Wait, what? Anarchism is a legitimate ideology/philosophy. While it would not be correct to generalize the occupy movement as anarchist, there are quite a few anarchists within and they are an accepted part of the movement.
Same can be said of then racists in the tea party movement. They just can’t be too loud about it.
It does not, except insofar as the comparison implies equivalence, which it does when you do it.
Another example of a false equivalency
Yeah, I think the comparison of the two groups is appropriate, it’s just not equivalent. “Racist” and “terrorist” are terms of significantly different connotations to me. When it’s applied to acts of civil disobedience, the “terrorist” label is watered down to the point of being meaningless.
Put it in perspective; by these standards, the USA was founded by terrorists doing explicit acts of terrorism. When Occupy inflicts economic damage on the scale of the Boston Tea Party, then we’ll have something to talk about regarding how much harm is acceptable in the pursuit of larger goals. For now, it’s just fear-mongering by calling people names.
On the other half of the comparison, though, I have a hard time coming up with any examples of racist activity ever doing anything to improve the common good.
Oh, come on now. I think it’s wrong to brand the OWSers as terrorists, just as I also think it’s wrong to brand the Tea Partiers as racists. But surely we can agree that we’re talking about more than one person with … shall we say … anarchist tendencies.
For pete’s sake, 400 were arrested after OWS in Oakland violently clashed with police. Here’s a link to a CNN video on the report, in which Oakland’s mayor expresses dismay that a “peaceful” movement would break into City Hall, vandalize the place, set the displays inside on fire, turn over a model of the city, and destroy children’s exhibits on recycled art.
Here’s a speaker at Occupy LA suggesting that non-violent protest is not the answer. It’s violent revolution. (Also, apparently Ghandi is a “tumor.”)
Occupy Boston protesters spit on a uniformed member of the Coast Guard.
After two hot dog carts stopped giving free coffee and hot dogs to protesters at Occupy San Diego, the protesters vandalized the carts, including splattering them with blood and urine, and made death threats against the owners.
Here’s a video of an Occupy Denver protester knocking an officer off his motorcycle.
Obviously, I can go on. And on and on. Vandalism, rape, violence. But the Village Voice makes a good point.
OWS and the Tea Parties are not monolithic organizations. In any large group, there are bound to be assholes. The bad behavior of a few – whether organizers or participants – does not mean that the other participants support their bad behavior. But to suggest that there’s only been one relevant instance of terrorist-type behavior associated with OWS is silly.
As for the Tea Partiers being racists:
Now, that might not be the same portrait as we would get from a poll of actual White Nationalists, but the difference is in degree, not in kind.
This thread was submited for the express purpose of exploring whether the two separaate groups were “equivalent,” so you seem to be saying, (probably since the “equivalence” has been exposed as horseshit), that you don’t want to worry about equivalence. Fine.
Beyond that, since I have never claimed that the Tea Party was racist, I have no reason to make any “deal” to refrain from saying something I have never said.
I never made any claim that there has been only one act of violence by the OWS. I simply noted that when a group of OWS members engaged in a terrorist act, it was immediately condemned by the OWS leadership, while I see no similar condemnation of racism expressed by members and leaders of the Tea Party.
I am not overly fond of or supportive of OWS. It seems to be a rather disparate group of disaffected people with a wide range of views, (that often conflict with each other). (It probably would have been more fortunate for the Left for OWS to have lucked into funding by Stephanopoulos and organizing by MSNBC in the way that the Right was lucky enough to have the Koch brothers and Fox News create the Tea Party, but that is not what happened.)
This thread was started to make a single comparison of the Tea Party and OWS and on that particular point, it seems to me that OWS comes out ahead.
You didn’t claim there was only one act of violence. I never meant to imply otherwise. But you did say the following (emphasis mine):
I took that to mean that you were suggesting there was only one relevant association between OWS and violence. I disagree with that.
Then I suggest you’re either relying on biased sources for your news, or you’re not actually looking for those condemnations.
Well, there’s your problem. Instead of seeking funding from Stephanopoulos, you should have asked for funding from someone with a lot of money, like Soros. 
Seriously though, do you have any evidence that the Tea Parties were “created” by the Koch brothers and Fox News? Because if your opinion derives from favorable media coverage, it’s worth pointing out that favorable coverage and creation aren’t the same thing, and OWS has been receiving pretty favorable coverage from MSNBC (and here and here, and here). And here:
Let’s stop dancing a politically correct tarantella about the main point. A majority of Republicans are polite crypto-racists. The Tea Party crowd is a distillation of the most disaffected white voters and the conservative underclass. These folks are extraordinarily racist in their private sentiments, and being less sophisticated than the main line Republicans are often not so polite about it.
Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to take their mouth off the crack pipe.
Cite? Or did you accidentally stumble in here on your way to the Pit?
Let’s see. The Tea Party originated in 2009 and by the end of the year several of its leaders had been caught making racist claims, particularly in regard to president Obama. So, in March of 2010, one local group condemns a local flier that included racist remarks that purported to be from a separate Tea Party organization. (Good for them.) Then in June and July, 2010, Tea Party leaders finally begin disavowing the racist remarks that had been going on since Spring of the previous year.
This pretty much matches what I said over several posts and I am unimpressed.
The Koch brothers creating the Tea Party is arguable, depending how soon one decides to consider the funding such as from from Kochs’ *Americans For Prosperity *group. (Those who reckon the funding to late 2009 will consider it supportive; those who reckon the funding from early 2009 will consider it creative. I note that the Right leaning Washington Times reported that Americans for Prosperity was funding events as early as April, 2009.)
Fox News is reported in the same article as having “promoted” several Tea Party events. I recall that my local affiliate was encouraging people to come out if they were angry and I would consider that sort of “promotion” to be a creative acivity.
Not my problem. I don’t want either one of these groups to gain political power. Both sides demonstrate exactly the sort of mindless sloganeering backed by utter ignorance that, if allowed to dominate politics, would simply cause the country to implode. The issues that spark the passions are genuine, but neither of these groups has demonstrated the capacity to actual study the issues and propose serious and legitimate solutions.
If I was the idiot that first brought up “equivalent” then I apologize.
The concept of tarring with a broad brush (god I hope that’s not racist) is the same. How like the comparison of a racist TP and a terrorist OWS depends on how you define things, measure them and even which is worse. IF that kind of comparison is off limits then I again apologize… your a mod so I’ll defer to you.
I’d argue that the Tea Party made more serious proposals given that they are supported by a significant number of members of government, perhaps even a majority. However, Occupy has made at least a few semi-serious proposals, their legitimacy would depend on one’s ideology. The fact that they’re not widely supported by members of government doesn’t indicate that they wouldn’t have popular support - issues like raising minimum wage or restitution for those that were given toxic loans would probably receive a decent plurality. As for saying their positions are not based on study, I think that’d be the false equivalence and over-generalisation again. Occupy has had speakers from across the board, including Noam Chomsky, Herman Cain, Father Berrigan and Paul Grignon. All positions are arrived at by consensus. While their study of matters may have had false premises and their positions may be the result of collective ignorance, they did at least put a modicum of thought into coming up with such positions.
Is there any evidence that those people actually had anything to do with Occupy Oakland? Or are they just opportunistic troublemakers who showed up at a certain time? I live in Oakland and I have heard conspiracy theories that the vandals were plants, working for the man.
The problem with trying to determine the answer to the question is who exactly is THE Tea Party or THE OWS movement? Are there racists and terrorists in those groups respectively? Of course. Just like how anyone can register to be a Democrat or a Republican. Are those parties responsible if some idiot in the middle of nowhere says something stupid, but happens to be a registered member of that party?
I think that both groups are sufficiently unorganized enough that no broad brush can be painted for either of them. Unless their message and actions support one of those accusations, then it shouldn’t stick.
What if I started a Save the Clock Tower Group (a la Back to the Future) in my local town to restore a turn of the century courthouse clock? I start soliciting donations, but it just so happens that the local Ku Klux Klan also enjoys the clock and wants to see it restored. If I allow them to join my group does that make my group racist? I contend not. Even if there are racists in my group, the purpose is to restore the clock tower. My group has no opinion on race relations either way.
Motivating factors can play a huge role in causing these perceptions.
Per your example:
“Save the Clock Tower!”
“Why?”
“It was built by Jebediah Simpson in 1857, stands as a landmark in our community and is in danger of being paved over to make way for our 3rd SuperWal-Mart.”
No one will [should] fault you if a few racists don’t want that super Wal-mart and contribute accordingly.
Compare this to:
“Save the Clock Tower”
“Why?”
“It was such a great place for lynching all those escaped slaves over the years, and it has a perfect whipping post right at the front door.”
Now when the KKK joins your group, why wouldn’t we conclude it was racist from the start?
Same goes for the Tea Party, I know they aren’t one monolithic group, but whenever people are asked “Why?” all you ever hear is
“We’ve got to take our country back from that black, secret muslim, communist, Kenyan, socialist, Nazi, atheist.” Then people get on stage and start rambling about long form birth certificates, death panels, etc and for the most part people just take it in stride. The crowd is usually even farther out than that. Where were these people 5 years ago? Taxes didn’t change 3 months after Obama took office, they were just totally pissed that someone slightly darker than a glass of milk was accepted by the majority of the country, and thought surely there must be some kind of nergo trickery or shenanigans involved. Rabble, rabble, rabble.
Anyone can go out and participate in the Occupy movement, yes. But what I mean is, have the vandals been doing that? Have they been identified as individuals who attend and participate in general assemblies, organize subcommittees, participate in any of the smaller rallies/marches that haven’t had any vandalism, or participate in any other Occupy-sanctioned actions? Or do they only show up to break stuff?