The OWS is only a movement because the Tea Party is a polar opposite movement. Either way, people want to keep more of their own money. You can add all the rhetoric you like, you are never going to stop people from wanting to keep more of their own money.
oh please, tell me how you came to that conclusion? What do the dirty, stinky, pinko commies want for free from the taxpayer?
Free health care
Free college education
Free "living wage of $20 an hour regardless of position or even employement (how does that work out?)
Forgiveness of all loans for..everyone...everywhere.
The Occupied Houston crowd even wanted free power, tents, and water for their protest from City Hall (which means I pay for them).
If you are concerned about their welfare and hygiene there are plenty of places you can go to donate water, food, toothbrushes, etc to the cause. I appreciate your concern for the protesters welfare.
Seriously? I'm not concern at all. Again piss poor planning from individuals who are protesting. Water like a dollar...since they're camping..or were camping they had spicket water. Food....WTF Chuck McD's have a dollar menu, toothbrushes...are freaking kidding me? I wash my teeth with toothpaste on my fingers before and shower with bottle waters. Unbelievable. I swear if I see a OWS donation person near a Salvation Army donation person I will purposedly go out my way and get a $100 bill. Walk by the OWS person and literally show them the hundred as I walk by and drop it into the Salvation ARMY donation kettle.
If you are concerned about their welfare and hygiene there are plenty of places you can go to donate water, food, toothbrushes, etc to the cause. I appreciate your concern for the protesters welfare.
Seriously? I'm not concern at all. Again piss poor planning from individuals who are protesting. Water like a dollar...since they're camping..or were camping they had spicket water. Food....WTF Chuck McD's have a dollar menu, toothbrushes...are freaking kidding me? I wash my teeth with toothpaste on my fingers before and shower with bottle waters. Unbelievable. I swear if I see a OWS donation person near a Salvation Army donation person I will purposedly go out my way and get a $100 bill. Walk by the OWS person and literally show them the hundred as I walk by and drop it into the Salvation ARMY donation kettle.
SERIOUSLY?
Dude seriously????
Get 100 $1 bills instead. Show each one to the OWS guy and then put it in the SA pot.
For the record SA has one of the highest actual donation % vs. overhead of any charity. Momma Frazzled was a hard core supporter of SA.
God I can't wait for old age to mercifully bring the last baby boomer down
Are we not a product from those generations?
Nope I was raised by my grandparents. My baby Boomer parents were too busy seeking out the American dream to be parents. As so many other baby boomers chose to do as well judging by the choked Foster kid programs all over when I was a kid. My theory is baby boomers are most of what's wrong with this country. I could be wrong but since frazzled was generalizing a whole group of people I thought I'd give it a go as well.
@Frazzled no I don't think you're a baby Boomer (actually I hadn't considered it). I don't wish you would die of old age really. I was trying to find the silliest comparison generalization that I could. Not to say that I think you should die of old age.
<text redacted; you should understand that I would cheerfully fight for your right to free speech in the face of government action, but Dakka is a private entity - we're free to enforce restrictions on your language that the government is prohibited from doing; post politely, or you'll begin losing the privilege of posting at all --Janthkin>
TheHammer wrote:When people are getting sexually excited by the thought of assaulting their fellow citizens am I allowed to call those people fascists? Between that and their "might makes right" attitude and I seriously can not think of any other word.
Also, it's cute that I get censored for calling such people out for their ugliness yet the whole thread is full of these people putting down the OWS and its people. Maybe I'm the only one to have gone to participate, but there appears to be a little bit of a double standard.
It's also cute that my entire post was modified.
My point remains. The very fascists in this thread that get sexually excited by the thoughts of using water canons on their fellow citizens would also want to do the same for the Sit Ins during the Civil Rights Movement. Or is there a huge difference I'm not seeing? Both groups are breaking the law to do what they think is best.
This might be helpful. Dakka rule #1 is be polite. That means be polite to other posters and mods (except Malfred and Alpharius, unless you're ok with sterno drinkers they are free game). Trashing ethnicities is bad. Trashing genders is bad. Trashing nationalities is bad (Liechtenstein in general and the willingness of France to surrender being obvious exceptions).
trashing religions outside the OT is bad. Trashing the great of Her Mauleed is bad.
Of course as I've seen placards and chants by OWS members stating they want to harm Bankers (saw one the other day in person that said Zionist Bankers... ) I guess I could call them Nazis too.
dogma wrote:
That's not strictly true. Effective initiatives for political change (protests, revolutions, whatever) generally start with a core group of people who have a specific agenda in mind. There people then work to communicate their agenda to more people, hopefully motivating them to action. You don't simply stir up resentment with respect to the system without first presenting a coherent, alternative vision. If you do you run the risk having your work co-opted by political opportunists (this happened, to some extent, with the Tea Party, and is happening to OWS), which ultimately leads to, at best, a broken political movement and at worst an especially messy transition.
In the old days. You are correct. Now days, things can be a bit more bottom up, with less hierarchy thanks to the internet.
Modern organizational structures don;t have to be so top-down focused. Instead, they can focus more on integrated effort, cooperation, many power sources, and nonhierarchical networks. That's part of the communication revolution.
dogma wrote:
They have provided insight to people who follow political issues, now they have to inspire commitment from large numbers of largely non-political people.
I've not seen much insight in anything done by any member of OWS. Its anti-corporatist, which is nice, but no more insightful (or important) than the Adbusters magazine that initially inspired the movement. In fact, I would argue that OWS has largely failed to communicate a message of any significance to people that follow political issues, and has instead skipped straight to what you call the "inspire commitment" phase; which is largely why its such a mess.
Perhaps. But the discussion is no longer exclusively about debit reduction and slashing entitlements. Now, wealth and income inequality has re-entered the discussion.
At least for the short term.
Edit: @TheHammer- You are not the only one here who has been to an occupation site.
So, since the stated intent for this afternoon is disruption of NYC subway services, who would the victims be if this goal is met? Does it hurt the "1%" or the workers of NYC and the surounding areas?
Easy E wrote:
In the old days. You are correct. Now days, things can be a bit more bottom up, with less hierarchy thanks to the internet.
You're not understanding what we're saying.
It's not just about the structure of your organization.
If OWS rubbed a magic lamp and got 3 system changing wishes, what would those wishes be? It doesn't seem like anyone knows.
If you don't have an endgame, you do not have a protest. You have to have a victory condition. What constitutes winning? If you don't have that, you can't work toward it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheHammer wrote:
My point remains. The very fascists in this thread that get sexually excited by the thoughts of using water canons on their fellow citizens would also want to do the same for the Sit Ins during the Civil Rights Movement.
This is really quite insulting to me. Please leave.
I've seen LaRouche signs at the OWS. I've seen Ron Paul signs at the OWS. I've seen people talking about wanting to organize American kibbutzim at the OWS. I've seen Latino and African nationalists at the OWS. I've seen people who only care about gay rights or the legalization of marijuana at the OWS. I've seen antisemites at the OWS. I've seen burnt out hippies wanting to relive their glory days at the OWS. I've seen IWW people at the OWS. I've seen single mothers who can not afford to raise their kids at the OWS. I've seen steel workers and truckers at the OWS.
Basically, I've seen a ton of different viewpoints and people there. Some of the views expressed there are insane. Many of the views expressed there are contradictory with other members.
The whole movement is a bit of a chimera in that you will see what you want to see in it.
For what it's worth I see a lot of people that have become increasingly alienated in our culture who are finding a community to feel a part of. That's the big take away from.
Of course I'd rather the OWS "movement" represented a desire to smash capitalism but that's simply not what it's about. There are people there with that as their goal, but it is far from the universal message.
When people like you try to paint the entire group with the ugliest of its members you are being petty and intellectually dishonest. Stop it, it's pretty awful of you.
When you talk in a way that reflects the most ugly and fascist of attitudes, views, and aesthetics it is you that owns those words. When I call you out on it it is because of the words you have typed.
When you try to paint a group you have a reactionary hatred for with the ugliest of the bunch it is because you are trying to score cheap points on the internet.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Rented, do you get excited by the thought of using a water canon on people who are exercising their First Amendment rights? Do you imagine yourself wearing a brown shirt when you do this assault? I mean, if my bringing this up insults you I think the problem is with you and not with me.
TheHammer wrote:
When you try to paint a group you have a reactionary hatred for with the ugliest of the bunch it is because you are trying to score cheap points on the internet.
You have, IN THIS THREAD, called me a nazi and a fascist.
You simply have no right to talk about "cheap points"
CptJake wrote:So, since the stated intent for this afternoon is disruption of NYC subway services, who would the victims be if this goal is met? Does it hurt the "1%" or the workers of NYC and the surounding areas?
This is a stupid decision if that's actually their stated intent, and not merely a hyperbolic piece of crap like most of the trash spewed out in to this thread.
TheHammer wrote:
I also do not believe I have called you a Nazi. As a Jewish guy with family ties to how horrible the Holocaust was that is not a line I would cross with a child on the internet.
Yes, asking if someone likes brown shirts in that context is calling them a Nazi. We're not stupid. You called me a Nazi.
TheHammer wrote: Of course I'd rather the OWS "movement" represented a desire to smash capitalism but that's simply not what it's about.
Its ironical that you screel that on a capitalist designed, manufactured, and marketed computer, using evil capitalist software, on an evil capitalist network, first envirioned by a military who's purpose is to keep the evil imperialist capitlaist dogs in power.
TheHammer wrote:
Of course I'd rather the OWS "movement" represented a desire to smash capitalism but that's simply not what it's about.
Its ironical that you screel that on a capitalist designed, manufactured, and marketed computer, using evil capitalist software, on an evil capitalist network, first envirioned by a military who's purpose is to keep the evil imperialist capitlaist dogs in power.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.
Dunno about ironic, but I think that our capitalistic system merely needs a reform, not a complete revolution. Capitalism at least mostly works, communism almost never works outside of tiny communes.
CptJake wrote:So, since the stated intent for this afternoon is disruption of NYC subway services, who would the victims be if this goal is met? Does it hurt the "1%" or the workers of NYC and the surounding areas?
This is a stupid decision if that's actually their stated intent, and not merely a hyperbolic piece of crap like most of the trash spewed out in to this thread.
TheHammer wrote:
When you try to paint a group you have a reactionary hatred for with the ugliest of the bunch it is because you are trying to score cheap points on the internet.
You have, IN THIS THREAD, called me a nazi and a fascist.
You simply have no right to talk about "cheap points"
Wait, I thought you were Bull Moose. Everything I know is a lie.
Occupy really does need to pick a topic and stick with it.
For instance, while most of the wall street execs who caused the crash broke no laws, a handful actually did. Demanding formal investigations and charges would be great.
Also, demanding that certain congressional committees more fully disclosed their conflicts of interest would be great too.
I would actually support them if they were doing things like that.
However, "ending capitalism"? Uh, no. That's stark raving mad. Capitalism is how the country exists. Capitalism is the true expression of our freedoms as Americans.
TheHammer wrote: I also do not believe I have called you a Nazi. As a Jewish guy with family ties to how horrible the Holocaust was that is not a line I would cross with a child on the internet.
Yes, asking if someone likes brown shirts in that context is calling them a Nazi. We're not stupid. You called me a Nazi.
Or a Boy Scout. I have an easy way to find out though. Do you have an affiinity for making knots, racing small slot cars and selling popcorn door to door?
TheHammer wrote:
Of course I'd rather the OWS "movement" represented a desire to smash capitalism but that's simply not what it's about.
Its ironical that you screel that on a capitalist designed, manufactured, and marketed computer, using evil capitalist software, on an evil capitalist network, first envirioned by a military who's purpose is to keep the evil imperialist capitlaist dogs in power.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.
Dunno about ironic, but I think that our capitalistic system merely needs a reform, not a complete revolution. Capitalism at least mostly works, communism almost never works outside of tiny communes.
Hey everyone look at this. MELISSA is right of thehammer.
That speaks VOLUMES.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
TheHammer wrote:
I also do not believe I have called you a Nazi. As a Jewish guy with family ties to how horrible the Holocaust was that is not a line I would cross with a child on the internet.
Yes, asking if someone likes brown shirts in that context is calling them a Nazi. We're not stupid. You called me a Nazi.
Or a Boy Scout. I have an easy way to find out though. DO you have an affiinity for making nots, racing small slot cars and selling popcorn door to door?
TheHammer wrote:You rest your case with an incredibly stupid argument?
So, if I disagree with the violent exploitation of people overseas so American companies can make money I should only do so in the forest by etching these screeds into parchment made from the hide of an elk?
If I disagree with the violent destruction of the environment and the poisoning of the airs and seas that is making the world unlivable for the least among us I should only do so by writing my displeasure on the wall of some cave?
I'm glad you rested your case so we can stop reading your utterly stupid sophistry.
Rented, you are funny. Good job, bro <3
Reported. I never called you stupid. Thanks for violating Rule #1 on its face.
Rented Tritium wrote:If their intent is to shut down the subway to inconvenience someone, then that's dumb.
If their intent is to get arrested shutting down the subway system so they can get some attention, that's smart.
I'll ask again: Who are the victims, the 1%?
Jake
Inasmuch as intending to be arrested has victims or aggressors, it's absolutely going to be normal people and not the 1%. But if the purpose is just to get on the news and stay talked about, it's a reasonable strategy.
That said, if there was something they could get in the way of that disproportionately affected the 1% or more importantly, the congress that gives them things, that would be WAY more optimal of a target than this.
Why do we have to immediately brand someone as left or right? I reject that whole idea that you MUST be one way or the other.
I have strong opinions about a lot of things, some are considered left, some are considered right by these arbitrary standards. Is it human nature to physiologically NEED to organize everyone into one camp or another simply by their ideas? Or is it ignorance and fear of things we don't understand?
TheHammer wrote:You rest your case with an incredibly stupid argument?
So, if I disagree with the violent exploitation of people overseas so American companies can make money I should only do so in the forest by etching these screeds into parchment made from the hide of an elk?
If I disagree with the violent destruction of the environment and the poisoning of the airs and seas that is making the world unlivable for the least among us I should only do so by writing my displeasure on the wall of some cave?
I'm glad you rested your case so we can stop reading your utterly stupid sophistry.
Rented, you are funny. Good job, bro <3
I'm not even sure what your points are referring to. We haven't even TALKED about those things and I believe I've been clear that the right to protest is important.
But I'd rather just post my reaction to this post than really break it down and respond.
Easy E wrote:
Some Occupy people in Florida protested and marched in front of a Yacht Show, is that acceptable?
Haha, yes! That's excellent!
They STILL need specific demands and they STILL need to get onto washington more for just giving corporations whatever they ask for, but yes, Yacht show protests would be perfectly appropriate for their position!
Frazzled wrote:As long as they do it before the next hurricane season. Don't want to be caught with your pants down protesting when a hurricane appears.
Frazzled wrote:As long as they do it before the next hurricane season. Don't want to be caught with your pants down protesting when a hurricane appears.
Melissia wrote:This is a stupid decision if that's actually their stated intent, and not merely a hyperbolic piece of crap like most of the trash spewed out in to this thread.
Rented, do you get excited by the thought of using a water canon on people who are exercising their First Amendment rights? Do you imagine yourself wearing a brown shirt when you do this assault? I mean, if my bringing this up insults you I think the problem is with you and not with me.
Not Rented. Got the wrong person. Tis was me. If you read further back on the thread you see why I wanted to man the water cannon. I can't stand disorganization. Think its where I mention lawful and unlawful orders when someone ask me who I would support. OWS or the gov't. By my avatar you can see who I have to support
Some of you all need to take a step back and remember to breathe. With all the MOD censors its starting to look like an arterial bleed. Yes I acknowledge the 2nd warning of posting non warhammer pics. Pics of actual combat counts right?
protest organizers have said that no such plan exists, (shutting down the subways) that the goal is to gather at various subway stations and hand out flyers.
If the protestors were good capitalists, they would get evening jobs or start up a port-a-potty service or hot dog cart for the protestors in the park.
I don't think it is right to shut down the Subway's when the meatball sub is the $5 footlong of the month. That just hurts everyone.
And let's get our emotions under control and not start insulting the water cannon, it is just an innocent tool that is only guilty of being fun and awesome.
TheHammer wrote:Great, so you would support local and state governments that were beating up, unleashing dogs, and using water canons on Civil Rights protesters?
<3
I keep coming back to this thread to see what he'll come up with next! TheHammer, Ladies and Gentlemen! *Gets Popcorn*
TheHammer wrote:Great, so you would support local and state governments that were beating up, unleashing dogs, and using water canons on Civil Rights protesters?
<3
You may just want to look up the unit history of the 101st and the Little Rock 9 before making asinine statements.
How is my statement asinine? Do soldiers who follow a moral order exonerate themselves when they follow an immoral order?
Jihadin is very clear that he will support the law and government over all else. That means he will sometimes do something good like help the Little Rock 9.
TheHammer wrote:Great, so you would support local and state governments that were beating up, unleashing dogs, and using water canons on Civil Rights protesters?
<3
You may just want to look up the unit history of the 101st and the Little Rock 9 before making asinine statements.
TheHammer wrote:How is my statement asinine? Do soldiers who follow a moral order exonerate themselves when they follow an immoral order?
Jihadin is very clear that he will support the law and government over all else. That means he will sometimes do something good like help the Little Rock 9.
It also means he'll do this:
How is your statement asinine?
Troops on top. Cops and Fire on bottom.
Besides that you are the only one in this thread who managed to miss that the water cannon bit has to do with IT'S A fething WATER CANNON, and not "boo hoo everyone who has thier feeling hurt should camp under an overpass in Fresno, I mean NYC"
Here you go. The gist of the water cannon was its being part of the biggest water fight I can get into so I can say "I WIN". As for you insinuating I will unleash dogs...get in the right time frame..I will personnaly shoot the dog dead if one of
my soldiers
unleash the canine. If I won't do it on insurgents I sure as heck won't condone it on anybody else. By no means I'm wounded by your insinuation Hammer....you don't meet the height requirement to even attempt that.
And what about the hundreds of vets and current serving members of the military who counter the movement?
I would say maturity have a role in my/theirs view point. Most of our early adult life is regimentize. We learn that for something needs to happen one has to make happen. Also pride is another. Very few once leaving active duty service file for unemployment for up to a year and ride it out.
The other reason to counter is "whining". Whining loses you a bit of credibility. Yes I know OWS is a protest but its not organize as like a Tea Party Protest as a comparison.
Organization is another. Some serious lack of it and eventually the unions and what have you are trying to guide them into something they're not really conforming to. With organization one would at least know how to actualy protest, knowing the ordinance/law concerning the area they're protesting in (knowing that they cannot build a tent city and living there 24/7 is against the law) Its their responsibility to know the law and what they can and cannot do while they protest.
Responsibility of one actions. If one instigate a law enforcement officer then one should know the peril he/she going to get into. If one is being instigated by a law enforcement officer then one needs to step behind the line to defuse the escalation. Example be US troops approaching a mosque to get the shooters from there which drew a lot of attention and a riot almost insued cause of their action. Command was giving to take knee and smile at the locals. Tension level dropped. Responsibility also let one know where to urinate and defecate in a facility then instead of on the ground in a public place.
well...to name a few.
Hypothetically speaking if a war broke out between two groups over weather the current government threatened the constitution, who would you wide with? The people claiming to want to restore and protect the Constitution or the POTUS and Congress?
halonachos cover that quite well for me. The military takes it commands from the PROTUS who is our Commander in Chief who was duly elected by the people..well...electoral. Before I go further I want to clarify a lawful order to an unlawful order:
If I'm order to maintain a line to keep the protest from spreading I will hold the line. I will not advance the line nor withdraw the line. If my line is pressed then I've no issue for my soldiers to zipcuff an individual who's trying to instigate a altercation with my soldier. I lot of us wear combat gloves that have hardened plastic knuckles to put someone in the right frame of mind after two hits. Thats a lawful order being carried out. If my soldier commits to repeatedly beat a insurg...eerrrr protestor beyond reasonable then he took it upon himself to break a lawful order and he better be willing to face remaficatin of the action he took.
If I'm called upon to fire into the crowd without being fired upon then thats an unlawful order and will not be followed. Unless some idiot has a weapon in the crowd and willing to use it. There be so many flashbangs thrown to take down the "Hero" it would not be funny. I will advance my line pass the main line of resistence to secure the protestors and shooter (everyone gets zippedcuff). If someone pulls a assualt rifle out from the protestor side so be it. One can wave it around and what not but unless he points the weapon at us then I'm sure the police sniper will take care of him for us if not then I will give the order to take him out with my designated shooter. Its still a lawful order since now we're at deadly force level.
If orders came down to secure the leaders of the protest its unlawful. I have to wait for the leaders to instigate against my soldiers. I will not order my troops to go in to get a leader.
Saw them trying to create traffic jams and running around screaming on subways today. Harassing working class people isn't going to help their movement much.
Harriticus wrote:Saw them trying to create traffic jams and running around screaming on subways today. Harassing working class people isn't going to help their movement much.
Warning: Sarcasm follows
Surely they were just passing out flyers to willing recipients.
Show me a day when someone isn't running around on the NYC subways screaming and causing traffic jams. The stuff about the subways was a lie.
Besides, interfering with the NYC subways makes no sense, how can that have any protest-worthy value? Someone tweeted it and everyone went bat-crap crazy over it.
A few small groups tried to take advantage of an opportunity to cause some mayhem. It's the same thing that happened with the UK riots a month or so ago, just small groups of people getting caught up in the mob mentality.
I meant repost, my iPhone deliberately makes ke look like an idiot. It insists on changing the word sniper into feathers too...I'm still trying to figure that out.
Not really, I grew up in a house with no indoor pluming and electricity from a generator that barely runs a toaster. I got my first cell phone at 20. I'm pretty sure I could give it all back up.
dsteingass wrote:Show me a day when someone isn't running around on the NYC subways screaming and causing traffic jams. The stuff about the subways was a lie.
Besides, interfering with the NYC subways makes no sense, how can that have any protest-worthy value? Someone tweeted it and everyone went bat-crap crazy over it. A few small groups tried to take advantage of an opportunity to cause some mayhem. It's the same thing that happened with the UK riots a month or so ago, just small groups of people getting caught up in the mob mentality.
Except OWS also posted it to their website as part of their plan for the day. But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
Easy E wrote:
In the old days. You are correct. Now days, things can be a bit more bottom up, with less hierarchy thanks to the internet.
Modern organizational structures don;t have to be so top-down focused. Instead, they can focus more on integrated effort, cooperation, many power sources, and nonhierarchical networks. That's part of the communication revolution.
I don't see why the communication revolution suddenly makes the basic principles of organizing large groups of people inviolate. People may be able to communicate faster, and more easily, but ultimately mobilizing a coherent group of people with the purpose of conveying a message in a physical manner still requires a fairly rigid hierarchy. Moreover, integrated effort, cooperation, and the presence of many sources of power were hallmarks of mass movements for political change in the past, the internet hasn't suddenly introduced them.
Additionally, its important to realize that mass communication is a double-edged sword in terms of organization because, while it allows you to reach more people more easily, it also allows people to reach each other; which means the idiots are allowed a voice and that's bad for everyone.
Easy E wrote:
Perhaps. But the discussion is no longer exclusively about debit reduction and slashing entitlements. Now, wealth and income inequality has re-entered the discussion.
OWS website wrote:• Blockade of all Entry-Points to NYSE; hundreds participate in nonviolence civil disobedience
Specific to the subways:
OWS website wrote:URGENT: to the 72% of NYC Residents who Support Occupy Wall Street: WE NEED YOU NOW! Posted 14 hours ago on Nov. 17, 2011, 2:50 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt
We are gathering at 3PM today at subway stations across the five burroughs. We will occupy the subway, and convene at Foley Square tonight at 5PM.
That has nothing to do with a terrorism attack against the subways like you OP. They are making the trip from the borroughs to Foley Square. No one ever talked about a terrorism attack aka interfering with the subways. It just isnt there, i'm sorry. You want that to happen so you can bitch, but i'm sorry, there is no proof to the claim that you made.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote:So, since the stated intent for this afternoon is disruption of NYC subway services, who would the victims be if this goal is met? Does it hurt the "1%" or the workers of NYC and the surounding areas?
You spun this to say that their "stated intent for this afternoon is disruption of NYC subway services" it was not. Was this what you WANTED them to say because it fit your view? This is in fact, baseless. Do you know what/Where Foley Station is? If their goal was to disrupt subway service, then how the hell were they supposed to get from the borroughs TO foley station by 5? The plans were to
1.enter the subway in the borroughs,
2. hand out flyers peaceably (which is legal and constitutional for everyone whether you want to believe it or not
3. meet at foley station.
I don't care how much you WANTED the thing to escalate to a threat against the NYC subway system, which is terrorism, and would have solidified your view against them ALL as subhuman.
Please quote where I mentioned terrorist anything.
HINT: You can't because I did not. Don't put words in my mouth.
I stated, and their website backs up, they intended to disrupt subway activity. That is what occupying the subway stations does. They know that. You know but can't admit that.
What the heck do you think terms like Blockade and Occupy are used for by this group? Are they Secret Code Words for pass out flyers? Why not just mention "We need a couple of dudes to pass out flyers" vice calling for as many people as they can get to "occupy"?
Now, you stated:
The website said handing out flyers.
Care to back that up?
By the way, here are the stations THEY listed as needing to be "occupied"
Stations •Bronx ◦Fordham Rd ◦3rd Ave, 138th Street ◦163rd and Southern Blvd ◦161st and River - Yankee Stadium •Brooklyn ◦Broadway Junction ◦Borough Hall ◦301 Grove Street ◦St Jose Patron Church,185 Suydam St, Bushwick •Queens ◦Jackson Heights/Roosevelt Ave. ◦Jamaica Center/Parsons/Archer ◦92-10 Roosevelt Avenue, Jackson Heights •Manhattan ◦125th St. A,B,C,D
◦Union Sq. (Mass student strike) ◦23rd St and 8th Ave •Staten Island ◦St. George, Staten Island Ferry Terminal
◦479 Port Richmond Avenue, Port Richmond
You don't think the intent was disruption?
Again, you are either willfully ignorant or actively deceptive.
And you can't link to any actual plan on thier website to just "pass out flyers"...
Again, from their website:
Thursday November 17th Day of Action Shut Down Wall Street! Occupy the Subways! Take the Square!
Disrupting any US mass-transit system is an Act of Terrorism.
If they disrupted the subway, how were they going to get from the stations in the burroughs to Foley Square?
Their stated goal was to "occupy the subways" What makes YOU think that means to interfere with their operations? i.e. shut them down, break them, make then not work.
When asked about the subways, after a tweet escalated the situation they said they were going to hand out flyers.
You are certainly allowed to believe this if you choose, but it will never make it factual.
And I am here ONLY to fight ignorance, on any scale. Please don't insult my intelligence with offensive statements like "you are willfully ignorant"
TheHammer wrote:Great, so you would support local and state governments that were beating up, unleashing dogs, and using water canons on Civil Rights protesters?
<3
Only if they smelled bad, didn't bathe, and didn't have a clue what they were actually protesting. Oh and if those protestors called for violence and destruction of the capitalist system. These aren't civil rights protesters.
But forget water cannons. I want Cossacks with sabres and bottles of vodka. If you're going to do it do it right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:I don't think it is right to shut down the Subway's when the meatball sub is the $5 footlong of the month. That just hurts everyone.
And let's get our emotions under control and not start insulting the water cannon, it is just an innocent tool that is only guilty of being fun and awesome.
As a Murphy's deli officianado, I'm pretty ambivalent about closing down Subways myself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Harriticus wrote:Saw them trying to create traffic jams and running around screaming on subways today. Harassing working class people isn't going to help their movement much.
Might get them shanked though. I hear NYers aren't the nicest crowd during rush hour.
CptJake wrote:So, since the stated intent for this afternoon is disruption of NYC subway services, who would the victims be if this goal is met? Does it hurt the "1%" or the workers of NYC and the surounding areas?
That doesn't matter. What matters is the attitude of the general public to any disruption.
During recent London tube strikes there has been significant public anger against the strikers because of the perception that they are a coddled elite causing general disruption of people's lives in order to enrich themselves even more.
OWS Protesters Chant ‘Follow Those Kids!’ As Small Children Try To Go To School On Wall Street
Tiny Tots, Some As Young As 4, Overwhelmed By Hostility, Crush Of Humanity
November 17, 2011 11:45 PM Millionaire's MarchNEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — They were caught in the middle of madness.
Some grade school students were forced to walk a gauntlet of screaming “Occupy Wall Street” protesters just to get to school on Thursday.
It was a wild day in lower Manhattan for most everyone involved, including elementary school children who had to brave the mayhem just to get to class on the other side of Wall Street.
GALLERY: Occupy Wall Street “Day Of Action”
In the middle of thousands of protestors yelling and chanting — some kicking and screaming – CBS 2’s Emily Smith found little school kids trying to get to class. Nervous parents led them through the barriers on Wall Street. The NYPD helped funnel the children, anything to ease their fears while some protestors chanted “follow those kids!”
“These guys are terrorists, yelling at little kids,” one father said.
“For them it’s horrible. They’re afraid of all the crowds. We’re not even able to get through. They’re just, he’s … very afraid now,” a mother added.
One protester followed a father and his little daughter all the way down the block. As the school day ended just after 3 p.m. children trickled out of Leman Manhattan Prep on Broad Street. Smith heard a 4-year-old boy telling his mom he was scared. He told Smith it looked like a parade.
“There was a parade. It was scary — crowded with school,” the boy said.
“After a while it got so bad some parents couldn’t get their children through and they had to go late,” said Gary Goldenstein of Tribeca.
Some saw the day’s doings as chaos; others saw it differently.
“The parents actually along with teachers were at every entry point into this area, which is fantastic,” said Vicki Pitcock of Tribeca.
School officials said they haven’t had to change school times or cancel class, and are trying to keep it that way.
How far is too far? Please offer your thoughts in the comments section below.
dsteingass wrote:Disrupting any US mass-transit system is an Act of Terrorism.
If they disrupted the subway, how were they going to get from the stations in the burroughs to Foley Square?
Their stated goal was to "occupy the subways" What makes YOU think that means to interfere with their operations? i.e. shut them down, break them, make then not work.
When asked about the subways, after a tweet escalated the situation they said they were going to hand out flyers.
You are certainly allowed to believe this if you choose, but it will never make it factual.
And I am here ONLY to fight ignorance, on any scale. Please don't insult my intelligence with offensive statements like "you are willfully ignorant"
I've never said (and don't believe) disrupting the subways via their occupation is terrorism, just as their attempt to block off the bridge last night is not terrorism (or do you wanna deny that too?). I have seen terrorism, these guys ain't it.
You still have not shown ANY sources the intent was to pass out flyers. I have used their own words.
Shut Down Wall Street! Occupy the Subways! Take the Square!
Again, back up your claim or continue to back up mine that you are being willfully ignorant or actively misleading.
d-usa wrote:I traveled on a plane once, had some lady sit in my seat and occupy it. Called the TSA to throw the terrorist off the plane...
We should also call the FBI everytime we knock on a bathroom door and somebody screams "occupied"...
Since the verb "occupy" is now terrorism related.
When working San Fran once I had someone in my seat on the plane. We had words and almost got into a fight (broken up by two flight attendants). Mmmm sweet memories of youth.
d-usa wrote:I traveled on a plane once, had some lady sit in my seat and occupy it. Called the TSA to throw the terrorist off the plane...
We should also call the FBI everytime we knock on a bathroom door and somebody screams "occupied"...
Since the verb "occupy" is now terrorism related.
Can you use your airplane seat if it is occupied by someone else?
Can you use the occupied crapper booth?
Or does the occupation preclude your use?
Starting to understand what occupy means yet?
And quit putting words in my mouth. I have not used 'terrorism' in regards to the occupiers, and have stated I did not consider their actions acts of terrorism.
Frazzled wrote:When working San Fran once I had someone in my seat on the plane. We had words and almost got into a fight (broken up by two flight attendants). Mmmm sweet memories of youth.
I must be doing it wrong, booked a seat on a train, got on to find it occupied, politely asked the person to move and they apologised and moved.
I have already posted my source earlier re: flyers that proves you are wrong. And you still refuse to answer my question. If the stated intent was to disrupt the subways like you claim, then how would they convene at Foley Station at 5:00 pm AS STATED?
If anyone is being willfully ignorant it is you by only accepting facts that back up your own position, freely ignoring anything that proves otherwise.
Automatically Appended Next Post: apaprently "occupy" means "interfering with the operation of" according to CptJake because that is what he wants it to mean, his reasoning being that because some protestors crapped in a park, all protestors are therefore park-crappers. It is a red-herring argument.
Frazzled wrote:When working San Fran once I had someone in my seat on the plane. We had words and almost got into a fight (broken up by two flight attendants). Mmmm sweet memories of youth.
I must be doing it wrong, booked a seat on a train, got on to find it occupied, politely asked the person to move and they apologised and moved.
You're not a Texan.
Plus they wouldn't move.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dsteingass wrote:I have already posted my source earlier re: flyers that proves you are wrong. And you still refuse to answer my question. If the stated intent was to disrupt the subways like you claim, then how would they convene at Foley Station at 5:00 pm AS STATED?
If anyone is being willfully ignorant it is you by only accepting facts that back up your own position, freely ignoring anything that proves otherwise.
Automatically Appended Next Post: apaprently "occupy" means "interfering with the operation of" according to CptJake because that is what he wants it to mean, his reasoning being that because some protestors crapped in a park, all protestors are therefore park-crappers. It is a red-herring argument.
It helps if you quit calling other posters "willfully ignorant."
Frazzled wrote:When working San Fran once I had someone in my seat on the plane. We had words and almost got into a fight (broken up by two flight attendants). Mmmm sweet memories of youth.
I must be doing it wrong, booked a seat on a train, got on to find it occupied, politely asked the person to move and they apologised and moved.
You're not a Texan.
Plus they wouldn't move.
Airplanes are one of the most common places where decency for your common man and common sense is left sticking to the gloves of the TSA agents who cupped your balls. If somebody was sitting in my seat and would not move, I would not rest until the situation is resolved, so I understand your feelings. (To bad that punching them in the face will probably get you on the no-fly-list nowadays...)
disrupting any US mass Transit system is considered an act of terrorism in the US and you know that. I didn't put words into your mouth, that just IS considered terrorism. You are the one whose imagination made "occupy the subways" into "disrupting the subways". Does that comfort you?
Frazzled wrote:When working San Fran once I had someone in my seat on the plane. We had words and almost got into a fight (broken up by two flight attendants). Mmmm sweet memories of youth.
I must be doing it wrong, booked a seat on a train, got on to find it occupied, politely asked the person to move and they apologised and moved.
You're not a Texan.
Plus they wouldn't move.
Airplanes are one of the most common places where decency for your common man and common sense is left sticking to the gloves of the TSA agents who cupped your balls. If somebody was sitting in my seat and would not move, I would not rest until the situation is resolved, so I understand your feelings. (To bad that punching them in the face will probably get you on the no-fly-list nowadays...)
Well this was pre 2001. He just wouldn't move and wouldn't tolerate that from a Californian.
Frazzled wrote:When working San Fran once I had someone in my seat on the plane. We had words and almost got into a fight (broken up by two flight attendants). Mmmm sweet memories of youth.
I must be doing it wrong, booked a seat on a train, got on to find it occupied, politely asked the person to move and they apologised and moved.
You're not a Texan.
Plus they wouldn't move.
Airplanes are one of the most common places where decency for your common man and common sense is left sticking to the gloves of the TSA agents who cupped your balls. If somebody was sitting in my seat and would not move, I would not rest until the situation is resolved, so I understand your feelings. (To bad that punching them in the face will probably get you on the no-fly-list nowadays...)
Well this was pre 2001. He just wouldn't move and wouldn't tolerate that from a Californian.
Which was worse? That he wouldn't move, or that he was from California?
For me the poster says, "Go shopping and support capitalism before you stand in front of square daleks in a poor attempt to relate your pathetic movement to the terrors of Tienanmen Square.".
halonachos wrote:For me the poster says, "Go shopping and support capitalism before you stand in front of square daleks in a poor attempt to relate your pathetic movement to the terrors of Tienanmen Square.".
Easy E wrote:
In the old days. You are correct. Now days, things can be a bit more bottom up, with less hierarchy thanks to the internet.
Modern organizational structures don;t have to be so top-down focused. Instead, they can focus more on integrated effort, cooperation, many power sources, and nonhierarchical networks. That's part of the communication revolution.
I don't see why the communication revolution suddenly makes the basic principles of organizing large groups of people inviolate. People may be able to communicate faster, and more easily, but ultimately mobilizing a coherent group of people with the purpose of conveying a message in a physical manner still requires a fairly rigid hierarchy. Moreover, integrated effort, cooperation, and the presence of many sources of power were hallmarks of mass movements for political change in the past, the internet hasn't suddenly introduced them.
See, that's good old 20th century, Newtonian world model thinking. Every thing can be controlled down to the smallest fraction, and if you can change the smallest fraction you have changed the whole. I'm not saying that such a model is invalid. It still exists and works.
However, it is no longer the only effective model.
dogma wrote:
Additionally, its important to realize that mass communication is a double-edged sword in terms of organization because, while it allows you to reach more people more easily, it also allows people to reach each other; which means the idiots are allowed a voice and that's bad for everyone.
I see. So, you don't really think all people should have a say in how a democracy runs. Only the people somehow deemed "worthy" are allowed access to the political process? So is it based on IQ score? If you own land? I'm sure in my personal opinion a lot of people have idiotic beliefs, but it doesn't matter if I think that. It matters if enough voters think that the ideas are idiotic. All I can try to do is influence them into believing the ideas I dislike are idiotic.
I agree that influencing the discussion is not any easier thanks to mass communication.
Easy E wrote:
Perhaps. But the discussion is no longer exclusively about debit reduction and slashing entitlements. Now, wealth and income inequality has re-entered the discussion.
They never left the discussion.
Huh, I don't recall it ever coming up during the Debt Ceiling situation this summer. Perhaps I missed it. I know economists have been talking about it for the past 20 years or so, but not the corporate media or many mainstream US politicians. Again, perhaps I missed it.
Easy E wrote:
See, that's good old 20th century, Newtonian world model thinking. Every thing can be controlled down to the smallest fraction, and if you can change the smallest fraction you have changed the whole. I'm not saying that such a model is invalid. It still exists and works.
However, it is no longer the only effective model.
This is not a thing. You are just saying words. None of this means anything. It is nonsense.
Bill Ayers came to my school this week, I really need to graduate so I don't get associated with that.
I have no idea why they invited the guy here, we have umpteen military bases in the area and we invite a guy who tried to blow up the Pentagon. Not cool ODU, not cool.
Easy E wrote:
See, that's good old 20th century, Newtonian world model thinking. Every thing can be controlled down to the smallest fraction, and if you can change the smallest fraction you have changed the whole. I'm not saying that such a model is invalid. It still exists and works.
However, it is no longer the only effective model.
This is not a thing. You are just saying words. None of this means anything. It is nonsense.
Didn't you know? Now that we have twitter and facebook we are Borg.
halonachos wrote:Bill Ayers came to my school this week, I really need to graduate so I don't get associated with that.
I have no idea why they invited the guy here, we have umpteen military bases in the area and we invite a guy who tried to blow up the Pentagon. Not cool ODU, not cool.
Should have taken the opportunity to put him in a hole.
halonachos wrote:Bill Ayers came to my school this week, I really need to graduate so I don't get associated with that.
I have no idea why they invited the guy here, we have umpteen military bases in the area and we invite a guy who tried to blow up the Pentagon. Not cool ODU, not cool.
Should have taken the opportunity to put him in a hole.
I was sure that it was a sting and every student that went there was picked up by the CIA and sent to the Caribbean for a vacation.
Easy E wrote:
See, that's good old 20th century, Newtonian world model thinking. Every thing can be controlled down to the smallest fraction, and if you can change the smallest fraction you have changed the whole. I'm not saying that such a model is invalid. It still exists and works.
However, it is no longer the only effective model.
Actually, it still essentially is. The advent of mass communication hasn't changed the fact that coherent movements require centralized authority. Even the Obama campaign's vaunted approach to web-based organizing hinged on integrating externally recruited supporters into the hierarchical structure of the campaign itself. The same has largely been true of the Tea Party protests, with like-minded groups coalescing to form larger, hierarchical coalitions. The Egyptian Revolution, which many people have cited as an example of a non-hierarchical political movement, was essentially perpetrated by established opposition groups who were then able to quickly attract support by way of information technology, and gernal sympathy.
What information technology has done is reduce the amount of time and effort it takes to develop a large network of people who can be called upon to mobilize, it hasn't changed the fundamental nature of political movements as driven by hierarchy.
Easy E wrote:
I see. So, you don't really think all people should have a say in how a democracy runs. Only the people somehow deemed "worthy" are allowed access to the political process? So is it based on IQ score? If you own land? I'm sure in my personal opinion a lot of people have idiotic beliefs, but it doesn't matter if I think that. It matters if enough voters think that the ideas are idiotic. All I can try to do is influence them into believing the ideas I dislike are idiotic.
Oh, they can say whatever they want, they can even vote in accordance with it, but if I don't like what they have to say I'm going to do nearly everything in my power to marginalize what they're saying.That is, I'm not going to try to convince them what they're saying is idiotic, unless they're in the majority, as that's far too time intensive. Instead I'm going to convince everyone else that what they're saying is idiotic, and that they should be ignored. This can be accomplished by argument, rhetoric, or even the direct disruption of access.
Remember, there's no particular reason that participants in a democracy can't, or shouldn't, attempt to marginalize one another.
Easy E wrote:
See, that's good old 20th century, Newtonian world model thinking. Every thing can be controlled down to the smallest fraction, and if you can change the smallest fraction you have changed the whole. I'm not saying that such a model is invalid. It still exists and works.
However, it is no longer the only effective model.
This is not a thing. You are just saying words. None of this means anything. It is nonsense.
Maybe that's why you don't get it. You can't think outside your own paradigm of top-down hierarchy. It happens to all of us. We are only humans and therefore wedded to our own belief systems. It happens to me too.
Check out the difference between Newtonian Management and Quantum Management styles. Granted, I'm not an expert, but it is some interesting reading none the less.
Easy E wrote:
See, that's good old 20th century, Newtonian world model thinking. Every thing can be controlled down to the smallest fraction, and if you can change the smallest fraction you have changed the whole. I'm not saying that such a model is invalid. It still exists and works.
However, it is no longer the only effective model.
Actually, it still essentially is. The advent of mass communication hasn't changed the fact that coherent movements require centralized authority. Even the Obama campaign's vaunted approach to web-based organizing hinged on integrating externally recruited supporters into the hierarchical structure of the campaign itself. The same has largely been true of the Tea Party protests, with like-minded groups coalescing to form larger, hierarchical coalitions. The Egyptian Revolution, which many people have cited as an example of a non-hierarchical political movement, was essentially perpetrated by established opposition groups who were then able to quickly attract support by way of information technology, and gernal sympathy.
What information technology has done is reduce the amount of time and effort it takes to develop a large network of people who can be called upon to mobilize, it hasn't changed the fundamental nature of political movements as driven by hierarchy.
In the past you needed a centralized authority, but now you only need an idea and a direction. Loose networks of individuals working broadly together towards the same idea cna drive the agenda forward more. We see a similar idea with irregular warfare networks. They have an overarching theme, but lose netowrks do all the work towards the greater idea with little or no direction from anyone else.
dogma wrote:
Easy E wrote:
I see. So, you don't really think all people should have a say in how a democracy runs. Only the people somehow deemed "worthy" are allowed access to the political process? So is it based on IQ score? If you own land? I'm sure in my personal opinion a lot of people have idiotic beliefs, but it doesn't matter if I think that. It matters if enough voters think that the ideas are idiotic. All I can try to do is influence them into believing the ideas I dislike are idiotic.
Oh, they can say whatever they want, they can even vote in accordance with it, but if I don't like what they have to say I'm going to do nearly everything in my power to marginalize what they're saying.That is, I'm not going to try to convince them what they're saying is idiotic, unless they're in the majority, as that's far too time intensive. Instead I'm going to convince everyone else that what they're saying is idiotic, and that they should be ignored. This can be accomplished by argument, rhetoric, or even the direct disruption of access.
Remember, there's no particular reason that participants in a democracy can't, or shouldn't, attempt to marginalize one another.
I agree with you up until the direct disruption of access. If that were the case, we might as well simply outlaw groups we don't like while in powe rand thus "disrupt their direct access". I think we can all agree that we then no longer have a democracy (Republic or otherwise).
Easy E wrote:
See, that's good old 20th century, Newtonian world model thinking. Every thing can be controlled down to the smallest fraction, and if you can change the smallest fraction you have changed the whole. I'm not saying that such a model is invalid. It still exists and works.
However, it is no longer the only effective model.
This is not a thing. You are just saying words. None of this means anything. It is nonsense.
Maybe that's why you don't get it. You can't think outside your own paradigm of top-down hierarchy. It happens to all of us. We are only humans and therefore wedded to our own belief systems. It happens to me too.
Check out the difference between Newtonian Management and Quantum Management styles. Granted, I'm not an expert, but it is some interesting reading none the less.
Again, those are not real phrases. You are just stringing together buzzwords.
I've never heard of "Newtonian management" in the real world, hence the question.
That's because 90% of businesses use it now without even thinking about their management structure.
Most people call is Top-down, but it is essentially "Factory" management across every organization whether it applies to the industry or not.
It's an effective hang-over from the industrial age. Sadly, we are no longer in the "industrial" age.
As for my employment, I'm a wage slave at a corporation in the financial field. I work all day (somedays harder than others) to literally steal from the poor to give to the rich, in exchange I am given a stipend, medical insurance, and a 401K to support my nuclear family with.
Easy E wrote: I work all day (somedays harder than others) to literally steal from the poor to give to the rich, in exchange I am given a stipend, medical insurance, and a 401K to support my nuclear family with.
DO they supply you with a mask and pistol or are you an independent contractor?
Easy E wrote:
See, that's good old 20th century, Newtonian world model thinking. Every thing can be controlled down to the smallest fraction, and if you can change the smallest fraction you have changed the whole. I'm not saying that such a model is invalid. It still exists and works.
However, it is no longer the only effective model.
This is not a thing. You are just saying words. None of this means anything. It is nonsense.
Maybe that's why you don't get it. You can't think outside your own paradigm of top-down hierarchy. It happens to all of us. We are only humans and therefore wedded to our own belief systems. It happens to me too.
Check out the difference between Newtonian Management and Quantum Management styles. Granted, I'm not an expert, but it is some interesting reading none the less.
Again, those are not real phrases. You are just stringing together buzzwords.
Believe what you want to believe.
Let me make it really simple and buzzword free. It is the difference between the boss telling you what to do, and the team telling the boss what is going to happen. As long as the boss and the team are aligned in the greater mission, then there is no need for conflict.
Both systems work. The quetion is which system works when and which system works best at a given time.
Now, onto more "Buzzwords". The OWS group have a mission, to change a system that they do not think benefits them. From there, the team can lead the way and "leaders" can simply profit off the motivation, focus, and innovation of the lower levels. The leaders are leading by being part of the team instead of the focus of the team.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Easy E wrote:literally steal
Literally
Okay, I am being Hyperbolic there. I'm legally taking their moeny in an unequal transaction and counting on them not being financially sophisticated enough to understand the consequences of what they are doing.
Better?
Not an independent contractor. If I was, i wouldn't get medicla or a 401K. I do wish they gave me a pistol and a mask (and maybe a cool nickname), but then it would be too obvious about what I was doing.
If we all converted to Synergy then we could all Brain Storm a Benchmark to determine weather or not to use Newtonian or Quantum management to build a Flux Capacitor.
AustonT wrote:If we all converted to Synergy then we could all Brain Storm a Benchmark to determine weather or not to use Newtonian or Quantum management to build a Flux Capacitor.
Disrupting any US mass-transit system is an Act of Terrorism.
systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. Not buying it as terrorism myself. They're not out to kill anyone to force people to their view
Coercion yes....but not terrorism. Like CptJake. I've seen terrorism up close and personnel. OWS is actually trying to disrupt transportation by occupying the site with as many people as they can get by mass to impede the flow of traffic. Either foot or vehicle.
Now if OWS start packing weapons and some crazy whack starts thinking to make bombs and where to put them. Then by all means I will crush OWS once the orders to deploy but I highly doubt it comes to that. Law Enforcement and our SpecOps will just handle it and we secure our post more. Just incase though my chance to man the water cannon is forfieted since I will put a young soldier in the seat who has not deployed yet to to protect him. In fact I try to find details to remove as many non-deployed soldiers in my platoon to avoid them getting into a shooting situation......
dsteingass wrote:It still doesn't change the fact that it never happened
What? Them trying to disrupt transportation and the regular day to day operation of New York City?
No that has happened. Them trying to perform the act and them succeeding are two different things, certainly.
However, that does not change the fact that they have attempted to do exactly what CptJake has said. It's the OWS movement's own fault that the NYPD isn't stupid and has been watching the news, where protesters and organizers have stated their next moves.
Very much so. I'm sure they're thinking that no one in local/federal government watch Fox news among other news source. Silly insurg....eerrrrr protest leaders
Get to Fortress Dakka Little E and bring the kid. Next victi..eerrrrr suvivor..day care supervisor..I even except a mature and organize OWS protestor that knows the function of a tiolet and a bar of soap and has his/her own toothbrush to run day care..we have a few teachers already.
back on topic
Why is it that no one in a leadership position of OWS is trying to calm things down. Because right now...worst choice of word use here...its starting to build up to a mob mentality/perception.
Anyone who tried to stand up and claim to be the leader would be ignored by most people. (well except the corporate media)
Millenials are more into Collaboration and less into having leaders. I know broad brush and all, but this seems to be a very Millenial-centric protest movement, at least at the organizational level.
Pehaps that is why Boomers and Xer's have such a hard time wrapping their heads around it.
So no leadership and no one stepping in to get a handle on the OWS peeps...so they communicate by face book, tweeter, and verbal....its a damn flash mob...
There are clearly leaders in this 'leaderless' movement. They even give themselves fancy titles like "counselman".
They may have their General Assemblies, but those again have clear leaders and followers, though often they are run in such a way that the followers get to think they are on equal standing with the leaders.
The authorities are really well-organized and have a hierarchy. To do the same would be trying to play to the opponent's strengths. As a military man, you know that is not sound strategy, you try to get your foes to play to your strengths.
Therefore, one of the OWS' strengths is lack of clear targets. No clear leaders to be debunked or arrested. That includes the OWS message too. No clear target that the opposition can shoot for rhetorically. Anyone sympathetic to it, can all ready hear it.
Of course, such a stragey has other dangers associated with it, and isn't guaranteed to work.
Easy E wrote:
In the past you needed a centralized authority, but now you only need an idea and a direction. Loose networks of individuals working broadly together towards the same idea cna drive the agenda forward more. We see a similar idea with irregular warfare networks. They have an overarching theme, but lose netowrks do all the work towards the greater idea with little or no direction from anyone else.
The irregular warfare analogy is poor, as you've phrased it, because groups predicated on the offensive use of irregular warfare almost always have a centralized hierarchy, or a series of hierarchies competing against one another for control; and only when one group comes out on top do they generally succeed. You saw this with the Sandinistas, the Viet Cong, the Cuban Revolutionaries, Mao, and basically every other such force in history. Irregular forces, when not controlled by a central authority, are capable of only one thing: harassing the enemy (the early stages of the rebellion against the Somozas is a good example).
You can talk about only needing an idea and a direction all you want, but that's all you've ever needed to generate discontent with the state, and subsequent protests. But, if you want those protests to be successful, you need some form of hierarchy, whether formal or not. Where that hierarchy does not exist, there is no organization, and the absence of organization necessarily means the absence of a coherent agenda.
I understand that a lot of people want to see telecommunications as a magic bullet for the spread of democracy, and equality, but the evidence, empirical and reasonable, simply doesn't support that idea. The internet doesn't change how people communicate, it simply lets them do it faster and more easily.
Easy E wrote:
I agree with you up until the direct disruption of access. If that were the case, we might as well simply outlaw groups we don't like while in powe rand thus "disrupt their direct access". I think we can all agree that we then no longer have a democracy (Republic or otherwise).
Well, we would still have a democracy, it simply wouldn't be one with universal suffrage.
Flash Mob driving a NASCAR car.......waiting for the crash....skidding for the wall now..driver left hand is not cooperating with the brain and the right hand giving the "bird" to any driver, official, authority, and people who were "required" to drive for him. Oh..the brain is buried on tweeter already to get the next nascar wreck
CptJake wrote:There are clearly leaders in this 'leaderless' movement. They even give themselves fancy titles like "counselman".
They may have their General Assemblies, but those again have clear leaders and followers, though often they are run in such a way that the followers get to think they are on equal standing with the leaders.
Easy E wrote:Therefore, one of the OWS' strengths is lack of clear targets. No clear leaders to be debunked or arrested. That includes the OWS message too. No clear target that the opposition can shoot for rhetorically. Anyone sympathetic to it, can all ready hear it.
Yes, if you don't actually SAY anything, nobody can debunk the things you SAY.
But back in the real world, you want to actually ACCOMPLISH things.
Easy E wrote:Therefore, one of the OWS' strengths is lack of clear targets. No clear leaders to be debunked or arrested. That includes the OWS message too. No clear target that the opposition can shoot for rhetorically. Anyone sympathetic to it, can all ready hear it.
Yes, if you don't actually SAY anything, nobody can debunk the things you SAY.
But back in the real world, you want to actually ACCOMPLISH things.
I would say, things have all ready been accomplished. The fact that we are even discussing OWS means they have accomplished something. They have accomplished their primary purpose. Allow people to give voice and talk about something they have felt for a while. The system is not working for me, let's change it.
Thanks for your support Rented Tritium, Frazzled, and all by talking about OWS.
The authorities are really well-organized and have a hierarchy. To do the same would be trying to play to the opponent's strengths. As a military man, you know that is not sound strategy, you try to get your foes to play to your strengths.
Therefore, one of the OWS' strengths is lack of clear targets. No clear leaders to be debunked or arrested. That includes the OWS message too. No clear target that the opposition can shoot for rhetorically. Anyone sympathetic to it, can all ready hear it.
Of course, such a stragey has other dangers associated with it, and isn't guaranteed to work.
I never said leaders were not identifiable, in fact quite the opposite is true. From a targeting/intel gathering perspective this is actually a very easy organization to map out. I guarantee the NYPD and the police forces from each city being 'occupied' have already done so.
Easy E wrote:Therefore, one of the OWS' strengths is lack of clear targets. No clear leaders to be debunked or arrested. That includes the OWS message too. No clear target that the opposition can shoot for rhetorically. Anyone sympathetic to it, can all ready hear it.
Yes, if you don't actually SAY anything, nobody can debunk the things you SAY.
But back in the real world, you want to actually ACCOMPLISH things.
I would say, things have all ready been accomplished. The fact that we are even discussing OWS means they have accomplished something. They have accomplished their primary purpose. Allow people to give voice and talk about something they have felt for a while. The system is not working for me, let's change it.
Thanks for your support Rented Tritium, Frazzled, and all by talking about OWS.
I'm more than happy to make fun of hippy unbathed any time.
Easy E wrote:
In the past you needed a centralized authority, but now you only need an idea and a direction. Loose networks of individuals working broadly together towards the same idea cna drive the agenda forward more. We see a similar idea with irregular warfare networks. They have an overarching theme, but lose netowrks do all the work towards the greater idea with little or no direction from anyone else.
The irregular warfare analogy is poor, as you've phrased it, because groups predicated on the offensive use of irregular warfare almost always have a centralized hierarchy, or a series of hierarchies competing against one another for control; and only when one group comes out on top do they generally succeed. You saw this with the Sandinistas, the Viet Cong, the Cuban Revolutionaries, Mao, and basically every other such force in history. Irregular forces, when not controlled by a central authority, are capable of only one thing: harassing the enemy (the early stages of the rebellion against the Somozas is a good example).
I agree. Not a great analogy, but it was the best I coudl come up with.
Easy E wrote:
You can talk about only needing an idea and a direction all you want, but that's all you've ever needed to generate discontent with the state, and subsequent protests. But, if you want those protests to be successful, you need some form of hierarchy, whether formal or not. Where that hierarchy does not exist, there is no organization, and the absence of organization necessarily means the absence of a coherent agenda.
I think in the long run, (i.e. within the next 12 months) you are right. Some sort of organization will most likely emerge. In the end, the only way to fight an orgnaization is with one of your own. However, they aren;t at that stage yet. We are still int he generating discontent stage.
Easy E wrote:
I understand that a lot of people want to see telecommunications as a magic bullet for the spread of democracy, and equality, but the evidence, empirical and reasonable, simply doesn't support that idea. The internet doesn't change how people communicate, it simply lets them do it faster and more easily.
Yes, but it also allows different organization methods since communciation is practically instant.
Easy E wrote:
I agree with you up until the direct disruption of access. If that were the case, we might as well simply outlaw groups we don't like while in powe rand thus "disrupt their direct access". I think we can all agree that we then no longer have a democracy (Republic or otherwise).
Well, we would still have a democracy, it simply wouldn't be one with universal suffrage.
True. I started to believe our own American Exceptionalism that our way is the only way for democracy. It simply would be a democracy unlike the one we have come to expect from our own American rhetoric.
If we restrict access to voting too much, we would then simply have an oligarchy.
Jihadin wrote:Flash Mob driving a NASCAR car.......waiting for the crash....skidding for the wall now..driver left hand is not cooperating with the brain and the right hand giving the "bird" to any driver, official, authority, and people who were "required" to drive for him. Oh..the brain is buried on tweeter already to get the next nascar wreck
This feels like the first drft of a poem
Flash Mob driving a NASCAR
waiting for the crash
skidding for the wall
driver left hand is not
cooperating with the Brain
right hand giving the bird
driver, official, authority, and people
required to drive
for him
brain is buried on tweeter
get the next NASCAR wreck
tell me
will I dream again?
Melissia wrote:Unless, of course, that was an additional act of protest against the police's actions, because they believed it interfered with their constitutional right to protest.
But taht would never happen, we all know police would never interfere with the right to protest.
I don't agree with everything the Occupy Whatever movement has done, but blocking reporters and journalists from being able to watch and then going in and beating/spraying/etc protesters and forcing them to leave at the behest of businesses is suspicious to me, and that's exactly what the police did.
I am all for protests, well at least ones that mean squat. Occupy is/was a sham. Nothing they are doing is gonna make a lick of difference. Yes they are screaming a message, one that all of us 99% have known for ages. Take all your money out of the banks, default on your credit, make the banks feel some pain, then maybe something will happen. Camping in a city park is not gonna do anything but cost the city a gak load of money they don't really have to spend on people camping in city parks.
be smart with your protests, not just a mindless fish going with the social current.
Is it not possible to separate our opinions of OWS and the points they bring up? I am absolutely disgusted by our governments willingness to be bought by corporations.
That doesn't mean the OWS crowd hasn't made fools of themselves and bungled up the message along with their own credibility.
Scrabb wrote:Is it not possible to separate our opinions of OWS and the points they bring up? I am absolutely disgusted by our governments willingness to be bought by corporations.
That doesn't mean the OWS crowd hasn't made fools of themselves and bungled up the message along with their own credibility.
Every time I read a post like this I feel a little less alone in the world.
Scrabb wrote:Is it not possible to separate our opinions of OWS and the points they bring up? I am absolutely disgusted by our governments willingness to be bought by corporations.
That doesn't mean the OWS crowd hasn't made fools of themselves and bungled up the message along with their own credibility.
Every time I read a post like this I feel a little less alone in the world.
) I guess I could call them Nazis too.
