Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brainster said:
So now you don't even know what free speech means?
Click to expand...
BTW: The First Amendment applies to govt but that doesn't mean the concept only applies to govt. Anyone who uses their power to silence Americans is acting contrary to the purpose of the first Amendment. What good is the 1st Amendment if corporations can silence you through other means.
 
activistmisnotacrime.jpg
 
RandFan said:
BTW: The First Amendment applies to govt but that doesn't mean the concept only applies to govt. Anyone who uses their power to silence Americans is acting contrary to the purpose of the first Amendment. What good is the 1st Amendment if corporations can silence you through other means.
Click to expand...

What a shock, you are wrong:

But when the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union looked into Italie's case, it discovered, as Pastrana evidently had, that Goodwill was on strong legal footing. "There is no legal case to be brought," explains Miami chapter president Lida Rodriguez-Taseff. "The law is pretty clear that a private employer can fire someone based on their political speech even when that political speech does not affect the terms and conditions of employment."
Click to expand...
 
Brainster said:
Read it all; it's a real hoot and shows why these dolts can't get anything done.
Click to expand...

That's true. The only people the radical left hate more than the Wall Street bankers are other radical leftists. The ideological crap always gets in the way.
 
Virus said:
That's true. The only people the radical left hate more than the Wall Street bankers are other radical leftists. The ideological crap always gets in the way.
Click to expand...
As if the movement was only comprised of radical leftists.
 
Virus said:
Who else looks, talks and acts like these people?
Click to expand...

Most of America.

The detractors, like that piece of crap Hannity or the pimp or the Coulter critter just like to show you the more extreme of them.

Some of them may even be plants. O'Keefe is there now, you know.
 
RandFan said:
It's unfortunate but, this is an important event. Democracy is messy at times. That there are these events doesn't take away from the importance of OWS.
Click to expand...

But "important event" and "importance of OWS" is just rhetoric. It doesn't justify or excuse these events.

And these events--or anecdotes, as you've also called them--aren't being presented without context. They're being presented within the context of OWS. Wherever we find OWS gatherings, we find these events. We find failures of sanitation. we find allegations of theft and battery and rape and statutory rape. We find safety hazards. We find violent clashes with the police. We find a disregard for permits and other elements of the due process our society has already agreed upon.

We don't find these things everywhere the we find the OWS movement. But we do find them a lot. These anecdotes establish a recurring theme for the movement. And this recurring theme speaks directly to the values and validity of the movment, and of the people involved. These values, expressed repeatedly in these anecdotes, must be considered when we consider the "importance of OWS".

Maybe a movement with the recurring themes of "angry at Wall Street" and "casual disregard for human civilization" is important in some way, but I don't think it's necessarily important in a good way.

And note that this recurring, negative theme is not shared by other recent movements. The Tea Party gatherings seemed to have no problems with rape or theft or human waste. Over the past ten years, there have been many gatherings and demonstrations and movements, that have not had these recurring themes.

There's a floating union protest here in San Diego, that's been going on for at least the past ten years. Protestors move their signs and pamphlets around the city, picketing the evildoing corporation of the week. You can always find them scattered here and there throughout the commercial districts of the city. They have no police problems, no poop problems, and no problem clearly articulating their message.

Throughout the Bush years, protestors were a frequent sight in the city center and other public places. Protestors, and counter protestors. Never did we see the recurring themes we see in the OWS movement.

You say that these anecdotes--these recurring themes--don't take away from the "importance" of the movment. What you fail to realize is that to a lot of people, these themes are emerging as what is really important about the movement. At the very least any reasonable evaluation of the movement will have to square the "important" themes with these other themes.

-----------------------------

Consider this a sidebar. I'm having trouble articulating this thought. It goes something like this:

Most modern, "civilized" humans place value on certain practices regarding the management and disposal of human waste. This is not a value we set aside lightly. Call it an inhibition.

What kind of environment would we have to create, to encourage people to set aside their inhibitions, to reject the value of human waste managment principles? What kind of environment seemingly attracts people who are so close to giving up such a well-established and thoroughly socialized element of modern civilization? Doesn't this disregard for bodily sanitation suggest a disturbing disregard for mental sanitation? It's bad civics, and bad civics as a recurring theme does not bode well for the OWS movement.

I know, I know: "It's not a single monolithic movment. Not everybody is pooping in the streets." But that doesn't wash. The Tea Party comprises a wide range of values and views. But one thing it doesn't have is people pooping in the streets. In fact, what sets OWS apart from other protest movements over the past... 100 years? is the recurring theme of people pooping in the streets. And that's the theme you insist doesn't signify. I think it actually signifies more than you'd like, about the movement and its importance.
 
theprestige, I thank you for the tone of your post. :)

theprestige said:
But "important event" and "importance of OWS" is just rhetoric. It doesn't justify or excuse these events.
Click to expand...
It doesn't need to be justified. It doesn't need to be excused. Speech isn't something that needs to be vetted.

You say that these anecdotes--these recurring themes--don't take away from the "importance" of the movment. What you fail to realize is that to a lot of people, these themes are emerging as what is really important about the movement.
Click to expand...
I've no doubt about that. Propaganda is effective. You keep focusing on the anecdotes and they become the story. Perception is reality.

Most modern, "civilized" humans place value on certain practices regarding the management and disposal of human waste. This is not a value we set aside lightly. Call it an inhibition.
Click to expand...
But I've concede these points. Unlike many of those here who have debated me I'm happy to consider the other side. I don't deny them. Thing is, there are times when comfort and convenience will have to take a back seat. When the farmers left their homes to take on the British many people were inconvenienced including others who did not agree with the Patriots. But those who believed it important understood that this was required.

In fact, what sets OWS apart from other protest movements over the past... 100 years? is the recurring theme of people pooping in the streets.
Click to expand...
A.) I've got the news on most of the day mostly CNN, some MSNBC and FOX's news Brian Kilmeade. I don't honestly think that's true. B.) I remember growing up and I remember the complaints then, I don't see a difference.

And that's the theme you insist doesn't signify. I think it actually signifies more than you'd like, about the movement and its importance.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I respect your opinion and appreciate the tone you responded with. I disagree with you. I know there are problems and this isn't a simple black and white issue but these people weren't sitting at home thinking, "hey, let's go downtown and poop in the street". As much as you don't want it to be, this is a legitimate movement. It's spread around the world. Can't you take a moment and consider that maybe, just maybe that nutjobs didn't actually all at once decide to go downtown for the purpose of pooping in the street? Look, if you really believe that, well, that's fine. But I'm not sure why you think I would actually buy that, like I would sit here and go, wow, people around the world got off their ass to go downtown, get together and poop in the street. Sorry, don't buy it. More importantly there are reporters there interviewing people and filming the protests and the desire to defecate anywhere they can find a street doesn't jump out.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Wrong about what? I didn't say her employer violated her first Amendment rights. I said her employer acted contrary to the concept. I'm saying the concept has no meaning if people can be silenced by other means.

So....?, I'm waiting.
Click to expand...

The concept has no meaning? Freedom of speech simply means freedom from punishment by law. It does not mean free of consequences. If she had worked for the government itself, she would have a case, but as she worked for a private employer, that employer is (and should be) free to fire her for any number of reasons, including free speech. For example, she might have chosen to bad-mouth her employer. She would have every legal right to do so, but her employer would have every right to fire her.

What's more, given that she was employed as a journalist, you can make the strong argument that her employer was obligated to fire her (as NPR recognized in the case of the woman who reported on opera). Journalists (note, not columnists) have an obligation to maintain at least the appearance of objectivity so that their employers can also maintain that fig leaf.
 
Another anecdote:

City officials cited several specific reasons for their decision. The most notable was repeated complains from a nearby hotel, which stated that protesters were "publicly masturbating" in full view of passersby.
Click to expand...
 
Brainster said:
Freedom of speech simply means freedom from punishment by law.
Click to expand...
No, if you could silence people through other means they would NOT have freedom of speech.

It does not mean free of consequences.
Click to expand...
No one said otherwise.

...as NPR recognized in the case of the woman who reported on opera...
Click to expand...
Opera {shock} If you report on Opera you have to be silent. If you are O'Reilly you can say any damn thing you want (yeah I know he is commentary). Oh, and BTW, Liberal Viewer documents hard news reporters (mostly FOX News who give political opinion all the time.) No, this is not a Tu Quoque because Opera ISN'T hard news. If NPR is standing on principle, even though I disagree, at least they have principle. You damn sure won't find that principle at most networks. It's just very, very sad that they had to sacrifice this woman on principle since she reports on Opera. So, while they are within their rights they have @#$% on the concept of free speech for a misbegotten notion of being better than FOX News. Don't worry about FOX, everyone knows they will let their hard news people campaign and engage in commentary. Just be principled when it matters to be principled.
 
Last edited:
Yet another use for Occupy Wall Street: Place to pick up underage girls and pimp them out:

A city woman is accused of pimping a 16-year-old girl she met in Victory Park during the Occupy NH demonstrations.

Justina Jensen, 23, of 341 Hanover St., is charged with felony prostitution. Police allege Jensen met a teen at the local protest, which is an offshoot of Occupy Wall Street, and used the Internet to arrange a first liaison for the girl with a man who turned out to be an undercover police officer.
Click to expand...

Big kudos to the girl's mom, who did some digging and basically handed the case to the cops on a silver platter.
 
You know what makes me happy? When people who have political views other than me experience hardship, especially if it's directly or indirectly due to people reacting negatively to their political views. I love it when people who disagree with me suffer. Why, no, I am not a decent human being, why do you ask?
 
RandFan said:
How is that an answer? The movement is not monolithic. Your anecdotes don't prove that it is.
Click to expand...

Their main page. Under the logo of a raised fist. Big red letters:

"The only solution is World Revolution".

What sort of people talk about solving problems with world revolution? I don't know. I can't think of anyone who might talk that way. Could be anyone.

http://occupywallst.org/

If anyone is interested, here's some more pics of Occupy SF. Mostly just pics of garbage and oddball slogans written on walls. http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/28/the-right-to-poo-and-van-jones-skepticism/
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom