Support NeoGAF

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Wow, Manos is really losing it. Eek.

Hey, did you ever see the thing about the OWS library not being destroyed?

 

[Baraka in the White House]

You can keep denying it, but it does highlight the hypocrisy of how OWS members do the same exact behavior and make the same claims the Tea Party does, but will go into total denial when it's pointed out.

It doesn't highlight anything until the day news breaks that a protest or rally is being funded by Soros or some established liberal PAC, for better or for worse. And there's almost certainly people snooping for that story every day.

 

[Big Baybee]

Manos man. Come on.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

I must have seen Manos do this tea party comparison hundreds of times by now. It's like his bread and butter combo.

 

[Barrett2]

Manos will be 400% more productive tomorrow at work when GAF is down. His boss will think he's on PCP.

 

[Pollux]

So I popped in this thread around 2-3 weeks ago. Since then it has become a total clusterfuck.

 

[Jak140]

i like how manos stereotyped occupy wall street then said stereotyping is bad for open discourse and called us hypocrites.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

It doesn't highlight anything until the day news breaks that a protest or rally is being funded by Soros or some established liberal PAC, for better or for worse. And there's almost certainly people snooping for that story every day.

You mean the fact that Soros's group gave money to Adbusters (who originally called for this whole thing) isn't true.

Look OWS is getting funding from a lot more people than just down and out 99%. You can say its not true, but it is. You guys and the Tea Party aren't much different in that regard.

 

[Karma Kramer]

*adds page to insurance file*

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I must have seen Manos do this tea party comparison hundreds of times by now. It's like his bread and butter combo.

Well when it's the truth, it's the truth.

i like how manos stereotyped occupy wall street then said stereotyping is bad for open discourse then called us hypocrites.

When have I ever stereotyped OWS?

I comment on them and the Tea Party in the same manner, because only ideology is what separates them...well and actual success in OWS case.

Manos will be 400% more productive tomorrow at work when GAF is down. His boss will think he's on PCP.

Oddly enough it goes down after work. However, my wife will think I am while cleaning up the house.

 

[Atrus]

True, its an international movement and focuses on a wide range of problems/injustices. It potentially could be a much larger movement than the Civil Rights movement.

I cannot take this seriously.

This movement is an utter and complete failure reflecting the general aimlessness and overwhelming stupidity of the people who are a part of it.

What are the goals? How are they to be achieved? Comparing this type of buffoonery to the Civil Rights movement is an act of malice against the honest hard work and motivation by such a cause. Even a comparison to the Arab Spring is an insult.

Occupy will do nothing but occupy a brief footnote in history, achieving nothing of relevance except to shame any participant that still continues to be associated with it. It had a point for the first week where it seemed to encompass a broader message, but that time has long since past.

If the sheer man hours invested (or rather wasted) into this movement were spent on actual volunteerism and social change, it would have led to a greater overall impact. Occupy isn't social activism, it is lazy, inept social pacificism.

 

[Jak140]

Well when it's the truth, it's the truth.


When have I ever stereotyped OWS?

I comment on them and the Tea Party in the same manner, because only ideology is what separates them...well and actual success in OWS case.


Oddly enough it goes down after work. My wife will think I am while cleaning up the house. http://i.imgur.com/KuGsj.gif[img][/QUOTE]
when you said they like committing acts of violence based on the actions of one guy.

 

[lo escondido]

You mean the fact that Soros's group gave money to Adbusters (who originally called for this whole thing) isn't true.

Look OWS is getting funding from a lot more people than just down and out 99%. You can say its not true, but it is. You guys and the Tea Party aren't much different in that regard.

The fact that adbusters is one of the instigators behind this just begs me to hate this. Keep your anti captialism in canada.

 

[Pollux]

I cannot take this seriously.

This movement is an utter and complete failure reflecting the general aimlessness and overwhelming stupidity of the people who are a part of it.

What are the goals? How are they to be achieved? Comparing this type of buffoonery to the Civil Rights movement is an act of malice against the honest hard work and motivation by such a cause. Even a comparison to the Arab Spring is an insult.

Occupy will do nothing but occupy a brief footnote in history, achieving nothing of relevance except to shame any participant that still continues to be associated with it. It had a point for the first week where it seemed to encompass a broader message, but that time has long since past.

If the sheer man hours invested (or rather wasted) into this movement were spent on actual volunteerism and social change, it would have led to a greater overall impact. Occupy isn't social activism, it is lazy, inept social pacificism.

Amen, brother!

 

[Mercury Fred]

i like how manos stereotyped occupy wall street then said stereotyping is bad for open discourse and called us hypocrites.

To be fair, like Star Jones, he is a lawyer.

 

[Karma Kramer]

I cannot take this seriously.

This movement is an utter and complete failure reflecting the general aimlessness and overwhelming stupidity of the people who are a part of it.

What are the goals? How are they to be achieved? Comparing this type of buffoonery to the Civil Rights movement is an act of malice against the honest hard work and motivation by such a cause. Even a comparison to the Arab Spring is an insult.

Occupy will do nothing but occupy a brief footnote in history, achieving nothing of relevance except to shame any participant that still continues to be associated with it. It had a point for the first week where it seemed to encompass a broader message, but that time has long since past.

If the sheer man hours invested (or rather wasted) into this movement were spent on actual volunteerism and social change, it would have led to a greater overall impact. Occupy isn't social activism, it is lazy, inept social pacificism.

Since the recession homeowners in america (aka the middle class) lost 7 TRILLION dollars. This was caused by criminal behavior on wall street. Americans picked up the bill for the banks, the government did not split them up so they would not be too big to fail and they did not enact any financial reform that would prevent this systemic flaw in our financial institutions from happening again. Essentially millions of lives were ruined due to this injustice.

Is this not worthy of protest?

Since the recession the supreme court has given those with power/money even more control of our government with Citizens United.

Is this not worthy of protest?

Elected congressman have the legal right to do insider trading.

Is this not worthy of protest?

Our media is controlled by advertisers. Majority of the media therefore is being supported by these systemically flawed institutions.

Is this not worthy of protest?

The middle class is suffering more right now then it has since the Great Depression. Because the middle class supported the banks and the CEOs, you would think it would be fair for them to take more out of their bonuses and pay higher taxes... especially considering their taxes are at an all time low. When we had most stability economically before the late 1970s, they had much higher taxes on the top brackets and more regulation on the markets.

Also, congress might pass an internet censor bill.

Http://Americancensorship.org/

Is this not worthy of protest?

Also, you seem to think you know the future... do you have a crystal ball?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

To be fair, like Star Jones, he is a lawyer.

Oh despite Mercury Freds ranting like a loon the OWS Library WAS NOT DESTROYED

http://gothamist.com/2011/11/15/occupy_wall_street_library.php

As we originally reported at 4:15 a.m., the NYPD and Department of Sanitation tossed the entire contents of the Occupy Wall Street library into some dumpsters. At that time, the library's Twitter account transmitted this message: "The NYPD has destroyed everything at #OccupyWallStreet and put it all in dumpsters, including the #OWSLibrary. It's time to #ShutDownNYC." The library had more than 5,000 books, and recently Patti Smith funded a more permanent structure (pictured) to house it in.
Even though the city has been telling protesters that things would be stored in a Department of Sanitation facility at 650 West 57th Street in Manhattan, and could be picked up after noon, many believed and reported that the books had been destroyed. When we called the DoS this afternoon it wasn't looking good, the woman who answered the phone simply told us, "my boss isn't sure where the books are." And earlier today the library's blog had updated saying tonight at 6 p.m., "writers and readers from across New York City will gather in Liberty Plaza to reoccupy the space and rebuild the People’s Library."
But alas, good news has just arrived via the Mayor's Twitter account: the books are "safely stored" at the West 57th Street garage, and can be picked up tomorrow. They even provided photographic evidence. But how about the book shelter that Smith provided?

 

[kame-sennin]

Oh despite Mercury Freds ranting like a loon the OWS Library WAS NOT DESTROYED

http://gothamist.com/2011/11/15/occupy_wall_street_library.php



http://a.yfrog.com/img863/3982/dr7nd.jpg[/QUOTE]

OWS claims that only a fraction of the books were saved.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

OWS claims that only a fraction of the books were saved.

Well of course they would claim that. The evidence shows that claims of total destruction of the books was a lie. Its also possible considering the health and sanitation issues that OWS suffered from while squatting rendered some books impossible to save.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

You mean the fact that Soros's group gave money to Adbusters (who originally called for this whole thing) isn't true.

Look OWS is getting funding from a lot more people than just down and out 99%. You can say its not true, but it is. You guys and the Tea Party aren't much different in that regard.

From the article:

But Reuters did find indirect financial links between Soros and Adbusters, an anti-capitalist group in Canada which started the protests with an inventive marketing campaign aimed at sparking an Arab Spring type uprising against Wall Street. Moreover, Soros and the protesters share some ideological ground.

You'd think if a guy as rich as Soros were funding this thing he'd get them a PR workshop or something. Or hell, why not a OWS-sponsored presidential debate while we're at it.

I wonder why all it took was a half-assed call-to-arms that you yourself ridiculed at the onset to cause all this trouble?

 

[Atrus]

Also, you seem to think you know the future... do you have a crystal ball?

I don't believe in magic. I do however believe in the extremely high probability that people without goals or solutions will achieve nothing of merit.

You can sit there pretending otherwise but you are nothing in the face of probability. At this point, my major concern are the laws being broken and the potential escalation of such when aimless ideology becomes impotent frustration.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

From the article:

The man didn't get to be as rich as he did by being an idiot. He's not going to start making it rain, at least not this early on and directly (besides the initial investment doesn't have to be as large as one would think). It's seed money at this point. How long has OWS been around for? How long has the Tea Party been around for? You'll see support form Soros funded groups more and more in the future for other or related initiatives.

 

[kame-sennin]

I cannot take this seriously.

This movement is an utter and complete failure reflecting the general aimlessness and overwhelming stupidity of the people who are a part of it.

What are the goals? How are they to be achieved? Comparing this type of buffoonery to the Civil Rights movement is an act of malice against the honest hard work and motivation by such a cause. Even a comparison to the Arab Spring is an insult.

Occupy will do nothing but occupy a brief footnote in history, achieving nothing of relevance except to shame any participant that still continues to be associated with it. It had a point for the first week where it seemed to encompass a broader message, but that time has long since past.

If the sheer man hours invested (or rather wasted) into this movement were spent on actual volunteerism and social change, it would have led to a greater overall impact. Occupy isn't social activism, it is lazy, inept social pacificism.

Yikes. Actually, the brutal overreaction by the police and mayors across the country only improve the odds of victory (article by Chris Hedges):

The historian Crane Brinton in his book “Anatomy of a Revolution” laid out the common route to revolution. The preconditions for successful revolution, Brinton argued, are discontent that affects nearly all social classes, widespread feelings of entrapment and despair, unfulfilled expectations, a unified solidarity in opposition to a tiny power elite, a refusal by scholars and thinkers to continue to defend the actions of the ruling class, an inability of government to respond to the basic needs of citizens, a steady loss of will within the power elite itself and defections from the inner circle, a crippling isolation that leaves the power elite without any allies or outside support and, finally, a financial crisis. Our corporate elite, as far as Brinton was concerned, has amply fulfilled these preconditions. But it is Brinton’s next observation that is most worth remembering. Revolutions always begin, he wrote, by making impossible demands that if the government met would mean the end of the old configurations of power. The second stage, the one we have entered now, is the unsuccessful attempt by the power elite to quell the unrest and discontent through physical acts of repression.

I have seen my share of revolts, insurgencies and revolutions, from the guerrilla conflicts in the 1980s in Central America to the civil wars in Algeria, the Sudan and Yemen, to the Palestinian uprising to the revolutions in East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Romania as well as the wars in the former Yugoslavia. George Orwell wrote that all tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but that once the fraud is exposed they must rely exclusively on force. We have now entered the era of naked force. The vast million-person bureaucracy of the internal security and surveillance state will not be used to stop terrorism but to try and stop us.

Despotic regimes in the end collapse internally. Once the foot soldiers who are ordered to carry out acts of repression, such as the clearing of parks or arresting or even shooting demonstrators, no longer obey orders, the old regime swiftly crumbles. When the aging East German dictator Erich Honecker was unable to get paratroopers to fire on protesting crowds in Leipzig, the regime was finished. The same refusal to employ violence doomed the communist governments in Prague and Bucharest. I watched in December 1989 as the army general that the dictator Nicolae Ceausescu had depended on to crush protests condemned him to death on Christmas Day. Tunisia’s Ben Ali and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak lost power once they could no longer count on the security forces to fire into crowds.

The process of defection among the ruling class and security forces is slow and often imperceptible. These defections are advanced through a rigid adherence to nonviolence, a refusal to respond to police provocation and a verbal respect for the blue-uniformed police, no matter how awful they can be while wading into a crowd and using batons as battering rams against human bodies. The resignations of Oakland Mayor Jean Quan’s deputy, Sharon Cornu, and the mayor’s legal adviser and longtime friend, Dan Siegel, in protest over the clearing of the Oakland encampment are some of the first cracks in the edifice. “Support Occupy Oakland, not the 1% and its government facilitators,” Siegel tweeted after his resignation.

More at the link.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/this_is_what_revolution_looks_like_20111115/

 

[Karma Kramer]

I don't believe in magic. I do however believe in the extremely high probability that people without goals or solutions will achieve nothing of merit.

You can sit there pretending otherwise but you are nothing in the face of probability. At this point, my major concern are the laws being broken and the potential escalation of such when aimless ideology becomes impotent frustration.

I said this movement might become bigger than the civil rights movement because it is an international movement. You are the one who said that this movement will be nothing but a footnote, as if you have foreseen the future. The movement is 2 months old, real reform probably will take years. Give it time... To say they have no goals or solutions is generalizing and you sound a bit like Manos.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Yikes. Actually, the brutal overreaction by the police and mayors across the country only improve the odds of victory:



More at the link.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/this_is_what_revolution_looks_like_20111115/

No, but I would expect someone from truthdig to claim that (it goes with their political biases), they are trying to write the narrative, even if the facts (in polling data) doesn't back it up.

 

[kame-sennin]

I don't believe in magic. I do however believe in the extremely high probability that people without goals or solutions will achieve nothing of merit.

To be frank, I'm not sure how one can support such a statement. Everyone knows the occupy movement has goals. They seek an end to the oligarchical state. There are many specific grievances that flow logically from that goal, but I'm not sure how you can argue that they want nothing. What do you think they're angry about? Why do you think the chose to occupy Wall Street? The idea that OWS has no goals is the most baseless of accusations one can make.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

No, but I would expect someone from truthdig to claim that (it goes with their political biases), they are trying to write the narrative, even if the facts (in polling data) doesn't back it up.

it was nice of you to post that polling data

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I don't believe in magic. I do however believe in the extremely high probability that people without goals or solutions will achieve nothing of merit.

You can sit there pretending otherwise but you are nothing in the face of probability. At this point, my major concern are the laws being broken and the potential escalation of such when aimless ideology becomes impotent frustration.

Well at least we have one Amendment which can protect people from any escalation of violence.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

it was nice of you to post that polling data

You mean this one
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-favor-fading.html

 

[Baraka in the White House]

You'll see support form Soros funded groups more and more in the future for other or related initiatives.

It wouldn't surprise me at all, seeing as how OWS seems to be struggling at this very crossroads. Until then, you'll have to hope for more violence if you want new material to troll with.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

You mean this one
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-favor-fading.html

that poll says that the voters agree with everything the OWS stands for but don't agree with the OWS.

That poll doesn't show that the people's opinions of the OWS are waning, so much as it shows that the messaging of the OWS is not what it could be. But it's an uphill battle, especially when the media is making sure the movement looks as negative as possible because it conflicts with the corporate media.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

that poll says that the voters agree with everything the OWS stands for but don't agree with the OWS.

That poll doesn't show that the people's opinions of the OWS are waning, so much as it shows that the messaging of the OWS is not what it could be. But it's an uphill battle, especially when the media is making sure the movement looks as negative as possible because it conflicts with the corporate media.

As I said OWS support is declining. Their issues (some which may not be bad) will have decline in support too though by association with OWS.

It wouldn't surprise me at all, seeing as how OWS seems to be struggling at this very crossroads. Until then, you'll have to hope for more violence if you want new material to troll with.

What trolling? As I said OWS is only seed money, as it reaches milestones more money will be kicked in. No different than the Tea Party. If the Tea Party had crashed an burned at first the project would have ended.

 

[Atrus]

To be frank, I'm not sure how one can support such a statement. Everyone knows the occupy movement has goals. They seek an end to the oligarchical state. There are many specific grievances that flow logically from that goal, but I'm not sure how you can argue that they want nothing. What do you think they're angry about? Why do you think the chose to occupy Wall Street? The idea that OWS has no goals is the most baseless of accusations one can make.

Frankly, I think the OWS could use the SMART framework for goal-setting:

Specific
Measurable
Attainable
Realistic
Timely

Now... using the above framework, what were the goals demanded again? Whining about shit isn't goal setting.

 

[Bowling Pin]

Its also possible considering the health and sanitation issues that OWS suffered from while squatting rendered some books impossible to save.

...because books are susceptible to infection. I see.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

As I said OWS support is declining. Their issues (some which may not be bad) will have decline in support too though by association with OWS.

No they won't. The issues were rising in popularity long before the movement began, and people will continue to grow annoyed at the problems as the conditions continue to not change, or even get worse.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

No they won't. The issues were rising in popularity long before the movement began, and people will continue to grow annoyed at the problems as the conditions continue to not change, or even get worse.

So does that mean the movement is really irrelevant? Further you don't think an issue can ever be poisoned by major supporters?

...because books are susceptible to infection. I see.

Mold and water damage, exposure to the elements, preexisting bad condition, fluid contamination. People would always leave books out on sidewalks in Park Slope for people to take and the quality was often wildly varied (and sometimes influenced by the elements).

 

[kame-sennin]

Frankly, I think the OWS could use the SMART framework for goal-setting:

Specific
Measurable
Attainable
Realistic
Timely

Now... using the above framework, what were the goals demanded again? Whining about shit isn't goal setting.

I posted a quote from an article by Chris Hedges, who has personally witnessed multiple successful revolutions, which also cites the work of historian Crane Brinton. It's fine if you think your methodology is the most effective. In fact, if you care about ending American oligarchy, I suggest you email OWS or speak at the general assembly in person. However, OWS is in fact following the path of successful movements all around the world. It's your prerogative to disagree with these tactics, but they have been effective in the past. Some key points from the article:

Revolutions always begin, he wrote, by making impossible demands that if the government met would mean the end of the old configurations of power. The second stage, the one we have entered now, is the unsuccessful attempt by the power elite to quell the unrest and discontent through physical acts of repression.

Making 'pie in the sky demands' is one of the best ways of putting pressure on the government. Attainability is a liability because it often leads to co-option. The anti Iraq war protests were a perfect example. We didn't ask for an end to the military industrial complex, we asked for the government to pull out of one country. In the following elections, the democrats promised to do that and the movement dissipated. However the war continued for many years, our presence in Afghanistan escalated, and we entered new conflicts.

George Orwell wrote that all tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but that once the fraud is exposed they must rely exclusively on force. We have now entered the era of naked force.

One of the greatest successes of the movement so far - one that critics have been anxious to gloss over - is that the occupy movement has shed a light on the massive systemic corruption in our government and financial system. The conversation in America has changed. Prior to OWS, austerity was the focus of the national debate and Wall Street crimes had been brushed under the rug. Now politicians in both parties are being forced to address the fraud that lead to the financial crisis. Dealing seriously with income inequality has become an issue even in republican debates - in 2008, John Edwards was the only democrat presidential candidate to utter the word "poor".

Exposing the corruption in our government (an ongoing process) has a much greater impact than can be immediately observed. Openly discussing government corruption undermines the government's authority to rule. The sovereignty of the federal government is literally being assaulted every day. The only defense now, as we have seen, is naked force. You can argue all you want about the likability factor of the protesters, but we've seen time and time again how police brutality turns public opinion against authority.

Despotic regimes in the end collapse internally. Once the foot soldiers who are ordered to carry out acts of repression, such as the clearing of parks or arresting or even shooting demonstrators, no longer obey orders, the old regime swiftly crumbles. When the aging East German dictator Erich Honecker was unable to get paratroopers to fire on protesting crowds in Leipzig, the regime was finished. The same refusal to employ violence doomed the communist governments in Prague and Bucharest. I watched in December 1989 as the army general that the dictator Nicolae Ceausescu had depended on to crush protests condemned him to death on Christmas Day. Tunisia’s Ben Ali and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak lost power once they could no longer count on the security forces to fire into crowds.

The process of defection among the ruling class and security forces is slow and often imperceptible. These defections are advanced through a rigid adherence to nonviolence, a refusal to respond to police provocation and a verbal respect for the blue-uniformed police, no matter how awful they can be while wading into a crowd and using batons as battering rams against human bodies. The resignations of Oakland Mayor Jean Quan’s deputy, Sharon Cornu, and the mayor’s legal adviser and longtime friend, Dan Siegel, in protest over the clearing of the Oakland encampment are some of the first cracks in the edifice. “Support Occupy Oakland, not the 1% and its government facilitators,” Siegel tweeted after his resignation.

You may think that the forces against OWS are insurmountable, but they are not. The only thing that allows a minority of wealthy and connected people to stay in power is the consent of soldiers and police officers - usually from poor and middle class backgrounds - to use violence against those who threaten the ruling elite. Once they are no longer willing to beat college students and pepper spray old women to protect money and power they themselves will never have access to, the oligarchy will be defenseless.

http://twitter.com/#!/DanielMWolff/status/136958439850115074

"I've never seen a movie where people in riot gear wailing on unarmed peaceful citizens were the hero." #selfreflectivecop #OWS

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

You may think that the forces against OWS are insurmountable, but they are not. The only thing that allows a minority of wealthy and connected people to stay in power is the consent of soldiers and police officers - usually from poor and middle class backgrounds - to use violence against those who threaten the ruling elite. Once they are no longer willing to beat college students and pepper spray old women to protect money and power they themselves will never have access to, the oligarchy will be defenseless.

That sounds more like you want to overthrow the government. See shit like that bugs the crap out of me. There are people (and I'm not saying you) who really think the end game is the overthrow of the US Government to replace it with something else like in Egypt. That people can compare to situations in Romania is just disturbing.

 

[alstein]

That sounds more like you want to overthrow the government. See shit like that bugs the crap out of me. There are people (and I'm not saying you) who really think the end game is the overthrow of the US Government to replace it with something else like in Egypt. That people can compare to situations in Romania is just disturbing.

I don't want an overthrow of the government, I want an overthrow of the systems behind the government- like the corporate lobbying structure.

The fundamental cause of the problem is that when corporations went multinational, it severely weakened the capability of governments to regulate them, which is causing a race to the bottom. Unlike governments, corporations hold no loyalty to the people, just their shareholders. That's fine, provided they don't influence the government. Capitalism exists to benefit the people, the people don't exist to benefit capitalism. We've headed towards the latter already, inertia will carry it farther unless something is done.

This is why despite my dislike of some of the elements in OWS, it's necessary to prevent something worse from happening.

Our system can work, it's just been broken. The big difference is that we can win at the ballot box, there's just tons of inertia and corruption working against it. It's not going to be an easy struggle.

Protests do need to be inconvenient, but I don't think they need to be violent.

 

[kame-sennin]

That sounds more like you want to overthrow the government. See shit like that bugs the crap out of me. There are people (and I'm not saying you) who really think the end game is the overthrow of the US Government to replace it with something else like in Egypt. That people can compare to situations in Romania is just disturbing.

I like the US constitution. I don't want to overthrow the government. I do want to overthrow the oligarchy that has taken control of the government. It's about returning sovereignty to the American people and ending the rule by a few that we have now.

 

[akira28]

That sounds more like you want to overthrow the government.

Is it really fair to keep accusing these people of wanting to overthrow the government, when all they've asked for is major change and reform? Taking their country back isn't one of the main precepts posted on the OWS webpage. Neither is unseating or replacing the government. You're begging the question a bit because OWS has been about changing the system through Constitutionally legal means, not attacking it.

Except certain types of people do tend to see any kind of challenge or integrity check as an attack....

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I like the US constitution. I don't want to overthrow the government. I do want to overthrow the oligarchy that has taken control of the government. It's about returning sovereignty to the American people and ending the rule by a few that we have now.

I don't want an overthrow of the government, I want an overthrow of the systems behind the government- like the corporate lobbying structure.

Okay, you do have to admit there are elements in OWS that actually do that and it's not just the fluoride people, correct?

That said I ask simply how do you actually overthrow the oligarchy. I mean in terms of you optimal steps. I'm not asking to speak for OWS just yourselves. It's just when you use the term overthrow it has a certain implication, and it's usually not a pretty one.

Is it really fair to keep accusing these people of wanting to overthrow the government, when all they've asked for is major change and reform? Taking their country back isn't one of the main precepts posted on the OWS webpage. Neither is unseating or replacing the government. You're begging the question a bit because OWS has been about changing the system through Constitutionally legal means, not attacking it.
.

I don't honestly think that is the case for many members. I mean how many others like Angry Fork might be there? Besides if OWS is leaderless how can the website be claimed to be definitive in anyway?

 

[Karma Kramer]

Okay, you do have to admit there are elements in OWS that actually do that and it's not just the fluoride people, correct?

Can you provide any evidence of these elements? Stats etc...

 

[akira28]

I don't honestly think that is the case for many members. I mean how many others like Angry Fork might be there? Besides if OWS is leaderless how can the website be claimed to be definitive in anyway?

I guess all you're left with are your guesses and suppositions then. It appears OWS is a mirror into how you see other people. I mean you can take into account what you've read on GAF, but not really. Who can know anything, right?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Can you provide any evidence of these elements? Stats etc...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html

The problem is no one has really asked these questions except one informal survey done early on.

Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.

 

[Karma Kramer]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html

The problem is no one has really asked these questions except one informal survey done early on.

Yeah I wouldn't put much into a wall street journal poll of 200 people. Also considering there has been a tiny amount of violence, that 31% seems way off.

 

[richiek]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html

The problem is no one has really asked these questions except one informal survey done early on.

The Wall Street Journal? That a real impartial source of info, lol.

 

[rohlfinator]

That's a super vague poll question. There's a big difference between "I believe in my cause enough that I could physically fight for it" vs. "let's stage an armed takeover of Wall Street".

So far the acts of violence have been pretty loudly scorned by the majority of the protesters. It's clear that the movement is currently focused on non-violent civil disobedience.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Yeah I wouldn't put much into a wall street journal poll of 200 people. Also considering there has been a tiny amount of violence, that 31% seems way off.

Do you have any evidence to question the methodology of the survey or that the results were rigged or in any way undermines it. I'm not asking for you to try and prove a negative, but I'm asking for reasons, besides it was published in the WSJ, relating to issues about the survey.

I did mention that of the problem was no one else has asked the question in other surveys.

That's a super vague poll question. There's a big difference between "I believe in my cause enough that I could physically fight for it" vs. "let's stage an armed takeover of Wall Street".

So is do you support OWS, but it's been asked and cited to by people.

So far the acts of violence have been pretty loudly scorned by the majority of the protesters. It's clear that the movement is currently focused on non-violent civil disobedience.

For how long though and by how many?

 

[kame-sennin]

Okay, you do have to admit there are elements in OWS that actually do that and it's not just the fluoride people, correct?

Yup. But I think their position is more nuanced than you think it is. The people who have organized the general assembly and came up with the concept of a "horizontal" power structure (leaderless, anti-authoritarian) are anarchists. But I think that term has been misrepresented in this thread. We typically think of anarchy in terms of the black bloc - chaos and violence. But in political terms, most anarchists use a different definition. According to wikipedia:

Outside of the US, and by most individuals that self-identify as anarchists, it implies a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level although there are a few successful historical examples[5], that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society.

What this means is that people govern by consensus. It doesn't necessarily mean destroying the government (violence isn't an option) or even completely changing the electoral process. You'd have to ask an anarchist for a more in-depth explanation though.

That said I ask simply how do you actually overthrow the oligarchy. I mean in terms of you optimal steps. I'm not asking to speak for OWS just yourselves. It's just when you use the term overthrow it has a certain implication, and it's usually not a pretty one.

The short answer is that oligarchy can only occur when corporate power and government are married. Divorcing the two powers and bringing both under the heel of the people, by regulating the former and reforming the later, is all that's needed to overthrow it.