Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by xenubarb, Nov 30, 2011.
Kinda like "Meet a Scientologist," huh?
Ugh! Fuck these oldfarts socialist Occutards. I'm now having to deal with the same shit Xenubarb's dealing with. Talking to them is like talking to a brick wall, and God forbid if you say anything that's even remotely non-PC to their all-too-sensitive Orwellian Newspeak ears. And they have no fucking common sense to anything they say! One of them actually accused me of being elitist because I said I'd rather not eat at the restaurant owned by a racist (because why would I want to give HIM money?) than violate the constitution with, oh, you know that certain screwy clause that violates property rights in the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which is the ONLY damn part of that bill I ever disagreed with on constitutional grounds). I'm elitist because I don't want to eat at the restaurant of a racist?
Oh, it get's better!
I'm also racist for calling myself (MYSELF mind you) a mutt (which I am).
I also promote "racial terrorism" for asking them what part of the constitution allows the federal government to force Grandma Teatard to let the black man in so he can drink her pint of watered down piss (I think you can already imagine the shock and horror of them hearing THAT). Apparently, "you can't come in here" is equivalent to lynching...but only...(get this)....if your skin is black but not brown. Because apparently, these poor misunderstood "anti-war" socialist oldfarts are perfectly okay with the idea of re-electing Barack "I-can-kill-all-the-brown-people-in-the-world-I-want-and-indefinitely-detain-and-or-kill-any-U.S.-citizen-I-want" Obama.
And they still couldn't tell me where the federal government's constitutional authority comes for that one particular clause in an otherwise awesome bill. In fact, they kept pretending that question was never asked.
Gee, whodathunk? :/
The CRA of 65 destroyed private property rights, thereby making life that much harder for everyone, including blacks, who now still don't have their rights. But neither does anyone else. So a bill that says everyone should be equal mandates all of us to be equally bereft of property rights.
Dang those unintended consequences.
The Principles of 98 are must reading for anyone who wants to understand how Thomas Jefferson suggested we fight government encroachment on our rights and the dare I say it, the principles behind his ideas.
Say, did you know that according to the Constitution, the Federal Government is an agent of the States? That's where the idea of 'State's Rights' comes from. It's sort of like handing a power of attorney to a lawyer. The agent can always be fired. So how did the agent come to take over the firm? Contradictions, my dear boy, too many contradictions.
I thought the Second American Revolution (1861) pretty much resolved the issue.
Perhaps by force, but they kinda forgot to change the laws on that. Go figure.
If that was the Second American Revolution, then what the fuck does this one make?
If you were a local here, you and me would OWN these faggots, just sayin.
Well, it certainly seems that way, huh? But then we humans are contrary creatures always questioning the status quo to see if it still works.
And besides Lincoln was one of our worst ever presidents, one with this false honor about him, how he 'freed the slaves'. God I wish history wasn't taught in state run schools. Such utter bullshit force fed to our children.
What positions of power have they created for themselves that you can't bypass and ignore them?
Oh I can bypass and ignore them if I want to. I'm just not the type to cede an argument to self-righteous hypocrite moral crusaders on an ego trip.
Besides, we writers are used to pissing each other off.
I try to explain the psychological profile of a bully, how it applies to cops, and thus police brutality has more to do with perceived "weakness" (i.e., young, teen, female, an/or poor) instead of race (I grew up in a mostly white town, and we got the shit beat out of us for no reasons as well--also, black cops beat up black citizens, too, so, race-related? Not all of it), and their reply was: "Please get yourself educated."
Really? When I lived for ten fucking years up in Toledo (aka "Little Detroit"), I lived near a place lovingly referred to as "Boomtown", and no, those booms had nothing to do with economics! I don't need to be "educated" about fucking ghetto life!!!
It sounds like what happens when people without facilitation skills try to facilitate. They end up being assholes. It's not that consensus-based movements cant work face to face, but it's hard, and you have to know what you're doing. A city the size of SD should be able to do better. Plus, no one is more elitist than someone who claims to speak for everyone else (or anyone else, for that matter).
On the other hand, it does sound like you went in with an agenda...
To the OP, I recommend stop screwing around on FB, and use a special-purpose Occupy web-board like Occupy Together or The Multitude.
TT needs more faggotry and hate.
My agenda, such as it was, was based on expectations that these people would be more like anons and less like the sixties. Silly me. Who put all those old activists in charge anyway?
I expected to be able to do the same things I do here; write, video, graphic design. I reckon they think they've got it covered and don't want any more help in that area.
Sounds to me you don't know Anons very well.
I guess it depends on whether you are more concerned with the outcome or the process...
Anyway, I was actually talking to lulzgasm...
So far, they've managed to get arrested and piss everybody off. Ours are of the strident, "we know more than you" types whose causes are spread very thin.
Citizens United and Big Bank payback are two of my concerns. Not feeding the damn homeless who have numerous resources right down the street, not amnesty for illegal immigrants, not blocking off the port.
Getting money out of politics? Sure!
Making environmental destruction a crime against humanity? (well, that's just mine)
The outcome here is a bunch of tards asking for bail money. Power to the Purple!
Here's the thing about forums, anyone can jump in at any time. Funny how you occupiers are always about the controlfreakery, in fact so much time gets spent on that, little else is achieved.
Anons don't waste time arguing about political correctness, they just knuckle down and get the job done, which is what you seem not to understand. Lulzgasm had no agenda, but those dicks are wasting his/her time as well as alienating someone who could be useful to them.
Not only that, but their attitude is so counter to basic strategy 101 it'd be laugh-out-loud hilarious if it wasn't so pathetically obnoxious. They're so stuck on themselves they can't eve realize a very very important fact of reality: namely, they need us, but we don't need them at all.
edit: besides, most anons only got on board because they hated all the police brutality going on. In short, they were willing to protect the free speech of occutards despite not agreeing with some points to their message. Something tells me, the moral crusading co-opters probably wouldn't do the same for others. I could be wrong, but, I definitely have my doubts at this point.
Ah well, there's still Occupy 2.0 to look forward to.
Occupy movements are now basically anarchist fools, they think they are better than Anonymous.
There is a good reason anarchism has failed wherever it has tried to take root.
Anonymous is anarchism v2.0
Then take it over. If they're half the fools you say they are, it should be easy... or go around, either way, dont let them stop you from doing something you want to do...
If they have an official ideology and political platform, then they're not anarchists.
All the rhetoric I heard was socialist fools, not anarchist fools.
At Occupy LA, it is mainly anarchist fools.
And they want to get rid of ANY form of capitalism and money and have bartering instead.
And violent meth heads with knives are love bombed and given attention, while their victims are pressured to not speak to police as that is snitching.
Oh, and they keep pissing off anyone who wants to help...National Lawyers Guild, any union, etc because they are part of the system, man.
One guy at Occupy LA stole over $600 in bail fund money and blocked another account because he was pissed off. He also keeps filing TROs in other people's names without their knowledge being the county has named him a vexatious litigant, and then doesn't show up to the court hearing on his TRO...making OLA look stupid(er).
And they have been fighting for 2 months about what to do about the guy. The rational ones want to vote to kick him out of the GA or file a complaint. The idiot ones think he just has mental problems, and get in the face of detractors by saying he is homeless, so I suppose stealing is OK then. They are against calling the cops or social services or violent people saying they can handle it...but the can't and don't.
This is the kind of inaction that happens when everyone who starts being a leader (not attention whore) gets crapped on. Stalemates and nothing of value. And people waste time being paranoid about each other, trying to be more radical than each other, trying to solve the homeless problem, trying to talk drug addicts out of addiction, etc...rather than working in concert with groups towards the same goal, even if those other groups don't agree with OWS 100% of the time.
If they communicated like anons, with sites like this, or IRC, they would get so much more done than talking each night at a GA and waiting till something passes with 100% approval.
This totally sounds like his MO.
Occupy LA (or Boston, or wherever) has my gratitude, for keeping him the fuck away from my Internets.
Nope. Just a humble anon who didn't realize how awesome the anonymous movement was until I tried to take part in another movement. OWS is awesome in many ways, but has some maturing to do.
No no! The other guy sounds a bit like Paul Fetch, except that Fetch would have glommed control of their central bank accounts by now.
Bah, they need mid-range goals (longer than "Set up some tents, occupy shit, fuck yeah!" and shorter than "Let's eliminate poverty, hunger and bring about whirled peas!") that are do-able. And then they need to...
If they can't figure out that they need to collectively (but carefully) ban-hammer anti-social assholes (note: mental problems are never an excuse) then they've lost the game.
It sounds like if the GA can't handle something as fscking obvious as a cash and identity thief, then sensible people should consider secession from the GA to form their own confederation.
I love how you think.
Well. Now I'm "regressing social progress." And one told me to troll elsewhere. Naturally, they didn't bother to explain how I'm doing so in any exact terms.
So, I restated, in exact terms, the POINT I kept trying to make. Asked them why they couldn't show me which clause in what section of the Constitution allows for the removal of property rights, then asked if said removal for the intent of that legislation was required but unconstitutional then why wasn't a constitutional amendment pushed through first to make that clause in the bill legal. Explained how the concept of private property also applies to Personhood (after all, if they want to end Corporate Personhood, then the least they can do is understand what Personhood is) and even dropped some dox for them to help them "educate me" on their side of the argument (i.e. a link to the constitution, and a .gov link to law definitions of property and personhood). Hell, I already know which points they can use for their side (so much for me being "uneducated").
I decided to refrain from adding this:
Although, I was sorely tempted merely for the sake of Lulz.
Oh, and refrained from this too, but only because I wasn't in the mood to start hearing shouts of "Uncle Tom!" that I knew would come:
I'm not even going to bother learning what their replies are
^That, just so I can do a double-post and derail at the same time. After all, the mods gotta earn their mod trophies.
Note the GF mask on the drum set. hehehehehe.
It appears the Occupy Mission Beach idea has been killed by the assholes and leaderfags downtown. The original idea was to reach out to the MB community and provide them an avenue for involvement, as downtown is a pain, parking is a pain, everything is a pain it the ass downtown coupled with a hassle.
So why not get the suburbanites to show up at the MB park, where there's lots of parking, flat walkways for the elderly and impaired, lots of cement tables to gather around, and plenty of shade trees.
Every meeting, some assbites from downtown would show up and hijack the meeting into a discussion of how to Occupy Mission Bay Park with tents. Every meeting wound up covering the same ground and accomplishing nothing, so I quit wasting time with it. And got called "elitist," who don't want to see the homeless or someshit.
We got 1200 homeless people living in an encampment or six in the Mission Valley riverbed. Seriously, we don't need to go downtown to see theirs, we share our neighborhoods with them too.
Something about that doesn't sound right to me. Why do you need anyone's permission to set up a group of your own? Occupy is officially leaderless. Just do it. Create your own GA, organize your own members, solicit your own budget. Let them be what they are, and ignore them.
Label them "outsiders" and arrange a moderator who'll reign them in.
Yeah. The GA system that Occupy uses is definitely a work in progress. I wonder if the 15M movement in Spain had any similar problems? Considering that that's where the Occupiers adopted the system from.
It goes back farther than that: http://www.zcommunications.org/anar...-of-the-twenty-first-century-by-david-graeber
"...Actually, even calling these forms "new" is a little bit deceptive. One of the main inspirations for the new generation of anarchists are the Zapatista autonomous municipalities of Chiapas, based in Tzeltal or Tojolobal-speaking communities who have been using consensus process for thousands of years-only now adopted by revolutionaries to ensure that women and younger people have an equal voice. In North America, "consensus process" emerged more than anything else from the feminist movement in the '70s, as part of a broad backlash against the macho style of leadership typical of the '60s New Left. The idea of consensus itself was borrowed from the Quakers, who again, claim to have been inspired by the Six Nations and other Native American practices...."
This is interesting. I got an email today with the usual updates, and this:
Heh heh...outside the OSD GA, lol.
Sounds like something that will get you seats next to the 400 that were arrested in Oakland.
Nah, these are the people who DON'T want that. Why they're circumventing the GA, which thinks you're not a real activist unless you're living in solidarity with them in a fucking dome tent, hiding your shit from the bums and tweakers invited into the camp area.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!