Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Büge]

So all the protesters were evicted from Zuccotti Park because "it needed cleaning."

They're welcome to come back, so long as they don't bring tents, sleeping bags or tarps.

There's also been over 200 arrests.

Democracy at work, ladies and gentlemen!

[Büge]

Also:

Occupy Wall Street: Outing the Ringers

[Niku]

Oh and OWS was raided last night, several beaten and their communal library of 5,000 books was trashed.

did they drop any good loot

[Pacobird]

tier 4S iphones

[Esperath]

News so fair and balanced, it's time for Fox News to bust out the double-sized headline banner!

[Thad]

You mean that protesters getting simultaneously evicted all over the country may not have been a coincidence?

[Brentai]

NO JIMMY YOU FOOL

DON'T YOU KNOW IT'S ILLEGAL TO ASK FOR MONEY

[Kayin]

So I dunno, I'm going to throw something out there. Not becase I necessarily believe it, but because I've been thinking about it.

So I was thinking to my self, what if this was a teaparty thing, or something? Just, you know, trying to separate my self from my appreciation for the Occupy movement. How would I feel about an aimless, unfocused movement being cleared from public spaces after months of occupation and being told they can protest, just not be allowed to totally take over the park? Well the little bit of libertarian in me is always disgusted about stuff like this, another part of me finds it unfair to all the people who need to put up with it. I can't rationally say "Well, there is a time limit on free speech" or something, but is there a point where things can get unreasonable? Is freedom of speech the ability to occupy a piece of land indefinitely with no concern for the surrounding peoples or businesses? Are there examples of anything quite like this before?

I don't know how I feel. The whole 'endless protest' thing is a concept I find, conceptually, absolutely delightful. But whatever, I'm just throwing that out there not because I "believe" it or anything, but because you folks make them good words and stuff.

I hope I don't come off as a freedom hating faggot or something. :|

[Doom]

Well it is appropriate to not know how to feel about this, because Occupy Wall Street is currently a little more than a protest but not anything close to say, a revolution.

If anything now is the big moment where we see if everybody gets bored and goes home and is cynical and pouty, or if some sort of coherent political message and movement and demands and stuff arises.

I was thinking about how weird the circumstances are too after the police argument a few pages back. To me, if this is a chance for us to really change the way things are and demand equality from what are basically real life evil cartoon bankers, the police might need to accept a real risk of job loss and hard times to "do the right thing" and stop getting paid to beat the shit out of non-violent protesters. But I'm not in a brave or even good position to say that, yet it's an uncomfortable thought that should be brought up: actual serious change isn't a comfortable thing. There aren't nice neat little limits of how long a tent city is allowed to stay up until the media stops pretending it's some sort of gimmick worth mocking, or politicians stop ignoring it, or something. There isn't a nice time limit for when OWS wins and is allowed their pick of 1 out of 3 civil liberties and everybody goes home and sends high fives over their blogs. Real change, real revolution should be a scary god damn thing.

So again, as long as you're not jumping up and being a Frank Miller about it, there's no real bad stance here. But until OWS stands back up and gets a real message going, I have to wonder if they have something going beyond the whole "sit in one place for a long time."

You know that line? "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."? I imagine there's a whole lot of politics between those last two steps.

[Thad]

See, as a guy who sympathizes with OWS but is not part of it, I find myself asking...hey, what's with the tents, anyway?

They're not necessary to get the message across, and at this point they've frankly become a distraction.  They're feeding into Miller's "they rapin' EVERYBODY" hyperbole, and while any liberal protest will ALWAYS be greeted by sneering "smelly hippie" stereotypes, I still have to heartily endorse going home and showering on a daily basis, even if people are going to call you a smelly hippie anyway.

Seems to me that they can continue the protest -- even a "perpetual" protest -- without setting up camp.

[Büge]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/15/occupy-wall-street-police-violence?

The notion that law enforcement is there to protect a wealthy elite from the rest of the population is not news to those protesters from deprived and ethnic minority backgrounds, many of whom have been subject to intimidation in their communities for years, but for those from more privileged backgrounds, the first spurt of pepper spray to the face is an important education in the nature of the relationship between state and citizen in the west.

[Brentai]

Well the simple view would be "yes they were breaking the law and being a nuisance, but no, not to the point of an armed raid with no prior notice".  I expect some investigation into whether or not proper procedure was followed before that action, and some lawsuits if it wasn't.

The larger view is... while a lot of people are justifiably upset about the new reality that America Is Fucking Scary, I think it's possible that a true majority, or at least a voting majority, is completely in support of this new regime.  We're coming close to having to make a decision whether or not the Bill of Rights can supercede a democracy that demands it be dismantled.

I was chatting with a coworker today about it in vague terms and at some point said, "Come on, this is America!"  He replied with exasperation, "Man, I don't know what that means anymore."

He then followed up with, "I guess it means 'Let's ask for free money.'"

We're kind of at a point where everybody thinks the country needs to fundamentally change, but there are two very different viewpoints as to how.  One side wants to follow the example of those idealistic revolutionaries and the other wants to follow those hard-working pilgrims.

If history is a good predicter, then victory will go to the side that's more ready to drive over the other side with a tank.

Then again, it's not like things were always rosy for the Vietnam protestors, MLK, Gandhi, or that guy who could stop tanks with his face.  Maybe I'm just being pessimistic.

I don't even know what to hope, really.  The truth is I'm a lucky enough asshole to probably come out on top either way.

Good luck, you guys.

[Mongrel]

See, as a guy who sympathizes with OWS but is not part of it, I find myself asking...hey, what's with the tents, anyway?

They're not necessary to get the message across, and at this point they've frankly become a distraction.  They're feeding into Miller's "they rapin' EVERYBODY" hyperbole, and while any liberal protest will ALWAYS be greeted by sneering "smelly hippie" stereotypes, I still have to heartily endorse going home and showering on a daily basis, even if people are going to call you a smelly hippie anyway.

Seems to me that they can continue the protest -- even a "perpetual" protest -- without setting up camp.

It's been pointed out that a large number of protesters (certainly not a majority, but a significant percentage) at occupy rallies are homeless folks. So in those cases it was just convenient to relocate to the protest site.

Anyway, the important thing is what Doom said about now being the point where we see if anybody involved has a real spine, or if this was mostly the product of vague 60's nostalgia from those who didn't live through or really understand that decade.

If the protesters just blow away like so many autumn leaves, the "fat cats" may well figure it's open season on anyone they think they can smack around. In the long run, things getting much worse may be the only real trigger for a solution. 

[Brentai]

Yeah, problem with the tents is that in truth, I think the organizers never meant them to be so permanent.  They were just there to send a message.  When the message was responded with open hostility way earlier than should reasonably be expected, OWS's hands became tied; you either have to maintain the camps, or the audience will start to believe that "have a bat to the face" is an acceptable response to "we're angry".

Continuing this civil disobedience, and such clashes with armed forces, is ultimately necessary for peace, or else the next group to express its displeasure will necessarily have to be prepared to meet such a response at its outset.

[Thad]

We're kind of at a point where everybody thinks the country needs to fundamentally change, but there are two very different viewpoints as to how.  One side wants to follow the example of those idealistic revolutionaries and the other wants to follow those hard-working pilgrims.

That's not new, though; that's exactly the dilemma we faced in framing the Constitution.  And the one that led to the Civil War.

Then again, it's not like things were always rosy for the Vietnam protestors, MLK, Gandhi, or that guy who could stop tanks with his face.

Right, those too.

It's been pointed out that a large number of protesters (certainly not a majority, but a significant percentage) at occupy rallies are homeless folks. So in those cases it was just convenient to relocate to the protest site.

Well yes, and that's part of the problem.  No disrespect to the homeless and their plight, but where there's homelessness there's mental illness and criminal activity, well beyond the abilities of good-natured protesters to handle.  It may be that the presence of the homeless and the presence of violence are coincidental, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Yeah, problem with the tents is that in truth, I think the organizers never meant them to be so permanent.  They were just there to send a message.  When the message was responded with open hostility way earlier than should reasonably be expected, OWS's hands became tied; you either have to maintain the camps, or the audience will start to believe that "have a bat to the face" is an acceptable response to "we're angry".

Which is about what my dad had to say when we chatted about it the other week: "If we lose this time, we'll never have another chance."

Fuck, I dunno.  Seems like this is a critical moment, and hopefully there are some people organizing this shit who are as energized as ever.

[Büge]

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/11/15/mark-millar-responds-to-frank-miller-or-rather-the-reaction-to-frank-miller/

[Brentai]

Can't wholly disagree with that.  I mean, my comment is pretty much buried under the shitstorm caused by the guy who said all the things I knew better to say, because I was talking about a guy who knew how to teach me to know better how to say them.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think the fate of the world may hinge on Guild's ability to teach people how to communicate without setting others off.










FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK

[Thad]

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/11/15/mark-millar-responds-to-frank-miller-or-rather-the-reaction-to-frank-miller/

Problem is that it's pretty much a cavalcade of Internet strawmen.

One: Most people aren't criticizing Frank Miller for his opinion.  They're criticizing him for being a prick.

Two: Most people aren't saying Miller doesn't have a RIGHT to say whatever crazy shit he wants.  They're just saying it's stupid and wrong.  Which, incidentally, is also free speech.

Three: I haven't actually SEEN any calls for a boycott.  I'm sure there are some out there, because this is the Internet, but Holy Terror is doing just fine not selling on its own.

Anyway.  Per my "Where do we go from here?" question, well, I heard a good answer on NPR this morning: not only have tens of millions of people pulled their money out of big banks, but a handful of towns have, too.  And while "tens of millions" may not be more than a mosquito bite to a company that's worth hundreds of billions, well, mosquito bites are fucking irritating.

It's something concrete and it's starting to scale upward.  Hoping it continues to do so.

[Norondor]

Millar's a useless prick moron as well??? YOU COULD KNOCK ME OVER WITH A FEATHER FOLKS

[Thad]

Richard Pace responds to Frank Miller.