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.

halonachos wrote:Bill Ayers came to my school this week, I really need to graduate so I don't get associated with that.

I have no idea why they invited the guy here, we have umpteen military bases in the area and we invite a guy who tried to blow up the Pentagon. Not cool ODU, not cool.

Should have taken the opportunity to put him in a hole.

Frazzled wrote:

halonachos wrote:Bill Ayers came to my school this week, I really need to graduate so I don't get associated with that.

I have no idea why they invited the guy here, we have umpteen military bases in the area and we invite a guy who tried to blow up the Pentagon. Not cool ODU, not cool.

Should have taken the opportunity to put him in a hole.

I was sure that it was a sting and every student that went there was picked up by the CIA and sent to the Caribbean for a vacation.

Easy E wrote:
See, that's good old 20th century, Newtonian world model thinking. Every thing can be controlled down to the smallest fraction, and if you can change the smallest fraction you have changed the whole. I'm not saying that such a model is invalid. It still exists and works.

However, it is no longer the only effective model.

Actually, it still essentially is. The advent of mass communication hasn't changed the fact that coherent movements require centralized authority. Even the Obama campaign's vaunted approach to web-based organizing hinged on integrating externally recruited supporters into the hierarchical structure of the campaign itself. The same has largely been true of the Tea Party protests, with like-minded groups coalescing to form larger, hierarchical coalitions. The Egyptian Revolution, which many people have cited as an example of a non-hierarchical political movement, was essentially perpetrated by established opposition groups who were then able to quickly attract support by way of information technology, and gernal sympathy.

What information technology has done is reduce the amount of time and effort it takes to develop a large network of people who can be called upon to mobilize, it hasn't changed the fundamental nature of political movements as driven by hierarchy.

Easy E wrote:
I see. So, you don't really think all people should have a say in how a democracy runs. Only the people somehow deemed "worthy" are allowed access to the political process? So is it based on IQ score? If you own land? I'm sure in my personal opinion a lot of people have idiotic beliefs, but it doesn't matter if I think that. It matters if enough voters think that the ideas are idiotic. All I can try to do is influence them into believing the ideas I dislike are idiotic.

Oh, they can say whatever they want, they can even vote in accordance with it, but if I don't like what they have to say I'm going to do nearly everything in my power to marginalize what they're saying.That is, I'm not going to try to convince them what they're saying is idiotic, unless they're in the majority, as that's far too time intensive. Instead I'm going to convince everyone else that what they're saying is idiotic, and that they should be ignored. This can be accomplished by argument, rhetoric, or even the direct disruption of access.

Remember, there's no particular reason that participants in a democracy can't, or shouldn't, attempt to marginalize one another.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:
See, that's good old 20th century, Newtonian world model thinking. Every thing can be controlled down to the smallest fraction, and if you can change the smallest fraction you have changed the whole. I'm not saying that such a model is invalid. It still exists and works.

However, it is no longer the only effective model.

This is not a thing. You are just saying words. None of this means anything. It is nonsense.

Maybe that's why you don't get it. You can't think outside your own paradigm of top-down hierarchy. It happens to all of us. We are only humans and therefore wedded to our own belief systems. It happens to me too.

Check out the difference between Newtonian Management and Quantum Management styles. Granted, I'm not an expert, but it is some interesting reading none the less.

You're not actually employed are you EE...

dogma wrote:

Easy E wrote:
See, that's good old 20th century, Newtonian world model thinking. Every thing can be controlled down to the smallest fraction, and if you can change the smallest fraction you have changed the whole. I'm not saying that such a model is invalid. It still exists and works.

However, it is no longer the only effective model.

Actually, it still essentially is. The advent of mass communication hasn't changed the fact that coherent movements require centralized authority. Even the Obama campaign's vaunted approach to web-based organizing hinged on integrating externally recruited supporters into the hierarchical structure of the campaign itself. The same has largely been true of the Tea Party protests, with like-minded groups coalescing to form larger, hierarchical coalitions. The Egyptian Revolution, which many people have cited as an example of a non-hierarchical political movement, was essentially perpetrated by established opposition groups who were then able to quickly attract support by way of information technology, and gernal sympathy.

What information technology has done is reduce the amount of time and effort it takes to develop a large network of people who can be called upon to mobilize, it hasn't changed the fundamental nature of political movements as driven by hierarchy.

In the past you needed a centralized authority, but now you only need an idea and a direction. Loose networks of individuals working broadly together towards the same idea cna drive the agenda forward more. We see a similar idea with irregular warfare networks. They have an overarching theme, but lose netowrks do all the work towards the greater idea with little or no direction from anyone else.

dogma wrote:

Easy E wrote:
I see. So, you don't really think all people should have a say in how a democracy runs. Only the people somehow deemed "worthy" are allowed access to the political process? So is it based on IQ score? If you own land? I'm sure in my personal opinion a lot of people have idiotic beliefs, but it doesn't matter if I think that. It matters if enough voters think that the ideas are idiotic. All I can try to do is influence them into believing the ideas I dislike are idiotic.

Oh, they can say whatever they want, they can even vote in accordance with it, but if I don't like what they have to say I'm going to do nearly everything in my power to marginalize what they're saying.That is, I'm not going to try to convince them what they're saying is idiotic, unless they're in the majority, as that's far too time intensive. Instead I'm going to convince everyone else that what they're saying is idiotic, and that they should be ignored. This can be accomplished by argument, rhetoric, or even the direct disruption of access.

Remember, there's no particular reason that participants in a democracy can't, or shouldn't, attempt to marginalize one another.

I agree with you up until the direct disruption of access. If that were the case, we might as well simply outlaw groups we don't like while in powe rand thus "disrupt their direct access". I think we can all agree that we then no longer have a democracy (Republic or otherwise).

Frazzled wrote:You're not actually employed are you EE...

More ways to marginalize your opponents.

Frazzled wrote:You're not actually employed are you EE...

Says the other guy that is constantly on DakkaDakka.

I could say I am, but would you believe me?

Easy E wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You're not actually employed are you EE...

Says the other guy that is constantly on DakkaDakka.

I could say I am, but would you believe me?

Good way to say "No.".

No, actually. You've got me there.

I've never heard of "Newtonian management" in the real world, hence the question.

Easy E wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:
See, that's good old 20th century, Newtonian world model thinking. Every thing can be controlled down to the smallest fraction, and if you can change the smallest fraction you have changed the whole. I'm not saying that such a model is invalid. It still exists and works.

However, it is no longer the only effective model.

This is not a thing. You are just saying words. None of this means anything. It is nonsense.

Maybe that's why you don't get it. You can't think outside your own paradigm of top-down hierarchy. It happens to all of us. We are only humans and therefore wedded to our own belief systems. It happens to me too.

Check out the difference between Newtonian Management and Quantum Management styles. Granted, I'm not an expert, but it is some interesting reading none the less.

Again, those are not real phrases. You are just stringing together buzzwords.

Frazzled wrote:No, actually. You've got me there.

I've never heard of "Newtonian management" in the real world, hence the question.

That's because 90% of businesses use it now without even thinking about their management structure.

Most people call is Top-down, but it is essentially "Factory" management across every organization whether it applies to the industry or not.

It's an effective hang-over from the industrial age. Sadly, we are no longer in the "industrial" age.

As for my employment, I'm a wage slave at a corporation in the financial field. I work all day (somedays harder than others) to literally steal from the poor to give to the rich, in exchange I am given a stipend, medical insurance, and a 401K to support my nuclear family with.

Easy E wrote:literally steal

Literally

Easy E wrote: I work all day (somedays harder than others) to literally steal from the poor to give to the rich, in exchange I am given a stipend, medical insurance, and a 401K to support my nuclear family with.

DO they supply you with a mask and pistol or are you an independent contractor?

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:
See, that's good old 20th century, Newtonian world model thinking. Every thing can be controlled down to the smallest fraction, and if you can change the smallest fraction you have changed the whole. I'm not saying that such a model is invalid. It still exists and works.

However, it is no longer the only effective model.

This is not a thing. You are just saying words. None of this means anything. It is nonsense.

Maybe that's why you don't get it. You can't think outside your own paradigm of top-down hierarchy. It happens to all of us. We are only humans and therefore wedded to our own belief systems. It happens to me too.

Check out the difference between Newtonian Management and Quantum Management styles. Granted, I'm not an expert, but it is some interesting reading none the less.

Again, those are not real phrases. You are just stringing together buzzwords.

Believe what you want to believe.

Let me make it really simple and buzzword free. It is the difference between the boss telling you what to do, and the team telling the boss what is going to happen. As long as the boss and the team are aligned in the greater mission, then there is no need for conflict.

Both systems work. The quetion is which system works when and which system works best at a given time.

Now, onto more "Buzzwords". The OWS group have a mission, to change a system that they do not think benefits them. From there, the team can lead the way and "leaders" can simply profit off the motivation, focus, and innovation of the lower levels. The leaders are leading by being part of the team instead of the focus of the team.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:literally steal

Literally

Okay, I am being Hyperbolic there. I'm legally taking their moeny in an unequal transaction and counting on them not being financially sophisticated enough to understand the consequences of what they are doing.

Better?

Not an independent contractor. If I was, i wouldn't get medicla or a 401K. I do wish they gave me a pistol and a mask (and maybe a cool nickname), but then it would be too obvious about what I was doing.

If we all converted to Synergy then we could all Brain Storm a Benchmark to determine weather or not to use Newtonian or Quantum management to build a Flux Capacitor.

AustonT wrote:If we all converted to Synergy then we could all Brain Storm a Benchmark to determine weather or not to use Newtonian or Quantum management to build a Flux Capacitor.

Groupthink, groupthink I tells you!

Disrupting any US mass-transit system is an Act of Terrorism.

systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion. Not buying it as terrorism myself. They're not out to kill anyone to force people to their view

Coercion yes....but not terrorism. Like CptJake. I've seen terrorism up close and personnel. OWS is actually trying to disrupt transportation by occupying the site with as many people as they can get by mass to impede the flow of traffic. Either foot or vehicle.

Now if OWS start packing weapons and some crazy whack starts thinking to make bombs and where to put them. Then by all means I will crush OWS once the orders to deploy but I highly doubt it comes to that. Law Enforcement and our SpecOps will just handle it and we secure our post more. Just incase though my chance to man the water cannon is forfieted since I will put a young soldier in the seat who has not deployed yet to to protect him. In fact I try to find details to remove as many non-deployed soldiers in my platoon to avoid them getting into a shooting situation......

Just woke up and was going to rant...


ITS NOT TERRORISM

It still doesn't change the fact that it never happened

dsteingass wrote:It still doesn't change the fact that it never happened

What? Them trying to disrupt transportation and the regular day to day operation of New York City?

No that has happened. Them trying to perform the act and them succeeding are two different things, certainly.

However, that does not change the fact that they have attempted to do exactly what CptJake has said. It's the OWS movement's own fault that the NYPD isn't stupid and has been watching the news, where protesters and organizers have stated their next moves.

Network News is a great source to gather intell.

Jihadin wrote:Network News is a great source to gather intell.

Heh.

It is when your opposing force makes their battleplan available to you without you having to work for it, wouldn't you agree?

Very much so. I'm sure they're thinking that no one in local/federal government watch Fox news among other news source. Silly insurg....eerrrrr protest leaders

If I didn't know better, I would think that FOX news was just fear mongering.

FOX news? Fear monger?

Say it ain't so!

If I didn't know better, I would think that FOX news was just fear mongering

safe to say all mainline news can fear monger. since Fox is number 1 over them all guess they're main streaming fear mongering eh?

This man speaks the TRUTH!

Get to Fortress Dakka Little E and bring the kid. Next victi..eerrrrr suvivor..day care supervisor..I even except a mature and organize OWS protestor that knows the function of a tiolet and a bar of soap and has his/her own toothbrush to run day care..we have a few teachers already.

back on topic

Why is it that no one in a leadership position of OWS is trying to calm things down. Because right now...worst choice of word use here...its starting to build up to a mob mentality/perception.

Because there is no leadership.

Anyone who tried to stand up and claim to be the leader would be ignored by most people. (well except the corporate media)

Millenials are more into Collaboration and less into having leaders. I know broad brush and all, but this seems to be a very Millenial-centric protest movement, at least at the organizational level.

Pehaps that is why Boomers and Xer's have such a hard time wrapping their heads around it.

So no leadership and no one stepping in to get a handle on the OWS peeps...so they communicate by face book, tweeter, and verbal....its a damn flash mob...

There are clearly leaders in this 'leaderless' movement. They even give themselves fancy titles like "counselman".

They may have their General Assemblies, but those again have clear leaders and followers, though often they are run in such a way that the followers get to think they are on equal standing with the leaders.