Slog
News & ArtsMonday, January 30, 2012
Occupy / Crime Police Investigating Pro-Occupy Vandalism and Smashed Window at Seattle Wells Fargo
Posted by Dominic Holden on Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 2:19 PM
Posted at 9:30 a.m. and updated with comments from the Seattle Police Department.
If this is the work of an anti-Occupy saboteur, it's a pretty effective way of making the movement look bad:
"No banks. No cops. Occupy! Oakland. [Anarchy symbol]," says the graffiti left this morning at the Wells Fargo branch in Seattle's Madison Park neighborhood.
"There is an investigation underway," SPD spokeswoman Renee Witt said this afternoon. However, police have not yet identified suspects or found evidence linking a suspect to the vandalism, according to a preliminary police report. "There were no witnesses to the incident," the report says, but police have contacted the Wells Fargo security division to obtain copies of overnight video footage.
Here's a close-up of the broken window:
"I can confirm we were vandalized at our Madison Park banking store," Lara Underhill, the spokeswoman for Well Fargo in Washington State, said this morning. "Beyond that, I cannot give you any details. You will have to go to the SPD. We don't want to impede their investigation."
1
They better fix that quick. If it gets any more dilapidated that young lady might divorce her current building and gay-marry this one.
3
Isn't this appearing more like the mosquito trying to get out by flying into the same closed window...again and again and again?
If these guys want to take control, then why not pool all their resources and buy up the Facebook IPO, or something, and then use the money to do whatever it is they are for (which, by the way, they have yet to tell us).
4
@3
By its actions, Occupy has told us what it is for-- unilaterally seizing and controlling territory.
It's right there in the name: the goal of Occupy is Occupation.
By its actions, Occupy has told us what it is for-- unilaterally seizing and controlling territory.
It's right there in the name: the goal of Occupy is Occupation.
8
#4
If Alexander the Great seized territory like Occupy, he would have conquered one hut in Macedonia, and then been evicted by the local phalanxes.
If Alexander the Great seized territory like Occupy, he would have conquered one hut in Macedonia, and then been evicted by the local phalanxes.
11
Reminder; There are people out here doing good work that doesn't involve destruction, violence, coercion, intimidation, or unchecked anger... #miccheckwallst
13
Its a problem. Most occupiers don't support violence and destruction, but because there is no central authority it is hard to denounce the factions that do.
Me, I'd like to see a solid split, where the violent faction is removed from occupy and denounced completely, but the consensus model of direct democracy doesn't allow for that.
Me, I'd like to see a solid split, where the violent faction is removed from occupy and denounced completely, but the consensus model of direct democracy doesn't allow for that.
14
The fact that a Bank of America branch and a Wells Fargo branch were targets of vandalism in Madison Park suggests to me there's a bored Broadmoor or Bush School twit "acting out" to show Mater and Pater a thing or two.
15
"If this is the work of an anti-Occupy saboteur, it's a pretty effective way of making the movement look bad."
Hahaha, what the hell? This is such a juvenile comment. As though vandalizing BANKS is an affront to any sensible human being. If anything makes the movement look bad, it's comments like the quote above. Ugh.
Hahaha, what the hell? This is such a juvenile comment. As though vandalizing BANKS is an affront to any sensible human being. If anything makes the movement look bad, it's comments like the quote above. Ugh.
16
I support this vandalism, so fuck Dominic Holden and his divisive stance. These kinds of actions are totally in line with the spirit of Occupy - we're not gonna take down Wall Street without breaking a few things.
17
@13
It's not necessarily supermajority-consensus decision-making that doesn't allow eviction of violent people.
The structural element that makes exclusion impossible is that of open membership (or participation; some in the movement would object to the term "member"). My understanding is that open participation is one of the movement's core ideological requirements, and not subject to modification.
In theory, a small faction can be overruled by the supermajority modification to consensus in most Occupy groups (Occupy Seattle, however, recently did away with the supermajority modification, and now uses a hard consensus requirement). The overruled faction would have been blocking a decision because they could not in good conscience continue to participate in a community that took that decision; the overruled faction would thus voluntarily leave the group after being overruled by supermajority. In practice, of course, people who have unsuccessfully attempted to block Occupy decisions tend to stick around after they're overruled.
It's not necessarily supermajority-consensus decision-making that doesn't allow eviction of violent people.
The structural element that makes exclusion impossible is that of open membership (or participation; some in the movement would object to the term "member"). My understanding is that open participation is one of the movement's core ideological requirements, and not subject to modification.
In theory, a small faction can be overruled by the supermajority modification to consensus in most Occupy groups (Occupy Seattle, however, recently did away with the supermajority modification, and now uses a hard consensus requirement). The overruled faction would have been blocking a decision because they could not in good conscience continue to participate in a community that took that decision; the overruled faction would thus voluntarily leave the group after being overruled by supermajority. In practice, of course, people who have unsuccessfully attempted to block Occupy decisions tend to stick around after they're overruled.
18
Shame on everyone who is condemning the person who did this! You should be showing solidarity with someone who clearly has a lot of anger toward the banks and corporations that control our lives, not taking the side of the bank's owner! This is a revolting sentiment coming from so-called Occupiers!
20
@19: Exactly the sort of comment I had in mind for the author of this article. Creating (and enlarging) asinine divisions between "good", "peaceful", pacifistic protestors vs. "bad", "violent", militant protestors has been a tactic of COINTELPRO since its creation.
Maybe instead of slipping in snide comments about how awful and stupid it is for anybody to take destructive action against banks, people ought to offer some thoughtful insight about the tactical/strategic pros and cons of such actions, maybe mention that they appreciate the sentiment if not the execution, or at the very least try not to demonize people who are fighting for the same goals, if not with the same methods.
Maybe instead of slipping in snide comments about how awful and stupid it is for anybody to take destructive action against banks, people ought to offer some thoughtful insight about the tactical/strategic pros and cons of such actions, maybe mention that they appreciate the sentiment if not the execution, or at the very least try not to demonize people who are fighting for the same goals, if not with the same methods.
21
If I recall correctly, the most effective tactical approach of cointelpro was to infiltrate activist organizations and push them towards violence and criminal activity that would cut them off from community support and provide an excuse for law enforcement to take them out entirely.
This kind of bullshit just seems like you're doing their job for them. If I thought for one second that this kind of thing would actually help, you might get some more constructive criticism, but your pathetic little "Fuck the banks! Fuck the pigs" graffiti and brick throwing don't do one iota of actual harm to the actual structure of power, no matter how it makes you feel like whatever your self-aggrandized, simplistic caricature of a rebel is - all they do is make you look like immature, intellectually lazy assholes and turn the average person off from the entire idea of resistance to the current system.
So yeah, if you use patently idiotic tactics that do direct harm to something I believe in rather than help, I'm gonna call you what you are - a fucking collaborator, whether you realize it or not.
This kind of bullshit just seems like you're doing their job for them. If I thought for one second that this kind of thing would actually help, you might get some more constructive criticism, but your pathetic little "Fuck the banks! Fuck the pigs" graffiti and brick throwing don't do one iota of actual harm to the actual structure of power, no matter how it makes you feel like whatever your self-aggrandized, simplistic caricature of a rebel is - all they do is make you look like immature, intellectually lazy assholes and turn the average person off from the entire idea of resistance to the current system.
So yeah, if you use patently idiotic tactics that do direct harm to something I believe in rather than help, I'm gonna call you what you are - a fucking collaborator, whether you realize it or not.
22
@21: It's the same black-hoodie crew as always. Inclusivity drew them to Occupy, but they're not a product of Occupy. They're doing the same paint throwing and window smashing as they've always done.
23
@21: You recall incorrectly, surprise surprise! The thing that destroyed activist organizations wasn't certain peoples' commitment to radical and militant action; it was the divisions that were allowed to fester and grow, which not only distracted everyone from their actual aims and goals, but also weakened both sides of the divide - the pacifist side lost its teeth, and the militant side lost its public face and legitimacy.
Espousing the concept that illegal activity is inherently morally wrong is nothing short of collaboration, because corporations and politicians are the ones who make the damn laws! And fuck off with your condescending attitude, too - this seems to be another thing we disagree upon, because the way I see it, if there's one thing that directly harms the Occupy movement, it's self-important pricks like you who think they know better than everyone else and have a right to decide what forms of action are okay or not okay.
I'm not even saying that this action was a good tactical move necessarily, but that discussion can't even take place while people are completely deaf to the concept that breaking shit could EVER be a good tactical move.
Espousing the concept that illegal activity is inherently morally wrong is nothing short of collaboration, because corporations and politicians are the ones who make the damn laws! And fuck off with your condescending attitude, too - this seems to be another thing we disagree upon, because the way I see it, if there's one thing that directly harms the Occupy movement, it's self-important pricks like you who think they know better than everyone else and have a right to decide what forms of action are okay or not okay.
I'm not even saying that this action was a good tactical move necessarily, but that discussion can't even take place while people are completely deaf to the concept that breaking shit could EVER be a good tactical move.
24
@ 23 - Show me even ONE time when breaking shit actually *was* a good tactical move, when it accomplished anything concrete in any sense at all, and then you get to tell me whether I can call bullshit on it.
25
And I'm not talking about actual popular uprising "breaking shit", I'm talking specifically about in the modern history of American activism - When has any brick through the windows / dumb-ass graffiti approach actually moved anything forward?
26
@23: "Espousing the concept that illegal activity is inherently morally wrong is nothing short of collaboration"
Rule of law is many things (most of them stupid), but not inherently collaboration.
I don't think people are angry so much that it's ILLEGALSOMG, but what are you hoping to achieve by bricking the windows of a chain bank? Who's getting "the message"? How are the global/US financiers paying attention, exactly?
Sincere questions.
Rule of law is many things (most of them stupid), but not inherently collaboration.
I don't think people are angry so much that it's ILLEGALSOMG, but what are you hoping to achieve by bricking the windows of a chain bank? Who's getting "the message"? How are the global/US financiers paying attention, exactly?
Sincere questions.
27
I hope SPD gives this exactly the same amount of investigation they gave when someone tagged my old building with spraypaint. Which was: none.
28
this one is being investigated differently though, because it turns out the graffiti was "robo-tagged" and no actual person considered the details or consequences of tagging this particular window. also, it looks like the window was "robo-smashed" as well, which may invalidate the vandalism all together. their lawyers are looking into it.
29
Oh for heavens sake its some grafitti and some kid that doesn't like the banks... who can blame him? Didn't you guys have a shooting a few days ago? This can hardly be more relevant I'd think...
... or rather if it is: that is very very scary
... or rather if it is: that is very very scary
30
@29: " Didn't you guys have a shooting a few days ago?"
I love how every violent crime in Seattle is now Occupy's fault.
I love how every violent crime in Seattle is now Occupy's fault.
32
@13
I would suggest keeping them out of the GA. Dont give them a voice. If they show up at events, keep your distance because they are using you as cover to stir up trouble. The minute they start throwing things at the cops, disband and go home. The alternative is to continue letting them operating within Occupy Seattle and ruin what credibility it has left.
I would suggest keeping them out of the GA. Dont give them a voice. If they show up at events, keep your distance because they are using you as cover to stir up trouble. The minute they start throwing things at the cops, disband and go home. The alternative is to continue letting them operating within Occupy Seattle and ruin what credibility it has left.
33
@32
But how would you keep them out of a GA?
They're open assemblies, no-one is checking IDs at the door. There's no door at all, in many cases. And to exclude anyone from the discussion would run counter to one of the core tenets of the GA process...
But how would you keep them out of a GA?
They're open assemblies, no-one is checking IDs at the door. There's no door at all, in many cases. And to exclude anyone from the discussion would run counter to one of the core tenets of the GA process...
34
Breaking windows = non-violent
Glad this action brought more focus to the despicable behavior of banks.
Glad this action brought more focus to the despicable behavior of banks.
35
"Breaking windows = non-violent"
Really? What if you did it to a synagogue or black church? Still non-violent? Or are Occupy just pussies?
Really? What if you did it to a synagogue or black church? Still non-violent? Or are Occupy just pussies?
36
@33 But how would you keep them out of a GA?
Create a set of rules.
No masks or items that obscure your face. Once a person screws up (no throwing things at police, no smashing of windows, etc, etc), take their photo and place them on a ban list. If they show up at the GA, they will not be given voice to discuss anything.
This require serious policing of members to weed out the thugs, but you will totally see an increase in participation once this thug alement of the movement is removed.
Create a set of rules.
No masks or items that obscure your face. Once a person screws up (no throwing things at police, no smashing of windows, etc, etc), take their photo and place them on a ban list. If they show up at the GA, they will not be given voice to discuss anything.
This require serious policing of members to weed out the thugs, but you will totally see an increase in participation once this thug alement of the movement is removed.
39
If the Occupy movement had any balls (which they don't), they would march their asses out to Medina or Hunt's Point and start blocking the 1%'s streets. You want to stick it to The Man? Then BRING IT TO THE MAN!
Go occupy Craig McCaw's driveway, you assholes, and stop scaring bank employees that barely make a buck or two over minimum wage!
Dickbags.
Go occupy Craig McCaw's driveway, you assholes, and stop scaring bank employees that barely make a buck or two over minimum wage!
Dickbags.
40
@36
I personally wouldn't object to reforming Occupy's system of self-governance, but banning anyone, silencing any voice, would be a really radical change. I'm highly skeptical that you could get the committed core of Occupy participants to agree to anything like a ban list.
How would you suggest they prevent violent protesters from wearing masks, hoodies, bandannas, balaclavas, etc?
Having a set of rules is all well and good, but how do you enforce those rules, when the present system of self-governance is based on an ideology of non-hierarchical, non-coercive autonomy?
And dear sweet Jesus, given the present mindset of a lot of Occupy participants, would you want to be the person who introduced a proposal suggesting the movement start doing any sort of "policing" of itself?
I personally wouldn't object to reforming Occupy's system of self-governance, but banning anyone, silencing any voice, would be a really radical change. I'm highly skeptical that you could get the committed core of Occupy participants to agree to anything like a ban list.
How would you suggest they prevent violent protesters from wearing masks, hoodies, bandannas, balaclavas, etc?
Having a set of rules is all well and good, but how do you enforce those rules, when the present system of self-governance is based on an ideology of non-hierarchical, non-coercive autonomy?
And dear sweet Jesus, given the present mindset of a lot of Occupy participants, would you want to be the person who introduced a proposal suggesting the movement start doing any sort of "policing" of itself?
41
These provocateurs are really lazy. At least try to do your damage in the same general area as Occupy actions.
42
@39
I'd love to see an Occupy march in Medina, too, logistics be damned. Not because that would be the way to stick it to the man, but because the cognitive dissonance would be delicious-- as with so many wealthy enclaves near urban centers, Medina leans slightly left (54/46 Obama/McCain).
Just picture the faces of marchers on those secluded roads as joggers cheer them on, kids put on their own little play marches, and housewives come out to offer them sandwiches and make sure they've got bus fare...
Uh, yeah, so it would probably just be two bored cops tagging along behind a couple dozen marchers shouting at the woods. But they'd be liberal woods, OK?
I'd love to see an Occupy march in Medina, too, logistics be damned. Not because that would be the way to stick it to the man, but because the cognitive dissonance would be delicious-- as with so many wealthy enclaves near urban centers, Medina leans slightly left (54/46 Obama/McCain).
Just picture the faces of marchers on those secluded roads as joggers cheer them on, kids put on their own little play marches, and housewives come out to offer them sandwiches and make sure they've got bus fare...
Uh, yeah, so it would probably just be two bored cops tagging along behind a couple dozen marchers shouting at the woods. But they'd be liberal woods, OK?
43
@41
With so many obvious provocateurs operating inside the Occupy movement, it seems really weird to me that the General Assemblies haven't simply denounced provocation as a first step, and then moved to marginalize or work around people advocating or instigating provocative actions.
What do you reckon is the hold-up? The moles, agents, and saboteurs outnumber the actual protesters, perhaps?
With so many obvious provocateurs operating inside the Occupy movement, it seems really weird to me that the General Assemblies haven't simply denounced provocation as a first step, and then moved to marginalize or work around people advocating or instigating provocative actions.
What do you reckon is the hold-up? The moles, agents, and saboteurs outnumber the actual protesters, perhaps?
44
I'm torn by this tactic. On the one hand, this vandalized bank will probably be the lead story on all of the hysterics-driven local news broadcasts, which means publicity - which is good if the anchors mention that Wells Fargo paid no federal taxes.
On the other hand, this behavior will cause the movement to lose popular support, which means fewer numbers of protestors, as many people have no interest in joining a movement that vandalizes.
Hell - I say, go for broke. Break ALL bank windows. The honeymoon period for OWS is long past anyway; at this point, it generates as much eye-rolling as the Tea Party. At least this is on-message - a rare thing for Occupy Seattle.
On the other hand, this behavior will cause the movement to lose popular support, which means fewer numbers of protestors, as many people have no interest in joining a movement that vandalizes.
Hell - I say, go for broke. Break ALL bank windows. The honeymoon period for OWS is long past anyway; at this point, it generates as much eye-rolling as the Tea Party. At least this is on-message - a rare thing for Occupy Seattle.
45
look at me mommy i'm somebody, i'm an anarchist. In 20 years you'll look back and understand what a useless gesture all this was, those of you that manage to grow consciences and self-awareness. you are not anyone's heroes, you are not the various figures of history you probably think you are emulating. a handful of ineffectual property crimes does nothing but turn most middle class people against you. So its you against the world, because thats how you were raised, nobody gave you attention at home so you have to go demand it now. hope you manage to get what you need, i know for darn sure you arent going to get what you say you want, the "smash the state" rhetoric is not going to work, it never works, but keep shaking your tiny fists of rage who knows it might be different this one time.
46
@24
Not that I support angry 18 year olds breaking windows, but I do have what might be an example that you're asking for.
Huey Newton's killing of a cop in 1967 might have been the best thing that ever happened to the Panthers. His subsequent imprisonment and trial drew huge numbers of radicals to their cause and helped it go national. Part of the appeal was that everyone decided he didn't actually kill the cop. He probably did, though.
Not that I support angry 18 year olds breaking windows, but I do have what might be an example that you're asking for.
Huey Newton's killing of a cop in 1967 might have been the best thing that ever happened to the Panthers. His subsequent imprisonment and trial drew huge numbers of radicals to their cause and helped it go national. Part of the appeal was that everyone decided he didn't actually kill the cop. He probably did, though.
47
"Part of the appeal was that everyone decided he didn't actually kill the cop."
Then this would be an example of advancing a cause by not breaking the window, right?
Then this would be an example of advancing a cause by not breaking the window, right?
48
it probably felt really good to do that. none of you armchair quarterbacks are talking about that.
49
@24, @46
A clearer and more recent example would be the antinuclear and squatters' rights battles in 1980s West Germany, wherein crowds of tens of thousands of rioters smashed, burned, looted, and generally gutted blocks at a time, and fought large, pitched, and not always losing skirmishes with the police. After seven or eight years of periodic violence, local authorities legalized some of the squats, and the rioting abated. Oh, and the Cold War ended.
That is the milieu that our present-day bandanna-and-hoodie faction of Occupy is trying, somewhat pathetically, to re-create. Those German squatters were, not coincidentally, the first to compile and deploy what are now called black bloc tactics.
A clearer and more recent example would be the antinuclear and squatters' rights battles in 1980s West Germany, wherein crowds of tens of thousands of rioters smashed, burned, looted, and generally gutted blocks at a time, and fought large, pitched, and not always losing skirmishes with the police. After seven or eight years of periodic violence, local authorities legalized some of the squats, and the rioting abated. Oh, and the Cold War ended.
That is the milieu that our present-day bandanna-and-hoodie faction of Occupy is trying, somewhat pathetically, to re-create. Those German squatters were, not coincidentally, the first to compile and deploy what are now called black bloc tactics.
50
to the idiot who asked for an instance of vandalism being a part of a revolutionary movement. hmm .... how about the boston tea party?
51
Oh relax its just a window listen to cute kids sing a song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla…
@49 the black bloc tactic has been in use since then to great effect, last example Ive heard of a large scale black bloc movement is 2001-2002 but then its basicly just a tactic remove accountability from a single participant by uniform.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla…
@49 the black bloc tactic has been in use since then to great effect, last example Ive heard of a large scale black bloc movement is 2001-2002 but then its basicly just a tactic remove accountability from a single participant by uniform.
52
@51
If you're referring to the handful of kids hopping around breaking windows during some of the Global Justice Movement protests, then you clearly have no sense at all of just how many militants were involved in a typical black bloc action during the German riots of the '80s.
When you say black bloc is "basically just a tactic," you're glossing over the long and complex relationship German left militants had with the rest of the German left, and with the larger fabric of German society. The upheavals of that time and place were not merely a matter of riot tactics, and those tactics, removed from their social context, have fizzled or even backfired when attempted elsewhere.
If you're referring to the handful of kids hopping around breaking windows during some of the Global Justice Movement protests, then you clearly have no sense at all of just how many militants were involved in a typical black bloc action during the German riots of the '80s.
When you say black bloc is "basically just a tactic," you're glossing over the long and complex relationship German left militants had with the rest of the German left, and with the larger fabric of German society. The upheavals of that time and place were not merely a matter of riot tactics, and those tactics, removed from their social context, have fizzled or even backfired when attempted elsewhere.
53
@50
The Boston Tea Party was a political action based upon furthering community consensus. The Occupy movement furthers community consensus when it doesn't break stuff, but rather reminds the community that the banks are breaking things all the time. The best shot the Occupy movement has is to maintain a holier-than-thou stance that will soften the ex-hippie granny's heart, and cause her to shift her funds out of the megabank's hands. Never forget that what you are fighting is the vast quantity of money and influence that want the Occupy movement to act like another group of bored teenagers, NOT like the neighbor down the street that wants to save your house.
Peace.
The Boston Tea Party was a political action based upon furthering community consensus. The Occupy movement furthers community consensus when it doesn't break stuff, but rather reminds the community that the banks are breaking things all the time. The best shot the Occupy movement has is to maintain a holier-than-thou stance that will soften the ex-hippie granny's heart, and cause her to shift her funds out of the megabank's hands. Never forget that what you are fighting is the vast quantity of money and influence that want the Occupy movement to act like another group of bored teenagers, NOT like the neighbor down the street that wants to save your house.
Peace.
54
@53 - Nail on the head.
Additionally, @50, if you've gotta go all the way back to the BTP to show an example of vandalism moving a progressive cause forward, you're kind of proving the point.
Let me be more specific - Can anyone show me an example within the last 60 years in America (since that is the context this is taking place in) when vandalism or violence against property actually contributed to accomplishing any of the stated goals of a progressive or revolutionary movement in the long run?
This has nothing to do with some kind of moral problem with vandalism or violence against property - the point is, if it doesn't work and it hasn't worked at any point in modern history and it actually is repellant to the people you are trying to get on your side (and isn't getting the majority of the population on your side the point of a democratic movement anyway?) then why fucking use it as a tactic?
Additionally, @50, if you've gotta go all the way back to the BTP to show an example of vandalism moving a progressive cause forward, you're kind of proving the point.
Let me be more specific - Can anyone show me an example within the last 60 years in America (since that is the context this is taking place in) when vandalism or violence against property actually contributed to accomplishing any of the stated goals of a progressive or revolutionary movement in the long run?
This has nothing to do with some kind of moral problem with vandalism or violence against property - the point is, if it doesn't work and it hasn't worked at any point in modern history and it actually is repellant to the people you are trying to get on your side (and isn't getting the majority of the population on your side the point of a democratic movement anyway?) then why fucking use it as a tactic?
55
@54:
I could list a lot of examples where vandalism (which is a tactic, not an "ideology") has contributed to anti-authoritarian movements, sure. But you're making a manipulative argument by PRESUMING something has worked in the past. How about YOU name one instance where ANY tactic in isolation has worked. Go ahead, last 60 years. What do you got?
I could list a lot of examples where vandalism (which is a tactic, not an "ideology") has contributed to anti-authoritarian movements, sure. But you're making a manipulative argument by PRESUMING something has worked in the past. How about YOU name one instance where ANY tactic in isolation has worked. Go ahead, last 60 years. What do you got?
56
@55
One could argue that the significant reforms in the LAPD in the past couple of decades were due to the Rodney King riots (more so than the beating and court verdict that precipitated them).
One could argue that tree spiking and destruction of heavy machinery, as practiced by Earth First, was effective in curtailing logging of old-growth forests.
One could argue that breaking into medical or biological research facilities and turning loose animals used in experiments (which has happened many times in Recent America) does, in fact, result in an immediate reduction in animal suffering.
One could argue that murdering doctors who practice Abortion, or bombing Abortion clinics, has in fact reduced the availability and practice of Abortion in some parts of the country.
I personally wouldn't make any of these arguments, but I'm sure pro-violence radicals would generally find one or more of them solid. Some people have different morals or moral priorities than my own, and I accept the fact that those beliefs will contribute to a person's perception of the "effectiveness" of an action. Regardless, I definitely don't accept "effectiveness" as a measure of moral worth.
One could argue that the significant reforms in the LAPD in the past couple of decades were due to the Rodney King riots (more so than the beating and court verdict that precipitated them).
One could argue that tree spiking and destruction of heavy machinery, as practiced by Earth First, was effective in curtailing logging of old-growth forests.
One could argue that breaking into medical or biological research facilities and turning loose animals used in experiments (which has happened many times in Recent America) does, in fact, result in an immediate reduction in animal suffering.
One could argue that murdering doctors who practice Abortion, or bombing Abortion clinics, has in fact reduced the availability and practice of Abortion in some parts of the country.
I personally wouldn't make any of these arguments, but I'm sure pro-violence radicals would generally find one or more of them solid. Some people have different morals or moral priorities than my own, and I accept the fact that those beliefs will contribute to a person's perception of the "effectiveness" of an action. Regardless, I definitely don't accept "effectiveness" as a measure of moral worth.
57
@55,
I'm sorry, I reread the posts since #50 and the only mention of ideology was yours. I thought everyone else stated or implied violence/nonviolence/property respect was a tactic.
I thought all arguments are, by nature, manipulative. Also, at least in my case, I was using the future tense, and a hopeful attitude.
Finally, looking at successful movements within our society that have lead to greater equality of civil rights: Racial equality and abolishment of antimiscegenation laws. Farther back would include women's suffrage. Looking abroad, the ending of colonial rule in India. All of them used nonviolent tactics successfully.
Never forget that public perception is the most powerful tool available to the Occupy movement.
Peace.
I'm sorry, I reread the posts since #50 and the only mention of ideology was yours. I thought everyone else stated or implied violence/nonviolence/property respect was a tactic.
I thought all arguments are, by nature, manipulative. Also, at least in my case, I was using the future tense, and a hopeful attitude.
Finally, looking at successful movements within our society that have lead to greater equality of civil rights: Racial equality and abolishment of antimiscegenation laws. Farther back would include women's suffrage. Looking abroad, the ending of colonial rule in India. All of them used nonviolent tactics successfully.
Never forget that public perception is the most powerful tool available to the Occupy movement.
Peace.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Outside the Gay Bar by Dan Savage
-
Lunchtime Quickie: Cyclist vs Car by Kelly O
-
SL Letter of the Day: Infantile-ism by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Lying Liars by Dan Savage
-
What Did an ESPN Blogger call the Asian American Baller Lin? by Charles Mudede
-
Walmart Tries to Pay Workers in Walmart Vouchers by Paul Constant
-
Why I'm Suing Attorney James Egan by Pete Holmes
-
Pharmacy Can Refuse Women Emergency Contraceptives, Judge Rules by Cienna Madrid
-
What Do You Think of Microsoft Office for the iPad? by Paul Constant
-
Have You Gayed Your Dead Mormon Today? by Anthony Hecht
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (57) RSS