-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Occupy Wall St - Occupy Everywhere, Occupy Together!
- Thread starter magicstop
- Start date
- Status
Deku said:
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.
akira28 said:
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
Member
akira28 said:
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.
Deku said:
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.
Angry Fork said:
not sure if serious
Deku said:
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.
Enron said:
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.
empty vessel said:
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.
1) so the protests were violent. What's your point?empty vessel said:
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
Banned
Bad_Boy said:
If I attend Occupy Minneapolis my sign will be
NADER
NADER
NADER
Hope lives!!!!
Bad_Boy said:
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
Banned
Clevinger said:
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
Banned
remnant said:
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
Banned
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
Member
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.
if so, kudos to these guys for keeping fringe members contained.
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.
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.
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.Dude Abides said:
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?Angry Fork said:
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.
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 said:
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.
ErasureAcer
Banned
JaskoX1 said:
Who said they want to elect Obama for a 2nd term?
JaskoX1 said:
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
Member
JaskoX1 said:
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
Member
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
Banned
remnant said:
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.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
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.Dude Abides said:
Dude Abides
Banned
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
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
Member
remnant said:
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.
cooljeanius
Member
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.Flying_Phoenix said:
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
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 said:
Dude Abides
Banned
remnant said:
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
Member
remnant said:
(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.
remnant said:
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 saidempty vessel 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
Member
remnant said:
No. Movements aren't discrete events measured in terms of election cycles, so I don't know what you're talking about.
hukasmokincaterpillar
Member
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.
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).remnant said:
And gay rights is on the path to do the same.
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUxymWWWLTE&feature=digest_refresh_mon
- Status