Why Flag-Burning Bodes Ill for OWS

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Flag-burning is an attention-getting stunt. Those who burn flags admit as much and those who see the flag-burnings dismiss it as such. It is a stunt that is doomed to failure IF its presumed purpose is to call attention to larger injustices. If it's just a stunt then social justice is doomed because it is a stunt that antagonizes the audience whose attention it presumes to get.

Don't believe me? Look at DU.

DU is a place where people who seek a clearer, broader agenda for social justice come together. We share the same goal but the method has left us sharply divided. I'd wager money and expect a Romney-like return on my investment that conservatives are absolutely united against flag-burning. They debate whether or not their disgust should be codified but they are united against flag burning as disrespectful. But who cares what they think, right? I'll extend that wager to moderates as well. Yeah, they're the eternal fence-sitters and their idea of mass transportation is jumping on each new band wagon as it passes by but for the most part they hold America as an ideal in high regard and attacks on its symbols pushes them away.

So if an act leaves 2 of the 3 main factions decidedly against you and the third faction, your own, is bitterly divided its fair to say that while you may have a right to burn a flag or engage is some other similar silliness at the end of the day its a losing strategy. Permitted is not always the same as practical.

Which is ironic because the people engaging in these off-putting antics complain no one is listening to them. When people see you burning the flag they respect make no mistake: they heard you -- they also happen to think you're a jerk and they're not going to stick around to hear the rest of what you have to say.

The other evidence proving this is a losing strategy is the fact those defending flag burning feel the need to defend it. After the tiresome pleas that it was really agents provacateur are mocked into their duly deserved waste bin we're treated to "It's the larger message!" defenses. If your soundbite needs defending you failed. Just ask Rick "I meant bla-ar-a-rurmpf" Santorum. Flag-burning and cop car defecating images flash across Facebook faster than the MSM and blogs can report. Guess what? Those people don't frequent DU or OWS forums. There will be no "greater message" accompanying the image, only what the poster assigns as a caption which will tend towards, "Dirty hippies hate America." The "dirty hippies hate America" meme has already been ingrained, now OWS is providing the imagery of its own accord but then acts defensive about it.

After that fails those who enjoy flag-burning resort to "You hate OWS! Why do you hate OWS?" One can all but hear the word "traitor" echo in the distance though it was unspoken. The "You're either with us or with the terrorist" mentality is best left to slow-witted wannabe cowboys. It's as if we have to pledge allegiance to the flag burners.

That's just stupid.

Sorry to be so harsh but when did flag burning become the new oath of fealty? I'm more interested in social justice, civil rights, income equality, civil liberties, a society that cares for its own etc. Flag-burners seem to not care if their antics damage that effort they just want to burn flags and have people respond favorably. That's not a statement, it's a tantrum that no longer wants to mend the underlying offense, only offend others to compensate for the fact it too feels offended. People prone to tantrums should never be trusted with the destructive power that is government and I believe the independents, moderates, middle-roaders, fence-sitters, undecideds innately sense this as well.

[randome]

1. I'm all for burning the flag to make a statement, when appropriate.

But no one has said what message was being sent by the Oakland event. At least, none of the people who burned the flag are saying. All we have to go on is speculation in DU, which sort of detracts from the idea that it was a 'protest burning'.

[morningfog]

16. Flag burning is the message. To its own end.

[randome]

18. "Burn, baby, burn!"

That's not a message. That's giving up. If that's what you want to do, you're welcome to do that but most of us want to see the existing system change.

[morningfog]

25. One flag was lit and sparked thousands of conversations.

Occupy is still relevant and influencing discussions. Not only on inequities and the abuses of the 1%, but on what freedom of speech and assembly really mean.

[TheWraith]

33. Thousands of conversations mostly about how wrong Occupy was.

If you think this is a grand debate about the oppressed proletariat, you might want to get out and actually check. The real world is very, very thin on people who support Occupy at this point.

[morningfog]

41. Conversations with many sides.

There is not, however you may try to paint it, monolithic opposition to Occupy now. Far from it. I like how we are still talking about Occupy, their issues and their tactics. And we probably will be for months to come. Maybe even years.

[TheWraith]

99. Good luck with that in the real world.

Outside the left-wing blogosphere, there's not a lot of people who are either talking about it or supporting it anymore. It's the new Code Pink: sacred elephant of the left, regarded as insane kooks by everyone else.

[randome]

35. We don't need to be schooled on what freedom of speech means.

If OWS wants to change the system, then it had better hunker down and get to it instead of spending time on side issues like this.

[morningfog]

39. Hunkering down gets you easily ignored.

This side issue is very much a live issue and an example of the anger and hopelessness of this generation of protest. You don't have to like it, or support it. But, we can't really tell them how to protest.

[randome]

43. Yes, we can tell them how to protest.

Especially when they claim to represent us.

If an OWS group does something we think is wrong, we should ignore it and chant, "OWS! OWS! OWS!" ?

Won't do that.

[morningfog]

44. Do you go to general assembly meetings?

Do go to Occupy events?

Are you really part of the movement? Maybe you aren't as much as you think you are?

[randome]

60. No, I don't.

And I don't have to prove my worthiness to you or anyone else. I also don't claim to represent anyone but myself.

Is attendance required to be part of the movement? If so, that leaves out about 300 million people.

[morningfog]

78. If you don't like what they are doing but feel they represent you

then you should get involved.

Otherwise, it is like those who complain about elected officials, but don't vote.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

91. Elected officials have actual legislative capability backed by the power of government

It's starting to look like OWS is just a social clique where the mean girls hang out to talk about which one dates the best-looking football player.

[morningfog]

94. In that case, they should be of no concern to you.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

96. Except their dragging down progressive ideals with them.

They're making it harder for people who actually want genuine results; things that translate to legislative policies and candidates elected to office. If OWS becomes repellant in all things politics they will become the left's version of the John Birch Society. Ironically, the JBS considers itself the caretaker of all things conservative but not even the conservatives listen to them and they'd be the electoral kiss of death to any candidate claiming to be one of their members.

[TheWraith]

101. Don't forget the self aggrandizement and sense of entitlement.

Declaring themselves to represent everyone, and therefore they're entitled to break into City Hall, trash the place, burn flags, seize public property for their own use, because they're doing it for "the people," even though "the people" would tell them to stop immediately.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

109. Yes, but the people -- we're told -- are too stupid to think for themselves.

Who needs real, actual democracy when the stupid people will just run off and do stupid things listening to stupid FOX News. Until they agree 100% with the 99% they are not to be permitted something so reckless as democracy. True democracy only works when everyone votes just like the guy with the bandana on his face.

All right-thinking people know this.

[tledford]

112. That's okay, the remaining 30 million will pull your weight. eom

[arely staircase]

125. if you go carrying pictures of chairman mao......

do you want to send a message or do you want to win? i want to win and by winning i am talking about getting laws on the books that reign in the monied interests in this country - the people wo are bleeding the working class dry. associating the movement that is trying to do that with burning the american flag isn't going help it.

...you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow

[onehandle]

2. One instance of a burned flag can completely discredit an entire movement.

Free speech doesn't always mean smart speech.

Me? I'm hoping that someone gets Romney to sign a Dixie Flag and it happens on camera.

[SidDithers]

3. Best post so far on the subject...

Sid

[xchrom]

4. i think a good many on DU are conservative, conventional, status quo supporting folks.

mostly happy with the way things are - not too concerned with serious problems in the country -- and pretty much think that as long as a staus quo dem is in charge then everything is hunky dory -- any evidence to the contrary be damned.

i think strong centrists and status quo supporters are far more alarming and damning than any 'flag burners' at this juncture -- and i've said as much in the not too distant past.

[TheWraith]

7. Actually, there's pretty much nobody like that here.

But you seem to confuse "does not support burning down the world for a temper tantrum" with "conservative and status quo".

[morningfog]

17. Burning a flag is "burning down the world?"

[TheWraith]

38. I was referring to equating DUers who don't meet the radical purity test with conservatives.

The fact is DUers come in basically three flavors: far left Social Democrats, extremely left socialists, and insanely left communists/Trotskyites. Whining that leftists are actually conservatives because some of us recognize it's folly to expect to bring down the government and institute a socialist utopia is rather silly and lacking in perspective.

[Johnson20]

46. You are far, far too

wise for some folks here. I very much enjoy your postings and learn from them and I consider myself to have some wisdom.

[Rex]

134. So which one are you?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. Assuming you're correct

Then OWS is beyond merely futile. For OWS to claim the mantle of representing the 99% would be absurd as the conservatives, indies, moderates -- and the faction within DU you presume to describe would tip the scales. That would mean OWS imagines itself representing people who do not want it to represent them.

That makes OWS a fringe seeking to impose itself on others.

Shaking them up or "freaking the norms" is not a strategy, it's an affront to them; a challenge. And one that will turn out bad for OWS b y sheer weight of numbebrs alone.

Assuming your premise is correct.

[nobodyspecial]

10. Purity and self-righteousness is all that matters

Results and success are irrelevant.

[xchrom]

11. i think that ows isn't trying to impose anything more radical that what the civil rights movement

was trying to impose at similar time in it's arc.

and i think it took time for conventional people to get past their discomfort and opt for the better change.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. I don't remember Rev. King burning flags

On the contrary he appealed to the higher ideals of America. That pricked the nation's conscience because the people who professed those ideals wanted to be able to live up to them and Rev. King not only showed them our nation was off-mark but how to correct those injustices. The best part is -- the American people wanted to correct the injustice. I believe that higher sense still lives in most Americans. Yeah, things get muddled but if the people making-up our society are so irredeemably evil what is OWS working towards? Some spiritual revival? Again, flag-burning would be mission fail.

Do I have faith in the system? No. DO I have faith in the majority of people? Absolutely.

And we can't blame frustrations on the corporate media. Information has more venues and wider distribution than anything Rev. King could ever have hoped for.

[xchrom]

14. just asking for = caused a societal gasp -- not unlike the pearl clutching going

by people aghast at flag burning.

you get a handbook made up for ever so proper protesting procedures -- get it to OWS so that no one's sensibilities are offended.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. You seem more intent on silly stunts even if it hurts the actual cause

So please spare us the "pearl clutching" cliches. It's not about "acceptable" its about "practical" and "successful" and "effective." If terms like those aren't part what you seek then why are you tying yourself something as important as social justice? You're just harming it. Middle America isn't coming to DU to see how xchrom contextualizes flag-burning. Nor are they coming to DU to see why I think it's a bad idea. They're sharing pics accompanied by derisive snickering with their friends list on FB.

You are losing your messaging war. I'm not losing it for you. This is like that Monty Python skit about the ad exec renaming Conquistador Instant Coffee to Conquistador Instant Leprosy. No amount of reasoning would move him off the idea that the publicity garnered was bad even though the owner had shot himself and an angry mob burned down the factory.

[xchrom]

27. WTF? Now talk about silly...nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. Good grief.

People aren't going to accept your message if you deliever it in ways that offensive to them.

But apparently some are more interested in burning flags than appealing to as broad a spectrum of American polity as possible.

The desire to offend more than succeed is harming the cause but those fixated on burning don't care if they hurt the larger cause.

That reminds me of a MP skit.

Simple enough now?

[xchrom]

40. as if you had said anything complex...oh yes i get it. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

49. Dismissiveness seems to act as a roundabout concession

Is there a REASON why offending people should be expected to get people to accept your goals and view your cause favorably?

Please take a moment to explain the logic behind the idea that offending people will gain broader public approval.

[xchrom]

65. i can't relate to your 'offended' thing -- burning the flag is pretty tried and true

protesting theatre.

your concern for the sensibilities of the american masses doesn't concern me much -- they need to have their sense assaulted and brought out of their stupor.

[randome]

69. Didn't work, did it?

No one who helped burn the flag has said what message they were sending so I kind of doubt they had one. Usually if you make a statement or even a symbolic gesture, it's done in a way that makes it easily understood.

[xchrom]

70. it worked fine to me.

but i know that conventional people like to flog their concerns in public -- you know -- in order to make every one behave conventionally.

[randome]

72. Yep, that's my goal.

So go ahead and knuckle under, already!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

76. You're speaking from within your own hive.

They won't wake from the stupor you presume them to be in and suddenly say, "Hey! He's right!" More likely they'll see you and say, "Jerk!"

Do you really think if more flag burnings gain more national attention the public reception of OWS will improve?

If OWS loses public support over things such as flag-burning or crapping on cop cars should OWS adjust tactics?

[xchrom]

77. and you aren't speaking from within your own hive?

the hive of conventionality? the ability to ignore some of the most awful excesses this country has seen? and you're worried about those americans 'good' sensibilities?

good. lord.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

82. False dichotomy

To warn against stupid pranks is not the same as ignoring injustice. Flag-burning is not the new pledge of allegiance. The change you pretend to want won't occur if the people seeking change are a self-marginalized sliver of a minority. Alienating people harms the overall intent of the movement.

And yes, you do have to be sensitive to people's feelings. People have the right to not to be clones of you or me. Real Democracy is built upon consensus which implies are starting point where people are different from each other. Who in their right mind would seek common ground with the Orthodox Jewish-American Student's Union by inviting them to lunch over bacon cheeseburgers?

Alienate. Disregard. Dismiss. We are the ninety-nine (in a nation of 300 million).

[nobodyspecial]

20. Do NOT dishonor the work of King by comparing

this OWS action to it.

He -- and made sure his followers -- did not provoke law enforcement by getting in their faces and taunt them. They silently held their places, were respectful, courageous and dignified. They did not throw things at police. They did not vandalize. They did not fight back. They did not steal.

I did watch the videos from Oakland and there is no comparison. And as much as people here disagree, this is what will be the downfall of OWS. It's not that people don't want to be on your side. OWS makes it hard for people to be on their side. Believe it or not, most people value safety and security and law and order. Those scenes scare the hell out of them -- and they aren't scared of the police. Argue theories and philosophies all you want, but people make decisions with their gut.

King succeeded because he ensured actions -- at least on his sides' parts -- were peaceful and nonviolent. When cops did move in with clubs and hoses and dogs on peaceful crowds, it was obvious who was being victimized. Those photos and coverage is what solidified support. When you see people dressed in homemade riot gear taunting cops or people with masks burning flags, it is no longer clear who is innocent.

I think OWS would gain a lot more support if they DID follow the playbook created by King.

And a movement gains strength by meeting people where they are and bringing them forward, not by insulting them or assuming they just don't get it. Many of us get it. That does not mean we have to support violence and vandalism.

[xchrom]

21. oy

[nobodyspecial]

29. I think the eye rolling

in lieu of an actual response says a lot more about you than me.

[TheWraith]

5. Very, very well said.

Particularly the last paragraph, I thought. It really is basically just acting out, trying to offend in return for being offended.

You've got DU, which is by and large FAR off on the left, and even DU is badly divided on the subject--what's more, you don't see a lot of people here saying "Oh, it's a GREAT idea to burn the flag," mostly what you get is people accusing anyone with objections of "flag fetishism" or trying to "undermine the movement" (as if OWS hadn't done that most effectively themselves). What does that say about how most of the public feels, people who by and large (even the Democrats) are not as far left as we are? Polls may show that 45% of people don't want an anti-flag-burning constitutional amendment, but I doubt even a third of that number actually supports flag burning.

[izquierdista]

6. It's also the PERFECT disruption by instigators

When was the last time flag burning was in the news? I don't remember any in the run-up to Bush's War of Aggression. I remember Iranians burning it during the hostage crisis. The last time I can remember Americans engaging in it in any numbers was during the Vietnam war. That's why it seems a little odd to pop up now.

Reactionaries know they can whip up some nationalistic pride in the low-information set. That's why it happened. The more I see of it on FOX news, the more I will know it is an Ailes/Rove false flag operation.

[cbayer]

26. +1

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. So if flag-burning is being exploited for anti-OWS purposes

why give ammunition to the anti-OWS types? For this to make sense the underlying message would be, "Hey! Stop burning stuff! You're making us look bad!"

[arely staircase]

126. i suggested this in another thread and was accused of being a tinfoil hat wearer. nt

[MADem]

128. The GOP got into a snit about it a couple of years ahead of the run-up to the last election.

It was when Hillary Clinton was in the Senate, and looking at a Presidential run. They made it the issue du jour, and were, I suspect, hoping to accuse Clinton of being pro-flag burning in order to damage her chances at a Presidential run and have a talking point against her.

She ended up introducing a piece of very twisted and clever legislation that came off like it was in opposition to flag burning (which, as we know, is constitutionally protected) but in actual fact was simply a prohibition against lighting shit on fire on federal property. IIRC, she even had a Republican cosponsor for the thing.

It was a brilliant piece of triangulation, because it fended off a movement by the GOP to add a prohibition against "Flag Desecration" to the frigging Constitution, but even at that, some members here didn't take her point. What she was doing was telling the GOP to stuff a sock in it, but the Forest For The Trees bunch were completely missing the clever stiff-arm she gave to the Republicans, and were busy whining about her taking away their "right" to set fires on federal property.

It got quite a few days of teeth gnashing and histrionic discussion here, and then, like most stuff, it faded away.

The GOP loves to make issues about the flag, and stupid shit like these punk-nitwits burning it (after stealing the damn thing) gives them fodder--we're fortunate that they're a bit busy right now, watching the Newtie Mittsy train wreck--if this had happened in Sep 2012 it would be recited, ad infinitum, like the Litany of the Saints. Remember how they griped about Barack Obama not wearing his little flag pin during the last election, like he was the new Ensign reporting aboard the ship who forgot his collar devices, or something? You'd have thought he'd committed the crime of the century the way they went on about that--and of course, it also fed the Birther fever. He finally put the damn thing on to shut the motormouths up. Ruined their fun!

[MineralMan]

8. Thank you. Well said.

I just watched the video of that incident. The small crowd outside the City Hall in Oakland supported the flag-burning. That's very clear from the video.

The OPD showed up and told everyone to move away from City Hall. The small crowd complied.

Alienating the people you want to support you just doesn't work. It never has, and never will.

[Mz Pip]

12. One of the things that I've observed

over the years is that whenever there is a large demonstration of any kind it attracts and brings out the best and the worst in people. Not everyone who shows up does so for altruistic reasons. Nor are they necessarily agents of the other side. There are shitty people out there who use the opportunity of being in as group to act out and be distructive. Making excuses for them really weakens the initial argument, mainly because defending the indefensible takes time away from the real issues.

Yes, flag burning is legal; stealing someone else's flag and burning it is not. Trying to justify it is just diversion.

I've seen this happen since the 60s. I was at the Democratic convention in 1968 and in retrospect it's amazing no one was killed. Throwing rocks and bottles at the police who happen to be armed with fucking guns is nuts.

[MADem]

15. I like the idea of calling the bankers to account. I like the idea of focusing on social justice

issues. I like making greedy bastards who foreclose on people squirm. I like calling attention to the plight of unemployed and underemployed people, people who have lost their retirement funds, people who can't afford to retire, kids who cannot afford or pay back college loans, and stuff like that. I am in the "Right On" crowd on those issues.

I don't like unfocused bullshit. I'm tired of the camping paradigm--I find it lame, scruffy, and tiresome. I don't like flag burning for the sake of shocking people, especially when so many of our disabled vets and gold star families are members of the 99%. Sure, you CAN do it, and you can fart in church, too. Does that mean you should, or you must? I don't like stupid and ambiguous graffiti, I don't like gratuitous property damage along with declarations that these vandals represent the 99 percent, I don't like dumbass building "takeovers" (the only exception being when OWS activists protect an existing homeowner from being evicted), and I don't like taunting, bullshit stunts.

If you want to be treated like an adult, you need to act like one. MLK knew how to "do" civil disobedience without flag burning and sleeping in parks. I think OWS needs to grow up--I'm not the only one who feels this way, either--a lot of this stupid horseshit is turning people off.

I will probably be told, yet again, by the "LALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAAAAR YOU" crowd with their fingers in their ears how much I "hate" OWS, too. I don't hate OWS at all, in actual fact--I have a strong dislike for the assholes who are making OWS look like a bunch of nitwits, though.

[MineralMan]

19. +10

Nicely put.

[Veruca Salt]

32. +1

[morningfog]

36. These are different times.

A different generation facing a different problem.

I don't think a movement modeled after MLK would be as effective in 2012, with 2012 problems.

Part of the unfocused nature of Occupy is generational rage and hopelessness. I don't think any of us has a real grasp on what comes next, on what will work and what won't.

[Mz Pip]

50. I agree

This is not an issue that is black and white. Agreeing with the initial message of OWS and disagreeing with the actions of a few punks is not mutually exclusive.

[HappyMe]

22. Very well said.

Agreed.

[trumad]

23. Start handing these out.

Perfect for this thread.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. If you don't have a valid criticism there's no shame in admitting it.

I know some people just want to burn stuff and make the 10 o'clock news because then they can go back tot he dorm and high-5 each other about how cool they look and how radical they are but they're really just poseurs trying to steal the spotlight from people actually working to end unfairness.

Burning stuff is emotional, exciting, flamboyant. My dad builds houses for a living. He always comes home dirty, tired and exhausted. Burning flags is easy. Building homes takes work. I guess flag-burners aren't cut-out for real work; they just want to be flamboyant.

[MineralMan]

30. Ah, the pearl-clutching meme.

Easier than writing something, I suppose.

[trumad]

87. OK I'll write...

There are dumb asses out there who think a flag burning will end the Occupy movement.

They tend to hit the feinting couch when shit like this occurs....or clutch their pearls...or chime in with their concern troll comments.

Should I write more?

[MineralMan]

89. You can write as much as you like.

I don't think anyone has said that flag-burning will end the Occupy movement. I know I didn't. I don't think it helps that movement, though, and I have said so. I'm not clutching at pearls. I'm stating an opinion that flag-burning is not a useful way to gain followers among the 99% the movement is supposed to be representing. A sizable portion of that 99% doesn't like flag-burning.

I'm discussing strategy, not predicting doom for a movement.

[trumad]

97. It's the broad brushers that I'm going after.

Nothing will hurt this movement because it's to damn big.

A couple of silly flag burners aint gonna hurt it and those who need the smelling salts need to man up a bit and quit feeling dizzy when little shit like this pops up.

[SammyWinstonJack]

54. Perfect!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Sit-ins and strikes are inconvenient. Women should forego abortions because they offend people.

Tsk. Tsk.

[TheWraith]

42. Try again. Maybe you can come up with an actual analogy.

A more accurate example would be a group of women getting together and getting pregnant specifically so they could have abortions in public. Legal? Definitely. Guaranteed to offend even people who agree with you? Also definitely.

[whatchamacallit]

48. Your "concern" is noted

Bottom line, it's legal, not everyone is offended, and it won't end OWS as long as the status quo is fraud and institutional inequality.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. How do you win over a broader segment of society by displays intended to offend that very group?

The "not everyone is offended" faction is pretty much isolated to the faction doing the actual burning.

[whatchamacallit]

59. News Flash

If the stark reality of their economic situation isn't enough to motivate the "broader segment of society", nothing is. IMO it's a war not a beauty pageant.

[randome]

62. A 'war' fought in public buildings and parks.

That's sure to get Congress to change the laws to benefit more people.

[whatchamacallit]

63. Ha, where else?

"First Amendment Zones"?

[randome]

66. No one is saying 'don't protest'.

No one is even saying 'no' to civil disobedience. But without a targeted message and some leadership, OWS will always be there at the forefront of...helping to change the conversation.

That's it. And we need much, MUCH more than that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. "IMO it's a war"

Seriously? What next? You got maps of the US with crosshairs on targeted congressional districts?

A word of advice: in a war it never hurts to have numbers on your side so that would make my advice about alienating 5/6 of the society a bit more critical.

[whatchamacallit]

71. This is going nowhere

Look, I personally wouldn't have burned the flag, but shit happens and anyone with a lick of sense will assign this incident the proper perspective and proportion. Seems like a lot of people are itching to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[randome]

75. To be honest...

...I haven't seen much about this outside DU. But then I don't really watch the news.

But the flag burning was just the encore to the entire 'taking over a public building' part of that day. Neither of these events did anything to help promote economic justice. They were both a waste of time and got some people injured. Time and energy was squandered.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. Do you actually want to succeed at something or is this just an exercise in alienating people?

So far I don't see frat house pranks translating into a public paradigm shift. I don't see the Oakland flag burning turning fence-sitters into pro-OWS protesters. In fact, outside of DU the mood runs along the lines of A) "Stupid kids" to B) "What?"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. The only ones I'm seeing offended and and referring to "stupid kids" are the alleged allies of OWS.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

58. It is stupid and juvenile. Even if they have gray hair.

I don't need OWS's approval to vote for progressives and I will vote for progressive candidates in spite of OWS's juvenile stupidity.
Unfortunately, since *SOME* within OWS are trying to present themselves as the gatekeepers of all things progressive they are making it hard to appeal to people not already aligned with progressive policies and they are dividing the base.

Splitting the base and repelling newcomers is NOT a strategy for success.

But, hey, who cares about actual success; burning stuff is more important. Why bother actually helping people when burning stuff let's you tell your buddies you're a genuine radical.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

113. Suffragettes went around with hammers breaking rich peoples' windows.

Miners smashed machinery. Civil rights and anti-war activists blocked entrances and traffic. Students disrupted classes.

All were accused of "splitting the base" and preventing "success".

[Nuclear Unicorn]

115. Then don't howl when you're ever on the receiving end

because some Tea Partier doesn't feel the need to maintain a civil society with you in it. If OWS ever wins they will be The Establishment the next generation of Anti-Establishmentarians and iconoclasts act-out against. That just perpetuates the cycle.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

117. I've been on the receiving end from the establishment.

Tear gassed and chased around campus by cops who wanted to break my skull. And, some of them had pretty little flags sewed on their sleeves.

[Puzzledtraveller]

47. Nice post!

[Romulox]

52. Flag burning only bother conservatives, who are hostile to OWS regardless.

This pearl-clutching regarding the flag is nauseating to me.

[SammyWinstonJack]

56. Exactly, on both points.

[xchrom]

67. +2 nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

68. There are these people called "moderates" maybe you've heard of them.

They're sometimes seen hanging around flocks of "independents" and "undecideds." Collectively they outnumber liberals and conservatives and some people believe this group tends to decide most political issues.

[Union Scribe]

55. "Don't believe me? Look at DU."

Yeah, I am. And I see people who've never had a good word to say about OWS all of a sudden SUPER concerned about its well-being. In fact they're SO worried about how it will reflect on the movement they never cared about before that they just can't stop talking about it!

[SammyWinstonJack]

57. +1000000!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

61. And people who are genuinely concerned about progressive ideals

are being slandered by those who want to burn flags rather than accomplish anything tangible. OWS will do more harm than good to the progressive cause if its only purpose is to offend people not already aligned with it.

[librechik]

84. if so many "want" to burn flags, how come only this 1 incident was reported

after months and month of demonstrations?

Another question: has OWS embraced this stunt as policy?

Another question: Do we know for a fact that OWS members in good standing did this? IMO It more closely resembles an attack by provacateurs AGAINST OWS.

And another question: when did burning a flag become illegal? I must have missed that Supreme Court Decision.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

86. This 1 incident, at least as far as my OP goes

is simply intended to be a specific speaking to a greater general mindset of being offensive to gain attention.

No one said it was illegal only that it is decidedly bad PR that will alienate the audience it supposedly appeals to.

[HangOnKids]

92. Who Determined It Is Decidedly Bad PR?

Are you the decider now? Looking at who rec this thread tells me A LOT.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

93. Decider? Absolutely not.

But I defy anyone to demonstrate such silly stunts gaining approval for OWS among undecideds and independents. And the OWS clique knows its bad PR because when the pics first appeared they ran around howling that they were being framed by undercover cops. "Consciousness of guilt" as it were.

[HangOnKids]

102. Wow Talk About Vapid Generalizations

1. OWS is not a "stunt" and it is not trying to "gain approval" among undecideds and independents. It has a target and a message and it is not looking for support from people who have no clue.

2. It is not a "clique", are you in Jr. high school? OWS did not "howl" because of bad PR. They expressed outrage because they knew they had been compromised by infiltrators. The flag incident wasn't the crux of their biscuit, but you sure want to make it so.

3."Consciousness of guilt" why are you continuing to spew anti OWS rhetoric? OWS has nothing to feel guilty about even though you are trying to stick your premise up their wazoo.

Goodbye Unicorn, you and all the recers have a nice day.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

104. It just gets weirder

1. I never claimed OWS was a stunt. Flag burning is a stunt.

2. OWS seems to be acting like a clique. The "if you aren't pro-OWS you're automatically a conservative!" non-rebuttals are case in point. That's why I expressed it in terms of middle school mean girls looking down their noses at others while competing amongst themselves for each other's approval.

3. You seem confused. There were no infiltrators. The infiltrator claim is put forward by people who back-handedly admit OWS is engaging in stupid stunts that do more harm than good. Yet, an explicit statement that these stupid stunts are hurting OWS -- and progressives in general -- are then shouted down as anti-OWS. Make up your mind. Either these stunts are bad or they aren't.

4. Denials, dismissals and self-contradicting silliness to escape dealing with the issue that stupid stunts are seen as stupid stunts. This will only further damage whatever little reputation OWS might hope to salvage. Remember how moronic Herman Cain looked trying to call all those women liars and subversive plants rather than dealing with real facts? Don't be that guy.

[librechik]

95. you seem to be implying a trend or a "want"--can you list more OWS flag burnings for us?

and I would also like evidence of the alienation you predict. Have OWS polls been falling since this report?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

98. Polls are useless. People only accept the ones that agree with them.

Any disfavored poll will quickly be met with bad methodology/sampling/extrapolation accusations.

That being said, do you seriously see middle America saying to itself, "Hey! Look at those kids! They're burning flags. YES! This is the moment we've been waiting for!" If it was good why were the reflex defenders crying about agent provacateurs?

[librechik]

103. I think middle America doesn't like OWS anyway. Nothing OWS could do or say would change that

We have to work with the folks who do like the movement or sympathize with it and not obsess over the iron-hard RW partisans you fear. And agent provacateurs must always be called out, especially when they taint a moven ment whose record on non-violence is quite good so far.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

105. I'm sorry, I don't equate middle America with iron-hard RW partisan

I think the indie-middle is far broader than either the left or right and it is to them we must appeal.

And I do not buy the agent provacateur argument, either, as many in this thread are arguing such stunts are valid and needed.

[librechik]

106. lol--you're good--utter denial is a winning tactic when you have nothing.

You win!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

107. Isn't the wholly unfounded "agent provacateur" excuse the denialism you speak of?

Look how many people in this thread defend flag burning. Surely xchrom is not an agent provacateur sent to discredit OWS. The AP argument is just a cheap excuse to deny responsibility. It's quickly becoming a joke that there are more APs than actual OWS protesters.

[librechik]

110. I said "You win" Isn't that enough?

Boy, I think you might have a little OCD problem. Along with your OWS problem. Why don't you just go join up so you can make your opinions known in the General Assembly? They need committed volunteers. No pun intended.

[Dragonfli]

121. Conservatives of all stripes hate the movement, Democratic cons maybe even more so

It reminds them that the party was not always just another employee of the banks and military establishment, a past that frightens them because it is the old traditional values of the party that people are attracted to and they DO NOT want those values back in the party nor do they want a movement that speaks to those values competing with them. The Third way, DLC or whatever handle their focus groups have them calling themselves these days prefer the new Democratic party that is largely a re-branding of the Republican Ideals of 1985.

Any Democrats that still remember the old days, like me, were once referred to as "middle of the road" Democrats, now we are derided as fringe leftist with dangerous ideas that will help the GOP win (without changing a single political belief)

The pearl clutching is to be expected, one must never allow a POV that is further to the left of Evan Bayh to gain traction or the Conservatives in the party will feel threatened and go after the source.

Why is it that so many heroes of the movement that were onced loved here are tossed under the bus for having a more progressive view than Timmy Geithner? Soon all liberal publications will be swear words here just like FDL, it is inevitable since so many republicans came over to the party under the DLC guise.

[librechik]

123. luv u for this post

I know, it's so frustrating to watch the great American Experiment get shoved off a cliff. Nobody even seems to remember what we had. And now it's gone.

[Harmony Blue]

74. That sums it up

Sad, that it has to be explained this way on a progressive site.

[pa28]

122. Concern trolls. We've got 'em n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

127. Yeah there is that.

[joshcryer]

73. lol it will be forgotten in a weeks time

and OWSers will be burning flags as they've been doing every couple of weeks since it started, bank on it

[Nuclear Unicorn]

79. "bank on it"

Bankster!

j/k

They'll burn their flags then when someone says that's not cool they'll claim it was a false flag operation to discredit them, then when that gets laughed down they'll claim they have a right to do it and when their right is affirmed but the act is dismissed as a dumb idea they'll claim they're just trying to freak the norms but when the norms don't get freaked, only pissed they'll yowl that only conservatives would warn them it was a dumb idea in the first place and how unfair life is because nobody takes their movement seriously.

[Harmony Blue]

80. Flag burning

has happened at many OWS rallies, especially outside the U.S. And then, you have the police that have trashed the U.S. flag countless times against OWS.

Your agenda is well documented for many months on this board.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

83. "Your agenda is well documented for many months on this board. "

Yes, because getting progressives to appeal to a broad a swathe of American society as possible is exactly what every conservative tries to accomplish.

One minute we're told only an agent provacateur would burn the flag to discredit OWS. Now you're saying advising OWS to NOT burn the flag will discredit OWS.

Get a rational argument and grow up; and not necessarily in that order.

[randome]

81. Psst! I think they're on to us.

Ask Murdoch what we should do!

[sufrommich]

85. Great OP. Those who don't get it , probably never will. nt

[trumad]

88. Oh we get it...

The concern of the Op is duly noted and tucked away with the smelling salts under the sink.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

90. Apparently that's where the cogent rebuttals are kept too.

[trumad]

100. I already gave my rebuttal...

I'll do it again--- a couple of fucking flag burners aren't going to hurt the Occupy movement and those who think they will are nothing more than pearl clutching ninnies.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

108. Let me guess: you're with the PR and marketing department

[trumad]

114. PR and marketing department of OWS?

Why not---you gotta a problem with that?

Hey it's better than than your side.

[Mz Pip]

111. I see nothing wrong with constructive criticism

which is how I read this OP. For years we have had discussions on DU about how liberals, progressives and Democrats need to learn to better frame their message. George Lakoff had a good book on the subject.

Why should OWS be exempt from criticism? Are we so locked into black and white perceptions that we have lost any ability to see beyond a very narrow perspective? NOt everyone who shows up at these protests cares about solidifying a positive message. It's hardly "clutching at pearls" to point that out. These incidents of violence won't end OWS but it won't help either.

[trumad]

118. because it is a broad brush of the movement.

and it's a broad brush from a member who continually attacks OWS.

[redqueen]

119. Is every criticism that it was a bad idea

also from members who continually attack OWS?

I support OWS, but I think this is counterproductive.

[Summer Hathaway]

116. Excellent OP!

As have been all of your responses to those in this thread.

[EFerrari]

120. If you were more interested in social justice than gotcha, this thread would be about

the much greater violence that the OPD did as an agency this weekend, in concert with numerous other agencies, and not on the behavior of a handful of protesters in Oakland.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

131. If flag-burners were interested in social justice

they'd be working to gain broad public support and doing things that make substanitive changes rather than just freaking the norms so they can pretend they're oh-so-cool.

There is never an excuse for violence and destruction -- from either side. But you have a long history here of supporting brutality and repression so long as it is aginast people you don't approve of so I don't really think you would-be moralising lectures mean much.

[wildeyed]

124. Flag burning is boring.

Been done. They may be getting attention by doing it, but they are not saying anything that anyone is much interested in hearing.

[Bonobo]

129. Raising flag burning beyond its import is a tactic designed to smear.

And if you think that the name "nuclear unicorn" is not transparent in its spiteful sarcasm, think again.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

130. Let me see if I get this straight

A bunch of clique-ish agitators deliberately act-out to get attention without accomplishing anything but I'm supposedly smearing them for noticing the fact they're trying to get our attention and haven't accomplished anything.

[Bonobo]

132. Actually you don't have it and I am not sure you are capable of "getting it". nt

[Chill Keney]

133. It makes it easy for wingnuts

to portray OWS as "anti-American" when in fact it is quintessentially American to protest. But word of advice: Leave the flag alone. Bad "optics".

[Rex]

135. I doubt it.

It was agents trying to disrupt OWS. They will never win those silly billys.