http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_hell_kitchen_i5biNyYYhpa8MSYIL9xSDL
I however have not seen Tea Partiers have to set up special tents for Women only after a series of rapes and sexual assaults.
The Wall Street Occupation
- Thread starter Mr. Dictator
- Start date
- Status
I however have not seen Tea Partiers have to set up special tents for Women only after a series of rapes and sexual assaults.
katipunero
Prince
good point. but i'd like to point out that revolutions or mass movements draw energy from, shall we say, the more youthful, or persons within a specific age range. the way youthfulness works, it is hard to avoid leeches and tag-alongs if something becomes popular enough. it's just how things work. i would not judge OWS by the individuals who make up the movement. but rather, i would look at what the whole things is about. after weeks of seemingly incoherent ramblings and disjointed appeals, i think the ideas have settled down to a manageable number of demands and legitimate petitions.
also, i won't call a spontaneous, out-of-nowhere movement such as the OWS fake. if only because i haven't seen what a TRUE movement should be. if you have examples, or if you can lay down the requirements of a genuine movement, i'd be happy to hear about them.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Not really since in this point of my life, I'm just angry at the fact that I don't have a job and venting my grevanes at corporations who refuse or even reluctant to hire the unemployed.
I would still be sympahetic to the OWS movement on the part of the uneaven wages. But if I had a job, the priority of the movement would have to take a second priority since Id'd be too busy getting my life in order and busting my butt to advance into a better paying possiion.
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
lol @ 60's rallies being "fake as hell".
Yeah, civil rights, vietnam war protests...all fake!
Now, lets all go back to being good little serfs.
Yeah, civil rights, vietnam war protests...all fake!
Now, lets all go back to being good little serfs.
civver_764
Deity
Didn't you know? Anything involved with the youth or leftists has to be a fad!
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Black Civil rights marchers were clearly just following a fad, it's not like their grievances were genuine... Right?
useless
Social Justice Rogue
No it isn't, not really.
It is if you know anything about the civil rights movement!
I'm not evaluating the relative merits of each "cause". I believe income inequality and unemployment are very serious, and the fact that our political system is bought and sold outright is at least as serious as civil rights violations in the 50s and 60s. I'm talking about comparing the seriousness of the protestors. OWS has no leader. It has no policy recommendations or demands. It has become overrun with the homeless and drug users, and has attacted a criminal element in several of it's cities.
I've been to OccupyChicago a few times, and it's really just a laundry list of various far left complaints, just most of the big "left" protests over the past 5 years. If this is really about inequality, I better not see any signs about pot....but I did.
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
Today's society is far too complacent and materialistic to bother with trying to recreate the 60's.
Thus, we have OWS.
aelf
Ashen One
It is if you know anything about the civil rights movement!
I'm not evaluating the relative merits of each "cause". I believe income inequality and unemployment are very serious, and the fact that our political system is bought and sold outright is at least as serious as civil rights violations in the 50s and 60s. I'm talking about comparing the seriousness of the protestors. OWS has no leader. It has no policy recommendations or demands. It has become overrun with the homeless and drug users, and has attacted a criminal element in several of it's cities.
I've been to OccupyChicago a few times, and it's really just a laundry list of various far left complaints, just most of the big "left" protests over the past 5 years. If this is really about inequality, I better not see any signs about pot....but I did.
Those are issues that concern the left. What's the problem with leftist protests?
In general, nothing. With this particular protest? I think the rest of my post addressed that. These camps are turning into homeless druggie dens, not serious protests.
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
It is if you know anything about the civil rights movement!
I'm not evaluating the relative merits of each "cause". I believe income inequality and unemployment are very serious, and the fact that our political system is bought and sold outright is at least as serious as civil rights violations in the 50s and 60s.
This. It saddens me that media portrayals of the protesters have clouded over these core issues.
I agree that the dearth of homeless and junkies has soured the movement, although ironically those homeless/junkies are some of the people who OWS are protesting on behalf of...
Pot has a lot to do with inequality in US society, and the ludicrous War on Drugs is one of, if not the most destructive domestic policies since slavery.
It's entirely relevant, especially with bankers laundering hundreds of billions of dollars in drug money year after year, with no punishment.
aelf
Ashen One
Okay. I'm just not sure why you mention their "laundry list of various far left complaints" right before casting doubt on the fact that the protests have much to do with inequality. It sounds like you're saying the left doesn't really care about inequality.
It really doesn't matter, since almost nobody else cares. Drug issues, even if they are legit, are a red flag towards the suits you need to convince that you don't need to be taken seriously. If you want an effective protest, you need to pick one or two messages and stick to it. If you walk through the camp and see FREE PALESTINE, LEGALIZE WEED, FREE YOUR MIND, BAN THE BOMB, etc...the guy reading the newspaper in Iowa is going to go "damn hippies".It's entirely relevant, especially with bankers laundering hundreds of billions of dollars in drug money year after year, with no punishment.
That's just the way it works.
It isn't always totally clear that's the main reason they're protesting. I'm sure the left cares, and i imagine OWS cares, but the messaging is terrible. Put away the tents, get rid of the drugs, focus the signage, find a leader, and go from there.
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
No one cares about bankers laundering Mexican Drug Cartel money? Nah, rather people just don't know about it, since you'll never see it on TV news. How convenient, for those traitors.
I wouldn't say no one cares about the Drug War either. More and more "suits" are against the War on Drugs nowadays than you may think. It seems the main problem with the OWS protesters is their appearance. The media loves to show the scuzziest, craziest freaks at the camp to discredit them, and it works wonders. If they were all wearing button up shirts, slacks and dress shoes while they protested people wouldn't give a hoot. 50 percent of this country now thinks pot should be legal. To be quite honest when you say things that simply aren't true like "nobody cares about the Drug War" all I'm hearing is "I don't care about the drug war".
Though yes, I agree that the overall thrust of the protest should be on our broken government and the income gap that puts banana republics to shame.
Also start occupying D.C. and K street.
Narz
keeping it real
Was gonna post about the crazy **** that was going down last night as it was happening but the forum was down.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Perhaps you could list over major historical events that were "fake as hill", seeing as you are apparently possessing of some insight that the rest of us lack? Me, I'm betting on the Irish War of Independence - that Collins/Devalera spat was clearly just to sell papers...
You never know. History has demonstrated that plebeian and Bohemian movements can find common cause in the right circumstances; there's not much substance to the idea that there are a bunch of blue-collar puritans on the one hand and a bunch of Bohemian radicals on the other, and never the twain shall meet. If the two don't see eye to eye, it's not because there's some obstruction that fundamentally precludes them from doing so, but because they're just not facing towards each other right now.
You never know. History has demonstrated that plebeian and Bohemian movements can find common cause in the right circumstances; there's not much substance to the idea that there are a bunch of blue-collar puritans on the one hand and a bunch of Bohemian radicals on the other, and never the twain shall meet. If the two don't see eye to eye, it's not because there's some obstruction that fundamentally precludes them from doing so, but because they're just not facing towards each other right now.
Edit: Paul Mason, in his book Live Working or Die Fighting: How the Working Class Went Global, sums it up excellently in his closing paragraph, in reference to the Parisian communard Louise Michel,
Quackers
The Frog
Uhmm "bohemian" movements traitorfish?? Whats that? You mean middle class hipsters?
Ok, I can't edit the post above for some reason..mods???
Anyways:
Possibly relevent:
Ok, I can't edit the post above for some reason..mods???
Anyways:
Possibly relevent:
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Bohemians, hipsters, punks, no-good hippy beatniks, whatever. The terminology is honestly rather secondary to the substance.
Yes, Orwell could be an out-of-touch old fart at times. What's your point, exactly? I'll remind you that the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists, for whom he expressed nothing but admiration, ended up as being very much an example of what I'm talking about. (Their women's section was headed up by a lesbian poet, ferchrissake.)
Edit: Also, do you actually have any particular reason to believe that the "hipsters" in question are predominantly "middle-class", in what I assume is the British sense of the word, the American sense meaning "not actually poor", a far less exclusive category. It seems to me that you're approaching class a cultural genre rather than as a meaningful sociological category; presumably the same logic that allows Tories of your sort to hail obnoxious petty bourgeois like Stephen Yaxley/"Tommy Robinson" as meaningfully representative of the "white working class" because he sometimes drops his 'aitches.
- Status
Similar threads
