Support NeoGAF

[Sh1ner]

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.


There are no other options. What else can you do? They don't give a shit about words or feelings. They have to know fear and feel legitimately threatened. The only other way is having people stop working and strike from all types of businesses but there's no way that's going to happen.

Also Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jnr.... is you haven't read the news lately.

I believe if violence began more people would join, not less. All it takes is someone courageous enough to start it all and a small group of people to follow in that person's foot steps. I'm not that person and I know because I'm not willing to go that far I'm part of the problem, but I'd be willing if I knew this was serious and everyone else was ready as well.

Seriously dude I am starting to worry on your views of the world, Arab Spring has shown the way. There are other options as they have shown peaceful protests can be successful even when your under a dictatorship. If your going to ignore this fact well there is no point in continuing this debate.

Either your trolling or you have avoided the news or misinformed. I hope your trolling to be honest.

 

[ronito]

NPR mentioned them in brief this morning about what a death knell this could be for Obama. They were saying that many of these protesters should have been strongly in Obama's base and he's lost them completely. They also mentioned how unorganized the protests were. I agree on both fronts, this shows just how bad Obama will have it.

 

[magicstop]

I suppose millions of people marching at one time could do SOMEthing even if it's peaceful, but even then like someone else said politicians will come out and say oh wow this is a ground breaking moment har har amazing etc. we're gonna change things and then next term same shit happens.

As was just discussed, the idea is that the occupation doesn't stop until actual changes have been made and demands have been met. No word or promise from a politician is going to break this up.

The entire government needs to be changed from the ground up imo. The idea that we should place the blame on 'fat cat' ceo's isn't even scratching the surface imo. The overpriced school shit, the 2 party system etc. everything needs to be changed and you can't tell me non-violence is going to change all of that. Not when there's hundreds of billions of dollars at play.

I'd agree with you about change from the ground up. Right now, the movement isn't focused on revolution but on reform, though some of it is fairly deep. However, you never know how things will evolve, especially when certain critical masses have been met.
As far as non-violence being able to change things or not, don't get caught up in looking at things through a false dichotomy or narrowed lens. There is more to a movement than violence or lack thereof, and historically, non-violence has been proven very effective at achieving change, if done right.

Of course, I am not against violence absolutely. I think non-violence is the preferred route when it's an option, but even Gandhi himself said "It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence." We'll see, but for now, we are stirring up a commotion in the US that is resulting in even international attention, and we will push this thing as far as we can, and hopefully then some more. Critiquing the movement in its early progression can only result in inaccurate forecasts and misplaced beliefs, as we've already seen.

 

[remnant]

lol no I'm not, I'm just me.

I'm serious though I mean what else can you do? I suppose millions of people marching at one time could do SOMEthing even if it's peaceful, but even then like someone else said politicians will come out and say oh wow this is a ground breaking moment har har amazing etc. we're gonna change things and then next term same shit happens.

The entire government needs to be changed from the ground up imo. The idea that we should place the blame on 'fat cat' ceo's isn't even scratching the surface. The overpriced school shit, the 2 party system etc. everything needs to be changed and you can't tell me non-violence is going to change all of that. Not when there's hundreds of billions of dollars at play.

U may not be wrong. Violence might be the only answer, but as of right now this is nothing but a bunch of leftist groups standing in traffic. Attacking people is not going to convince most Americans that we are all on the same side.

Especially after we just saw another group peacefully cause one party to change direction.

 

[Angry Fork]

Seriously dude I am starting to worry on your views of the world, Arab Spring has shown the way. There are other options as they have shown peaceful protests can be successful even when your under a dictatorship. If your going to ignore this fact well there is no point in continuing this debate.

Either your trolling or you have avoided the news or misinformed. I hope your trolling to be honest.

I'm just not that optimistic. The reason it's harder in America to do something like that is because everyone's standard of living is higher. The average American may be sick and tired of everything but they still have a lot of shit to lose. For that reason alone everyone is weary to do something big.

Listen I swear I'm not on some gung-ho pro violence LET'S LOOT EVERYTHING ROAR kind of shit. I'm not like that at all, I just really have no hope of changing this government without it. I don't think it's possible in America. Our police state's are too robust, people are too apathetic (including me), we're too glued to bullshit on TV to bother learning about things.

When it's peaceful everyone goes on their computer, they read about it, they go to yahoo, cnn, huffpost, twitter etc. and everyone's like oh hmm hopefully some good comes and then they don't think about it again for the rest of the day. When it's violent, when bad shit happens, then people are like whoa hey wait a minute etc. and people stay interested. I don't have enough faith in the American public for them to care about these kinds of protests. These people get labeled as teenage hippies or whatever and everyone goes back to work the next day until the hype dies down.

 

[Dude Abides]

It looks like I have to retract my characterization of this as a patchouli-soaked festival of nothing, as it seems to be turning into a festival of something. Still disappointed it hasn't turned into all-out street warfare as predicted by certain parties.

 

[magicstop]

I thought this was a great picture from Occupy Wall St and was worth sharing

 

[remnant]

NPR mentioned them in brief this morning about what a death knell this could be for Obama. They were saying that many of these protesters should have been strongly in Obama's base and he's lost them completely. They also mentioned how unorganized the protests were. I agree on both fronts, this shows just how bad Obama will have it.

Do people seriously think they aren't going to vote Obama in 2012? There is no proof they will vote against the party. None of them have even talked about running against establishment on a local level.

 

[Measley]

NPR mentioned them in brief this morning about what a death knell this could be for Obama. They were saying that many of these protesters should have been strongly in Obama's base and he's lost them completely. They also mentioned how unorganized the protests were. I agree on both fronts, this shows just how bad Obama will have it.

If/When the GOP retakes congress and the White House in 2012, there's going to be an explosion of activism and protest on the left.

 

[empty vessel]

Do people seriously think they aren't going to vote Obama in 2012? There is no proof they will vote against the party. None of them have even talked about running against establishment on a local level.

Who is "they"? In any event, the objective is not to gain political office. It is to loudly make political demands, i.e., to actively be citizens in a democratic republic.

 

[Slayven]

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.


There are no other options. What else can you do? They don't give a shit about words or feelings. They have to know fear and feel legitimately threatened. The only other way is having people stop working and strike from all types of businesses but there's no way that's going to happen.

I believe if violence began more people would join, not less. All it takes is someone courageous enough to start it all and a small group of people to follow in that person's foot steps. I'm not that person and I know because I'm not willing to go that far I'm part of the problem, but I'd be willing if I knew this was serious and everyone else was ready as well.

This isn't London, they would declare Marshall law and call in the National Guard. And then you really would see a police state.

 

[Angry Fork]

As was just discussed, the idea is that the occupation doesn't stop until actual changes have been made and demands have been met. No word or promise from a politician is going to break this up.



I'd agree with you about change from the ground up. Right now, the movement isn't focused on revolution but on reform, though some of it is fairly deep. However, you never know how things will evolve, especially when certain critical masses have been met.
As far as non-violence being able to change things or not, don't get caught up in looking at things through a false dichotomy or narrowed lens. There is more to a movement than violence or lack thereof, and historically, non-violence has been proven very effective at achieving change, if done right.

Of course, I am not against violence absolutely. I think non-violence is the preferred route when it's an option, but even Gandhi himself said "It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence." We'll see, but for now, we are stirring up a commotion in the US that is resulting in even international attention, and we will push this thing as far as we can, and hopefully then some more. Critiquing the movement in its early progression can only result in inaccurate forecasts and misplaced beliefs, as we've already seen.

You're a cool dude, no sarcasm I really like your posts. I've calmed down a bit about the violence shit, I hope you're right and this can grow more. It would be amazing if this becomes something big (and stays that way no matter what a politician says) but as of now I'm not optimistic enough that it'll stay without violence, but we'll see what happens.

I'm gonna read up on the Arab Springs wiki now and see what kind of changes are happening. I've been catching up on bits and pieces but not enough to give a thorough opinion.

This isn't London, they would declare Marshall law and call in the National Guard. And then you really would see a police state.

This kind of threat would depend on whether everyone in the military would do as they're told no matter what. I think there would be dissidence in there as well if they felt wrong about shooting their own people. I don't want to get into this debate though it'll be a constant back and forth so i'll drop it.

 

[Deku]

Canadians get occupation envy. Protests being planned for Vancouver , Calgary and Toronto.

Vancouver protest will be infront (of all places) the money losing Vancouver Art Gallery. I'm not sure if it's a brilliant or idiotic choice considering the Gallery's tilt. It's one of those but not somewhere in betweeen.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...all-street-occupation-planned/article2187950/

Chance of 'Stop Harper' signage?

100%

You're a cool dude, no sarcasm I really like your posts. I've calmed down a bit about the violence shit, I hope you're right and this can grow more. It would be amazing if this becomes something big (and stays that way no matter what a politician says) but as of now I'm not optimistic enough that it'll stay without violence, but we'll see what happens.

I'm gonna read up on the Arab Springs wiki now and see what kind of changes are happening. I've been catching up on bits and pieces but not enough to give a thorough opinion.

Nah violence will kill the protests completely. Maybe you're too young, but the riots in the 60s and 70s were a lot worse and a lot more militant.

The electorate responded by rewarding conservative parties with electoral victory and it fundamentally changed the tenor of politics. Republican diety Ronald Reagan cut his teeth hosing down hippies during the Berkley occupations while he was governor of California. By all accounts, his fight with the far-left made his positions more conservative.

 

[SpectreFire]

Scumbag Protesters:

Corporations are Evil

Buys Starbucks and $200 hobo jeans.

 

[remnant]

Who is "they"? In any event, the objective is not to gain political office. It is to loudly make political demands, i.e., to actively be citizens in a democratic republic.

"They" are the people standing in traffic making demands to the politicians who will ignore them becuase they know they will get their vote.

Again where is the proof they will vote against a democratic? Why should any democratic leader listen to their demands. It's not as if they are going to lose their office.

By the way are you trying to say running for office is being less of a citizen than standing outside with cardboard demands?

 

[Sh1ner]

I thought this was a great picture from Occupy Wall St and was worth sharing

Amazing. The cheek I love this and I just did a DSLR photography course today

I'm just not that optimistic. The reason it's harder in America to do something like that is because everyone's standard of living is higher. The average American may be sick and tired of everything but they still have a lot of shit to lose. For that reason alone everyone is weary to do something big.

Listen I swear I'm not on some gung-ho pro violence LET'S LOOT EVERYTHING ROAR kind of shit. I'm not like that at all, I just really have no hope of changing this government without it. I don't think it's possible in America. Our police state's are too robust, people are too apathetic (including me), we're too glued to bullshit on TV to bother learning about things.

When it's peaceful everyone goes on their computer, they read about it, they go to yahoo, cnn, huffpost, twitter etc. and everyone's like oh hmm hopefully some good comes and then they don't think about it again for the rest of the day. When it's violent, when bad shit happens, then people are like whoa hey wait a minute etc. and people stay interested. I don't have enough faith in the American public for them to care about these kinds of protests. These people get labeled as teenage hippies or whatever and everyone goes back to work the next day until the hype dies down.

I see where you come from, I guess I have become more anti violent protest as its worked in the middle east and also because of a violent protest we have had in the UK has changed my views.

We just had some riots over here in the UK over an idiot who was armed getting killed. Chavs/Teens wanting to loot the shit out of London and other cities uses this as an excuse. They burnt down a shit load of buildings, ruined a lot of peoples lives and didn't accomplish anything worthwhile except for some interesting spam worth while except piss off the public, becoming more anti protesty and at the same time the public just wrote off an entire generation. I believe in violence when attacked but not before. The recent riots over here have pissed me off. As police laws are looking to if not already are tightened especially in a riot capacity.
So in my opinion we are more fucked than we were before these morons started to wreck shit. :[

 

[Divvy]

Scumbag Protesters:

Corporations are Evil

Buys Starbucks and $200 hobo jeans.

You could have had a haiku going, too bad.

 

[dave is ok]

Scumbag Protesters:

Corporations are Evil

Buys Starbucks and $200 hobo jeans.

Scumbag NEOGAF poster:

Uses Starbucks to try and prove hypocrisy of protestors when protest is really about financial industry and campaign finance reform.

Starbucks CEO calls for other CEOs to not to give money to any political campaigns, wants campaign finance reform.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I need some clarificaton;

Are the protesters rich hipster pseuds or poor dirty hippies who should get a job?

Spoiler

Or either depending on what you want to complain about them doing this hour?

 

[Enron]

Scumbag NEOGAF poster:

Uses Starbucks to try and prove hypocrisy of protestors when protest is really about financial industry and campaign finance reform.

Starbucks CEO calls for other CEOs to not to give money to any political campaigns, wants campaign finance reform.

But what about the macbooks?

 

[SpectreFire]

Scumbag NEOGAF poster:

Uses Starbucks to try and prove hypocrisy of protestors when protest is really about financial industry and campaign finance reform.

Starbucks CEO calls for other CEOs to not to give money to any political campaigns, wants campaign finance reform.

Dude. You're doing it wrong.

 

[Deku]

Starbucks CEO calls for other CEOs to not to give money to any political campaigns, wants campaign finance reform.

Republicans rejoice as progressive CEOs mostly give to Democrats anyways.

Perry/Bacchman Ticket achieved.

 

[magicstop]

I thought this article might be interesting for some of NeoGAF who have interests in organizing, or even critiques of the organizational methods used in this protest.
Speaking from experience, organizing is hard, draining work. It's nice to have a model to work by, even if it's a bit vague and common-sense-ish It can be very difficult to get a room full of people to agree, let alone an entire movement. I think establishing solidarity and a unified front is going to be crucial for these various movements to achieve success as an overall movement. I suppose some variance is to be expected and even encouraged, but my fear is that too much will derail that specific movement and make it more of a mess than a positive force.

 

[ronito]

"They" are the people standing in traffic making demands to the politicians who will ignore them becuase they know they will get their vote.

Again where is the proof they will vote against a democratic? Why should any democratic leader listen to their demands. It's not as if they are going to lose their office.

By the way are you trying to say running for office is being less of a citizen than standing outside with cardboard demands?

Obama will need every vote he can get, unless the republicans stereotypically implode. And the fact is these people wouldn't be protesting if they felt that Obama did a good job. True most will still vote democrat, but some will go to a third party candidate and many more will simply not vote at all. That in of itself could tank Obama's chance. If his most motivated base decides just to stay home, that's just as bad as voting for the other guy.

 

[remnant]

I need some clarificaton;

Are the protesters rich hipster pseuds or poor dirty hippies who should get a job?

Spoiler

Or either depending on what you want to complain about them doing this hour?

Both at this point.

 

[SpectreFire]

I need some clarificaton;

Are the protesters rich hipster pseuds or poor dirty hippies who should get a job?

Spoiler

Or either depending on what you want to complain about them doing this hour?

Depends on how they smell. The rich ones smell dirty, but that's the $50 cologne they buy to smell like the actual poor dirty hippies that should get a job.

 

[akira28]

NPR mentioned them in brief this morning about what a death knell this could be for Obama. They were saying that many of these protesters should have been strongly in Obama's base and he's lost them completely. They also mentioned how unorganized the protests were. I agree on both fronts, this shows just how bad Obama will have it.

unfortunately NPR has been a victim of the media shift. They deliver Conservative talking points just to keep up with the modern news cycle, things that can unchallenged for weeks, sometimes outright lies about them as public media. They flinch whenever conservatives make a fist now, so I don't consider them to be impartial at all. I think they're shell shocked by the last 12 years.

 

[Deku]

unfortunately NPR has been a victim of the media shift. They deliver Conservative talking points just to keep up with the modern news cycle, things that can unchallenged for weeks, sometimes outright lies about them as public media. They flinch whenever conservatives make a fist now, so I don't consider them to be impartial at all. I think they're shell shocked by the last 12 years.

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.

 

[magicstop]

Just taking a second for your New Page Reminder to avoid feeding the trolls They're big and hungry and say mean things, but resist your inclination to throw them any yummy text. They only flourish and derail the conversation.

 

[empty vessel]

"They" are the people standing in traffic making demands to the politicians who will ignore them becuase they know they will get their vote.

That's not what the entire history of organized political movements in the US reflects happens.

Again where is the proof they will vote against a democratic? Why should any democratic leader listen to their demands. It's not as if they are going to lose their office.

For the same reason Republicans (indeed, even Democrats) listen and respond to tea party demands. The threat behind political movements is that politicians are being watched and will, indeed, pay consequences for failing to meet political demands. Politicians need money, but they need votes even more.

By the way are you trying to say running for office is being less of a citizen than standing outside with cardboard demands?

I am not saying running for office makes one "less of a citizen," but I am saying that running for office is one of the least effective things that an individual citizen interested in political reform can do.

Who the individuals that become elected representatives are is practically irrelevant. Nixon didn't sign legislation enacting the EPA because he was a raging environmentalist. He did it because of what demands he perceived were being made around him. Those demands shape and influence the political atmosphere, including what behaviors are "expected" of representatives. The best thing any individual citizen can do to effect change in a liberal democracy is to get on the streets and add his or her voice to the chorus demanding change. In the right political atmosphere, even a politician like George W. Bush would sign plenty of liberal reform legislation.

 

[Slayven]

Depends on how they smell. The rich ones smell dirty, but that's the $50 cologne they buy to smell like the actual poor dirty hippies that should get a job.

Which ones wear petula oil?

 

[remnant]

Obama will need every vote he can get, unless the republicans stereotypically implode. And the fact is these people wouldn't be protesting if they felt that Obama did a good job. True most will still vote democrat, but some will go to a third party candidate and many more will simply not vote at all. That in of itself could tank Obama's chance. If his most motivated base decides just to stay home, that's just as bad as voting for the other guy.

Which is why the argument that they wont get Obama's vote is weak. Any attempt to vote third party will be characterized as hurting the democratic candidate, and not voting for Obama is "just as bad as voting republican, man."

Everyone's an evil republicrat now, but come summer of 2012, 50% of the 99% or whatever the fuck they call themselves will be back to hating each other.

 

[Bad_Boy]

700 people arrested, you'd think obama would say something. anything.

 

[SpectreFire]

700 people arrested, you'd think obama would say something. anything.

Should commend the police for a job well done.

Just taking a second for your New Page Reminder to avoid feeding the trolls They're big and hungry and say mean things, but resist your inclination to throw them any yummy text. They only flourish and derail the conversation.

You mean the hipster circle jerk?

 

[Bad_Boy]

Should commend the police for a job well done.

Not sure if serious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCYqz9o4aS0
9:10 explanation on what happened

 

[Baraka in the White House]

Which is why the argument that they wont get Obama's vote is weak. Any attempt to vote third party will be characterized as hurting the democratic candidate, and not voting for Obama is "just as bad as voting republican, man."

Everyone's an evil republicrat now, but come summer of 2012, 50% of the 99% or whatever the fuck they call themselves will be back to hating each other.

I don't get you. You're not trolling but so far your whole point in this thread seems to distill down to, "Because this movement didn't change the system yesterday, it is silly and irrelevant."

 

[dave is ok]

Last time he said the police acted "stupidly" it was a news story for over a week.

He knows better than to touch this one

 

[Angry Fork]

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.

 

[timetokill]

I'm not really sure how anyone thinks republicans can win big.

Because the economy is shit

 

[SpectreFire]

Not sure if serious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCYqz9o4aS0
9:10 explanation on what happened

So they were arrested for disrupting transit and being a nuisance?

 

[remnant]

That's not what the entire history of organized political movements in the US reflects happens.



For the same reason Republicans (indeed, even Democrats) listen and respond to tea party demands. The threat behind political movements is that politicians are being watched and will, indeed, pay consequences for failing to meet political demands. Politicians need money, but they need votes even more.



I am not saying running for office makes one "less of a citizen," but I am saying that running for office is one of the least effective things that an individual citizen interested in political reform can do.

Who the individuals that become elected representatives are is practically irrelevant. Nixon didn't sign legislation enacting the EPA because he was a raging environmentalist. He did it because of what demands he perceived were being made around him. Those demands shape and influence the political atmosphere, including what behaviors are "expected" of representatives. The best thing any individual citizen can do to effect change in a liberal democracy is to get on the streets and add his or her voice to the chorus demanding change. In the right political atmosphere, even a politician like George W. Bush would sign plenty of liberal reform legislation.

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

2) the tea party is effective becuase they are willing to run people in office and win. They never stood around vaguely threatening nothing.

These protestors haven't even threatened to vote for someone else. What should any democrat be afraid of.

3) the republican party was vastly different now than it was before. There was support for the EPA back then, and there still is among conservatives.

 

[magicstop]

Thats pretty awesome. I'm not sure I have time to protest night and day (i've got bills to pay myself) but I'll try to contribute if I can. I think I'll drive through greensboro whenever the event happens and pass out hand warmers and water.

Yo Bad Boy, just wanted to pass you the link (and anyone else interested) . . .
There's an Occupy NC Flickr group up collecting pictures of the various occupy movements. You might try checking there tonight or tomorrow to see if some pics from your area are up.

 

[Bad_Boy]

So they were arrested for disrupting transit and being a nuisance?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44742659/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Some of the protesters said that authorities had tricked, trapped and then arrested them, according to The New York Times.
"The cops watched and did nothing, indeed, seemed to guide us onto the roadway," Occupy Wall Street media coordinator Jesse Myerson told the newspaper.

Yo Bad Boy, just wanted to pass you the link (and anyone else interested) . . .
There's an Occupy NC Flickr group up collecting pictures of the various occupy movements. You might try checking there tonight or tomorrow to see if some pics from your area are up.

Thanks, I'll check that out. I appreciate it.

Found out there is a meeting today in my city at 6pm in a public Library, open to all. Won't be able to make it due to work, but it's a "planning meeting". Hopefully news will appear when the actual protest date is.

 

[remnant]

I don't get you. You're not trolling but so far your whole point in this thread seems to distill down to, "Because this movement didn't change the system yesterday, it is silly and irrelevant."

What do you want me to say. Should I be a cheerleader and call them heroes and all that bullshit. I'm just calling it like I see it. This protest is largely silly as it is, and whether or not its relevant depends on if these people will actually engage in politics on a deeper level than chanting in traffic with cardboard signs.

 

[ToxicAdam]

2) the tea party is effective becuase they are willing to run people in office and win. They never stood around vaguely threatening nothing.

Important to note that the tea party took months and months before it got any kind of political clout or traction. Even then, it was riding the coattails of anti-incumbentism that the economy produced.

So, it seems disingenous to expect so much in such a small span of time.

 

[remnant]

Important to note that the tea party took months and months before it got any kind of political clout or traction. Even then, it was riding the coattails of anti-incumbentism that the economy produced.

So, it seems disingenous to expect so much in such a small span of time.

I don't expect them to crown a candidate or announce a PAC( though they could. That would actually be impressive) but atleast note some repurcussions. I mean has no one standing out there thought " So what do we do if they don't listen."

 

[empty vessel]

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

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.

2) the tea party is effective becuase they are willing to run people in office and win. They never stood around vaguely threatening nothing.

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.

These protestors haven't even threatened to vote for someone else. What should any democrat be afraid of.

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.).

3) the republican party was vastly different now than it was before. There was support for the EPA back then, and there still is among conservatives.

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

 

[Baraka in the White House]

What do you want me to say. Should I be a cheerleader and call them heroes and all that bullshit. I'm just calling it like I see it. This protest is largely silly as it is, and whether or not its relevant depends on if these people will actually engage in politics on a deeper level than chanting in traffic with cardboard signs.

I don't expect anyone to cheerlead but I don't find it the least bit over optimistic to call this anything less than a good start. Two weeks ago it was widely predicted that the movement would fall flat on its face and amount to little more than a springboard for new photoshops. Some obviously still wish it had. I'm not calling this an MLK march or anything but it's clearly not going away and if anything is growing. They're getting attention. There's really no way this can be a bad thing.

 

[Slavik81]

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.


There are no other options. What else can you do? They don't give a shit about words or feelings. They have to know fear and feel legitimately threatened. The only other way is having people stop working and strike from all types of businesses but there's no way that's going to happen.

I believe if violence began more people would join, not less. All it takes is someone courageous enough to start it all and a small group of people to follow in that person's foot steps. I'm not that person and I know because I'm not willing to go that far I'm part of the problem, but I'd be willing if I knew this was serious and everyone else was ready as well.

Ted Kaczynski, is that you?

 

[magicstop]

What do you want me to say. Should I be a cheerleader and call them heroes and all that bullshit. I'm just calling it like I see it. This protest is largely silly as it is, and whether or not its relevant depends on if these people will actually engage in politics on a deeper level than chanting in traffic with cardboard signs.

Noted. I also agree that you shouldn't have to change your opinion or lie about your opinion. This thread may not be, however, the best place for you to continually present the same objection over and over again. I can safely say that we hear you and acknowledge you and we won't mistake you for agreeing with this movement.

I'd encourage those who disagree to let this be. Difference of opinion is fine, as long as it's not presented as trolling.

Important to note that the tea party took months and months before it got any kind of political clout or traction. Even then, it was riding the coattails of anti-incumbentism that the economy produced.

So, it seems disingenous to expect so much in such a small span of time.

So true. Also, the Tea Party had corporate backing and access to huge resources (not just money, but professional planning, media coverage, etc.) that this movement does not currently have. We'll get there, though. We certainly won't have corporate sponsorship, but we'll make sure we are effective. Otherwise, there's going to be some big permanent squatter populations coming to cities near you