Thought-provoking protest and 'Occupy' Tweets

Thought-provoking protest and 'Occupy' Tweets

Summary: From Occupying the North pole, police support and 'casually pepper spray everything cop memes' -- an overview of interesting and odd 'Occupy' and protester Tweets.

SHARE:
15

 |  Image 2 of 16

  • The pepper spray incident at UC Davis was cause for fury to be aimed at police who showered non-threatening, sitting protesters with the irritant in the same way you would water your garden plants.

    When it came to the crowd-control method of choice, the plants wouldn't be able to fight back, and the students chose not to.

    The video footage, shot by a witness, was uploaded to YouTube -- showing an official statement released earlier to be utterly false and as spin in its finest form.

    Pepper spray -- oleoresin capsicum -- uses natural inflammatory agents found in over 300 varieties of peppers, including Cayenne. When sprayed in someone's face it causes intense burning around the eyes, temporary blindness, and restricts breathing. 

    The incident created a 'Casually pepper spray everything cop' meme that has flooded the web since the day at UC Davis. The reaction was widespread, and the cop who committed the actions has been featured in many different satirical creations.

    These satirical images and videos include mock versions of famous paintings, sketches and activist cartoons.

    The Sound of Music, 'Don't mind me, I'm just watering my hippies', Declaration of Independence by John Trumball and even 'Hitler responds to Pepper spray Cop' meme are just some of many examples.  

     

    (Source: Twitter)

  • A recent OWS Tactical Tweet, an account dedicated to advice and support for Occupy Wall Street protesters.

    "@OWSLivestream will set you up with everything you need as a citizen journalist. FILM THE POLICE"

    OWS Live stream sets up individuals and offers advice for citizens who wish to report from the ground, heavily promoting citizen journalism to document Occupy events. 

    'FILM THE POLICE' is quite a strong statement, and radiates a heavy mistrust of the U.S police force. If you video everything that goes on, then if events like UC Davis reappear, online networks will yet again have the means to retaliate.

     

    (Source: Twitter)

  • "What's it like to go from a freezing tent to a cold jail cell? Lets help get @OccupyDenver outta jail. Donate for bail"

    This tweet from the account 'Police for the 99 per cent' requested bail support for a protester arrested in the Occupy Denver movement, with PayPal used as a means of donating.

    According to their website, their presence online is represented as police in 'solidarity' with Occupy Wall Street protesters.

    An interesting letter to the group from 'The Tofu Bacon', an anonymous police sergeant said:

    "As a liberal minded police officer, I was overjoyed when I saw the beginning of the Occupy_Police movement. I was heartened by the idea that other law enforcement out there had the courage to come forward to support a movement that was so just in its ideals, but problematic for a peace officer to support.

    I am tired of being encouraged to hippy punch and chase around the homeless. I want to fight real crime, burglars, robbers, rapists, fraudsters, the worst of the worst. I’m hoping that if you Occupiers play this right, I’m can look forward to spending time in an economic crimes unit and running some search warrants and court-ordered wire taps on the 1%, to protect the 99%."

     

    (Source: Twitter)

  • Thumbnail 1
  • Thumbnail 2
  • Thumbnail 3
  • Thumbnail 4
  • Thumbnail 5
  • Thumbnail 6
  • Thumbnail 7
  • Thumbnail 8
  • Thumbnail 9
  • Thumbnail 10
  • Thumbnail 11
  • Thumbnail 12
  • Thumbnail 13
  • Thumbnail 14
  • Thumbnail 15
  • Thumbnail 16

Topic: Social Enterprise

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Related Stories

Talkback

15 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • RE: Thought-provoking protest and 'Occupy' Tweets

    Love the Santa one...that's funny.
    ItsTheBottomLine
  • Occupy protesters are a waste of human space

    Theirs is the least worthy cause (whatever cause it may be), and the protesters, with their whiny "99%" idiocy, are the lowest form of lazy and irresponsible.
    Speednet
    • RE: Thought-provoking protest and 'Occupy' Tweets

      @Speednet <br>Can we assume then that you are of the 1%, that you have never worked a day in your life and still you have all you could want? Can we assume that your daddy financially supports all your endeavors even IF he isn't physically in your life? Your comments have all the markings of one of the spoiled, inheritance rich who has no understanding of the meaning of the word "work" and who probably never will. Tell me, have you boneheads truly considered what will be left of your fifedoms when there are no more little people to trample? You will "rule" until the day you die - and history says that won't be as long as you had hoped. There are very few millionairs or billionaires these days, if any, who have made their money themselves. Most of them are hand me down brats who ... Oops! My bad. I forgot. I'm talking to a wall.
      EthicalLoner
      • RE: Thought-provoking protest and 'Occupy' Tweets

        @EthicalLoner I agree 100% with Speednet and I'm definitely not one of the 1%, though I strive to be. That's the American way. That Liberal idea that few Millionaires or Billionaires made their money is false. It's just a tact to use class warfare to make us go along with punishing the successful. Most Millionaires are, in fact, small to medium business owners. I work for one and know many more. They're some of the hardest working people I know and are rewarded for it.

        If the OWS morons spent half as much time working as they do protesting, I suspect they would have a lot less to protest about. They don't want an opportunity, they want a handout.
        10kwfence
      • We are the 53%

        @EthicalLoner

        Your lack of economic knowledge is impressive. The "1%" you rail against is hardly static. Studies have shown nearly 2/3rds born poor (bottom 20%) move up, but a nearly identical 2/3rds of the "silver spooned" (born in the top 20%) end up moving down the ladder. I'd suspect the movement's trustafarians who are in the 1% but rail against them are the quickest to fall since they don't seem to know how to earn their keep. Those of us in who work our asses off to earn a living are all too ready to take their place.

        Most of the 1% are the entrepreneurs that employ the rest of us, and what will keep them in the 1% is the fact that they really don't have "all [they] could want" since that includes a successful business, a greater market share, etc. Do you really think Steve Jobs ever sat back and thought, "Yup, I'm done."

        The Occupy [fill in the blank] movement is a diverse amalgam of interests. When they rail against the prevalent crony-capitalism and government-business sweetheart deals that would make the near-mythical military-industrial complex blush, they find a lot of people with them. (Heck, I've heard statements that sound straight out of a TEA Party rally.)

        Then the protesters demand the 1% "pay their fair share" (per the IRS's 2008 numbers, earning 20% of the income but paying 38% percent of the taxes is apparently not fair enough yet). I understand the urge; class warfare has been successful since long before Marie Antoinette lost her head. It doesn't make it right. It is when Occupy [wherever] then demand more goodies from the government, the 53% of us who pay all the taxes in the United States start to get real nervous (47% effectively pay none or get a net benefit).

        Mob rule is a form of democracy, but it is not a very healthy one. It is bad enough that politicians continue to get away with buying votes by handing one person people money they took from another, along with a promise they won't grab for the pocket of a third, but now we are reaching the tipping point once relegated to Europe. Many have gone beyond grateful to the government for supporting them, to expecting that support will always be there, to now angrily demanding the government provide more. That support has to come from somewhere: those of us who work hard enough at a valuable enough job to not need the support.

        Economists have run the numbers: you could, literally and figuratively, "Eat the Rich" but it would just dent the debt currently being grown by our government. The total adjusted gross income of the 1% was nearly $1.7 trillion in 2008, while they sent in nearly $400 billion to the IRS. In 2010, the US government spent $3.7 trillion, while running a deficit (spending over income) of $1.3 trillion. In other words, if they upped the 1%'s tax rate to 100%, they would just just about cover the deficit. If you taxed the reviled Top 1% at a 100% rate, just how many of them would you expect to stick around?

        Worse, if we do nothing now, those deficits are expected to skyrocket just because of the increasing retirement of and entitlement expenditures to the Baby Boomers. What do you think is going to happen if the entitlement spending were to grow? As the deficits grow, more and more of the budget is eaten up just paying out the interest. Just think: billions to foreign governments and the hated rich fat-cats that can afford to buy the bonds.

        If the government was going to take more money from the 1%, do you honestly think they'll take one thin dime less from the poor, when if they took everything they still would not have the money to spend what they already do? You might get more vote-buying goodies, like the FICA-tax reduction they've been arguing about on Capitol Hill...oh wait, that's your money being taken out of your Social Security fund, so they can pay you less later when you retire. Bad example.

        This is why we find "The 99%" so irresponsible. You're yelling at the wrong people demanding solutions that won't fix the problem.

        P.S. The "lazy" part comes from the 53%'s need to hold down a steady job. We just don't have the free time to plunk our rear end down on a street corner for weeks on end.
        JJMach
      • RE: Thought-provoking protest and 'Occupy' Tweets

        @EthicalLoner
        Occupy... Require police oversight, destroy public and private property, block passage of law abiding citizens, obstruct business operations in the community, cost the taxpayers millions of their hard earned tax dollars, are supported by the Communist Party and publicly admired by the Chinese Communists, disturb the peace, assault kids and working public, wreck the common spaces of communities causing pain and suffering in the citizenry, deprive honest law abiding workers of income by obstructing their places of business, insist on royal treatment based on ignorance of law and Constitutional principles, are employed by Soros based outfits to swindle citizens with falsely stated causes.

        With such a resume' shouldn't the more productive path be working within the system to change it, by writing to their elected representatives and trying to find productive work?

        Of course, the work ethic escapes the Liberal mind. Work the Liberal will, but to the end that they tear down the structure which supports the system which they promote. Change needs to come, but the changes will require a remaking of tax law, which these silly and very expensive demonstrations will not influence. Who in the legislature will listen to a willfully unemployed, non-taxpaying, derelict when discussing tax reform???
        notme403@...
      • RE: Thought-provoking protest and 'Occupy' Tweets

        @EthicalLoner - You sound like a real jerk making those asinine assumptions about me.
        Speednet
      • RE: Thought-provoking protest and 'Occupy' Tweets

        @EthicalLoner I am FAR from a 1% but I know more about work than 99% of the OWS morons I have seen interviewed. I have yet to see on that have a clue about what they are saying let alone the ability to make it in the real world. That is why they are their, to get somebody else to cover their butt so they don't have to work for it.
        non-biased
  • Bill Gates, Oprah, Larry Ellison...

    Steve Jobs, Zuckerburg, Mars (wife and husband), Lauren, Paul Allen, etc....

    This is just a few of the top 400 richest people in America, and you want to know something, they're all self made... meaning they didn't take "Daddy's Money"... I could go one but I'm sure instead of spiting out "your facts" "EthicalLoner" you're more than willing to do a little research yourself.

    PS, I make 70k a year...
    mike@...
  • Division of wealth

    So most of these respondents think:<br>- the continued transfer of wealth to the 1% is a good thing... for whom?<br>- the way to create jobs is to give the 1% even more money, faster, through tax breaks, and eventually they will have enough to create jobs<br>- that American workers have no value, and should rely on (non-existant) charity jobs from the 1%<br><br>The sad thing is seeing average working types sucked in by the right-wing-nut propaganda that denegrates the guy who actuallly does the work in favor of dictator-style management.
    radleym
    • RE: Thought-provoking protest and 'Occupy' Tweets

      @radleym ............. Uhm, no.
      notme403@...
      • RE: Thought-provoking protest and 'Occupy' Tweets

        @notme403@...

        I know you're trolling, but come on, when faced with straw men, the best thing to do is set them on fire.
        JJMach
    • Don't put words in our mouths

      @radleym

      Speaking for myself, this is what I think:

      - Wealth is largely not being "transferred...to" the 1%. Most are providing a good or service that "earns" the money. You may think they're getting [i]money for nothing[/i] (thank you Dire Straits), but when an entrepreneur makes a decision that nets her company billions, she's worth every penny her company pays her. If she makes a bad decision, she should loose her job, if not her company. Now we can agree that golden parachutes and signing bonuses for losers appear stupid in retrospect, but the company thought that was what they needed to spend to get the talent that they wanted (see entertainers and sports stars, beloved, yet also in the 1%). I'll even go so far as to be disgusted with incestuous boards of directors of large corporations (I'd love to see monopoly rules apply to management).
      When the government takes a tax dollar from Person A and gives it to Person B, that is a transfer only "earned" because the government believes B deserves it more than A (and wants B's vote). Charity at the point of a gun, isn't.
      While most are interested in having some sort of emergency safety net that will prevent you from starving to death due to accident or misadventure, we're not interested in subsidizing sloth to the point of robbing people of the desire to make a life for themselves. A government that buys you everything BUYS YOU. If you're bought and paid for, they can treat you as a slave, because, hey, if you don't do what they want, they can just as easily take what they gave you away. (Unless you're the 1% who can give the government the finger and walk away.) We don't want government to have that much power over anyone. We would rather have a system focused on getting you back on your feet as soon as possible, and create an economy open and vibrant enough to take you in and see you achieve whatever success you are willing to work for.
      On the flip side, most conservatives are even more pissed about crony capitalism. There should be no such thing as "too big to fail." If their collapse would crash our economy, the government should encourage the uber-corps to break up into small enough units that would prevent the threat (not to mention cut the fat of upper-level management). No, they'd rather subsidize corporate stupidity in the interest of buying a big contribution to their favorite PAC.
      The rich are not getting richer "on the backs of the poor." While not axiomatic, "It takes money to make money," has a lot of truth in it in the sense that the wealthy have access to resources that make it easier for them to make an additional buck. Duh. If I have four bucks and you have two, and we both double our money, you could say: "We both doubled our money," which sounds fair, or you could say, "You used to have two dollars more than me and now you have four dollars more than me!" which sounds like somehow I did something to you to prop me up and keep you down when I did nothing of the sort.
      Finally, what makes you think the government taking more money from the 1% (who already pay nearly 40% of the taxes), will put even one more penny in the pockets of the 99%? Or does taking more of their money away from them simply warm the schadenfreude-fueled cockles of your heart?
      JJMach
      • More words from my mouth

        -The way to create jobs is to leave (not put) more money in the hands of the private sector where it will be more efficiently used to provide goods and services, rather than involve the bloated, slothful, and, frankly, dim-witted government bureaucracy trying to control the economy that does nothing to actually provide needed goods or services; shrink, as best as possible, the government back towards its Constitutionally-authorized responsibilities; and pay down the crippling debt we have accrued so we may actually apply money taken by the government towards governance and leave more in the hands of the people who earned it so they can spend it as they best see fit. The enlightened self-interest of every sovereign individual will beat a bureaucracy any day.
        Regarding tax (rate) cuts: Are you even aware that the past several significant rate reductions lead not only to increased revenue (read: tax money) to the treasury (through increased economic activity and the elimination of loopholes) but also shifted the tax burden even more progressively to the "rich" away from the "poor" (yes, even the EVIL "Bush Tax Cuts")? It is a simple exercise in supply and demand. If I'm a business, and I have to pay more taxes, I can't afford to produce as much and have to raise my prices to cover the shortfall. If I'm a consumer, and less of my paycheck gets to my wallet, I have less to buy things with, and so the economy slows. Do not drop the straw man argument: "Well, then we should drop the taxes to Zero and get Infinite money!" I would just say past evidence shows we are still on the right side of the Laffer Curve.
        JJMach
    • RE: Thought-provoking protest and 'Occupy' Tweets

      @radleym Man you are clueless aren't you. Let me guess, must be a big Obama fan too right?
      non-biased