Future Important Thread (Maybe)

[ScottieX]

My point is that I am arguing for what I might term a loose position - ie I propose that only need three lines to support me to be correct.
you seem to be arguing for a strong position (that you can for the most part resolve psychopathy via the removal of capitalism) So you need EVERY line to support you to avoid being wrong.

Similarly for the genetic evidence - if ASPD is caused in part by genetics and is sometimes impossible to control (let alone that no controlled studies reported which found an effective treatment for ASPD and I'm sure they have tried not exposing the person to capitalism...), your suggestion that it can be controled by just removing capitalism seems unlikely to be sucessful.

Or simply -> the proposal that you can have so much control over the environment that you can make it such that psychopathy is not activated no matter what the predisposition - is an extrordinarly strong claim that would require extrordinary evidence, not just vague evidence that it might slightly reduce the amount of psychopathy.

[ScottieX]

"the term "psychopathy" isn't really used any more by psychologists for this precise reason. i only use it because people then know what i'm talking about. the diagnosis "antisocial personality disorder" has pretty much replaced psychopathy in clinical settings."

by the way - "antisocial personality disorder", doesnt avoid the issue I am talking about.
the problem is that "antisocial personality disorder" describes a series of symptoms, it doesnt say that those symptoms must have a common cause or common solutions. the only way that comes out is by inference.

ideally from a medical point of view you would define them via causes so certain malfunctioning of certain parts of the brain would get certain names. (of course it could also be that the psychopath just has a enhanced area of the brain somwhere - because I dont want to argue that they are intrinsically a malfunction.)

But psychologists are I guess rightly more concerned with behavioural diagnosis and classification - afterall that is important in itself

[ShowtekGER]

as i said before, i do not believe that it is humanly possible to be given the power of a police officer, engage in conflict situations and still live up to common moral standards. this is just a recent example but if you follow the news you see that these kind of incidents happy weekly and worldwide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moD2J...ature=youtu.be

[ShowtekGER]

My point is that I am arguing for what I might term a loose position - ie I propose that only need three lines to support me to be correct.
you seem to be arguing for a strong position (that you can for the most part resolve psychopathy via the removal of capitalism) So you need EVERY line to support you to avoid being wrong.

Similarly for the genetic evidence - if ASPD is caused in part by genetics and is sometimes impossible to control (let alone that no controlled studies reported which found an effective treatment for ASPD and I'm sure they have tried not exposing the person to capitalism...), your suggestion that it can be controled by just removing capitalism seems unlikely to be sucessful.

Or simply -> the proposal that you can have so much control over the environment that you can make it such that psychopathy is not activated no matter what the predisposition - is an extrordinarly strong claim that would require extrordinary evidence, not just vague evidence that it might slightly reduce the amount of psychopathy.

i do not think that removing capitalism removes psychopathy. i said that our system breeds psychopaths by establishing an environment that often permits, encourages, and rewards psychopathic behavior, such as competition without empathetic regard for your counterparts, individualism, instrumentalization of humans and manipulation, etc. the psychopath is simply an extreme version of this while we would regard people who have internalized these values differently positively. i also said that the kind of psychopaths we have do not exist in collectivist societies. they produce other disorders and perhaps some with similar symptoms like psychopathy. i think that we can heavily delimitate psychopathic behavior if we heavily increase the encouragement of it.

i'm not sure if you're serious about people having tried to "not expose psychopaths to capitalism" for treatment. that sounds absurd. and, yes, it is true that it is hard to cure them but that isn't related to the possible genetic etiology of the disorder in any way. much like the schizoid personality, antisocials simply don't want to be cured because of the nature of their illness. they think they are being attacked by the therapist, compete with him over power, and are generally reluctant to come on time or come at all in order to show their power. the schizoid personality, in contrast, simply lacks the need to relate to other people and spend his time socializing, at least superficially. so he/she won't necessarily see why they should change anything. they can often function quite normally in society. there has been made progress lately, however. for example, group therapy seems to have positive effects on antisocials. they attend these more often because group therapy seems to involve their interest more often.

[Zefelius]

For any of you guys who haven't played Resident Evil 4 -- Showtek, Scottie? -- I'd definitely recommend dowloading it for $20 on Xbox. It's just as good as I remember it. Very suspenseful and at times even scary. I love how it's not a typical fluid shooter that's all about how fast you are. You still have to be fast in taking down enemies, but this game is more about plotting out how you'll get through various scenes---weapons needed, ammo count, best path, etc. A lot of variety of zombies and monsters. Great attention to detail---a random spider crawling up a wall, etc. Good puzzles.

One complaint from some is that it's not fluid in its controls, meaning you can't shoot and run at the same time. But I agree with the players who argue that it helps build suspense, which makes this game all the more worthwhile and memorable. As I play it I'm constantly on edge. Sometimes when you stop to shoot or cut up a zombie, you feel that there's another right by your side or behind you---which adds to the game.

Lastly it has an excellent sense of dark ambience: gloomy, rainy at times, sinister looking, etc.

[ShowtekGER]

i'm not really in the mood of starting anything new now. i play gta: san andreas again. it's just awesome how much you learn about america from the ironic perspective in this ingenious game.

anyway, i don't own a xbox. moreover, when i played timesplitters 2 back then, an ego-shooter and another ingenious game BTW, it contained a zombie level. quite honestly, i'm not sure whether i actually like "being on the edge" all the time. i'm way too much of a chicken when it comes to survival horror!

[ScottieX]

i think that we can heavily delimitate psychopathic behavior if we heavily increase the encouragement of it.

i'm not sure if you're serious about people having tried to "not expose psychopaths to capitalism" for treatment. that sounds absurd.

well i was thinking that in a treatment facility you probably are not exposed to much capitalism - you dont need to pay for things and you dont compete with each other for anything much and if you did the facility would probably do its best to remove the causes. Some wold go frther i gess but I dont know how they wold do that.

antisocials simply don't want to be cured because of the nature of their illness.

the argument being they want to be unhappy? But that we should engineer it so they get what they dont want.. that we want them to want to be happy?

Actually I had a similar thought before as a personal example where I kind of like being unhappy, like watching a sad movie or feeling bad due to being wronged (which you might term rightious indignation). I'm not entirely sure how to deal with the scenario where a person fundimentally likes being unhappy in itself.

[Zefelius]

quite honestly, i'm not sure whether i actually like "being on the edge" all the time. i'm way too much of a chicken when it comes to survival horror!

hahahha! that's pretty funny!

[Zefelius]

I'm not entirely sure how to deal with the scenario where a person fundimentally likes being unhappy in itself.

To me desire seems pretty much mixed. Insofar as happiness is inextricably bound up with pain and struggle, I think we all desire both sides of the experience. If we get too much of either, then life either becomes dull or overwhelming.

[ShowtekGER]

the argument being they want to be unhappy? But that we should engineer it so they get what they dont want.. that we want them to want to be happy?

no, the argument is that many antisocials perceive their surroundings and people as forces that threaten them and have to be fought against. this is often an accurate perception of reality as this is what many of them have experienced in crucial periods of their lives. hence, they don't believe that they are being helped. perhaps they wouldn't understand genuine happiness either.

however, helping people against their will is, of course, an issue. i think it is necessary to do something in regard to antisocials because they damage society. the schizoid personality is more complicated. they don't harm anyone usually and can function very well in jobs that require no human relations. it is often family members that urge them to undergo therapy but they also sometimes do it by themselves. it works sometimes. but i don't think contemporary therapy is about forcing people. it mostly requires the voluntary will of the patient. if the schizoid guy is not willing, he won't be cured. you might refer to brainwashing, for example by using behaviorist methods, but i wouldn't call that helping someone.

Actually I had a similar thought before as a personal example where I kind of like being unhappy, like watching a sad movie or feeling bad due to being wronged (which you might term rightious indignation). I'm not entirely sure how to deal with the scenario where a person fundimentally likes being unhappy in itself.

this is also an interesting topic. i once thought every human action, whether conscious or automatic, could be reduced to trying to enhance happiness. accordingly, the purpose of becoming sad by watching a movie is because that makes you happy ultimately. likewise, being wronged can result in happiness because you feel it's your own fault and deserve it, because you think you learned a lesson, or whatever. but i've reformulated my theory. i think every human action can be reduced to trying to enhance satisfaction. some people are assured pessimists, some youth subcultures indulge self-pity and "pain". and i think some of the adherents of these lifestyles can be said to be simultaneously unhappy and enjoy this unhappiness. they are satisfied being unhappy.

[ScottieX]

it mostly requires the voluntary will of the patient. if the schizoid guy is not willing, he won't be cured. you might refer to brainwashing, for example by using behaviorist methods, but i wouldn't call that helping someone.

Well you cant "cure" them if they dont have a problem, you can only change them.

but back with the 'brainwashing' I think you are looking at it wrong way. This is a pretty fundimental difference between us so I dont expect to influence you much but here we go.

So I imagine this in an ideal world
1) We decide to value utility in terms of a persons freedom to do what they want. (or whatever this doesnt matter)
2) You and for example pedal define a policy where by you remove restrictions on that freedom.
3) I set up a system that via some baysian logic policy generating computer assists people in being able to be free (and whatever that implies - I dont really care the exact details but it will be a mix of policies including some that prima face appear to do the opposite).
4) net / in the long term the people under your model have less freedom and by your own measures is inferior (this is by definition because the computer is programmed that way, even if the compters interference is in itself conted as a negitive of non-infinite importance).

If you try to sell a policy that helps people in every meaningful sense of the word (by the proposed baysian logic computer) as lets stay "brainwashing" or "interferance" or a breach of a "right" - then all I can assume is that you have a perverted view of those words in the same way you might feel confused by a cultish religious person who might call you evil for being nice to a gay person.

Now imagine a second scenario where the super compter system is already running. Now I take my system and intentionally follow your policies instead of the computers in order to deny people freedoms [apparently becase Im a real arse in this scenario] (Superficially I appear to be giving people more freedom of course, like cutting taxes without mentioning the increase in debt).

Now is that helping? If so, again I dont think your help is somthing people should want.

[elthrasher]

I just saw that Resident Evil 4 (I think with an add-on) can be downloaded to Xbox. Very exciting for me as I loved that game when I had a PlayStation about 4 years ago (threw out the Play Station because at the time no other video games interested me).

Yeah, that one was really good. I have RE5 but it didn't appeal to me as much.

My favorite FPS is Half-Life2.

[Zso_Zso]

Police brutality against peaceful non-violent protesters stepped up to a new level in New York:
https://occupywallst.org/article/Officer-Bologna/

Is this reported in main-stream media ?

[elthrasher]

Police brutality against peaceful non-violent protesters stepped up to a new level in New York:
https://occupywallst.org/article/Officer-Bologna/

Is this reported in main-stream media ?

Not so much. The Washington Post kind of tangentially mentioned it in the entertainment section because the protestors are being supported by Michael Moore, who is, ya know, an entertainer. MSNBC has covered it. No surprise there. Fox ran some stories about how the protesters are violent thugs or something like that.

[ShowtekGER]

Police brutality against peaceful non-violent protesters stepped up to a new level in New York:
https://occupywallst.org/article/Officer-Bologna/

Is this reported in main-stream media ?

the movement itself has also been reported in the guardian in a small article. i don't think the police brutality has.

one has to wonder whether the movement is significant enough in order to be reported to a greater extent. i'm not sure if a similar tea party protest would attract more magnificent attention from mainstream media as many supporters of occupy wall street allege but it wouldn't surprise me.

funny thing: i've seen one conservative commentator on youtube praise the movement because he thought that they protested against the communism of wall street that redistributes the wealth of everybody. that'll be the day!

[ShowtekGER]

a few days after scottie and i discuss this, someone posts a comparison of some of the characteristics of share traders and psychopaths. fate!

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...788462,00.html

[ShowtekGER]

who still doubts that the israeli government doesn't give a crap about peace?

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/mi...659256576.html

[ScottieX]

who still doubts that the israeli government doesn't give a crap about peace?

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/mi...659256576.html

I think its little more complex than that.

I suppose an anarchist may be able to sympathise.
"Israel" as a set of policy makers, doesn't want the settlers settling in palestine (just more hastle) - but they also dont want to have to evict them from homes or 'breach their rights' in any other way. A pretty classic anarchist dilema I would think.

They then end up athorizing some settlements due to them being politically too hard to stop and by not authorizing some - prevent others.

In anarchism I'd assme the settlements would be entirely acceptable (its just a human settling on a spot of land like any other) and it would be "failing to athorize" that would be unacceptable, as well as the palestinians anger at the process. Of course a utilitarian israeli or palistinian wouldnt want to annoy the other side in that way anyway.

[Zefelius]

Police brutality against peaceful non-violent protesters stepped up to a new level in New York:
https://occupywallst.org/article/Officer-Bologna/

Is this reported in main-stream media ?

Do you guys think it is news worthy? I'm not sure how high it ranks in comparison with other provocative events either in NYC or around the world. It's probably more news worthy than someone stealing a book from Barnes and Noble, but less so than murder, rape, or a car crash.

[JackHall2003]

Anyone seen 'Inside Job' - is it worth a watch?

[Zefelius]

Did anyone see the UC-Berkley "racist" Republican bake sale? In protest of a return to a modified version of affirmative action in the California admission process of colleges, they charged different prices for their baked goods depending on race and gender ($2 for whites and less for Native Americans, hispanics, blacks, etc.). Of course there were a lot of angry liberal students on campus who counter-protested (and apparently there were physical threats as well). I myself waver on the issue of affirmative action, but don't see anything terribly wrong with a satirical protest against it if that's what they want to do.

[ShowtekGER]

Do you guys think it is news worthy? I'm not sure how high it ranks in comparison with other provocative events either in NYC or around the world. It's probably more news worthy than someone stealing a book from Barnes and Noble, but less so than murder, rape, or a car crash.

this must be the central question. the supporters of the movement argue that a numerically similar tea party protest would be all over the news. i don't know if that's true. what do you think?

[ShowtekGER]

Did anyone see the UC-Berkley "racist" Republican bake sale? In protest of a return to a modified version of affirmative action in the California admission process of colleges, they charged different prices for their baked goods depending on race and gender ($2 for whites and less for Native Americans, hispanics, blacks, etc.). Of course there were a lot of angry liberal students on campus who counter-protested (and apparently there were physical threats as well). I myself waver on the issue of affirmative action, but don't see anything terribly wrong with a satirical protest against it if that's what they want to do.

i think it's a very funny idea and don't really understand why it's that controversial as it is obviously satirical.

i couldn't find the new affirmative action law. all the news magazines only cover the protest, not what the protest is specifically about. but if the law seeks to enhance equal opportunity, how could you possibly be against it unless you're a racist. if it seeks to enhance a fixed quota of minorities at universities i'm probably against it.

[Zso_Zso]

Anyone seen 'Inside Job' - is it worth a watch?

I've seen it and I think it is worth watching. It explains the housing crisis how it was deliberately orchestrated by the elite bankers who got away with it and even got rewarded by huge bonuses paid from the bailout money.

[elthrasher]

this must be the central question. the supporters of the movement argue that a numerically similar tea party protest would be all over the news. i don't know if that's true. what do you think?

Totally true. Ten idiots get together with teabags on their hats and it's a headline.

[ScottieX]

Totally true. Ten idiots get together with teabags on their hats and it's a headline.

It probably is becase Fox is a well fnded news organization with an adgenda.
And other media are happy to get free stories off them becase they hate having to pay to get stories (not surprisingly).

Root cause is that people are willing to pay extra to get news that reinforces their preconceptions and tea party sort of people have a bit more money to pay I suppose...

[elthrasher]

It probably is becase Fox is a well fnded news organization with an adgenda.
And other media are happy to get free stories off them becase they hate having to pay to get stories (not surprisingly).

Root cause is that people are willing to pay extra to get news that reinforces their preconceptions and tea party sort of people have a bit more money to pay I suppose...

We also have this meme that anyone on the right who protests is a "real American" whereas anyone on the left is a dirty hippie. But yes, mostly the mainstream media is just too lazy to do its job. That's one of the primary reasons we've had an 8 year war in Iraq.

Zef, how could this not be newsworthy? They have been there protesting for nearly two weeks now. Unfortunately murders, rapes and car crashes are quite common. Folks standing their ground for this long is not.

[Zefelius]

this must be the central question. the supporters of the movement argue that a numerically similar tea party protest would be all over the news. i don't know if that's true. what do you think?

Oh, I meant the police brutality. Police brutality is wrong and an abuse of power. But I don't see the use of pepper spray as being as news worthy as other compelling events. My impression from the link was that the writer thought this should be huge news.

[Zefelius]

Zef, how could this not be newsworthy? They have been there protesting for nearly two weeks now. Unfortunately murders, rapes and car crashes are quite common. Folks standing their ground for this long is not.

From the way Zso_Zso talked about the link, it seemed as though he was talking about the police brutality, not the protest. The writer in the link seemed to suggest that there should be a country-wide outrage at this police brutality (i.e., the use of pepper spray), whereas I find it kind of odd that some of these liberals don't call for similar investigations into the crimes of protestors. I agree with the writer that we should work against the abuse of power, but I also find many of these kinds of articles to be one-sided in their quest for justice. I guess I'm getting old and want to preserve my privilege against the protests of those dirty hippies!

[elthrasher]

From the way Zso_Zso talked about the link, it seemed as though he was talking about the police brutality, not the protest. The writer in the link seemed to suggest that there should be a country-wide outrage at this police brutality (i.e., the use of pepper spray), whereas I find it kind of odd that some of these liberals don't call for similar investigations into the crimes of protestors. I agree with the writer that we should be work against the abuse of power, but I also find many of these kinds of articles to be one-sided in their quest for justice. I guess I'm getting old and want to preserve my privilege against the protests of those dirty hippies!

What are the crimes of the protestors? I don't think the author complained about that because I don't think the author is aware of any. I'm not either.

Did you see the video? There were two young women who were in total compliance with everything the police ordered and still they got pepper sprayed in the face. That's outrageous not only because it provokes a violent response from what has been (and remains) a peaceful protest. The gameplan is 1) use excessive force until somebody throws a bottle or something 2) break some heads 3) jail everybody else and shut the whole thing down. Does that fit in with your idea of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech?

[Zefelius]

What are the crimes of the protestors? I don't think the author complained about that because I don't think the author is aware of any. I'm not either.

Not in this case. I didn't see anything wrong with what the protestors were doing either. So my point was a general one. Many of my liberal-minded friends talk endlessly about the abuses perpetrated by police, but they never seem to suggest that protestors are anything but law-abiding. That seems to me to be a clear bias, and I think that helps to explain why libreal protestors don't get more sympathy for their causes: neutral observers sense that some of these writers and protestors are highly selective in their examples of injustice.

In any case, it doesn't seem that newsworthy. Plenty of horrible things happen in the world, and being pepper sprayed ranks pretty low on the list. But the writer would have us use this incident as a call to arms, thereby blowing it out of proportion.

best regards,
The Spirit of Pedal

[Zefelius]

Here's a good quote from the article:

"His name is Anthony Bologna. We demand that he is charged for his crimes. We demand that he receives jail time.

We demand that Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly resigns. Not only can he not control his most senior officers, he is involved in actively sheltering them from receiving any punishment.

We demand that Mayor Michael Bloomberg address our General Assembly and apologize for the police brutality and the cover-up that followed."

It's simply over the top silly. Because a police officer pepper sprays a protestor, the Police Commissioner should resign and the mayor of New York city should take time out of his busy schedule to apologize. If we did this for every case of abuse of power, on such a slight scale as pepper spraying someone, no Police Commissioner would last more than a week and the job of every mayor of every city would be to stand before a podium reading a long series of apologies 10 hours a day. It's another example of why most citizens have trouble taking these progressive leftist groups very seriously.

[ShowtekGER]

Not in this case. I didn't see anything wrong with what the protestors were doing either. So my point was a general one. Many of my liberal-minded friends talk endlessly about the abuses perpetrated by police, but they never seem to suggest that protestors are anything but law-abiding. That seems to me to be a clear bias, and I think that helps to explain why libreal protestors don't get more sympathy for their causes: neutral observers sense that some of these writers and protestors are highly selective in their examples of injustice.

firstly, the police is the organization that is supposed to be trained to prevent crime and abuse. i don't see how violations carried out by police officers should be regarded in the same manner as those carried out by people on the street. certainly, in the case of police we can speak of an abuse of power while that's not true for protesters. it's bad news when the ones that should make sure that everybody plays by the state's rules don't obey these rules themselves. secondly, very often protesters are peaceful and riot police is not. i feel that violent protesters do attract attention but, again, obviously and rightly not as much as violent police.

best regards,
The Spirit of Pedal

i hope he didn't implode like grayson!

[ScottieX]

I kinda see zef's point.

We constantly see protesters going a little crazy and throwing things or damaging property or whatever, and while we might expect the protest organizers to apologise (which they probably dont?) we dont expect them to resign over it... well unless that damage is really over the top and people get killed...

But I also see showtek's point above that police are trained not to do that. I gess that is largely compensated for by that we can fire police from their jobs bt you cant fire a protester is

BUT to switch tack for a 3rd time in thsingle post....

What I wouldnt want to morally encorage is for the state to intentionally not train its police to avoid the blame for police brtality in the sense that a protest organisation might fail to have training or instrctions for its protestors and sanctions for them knowing this will in a sense encourage those anarchists with the masks...

[ShowtekGER]

Here's a good quote from the article:

"His name is Anthony Bologna. We demand that he is charged for his crimes. We demand that he receives jail time.

We demand that Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly resigns. Not only can he not control his most senior officers, he is involved in actively sheltering them from receiving any punishment.

We demand that Mayor Michael Bloomberg address our General Assembly and apologize for the police brutality and the cover-up that followed."

It's simply over the top silly. Because a police officer pepper sprays a protestor, the Police Commissioner should resign and the mayor of New York city should take time out of his busy schedule to apologize. If we did this for every case of abuse of power, on such a slight scale as pepper spraying someone, no Police Commissioner would last more than a week and the job of every mayor of every city would be to stand before a podium reading a long series of apologies 10 hours a day. It's another example of why most citizens have trouble taking these progressive leftist groups very seriously.

right, i imagine two reasons for this quote. the first one is that the author simply exaggerates. in that case you would be right. the second one is that the police commissioner kelly really did "actively shelter" his officers from punishment. if that was true, the article misses information. but perhaps that information was just somewhere else. but now that i think about it, i think i've read somewhere that some boss guy from the police said that the spraying of the women was just and correct. maybe that was him.

apart from that, i think it's totally legitimate to call for punishment of anthony bologna. while on the other hand demanding jail time might be another childish exaggeration again formulated out of emotion (i don't know the applicable law). but here's my opinion on why this specific police crime is important and more or less newsworthy: because this happens all the time and the officers are almost never punished. and that is because they belong to the same power structure that also punishes people. typically their crimes will be downplayed or justified by that system much like the police official i read about did who perhaps is raymond kelly.

[Zefelius]

apart from that, i think it's totally legitimate to call for punishment of anthony bologna.

I agree 100%.

[Zefelius]

firstly, the police is the organization that is supposed to be trained to prevent crime and abuse. i don't see how violations carried out by police officers should be regarded in the same manner as those carried out by people on the street. certainly, in the case of police we can speak of an abuse of power while that's not true for protesters. it's bad news when the ones that should make sure that everybody plays by the state's rules don't obey these rules themselves. secondly, very often protesters are peaceful and riot police is not. i feel that violent protesters do attract attention but, again, obviously and rightly not as much as violent police.

Sure thing... I had that in mind even when I wrote up my other comments. And I can't entirely disagree: we expect more from those who are supposed to protect the law of the land.

Perhaps a few things can still be said, though, on the other side. For example, it's difficult to measure power (and likewise an abuse of power) in a way that accurately portrays everyone's relative societal position. Do you think the police have more power than the rest of us? Is it possible that some of the protestors possess their own power, perhaps in terms of privilege, wealth, or knowledge? Is it conceivable that they have even more power than the police? Sometimes we think we know who has power and who doesn't, but I'm sure that it's not always so clear.

Overall, I've noticed that conservatives tend to be more anxious about the crimes of the poor, and liberals more observant of the crimes of the powerful (or those who are perceived to be powerful). The police are stuck somewhere in between those two categories: they have a certain degree of power, and while they're not poor they tend to be working class.

On a side note, I watched a documentary on the Great Depression a couple of weeks ago, and saw how the police in some instances shot and killed protestors in the back who were otherwise peacefully organizing as union members. In my opinion those police officers deserve jail time and their superiors should have been relieved of duty.

[ScottieX]

I wonder if protest organization have harm minimizing policies - I mean - the know they will be interupting the traffic or whatever bt maybe they want to deny connection to the peopel who loot the local shops. Now maybe they know that people did tht in the last protest
If so do they assign people to take video of the people breaking into the shop? talk to the organizers of the more radical groups? do they theatn them with some sort of sanction? I dont know - maybe they do.

For example, it's difficult to measure power (and likewise an abuse of power) in a way that accurately portrays everyone's relative societal position. Do you think the police have more power than the rest of us?.

When I watch the stuff on tv about cops in NZ it seems like the police are constantly sitting there trying to remain polite while people just keep on spitting on them and whatever. I can imagine that it would be quite hard to maintain training surrounded by what some of them deal with on a day to day basis (which doesnt mean I wouldnt take whatever action required against those that abuse their position).

I also get the feeling at times that there is often a silent majority on many issues that often includes me and a minority get what they want via maybe protest action or whatever. I suppose that works in all sorts of political directions. But surely protesting is in itself an exercising of power, probably a method of influcting harm on a silent majority in order to push them to give in/ or be more aware in regard to a certain policy point.

[Zefelius]

I wonder if protest organization have harm minimizing policies - I mean - the know they will be interupting the traffic or whatever bt maybe they want to deny connection to the peopel who loot the local shops. Now maybe they know that people did tht in the last protest
If so do they assign people to take video of the people breaking into the shop? talk to the organizers of the more radical groups?

Great questions Scottie...

[ShowtekGER]

Perhaps a few things can still be said, though, on the other side. For example, it's difficult to measure power (and likewise an abuse of power) in a way that accurately portrays everyone's relative societal position. Do you think the police have more power than the rest of us? Is it possible that some of the protestors possess their own power, perhaps in terms of privilege, wealth, or knowledge? Is it conceivable that they have even more power than the police? Sometimes we think we know who has power and who doesn't, but I'm sure that it's not always so clear.

i find these questions highly hypothetical. obviously, police is more powerful. they have more powerful weapons AND are allowed to use them. dependent on how dangerous the situation is for them and how permissive their government is, they can use ever more damaging weaponry. they have more effective armour. they are allowed to arrest people and are themselves almost always protected by more powerful structures in society when they violate the law. i find it unlikely that many of the protesters occupy highly influential societal positions that could help them in the conflict (like a lawyer) because these positions are those that benefit from the system (and thus have less of a reason to protest or even loot and steal) and because the average protester is young.

Overall, I've noticed that conservatives tend to be more anxious about the crimes of the poor, and liberals more observant of the crimes of the powerful (or those who are perceived to be powerful). The police are stuck somewhere in between those two categories: they have a certain degree of power, and while they're not poor they tend to be working class.

hm, that would be an interesting notion if it was true. are the police working class? i doubt that riot police are. and in denmark and germany normal police officers wouldn't be working class either. perhaps they are in the US. anyway, if they do, in fact, belong to the working class left-wing protests like occupy wall street would seem a little absurd or sad because they're fighting against those who they are fighting for. though, i think i read an article somewhere stating that many officers realized this and treated the protesters more than nicely.