Support NeoGAF

[Bloodbeard]

I don't think these exercises in civil disobedience have been posted:

Scott Walker interrupted by the people's mic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oHRdiklTlU

Michelle Bachmann interrupted by the people's mic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw7VmGjg-b4

This is completely uplifting.

 

[rohlfinator]

The only way OWS means anything is if people who wouldn't vote normally vote, and keep voting for social justice and start winning.

Who do they vote for that represents social justice?

I'm starting to think that the only way OWS means anything is if they put up a third-party candidate who champions getting money out of politics, campaign finance reform, and reform of our voting system (first-past-the-post and the electoral college are shit and just maintain the two party system in perpetuity).

 

[alstein]

Who do they vote for that represents social justice?

I'm starting to think that the only way OWS means anything is if they put up a third-party candidate who champions getting money out of politics, campaign finance reform, and reform of our voting system (first-past-the-post and the electoral college are shit and just maintain the two party system in perpetuity).

That would work, or you take over the Dems.

 

[empty vessel]

That would work, or you take over the Dems.

I think you don't have to do either, at least not directly. You just have to make enough noise (i.e., get enough people in the streets) so that attention has to be paid by representatives and media. If enough attention is paid, it will naturally translate into policy (appeasement and restoring order). While OWS is big enough now to detect its influence, it is nowhere near big enough to affect more fundamental change.

Electoral politics, however, will never be adequate.

 

[cooljeanius]

The only way OWS means anything is if people who wouldn't vote normally vote, and keep voting for social justice and start winning.

The problem is a lot of the OWS people have as much distrust for the party of social justice (Democrats) as they do for the Republicans.

 

[el retorno]

I don't think these exercises in civil disobedience have been posted:

Scott Walker interrupted by the people's mic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oHRdiklTlU

Michelle Bachmann interrupted by the people's mic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw7VmGjg-b4

That´s not civil disobedience that´s interrumpting a speaker you don´t agree with its using your voice to silence theirs. Use a Q and A session or another form. Don´t interrupt a speech it makes you look bad.

Eric Cantor gets interrupted by the people's mic at Rice University. Rice University admin supports Eric Cantor over basic human decency.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i-nCqINfAI

No the basic human decency is to treat your invited guest with respect. Do you support the congressman interrupting Obama´s speech in congress awhile back? If you don´t your a hypocrite.

 

[cooljeanius]

That´s not civil disobedience that´s interrumpting a speaker you don´t agree with its using your voice to silence theirs. Use a Q and A session or another form. Don´t interrupt a speech it makes you look bad.

No the basic human decency is to treat your invited guest with respect. Do you support the congressman interrupting Obama´s speech in congress awhile back? If you don´t your a hypocrite.

This is actually a good point. It's possible to express your views while still maintaining a decent level of decorum.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

These people elected those people. The elected official is a servant of the people.
The president isn't a servant of some random congressman.

There is quite a bit of a difference between the two cases. Just because they're both interruptions doesn't make them the same

 

[Tristam]

Eric Cantor gets interrupted by the people's mic at Rice University. Rice University admin supports Eric Cantor over basic human decency.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i-nCqINfAI

"Free speech does not include the right to interfere with the expressions and ideas with which you disagree."

lolwut?

 

[empty vessel]

That´s not civil disobedience that´s interrumpting a speaker you don´t agree with its using your voice to silence theirs. Use a Q and A session or another form. Don´t interrupt a speech it makes you look bad.

Those people whose "speech" is being interrupted are government agents. They are speakers who ostensibly serve the public, and, well, the public had something to say. The public decided to go around the usual "channels" for getting "access" to representatives (money) and express itself more directly. It was, quite literally, a demonstration.

The notion that the public can "silence" public servants does not strike me as the least bit problematic as an exercise of civil disobedience and political demonstration.

 

[Halvie]

Excellent!! I approve of interrupting that governing dolt in Wisconsin, but i'm surprised Bachmann didn't hop on her broomstick and fly out of there.

How is walker a dolt?

 

[demon]

How is walker a dolt?

Maybe dolt is the wrong word, although it's fun making fun of the fact that he never finished college. Piece of shit corporate whore is more fitting.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Interrupting speeches makes no sense. If you think there can be rational discourse then you let each side make their arguments and you don't fucking interrupt each other.

Historically, it's easier to justify shooting politicians that you disagree with then it is to justify interrupting them. That just doesn't accomplish anything if you expect your arguments to actually be good enough to change anybody's minds (politicians or voters). It only makes people think your ideas are less legitimate if that is the way you want to present them.

It reminds me of those town hall meetings during the healthcare reform bill where a few tea partiers would show up and just be loud and ignorant and just ruining the town halls for everybody.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Interrupting speeches makes no sense. If you think there can be rational discourse then you let each side make their arguments and you don't fucking interrupt each other.

Historically, it's easier to justify shooting politicians that you disagree with then it is to justify interrupting them. That just doesn't accomplish anything if you expect your arguments to actually be good enough to change anybody's minds (politicians or voters). It only makes people think your ideas are less legitimate if that is the way you want to present them.

It reminds me of those town hall meetings during the healthcare reform bill where a few tea partiers would show up and just be loud and ignorant and just ruining the town halls for everybody.

Yep. Its cowardly at best.

 

[Wazzim]

You don't understand how much they fuck the civil population over, this is the nicest thing they could do to them. Fucking bastards don't even deserve to be free with all the frauds, they deserve a jail sentence and need to be deprived of their capital for disrespecting democracy and misusing public funds.
Yes, if there is one thing I hate it's people who misuse public funds.

 

[XMonkey]

Yep. Its cowardly at best.

That's rich, even from you.

 

[rohlfinator]

I think you don't have to do either, at least not directly. You just have to make enough noise (i.e., get enough people in the streets) so that attention has to be paid by representatives and media. If enough attention is paid, it will naturally translate into policy (appeasement and restoring order). While OWS is big enough now to detect its influence, it is nowhere near big enough to affect more fundamental change.

Electoral politics, however, will never be adequate.

Thing is, until you take special interest money out of elections and close the revolving door between government and industry, any appeasement made is just going to silently disappear as soon as public unrest dies down. And that is assuming the appeasement is something more than a slap on the wrist for Wall Street or some trivial tax compromise.

I don't think our current president or congress is going willing or even interested in enacting those changes on their own. There may be a handful of Dems (and an even smaller handful of Republicans) that pay lip service to those ideas, but nowhere near the numbers to make meaningful changes.

 

[empty vessel]

Interrupting speeches makes no sense. If you think there can be rational discourse then you let each side make their arguments and you don't fucking interrupt each other.

This is not about rational discourse. This is about the public's expression of discontent with particular public servants. Period. That's what all protests are for.

Historically, it's easier to justify shooting politicians that you disagree with then it is to justify interrupting them. That just doesn't accomplish anything if you expect your arguments to actually be good enough to change anybody's minds (politicians or voters). It only makes people think your ideas are less legitimate if that is the way you want to present them.

It accomplished a public demonstration of disapproval, which is very important for many reasons. I'm not sure if you're expecting to have credibility after remarking that assassinating a representative is "easier to justify" than public protest.

It reminds me of those town hall meetings during the healthcare reform bill where a few tea partiers would show up and just be loud and ignorant and just ruining the town halls for everybody.

They were expressing anger at their representatives, also perfectly legitimate. That they were stupid and ignorant is besides the point. I prefer to judge substance wherever possible instead of defaulting to empty form. The discussion about what makes the tea party town hall agitators stupid is a much more worthwhile conversation than lamenting their loudness.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

You don't understand how much they fuck the civil population over, this is the nicest thing they could do to them. Fucking bastards don't even deserve to be free with all the frauds, they deserve a jail sentence and need to be deprived of their capital for disrespecting democracy and misusing public funds.
Yes, if there is one thing I hate it's people who misuse public funds.

I have no problem with that, it's just that interrupting them runs counter to the fairly nebulous goals the Occupy organization has and it makes it easy for people who don't agree with you to ignore your arguments altogether.

Plus it's childish.

It accomplished a public demonstration of disapproval, which is very important for many reasons. I'm not sure if you're expecting to have credibility after remarking that assassinating a representative is "easier to justify" than public protest.

There are already public demonstrations of disapproval. All over the country, you don't think politicians keep track of how much support/opposition Occupy has had so far? You think they never knew that this organization existed before it crashed their speeches?

What does going and interrupting somebody's speech accomplish for your cause? How does it convince anybody to agree with you?

Obviously violent revolution is the most extreme way to cause political change and so that's why I used it as an exaggeration.

 

[Plumbob]

This is not about rational discourse.

I tend to agree. Rational discourse comes from people on a level playing field. Politicians, with access to major news channels, press releases, and all other kinds of exposure are not going to waste their time engaging in "rational discourse" with a protester, so why bother pretending that's what the protester should pursue?

 

[rohlfinator]

I have no problem with that, it's just that interrupting them runs counter to the fairly nebulous goals the Occupy organization has and it makes it easy for people who don't agree with you to ignore your arguments altogether.

I agree. Americans generally have a negative view of protest groups, and stuff like this kind of reinforces people's preconceived beliefs.

Although the guy trying to shut them down on free speech grounds is hilarious. Free speech in America really has no fucking meaning at this point, everyone just throws it around arbitrarily to suit their own message.

There are already public demonstrations of disapproval. All over the country, you don't think politicians keep track of how much support/opposition Occupy has had so far? You think they never knew that this organization existed before it crashed their speeches?

I think you'd be surprised... CNN's American Sauce podcast did a show on OWS a couple weeks ago, and she interviewed a couple of congressmen who basically didn't know what it was. I think some politicians are trying their best to ignore it. Although I would guess Eric Cantor is clued in on that stuff a bit more as majority leader.

 

[empty vessel]

There are already public demonstrations of disapproval. All over the country, you don't think politicians keep track of how much support/opposition Occupy has had so far? You think they never knew that this organization existed before it crashed their speeches?

What does going and interrupting somebody's speech accomplish for your cause? How does it convince anybody to agree with you?

It isn't intended to convince anybody to agree with anybody. (That's what books are for.) It is intended as a demonstration. Demonstrations accomplish different things, including emboldening others who already agree with you to become more active. It can grab somebody's attention who isn't paying attention and who might become curious to know what is behind these scenes.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

It isn't intended to convince anybody to agree with anybody. (That's what books are for.) It is intended as a demonstration. Demonstrations accomplish different things, including emboldening others who already agree with you to become more active. It can grab somebody's attention who isn't paying attention and who might become curious to know what is behind these scenes.

Well I guess I didn't see it that way. It is still hard to feel sympathy for these protestors after how the exact same frustrating thing happened during the healthcare reform town halls.

 

[Buddha Beam]

What does going and interrupting somebody's speech accomplish for your cause? How does it convince anybody to agree with you?

Worked incredibly well for the Tea Party morons. Were you against them interrupting Democratic town halls?

And to whoever it was who said there's no difference between interrupting Eric Cantor's speech and a congressman shouting "you lie!" at the President during the SOTU... I mean, do you seriously not see the difference there??

 

[cooljeanius]

Worked incredibly well for the Tea Party morons. Were you against them interrupting Democratic town halls?

I'm against both. I'm for civility in our politics.

 

[number47]

Nice Post.etc.etc.

I don't have unrealistic expectations of the movement, but in all seriousness, it kept me from giving up on my country.

What are your expectations from the protest?

 

[adamsappel]

No the basic human decency is to treat your invited guest with respect. Do you support the congressman interrupting Obama´s speech in congress awhile back? If you don´t your a hypocrite.

I don't support Rep. Joe Wilson doing it (elected officials have other avenues of conversing with the president), but I support the various people who have interrupted Obama's speeches before. Besides, he usually makes a good point when they do so. I do not support "free speech/protest zones."

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

That's rich, even from you.

Have I ever tried to prevent you from speaking?

 

[rohlfinator]

I'm against both. I'm for civility in our politics.

That's my take as well. Shouting over a speech isn't going to change anybody's minds and I can't see it doing much to mobilize supporters (how many OWS supporters would be attending a Cantor speech anyway?).

Though I'm not sure what the right approach for this movement is. There's not really a forum for civil discourse when the movement is counter to the interests of most of the people in the media and politics.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Though I'm not sure what the right approach for this movement is. There's not really a forum for civil discourse when the movement is counter to the interests of most of the people in the media and politics.

The internet? That's probably the best way for any political group these days to communicate their goals to the public.

The bigger question is what does OWS want to do to prove that it's having a tangible effect and should be respected? The Tea Party showed that they had some sway with how they turned out to vote in 2010 for anybody who hated taxes and how they get lip service from any realistic Republican presidential candidate.

What should OWS do to generate similar momentum?

 

[adamsappel]

The internet? That's probably the best way for any political group these days to communicate their goals to the public.

If the Internet had any actual political sway, Ron Paul would be president and senators wouldn't struggle to describe it as "not a truck, but a series of tubes."

 

[XMonkey]

Have I ever tried to prevent you from speaking?

Spare me. Heaven forbid someone get interrupted for less than 5 minutes before their speech even starts. What a travesty.

 

[Acid08]

I was at Oakland last night.

 

[Slavik81]

If the Internet had any actual political sway, Ron Paul would be president and senators wouldn't struggle to describe it as "not a truck, but a series of tubes."

I've never understood why people latch onto the series of tubes quote as being absurd. It was a completely reasonable metaphor.

But Obama had a lot of support on the internet. I think you're dismissing it a little too much.

 

[Link1110]

I've never understood why people latch onto the series of tubes quote as being absurd. It was a completely reasonable metaphor.

But Obama had a lot of support on the internet. I think you're dismissing it a little too much.

Paul had more. You couldn't go to any video on Youtube without it being spammed to hell with Ron Paul ads.

 

[el retorno]

Interrupting speeches makes no sense. If you think there can be rational discourse then you let each side make their arguments and you don't fucking interrupt each other.

Historically, it's easier to justify shooting politicians that you disagree with then it is to justify interrupting them. That just doesn't accomplish anything if you expect your arguments to actually be good enough to change anybody's minds (politicians or voters). It only makes people think your ideas are less legitimate if that is the way you want to present them.

It reminds me of those town hall meetings during the healthcare reform bill where a few tea partiers would show up and just be loud and ignorant and just ruining the town halls for everybody.

That´s exactly what it is. It is the same thing at a healthcare debacles. People in here will try to make it different but it isn´t

These people elected those people. The elected official is a servant of the people.
The president isn't a servant of some random congressman.

There is quite a bit of a difference between the two cases. Just because they're both interruptions doesn't make them the same

The elected representatives have rights too. They don´t become slaves of the people because they are voted by them. What are the differences though? I really want to know. They were both "civil disobidience"

 

[rohlfinator]

The internet? That's probably the best way for any political group these days to communicate their goals to the public.

The bigger question is what does OWS want to do to prove that it's having a tangible effect and should be respected? The Tea Party showed that they had some sway with how they turned out to vote in 2010 for anybody who hated taxes and how they get lip service from any realistic Republican presidential candidate.

What should OWS do to generate similar momentum?

The amendment proposed by Wolf-PAC is the most substantial goal I've seen so far. I don't know how feasible it is or how much momentum it has though.

The elected representatives have rights too. They don´t become slaves of the people because they are voted by them.

Which of their rights are being violated, exactly?

 

[empty vessel]

The elected representatives have rights too. They don´t become slaves of the people because they are voted by them. What are the differences though? I really want to know. They were both "civil disobidience"

First, no, elected representatives have rights in their private capacities, not in their official capacities. Declaring that the government has "rights" is anathema to the most fundamental principles of the American revolution. And because these people were both speaking and targeted because of their official capacities, the public trumps hands down.

The tea party outrage expressed at the town hall meetings was not even civil disobedience. Those meetings were intended to provide a platform for citizens to speak their minds, which people did (to their credit, in my opinion, although I strongly disagreed with their substance). The protests of Walker, Bachmann, and Cantor are acts of civil disobedience. Both are American as apple pie.

 

[Myansie]

There are already public demonstrations of disapproval. All over the country, you don't think politicians keep track of how much support/opposition Occupy has had so far? You think they never knew that this organization existed before it crashed their speeches?

What does going and interrupting somebody's speech accomplish for your cause? How does it convince anybody to agree with you?

Obviously violent revolution is the most extreme way to cause political change and so that's why I used it as an exaggeration.

It demonstrates numbers. They had enough people with enough organisation to provide more volume than one man with an amplified microphone. It's so symbolic to see that. If you listen to what the protestors actually say they argue Majority Leader Eric Cantor is not representing the people. He has control of that mic because he has the interests of money supporting him. Not the interests of the people who elected him.

You can brush it aside with Occupy Wall St as meaningless, but put all of the protests together and people are talking all over the world. From that comes a greater understanding and it becomes undeniable, there are real problems with the way America is doing business. The sheer number of people protesting not just in city parks, but also online, is an incredibly strong indicator that something is extremely wrong.

If you agree with that, then the protests are achieving their goals.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I don't think these exercises in civil disobedience have been posted:

Scott Walker interrupted by the people's mic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oHRdiklTlU

Michelle Bachmann interrupted by the people's mic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aw7VmGjg-b4

Because speech suppression/interruption is civil, intelligent discourse. Yea ok

 

[empty vessel]

Because speech suppression/interruption is civil, intelligent discourse. Yea ok

This fetish about protecting government speech is obscene. If you represent "liberal" thought, it's really no wonder the Democratic party feels empowered to betray the public interest at will. It's pathetic.

This isn't even to mention the absurd supposition inherent in your comment that whatever Scott Walker, Michelle Bachmann, and Eric Cantor were speaking about has anything to do with intelligent discourse. Your insinuation is downright offensive to intelligent people everywhere. Are you listening to yourself?

Also not to mention that nobody's speech was in fact suppressed. It's like you have no sense of perspective at all.

 

[Myansie]

That speech from Scott Walker hardly looks free.

How much does it cost to have the pleasure of occupying one of those seats?

 

[PhoenixDark]

This fetish about protecting government speech is obscene. If you represent "liberal" thought, it's really no wonder the Democratic party feels empowered to betray the public interest at will. It's pathetic.

This isn't even to mention the absurd supposition inherent in your comment that whatever Scott Walker, Michelle Bachmann, and Eric Cantor were speaking about has anything to do with intelligent discourse. Your insinuation is downright offensive to intelligent people everywhere. Are you listening to yourself?

Also not to mention that nobody's speech was in fact suppressed. It's like you have no sense of perspective at all.

No sense of perspective? A group of people interrupt and cancel a speech...for what? I wonder what you're opinion would be if an Occupy speech was similarly interrupted by the establishment.

Everyone has a right to not only their opinion, but to express it freely. No sensible person agrees with shouting down other people's comments, regardless of how odious said comments are.

 

[cooljeanius]

No sense of perspective? A group of people interrupt and cancel a speech...for what? I wonder what you're opinion would be if an Occupy speech was similarly interrupted by the establishment.

Everyone has a right to not only their opinion, but to express it freely. No sensible person agrees with shouting down other people's comments, regardless of how odious said comments are.

I said something like this on Reddit and got majorly downvoted for it... I never knew civility was so unpopular.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I said something like this on Reddit and got majorly downvoted for it... I never knew civility was so unpopular.

Make sense, as it's pretty clear this movement is not about civility - it's about an undisciplined expression of emotion and anger much like the Tea Party. And while the economic ideas of the movement make sense, I'd be far too embarrassed to align myself with any group that demands rights while disrespecting the rights of others.

 

[cooljeanius]

Make sense, as it's pretty clear this movement is not about civility - it's about an undisciplined expression of emotion and anger much like the Tea Party. And while the economic ideas of the movement make sense, I'd be far too embarrassed to align myself with any group that demands rights while disrespecting the rights of others.

This is pretty much where I'm at now, too. I still stay involved with it in the hopes that I can somehow influence its direction for the better, but my hopes keep getting fainter and fainter...

 

[alstein]

Make sense, as it's pretty clear this movement is not about civility - it's about an undisciplined expression of emotion and anger much like the Tea Party. And while the economic ideas of the movement make sense, I'd be far too embarrassed to align myself with any group that demands rights while disrespecting the rights of others.

Action begets reaction. The Scott Walkers of the world did bring this on themselves in my eyes.

This anger isn't going away, and it's not going to die off like the mostly retired Tea Party.

 

[Myansie]

Make sense, as it's pretty clear this movement is not about civility - it's about an undisciplined expression of emotion and anger much like the Tea Party. And while the economic ideas of the movement make sense, I'd be far too embarrassed to align myself with any group that demands rights while disrespecting the rights of others.

Undisciplined is firing a tear gas grenade at someone's face.

I'd describe the peoples mic in all of the situations above as disciplined, practiced and organised. Everybody had a sheet of paper with the words printed out. No one screamed out of time or appeared overly emotional or angry. Scott Walker is a Governor and public figure. With that comes the potential for protest at any time. You tell me, what the hell is with him giving Mercantile Exchange a $100 million tax break and is it true that he's on the Koch Brothers pay roll? Who is asking these questions?

I draw the line at protesting at his home or in his private life. On the job, all of these people are fair game.

The Tea Party protesting is fine. It's their view on the world that gets peoples backs up.

 

[Karakand]

The premise of the argument being deconstructed is more easily defeated than by looking at global income data. The movement is about how the gains of the American economy are distributed to Americans. It is concerned with how slices of the American economic pie are internally divided. 99% of Americans can still be rich relative to the rest of the world while still getting shafted by the top 1% of Americans. While OWS is in solidarity with people in the rest of the world who likewise suffer inequitable slicing of their own pies from their own domestic economic elites (and ours), equitably distributing the entire world's income is not what the movement is about. While ideal, that's a project for the distant future.

Socialism in One Country

 

[teruterubozu]

Action begets reaction. The Scott Walkers of the world did bring this on themselves in my eyes.

This anger isn't going away, and it's not going to die off like the mostly retired Tea Party.

LOL. The Tea Party actually has political representation (crazy folks, but still represented).
Occupy's "anger" may remain, but so what?