wilwheaton:

(via my teacher says some smart shit. thought you might like it - Reddit)

chaptertwelve:

flannelowl:

But what the heck does Roger Ebert’s opinion have to do with any of it?  What authority does he have to be quoted as the political commenter who really understands what’s going on?  He’s not involved with the movement, he’s just Roger Ebert.  If anything, he’s only more evidence of how establishment Democrats are trying to co-opt this movement.

Ryan, I know you to be a very intelligent and thoughtful man and I know you believe in this movement with every fiber of your being.  But the movement is failing you.  I reblogged Roger Ebert’s quote not because he’s anyone special, but because that’s a sentiment I’ve seen expressed in numerous other places.  Just as I hear the movement compared more and more frequently to the Tea Party.  Frankly, the more the unions and the politicians get involved, the more I personally equate it with the Tea Party.  Because whether you like it or not, those interests are getting involved and they are starting to act as the face and the mouthpiece of your movement.  Perception is reality, and your message isn’t getting any play.

flannelowl:

You only think it’s ridiculous because you expect it to be a part of the Democratic Party establishment, and so you think it’s just flapping out there in the wind.  I’ve tried time and time again to explain it and I’ll keep trying, though I really don’t see what’s so hard to understand. It’s not a finished product, it’s a beginning, it’s people getting together to say they’re tired of how this country has been being run. They’re joining to tell their stories.  No one knows what’s coming down the road, but this is just the beginning.

Obviously it’s been very effective because it has gotten people like you all worked up, trying to find answers.  For so long, people haven’t been looking for answers, they’ve just been throwing tired ideologies at each other.  I urge you to find your own answers.

I don’t think it’s ridiculous because I expect it to be a part of the Democratic Party establishment.  I want change in our government too, and the thought of the Democratic Party making themselves the great saints of what should be an unaffiliated movement sickens me.  I think it’s ridiculous because it is flapping in the wind.  There is no common goal, there is no clear objective, there are a million and two cooks in the kitchen, and sitting around “occupying” - complaining about how things aren’t what we want without offering solutions - isn’t progress.  Pissing people off doesn’t in itself equate to efficacy, especially when lots of us would be on your side if this movement made an ounce of practical sense or did more harm to politicians than it does to neighborhood residents and local businesses.

I am trying to think of new ways to do things, as I was before these protests started, but with all due respect, I’m not the one standing in the street screaming.  The impetus is on the protesters to present better ideas.  If they’re unwilling to do that, then everything for which they claim to stand is moot.

But we’re just going round and round now.  You believe Occupy Wall Street to be an effective way to accomplish what is, in fact, a for-the-most-part common goal; I think it does more harm than good.  We simply disagree.

Those people can try and be the mouthpieces for it all they want, but that doesn’t mean the movement will follow them.  It doesn’t mean it will result in an election win in 2012, which is what they want.  I honestly don’t know what I want in the 2012 election…I was planning on not voting because I don’t trust either party, but this Occupation movement has given me something to work for.  Maybe something interesting will happen between now and then.

You’re right when you say “perception is reality”, but that’s only because of the media-based world we live in.  In the real world, those people are occupying Wall Street and they don’t intend on leaving no matter what someone who claims to be their mouthpiece says.  One thing I love about the Occupation movement is that its approach naturally challenges that whole “perception is reality” worldview.  It is happening in reality, it is reality, and it can’t be ignored.  Sure, they are concerned with being covered by the media and with nonviolence, i.e. maintaining a good appearance…but that’s because they want people to know it’s possible to do what they’re doing anywhere.  They’ve been effective at that, evidenced by how the movement has spread quickly across this country and to other countries.  The intent is, as I see it, that they will be there and be real, long after the media is done forming and conveying perceptions and preconceptions about them.

This spread has been entirely grass-roots based.  When not at work, I have done some standing at the Occupy Athens site and I can tell you: it’s just people who are excited that maybe real change might be possible.  We don’t have all the answers.  We’re just standing and trying to raise awareness.  We’re relying on food donations from local restaurants and nice local people.  Some nice people from businesses across the street are bringing us coffee to help us stay awake through the night.  Yesterday a restaurant owner ran across the street with a huge smile on his face and handed us a bag of corn muffins, saying, “Just so you know, we can’t stand out here with you but we support you!”  We talk with people who don’t even seem to realize that there is a deepening social crisis going on in this country.  We’re trying to help them see.  It’s about raising awareness of just how bad corporate greed and government corruption has gotten in the hope that, maybe soon, we can return this country to actual democratic rule.  Last night we had an assembly where we worked on and approved a press release, which is not ideologically charged but says essentially, “We stand in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement against corporate greed and corruption in government, we are the 99% and so are you, and we will be occupying this space as long as they are occupying Wall Street, so we welcome anyone and everyone to come by and have a conversation with us.”  So that’s all we’re doing.

Maybe you’re right, though.  Maybe the methodology is fundamentally flawed.  It’s not perfect—nothing’s perfect.  I won’t say that there aren’t some idiots involved, or that there aren’t some real problems.  Maybe it’s all for naught.  Maybe we’re all a bunch of deluded idiots who don’t know what we’re doing.  But the fact that the movement has spread so quickly certainly seems to counter the assertions that it’s not effective and that it doesn’t have anything to say.

I think what actually happened is that there was a hidden message that the movement transmitted.  It went global as soon as police started netting, macing, and beating people and the media could no longer ignore it; at that point, it didn’t make a difference what the media was saying about it; the message got out and the message is this: get together, assemble, stand up for what you believe in, resist, and be apathetic no more.  I don’t think there can even be an argument about it, that message got out loud and clear.  That is the message of Democracy, of common people asserting that their rights and their opinions matter just as much as any pundit’s, any billionaire’s, or any politician’s.  So it doesn’t matter what anyone says; that message is perhaps the most important thing and that message got out, and now people are in the process of acting on it.

If in some ways the movement is making life a bit harder for people who are trying to get to their jobs or run businesses, I assure you that such hardship has nothing on the amount of hardship the hungry and poor of this country are experiencing as they get steam-rolled by a government that cares more about helping its friends make money than helping its citizens survive and live meaningful lives.  I don’t mean to be callous and I’m sorry if people are being inconvenienced, but there is a very real social crisis happening in this country, which is only getting worse because of government/corporate policy, so someone complaining about being late to work or whatever doesn’t really inspire a whole lot of sympathy from me.  I mean, I’d rather it be possible for people to assemble in the public space without affecting anyone, but that’s simply impossible (unless you have full television coverage of your event by FOX News, maybe).  To ask for anything else is sort of like if you were kicking around during the Revolutionary War and said to the guys who wrote the Declaration of Independence: “Hey, I’d like to support your cause and all that, but maybe you could go fight this war against the British somewhere else?  I’m trying to run a bakery here…”

Uprisings happen, that’s part of living in any country.  So many other countries in the world have been having popular uprisings for years, and they’re more used to it.  When some American people finally started protesting corporate greed and government corruption, those people in all those other countries started saying, “It’s about time!”

We can disagree all year long about this.  I’m certainly tired of discussing it here but I’ll just make one last statement: the tactic here is using a decentralized, grass-roots movement wherein decisions are made by general consensus.  There are going to be drawbacks to this, including the inability to manage a single, unifying ideological message and have a true spokesperson to put on TV.  The advantage is that with no leader, there is no head you can cut off to destroy the animal, there is no heart that can be stabbed.  That is why this so infuriates the corporate media and the Elites of the world: they don’t know how to deal with it; eventually they’ll either have to arrest everyone involved or they’ll have to start listening to the common people (I assure you, they are not listening to you right now).  You can disagree with that strategy all you want, but I think it’s brilliant, and that it’s at least worth trying out.  God knows we’ve tried everything else.  I, for one, don’t feel like I’m wasting my time; maybe little will come of it, but maybe something really good will come out of it.  Those who pretend to speak for the movement will be exposed as fools and the movement will still be there long after they are gone, because it comes out of peoples’ yearning for democracy and justice, which is not going away anytime soon.

(Source: blogs.suntimes.com)

chaptertwelve:

flannelowl:

That’s the thing.  There are no bullet points, there is no power point presentation.  This is purely about people who have decided that the way things are going is not acceptable, and refusing to live in denial of it anymore.  The Occupy Wall Street protest, as I understand it, is not going to provide answers or an endpoint.  They are going to stay there until the government responds and starts serving the people over moneyed interests; they’re not there to provide answers or a new government, they’re asking the government to start providing better solutions.  They’ve built themselves a little town there, and they’re ready to stay if they need to…

No specific objectives or endpoint?  So Occupy Wall Street is being run the way the war in Iraq was run?  Yeah, that should work.

These are not the same thing, and making an equivalence between them is not useful.  A reason that anti-war marches and such do not have much of an impact is that everyone knows they’ll be gone the next day.  This Occupation has no end point specifically to bring attention to the fact that people (at least the people there, if not some percentage of the population) have had enough of our government being beholden to moneyed interests instead of its citizens.

“The greater part of all mischief in the world arises from the fact that men do not sufficiently understand their own aims. They have undertaken to build a tower, and spend no more labor on the foundation than would be necessary to erect a hut.“  - Goethe

I would argue that the living example of democratic communication taking place at the Occupy Wall Street site is, in fact, an effort to build a strong foundation.  This whole thing is a process to understand what people really want and to talk about it.  They have built the foundation very carefully in the way they communicate.  The whole occupation could be seen, if one were inclined, as the very practice of building the foundation for a bigger movement to reform this country.

You said yourself that “if we want the change we were promised, we have to do it ourselves, for the [government] is not interested in actually helping us.”  What sense does it make, then, to wait around for the government to provide better solutions?  Wouldn’t it be more effective to present your own solutions, starting with finding and stating clear objectives?  And if OWS’s mission is truly worthwhile, what is there to fear from naysayers?  Claiming that answering people’s questions would create “just another political ideology you could refute” is a cop out.  Are these people trying to accomplish something valuable or aren’t they?

The people out there protesting are not waiting for the government to provide better solutions.  They are gathering nonviolently to force the government to do it, which is a change from the last few years (at least) where most people have just been waiting around.  You are twisting my words.

I don’t think avoiding naysayers is an objective.  It’s avoiding easy dismissal and forgetting.  The way the media works, this whole movement could easily be “dealt with” by packaging it and presenting it as an ideology, or just a gathering of hippies.  These things are easy for news people to report on and then move on to the next story, and then it’s out of the public consciousness again.  But like I said above regarding rallies and marches that come and go, the media is now forced to continue covering this thing because it won’t just go away.

I’m sure there are plenty of people involved who could give you recommendations as to particular policy points that should be changed, but the point of this movement is that it seeks to be all-inclusive.  It wants to truly represent the 99% of Americans who are not millionaires or billionaires with easy access to high-ranking politicians.  Thus, for the group as a whole to start demanding specific political objectives would necessarily result in it no longer representing the 99%, because not everyone agrees on everything.

This is about trying to have a democracy that actually works, where people can disagree with each other, but their voices are valuable nonetheless (and that value is not tied to their race, gender, identity, or their bank account’s value).  It is not about policy, it is about reasserting our right to a democratically run government that listens to the people, not to money.

heymikewaskom:

Click through to read it all, my comments to follow.

I’m tired of reading this bullshit. I happen to agree, for the most part with Tricia, but Ryan, if you have the answers I want to hear them. Put it in a bullet point, step by step so we can all understand and tell us how, exactly  1. this wall st. protest, the literal people standing around town ends, and 2. where do those people, you and me go from there. Because I’m not reading about answers from anyone from either side. All I see are arguments about ideology and who’s a more righteous American.

That’s the thing.  There are no bullet points, there is no power point presentation.  This is purely about people who have decided that the way things are going is not acceptable, and refusing to live in denial of it anymore.  The Occupy Wall Street protest, as I understand it, is not going to provide answers or an endpoint.  They are going to stay there until the government responds and starts serving the people over moneyed interests; they’re not there to provide answers or a new government, they’re asking the government to start providing better solutions.  They’ve built themselves a little town there, and they’re ready to stay if they need to.

You keep expecting an easy list of answers from these people, but if they gave that to you it would just another political ideology you could refute.  This is not a finished, pre-packaged product, it is the beginning of a movement of people refusing to continue sitting down and letting this country be taken over by oligarchs (read: money).  This isn’t about an ideology, it’s about people trying to reclaim their government.  Conservatives and liberals are welcome, for we all are Americans.

Who’s talking about being a “more righteous American”?  I’m just talking about democracy replacing the current system of oligarchy.  This is not about righteousness, it’s about fairness and people trying to live their lives in a country that respects them and helps them instead of forsaking them.

How this thing ends, if it ends, sort of depends on how the government responds.  If the police and other authorities continue to serve companies like JP Morgan which are donating millions of dollars to them, they might just arrest everyone…and who knows what will happen then!  They may have to turn this country into a full-on police state, and the people will have to rise up again sooner or later (but who knows…it could get violent in that case).  Or the government might take the sensible course and start listening to the people, in which case the democratic nature of this movement is trying to provide a living model for how to move forward on addressing the concerns of 99% of the population, as opposed to the concerns of the wealthy 1%.

(Source: chaptertwelve)

chaptertwelve:

flannelowl:

chaptertwelve:

Sadly, it doesn’t seem that the protesters understand the inherent problem nor the conflict of interest represented by this development.

No, unions loyal to the Democratic Party and members of Congress are trying to co-opt the movement like the Republicans did with the Tea Party, and the “occupiers” are very well aware of this.  They/we are not interested in nuzzling up to the warm bosom of the Democratic Party.  This movement inherently seeks an alternative to the two-party system, because the main reason people have been brought to this point is that both parties are broken and are obviously serving Wall Street over the people.  There is no difference between the two parties, aside from how they present their arguments to hoodwink the people.

Many who were once loyal organizers and voters for Obama have now realized that if we want the change we were promised, we have to do it ourselves, for the Democratic Party is not interested in actually helping us.

But, see, Ryan, you’re a thinker.  I’m glad you can see these things for what they are, but so many who are involved in the movement can’t and don’t and are interested in nuzzling up to these outside interests.  In fact, yours is the only pro-OWS voice I’ve heard saying anything against these forces at all, which isn’t to say plenty of others aren’t out there, but does illustrate the problem with the distribution of OWS’s message.  If that’s the official line of the OWS movement, then someone needs to take charge and right the ship because the movement has been hijacked.

It depends a lot on where you’re getting your information from.  The sources I’m getting it from are independent and often on-the-ground.  I’m reading about it from the people who have gone down there and given speeches to the crowd, from independent podcasters and journalists who are marching with the people (e.g. Chris Hedges, Cornel West, Citizen Radio, Naomi Klein, Glenn Greenwald, etc.).  If you listen to the voices of people who are actually joining it and reporting back, who are spending time there, the things I said above are pretty much given.

The picture the mainstream media gives this will obviously be skewed because they aren’t actually part of the movement and they can’t understand it.  They just want to find a leader they can talk to; they want to reduce it to one persa set of talking points so that they can easily explain it away.  They are going around the camps asking to speak to a leader.  (So are undercover police!)  The fact that there is no leader and yet the entire movement is so amazingly well organized is a testament to a new way of running a country.

The true power of this movement is that it refuses to be categorized in the pigeon-hole terms the corporate media knows.  It is truly democratic; all decisions are made in general assembly meetings and votes are made by general consensus; it is truly democratic because our country is not, and we can not change this country by playing the old games.  Only a truly democratic force can bring about the necessary and lasting change that the entire world needs if it is to remain a fair and hospitable place for everyone and everything on it.

chaptertwelve:

Sadly, it doesn’t seem that the protesters understand the inherent problem nor the conflict of interest represented by this development.

No, unions loyal to the Democratic Party and members of Congress are trying to co-opt the movement like the Republicans did with the Tea Party, and the “occupiers” are very well aware of this.  They/we are not interested in nuzzling up to the warm bosom of the Democratic Party.  This movement inherently seeks an alternative to the two-party system, because the main reason people have been brought to this point is that both parties are broken and are obviously serving Wall Street over the people.  There is no difference between the two parties, aside from how they present their arguments to hoodwink the people.

The Mainstream Media may be focusing on the Democratic Party members who are trying to make themselves the face of the movement, because the Mainstream Media can’t cope with a movement that doesn’t have leaders.  But the reality on the ground is much different.  The Occupation is a truly democratic movement, with no leaders and all decisions made by pure consensus voting.  To become anything else would mean the death of the movement.  You can not foster true democratic change without a true democracy.

Many who were once loyal organizers and voters for Obama have now realized that if we want the change we were promised, we have to do it ourselves, for the Democratic Party is not interested in actually helping us.

dxo:

Chapter Twelve: People are so conditioned for response.

chaptertwelve:

I believe that the problem is our government.  I believe that government is what needs to be fixed.  Of course corporations are trying to maximize profits.  That’s their job.  The fact that our government allows them do so without regard for the rule of law (or, in some cases, within the boundaries of the law but without regard for ethical considerations) and often colludes with them to maximize the political and financial gain of our corrupt politicians is the responsibility and the fault of government.  It’s our government that is supposed to be looking out for us and, therefore, it’s our government that is failing us.  Fix that and everything else will necessarily fall into line.  (Not that we even remotely agree on what fixing our government would entail, but one thing at a time.)

Also, the very idea that capitalism in this country is “unchained” is laughable to me.  One more of our fundamental disagreements.

As for my point about vilifying the top one percent and painting them as an evil, heartless other, that’s exactly what you just did (see paragraph five), and I have a problem with that kind of gross generalization, no matter who is making it.

I agree government is the problem, but who controls the government? The 1%. 

This pipe dream “free market” is not going to save us all. Capitalism is unchained. I don’t understand how you can’t see that. A massive wave of deregulation in all sectors has taken place since Reagan. It’s all that same deregulation that led to what we have now. Complete monopolies in every sector of the marketplace and full out Gordon Gekko style gangsters on Wall [Vegas] St. 

They have also monopolized the government [systems of representation], and take advantage of that monopoly to further entrench their control.

And I don’t need to vilify or paint as evil the 1%, they are doing a fine job all by themselves. People are losing their homes, going hungry, and dying in wars of occupation. I don’t see the 1% doing anything to help out. I did hear luxury bomb shelter sales were up like 1000% though. 

Free market? That’s what we have now. A free-for-all. Anarcho-capitalism operating as a form of fascism through their control of the world’s governments. Global consolidation for profit. The 1% have taken over. How can you debate this?

I want a “fair market”, not a free market. Because I truly believe that in the absence of regulation, capitalism will always result in monopoly. The same people that control things now would control them in an anarcho-capitalistic system, only with a much more brutal hand. Imagine if the “police” were all independent contractors (like Blackwater). Sounds like the mafia would be in charge if you ask me.

Do note I’m addressing numerous points in the context of this post and not all is in direct response. I just don’t get how it’s out of line to vilify what equates to “filthy rich” while so much suffering goes ignored. Misery increases with the profit margins.

chaptertwelve:

flannelowl:

chaptertwelve:

flannelowl:

chaptertwelve:

flannelowl:

dxo:

Whether or not you believe I’m grossly generalizing and vilifying a small handful of very wealthy people, it doesn’t mean they don’t exist and they don’t hold the reins.  If they cared about starving people, maybe they would do something about it. I understand what you mean when you object to stereotyping a group of people, but I assure you this particular group of people is in no need of a good defense from people like us.

The reason I feel so strongly about your statements regarding the top one percent is that that number (symbolic or not) includes upwards of 3,070,000 people.  That’s not a small handful, that’s a whole hell of a lot of people.  If you guys were talking about specific individuals or a more realistic percentage point, that would be one thing, but you’re labeling one out of every hundred of our fellow citizens as the enemy, which I think is both dangerous and ineffective in terms of solving the problems at hand.

(All your other points have been taken.  We just disagree is all.  But this is what the desired public discourse looks like.)

Well that’s what I meant when I said that the usage of 1% is symbolic.  I was trying to say that I didn’t mean to vilify every person in that group.  I said among that group there are a handful of Elites who are CEOs or have high places of political power who pull the strings, and those particular Elites are the ones I’m referring to.  1% is a symbol, not literal.  I think you’re arguing against a point I’m not trying to make.

If those people who comprise the rest of the literal 1% want to get on board and use their money and influence to help meaningfully change government back to what it ought to be, to put it truly back in the hands of the people, then God bless ‘em.  I doubt they will, because the status quo is making a lot of them richer every minute, but if some of them do want to help out and be part of this country, that’s fine by me.