Dude, that's creepy.

By that logic, killing someone in self-defence is equally bad to killing someone randomly on the street. It's not always just about what you do, but also why you do it.

What those students at UC Davis did made me very proud. I'm referring to the silent stare treatment. That was incredibly powerful, much more so than any amount of shouting or sign waving. I've been waiting years for students to demonstrate that they can protest like they used to, and it has finally happened. That's the kind of action that gets change. It worked for Gandhi, it worked in Selma. Way to go, people.

No action at all? :xD: IMO it makes it easier for people to walk all over you, or directly past you ;)

In all seriousness, that was a little too passive and peaceful for my liking.

Though if any of the protesters react, they would get even worse treatment. I think the fact that they were just sitting there and had pepper spray put in their faces helped to create such a media and moral backlash in the last few days.

Sorry Moco, but I'm with Sempu on this one. Had everyone been yelling, screaming, trying to get in Linda Katehi's face, etc. it would have been way too easy for the media (well, Fox News at least) to put down this protest as yet another case of deranged hippies needing to be silenced with pepper spray sorry, FOOD PRODUCT and just leave it there. And everyone was actually being very active in maintaining their silence and making sure that the only audible noise was Katehi's footsteps - a microcosm of the fact that anything that's done by administrators at UC Davis today now echoes over the world, for better or for worse. I'm really glad this protest happened the way it did. I've never put myself out in public protests much but I wish I had been there for this one. A friend of mine was, and I'm damn proud for him.

i have to agree.
Nonviolence works as long as you either are the vast majority or the opponent still has some form of consciousness left (or fears some kind of damage by nonviolent protests, eg.g. a damage to his public standing or a PR nightmare).
The borders between nonviolence and violence are not that clear though. For some, blocking roads or construction work is already some sort of violence while for others only actions that hurt people (and not objects) is violence.

If the opressors want to, they can always shoot. But I think there are situations in which this works. Consider however that the british empire was already in retreat when Ghandi managed to help them leaving India. Also, Ghandi was not alone. There were quite militant acitivists following the same goal. It was sort of a good gop/bad cop game - the british chose to rather deal with Ghandi than with Savarkar or other people at that time that commided acts like blowing up bridges. So in a way the freedom struggle consisted of two arms - a peacful one and one doing direct action. And I think that one could not have worked well without the other. Good cop, bad cop...
Same is true by the way with Malcolm X and Martin L King....

Exactly - that argument that physical force (I dislike calling it violence) is always unacceptable makes no sense. In self defense and in the struggle for freedom I think it is acceptable. After all, if you see someone assaulting a woman in a dark alley and you have the means, you would try to stop him even if that means to hit him with a club? Or at least, if you have the means you would defend yourself if someone attacks you in that alley? Certainly it is not the weapon of choice and smashing windows is not really constructive, but to dismiss any effective means of reaching freedom and self-defense as inappropriate just because the opponent uses them seems to me like throwing away tools just because someone else uses them as well.
Again - if it is ineffective - I think violence should be strictly avoided. To just attack some policemen will not help, but if they attack first, I think self-defense is not inacceptable.

Uh, I didn't say yelling and screaming was any better. I don't know about the circumstances surrounding this, so maybe that's why it seemed a little too quiet. I really had no idea what was going on because there was no message of any kind involved, and I don't believe you should have to be briefed on what a protest is about before seeing it to know what it is.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lv...28zno1_500.jpg

I don't agree with all of this Occupy stuff, but what the officer did certainly looks like excessive force. Then again, we must look at all this in context. We may not be seeing the whole picture.

creepy? :(

But, killing someone in self-defense is a little different than protesting. By sometimes, I mean things like if you want to protest for peace, you can't be violent, because you are defeating your own purpose. Because if you want to protest for something like peace, you have to be prepared to suffer abuse, because if you fight you're just doing what the abusers are doing.

Self defense is a little different, like the mugging. If I see a women being mugged, and I attack the assaulter to stop him, I'm not really protesting anything, I'm just helping the women. I would use force to help her, but if I subdued the assaulter, I would rather try to figure out why he does what he does, and help him, instead of sending him to prison.

Also, There are times where I think the Malcom X approach of "be peaceful, but if they lay a hand on you, they've broken any peace treaty" works well too. It depends on what you are protesting.

All that aside, I think the silent treatment for the chancellor was well done, and I think the students who sat there and took the pepper spray was more effective than if the students had physically assaulted the police officer after being sprayed

Sorry, that was Spike, not me. I'm going to have to stop with these MLP quotes, but it's just way too much fun. Then again, I didn't even have quote marks on that one, so I guess it was partly me too. I admire your courage to face guns for the sake of trees, but I do not possess such guts, because I'm a coward and I leg it the first chance I get.

A fellow intellectual who thinks it is possible to overcome the evils that lurk within us by rationality... I hope you have heavy fists, quick feet and a bullet proof jacket to help you with that. I possess none of those, so I can't afford to play the hero regardless of how brutal the situation. Now if I had a memory erasing stun gun, then I probably could step in to most such scenarios and save the day, but as it stands, I'm just a run of the mill coward.

For the rest of the post, aurora already covered that, so I don't think that needs to be repeated.

That is my general opinion around such things, but in this case, I have to disagree.
While the police were within their right to move the protesters on, there was no violence from them and no imminent risk to ether themselves or others. Those are the criteria for when reasonable force is justified - if someone is coming at police with a knife or waving a gun around, they'd be lucky not to get shot. If they're going around smashing shop windows or trying to punch police, they might get pepper sprayed. If they are standing somewhere and refusing to leave when asked, then pepper spray is excessive.

An interesting AlterNet piece from today.

Robocops vs Occupy Wall St: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Tactics | | AlterNet

I ask myself, what is the aim of the protesters?
What are they expecting to happen?
We`ve seen so much protesters and it didn´t change anything.
I think the only way to change something is to change ourselves, to change our sight and to bring out those feelings many of us felt while and after watching avatar.
I mean the feeling of love and connection to each other.
The whole system of economy, industry is like a machine which has gone mad. And the people have become part of it, slaves to it. And I think those things will colapse by themselves, like you see from the financial crisis.
And everyone should know whats important for himself, i mean what do we need and what do we like?

I didn't say that the police didn't use excessive force; I'm pretty sure they did. I'm just saying that in many cases we need to look more at the situation in hand. Context is everything, and half-truths can be as bad as lies. I think the police acted inappropriately here.

That is so wrong...

It is a victim-mentality that I think is all too prevalent in so many protesting. The glorification of becoming a victim. The honorable martyr suffering stuff. Does that really work? Maybe it works with people who have a shred of a heart left and can be appealed to. It certainly wont work on those persons that dont have it, can not afford to show it or simply are just "legal persons" that dont have a heart to begin with. It also wont work with abusers, who are actually having plenty of experience on how to deal with victims and how to ignore anything related to that (like creating illusions of the responsability of the abuse to be searched by the victim, e.g. "she did dreass like a slut so I had to..." - or here "they did not want to move off the sidewalk, so we had to pepperspray them")

Protest is quite often self-defense or defense of others, dont you think. Or maybe not protesting but direct actions. If I chain myself to a tree to prevent a pipeline carrying toxic stuff actoss the wild land I live with, isnt that self-defense then? And if someone from the ALF goes out and liberates some mistreated animals in fur farms, that is in their eyes certainly similar to help someone who is being beaten, just that their compassion goes beyond humans. And in a peaceful protest - people actually usually defend their right to equality, liberty and freedom and if they are beaten or evicted by the police they come into the situation of possibly fasing a person with a stick who wants to beat them - can you seriously tell them that they should be just standing there and take the beating until they end up in hospital with brain damage?

No problem with that - we can always argue about what to do later with those who misbehaved. I am also not for punishment, but in the situation - when the assault or abuse happens, there are situations where I'd seriously question the effectiveness and appropriateness of radical nonviolence.

Indeed. I think this is a very good and fitting concept. Don't throw the first stone, but also dont let yourself be stoned to death...

This is very well said. Indeed I think protesting has only limited effect. Peaceful or not. However changing ourselfs does little more since unless everyone does so, it also is only limited. Now that is a little bit of a dilemma - if protesting does not help and some people who somehow got enlightened change themselves but that is not enough - what can be done then? How to save this beloved planet and how to free the people?