Brontoforumus Archive

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:


This board has been fossilized.
You are reading an archive of Brontoforumus, a.k.a. The Worst Forums Ever, from 2008 to early 2014.  Registration and posting (for most members) has been disabled here to discourage spambots from taking over.  Old members can still log in to view boards, PMs, etc.

The new message board is at http://brontoforum.us.

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 26

Author Topic: Occupy Wall Street  (Read 37797 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Occupy Wall Street
« Reply #360 on: December 04, 2011, 02:41:08 PM »

"So you're saying..." is pure Guild-style strawmanning.  Knock it off.
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Occupy Wall Street
« Reply #361 on: December 04, 2011, 05:06:22 PM »

Leaderless feel-good stuff sounds great in theory, but the "In theeeoory" joke was a hundred years old when the Simpons put Mr. burns and Homer on a raft to Cuba (or was it from Cuba). This communal stuff is not new, it has very long and rich history of abject failure going back at least to 1848 and possibly a lot longer.

That's the kind of "university student clap-trap" I'm talking about. Early on, there was a Tabbibi article (I think it's linked farther back in this thread) about some core messages to focus on. I don't really have a beef with collective leadership - I'm not arguing that we need a MIGHTY MASTER-RACE LEADER to turn the OWS crowd into some kind of brownshirt army - but regardless of whether the leadership was dispersed or focused, a solid message focus would have been really good! Having a message based on three or five key points and hammering away with that message would have also been really good!

But nothing like that happened. Everything I heard said to me that these people were putting style ahead of substance, worrying about communications methods, group leadership or whatever. Whenever they tried to do anything up here, they had a vastly lower turnout than they should have, because planning for marches or whatever was total SHIT. These people were fucking USELESS for getting anything done. I think the Toronto OWS crowd may have been worse than most for that, but it's a story I hear repeated in many cities.

That doesn't mean their greivances aren't real, but it does mean that they were way out of their league. And arguably made no attempt to play catch-up.

To enact real change, you need to get people with their hands on the levers to start buying in. That's how Civil Rights was enacted (or, more recently, tolerance of same-sex couples). Partially from below, but also from the top and the middle. The thing is, I don't see that. For all the ballyhoo about working people joining OWS, most folks are still in denial mode, clinging desperately to the imagined middle-class life of the past several decades (This is natural, this is how the "down" side of the slope works).

I mean, we can try and put lipstick on this pig all we want, but this is not getting any prettier. People had their say and then they got bulldozed. I agree with Brentai's 70%/30% argument, but I still think those exact percentages are optomistic. Like if the 30% is the really tough part, I don't think of that as 30%. It's great to say you raised awareness of your cause, but Fred fucking Phelps can make the same sort of claim.

It's like that story about the cop who said he refused to participate in further supression. Yeah, that's great, but he's ONE GUY. Now, that IS how stuff gets started, but things never progressed from there. You can't keep pointing to isolated cases of agreement and call that a success.

Show me real stuff. Show me congressmen or senators at OWS rallies - or even show me some public statements of support! Were there ever more than one or two? I sure as hell saw more quotes along the lines of "get a bar of soap, hippies!" or long discussions by right-wing "middle-americans" about how the protests were supposedly orgies of rape.

Maybe you guys forget, but this forum bends pretty left, though usually in a reasonable centre-left kind of way. Other places I go are full of vitriol and scorn for OWS. And not in my disappointed "they didn't get the fucking job done" way, but in the dismissive hatred of walking GOP stereotypes.

I mean, okay, if we want to go the full Constantine, then we can say that the US government is no longer a Democracy in even the thinnest sense of the word and that [insert tirade against the semi-secret oligarchy here]. Maybe you'll even say that the protestors were on message, but that the "mainstream media" is really just the tool of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

But given that the government and even the media was still partially responsive and useful even fifteen years ago, I can't really agree. Maybe you guys will eventually wind up there, but even my cynicism is not going to argue we're there - yet. There are problems and they're getting worse by the day, but we're still a ways off from the point of no return.

When we start seeing more Al Frankens elected, or demanding answers, then I will say there's progress and hope. Until then, we circle the drains.
Logged

Brentai

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXYVlPgX_o
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65281
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: Occupy Wall Street
« Reply #362 on: December 04, 2011, 05:40:18 PM »

Two points about the Fredersen that Mongrel just hit on:

1) The Fredersen will definitely have to come from a position of privilege, possibly great privilege.  The poor and angry are easy to ignore on the grounds of "they are poor and angry".  All great movements in history seem to really get their feet when someone who, by and large, have managed to sidestep the oppression that would normally be heaped upon them, turns back to face the less privileged and says "This is wrong."

2) If we are to start making friends among the powerful, Al Franken is probably a really good place to begin.

(Before anyboy starts taking me too literally, I'm not saying we're waiting for one man or that Al Franken is Jesus or something.  I'm just describing one of the many factors that need to be in place for a successful mediator party to enter the system.)
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Occupy Wall Street
« Reply #363 on: December 04, 2011, 05:53:09 PM »

Yeah, waiting for an MLK to come along is a bad (and very stupid) idea.

OWS doesn't necessarily need a Golden Leader, but it could definitely use some leadership.
Logged

Royal☭

  • Supreme Court Judge President
  • Tested
  • Karma: 88
  • Posts: 6301
    • View Profile
Re: Occupy Wall Street
« Reply #364 on: December 04, 2011, 06:39:36 PM »

I think, though, that it was thinking we had found The Leader in 2008 that led us to where we are now.

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Occupy Wall Street
« Reply #365 on: December 04, 2011, 07:02:02 PM »

I wouldn't say that's the whole problem, but it's definitely a contributing factor.
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Occupy Wall Street
« Reply #366 on: December 04, 2011, 08:07:03 PM »

1) The Fredersen will definitely have to come from a position of privilege, possibly great privilege.  The poor and angry are easy to ignore on the grounds of "they are poor and angry".  All great movements in history seem to really get their feet when someone who, by and large, have managed to sidestep the oppression that would normally be heaped upon them, turns back to face the less privileged and says "This is wrong."

2) If we are to start making friends among the powerful, Al Franken is probably a really good place to begin.

We've a handful of allies in high places.  Franken's one; Buffett and Branson are a couple from the jet set.  Stewart and Colbert are ultimately sympathetic to the movement even if they're quick to point out what's wrong with it.  (Colbert in particular has taken the brilliant step of hiring the best message man in the business to promote the "Corporations are people" message satirically, short-circuiting the best efforts to ACTUALLY push that message.)  Warren...well, as I've said before, Obama burned us all pretty good, but I like to think she won't if she's elected.

Yeah, waiting for an MLK to come along is a bad (and very stupid) idea.

OWS doesn't necessarily need a Golden Leader, but it could definitely use some leadership.
I think, though, that it was thinking we had found The Leader in 2008 that led us to where we are now.
I wouldn't say that's the whole problem, but it's definitely a contributing factor.

Yes to all of these.
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Occupy Wall Street
« Reply #367 on: December 04, 2011, 08:18:07 PM »

Quote
Warren...well, as I've said before, Obama burned us all pretty good, but I like to think she won't if she's elected.

Uh, do you mean Buffett? Because last I checked he wasn't a she and certainly isn't running for office.


On the subject of Warren Buffet, I'd agree he sympathizes meaningfully, though he may not completely be in OWS corner. The issue there is that he's playing the charitable retired old man role and is mostly removed from direct involvement in politics (avuncular comments and advice notwithstanding).

I'm not saying that his moral support is bad, or unwanted, or that a fellow of his age needs to involve himself deeper in this mess. Far from it. His statements have provided some of the most useful ammunition OWS folk have. If he shut up tomorrow, he wouldn't owe OWS a hair off his ass.

But it's still just moral support. He's not going to be the one getting his knuckles bloody. Nor should he be.
Logged

Royal☭

  • Supreme Court Judge President
  • Tested
  • Karma: 88
  • Posts: 6301
    • View Profile
Re: Occupy Wall Street
« Reply #368 on: December 04, 2011, 08:22:32 PM »

He's talking about Elizabeth Warren, who is a she.

Of course, I don't see anything wrong with hoping one neophyte, center-left Democrat Senator will change everything.

Caithness

  • Hat Man
  • Tested
  • Karma: 8
  • Posts: 889
    • View Profile
Re: Occupy Wall Street
« Reply #369 on: December 04, 2011, 08:29:29 PM »

Warren Buffet is very much a supporter of the status quo.

According to a documentary I saw on Netflix streaming (appropriately titled The One Percent), he disowned his granddaughter simply because she talked to the filmmakers about the lifestyle of the super-rich.
Logged

Mongrel

  • Emoticon Knight-Errant
  • kodePunc Team
  • Tested
  • *
  • Karma: -65340
  • Posts: 17029
    • View Profile
Re: Occupy Wall Street
« Reply #370 on: December 04, 2011, 08:32:27 PM »

He's talking about Elizabeth Warren, who is a she.

Of course, I don't see anything wrong with hoping one neophyte, center-left Democrat Senator will change everything.

Ohhhh that one.

Well, she might be useful, but I'll believe it when I see it. Don't hold your breath until you see one of two things:

1) A big Democratic Party infight/coup. Or at least a serious argument/discussion. Basically, there's now a section of the Republican party that's firmly aligned with the Tea Party and beholden to it. There's no such analogue for the Democrats.

2) Honest-to-god party splintering, with new parties created. Not just a left-wing splinter, either. If the GOP splits, that's good too.

Neither of these are really in the wind, though they might start to be, depending on what happens in the Republican primaries and the next round of elections.
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Occupy Wall Street
« Reply #371 on: December 04, 2011, 09:12:10 PM »

Warren Buffet is very much a supporter of the status quo.

Sort of.  He vocally favors progressive taxation, which hasn't been status quo this century.

He's a supporter of the 1990's status quo.  Which is somewhere to the right of what I consider ideal, but a big fucking improvement over what we've got right now.

According to a documentary I saw on Netflix streaming (appropriately titled The One Percent), he disowned his granddaughter simply because she talked to the filmmakers about the lifestyle of the super-rich.

Not sure about disowning but he's been vocal on not leaving anything to his heirs in his will.

Well, she might be useful, but I'll believe it when I see it.

I think the fact that we now have a Consumer Protection Agency is a pretty big damn deal.  Course, it hasn't actually done much of anything yet.

My instinct is to like Warren.  The only reason I've got so far to mistrust her is general bias against political neophytes with populist messages.

Don't hold your breath until you see one of two things:

1) A big Democratic Party infight/coup. Or at least a serious argument/discussion. Basically, there's now a section of the Republican party that's firmly aligned with the Tea Party and beholden to it. There's no such analogue for the Democrats.

Yes and no.  I've been saying for my entire adult life that the Democratic Party needs to cater as much to its base as the GOP does to its.  But I don't think the current Tea Party situation is anything to emulate; it's bad for the country and I'm inclined to believe it's going to be bad for the Republican Party too.  Guess time will tell.

2) Honest-to-god party splintering, with new parties created. Not just a left-wing splinter, either. If the GOP splits, that's good too.

Neither of these are really in the wind, though they might start to be, depending on what happens in the Republican primaries and the next round of elections.

Those would be good signs -- in the long run, anyway, though a party that splinters is going to have a pretty rough time in the near term.  (Unless both major parties splinter at once, which as far as I know hasn't really happened before.)

Sure as hell not holding my breath for it, though.  It looked like the post-2008 tension between the fundamentalist and Libertarian wings of the GOP would cause a rift, and it still might -- but the presence of a common enemy has really helped re-cement their common cause.

As for OWS, I'm not sure it has the wherewithal to mount primary challenges to DINOs in the way that the Tea Party did with establishment Republicans.  Again, time will tell.

I'd love to see a viable third party materialize, but after Perot it got harder and after Nader it looks pretty much impossible.  I think it would take a prominent politician jumping ship, or at least another billionaire capable of running a vanity campaign.

I've mentioned before that I think Americans Elect has the right idea but isn't going to be anything more than a footnote this election.  Still, it could be one of those things that's just ahead of its time -- I certainly won't rule out a social networking revolution a dozen years down the road.

By which point I'll be old enough to run for President.  Hm...
Logged

Royal☭

  • Supreme Court Judge President
  • Tested
  • Karma: 88
  • Posts: 6301
    • View Profile
Re: Occupy Wall Street
« Reply #372 on: December 04, 2011, 09:19:50 PM »

Yes and no.  I've been saying for my entire adult life that the Democratic Party needs to cater as much to its base as the GOP does to its.  But I don't think the current Tea Party situation is anything to emulate; it's bad for the country and I'm inclined to believe it's going to be bad for the Republican Party too.  Guess time will tell.

Considering that Congress is probably less well liked than child-raping murderers at this point, I think time has passed judgement on the Tea Party. Republicans and Teahadis like to paint 2010 as the definitive proof that America was looking for conservative ideas, but it's probably more likely that they just hated the Democrats so much that their base fled.

As for OWS getting involved in politics, it's not likely. Most oppose the party system, and especially don't want to A) Become an arm of the Democratic party and B) reduce their message to The Leader syndrome.

Now, that hasn't stopped efforts like forming a mass party of labor, and unions have been grumbling about ditching the Democrats. That'd be a big win for whatever hypothetical, non-existent party could take them.

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Occupy Wall Street
« Reply #373 on: December 04, 2011, 09:29:17 PM »

Considering that Congress is probably less well liked than child-raping murderers at this point, I think time has passed judgement on the Tea Party. Republicans and Teahadis like to paint 2010 as the definitive proof that America was looking for conservative ideas, but it's probably more likely that they just hated the Democrats so much that their base fled.

I think you're right, but there's still a very real possibility that the public's animosity against Congress is indiscriminate and they're not blaming the Tea Party specifically.

As for OWS getting involved in politics, it's not likely. Most oppose the party system, and especially don't want to A) Become an arm of the Democratic party and B) reduce their message to The Leader syndrome.

And I think ultimately that kind of stubbornness could easily turn their message into a useless fad.

I've certainly backed politicians who had no shot at winning -- Nader, Kucinich, that guy I mentioned the other day who ran for governor in '02 -- but there's still a STRATEGY there.  What the Tea Party did "right" was that its candidates forced the mainstream candidates to pay more attention to their base.  McCain is a good example -- there was a brief period where Hayworth was beating him in the polls; McCain changed course and won by a tidy margin.

There's also the issue of exerting financial pressure on the financial institutions to change, but I don't see that happening without political support.  I've already mentioned cities that have pulled their money out of the big banks; that's kinda by definition political support.
Logged

Zaratustra

  • what
  • Tested
  • Karma: 48
  • Posts: 3691
    • View Profile
    • Zaratustra Productions
Re: Occupy Wall Street
« Reply #374 on: December 05, 2011, 05:05:22 PM »

“If you have the 1 percent saying, ‘Tax the 99 percent’ and the 99 percent saying, ‘Tax the 1 percent,’ you have a standstill.”
—Joseph Zarelli, lead Republican budget negotiator in the Washington State Senate

 :profit:

Doom

  • ~run liek a wind~
  • Tested
  • Karma: 46
  • Posts: 7430
    • View Profile
Re: Occupy Wall Street
« Reply #375 on: December 05, 2011, 06:37:56 PM »

Photojournalist released from prison after Occupy LA arrest with some black and blue freedom marks on his face.

Combined with the comic-book evil plans to prosecute people for protesting and force them to be educated about their first amendment rights and the evil amounts of bail they're setting, I'm guessing the LAPD has run into the strength of the internet age and can't really hide behind their "clean police action" anymore.

Quote
We'll include a First Amendment law component about having to stay within the law in terms of conduct. We don't care what the message is but we are concerned about illegal conduct.

Stop bothering rich people or else?
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Occupy Wall Street
« Reply #376 on: December 05, 2011, 09:31:42 PM »

“If you have the 1 percent saying, ‘Tax the 99 percent’ and the 99 percent saying, ‘Tax the 1 percent,’ you have a standstill.”
—Joseph Zarelli, lead Republican budget negotiator in the Washington State Senate

I appreciate his honesty in flat-out stating that the people with the money are roughly equal in influence to the people who outnumber them ninety-nine-to-one.
Logged

Caithness

  • Hat Man
  • Tested
  • Karma: 8
  • Posts: 889
    • View Profile
Re: Occupy Wall Street
« Reply #377 on: December 05, 2011, 10:10:02 PM »

That's mostly because about half of the 99% have aspirations of being part of the 1% some day.
Logged

Classic

  • Happens more often than you'd think.
  • Tested
  • Karma: -58471
  • Posts: 7501
    • View Profile
Re: Occupy Wall Street
« Reply #378 on: December 06, 2011, 02:25:20 AM »

That's mostly because about half of the 99% have aspirations of being part of the 1% some day.

Did we read the same couple of cynical books on the subject? Because that is exactly my thoughts.
Logged

Thad

  • Master of Karate and Friendship for Everyone
  • Admin
  • Tested
  • Karma: -65394
  • Posts: 12111
    • View Profile
    • corporate-sellout.com
Re: Occupy Wall Street
« Reply #379 on: December 06, 2011, 06:51:40 AM »

That's mostly because about half of the 99% have aspirations of being part of the 1% some day.

I'd say MOST of the 99% have aspirations of being part of the 1%.  It's just that about half of them think they actually WILL if they just work hard enough.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 26