Skip to main content

View Diary: Berkeley Beatings Police Captain: Linking Arms is Violence (205 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So now both sides are doing it (3+ / 0-)

    "It" being trying redefine "violence" to suit one's needs.

    I've read comments here by folks pushing the idea that actions that damage property are not "violence."

    And now we see the police jumping in, trying to claim nonviolence is, in fact, violence.


    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
    •  And the false equivalence award goes to (13+ / 0-)

      Ernest T Bass. I guess if you cup your ear just so, a window being broken might sound the same as the crunching of ribs and teeth.

      Daily Kos seems to be occupied by "Time, Place and Manner" trolls. What part of "civil disobedience" is so difficult to understand?

      by WisePiper on Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 02:01:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Stuff it (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kurt, Troubadour

        Arson.  Glass Breaking.  Burning cars.  

        Tasing.  Tear gas.  Beatings.

        They're all types of violence.  Please, oh dear please wisepip, show me where I wrote they were "the same."

        I won't hold my breath.  

        •  I stubbed my toe this morning (3+ / 0-)

          and was so pissed off I violently slammed the door. Throw that into your grab bag of "violence" also.

          Daily Kos seems to be occupied by "Time, Place and Manner" trolls. What part of "civil disobedience" is so difficult to understand?

          by WisePiper on Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 02:47:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Rather than continuing to make a fool of yourself (0+ / 0-)

            Perhaps you might want to access one or more of the commonly available dictionaries and read the various meanings of the word "violence."

            You evidently don't know its full definition.

            •  Mr. Bass, I know the difference between (5+ / 0-)

              violence perpetrated against a living being and that directed against an inanimate object. The latter is, at this stage of the protest movement, tactically inadvisable. The former is morally reprehensible, except as needed to defend oneself against imminent physical harm.

              One of the reasons why breaking windows is not a smart move is that there are too many individuals who glibly conflate smashing heads with smashing glass.

              Daily Kos seems to be occupied by "Time, Place and Manner" trolls. What part of "civil disobedience" is so difficult to understand?

              by WisePiper on Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 04:09:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  situationally depdendent tactics (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                theoretically speaking, this is a key point to me.

                all citizens in this great country always have at their disposal all options at all times.

                At one end of the spectrum of hypothetical situations are oppressive totalitarian police states. At another end of the spectrum are free, just and open societies.

                If a society veers into certain realms, it becomes morally imperative to resist the system with all options on the table, even to one's own peril.

                A prominent example is the resistance movements under the Nazis in WWII. I've never heard anyone tell me that it was wrong for the French Resistance to ambush Nazis and use violent force to disrupt things behind the front. It was courageous, vicious and noble.

                At the other end of the spectrum we find ideal societies. Why anyone would resort to violence in an ideal society is incomprehensible to me.

                The US has its problems, but it is a lot closer to being an ideal society than it is to being an oppressive, totalitarian police state. But she is creeping toward the dark side.

                Consequently the level of violence in the protests to date is more or less at the minimum level of violence that can be pragmatically mustered by large masses of average people over long durations of time. It's not going to get any cleaner than it already is.

                On the other hand, consider what will happen if we see an escalation of violence on the part of the authorities and the imposition of extreme measures such as declaring martial law.

      •  Vandalism that is used as an excuse (8+ / 0-)

        by cops to charge other peaceful protestors, who are participating in what they believed to be peaceful protest, is violent. Peaceful protestors all always subject to an over the top response by police. Reckless behavior in peaceful crowds  endangers others.

        But these protestors did nothing to provide an excuse for police violence. These cops need to be prosecuted. And maybe and aroused faculty will support the students in shutting down this official violence.  

    •  You appear to be very confused. (5+ / 0-)

      Name one person in this comments thread prior to your comment who suggested that property damage was not really violence. Name them. Quote them. Link them.

      I'll wait while you search. Since you sound like you have some specific comments clearly in mind, it shouldn't take you long to find them.

      Except that you can't, and won't, because there weren't any. I'm sure you can nutpick comments of that variety from some other thread, but that has no relevance whatsoever to this incident or anything the diarist--or anyone else here--had said.

      It was nothing more than an excuse to take a cheap shot at Occupy protesters, and you know it. Your comment history makes it pretty clear that you think OWS is a waste of time at best.

      So go troll somewhere else.

      Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense.

      by Catsy on Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 02:59:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wasn't referring to this thread alone (0+ / 0-)

        In fact nowhere did I say such comments are in this thread (though some may appear in never know).  The problem is that you made a bad assumption and, based on that error, evidently got your back up. I would suggest that's your problem; not mine.

        I can assure you the idea that property destruction is "not violence" has been put forth in other comments, as noted below.

        I wasn't trying to make a "cheap shot."  I was merely highlighting that there are those on both sides of the issue who are torturing the word "violence" to mean what they want it to; no matter what the word actually means.

        As far as what I think, I believe the Occupy movement accomplished much in the first few weeks but is now overstaying its welcome like a weeks-old catfish.  I've been encouraging people to move on to other tactics, but without much traction. I believe the movement is on a trajectory that is not encouraging.

        On to the examples:

        Publius2008 had this to say:

        Just to say (6+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
            LaughingPlanet, averageyoungman, elwior, wu ming, Little, Knarfc

        property damage is not violence.

        And, just to be clear, when I called him or her on it, saying that would be true only if you want to redefine "violence," hy/she responded:  

        I do.

        Then there's this succinct statement by RanDomino:

        Vandalism is not violence (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
            ohmproject, Brown Thrasher

        by RanDomino on Wed Nov 02, 2011 at 05:28:48 PM PDT

        I believe there was a diary with that as its subject but I can't find it so it may have been removed.

      •  And here is a new diary claiming just that (0+ / 0-)

        It leads off with what you describe as "nut"picking:

        1.  Property damage is not violence.
    •  the moral imperative of fighting injustice (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      reserves the right to yield a terrible swift sword.

      Where the line between a scathed sword and an unscathed sword lies is a personal decision determined by each individual.

      •  No. (0+ / 0-)

        There are very, very few circumstances where violence is justified.  The vast majority of people have never encountered any such situation, and yet most of us have experienced violence.  That is a problem.

        Democracy? You'll shoot your eye out, kid.

        by Troubadour on Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 09:42:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site