Two weeks into Occupy Wall Street protests, movement is at a crossroads

@parados,

parados wrote:

My suggestion is to start driving caravans of cars very slowly through rich neighborhoods during rush hour.

It's time to inconvenience the right people.

*edit - Not cars. Bicycles. Fill the streets with bicycles and let them arrest people for that.

Some people are torn on the effectiveness of critical mass protests. Here in DC, I think it's worked pretty well to establish visibility. I don't know that it's been done in the burbs before. That would be pretty great.

Edit - It would be easier with gated communities. Fewer entrance and exist streets to clog up.

A
R
T

0 Replies

I believe the central problem limiting the effectiveness of this "movement" is that its advocates say they represent 99% of the population, when it is clearly evident that they do not. The world has seen such self-appointed "spokesmen" for the mass of people many times before. Only very rarely does the truth comport with these claims.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

I somehow doubt that many here will be shocked by your opinion on this matter.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

That would be up to them. After two months, occupying public space becomes counter-productive.

Has it? To say it's been counter productive is to say that their actions have helped the financial giants political aspirations. Do you believe this has happened?

See, I don't. I remember it wasn't so long ago that Obama was trying to out-cut the GOP with their own gentrification battle horn. It seem that politicians are reacting without needing #occupy to tell them what to do, and this is enough to make powerful lobbies strategize ways to undermine the group with "negative narratives."

wandeljw wrote:

They are burdening local governments and local taxpayers.

Which side of the picket line is more a burden to the local government and tax payers? Sure, McPherson Square is now going to need to be reseeded here in DC since the grass is dead. Small price to pay. I'm also not very moved by the fiscal argument regarding the cities. Their choice of methods drive that cost, not the protestors.

Do you know ho much it costs to fire a tear gas canister? Empty a pepper spray can? I don't, but since neither is requisite, we'd might as well discussing the price tag on using tanks or other military means.

Consider the following passage regarding the use of force:

Quote:

[F]or over 30 years I have seen police universally understand this gesture. Many many times I have seen police treat protestors who sat and linked arms when told they must disperse or face arrest as a very routine matter: the police then approach the protestors individually and ask them if, upon arrest, they are going to walk of their own accord or not the police will have to carry them. In fact, this has become so routine that I have often wondered if this form of protest had become so scripted as to have lost most of its meaning.

No more.

source: Militarization Of Campus Police by Bob Ostertag

Violence is expensive

A
R
T

0 Replies

@parados,

Love the Critical Mass!

a friend who used to post here, BoGoWo, is very involved with the movement

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo, Good conclusion; it's the 99% that must make the necessary change; the 1% doesn't give a ****.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I believe the central problem limiting the effectiveness of this "movement" is that its advocates say they represent 99% of the population, when it is clearly evident that they do not.

You're not the first person to suggest this, and since you can't be bothered to read the thread (where this exact claim has been made at least twice previous), I'll challenge your strawman directly.

The 99% message is made up of people from all walks of life that are from the bottom 99% of the economic distribution. The people represent themselves, and so it's not about saying that they represent 99% of the people (as if such a group would be homogeneous), but that they are from that 99%. You've applied a narrative that is unnecessary. Whether, you want to be associated with them (you clearly don't) or not, that they claim to be part of the 99% and share their stories is nothing you can take away. Further, despite your desire to drive a wedge between you and them, the fact remains that you are a part of that 99% as well, and so that they don't represent you is irrelevant, you refuse to represent yourself.

I suppose you're perfectly pleased with the way money influences our democracy, and have nothing to say?

georgeob1 wrote:

The world has seen such self-appointed "spokesmen" for the mass of people many times before. Only very rarely does the truth comport with these claims.

They are speak for themselves, and form statements/messages based on who shows up. If you don't show up, why complain about the message? To draw a comparison, do you think that a person who wanted McCain to win but didn't vote is valid in complaining about Obama winning?

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

And it won't shock you to learn that I agree with george

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

That interesting, glad to hear it.

I'm more for Occupy than I'm not, but I've self questioned the need for camping out, re whether I'm actually against that or not, being a general use of public space person (including for protest, but not the extremes of what could happen re the surrounding area). Still not sure what I think re the camping out. I am probably for less people flooding in from elsewhere to major squares and more for people standing silently in their own towns, sort of like Women in Black back in the day. On the other hand, that didn't stop the Iraq War.

I agree with those who say it isn't the role of people questioning to come up with some elegant solutions to tremendous problems (in my view) but to format questions that people will notice. To the extent that people notice poor behavior in a way that takes away from the importance of the questioning, I don't think poor behavior is smart. Having said that, I haven't seen that much poor behavior from the OWS people in what I've been reading - but I don't watch tv news or read all the articles around.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

One has to allow for the trick of getting a particularly politically intense female into a tent for a few nights.

The movement doesn't look strong enough. Of the western nations only the French seem to be able to demonstrate effectively. They must not be angered sufficiently.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendi, That's because you don't understand human psychology or politics.

Try to guess who they will be voting for in future elections?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I somehow doubt that many here will be shocked by your opinion on this matter.

Cycloptichorn

Do you suppose anyone here has been even slightly surprised by yours?

Beyond that, I believe it is rather self evident that the occupiers do not enjoy the admiration or solidarity of 99% of our population, and that they do not speak accurately for them ..... any more than do you or I. Moreover, I believe that is precisely the factor that limits their effectiveness. I'm not suggesting that they have had no effect on our political discorse, only that it may be a good deal less than they claim. It all becomes a bit tiresome after a while.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Well in that case it will be un-necessary to bother about them from a voting point of view. Even the Obama camp won't bother about them because it wants to focus its resources on the undecideds.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

This will, I think, happen anyway. It's the long time occupation tactic by the same people that I question*, not so much re legal rights and conflicts of rights (although that too has interest - but in ehBeth's Toronto Park example, the park is being better used) but as tactic.

*I'm ignorant on this though, in that people may be trading off space, coming and going.

0 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

I believe the central problem limiting the effectiveness of this "movement" is that its advocates say they represent 99% of the population, when it is clearly evident that they do not.

You're not the first person to suggest this, and since you can't be bothered to read the thread (where this exact claim has been made at least twice previous), I'll challenge your strawman directly.

The 99% message is made up of people from all walks of life that are from the bottom 99% of the economic distribution. The people represent themselves, and so it's not about saying that they represent 99% of the people (as if such a group would be homogeneous), but that they are from that 99%. You've applied a narrative that is unnecessary. Whether, you want to be associated with them (you clearly don't) or not, that they claim to be part of the 99% and share their stories is nothing you can take away. Further, despite your desire to drive a wedge between you and them, the fact remains that you are a part of that 99% as well, and so that they don't represent you is irrelevant, you refuse to represent yourself.

I suppose you're perfectly pleased with the way money influences our democracy, and have nothing to say?

A confused and somewhat incoherent statement.

I don't read every thread on this site and I suspect you don't either. I have no obligation to read the posts to which you refer and do not claim ever to be making entirely original statements. I doubt that you do either, so cut the phoney condesension.

Whether I am part of the 99% economically or not,(I don't know just what income level marks the divide), the occupiers don't represent me. In their rhetoric and self descriptions they do indeed implicitly (and falsely) claim to represent, or speak for, all of the supposed 99%.

Money of all kinds influences our democracy in both directions politically. I suspect you just don't like the influence of money when it is used to advance views you don't like, but are much more tolerant of money spent by George Soros, environmental lobby groups or labor unions on issues you favor.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I don't read every thread, no. If I intend to comment in one, I tend to take the time to read it if possible. My point remains, your claim which you repeat again...

Quote:

Whether I am part of the 99% economically or not,(I don't know just what income level marks the divide), the occupiers don't represent me. In their rhetoric and self descriptions they do indeed implicitly (and falsely) claim to represent, or speak for, all of the supposed 99%.

... is not based on the #occupiers actual sentiments, but rather the caricature of them that you're more comfortable confronting. They don't represent you? Which ones? To say such a thing would suggest you hear a clear message coming from the group that could even be evaluated. For you to agree or disagree with the group, you'd have to reduce it to a single message. It seems that when it's convenient, #Occupy does have a clear message for criticism purposes. If it did not, how could one so emphatically declare how it doesn't represent them?

You're reducing this to easily digested liberal-conservative politics, which is dumb. You see liberals there, ignore the conservatives, and let the normal routine inform your rhetoric--you know that if there's liberals there, you're not supposed to be there.

Utter georgeshit.

A
R
T

Two weeks into Occupy Wall Street protests, movement is at a crossroads

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know