Support NeoGAF

[Flying_Phoenix]

I didn't get Manos on...but I DID get Jaydubya! Podcast here!

 

[magicstop]

I didn't get Manos on...but I DID get Jaydubya! Podcast here!

lol, love the presentation. About to listen to this now.

Edit: Man, we need to get weekly GAF-casts going, lol. It's fun to listen and think of these between various members

 

[akira28]

So NPR isn't progressive enough now, or is this only a charge when they report news you don't like to hear.

I find they are fairly objective when it comes to reporting the news.

Progressive enough for whom? NPR suffers from the same skewed to the right media sensibilities that have affected the whole industry since 9/11. The War on Terror changed the color of the sky to Condition Orange and the way the culture itself now works has changed the way the media works. And NPR isn't any more immune to that than the rest of us. They aren't "fair and balanced" like Fox is but they will have the same "experts in the field" talking about the same issues from the same standpoint as the rest of the media. If that means playing up the debt crisis, that's one thing. But if the whole media body as a whole gets trolled by the Congress Crisis of the Week, NPR gets trolled and is trolling us by extension. Imagined moderate stances and fairness be damned.

If 'progressive' media means actively attempting fairness, first that's not what the word actually means, and secondly the rest of the media is more broken than we thought.


Nixon was the last liberal Republican President. Rick Perry would probably "string up" many of the Republicans of the 1960s. Especially the northern ones. But this makes sense when you consider the Southern Democrats of the 60s are the Tea Partiers of today.

 

[Deku]

Progressive enough for whom? NPR suffers from the same skewed to the right media sensibilities that have affected the whole industry since 9/11. The War on Terror changed the color of the sky to Condition Orange and the way the culture itself now works has changed the way the media works. And NPR isn't any more immune to that than the rest of us. They aren't "fair and balanced" like Fox is but they will have the same "experts in the field" talking about the same issues from the same standpoint as the rest of the media. If that means playing up the debt crisis, that's one thing. But if the whole media body as a whole gets trolled by the Congress Crisis of the Week, NPR gets trolled and is trolling us by extension. Imagined moderate stances and fairness be damned.

If 'progressive' media means actively attempting fairness, first that's not what the word actually means, and secondly the rest of the media is more broken than we thought.

I still don't follow what you're complaining about, that NPR doesn't put on speakers with views that align with yours?

Edit: I'm aware I conflated progressive and NPR's perceived fairness in my original ; but that was in context of progressives historically preferring NPR over corporate sources of media.

 

[empty vessel]

Progressive enough for whom? NPR suffers from the same skewed to the right media sensibilities that have affected the whole industry since 9/11. The War on Terror changed the color of the sky to Condition Orange and the way the culture itself now works has changed the way the media works. And NPR isn't any more immune to that than the rest of us. They aren't "fair and balanced" like Fox is but they will have the same "experts in the field" talking about the same issues from the same standpoint as the rest of the media. If that means playing up the debt crisis, that's one thing. But if the whole media body as a whole gets trolled by the Congress Crisis of the Week, NPR gets trolled and is trolling us by extension. Imagined moderate stances and fairness be damned.

Indeed, NPR recently had a former Bush Admin official (John Bellinger) on to talk about, i.e., give apologetics for, the legality of Obama's extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. This, it turns out (although NPR didn't tell you), was the same official who reportedly persuaded the reluctant British Attorney General that the Iraq War was legal (no credible lawyer believes that). Bellinger, in my opinion, should be tried for war crimes. But instead he's on NPR being touted as a credible legal expert.

 

[akira28]

I still don't follow what you're complaining about, that NPR doesn't put on speakers with views that align with yours?

The focus on "views" and getting experts speakers and being fair to "both sides" instead of just being fair to the facts and the events themselves infects the media as a whole, and NPR is a victim of that. So it damages claims of being progressive as well as being accurate or fair. And really the only time the media presents "both sides" is when there is power or liability involved, so now they're cynical too.

 

[Enron]

I'm not really sure how anyone thinks republicans can win big. They have people that appeal to old white racists but not much more than that. Is there any republican candidate besides Ron Paul that could appeal to any democrat or middle of the line voters? They're just too extreme. Even if people think Obama sucks they're still going to vote for him because he's not bat shit crazy.

not sure if serious

I still don't follow what you're complaining about, that NPR doesn't put on speakers with views that align with yours?

Basically, yes. NPR dared to have on a "conservative" viewpoint! Bought and paid for by the Republican machine!

One of the reasons why we can't have any sort of meaningful discussion in this country - the assertion that the other side of the aisle IS YOUR ENEMY, rather than just simply being americans that think differently than you about 35% of the time.

 

[magicstop]

One of the reasons why we can't have any sort of meaningful discussion in this country - the assertion that the other side of the aisle IS YOUR ENEMY, rather than just simply being americans that think differently than you about 35% of the time.

This is absolutely true, and this movement is really trying to be nonpartisan accordingly. Their claims and demands, though not official, seem to be gearing towards corporate reform and they address grievances experienced by people in the US of all political affiliations. Of course it would be unrealistic to not recognize the strong leftist participation in this event, but it is not exclusive, and ultimately the messages sent by this movement will seek to encompass the true majority of the US population, not the "democratic" or "left" majority.

There is an active move to resist the co-opting of this event by politicians and political parties (with a lot of discomfort and resistance against even groups like MoveOn "officially" supporting it), and ultimately, you can't stop someone/something from saying that they support you. However, your actual concrete demands and message are your own, and that's where this group will have the opportunity to make nonpartisan demands.
We'll see how well that works out or not, but from participating on the ground level, I can personally assure you that these are the goals and ideas being discussed and used.

 

[akira28]

But instead he's on NPR being touted as a credible legal expert.

That's just gross. Really makes me doubt trust in any "fact" the media might supply without a way to double check it. If people think these Washington insiders they compete so hard for, for their experiences and connections, will forget their old allegiances, they're kidding themselves. On one hand it breeds paranoia, but the other gives the good habit of checking sources and checking backgrounds. In reference to former members of the Bush admin, I get the feeling lots of people take the position that they don't care, it was all too murky and complicated to be sure of anything, and all these guys were on our side, anyway. So if any mistakes were made it was because "we were at war" and it all equalizes out in the end. Which blows my mind, but the only other 'reasonable' explanation is Dick Cheney running a media talent agency.

Deku: I would first point out that the "corporate media", as it is today, is a relatively young beast. Before the 90s, such massive corporate conglomeration was actually blocked by law. Now most radio stations and cable tv channels are owned by a handful of companies, the major media outlets are owned by another smaller handful of companies with a for profit bend and no more allegiance to truth than what we take for their word. Progressives do object to this, probably fundamentally. They probably supported NPR because of the sheer fact that it's free public radio.

NPR provides a lot more than just news, but free entertainment and educational and community programming. And its publicly funded and supposedly free and equal to all, which would probably explain its history of support. Not because of undue pandering to a particular progressive message, unless you know...equality and community support is a liberal conspiracy.

 

[Bad_Boy]

I take it there is still no chance for a third party to make it to the white house?

 

[remnant]

Typically when protests get large and are perceived to seriously threaten the established order (and hence the establishment), the State will begin to turn more towards repression. But the protesters themselves aren't violent.



Of course they did. That's all they've done. I don't know if you know this, but there is no actual tea party, as in a political party. It's a movement. And they all vote Republican. Michelle Bachman is not a "tea party" candidate. She's a Republican and always has been.



The exact same thing that Republicans (and even Democrats) are afraid of with respect to the tea party movement: active and watchful voters. I don't know why you are obsessed about demands to vote for other parties. That's not what protest and movements are about. A movement makes substantive political demands. Politicians (and media and mood and culture) respond to the movement. That is the way it's always worked. (See, e.g., the civil rights movement, the women's liberation movement, the environmental movement, etc.).



So your assertion is that Nixon is a liberal? And is it also that Obama is a conservative?

1) so the protests were violent. What's your point?

2) so the tea party movement was effective. Glad we agree.

3) and what are the repurcussions if no one meets the demand of the movement. It's apparently to soon to expect them to be players on politics, but this movement has done little but raise some demands with no consequence if they aren't followed through. Is this movement successful if the same group of democrats win next year and nothing changes?

4) I'm not even going to bother with the EPA shit. To many threads are ruined becuase of veal like that. If you seriously think both parties had the exact same views on the EPA today in the 60's than they did today, than congrats.

 

[ErasureAcer]

I take it there is still no chance for a third party to make it to the white house?

If I attend Occupy Minneapolis my sign will be

NADER
NADER
NADER

Hope lives!!!!

 

[Clevinger]

I take it there is still no chance for a third party to make it to the white house?

You do not start with third parties at the highest office. That's never, ever going to happen without a foundation. It has to start at a very local level and build up from there, but it doesn't seem like anyone cares to do that. Most seem to just piss their vote away on Nader or whoever and call it a day.

 

[ErasureAcer]

You do not start with third parties at the highest office. That's never, ever going to happen without a foundation. It has to start at a very local level, but it doesn't seem like anyone cares to do that. Most seem to just piss their vote away on Nader or whoever and call it a day.

BS. If Independent Governors can be elected without any rank and file in state legislature.... there's no reason a 3rd party can't win 270 electoral votes.

 

[Dude Abides]

1) so the protests were violent. What's your point?

Yes, those kids at Kent State very violently placed themselves in the path of the National Guard's bullets. And those people in Selma were very aggressive in jumping front of fire hoses and placing their limbs in the mouths of police dogs. So much violence.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Friend of mine (same guy I hit up the WTO and Madris Gras day riots) is going to be attending as much as possible in Seattle. Sadly I cannot join him but I promised to take care of his family in the event he should perish.

 

[victreeb3l]

i havent followed this in a while but i take it there hasnt been any kind of violence from the protesters? as in, destruction of property and pillaging youd see from europeans?

if so, kudos to these guys for keeping fringe members contained.

 

[magicstop]

i havent followed this in a while but i take it there hasnt been any kind of violence from the protesters? as in, destruction of property and pillaging youd see from europeans?

if so, kudos to these guys for keeping fringe members contained.

That's correct. It's currently being emphasized that this is to be a non-violent movement, with inspiration being drawn from the success and modem of the Arab Spring movement.

 

[Übermatik]

So how many people are actually collected there at the moment? What's the greatest number of people that there has been since this started? Did they fulfil the promise of setting up beds, kitchens and living spaces?

 

[Enron]

These protesters are like the WTO protest crowd without the whole "destroying shit and throwing rocks at cops" thing.

My problem with the Wall Street protest crowd is that they are fucking up everyone else's shit while they rage against the banks. Want to protest? Fine. Go do it over in front of whatever institution you are protesting. Don't clog up traffic, trap people on the streets for hours, when they are just trying to go about their day.

 

[Divvy]

These protesters are like the WTO protest crowd without the whole "destroying shit and throwing rocks at cops" thing.

My problem with the Wall Street protest crowd is that they are fucking up everyone else's shit while they rage against the banks. Want to protest? Fine. Go do it over in front of whatever institution you are protesting. Don't clog up traffic, trap people on the streets for hours, when they are just trying to go about their day.

They are in a park in the middle of the city away from Wall st. Hell they're probably giving the local pizza stores more business than they've ever had.

 

[remnant]

Yes, those kids at Kent State very violently placed themselves in the path of the National Guard's bullets. And those people in Selma were very aggressive in jumping front of fire hoses and placing their limbs in the mouths of police dogs. So much violence.

And the union protestsers were very peaceful when they sabotaged equipment and injured workers. The G20 protests in Seattle were awesome. Protests have a violent history in America. If you don't believe that, fine. I'm not going to waste time arguing high school history. Good day.

 

[.GqueB.]

There aren't enough police to take out everyone. You either commit to violence and hope for the best, or you stand around with a sign which will do nothing. How the fuck do you people honestly think this will change anything? This is doing NOTHING to their bank accounts, it's doing nothing to their well being and causing no problems what so ever. It's an inconvenience for police and nothing more but for the people this is supposed to be protesting against they're laughing and playing golf right now.

And I'm doing less than the protestors because I'm not out there either, and I fully admit that, but that's because I don't believe wasting my time standing around is going to do anything. If violence broke out and everyone started taking over territory piece by piece to the point where CEO's were scared in their building I would be out there in a heart beat because then I know that's a real revolution.

Im just curious. Do you want to be the ONE to start the violence or do you just wanna join in when the violence starts?

And I do agree with you to some degree that this protest needs something. I remember I was walking through the city before this all started and I saw a sign about this and I recall reading something on the poster that made me think "wait... what the fuck do they want". Its all very vague and all but thats not always a bad thing. Open-endedness isnt wrong. Obama ran on "CHANGE" and "YES WE CAN". Change what? Yes we can? Who can? When? But the message was still compelling.

But what they DO need is a leader. They need an eloquent, strong, forceful person to speak for them. They need a movement. I agree that standing around with signs will do nothing because no one is really saying anything. They have to make a strong statement even if its a vague one. Right now they just have a series of smaller ones. They need a "point" and as I said, they need someone to communicate this.

And he needs to have a made up name like Arizona Hutchinson or something along those lines.

 

[Tawpgun]

Went to the Occupy Boston thing a few days ago. It got a bit out of hand here when people refused to leave the Bank of America so 24 people here were arrested. Since then they have made sure to communicate the protesters that they are not there to disrupt any workers or businesses. They're making sure people can commute fine and whatnot.

 

[JaskoX1]

At least these protesters are getting off their asses and actively practicing their rights! terribly organized though, what a waste of energy

 

[Deku]

At least these protesters are getting off their asses and actively practicing their rights! terribly organized though, what a waste of energy

I assume GAF has a high unemployment rate, but some of us actually have jobs and do not agree with how they are protesting.

It's not quite the same as the apathetic non-voter complaining about 'stuff'.

I've pointed out before that young people NEED to go out and be poltically active and vote because the boomers will bleed the system dry and leave us with a shell of a social services to rescue.

I'm personally not counting on my government pension bridging the gap in my income post retirement because of the boomers.

 

[JaskoX1]

They don't even know what they're protesting. For Christ sakes, they had to have a Facebook poll in order to figure out what exactly they're protesting.

Against banks and big corp. yet they want to re-elect Obama?

 

[ErasureAcer]

They don't even know what they're protesting. For Christ sakes, they had to have a Facebook poll in order to figure out what exactly they're protesting.

Against banks and big corp. yet they want to re-elect Obama?

Who said they want to elect Obama for a 2nd term?

 

[magicstop]

They don't even know what they're protesting. For Christ sakes, they had to have a Facebook poll in order to figure out what exactly they're protesting.

Against banks and big corp. yet they want to re-elect Obama?

Where have the officially declared their support for Obama? I must have missed something BIG . . .
You might try digging through some of the links in the OP, by the way. They may go a long way towards clearing up to your misconceptions and giving your posts some substance.

 

[empty vessel]

They don't even know what they're protesting. For Christ sakes, they had to have a Facebook poll in order to figure out what exactly they're protesting.

Against banks and big corp. yet they want to re-elect Obama?

The implicit threat behind the movement is that they potentially will not vote for Obama. Movements put substantive issues first, that's what makes them politically effective. This isn't a Democratic Party rally.

 

[NullPointer]

All I know is this protest has the support of both me and my mother and we couldn't be more diametrically opposed in our political views. We both agreed with that first draft of demands.

 

[Dude Abides]

And the union protestsers were very peaceful when they sabotaged equipment and injured workers. The G20 protests in Seattle were awesome. Protests have a violent history in America. If you don't believe that, fine. I'm not going to waste time arguing high school history. Good day.

It seems the root of the problem is you like to spout unfounded bullshit like "the history of most protest in America is violent as hell" to score some kind of cheap debating point, and then behave like a petulant little child when it's pointed out that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[pompidu]

All I know is this protest has the support of both me and my mother and we couldn't be more diametrically opposed in our political views. We both agreed with that first draft of demands.

Also has my full support. Hoping to join in when I can. Hard to have a central point of protest when there's more than enough issues affecting this country that needs fixing.

 

[Measley]

All I know is this protest has the support of both me and my mother and we couldn't be more diametrically opposed in our political views. We both agreed with that first draft of demands.

Same here. I hope this protest turns into political action on the left. The right is getting out of hand in BOTH parties.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

It seems the root of the problem is you like to spout unfounded bullshit like "the history of most protest in America is violent as hell" to score some kind of cheap debating point, and then behave like a petulant little child when it's pointed out that you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Actually early American political protest was violent and often ended with rioting. I only offer this as a historical discussion. The 1760s in Boston was notable for numerous riots which often lead to the burning of Government buildings. One unfortunate incident in PA history was the burning of a new convention center due to a planned abolition meeting. The New York Draft Riots is another example. A better question might be has American political protest remained violent.

 

[remnant]

The implicit threat behind the movement is that they potentially will not vote for Obama. Movements put substantive issues first, that's what makes them politically effective. This isn't a Democratic Party rally.

Are you going on record to say that these people will not vote for Obama if he ignores their demands?

 

[Dude Abides]

Actually early American political protest was violent and often ended with rioting. I only offer this as a historical discussion. The 1760s in Boston was notable for numerous riots which often lead to the burning of Government buildings. One unfortunate incident in PA history was the burning of a new convention center due to a planned abolition meeting. The New York Draft Riots is another example. A better question might be has American political protest remained violent.

Yes, and the Whiskey Rebellion, and the Haymarket Massacre were other examples where some violence broke out at a protest. There has been some violence in American protests on occasion, but it's complete agenda-pushing bullshit to say "most" American protest has been "violent as hell."

 

[empty vessel]

Are you going on record to say that these people will not vote for Obama if he ignores their demands?

Of course not. Just like tea partiers will vote for Romney if he is the Republican nominee. You have this weird obsession about this, but it is totally irrelevant. Movements present political threats, period. That is that purpose they serve. And they still serve that purpose even when every single member of the movement, at the end of the day, votes for a candidate from a major political party. It works because the threat is always prospective, and because politicians must heed threats that lie in front of them.

Indeed, the fact of the two party system is what makes political movements so critical in US politics. It's the only way (besides money) to actually move parties and influence policy.

 

[remnant]

Yes, and the Whiskey Rebellion, and the Haymarket Massacre were other examples where some violence broke out at a protest. There has been some violence in American protests on occasion, but it's complete agenda-pushing bullshit to say "most" American protest has been "violent as hell."

And you thought the best way to prove me wrong is citing the Kent state shooting. That really flies in the face of my claim that protesting in America has a history of ending in violence.

 

[cooljeanius]

I didn't get Manos on...but I DID get Jaydubya! Podcast here!

Aw, you cut out the part with just Puddles and me, which was the part that was most relevant specifically to the Occupy Wall Street part.

 

[remnant]

Of course not. Just like tea partiers will vote for Romney if he is the Republican nominee. You have this weird obsession about this, but it is totally irrelevant. Movements present political threats, period. That is that purpose they serve. And they still serve that purpose even when every single member of the movement, at the end of the day, votes for a candidate from a major political party. It works because the threat is always prospective, and because politicians must heed threats that lie in front of them.

Indeed, the fact of the two party system is what makes political movements so critical in US politics. It's the only way (besides money) to actually move parties and influence policy.

I asked this earlier and maybe you ignored it or didn't see it. If they vote for Obama and democratic incumbents next year, with no demands met, was this a success?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Yes, and the Whiskey Rebellion, and the Haymarket Massacre were other examples where some violence broke out at a protest. There has been some violence in American protests on occasion, but it's complete agenda-pushing bullshit to say "most" American protest has been "violent as hell."

I would say that initially protest in the US was often more violent (at least with property damage) than not, but I tend to think it declined over time, and by the mid 20th Century the situation was significantly the opposite.

 

[Dude Abides]

And you thought the best way to prove me wrong is citing the Kent state shooting. That really flies in the face of my claim that protesting in America has a history of ending in violence.

That wasn't your claim. Your claim was that the history of protest is violence. That's why EV and I are making fun of you for conflating violent repression of protest with violent prostest.

 

[empty vessel]

And you thought the best way to prove me wrong is citing the Kent state shooting. That really flies in the face of my claim that protesting in America has a history of ending in violence.

(1) That wasn't your claim.
(2) Your new claim is false, except read in its narrowest sense, i.e., that there are examples of protests in American history that have contained violence. But if that's all you are saying, you aren't saying anything other than that protest generally has a potential for violence. You can say the same thing about politics (war by other means). And you could say it about the entire world to boot.

I asked this earlier and maybe you ignored it or didn't see it. If they vote for Obama and democratic incumbents next year, with no demands met, was this a success?

The goal of a movement is substantive policy change. Any movement is a success or failure based entirely on what influence it has on policy and on the general political environment and social ethos. If this movement's influence on policy and the political direction in which the country is headed is nil in a year, I wouldn't necessarily consider it a "failure" (that word conveys a postmortem assessment) so much as evidence that the movement needs to continue growing, apply more pressure, and become a larger political threat. But who those participating in the movement vote for come November, regardless of what has been accomplished, is entirely irrelevant from my point of view.

 

[remnant]

(1) That wasn't your claim.
(2) Your new claim is false, except read in its narrowest sense, i.e., that there are examples of protests in American history that have contained violence. But if that's all you are saying, you aren't saying anything other than that protest generally has a potential for violence. You can say the same thing about politics (war by other means). And you could say it about the entire world to boot.



The goal of a movement is substantive policy change. Any movement is a success or failure based entirely on what influence it has on policy and on the general political environment and social ethos. If this movement's influence on policy and the political direction in which the country is headed is nil in a year, I wouldn't necessarily consider it a "failure" (that word conveys a postmortem assessment) so much as evidence that the movement needs to continue growing, apply more pressure, and become a larger political threat. But who those participating in the movement vote for come November, regardless of what has been accomplished, is entirely irrelevant from my point of view.

1) don't tell me what my "claim" was. I said
. the history of most protest in America is violent as hell, and largely ineffective until parties change.[ /b]
That was a response to you saying most protests are successful and peaceful. I didn't divide this into who is violent. The protestors or the "state" as you called them. You did.

2) So basically if they are ignored they have to try again, becuase they failed the first time. Gotcha

 

[empty vessel]

2) So basically if they are ignored they have to try again, becuase they failed the first time. Gotcha

No. Movements aren't discrete events measured in terms of election cycles, so I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Clevinger]

No. Movements aren't discrete events measured in terms of election cycles, so I don't know what you're talking about.

He just doesn't want this protest to succeed, especially if some people in it still vote for Obama.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

the history of most protest in America is violent as hell, and largely ineffective until parties change

Leaving aside the inductive fallacy of describing our history of protest in toto ("violent as hell") based on your historical casuistry, what you're basically left with is 'change doesn't happen until change happens'. And you're right about that.

 

[Chichikov]

the history of most protest in America is violent as hell, and largely ineffective until parties change.

Prohibition and women's suffrage, which are both drastic changes to our society (and Constitution) were achieved without serious violence or a dramatic change to our political system (though one can argue that women's suffrage impacted prohibition).

And gay rights is on the path to do the same.

 

[Sh1ner]

After the riots - the RSA.org analysis on the UK Riots, worth a watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUxymWWWLTE&feature=digest_refresh_mon