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.

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:I'm just really enjoying how much the rhetoric between the right and the left has flipped over perfectly now that it's a left aligned protest movement, opposed to the previous right aligned Tea Party.

False equivalence. The Tea Party is significantly different from the Occupy protest. The only similarity between the two is that they're both protests.

The tea party didn't threaten anyone, they always cooperated with the police, rarely got arrested, and even got permits for their gatherings. The tea party is (vastly) about change by internal means. The occupy protests, on the other hand, engage in regular lawlessness, threaten others, and advocate external change as a means of achieving "social justice."

To equate the two is to fail to understand either one.

Plus, the media loves the occupy protest movement. They go out of their way to avoid mentioning their racist and violent rhetoric. Contra the tea party.

Albatross wrote:My question would be this, I guess: Under what set of circumstances can you see the Occupy movements taking up an armed struggle, and how likely is that to happen?

Probably pretty low. Liberl weenies like those that visit the occupy protests have an almost allergic reaction to even the mention of firearms.

Dang. Thanks for enlightening me. I think your bias is showing.

Anyway, I think their non-message is a great strategy. It allows the protest to be a cipher where just about anyone with a beef can identify with it. Once you create demands and a list of things that need to change, people will start bickering about the list instead of the fact that "Something is WRONG!".

In addition, the moment a coherent message comes out of the protests, the media is ready to jump all over it, distort it, mock it, point out its flaws, and generally make that the focus instead of the protests themselves. I think it is pretty shrewd to keep it at the level of boilerplate anger and a sense of injustice. That will help the protest movement grow.

I mean, we can all feel it right? Something is deeply wrong, but we just don't know exactly what. It's like a scratching behind our eyes, an itch that we can't quite reach. But it is there, gnawing away at us. It's a sense of wrongness. Perhaps I'm starting to see the edges of the matrix?

dogma wrote:Your link does not work for me.

Anyway, I'm not fond of the Occupy movement because:

A: They suck at protesting.

B: It seems like cheap anger, more than legitimate grievance.

C: Much of what they have said is unfounded; eg. "The bankers screwed us!" is not correct.

Its not treasonous though.

Im not fond of "protesters" in general.

A: Pinko
B: Hippy
C: Commie pigs

SilverMK2 wrote:Was the American Civil War not the first American Revolution?

Forgive me if that is not the case, not really too interested in American history.

I'd say the first American Revolution was when the colonists told the King to "Bite my shiney metal butt", true Bender Style, in the 1770s.

kronk wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:Was the American Civil War not the first American Revolution?

Forgive me if that is not the case, not really too interested in American history.

I'd say the first American Revolution was when the colonists told the King to "Bite my shiney metal butt", true Bender Style, in the 1770s.

Yeah but they were all of British decent, and it was a British colony, so technically we didn't actually lose a war to foreigners.

Thank feth for that!

mattyrm wrote:

kronk wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:Was the American Civil War not the first American Revolution?

Forgive me if that is not the case, not really too interested in American history.

I'd say the first American Revolution was when the colonists told the King to "Bite my shiney metal butt", true Bender Style, in the 1770s.

Yeah but they were all of British decent, and it was a British colony, so technically we didn't actually lose a war to foreigners.

Thank feth for that!

And YOU for Guinness Beer.

And Scotch.

Welsh Cakes are pretty bitchin, too!

kronk wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

kronk wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:Was the American Civil War not the first American Revolution?

Forgive me if that is not the case, not really too interested in American history.

I'd say the first American Revolution was when the colonists told the King to "Bite my shiney metal butt", true Bender Style, in the 1770s.

Yeah but they were all of British decent, and it was a British colony, so technically we didn't actually lose a war to foreigners.

Thank feth for that!

And YOU for Guinness Beer.

And Scotch.

Welsh Cakes are pretty bitchin, too!

My missus found it amusing when we were in London there was a banner outside a pub saying "HAPPY 4th OF JULY" and she said "How come you guys celebrate a war that you lost? Is it because your glad to be rid of us?"

"Any excuse for a drink love"

mattyrm wrote:

kronk wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:Was the American Civil War not the first American Revolution?

Forgive me if that is not the case, not really too interested in American history.

I'd say the first American Revolution was when the colonists told the King to "Bite my shiney metal butt", true Bender Style, in the 1770s.

Yeah but they were all of British decent, and it was a British colony, so technically we didn't actually lose a war to foreigners.

Thank feth for that!

Respect. You would have thought the British would have known not to ever with the British because the British will kick your ass every time.

Frazzled wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

kronk wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:Was the American Civil War not the first American Revolution?

Forgive me if that is not the case, not really too interested in American history.

I'd say the first American Revolution was when the colonists told the King to "Bite my shiney metal butt", true Bender Style, in the 1770s.

Yeah but they were all of British decent, and it was a British colony, so technically we didn't actually lose a war to foreigners.

Thank feth for that!

Respect. You would have thought the British would have known not to ever with the British because the British will kick your ass every time.

Especially George Washington, the guy had like.. thirty dicks.

"If you took off his boots, you could see the dicks growing out of his feet"

mattyrm wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

kronk wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:Was the American Civil War not the first American Revolution?

Forgive me if that is not the case, not really too interested in American history.

I'd say the first American Revolution was when the colonists told the King to "Bite my shiney metal butt", true Bender Style, in the 1770s.

Yeah but they were all of British decent, and it was a British colony, so technically we didn't actually lose a war to foreigners.

Thank feth for that!

Respect. You would have thought the British would have known not to ever with the British because the British will kick your ass every time.

Especially George Washington, the guy had like.. thirty dicks.

"If you took off his boots, you could see the dicks growing out of his feet"

"Those Colonials are just a bunch of dicks." King George, after a few cups.

kronk wrote:I'd say the first American Revolution was when the colonists told the King to "Bite my shiney metal butt", true Bender Style, in the 1770s.

However at the time there was no "America" to revolt against itself so it was not an American Revolution

SilverMK2 wrote:

kronk wrote:I'd say the first American Revolution was when the colonists told the King to "Bite my shiney metal butt", true Bender Style, in the 1770s.

However at the time there was no "America" to revolt against itself so it was not an American Revolution

Last I checked, even in those days this nice piece of land was still referred to as America... the American continent, the American colonies, etc.

chaos0xomega wrote:Last I checked, even in those days this nice piece of land was still referred to as America... the American continent, the American colonies, etc.

I believe they were often referred to as "the Americas" rather than "America".

However, it would be like if we called the rebellions in India the Indian Revolution(s). Essentially it was a rebellion rather than a revolution, as there was not a change in the ruling party in England, there was only a splitting off of America from the rest of the Empire.

A revolution would involve a struggle for power over the entire nation(s) involved.

SilverMK2 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:Last I checked, even in those days this nice piece of land was still referred to as America... the American continent, the American colonies, etc.

I believe they were often referred to as "the Americas" rather than "America".

However, it would be like if we called the rebellions in India the Indian Revolution(s). Essentially it was a rebellion rather than a revolution, as there was not a change in the ruling party in England, there was only a splitting off of America from the rest of the Empire.

A revolution would involve a struggle for power over the entire nation(s) involved.

I never really understood why its called the revolution and not rebellion, but whatever. I think it might be because until that point (to my knowledge) no colony had have ever split off from its parent nation to form a completely new one, thus it was a revolution in world affairs. Either that, or its because the ideals espoused by the rebellion were revolutionary in their character (in this case revolutionary referring to something new rather than something of or relating to a revolt).

biccat wrote:False equivalence. The Tea Party is significantly different from the Occupy protest. The only similarity between the two is that they're both protests.

That's not really true. They both have problems with the Federal Reserve and the bank bailouts, for example. They're more similar than perhaps you realize.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/10/19/occupy-wall-street-tea-party-born-bank-bailouts/

In before "hurrr fox."

Also, this. Yeah, I know it's a blog but it's an amusing read.

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/10/tea_party_occupy_wall_street.php

There won't be any revolution because they're making even the slightest difference at all, not even getting noticed really. They're so completely ineffectual, and I can tell because I'm at work for some dude who's going to make 20 times more than me for working half as hard by deciding who does the work for him and how instead of just doing it.

Am I capturing it right?

murdog wrote:This all seems a little dubious, given the numbers involved. What do you mean by internal policing?

When someone in your group says something stupid, you grab them and tell them that what they said was stupid. You can do this genially, or aggressively. Well organized protests tend to have people designated for each approach, though generally there are fewer of the latter than the former.

murdog wrote:
Why do they need a leader at this point?

Because effective protesting is all about message control, and protests that go too long without a leader to control the message (barring instances in which the message is very simple, eg. No More Mubarak) increasingly run the risk of amounting to nothing.

murdog wrote:
Is it though? Economy down, unemployment up, divided politics, wars around the globe, shifting geopolitics, changing climate, etc..., not to mention a tide of democratic movements around the world demanding change. We'll have to agree to disagree i guess.

I haven't seen too many calls for democracy, but I've seen a lot of calls for ending the current government; especially in the Middle East. A similar thing happened in Latin America in the late 70's and early 80's.

murdog wrote:
And if it does, will your opinion change?

I have a strong, rational self-interest in maintaining as much of the current system as possible, and many of the demands made by the OWS movement countermand some of the core elements I wish to see maintained. So, on the rhetorical front, the answer is probably no. With respect to the capacity of the movement to protest effectively, the answer is yes.

murdog wrote:
That is an unfair generalization, and does not capture the nature of the OWS protests. Thousands have gone down there because they have experienced real suffering under this system. I think you dismiss too easily the situation of many of your fellows, and also how it connects to you.

You should understand first that I'm almost entirely amoral, and sympathy isn't something I experience very often, so the fact that some of these people may be my fellows and may have suffered is not important to me at all outside of material considerations.

I've been to a couple of OWS protests in an observational capacity, and what I've seen are not people who are suffering, or who have suffered. I've seen the same middle class have-less people that generally make up the main body of protesters around the globe.

murdog wrote:
I'm not sure your friends statement is supported by recent politics in the middle east, unless you think that revolution is not politics...

The revolutions that succeeded in the Middle East were those that saw mass support due the presence of few consequences, or the appearance of such a condition (foolish Syrians, the Assads don't brook dissent, and the army likes them).

murdog wrote:
You misunderstand. I'm not talking about volume. I'm talking about tone. Anger is often grounded in grievance. Does expressing grievance with anger delegitimize it?

That depends on how much sympathy you have for the grievance, but it certainly makes it appear less rational.

murdog wrote:
So are you saying that you believe that Wall Street has behaved within the scope of the law, or at least that any criminal wrongdoing has been aptly investigated and prosecuted? That someone like William Black from that interview has no idea what he's talking about? I really don't know for sure, but I'm trying to find out.

Yes to both.

murdog wrote:
I actually wanted help with the accuracy of the interviewee, but that is a good honest look at OWS.

Sorry, I don't have the patience to watch interviews most of the time, I prefer to read transcripts, so I skipped through the video to get a vibe for what he had to say and then gave my opinion. I should have noted that up front.

murdog wrote:
To me the real compelling part has been that this core have had daily support, including individuals but also unions and community organizations of New York City that have come down and swelled the numbers. And what do you think will happen to it, do you think there will/has been positive results?

I think the most likely outcome is a shift in the rhetoric of the Democratic Party towards populism. This will annoy me, because I hate populism, though others may like it.

SilverMK2 wrote:A revolution would involve a struggle for power over the entire nation(s) involved.

No. Revolution is simply a drastic shift in the legitimate authority of a political, social, or religious entity. Getting a more expansive definition isn't doable, because political scientists are still slapping each other over what is and isn't a revolution. Besides, the British lawyers start off on a false premise. Of course the founding fathers were treasonous and of course the AR was illegal under British law. Why on earth would a state create laws allowing its population to rebel against it legally?

I'll also point out secession and revolution are not the same thing, and Lincoln didn't argue against all secession, just American secession and the rights of a state to leave the Union.

dogma wrote:I think the most likely outcome is a shift in the rhetoric of the Democratic Party towards populism. This will annoy me, because I hate populism, though others may like it.

Hear hear.

I would have less of a problem with populism if so many people didn't believe that:

A: Lizard People are secretly controlling human events.

B: Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a Muslim.

C: The world is ending today.

I could go on, but I think my point is already quite clear.

I'd reply but the world is ending so I have to go prep the signalling device for the alien mothership.

Monster Rain wrote:Hear hear.

I would have less of a problem with populism if so many people didn't believe that:

A: Lizard People are secretly controlling human events.

B: Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a Muslim.

C: The world is ending today.

I could go on, but I think my point is already quite clear.

Really? I would hate it because people are idiots and rarely know what's good for them The government (ideally) is suppose to look out for us, and that entails sometimes doing things we might not like because it's for our own good. The last time populism became a powerhouse in US politics all kinds of horrible things went wrong

LordofHats wrote:Really? I would hate it because people are idiots and rarely know what's good for them

That's basically a distillation of my point, brohemoth.

I was just citing specific examples.

biccat wrote:
The tea party didn't threaten anyone...

biccat wrote:
The tea party is (vastly) about change by internal means. The occupy protests, on the other hand, engage in regular lawlessness, threaten others, and advocate external change as a means of achieving "social justice."

The only coherent (sort of) description of the OWS movement's desires I've seen included a number of demands regarding Congressional action. There have, of course, been statements involving what you describe as "external means", but then quite a few Tea Party members emphasized "2nd Amendment Solutions".

so, yeah, keep putting up that rhetorical front.

Monster Rain wrote:I was just citing specific examples.

Surely the American public isn't that crazy

...

Now that I say it out loud I feel silly.

LordofHats wrote:...because political scientists are still slapping each other over what is and isn't a revolution.

Sometimes we make it into a drinking game.

dogma wrote:Sometimes we make it into a drinking game.

Before or after the cricket match

Soccer, my man, soccer.

Monster Rain wrote:

dogma wrote:I think the most likely outcome is a shift in the rhetoric of the Democratic Party towards populism. This will annoy me, because I hate populism, though others may like it.

Hear hear.

I would have less of a problem with populism if so many people didn't believe that:

A: Lizard People are secretly controlling human events.

B: Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a Muslim.

C: The world is ending today.

I could go on, but I think my point is already quite clear.

You forgot the worst one mate.

D. 45% of Americans think that the world is 6000 years old, and Noah really did build a boat with at least two of each of the estimated 8.7 million species on earth, and all the dinosaurs, but then we called them dragons after we got off the boat and then hunted them all to extinction, and we had ample time, because humans used to live to be 800 years old.

The world ended about 10 minutes ago, when the hot water ran out in the middle of my wife taking a shower.