19 replies to this topic

[pegasaurus]

Is there even a fucking point?

Before people jump in and start citing the economic woes of the "99%" I beg to ask whether or not these "Occupy" protests have actually achieved anything besides gathering large groups of people together for what can be called the largest pout-fest in the world.

Seriously.
Demands made? None.
Willingness to work with the system? None.
Eagerness to support legislation that is actually designed to help them? Zilch.

When I think about the Occupy movements, I honestly just think of a bunch of people wearing Guy Fawkes masks. That's it. Initially, I felt that the had a good cause, but simply lacked the focus to convert that discontent into positive change. I actually supported the Occupy movements because I believe that the government can make changes to help facilitate those in need.

But after reading the more recent articles, I feel that the occupy movements are a lost cause. Even the media has moved past the actual cause of the movement and is now zeroing in on the fact that they all want to be "anonymous" in supporting a cause that is, in fact, very personal.

Why would you want to make yourself anonymous when fighting for a personal cause? Wouldn't you want to use the power of unique faces to show that the people suffering are actually people? I just don't get it.

If anybody cares to enlighten me about the situation, please go ahead. As of now, I consider the Occupy movements to be a complete failure that is actually doing the 99% more harm than good. Imagine all the job applications they could have filled out during the time they spent doing nothing.


I placed this topic in the Great Debate because I expect it to/want it to get intense and messy. I seriously want to get behind this cause again, but I can't find any reason to do so whatsoever. They lack organization, they lack focus, they lack tangible goals, they even lack the ability to protest peacefully.

[encephlon]

they have points but the whole thing is so disorganized and unfocused that its more of a nuisance than anything else.

[Lin]

y'know, derren brown (popular illusionist in britain) did a thing that was to do with the whole anonymous/occupy stuff

i didnt see all of it but what basically happens is that he gave everyone in the audience a mask which was black, in order to make them feel anonymous.

they chose decisions on what people did in live feeds on big screens on the main stage

e.g. get a person to smash up someones stuff in their house and then said person will get kidnapped by some other anonymous people

when said person tried to get away he got ran over by a car. the audience was shocked. they took off their masks and one member of the audience told the cameraman to stop recording.

derren came back in after a bit (to "check if he is ok"). he explained the the audience how they became more like a mob, wanting the person to smash everything up, and then get the guy to be kidnapped. he then said how the kidnapping was actually pre-recorded and that the guy who got run over was in fact the stunt double.

the audience probably left feeling very different. almost ashamed of themselves too.

turns out the show is online right now: http://www.channel4....nts/4od#3245576 (i dont know if any non-british people can get this)

but yeah its pretty terrifying how they can be transformed like that just by having masks on their faces and being part of the anonymous crowd.

[Sephora]

guess who pays to clean up the mess left over.

[pegasaurus]

To further emphasize the pointlessness of this gathering of discontent sham-mongers, I have seen two articles written by different news outlets that emphasize the importance of the Guy Fawkes mask in the various protests, because there's apparently nothing else of significance in this movement aside from the largest masquerade gathering in history.

Yup

And Another

[peregrin]

Quote

To further emphasize the pointlessness of this gathering of discontent sham-mongers, I have seen two articles written by different news outlets that emphasize the importance of the Guy Fawkes mask in the various protests, because there's apparently nothing else of significance in this movement aside from the largest masquerade gathering in history.

"gathering of discontent sham-mongers." Really? I find your rhetoric a bit too abrasive to be reasonable.

I'd just like to point out that the fact that you're even bothering to rant against the "largest masquerade gathering in history" implies that the movement has accomplished something. If this was just a small gathering of a few crazy people, it would have dispersed by now. As it stands, there are a lot of people that agree with the movement's sentiments (if not it's method of communicating them). The more I read about it, the more I'm convinced that a majority of the protesters aren't the crazy anonymous douchebags that opponents of the movement want them to be. Hell, there even seems to be a healthy gathering of war veterans involved: http://www.businessw...s/D9QP9F3G0.htm

To me, dismissing the movement would be an exercise in misplaced intellectual superiority. Do I agree with the whole income gap sentiment? Absolutely. Do I think corporations have too much power? Of course. Do I know a better way of fixing these issues apart from making a global public nuisance until the government does something about it? Nope. I don't. In fact, I've tried to affect change the normal American way (i.e. by voting), and it's gotten me more or less nothing in terms of large-scale changes to corporate regulation. If people are upset like me and want to express it in a non-violent way, then by all means, let them. There are going to be a few opportunists tagging along, sure, but that's just how protesting works. Hell, there have been a lot of smaller protests that have caused a lot more destruction than this entire movement. Oakland is a good example of that. Anyone remember the case where a police officer killed an innocent man? Smashed windows galore.

[7arani]

unfortunately it is hard to gather a lot of people around a single cause... and then that finally happens it is even harder to make them stay focused... especially in this case if one of them stands up he will get attacked by opponents... heck with a little finesse it wouldn't surprise me if some of the top folk in politics could even find a way to arrest that one should it happen...
i also think that is why they are masked... afterall they don't want the police to knock in their door after the protest is over... i would join them if i could but i live in europe so i don't really have the money to do that...

[Kirei]

protests in general are just fucking stupid imo.

[Keine Kamishirasawa]

People are angry and this protest just seems like an angry-fest. They do not even have a list of demands. On the news I mostly see young people being interviewed which don't know how to articulate a proper criticism- no suggestions on what to do or analysis of the problem, just slogan repetition.

[peregrin]

I'm sure the protesters are all very sorry that they are not orators or policymakers. Seriously, though, I find it odd that people need a clear and narrow reason to be angry. The biggest message is obvious from the title of the movement and all of the 99% business. If you really need that clarified, I'd say you're in no position to play the intellectual superiority card.

[pegasaurus]

peregrin, on 05 November 2011 - 04:04 AM, said:

The biggest message is obvious from the title of the movement and all of the 99% business.

Even to this moment, I don't know what they are talking about when they throw around that figure. Where are they getting this number from? If you are talking about people living below the poverty line, that figure is definitely less than 99%. If you are talking about people who actually sympathize with the movement, that figure is definitely much lower than 99%. The only correlation I can see with this "99%" is that the 99% is not a part of the 1%, which this movement also defines quite vaguely. If you want to think of the 99% as big business CEOs, then the movement shows that this is not the case. In fact, the movement seems to lump anybody who is in a financially sound situation as the "1%." I've seen the modest office worker get harped on by protesters just because they actually have a job. When I initially heard the figure, I really thought it was because the protestors had a problem with the statistic that only 1% of the population has most of the income. However, they have been directing their frustration towards anybody who disagrees with them, regardless of their actual economic standing.

Also, my abrasive rhetoric regarding the movement is indeed a testament to the fact that the protestors are accomplishing something. But unfortunately, the only thing they are managing to accomplish is the alienation of people who would actually get behind their cause. You think I'm the only one who feels that this movement lacks goals, focus, and organization? Just look at the responses on this thread. If they were really fighting for the 99%, why is it that far less than 99% of the people actually group themselves with the 99%? It's because the movement is not accomplishing anything productive. The fact that media coverage has been spotty at best is another very good indication of that.

Now you may be thinking that the media is unreliable and always puts their own spin on things, but if you think about it, protests usually get A LOT of media coverage because they not only sell papers, but also build up a great story. The reason why the only articles on these occupy movements is about the silly masks they use is that those silly masks are the only aspect of these movements that are actually worth publishing. If an outsider has to dissect through all the garbage and disorganization in order to discover the reason a movement is occurring, the movement is not effective.

This isn't the first time I've mentioned these issues. From the outset, I said that the movement lacked organization and focus. In fact, I posted an article in which experienced activists who worked with the great Martin Luther King made the exact same conclusions. The movement lacked a figurehead to unify behind, it lacked reasonable, established goals, and it lacked the organization to facilitate longevity. This is what they said back when the movement started. Now look at it? Have they really accomplished anything? The answer to that question is a definitive "no." In fact, some may say that they have even been hurting their cause in the process. It sucks, yes, but that's the truth and the truth often hurts.

[peregrin]

pegasaurus, on 05 November 2011 - 06:36 AM, said:

Even to this moment, I don't know what they are talking about when they throw around that figure. Where are they getting this number from?

Oh. Well then. Here are some fun statistics: http://www.nytimes.c...tml?_r=1&ref=us

pegasaurus, on 05 November 2011 - 06:36 AM, said:

Also, my abrasive rhetoric regarding the movement is indeed a testament to the fact that the protestors are accomplishing something. But unfortunately, the only thing they are managing to accomplish is the alienation of people who would actually get behind their cause. You think I'm the only one who feels that this movement lacks goals, focus, and organization? Just look at the responses on this thread. If they were really fighting for the 99%, why is it that far less than 99% of the people actually group themselves with the 99%? It's because the movement is not accomplishing anything productive. The fact that media coverage has been spotty at best is another very good indication of that.

Now you may be thinking that the media is unreliable and always puts their own spin on things, but if you think about it, protests usually get A LOT of media coverage because they not only sell papers, but also build up a great story. The reason why the only articles on these occupy movements is about the silly masks they use is that those silly masks are the only aspect of these movements that are actually worth publishing. If an outsider has to dissect through all the garbage and disorganization in order to discover the reason a movement is occurring, the movement is not effective.

Listen. We can't even get 99% of the population to think that the earth revolves around the sun. You think we can get them to agree on economic and governmental policies? It doesn't help either that the major media outlets to which people turn for news tend to be owned by corporations. Corporations like the ones the movement is speaking out against. I mean, it's not like these corporations would have any kind of political incentive for censoring the movement in any way, right? Right?

[Xav56]

Keine Kamishirasawa, on 05 November 2011 - 01:14 AM, said:

People are angry and this protest just seems like an angry-fest. They do not even have a list of demands. On the news I mostly see young people being interviewed which don't know how to articulate a proper criticism- no suggestions on what to do or analysis of the problem, just slogan repetition.

Yeah this, totally.

[7arani]

pegasaurus, on 05 November 2011 - 06:36 AM, said:

Even to this moment, I don't know what they are talking about when they throw around that figure. Where are they getting this number from? If you are talking about people living below the poverty line, that figure is definitely less than 99%. If you are talking about people who actually sympathize with the movement, that figure is definitely much lower than 99%. The only correlation I can see with this "99%" is that the 99% is not a part of the 1%, which this movement also defines quite vaguely. If you want to think of the 99% as big business CEOs, then the movement shows that this is not the case. In fact, the movement seems to lump anybody who is in a financially sound situation as the "1%." I've seen the modest office worker get harped on by protesters just because they actually have a job. When I initially heard the figure, I really thought it was because the protestors had a problem with the statistic that only 1% of the population has most of the income. However, they have been directing their frustration towards anybody who disagrees with them, regardless of their actual economic standing.

As far as i remember (it has been some time since i dicsussed this so my figures may be slightly off) in usa the top 1% sits on 35+% of the money... the bottom 90% has about 30-40%... the bottom 50% which is below the poverty line has about 2%

pegasaurus, on 05 November 2011 - 06:36 AM, said:

Now you may be thinking that the media is unreliable and always puts their own spin on things, but if you think about it, protests usually get A LOT of media coverage because they not only sell papers, but also build up a great story. The reason why the only articles on these occupy movements is about the silly masks they use is that those silly masks are the only aspect of these movements that are actually worth publishing. If an outsider has to dissect through all the garbage and disorganization in order to discover the reason a movement is occurring, the movement is not effective.

news are always biased... especially if they report about something which might have a chance to harm them... even if that chance is very small...

pegasaurus, on 05 November 2011 - 06:36 AM, said:

This isn't the first time I've mentioned these issues. From the outset, I said that the movement lacked organization and focus. In fact, I posted an article in which experienced activists who worked with the great Martin Luther King made the exact same conclusions. The movement lacked a figurehead to unify behind, it lacked reasonable, established goals, and it lacked the organization to facilitate longevity. This is what they said back when the movement started. Now look at it? Have they really accomplished anything? The answer to that question is a definitive "no." In fact, some may say that they have even been hurting their cause in the process. It sucks, yes, but that's the truth and the truth often hurts.

still they have raised awareness... and that in itself is a goal accomplished... and since they have reached other countries as well, that might make them end up with hurting the wallet of the 1%... and the moment they do that they have won...

[Lin]

on a completely unrelated note

i feel that people are just completely ignoring my posts that are outside of tms

dismissing it as "oh its just lin spamming again" or whatever

i posted something that was related to the conversation

the least you guys could fucking do is acknowledge it

[pegasaurus]

7arani, on 05 November 2011 - 01:30 PM, said:

still they have raised awareness... and that in itself is a goal accomplished... and since they have reached other countries as well, that might make them end up with hurting the wallet of the 1%... and the moment they do that they have won...

I won't even go as far as to say that they increased awareness at all. In fact, I know a lot of people who are asking why these people are spending their time protesting while others have legitimately worked through the tough times to make it through. If anything, the protestors are being grouped in their own class defined by those expecting the government to pay for their Ferrari (true story).

Also, I read the article about percentages and I found nothing that makes the "99%" such a significant number, aside from the fact that the article noted that 1% of the population is making 35% of the income. In fact, it actually did say that people in the top 80% are still experiencing an increase in disposable income. Therefore, why 99%?

I am not saying that this statistic should be disregarded. It's obviously a thought provoking number that does bring up a couple questions. However, the movement is not defining the 1% as you think. They simply see anybody who has a secure job as the 1% and it's quite stupid. I've seen white collar workers get harassed by protestors on their way to the office. These people aren't CEOs. They are the typical American citizen with a secure job and a decent income. They would clearly fall in the 99%, yet they are lumped together with the 1% and harassed. This is why I am saying that the movement lacks many things. As I mentioned before, it is bringing up a lot of good questions, such as how is it that people can take months off to protest while others can spend that same time looking for, and finding, a secure job.

So unless the movement decides to get its shit together and become something more than a gathering of disgruntled masked citizens looking for an excuse to take the streets, I really don't think anything productive will come from this.

[peregrin]

Lin, on 05 November 2011 - 07:20 PM, said:

on a completely unrelated note

i feel that people are just completely ignoring my posts that are outside of tms

dismissing it as "oh its just lin spamming again" or whatever

i posted something that was related to the conversation

the least you guys could fucking do is acknowledge it

I read your post. I didn't have anything with which to comment. It was an aside about the effects of masks on a crowd, but more than that it seemed like a sort of proof-of-concept for mob theory. It's related to the debate, but it's not relevant to what a lot of us are debating. Given that this isn't the general discussion, I don't feel personally compelled to say anything further about your post. Again, it's not that I'm ignoring you, it's just that the post in question isn't something I felt like I should respond to.

pegasaurus, on 05 November 2011 - 07:52 PM, said:

Also, I read the article about percentages and I found nothing that makes the "99%" such a significant number, aside from the fact that the article noted that 1% of the population is making 35% of the income. In fact, it actually did say that people in the top 80% are still experiencing an increase in disposable income. Therefore, why 99%?

I am not saying that this statistic should be disregarded. It's obviously a thought provoking number that does bring up a couple questions. However, the movement is not defining the 1% as you think. They simply see anybody who has a secure job as the 1% and it's quite stupid. I've seen white collar workers get harassed by protestors on their way to the office. These people aren't CEOs. They are the typical American citizen with a secure job and a decent income. They would clearly fall in the 99%, yet they are lumped together with the 1% and harassed. This is why I am saying that the movement lacks many things. As I mentioned before, it is bringing up a lot of good questions, such as how is it that people can take months off to protest while others can spend that same time looking for, and finding, a secure job.

You're nitpicking. 100 - 1 = 99, no? And it's clear from statistical data that the top 1% income owners control a ridiculous portion of this nation's wealth (we're talking robber-baron status here). Does everyone in the movement know this? Absolutely not. It's pretty disappointing that a lot of people don't really know the true meaning behind the protests. But at the same time, you could say this about a huge chunk of voters in this country. How many people do you think actually know why they want X candidate in Y position? As long as the people with the power to affect change at a national policy level understand the significance of the 99% bit (and I'm sure they do), then I don't see why it matters what the protesters know. Taxing the rich will ultimately benefit most of the protesters even if in ways that they don't expect. The only kinds of protesters that won't help the issue are destructive ones, and I haven't seen any truly compelling evidence that anything close to a majority of the protesters are deliberately destructive.

[General_Tobias]

pegasaurus, on 05 November 2011 - 07:52 PM, said:

I won't even go as far as to say that they increased awareness at all. In fact, I know a lot of people who are asking why these people are spending their time protesting while others have legitimately worked through the tough times to make it through. If anything, the protestors are being grouped in their own class defined by those expecting the government to pay for their Ferrari (true story).

I would say they have brought a good amount off attention to certain issues. Even though alot of people don't know alot about the issues they at least have to glance at them now. On this note the way Politicians have to address this movement is indeed making some change. Those that are readily dismissive of any sort of economic problem are discredited to anyone who would agree with the some of the ideologies that started the protest (you know the cliche of corporate greed or the actual real issues (like the robbing of pension funds, importance of gov regulation of business) that put forth that cliche).

pegasaurus, on 05 November 2011 - 07:52 PM, said:

So unless the movement decides to get its shit together and become something more than a gathering of disgruntled masked citizens looking for an excuse to take the streets, I really don't think anything productive will come from this.

The hope is that as this movement grows people who want to enact change and have ideas about how to do so would step up and say stuff. Hopefully they will be heard above the attention hungry people without well formed ideas.

An example of this at my local occupy was a speaker who talked about the importance of the Dodd-Frank Act as a viable solution to many of the problems that OCW is trying to adress. He than told us how we could mail our representative to vote for this and that that would also bring more legitimacy to the Occupy movement.




I see that there are some good reasons for dismissing this movement, but with this much social power someone really should just try to use it for good. You know change and direct the protests not dismiss it so that you can feel self-righteous in your complacency.

[pegasaurus]

General_Tobias, on 06 November 2011 - 12:18 AM, said:

An example of this at my local occupy was a speaker who talked about the importance of the Dodd-Frank Act as a viable solution to many of the problems that OCW is trying to adress. He than told us how we could mail our representative to vote for this and that that would also bring more legitimacy to the Occupy movement.

This actually isn't the first time I've heard of this particular piece of legislation and I think it would help a lot.

And I have seen glimpses of promise from the movement, but those instances are unfortunately few and far between when compared to the rest of the instances where it really is just a general assembly of discontent. I'm also not discounting the movement entirely. It has brought up a lot of good questions and is increasing awareness to some extent.

But I do feel that the effectiveness of this movement is severely limited by the scant amount of organization and unity, especially among the various occupy movements going on. If leaders emerged from each group and managed to get in contact with each other to unify their efforts, the movement will no longer be seen as a new fad popping up in various places, but rather a coordinated movement seeking to enact earnest change across the nation.

But as things stand now, I cannot say that the movement has been very productive at all.

[General_Tobias]

pegasaurus, on 06 November 2011 - 12:55 AM, said:

This actually isn't the first time I've heard of this particular piece of legislation and I think it would help a lot.

It was the first time a number of people had heard of the act though. In fact one person I saw walking around (just a passer byer) didn't even know what Occupy Wall street was.

pegasaurus, on 06 November 2011 - 12:55 AM, said:

It has brought up a lot of good questions and is increasing awareness to some extent.

But I do feel that the effectiveness of this movement is severely limited by the scant amount of organization and unity, especially among the various occupy movements going on. If leaders emerged from each group and managed to get in contact with each other to unify their efforts, the movement will no longer be seen as a new fad popping up in various places, but rather a coordinated movement seeking to enact earnest change across the nation.

The first thing is what I think OCW most realistic purpose is at the moment. As far as it getting organized I think it may just be a matter of time before some qualified people try to do something with the movement.