Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[thaiboxerken]

If you define "reform" as an unconstitutional bill.

Nothing unConstitutional about it. You've yet to prove it as such.

 

[WildCat]

Nothing unConstitutional about it. You've yet to prove it as such.

Did it abridge the freedom of speech? Why yes it did! Blatantly unconstitutional.

 

[000063]

Ironically, that's exactly what OWS claims keeps happening to them.

Cox vs. New Hampshire. Look it up next time you complain free speech rights are being abridged.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Did it abridge the freedom of speech? Why yes it did! Blatantly unconstitutional.

No, it did not. Money is not speech.

 

[Pugilist]

So I spent a few hours hanging around the Occupy San Francisco movement on Saturday.
This is the third time I’ve been there in the last few months.
I do a lot of amateur photography, so you can often find me at all types of marches, rallies and the like.
Thought I would share some of the things I witnessed.

The general mood of the camp seemed to be wound much tighter. Even a few weeks ago things were relatively carefree and easy going. The tension level was palpable now.

There were a couple of OSF representatives giving a decree that the city of SF has asked the camp to move within the next week. Unfortunately I did not catch where exactly they were planning on moving the camp. Many of those listening had no idea who their camp representatives were. One homeless man requested that the city pay to have them moved with a moving service. The vast majority of the people actually living in the tents in the area were not even paying attention or attending the meeting.

I was a little surprised to see the amount of open drug use going on. Public marijuana use is pretty common in SF but the amount of open methamphetamine smoking in the tent city was actually a bit of a shock to me. At one point I saw a guy drop a meth pipe on the ground shattering it, then getting into a shoving match with two other men.

It was interesting to see one lady with live fowl living in the tent with her. She emerged from her tent with two chickens and put them down to let them peck around for awhile before gathering them back up into the tent.

I also saw a make shift garden, it appeared as if people had lugged in soil and are now trying to grow a crop of lettuce.

There were certain occupiers that were communicating with each other on two way radios. They appeared to be operating as some sort of camp security or pseudo-authority figures though I cannot say for certain. I overheard one radio conversation in which a tent had been robbed of a sleeping bag and a pack of cigarettes and they were on their way to investigate.

Further up the wharf I had a discussion with a balloon twister who told me that he will no longer twist balloons near the camp due to the violence and aggressive pan handling.

All in all, the place had a darker feel to it, people were less inclined to have conversations with me regarding their stance on Occupation and the smell was very bad. I did notice that the city had moved in port-a-potties though.

I may head over to Occupy Oakland next week if it is still there. I’m in Sacramento so it’s not much of a trip.

 

[Childlike Empress]

And I saw Jesus on a toast.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it did not. Money is not speech.

But speech that you buy is still speech. So you have no point.

 

[TJM]

And I saw Jesus on a toast.

Pugilist's observations are pretty much spot on, though I'm sure we're looking at things from opposite sides of the coin.

@Pugilist -

SF wants to move OSF to an abandoned high school campus in the Mission. Won't happen of course. They'll be evicted from Justin Herman Plaza because OSF won't come to a decision on their own.

http://missionlocal.org/2011/11/local-businesses-weigh-in-on-possible-occupy-sf-move-to-mission/

 

[WildCat]

No, it did not. Money is not speech.

So? Advertisements, books, movies, pamphlets, etc etc are. And you are allowed to spend as much as you like on these things, because Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech.

Damn that 1st Amendment, eh ken?

 

[000063]

It was interesting to see one lady with live fowl living in the tent with her. She emerged from her tent with two chickens and put them down to let them peck around for awhile before gathering them back up into the tent.

That's not interesting, that's a health hazard.

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in631

 

[OneShotKi11]

From what I have seen, one of the messages coming from Occupy movement has to do with corporations using money and power to influence our politicians. They also have a gripe with politicians who sellout to special interest.

Now I can understand everyone accusing them of not having a message because most of the people who are in those massive crowds are absolutely clueless to anything, and are there only to gripe small mundane issues, but from what I have read I believe that is one of the main messages.

I dont agree with the way they are going about things, but I find that pretending they have zero message is just pure ignorance. Why not debate the few things that are legitimate within the movement rather then grabbing onto the the lunacy spewed by the many.

 

[JihadJane]

How is it "black and white thinking" to point out that OWS is Unperson-ing parts of their movement? The 99% rhetoric itself encourages listeners to think in terms of Us vs Them, White Knight vs Black Knight, but when someone points out the flaws in it, it's "immature"?

You haven't justified your comment: "...the cops are part of the 99% too. You can't keep Scotsmaning them out of it."

What does "Unperson-ing" mean?

I called Graham2001's post simplistic and black-and white because that's what the silly right-wing, curtain-twitching meme he used is.

It goes something like this - some one smashed up a bank therefore all claims by the "Occupy" movement to be non-violent are bogus. It's kiddy logic.

Actually, I've noticed this before. You have a habit of denouncing troublesome posts out of hand without actually bothering to explain why they are unworthy of your Highness' consideration.

Seems like you could be projecting here. I don't consider myself to be royalty in any way whatsoever.

You still haven't actually responded to Graham's post, just stuck it in the nearest box and hoped everyone would take your word on it.

This pretense that one is able to read other people's minds seems to be hardwired into the arrogance of the authoritarian mindset.

That's nice. It also has nothing to do with my claim about the political makeup of OWS being left-leaning. And I'm loathe to take as impartial any journalist who thinks sticking pictures in the middle of the charts lends credibility. Or maybe he's just doing it for the emotional impact.

Name one journalist in the world who is impartial.

What's the problem with OWS being left-leaning? There is a huge left-wing void in establishment US politics - both major parties are right-wing - so it's hardly surprising that a left-leaning movement should emerge in opposition to the dead hand of the status quo.

In other words, the rich pay a disproportionate amount of taxes, yet one of Occupy's pillars--this week--seems to be that the rich pay less taxes than others, proportionately. Or is it that they're making more money than everyone else, and that's doubleplus ungood? I'm not strawmanning; that's exactly what several responses to that comment are arguing.

I can't speak for the "Occupy" movement as I'm not part of it but your use of the phrase "making more money" is interesting, as if this is a neutral activity. The financial industry doesn't produce anything of any intrinsic value. Instead, like a parasite, it extracts money from the real economy and gives nothing back.

Pop quiz; how many accounts of Occupiers facing "police brutality" have you read? And how many of them even acknowledged the possibility the Occupiers were breaking the law, or mentioned whether they were told to disperse?

Virtually all of them do. Deliberately breaking laws is a well-known and established tactic of non-violent resistance.

I'm betting the number is less than 10%. And these are far from the only examples of biased reporting.

Can you give some links to these examples?

Who then went on to describe it as "abrasive and intrusive...several people went to the hospital". She was referring to "product" in the sense of "derived from a food", not something you'd put on your tacos. I love how everyone keeps putting a full stop after "essentially" as if it were a full sentence instead of a fragment.

Pepper spray isn't a food product anymore that lemon washing up liquid is.

Quote-mining? Taking things out of context? That's something I'd expect from Fox News.

It's joyful meme creating:

Relevance?

I was admonished for acknowledging the nature of the Class War because it gives fodder to critics who don't think it exists.

I thought Occupy was the 99%, not the 10%.

Relevance?

And remember, a popular belief is not always a correct one. There are plenty of people who would not vote Republican or Democrat with a gun to their head.

The article mentions that all of the majority were given open minds, which simply is not true of real life, and the minority were "true believers" who would never, ever change their minds, meaning they were entirely unreceptive to counter-influence by the majority. You forgot to mention that.

I didn't mention anything. I simply posted the link.

Yes, the economy sucks, we know.

In your opinion, how did it come come to "suck"?

 

[000063]

You haven't justified your comment: "...the cops are part of the 99% too. You can't keep Scotsmaning them out of it."

Well, the cops are part of "the 99%", are they not?

What does "Unperson-ing" mean?

Someone with your knowledge of rhetoric hasn't read 1984?

It goes something like this - some one smashed up a bank therefore all claims by the "Occupy" movement to be non-violent are bogus. It's kiddy logic.

No, the claim is "members of Occupy are criminals, therefore Occupy is not non-criminal". "Criminal", here, includes the rapes, murders, thefts, etc. associated with the protests and their camps. At least some of those people are Occupiers.

Seems like you could be projecting here. I don't consider myself to be royalty in any way whatsoever.

"NO U"? Really?

This pretense that one is able to read other people's minds seems to be hardwired into the arrogance of the authoritarian mindset.

Because the people calling John Pike a "sadist" weren't reading minds?

Name one journalist in the world who is impartial.

Red herring. Explain why bias is excusable when it's for your benefit, even when it compromises one's journalistic integrity. Wolfe's "Crackdown" piece, for instance, is based on biased sampling, and an uncorroborated "guy who knows a guy" piece of information.

What's the problem with OWS being left-leaning? There is a huge left-wing void in establishment US politics - both major parties are right-wing - so it's hardly surprising that a left-leaning movement should emerge in opposition to the dead hand of the status quo.

My problem is that a movement that claims to represent most of America has a wildly disproportionate amount of people on the left.

I can't speak for the "Occupy" movement as I'm not part of it but your use of the phrase "making more money" is interesting, as if this is a neutral activity. The financial industry doesn't produce anything of any intrinsic value. Instead, like a parasite, it extracts money from the real economy and gives nothing back.

It does produce something of value: money. You want to argue about "intrinsic", and I'll have to point out that money itself is a societal construct. As is clothing, law, economics, teenagers, Justin Beiber, and the electronic device you're using to post, unless you are dictating to a secretary.

Virtually all of them do.

Not what I asked. I wanted a rough number. Given that you seem to be well-read on Occupy, I'm just going to assume "a lot". It seems odd to me that nearly any enforcement against Occupy is considered brutality. Even pepper spray, used every day by cops around the world to subdue people, even "non-violent" and "peaceful" people, suddenly becomes "military-grade" "chemical weaponry". Flashbangs become "concussion grenades" (which has a specific military definition, and it is distinct from a flash bang), and cops become "militarized".

Deliberately breaking laws is a well-known and established tactic of non-violent resistance.

Again, not what I asked. How many of these reports, by proportion of the total, even mention the legal standing of the protestors? Why is it assumed that Occupy has a right to disobey the laws everyone else would abide by, when they themselves are demanding equality? How can you demand others be bought down to parity with you, yet demand better treatment than others yourself?

All three are rhetorical: hypocrisy.

Can you give some links to these examples?

Wolfe's report on the "crackdown" springs to mind, as does the subsequent bleating in the Occupshere about "militarization" of police. It's an agressive, sinister word, even if it doesn't mean what they think it means.

Pepper spray isn't a food product anymore that lemon washing up liquid is.

Kelly was not claiming it was in the standard sense, which my entire point. Was it a poor word choice? Sure. Does context make it clear what her sentiments on pepper spray are? Yes. Why are so many people ignoring that context? I dunno.

It's joyful meme creating:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/263894ed4ba729f2ad.png

It's also hundreds of people saying "someone" should pepper spray her because they don't like what she said. Apparently, lots of people think it's only wrong to "pepper spray people for expressing their right to free speech" when those people are on their side. Or if not pepper spray, the Pear of Anguish.

Relevance?

Occupy is supposedly the majority, not the close-minded minority.

I didn't mention anything. I simply posted the link.

And quoted it, with the implication it supported your argument.

In your opinion, how did it come come to "suck"?

I don't know. I also don't think Occupy is doing a lick of good.

 

[Clayton Moore]

In your opinion, how did it come come to "suck"?

40+ years of legislation.

 

[000063]

#OccupyPortland: "Don't Report Rape To Police; Instead Report It To Our Really, Really, Rad Pink Armband Non-Gender Guys"

Occupy Oakland Insanity: Rape and Sexual Assault May Be the Work of “Agents Who Want to Discredit” Movement

Atlantic: Tina Dupuy Glosses Over Occupy’s “Woman Problem”

Which brings me to the subject of the occupiers stance on snitching. First hand reports (by women) indicate that reporting of assaults is discouraged. One woman at Occupy Wall Street told the New York Post “We don’t tell anyone…We handle it internally. I said too much already.” My own original reporting on the situation at Occupy Baltimore indicated that sexual harassment was a common complaint, but organizers didn’t want word of it leaking to the media. One feminist who recently visited Occupy Edinburgh found it was sexist and reports that women were told not to discuss a rape that allegedly occurred at Occupy Glasgow.

Y'know, I can get that OWS disclaims incidents like this as being the work of people who aren't True Occupiers. But this isn't just intellectually dishonest, it's actively dangerous.

 

[Neally]

I dont agree with the way they are going about things, but I find that pretending they have zero message is just pure ignorance.

I haven't noticed people saying they have zero message. On the contrary, they have dozens of diverse and sometimes contradicting messages. Their messages are being lost in the way they say it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

But speech that you buy is still speech. So you have no point.

If you buy it, it's not free.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So? Advertisements, books, movies, pamphlets, etc etc are. And you are allowed to spend as much as you like on these things, because Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech.

Damn that 1st Amendment, eh ken?

Money is not speech. There is no mention of money in the 1st amendment.

 

[Neally]

If you buy it, it's not free.

"Freedom" is not the same as "free". The first amendment doesn't say that speech has to be free.

 

[thaiboxerken]

"Freedom" is not the same as "free". The first amendment doesn't say that speech has to be free.

It doesn't say that it applies to monetary donations either.