Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 895
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

Post 14 Jun 2011, 10:29 am

While it's a hot button political topic I'm interested in analyzing the Leftist perspective that views seeking to be arrested as coherent protest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... RhwD4Dle7c

In this video is the 6/8/11 arrest of a group called 'Food not Bombs' that has been serving food in an Orlando FL public park. The OPD has told them they are a protest group and they don't have permission to do their activity in the public park. The group's position is that it's free speech and public service and the OPD doesn't have the right to stop them. So they keep showing up knowing they will be arrested and removed from the park.

While I personally agree with the group, I don't really relate with going out and getting arrested for kicks and giggles. I mean if you reject the OPDs violence, why would you eagerly accept them arresting you?
Last edited by Neal Anderth on 14 Jun 2011, 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15986
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 14 Jun 2011, 11:34 am

It's not just for kicks and giggles, clearly. It is, however, a way to ensure that you get some media coverage (as papers tend to cover arrests), and building support.

After all, if they weren't doing it, would you have heard of them and be able to say that you agree with them?

(this is not a 'Leftist' perspective, although I am one, it's simple common sense)
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 16 Jun 2011, 11:04 am

I agree with danivon, this is for media attention more than anything else.
I love how they are trying to help the less fortunate but they could easily do the same thing elsewhere, they want attention and this kills two birds with one stone. As long as they have no problem with being arrested, I have no problem with this. I also have no problem with the Police arresting them, they have to follow the rules and know full well this group has some ulterior motives.
User avatar
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 895
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

Post 29 Jun 2011, 8:48 pm

An Orthodox priest from Pensacola is coming to Orlando to lead a demonstration in support of a group that has faced legal trouble for feeding the homeless in Orlando’s Lake Eola Park.

“The criminalization of public service to the poor is to criminalize poverty itself,” said the Rev. Nathan Monk. “The continued efforts of the City of Orlando to prevent distribution of food to the poor is a violation of the constitution at its highest form. To prevent one human from reaching out to help another human in need is contrary to the decency we have all been taught from our youth.”

Monk, of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese, has scheduled the protest for Saturday, July 9 at 4 p.m. at Lake Eola Park. He also plans to distribute a hot meal of bread loaves and fish to the people present at the event.

Monk, a homeless rights activist known to many as “Father Nathan,” has set up a Facebook page for the event and expects a crowd of about 300 people. He once protested an ordinance than banned panhandling in Escambia County by holding a sign bearing the words “Feed the Poor” in the areas where homeless people had formerly gathered.

Several members of the group Orlando Food Not Bombs have been arrested for violating a city rule that prohibits providing food to large groups of people in the city’s downtown parks without a permit.

Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer has called the group’s members “food terrorists.”

Monk said he supports Food Not Bombs.

“We stand alongside Food Not Bombs and any person that wishes to distribute free food to those who are in need,” Monk said. “Beyond this, we are standing up for those who are hungry and forgotten, as it is them who are suffering at the hands of this unjust policy.”

‘Anonymous,’ a computer hacking group, has also hacked three Orlando-related websites — including the site of the city’s Chamber of Commerce — as a protest against the ordinance.

I suspect that Anonymous's is attack is more right spectrum, as it takes rational risk to reward actions, dominated by values rather than feelings.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4946
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 30 Jun 2011, 11:07 am

Neal:
I suspect that Anonymous's is attack is more right spectrum, as it takes rational risk to reward actions, dominated by values rather than feelings.


The right is rational and takes actions based on values whereas the left is irrational and takes actions based on feelings? Can you expand on that a little?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15986
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 30 Jun 2011, 2:16 pm

It's just trolling. Neal and Ricky are inverses of each other at the moment.

Anonymous are a bunch of destructive idiots and fanboys. If you want to adopt them for the 'right' go ahead. I'm sure that their respect for privacy and property is just what you aspire to...
User avatar
Truck Series Driver (Pro II)
 
Posts: 895
Joined: 29 Dec 2010, 1:02 pm

Post 01 Jul 2011, 1:34 pm

You are kind of a colossal statist (not in all circumstances), so it's no surprise you are so unappreciative of 'Anonymous'.

The West can kill hundreds of women and children in reckless military operations, and drone attacks and it's just 'oh well, they tried.' But if Manning or Anonymous so much as pick their nose it's a endless scathing rebuke from the 'serious' folk.
_________

RJ, I see it as male/female, yin/yang, rational/emotional kind of divide. A left or right spectrum person could see an abuse in the dis-allowance of 'Food Not Bombs', but will tend to view how to respond differently. I don't think it often occurs to right spectrum people to go out and pointlessly get arrested to make a point, not that it's not possible. Obviously there's no perfect line here, as we all will be a bit mixed on these things.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: 13 Feb 2000, 11:18 am

Post 14 Jul 2011, 6:28 am

"I suspect that Anonymous's is attack is more right spectrum, as it takes rational risk to reward actions, dominated by values rather than feelings."

Huh? You believe this hacker group is politically to the Right because they are targeting the city for arresting anti-war protesters?! Or are you talking left-brain, right-brain? That dualistic thought-process is rather simplistic, by the way; and hacking does not necessarily preclude emotion-driven motives. No. This group simply supports the "Food not Bomb" group.

As for the Food Not Bomb group: Pretending to feed the poor in order to generate publicity for an anti-war group and attempting to smear a local government for political reasons certainly does not preclude calculated reasoning. In any event, if I have misunderstood what you are trying to say, feel free to restate it. I have the feeling, based on what I've read, that I'm not the only one who might misunderstand your statement.

I think previous writers who have outilned the publicity-driven motivations of this group are spot on. As was mentioned before, there are any number of ways this group can help the needy. And besides, "bombs" and "food" are not natural opposites, so the group's very motives are suspect. Why not "Shoes Not Bombs" or "Bikes Not Bombs" (at least it's alliterative) or "Jokes Not Bombs"? What is the group's real purpose: feeding the poor or protesting "war"?

One term does not preclude the other. There are hungry people even when countries and groups are not involved in war. And is this group feeding people displaced by wars? In Florida? Maybe if they want to show a causal link of the two , they should set up their food distribution protest somewhere along the Khyber Pass. Do you think the Taliban would welcome them into the region?

I suspect that the group's motives are not quite so noble and selfless as they pretend. They may be using hungry people only for publicity and political advantage. They know that the everyday person (and Left-oriented advocates and thinkers) will automatically focus on the "feed the poor" angle, as if that is what the City is trying to stop. But that is a diversion, I suspect. And it would reveal a hypocritical position that undermines whatever honest purpose the group has in mind.

So what is this group's real motivation? If it is really to feed the hungry, then go for it! Be honest and drop the anti-war position. Work with the city (as most such groups do) to provide the food and support. They are not doing this.

If the group is primarily an anti-war group, that is fine, too. Protest war. But they must stop exploiting the needy, which to my thinking is extremely irresponsible and heartless. I have no truck with anybody protesting, as long as it is honest protest. This group is either seriously simple-minded or especially underhanded.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15986
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 14 Jul 2011, 10:33 am

Neal Anderth wrote:You are kind of a colossal statist (not in all circumstances), so it's no surprise you are so unappreciative of 'Anonymous'.
No, I work in IT and am familiar with the impacts of hacking and loss of data or service. I am 'unappreciative' of breaches of data security and such attacks. 'Statism' has nothing to do with it (except that, as per, you seem to be equating 'statism' with 'stuff I disagree with').

The West can kill hundreds of women and children in reckless military operations, and drone attacks and it's just 'oh well, they tried.' But if Manning or Anonymous so much as pick their nose it's a endless scathing rebuke from the 'serious' folk.
Grow up. I do not condone the deaths of civilians in war.
_________

RJ, I see it as male/female, yin/yang, rational/emotional kind of divide. A left or right spectrum person could see an abuse in the dis-allowance of 'Food Not Bombs', but will tend to view how to respond differently. I don't think it often occurs to right spectrum people to go out and pointlessly get arrested to make a point, not that it's not possible. Obviously there's no perfect line here, as we all will be a bit mixed on these things.
I think you are so busy trying to divide the world into one of two groups that you've forgotten that people are real.

For example, look at some of our contributors. Does RUFFHAUS8 come across as being calm, perfectly rational and emotionally detatched? Or as someone who emotionally responds to arguments and uses the language of emotions to express himself?

Frankly, I think we'll find people who are rational across the spectrum, and people who are emotional across the spectrum. Those who are more emotionally invested in their positions are more likely to be emotional about them.

tl:dr - Stop trying to psycho-analyse me, doofus.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 254
Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 1:31 am

Post 30 Oct 2011, 1:58 am

Start of rant- - - - -
Well I work in IT too, and I have very little compassion for whining about data/service loss regardless of cause. If it is important for you back it up. If the service is critical do not connect it to the internet or, if you necessarily must, be sure to have a disaster recovery plan also covering hacking. And finally if data integrity is at stake, instate measures to ensure that you can verify the data has not been tampered with.
End of rant- - - - -
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15986
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 31 Oct 2011, 11:23 am

Whatever. It's not that long ago that in a discussion about football, you decided to tell us that I would call you a racist. I called you on that and it was apparently ignored. I'll take no lessons on manners from a guy who today posted about a 'reach around'.

I stand by my words, by the way. Your posts read as being emotional reactions to the debate rather than detatched rational considerations. Perhaps that's not your intent, but there we go, if you don't want to look as if you are doing so, I'd suggest fewer accusations that all who disagree with you are commies. ;-)