Support NeoGAF

[x-Lundz-x]

Kings will always be kings. Slaves will always be slaves. Nothing ever changes? Yeah okay. Also: The rich and poor dichotomy has not always existed.

The kings are still there, they just don't wear crowns anymore. The slaves are still there, just not in chains anymore.

And sure, if you want to count the time when the Clovis people walked the earth then yeah I guess you can say there was a time when there were no rich and poor people.

 

[beastmode]

You got two giant movements that accomplished little to nothing, you can't tell me that this didn't disillusionize some people

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are bad, but no where near as bad as Vietnam.

 

[Bisnic]

It accomplished nothing. Like pretty much all protestations/manifestations.

 

[beastmode]

The kings are still there, they just don't wear crowns anymore. The slaves are still there, just not in chains anymore.

And sure, if you want to count the time when the Clovis people walked the earth then yeah I guess you can say there was a time when there were no rich and poor people.

So what you're saying is: the world has gotten better than it was but we've reached the limit of improvement?

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

It accomplished nothing. Like pretty much all protestations/manifestations.

Wow....

 

[FlyinJ]

Those stupid people also managed to have a well organized movement regardless if they had backing.

Do you seriously believe that the Tea Party would have had even 1% of it's staying power if it didn't have massive support and donations from incredibly rich organizations and individuals, let alone an entire cable news network dedicated to prop it up?

 

[Bisnic]

Wow....

Well, mind you, i'm not talking about the big ones that happened like in middle-east or africa recently. Just the kind of worthless manifestations you usually see in north america.

 

[Visualante2]

To counter the nay sayers about protesting, see the London riots. Wait, nothing happened and young people are still getting fucked over... hmm

 

[hoos30]

1) They got everyone's attention
2) Introduced "The 1%" into the lexicon
3) Did absolutely nothing else
4) Let the protesters become the story instead of the protest.

Overall it was a waste of good potential

 

[strobogo]

Ultimately, nothing positive. In fact, I think it just reinforced a lot of negative things everyone already knew. The current generation will grow tired and give up on a political movement if there isn't quick progress or get bored. Those in power will stay in power regardless. The media is controlled by those in power. The rich will stay rich, the poor will stay poor. You can't change the system. The system is inherently against big political movements. Now matter how loud you are, you will eventually be drowned out.

All in all, I'd say the Occupy Movement turned into a big bummer of reality smacking you in the face. The only thing that really changed was a few terms were swapped out in the media.

 

[Davidion]

It injected at least a considerable amount of dialogue and awareness into the political and cultural conversation. Ultimately though, it didn't move the needle all that much if at all, mainly due to the fact that the movement didn't have sufficiently specific goals/direction, and little to no actual political traction.

Something that I notice about political protests like Occupy is that the protesters don't really realize, or choose not to, the fact that they and the people they're protesting against aren't really speaking the same language.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

To counter the nay sayers about protesting, see the London riots. Wait, nothing happened and young people are still getting fucked over... hmm

Unless you're fortified concept the London Riots had nothing to do with protesting

 

[OriginofHysteria]

Do you seriously believe that the Tea Party would have had even 1% of it's staying power if it didn't have massive support and donations from incredibly rich organizations and individuals, let alone an entire cable news network dedicated to prop it up?

At least the Tea Party had a banner that everyone could get under. What did occupy have? A thousand ideas that not everyone agreed with? It was a mess.

 

[hoos30]

It accomplished nothing. Like pretty much all protestations/manifestations.

Civil rights, woman's suffrage, gay rights, shall we continue?

 

[Mr. B Natural]

They taught us that we have become to cowardice and stupid to decide on something definitive before protesting. Free will ruined free will, I guess.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

At least the Tea Party had a banner that everyone could get under. What did occupy have? A thousand ideas that not everyone agreed with? It was a mess.

Plus if you suggested an idea or position was there own they would freakout and go into denial mode.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

Well, mind you, i'm not talking about the big ones that happened like in middle-east or africa recently. Just the kind of worthless manifestations you usually see in north america.

SMH

i guess if you dont immediate results that makes it worthless.

 

[x-Lundz-x]

So what you're saying is: the world has gotten better than it was but we've reached the limit of improvement?

The world is no better / different then it was 3000 years ago. A select few people have all the power and money, and vast majority sit at the bottom looking up. It won't ever change. I'm not sure how else I can explain this.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

Those stupid people also managed to have a well organized movement regardless if they had backing.

Which tends to be much easier to accomplish with the help of money and logistics.

 

[strobogo]

It injected at least a considerable amount of dialogue and awareness into the political and cultural conversation. Ultimately though, it didn't move the needle all that much if at all, mainly due to the fact that the movement didn't have sufficiently specific goals/direction, and little to no actual political traction.

Something that I notice about political protests like Occupy is that the protesters don't really realize, or choose not to, the fact that they and the people they're protesting against aren't really speaking the same language.

I think it showed that liberals are terrible at big idea movements. There is never a leader and a never a set gameplan/goal/idea. Just a free floating mass of ideas, often conflicting, with no one to sort them out. So they run into each other and gobble each other up until it just peters out and dies. Every time. It's always "We want to do SOMETHING!" and that's as far as it gets. At least conservatives can rally around a single point and hammer it home. Libs have had a terrible time at that for decades and can't expect any of their movements to work until they fix that part of the gameplan.

Also, I think Americans don't have the will and drive to physically do something like what you saw in the Arab Spring. I really can't ever see wide scale, months long riots happening anywhere in America ever again. Some crazies, sure. But there is never going to be the real violence that is (sadly) often needed to really change things. Not that I endorse people going out and rioting by any means.

 

[JzeroT1437]

There's a more outspoken disgust with the economic inequality in this country. It's now a subject of near constant debate, which means it will eventually become a hot topic issue. Which will never get resolved.

 

[Mr. B Natural]

The world is no better / different then it was 3000 years ago. A select few people have all the power and money, and vast majority sit at the bottom looking up. It won't ever change. I'm not sure how else I can explain this.

That has absolutely nothing to do with how high the upper class get and how low the lower class get and where the middle class belongs in between. That shit changes ALL the time.

You're just talking to yourself.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Which tends to be much easier to accomplish with the help of money and logistics.

And actually protesting against or for something.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

I think it showed that liberals are terrible at big idea movements. There is never a leader and a never a set gameplan/goal/idea. Just a free floating mass of ideas, often conflicting, with no one to sort them out. So they run into each other and gobble each other up until it just peters out and dies. Every time. It's always "We want to do SOMETHING!" and that's as far as it gets. At least conservatives can rally around a single point and hammer it home. Libs have had a terrible time at that for decades and can't expect any of their movements to work until they fix that part of the gameplan.

Conservatives rally around a single point and hammer it home because their tent is significantly smaller. Not to mention a 24-hour conservative noise machine is already in place and the message of the Tea Party (no taxes, no regulations, fuck Obama) gelled pretty well with wealthy interests. No movement that ever brings attention to wealth inequality and underlying issues will get very favorable media treatment these days.

 

[Cake Boss]

Nothing at all, they just fucked over the small business they camped around.

 

[ReBurn]

Occupy got people talking. That's something.

 

[NinjaTehFish]

For one, they let the N.W.O know who needs to be kept tabs on.

 

[The Technomancer]

Occupy got people talking. That's something.

Basically. They changed some of the political dialogue.

 

[Davidion]

I think it showed that liberals are terrible at big idea movements. There is never a leader and a never a set gameplan/goal/idea. Just a free floating mass of ideas, often conflicting, with no one to sort them out. So they run into each other and gobble each other up until it just peters out and dies. Every time. It's always "We want to do SOMETHING!" and that's as far as it gets. At least conservatives can rally around a single point and hammer it home. Libs have had a terrible time at that for decades and can't expect any of their movements to work until they fix that part of the gameplan.

Focus is key, I agree, though I'm not sure if these aspects are inherent to sides of the political debate. I think it's more of a matter of age/experience/upbringing. However, does a more progressive mindset inherently lend itself to exaggerated idealism to the point where it hinders immediate focus and execution? That's a tangent all on its own, I think.

I just think that these protesters don't seem to engage with the fact that in order to really change anything so entrenched as our current business/political environment, an extraordinary kind of disruption is required. It can be in the form of a business, or intense sacrifice, or something or another that essentially shakes the system to its core. I'm not sure protests really do that nowadays.

 

[GungHo]

Hard to say now.

What I hope it did was teach people that if they really want to change the world, they're going to have to do a bit more than standing around and shouting at empty buildings. People are not listening to your message when you're tying up traffic... they're just pissed off that you're making them late.

I am not sure they really got the message, though.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

For one, they let the N.W.O know who needs to be kept tabs on.

No that was Lupe Fiasco.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

It made people realize how much more the rich have than the poor.

 

[dave is ok]

Occupy was good for letting people know, in very vague terms, they were being fleeced.

The LIBOR scandal, JP Morgan losing 4 billion overnight, MF Global, etc. might not have been big stories without it.

 

[Jackpot]

The world is no better / different then it was 3000 years ago. A select few people have all the power and money, and vast majority sit at the bottom looking up. It won't ever change. I'm not sure how else I can explain this.

wat? have you heard of the quality of life index? Of course it's better than 3000 years ago, in every respect.

In fact if we take just your criteria of dictator monarchs vs slaves in ancients times and see how they stack up against the lives of haves and have-nots in present day it shows a definite trend of the powerful elite getting weaker and the masses getting stronger.

 

[Slayven]

No that was Lupe Fiasco.

I listened to one of his interviews not to long ago. Dude is weird.

 

[beastmode]

Really the first attempt at addressing the last 30+ or so years of class warfare by the rich.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I listened to one of his interviews not to long ago. Dude is weird.

Yeah he is fucking crazy high on 9/11 glue sniffing, illuminati, and nwo horeshit.

 

[Marleyman]

I thought it did what it needed to do, although it should have went further. It brought awareness to income equality and greed, which is something that most Americans seem to not give two shits about, as long as they are doing ok.

 

[Eidan]

The same thing the anti-war protests did. People realizing that protesting doesn't change anything.

Protests get politicians, and the general public, to acknowledge and discuss an issue. The protest itself doesn't change anything directly, but it can help shift public opinion, which then leads to policy change.

 

[x-Lundz-x]

wat? have you heard of the quality of life index? Of course it's better than 3000 years ago, in every respect.

In fact if we take just your criteria of dictator monarchs vs slaves in ancients times and see how they stack up against the lives of haves and have-nots in present day it shows a definite trend of the powerful elite getting weaker and the masses getting stronger.

The occupy movement is about money, not the quality of life index. And in terms of money, of the have and have nots, no it isn't any better.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

It did give the phrase 1%, but that's about it.

They didn't really organize past sitting down.

If they really wanted to accomplish something, they should have formed a bloc for the primaries, and done traditional Vote gathering to enforce their demands.

Instead, they wanted to remain separate from the political system or something.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

It did give the phrase 1%, but that's about it.

They didn't really organize past sitting down.

If they really wanted to accomplish something, they should have formed a bloc for the primaries, and done traditional Vote gathering to enforce their demands.

Instead, they wanted to remain separate from the political system or something.

And leave human waste all over their site in Philadelphia.

 

[beastmode]

The occupy movement is about money, not the quality of life index. And in terms of money, of the have and have nots, no it isn't any better.

What the hell are you talking about? Inequality has not been static even over just the last few decades.

 

[GungHo]

Also, I think Americans don't have the will and drive to physically do something like what you saw in the Arab Spring. I really can't ever see wide scale, months long riots happening anywhere in America ever again. Some crazies, sure. But there is never going to be the real violence that is (sadly) often needed to really change things. Not that I endorse people going out and rioting by any means.

I'm not sure this is the case. I just don't think our lives are bad enough to really get people pissed off. And, that's what it will take to accomplish something... people will collectively have to get really pissed off with cause. Pissed off enough to stop worrying about twitter fights or whether or not their rights might be violated. Pissed off enough for the wealthy to get really worried about their security (either physical or economic), as opposed to just saying "they'll get tired and bored and will go worry about Kim Kardashian's ass". I'm not sure what it would take to get there, though, and I'm certainly not sure if it should ever get there, because there are long term consequences to that sort of action that people really need to consider.

It made people realize how much more the rich have than the poor.

And what did anyone do with that knowledge, beyond kick a curb and say, "fuckin rich people" before moving on with life? They didn't organize into a political counter to the Tea Party or anything like that. Their stick-to-it-iveness has meant about the same as me saying that I'd listen to heavy metal forever and never wear a suit when I was in junior high.

 

[pigeon]

I think people had a lot of expectations of Occupy that weren't really realistic -- I know I saw quite a few people at Occupy Oakland who viewed Occupy as the first step to an anarchist revolution taking down the system, which didn't seem all that likely to me. At the same time, lots of people viewed Occupy as a Democratic movement to push more progressive liberal politicians into Democratic office, like the Tea Party. I think these people have failed to understand how badly the Tea Party has screwed the Republican party -- not just in the long-term wacky marginalization sense, but in the short-term, by costing them the Senate in '10. Forgive me for not wanting one of those!

I think that Occupy changed the narrative in a very important sense, by returning economic populism to the spotlight. The power of the 99% meme is very important because it's a socialist economic message that takes advantage of lingering anger about the crisis to reach the average American (since it's explicitly about the average American), and we haven't had one of those for a while. The villainization of capitalists is just a plus. I think this Presidential race would look pretty different if OO hadn't happened -- the tax and Bain attacks would have still happened, but I'm not sure they would've been as effective outside of Massachusetts. Nor do I think that Obama would've had the guts to run on a platform of tax increases for the rich, or that most Americans would support such a platform. So that's a change we can believe in, assuming it happens.

 

[Marleyman]

I think a more aggressive approach was/is needed. Getting some politicians is all fine and good, but the bottom line is that things are corrupt past the point, IMO, of a politician doing anything to make a drastic change. I am not calling for a revolution but I am calling for aggressive protesting, however that may manifest itself.

 

[captive]

What the hell are you talking about? Inequality has not been static even over just the last few decades.

man, certainly doesnt feel like my gf and I are "fourth."

 

[Eidan]

I think people had a lot of expectations of Occupy that weren't really realistic -- I know I saw quite a few people at Occupy Oakland who viewed Occupy as the first step to an anarchist revolution taking down the system, which didn't seem all that likely to me. At the same time, lots of people viewed Occupy as a Democratic movement to push more progressive liberal politicians into Democratic office, like the Tea Party. I think these people have failed to understand how badly the Tea Party has screwed the Republican party -- not just in the long-term wacky marginalization sense, but in the short-term, by costing them the Senate in '10. Forgive me for not wanting one of those!

I think that Occupy changed the narrative in a very important sense, by returning economic populism to the spotlight. The power of the 99% meme is very important because it's a socialist economic message that takes advantage of lingering anger about the crisis to reach the average American (since it's explicitly about the average American), and we haven't had one of those for a while. The villainization of capitalists is just a plus. I think this Presidential race would look pretty different if OO hadn't happened -- the tax and Bain attacks would have still happened, but I'm not sure they would've been as effective outside of Massachusetts. Nor do I think that Obama would've had the guts to run on a platform of tax increases for the rich, or that most Americans would support such a platform. So that's a change we can believe in, assuming it happens.

Very well said, as always.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

I think people had a lot of expectations of Occupy that weren't really realistic -- I know I saw quite a few people at Occupy Oakland who viewed Occupy as the first step to an anarchist revolution taking down the system, which didn't seem all that likely to me. At the same time, lots of people viewed Occupy as a Democratic movement to push more progressive liberal politicians into Democratic office, like the Tea Party. I think these people have failed to understand how badly the Tea Party has screwed the Republican party -- not just in the long-term wacky marginalization sense, but in the short-term, by costing them the Senate in '10. Forgive me for not wanting one of those!

I am not saying it would have been necessarily good or bad if the Occupy movement did start running their own candidates in the Democratic primary, I am saying that I would have respected it as a movement that actually tried something rather then what I think it was: an inefficient waste of time, energy, and potential.

 

[x-Lundz-x]

What the hell are you talking about? Inequality has not been static even over just the last few decades.

I'm sitting here saying that the wealth gap has always existed and will always be there and you posted a graph that proves my freaking point man. What do you think I am talking about? Those straight lines at the bottom of that graph you posted...you know where they are going to be in the next 40 years? The same place, holding down the fort at the bottom of that graph. That is my entire point. The rich will keep getting richer, and the poor just keep getting poorer. It's the way the world works man, and has always worked. If you don't believe that, and you really believe this will ever change then you live in a fantasy world.