knew there was going to be violent resistance, and protests where people were either caught unawares or surprised by the violence (or where there was no violence) - they seem to be completely different animals that garner different amounts of respect (with the people knowing they are facing violence being more respectful (in my eyes at least)(others may think those who avoid any sort of physical conflict by rescheduling when or where to protest are more respectable)).
I guess I just simply disagree. I feel that everybody is responsible for themselves and only themselves. I also feel that peaceful protests mean you are acting in a peaceful manner, regardless of what others are doing.
From what I gather of what you believe (Which may be wrong, but I am trying to make sure I understand correctly) you believe that peaceful means more then acting in a peaceful manner, that it also means cowtowing to those that would not act in a peaceful manner.
If I understand correctly, I disagree completely.
Edit:
That's not to say you don't have some responsibility. Your responsibility may be great, but that's on a situational basis and does not tie in directly with your peaceful or non-peaceful protests.
I think that when you know how another person is going to act, and you set them up to act that way, that little bit of control you have gives you a little bit of actual responsibility.
A priori assumptions carry no weight in arguments of free speech for obvious reasons that i've hammered at you time and again. The speaker cannot be held responsible for the potential reactions of all listeners or readers. Given the plethora of opinions on what is not acceptable speech, what is taboo, what is a word of incitement: there is an exponential number of things that would have to be censored (self-censored or lawfully censored) in order to eliminate this and that violates the premise of free speech.
I'm not saying that you should be held legally responsible, or that you are morally to blame (unless you were a leader, leading children into a highly hazardous situation without explaining it properly to them), just that your choice partially causes the resulting disaster.
You're not saying they should be responsible... but they are partially responsible. All you did there was re-word the phrase. This is why your argument is invalid.
The more predictable the reactions of other people are,
the more control you have over a situation,
the more responsibility you have.
This is a nice way of saying "the more vocal the opposition to free speech, the more you must move to self-censor." That is patent nonsense and a total defamation of freedom of speech.
So that is why I think "peaceful protest" needs to be separated out into protests where people knew there was going to be violent resistants, and protests where people were either caught unawares or surprised by the violence (or where there was no violence) - they seem to be completely different animals that garner different amounts of respect (with the people knowing they are facing violence being more respectful (in my eyes at least)(others may think those who avoid any sort of physical conflict by rescheduling when or where to protest are more respectable)).
Avoiding physical violence is expressedly the buisness of those who will visit that violence and not someone who is simply exercising simple speech. There is no valid reason to hold any words, pictures, or means of self-expression (that do not involve the physical harm of another human being) responsible for physical violence, at all.
You may qualify peaceful protest in some very extra-ordinary fashion if it pleases you, after all that is your right as a person with free speech, but you are doing a terrible job of convincing us that peaceful expression has such a narrow (arguably non-existent based on your critera) window of opportunity.
From what I gather of what you believe (Which may be wrong, but I am trying to make sure I understand correctly) you believe that peaceful means more then acting in a peaceful manner, that it also means cowtowing to those that would not act in a peaceful manner.
If I understand correctly, I disagree completely.
That is precisely what he argues and i'm well aware of the thought-process that goes into it. This is the same kind of relativism that caused liberal western thinkers to condemn Salman Rushdie and the cartoonists of Denmark. It's the same dogma that totalitarian regimes lives and dies on. It is the demand that expression be confined to expressedly narrow limitataion, lest it run the risk of being labeled violent, immoral, non-patriotic, or otherwise requiring a corporal punitive action.
You are right to disagree, in-fact i'm quite hopeful that anyone who fancys themself a proponent of suferage, representation, and self-governance sees just how utterly necessary it is to deny his definition of peace because it is the peace of a slave and the condemnation of freedom itself.
Wow, can we get back to why Anonymous has decided to go in the same old inefficient direction as so many other "peaceful organizers?" We don't need to organize. Standing in the street and shouting has won as absolutely no leeway with the multiple wars we are fighting, and that's not to mention that wall street protests are far from a new idea. Michael Moore did it. Hell Rage Against the Machine held a free concert on the steps of a bank on Wall Street, and that was back before America had such a broken spirit. We need people to get pissed and feel like there is something they can actually do....... other than stand in the street and repeat a sentence over and over again like a mentally-handicapped person.
I have done more than my far share of bitching in the streets, and I certainly don't regret it. I can remember organizing with a group called "food not bombs" where we actually fed the homeless. Untill, local governments realized that we were spreading anti-national dissent. Apparently, if you aren't spreading the gospel of zombie jesus and how his flesh will help you live forever and grant you with the ability to communicate your submission to his will and power telepathically...... you shouldn't have the right to feed the homeless. Maybe, it's just that all my "organizing" days left a bad taste in my mouth, and I would actually like to "fucking do something."
Wow, can we get back to why Anonymous has decided to go in the same old inefficient direction as so many other "peaceful organizers?" We don't need to organize. Standing in the street and shouting has won as absolutely no leeway with the multiple wars we are fighting, and that's not to mention that wall street protests are far from a new idea. Michael Moore did it. Hell Rage Against the Machine held a free concert on the steps of a bank on Wall Street, and that was back before America had such a broken spirit. We need people to get pissed and feel like there is something they can actually do....... other than stand in the street and repeat a sentence over and over again like a mentally-handicapped person.
I don't think you can postulate peaceful protest as always being ineffective. There have not been, since the early 80s, protest anywhere near the scale of what I experienced during Vietnam. Part of the reason is, as you alluded to, a diffirent attitude in America (i'd not call it a broken spirit per se, but apply spin as you will). There are a much larger vocal minority of radical religious fundamentalists than we had to deal with back then. There are also much fewer true liberals (not starbucks liberals, but true social welfare, sufferage, universal rights liberals) who are prepared to make the case aswell.
Having said all that, I don't think it would be impossible to get a true mass movement started around the all-too-obvious problems in coporate/governemnt relationships (which, as far as I can tell, seems to be the shtick of Anon). That group would need media coverage like the Tea Party has been getting and it would need it's own equally-clear-cut Humanist agenda to harp on when pressed. Much like Nixon and the reps of our past, you can be assured any movement of that nature would not hold up under scrutiny if it's memebers had no lucid opinions on not just "wall street bad," but policy making in general. People don't give hippies a lot of credit, but our anti-war movement also brought on a huge surge of liberal policies in government until Regan came along and wiped his ass with the Thatcher plan and made it our ideal.
I have done more than my far share of bitching in the streets, and I certainly don't regret it. I can remember organizing with a group called "food not bombs" where we actually fed the homeless. Untill, local governments realized that we were spreading anti-national dissent. Apparently, if you aren't spreading the gospel of zombie jesus and how his flesh will help you live forever and grant you with the ability to communicate your submission to his will and power telepathically...... you shouldn't have the right to feed the homeless. Maybe, it's just that all my "organizing" days left a bad taste in my mouth, and I would actually like to "fucking do something."
I don't know what you're alluding to in your local government there, but its a familiar story. All I can say is, any protester and activist worth his or her salt doesn't take "no," for an answer. They picket, march, and speak publicly on every occasion that presents itself. Opposition is to be expected, not avoided. While I can agree that being gutted by the local moral majority isn't something that brings fond memories to mind, I have to echo the sentiment of Martin Luther King Jr. "Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can't ride you unless your back is bent." The imperative isn't on anyone but you and anyone else who feels the need for change. I'm active as I can be (at my age) in making waves for change. The question I posit to anyone out there who's like minded: What have you done lately?
@proletaria I understand the need to protest, and you have a very valid point that a protestor who shows up and says, "Oh I thought this would be easy, nevermind" isn't much of a protestor. I just feel like protesting during vietnam was as effective as it was because it was coupled with so many other things. We seem to both agree that most of the current generation of protestors see it as a weekend hobby and not really something to commit very strongly to.
I am somewhat of a hypocrite I suppose considering I have not masterminded a new strategy that will muster creativity and innovative participation in others, but the fact still stands that rich and powerful people in our country now see protests as a minor/financial hindrance and most often one they ignore almost entirely. Take the recent rule of no dancing at national monuments. It was outrageous that they arrested people (violently taking them into custody btw) for dancing ANYWHERE in America, and there was quite a large resistance movement planned where an enormous group of upset people gathered at danced at a monument in defiance of the absurd rule. None of that group were arrested that I know of, but the stupid rule still stands as far as I know.
The fact is, if rich and powerful people want to restrict your freedom for their own gain or ego, whatever the reason, it is all to easy for them to "talk to the right people" and get things done. The majority of people in our country don't have any recourse when suffering at the hands of a corporate dominated economy for instance. They can't just "pull a few strings" like some corporate asshat who decides that his profit margin is far more important than the well-being of our country. Anonymous seemed like they were on the road to leveling the playing field a bit. They don't only peacefully protest. They have the means to hit em where it hurts. Their pocketbooks. I guess I just hoped for a more direct approach from Anonymous considering they have had such a direct approach in the past.
Well its September 17 11:30 am in NYC and nothing has happened. Maybe just a couple kids in Guy Fawkes masks and alot of talk of kicking over that card stand. A truly powerful protest indeed.
OMG GUYS THERES LIKE THOUSANDS OF PPL AT WALL STREET, AND THEY SHUT DOWN ALL THE CORRUPT!!! AMERICA IS FREEE!!!!! oh wait. they failed.
Edit: I'm all for cracking down on the corrupt, but the whole 'lets rush this place and!...and.. well lets sit outside. but we'll chant!' does nothing.
So... that video is about 2 seconds of message and 5min of music?
In the end these people are just going to make a lot of people's good simple lives a little more difficult because they can't find a better way to do things... That being said If you believe something your actions should reflect it and I'm wondering what their actions are trying to convey about what they believe.
Their is a time for everything. A time for war and a time for peace. A time for joy and a time for sorrow......
The trick is knowing what time it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You're literally spouting nonsense. Peaceful means non-violent, means legal. If you're accusing a protestor of not being peaceful you're inherently discussing the legality of the matter. Based on your first post i'm just amazed at how far you've back-tracked and wandered off the beaten path.
I guess you didn't get your own sarcasm then? Or are you implying that both parties can be guilty, as thought that were a meaningful concession? Either way, you should be aware that if I call you a name in public and you stab me, they're not going to care what I said in court.
That's even worse. I was hoping you were going to debate a supreme court case with me. Turns out you're just indicting the innocent because words are dangerous.
The relationship to the event a priori has no bearing on the action taken. If you think we agree on who's to blame, why are you dragging out of the (aformentioned) concept of causality as though it were some kind of revelation on what I had said? "Fighting words," haven't been admissable in court since the 1800's. I'm not debating what "ought," to be the law with you. I know what the law is and i'm explaining it to you.
So you watched bullshit and you're an expert? I'm not suprised you aren't interested given your disposition.
Who's mis-informed? I'm well versed in the history of both men and my doctoral thesis was on the civil rights movement. If you want to lay me out some "fact," to combat the arguments i've made you're more than welcome to. Unfortunately I'll want it cited and I won't take "saw it on Penn and Teller's Bullshit," for an answer.
Repeating bullshit doesn't make it true, unless you're on Fox News.
What is this. I don't even.
My responses are disjointed? I'll file that one away under "sweet irony." I agree we have a pretty simply point of contention, one that you seem unable to adress directly. That point is, does the speaker bring violence upon himself with his words? The answer is obviously yes, he can, but no it's not legal to harm him. Therefor, the speaker in protest is peaceful. This is the moral answer, it is the ethical answer, and it is the legal answer.
It's this apathetic, non-confrontational stance that allows our rights to be stripped away slowly. Don't step aside and be silent when you see a injustice just out of fear that they may harm you.
I had a caveat a long time ago in this thread, basically saying non-violence only works when the zeitgeist allows or the opressor has a conscience.
So yeah, not always the right answer. And before i'm prompted on it: Yes, fighting for freedom of expression (among other basic human rights) is most certainly justified.
I guess I just simply disagree. I feel that everybody is responsible for themselves and only themselves. I also feel that peaceful protests mean you are acting in a peaceful manner, regardless of what others are doing.
From what I gather of what you believe (Which may be wrong, but I am trying to make sure I understand correctly) you believe that peaceful means more then acting in a peaceful manner, that it also means cowtowing to those that would not act in a peaceful manner.
If I understand correctly, I disagree completely.
Edit:
That's not to say you don't have some responsibility. Your responsibility may be great, but that's on a situational basis and does not tie in directly with your peaceful or non-peaceful protests.
A priori assumptions carry no weight in arguments of free speech for obvious reasons that i've hammered at you time and again. The speaker cannot be held responsible for the potential reactions of all listeners or readers. Given the plethora of opinions on what is not acceptable speech, what is taboo, what is a word of incitement: there is an exponential number of things that would have to be censored (self-censored or lawfully censored) in order to eliminate this and that violates the premise of free speech.
You're not saying they should be responsible... but they are partially responsible. All you did there was re-word the phrase. This is why your argument is invalid.
This is a nice way of saying "the more vocal the opposition to free speech, the more you must move to self-censor." That is patent nonsense and a total defamation of freedom of speech.
Avoiding physical violence is expressedly the buisness of those who will visit that violence and not someone who is simply exercising simple speech. There is no valid reason to hold any words, pictures, or means of self-expression (that do not involve the physical harm of another human being) responsible for physical violence, at all.
You may qualify peaceful protest in some very extra-ordinary fashion if it pleases you, after all that is your right as a person with free speech, but you are doing a terrible job of convincing us that peaceful expression has such a narrow (arguably non-existent based on your critera) window of opportunity.
That is precisely what he argues and i'm well aware of the thought-process that goes into it. This is the same kind of relativism that caused liberal western thinkers to condemn Salman Rushdie and the cartoonists of Denmark. It's the same dogma that totalitarian regimes lives and dies on. It is the demand that expression be confined to expressedly narrow limitataion, lest it run the risk of being labeled violent, immoral, non-patriotic, or otherwise requiring a corporal punitive action.
You are right to disagree, in-fact i'm quite hopeful that anyone who fancys themself a proponent of suferage, representation, and self-governance sees just how utterly necessary it is to deny his definition of peace because it is the peace of a slave and the condemnation of freedom itself.
That's just my personal opinion.
I have done more than my far share of bitching in the streets, and I certainly don't regret it. I can remember organizing with a group called "food not bombs" where we actually fed the homeless. Untill, local governments realized that we were spreading anti-national dissent. Apparently, if you aren't spreading the gospel of zombie jesus and how his flesh will help you live forever and grant you with the ability to communicate your submission to his will and power telepathically...... you shouldn't have the right to feed the homeless. Maybe, it's just that all my "organizing" days left a bad taste in my mouth, and I would actually like to "fucking do something."
LOL too true ^^
I don't think you can postulate peaceful protest as always being ineffective. There have not been, since the early 80s, protest anywhere near the scale of what I experienced during Vietnam. Part of the reason is, as you alluded to, a diffirent attitude in America (i'd not call it a broken spirit per se, but apply spin as you will). There are a much larger vocal minority of radical religious fundamentalists than we had to deal with back then. There are also much fewer true liberals (not starbucks liberals, but true social welfare, sufferage, universal rights liberals) who are prepared to make the case aswell.
Having said all that, I don't think it would be impossible to get a true mass movement started around the all-too-obvious problems in coporate/governemnt relationships (which, as far as I can tell, seems to be the shtick of Anon). That group would need media coverage like the Tea Party has been getting and it would need it's own equally-clear-cut Humanist agenda to harp on when pressed. Much like Nixon and the reps of our past, you can be assured any movement of that nature would not hold up under scrutiny if it's memebers had no lucid opinions on not just "wall street bad," but policy making in general. People don't give hippies a lot of credit, but our anti-war movement also brought on a huge surge of liberal policies in government until Regan came along and wiped his ass with the Thatcher plan and made it our ideal.
I don't know what you're alluding to in your local government there, but its a familiar story. All I can say is, any protester and activist worth his or her salt doesn't take "no," for an answer. They picket, march, and speak publicly on every occasion that presents itself. Opposition is to be expected, not avoided. While I can agree that being gutted by the local moral majority isn't something that brings fond memories to mind, I have to echo the sentiment of Martin Luther King Jr. "Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. And so we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can't ride you unless your back is bent." The imperative isn't on anyone but you and anyone else who feels the need for change. I'm active as I can be (at my age) in making waves for change. The question I posit to anyone out there who's like minded: What have you done lately?
I am somewhat of a hypocrite I suppose considering I have not masterminded a new strategy that will muster creativity and innovative participation in others, but the fact still stands that rich and powerful people in our country now see protests as a minor/financial hindrance and most often one they ignore almost entirely. Take the recent rule of no dancing at national monuments. It was outrageous that they arrested people (violently taking them into custody btw) for dancing ANYWHERE in America, and there was quite a large resistance movement planned where an enormous group of upset people gathered at danced at a monument in defiance of the absurd rule. None of that group were arrested that I know of, but the stupid rule still stands as far as I know.
The fact is, if rich and powerful people want to restrict your freedom for their own gain or ego, whatever the reason, it is all to easy for them to "talk to the right people" and get things done. The majority of people in our country don't have any recourse when suffering at the hands of a corporate dominated economy for instance. They can't just "pull a few strings" like some corporate asshat who decides that his profit margin is far more important than the well-being of our country. Anonymous seemed like they were on the road to leveling the playing field a bit. They don't only peacefully protest. They have the means to hit em where it hurts. Their pocketbooks. I guess I just hoped for a more direct approach from Anonymous considering they have had such a direct approach in the past.
Tell us how you REALLY feel.
My middle name is Dylan after Bob Dylan. My first name is Jesse after Jesse James. My father used to tell me he named me after "a poet and a thief."
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
First post was updated.
Saturday, September 17th.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2svRa-VSaOU
Edit: I'm all for cracking down on the corrupt, but the whole 'lets rush this place and!...and.. well lets sit outside. but we'll chant!' does nothing.
In the end these people are just going to make a lot of people's good simple lives a little more difficult because they can't find a better way to do things... That being said If you believe something your actions should reflect it and I'm wondering what their actions are trying to convey about what they believe.
Their is a time for everything. A time for war and a time for peace. A time for joy and a time for sorrow......
The trick is knowing what time it is.