Monday, October 17, 2011

Non-Violent Violence: what's the point?? (by anon)

So the Wall Street protests… They give protester a bad name. When I think of protests, I think of Martin Luther King in the civil rights movement. I picture people being discriminated against and they are showing their counterpart that they are in fact just as good if not better than their oppressors. Protests should be organized with a strong message and have a strong leader or leaders. The Wall Street protests have none of these.

Consider this analogy: which is worse getting punched in the face or having someone follow you around for weeks with their first in your face. They technically haven’t hit you so you can hit them, seems childish. The person wants you hit them so they can cry you hit me. The protesters constantly do this to the cops. The cops should not hit them but I would argue that some of the protesters deserved it. Screaming PEACEFUL and whatever else is kind of hypocritical.  I know their pushing their message, but I’m not clear on what it is. When will these people be satisfied and go home or away or where ever? I get it, people are upset with a lot of things but frankly get the fuck out of my face with it already.


  1. I think this might literally be the worst critically pissed blog post of all time

  2. Then give a slam-dunk argument against it 11:44!

  3. if I argued against every single thing that I found inane beyond all reason, this blog would be electronic rubble

  4. Perhaps 11:44 means this is a weak argument because a kay part of any protest is persistence... and that's exactly what the op seems to dis-like. Although I agree that they should be a little more organised in their message.


  6. Micah B said... The protestors are carrying out the will of God. Jesus would approve. He threw the money changers out of the Temple.

  7. Why are you putting words in my mouth? I do think the protestors are right but I don't know enough to say that they are carrying out the will of God.

    If you are mocking me, please stop.

  8. What the hell is wrong with this poster? Who the fuck says that protesting must involve violence?!?!?! "Protest" means to p-r-o-t-e-s-t, not punch something or someone.

    Their message?!?!?!?! You don't get their message?!??!?! Are you living under a rock? Have you been hearing about the 99%? That's the fucking discrepancy they are protesting. 1% have almost all of the wealth in this country while the remaining 99% fights for scraps. They are protesting the unfairness of this economy. Yeah, way to go America. Let's keep shoveling our money off to the already wealthy while we live paycheck to paycheck in sub-standard housing.

    What kills me is that this poster doesn't even see that. It's like someone on your own team fighting against you.

  9. It was an analogy, not to be literally. He/she even said consider this analogy. I think the protesters could be more unified in a more defined message. From what I've read up on it they are all over the place. But, they all seem to not like the economy. If that's the main point, it might be good to push that more than all the randomness I've read about them.

  10. An argument is like a house. You have a roof (your conclusion), walls (your premises) and the floor (your assumptions).

    An analogy is not an argument. An argument does not have to be true, but when it is, your argument is stronger or sound.

    The conclusion in this argument is:

    The Wall Street Protestors gives protests a bad name because:

    1)protests should be organized.
    2)protests should have strong leaders.
    3)protests should be organized.
    4)protests should have a strong message.

    The Wall Street protests have none of these, so it gives protests a bad name.

    You may disagree with the conclusion but this is a good argument.

    Some of you attacked the poster which has nothing to do with the argument. It still stands.

    You attack this or any argument by focusing on the premises. You weaken them, the roof of the house caves in.

    For example, all protests historically have not been well organized but they had a profound impact politically, such as the protests in Chicago at the 1968 Democratic Convention.

    Some of them have not had strong leaders. Little Rock, for example, did not have any major leaders and they were very effective in integrating Central High.

    So two of the premises have been called into question weakening the argument. Do that with the rest and timber!

    So dispense with the personal attacks, they are distracting and do nothing to counter the arguments. If you have a good argument or counter, then make it.

  11. I want to hear Micah B' s reasons for thinking that the protesters are right.

  12. "You may disagree with the conclusion but this is a good argument."

    no it's not. it's, at best, an uncontested assertion. it's a *series* of uncontested assertions, actually. you missed the "why aren't they being violent?" part, too, by the way. kind of strange that you'd miss that.

    it's great to encourage people to be fair and evenhanded in their rebuttals (and devolving into baseless, rabid insults is almost never productive). we need to recognize when an "argument" has no value to us, though, and I think it is clear that this is just such a case-- maybe there are some valid ideas in there somewhere, but, if so, someone else (someone competent) should be the one to present them. I think that would make it much easier to hold honest conversation about the issues at hand, don't you?

  13. My reason for thinking the protesters are right is that Wall Street is full of greed and that is why our economy is so bad right now. I would think thats obvious.

  14. Hahaha ok, I worte this post so everyone who wants to throw insults feel free, but keep in mind this is anonymous so it doesnt do any good. However, everyone who doesnt agree with me and wants to insult anyway do so with some reasons at least. Otherwise its going in one ear and out the other.
    6:45 you explain the 99 percent and I get that but when I read from supporters online and some sighes that people are carring thats not what most of them are saying. I think most of them are using it as an excuss to push their random agenda.
    2:47 thank you, you poke some good holes in the arguement. I dont know the exact protests you speak of though. Im sure they exsist, I just dont know enough about them to argue your conclusion from them.
    4:04 a series of uncontested assertions, you might be right but the agruement was only 2 paragraphs not a paper. So if anything it should be easy to knock the argument apart but no one does.You also say that its clear that this argument has no value to us. Why?
    The analogy. It shows that just because someone is not being violent doesnt mean that they are not looking for violence. The protesters have remained nonviolent (for the most part) as have to police (for the most part).
    Finally since no one is attacking what is and can be easy targets for this argument, I'll do it myself.
    1. The protest have only been going for a few weeks. You can't expect a major changing protest to have all the kinks worked out already. Counter: how long do they need, in this age of super fast information.
    2. Whenever you have protest their are some crazies that jump in for the ride. You cant base the whole movement on a few exceptions. Counter: its not a few crazies but a majority of ununionified crazies.
    3. Strong leaders dont always emirge off the get go, some come later. Counter: give an example.
    4. Its hard for any protest to compete with the civil rights movement. Counter: they dont have to beat the civil rights movement just have the same methods.
    I find it sad that no one who supports this movement could not come up with these. If their are anymore feel free to state them. However, I don't want to agrue with myself online. I did this so people can see the better way to attack an argument or idea. Also 2:47 gave some usefull tools as well.