Open Letter to Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi (Chancellor of UC Davis)(bicyclebarricade.wordpress.com)
bicyclebarricade.wordpress.com
Open Letter to Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi (Chancellor of UC Davis)
http://bicyclebarricade.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/open-letter-to-chancellor-linda-p-b-katehi/
36 comments
If you look at the next post on the blog, there is a video of, what looks to be the first, pepper spray usage.
I hope that this usage wasn't condoned.
I hope that this usage wasn't condoned.
If you're in a situation where a police officer is entitled to arrest you, but he physically can't arrest you because you're sitting on the ground with your arms linked with somebody else, then the police officer is entitled to use reasonable force in order to arrest you. Pepper spray is the least dangerous way (to you) to do this -- all other possibilities run the risk of breaking your arms.
I'm really sick of this game, though. The game where protestors deliberately work as hard as they possibly can in order to provoke a police response, and then whine about the police response. This is a game the police can't possibly win, and the protestors know it; that's why they play it. If the police don't respond, then the protestors will just escalate their douchiness until they do.
I know this game, it's the game I used to play with my older brother. Harass him until he hits me, and then go whine to my parents. It was pretty douchey of me, but hey, I was a kid. These kids are supposed to be grown up, what's their excuse?
I'm really sick of this game, though. The game where protestors deliberately work as hard as they possibly can in order to provoke a police response, and then whine about the police response. This is a game the police can't possibly win, and the protestors know it; that's why they play it. If the police don't respond, then the protestors will just escalate their douchiness until they do.
I know this game, it's the game I used to play with my older brother. Harass him until he hits me, and then go whine to my parents. It was pretty douchey of me, but hey, I was a kid. These kids are supposed to be grown up, what's their excuse?
> It's called being a complete cunt to your fellow human beings
I can certainly agree that the policeman in question fits that description. But I'm sure he was "just following orders", which included the very urgent task of clearing some random sidewalk in a park. Although who is the bigger piece of shit depends in part on whether he was indeed ordered to do it, or was simply a poorly trained hothead acting without authorization (the police are sadly not empty of of power-hungry assholes who will use any excuse to "teach people a lesson", though I don't think such bad apples are quite as common as some people allege).
Frankly, I'm sick of people such as yourself cheerleading violence against people you don't like, WWF-style, because you're fighting some sort of culture war against the imagined enemy of hippiedom, and feel that you can use any means necessary to fight it, including violent ones. That sort of playground bullshit is to be expected in kids, but you're grown up, so what's your excuse for not applying some rational analysis to the pros/cons of using violence?
Actually, in the kid example, I blame the kid who punched there too. Poor impulse control isn't a justification for violence, and kids like that, if that behavior isn't fixed, often grow up to be violent adults who get "provoked" into fights, justifying it, just like the kid, by blaming someone else for "forcing" them to throw a punch in the bar.
I can certainly agree that the policeman in question fits that description. But I'm sure he was "just following orders", which included the very urgent task of clearing some random sidewalk in a park. Although who is the bigger piece of shit depends in part on whether he was indeed ordered to do it, or was simply a poorly trained hothead acting without authorization (the police are sadly not empty of of power-hungry assholes who will use any excuse to "teach people a lesson", though I don't think such bad apples are quite as common as some people allege).
Frankly, I'm sick of people such as yourself cheerleading violence against people you don't like, WWF-style, because you're fighting some sort of culture war against the imagined enemy of hippiedom, and feel that you can use any means necessary to fight it, including violent ones. That sort of playground bullshit is to be expected in kids, but you're grown up, so what's your excuse for not applying some rational analysis to the pros/cons of using violence?
Actually, in the kid example, I blame the kid who punched there too. Poor impulse control isn't a justification for violence, and kids like that, if that behavior isn't fixed, often grow up to be violent adults who get "provoked" into fights, justifying it, just like the kid, by blaming someone else for "forcing" them to throw a punch in the bar.
And comments like these are the reason that this story should never have been submitted, and hopefully will be removed asap.
If you don't want to see intemperate comments calling people cunts, it's in your power to stop that by not posting them. Nobody's even making you click on the story or comments at all!
Nobody's even making you click on the story or comments at all!
So why have any submission guidelines at all then?
So why have any submission guidelines at all then?
To minimize the amount of unwanted comments.
After all these are submission GUIDELINES - not submission LAW.
And between startup hustle, scala and lolcats there is a wide array of possibilities. When an unwanted submission appears it is either A) Ignored or B) Upvoted.
If you don't agree with submission you can flag it and after enough members of community have done so it will go away.
There is really no need for some of us going around and act rude towards people who have different tastes/priorities.
This kind of holistic argument contributes way more noise than the stories themselves.
After all these are submission GUIDELINES - not submission LAW.
And between startup hustle, scala and lolcats there is a wide array of possibilities. When an unwanted submission appears it is either A) Ignored or B) Upvoted.
If you don't agree with submission you can flag it and after enough members of community have done so it will go away.
There is really no need for some of us going around and act rude towards people who have different tastes/priorities.
This kind of holistic argument contributes way more noise than the stories themselves.
I don't mind the bit which calls people cunts (and I apologize for the fact that I deleted that particular bit in favour of a pithier bit while you were writing your own comment), it's everything else.
The game where protestors deliberately work as hard as they possibly can in order to provoke a police response, and then whine about the police response. This is a game the police can't possibly win, and the protestors know it; that's why they play it.
The protesters should adopt this tactic widely: sit on the ground, link arms, and force the hand of the police: "pepper spray me, I dare you". The police are entitled, indeed obligated to arrest them, after all.
The protesters should adopt this tactic widely: sit on the ground, link arms, and force the hand of the police: "pepper spray me, I dare you". The police are entitled, indeed obligated to arrest them, after all.
The protesters should adopt this tactic widely: sit on the ground, link arms, and force the hand of the police: "pepper spray me, I dare you". The police are entitled, indeed obligated to arrest them, after all.
First off, "obligated" isn't a word. The word is "obliged".
Secondly, what do you mean "they should"? They already do. It's the number one move in the left-wing activist's playbook -- provoke the police until they use force, and then go play the victim card to the media.
Blame for the widespread nature of this tactic belongs partly with the protestors, and partly with the media who go along with it. Sensible people should reject this game, because it just makes life worse for everybody.
You got pepper-sprayed? Diddums, mate, that's exactly what you wanted to happen.
The Tea Party proved that you can have a mass protest movement that doesn't get in the way of others, and doesn't break the law. Unfortunately it also proved that a nonviolent protest needs to be ten times larger than a violent protest in order to get the same amount of media attention.
First off, "obligated" isn't a word. The word is "obliged".
Secondly, what do you mean "they should"? They already do. It's the number one move in the left-wing activist's playbook -- provoke the police until they use force, and then go play the victim card to the media.
Blame for the widespread nature of this tactic belongs partly with the protestors, and partly with the media who go along with it. Sensible people should reject this game, because it just makes life worse for everybody.
You got pepper-sprayed? Diddums, mate, that's exactly what you wanted to happen.
The Tea Party proved that you can have a mass protest movement that doesn't get in the way of others, and doesn't break the law. Unfortunately it also proved that a nonviolent protest needs to be ten times larger than a violent protest in order to get the same amount of media attention.
First off, "obligated" isn't a word. The word is "obliged".
Hugh --
I frequently agree with what you have to say, but have trouble with the way that you are saying it. I worry that your rhetoric gets in the way of your point. I love that you are offering a refreshing opinion, but it would be great if you could do it in a less offensive manner.
To wit, saying "First off X isn't a word" is offensive and impolite even if you are right. There are many non-English speakers in this forum, and being pedantic where the meaning is clear is counter-productive. In this case it's even worse, because you are pedantic and wrong. This makes it hard for me (and presumably others) to consider the point you are making without prejudice. I think I actually I agree with what you are saying, but now I have to worry that others will tar me with the same brush.
Here's Merriam-Webster's dictionary on the distinction between "oblige" and "obligate": http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=PA675
Hugh --
I frequently agree with what you have to say, but have trouble with the way that you are saying it. I worry that your rhetoric gets in the way of your point. I love that you are offering a refreshing opinion, but it would be great if you could do it in a less offensive manner.
To wit, saying "First off X isn't a word" is offensive and impolite even if you are right. There are many non-English speakers in this forum, and being pedantic where the meaning is clear is counter-productive. In this case it's even worse, because you are pedantic and wrong. This makes it hard for me (and presumably others) to consider the point you are making without prejudice. I think I actually I agree with what you are saying, but now I have to worry that others will tar me with the same brush.
Here's Merriam-Webster's dictionary on the distinction between "oblige" and "obligate": http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&pg=PA675
I'm not sure if this is a troll or not but I'll bite.
> First off, "obligated" isn't a word. The word is "obliged".
First off, "obligated" is a word; look it up.
> Secondly, what do you mean "they should"?
Did you really completely miss pradocchia's sarcasm? Really?
> …provoke the police until they use force…
I didn't realise that silently sitting down and staying still was considered a method of provocation.
> First off, "obligated" isn't a word. The word is "obliged".
First off, "obligated" is a word; look it up.
> Secondly, what do you mean "they should"?
Did you really completely miss pradocchia's sarcasm? Really?
> …provoke the police until they use force…
I didn't realise that silently sitting down and staying still was considered a method of provocation.
Her apparent response:
http://chancellor.ucdavis.edu/messages/2011/protest_action_1...
http://chancellor.ucdavis.edu/messages/2011/protest_action_1...
That is crazy Orwellian. "We have an obligation to your parents to keep you safe, so we're going to beat you with batons and shoot pepper spray down your throats".
It's especially bizarre given that the majority of college students are 18+. What obligation do you have to the parents of a 20 year old? Your obligations are solely to your students.
In theory, college students are adults.
These kids, though, don't seem to be acting like it. They think they're playing a game.
These kids, though, don't seem to be acting like it. They think they're playing a game.
No, they don't. They are fully aware of what they are doing, the history behind it, and the possible consequences of their actions. They are doing it because it is the right thing to do. In a time such as this, where the only voice you are left with is protest, then protest is the right way to use your voice.
This is a pretty strange sentence: We are even more saddened by the events that subsequently transpired to facilitate their removal.
The only sentence in the statement that seems to actually refer to the actions being criticized, and written in the most indirect/vague possible manner.
The only sentence in the statement that seems to actually refer to the actions being criticized, and written in the most indirect/vague possible manner.
It's interesting that the letter doesn't raise objections about the way that police used the pepper spray guns. Presumably they are given guidance on how they are allowed to use them that does not include forcing it into a persons mouth and spraying it down their throat.
I though cops //theoretically// weren't allowed on campus?
It seems that an exception to the rule is if the university calls them.
Last week[1] students at my university (in Montreal), went into the Administration building and tried to occupy the offices of the principal. This is, apparently[2], something we have a tradition of doing every time someone tries to increase the tuition fees. Long story short, campus security didn't know what to do, there was also a bit of a hostage situation[3] going on, and so the cops were called. (By whom?) The the cops called the riot squad and then batons and pepper spray ensued.
Speaking of which, does anybody know what the cops spray people with? If you have a bottle of water with you and you wash your eyes are you OK? Or do you need another solution?
[1] http://www.mcgilltribune.com/news/riot-police-at-mcgill-1.26... [2] http://news-archive.mcgill.ca/w97/salaries.htm [3] www.mcgilltribune.com/opinion/we-too-are-mcgill-1.2707960?compArticle=yes
It seems that an exception to the rule is if the university calls them.
Last week[1] students at my university (in Montreal), went into the Administration building and tried to occupy the offices of the principal. This is, apparently[2], something we have a tradition of doing every time someone tries to increase the tuition fees. Long story short, campus security didn't know what to do, there was also a bit of a hostage situation[3] going on, and so the cops were called. (By whom?) The the cops called the riot squad and then batons and pepper spray ensued.
Speaking of which, does anybody know what the cops spray people with? If you have a bottle of water with you and you wash your eyes are you OK? Or do you need another solution?
[1] http://www.mcgilltribune.com/news/riot-police-at-mcgill-1.26... [2] http://news-archive.mcgill.ca/w97/salaries.htm [3] www.mcgilltribune.com/opinion/we-too-are-mcgill-1.2707960?compArticle=yes
This varies by country; some countries have laws keeping police off campus, for various historical reasons. Some date back to the semi-independence of medieval universities, which weren't supposed to be harassed by the local authorities; others are more recent laws, e.g. Greece's "university asylum" law was a reaction to police raids on campuses by the '67-'74 military dictatorship.
The U.S. doesn't have any particular no-police-on-campus rules, although they do have an interesting arrangement in many cases, including this one, where the campus police have been upgraded to "real" police, and non-university police are not usually allowed on campus, because it's not in their jurisdiction. How they relate to the university administration tends to be complex, but the goal is to make some mixture of a regular police force and a campus-security force: more "official" than only a campus security force, but university-controlled, like a campus-security force would be, as opposed to having city-controlled police on campus.
It usually actually works pretty well, I think. Incidents like this are a lot less common than they might be with a regular police force, and many campus police have a geniune interest in keeping campuses calm and defusing confrontations. Even in this video, you can see that only one cop is really acting out of line, and many of the others look a bit uncomfortable with what's going on (especially when he's taking other cops' bottles of pepper spray to go back for more).
The U.S. doesn't have any particular no-police-on-campus rules, although they do have an interesting arrangement in many cases, including this one, where the campus police have been upgraded to "real" police, and non-university police are not usually allowed on campus, because it's not in their jurisdiction. How they relate to the university administration tends to be complex, but the goal is to make some mixture of a regular police force and a campus-security force: more "official" than only a campus security force, but university-controlled, like a campus-security force would be, as opposed to having city-controlled police on campus.
It usually actually works pretty well, I think. Incidents like this are a lot less common than they might be with a regular police force, and many campus police have a geniune interest in keeping campuses calm and defusing confrontations. Even in this video, you can see that only one cop is really acting out of line, and many of the others look a bit uncomfortable with what's going on (especially when he's taking other cops' bottles of pepper spray to go back for more).
Here's a video of one of the incidents: http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/11/uc-davis-cops-pepp.... No idea whether those are UC or local police.
Pepper spray (what is apparently used in that video) is supposed to be extremely painful, and pain lasts for about half an hour. Rinsing eyes with lots of water can help, though that may not be an option as the order is generally to pepper-spray, then handcuff. Apparently a 50-50 solution of Malox and water is preferable to straight water. Hold head to side when rinsing, so water drips off, not down body.
Pepper spray (what is apparently used in that video) is supposed to be extremely painful, and pain lasts for about half an hour. Rinsing eyes with lots of water can help, though that may not be an option as the order is generally to pepper-spray, then handcuff. Apparently a 50-50 solution of Malox and water is preferable to straight water. Hold head to side when rinsing, so water drips off, not down body.
I though cops //theoretically// weren't allowed on campus?
lolwut? UC Davis has its own police force.
lolwut? UC Davis has its own police force.
The strongest feeling that this open letter communicates is how strongly the author views himself. Starting with "I am an asset...you are not" and peppered throughout with "I [verb]" statements, this just reads as an exercise in self-promotion.
There must be plenty of support with other faculty, where a simple and coherent statement could be made as a group. But the author apparently felt the need to jump out ahead of that with an open letter. How revolutionary.
There must be plenty of support with other faculty, where a simple and coherent statement could be made as a group. But the author apparently felt the need to jump out ahead of that with an open letter. How revolutionary.
It's because of his role in Davis that makes this more credible. It shows how much he just as much, if not less, in to the UC Davis community. It can mean more if it was made as a group, but other faculty may not have agreed with everything he has said. Anyways, I don't see how can you even say this is a self-promotion.
Very very very very very very very flagged.
Seriously, this got 76 upvotes? What do you think this is?
Seriously, this got 76 upvotes? What do you think this is?
Again, very interesting story, but off-topic: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
On reddit, I'd be in /r/politics.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
On reddit, I'd be in /r/politics.
I find the comments within stories, that have nothing more to add than "This is Offtopic" way more distracting than the stories themselves, even if they are offtopic.
So I see this story, it seems offtopic but intriguing nonetheless. I see there are comments, I click on comments. And what do I get? A gang of self righteous internet citizens informing me that I am not interested in this story and/or debate.
Thank you very much, may I be in charge for a while?
If you have a problem with story, go and flag it. Preferably just ignore it - it will go away on its own. But don't go around pointing it out. Else you might be caught off guard by the shitstorm of down votes that is going to hit you.
Attitudes like this also belong on /r/whatever.
So I see this story, it seems offtopic but intriguing nonetheless. I see there are comments, I click on comments. And what do I get? A gang of self righteous internet citizens informing me that I am not interested in this story and/or debate.
Thank you very much, may I be in charge for a while?
If you have a problem with story, go and flag it. Preferably just ignore it - it will go away on its own. But don't go around pointing it out. Else you might be caught off guard by the shitstorm of down votes that is going to hit you.
Attitudes like this also belong on /r/whatever.
It's not a question of whether it's interesting, it's a question of whether it's on-topic. Certain things are off-topic, because they have a tendency to invite bad comments which drive out good discussion.
I'm interested in pictures of cute cats and big tits, as well, but they're not suitable subjects for this site either.
I'm interested in pictures of cute cats and big tits, as well, but they're not suitable subjects for this site either.
And your bitching all over this thread is off topic on all the counts.
Especially the topic of this thread, which is not "What is or is not on topic on HN".
GET OFF MY LAWN!
Especially the topic of this thread, which is not "What is or is not on topic on HN".
GET OFF MY LAWN!
You're right. Meanwhile, a story about Arrested Development being shown only on Netflix appears to be unquestionably on topic.
Indeed it is. That's a tech story, of direct relevance to the core topic here, since it's an important milestone in the internet and entertainment industry. Netflix has never before exclusively acquired a show, particularly not a popular one, for streaming purposes. The story generated an interesting discussion about the future of these two industries.
This story, on the other hand, is not just a political story but political activism, and needs to be nuked off the face of HN with extreme prejudice, because they're like weeds and have a tendency to take over.
The distinction is that people submit and upvote stories like these not because they think they're intellectually interesting, but because they're trying to make something happen politically.
This story, on the other hand, is not just a political story but political activism, and needs to be nuked off the face of HN with extreme prejudice, because they're like weeds and have a tendency to take over.
The distinction is that people submit and upvote stories like these not because they think they're intellectually interesting, but because they're trying to make something happen politically.
I'd have to disagree with your interpretation of the guidelines.
"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."
I would say that this is interesting and gratifies one's intellectual curiosity - especially for the questions it raises regarding pepper spray usage and police enforcement, along with the wider questions from the various Occupy movements.
"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."
I would say that this is interesting and gratifies one's intellectual curiosity - especially for the questions it raises regarding pepper spray usage and police enforcement, along with the wider questions from the various Occupy movements.
There's a closer connection. HN's population certainly overlaps with the population of US students, and i'd argue that the University of California system is particularly interesting/relevant within the student bodies in the US.
When you have faculty members calling for the resignation of one of the UC chancellors, especially in what i'd argue is fairly legitimate grounds (physical harm to unarmed, peaceful students), that is actually a subject of interest.
When you have faculty members calling for the resignation of one of the UC chancellors, especially in what i'd argue is fairly legitimate grounds (physical harm to unarmed, peaceful students), that is actually a subject of interest.
On a number of different subreddits, sure. But on Hacker News?
One question is whether this is primarily a matter of bad policy, or of bad training. Are police officers using pepper spray, for example, in situations that policy does not call for, due to some hotheads being angry at protestors? Or are they acting properly according to the policy, so it's the policy/superiors who are at fault?