Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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