Update: the "up-riser" question had a plot-twist. I wanted to see how much support the Occupy protests would have if only political labels were removed. Although political labels are important, it was still interesting to see results. Surprised?
I'm with susanr on this one. Once OWS started raping women and shìtíng on police cars, it kinda draws a contrast between people I would or would not associate with.
For me, the dealbreaker was the violence. I'm all for protest, the more creative the better, but I don't want the government to just sit by when it comes to violence, property damage, or even just pooping on the sidewalk. I felt forced to vote gov't.
In palindrome's other poll his explanation was "Yes, the uprisers are destroying or defacing property. Some are violent but most are...." About gov't: "And yes, the govt has responded with a heavy hand but they've also warned the uprisers to...
That sounds like the uprisers were the violent ones. "Heavy hand" doesn't imply violence to me. That's what I based my vote on. (And I had changed it - I initially voted for uprisers.)
There are always going to be bad apples that take advantage of these situations to cause mayhem. Unfortunately, they're almost indistinguishable from legitimate protesters. By saying some are violent but MOST were peaceful, I hoped to compensate
for the element in all protests. "Destroying or defacing property" was something I added bc it's something the media always covers to attempt to discredit popular protests. But obviously, in a large protest, things are going to break, garbage is
I DID add one piece of fantasy in just to really push the limit of people's tolerance of this type of action. Not sure if people also read that part but I said "installations had been set on fire" and blah blah.. I did that because I really wanted to
see just how far that tolerance for public property damage would go. As you may remember, media outlets, particularly Fox, really took issue with public property damage of Occupy protests, as did many who were opposed to them. Interesting results
I can't even see deliberate property damage as acceptable. What would MLK say? Gandhi? And the pooper I saw was going right beside a parking meter. One could be a little discreet. I'm FINE with protest without damage. If you want me to discount...
I did the same thing as Susan. I chose the uprisers first, but changed my answer after reading the additional info. Destroying, defacing, setting ablaze, being violent = not ok and needs to be stopped.
susanr covered my position exactly, and it's why I changed my vote from the up-risers I had originally supported. I don't care how righteous your grievance, when you start doing violence or destroying property, you are now just a mob in a riot.
Democrats seemed more willing to want to side with the government while republicans definitely sided with up-risers. It's especially interesting considering how much vitriol was used against the Occupy protesters. Although political labels do change
things quite a bit, it's still interesting to see the break-down. May I ask why people hate the Occupy protests but would otherwise side with a generic anti-government/system protests?
Is this media and political manipulation?
I sided with the up-risers as I thought the government was using violence. In reality if there are widespread uprisings that require a forcible response the government has already lost.
Show of Hands
Comments: Add Comment