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.

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%.