Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Up for an Occupy debate?

Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2013 9:05:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I want to do a series of debates on the Occupy movement. This is the second anniversary of the efforts - so I really want to do something to commemorate all the work that so many people did for that.

The Occupy Movement (where I was) failed. It was heartbreaking, and to me the story of Occupy is almost a Greek tragedy, or a Wagnerian Epic. The story reads like Atlantis - we all knew the end was coming, and none of us could figure out how to avoid it.

I want to have a formal debate on the merits of nonviolent resistance, and other Occupy ideas. For example, I think Occupy should imitate the Tea Party in terms of tactics... even though demographics are probably a key factor in the success of the Tea Party.

But, I want to debate nonviolent resistance first.... and discuss it informally here. Please let me know what you think! I look forward to hearing your ideas!

=)
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2013 9:49:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Occupy movement is to the left what the Tea Party movement is to the right (or Republicans, I'm not quite sure). Both consisted of zealous morons who gave their respective movements a bad name.

In my state, they especially pissed me off, by their tactics and their hypocrisy.
My work here is, finally, done.
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2013 9:54:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I guess I better put out some definitions.

My premise is that history gives solid evidence to the effectiveness of nonviolent resistance efforts when compared to armed revolutions in obtaining political goals. This is even true when the oppressed citizens are pitted against political tyrannies with unlimited power.

I believe that nonviolent resistance movements are more likely than armed rebellions to:

-Gain legitimacy
-Attract popular support
-Attract International support
-Limit the repression of security forces
-Create loyalty conflicts within opposition hierarchies
-Require fewer participants
-Inspire fewer violent retaliations
- Win hearts and minds

I also feel that armed rebellion is much more likely to be less effective, and counterproductive.
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2013 9:56:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/8/2013 9:49:57 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
The Occupy movement is to the left what the Tea Party movement is to the right (or Republicans, I'm not quite sure). Both consisted of zealous morons who gave their respective movements a bad name.

In my state, they especially pissed me off, by their tactics and their hypocrisy.

Is it ok for me to ask what state that was? If not, that's cool.

I got frustrated, too. I was there for pacifism, action, and to try and change the world. It seemed like everyone else was there to push some doctrine, boost Ron Paul, or boost anarchism. They knew that they were supposed to "get in the way," but didn't know how to do that without - like you said - p!ssing people off.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2013 10:10:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/8/2013 9:56:45 PM, Beverlee wrote:
At 10/8/2013 9:49:57 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
The Occupy movement is to the left what the Tea Party movement is to the right (or Republicans, I'm not quite sure). Both consisted of zealous morons who gave their respective movements a bad name.

In my state, they especially pissed me off, by their tactics and their hypocrisy.

Is it ok for me to ask what state that was? If not, that's cool.

I got frustrated, too. I was there for pacifism, action, and to try and change the world. It seemed like everyone else was there to push some doctrine, boost Ron Paul, or boost anarchism. They knew that they were supposed to "get in the way," but didn't know how to do that without - like you said - p!ssing people off.

Minnesota. You could have looked at my profile, ya know ;)

Now, don't get me wrong, I didn't like Occupy, I thought they were a bit nuts (banks can't sell the mortgate?!?) and I didn't like their policies they advocated, for the most part. The group in your state (or local affiliate) may have been more down to earth.

However, what they did to piss me off was:
1. Talk about how they are for democracy and dissenting opinions, yet ban me from their Facebook page. Furthermore, upon going to their occupied plaza, I managed to find out that, even though almost everything they do is put to a vote, the mod who banned me did so unilaterally, and they have no way of knowing who it was.

2. Their tactics, while peaceful, were often disingenuous and their arguments were hypocritical. They would claim persecution, which sometimes may be true, but not most times. For example, pitching a tent in the middle of the street blocking traffic in downtown Minneapolis is not persecution; it is stupid.

Their hypocritical nature was best exemplified by being upset by the "no tent" city ordinance, most likely passed because of them. They said they had a right to be there and to sleep there, because somehow, sleep is speech. This is hypocritical because their occupying of public space directly prohibits others to use said public space. Also, if sleeping is speech, then so is buying a commercial (citizens united).

3. When I went to one of their rallies, I was approached by numerous socialist groups, who, like all advocates, couldn't answer basic questions. And, they insulted their opposition too much, IMO.
My work here is, finally, done.
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2013 10:19:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You could have looked at my profile, ya know ;)

Facepalm... No - I am still kind of a noob, sorry!

Now, don't get me wrong, I didn't like Occupy, I thought they were a bit nuts (banks can't sell the mortgate?!?) and I didn't like their policies they advocated, for the most part. The group in your state (or local affiliate) may have been more down to earth.

I wish...

However, what they did to piss me off was:
1. Talk about how they are for democracy and dissenting opinions, yet ban me from their Facebook page. Furthermore, upon going to their occupied plaza, I managed to find out that, even though almost everything they do is put to a vote, the mod who banned me did so unilaterally, and they have no way of knowing who it was.

OMG ThANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT!! I was ALWAYS on about this!! I told them it was alienating people, and limiting interest and interaction. Letting people hammer out ideas HELPS!!!

2. Their tactics, while peaceful, were often disingenuous and their arguments were hypocritical. They would claim persecution, which sometimes may be true, but not most times. For example, pitching a tent in the middle of the street blocking traffic in downtown Minneapolis is not persecution; it is stupid.

That is a fair point. They did that, too. See, they were thinking that they needed to Get in the way. That is what they were doing. (I visited the MSP group, but I wasn't impressed. I don't know anything about them, but I can bet.)


Their hypocritical nature was best exemplified by being upset by the "no tent" city ordinance, most likely passed because of them. They said they had a right to be there and to sleep there, because somehow, sleep is speech. This is hypocritical because their occupying of public space directly prohibits others to use said public space. Also, if sleeping is speech, then so is buying a commercial (citizens united).

I might can explain this. They might have meant that they had a First Amendment right to do that - because the First Amendment allows people to "peaceably assemble" and to petition for redress of grievances. It wasn't about speech, but it was about the First Amendment.


3. When I went to one of their rallies, I was approached by numerous socialist groups, who, like all advocates, couldn't answer basic questions. And, they insulted their opposition too much, IMO.

I saw a lot of that, too. Everyone wanted to imitate the wrong things that the Tea Party did - like insulting. I wanted to imitate the direct lobbying and community action.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2013 10:22:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/8/2013 9:56:45 PM, Beverlee wrote:
At 10/8/2013 9:49:57 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
The Occupy movement is to the left what the Tea Party movement is to the right (or Republicans, I'm not quite sure). Both consisted of zealous morons who gave their respective movements a bad name.

In my state, they especially pissed me off, by their tactics and their hypocrisy.

Is it ok for me to ask what state that was? If not, that's cool.

I got frustrated, too. I was there for pacifism, action, and to try and change the world. It seemed like everyone else was there to push some doctrine, boost Ron Paul, or boost anarchism. They knew that they were supposed to "get in the way," but didn't know how to do that without - like you said - p!ssing people off.

It seemed almost more like a party or a fad when I went to a rally. I didn't see many Ron Paul pushers, but I'm sure there were some who would have voted him.
Largely, they seemed unorganized and trying to do too much and have no "official leader", which subjected them to the whims of the most popular outcry by those who showed up to meetings.

The group, it seems, bailed on its high hopes and went to a more focused (and disagreeable) goal of Occupy Homes. They basically squat and refuse to leave when the sheriff or whoever forecloses on the home.

I never got a straight answer as to why any of their homes should not have been foreclosed (as in, they did in fact not make payments). As for being unfair in the treatment, like foreclosing after one missed payment (if true), that is one thing, but they seem to be saying that foreclosing is illegal and should be banned.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2013 10:31:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/8/2013 10:19:38 PM, Beverlee wrote:
You could have looked at my profile, ya know ;)

Facepalm... No - I am still kind of a noob, sorry!
It's okay. Actually, there is a ID badge type looking thing next to my name on the thread, it shows the basics of my profile (age and location, religion, party, ideology). Of course, a lot of people don't have anything listed or are lying (there's apparently a few 100 year olds on this website).

1. Talk about how they are for democracy and dissenting opinions, yet ban me from their Facebook page. Furthermore, upon going to their occupied plaza, I managed to find out that, even though almost everything they do is put to a vote, the mod who banned me did so unilaterally, and they have no way of knowing who it was.

OMG ThANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT!! I was ALWAYS on about this!! I told them it was alienating people, and limiting interest and interaction. Letting people hammer out ideas HELPS!!!

To be fair, I was constantly arguing with them about their causes and their facts. However, I did so respectfully.

Their hypocritical nature was best exemplified by being upset by the "no tent" city ordinance, most likely passed because of them. They said they had a right to be there and to sleep there, because somehow, sleep is speech. This is hypocritical because their occupying of public space directly prohibits others to use said public space. Also, if sleeping is speech, then so is buying a commercial (citizens united).

I might can explain this. They might have meant that they had a First Amendment right to do that - because the First Amendment allows people to "peaceably assemble" and to petition for redress of grievances. It wasn't about speech, but it was about the First Amendment.

I get that.
But it's still hypocritical because by them occupying the public plaza, it prohibits others from peacefully assembling as well. I can't have a rally if they are, and they never leave.

My work here is, finally, done.