Congrats, Occupiers -- You ARE the 1%!

[timhau]

I think it goes without saying that nobody speaks for anyone but him- or herself. Do you have evidence that a significant number of the protestors presume to speak for nearly all other Americans?

So... if they're not speaking for anyone else, what makes them so important that they need to inconvenience a lot of other members of the 99% to get themselves heard?

 

[Bri]

The current political system has become rigged to serve only the interests of the people with the most money.

Yes and no. People with the money can influence other people using their money, which undoubtedly works in their favor, but the system is still based on who gets the most votes.

I'm assuming that you talking about cooperating with a policy of non-violence? The movement attempts to self-police but only with partial success. There are plenty of angry people around, with justified grudges against the police, and violent conflict creates its own momentum.

I think the point is that being angry doesn't justify violence. And aside from that, violence will only turn people away from the movement so it will backfire.

Additionally, it is likely that a number of the uncooperative ones will be State-employed provocateurs. It is in the interests of the State machine to provoke as much violence as possible in order to discredit the movement and justify harsher repression.

Isn't there a conspiracy theory forum for this sort of thing?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

So... if they're not speaking for anyone else, what makes them so important that they need to inconvenience a lot of other members of the 99% to get themselves heard?

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. Are you saying that they couldn't be speaking for themselves and still be inconveniencing other people?

Just curious, who are all the people being inconvenienced? You mean the people who might otherwise use the park? Would you personally be using the park if the protestors weren't there?

-Bri

 

[timhau]

What I'm saying is that isn't it just a tiny bit disingenious to claim that people who advertise "We are the 99%!" only speak for themselves?

(And I'm kind of far from Zuccotti Park to be inconvenienced even if they detonated a thermonuclear device there; despite what wikipedia claims, my local OWS has so few people that inconveniencing others would be an achievement for them.)

 

[Checkmite]

What I'm saying is that isn't it just a tiny bit disingenious to claim that people who advertise "We are the 99%!" only speak for themselves?

(And I'm kind of far from Zuccotti Park to be inconvenienced even if they detonated a thermonuclear device there; despite what wikipedia claims, my local OWS has so few people that inconveniencing others would be an achievement for them.)

Same thing here. I've been downtown a couple of times already and never saw more than about ten people at the "Occupy" location. The bus stop on the adjacent corner was more populated.

A big deal was made last month when one night a large group of drama students or something from Cleveland State came down for a few hours to "show solidarity"; but after that night it's been a lot of absolutely nothing.

 

[BenBurch]

Popular uprisings in the USA never come to anything until somebody dies. Even that isn't a guarantee.

Kent State hastened the end of the Vietnam War.

Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner being murdered in Mississippi in 1964 was a turning point in the civil rights movement.

The Bonus Marchers were moved down by the military (with cavalry, bayonets and chemical weapons) they used to serve.

 

[eeyore1954]

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. Are you saying that they couldn't be speaking for themselves and still be inconveniencing other people?

Just curious, who are all the people being inconvenienced? You mean the people who might otherwise use the park? Would you personally be using the park if the protestors weren't there?

-Bri

The people who were being inconvenieced were the ones who lived and worked in the area.

 

[Virus]

One of the main strengths of OWS is its commitment to non-violence.

There are plenty of violent lunatics representing OWS. And when a radical leftist says "non-violent" they sometimes mean "non-violent for now".

 

[Alt+F4]

Just curious, who are all the people being inconvenienced? You mean the people who might otherwise use the park? Would you personally be using the park if the protestors weren't there?

I'm a New Yorker and while I don't personally live in lower Manhattan I have friends that do and yes, they are being inconvenienced. Almost all the folks who live down there are not "Evil Millionaire Wall Street Bankers", they are just folks trying to go to work, get their kids to school. They have been kept up by constant drumming, yelling and having to see human waste in their doorways. Enough.

 

[Bri]

What I'm saying is that isn't it just a tiny bit disingenious to claim that people who advertise "We are the 99%!" only speak for themselves?

No, it's a figure of speech. When someone says "We are the Marines!" does that mean that they speak for all Marines, or just that they are a member of the Marines?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

The people who were being inconvenieced were the ones who lived and worked in the area.

Why does there seem to be a lot more people complaining about others being inconvenienced by the protestors than people complaining about actually being inconvenienced by the protestors?

-Bri

 

[timhau]

No, it's a figure of speech. When someone says "We are the Marines!" does that mean that they speak for all Marines, or just that they are a member of the Marines?

If they say "We are the Marines" and act as if they're spokespersons for the Marines (and perhaps even say "We are the Marines! We demand... " or "We are the Marines! This is what Marine democracy looks like!") then yes, I would assume that they are speaking for the Marines, unless otherwise specified.

 

[Bri]

If they say "We are the Marines" and act as if they're spokespersons for the Marines (and perhaps even say "We are the Marines! We demand... " or "We are the Marines! This is what Marine democracy looks like!") then yes, I would assume that they are speaking for the Marines, unless otherwise specified.

You've heard a protestor say "We are the 99%. This is what 99% democracy looks like!"? Could you post a link please?

-Bri

 

[NoahFence]

That might explain the confusion. It's just a figure of speech. They don't mean literally that they are 99% of the population (clearly 99% of the population wouldn't fit in the parks where they're protesting).

"We are the 99%" just means that they're members of the 99% of the population that aren't the "super-rich."

-Bri

??

I speak perfect English...

So wouldn't it then stand to reason that the "1%" is just a figure of speech?

 

[SezMe]

Jesus, timhau has taken this thread off into crazy land. Whether you support OWS and/or their tactics, some of the issues they have raised are real. Crony capitalism. Government bought and paid for (see Jack Abramhof), weak to no enforcement of weak regulations. And on and on and on. Yet timhau has a burr under his saddle regarding the precise language on signs and used in slogans. Alice, welcome to Wonderland.

 

[NoahFence]

There needs to be a solid thing that we can point to and say "OWS Suceeded in......."

(and no, being ridiculed isn't it)

Womens movement = They got the vote.

Civil Rights Movement = Ended segregation.

Occupy Wall Street = ???

And just how are these people supposed to raise themselves up and get out of their morass of negativity if they don't find a frickin job? How do they know there are no jobs when they're not looking?

I'm fairly sure that they're not on their iPhones looking at Monster.com.

 

[SezMe]

The TP started as grass-roots, but were quickly co-opted.

But that's my point. There was no co-opting, it was organized from the get-go. But I'll say this: I have no way to prove my point and I suspect you don't either. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Moss]

This whole discussion reminds me of

In Deutschland wird es keine Revolution geben, weil man dazu den Rasen betreten müsste.

 

[Bri]

??

I speak perfect English...

So wouldn't it then stand to reason that the "1%" is just a figure of speech?

I believe you misunderstood.

If someone says "We are the 1%" it means that they are a member of the super-rich 1% of Americans. It doesn't necessarily mean that they speak for everyone who is a member of that group.

-Bri

 

[NoahFence]

Didn't you just get through saying "the 99%" isn't really 99%?