So tell me, ...what did this guy do to deserve it?

[boppers]

123. MLK advocated non-violence.

However, he wasn't the whole movement.

Same with 99%/OWS. If you read the early discussions and debate on the civil rights movement, there was a great emphasis on making peaceful, non-violent, action, the "public" face, and drawing together the factions that advocated more direct action under a 'peaceful, non-violent', umbrella. In short, it scared white people less, so there was some "sit down and shut up" directed at those thought to be contrary to the movement.

I don't blame all of OWS for it's violent factions, any more than I blame the civil rights movement for Huey Newton's actions. I also don't turn a blind eye towards the problems of forming coalitions. I do think OWS coalition members have just as much of a right to walk around in public with a gun or a club as a black person has, but am quite aware that such a thing causes huge PR issues.

Are you familiar with the "True Scotsman" fallacy? Claiming that "no true OWS participant would be violent" is an excellent example of the fallacy.

If you are trying to figure out where I stand, I believe that movements, for political expediency, tend to hush up, or distance themselves, from their more unpopular fringes, but that all large social movements also attract elements of the fringes. Sure, the movements have various leaders, and MLK was *a* leader, but he wasn't the only one. (Who is OWS's leader?..... that's right, there isn't *one*).

Oh, and every movement is "infiltrated", by both the fringe, and their opposition. That doesn't mean that every annoying Blac Bloc action, or cop stirring up moronic "anarachists", should be laid at the feet of OWS, but that it should be accepted as part of operational realities when dealing with any large group. Likewise, with stupid cops who like to abuse their power, idiot district attorneys who throw the book at everybody.... judging a whole group with simple smears and labels only demonstrates a shallow understanding of the problems of dealing with large groups of people.

Any clearer? Or is it too complex to process once it leaves the realm of "good guy"/"bad guy"?