What did the Occupy movement accomplish?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I voiced my opinion on this a few threads ago and I say this as a liberal: OWS accomplished nothing. Not a single fuck was given except that these dirty, useless people decided to sit around and protest instead of doing something useful and constructive with their time.

The root of that failure is that there was no goal, no organization, no mission, and -- let's face it -- no money.

But more importantly, it's hard to sympathize with a bunch of able-bodied, able-minded folk who decide that they are going to protest by sitting around and occupying some space.

Let that sink in for a moment: they protested by sitting around and occupying some space. Yeah? Their message was income inequality? Well has anything changed since then? Has income inequality improved? Is there a plan or long-lived movement now to fix this?

Complete and utter failure.
 
Occupy got nerfed by the police state we live in these days. The rules for protesting kept getting changed and moved, and the government did everything it possibly could to minimize/mitigate or make inconvenient their right to assemble and literally occupy the spaces they were in.

They got us talking about income inequality. They got us talking about police brutality and overreach of governmental power. They got us talking about protesting. If that's all they accomplish when this is all over, that's more than most. The value of social discourse, of social upheaval, of protesting, is not so much in the result but in the attempt - thank goodness people still care enough to do something, anything, more than changing your Twitter avatar or making a few FB posts.

The media did its job for the government and/or its corporate masters, making sure to work overtime to frame it as some confusing thing. Without a distinct head, or a soundbite they could hone on, they just decided to say it was just hippies, college kids and bums or whatever doing drugs and fucking. Oh well - it was, and is, more relevant than those people who choose to believe that anyway.
 
it bought a lot of international attention to what a bunch of freeloading assholes most hippies are.

Watching the idiots protest the '1%' outside the Amsterdam stock exchange, where socialprograms and fucking high taxrates to ensure quality of life for the majority already exist, was maddening.
 
x-Lundz-x said:
I'm sitting here saying that the wealth gap has always existed and will always be there and you posted a graph that proves my freaking point man. What do you think I am talking about? Those straight lines at the bottom of that graph you posted...you know where they are going to be in the next 40 years? The same place, holding down the fort at the bottom of that graph. That is my entire point. The rich will keep getting richer, and the poor just keep getting poorer. It's the way the world works man, and has always worked. If you don't believe that, and you really believe this will ever change then you live in a fantasy world.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Absolutely wrong. You think Kings of the middle ages have the same power as rulers of today? You think our president has the same power as the tyrants in China? You think the tyrants of China have the same power over their people as the rulers of the same country fifty years ago? Do you hae the slightest bit of a clue?
Not everyone is going to be president of the united states, and classes will always exist (duh), but that doesn't mean all rulers have been given the same treatment or that being poor is the same as being poor throughout time and location or the same for the middle class and upper class.

In other words, You Are Talking To Yourself.
 
To quote the West Wing

Bartlet: "...The German thinker Max Weber said that politics is 'the slow boring of hard boards and anyone who seeks to do it must risk his own soul'.... It means that change comes in excruciating increments to those who want it. You try to move mountains --- it takes lifetimes...."
Click to expand...

And I think that's the undoing of movements like OWS, sit-ins are pointless when real change takes a lifetime of work. All you can really hope is that the movement inspired a few hundred people to get involved for real, and that those people will leave a mark.
 
x-Lundz-x said:
The occupy movement is about money, not the quality of life index. And in terms of money, of the have and have nots, no it isn't any better.
Click to expand...

Again completely wrong. You're giving us a 3000 year timespan to play with but even with 50 year's data you'd be shown categorically wrong. Look at only a few hundred years ago with income inequality just before the French Revolution. With 3 millennia you can go back to times where people earned literally nothing and they were owned by a single monarch.

edit:

I'm sitting here saying that the wealth gap has always existed and will always be there and you posted a graph that proves my freaking point man.
Click to expand...

Don't be so disingenuous. It's about if the wealth gap is improving, not if it still exists. Look at your own posts:

And in terms of money, of the have and have nots, no it isn't any better.
Click to expand...

The world is no better / different then it was 3000 years ago.
Click to expand...
 
dave is ok said:
Isn't that every protest?
Click to expand...

No.

Consider a strike by factory workers: there is a very real consequence to that in that the company loses productivity; there is an impact on the company's bottom line that motivates them to come to the table.

Consider a strike by teachers: there is a very real consequence to that in that it lengthens the school year, causes parents (aka voters) to make alternate plans for their kids during the day like hiring a baby-sitter, taking time off of work, etc.

Consider a protest by airline pilots over pay and work schedule: there is a very real consequence to that in that it delays flights, causes cancellations, and there is a real financial impact.

Consider OWS: a bunch of mostly able-bodied, able-minded, unemployed people sitting around, wasting taxpayer dollars due to increased sanitation costs, police patrols for safety and keeping the peace, etc. There was no impact except that these dumb fucks literally just took up space.

Who the fuck can sympathize with that?
 
dave is ok said:
Isn't that every protest?
Click to expand...

MLK didn't make his speech on the Lincoln Memorial and then sit there for a year. He organized voting drives, taught how to protest, studied up on local injustices, and made a solid network of Churches, sympathetic civilian leaders, and legal scholars to fight with him. Doing nothing but protesting accomplishes little.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
LOL. Sure it was.
Click to expand...

I'm persuaded.

Consider OWS: a bunch of mostly able-bodied, able-minded, unemployed people sitting around, wasting taxpayer dollars due to increased sanitation costs, police patrols for security and keeping the peace, etc.
Click to expand...

People exercising liberties and partaking in civic education in public spaces did not waste taxpayer dollars. That was Bloomberg, and only Bloomberg, who wasted it.
 
empty vessel said:
I'm persuaded.
Click to expand...
Good, there is some hope for you.

Marleyman said:
I know that; I am saying nonsense to you highlighting that as all that was accomplished by the movement.
Click to expand...

No, that was about it except helping David Goyer out.

ConfusingJazz said:
MLK didn't make his speech on the Lincoln Memorial and then sit there for a year. He organized voting drives, taught how to protest, studied up on local injustices, and made a solid network of Churches, sympathetic civilian leaders, and legal scholars to fight with him. Doing nothing but protesting accomplishes little.
Click to expand...

This X 100. It's also why many found the comparison of it to the Civil Rights Movement to be really offensive.
 
The problem the movement had was that where was no clear message or leader. And because their was no clear message or leader the crazy shit that the crazy supporters had defined the movement for many americans. That's sad because I think many of the problems OWS brought up were legit that many Americans agree with.
 
x-Lundz-x said:
I'm sitting here saying that the wealth gap has always existed and will always be there and you posted a graph that proves my freaking point man. What do you think I am talking about? Those straight lines at the bottom of that graph you posted...you know where they are going to be in the next 40 years? The same place, holding down the fort at the bottom of that graph. That is my entire point. The rich will keep getting richer, and the poor just keep getting poorer. It's the way the world works man, and has always worked. If you don't believe that, and you really believe this will ever change then you live in a fantasy world.
Click to expand...
Those lines weren't always flat:
stagnant-wages.jpg%3Fw%3D640%26h%3D486


No one's expecting a perfect solution, however everyone but you prefers bad to worse.
 
ConfusingJazz said:
MLK didn't make his speech on the Lincoln Memorial and then sit there for a year. He organized voting drives, taught how to protest, studied up on local injustices, and made a solid network of Churches, sympathetic civilian leaders, and legal scholars to fight with him. Doing nothing but protesting accomplishes little.
Click to expand...

This man is correct, MLK was a pioneer and a pro at that.
 
ConfusingJazz said:
MLK didn't make his speech on the Lincoln Memorial and then sit there for a year. He organized voting drives, taught how to protest, studied up on local injustices, and made a solid network of Churches, sympathetic civilian leaders, and legal scholars to fight with him. Doing nothing but protesting accomplishes little.
Click to expand...

Exactly. For a movement to succeed in its goals, the participants must take actions that have an impact on the outcome and not just pout like a little kid.

The Tea Party movement, for example, has been extremely successful because its constituents vote at a higher rate than the average citizen and it seems that they are better at enticing donations for their political candidates and causes.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
No really the people in Philadelphia would leave human feces all over the place, I think a few sexual assaults occurred there too. I'm sure a bunch more unreported ones there and especially in New York.
Click to expand...

Oh fucking please, the only thing full of human feces is you Manos. I live in Philadelphia and there have been no reports of human feces or sexual assaults as far as I know.

And of course they are "unreported" assaults according to you.
 
I remember watching a YouTube video where people of OWS were being interviewed. Someone actually said that there should be no government at all and that we should just live in anarchy. The fact that this person was serious was troubling. How can you side with that?
 
CharlieDigital said:
Exactly. For a movement to succeed in its goals, the participants must take actions that have an impact on the outcome and not just pout like a little kid.
Click to expand...
Spreading the word does impact the outcome. Every news network had to mention these people and what they were protesting, for many news cycles.

You may not respect their method, but it brought attention to an issue.
 
OriginofHysteria said:
I remember watching a YouTube video where people of OWS were being interviewed. Someone actually said that there should be no government at all and that we should just live in anarchy. The fact that this person was serious was troubling. How can you side with that?
Click to expand...

So you are basing the whole movement off of some random nut? Cmon now.
 
 
OriginofHysteria said:
I remember watching a YouTube video where people of OWS were being interviewed. Someone actually said that there should be no government at all and that we should just live in anarchy. The fact that this person was serious was troubling. How can you side with that?
Click to expand...

Side with it? So one person discredits a whole movement?

Come on how old are you? it's scum 'journalism' 101 find the person with the most extreme opinion and prime them.

There was plenty of sensible debate but you were obviously not interested in finding it.
 
dave is ok said:
Spreading the word does impact the outcome. Every news network had to mention these people and what they were protesting, for many news cycles.

You may not respect their method, but it brought attention to an issue.
Click to expand...

Bringing attention is a step. However, if that's your end goal or your greatest accomplishment, you're doing it wrong.
 
I think it is funny how people complain about sanitation and inconvenience as negatives to a social movement attempting to avert a large upheaval.

If OWS manages to help the middle and poor class, will dissenters decline improvements in quality of life? Or will they continue to hold fast to the ruling wealthy class that carrot and sticks you to obedience?
 
Dabanton said:
Side with it? So one person discredits a whole movement?

Come on how old are you? it's scum 'journalism' 101 find the person with the most extreme opinion and prime them.

There was plenty of sensible debate but you were obviously not interested in finding it.
Click to expand...

Most likely because it wasn't occurring near anything associated with Occupy.
 
ConfusingJazz said:
Bringing attention is a step. However, if that's your end goal or your greatest accomplishment, you're doing it wrong.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, they failed at enacting any real change - part of that is due to the lack of leadership. The group wanted to be a headless organization and that let a lot of people make ridiculous claims on their behalf.

The other part is that you can't really rely on elected officials to choose constituents over their piggy bank.
 
Marleyman said:
So you are basing the whole movement off of some random nut? Cmon now.
Click to expand...

Well no, were there some normal legitimate ideas? I would think so. But that doesn't avoid the fact that the random nuts with perplexing unrealistic ideas like free college for everyone were outvoicing those with solid ideas. And unfortunately for our OWS protestors, that's what the general public viewed them as, freeloaders who did nothing and had stupid ideas

Dabanton said:
Side with it? So one person discredits a whole movement?

Come on how old are you? it's scum 'journalism' 101 find the person with the most extreme opinion and prime them.

There was plenty of sensible debate but you were obviously not interested in finding it.
Click to expand...

I never said that was the banner that OWS was under, and I knew people who supported it that had fair ideas, so no, you're wrong about me not interested in finding it. If you read one of my earlier posts you would have found that I said OWS consisted of a thousand ideas that not everyone agreed with and that was a downfall to their movement. I just brought up an example of one of those ideas that probably 90% of OWS disagrees with.
 
dave is ok said:
Spreading the word does impact the outcome. Every news network had to mention these people and what they were protesting, for many news cycles.

You may not respect their method, but it brought attention to an issue.
Click to expand...

Spreading the word does not impact the outcome any more so than the Mormon missionaries who show up at my door once in a while in converting me to Mormonism.

Voting and money impacts the outcome (more so that latter than the former, sadly). And OWS, unlike the Tea Party movement, will succeed on neither front.
 
catfish said:
it bought a lot of international attention to what a bunch of freeloading assholes most hippies are.

Watching the idiots protest the '1%' outside the Amsterdam stock exchange, where socialprograms and fucking high taxrates to ensure quality of life for the majority already exist, was maddening.
Click to expand...

Yes. The income equality here is pretty good already. Sure there are things to protest for but certainly not the 1%.
 
Cat Party said:
The only reason anyone paid attention to OWS was when they clashed with the police.
Click to expand...

You mean when the police repressed them.

CharlieDigital said:
Spreading the word does not impact the outcome.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. Don't be ridiculous.

CharlieDigital said:
Voting and money impacts the outcome (more so that latter than the former, sadly). And OWS, unlike the Tea Party movement, will succeed on neither front.
Click to expand...

Voting is the least effective political act one can do. OWS was (and continues to be) 1000 times more effectively than all electoral votes you've ever made combined. Actual votes determine very little about what public policy will look like, especially in an era of corruption where money is so influential. Public movements (which are interpreted as threats to votes) influence politicians immensely. If a public movement were big enough, it could make even a politician like Mitt Romney happily sign a bill enacting widespread wealth redistribution while smiling for the cameras.
 
dave is ok said:
The other part is that you can't really rely on elected officials to choose constituents over their piggy bank.
Click to expand...

But they didn't try to run their own candidates in the primaries. Saying all officials are corrupt is a cop out when you don't try. They never played the game, and thus never made a politician bend over backwards for them.

If I was a politician, and Occupy wasn't going to influence my chances at reelection, why in the hell would I care what they had to say?
 
CharlieDigital said:
No.

Consider OWS: a bunch of mostly able-bodied, able-minded, unemployed people sitting around, wasting taxpayer dollars due to increased sanitation costs, police patrols for safety and keeping the peace, etc. There was no impact except that these dumb fucks literally just took up space.
Click to expand...

I had not intention in posting in this thread until I read this. I just wanted to point out that literally the same argument can be made, perhaps with the exception of sanitation costs, about the lunch counter sit-ins in the south during the civil rights movement that attempted to do away with segregation there.

Granted, it was a single part of a much larger movement that took place over a decade, but no one knows if Occupy Wall Street will begin a similar movement.
 
onadesertedisland said:
I think it is funny how people complain about sanitation and inconvenience as negatives to a social movement attempting to avert a large upheaval.

If OWS manages to help the middle and poor class, will dissenters decline improvements in quality of life? Or will they continue to hold fast to the ruling wealthy class that carrot and sticks you to obedience?
Click to expand...

Hmm, those complaining are the same losers who just want to sit home watching TV after work. They don't care as long as they have a job and the TV is working.

The things OWS protested against costs the US magnitudes more than a handful of cops.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

VR and alternative options for movement
0
497
The Infectious Paradox replied
Where did it Go Wrong with KFC?
Opinion  2 3
115
4K
Woggleman replied
  • Poll
Defunct PC brands - which did you own?
48
1K
RetroGamingUK replied
What time did you wake up today?
2
64
2K
The Lunch Legend replied
What the most you ever stole?
2 3
104
3K
Tams replied
Top Bottom