Page 111 of 152

Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 6:00 pm
by deaddmwalking
If the claim is that 'someone associated with the movement at some time and place committed an act of violence against another person or property', well sure, that's probably true.

If the claim was that the 2003 Supreme Court decision was based off the threat of violence resulting directly from a riot in 1969, I don't buy it.

Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:11 am
by Thaluikhain
Pseudo Stupidity wrote:2. Starmaker beat me to it, but the LGBT+ rights movement literally started with a riot that included violently attacking cops for raiding a gay bar.
Tangentially point, but while Stonewall is often called the beginning of the fight for LGBT rights, and while it was a big deal, people have been fighting for LGBT rights before that.

Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2017 6:32 pm
by Stahlseele
Meanwhile, germany had elections.
First countings and projections made the second most voted party go opposition just so the far right does not get to be strongest opposition party to try and do some damage control.

Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:35 am
by maglag

Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:44 pm
by deaddmwalking
maglag wrote:In glorious democratic India, ...
‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:55 pm
by Mask_De_H
No means yes when you're famous enough pretty much anywhere. Paints an ugly picture compared to the rampant rape cases reported, even with the heavy stigma of coming forward, though.

Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:28 pm
by Prak
Image

Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:01 am
by nockermensch
Meanwhile, Brazil's fragile laicity just got a mortal blow.

Mind you, this is already the country where evangelical drug lords force members of african religions (Umbanda and Candomblé) to destroy their own temples, in Jesus' name. (I couldn't find a link in English for this).

I seriously expect Christian militias hacking people to death here in a few years more.

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 6:06 pm
by Dr_Noface
Can anyone share any insight on Corbyn's brexit stance? Good? Bad?

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 6:27 pm
by zugschef
Dr_Noface wrote:Can anyone share any insight on Corbyn's brexit stance? Good? Bad?
Well, reportedly he personally was not against leaving the EU, but now he of course has to take that stance to oppose the tories.

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:28 pm
by Kaelik
Corbyn was "unsure" but then very early on began specifically campaigning against it when that became the labour position, which was well before the referendum.

As someone who professionally advocates for positions I don't necessarily believe in, I'm going to tell you that after the last year+ he is now solidly against Brexit personally as well as publicly.

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:51 pm
by Schleiermacher
You are quite likely right, but if so, why isn't Labour taking a stronger stance in criticizing or even opposing Brexit, given the high levels of support Corbyn currently has in the party?

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2017 10:25 pm
by SlyJohnny
Because at the end of the day, 52% of my moron countrymen voted for it, so it IS a democratic mandate, even if it's a bad idea.

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:01 am
by Kaelik
Because Parliament passed a fucking resolution triggering article 50, so now Brexit is in the hands of Germany, and someone in the British Gov is probably in touch with Germany, and asked "hey, what if we change who's in charge, will you let us totally revoke out exit?" and Germany said "No fuck off, we have your country by the balls and we are going to smash them to make sure that Spain and Greece and Italy never try this shit." And so, knowing there is literally nothing they could possibly do to stop it, they aren't making promises they can't fucking keep.

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:27 am
by maglag
Cataluña to declare independence on the next days after running a referendum showing síes from 90% of the population.

In related news, Spain has been running pretty heavy crackdowns on Cataluña to try to stop the referendum with hundredds heavily injured. They're a monrachy now so no big surprise that voting attempts are directly met with la polízia smashing your face.

On the brighter side nobody dead yet it seems.

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:40 am
by Koumei
I don't get why Spain reacted so violently to a referendum. They should have just declared a non-binding plebiscite to make it look like they're offering people a say in things when they don't want to act on it. That seems to have worked just fine in Australia.

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:05 am
by Username17
The Catalan independence referendum had a turnout of 42% after opposition parties boycotted it and the supreme court ruled it illegal. It needed a 2/3 majority in the regional parliament, which it did not get.

So the independence movement remains a vocal minority who insisted on holding their own referendum among themselves. It's grossly illegal and did not pass on its own merits. It's a rebellion plain and simple and the Spanish government is within its rights to start shooting people.

-Username17

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:28 pm
by DSMatticus
I do not know enough about the Spanish-Catalan situation to know if there is any legitimate grievance which warrants independence, but that's kind of a dumb way to do the math. You don't get to count non-voters as a single bloc of no votes. Catalan turnout for their past couple regional elections has been in the vicinity of 70%, and if you assume the missing politically active voters are all boycotting no votes and not a single "I want to vote independence but let's be proper about all this come on guys" or "I wanted to vote independence but instead I spent the whole day getting smacked in the face with a billy club" it still shakes out to 54% in favor and 46% against. Independence parties won 47.8% of all votes cast in the last regional elections, and given that those are elections with much broader scope and platform than a straight-up-and-down referendum on independence the idea that a slim majority of Catalans (those who can be assed to vote about anything ever, anyway) support independence is beyond plausible and straight into "likely true." Polling has pretty consistently shown independence/federalisation of Spain more popular than the alternative.

I will say that the Spanish response to Catalonia has made me pretty damn sympathetic. If you are willing to use violence to block democratic means of expressing grievances, you are probably the bad guy. For every "man, fuck this, I want to keep owning black people" there are two "man, fuck this, you're treating us like shit" and a whole lot of "what do we want? Independence! Why do we want it? Independence!" If you're going to cockblock them, just call the referendum nonbinding and dare them to militarize. Sending people to polling stations to pick fights is simultaneously the most dickish and most stupid thing you could possibly do. Real people are getting their faces caved in to make you look like a bunch of shitheads. Unless your goal is to explicitly terrorize Catalonia into submission, you are fucking up and this is backfiring. If your goal is to explicitly terrorize Catalonia into submission, well, maybe they're right to want nothing to do with you.

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:24 pm
by RobbyPants
DSMatticus wrote:Sending people to polling stations to pick fights is simultaneously the most dickish and most stupid thing you could possibly do. Real people are getting their faces caved in to make you look like a bunch of shitheads. Unless your goal is to explicitly terrorize Catalonia into submission, you are fucking up and this is backfiring. If your goal is to explicitly terrorize Catalonia into submission, well, maybe they're right to want nothing to do with you.
According to the NPR story I listened to on this, prior to the crack down, a lot of people were on the fence. Afterward, a lot of people flipped to pro-independence.

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 7:56 pm
by Chamomile
The limit of the crime Catalan can be accused of is holding a potentially deceptive referendum which implies they have more power to split from the government than they do. The holding of the referendum itself is entirely non-violent. Several of the people who actually got beaten by the police may not have even known they were doing anything illegal and certainly were not engaged in any level of criminality that justifies immediate violent response. It's not okay that police shot Michael Brown just because he committed a crime that night. It's not okay that police beat up Catalan (Catalonian? Catalanese? What's the demonym here?) voters just because they were party to a crime, and that's if merely voting in a referendum with no legal power is even against Spanish law in the first place. And if it is, it shouldn't be - to the extent that what happens could possibly be considered a crime, it's that the people running the referendum may have fraudulently depicted themselves as having more legal authority than they do, and a citizen being successfully deceived by such is the victim, and no more an accomplice than someone who's been successfully scammed out of money can be considered to have funded criminal activity.

DSMatticus mentioned the potential motivation of trying to terrorize Catalan into submission, and it's hard to imagine this isn't the goal considering that the obvious alternative is just to let the referendum happen, say that it has no legal authority whatsoever, and then arrest the people responsible for setting it up (assuming that setting up a referendum that doesn't actually have the legal power to do anything no matter how the vote turns out is actually illegal). While there'd certainly be a lot of potential for a narrative of arresting political enemies and overriding democracy there, #1 the fact that upholding democracy can get you villified as though you were attacking it does not absolve the Spanish government of their obligation to uphold democracy and #2 sending riot cops to brutalize voters at polling stations makes that narrative much stronger anyway.

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:22 pm
by Pixels
Chamomile wrote:Catalan (Catalonian? Catalanese? What's the demonym here?)
According to Wikipedia, Catalans is correct. E.g. "it's not okay that police beat up Catalans," or "it's not okay that police beat up Catalan citizens."

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:34 am
by Koumei
Yeah, seeing a policeman go full-on Finn Balor with a diving foot stomp to the chest of someone already held in place by other police isn't making me too sympathetic to the state. I don't know enough of the details leading up to that to weigh in on whether they're just being Texas/Western Australia or if they're more of a Scotland or possibly South Ossetia, but the people upholding democracy were the ones clubbing unarmed non-violent "opponents" in the head and stomping them into submission.

There could probably also be plenty of space for a discussion on whether they are justified in wanting to split, the illegality of the people setting up the "vote" and all sorts of things, of course.

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 4:00 am
by Voss
Koumei wrote:I don't get why Spain reacted so violently to a referendum.
Spain is a horrible mishmash of cultures and states sort of forced together, and Catalonia actually has a separate language and a semi-autonomous government of its own under the Spanish government. But one of the reasons Spain freaked out is the last Spanish civil war* is still technically in living memory, and their 'democracy' is actually younger than I am (Franco didn't die until '75, and it took about three years to sort shit out afterwards.), and there are several other semi (partially?)-autonomous states under the Spanish government, so Catalan independence could push Galicia to do something similar and get the Basques all worked up again.

*notably, Catalonia was on the losing side of the Spanish Civil War, and there is a tendency to see anything that targets their rights or autonomy as a return to Franco's repression.

So, yeah- that's some of the background on the Spanish reaction. That said, having the police go in for a round of curb stomping and face pushing is pretty much exactly the wrong way to go about it, rather than focusing on the the independence leaders as hustlers trying to stir up trouble. Which may well not be true, but it's a far more sensible approach for the Spanish government to take, rather than dishing out 600-800 injuries on random people on the street.

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 5:02 am
by Username17
Chamomile wrote:The limit of the crime Catalan can be accused of is holding a potentially deceptive referendum which implies they have more power to split from the government than they do.
No. The original proposition to hold the referendum did not get 2/3 majority in the regional parliament required to propose a constitutional ammendment. The referendum was illegal on every level.

It's basically like the Republicans in America rejecting Garland for the Supreme Court and installing Trump's usurper. The rules say you can't do that, but they had a slim majority in the senate and simply did it anyway. The Catalonian independence people did not have the legal right to do the stuff they did, but they did it anyway because they are explicitly opposed to following the law.

It was open rebellion just to hold the referendum in the first place. To then claim they get to act on it when it didn't get the 50% turnout to be binding is just icing on the cake. The Spanish government is fully justified in responding with lethal force - though obviously that lethal force should be directed at the leaders of the political parties that flaunt the law rather than rando civillians.

-Username17

Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:11 am
by Omegonthesane
But that's the thing - the Spanish government reacted with overwhelming force to merely holding a glorified opinion poll before anyone got to see the results. I really didn't give a fuck about Catalan independence until I saw how fucking far the Spanish government was willing to go to prevent it.

And no. Holding a glorified opinion poll does not fucking compare to rigging SCOTUS. You're just categorically wrong in even making that comparison.

Here's a simple question for you to cowardly avoid:

Was the Spanish government both morally justified and tactically sensible in sending fucking riot police to use force and violence to disrupt a glorified opinion poll when they could instead just declare it was illegal and nonbinding after the fact without being seen on camera to be using fucking riot police to crack open people's heads for daring to hold a glorified opinion poll? Yes or no. Attempting to avoid answering the question means answering "no".