A Eulogy for #Occupy

Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by Anonymous, Dec 12, 2012.

  1. anonymous612 Member

    It's obviously stupid, but what got me is the waste of time. It's like planning to start a million dollar business but spending months arguing about whether to spell it "Johnson and Sons" or "Johnson & Sons." While you're spending all this time on this HUGELY IMPORTANT AND VITAL ISSUE, you could be making millions of dollars. Or in Occupy's case, actually fucking getting off your ass and protesting something.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Anonymous Member

    Can I just say that as a lurking admirer of you on WITP, 612, the Badge avatar made me laugh so hard!!!
    You are so funny! Good trolling.
  3. Anonymous Member

    That raises some interesting rhetorical questions, like; "What does it take to build and run an Ethical Business?". Temper tantrums only get you so far.
    There was potential, but not enough thought was going on from the get go. They wanted instant results, and they wanted someone else to work for them. Very Awkward, and difficult to reconcile.
  4. Malory Member

    I checked out Occupy Belfast's Failbook and saw the only recent activity was to picket a stall selling Dead Sea Spa products because Jews.
    • Funny Funny x 3
  5. Oh hai 612, I posted breifly on witp as 'moonbat'
    A username and accompanying avatar choosen by a committe of the finest german chanologists in response to the social event that getting together to mock the moonbatiest threads en mass between working on real causes became.
    In all drink everytime somebody says cointelpro seriousness.
  6. anonymous612 Member

    I still don't know who at least half of the Chanology trolls on that site were. They just appeared from nowhere, trolled hard, and faded away into the night. How properly Anon of them.
  7. Or more facepalm worthy. Is there response to the arbitrary and restrictive system they claim to oppose.
    Is to create a new system that takes arbitrary and restrictive to boa constrictor level.

    That aint sign language. It's a hugbox expressed through the medium of interpretive dance.
    • Agree Agree x 1

  8. *cough* communism already failed *cough*
  9. grebe Member

    I don't think you can dismiss the occupiers as easily as that, unless you want to label every other chaotic effort toward a shared consensus "communism."

    To me it seemed the occupiers lacked a sense of the boundaries or rules necessary to the survival of any forum for public debate. So like a poorly moderated Internet forum the place was gradually overrun by strong willed jerks.
  10. Except in the case of occupy, the strong willed jerks were modded instead of b&
  11. Anonymous Member

  12. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    Occupy is dead now? What a non-surprise.

    What caused me to not join their plight is the simple fact that there wasn't a clear idea about how to obtain equally obscure goals. I understood the whole "We are the 99%!!!" shit, but... what did you want? Make the 1% pay more taxes? Make more jobs? Burn them at the stake? Never got a clear answer on that and never cared to look for an answer after a while...

    Then there was the mix of various ideas and people protesting for things that ranged from the valid (student loans for example) to the absolute moon bat shittiest of shit. I imagine that there was some PETA fags in the mix. I imagine there were some who were "Give us more stuff" while failing to see the irony of wearing expensive shit and chatting on the newest iPhone while drinking StarFucks coffee. Oh, and lets remember that Woodstock hippies survivors came out hoping to rekindle some long lost feeling or achieve a even longer lost dream... but in all actually just was there to get stoned or drugged into the aether like they did years ago.

    Basically: A protest dealing with a potpourri of wide ranging issues and absolute no realistic plan or idea for implementation was just too much to continue for very long and have any measurable success, if there was any to speak of.

    Now, that isn't to say OWS didn't have any success. I am sure it did. However, whatever their goal was when starting this doesn't seem like it got obtained very well.

    Now the Planners: They were an amusing little distraction, but nothing more. I just thought it was some OWS members trying to ride the coattails of WWP but with the whole "Fuck the law" angle. That alone was a cause for concern for myself. However, the sheer moon battery and just general "Three steps to change the world and we haven't thought of any of the steps yet" was just a huge fucking "Asking for it" if ever there was one.

    TL;DR of the Planners: Three steps of no plan and no substance. A website full of bizarre, unsubstantiated conspiracy theorists circle jerking. What more do you need to ridicule them?
  13. Horse shit. whiny overprivileged cunts that need to learn how to work and stop whining. Boo Hoo Life Sucks. Jesus Christ if they lived in the 30's they would have shoot themselves.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Anonymous Member

    that name makes me lol ^
    ouch my head.
  15. anon walker Moderator

    TBH, a lot of the ones here were leftover old pinkos from the 60s. Not privileged, not affluent, just rich in self-satisfied, judgmental bullshit, too busy telling everyone else how to do it right to actually have any goals in mind.

    They convinced themselves here that the homeless came to rely on them for meals. Not true, there are a dozen places downtown to get a meal; from the Sallys' vacant lot to Father Joes and many others in between.

    I wanted Citizens United overturned. Corporations are NOT people, my friend!
    I wanted attention turned on the banksters.

    What did we get? A bunch of old fucking hippies demanding attention to their causes, from homeless issues to labor. Nothing I really give a rats ass about; as there are already organizations in place addressing these things.

    Basically, they attracted a hella lot of attention, then goofed the floof and it all fell apart. The movement, however, if dissatisfied citizens can be called that, will try again. And again. At some point they might start listening to the new protest upstarts of Anonymous, who with nothing other than intelligence and computer savvy have dismantled 80%* of a destructive cult in 4 years, supported foreign dissidents with net access nodes and other shit that actually has gotten done.

    The Egyptian revolt reminded me of the Occupy and WITP in that they held a revolution with no idea what to do after Mubarak was ousted, and probably just made their situation worse. Like the Muslim Brotherhood wasn't just WAITING for something like this so they could grab power. THEY had a plan!

    The Occupiers I met, I did not like at all, so I enjoy the schadenfreude of rehashing their fail.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. Anonymous Member

    In some ways, it is almost unfortunate that people couldn't get together and have a conference to discuss these issues in an adult, moderated way, like PBS style.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Anonymous Member

    (like what you do when somebody says, "hey, i want freedom", and then you say to them, "why you are already free./?" and they say, NO, you tell me what to think and do. It's ironic, and as a part of the human condition, we all do it in different ways)
  18. Anonymous Member

    Oh wait, and...
    MY vision of freedom is the only one.
    You can be free if you do what i say.
    -that's the vibe i got from occupy fanatics, more emotion than constructive exchange of ideas, which is what i initially thought it was supposed to be about-
  19. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    It makes me cringe. God only knows where it has been and how many occupations it has.
  20. Anonymous Member


  21. Anonymous Member

  22. Anonymous Member

  23. Anonymous Member

    • Funny Funny x 1
  24. Anonymous Member Occupiers! Stop Using Consensus! Consensus process (the idea that a group must strictly adhere to a protocol where all decisions are unanimous) is the absolute worst idea that has ever been introduced to the activist community. Consensus process is the tyranny of the individual. It is the most anti-social of all processes because it allows any one person to assert irrational authority over an entire group of people and block any sort of decision making. It has nothing do with anarchism (even the IWW doesn't use consensus!) because it was invented by Quakers for religious reasons. It's stood in the way of progress, destroyed social movements, destroyed groups, destroyed communities, and relegated radicals to the fringes of American politics since the 70's when it was first popularized. Consensus process is in many ways an attempt to formalize the act of resistance, which I suspect is what makes it so popular in activist communities. Let's compare this to democracy, a system which was invented to formalize dissent. With democracy, you could fight and disagree without resorting to violence. Feathers could be ruffled, progress could be made, and life moved on according to plan. Resistance on the other hand is when you're so angry at something, that you're willing to go on a crusade and use all available means to stop that thing from happening Resistance knows no rules. It is something that should never happen, yet is the responsibility of any socially conscious individual. It's a wild beast which cannot be tamed. Now ask yourself what happens when you get a bunch of people in one room, people whose nature inclines them towards resistance, and then give them the power to resist with a simple hand gesture and a requirement that all others be subservient to their demand. You do the math. To give an example, the first time I saw a block used at Occupy was at one of the first general assemblies in August 2011. There were about a hundred people that day and in the middle of the meeting a proposal was made to join Verizon workers on the picket line as a gesture of solidarity in the hope that they might also support us in return. People loved the idea and there was quite a bit of positive energy until one woman in the crowd, busy tweeting on her phone, casually raised her hand and said, "I block that". The moderator, quite flabbergasted asked why she blocked and she explained that showing solidarity with workers would alienate the phantasm of our right-wing supporters. Discussion then abruptly ended and the meeting went on. The truth was irrelevant, popular opinion didn't matter, and solidarity—the most important of all leftist values—was thrown to the wind based on the whims of just one individual. Occupy had to find a new way to do outreach. But as bad as that sounded, it was actually one of the most graceful instances I've seen of a block being used. This is because the proposal was actually dropped as though it never happened. Things don't always go so smoothly. Blocks have a tendency to bring out the worst in people. The thing they don't tell you about consensus, is that it only works if you're willing to exclude others from it. When faced with a block, it's common for people to use psychological manipulation, threats, invent process to deny that person a vote, or even pressure them to leave the group entirely. Oftentimes when such people don't get their way, they'll leave the group themselves. Consensus invites the most awful type of conflict because there can be no agreeing to disagree. But at the same time consensus also quells the more constructive forms of dissent because most considerate and rational people aren't masochistic enough to welcome the hatred and backlash inherent in blocking a proposal. Consensus process can also be hacked. This is because it leaves too much to interpretation, doesn't actually specify procedure, and doesn't make sense! Take for instance kicking someone out of your group. Do you need consensus to kick them out? Or do you need consensus to keep them on board? Oftentimes such things aren't clear, so the system becomes ripe for manipulation and exploitation. If you ever want to be evil and push a proposal through a consensus body, just make a compelling argument that you need consensus to not pass your proposal (rather than the other way around). If that doesn't work, try writing your proposal with the opposite language and blocking it yourself. If people call you out on your shenanigans, just accuse them of being authoritarians who refuse to follow process and demand that they either step down or reach consensus on creating a rule to forbid what you’re doing. Then block that proposal too. If they tell you that you’re not allowed to block then you can always complain that true consensus cannot be reached until there’s a quorum of every single group member present. Grassroots activist groups also follow the spirit of consensus regardless of what process they use. This is because participation in occupy assemblies, working groups, and affinity groups is entirely voluntary. Generally speaking, these groups do not control any land or resources upon which their members depend, therefore making it nearly impossible to practice any real coercion. When freedom of association exists in the truest sense of the words, the act of participation in and of itself can be considered itself a form of a consent, even if decision-making power rests in the hands of the majority or an individual leader. Consensus should be reserved to teams (small groups where people work well together and trust one another) as de facto rather than official process. Many of us operate by implicit consensus without even realizing it. It’s a natural human behavior to not want to piss off and ignore other members of your team. But when the occasional irresolvable conflict arises, a majority vote isn’t the end of the world. It’s called democracy. If those conflicts happen too often, then perhaps it’s time to reconsider why you’re working with such people. When it comes to deliberative process for larger groups that can’t be considered teams, start off with what's been known to work and has stood the test of time, like Robert's Rules of Order. It’s not the ideal system to prevent all forms of hierarchy, but it’s at least been proven to work in organizing democratic assemblies that are capable of functioning. Why must we reinvent the wheel? The only clear explanation is that it’s fun to fetishize process rather than accomplishing work. There are actually people who've devoted much of their careers as activists to unnecessarily reinventing process, and for years they've been using entire activist communities as guinea pigs in their experiments. Why must we allow ourselves to be pawns in someone else's game? Our goal should be fighting power and injustice, and we should settle for no less than the best tools for the job. But we also shouldn't have to follow Robert's Rules by the book all the time. Oftentimes people will forgo formal process entirely until it's needed. It's also perfectly reasonable to borrow good ideas from other processes. One such example is the "progressive stack" which Occupy has used from its very first general assembly meeting. This means when you have a meeting and ten people want to speak at once, one person will be assigned to "take stack" by writing down the names of whoever has their hand raised. The person taking stack will then prioritize speaking order in favor of people belonging to groups whose voices have traditionally been marginalized. Examples of such groups include women, people of color, and the lgbtq community. This is great news if you're a queer trans woman of color, but not such great news for straight white middle class cis men whose voices have far too often dominated discussion. Another great tool for facilitating collective thought is the temperature check, where everyone in the room twinkles their fingersto express how favorably they feel about the topic of deliberation. But in reality, that’s just a more fabulous variation of Robert’s Rules where the chair will try to gauge support for a proposal during deliberation by asking everyone in the room to say aye / nay or give a show of hands. The only significant experimentation we should be doing with process at this time is trying to find ways to use modern technology to make democracy more democratic. For the first time in the history of civilization, we are able to scale up conversations to span the entire globe. A deliberative assembly no longer must be limited to the number of people capable of fitting in a single room. Why are we not taking advantage of this? Several attempts have been made to develop such systems, but most of the existing solutions are either shoddy, hard to use, or focus on anonymous voting rather than deliberation. These systems also do not make an effort to define the procedural conventions to govern the aspects of software use which cannot be digitized. Engineers, please start teaming up with process experts to accomplish this. To learn more about the follies of consensus, read the essays "Blocking Progress" by Howard Ryan and "Fetishizing Process" by Mark Lance.
  25. cafanon Member

    Holy shit, dude. What a wall of text. Learn to use paragraphs.
    • Like Like x 1
  26. Anonymous Member

  27. yeah, dude, except that the comments show that not everyone believes this. To say that everyone feels this way is a fox news job. You're taking one sentence and making it a statement about the whole movement which I admit is a pretty shitty movement but it still makes you at least a little deceitful if not a total asshole with no real plan other than "look at these people I can paint them all as communists and this makes me feel better because Im a piece of shit with nothing to add to the conversation." Thanks.
  28. Anonymous Member

  29. Anonymous@AnonyOps
    Things Occupy *has* done: created new breed of live-streaming media. kickstarted foreclosure defense. Gave ppl disaster recovery experience.
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Anonymous Member

    Stéphane Hessel, writer and inspiration behind Occupy movement, dies at 95

    Hessel, resistance fighter, diplomat, writer of Time for Outrage! and co-author of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, dies

    The story of the French author Stéphane Hessel's long and extraordinary life reads like a Boy's Own adventure.
    From his childhood in Berlin and then Paris, where he was brought up by his writer and translator father, journalist mother and her lover in an unusual ménage à trois, to his worldwide celebrity at the age of 93, when a political pamphlet he wrote became a bestselling publishing sensation and inspired global protest and the Occupy Wall Street movement.

    And then there was everything in between: his escape from two Nazi concentration camps where he had been tortured and sentenced to death, his escapades with the French resistance and his hand in drawing up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.

    Sometime between Tuesday and Wednesday, just a week after his last big interview was published, Hessel's long and extraordinary life came to an end. He was 95 years old, but as one French magazine remarked: "Stéphane Hessel, dead? It's hard to believe. He seemed to have become eternal, the grand and handsome old man."

    (I wonder how he would have felt about Scientology's theft of the UDHR?)
  31. Anonymous Member

  32. Anonymous Member

    Life ain't easy for a boy named Stephane.
  33. Jeff Jacobsen Member

    It’s the job of a media to tell the truth to its society, but Occupy’s homegrown media refused to tell itself the truth about what was going wrong in the camps. That let the arbiters of truth become a few young men who figured out how to stream video from their cellphones. The livestreamers got drunk off their modicum of fame, behaving as tiny entitled prophets to the movement. Their ethics were incoherent, what they filmed was arbitrary, but they mistook randomness for truth. They had just discovered documenting events, and thousands of people flocked to see them do it. But without any traditions of narrative, they didn’t see their own commentary enter the story, how every shot and angle and word overlaid was editorial.
    There was no critique in Occupy, no accountability. At first it didn’t matter, but as life grew messy and complicated, its absence became terrible. There wasn’t even a way to conceive of critique, as if the language had no words to describe the movement’s faults to itself. There was at times explicit gagging of Occupy’s media teams by the camp GA, to prevent anything that could be used to damage the movement from reaching the wider media. Self-censorship plagued those who weren’t gagged, because everyone was afraid of retaliation. No one talked about the systemic and growing abuses in the camps, or the increasingly poisonous GAs.
    Journalist Adam Rothstein showed up on the day of the first march in Portland and was there every day until their eviction, two days before Zuccotti’s. He started off with sanitation and doing the dishes, moved to media, and eventually started their paper, the Portland Occupier, independent from the GA.
    “One of the main reasons I wanted to have the PO separate from the GA, is I wanted, from the very beginning, a means within the process for booting people out. The GA had no such process,” he said.
    His original idea was to tell positive stories from the camp. He worked with media teams from Boston, LA, Chicago, and New York, and traveled to other camps to get the stories out. In time, Rothstein came to see that Occupy’s media needed to tell all the stories of what was going on: the wonderful and the terrible. By then it was too late.
  34. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    Here is my take on pretty much what happened, and if you have severe ADHD hate my "word salads", you may want to skip this post:

    The general problem with OWS wasn't it's spread of info because it had excessive amounts of info that fell into two categories by the participants:

    1) Information that most OWS participants felt was "cointelpro" or whatever fucking "they are the bad guys" moonbattery they came up with. They chose to ignore that info even if it was solid fact.


    2) They "cherry picked" info that fit their cause in a positive light and did little fact checking as to whether it was credible or ignored any "negative facts" because of reason #1.

    The biggest issue was the fact that OWS started as a protest against Wall Street, then blossomed into a cataclysmic clusterfuck of ideas and half baked plans that either didn't solidify or was so ridiculous it had to have come from a moonbat. The original idea was fine: Shame Wall Street, Get them held accountable for their parts in the Economic Meltdown under a fair and impartial investigation and/or trial.

    Then it became... Well you know the rest. It started with Hippies thinking it was Woodstock v. 2.0. Then along came moonbats thinking they were going to get some imaginary "truth" that fit their conspiracy theory. Then along came those "wanting to fight the man" and/or wanted the whole of government replaced to.... They hadn't gotten that far in thinking, planning, or even succeeding in either. However, the real tragedy was there were a few who had legitimate propositions and ideas but they were being drowned out by all the moonbats, emos, basement dwellers thinking they were making a difference by getting out of the basement, hippies, and worst of all: Those with different, but valid, ideas for the direction of OWS but weren't willing to consider other revenues or directions as they thought OWS should have existed only for their ideas alone.

    What ultimately killed OWS was, like the opinion piece said, a lack or more specifically: nonexistent, communication and organization. My thought though is that it was way much more than that. It was the fact that people thought this was some sort of "revolution" but only a revolution that met their needs and not the collective's needs. Seriously though, to call OWS a revolution would be a very big stretch as nobody wanted organization that flew in the face of their misconceptions of what was going on. Had anybody attempted to organize the entire movement, you'd get people somewhere screaming "[Insert ridiculous moonbat oppressor here]!!!1one!" and rile up other groups. Thus any attempt would be difficult or impossible to do considering the majority of who was participating even if it wasn't being done by some imaginary government group.

    There is a lot of things they could have done differently. However what they should have done is unify under one idea that was legitimate and reasonably doable. Communication? They should have done a better job but what good would that do if all the information people get is rubbish about the group in some other area's fight against using leather in shoes when you are protesting about the government denying construction of the Death Star?
  35. veravendetter Member

    EFG was never more true. I may have agreed with one guy rolling a joint in a tent getting harrassed coz his cigarette papers were government funded, but it was obvious fail from the kick-off. They made me embarrassed to wear my mask. Paroxetine said it more eloquently, but their shit was a messy soup no-one could take seriously.
    • Like Like x 1
  36. PresidentShaw Member

    • Like Like x 3
  37. veravendetter Member

  38. Jeff Jacobsen Member

    The group I watched the most was Denver. They spent SO MUCH TIME arguing minutia in the General Assemblies that it was obvious to me they'd never have any time left to actually do anything useful. In order to accommodate everybody they diluted the group's effectiveness.
  39. tektak Member

    The issue with ows IMO became a hijacked left leaning ideology, It became infected and infiltrated by statist beliefs, not too mention no clear objectives. The aggression towards people and property while protesting was disgusting and anyone who claims they are awake and support ows need to reevaluate their ideas. Its a socialist agenda.
  40. yeah, and Fox News agrees with you wholly. Congrats on that.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins