Occupy Wall Street

  • (15 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »

216 Replies - 8984 Views - Last Post: 16 December 2011 - 10:05 AM

#31 supersloth  Icon User is offline

  • serial frotteur - RUDEST MEMBER ON D.I.C.
  • member icon


Reputation: 4428
  • View blog
  • Posts: 28,356
  • Joined: 21-March 01

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 26 September 2011 - 10:17 PM

View Postcreativecoding, on 26 September 2011 - 09:35 PM, said:

Quote

One of the less obvious things about mace is that it's not just effective on eyes, it is also very effective on the sensitive nose and lungs of the subject.


So? it's not deadly. I hate how the police will do something like this, and everybody goes crazy on a "fuck the police" rant, whereas if some random citizen did that to another citizen, nobody would have cared and MAYBE, it would have been on the 9-o'clock news for a short 2 minutes. Please are just looking for reasons to hate the police.

oh man i hope you get pepper sprayed immediately. seriously.
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#32 modi123_1  Icon User is online

  • Suitor #2
  • member icon



Reputation: 8376
  • View blog
  • Posts: 31,135
  • Joined: 12-June 08

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 27 September 2011 - 06:55 AM

Fur Hat Puppeteers. Great.
http://www.colbertna...eet-under-siege
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#33 AdamSpeight2008  Icon User is offline

  • MrCupOfT
  • member icon


Reputation: 2216
  • View blog
  • Posts: 9,352
  • Joined: 29-May 08

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 27 September 2011 - 07:44 AM

Look how they're "sticking it to the man"!
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#34 xclite  Icon User is offline

  • LIKE A BOSS
  • member icon


Reputation: 877
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,122
  • Joined: 12-May 09

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 27 September 2011 - 07:47 AM

View Postcreativecoding, on 26 September 2011 - 11:35 PM, said:

Quote

One of the less obvious things about mace is that it's not just effective on eyes, it is also very effective on the sensitive nose and lungs of the subject.


So? it's not deadly. I hate how the police will do something like this, and everybody goes crazy on a "fuck the police" rant, whereas if some random citizen did that to another citizen, nobody would have cared and MAYBE, it would have been on the 9-o'clock news for a short 2 minutes. Please are just looking for reasons to hate the police.

I think if you maced somebody without cause I wouldn't be upset if they made sure that was the last thing you ever did.

This post has been edited by xclite: 27 September 2011 - 07:47 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#35 Craig328  Icon User is offline

  • I make this look good
  • member icon

Reputation: 1866
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,389
  • Joined: 13-January 08

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 27 September 2011 - 08:28 AM

Quote

During an unsanctioned march from Liberty Plaza to Union Square (~1 mi) the police became violent and arrested, en masse, anyone who was at Union Square (violently taking approximately 80 people into custody). An old officer (white shirts) applied mace to a group pinned behind orange fencing. One of the less obvious things about mace is that it's not just effective on eyes, it is also very effective on the sensitive nose and lungs of the subject.

Seeing that bummed me out, but the recklessness of the officers indicates that they're getting worried. They can't afford to keep guarding the protest forever.


Curious choice of words there..."unsanctioned". You could try the more appropriate but less personal interest serving term "illegal"...but then it wouldn't allow you to gloss over the fact that those folks were doing something illegal, were confronted by the police telling them to disperse, and when they refused to disperse were handled in an appropriate and non-violent way by those same police.

How do you manage to attain the levels of self-delusion you apparently enjoy when you equate mace to police violence. Know what they used before mace and pepper spray?

Posted Image

...except toss in dogs, water cannons and live ammunition.

Guess what: when the man with the gun who is appointed by the state to maintain law and order tells you to move your ass you COULD choose to go with "B./ Argue with him" but then you should expect to get your ludicrously dumb and naive ass beaten. Oh, you'll win the moral battle in that you were "right" and he wasn't...but that won't do much for your fractured skull or maced eyeballs, now will it?

When I see a dipshit like you using terms like "police became violent and arrested, en masse, anyone who was at Union Square (violently taking approximately 80 people into custody)" when your video shows them acting in exceptional non-violent restraint...it makes me cheer for the police.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm rabidly anti-stupid that way and your posts keep punching that button like a jackhammer.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#36 creativecoding  Icon User is online

  • Hash != Encryption
  • member icon


Reputation: 922
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,195
  • Joined: 19-January 10

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 27 September 2011 - 08:41 AM

View Postsupersloth, on 27 September 2011 - 06:17 AM, said:

View Postcreativecoding, on 26 September 2011 - 09:35 PM, said:

Quote

One of the less obvious things about mace is that it's not just effective on eyes, it is also very effective on the sensitive nose and lungs of the subject.


So? it's not deadly. I hate how the police will do something like this, and everybody goes crazy on a "fuck the police" rant, whereas if some random citizen did that to another citizen, nobody would have cared and MAYBE, it would have been on the 9-o'clock news for a short 2 minutes. Please are just looking for reasons to hate the police.

oh man i hope you get pepper sprayed immediately. seriously.



View Postxclite, on 27 September 2011 - 03:47 PM, said:

View Postcreativecoding, on 26 September 2011 - 11:35 PM, said:

Quote

One of the less obvious things about mace is that it's not just effective on eyes, it is also very effective on the sensitive nose and lungs of the subject.


So? it's not deadly. I hate how the police will do something like this, and everybody goes crazy on a "fuck the police" rant, whereas if some random citizen did that to another citizen, nobody would have cared and MAYBE, it would have been on the 9-o'clock news for a short 2 minutes. Please are just looking for reasons to hate the police.

I think if you maced somebody without cause I wouldn't be upset if they made sure that was the last thing you ever did.



I never said it wasn't the wrong thing to do or that people should be maced for no reason.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#37 supersloth  Icon User is offline

  • serial frotteur - RUDEST MEMBER ON D.I.C.
  • member icon


Reputation: 4428
  • View blog
  • Posts: 28,356
  • Joined: 21-March 01

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 27 September 2011 - 09:37 AM

that's basically exactly what you said.

words have meaning, and yours are like, right there for everyone to see.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#38 Lemur  Icon User is offline

  • Pragmatism over Dogma
  • member icon



Reputation: 1335
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,398
  • Joined: 28-November 09

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 27 September 2011 - 09:44 AM

I didn't mean to say what I actually said and therefor you cannot hold me accountable because I have some bizarre self-interpretation that conveniently covers my tail.

Something like that?
Was This Post Helpful? 2
  • +
  • -

#39 supersloth  Icon User is offline

  • serial frotteur - RUDEST MEMBER ON D.I.C.
  • member icon


Reputation: 4428
  • View blog
  • Posts: 28,356
  • Joined: 21-March 01

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 27 September 2011 - 10:01 AM

cc: our little politician.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#40 lordofduct  Icon User is offline

  • I'm a cheeseburger
  • member icon


Reputation: 2506
  • View blog
  • Posts: 4,615
  • Joined: 24-September 10

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 27 September 2011 - 10:03 AM

View PostCraig328, on 27 September 2011 - 03:28 PM, said:

Quote

During an unsanctioned march from Liberty Plaza to Union Square (~1 mi) the police became violent and arrested, en masse, anyone who was at Union Square (violently taking approximately 80 people into custody). An old officer (white shirts) applied mace to a group pinned behind orange fencing. One of the less obvious things about mace is that it's not just effective on eyes, it is also very effective on the sensitive nose and lungs of the subject.

Seeing that bummed me out, but the recklessness of the officers indicates that they're getting worried. They can't afford to keep guarding the protest forever.


Curious choice of words there..."unsanctioned". You could try the more appropriate but less personal interest serving term "illegal"...but then it wouldn't allow you to gloss over the fact that those folks were doing something illegal, were confronted by the police telling them to disperse, and when they refused to disperse were handled in an appropriate and non-violent way by those same police.

... snip


I'd say "unsanctioned" was the correct word to use.

Marching is not inherently illegal, but depending on different laws in different states they may require some form of permit. The word 'unsanctioned' contains that meaning: unsanctioned - without explicit official permission.

Just as you say using the word "unsanctioned" is personal interest serving, technically in relation the word "illegal" is just as personal interest serving to your statements.

I'd say they both are accurate. And that they both highlight the bias of both speakers. It is hardly curious for someone to speak their own opinion and choose words that serve their opinion. It's not like the word "unsanctioned" obfuscates anything, the word in and of itself means precisely what is occurring with respect to law.

Now if the word choice completely ignored that aspect, then I could be with you on your statements. If the word choice was chosen to obfuscate the truth, or straight out lie.




My apologizes to anyone who thinks this is a semantics retort. I'm not intending it to be, it's merely because Craig used the implications of a single word choice to endorse a "fractured skull or maced eyeball".

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 27 September 2011 - 10:12 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#41 Craig328  Icon User is offline

  • I make this look good
  • member icon

Reputation: 1866
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,389
  • Joined: 13-January 08

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 27 September 2011 - 10:08 AM

Unsanctioned. Okay. Let's roll with this a moment.

If there is an "unsanctioned" then there is a "sanctioned", right? Sanctioned by whom? I'll suggest that when it comes to marches in urban areas and the police respond that the sanctioning body is the city authorities. And when they DO sanction a march what exactly are they doing?

Issuing a permit for it (as it disrupts normal activities in the areas the marchers wish to march through).

Ergo, unsanctioned likely means "didn't bother to get a permit"...and that equals "illegal".

Admittedly, it's my logic but I'm not the one who granted the term "unsanctioned" to begin with.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#42 lordofduct  Icon User is offline

  • I'm a cheeseburger
  • member icon


Reputation: 2506
  • View blog
  • Posts: 4,615
  • Joined: 24-September 10

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 27 September 2011 - 10:12 AM

yes, precisely

as I said

both 'illegal' AND 'unsanctioned' are appropriate words

lordofduct said:

I'd say they both are accurate. And that they both highlight the bias of both speakers. It is hardly curious for someone to speak their own opinion and choose words that serve their opinion.


[edit]
And really I was being rather generous in saying "unsanctioned" really as a word is lending to the speaker. It's the reader it depends on, and when you read it you obviously read it as someone attempting to glaze over the fact that the act is illegal. When I read "unsanctioned" I read it knowing this means there was probably a law broken. So your complaining to the OP about YOUR interpretation of a word.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 27 September 2011 - 10:26 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#43 Craig328  Icon User is offline

  • I make this look good
  • member icon

Reputation: 1866
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,389
  • Joined: 13-January 08

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 27 September 2011 - 10:20 AM

Except illegal is accurate and unsanctioned (especially when hysterically protesting the response measure by the police to the illegal actions) is trying to slide past the fact.

The police responded to an illegal activity. Had it been a story about shopowners getting bent about the march disrupting their business then perhaps "unsanctioned" could be appropriate. But when the point is to criticize a police action...and the police action is occurring because the activity they're responding to is explicitly illegal then choosing to swap illegal for unsanctioned is the biasing effort here. Rarely do you get arrested for doing legal but annoying things...especially when you have a permit issued by the city to do so.

I was pointing that out.

This post has been edited by Craig328: 27 September 2011 - 10:21 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#44 lordofduct  Icon User is offline

  • I'm a cheeseburger
  • member icon


Reputation: 2506
  • View blog
  • Posts: 4,615
  • Joined: 24-September 10

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 27 September 2011 - 10:26 AM

No, actually, semantically, "unsanctioned" is more accurate as it reduces the categories of illegal acts to those that can be sanctioned.

A moving violation is illegal, by my saying "moving violation" I'm not glossing over the legality of it. I'm being specific about the act being committed.


Quote

As I've said elsewhere, I'm rabidly anti-stupid that way and your posts keep punching that button like a jackhammer.


Craig, you're a smart man, don't be petty like this.

I know I edited in this comment before, so I'll repeat it just to be clear:

And really I was being rather generous in saying "unsanctioned" really as a word is lending to the speaker. It's the reader it depends on, and when you read it you obviously read it as someone attempting to glaze over the fact that the act is illegal. When I read "unsanctioned" I read it knowing this means there was probably a law broken. So your complaining to the OP about YOUR interpretation of a word.



[edit]
Very interesting

So I polled two of my friends with whom I respect the opinions of and also hold similar ideologies as Craig does (as far as I know of Craig that is).

One agreed with Craig that 'illegal' was more accurate on the grounds that 'unsanctioned' doesn't always necessarily mean illegal and would require to much previous knowledge of the reader (a knowledge of the local law in this case). But does agree with me that it is a reasonable word and doesn't glaze over the truth of the matter as the word does describe what happened.

The other on the other hand immediately interpreted the word to mean "lacking a permit, not legal" (my interpretation as well). Though in this respect he included the contextual knowledge of known laws and didn't presume a low bar.




sorry, language interests me... language, not grammar

anyways, I'm done

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 27 September 2011 - 11:19 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#45 insertgenericusername  Icon User is offline

  • New D.I.C Head

Reputation: 0
  • View blog
  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 04-October 11

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Posted 05 October 2011 - 10:09 AM

What does everyone think about the annoymous threat to DDOS the nyse website? Reckon anything more than thay would happen? Like with Sony and the psn? Will the website really be 'erased from the internet' ??
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

  • (15 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »