Stonehead Posted July 11, 2010 Share Posted July 11, 2010 I guess I never really got the Black Bloc tactic since it seems to be simply property destruction and mayhem. In this instance the violence is explicit whereas the violence the direct action activists seek to draw attention to is more subtle. They contend that there is violence inherent in the system itself but that we are conditioned to dismiss it since it is a more pervasive violence that masquarades as something else. The point is brought to the forefront once the armored black-clad ninja police begin to corral all protesters and start arresting and busting heads. At that point all one sees is the raw power of the State beyond the usual restraints such as due process. Everyone becomes guilty by association despite congregating in constitutionally protected protest. Perhaps more often than not, things are not what they seem. I don’t doubt there are frustrated hotheads who only want an outlet for some repressed anger but sometimes undercover police act as agents provocateurs to incite violence. It’s often a tactic used to discredit a movement or cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted July 12, 2010 Author Share Posted July 12, 2010 I guess I never really got the Black Bloc tactic since it seems to be simply property destruction and mayhem. In this instance the violence is explicit whereas the violence the direct action activists seek to draw attention to is more subtle. They contend that there is violence inherent in the system itself but that we are conditioned to dismiss it since it is a more pervasive violence that masquarades as something else. The point is brought to the forefront once the armored black-clad ninja police begin to corral all protesters and start arresting and busting heads. At that point all one sees is the raw power of the State beyond the usual restraints such as due process. Everyone becomes guilty by association despite congregating in constitutionally protected protest. Perhaps more often than not, things are not what they seem. I don’t doubt there are frustrated hotheads who only want an outlet for some repressed anger but sometimes undercover police act as agents provocateurs to incite violence. It’s often a tactic used to discredit a movement or cause. WTF kind of drugs are you on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serenity Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 I was at WTO, and a fair amount of the damage to the city was caused by the anarchists. If the word ever comes down, that clown posse is going to get rolled up, and not in a nice way. Always good to know "our troops" are chomping at the bit to turn their weapons American citizens. I'm not taking that personal considering the source, but you don't know what you don't know. Let's just leave it at that. I'm all for peaceful protest, and the rights of citizens. I am not in the demographic that feels 'above' the police state. I'm a small man, same as you, subject to the whims of rich and powerful people. I don't condone violence, mayhem, or destruction of property conducted by fringe groups. They need to be weeded out for their crimes against the city and the people of Oakland. I saw the video, and if I were a juror I would have probably delivered a similar verdict. The guy was exuberant and negligent. I doubt there was any intent to shoot the victim, but he did not engage his brain when it needed to be his most important weapon. He'll serve his time, and spend the rest of his life as a convicted felon. Being a cop in prison is guaranteed solitary confinement for the duration of his term. Years spent staring at a wall are probably no picnic in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 I thought we were talking about a caricatured reality where some bad dude gets puts down for committing the crime of 'contempt of cop'? No, we only want the facts here and that's about what justice is, isn't it? And the facts are what are presented in court. Anything outside that order is considered nonexistent. Because if it's not about that, then what's justice? FYI, my comment was concerning the mention of anarchists. The moment one mentions that word then you inject some philosophy or ideology into the picture. Otherwise, the word is diluted into simply referring to a common criminal. I suppose what the anarchist does is criminal in many respects but that word doesn't define him fully. I never would have taken you for someone with a fascistic obedience to the law. Breaking the law is not an automatic condemnation to societal hell. Sometimes breaking the law answers to a higher cause. I'm not advocating or condoning what happened, only trying to go beyond my preconceptions to a better understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 The tensions between the "violent" anarchists and the "peaceful" anarchists go back at least as far as Bakunin and Kropotkin in the 19th century. I've always admired Kropotkin: when given the opportunity to denounce Bakunin's violent methods, he refused, saying their choice of methods differed but their ultimate goals were in agreement. Such a contrast with the Communist purges and self-directed violence. I've got no time to commit violence against property but if that's what you think is going to smash the state? You're wrong but go ahead and try. It's not gonna make any difference to the way the world gets run. Your propaganda of the deed is going to get you labelled as a violent twit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 By that logic, torture is okay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 By that logic, torture is okay. There are circumstances where it is - as long as you don't forget your safe word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 And leave your payment on the dresser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted July 12, 2010 Share Posted July 12, 2010 Permission to enter the romper room?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted July 13, 2010 Author Share Posted July 13, 2010 sobo, I hope you're into CBT FUN! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Off_White Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 2 to 1 he hasn't a clue what you're on about Rob... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehead Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 The tensions between the "violent" anarchists and the "peaceful" anarchists go back at least as far as Bakunin and Kropotkin in the 19th century. I've always admired Kropotkin: when given the opportunity to denounce Bakunin's violent methods, he refused, saying their choice of methods differed but their ultimate goals were in agreement. Such a contrast with the Communist purges and self-directed violence. I've got no time to commit violence against property but if that's what you think is going to smash the state? You're wrong but go ahead and try. It's not gonna make any difference to the way the world gets run. Your propaganda of the deed is going to get you labelled as a violent twit. Lol. I have no interest in ‘smashing the state’. No, if Krishnamurti is right then the bonds are internal and mental. Emancipation begins with the individual. So according to that philosophy one can still be free within the confines of a prison. The deed? Yes, the formula typically follows thus: In the beginning was the word, then the deed. To put the primary emphasis on the deed seems misplaced although the deed is something real that manifests in the field of action. It is realization, not merely manifestation. It’s like that saying about the bomb. The meaning of the bomb is its explosion. Conception and development by itself is not enough. Think about it though. The bomb is not merely for destructive purposes. The explosive can be used constructively to build things such as roads. Likewise, with E=mc squared. Violence to property? You got the relationship all wrong. Violence is committed against people. Yes, property is destroyed but the insult or impact is only possible where people are involved. The act of defiance is the oldest sin. But that in itself is not the purpose. The life-affirming goal of reformation is the ultimate prize otherwise the only impulse would be nihilistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Anytime there's a riot officials attempt to minimize the legitimacy of the community's anger by blaming 'outside anarchists'. Blacks across this country have a well documented, proven-in-court reason to be very, very pissed off about the long term, systemic discrimination in our criminal justice system. I'd be interesting in hearing Serenity et al's opinion on that particular issue. So do the American Indians, Chinese, Irish, Japanese, Italians, Poles, etc. Which group should get top billing for the liberal great white guilt extra special citizen rights? White People. Once again, Nitrox shows his true 'colors'. When faced with a proven (in court, in the DOC stats, in studies) pattern of massive discrimination against blacks, and only blacks, in the criminal justice system, all he can come up with is the bigot's boilerplate: 'special rights, white guilt'. Poor ethics, even poorer originality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Once again, Nitrox shows his true 'colors'. When faced with a proven (in court, in the DOC stats, in studies) pattern of massive discrimination against blacks, and only blacks, in the criminal justice system, all he can come up with is the bigot's boilerplate: 'special rights, white guilt'. Poor ethics, even poorer originality. Nice of you to display the brilliance and self-centered whiteness which claims that Native Americans are not discriminated against. They'll be happy to hear that they are getting a fair shake in the white mans court room, finally. Bigot. http://www.vpc.org/studies/blackhomicide10.pdf As far as the black thing goes, no one has explained why their murder rates are so much higher than whites. Is that that we prosecute them but not white people? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Once again, Nitrox shows his true 'colors'. When faced with a proven (in court, in the DOC stats, in studies) pattern of massive discrimination against blacks, and only blacks, in the criminal justice system, all he can come up with is the bigot's boilerplate: 'special rights, white guilt'. Poor ethics, even poorer originality. Nice of you to display the brilliance and self-centered whiteness which claims that Native Americans are not discriminated against. They'll be happy to hear that they are getting a fair shake in the white mans court room, finally. Bigot. http://www.vpc.org/studies/blackhomicide10.pdf As far as the black thing goes, no one has explained why their murder rates are so much higher than whites. Is that that we prosecute them but not white people? No. I mentioned in my original post that the 3:1 pattern of discrimination already took into account the higher crime rate amongst blacks. Look, I know you're generous with your expert opinions on just about everything posted on this site (I personally enjoy your delightful whore anecdotes...hopefully more than your wife does, and the snuff photos really add to the quality of content here as well), but you might try reading a post before you comment on it for once. Probably won't help though...I'm not sure anything really happens after the words pass through your eyeballs. It's true that there is also a pattern of discrimination against native Americans...that much smaller ethnic group wasn't listed in Nitrox's reply, however, so I didn't respond to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Your posts are clear evidence that you were dropped on your head as an infant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choada_Boy Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Native Americans weren't even considered considered to be human by the founding fathers. At least slaves got to be 3/5 human. Read Dee Brown's Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee for a full account of our other National Shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted July 13, 2010 Author Share Posted July 13, 2010 2 to 1 he hasn't a clue what you're on about Rob... It's never too late to learn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 2 to 1 he hasn't a clue what you're on about Rob... It's never too late to learn. Computer Based Training?? Cognitive Behavioral Therapy?? Confidentially, it just so happens that I *do* have a ball stretcher at home... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted July 13, 2010 Author Share Posted July 13, 2010 Confidentially, it just so happens that I *do* have a ball stretcher at home... Well, calisthenics ARE important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sobo Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Confidentially, it just so happens that I *do* have a ball stretcher at home... Well, calisthenics ARE important. As are Kegels... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted July 13, 2010 Author Share Posted July 13, 2010 pics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Once again, Nitrox shows his true 'colors'. When faced with a proven (in court, in the DOC stats, in studies) pattern of massive discrimination against blacks, and only blacks, in the criminal justice system, all he can come up with is the bigot's boilerplate: 'special rights, white guilt'. Poor ethics, even poorer originality. It took you two days to come back with the standard ACLU line? It runs in the same vein as my comments on Glen Beck, if you really wanted "racism" to go away you'd make less of an issue out of it. But. you don't want racism to go away, it keeps race hustlers in power and it keeps the ACLU in money. It's little wonder why the crime rates are so high for blacks, they are constantly reminded that they are not responsible for their own actions because they are perpetual victims. Its been a long time since Jim Crow, minorities are afforded every opportunity (and more in some cases) of whites. The richest woman in the US and the President are black. I may not like Obama but he came from nothing and now look where he is, same goes for Oprah. Anyone who wants to blame "The Man" for his/her problems IS the problem. The very first person to bring up race was you TTK, a member of the ACLU. Its clear you wanted to make this about race and spark an argument. You're as predictable as ever throwing the race card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 It's true that there is also a pattern of discrimination against native Americans...that much smaller ethnic group wasn't listed in Nitrox's reply, however, so I didn't respond to it. Every group has had its turn being discriminated against in the US (whites too). However, there isn't as much money and power pimping racism with American Indians/Native Americans as there is with Blacks and Latinos. I didn't see you getting involved in the voter intimidation issue with those idiots in Philly, you'd think that's the sort of thing a freedom fighter like yourself would take an interest in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted July 13, 2010 Share Posted July 13, 2010 Once again, Nitrox shows his true 'colors'. When faced with a proven (in court, in the DOC stats, in studies) pattern of massive discrimination against blacks, and only blacks, in the criminal justice system, all he can come up with is the bigot's boilerplate: 'special rights, white guilt'. Poor ethics, even poorer originality. It took you two days to come back with the standard ACLU line? It runs in the same vein as my comments on Glen Beck, if you really wanted "racism" to go away you'd make less of an issue out of it. But. you don't want racism to go away, it keeps race hustlers in power and it keeps the ACLU in money. It's little wonder why the crime rates are so high for blacks, they are constantly reminded that they are not responsible for their own actions because they are perpetual victims. Its been a long time since Jim Crow, minorities are afforded every opportunity (and more in some cases) than whites. The richest woman in the US and the President are black. I may not like Obama but he came from nothing and now look where he is, same goes for Oprah. Anyone who wants to blame "The Man" for his/her problems IS the problem. The very first person to bring up race was you TTK, a member of the ACLU. Its clear you wanted to make this about race and spark an argument. You're as predictable as ever throwing the race card. You should let the black community know that you've figured out what their problem is. Make sure you video the response for the rest of us LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.