What’s with the 99 Percent protesters and now the NATO protesters in Chicago, covering their faces with bandanas? I associate that with terrorists and armed robbers. How am I supposed to see this as anything other than threatening? I hadn’t realized the amount of people doing this until today’s newscast. If I saw these people walking down my street, I would be calling 911 and loading the rifle. It’s very disconcerting to me, how is it OK?
It’s an old thing. I first saw it in 1979, with Iranian protesters against the Shah.
The idea is that they have to hide their identities, to secure against reprisals from the dreaded fascist secret police. Much was made of it in the movie V for Vendetta with the Guy Fawkes masks. (In that movie, there actually was a dreaded fascist secret police.)
It’s a form of protest.
(And, hey, it saves us from having to see their ugly dials.)
Makes me think of the left-wing protesters in Germany (Sorry for the foreign language link). I assume they’re doing it for the same reasons/all working from a common school of thought.
They ran out of Guy Fawkes masks.
They’re trying to rob the rich and give to the poor. Next thing you know, they’ll be asking for our lupines.
Isn’t there a notion of covering your face to better endure tear gas and mace?
Because The Man is trying to keep them down. Its a noncomformist uniform.
Simple, it is both intimidating and prevents the police from identifying you easily.
It’s illegal in some states, including New York.
I think they just intend for the latter. But there’s not arguing that it’s not intimidating.
It makes any protest instantly look like an angry mob.
It’s so you can smash windows without being identified later.
It does make it easier to switch to terrorist mode if the opportunity presents itself… or, depending on your perspective, if the Gestapo Tactics of the police warrant it.
And sometimes the police really are after them.
One police tactic to “discourage” protest is to intimidatingly gather information about the protestors – videotape them, follow them to their cars afterward and make a show of writing down their license plates, and so on. Not always intending to DO anything with this info, but to be seen gathering it. Such behavior by the police can be pretty effective at chilling enthusiasm for sticking one’s neck out.
Wearing a bandanna doesn’t really prevent the police from identifying you, of course, if they really want to, but it can be a response to that sort of tactic.
Exactly. These guys either think they live in Iran :rolleyes: or they are intending to vandalize property and don’t want to be identified.
Wait. So a corporation can anonymously donate tens of millions of dollars in your exercise of free speech but you cannot do flesh and blood protesting anonymously? Does anyone else see anything wrong with this picture?
Then why do the billionaire superpac donors want to maintain anonymity? Do THEY live in Iran?
We protested against some (self-identified, out-and-proud) neo-Nazis once and covered our faces because there was a serious risk of them coming after us later in our homes etc. I don’t generally wear it when the main fear is the police, because 1) I think it’s a little silly and paranoid 2) I don’t plan on doing anything remotely illegal.
There was one fellow at a protest here who had been banned from public parks for being part of Occupy, and didn’t want to be identified. Not a one of us wore a mask, but several times on his walk home we all gathered into a clump and rapidly switched articles of clothes with two or three people each. It worked better than any mask.
:rolleyes: Get back to me when superPAC donors lynch somebody.
Yes, for being part of Occupy. I’m sure that was it.
Like many fashions worn by young men (and some young women), it’s to make you look like more of a cool dangerous bad-ass than you actually are.
If you’re implying that corporate money’s influence over legislation (particularly safety and labor standards) has never killed someone, you have a pretty naive view.