How much longer can the Non-Violent Approach be used?

reply to post by jude11


I think non violent protests help awaken the masses. This is their sole benefit. When government officials start crossing the line, it makes those sitting on the fence angry at the actions of those officials. No matter what the movement is about or the protest is about, government intervention in that protest will always incite more to become sympathetic to the protesters that are non violent. A peaceful protester should realize their sole reason to protest is to make those officials step over the line of human respect. With that comes more support, even if it is not game changing support, those who observe abuse of any peaceful person would come to their aid in some way, be it sympathy or support.

Originally posted by seagull


It all requires work. If we aren't willing to do the work peacefully, what point an armed rebellion that won't solve the problem we're to scared to solve peacefully?

When you have one side that is ready and willing to deploy police officers as their own personal mini army, you cannot expect civility to ride out.

Originally posted by jude11
Not really wanting to discuss the why of the protests, the question is "How long can the Non-Violent" approach be the tool used to get a message across? The reason I ask is that it must be clear to more people that this approach WILL NOT accomplish anything.

I think they need to worry more about exactly what message they're trying to get across. Seems like that should be the priority, since most people -- including apparently the vast number of participants -- don't even know what they're trying to say. Some vague thing about tax reform, apparently. Nothing very specific.

After they figure that out, then they can start burning cars and looting, like a normal protest.

reply to post by Blue Shift


You are being blatantly disingenuous at this point if you are still saying that people have no idea what they're protesting over. Just stop it.

reply to post by illuminatislave


From what i have seen and read on here that goes both ways Occupy is too willing and eager to kill people over their belief system.

I am not nor will i ever be there is only one label here that is important and that is American and i will not shed the blood of another American over petty greed.

Hey feel free to do whatever.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by jude11

 

I think non violent protests help awaken the masses. This is their sole benefit. When government officials start crossing the line, it makes those sitting on the fence angry at the actions of those officials. No matter what the movement is about or the protest is about, government intervention in that protest will always incite more to become sympathetic to the protesters that are non violent. A peaceful protester should realize their sole reason to protest is to make those officials step over the line of human respect. With that comes more support, even if it is not game changing support, those who observe abuse of any peaceful person would come to their aid in some way, be it sympathy or support.

Completely agree that the masses are at least awakening because of the protests. The benefit of the Non-Violence so far is that it is a soft awakening for many, instead of blood shed in the streets one morning creating confusion over the issue and scaring those that would otherwise support the movement.

Thank you!

reply to post by neo96


Could you clarify on this point:

Occupy is too willing and eager to kill people over their belief system.

reply to post by illuminatislave


I fully realize that the reality is that violence may become necessary for the change to happen. Just realize that the change you get via violence may not be the ones you want.

Peaceful change will get you at least some of what you want. Violent change? Maybe not so much, it may even end up being worse than what you had. That's happened many a time. In a violent revolution, he with the most guns makes the rules.

It's interesting to see what makes people tick in this sense...

1. We have Occupy which for the most part has been Non-Violent protests about the state of the world, economy, unemployment, big money, stock markets, etc..

2. We have a legendary football coach from Penn State that when fired, people went to the violent approach and flipped a TV van on it's side.

3. We have Vancouver fans lossing a game 7 Stanley Cup game to Boston and the reaction was to tear the city apart in a riot.

It would seem people are more willing to take a more violent approach to a less meaningful cause?

Originally posted by illuminatislave
You are being blatantly disingenuous at this point if you are still saying that people have no idea what they're protesting over. Just stop it.

I've heard a number of people claim to present what the protest is about. It never seems to be exactly the same thing. The ultra rich paying their fair share of taxes is what I gather, but it's all very vague. Few if any specifics. Tax reform? The dog they elected as their spokesperson in Denver wasn't very clear about it, either.

But, hey, if people can riot over a basketball team winning a championship, then these people can probably reach some kind of agreement to go crazy and start busting things up. It's a loose confederacy with no specific leader, right? That seems primed for violence.

reply to post by neo96


You care about the American label, yet you are hell bent against American people who want to exercise their right to peaceful assembly and protest because their political ideology differs from yours. That's not American to me.

reply to post by Blue Shift


The only thing vague to me is your understanding of what is going on around you, but I'll leave you to your disingenuous stance on the matter.

Originally posted by mileslong54
It's interesting to see what makes people tick in this sense...

1. We have Occupy which for the most part has been Non-Violent protests about the state of the world, economy, unemployment, big money, stock markets, etc..

2. We have a legendary football coach from Penn State that when fired, people went to the violent approach and flipped a TV van on it's side.

3. We have Vancouver fans lossing a game 7 Stanley Cup game to Boston and the reaction was to tear the city apart in a riot.

It would seem people are more willing to take a more violent approach to a less meaningful cause?

edit on 10-11-2011 by mileslong54 because: (no reason given)

I believe the underlying reason for this is that these smaller instances are seen as something winnable and will be over within a day or two. Small victories. IMO

OWS is a long road.

reply to post by seagull


I don't want violence. All I am saying is that if things continue down this road of utter insanity and corruption, it WILL happen regardless if you or I like it or not.

As long as somebody believes it is the way to go considering that everything we do duplicates, period.


Thruthseek3r

reply to post by aaron2209






Lot's of things out there to clarify that and not here to spoon feed people.

reply to post by illuminatislave


We are, most unfortunately, in agreement.

But there is still time to correct it. If, but only if, we're prepared to do the work. ...and so far? We ain't.

It's been said that people get the govt. that they deserve. Truer words were never spoken.

What would we gain by violently overthrowing CEOs, CFOs, presidents, etc?

So far there is a few people, like 15 I think, so far marching to DC, which I'm excited for and wish them the best. But that amount of people have no chance to get close enough to anyone to do anything physically. Plus a non-violent approach is ideal for effecting any change you want from government. Protest or otherwise.

The bulk of the people are outsideof business' - What do we accomplish by violently targeting them?

Perhaps what little leadership there is within this movement could actually open a dialogue with officials within the political realm that they so want to change. Up until now, its just been a sit and squat event and no one wants to actually but the rubber to the road to get something accomplished.

2 months now and the tires are not even spinning. The various camps have been infiltrated by a dark element that only wants violence and the movement has made no efforts to distance themselves from this element.

The campers are getting restless....

Originally posted by aaron2209
reply to post by neo96

 

Could you clarify on this point:

Occupy is too willing and eager to kill people over their belief system.

There have been a number of people apparently associated with the cause or movement who have stated they would love to do the equivalent of rolling out a guillotine to kill the top 1% (without acknowledging that would only create another top 1%). There have been quite a few statements advocating extreme violence. These OWS people and their other "Occupy" associates are not an inherently peaceful bunch of people. So far, maybe. But that can all change in an instant.