a challop (i think) in the midst of G20

if you attack riot police you should be shot

just go home and eat a sandwich

l8r

that ain't no challop that's a truth bomb

not to be dr morbs up in this bitch but reactionary anti-protest crypto-conservatism is 100% my least favorite thing about the vice magazine generation

No crypto about it.

protesting is whatever - it's not my time, i don't really care. but when i see ppl rushing at riot police who are just standing there i become stunned at the stupidity and advocate severe violence

Er, "rushing at" someone is the same as "attacking" them? I should think that rushing at someone is the same as moving quickly in their direction, while attacking requires violent contact using parts of the body, a handheld weapon, or a projectile.

What are you on about?

they should be shot? really? wow dude

fuck the police

what else should be people be shot for jordan?

• liking the asher roth cd

mostly just rushing at police

what about rape or murder - those shootworthy or just being a dumbass in a crowd heinous enough to warrant the death penalty

I assume Jordan's never been threatened/shoved/pushed/kicked/beaten/arrested/intimidated by alphamales in military gear before

xpost

They should be shot for stupidity, apparently; it covers a lot of ground quite conveniently. It probably includes him from time to time, but hey, that's life.

http://www.aolcdn.com/aolr/breakfast-club-paul-gleason-400a012907.jpg

people should also be shot for rushing at rick ross as he is former police

don't "shoot" the messenger

I assume Jordan's never been threatened/shoved/pushed/kicked/beaten/arrested/intimidated by alphamales in military gear before

― Ray Libloata (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, April 2, 2009 2:48 PM (22 seconds ago) Bookmark

pretty easy to avoid this situation, i gotta say

420 shot a hippie every day

is asher roth anything like ash ra tempel

pretty easy to avoid this situation, i gotta say

okay now I assume you're joking

Predicting 1000 posts on this clusterfuck.

J0rdan unfamiliar with Chicago '68 or civil rights demonstrations or basically any peaceful demonstration that's been deliberately sabotaged by the police in order to initiate a violent conflagration

we have to respect the police--if we can't respect the police, who can we respect

I strongly disagree with the vice magazine generation thing

it is a very good magazine

I assume Jordan's never been threatened/shoved/pushed/kicked/beaten/arrested/intimidated by alphamales in military gear before

I mean come on this has happened to me while I was just WALKING DOWN THE STREET

Has anyone met Jordan S? Maybe he's a shut-in?

oh yes. it's on now

lol g20 tards /= civil rights demonstrators, but thx

xp yeah, I was going to say -- while I was just riding my bike in accordance with local laws and posted signage.

shit some BART police just shot an innocent guy in the head a couple months ago (not quite as good as when they shot an unarmed naked man but still...)

Now look at this.
Madness the helmets keep attracting me, me.
I try to run, but see I’m not that fast.
I think I’m first but surely finish last, last.

you've got to be kidding painfully young and ignorant

fixed

people die all the time though

Alphamales in military gear are people too!

- protest skepticism is probably good
- not having unnecessary knee-jerk positions about whether you're fixedly on the side of protesters or public safety officers is probably good
- people getting shot is probably bad
- my never having much interacted with alpha males in military gear (outside of the third world) is probably good

BART guy /= g20 tards

go on tho, shakes

what makes a g20 protester a "tard"

I suspect that no matter what anyone says here, jordan will remain strong in his belief right up to the moment he personally discovers how wrong he is.

if anything I would call the police tards

they wear safety helmets

I mean come on this has happened to me while I was just WALKING DOWN THE STREET

pls share

My fear/hatred of alphamales in military gear is about equal to my fear/hatred of violent alphamale protestors

- not having unnecessary knee-jerk positions about whether you're fixedly on the side of protesters or public safety officers is probably good

without this we would never have challops tho

My fear/hatred of alphamales in military gear is about equal to my fear/hatred of violent alphamale protestors

^^^the rational position

- protest skepticism is probably good
- not having unnecessary knee-jerk positions about whether you're fixedly on the side of protesters or public safety officers is probably good
- people getting shot is probably bad
- my never having much interacted with alpha males in military gear (outside of the third world) is probably good

― nabisco, Thursday, April 2, 2009 12:54 PM Bookmark

I think the only thing preventing a 'posts v much in character' is the lack of paragraph form.

I have to say that nabisco is otm there.

Also J0 I gotta pick a bone here if you will--it ain't really like the dudes are "just doing their jobs" and getting mercilessly rushed by mean ol anarchists. The story's much more complicated here: police infiltration & covert instigation, tear gassings & mass arrests & abuse that often precede but almost always outweigh any retaliation by protesters. It ain't just "some white dudes w/dreads & djembes runnin at riot shields"

big ol xp

voting /= democracy

like dara not everyone protesting is yr straw-man posho lefty y'know?

Actually, in London the people who whinge hardest are petit-bourgeois Thatcherbabies. So...fuck 'em.

in my limited experience of peaceful protesting, plenty of proles in the ranks (like y'know myself).

challenging it in huge groups facing up to riot cops isn't always the way to go, i think. that's offered without judgement on behaviour of th emajority of the protestors and not saying that riot cops are 100% angels with perfect judgement, but that kind of organised (even passive) activity turns very many people off imo

[...]inconveniencing the stupid proles is a valid way to make change happen y/n?

― ,,,,,,eeeeleon (darraghmac), Tuesday, July 6, 2010 11:31 AM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark

I don't know. I just have a family to go home to and I only get to see them for maybe two hours a night and it sucks really bad when I'm on the bus going home and we're stuck in traffic and when we get to the front of the traffic jam it's a bunch of people dressed up in skeleton masks to protest Israel or something. Good job, protestors! I'm sure you changed a bureaucrats mind with that one! Your hard work has not gone unnoticed. Three cheers for democracy.

yes, protests can be inconvenient and annoying, but it still surprises me that people would be okay with their violent suppression

Yeah, I'm not saying they should be violently suppressed. I just want them to not be wherever I am.

When I first moved to London, businesses had alternative transport plans when there were demos or bus and Tube strikes - and we were discouraged from crossing ANY picket lines as official policy. That's changed; since about 1995 it's been OK in British no-such-thing-as society to whinge about the inconvenience to your day and completely ignore the underlying reasons for strikes (or protests).

I don't care if protests have an underlying reason. They sure as hell don't have any outcome.

Tell that to the Suffragettes.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/AlicePaul_1901.jpg

R.I.P.'d before I was even born.

They sure as hell don't have any outcome.

Just a fly-by posting here but dude, if nobody did anything that they weren't sure of the efficacy of, pretty much every interesting, useful, inventive, or for-the-greater-good thing in history wouldn't have been done.

Who's unsure of anything? I am certain that contemporary protests do not yield any influence over policymakers.

Yeah, I'm not saying they should be violently suppressed. I just want them to not be wherever I am.

Not sure how much irony to read into this small-minded NIMBYism; I don't deny that if I were stuck waiting for an unending protest or blockage while needing to BE AT SOMETHING, I'd be pissed...but if protests were scheduled/expected and for a defensible cause, I think I might make them a family point of interest and talk about where and why they were happening, possibly take a day or 1/2 day off to introduce kids to some level of involvement (something safe, obv) instead of resenting demonstrations or demonstrators for making my life not exactly the same as every other day?

for the most part, i agree. it doesn't mean it's not worth doing tho.
i vote even tho i'm normally 99% of what the outcome in my riding is going to be.

xpost

I lolled so hard the first time I learned that France has laws governing transport strikes, e.g. "you are allowed to reduce by x many trains per hour, but no more!" It's such orderly disorder.

I don't deny that if I were stuck waiting for an unending protest or blockage while needing to BE AT SOMETHING, I'd be pissed

But SOMEBODY always needs to be at something! Even if I don't specifically have to go to a school play or ballet recital, SOMEONE does. Someone has a dying relative in the hospital.

A few years back, I worked for a major university system and belonged to the same union as some workers at their hospitals. Eventually, there was a strike and we were encouraged to come and protest. I did, because I DO believe in unions and worker's rights.

Anyway, we were running around out there with signs and chants and slogans and noisemakers. The whole time, all I could think of was those poor, sick people up there and all their relatives who were going in and out of the building to visit them, maybe for the last time. We didn’t NEED to protest. We were already striking. We just wanted to raise a stink and get attention for ourselves. I’ve never been so disgusted with myself.

Anyway, I'm too emotional now. I'll get off this thread and leave it to people who want to discus G20. Sorry.

Toronto Police Services Board has ordered an independent review:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/07/06/g20-police-review611.html

FWIW, btw:

Number of people arrested during the October crisis: 497

Number of people arrested during the G20 protests: >900

Labor actions that involve people in caretaking fields are extremely difficult from what little I've read about nurses and healthcare working conditions. And it's understandable: people in caregiving roles wouldn't BE THERE if they weren't invested in their patients' experience and outcomes; these are not people who can walk away from their work. Unfortunately it robs them of pretty much the only negotiating lever they have.

Not to be compared with any other kind of demonstration, imo.

(That "497" figure was from Wikipedia tbh. The Canadian Encyclopedia simply gives the number as "over 450".)

Sundar - the craziest thing about the arrest number is that yesterday i saw the headline that Blair (Toronto's police chief) was "vowing" to track down the trouble makers from that weekend! like - you arrested hundreds upon hundreds of people and STILL didn't get the right guys?! you had over a billions dollars and STILL couldn't get the job done right?!
the incompetence alone boarders on criminal.

Ha.

stevie/suzy

My flashpoint-causing comment was half rushed out around football and dinner. As rural Irish, I'm quite the Finn on class issues, so if proles was the RONG word to use there to make my point, I'll apologise for that.

I won't change the thrust of the point I was making, however

doing the right thing is not always comfy - especially to people who confuse their own minor inconveniences with something IMPORTANT.

was what I was responding to. I actually agree with the point, broadly, but what we were actually talking about was the unbelievable gall of people to not cheerlead protestors. If people are inconvenienced by a protest, they're automatically not gonna be well-disposed towards those protesting, particularly if they catch the whiff of 'it's my right, maaaaan' entitlement from those involved. Especially if they're collateral damage with nothing to do with the issues being protested.

If that's a controversial comment, I'm confused.

contenderizer-

protests can be inconvenient and annoying, but it still surprises me that people would be okay with their violent suppression.

you've c&p'd my post before typing that, so it should be relatively easy for you to point me t'ward where I'm 'ok with...violent suppression'. I've taken care to state quite the opposite, in fact. Don't really appreciate that, tbh.

and "inconveniencing the stupid proles" (ridiculous class baggage there) is hardly the primary point. protests aim to raise awareness, to give voice to the unheard and to assert the rights of ordinary individuals to make fair use of public space. all of which are fundamental to my concept of real democracy.

But crucially, other people in a democracy won't agree with you on the relative importance of all of those issues (and particularly, I think, the last one, which is really quite central to the 'inconveniencing the general public' point). Protests that aim to 'raise awareness' by taking over/back the streets are not going to generate universal popularity.

Again, it's not that I even disagree with you in any strong way, but it seems strange to complain then about the results of a poll or what-have-you where those not strongly partisan will come down on the opposite side of your issue.

This is as mature as I get on ILX, so if it ain't enough for you guys after almost wilfully misunderstanding me to suit your arguments above, I don't think we're gonna find any middle ground on this one. Luv ya anyway.

The poll results that upset me were these:

The Angus Reid poll, which surveyed 1,003 Canadians and 503 Torontonians, found that 73 per cent of Torontonians and two-thirds of Canadians believe police treatment of protesters was justified during the G20 summit.

I was actually pretty far from cheerleading the protests in the first place. I just think the police's and government's handling of the situation are appalling.

If people are inconvenienced by a protest, they're automatically not gonna be well-disposed towards those protesting

Not necessarily! I'm inconvenienced by monthly Critical Mass rides but I really enjoy the racket.

Ah but you're just weird in fairness

The thing is, there are protests (which, depending on the cause, I am totally behind) and then there are content-free flashmob knobbery like the idiots who shut down Liverpool St station recreating a TV ad, and it is sometimes difficult for someone attempting to get home so they can start dinner for their kids to tell the difference between the two; the fewer of the latter there are, the more meaningful the former become.

*HUGE* difference between viral marketing dumbfuckery and organized protest.

And then there are legit good-cause protests with 5% attendance of fuckheads that make it a very tough situation to police with the luxury of treating individual crowd members to the standards they'd hope for, and make it impossible for neutrals to sympathise (especially when the media will report only in the most narrow and negative of lights on any trouble)

yeah but HI DERE is saying that a lot of people have trouble making that distinction when it just seems like a bunch of people getting in your way and making you late for work.

I agree with the "inconvenience is the price of democracy" viewpoint fwiw.

xp, kinda

yeah the rowdy element is always a problem, I haven't seen any steps toward resolving that issue other than the "break-away march" tactic, which still seems to tar the peaceful folks with the same brush.

Inconvenience is the price of democracy, and responsibility is the price of freedom. IMO.

pointless, achieves-nothing, aimed-at-the-wrong-people inconvenience is not the noble ideal you guys seem to be lauding. that's what kkvsgz said above, and i agree totally.

'We're RAISING AWARENESS MAYNE' go raise it on the internet, or in your local high school, or in a letter to yr reps, or talk amongst your friends at voting time.

if you feel like you got to raise it in some bypasser's face at rush hour, then you're on an ego trip.

imco

true, but I part ways with kkvgz when we get here:

I don't care if protests have an underlying reason. They sure as hell don't have any outcome.

this is opinion, not fact, especially when dealing with the private sector (which is terrified of boycotts etc.).

as someone who has put a lot of time/work into organizing various demonstrations, I am probably even less tolerant than most people when it comes to participants who endanger others, or skew public perception in a negative way. it continues to be a big issue for folks who want to organize legit marches or rallies, as we can see in the poll that revived this thread. weird that we were having these debates in my community ten years ago and nothing has changed. the violent jerks still hitch a ride on the hard work of peaceful people with good intentions.

i don't in any way dispute it.

yeah, not saying that! just noting that it isn't a new problem by any means. the flipside of this coin is that you can end up with these sterile, meaningless protests where people stay in their "free speech area" corral and relentlessly enforce obedience to even the most ridiculously arcane laws. which is what is REALLY worthless imo. better to stay home and write letters.

in other words. blocking traffic = always dud.

i accept also that inconveniencing the right people is damn near impossible, because they're masters of the universe and all that. which is why, in a time, i think, of growing public apathy towards protests (are there more of them now, or is the coverage greater, or is it that the coverage makes them homogenous and is constantly focused on the negative, i wonder?), there's gotta be better ways of going after your rich white man.

I agree. It's worth noting that among my more seasoned activist friends the whole process of going to these G20/G8/whatever events is referred to as "protest tourism". It is generally considered to be an ineffective strategy among people who are doing a lot of the real work.

also worth noting that the other Toronto G20 thread had some discussion of how the police very possibly set some deliberate bait traps for the violent elements of the crowd, hence the unlocked police cruisers that were conveniently trashed.

u need to think more along the lines of tyler durden imo, non violent economic terrorism

(it was inevitable that my quote of serious discussion would be exhausted fairly quickly)

Cover story of newest Maclean's: "LOCK THEM UP: Why the G20 Thugs Don't Deserve Any Leniency"

maybe it's about the politicians

wow that's low even for ken whyte

maybe it's about the politicians

Cover image was a dude in a gas mask holding up an anti-Harper sign in front of a burning cop car.

so it could have been a politician, with the gas mask and all

Where's the thread about the "involuntary" murder when the cop shot that guy in the back at point blank range?

so it could have been a politician, with the gas mask and all

Heh, yep it could have been any of the liberals - the sign had a picture of Harper and read 'Canada's Gross National Product'

dose fuckin liberals