I was discussing this with a couple friends over lunch, figured I'd ask dakdak too. I don't like political discussions much, but this is an issue that hits close to home, since I've gone to the Occupy DC a couple times in the last few weeks, and I'd like your opinion.

Most people I know have absolutely no interest or opinion in the 'occupy movement' other than "Probably won't go anywhere". I think this opinion might have something to do with the media's portrayal of the movement as mainly consisting of young men and women of middle class backgrounds who use twitter, facebook and apple products... "hipsters", basically. But I've been down there. It's not really like that at all, although they certainly are people like that. People of all shapes and sizes are participating. Gun nuts, federal employees, journalists, scientists, financial people, everything.

But (In my opinion), the movement has an undeniable truth to it, and the message is easy to relate to. Why don't more people get into it? All it requires you to do is stand around and talk to people for a couple hours. It's not an issue of religion, race or sexual orientation. This is basically an every-man's protest.

So. Aside from the media's general derision to the movement, do you think that the image of "hipsters" is giving the occupy movement a bad reputation? Or is it the opposite? Is it encouraging youth to join?

Yes.

Wow corpses, that was fast. Thanks.

I honestly considered typing out a longer post but gave up so I could have been even faster.

Really the only reasons the occupy wall street lot have a bad reputation are the hipsters who are protesting for the sake of it and the whining upper middle class students.

Samus_aran115 wrote:But (In my opinion), the movement has an undeniable truth to it, and the message is easy to relate to. Why don't more people get into it? All it requires you to do is stand around and talk to people for a couple hours. It's not an issue of religion, race or sexual orientation. This is basically an every-man's protest.

Can you clearly state the movement's message? What are the goals? What is their plan of action to achieve those goals? What is their plan to clearly state their message and goals?

Answer those and no one will give a darn about hipsters. Instead they will focus on those answers.

Jake

CptJake wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:But (In my opinion), the movement has an undeniable truth to it, and the message is easy to relate to. Why don't more people get into it? All it requires you to do is stand around and talk to people for a couple hours. It's not an issue of religion, race or sexual orientation. This is basically an every-man's protest.

Can you clearly state the movement's message? What are the goals? What is their plan of action to achieve those goals? What is their plan to clearly state their message and goals?

Answer those and no one will give a darn about hipsters. Instead they will focus on those answers.

Jake

This is my view as well. Without an endgame, a victory condition, even a pie in the sky one, there's nothing rational to work toward and you end up aimlessly yelling at windmills.

Even an impossible goal is still a precise direction to aim in. But keep in mind that if the stated goal is too insane, you lose basically all of the normal people.

If it were me (and it's not so oh well) I would have OWS demand the reinstatement of the entirety of glass-steagall. No other demands. March on both washington and wall street every day until that happens. Keep it simple, keep it in the news, keep people talking. If they demanded the return of GS, I would go march.

CptJake wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:But (In my opinion), the movement has an undeniable truth to it, and the message is easy to relate to. Why don't more people get into it? All it requires you to do is stand around and talk to people for a couple hours. It's not an issue of religion, race or sexual orientation. This is basically an every-man's protest.

Can you clearly state the movement's message? What are the goals? What is their plan of action to achieve those goals? What is their plan to clearly state their message and goals?

Answer those and no one will give a darn about hipsters. Instead they will focus on those answers.

Jake

I totally agree. Every protest that's gone anywhere usually has these answers, but occupy doesn't. I didn't go down there with intent to the answers to these questions. I went down there to show my moral support for their general message, which is (from what I gathered): "To protest and eventually eliminate financial 'dishonesty' (Underhanded business methods, I suppose)" and "To promote a more evenly balanced tax code for individuals of all incomes"

I think that there are definitely some big thinkers in the occupy movement, and I don't think that the movement has necessarily matured to the point where there's a group that will be willing to come forth with a solution (Mainly because of the insistence of the 'leaderless revolution' thing). Eventually the movement will either come up with clear solutions, or it will fade into nothing. If the former occurs, I'd imagine that it would pick up more steam and not be such a trifle to the media.

Waiting on the NASCAR wreck

I go to a school that is flooded with a lot of NYC hipsters.

They are in fact the most annoying people on the face of the earth.

Hipsters destroyed the fedora, The trench coat. Your fashion style looks like a train wreck.

Please avoid any temptation you have to educate me while I'm trying to drink my beer in piece, despite how much reticent knowledge you have gained from your freshman level class.


Wearing an NFL jersey does not make me a slave of the corporate machine. Unless you agree wearing a t-shirt with 80s and 90s cartoons and video games makes you one too you fruity jagabg.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:

Can you clearly state the movement's message? What are the goals? What is their plan of action to achieve those goals? What is their plan to clearly state their message and goals?

Answer those and no one will give a darn about hipsters. Instead they will focus on those answers.

Jake

Most are goals are similar.

Ending bought and paid for politicians by major corporations and banks (this is mainly one of the few things I agree with most). But it takes 2 tango.

Universal health care or Medicare for all.

Government paying for all student loan debt. (Not sure how they expect that work?)

Job creation

ending the out sourcing of jobs (another idea I agree with)

Then you get a lot more scattered ideas, like ending the fed, going back to the gold standard, and many more)

The biggest ideas are there and out in public, not hard to find. As far as finding how to achieve those ideas, I have no clue. They have no organization at a official level. No statesman or politician running on those ideas. They blame both Democrats and Republicans for this mess (but mostly Republicans, or so it seems to me).

I really don't see there goals transferring into anything legitimacy as far as laws go at its current state.

Ending bought and paid for politicians by major corporations and banks (this is mainly one of the few things I agree with most). But it takes 2 tango.

Universal health care or Medicare for all.

Government paying for all student loan debt. (Not sure how they expect that work?)

Job creation

ending the out sourcing of jobs (another idea I agree with)

This being the most likely reason why no politicians are backing it. The goals are too scattered, and not all politicians can agree with all of them. Even below that, intelligent people in the movement who can attempt to make decisions can't please everyone.

I like your account of your experience at the protest. Most of these guys who will post here in response to your topic are very passionate about their opposition to the occupy movement, and they will tell you about it too! But I'm afraid the guys that have started and will continue to grill you only really want to hear stories that back up their own opinions, as if to provide validation. This is perfectly normal human behavior, but not productive in a debate like this.

I appreciate hearing your account of the occupy movement from your point of view:
"People of all shapes and sizes are participating. Gun nuts, federal employees, journalists, scientists, financial people, everything."

All we seem to talk about here are shanty towns, crapping in parks, and other things that illustrate only the worst possible behavior of humanity. The opposition to the Occupy movement is using only the worst images and stories to illustrate their point. I have heard the unrealistic de-humanizing terms "hippies" and now "hipsters" used repeatedly to try and generalize the Occupy Protestors into some "Anti-American" group that can be HATED by many without thought.

De-humanizing your enemy in order to validate your own hatred is a technique that has been used since civilization began to goad men into doing horrible things to other human beings.

dsteingass wrote:I like your account of your experience at the protest. Most of these guys who will post here in response to your topic are very passionate about their opposition to the occupy movement, and they will tell you about it too! But I'm afraid the guys that have started and will continue to grill you only really want to hear stories that back up their own opinions, as if to provide validation. This is perfectly normal human behavior, but not productive in a debate like this.

I appreciate hearing your account of the occupy movement from your point of view:
"People of all shapes and sizes are participating. Gun nuts, federal employees, journalists, scientists, financial people, everything."

All we seem to talk about here are shanty towns, crapping in parks, and other things that illustrate only the worst possible behavior of humanity. The opposition to the Occupy movement is using only the worst images and stories to illustrate their point. I have heard the unrealistic de-humanizing terms "hippies" and now "hipsters" used repeatedly to try and generalize the Occupy Protestors into some "Anti-American" group that can be HATED by many without thought.

De-humanizing your enemy in order to validate your own hatred is a technique that has been used since civilization began to goad men into doing horrible things to other human beings.

QFT

Rented Tritium wrote:
This is my view as well. Without an endgame, a victory condition, even a pie in the sky one, there's nothing rational to work toward and you end up aimlessly yelling at windmills.

I don't think that's really the issue. While OWS hasn't reached the level of demand focus that the Tea Party has, it seems to be at about the same level of development we saw when the Tea Party first hit the national scene; ie. vague demands like "fiscal responsibility" viz. "end corporate welfare".

I think, ultimately, the issue that OWS is running into (aside from their own lack of organization) is that corporatism and a hostility towards government are deeply ingrained into the American political culture. This makes it relatively difficult to organize (because without institutional structures based on sympathetic principles, organization is fairly hard) and appeal to the political mainstream; which ultimately means that coming at the issue in a half-assed way (as has happened) is unlikely to succeed. In essence, OWS can't depend on general sympathy, as the Tea Party could, they have to make a coherent argument and they have failed to do so.

Behind all the negative aspects, what will really last from this movement, and the Tea Party movement is that People will stand around and talk about ideas. Some ideas might work, some will be unpopular, some will be crazy. After the park-crapping has ceased, people will still be talking about ideas. At least I hope so.

dsteingass wrote:Behind all the negative aspects, what will really last from this movement, and the Tea Party movement is that People will stand around and talk about ideas. Some ideas might work, some will be unpopular, some will be crazy. After the park-crapping has ceased, people will still be talking about ideas. At least I hope so.

I really hope so too. If nothing else, this movement sparks a bit of curiosity and unrest among people who can coherently formulate plans of actions.

Dogma, your post was fantastic, as usual.

The ONE thing that the OWS and the Tea Party have in common though is the belief that our government isn't doing their jobs from their point of view. I thnk this is the beginning of something. I don't know what, but I don't think it will be short-lived.

Piston Honda wrote:I go to a school that is flooded with a lot of NYC hipsters.

They are in fact the most annoying people on the face of the earth.

Hipsters destroyed the fedora, The trench coat. Your fashion style looks like a train wreck.

Please avoid any temptation you have to educate me while I'm trying to drink my beer in piece, despite how much reticent knowledge you have gained from your freshman level class.


Wearing an NFL jersey does not make me a slave of the corporate machine. Unless you agree wearing a t-shirt with 80s and 90s cartoons and video games makes you one too you fruity jagabg.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:

Can you clearly state the movement's message? What are the goals? What is their plan of action to achieve those goals? What is their plan to clearly state their message and goals?

Answer those and no one will give a darn about hipsters. Instead they will focus on those answers.

Jake

Most are goals are similar.

Ending bought and paid for politicians by major corporations and banks (this is mainly one of the few things I agree with most). But it takes 2 tango.

Universal health care or Medicare for all.

Government paying for all student loan debt. (Not sure how they expect that work?)

Job creation

ending the out sourcing of jobs (another idea I agree with)

Then you get a lot more scattered ideas, like ending the fed, going back to the gold standard, and many more)

The biggest ideas are there and out in public, not hard to find. As far as finding how to achieve those ideas, I have no clue. They have no organization at a official level. No statesman or politician running on those ideas. They blame both Democrats and Republicans for this mess (but mostly Republicans, or so it seems to me).

I really don't see there goals transferring into anything legitimacy as far as laws go at its current state.

RIP fedora

I mean WTF is this!?!



Or this



I mean seriously, hats are not Marylyn Monroe, they do not get "blown up" in the back by street level vents


A true fedora however does effect the dress of the worlds Monroe's by raising it up in the back. For instance this one is granting its owner a view of the holiest of holies.


Know who else got to look up Marylyn's skirt?

John F Kennedy

How did he manage it you may well ask?


BAM! Mutha f***ing fedora

Ending bought and paid for politicians by major corporations and banks (this is mainly one of the few things I agree with most). But it takes 2 tango.

Universal health care or Medicare for all.

Government paying for all student loan debt. (Not sure how they expect that work?)

Job creation

ending the out sourcing of jobs (another idea I agree with)

So essentially socialism not only under a different name but mined so that only the benefits to current society are being 'preached' for wnat of a better term?
Karl: 1
The West: 0

I despise that hipsters have turned the peacoat, a noble and virtuous naval garment into a common coat for the average shlub. My mother earned the right to wear her peacot, and the right to pass it on to me to wear in the cold, cold winter. I am not a hipster because I wear a peacoat.

I am also not a hipster for wearing my father's USMC trenchcoat, that he gave to me.

I am also not a hipster for wearing my M65 field jacket, also given to me by my father.

Anyway, I feel like this thread has served it's purpose. Feel free to lock it mods. Unless anyone has anything else to state that hasn't been stated on the other occupy threads


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Krellnus wrote:

Ending bought and paid for politicians by major corporations and banks (this is mainly one of the few things I agree with most). But it takes 2 tango.

Universal health care or Medicare for all.

Government paying for all student loan debt. (Not sure how they expect that work?)

Job creation

ending the out sourcing of jobs (another idea I agree with)

So essentially socialism not only under a different name but mined so that only the benefits to current society are being 'preached' for wnat of a better term?
Karl: 1
The West: 0

Um, not exactly. Unless you're trolling.

You are speaking in absolutes and using negative terms such as "socialism". Please tell us why this is "socialism under another name"?

Karl? Are you referring to Karl Marx? Why does he get a point?

Pretty much every leftwing movement gets dismissed as a collection of ferals and trendy young nobobies who need to get out and get a job. It's easy, and more often than not it's pretty much right.

I mean, look at the Occupy movements outside of the US, you've basically got the same collection of professional protestors that turn up to every movement like this.

I think the movement in the US could be different to that, because there are real, fundamental issues that need to be resolved and a genuine level of dissatisfaction across the population, but being a leftwing, and therefore generally youth focussed movement, there will be a struggle to get past that perception.

As for the movement itself, I think what it's done so far has been exactly right. It's gotten people to pay attention to them, and it's gotten the people involved to identify with the movement, to think of themselves as 'occupiers'. The next step is to start building a list of real, achievable goals they think they can achieve. That'll be the hard bit.

Krellnus wrote:So essentially socialism not only under a different name but mined so that only the benefits to current society are being 'preached' for wnat of a better term?
Karl: 1
The West: 0

Try reading.

Samus_aran115 wrote:Wow corpses, that was fast. Thanks.

Bow-chika... you know the rest.

OWS lost the point it was trying to make when anger took over. Yesterday and today has escalated to a point where OWS are brazenly becoming a bunch of knuckleheads. Everyone going to remember OWS later on in a couple years but not the message. All they're going to remember is public urination and defecation, rapes, drug use, mix messages, blocking of wallstreet employers, disruption of other worksites, disrupting traffic, shooting at the W.H. , threatening to burn down a city, basically fuel for the fire for a headline news. OWS wanted attention so all can hear them roar and what they have to say. Everyone else is looking at clean up, arrests, traffic jams, overtime for the cops, violence of the protest and about every other negative silly grab arse the OWS did. The message. is. lost. now.

JIhadin just confirmed my earlier point. To him the message is lost because he isn't interested in their point. Just because I am not interested in baseball does not mean that it doesn't exist. I cannot go around saying baseball doesn't exist when it does, i'd look like a looney.

Hipsters give anything a bad name.

The message is quite clear to those ready to listen to it.

A lot of people at many levels of society are feeling ripped off by the government, the banks, the media and in general the "power elite".

They resent working hard (if they can even get a job), for below inflation pay rises, while paying high taxes to bail out rich bankers, the Greeks, pay the tube drivers massive wages, and pay unemployed people massive benefits to live in central London while they themselves are forced to live in small cottages long, expensive, tiring journeys away.

At the same time, the much-vaunted government austerity measures have resulted in the deficit increasing in 46 billion this year, and the prospect of a double dip recession.

There is a simmering undercurrent of anger and resentment that a small number of people are doing very well out of things while the general mass in the middle, who pay for it all, are having a very hard time.

Samus_aran115 wrote:I was discussing this with a couple friends over lunch, figured I'd ask dakdak too. I don't like political discussions much, but this is an issue that hits close to home, since I've gone to the Occupy DC a couple times in the last few weeks, and I'd like your opinion.

Most people I know have absolutely no interest or opinion in the 'occupy movement' other than "Probably won't go anywhere". I think this opinion might have something to do with the media's portrayal of the movement as mainly consisting of young men and women of middle class backgrounds who use twitter, facebook and apple products... "hipsters", basically. But I've been down there. It's not really like that at all, although they certainly are people like that. People of all shapes and sizes are participating. Gun nuts, federal employees, journalists, scientists, financial people, everything.

But (In my opinion), the movement has an undeniable truth to it, and the message is easy to relate to. Why don't more people get into it? All it requires you to do is stand around and talk to people for a couple hours. It's not an issue of religion, race or sexual orientation. This is basically an every-man's protest.

So. Aside from the media's general derision to the movement, do you think that the image of "hipsters" is giving the occupy movement a bad reputation? Or is it the opposite? Is it encouraging youth to join?

They are the absolute worst people to do this.
Out of work steel workers marching - there you go.
Losers twittering to mom for mom money can suck my balls.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:Waiting on the NASCAR wreck

Sorry I just got here, time to get this thread loose and put it into the wall...

Frazzled wrote:
Losers twittering to mom for mom money can suck my balls.

According to this Fast Company article about 1/3 of supporters are over 35.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Losers twittering to mom for mom money can suck my balls.

According to this Fast Company article about 1/3 of supporters are over 35.

Hippies and college professors (and reporters...) same difference.

As noted, put 100,000 autoworkers on march decrying the outsourcing of jobs, Frazzled's in support.
50,000 soccer moms thinking of the children ( ) in a giant soccermobile parade you have my attention.

These guys? You have my call to get the soap. Now that they're getting violent time to taze them on tv bro, for my amusement.

Frazzled wrote:
Hippies and college professors (and reporters...) same difference.

As noted, put 100,000 autoworkers on march decrying the outsourcing of jobs, Frazzled's in support.

So, basically, you care more about the aesthetic appeal of who happens to be protesting, than what they're protesting?

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Hippies and college professors (and reporters...) same difference.

As noted, put 100,000 autoworkers on march decrying the outsourcing of jobs, Frazzled's in support.

So, basically, you care more about the aesthetic appeal of who happens to be protesting, than what they're protesting?

Partly, but let me clarify.

1. They don't have a defined message. Much of it is socialist (or weirdly) Ron Paulish nonsense. The issues I agree with are lost when rants to bring down the capitlist system are provided as the answer, or thats its just the INSERT SCAPE GOAT GROUP HERE's fault (that goes the other way of course, arguments about welfare mothers always fell flat with me unless corporate welfare and crony capitalism was also noticed)
2. There are real concerns that I agree with, but who is doing the protesting is incredibly relevant.

CptJake wrote:Can you clearly state the movement's message?

The US democratic and economic system needs to be reformed so that it does not so strongly favor those whom already have a large amount of wealth.

There. That's its message, clearly stated. What is disagreed upon is the means by which to do this-- for now anyway.

Yes, because in your mind ALL of the protestors are being violent, and you can de-humanize the entire movement in your mind this way because a select few have been violent.

Melissia wrote:

CptJake wrote:Can you clearly state the movement's message?

The US democratic and economic system needs to be reformed so that it does not so strongly favor those whom already have a large amount of wealth.

There. That's its message, clearly stated. What is disagreed upon is the means by which to do this-- for now anyway.

Want to link to that on their website?

On the front page of the website.

Our political system should serve all of us — not just the very rich and powerful. Right now Wall Street owns Washington

From its about page:

The movement is inspired by popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, and aims to expose how the richest 1% of people are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future.

Really, this is hardly a some secret message kept to anyone who's actually been paying attention. This is the common strain amongst all of the myriad groups who have honestly (and not merely to cause chaos) participated in the movement.

Melissia wrote:

CptJake wrote:Can you clearly state the movement's message?

The US democratic and economic system needs to be reformed so that it does not so strongly favor those whom already have a large amount of wealth.

There. That's its message, clearly stated. What is disagreed upon is the means by which to do this-- for now anyway.

Except thats not its message, of course. Some say reform, some say crush/destroy/put people in jail. Some say destory the fed, go to the gold standard, the earth really is flat etc. etc. etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:On the front page of the website.

Our political system should serve all of us — not just the very rich and powerful. Right now Wall Street owns Washington

From its about page:

The movement is inspired by popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, and aims to expose how the richest 1% of people are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future.

Really, this is hardly a some secret message kept to anyone who's actually been paying attention. This is the common strain amongst all of the myriad groups who have honestly (and not merely to cause chaos) participated in the movement.

Neither of those are what you just said actually.

Or, from their web site http://occupywallst.org/ :

the only solution is WorldRevolution

Here is their actual declaration:

http://www.nycga.net/resources/declaration/

Says a lot about what they are against, not too much about what they actually want to do.

 They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
*****”They” have to have the mortgage or they have no color of law to do anything.
 They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
****Yep. Whatcha gonna do about?
 They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
****What? I just stumbled into a DNC hoedown.
 They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
*****What? What?
 They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
****”Don’t you know what they do to those animals? I don’t know but its delicious. “
 They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
*****What?
 They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
***Held them hostage? Waaa waa I took basket weaving for nine years and now I have to pay off my loans.
 They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
****YES finally a real point.
 They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
***Yes to the first, no to the second (it has to go the same way)
 They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
****Some have some haven’t (who’s they again?)
 They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
***Yep, of course a lot of that only occurs when you click “I agree” plus what does that have to do with anything?
 They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.
***Really? Er no. That’s Syria stupid.
 They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
***Really? Er no. Of course everything’s from China anyway.
 They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
***True that. They do. I doubt you did in Starbucks.
 They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.
***True dat, just like unions, and associations (but I agree with this point)
 They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
***No dumbass, they just don’t work. Haven’t been keeping with Chu and current events I guess.
 They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
***You mean like “generics?” you don’t have a clue do you.
 They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
**** Really, you have proof where? Inactive ingredients are inactive Again what does this have to do with your 27 other complaints.
 They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
***That’s just as wrong as it is stupid. You’re starting to really be whiny now.
 They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
***WTF? Seriously?
 They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.
***Really? Global GDP is improving. Its Europe and the USa that’s got its ass kicked
 They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
****I reference the above WTF?
 They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.*
***Ask Iran about that.

Militant Hippyism doesn't work. Too emotional for rational discourse.

Re: PETA, Greenpeace, that Whale Wars guy, and OWS.

Yep, the best liberal protests have been cool, collected and SPECIFIC.

Yes. They do. Trendy fethers are always protesting about something, and they all annoy me no matter what it is they are gobbing off about, even if I agree with them.

I hate hipsters, but then, I hate absolutely everyone if I'm generalising.

Posh people, poor people, hippies, gun-nuts.. basically I dislike people that can be bothered to get involved in "movements" of any kind, even a movement I might somewhat agree with because I have something in common with them, such as atheists or military veterans or people that vote for the Conservative party, or particularly handsome hairy people from the North-East.

In my simplistic world view it simply boils down to this. If you want to complain about something, send a five minute email, if you want to vote, go do it, if you want to be a religious believer or not, crack on, and then go and get on with your life.

Basically If your in a "movement" and you hang around in a gang making lots of noise and waving banners and marching, I think your a proper sad bastard, and you should take the dog for a walk, play scrabble with the kids or go to the pub with your friends.

Rational discourse is what the power elites use to keep the rest of us out of the game.

Trust me, once the middle class starts "winning" the class war with rational discourse; you'll see how fast rational discourse is no longer relevant to those seeking to keep power.

Sometimes, rational discourse must be tempored with passion and feeling. I can rationalize a lot of terrible and hateful things; but it is my passion and feelings that keeps me from acting on them.

TL,DR= Rational discourse is over-rated.

Easy E wrote:Rational discourse is what the power elites use to keep the rest of us out of the game.

Trust me, once the middle class starts "winning" the class war with rational discourse; you'll see how fast rational discourse is no longer relevant to those seeking to keep power.

Sometimes, rational discourse must be tempored with passion and feeling. I can rationalize a lot of terrible and hateful things; but it is my passion and feelings that keeps me from acting on them.

TL,DR= Rational discourse is over-rated.

So you're down with irrational discourse then. That explains the OWS.

mattyrm wrote: In my simplistic world view it simply boils down to this. If you want to complain about something, send a five minute email, if you want to vote, go do it, if you want to be a religious believer or not, crack on, and then go and get on with your life.

I happen to work in a large organization that has a whole department to "handle" those e-mails. Do you know what impact it has on the actual organization? None.

Eventually, some people get to a point where simply being ignored by the "powers that be" because they are "insignificant" becomes no longer acceptable. The only way I know of to make a large organization listen is to get a large organization of your own. Without it, you will always be "insignificant" to the "powers that be".

Is that when you employ the irrational discourse?

Frazzled wrote:

Easy E wrote:Rational discourse is what the power elites use to keep the rest of us out of the game.

Trust me, once the middle class starts "winning" the class war with rational discourse; you'll see how fast rational discourse is no longer relevant to those seeking to keep power.

Sometimes, rational discourse must be tempored with passion and feeling. I can rationalize a lot of terrible and hateful things; but it is my passion and feelings that keeps me from acting on them.

TL,DR= Rational discourse is over-rated.

So you're down with irrational discourse then. That explains the OWS.

No, it's just not the be all and end all. Humans are far more complex, and when you can show me a completely rational actor that only works logically with no other motivation, I will be very scared.

So you're down with flinging blood on people wearing fur (PETA)?

You're down with breaking into farms and destroying experimental drought resistant crops for impoverished countries (Greenpeace)?

Being a lying, fat bastard (The skipper on Whale Wars)?

Frazzled wrote:Is that when you employ the irrational discourse?

Come on Frazzled, I thought you were all about the "Ends Justifies the Means"? It doesn't matter how you win as long as you win, right? Maybe that was Rented Tritium?

Sometimes, you start from a feeling, and build rational arguments to support it. However, the initial thought process wasn't inherently rational. It was just a feeling.

kronk wrote:So you're down with flinging blood on people wearing fur (PETA)?

You're down with breaking into farms and destroying experimental drought resistant crops for impoverished countries (Greenpeace)?

Being a lying, fat bastard (The skipper on Whale Wars)?

Well, maybe they could mix it up a little.

They could break into farms and fling lying fat bastards at impoverished countries.
Speaking of that, a new Pumpkin Chunkin comes on next week.

kronk wrote:So you're down with flinging blood on people wearing fur (PETA)?

You're down with breaking into farms and destroying experimental drought resistant crops for impoverished countries (Greenpeace)?

Being a lying, fat bastard (The skipper on Whale Wars)?

Hey, did you buy a Jump to Conclusions mat or something? If not, can I interest you in one?

Edit: Pumpkin Chuckin' is amazingly compelling viewing.

kronk wrote:So you're down with flinging blood on people wearing fur (PETA)?

You're down with breaking into farms and destroying experimental drought resistant crops for impoverished countries (Greenpeace)?

Being a lying, fat bastard (The skipper on Whale Wars)?

Mate, when I was in Iraq I remember reading a story about some of those animal rights mother fethers digging an old woman's body up because she had a fur coat on!

Oh here I found it!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/4762481.stm

We should give Al-Queda a week off and smash those fethers!

The message is simple and should be one everyone can identify with.

Corporations and wealthy people essentially own the democratic process because its all based on who has the most money. Its why you see bills like SOPA come into existence.

The movement wants this to stop, by enforcing stricter regulation or banks and corporations, stop corporate donations to political candidates and a whole slew of other things designed to ensure wealthy people are not the only ones making decisions.

Anyone making generalisations about the whole movement being done by hipsters is just being ridiculous. Have you actually taken the time to see what type of people are taking part in these protests? Doubtful

Besides that, I doubt anyone at all could rationalise the response given by the police towards the protests after even just watching a few of protests. Just google the name Scott Oslen for an example of this or hell look up the many instances of police brutality being enforced.

Finally here's a link I think puts the feelings behind the protest into perspective.

http://boingboing.net/2011/10/15/your-ascent-to-the-1-doesnt-mean-the-system-is-fair.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+boingboing/iBag+(Boing+Boing)&utm_content=Google+Reader

Asuron wrote:The message is simple and should be one everyone can identify with.

Corporations and wealthy people essentially own the democratic process because its all based on who has the most money. Its why you see bills like SOPA come into existence.

The movement wants this to stop, by enforcing stricter regulation or banks and corporations, stop corporate donations to political candidates and a whole slew of other things designed to ensure wealthy people are not the only ones making decisions.

Anyone making generalisations about the whole movement being done by hipsters is just being ridiculous. Have you actually taken the time to see what type of people are taking part in these protests? Doubtful

Besides that, I doubt anyone at all could rationalise the response given by the police towards the protests after even just watching a few of protests. Just google the name Scott Oslen for an example of this or hell look up the many instances of police brutality being enforced.

Finally here's a link I think puts the feelings behind the protest into perspective.

http://boingboing.net/2011/10/15/your-ascent-to-the-1-doesnt-mean-the-system-is-fair.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+boingboing/iBag+(Boing+Boing)&utm_content=Google+Reader

QFT.
Hatred is so much easier than actual thought.

dsteingass wrote:

Asuron wrote:The message is simple and should be one everyone can identify with.

Corporations and wealthy people essentially own the democratic process because its all based on who has the most money. Its why you see bills like SOPA come into existence.

The movement wants this to stop, by enforcing stricter regulation or banks and corporations, stop corporate donations to political candidates and a whole slew of other things designed to ensure wealthy people are not the only ones making decisions.

Anyone making generalisations about the whole movement being done by hipsters is just being ridiculous. Have you actually taken the time to see what type of people are taking part in these protests? Doubtful

Besides that, I doubt anyone at all could rationalise the response given by the police towards the protests after even just watching a few of protests. Just google the name Scott Oslen for an example of this or hell look up the many instances of police brutality being enforced.

Finally here's a link I think puts the feelings behind the protest into perspective.

http://boingboing.net/2011/10/15/your-ascent-to-the-1-doesnt-mean-the-system-is-fair.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+boingboing/iBag+(Boing+Boing)&utm_content=Google+Reader

QFT.
Hatred is so much easier than actual thought.

Are you saying those who disagree with you aren't using actual thought? Yep, that will help when over the masses. I guess we all need a firm hand to be driven by your cool logic.

Frazzled wrote:

dsteingass wrote:

Asuron wrote:The message is simple and should be one everyone can identify with.

Corporations and wealthy people essentially own the democratic process because its all based on who has the most money. Its why you see bills like SOPA come into existence.

The movement wants this to stop, by enforcing stricter regulation or banks and corporations, stop corporate donations to political candidates and a whole slew of other things designed to ensure wealthy people are not the only ones making decisions.

Anyone making generalisations about the whole movement being done by hipsters is just being ridiculous. Have you actually taken the time to see what type of people are taking part in these protests? Doubtful

Besides that, I doubt anyone at all could rationalise the response given by the police towards the protests after even just watching a few of protests. Just google the name Scott Oslen for an example of this or hell look up the many instances of police brutality being enforced.

Finally here's a link I think puts the feelings behind the protest into perspective.

http://boingboing.net/2011/10/15/your-ascent-to-the-1-doesnt-mean-the-system-is-fair.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+boingboing/iBag+(Boing+Boing)&utm_content=Google+Reader

QFT.
Hatred is so much easier than actual thought.

Are you saying those who disagree with you aren't using actual thought? Yep, that will help when over the masses. I guess we all need a firm hand to be driven by your cool logic.

If you generalise an entire movement, which saw over 30000 people in Wall Street protesting only just a few hours ago, as a small group of smelly, stupid hippies then yes that's exactly what I'm saying.
You've had nothing but snide comments so far that don't actually address the points of what anyone said, while at the same time labelling anyone who sympathises or joins in the protest as people just trying to be cool and that they are idiots for doing so. At what point will you actually say something valid here?

Easy E wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Is that when you employ the irrational discourse?

Come on Frazzled, I thought you were all about the "Ends Justifies the Means"? It doesn't matter how you win as long as you win, right? Maybe that was Rented Tritium?

That was me, but "ends justifies the means" is not even close to describing what I said.

Asuron wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

dsteingass wrote:

Asuron wrote:The message is simple and should be one everyone can identify with.

Corporations and wealthy people essentially own the democratic process because its all based on who has the most money. Its why you see bills like SOPA come into existence.

The movement wants this to stop, by enforcing stricter regulation or banks and corporations, stop corporate donations to political candidates and a whole slew of other things designed to ensure wealthy people are not the only ones making decisions.

Anyone making generalisations about the whole movement being done by hipsters is just being ridiculous. Have you actually taken the time to see what type of people are taking part in these protests? Doubtful

Besides that, I doubt anyone at all could rationalise the response given by the police towards the protests after even just watching a few of protests. Just google the name Scott Oslen for an example of this or hell look up the many instances of police brutality being enforced.

Finally here's a link I think puts the feelings behind the protest into perspective.

http://boingboing.net/2011/10/15/your-ascent-to-the-1-doesnt-mean-the-system-is-fair.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+boingboing/iBag+(Boing+Boing)&utm_content=Google+Reader

QFT.
Hatred is so much easier than actual thought.

Are you saying those who disagree with you aren't using actual thought? Yep, that will help when over the masses. I guess we all need a firm hand to be driven by your cool logic.

If you generalise an entire movement, which saw over 30000 people in Wall Street protesting only just a few hours ago, as a small group of smelly, stupid hippies then yes that's exactly what I'm saying.
You've had nothing but snide comments so far that don't actually address the points of what anyone said, while at the same time labelling anyone who sympathises or joins in the protest as people just trying to be cool and that they are idiots for doing so. At what point will you actually say something valid here?

I said the protesters were idiots, not posters here on Dakka. On the flip side I don't have to convince anyone. Its incumbent on the supporters to convinece the rest of us. Unless you secretly plan on putting us in re-education facilities of course.

Yeah I mean, when people view you in a light you don't like, you can't run around yelling at them about it. You have to fix it. It's your job to get your message out how you want. If people say they don't know what you stand for, then it's your own failure to communicate that does it.

It's one thing if a certain demographic is always against you, but dude, I'm a dyed in the wool Keynesian with nothing but lifelong democrat friends and almost everyone I know is rolling their eyes at OWS.

Not knowing what OWS really wants specifically is pretty bipartisan. That means you're doing something wrong.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Is that when you employ the irrational discourse?

Come on Frazzled, I thought you were all about the "Ends Justifies the Means"? It doesn't matter how you win as long as you win, right? Maybe that was Rented Tritium?

That was me, but "ends justifies the means" is not even close to describing what I said.

You are right. I think you were more along the lines of, if you win, then it was all legal. Winners write the history books. For the most part, I agree with you.

So it doesn't matter how irrational I was at the time. If I win, I can make it all right. I'm sure Charlie Scheen is happy to hear this.

Also, can someone define for me what a "Hipster" is? I'm pretty sure it is nothing like a Chav, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:Yeah I mean, when people view you in a light you don't like, you can't run around yelling at them about it. You have to fix it. It's your job to get your message out how you want. If people say they don't know what you stand for, then it's your own failure to communicate that does it.

It's one thing if a certain demographic is always against you, but dude, I'm a dyed in the wool Keynesian with nothing but lifelong democrat friends and almost everyone I know is rolling their eyes at OWS.

Not knowing what OWS really wants specifically is pretty bipartisan. That means you're doing something wrong.

Maybe you guys don't like them because they aren't following the "system", you know the approved Red vs. Blue messaging? Honestly, if you don't know what they are about then you are willfully trying to ignore it, or don't want to understand. Any idea which of those it is?

Easy E wrote:
Also, can someone define for me what a "Hipster" is? I'm pretty sure it is nothing like a Chav, right?

Right now or historically? Hipster means a new thing each decade since it's defined by change and perceived uniqueness.

Hipsterism is the fetishization of the unique and new. That's the best I can do without citing specific examples.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:Honestly, if you don't know what they are about then you are willfully trying to ignore it, or don't want to understand. Any idea which of those it is?

Do you remember all that talk earlier about how people dehumanize OWS with their group language?

This is the same thing.

Because I don't share your views, I must be willfully ignorant. There's no chance in the world I have a different perspective from you, I am just being dumb on purpose.

Awesome.

That is not at all what E meant Rented, and you know it.

Fair enough, Rented.

What do you "think" it is about?

Obamavilles at this point.

Rented Tritium wrote:Right now or historically? Hipster means a new thing each decade since it's defined by change and perceived uniqueness.

Hipsterism is the fetishization of the unique and new. That's the best I can do without citing specific examples.

So you don't know what a hipster is, yet you are willingly using the term to generalize OWS protestors into some anti-American group to hate?
That is not an argument, that is hate tactics.

By your logic then, I can say all Conservatives are racist, because some Conservatives are racist. How does that make you feel?
What do shanty-towns, or another one of your hate-terms "Obamavilles" have to do with the conversation at all?

dsteingass wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Right now or historically? Hipster means a new thing each decade since it's defined by change and perceived uniqueness.

Hipsterism is the fetishization of the unique and new. That's the best I can do without citing specific examples.

So you don't know what a hipster is, yet you are willingly using the term to generalize OWS protestors into some anti-American group to hate?
.

That's definitely not what is being conveyed in RT's post.

When it comes to American politics, you have 4 options:

1) You're a liberal: This means that you're a middle class crybaby that doesn't believe in washing, you value animal lives over human lives, and you use lots of drugs.
2) You're a conservative: This means that you're a southern redneck who never went to high school, believe everyone should have guns, and are incredibly racist.
3) You're an independent: This means that you don't care about politics, don't vote, and don't have a right to complain about anything.
4) You're a member of a third party: This means you're absolutely crazy and hear voices.


I think the stereotypes need to be dialed back from every side. We're painting each other as sub-human and dismissing arguments due to these conceptions rather than judging based on the merits of the argument.

Grakmar wrote:When it comes to American politics, you have 4 options:

1) You're a liberal: This means that you're a middle class crybaby that doesn't believe in washing, you value animal lives over human lives, and you use lots of drugs.
2) You're a conservative: This means that you're a southern redneck who never went to high school, believe everyone should have guns, and are incredibly racist.
3) You're an independent: This means that you don't care about politics, don't vote, and don't have a right to complain about anything.
4) You're a member of a third party: This means you're absolutely crazy and hear voices.

More or less.

dsteingass wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Right now or historically? Hipster means a new thing each decade since it's defined by change and perceived uniqueness.

Hipsterism is the fetishization of the unique and new. That's the best I can do without citing specific examples.

So you don't know what a hipster is, yet you are willingly using the term to generalize OWS protestors into some anti-American group to hate?
That is not an argument, that is hate tactics.

By your logic then, I can say all Conservatives are racist, because some Conservatives are racist. How does that make you feel?
What do shanty-towns, or another one of your hate-terms "Obamavilles" have to do with the conversation at all?

He didn't start the thread boyo. Thats not hate tactics (reported - again-seriously quit attacking other posters), thats a common term with multiple threads on this very board.

Hate term? Obama ville is a modern derivation of the old term hooverville used in the Depression. EE asked what posters thought the point of the OWS was. Evidently if we don'[t read your mind we are espousing hate.

I have to respect that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grakmar wrote:When it comes to American politics, you have 4 options:

1) You're a liberal: This means that you're a middle class crybaby that doesn't believe in washing, you value animal lives over human lives, and you use lots of drugs.
2) You're a conservative: This means that you're a southern redneck who never went to high school, believe everyone should have guns, and are incredibly racist.
3) You're an independent: This means that you don't care about politics, don't vote, and don't have a right to complain about anything.
4) You're a member of a third party: This means you're absolutely crazy and hear voices.


I think the stereotypes need to be dialed back from every side. We're painting each other as sub-human and dismissing arguments due to these conceptions rather than judging based on the merits of the argument.

LMAO

Please do not spam the forum. Thanks! ~Manchu

Easy E wrote:What do you "think" it is about?

When it first started, it was about the wealth gap.

Then it was about prosecuting wall street criminals.

Then it was about corporate influence on politics.

Then for the last week it was about tents for some reason.

And in NONE of those phases was there ever an actual THING that they wanted done. The MOST pure of a statement they ever had was the first one, where they were sort of calling for a more progressive tax structure. But they immediately drifted away from that and got all into congressional corporate interests and everything. They started talking more about jobs and the collapse etc etc and sure those things are all connected pretty clearly, but you still have to pick one.

And here's the thing. I know it's easy to forget when you only ever talk to people that are a lot like you, but I am one of the most tuned-in people I know. I've brought up OWS in conversation a few times this week and 90% of the people I mentioned it to were like "who's that" or "what do they want again?"

These are average Americans and OWS is completely 100% failing to reach them in any meaningful way. Are they ALL being willfully ignorant about it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At the very beginning of a movement, being vague is fine. It has to start somewhere. But after a couple weeks pass, something concrete needs to rise out of it. Nothing has yet.

Thank you.

Question. Who made it about tents? That seems pretty far away from drawing attention to the wealth gap?

Easy E wrote:Thank you.

Question. Who made it about tents? That seems pretty far away from drawing attention to the wealth gap?

Everyone who resisted the tent removal did. They had tents, they were asked to get rid of the tents, they resisted and spent a week trying to convince everyone that tents constituted speech. When the point being made is "tents are speech", the conversation becomes tent-centric.

They don't have tents now and they seem to be doing fine. Why didn't they get rid of the tents when they were first asked?

Easy E wrote:Thank you.

Question. Who made it about tents? That seems pretty far away from drawing attention to the wealth gap?

exactly.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:Thank you.

Question. Who made it about tents? That seems pretty far away from drawing attention to the wealth gap?

Everyone who resisted the tent removal did. They had tents, they were asked to get rid of the tents, they resisted and spent a week trying to convince everyone that tents constituted speech. When the point being made is "tents are speech", the conversation becomes tent-centric.

They don't have tents now and they seem to be doing fine. Why didn't they get rid of the tents when they were first asked?

I don't know...why didn't Rosa Parks just hop right out of that seat on the bus?....sometimes issues are much larger than the petty things that seems to get focused on.

FITZZ wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:Thank you.

Question. Who made it about tents? That seems pretty far away from drawing attention to the wealth gap?

Everyone who resisted the tent removal did. They had tents, they were asked to get rid of the tents, they resisted and spent a week trying to convince everyone that tents constituted speech. When the point being made is "tents are speech", the conversation becomes tent-centric.

They don't have tents now and they seem to be doing fine. Why didn't they get rid of the tents when they were first asked?

I don't know...why didn't Rosa Parks just hop right out of that seat on the bus?....sometimes issues are much larger than the petty things that seems to get focused on.

Because the seat on the bus was part of what the movement was ACTUALLY ABOUT. Seats on buses were DIRECTLY RELATED to the message.

Tents have NOTHING TO DO with wealth inequality. Tents are off topic, bus seats were not.

This is really not a hard concept.

Yeah, afterall everyone has tents and everyone lives in them. Its just that when rich people do it, its called camping!

Rented Tritium wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:Thank you.

Question. Who made it about tents? That seems pretty far away from drawing attention to the wealth gap?

Everyone who resisted the tent removal did. They had tents, they were asked to get rid of the tents, they resisted and spent a week trying to convince everyone that tents constituted speech. When the point being made is "tents are speech", the conversation becomes tent-centric.

They don't have tents now and they seem to be doing fine. Why didn't they get rid of the tents when they were first asked?

I don't know...why didn't Rosa Parks just hop right out of that seat on the bus?....sometimes issues are much larger than the petty things that seems to get focused on.

Because the seat on the bus was part of what the movement was ACTUALLY ABOUT. Seats on buses were DIRECTLY RELATED to the message.

Tents have NOTHING TO DO with wealth inequality. Tents are off topic, bus seats were not.

This is really not a hard concept.

They are completely different. The 'seat on the bus' was one of several discimination laws (separated seating on buses). That was the whole point of the movement.

Unless the movement is about the right to sleep in tents it was a distraction and supports RT's point.

My point was more or less that a seat on a bus was not an all encompassing element of what Parks was protesting ...nor are tents the crux of what OWS is protesting...the issues go much deeper than either of those things obviously.
However, it seems that the more I read the various threads concerning this topic...the more it seems that many simply refuse to see OWS in any other way than a bunch of " rabble rousing unwashed hippies who just want everything handed to them"...
Well, as I've previously stated...I've worked my ass off my whole life...never asked anyone for a damn thing and I see a lot of truth in many of the issues that OWS is bringing up.

FITZZ wrote: My point was more or less that a seat on a bus was not an all encompassing element of what Parks was protesting ...nor are tents the crux of what OWS is protesting...the issues go much deeper than either of those things obviously.

They issues can go wherever they want, they still don't have to do with tents.

Controlling your message is important. The civil rights movement wanted to talk about jim crow laws so they broke a bunch of jim crow laws.

OWS wants to talk about income inequality so they.... broke a bunch of city codes about tents in the park?

So no, your point is wrong. The seat was ABSOLUTELY an element of what parks was protesting. The tents are UTTERLY UNRELATED to income inequality.

Also dude? Maybe drop the strawmen here. When you talk so much about what "so many people" think about OWS, you are starting to do EXACTLY what you claim they are doing. Drop the persecution complex.

FITZZ wrote: I've worked my ass off my whole life...never asked anyone for a damn thing and I see a lot of truth in many of the issues that OWS is bringing up.

I do as well, but thats washed away with the miasma of every other complaint put up. Mayhaps thats the idea.
EDIT: I do know that the more disruptive and violent a group becomes, the less support it will have in the US.

FITZZ wrote: Well, as I've previously stated...I've worked my ass off my whole life...never asked anyone for a damn thing and I see a lot of truth in many of the issues that OWS is bringing up.

I agree there is a wealth gap. I agree that this country has some serious problems.

OWS is NOT the cure, though. They don't know what they want. They offer no solutions. Their message is all over the place. There is no coherency.

THAT is my biggest problem with them.

I'm not claiming that OWS is a " cure", or that everyone involved in it is even worth listening to, but I do believe that there are those with in it's " ranks" who are bringing up some valid points that need addressing.

@ Rented- Strawmen?...In the past few weeks I've read dozens of post stating that OWS was comprised of little more than unwashed hippies looking for handouts...how am I throwing up " strawmen" by quoting what I've read?

kronk wrote:

FITZZ wrote: Well, as I've previously stated...I've worked my ass off my whole life...never asked anyone for a damn thing and I see a lot of truth in many of the issues that OWS is bringing up.

I agree there is a wealth gap. I agree that this country has some serious problems.

Then OWS has done exactly what it was suppose to do. Perhaps you felt this way before OWS? Good, however how often did you express this opinion before OWS came and gave all of us an opportunity to express our thoughts on it.

OWS is not the solution. OWS is simply making it so people can first identify the problem. You can;t have a solution if a great many people don;t recognize the problem.



On tents:

Tents became a big deal for 1 big reason. Winter. Its tough to stay outdoors for any long period of time without them. Take away shelter (one of Maslow's Hierarchy basic safety needs) and you take away the ability of the protest to exist. That's why OWS fought for tents. If OWS ceases to exist and dissolves because they don't have tents, then the "message" is also lost.

The authorities made tents an issue, not OWS. So in effect, the authorities (witht he help of coroporate media) did a better job of co-opting the message than OWS did of maintaining theirs. In some cities, the tents are still there.

The OWS group was put on the horns of a dilemna. Let the tents go and see lack of shelter cause the OWS movement to dissolve, or battle for the tents and let their message get co-opted. Now that the tents are gone, they have finally figured out new ways to continue spreadign the message. Sadly, it didn't happen sooner.

Edit: Just beacuse you have a persecution complex doesn't mean you aren't being persecuted.

FITZZ wrote: I'm not claiming that OWS is a " cure", or that everyone involved in it is even worth listening to, but I do believe that there are those with in it's " ranks" who are bringing up some valid points that need addressing.

I would advise the smarter folks with the actual ideas and valid points to exchange business cards and form a different group.

FITZZ wrote:@ Rented- Strawmen?...In the past few weeks I've read dozens of post stating that OWS was comprised of little more than unwashed hippies looking for handouts...how am I throwing up " strawmen" by quoting what I've read?

Not sure you want to go down that road. You were JUST getting onto people about painting OWS with the brush of the few bad apples and now you want to do the EXACT SAME THING to anyone who opposes OWS?

Also, yes, it's definitely a strawman unless you can find where I personally said it.

I think that people throwing around inaccurate accusations of fallacies that they clearly don't understand is one of the most vexing thing about the internet these days.

Anyway, I think Kronk has summed up my feelings on this nicely.

Easy E wrote:
Tents became a big deal for 1 big reason. Winter. Its tough to stay outdoors for any long period of time without them. Take away shelter (one of Maslow's Hierarchy basic safety needs) and you take away the ability of the protest to exist. That's why OWS fought for tents. If OWS ceases to exist and dissolves because they don't have tents, then the "message" is also lost.

If only they were in one of the the biggest cities in the world with one of the most fantastic mass transit systems ever devised. If that were the case, they could commute or stay with friends.

Rented Tritium wrote:

FITZZ wrote:@ Rented- Strawmen?...In the past few weeks I've read dozens of post stating that OWS was comprised of little more than unwashed hippies looking for handouts...how am I throwing up " strawmen" by quoting what I've read?

Not sure you want to go down that road. You were JUST getting onto people about painting OWS with the brush of the few bad apples and now you want to do the EXACT SAME THING to anyone who opposes OWS?

Also, yes, it's definitely a strawman unless you can find where I personally said it.

Well...first off...I never said that everyone who opposed OWS had the same view of those who make up OWS...I said " it seems many people"...not all people...not 'every" pearson...perhaps I should just say..." some people" to avoid an argument over semantics.

And secondly...I never said that you personally said anything.

Maybe you yourself didn't say it, RT, but Dakka Dakka's OT forum sure has had alot of people who do exactly what FITZZ is saying. Every OWS thread on here has had posters dismissing, insulting and even calling for violence against the people who have come out. For someone who has been following this from the beginning, using all kinds of information outlets, it is frustrating to keep seeing the same things being said over and over again when the truth of it is not only very much along the lines of the OP of this thread, but available for anyone who cares to look.

The last four days of broadcast from Democracy Now have been almost entirely devoted to this. I encourage everyone to take a look:

http://www.democracynow.org/

There's two problems with OWS:

1) They are largely dirty hippies and hipsters. While this doesn't invalidate their point, it makes it hard for them to be taken seriously. It's just like the racist members from the Tea-Party. Having crazies take part in your movement tends to disrupt the entire movement to be focused on the crazies.

2) "Occupying" something is a terrible idea. They aren't actually disrupting anything, like a sit-in would do, and aren't really protesting. They're just sitting in a park being a nuisance. And, there's an obvious end in sight for this movement, namely winter. Once it gets cold enough, the occupying will end, and the movement will have failed.


Now, I do agree that the wealth gap is widening and it is a problem. My proposed solution: Give me, personally, a raise so that I can be the top 1%.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:
Tents became a big deal for 1 big reason. Winter. Its tough to stay outdoors for any long period of time without them. Take away shelter (one of Maslow's Hierarchy basic safety needs) and you take away the ability of the protest to exist. That's why OWS fought for tents. If OWS ceases to exist and dissolves because they don't have tents, then the "message" is also lost.

If only they were in one of the the biggest cities in the world with one of the most fantastic mass transit systems ever devised. If that were the case, they could commute or stay with friends.

Way to ratchet up the pressure on the authorities with a clear presence that they can't ignore!

We have looked. Your message isn't cutting it. Its too muddled and includes some serious coockoo elements. Now you're starting to get violent/disruptive and that will lose support.

Easy E wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:
Tents became a big deal for 1 big reason. Winter. Its tough to stay outdoors for any long period of time without them. Take away shelter (one of Maslow's Hierarchy basic safety needs) and you take away the ability of the protest to exist. That's why OWS fought for tents. If OWS ceases to exist and dissolves because they don't have tents, then the "message" is also lost.

If only they were in one of the the biggest cities in the world with one of the most fantastic mass transit systems ever devised. If that were the case, they could commute or stay with friends.

Way to ratchet up the pressure on the authorities with a clear presence that they can't ignore!

Well, I'm sorry dude, but you can't fight over the tents without making your whole protest about the tents. Protesting is haaaard sometimes. Wah wah. If "ratcheting up the pressure" means making your entire protest about tents, then you need to not do it.

Easy E wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:
Tents became a big deal for 1 big reason. Winter. Its tough to stay outdoors for any long period of time without them. Take away shelter (one of Maslow's Hierarchy basic safety needs) and you take away the ability of the protest to exist. That's why OWS fought for tents. If OWS ceases to exist and dissolves because they don't have tents, then the "message" is also lost.

If only they were in one of the the biggest cities in the world with one of the most fantastic mass transit systems ever devised. If that were the case, they could commute or stay with friends.

Way to ratchet up the pressure on the authorities with a clear presence that they can't ignore!

You mean like the million man march? You mean like what the tea parties did?
Actually marching is better. Hanging out in one little location means you get ignored quickly. No one gives a rat's ass about Occupied Houston or Austin, because they are a few guys off to the side. Seriously I had way more massive protests on a weekly basis in college.

... reading the thread since my last post, I find it kinda funny how strongly in denial people on this forum are that anyone who opposes their viewpoint can ever have anything but the most extreme hyperbole of a strawman as opinions....

Also rather sad as well. Yes, I know it's almost election season, but that's no reason to let your level of logical debate drop to near zero.

Frazzled wrote:

Easy E wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:
Tents became a big deal for 1 big reason. Winter. Its tough to stay outdoors for any long period of time without them. Take away shelter (one of Maslow's Hierarchy basic safety needs) and you take away the ability of the protest to exist. That's why OWS fought for tents. If OWS ceases to exist and dissolves because they don't have tents, then the "message" is also lost.

If only they were in one of the the biggest cities in the world with one of the most fantastic mass transit systems ever devised. If that were the case, they could commute or stay with friends.

Way to ratchet up the pressure on the authorities with a clear presence that they can't ignore!

You mean like the million man march? You mean like what the tea parties did?
Actually marching is better. Hanging out in one little location means you get ignored quickly. No one gives a rat's ass about Occupied Houston or Austin, because they are a few guys off to the side. Seriously I had way more massive protests on a weekly basis in college.

Million Man March? What the feth did they get done? The demonization of Louis Farrakhan?

The TEA party was more than just a march, it was several marches. Plus, it helps that they had Dick Armee willing o help out. Which politician and billionaire is supporting OWS again? I'm sure someone who watches FOX can tell me.

To answer the original posters question: I don't think "Hipsters" are giving it a bad rap.

However, I do think there are a lot of people who try to give it a bad rap. Why? There are so many reasons, and many of them are deeply personal. I'm not too concerned by that, since what else do you expect? TMany peoples way of life depends on the status quo, so of course a segment of people are going to attack.

So, no matter who or what is protesting, some segment of people will demonize it.

I think there is a Nicolo Machiaveli (sp) quote about that somewhere.

Soros
major unions

Oh, so the usual suspects then.

So far, unlike the TEA party, this doesn't seem to be a Dem v Rep type match up.

At first, the TEA party was rather independent too, but it became co-opted by Repubs quickly. Time will tell if the same fate will happen to OWS and the Dems.

I hope it won't get co-opted into more of the same Red vs. Blue type stuff.

But red vs blue is awesome!

Oh, you mean reps vs dems...

Easy E wrote:
However, I do think there are a lot of people who try to give it a bad rap. Why? There are so many reasons, and many of them are deeply personal. I'm not too concerned by that, since what else do you expect? TMany peoples way of life depends on the status quo, so of course a segment of people are going to attack.

So, no matter who or what is protesting, some segment of people will demonize it.

I bolded the part that is a HUGE problem.

You CANNOT just write off people that disagree with you without gaining a better understanding of why. There are millions of people on the fence about any given issue that you will blow off without consideration if you're thinking like this. There are absolutely people who will never agree with you. This is a truth of the universe. But you should NEVER assume that anyone is one of those without understanding why.

There could be millions of people who just don't understand you. There could be people who understand but are suspicious of you. There could be people who agree with you, but have a different optimal plan. You should not be alienating these people by just saying "oh some people are just gonna demonize anything". THAT is dehumanizing. They are your audience.

I mean, OWS is all about trying to establish this revolution of the underclass tone. They have a 33% approval rating right now. You can't have underclass revolution and just write off 2/3 of the country.

I didn't say write them off. I'm just not concerned. I believe the kids today say.... haterz gonna' hate? I'm not concerned about them. Someone chip in and give me a graphic or something...

In sales, we had a saying. If you get 5 people in a room; 1 would always agree with whatever crazy stuff you said. One would never agree, and it was the other 3 you had to convince.

Also, the TEA party is usually around 20%-25% approval.... what is your point? The Nazi's got elected on less than 25% of the vote. You don't need everyone on your side. Just enough to make change.

I think we agree on this Rented. Not the first time, and not the last time.

Rented Tritium wrote:You can't have underclass revolution and just write off 2/3 of the country.

Well, you can, you just have to be a little flexible on what you mean by "underclass" and be willing to kill the right people.

Samus_aran115 wrote:I think this opinion might have something to do with the media's portrayal of the movement as mainly consisting of young men and women of middle class backgrounds who use twitter, facebook and apple products... "hipsters", basically.

While drinking Starbucks...

Yes, to your question.

Byte wrote:

Samus_aran115 wrote:I think this opinion might have something to do with the media's portrayal of the movement as mainly consisting of young men and women of middle class backgrounds who use twitter, facebook and apple products... "hipsters", basically.

While drinking Starbucks...

Yes, to your question.

Thanks for staying on topic, haha.

Arrr good old hipster hatred the latest term the clueless masses will use to label anyone who does not meet there views on someone should dress.

Its like the whole emo label thing usually used by people who have no clue to as to what the actual emo scene/music is.

I know folk enjoy labels because it makes everything all neat and easy in there own minds but really guys theres a point where you just look like some bitter old fart.

So the question here is "do the people who make up Occupy Wall Street give the movement a bad name?" I would have to say "yes."

However, it's not the people per se who are giving the movement a bad name, it's the actions of those people.

Occupy Whatever is a dangerous group of criminals and miscreants who are getting preferential treatment because they're singing a popular political tune.

Melissia wrote:... reading the thread since my last post, I find it kinda funny how strongly in denial people on this forum are that anyone who opposes their viewpoint can ever have anything but the most extreme hyperbole of a strawman as opinions....

Also rather sad as well. Yes, I know it's almost election season, but that's no reason to let your level of logical debate drop to near zero.

Heh. Projection.

biccat wrote:
Occupy Whatever is a dangerous group of criminals and miscreants who are getting preferential treatment because they're singing a popular political tune.

Shockingly, that happens quite frequently. Being popular is a fantastic asset.

*sigh*

Biccat, as much as I hate to say it, you are wrong. The occupy wall street group has many different subgroups of people in there. The perth chapter has housewives, nurses and other employed people some of which I actually personally know. I would not label them *a dangerous group of criminals and miscreants* without actually talking to a member of that group.

Thats whats wrong in this world, people label others without even knowing whom they are first.

Indeed, the OWS in perth actually also protested without a tent village via.....SHIFTS and ORGANISATION, which meant that perth officials had no foothold to chuck them out.

Doctadeth wrote:
Thats whats wrong in this world, people label others without even knowing whom they are first.

The "leader" in my city quit his job to go sleep in a tent and smoke pot.

I'm not making this up...

Byte wrote:The "leader" in my city quit his job to go sleep in a tent and smoke pot.

I'm not making this up...

>Quitting a job to join a protest that wants to promote job creation

Huh?

Samus_aran115 wrote:>Quitting a job to join a protest that wants to promote job creation

Doctadeth wrote:Thats whats wrong in this world, people label others without even knowing whom they are first.

Doctadeth wrote:Biccat, as much as I hate to say it, you are wrong. The occupy wall street group has many different subgroups of people in there. The perth chapter has housewives, nurses and other employed people some of which I actually personally know. I would not label them *a dangerous group of criminals and miscreants* without actually talking to a member of that group.

I have talked to them. And I've seen lots of unedited video of the group.

With few exceptions, the groups are mostly composed of anarchist kids who don't know gak about gak who are trying to impose their misguided ideas on the rest of us.

This is clearly a case of 99% of the protestors making the rest look bad.

Samus_aran115 wrote:

Byte wrote:The "leader" in my city quit his job to go sleep in a tent and smoke pot.

I'm not making this up...

>Quitting a job to join a protest that wants to promote job creation

Huh?

My thoughts precisely, makes for funny news stories on the local radio and local news...

that is one intense stare that guy has...who is that btw? actor wise

biccat wrote:
With few exceptions, the groups are mostly composed of anarchist kids who don't know gak about gak who are trying to impose their misguided ideas on the rest of us.

Well, there have been random surveys of the group, and they don't indicate what you're saying (unless "anarchist kids" means "people I don't like").

Dogma

Take what you can, give nothing back

I'm so going to OWS you....WHERE'S MY WATER CANNON FRAZZLED!!!

Jihadin wrote:Dogma

Take what you can, give nothing back

I'm so going to OWS you....WHERE'S MY WATER CANNON FRAZZLED!!!

Not only have I never protested anything, I pay taxes!

I let you go this time since your taxes pays me in the mlitary and soon my disabilities I acquired from getting IED

Jihadin wrote:Dogma

Take what you can, give nothing back

I'm so going to OWS you....WHERE'S MY WATER CANNON FRAZZLED!!!

Don't forget your designer clothes and 3 wireless devices so you can facespace, tweet, youtubes, and skype your way into pop culture history!

Ha!

Okay, what about the group in Philly, or over in melbourne, or even in Queensland or QueensTown?

Sorry Biccat, but you can't base a generalisation on one group. I'm going to have to argue here that it's the 5 percent of those who joined to argue against the government instead of for the creation of jobs that are making the bad impression.

I do know people who chose to demonstrate in the OWS in solidarity for their brothers and their friends, rather than for themselves. They had jobs and they had a home etc that they went back to. Indeed, one got pepper sprayed and beaten, not for bothering the police, but for trying to help his brother who had been unfairly fired three months ago.

Its things like that that really feth me off when people say protesters are arsecakes. The majority aren't, the majority want to protest without violence or force.

Its things like that that really feth me off when people say protesters are arsecakes. The majority aren't, the majority want to protest without violence or force

So why isn't any of them trying to defuse the situation? Go on TV and and ask for OWS protesters to cool down? Just saying you know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

50,000 soccer moms thinking of the children ( ) in a giant soccermobile parade you have my attention

Soccar moms

Jihadin wrote:
So why isn't any of them trying to defuse the situation? Go on TV and and ask for OWS protesters to cool down? Just saying you know.

That's a bit unfair, given that you're injecting what the media wants (ratings, not accuracy).

But yeah, you're generally correct, there is a definite sentiment of violence to the protests, even beyond the work of violent protesters. And there isn't really any control placed on that, either because it is implausible (X has no authority) or undesirable (X has authority, but won't use it).

That being said, violence/extreme unrest can be useful in the course of motivation, and OWS may have chosen this unwillingly; we'll see what happens.

Doctadeth wrote:Okay, what about the group in Philly, or over in melbourne, or even in Queensland or QueensTown?

You're right that I'm perhaps unfairly biasing my opinions based on the outspoken and most visible members of the group. But that doesn't mean that the assessment is wrong.

Of course, lots of people based their opinions on the Tea Party movement on the fringe members and had to go out of their way to find the offensive protestors.

I'm not sure it's entirely inappropriate to base my opinion of a group on the most visible members of that group. Especially when the group is purportedly united by a single purpose.

But it is so much easier to hate than it is to think, or God forbid, give a crap about your fellow human beings. Labeling people and ideas into a category that you think you understand as some sub-human category in order to spread hate seems like a sick psychological condition to me. How do you fight hatefulness?

I find it best to base opinions on what the group tells us about itself. For example, examine the iconagrphy and words they use.

Go to the OWS websites: http://occupywallst.org/ and http://www.occupytogether.org/ are good starting points.

Look at the iconography, much of which which either copies of or is made to look like the communist/Russian revolution iconography with some items coming from anarchist iconography. Read their slogans, like "the only solution is world revolution" and "Day of Rage" and "Solidarity Forever!". Note they label themselves as a "leaderless resistance movement. " Not protesting, but resisting. The word choice is deliberate and says a lot.

Why did they pick 17 November as their "day of action"? (dates often have meanings, this one does)

How should one interpret use of those images and words?

If the tea party groups used iconography reminiscent of the Nazi party, how would that have gone over?

Now, go ahead and explain to me how any movement representing itself with communist and anarchist iconography should be interpreted as supportive of democracy or Pro American as these folks claim to be.

Plenty of examples here: http://www.occupytogether.org/downloadable-posters/






I'm sure there are plenty of occupiers who have legitimate gripes or a good point or two to make, but when the group over all uses these images and slogans I can't help but wonder if the majority of its members are what Von Mises termed "Useful Innocents" or the term attributed (maybe wrongly) to Vladimir Ilyich, "Useful Idiots" .

Now occupy Oakland is calling for "TOTAL WEST COAST PORT SHUTDOWN ON 12/12"

Proposal for a Coordinated West Coast Port Shutdown, Passed With Unanimous Consensus by vote of the Occupy Oakland General Assembly 11/18/2012:

In response to coordinated attacks on the occupations and attacks on workers across the nation:

Occupy Oakland calls for the blockade and disruption of the economic apparatus of the 1% with a coordinated shutdown of ports on the entire West Coast on December 12th.

Who does shutting down all west coast ports hurt? I doubt they can pull it off, but these types of stated goals go a long way towards defining the group. The DC crowd is also no 'occupying' or 'liberating' buildings that do not belong to them.

biccat wrote:
You're right that I'm perhaps unfairly biasing my opinions based on the outspoken and most visible members of the group. But that doesn't mean that the assessment is wrong.

No, but it does mean that if it is correct, it is by accident.

biccat wrote:
Of course, lots of people based their opinions on the Tea Party movement on the fringe members and had to go out of their way to find the offensive protestors.

Mommy, they did it too!

biccat wrote:
I'm not sure it's entirely inappropriate to base my opinion of a group on the most visible members of that group. Especially when the group is purportedly united by a single purpose.

So I'm now free to take the liberal media as representative of American conservatism?

Because they are ALL AMERICANS! You don't get to call them Anti-Americans, they are ALL AMERICANS, all voters, all humans. You want their message and iconography to be communist-related, that helps it all fit into your small mind better.

dsteingass wrote:But it is so much easier to hate than it is to think, or God forbid, give a crap about your fellow human beings. Labeling people and ideas into a category that you think you understand as some sub-human category in order to spread hate seems like a sick psychological condition to me. How do you fight hatefulness?

Is not really sick so much as advantageous. I am X generally entails a belief that X is worth preserving, and anything Y threatens that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:
Now, go ahead and explain to me how any movement representing itself with communist and anarchist iconography should be interpreted as supportive of democracy or Pro American as these folks claim to be.

Have you encountered the Sandinistas?

I can understand wanting to preserve your way of life, but there is a point when preserving your own way of life can impose your way of life on others that don't want your way of life. That is what prompts people to get up and do something about it on both sides.

Actually, CpnJake, the more I look at your posted images, and try to think about your argument from your POV, I'm glad the OWS artwork offends you. I think it was meant to offend conservatives with your mindset. This may be the first truly consistant message of the Occupy movement. Although there is no evidence to suggest that the OWS movement has the organizational structure that controls the imagery that individual artists create. You are assuming more than you should IMHO sir.

dsteingass wrote:I can understand wanting to preserve your way of life, but there is a point when preserving your own way of life can impose your way of life on others that don't want your way of life. That is what prompts people to get up and do something about it on both sides.

True, though the ensuing language is different, and the base reactions uniquely hilarious.

You mean like how no one could form a coherent argument against what you were saying dogma, so they attacked your sig line instead? lol
These threads remind me of a big, long "your mama's so fat" exchange.

dsteingass wrote:But it is so much easier to hate than it is to think, or God forbid, give a crap about your fellow human beings. Labeling people and ideas into a category that you think you understand as some sub-human category in order to spread hate seems like a sick psychological condition to me. How do you fight hatefulness?

Dude, how do you not see that you're doing it right now.

Sick psychological condition? First of all, mental illness is not "sick", it's an illness. And second, no, you do not get to say that people who do a certain thing are sick.

When did I say anything about mental illness as generally as you are spinning it? Quit deflecting on whatever you can and stick to the topic.
You ignored everything out of my statement other that what you could spin and fire back with. Are you trying to debate here or spin?

And no, I'm not doing the same thing with CpnJake's argument about shutting down west coast ports. I just happen to agree with him on it, THAT doesn't make sense to me.

This thread has gone down hill. PM your hate to one another.

dsteingass wrote:When did I say anything about mental illness as generally as you are spinning it?

You said "sick psychological condition"

Psychological conditions are morally neutral. If you are casting ANY mental illness as a pejorative, you are being hateful.

And if you are diagnosing medical conditions in your debate opponents because you don't like a logical leap they are making....uhh, that's kind of an issue I think.

You mean like how no one could form a coherent argument against what you were saying dogma, so they attacked your sig line instead

You Sir...are a chucklehead and need to experience life more. Or read a bit further down that thread. Have a pleasent day me fellow

The occupy movement has legitimate concerns. I think there is a serious problem when non-living non-breathing entities are considered living breathing human beings with a voice and a set of human rights to go along. (I am exagerating, but you get the point). The trouble is that the occupy movement is dangerous for a number of reasons. Firstly, its just directionless disgruntlement. Without a direction its just idling around causing a nuisance, and you will start to get some real chafe between a number of groups before, as it already has in a few cases, escalates to violence. Without a goal, all you end up having is a class struggle based on "you started it!". Eventually, it will be easy to lose sight of the goal, and it will be increasingly easier to highjack the movement toward other ends. Say for instance, those LOVELY red downloadable posters Captain Jake showed us. While I will identify myself as a communist, I will also be the first to admit "dat gak don't fly". It's a beautiful idea, but its like classical greek democracy; it only works if everyone is on a first name basis with everyone else, and you are pulling together in a community. The key is community, so once you grow to be around a few thousand people, the communist principle just breaks down because you have too many people pushing in different directons (I won't describe my political leanings beyond topic at hand, if you want more, just look up Slavoj Zizek...) Hence, the soviet-themed/revolutionary posters are dangerous. The last thing you want in any sort of government is a violent change in government, as this will ruin everything. It is not okay to let people get it into their mind that they need to resort to a system/institution-destroying revolution (even if it is violence free). There is a clear reason why civil societies tend toward conservativism and precedent, because the ones that "clean house" get derailed and highly unstable and dangerous. OWS may at its core preach peace, but all I see this kind of imagery doing is highlighting the class difference, and encouraging an environment where the end result is either a crack down on civil liberties (relatively minor, curfews, monitoring, loss of some public privacy.. etc) or violence.
Without a direction or goal for the movement, it becomes easier for a particularly capable fellow to push his or her own interests to the top by identifying themselves as the leader of the local group. So long as there is agreement about this person's leadership, then this person can get away with his own demands. It might seem like its not possible for the OWS to find a leader, but if you really are seeking change, you will eventually turn to specific people to handle certain things. If a mess-up happens at a camp, I guarantee that they have already developed an internal policing system, if the media shows up, they want someone who can clearly articulate the concerns of the group... Now the inverse is also true, and that if this movement is literally directionless, and just a pile of disgruntled teens, this will slide completely the other way. If there is demonstrable reason to erode the rights of the individual and enforce legislation to make people behave, because the prcedent of the protests suggests that people can't be trusted to behave (I'm not so sure, but this past year looks like its been the one of widespread mobs, so it wouldn't be unreasonable for the rights erosion to slip further. I mean, come on, look at how surveillance and web monitoring has skyrocketed in the past ten years) then the result of the movement will simply be a step back.


GAH!!

as far as I can tell, the hipsters could potentially be damaging the movement, by trying to make associations with the.... um.... catastrophic failure that the soviet block was, irrespective of what kind of association or for what reason. That was a militant dictatorial disaster and any associations with it (or, for that fact, because its still alive and kicking and using a similar strain of propaganda; china and north korea) serve only to damage the movement.

Byte wrote:This thread has gone down hill. PM your hate to one another.

Agreed.

I'd just like to mention that decrying "labeling" being done by critics of OWS is funny to me, considering that the entirety of their rhetoric is based on dividing the US into two groups of people.

Jubear wrote:Arrr good old hipster hatred the latest term the clueless masses will use to label anyone who does not meet there views on someone should dress.

Its like the whole emo label thing usually used by people who have no clue to as to what the actual emo scene/music is.

I know folk enjoy labels because it makes everything all neat and easy in there own minds but really guys theres a point where you just look like some bitter old fart.

I'm betting you're 17, max. Whats cool is, when (if) you graduate high school, things like worrying about "having a message" when you dress become irrelevant.

Frazzled wrote:

Jubear wrote:Arrr good old hipster hatred the latest term the clueless masses will use to label anyone who does not meet there views on someone should dress.

Its like the whole emo label thing usually used by people who have no clue to as to what the actual emo scene/music is.

I know folk enjoy labels because it makes everything all neat and easy in there own minds but really guys theres a point where you just look like some bitter old fart.

I'm betting you're 17, max. Whats cool is, when (if) you graduate high school, things like worrying about "having a message" when you dress become irrelevant.

Except that's not really the case or CEO's could/would dress in Hawaiian shirts rather than "power suits", finding the "right" outfit wouldn't be such an issue for so many and making the " right" impresion" wouldn't be so "important"...
Sending/having a "message" when you dress ( for lots of folks) never becomes "irrelevant".

FITZZ wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Jubear wrote:Arrr good old hipster hatred the latest term the clueless masses will use to label anyone who does not meet there views on someone should dress.

Its like the whole emo label thing usually used by people who have no clue to as to what the actual emo scene/music is.

I know folk enjoy labels because it makes everything all neat and easy in there own minds but really guys theres a point where you just look like some bitter old fart.

I'm betting you're 17, max. Whats cool is, when (if) you graduate high school, things like worrying about "having a message" when you dress become irrelevant.

Except that's not really the case or CEO's could/would dress in Hawaiian shirts rather than "power suits", finding the "right" outfit wouldn't be such an issue for so many and making the " right" impresion" wouldn't be so "important"...
Sending/having a "message" when you dress ( for lots of folks) never becomes "irrelevant".

Men - unifomr. Whatever type of work you do will have its own uniform, albeit a suit, coveralls, or even an actual uniform. When not working, crappy clothing that would scare baby Jebus.
done.

Frazzled wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Jubear wrote:Arrr good old hipster hatred the latest term the clueless masses will use to label anyone who does not meet there views on someone should dress.

Its like the whole emo label thing usually used by people who have no clue to as to what the actual emo scene/music is.

I know folk enjoy labels because it makes everything all neat and easy in there own minds but really guys theres a point where you just look like some bitter old fart.

I'm betting you're 17, max. Whats cool is, when (if) you graduate high school, things like worrying about "having a message" when you dress become irrelevant.

Except that's not really the case or CEO's could/would dress in Hawaiian shirts rather than "power suits", finding the "right" outfit wouldn't be such an issue for so many and making the " right" impresion" wouldn't be so "important"...
Sending/having a "message" when you dress ( for lots of folks) never becomes "irrelevant".

Men - unifomr. Whatever type of work you do will have its own uniform, albeit a suit, coveralls, or even an actual uniform. When not working, crappy clothing that would scare baby Jebus.
done.

Right, but those " uniforms" convey a certain "Message/Image" which aren't really viewed as "irrelevant"...I'd wager if you walked into your office wearing a clown suit your boss wouldn't be very happy....as you'd be sending the "wrong message" about your company...thus there is clearly a " right message" to be sent.
...And even your after work attire send a certain "message".." I'm comfortable,I'm scaring baby jebus...now get of my lawn.".

Once you wear the uniform however, you've met the standard. No need to worry about message etc.

Its your choice to look professional. First impression is a lasting impression

Frazzled wrote:Once you wear the uniform however, you've met the standard. No need to worry about message etc.

This is true, but I would say that the same is true for the Hell's Angel who throws on his jacket in the morning or the " Punk Rocker" lacing up his Doc Martens....they're no more " worried" about the " message" they send than the corporate executive slipping into his suit and tie is...in fact, they may be less concerned than the executive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:Its your choice to look professional. First impression is a lasting impression

...And thus...you are sending a "message" through your style of dress.


EDIT:...My point is that " Messages" behind attire never truly become " irrelevant"....The " message" may vary/ change or become less " important"...but everyone ( for the part) still send them.

Ingrained into one's soul. I look at clothes as work, business, casual, and go have fun. Even though for like 20 yrs I had just one "business suit" I wouldn't take long to throw on a Affliction shirt when I get home. Have to admit though a person perception on another is going to be influence by the way their dress.

FITZZ wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Once you wear the uniform however, you've met the standard. No need to worry about message etc.

This is true, but I would say that the same is true for the Hell's Angel who throws on his jacket in the morning or the " Punk Rocker" lacing up his Doc Martens....they're no more " worried" about the " message" they send than the corporate executive slipping into his suit and tie is...in fact, they may be less concerned than the executive.

Agreed, hence I said "uniform." It doesn't have all the angsty have to look cool hep cat emo wrist cutter you normally see in high school.

Jihadin wrote:Ingrained into one's soul. I look at clothes as work, business, casual, and go have fun. Even though for like 20 yrs I had just one "business suit" I wouldn't take long to throw on a Affliction shirt when I get home. Have to admit though a person perception on another is going to be influence by the way their dress.

...Yup, If I see a guy with his pants hanging off his butt and a sports jersey and ball cap, my first thought will be Hip hop fan...even though he might be a sports fan who's just recently lost a great deal of weight and is shopping for new pants...
See a guy in a suit and tie, probably think business man...though he might be a well dressed seriel killer..

though he might be a well dressed seriel killer..

with a name of Dexter

Frazzled wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Once you wear the uniform however, you've met the standard. No need to worry about message etc.

This is true, but I would say that the same is true for the Hell's Angel who throws on his jacket in the morning or the " Punk Rocker" lacing up his Doc Martens....they're no more " worried" about the " message" they send than the corporate executive slipping into his suit and tie is...in fact, they may be less concerned than the executive.

Agreed, hence I said "uniform." It doesn't have all the angsty have to look cool hep cat emo wrist cutter you normally see in high school.

...True enough man, but you know teenagers tend to be much more affected by the " must fit in/ or not fit in" factor than adults ( or at least seem to think about it more on the surface), so...while adults still play the " Attire sends a message" game ( and we do)..a lot of the " give a gak" factor sort of goes out the window ( or changes to a degree).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:

though he might be a well dressed seriel killer..

with a name of Dexter

Exactly.

FITZZ wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Once you wear the uniform however, you've met the standard. No need to worry about message etc.

This is true, but I would say that the same is true for the Hell's Angel who throws on his jacket in the morning or the " Punk Rocker" lacing up his Doc Martens....they're no more " worried" about the " message" they send than the corporate executive slipping into his suit and tie is...in fact, they may be less concerned than the executive.

Agreed, hence I said "uniform." It doesn't have all the angsty have to look cool hep cat emo wrist cutter you normally see in high school.

...True enough man, but you know teenagers tend to be much more affected by the " must fit in/ or not fit in" factor than adults ( or at least seem to think about it more on the surface), so...while adults still play the " Attire sends a message" game ( and we do)..a lot of the " give a gak" factor sort of goes out the window ( or changes to a degree).

Exactly. Thats all I am saying.

I have no problem with the hipster look or people being hipsters. What really bugs me is the predominant hipster attitude that I would describe as "uninformed liberalism"

I'm not talking about all of them, but it's a LOT of them. As a more oldschool keynesean LBJ style liberal, it really rubs me the wrong way when they bash capitalism.

Isn't the hipster look kinda bringing back the black horn rimsomething glasses?

Jihadin wrote:Isn't the hipster look kinda bringing back the black horn rimsomething glasses?

It is.

And I think those glasses are actually really good. They're quite sturdy and won't bend and warp the way metal ones will. I like that.

Meh, I may agree with some of the political ideas , but do tend to find some of the "hipster" elitism a bit annoying/amusing ( though I suspect we're all guilty of some sort of " elitism" to a greater or lesser degree), but...I have to admit if I'm at a bar/party and some guy in a spam t-shirt is going on about not being surprised that no one has heard of " Rainbow monkey trout" because they're music is just so " above" mass consumption...I do get the urge to throw them through a window.

You should give in to those urges.

FITZZ wrote: Meh, I may agree with some of the political ideas , but do tend to find some of the "hipster" elitism a bit annoying/amusing ( though I suspect we're all guilty of some sort of " elitism" to a greater or lesser degree), but...I have to admit if I'm at a bar/party and some guy in a spam t-shirt is going on about not being surprised that no one has heard of " Rainbow monkey trout" because they're music is just so " above" mass consumption...I do get the urge to throw them through a window.

There are degrees. There are hipsters who just dress a certain way or are into certain things and it's no big deal. But some of them want to talk your ear off about how much better those tastes are than anything else and christ that's annoying.

Rented Tritium wrote:

FITZZ wrote: Meh, I may agree with some of the political ideas , but do tend to find some of the "hipster" elitism a bit annoying/amusing ( though I suspect we're all guilty of some sort of " elitism" to a greater or lesser degree), but...I have to admit if I'm at a bar/party and some guy in a spam t-shirt is going on about not being surprised that no one has heard of " Rainbow monkey trout" because they're music is just so " above" mass consumption...I do get the urge to throw them through a window.

There are degrees. There are hipsters who just dress a certain way or are into certain things and it's no big deal. But some of them want to talk your ear off about how much better those tastes are than anything else and christ that's annoying.

Yeah, to be honest how someone chooses to dress doesn't bother me one way or other, hell wear a chicken on your head if it makes you happy..it's no skin off my teeth, and I feel the same about personal taste in art,music...what have you, want to listen to a band that only six other people have heard of?...go to it....but it's really all a matter of taste and just because " speckled butt bananas" lyrics are " dripping with social relevance" doesn't mean that I want to hear a four hour sermon about how " important" their music is.
Hell, a lot of the bands I like aren't "widely" listened to...that doesn't mean I feel the need to doff an " I'm above you" cap.

FITZZ wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

FITZZ wrote: Meh, I may agree with some of the political ideas , but do tend to find some of the "hipster" elitism a bit annoying/amusing ( though I suspect we're all guilty of some sort of " elitism" to a greater or lesser degree), but...I have to admit if I'm at a bar/party and some guy in a spam t-shirt is going on about not being surprised that no one has heard of " Rainbow monkey trout" because they're music is just so " above" mass consumption...I do get the urge to throw them through a window.

There are degrees. There are hipsters who just dress a certain way or are into certain things and it's no big deal. But some of them want to talk your ear off about how much better those tastes are than anything else and christ that's annoying.

Yeah, to be honest how someone chooses to dress doesn't bother me one way or other, hell wear a chicken on your head if it makes you happy..it's no skin off my teeth

How about a turkey?

That must have been a lot of beers and shots.......

CptJake wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

FITZZ wrote: Meh, I may agree with some of the political ideas , but do tend to find some of the "hipster" elitism a bit annoying/amusing ( though I suspect we're all guilty of some sort of " elitism" to a greater or lesser degree), but...I have to admit if I'm at a bar/party and some guy in a spam t-shirt is going on about not being surprised that no one has heard of " Rainbow monkey trout" because they're music is just so " above" mass consumption...I do get the urge to throw them through a window.

There are degrees. There are hipsters who just dress a certain way or are into certain things and it's no big deal. But some of them want to talk your ear off about how much better those tastes are than anything else and christ that's annoying.

Yeah, to be honest how someone chooses to dress doesn't bother me one way or other, hell wear a chicken on your head if it makes you happy..it's no skin off my teeth

How about a turkey?

... ..Well, seeing as how Thanksgiving is almost upon us...it would be appropriate.

Jihadin wrote:That must have been a lot of beers and shots.......

I cannot confirm nor deny that. Nor can I confirm or deny that a can of carburator cleaner was used to make Turkey Head into Flaming Turkey Head.

Heh.

Rented Tritium wrote:I have no problem with the hipster look or people being hipsters. What really bugs me is the predominant hipster attitude that I would describe as "uninformed liberalism"

I'm not talking about all of them, but it's a LOT of them. As a more oldschool keynesean LBJ style liberal, it really rubs me the wrong way when they bash capitalism.

Its the fact that capitalism has become synonymous with exploitation, debt, and environmental destruction. It's hard to look back over the decades without seeing this trend. Now, since communism/sovietism was an undocumented abject failure, but looks nice and shares three points of interest with the youth behind the OWS movement they seem to be clustering around it because it projects the correct antithesis to the current regime. Add to that youthful overconfidence/arrogance and inflated self opinions and you get exactly what you have right now.



That said, unrestricted capitaism isn't the hottest thing on the block that pro capitalists make it out to be. I will give you the example of what happened in the Soviet Union, and that is every staunch pro-communist was adamant that the system failed because they were not puritan enough. You have the same thing being said by capitalists here and now, and that is just a complete and total lie. I mention the housing market implosion as a point of interest here. I have a hard time seeing any "damn dirty red filthy socialist communist neck-bearded unwashed scum expletive expletive expletive expletive" influence that can be argued to have caused the collapse (If anyone DOES see it though, please do mention it). Something needs to be there to kick in and provide some sort of safety net both for people and to get the economy going again, like back in the 30's, or the risk of idiotic revolution by means of killing everyone who had anything to do with ruling the government and replacing the governors with inept nards who will run things to the ground seven times before they get anything resembling a government working (take revolutionist france and russia as obvious examples). I'm not saying capitalism is a PoS, I'm saying it's subject to the same observation as democracy is: "it's the least-bad system".

On a tangent, I recall having read a number of documents in university touting adam smith and haling him a godsend hero. Now for the sake of me I can't remember the points, all I remember is that adam smith was being taken completely out of context and his arguments twisted to suit other's nefarious purposes. The man advocated fair wage/profit from useful labor, and if my memory is up to par, that means he was more of a socialist in the fact that one had to mix their labor with their output, which would put banks and property owners and managers as essentially leeches. (which, in my experience in retail, managers need a boot six feet up their donkey's caves because I don't see why 3 managers need to be in the back passing jokes and laughing when all we need is one person to walk buy, complement the customer on how well they look, and help out the three people trying to handle 15 customers on the sales floor, easilly securing $1'500 to $25'000 for just walking by, but then chewing us out for being unable to complete the sale.... I could go on for another three hours of why I hate managers but I am going to stop right here before I say things I will inevitably enjoy saying but regret later) The real trick is, under the current economic and world structure, anything Adam Smith has to say is a theoretical interpretation applicable at the lowest store-operation level. The amount of organizational work that goes on behind delivering something to a customer has changed dramatically considering just how much of the economy is centered around service than goods/manufacturing.

FITZZ wrote:
Meh, I may agree with some of the political ideas , but do tend to find some of the "hipster" elitism a bit annoying/amusing ( though I suspect we're all guilty of some sort of " elitism" to a greater or lesser degree), but...I have to admit if I'm at a bar/party and some guy in a spam t-shirt is going on about not being surprised that no one has heard of " Rainbow monkey trout" because they're music is just so " above" mass consumption...I do get the urge to throw them through a window.

Couldn't agree more. There is a clear and explicit reason that a band is not in mass consumption, and that is either because it's tererible or because the band has other priorities than making it big, in which case they're probably not that good anyway. I'm into the metal scene by proxy, and its surprising to see just how superficial people get in there.