This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Occupy Wall Street Protests
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Sounds reasonable.
I'd be interested in hearing more about your "progressive push", and some specific goals you have there, but I don't think that relates enough to OWS to go there in this thread.
Post by
MyTie
Occupy Atlanta (offshoot of OWS) tries its hand at... uh... assembly rules? I'm not really sure what was going on
here
, but I doubt they were either.
Post by
MyTie
Here is your personal
invitation
to join the protesters!
Post by
oneforthemoney
The Starbucks bit amused me.
Post by
Orranis
Here is your personal
invitation
to join the protesters!
I don't understand the point. It's a protest against the weight of the corporations on the democratic process, not against corporations.
Post by
Heckler
I'd be interested in hearing more about your "progressive push", and some specific goals you have there, but I don't think that relates enough to OWS to go there in this thread.
All I'll say in response is that my original quote was that a progressive shift
inside the Democratic Party
would be a good thing. I can't imagine you'd find my thoughts on the inner-workings of the Democratic Party very interesting. It had almost nothing to do with Utopian ideals (I spend very little time thinking about such things), and the core reasons for these beliefs have already been enumerated (insofar as they relate to OWS in some way).
Occupy Atlanta (offshoot of OWS) tries its hand at... uh... assembly rules? I'm not really sure what was going on here, but I doubt they were either.
I have such a hard time trusting Fox News -- I've read this same story on other news outlets, and the Fox spin is palpable in your link. The day this happened, John Lewis was interviewed immediately afterward, and said he was not "disappointed at all" at the block (
source video of John Lewis' response
). In my opinion, he understood the OccupyAtlanta General Assembly's decision to keep Politics (especially partisan politics) out of the Speaking schedule, and emphasize the meaning of direct democracy.
The "block" that was proposed by the General Assembly was worded:
I first would like to acknowledge the invaluable work that Congressman John Lewis has dedicated his life to. He has fought for the freedoms, and the dignity, and the respect of countless lives. However, the point of this General Assembly is to kick start a democratic process in which no single human being is inherently more valuable than any other human being.
To this, Congressman Lewis can be seen nodding in agreement. "Visibly stunned" and other such descriptions of John Lewis' demeanor can only come from someone unfamiliar with his normal expressions. His demeanor and actions in the source video I linked above are more than enough to convince me to throw out the Fox News description.
John Lewis is a sitting Democratic Congressman (irrespective of his part in the Civil Rights movement), and it would be difficult for OWS to maintain its "non-political" self-description if it allowed Congresspeople an official speaking slot on-the-fly, bypassing their normal rules. In addition, the direct-democratic process by which the "block" was proposed and discussed speaks to the structure and maturity of the General Assembly. The YouTube description from the video in your link was designed to be an assault on the OWS, but in my opinion, it functions pretty well as praise at the same time.
The facilitator made it clear that he was not a "leader" and that everyone was completely equal; words often spoken by leftists, but in this case they actually applied their philosophy.
In addition, because the media mostly ignored the context and reasoning behind this move, and portrayed it as a possible "snub" -- OccupyAtlanta's GA has unaminously agreed to invite John Lewis to speak. Their explanation is posted on their Facebook page, and is shown below.
Today Occupy Atlanta General Assembly unanimously agreed to invite Congressman John Lewis to come and speak.
Occupy groups are governed by procedural rules that allow them to function in chaotic circumstances and to exercise participatory democracy in a large group. These rules are based on the principle of absolute equality and each voice being heard.
Anyone may come and speak to or participate in a General Assembly. There is a set order which includes a point where the floor is opened for comments. Anyone present may put their name on the “stack” as it is called and speak. It might seem a simple thing to break the order, but in a large crowd where everyone is supposed to get a chance to be heard, deviating from it quickly causes chaos. Each deviation encourages the next until no conversation can be maintained.
All of the speakers who have attended a General Assembly in New York have followed this process. Occupy Atlanta is unaware of any exceptions. Congressman Lewis, who attended Occupy Atlanta’s 5th General Assembly on October 7, is familiar with consensus from his days as a civil rights leader but was unable to stay long enough to allow the process to unfold due to prior commitments.
Statement:
We hope that explaining our process will go a long way towards preventing any future problems or misunderstandings so that we do not inadvertently give offense to those whose voices and knowledge we would very much like to hear. We are dismayed that anything we have done would seem to show disrespect for a man whom many of us revere, and apologize to everyone who was hurt or angered by our actions.
Here is your personal
invitation
to join the protesters!
Saying that they are generally "against corporations" is a comparable generalization to saying they want to end capitalism; it is malformed, shallow, and juvenile (in terms of maturity of thought). It functions well as a "humorous jab" to the crowd that has already dismissed OWS as a mob of lazy hippies; and equally well to crystallize the perception of that crowd to everyone else.
Post by
292559
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
I think that it should be clear that these people "occupying" Wall Street are generally bottom of the barrel people. They are not the real 99%. The real 99% are the people getting on with their lives, while the protesters pile up garbage on the sidewalks. If they got what they claim to want, then they would put many people out of a job. I don't see how that would help anyone. Also, they promote dividing America by pitting those who are more successful in life against those who may not be as successful. They speak for the American people. Why don't they ask the American people what they want instead of speaking over them? They strike me as a strange bunch of folks with no basic respect for a great civil rights hero and representative, who as an elected official deserves at least a pittance of politeness. Ultimately, they are a shallow group that would sacrifice American interests for what they want.
Another post that I would characterize as "thoughtfully juvenile." Your reasoning is incomplete and shallow, and your conclusions are weak and meaningless since they are based on it. It's one thing to act as though the OWS group is over-dramatizing their case, it's quite another to act as though the 99% have nothing to complain about.
It is all too real of a characterization of a 25-40 year old American to live in a house on which they owe far more than its worth, work at a job that they could lose at any moment which doesn't pay enough to do more than make the ends meet, survive on the sheer luck that they don't get sick or in an accident and lose their insurance (if they have any), and see a pile of debt around them that they have very little hope of ever getting out of, much less ever saving for a retirement.
It's frighteningly possible to do everything right from Day 1 in America, and still end up in the gutter. And as I wrote in a previous thread, the people who have enough luck to make it through all the pitfalls that can befall an American unscathed tend to have a very low perception of how lucky they were. It makes it easy to look down on someone who: got a 4.0 GPA in high school, got into an amazing college, got high grades and a college degree, maybe even a graduate degree (at the same time as a mountain of student debt), and then still can't find a job. They watch their debt spiral out of control, their credit plummet, and their employability drops and drops by the day. Where did that person make the mistake which characterizes them as "undeserving of the American dream" ?
I'll agree that not everyone on the streets fits this description. But I know of many stories personally where the American Dream simply failed the American. Looking for the cause and solution to this failure is the right thing to do, for everyone.
I honestly encourage you to read a handful of stories on
http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/
and ask yourself if there's really nothing wrong in a system where these things happen on a daily basis.
Post by
gamerunknown
I think that it should be clear that these people "occupying" Wall Street are generally bottom of the barrel people.
Ad Hominem.
They are not the real 99%. The real 99% are the people getting on with their lives, while the protesters pile up garbage on the sidewalks.
No True Scotsman.
If they got what they claim to want, then they would put many people out of a job. I don't see how that would help anyone.
Anti child porn legislation puts people out of jobs (I'm not setting up a strawman, I'm elucidating that the appeal to consequences isn't necessary if the people kicked out of jobs are doing something immoral).
The rest of your post constituted real strawmen, appeals to emotion or ad hominems.
Post by
MyTie
They are not the real 99%. The real 99% are the people getting on with their lives, while the protesters pile up garbage on the sidewalks.
No True Scotsman.
I don't agree with either one of you. Neither group is the "true 99%", and it pisses me off a little bit that these protesters are lumping me in with them. I do not support their cause. Then again, I highly doubt that 99% of people agree with me, either. To say so would be presumptuous and obtuse.
Post by
gamerunknown
I don't agree with either one of you. Neither group is the "true 99%", and it pisses me off a little bit that these protesters are lumping me in with them.
As far as I'm aware, they refer to anyone that does not earn in the 99th percentile (ignoring the dubious argument that there's a shadowy cabal of 1% that meet monthly to dine on caviar from gold plated infant skulls while snorting cocaine from ancient scrolls before shooting ivory dice to decide policy). Perhaps you don't want them as your ambassadors. I'd probably disagree with them on a few points. But it would be fallacious to claim that they're not a part of said bottom 99%. Their life circumstances are probably a lot more similar to yours than that of the senator of your state, even.
That doesn't mean that their ideology is. I'm split on the entire theme to a degree. There's the Atlas Shruggery way of construing popular movements as descent into anarchy, but then there's also the whole issue of voting against one's economic interests to serve the wealthy under the Bush administration. As well as the issue of direct democracy and the fact that the representatives of business actually proposed a bicameral chamber to John Adams precisely in opposition to the "vulgar" masses, as far as I'm aware. Perhaps my view is coloured due to the fact that I'm reading "Homage to Catalonia" at the moment.
Post by
MyTie
I don't agree with either one of you. Neither group is the "true 99%", and it pisses me off a little bit that these protesters are lumping me in with them.
As far as I'm aware, they refer to anyone that does not earn in the 99th percentile (ignoring the dubious argument that there's a shadowy cabal of 1% that meet monthly to dine on caviar from gold plated infant skulls while snorting cocaine from ancient scrolls before shooting ivory dice to decide policy). Perhaps you don't want them as your ambassadors. I'd probably disagree with them on a few points. But it would be fallacious to claim that they're not a part of said bottom 99%. Their life circumstances are probably a lot more similar to yours than that of the senator of your state, even.
That doesn't mean that their ideology is. I'm split on the entire theme to a degree. There's the Atlas Shruggery way of construing popular movements as descent into anarchy, but then there's also the whole issue of voting against one's economic interests to serve the wealthy under the Bush administration. As well as the issue of direct democracy and the fact that the representatives of business actually proposed a bicameral chamber to John Adams precisely in opposition to the "vulgar" masses, as far as I'm aware. Perhaps my view is coloured due to the fact that I'm reading "Homage to Catalonia" at the moment.Their motto isn't "We are part of the 99%", but is "We are the 99%". I wouldn't care if they said that they had poverty in common with me. That's fine. But they plaster "We are the 99%" all over their ripped cardboard signs, when they aren't posting to their facebook from their blackberries. Just google "We are the 99%" and you'll see what I'm taking about. It is their motto.
Post by
gamerunknown
Well, I'd agree there. It'd be ridiculous to claim that they represent the views of everyone that isn't hugely well off in society. It'd be less ridiculous to claim that some of those 99% are worse off by supporting certain platforms though. Like an increase in student fees in England, while they still don't approach the cost of attending an American university, still would exclude a lot of people that merited attending university but whose family couldn't afford to bear the costs. Presumably some of the people that would be affected by this change voted for the Conservatives anyway.
Post by
Heckler
Quite a few of them say "I am a part of the 99%" or "We are a part of the 99%," so I guess you're not mad at them. A lot more say "I am the 99%" which is actually impossible if read literally... so we shouldn't read any of the statements literally and instead take the meaning to be implied.
Or you can get pissed off at the lack of "part of." It does seem a little silly though. ;)
Post by
MyTie
Quite a few of them say "I am a part of the 99%" or "We are a part of the 99%," so I guess you're not mad at them. A lot more say "I am the 99%" which is actually impossible if read literally... so we shouldn't read any of the statements literally and instead take the meaning to be implied.
Or you can get pissed off at the lack of "part of." It does seem a little silly though. ;)
That's the second time you've simply dismissed my views as 'silly'. Not cool, Heckler. This isn't just a semantics argument, but an argument of principle. The OWS wants to present a united front of 99% of America vs the 1% rich people. They didn't just "leave out two little silly words". That argument in itself is silly, since the two words change the meaning of the other words completely. The point of "We are the 99%" is to show a joint outrage against that 1%. What would be the point of "We are part of the 99%"? To say that they aren't rich people?
Perception is a big part of the game. I do not want to be perceived as part of their movement. In fact, I find it as my obligation to erode their destructive efforts as much as possible. While I do agree with their motives, to a certain point, I disagree with their goals.
Post by
Heckler
It's not your views that are silly. The first time, it was your complete mis-characterization of Krugman's column, followed by a rebuttal that had nothing to do with your statement -- that's silly. The second time, it's because you're getting "pissed off" at a slogan, or at being "perceived as part of their movement" -- I honestly think you have nothing to worry about, much less be angry over.
While I do agree with their motives, to a certain point. . .
Interesting ;)
Post by
MyTie
It's not your views that are silly. The first time, it was your complete mis-characterization of Krugman's column, followed by a rebuttal that had nothing to do with your statement -- that's silly. The second time, it's because you're getting "pissed off" at a slogan, or at being "perceived as part of their movement" -- I honestly think you have nothing to worry about, much less be angry over.That's a matter of opinion.
While I do agree with their motives, to a certain point. . .
Interesting ;)
There is nothing interesting here. They have such a broad range of views that to find one you agree with isn't hard. I can find stuff I agree with that was produced by Obama, or Hitler, or Stalin, or Ted Bundy. I think the only person I've run across whom I have NOTHING in common with is
Angela Davis
, but I don't think she is really a human.
Post by
Heckler
There is nothing interesting here. They have such a broad range of views that to find one you agree with isn't hard. I can find stuff I agree with that was produced by Obama, or Hitler, or Stalin, or Ted Bundy. I think the only person I've run across whom I have NOTHING in common with is Angela Davis, but I don't think she is really a human.
lol, fair enough. (the lol is about the Angela Davis comment, I don't know anything about her, so your characterization made me laugh -- I assumed that was the intent, so don't get offended). Now go get OCTGN.
Post by
MyTie
It was meant as humor. I'll look into the card program later tonight.
About Ms.Davis... let me give you a taste: On January 21, 2011, Davis was the keynote speaker in Salem, OR at Willamette University's MLK Week Celebration held in Smith Auditorium where she declared that her biggest goal for the coming years is to shut down prisons. During her remarks, she also noted that while she supports some of President Barack Obama's positions, she feels he is too conservative. Riiiiight.
Post by
Heckler
A dire (and hilarious) warning from Glenn Beck concerning the OWS protestors:
"Capitalists, if you think that you can play footsies with these people, you're wrong. They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you. They will do it. They’re not messing around. Those in the media – and I am included in this – they will drag us out into the streets and kill us. If you’re wealthy, they will kill you for what you have. You cannot tolerate this kind of stuff. You certainly do not encourage it...they're Marxist radicals...these guys are worse than Robespierre from the French Revolution...they'll kill everybody."
(
source
)
Hyjal kids, Hyjal wife...
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.