Occupy Movement Vis A Vis The Tea Partiers

[Papist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1322018727' post='2339675']
People have a right to [u][b]a lawful[/b][/u] assemble and protest. they have a right to do so without getting beaten and arrested on trumped up charges. Probably the most important thing the OWS protests have done is show how incredibly militarized the american police force has become.
[/quote]
Fixed.

[KnightofChrist]

How not to get sprayed in your face with mace: Revised Edition
Class 1 : Lesson 1 : Test 1

This test will account for 100% of your final grade.

You are at a Occupy rally on campus. You want to avoid being sprayed in your face with mace but you still want to protest against the presence of riot police on campus. As the riot police begin to leave. Remember now you are protesting their presence and you still don't want mace in your face.

Do you A) encircle the riot police with the rest of the rally as they try to clear a path to leave. Then as the riot police are surrounded you all shout out 'if you want to clear the path, you will have to go through us! WE WILL NOT LET YOU LEAVE!"

Or do you B) Allow the riot police to leave but as they leave vocally protest their presence on campus.

If you are Elli Pearson, and many others at the UC Davis OWS rally you have chosen...

A) encircle the riot police with the rest of the rally as they try to clear a path to leave. Then as the riot police are surrounded you all shout out 'if you want to clear the path, you will have to go through us! WE WILL NOT LET YOU LEAVE!"

I'm sorry but the correct answer was B) Allow the riot police to leave but as they leave vocally protest their presence on campus.

Source: [url="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/11/24/uc-davis-student-admits-protesters-surrounded-cops-and-wouldnt-let-th"]UC Davis Student Admits Protesters Surrounded Cops and Wouldn't Let Them Leave[/url]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGagKL_tvS8[/media]

Edited November 25, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[Socrates]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1322167661' post='2340106']
We should not just accept that at giant gatherings theres going to be a certain amount of rapes. What a load of complete and utter bull flop. Had numerous rapes accrued at Tea Party events they would have been shut down by the authorities. Because they would have rightly been declared unsafe. I would have taken the first rape as a giant red flag, and gave no support to the Tea Party after the second rape. And certainly not after hearing that members of the movement asked the victims to not report the offense. That's just one time a person should not be asked to take one for the team.

OWSer and their supports have a selective sense of morality and anger. I suppose if the police had raped these women, or perhaps if Sarah Palin had put targets on their tents and Herman Cain committed the offenses it would matter a whole heck of a lot more to people on the left. If members of the Tea Party stated they wished Oklahoma style bombings happened 1,000 more times, or had stood in solidarity with a person who attempted to assassinate the President it would be seen as extremist and terroristic. Had the tea party committed offenses like the OWSers have those defending OWS would be attacking the Tea Party as unsafe, violent, extremist and bigoted and rightfully so.
[/quote]
Oh, didn't you know that loads of rapes, violence, and the rest of it goes on all the time at Tea Party gatherings?

It's just that the media doesn't report it and the cops do nothing about it.

Because they're all bought off by the Tea Partiers, of course.

It's the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy. (Somebody call Hillary Clinton!)

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1322018727' post='2339675']

and do you know why the Tea Partiers never got in fights with the police? its because the police pretty much left them alone to protest as they pleased.
[/quote]
Maybe that's because (as has been pointed out umpteen times on here) the way the Tea Partiers pleased tended not to include the lawlessness violence, taunting, and deliberate provocation on display at the "Occupy" protests.

Or you can blame it on the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

Which we all know is way more fun to do.

[Socrates]

Just a few final thoughts before I make a long-belated exit from this rather silly thread:

1) Nobody's condoning genuine police brutality where it occurs. Such incidents should be reported and the cops involved prosecuted. But police brutality is a completely separate issue having nothing to do with the goodness or rightness of the OWS cause or the protester's behavior. They're still a bunch of idiots. That said . . .

2) There does appear to be a disproportionate amount of violence, lawlessness, obscenity, and general nastiness going on at these OWS protests. Which is not to say that every person attending such protests is involved in said nastiness. However, the claim that such behavior necessarily occurs on such a scale whenever there is a large group of people gathered is simply bs. I've attended plenty of March for Life protests in DC, which, while maybe not quite as gargantuan as the OWS demonstrations, do involved large crowds of largely young people gathering to protest in a public area. Yet you usually see no violence, rape, obscenity, public drug use or sex, or fights with the police at such gatherings. Of course, I suppose that could just be because it's a largely conservative, Christian crowd protesting there. But that's the point. Overall, there is a significant difference in behavior between conservative and left-wing groups. It should come as a shock to nobody that a mob of left-wing and "anarchist" wannabe radicals are behaving like animals.

3) While the OWS people have a right to say whatever asinine things they want to, they don't have a right to indefinitely squat on public property, abuse such property, and engage in general lawlessness, just because they are "protesting." Invoking "civil disobedience" to justify this lawlessness is stupid. They're not violating a fundamentally unjust law to advance a greater good. We're not talking about Rosa Parks refusing to give up her bus seat, people.

If me and a gang of Evil Conservative buddies get a bee in our bonnets and decide to protest liberal idiots in the government, high taxes or some other un-pc cause, does that give us the right to squat in a public park without a permit as long as w , use it as a toilet, engage in public sex and nudity, etc.?
The mere fact that one is "protesting" something does not somehow grant you a license to general lawlessness.

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1322087829' post='2339951']
Plenty of books out there chronicling the left-wing bias in the major newsrooms, though no doubt you'll dismiss them all as right-wing propaganda. Here's one from award-winning journalist and self-described liberal Jonah Goldberg: [url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060520841/ref=s9_simh_gw_p14_d3_g14_i2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=17FVXZS8MJDJ2FNZHRF5&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846"][i]Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News[/i][/url].[/QUOTE]

I certainly wouldn't accept it as a legitimate source as it is in no way academically rigorous. Jonah Goldberg speaking with an unpleasant disposition about Dan Rather does not constitute a scientific study of systematic biases in America's media. Would you accept 'Outfoxed' as a scientific, rigorous study of the bias in Fox News? Of course not. Nor should you.

[QUOTE]I would find it incredible that the political and ideological biases of anyone would [i]not[/i] affect their reporting of politically-charged events and issues. That doesn't require a vast evil conspiracy - it's just human nature. I think it's naive to presume that newsrooms are driven by nothing other than the pure untainted search for Truth.

I guess I'll have to get your book to see a reference all those "copious" studies you allude talk about, though I'm curious to what their methodology would be. It's impossible to mathematically or statistically prove bias or the lack thereof - any given news report one person will tally up as biased and another as not, and thus the results of any such survey will reflect the bias of those conducting it.[/QUOTE]

The relevent study for your specific concern can be found in the Journal of Political Communication, October-December 1996: "News Decisions: Journalists as Partisan Actors" by Thomas E. Patterson and Wolfgang Dounsbach

[url="http://www.uky.edu/AS/PoliSci/Peffley/pdf/Patterson%201996%20Pol%20Comm%20News%20decisions_%20Journalists%20as%20partisan%20actors.pdf"]http://www.uky.edu/A...an%20actors.pdf[/url]


Bias brought by personal beliefs is modest and far from outright advocacy. This impact is further diminished by the editorial process which serious news organizations take pretty seriously.

This is a marginal impact as compared to the larger, right wing media, like Fox news, where the bias is overt and substantial. MSNBC's turn to the left has been fairly recent but I would assume that the bias is similar to that of Fox.
[QUOTE]However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the leftward slant in much of the "mainstream" coverage. Having attended many of the DC March for Life events, the way most of the media distorts that has made me seriously question the objective truth of [i]any[/i] of their reporting.
[/quote]

Right. So there definitely is bias but there's no way to prove any such bias because how can you prove such a thing anyway, lolz? But even though you can in no way seriously, scientifically analyze the media for systemic bias it's obvious that there is a bias, albeit one that lends itself only to intuition and not to rigorous study, because you've been the right to life marches and you toats know your shiz.

That's not a serious argument. It's bobbing and weaving to avoid actually having to argue your assertion.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Hasan

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1322262771' post='2340460']

I certainly wouldn't accept it as a legitimate source as it is in no way academically rigorous. Jonah Goldberg speaking with an unpleasant disposition about Dan Rather does not constitute a scientific study of systematic biases in America's media. Would you accept 'Outfoxed' as a scientific, rigorous study of the bias in Fox News? Of course not. Nor should you.[/quote]
FOX is no more or less exempt from bias than the other networks.


[quote]The relevent study for your specific concern can be found in the Journal of Political Communication, October-December 1996: "News Decisions: Journalists as Partisan Actors" by Thomas E. Patterson and Wolfgang Dounsbach


[url="http://www.uky.edu/AS/PoliSci/Peffley/pdf/Patterson%201996%20Pol%20Comm%20News%20decisions_%20Journalists%20as%20partisan%20actors.pdf"]http://www.uky.edu/A...an%20actors.pdf[/url][/quote]
Ok, so journalists responding to a survey say they don't consider their own reporting to be biased.

I'm shocked.


[quote]Right. So there definitely is bias but there's no way to prove any such bias because how can you prove such a thing anyway, lolz? But even though you can in no way seriously, scientifically analyze the media for systemic bias it's obvious that there is a bias, albeit one that lends itself only to intuition and not to rigorous study, because you've been the right to life marches and you toats know your shiz.


That's not a serious argument. It's bobbing and weaving to avoid actually having to argue your assertion.[/quote]
That's a flippin' sweet mullet, bro. lolz

Edited November 25, 2011 by Socrates

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1322261498' post='2340451']
Just a few final thoughts before I make a long-belated exit from this rather silly thread:

1) Nobody's condoning genuine police brutality where it occurs.
[/quote]


So you only condone violence when it's against homosexuals. Good to know!

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1322261498' post='2340451']
Just a few final thoughts before I make a long-belated exit from this rather silly thread:

1) Nobody's condoning genuine police brutality where it occurs. Such incidents should be reported and the cops involved prosecuted. But police brutality is a completely separate issue having nothing to do with the goodness or rightness of the OWS cause or the protester's behavior. They're still a bunch of idiots. That said . . .

2) There does appear to be a disproportionate amount of violence, lawlessness, obscenity, and general nastiness going on at these OWS protests. Which is not to say that every person attending such protests is involved in said nastiness. However, the claim that such behavior necessarily occurs on such a scale whenever there is a large group of people gathered is simply bs. I've attended plenty of March for Life protests in DC, which, while maybe not quite as gargantuan as the OWS demonstrations, do involved large crowds of largely young people gathering to protest in a public area. Yet you usually see no violence, rape, obscenity, public drug use or sex, or fights with the police at such gatherings. Of course, I suppose that could just be because it's a largely conservative, Christian crowd protesting there. But that's the point. Overall, there is a significant difference in behavior between conservative and left-wing groups. It should come as a shock to nobody that a mob of left-wing and "anarchist" wannabe radicals are behaving like animals.

3) While the OWS people have a right to say whatever asinine things they want to, they don't have a right to indefinitely squat on public property, abuse such property, and engage in general lawlessness, just because they are "protesting." Invoking "civil disobedience" to justify this lawlessness is stupid. They're not violating a fundamentally unjust law to advance a greater good. We're not talking about Rosa Parks refusing to give up her bus seat, people.

If me and a gang of Evil Conservative buddies get a bee in our bonnets and decide to protest liberal idiots in the government, high taxes or some other un-pc cause, does that give us the right to squat in a public park without a permit as long as w , use it as a toilet, engage in public sex and nudity, etc.?
The mere fact that one is "protesting" something does not somehow grant you a license to general lawlessness.
[/quote]


I actually witnessed Chapel Hill police take down some Occupy folks who had taken over a building. What I saw first hand seems to be repeated in numerous video encounters. Generally the police are fairly professional while the protesters are clearly attempting to provoke a confrontation whereby the police will have to use force against them in a way that can be neatly captured on a clip of video and put up on Youtube. When the incident I saw was reported the only clips available to the media were those taken by sympathizers. They were pretty quick to show the police taking down protestors with assault rifles. The protesters making violent threats to the police were not.

Honestly most of the people involved strike me as unhinged and unpredictable.

[Socrates]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1322263478' post='2340463']


So you only condone violence when it's against homosexuals. Good to know!
[/quote]
Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying.

My post was all about teh gayz.

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1322263324' post='2340462']
FOX is no more or less exempt from bias than the other networks.[/QUOTE]

Maybe. If only there were methods of investigating this and coming to come emperically supported, logically argued conclusion. But as you have proven there is no possible way to prove or disprove this assertion.

[QUOTE]Ok, so journalists responding to a survey say they don't consider their own reporting to be biased.

I'm shocked.[/QUOTE]

Nope. Try rereading the article. Maybe that will help.



[QUOTE]That's a flippin' sweet mullet, bro. lolz
[/quote]


I know. Unfortunately, like your shiitake mushroom argument which you avoided defending, my mullet remains.

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx"]Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientists[/url]

[Jesus_lol]

I find it a little funny that people, especially Tea Party supporters think that because some of what OWS is doing is illegal, that it is also immoral. Or an invitation for police violence.

Last i checked, the American Revolution, and the Boston Tea Party were both highly illegal, yet lauded by that same group.

Not to mention the non violent Civil Rights movement(who were also brutalized by the police) was illegal.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Jesus_lol

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1322297377' post='2340693']
I find it a little funny that people, especially Tea Party supporters think that because some of what OWS is doing is illegal, that it is also immoral. Or an invitation for police violence.

Last i checked, the American Revolution, and the Boston Tea Party were both highly illegal, yet lauded by that same group.

Not to mention the non violent Civil Rights movement(who were also brutalized by the police) was illegal.
[/quote]
Get off Reddit you unoriginal hack!

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1322297739' post='2340695']
Get off Reddit you unoriginal hack!
[/quote]

Lol since when were you on reddit! None of it was new information but it clicked a bit when i read it in that context

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1322297995' post='2340697']

Lol since when were you on reddit! None of it was new information but it clicked a bit when i read it in that context
[/quote]
A few months now. I use it to promote my blog on /r/Catholicism, and I like the pony memes on /r/mylittlepony