|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Oct 6, 2011 21:16:11 GMT -5
It's interesting how proximity to the situation can turn protestors from "Down-trodden heroes" to "dicks" as well.
I'm pretty sure many people thought the protestors in Egypt were being dicks, too. Being loud has a lot to do with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Oct 6, 2011 21:23:30 GMT -5
I will say this: MLK, Jr. also had a "nicely dressed" thing going for his protests. Admittedly, that was still the standard of the day but it does play to the image thing. Exactly. King knew the movement was a PR battle, and he behaved accordingly. Hell, the nonviolence thing was just as much about image as it was about any ethical devotion to pacifism, if not moreso. |
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Oct 6, 2011 21:46:11 GMT -5
I will say this: MLK, Jr. also had a "nicely dressed" thing going for his protests. Admittedly, that was still the standard of the day but it does play to the image thing. Exactly. King knew the movement was a PR battle, and he behaved accordingly. Hell, the nonviolence thing was just as much about image as it was about any ethical devotion to pacifism, if not moreso. That movement had a leader. This one is cobbled together, ragtagged. |
|
|
|
Post by Tenfold_Maquette on Oct 6, 2011 21:50:37 GMT -5
I think they needed to raise a little hell just to be seen. It took all the "civil disobedience" they've engaged in up until now just to hit mainstream media. I'd hazard that if they'd just settled into a polite and well-dressed protest effort, doing their best to upset and offend no one, their efforts to unite the poor would've been swept under the rug and ignored until their members left.
|
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Oct 6, 2011 21:50:44 GMT -5
That movement had a leader. This one is cobbled together, ragtagged. Another key to the civil rights victory. So, how do we get some real leadership in this movement? I'd hazard that if they'd just settled into a polite and well-dressed protest effort, doing their best to upset and offend no one, their efforts to unite the poor would've been swept under the rug and ignored until their members left. Civil disobedience ain’t about not offending anybody. It’s about knowing who you should be offending and making sure they are the only ones getting offended. You want the folks who are in the more neutral position to wonder why the hell your opponent is getting offended. If you are obviously out of line yourself, the people you are trying to get on your side will just think you deserve whatever it is you get in return. Remember, a lot of the Civil Rights protests were largely about offending local authorities so much that the protesters would wind up in jail. But the trick was to be jailed for something as innocuous as trying to use a particular bus terminal or drinking fountain. |
|
|
|
Post by brandonl337 on Oct 6, 2011 22:03:31 GMT -5
I think they needed to raise a little hell just to be seen. It took all the "civil disobedience" they've engaged in up until now just to hit mainstream media. I'd hazard that if they'd just settled into a polite and well-dressed protest effort, doing their best to upset and offend no one, their efforts to unite the poor would've been swept under the rug and ignored until their members left. Precisely, the media will always refuse to cover a protest that is peaceful and aimed at their buddies up top. Yes occupy wall street is going to get some flak, but without the "omg drama" the media won't cover it, the protest will peter out and nothing with get done. |
|
|
|
Post by worlder on Oct 6, 2011 22:09:42 GMT -5
It also needs a small list of solid demands.
I can't recall when did the Tea Party begin sounding off a demand for lower taxes and spending, but OWS better get their list together.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Oct 6, 2011 22:21:00 GMT -5
You think the top 1% would have taken the time to work on their penmanship.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aqualung on Oct 6, 2011 22:42:40 GMT -5
Dear 1%: FUCK YOU!! YOU GO TO HELL!! YOU GO TO HELL AND YOU DIE!!! I hope you all choke on your champagne and caviar.  |
|
|
|
Post by chad sexington on Oct 7, 2011 0:38:24 GMT -5
Lol, you wish. You might be higher up the food chain, but you're still just fucking peons. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 7, 2011 1:13:04 GMT -5
It also needs a small list of solid demands. I can't recall when did the Tea Party begin sounding off a demand for lower taxes and spending, but OWS better get their list together. The Tea party's short-term goal is simple: they want no Democrats in government, only Republicans. That is also their long-term goal. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 7, 2011 1:16:46 GMT -5
I wouldn't be surprised if the "1%" in this case was the janitor taking the piss.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Oct 7, 2011 1:27:28 GMT -5
I will say this: MLK, Jr. also had a "nicely dressed" thing going for his protests. Admittedly, that was still the standard of the day but it does play to the image thing. One of the things I really hate about MLK- he deliberately played to the white double-standard. Shouting or ill-dressed black men remain socially unacceptable (while par for the norm for white men), for instance. One of the things we should take solace in- their class is moraly inferior to ours (objectively so- I can cite scholarly studies showing the poor more generous than the rich for instance). Our class does not live off the stolen wealth of others, but off actual, you know, labour. I think they needed to raise a little hell just to be seen. It took all the "civil disobedience" they've engaged in up until now just to hit mainstream media. I'd hazard that if they'd just settled into a polite and well-dressed protest effort, doing their best to upset and offend no one, their efforts to unite the poor would've been swept under the rug and ignored until their members left. Precisely, the media will always refuse to cover a protest that is peaceful and aimed at their buddies up top. They'll also cover a protest that includes so much as a dozen radicals with only those radicals, or with any counterprotesters only those counterprotesters. If there's any violence, that's all you see. If there's the slightest bit of shouting, shoving or inappropriate activity of any kind, you'll see nothing else. And you will never, NEVER get your actual argument or grievences on TV. It's almost impossible to not be condemned or ignored by the media. It's a wonderful double standard- if you're interesting, you're bad. If you're not violent, you're probably not interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Oct 7, 2011 5:16:31 GMT -5
I am all for what the wall street protesters are trying to achieve, but really, their target is wrong.
The people working in wallstreet and the financial district are pretty much peons just like the people protesting outside.
Not to mention that as long as it is legal for business to screw everyone over, then these protests mean nothing. I agree that civil disobedience and protest is necessary, but you need to target the right people. A good start would be all the buggers in congress. They are the ones that enable the business' to continue to screw everyone over. Not to mention that they allow those very same businesses to call the cops and have these protestors arrested.
On the one good side, their misguided choice of targets, does allow them a unique opportunity for media coverage. Now if only they could get a leader.
|
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Oct 7, 2011 5:25:26 GMT -5
Yes occupy wall street is going to get some flak, but without the "omg drama" the media won't cover it, the protest will peter out and nothing with get done. As opposed to them getting media coverage, eventually petering out anyway and getting nothing done? In fact, it'd be a good start to have an actual goal, which they don't, other than "Annoy a couple people richer than myself". |
|
