Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[stokes234]

No, there isn't.

But here's the thing: they didn't. They didn't even try. So even if you just want to claim that such crime is merely an inevitable side-effect of erecting urban camps, you're still left with the OWS movement choosing to embark on a course of action whose inevitable end result was rampant crime, and the tea party eschewing any such course of action. That's not really much of a defense of OWS.

Well, you seem pretty quick to blame these OWS guys for the crime, but i'm not convinced they hold the responsibility for it. I don't know the figures for how many of the crimes committed are being committed by genuine members of the protest (and i'm not aiming for a no true scotsman here - i'd include anyone who at least started out as a protestor), but it may well be something that is mainly happening to them, rather than being done by them. In which case, you're left with the question - should people refrain from political protest because they might be attacked by criminals?

Does anyone have any figures showing how many of the people committing violent crime were originally members of the protests?

 

[mike3]

There are several messages, particularly a desire for reduced inequality and reduced corporate influence on government.

Which sounds like a good idea to me. So what would be needed to make a movement to push for that would not suffer from the problems that have been mentioned here?

 

[mike3]

Depends on how you want to define "best". Least bloodshed, fastest, most orderly, cheapest...?

By best I mean most effective in bringing about the desired change.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, you seem pretty quick to blame these OWS guys for the crime, but i'm not convinced they hold the responsibility for it. I don't know the figures for how many of the crimes committed are being committed by genuine members of the protest

You missed my point entirely. Whether or not OWS members are committing the crimes, following your argument they still created the environment which produced all this criminal activity. That may not be as bad as them having committed the crimes themselves, but it's still bad, and still much worse than the tea party, which did not create any such crime-favorable settings.

In which case, you're left with the question - should people refrain from political protest because they might be attacked by criminals?

They should refrain from using tactics which produce crime when tactics which do not produce crime are available. Is that not obvious?

Oh, and their tactics are in and of themselves criminal, let's not forget that. When you start breaking the law and expecting impunity, it's hard to turn around and complain when others start breaking the law in your wake.

 

[shuize]

After all the tents are packed up and gone, I'm curious how OWS supporters will explain away it's failure to accomplish anything.

On the other hand, since the OWS movement never had any clearly defined objectives, maybe they won't have to worry about such things.

 

[stokes234]

You missed my point entirely. Whether or not OWS members are committing the crimes, following your argument they still created the environment which produced all this criminal activity. That may not be as bad as them having committed the crimes themselves, but it's still bad, and still much worse than the tea party, which did not create any such crime-favorable settings.

I don't accept that. If the crime is being done to the protestors, then I don't accept they are responsible for it, for the same reasons I don't accept women are responsible for being raped if they dress up in a certain way or walk around in certain areas. The responsibility lies with the people who are committing the crimes. If those people are the OWS protestors themselves, you have a point, so long as it can be shown that the level of violent crime is higher than a typical random selection of the population of the same size.

They should refrain from using tactics which produce crime when tactics which do not produce crime are available. Is that not obvious?

No. If they are not responsible as I explain above, then I don't agree that they should be required to use different tactics.

Oh, and their tactics are in and of themselves criminal, let's not forget that. When you start breaking the law and expecting impunity, it's hard to turn around and complain when others start breaking the law in your wake.

I don't understand. Who is "turning around and complaining" in the above quote? Are you suggesting that if people pitch tents in public parks, they deserve to be victims of violent crime? I think you need to clarify.

 

[Neally]

By best I mean most effective in bringing about the desired change.

If you are looking for a dramatic change in the status quo, enlist the support of other countries, arm up heavily, and overthrow the government.

 

[bikerdruid]

After all the tents are packed up and gone, I'm curious how OWS supporters will explain away it's failure to accomplish anything.

dead wrong.
the OWS movement has caused millions of people to ask questions.
these ripples will turn into waves.

 

[applecorped]

these ripples have turned into whine.

 

[portlandatheist]

For the poster who flung the drug smear, such distinctions are irrelevant. I notice that you have yet to explain your earlier need to lie about the contents of a comments thread you yourself appeared to be using somewhat smearingly.



How many "tea party" protests were 24 hour encampments open to anybody in the middle of cities?

There were two other former occupiers besides Wendy and more in the numerous threads about the occupy movement. That may not be "many" in your book but its no lie

 

[portlandatheist]

...
Freedom to peacefully assemble.

There was an arrest here in Portland for somebody who put there tent up in the middle of the street after they kicked people out of the park. It's absurd to think that closing a city park to camping (or the street) is an infringement to peacefully assemble. Our 10pm city noise ordinance is also constitutional.
We saw democracy in action in Portland tonight, we've already democratically made our city ordinances and 88% of us wanted them removed so the city workers could clean and repair the park.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't accept that. If the crime is being done to the protestors, then I don't accept they are responsible for it

It's not being done exclusively to them. And they deliberately created the environment where such crimes would predictably happen, and have made it more difficult for law enforcement to protect both them and others. Why, exactly, should we simply excuse that?

for the same reasons I don't accept women are responsible for being raped if they dress up in a certain way or walk around in certain areas.

That's not at all equivalent. This isn't simply about individuals who have been victimized by their own stupidity. For the most part, the victims have been made easy targets because of the callous indifference of others within the movement. Rape doesn't actually work this way, but if dressing like a slut led to other women being raped, then damn straight I'd blame a woman who dressed slutty if it caused the rape of another woman. And that's the parallel to what's going on here.

The responsibility lies with the people who are committing the crimes.

They bear ultimate responsibility, sure, but that doesn't actually absolve people who enable them.

I don't understand. Who is "turning around and complaining" in the above quote?

The OWS protesters. Are you suggesting that OWS protesters don't even care that there's all this crime in their midst? Because that's basically the worst accusation I've leveled against them, and it almost sounds like you're using it as a defense.

Are you suggesting that if people pitch tents in public parks, they deserve to be victims of violent crime?

There actions have quite led to an increase in crime. This was both predictable and avoidable. "Deserve" has nothing to do with it, but damn straight there is blame to be laid at their doorstep.

But I'll give you an analogy, since you seem to like them. Let's say a parent gives their teenage child a bottle of hard liquor before that child goes off to a party with their friends. If the child ends up drinking, gets in an accident, and kills themselves, does the parent deserve to have their child die? No, of course not. Do they bear some responsibility, some blame, for the child's death? Yes, they do.

I think you need to clarify.

I think you need to stop trying to read things into my posts that I never said.

 

[Ziggurat]

these ripples have turned into whine.

 

[WildCat]

Yeah, they weren't the sort of people I'd want in power ... and they still managed not to kill or rape folks in their rallies.

But it's so hard to excersize restraint!

 

[WildCat]

Did someone say "Ripple"?

 

[Neally]

I don't accept that. If the crime is being done to the protestors, then I don't accept they are responsible for it, for the same reasons I don't accept women are responsible for being raped if they dress up in a certain way or walk around in certain areas.

The protesters, in their ignorance, welcomed everyone, made no attempts to turn away or screen the people in the camp, which quickly attracted the criminal element and leaches. They also actively discouraged the police. The result was that they actually had had to create their own security detail due to the increasing criminals that they attracted. Eventually a few realized that the homeless were just there to leach and not help out and a few protesters complained.

Contrast that to the tea party protests. Few crimes, although it did attract the racist fringe, but they were denounced and in general you had orderly, law abiding assemblies.

OWS actively looked to break the law and get arrested. They may have had crimes committed against them, but they were themselves breaking the law and did damn little to turn away the unsavory element in their midst.

 

[stilicho]

....

Eventually a few realized that the homeless were just there to leach and not help out and a few protesters complained.

....

The OWS people were very quick to establish their property rights over food and shelter which they rapidly denied to the lowest quintile who tried to satisfy the lowest rung of Maslow's hierarchy. Brainster posted one link establishing that a homeless mission in Boston was being used by the protesters for meals and bathing facilities intended for those who actually depend on them for their existence.

That has been the enduring message of the Occupy protests: What's yours is ours; what's mine is mine.

 

[shuize]

the OWS movement has caused millions of people to ask questions.

Yeah, I sort of expected this sort of vague "getting people to ask questions was the victory and stuff, man" response. That way, everyone can still claim to have accomplished something even when nothing actually changes.

 

[Virus]

Turns out the suspect and victim of the shooting at Occupy Oakland were associated with the camp.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/OPD-Suspect-Victim-Both-Connected-to-Occupy-133787643.html

 

[leftysergeant]

So?