Category: News

SEE PREVIOUS POST ON THIS SUBJECT…

A Facebook friend posted this same video on his wall and this Ian gentleman sparked the following exchange:

Ian:
The people have a right to occupy. The cops should have never been there in the 1st place.

Richard:
Yes Ian, it DOES piss me off that these bags of filth wasted the time of the local police force by accomplishing nothing but being a bunch of dicks to their community. I only regret they weren’t pepper sprayed too.

Ian:
“The people have no right to occupy. The cops should have never been there in the 1st place because the protestors should have followed the law like everyone else instead of acting like entitled above-it-all douchebags that wasted everyones time” — Fixed that for Ian

Richard:
Iknowright? Reality is the best story to tell. especially in cases of Police brutality where it is especially important not to cry wolf. plenty of real injustices are made by actual corrupt and careless cops. lying to invent such scenarios may make you feel like an oppressed superhero or whatever, but it hurts the community and country. — wait.. hurting the country and community in service to one owns selfish desires is basically the Occupy mission statement, so nvm i guess.

Ian:
Obviously we’re hurting the country and community by speaking out against what we feel is wrong. Bu, hey, if you find that corporate person hood and letting the banks get away with the illegality of their actions then by all means, continue to be a part of the reason why this country is utter shit.

Ian:
Fuck this thread. This dude is an ass and, like everyone else against the movement, is too apathetic to give a shit about what’s going on. He’s also an obvious troll. So fuck this shit, nigga. I’m out

I didn’t reply between those last 2 points out of respect to the mutual friend but after the “screw you guys im goin home” post, I went ahead and let the hammer down:

Richard:
1) no one said “speaking out” hurts anyone. scroll up, read what was actually said and then try not to make things up (only cuz it destroys your point when you need to do that).

2) “speaking out” against something does not necessitate annoying your neighbors and breaking the law, which is what I referenced.

3) Instead of thinking youre entitled to ruin everyones day by speaking out against “what you feel is wrong” – do less “feeling”, pretend to be a mature adult and do more “thinking”. then speak out against what you think is wrong and explain why. under that strategy you wont need to rely on animalistic tactics like cult gatherings, property destruction and illegal sit-ins that distract from any point you were attempting to convey.

4) Whats wrong with corporate personhood? why shouldnt corporations have free speech rights, for example? theyre just a collection of people so why would you remove rights when people group together to provide a product or service?

5) Who said anything about letting any banks get away with any illegality (besides you)? Why is your response to illegality to also engage in illegality? you dont fight fire with fire to solve something. you fight it with water. expose the illegal behavior that you have evidence of and take the banks down instead of playing bongos all day in a public park whydontyou.

6) Demonizing everyone as “part of the problem” just because they dont share your endorsement of illegal activity to get the point across is stupid.

Except – oddly enough – this dude turned out not to be the major douche it appeared and he came back, apologized for the attack, explaining that he thought he was just dismissing a troll and we carried on just fine after that. I always number my responses that go long like this so everyone can keep track of what they’re responding to and – god love him – this guy was one of the very few to actually follow the lead and post a numbered reply as well.

Ian:
1) I don’t recall making anything up.

2) The more people who hear us, the better. If the protests go unnoticed then there’s no reason to have them in the 1st place.

3&4) you’re splitting hairs, I feel corporate person hood is wrong because I’ve thought about what it has made possible for corporations to do and it’s royally fucked. Take Wal-Mart for example, because of corporate person hood they are able to continue to receive goods from China which are produced by slave labor. It means they are legally protected to endorse immorally wrong actions.

5) The banks aren’t committing any illegal actions, what they are doing is taking all the money that is put into them, loaning it out, then having the federal reserve give them what they are missing, then the reserve has the U.S mint print off more, then the government taxes the shit out of all of us in order to pay it back.

6) I’m not demonizing everyone who doesn’t share my views. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and if they don’t agree with then that’s their business, I’m just passionate about it and I can’t see how anyone else is fine with what’s going on in our fucked up country

The reason most people wont reply to a numbered response with their own numbered response is because they want to dodge certain things they cant answer or argue, so it’s really heartening to see someone have the courage of their convictions to respond to every point like this guy did.

Richard:
1) The thing you made up was “Obviously we’re hurting the country and community by speaking out against what we feel is wrong.” — no one made any such claim. You made it up in what is known as a “straw man fallacy”.

2) That response only shows a lack of imagination, civility and respect for property rights and the well being of your community. I repeat: “speaking out” against something does not necessitate annoying your neighbors and breaking the law, which is what I referenced.

3) What is splitting hairs about encouraging law abiding protest? I repeat the substance of my (since it wasn’t responded to) #3: under that strategy [of organized critical thinking] you wont need to rely on animalistic tactics like cult gatherings, property destruction and illegal sit-ins that distract from any point you were attempting to convey.

4) Walmart could continue those trade practices with or without corporate personhood.

5) I’m not pointing this out to play “gotcha”, but rather because its important that if you’re going to be a messenger for a cause that you not say opposite things like this in such a short amount of time. You said “..if you find that corporate person hood and letting the banks get away with the illegality of their actions then by all mean..” and now you say “The banks aren’t committing any illegal actions”. Earlier you said it was important for people to hear your message but if that message contradicts itself then… whats the point?

6) You were demonizing everyone who didn’t agree with you in the comment previous to my 6 point list, but since then I think you clarified/revised the position so chop it from the list.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ian:
1) I thought you had inferred that the protests were only causing harm.

2) The intention isn’t to wake the neighbors, it’s to acquire the attention of law makers and political figures so they know we’re pissed off. If I had it my way, we’d have another Woodstock scenario.

3) You had said “stop feeling and do more thinking” which is splitting hairs. We feel it’s wrong is saying we think it’s wrong. I just chose to use “feel” rather than “think”

4) wal-mart shouldn’t be allowed to continue those practices at all because it’s wrong. That may be a personal opinion however, I feel it’s a damn good one. Endorsing child labor is wrong, I don’t care who you are.

5) It’s a technicality. They aren’t doing anything illegally by loaning money they don’t have and acquiring further debt, but I think that should be illegal and so do millions of others in our country.

6) It’s been chopped like my firewood

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Richard:
1) I may have. Instead of checking, I’ll just clarify: I was referring to “protests” but not “every protest within the Occupy movement”. in the link i posted that applauds the pepper spraying, i acknowledge that lots of protests are peaceful and non-disruptive and that I’m only referring to the ones throwing feces, destroying property and breaking the law and refusing to move when ordered by law enforcement

2) Intentions aside – the results are what matter and i don’t see any benefit in letting law makers know you’re pissed off unless there is a purpose (like rallying behind a specific demand or political candidate or philosophy)

3) Clarified. Accepted.

4) I’m just saying that its unrelated to corporate personhood.

5) Things you think SHOULD BE illegal vs what actually IS illegal isn’t a technicality but I understand your point at least.

-Unless you know what results letting law makers know you’re pissed will bring about, id say all points have been settled with clarity (which is all i ever seek, really: clarity. not agreement).