The Occupation of Wall Street Spreads

[Zinegata]

That's not my argument, and that's not Zinegata's argument.

No you retard. And if you continue to lie about my position I will push the report button, because I'm in no mood to suffer from any more mud-slinging attempts from retards with severe reading comprehension problems like you.

========

Zinegata's argument is that only peaceful protests work and are inferior to voting anyways.

Bakustra lies for the first time. I have stated numerous times that Gandhi's non-violence system does not work in all occassions. Therefore "Zinegata's argument is that only peaceful protests work" is false. See here:

Gandhi had a lot more supporters precisely because his non-violent approach appealed to a broader part of the population. Again, I'm not saying the Gandhi non-violence doctrine is perfect and applicable to all cases.

Outlining why Gandhi-style non-violent protest works in some instances does not mean I approve of it in all instances.

========

Bakustra also lies for the second time when he says "Zinegata's argument is that peaceful protests are inferior to voting anyway". Check again:

the main reason peaceful protests fail in democractic countries is because the mainstream population simply does not support the movement - either because they don't like what the movement is proposing, or it's too unclear for them to support it - and that the major decisions are ultimately decided by the ballot box.

What I actually said is that peaceful protests fail in democratic systems if they are NOT supported by the population. Which Bakustra has failed to refute in favor of lying.

I also did say that "major decisions are ultimately decided by the ballot box", but that is a seperate statement from the success/failure of peaceful protests. In fact, if you'd actually think about why I put the two sentences together, instead of playing bullshit games by cherry-picking statements out of context, you'd realize that what I'm actually saying is that for a peaceful protest to suceed in a democratic system, you need to have:

a) Popular support of the people (instead of just claiming to represent the "99%", when in reality the said 99% just look at you funny).

b) You transform that popular support into concrete political gains via election victories.

So again, debate properly and stop the fucking lies.

========

Now, as for the Indian independence thing...

Your argument is that Gandhi gained political power because he was seen as a "more moderate" alternative to the violent revolutionaries. This is true because most people don't like to support violent groups.

However, that's an exceedingly silly counter-argument. Non-violent protests spring up in countries without armed resistance groups. Hell, assuming that OWS is "non-violent" (which it largely is), what "violent" group are they forming in response to? The Bernie Madoff Fan Club?

Again, when you look at the CURRENT context: Which is the United States of America in 2011 with Obama as president - any comparison to Indian independence, Nazi Germany, or even the Civil Rights movement goes down the drain.

A non-violent protest movement (Gandhi-style), can prosper so long as it is furthering goals that have actual popular support. However - and only Simon Jester has had the courage to admit this - the OWS is a mess with no clear goals.

That's the BIG reason why it's not getting much popular support. And when pockets of the OWS tries "resistance", all they're doing is to drive popular support away from them even further and into the non-violent alternatives: Which is the present political system, and the Democratic & Republican/Tea Party - because these guys are non-violent to begin with.

Also, one last thing: The numbers showing up in these rallies are pretty puny. Jon Stewart's rally (about 100-200K in size) was bigger than all of the OWS rallies. Possibly combined. So again, let's not pretend that the OWS is bigger than it really is.

[madd0ct0r]

who the hells John Stewart?
whereas the whole world knows who OWS is. the number of actual sleepers might be small, but there's a good number amount of the population who are sympathetic

[Terralthra]

Occupy Wall Street is being raided right now. Press are being denied access by police in violation of state law, including attempting to ground press helicopters.

[madd0ct0r]

http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution

livestream from zuccotti park

[Zinegata]

Jon Stewart is the host of The Daily Show, a "fake" news program that's gotten a lot of political clout. He held a "Rally to Restore Sanity" which was a sort-of protest against the extreme partisan politics happenings on both sides. Some estimates put the attendance at over 200K. By contrast, as far as I know the biggest OWS events haven't even broken 20K yet.

If you're not getting more traction than a fake news program - no matter is political clout - then you know the movement's in trouble.

[Lord Zentei]

The police are moving to (temporarily) clear the protests in NY.

Police in New York have launched a pre-dawn operation to clear the Occupy Wall Street camp in Zuccotti Park.

The city mayor's office said on Twitter that the protesters should "temporarily leave and remove tents and tarps" but could return once the park was clear.

Occupy Wall Street was set up in September to protests against economic inequality and had inspired dozens of similar protests around the world.

The camp in Oakland, California was cleared earlier on Monday.

The New York Times said as the police operation in Zuccotti Park began at about 01:00 (06:00), a police officer gave an announcement, saying: "The city has determined that the continued occupation of Zuccotti Park poses an increasing health and fire safety hazard".

Occupants were told to "immediately remove all private property" and that they would be arrested if they interfered with the operation, the report said.

Leaflets were also handed out saying protesters would be allowed to return once the clearance had taken place, but not to bring camping equipment.

The protesters' live web stream from the park showed them gathering as police moved into the camp, close to New York's financial district.

Protesters were chanting: "All day all week Occupy Wall Street" and "the whole world is watching".

The city authorities and Mayor Michael Bloomberg have come under pressure from local businesses to shut down the camp, as it nears its two-month anniversary.
Camp deaths

The Occupy movement is calling for a more equal distribution of wealth, saying most of the money is held by the richest 1% of the US population and that they represent the other 99%.

Police arrested 33 people in Oakland early on Monday morning after raiding the protest camp in Frank Ogawa Plaza.

The camp had been marred by outbreaks of violence in and around it in recent weeks and police had declared the plaza a "crime scene" shortly they entered.

A similar raid ended with police in riot gear arresting 50 people in Portland, Oregon on Sunday evening.

Police in a Vermont city have also evicted protesters after a man fatally shot himself last week inside a tent.

[Alphawolf55]

Jon Stewart is the host of The Daily Show, a "fake" news program that's gotten a lot of political clout. He held a "Rally to Restore Sanity" which was a sort-of protest against the extreme partisan politics happenings on both sides. Some estimates put the attendance at over 200K. By contrast, as far as I know the biggest OWS events haven't even broken 20K yet.

If you're not getting more traction than a fake news program - no matter is political clout - then you know the movement's in trouble.

I think Stewart's numbers beat even the Tea Party rallies though.

[Zinegata]

The Tea Party events were also pretty small, but there were a lot of them, and collectively they do pretty much swamp the OWS rallies thus far in terms of numbers.

More importantly, the Tea Party was specifically appealling to a limited base, whereas OWS is claiming to represent the 99%. Again, if you want to be the voice the people, you need a bit more than just 20K guys .

[open_sketchbook]

Rallies and protests are different things, though. A rally is something you show up for for a few hours, yell a bit, and then leave. A protest is typically a bit more long-haul; usually at least a day or two while the thing you protest happens, often longer. The Tea Party guys just have rallies, while some of the Occupy things have been going on for more than a month. To me, it's far more impressive to have a thousand people for a month than ten thousand people for five hours; not only is that more man-hours all together protesting, but because people filter in and out of such protests, you might actually being seeing several thousand more protesters overall than at any one time.

[open_sketchbook]

Ghetto edit regarding the NYPD clearing out OWS. From what I can tell, protestors are not being allowed to leave with their property, and the police are destroying tents, tables, and other infrastructure that they have set up there, included the donated library. There is also a complete media blackout; police have grounded news helicopters and won't let people out of buildings to witness it.

[Terralthra]

People who chained themselves to the kitchen tent tear-gassed before being dragged away, face-down, by the hair.

Funny how our government was opposed to this sort of violent response to non-violent protesters when it was happening in other countries.

[Lord Zentei]

Some comments on the site there to the effect that that's a fire extinguisher, not tear gas. And pointing to the fact that the police are not wearing gas masks as evidence.

[K. A. Pital]

Jon Stewart is the host of The Daily Show, a "fake" news program that's gotten a lot of political clout. He held a "Rally to Restore Sanity" which was a sort-of protest against the extreme partisan politics happenings on both sides. Some estimates put the attendance at over 200K. By contrast, as far as I know the biggest OWS events haven't even broken 20K yet.

If you're not getting more traction than a fake news program - no matter is political clout - then you know the movement's in trouble.

The very fact they managed to hit over 200 cities (am i right?) speaks to having a lot more "traction". Having 200K in just one place in the USA is proving you can gather 200K in one place.

[Shroom Man 777]

It just shows that those shmucks are too poor to afford gas fare to go into one location, and they're stuck there in their Hoovervilles trying to commute. Their poorness alone should be grounds enough for a sound tear gassing. This ain't no union shop.

[Losonti Tokash]

This fire extinguisher claim started in Denver, I think. The people actually there will tell you they're being gassed and pepper sprqyed, though. It's not the sort of thing you get confused about.

[Starglider]

BBC News is counterpointing the OWS coverage with the we are the 53% site, which I hadn't previously heard of. It seems to be assorted conservatives saying that OWS consists of lazy unemployed whiners crying for more entitlements.

[open_sketchbook]

We are the 53% is just sad. It's exactly the same stories as 99%, but at the end the people saying them go "But I don't really care I can't afford to feed my kids or get health insurgence, suck it up!"

[Lord Zentei]

That's a symptom of the OWS movement not having a small set of clear and concise points that they could spit out when people asked them what they stood for. If you can't explain what you stand for in sound-byte form these days, your detractors will define you as whatever is most easily bashed.

[Ryan Thunder]

"My wife and I decided in 1996 that we were sick of poverty. We went back to school. We earned degrees. We got jobs. No one handed it to us. We earned it. We did it. I didn't go through all that struggle while raising 5 children so I could support lazy [expletive] people who want nothing but government handouts. You want to 'occupy' something? Occupy a job and start contributing."

- We are the 53 Percent

Yes, shell out loads of cash to get a degree, then occupy a job. Oh wait, there aren't any, and now your in the hole. Oops.

Retards.

[PeZook]

I am reading the "we are the 53%" website, and I am amazed at how effective the US establishment was at inducing stockholm's syndrome in its citizens.

These are testimonials of people who have no time for leisure ; Who have to work three jobs just to get by ; Who do not participate in nor create culture, and who are one accident away from poverty.

And they're proud that's the way things are in their country.

[loomer]

It really is quite sad, but that tends to be the way it goes. Rich exploits poor while convicing them that it's a good thing through propaganda. The 53%ers are just an incredibly blatant example.

[Bakustra]

the main reason peaceful protests fail in democractic countries is because the mainstream population simply does not support the movement - either because they don't like what the movement is proposing, or it's too unclear for them to support it - and that the major decisions are ultimately decided by the ballot box.

What I actually said is that peaceful protests fail in democratic systems if they are NOT supported by the population. Which Bakustra has failed to refute in favor of lying.

I also did say that "major decisions are ultimately decided by the ballot box", but that is a seperate statement from the success/failure of peaceful protests. In fact, if you'd actually think about why I put the two sentences together, instead of playing bullshit games by cherry-picking statements out of context, you'd realize that what I'm actually saying is that for a peaceful protest to suceed in a democratic system, you need to have:

a) Popular support of the people (instead of just claiming to represent the "99%", when in reality the said 99% just look at you funny).

b) You transform that popular support into concrete political gains via election victories.

So again, debate properly and stop the fucking lies.

You're claiming that the average person looks on the OWS protesters with disfavor. You haven't proved that, instead pretending that a long-term occupation movement can be treated exactly the same as a one-day rally so that you can assume that it's marginal and failing.

You're also wrong with point b), and indeed I wasn't lying at all- you are still treating protest as inferior to voting by assuming that the end-stage is a vote. Votes are part of democracy, but there are so many reasons that you might vote for someone that you can't translate your opinions into anything particularly concrete unless you're an actual single-issue voter. Protest, on the other hand, allows you to articulate positions and communicate them to the power-holders. They are equally important as a means of seizing the reins of power and trying to direct the state.

Now, as for the Indian independence thing...

Your argument is that Gandhi gained political power because he was seen as a "more moderate" alternative to the violent revolutionaries. This is true because most people don't like to support violent groups.

However, that's an exceedingly silly counter-argument. Non-violent protests spring up in countries without armed resistance groups. Hell, assuming that OWS is "non-violent" (which it largely is), what "violent" group are they forming in response to? The Bernie Madoff Fan Club?

Again, when you look at the CURRENT context: Which is the United States of America in 2011 with Obama as president - any comparison to Indian independence, Nazi Germany, or even the Civil Rights movement goes down the drain.

A non-violent protest movement (Gandhi-style), can prosper so long as it is furthering goals that have actual popular support. However - and only Simon Jester has had the courage to admit this - the OWS is a mess with no clear goals.

That's the BIG reason why it's not getting much popular support. And when pockets of the OWS tries "resistance", all they're doing is to drive popular support away from them even further and into the non-violent alternatives: Which is the present political system, and the Democratic & Republican/Tea Party - because these guys are non-violent to begin with.

Also, one last thing: The numbers showing up in these rallies are pretty puny. Jon Stewart's rally (about 100-200K in size) was bigger than all of the OWS rallies. Possibly combined. So again, let's not pretend that the OWS is bigger than it really is.

You are a fucking idiot. Are you really suggesting that the average Indian had to be convinced into supporting independence? Really? Jesus fucking Christ. To be unfair, are you going to suggest next that the Philippine-American War ended in American 'victory' because the average Filipino "[didn't] like to support violent groups"? In the Civil Rights Movement, the majority of African-Americans supported Black Power and the Nation of Islam more than they did SCLC or the NAACP, because those organizations, while more in line with your idea of "nonviolence", nevertheless became perceived as sell-outs to the US government. So I see I should have qualified that I was talking about the attitudes of those in power, rather than the attitudes of the public.

You're measuring OWS, which is based on long-term occupation and protest, by the numbers of single events. Of course each individual group is going to have lower numbers! That's the point- they're people who are willing to, day in and day out, go on down and protest! And you still haven't shown that support is 'low' for OWS. In fact, I'm not sure why you think you know American politics better than actual Americans who live in this god-damned country. Are you presuming that support is low because the media isn't covering it constantly? There are a variety of reasons for that which have little to do with its active support, and if you aren't, then what are you basing it on? The fact that posters you've deemed "fringe radicals" support it? Tell me where you're getting this from, apart from a downright insane investment in the status quo.

It really is quite sad, but that tends to be the way it goes. Rich exploits poor while convicing them that it's a good thing through propaganda. The 53%ers are just an incredibly blatant example.

At least a couple of those are photoshopped fakes. Probably most of them are fake in the end.

[Civil War Man]

5 Ways We Ruined the Occupy Wall Street Generation

This is a post from a Cracked columnist apologizing to the younger generations for all the things that are screwed up.

Here's the Cliff Notes version of the stuff he's apologizing for:
1. Equating manual labor jobs (especially in places like McDonalds) with something only losers do, then calling you lazy and entitled for not wanting to work in one.
2. Selling the idea that a college degree guarantees a job.
3. Glorifying the overgrown immature man-child in pop culture.
4. Creating the idea that entertainment has no monetary value, which results in movie, music, and video game studios only funding blockbuster projects since they are a less risky investment.
5. Making it possible to get everything you want and/or need without leaving the TV or computer, then calling you fat and lazy for not exercising enough (when the only reason we got exercise as kids was because there was nothing fun to do indoors).

[Losonti Tokash]

It's already gone around OWS groups and is generally considered to be bullshit with a healthy dose of generational conflict thrown in there. The first point especially, since a whole lot of occupiers would fucking love the opportunity to flip burgers to at least slow their descent into absolute poverty. It also implies Occupy is nothing but high school or college age kids. I'll try to find a more in-depth rebuttal later, but right now I am on my phone at work.

[Tanasinn]

That's a symptom of the OWS movement not having a small set of clear and concise points that they could spit out when people asked them what they stood for. If you can't explain what you stand for in sound-byte form these days, your detractors will define you as whatever is most easily bashed.

But they can. I mean, off the top of my head:
-Reinstate Glass-Steagall
-Term limits for Congress
-Reform campaign funding laws to prevent corruption
-Close tax loopholes exploited by the wealthy and private corporations
-Increased government transparency
-End corporate personhood

This is just what I can come up with from casual digging in a few minutes' time. Of course, that's all irrelevant as long as the media continues to press the "well, they don't seem to have any specific demands" fiction. People who don't have the time or inclination to poke their nose around it much will shrug and move on with their lives. It's basically the same delegitimizing tactics used during Vietnam: paint the opposition as aimless, lazy, and stupid. That the OWS movement is also one with actual grassroots origins and no formal leadership figures means that there will be a very large array of stated goals and no clear idea on which way to march.