The "Occupy" Movement

[Thorgi Duke of Frisbee]

I feel a burning need to discuss everything happening around "Occupy Wall Street". So I've decided to make a thread where we can link to pertinent videos and articles, and discuss this radical movement.

 

First, an excellent article written by Slate about the mainstream media's obsolescence and inability to properly discuss just what the hell OWS is about:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/10/how_ows_confuses_and_ignores_fox_news_and_the_pundit_class_.html?tid=sm_tw_button_chunky

 

Next, we have some forceful beatings of a peaceful protest by the NYPD, which especially made my stomach churn:

 

Let's not forget the flash bang that caused this particular protest in Oakland, thrown at an Iraqi vet that served two tours and is now in a coma. Oakland Police still deny that they ever used flash bangs, though this video makes that claim pretty hard to refute:

http://youtu.be/QqNOPZLw03Q

 

And this is how the Washington Post decided to cover it all:

http://wonkette.com/455265/washington-post-illustrates-oakland-police-brutality-with-cop-petting-kitten

[Battra92]

Quite frankly, the occupy kids are at best ignorant pawns of larger groups such as unions, communists and other slime of the earth. They are spoiled brats who used Daddy's money to buy their iPads and their fair trade coffee.

[Thorgi Duke of Frisbee]

Quite frankly, the occupy kids are at best ignorant pawns of larger groups such as unions, communists and other slime of the earth. They are spoiled brats who used Daddy's money to buy their iPads and their fair trade coffee.

Please go and say that to the Iraqi vet who served TWO tours of duty and is now in a coma from a flash bang OPD claims they never threw. I'm sure you'll make his day... if he ever wakes up again.

[Cyber Rat]

Quite frankly, the occupy kids are at best ignorant pawns of larger groups such as unions, communists and other slime of the earth. They are spoiled brats who used Daddy's money to buy their iPads and their fair trade coffee.

 

Do expand on this.

[Johnny]

Quite frankly, the occupy kids are at best ignorant pawns of larger groups such as unions, communists and other slime of the earth. They are spoiled brats who used Daddy's money to buy their iPads and their fair trade coffee.

 

This is quite frankly amazing.

 

1) They are "at best" ignorant pawns? What are they at worst?

 

2) How are they pawns? Do you have any evidence of this?

 

3) You're equating unions and communists with slime of the earth? As someone living in a country often viewed by many americans as communist-like, I take a bit of offense to that. Also, my father works for a union. If I were inclined to take your post that seriously, I would take offense towards that part as well.

 

4) I like how you personally know that all the OWS members are spoiled brats living off of their parents. Are you omniscient, or just making wild generalizations?

[madbassman39]

My feelings on the Occupy movement is this: The idea behind the movement is understandable, and even IMO respectable. Something I can probably agree with, but some of the people protesting seem to not be sure of a clear motive of the idea, they are just protesting to "stick it to the man".

 

I also disagree with getting in working people's ways, running out in the streets infront of traffic. As someone trying to get to work to pay my bills, I should not be blocked from going to work and I should not have to slam on my brakes because a protester ran out infront of my car when I was driving 45 mph down a street. As a driver I am responsible for my safety and the safety of others and when somebody does something stupid like that. I could have been hit by a car following to close to me and been injured myself.

 

Its because of how they are affecting me is the reason I cannot get behind the movement. I don't support idiots who endanger their lives and the lives of others.

 

This may be all secluded to the greater LA area, but that's where I live, and that's what I see. Peaceful protests with eye catching slogans and spreading your ideas through a public forum for change are great. Movements, are great. The attention this cause has is enough to start a change, but when it starts to get diluted, like it has near me, that's when I cannot get behind it.

 

The police are aggravated by these protesters. When an officer is trying to protect them from hurting themselves and the protesters decide not obey, they have every right to get frustrated. The problem is, getting frustrated and attacking the protesters are not the same. Getting frustrated is very reasonable, attacking a protester and beating them is not. I think the biggest issue is getting the officers to be responsible for what they are doing. Its wrong and pathetic to attack protesters marching, or showing their support if they are not inciting violence.

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

MBM hits it on the head again. The movement does seem to be getting sidetracked. I also think that, despite everyone decrying the mainstream media for not "getting"' the protests, they really do need to focus on a few key issues to bring about change. To a lot of people, it just comes off as people being unhappy, which is absolutely understandable. But of course, there is no solution to that side of it. We ought to be protesting corruption and an unfair sytem, versus just the fact that some people have a heckuvalot more money than we do.

 

1.) Bank bailouts--this was a horrible idea when it happened, and we should hold the banks responsible for their financial screwups, bad investments, and misleading the public on the quality of mortgage loans and other investments.

 

2.) Corporate interests in Washington--this is seriously out of hand. When relatively small bills have tens of millions of dollars of unrelated riders congressmen attached for the sole purpose of taking care of lobbyists, we have a real issue. Solutions need to be legislated.

 

Solve these two issues, and the majority of people cant claim they don't have a fair chance to succeed. I understand a lot of OWS's frustrations, but I find it hard to get behind the movement as whole because a lot of it devolves into anti-capitalist nonsense. What we need is a level playing field (which we do NOT have right now due to corruption)--not a redistribution of wealth people earned fair and square.

 

 

Quite frankly, the occupy kids are at best ignorant pawns of larger groups such as unions, communists and other slime of the earth. They are spoiled brats who used Daddy's money to buy their iPads and their fair trade coffee.

You're just as bad as the extremists of the Occupy movements. There is a very real and very legitimate point that the OWS folks are making. Just because a lot of fringe groups latch onto it doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water. You sound insane.

 

EDIT: Just gotta say, as a conservative, that that is probably the dumbest thing I've ever read on these boards. Wow.

[Pirandello]

Please go and say that to the Iraqi vet who served TWO tours of duty and is now in a coma from a flash bang OPD claims they never threw. I'm sure you'll make his day... if he ever wakes up again.

It was a flashbang? From what I understand, he was shot at point-blank in the head by a half-pound less-than-lethal rubber projectile (which, at point-blank, is more than enough to be lethal).

 

And then the Oakland police had the nerve to throw grenades into the crowd that were attempting to retrieve him. The numbers at Occupy Oakland have swelled since then.

 

As for my opinion on the movement itself: I stand with him, but unfortunately have far too much invested into the current system, so I cannot join them. It's a rather touchy situation.

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

Yeah, I think the flashbang was a separate incident. According to Reuters, it was a tear gas canister.

 

EDIT: And the veteran's awake now, too, according to the link, though having trouble with speech. Way to go, Oakland PD.

 

Also, perusing that link, what the heck? Occupy Oakland's intent was to "shut the city down": "We mean nobody goes to work, nobody goes to school, we shut the city down," organizer Cat Brooks said. "The only thing they seem to care about is money and they don't understand that it's our money they need. We don't need them, they need us."

[CorgiShinobi]

Seriously, I'm word for word with P4 and MBM.

 

There are some understandable, if not agreeable points to the OWS movement. However, all this movement has amounted to is an "idea" and not much else. That's why it's difficult to fully understand; the different factions of OWS have different views, and quite frankly, they're not helping that much other than to say "there's a problem."

 

A while ago the "53%" spawned, which if you're unaware of is the conservative response to OWS. Again, I find it to be somewhat agreeable. Yeah, it's difficult out there, but who said life would be a cake walk? You've got to work to live, and etc. There's no doubt in my mind that a good portion of the "Occupiers" are more so complaining than actually frustrated by the economic imbalance. Still, I feel like it's a bit insensitive to those less fortune to at least be in a stable job.

 

Anyway, there are two types of people in OWS:

 

1. The hive mind of protestors how come to stick it to the big, bad Man, and so forth.

 

2. The others who are actually trying to make a difference.

[RockyRan]

I think the idea is pretty clear, at least from where I'm standing. What bothers me more are the crazies going out yelling for (and getting) all the attention, which makes the media focus on that because the media loves crazies and controversy, which makes people get the wrong idea.

 

Several myths include the fact that it's ONLY hippies and 20-something hipsters sipping lattes and singing Kumbaya. There's people of all kinds, sizes, races, genders, backgrounds, and socioeconomic statuses protesting, but again, the media only focuses on the hippies and the crazies so everyone around the world who doesn't know any better thinks that way too. There's also the myth that they're being violent or "disturbing the peace". I don't know much about the other Occupy movements, but the one in NYC has been fairly peaceful (save for the early days with the march on the Brooklyn bridge, etc.) and clean up after themselves as best they can. The biggest problem over there in terms of "inconvenience" is that there's nowhere for the protesters to relieve themselves because the nearby stores have banned them all and the city refuses to supply porta potties. You can imagine what happens next. Then there's the myth that it's a completely idea-less movement with people just shouting "boo". That was just a tactic that the media used to try and dismiss the protest in the early days, but now even they largely have admitted that there's a clear message. It's generally a lot of misinformation and cloudy facts being sprinkled out that obfuscates the reality of the protests, but it's actually clear and not anywhere near as disorganized or meaningless as some people believe.

 

Some people out there think they shouldn't be doing this because "it makes no difference". I don't actually know of any single protest that directly makes a difference. From the Greensboro Sit Ins to the original Tea Party incident (the colonial era one, not the bullshit they have today), protests are inherently unable to do anything directly. Imagine if other people would go to that diner and tell the black kids that they're stupid because "sitting in a diner isn't going to magically make the president sign civil rights reforms", or if other citizens would go to the Tea Partiers and say that they're just being loudmouthed derelicts with nothing better to do than dress than indians and destroy personal property for no reason.Protests are never about handing the Prez a binder with a well-organized step-by-step dissertation of exactly how to fix what they want him to fix complete with a table of contents and an appendix with footnotes. They're always about unhappy mobs practicing civil disobedience who are saying "This is wrong. I strongly do not agree". Protests are never supposed to be the solution, they're the building blocks to the change the protesters want to see. In the case of Syria, the protests led to a bloody and aggressive coup, and in the case of the 1960s in the United States it was a massive movement consisting of hundreds if not thousands of incidents and protests as people put pressure on the rest of the nation and its leaders to change civil rights. Saying "there's no point because protesting makes no difference" or "I don't see them presenting a solution" blatantly misses the forest for the trees.

[excel_excel]

http://www.buzzfeed....upy-wall-street

 

These signs are great! this is my favourite.

 

 

Been meaning to research it.....and now I have. The message isn't simple, can't be shrunk down to a tagline on a news channel. I think Alan Grayson's defence and (maybe oversimplification) explanation of the issue here is good http://www.youtube.c...&v=RZgZeAOaq4U#

Good luck to them all

Edited October 28, 2011 by excel_excel

[CorgiShinobi]

For me, I think the sign of a proper protest is if, aside from simply describing the problem, there is some thought in direction. No one should expect an exact and elegant solution from any one protestor, but it greatly helps when anyone in the protest could be asked what could be done and why it could work.

 

Otherwise it does come down to mere complaining rather than a clear example of dissatisfaction in the current system.

[Baconrath]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Occupy%22_protests

 

It's nice that it's more than just occupying space, I guess. Bonus points for tactical frivolity.

[CorgiShinobi]

Yeah, I don't particularly care for how (supposedly) these protests were initiated by an anti-advertising activist group.

 

I dunno, I guess it would be an instance of "agree to disagree."

[Mal]

That Oakland incident is pretty murky. The protester were given a three day notice to leave since they were growing to be a public disturbance with all the filth they have created. Then there were the two incidents of them blocking paramedics to answer calls. Then when the time came to get out, they didn't. So the police comes, shit get thrown from the crowd and that is when the police moved in. I'm 50/50 on the use of flashbang but damn, Berkley kids. They are truly "Fuck the police" in a part of the Bay Area where the police are trained to not to take shit, being in Oakland.

 

As for the Occupy movement, it for sure have a solid basis for it to happen. When you have college hippies to an old conservative grandmas from big cities to the smallest towns occupying one place or another because they feel that the system is broken for a vast majority of people. You have problems. So many big problems that this movement doesn't have much direction.

 

I personally can't deny that the system has problems but nothing unworkable with. Living takes effort. I'm sure I can get to where I want in life if I do what I must by tangoing with the system. However, I still support the protesters because, as I said, the system is broken. Not everyone can try as hard as I do, hell I mostly likely only scratch the surface when it comes to effort but the point is that I believe anyone should be able to pursue their happiness*. Not purely on handouts, that is for sure but it definitely helps if we can get a hand, some leverage to get to where we want to be.

 

*Excluding parasites and people like that who get happy for being parasites. Those people can go fuck themselves.

 

As for the solutions... hell if I know. All I know is that I have 99 problems and a bitch isn't one.

[Saturnine Tenshi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW56Z-0xwIQ&feature=player_embedded

Edited October 28, 2011 by Saturnine Tenshi

[Thursday Next]

Like most here, I understand and sympathise with the motivation for the protests, but am mystified as to the direction they want to take, let alone the destination they want to reach.

[Saturnine Tenshi]

Good. I thought I was the only one who gathered that from everything.

[RockyRan]

For me, I think the sign of a proper protest is if, aside from simply describing the problem, there is some thought in direction. No one should expect an exact and elegant solution from any one protestor, but it greatly helps when anyone in the protest could be asked what could be done and why it could work.

 

Otherwise it does come down to mere complaining rather than a clear example of dissatisfaction in the current system.

 

A big factor in these protests is the fact that they're protesting against a deep, complex issue. It's simply too complex for people to simply shout "give us more civil rights!" or "stop taxing without representing us!" These protests are created as a result of over a decade long of unhappiness stemmed from the nation's largest corporations essentially taking over the nation, the government, and many people's day to day lives.

 

People are mistaking "This is a complex issue" with "they're just complaining". Make no mistake, it's a complex issue, but listening to the (sane) protesters carefully can give you a good general idea of where they stand (and many people have actually said what they think should be done). And again, protests are not inherently about providing solutions. They're about civil disobedience and shouting there's a problem.

[CorgiShinobi]

I agree Rocky, but when you have such a widespread protest over such a complex issue, doing more than just shouting and waving a sign for "civil disobedience" will be for the benefit of the idea and direction of ongoing protests.

 

I say this because as public perception steadily becomes more favorable, I fear that more people will join but merely parrot whatever the closest group is yelling about. "It's complex" should not be an excuse if you're going to create a disturbance that has the potential to widely conflict with societal function. As I said before, what we don't need is more people shouting, but more people trying to make a difference.

 

Don't leave it to the few outspoken members, because quite frankly, if you're going to ever recall this experience years from now, you'll need to say more to your child/grandchildren, "Well, there was a problem with... government and banks I believe... What does the textbook say exactly?"

[RockyRan]

Like I said, there are a variety of videos of people essentially rambling during the protests about what they should do, what the problems are, and how to fix them. People aren't going to shout this same thing for 8 minutes in unison while marching down some street.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-KA3ZTD6V4

 

Remember that the media isn't reporting on these kinds of things. If you can take the time to dig a little deeper you can see people with an idea. IMO, the protest in general and its direction is pretty much clear.

 

I say this because as public perception steadily becomes more favorable, I fear that more people will join but merely parrot whatever the closest group is yelling about.

 

Are you trying to say every single protester should have his/her own 8 minute ramble with his/her own unique ideas? Because that's not how protests generally work. They're ideas by mob. Go ask protesters during the 60s and many of them said pretty much the same thing but it's really not "parroting", they just all agreed on the same issue.

Edited October 29, 2011 by RockyRan

[CorgiShinobi]

Take my previous, and this comment, more as a statement on "protesting" rather than about the Occupy Movement.

 

Protesting is a very powerful means of voicing opposition, but I've never been fond of it. The reasons I list above, not to mention how easily a peaceful protest can turn into a passive-aggressive mob, and even (as MBM said) frustration and stress of law enforcement turning into brutality. It's rarely a reasonable event, though I guess that's asking too much given human nature.

 

To me, if someone is going to spend their valuable time being involved in a protest, especially one as demanding as Occupy, they need to have a solid determination and reason to do so. The reason why news networks and other media outlets can easily dismiss such protests is that at the outer layer you do find the protestors who are just there. If you ask them what's and why's, they'll give you a run-around and that's that. The more complex the issue, the easier to dismiss the idea behind the protest because of the weaker link.

 

Again, protesting is powerful, especially in the emotional spectrum. That's why I believe people with weak determination and reason will join so easily without thought of why they should do so. That's what I mean by "parroting;" adopting the views of the core group (idea + direction) without the same knowledge (and commitment).

Edited October 29, 2011 by Atomsk88

[deanb]

I think it's a depressing sign of the times that it's both a general feeling of such huge amounts of wrongness that it can't just be put in a simple snappy tagline, and that it's generally being ignored and dismissed because it can't be put in a tagline n instantly understood. "What do we want? Womens suffrage/black rights/gay marriage!".So snappy and easy to understand.

But "What do we want? A working representational democracy that represents the people of america instead of the rich 1%; to have the banks and financial institutions that allowed the recession to happen, to continue with fat profits while unemployment rose, to be punished instead of rewarded; to have corrupt politicians to be ousted or at least to bear their mark of their buyers, truth, justice, reasonably priced love, and a hard boiled egg!" takes a bit of rehearsal and for subtitles to be turned on.

I guess you could go with "what do we want? To fix everything!" but it's a bit too broad.

 

With something like gay rights it's easy to understand the solution. You protests a bit, rise awareness, change public opinion, have laws written in, voilà gays can marry.

 

With this though it's harder to find a solution. You can raise awareness, and it seems the public opinion is definitely sure something in general is wrong with US atm. But where do you go from there? There's no political solution. You're gonna get the politicians you reckon are in the pocket of the financial institutions (that could easily pay to have laws changed regarding protesting in certain places at certain times changed), to change their ways, to vote in laws that would punish their beneficiaries and hurt their pockets?. All you can do is vote on who represents you. The elephant or the donkey, same two every four years. What would change? Just one group of politicians for another.

 

A protest doesn't make changes like this. You're looking for an R word (There's at least 2, I'd suggest the really long one that leads to a change of the C word that dictates how a country works)

 

In case you're not getting the hint that'd be a revolution to change the constitution. It's my understanding it was made with the express purpose of being scrapped and re-written once in a while. Your founding fathers weren't stoopid. They probably had a feeling what worked three hundred years ago probably wouldn't cut it centuries down the line.

 

 

Of course it doesn't help that most of your media are owned by "the 1%" so it's going to be hard to get support there. And if police continue like in Oakland someone will get killed. And it will turn ugly. And it's on a flip of a coin if it becomes a major outpouring of sympathy to the movement, or if the resulting riots that will happen make it easier to paint the whole thing (no matter how small a fraction involved) to be bad.

 

The weather is turning, it's going to be harder to stay out n camp. I think that'll tell you who is dedicated or not. Oh and the fact that unemployment is one of the issue does lend a healthy amount of supporters with the time to dedicate to camping out. So that's handy I guess. (Though it seems like some Americans I've seen are quite happy to mock and dismiss unemployed people as some kind of sub-class. Quite disgusting)

[Hot Heart]