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.

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.