Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

OWS - Finger-Wiggling Their Way To a Better Tomorrow

1757678808187

Comments

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Feral wrote: »
    I'm just not sure it matters in the long run. Any slogan short enough to fit in a soundbite is going to be inaccurate; any description long enough to be accurate is going to get TLDR'ed. You strike a balance between brevity and accuracy and hope that the slogan catches people's attention. "We are the 99%" seems to have worked well enough for that.

    But the slogan has framed the group and the issue. There are people who could have been in the "us" category instead of the "them" category, and by drawing the lines the way they have, they have explicitly made these people enemies, and declared the success they enjoy to be unfair and exploitative. At the very least they have forced people that could have been allies to take a defensive stance and justify why they are different than the bad guys, instead of focusing on change.

    But most people aren't hung up on this semantical and metaphorical rung of the ladder and move a bit beyond it.

    Basically, you've got to be looking for reasons to dislike this movement to think that 99/1 is the problem.

    I'd be more supportive if they weren't so keen on 100% consensus, not having leadership, and letting in the nutters.

    I didn't say it's the problem. I do think that clear communication is vital, especially since the movement has been criticized from the start for not having a clear aim. This is just one facet of the larger challenge presented by the action by consensus approach the group has taken, but I think that anything which denies the movement access to people that can help it move beyond camping (such as helping with reports like he Dodd-Frank report) really hurts them.

  • HarrierHarrier Registered User regular
    I am a card carrying member of the 1% and I don't give a fuck if what they say should be personally offensive to me. They're right. They're absolutely right. My class, my upper upper class, is heinous and twisted and foul. We're overdue for being vilified because in the United States we're never vilified, even when we should be. 'Class warfare' is a conversation loser in this country when it never should have been, because class warfare has being going on since at least 1980- warfare by the upper class upon the lower and middle class.

    I've got no goddamn qualms about the people at the top being tarred and feathered. My fellow 1%ers should eagerly ally with 99%, unless they want to suffer the same fate.

    I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Harrier wrote: »
    I am a card carrying member of the 1% and I don't give a fuck if what they say should be personally offensive to me. They're right. They're absolutely right. My class, my upper upper class, is heinous and twisted and foul. We're overdue for being vilified because in the United States we're never vilified, even when we should be. 'Class warfare' is a conversation loser in this country when it never should have been, because class warfare has being going on since at least 1980- warfare by the upper class upon the lower and middle class.

    I've got no goddamn qualms about the people at the top being tarred and feathered. My fellow 1%ers should eagerly ally with 99%, unless they want to suffer the same fate.

    Do you know many people who are also in the 1% who agree? I'm curious because OWS is something I have spoken about with many of my peers who are also 1%ers, but mostly at the lower end and even if they are supportive of the ideas, almost no one acually supports the movement.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    I'm just not sure it matters in the long run. Any slogan short enough to fit in a soundbite is going to be inaccurate; any description long enough to be accurate is going to get TLDR'ed. You strike a balance between brevity and accuracy and hope that the slogan catches people's attention. "We are the 99%" seems to have worked well enough for that.

    But the slogan has framed the group and the issue. There are people who could have been in the "us" category instead of the "them" category, and by drawing the lines the way they have, they have explicitly made these people enemies, and declared the success they enjoy to be unfair and exploitative. At the very least they have forced people that could have been allies to take a defensive stance and justify why they are different than the bad guys, instead of focusing on change.

    But most people aren't hung up on this semantical and metaphorical rung of the ladder and move a bit beyond it.

    Basically, you've got to be looking for reasons to dislike this movement to think that 99/1 is the problem.

    I'd be more supportive if they weren't so keen on 100% consensus, not having leadership, and letting in the nutters.

    I didn't say it's the problem. I do think that clear communication is vital, especially since the movement has been criticized from the start for not having a clear aim. This is just one facet of the larger challenge presented by the action by consensus approach the group has taken, but I think that anything which denies the movement access to people that can help it move beyond camping (such as helping with reports like he Dodd-Frank report) really hurts them.

    It's only denying access to people who refuse to get their head out of the clouds. We've had this conversations like this before, SKFM, so I'm going to just come out and say it: one cannot plan for every eventuality. Therefore, one should plan for the majority, not the fringe BUT OMG WHAT IF cases you bring up all the time.

    Most people don't have a problem with the 99-1 imagery because it's accurate. It doesn't mean all rich people are cocks or even that everyone in the 1% should be drug out into the city square and flogged, it talks about a very real disparity between wealth and worker that is currently crippling our democracy and our economic future. If someone is so petty that they can't move beyond a catchy and effective bullet line that gets that point across they are very much part of the problem that needs to be addressed.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • DeebaserDeebaser Alpha Teemo Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    Yes, it's not like police ever lie when it benefits them.

    Quiet you! We need to always take the police at their word! If we didn't society would collapse, collapse I say! There must always be a good-off-camera-explanation for every single time the cops do something you think is bad. I don't have time to find it for you, so just believe it exists! Because man, police are good! So stop being an angry conspiracy theorist and take off the tin foil hat! They're here to serve and protect you, no matter WHAT any collection of audio/video evidence or a sordid history of court-cases says! ;p


    Remember when you were crying about the horrors of Citibank having their customers arrested for trying to close their accounts and you said pretty much the same thing?

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/20857367#Comment_20857367

    Stop falling for the same nonsense over and over.

  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    I'd be more supportive if they weren't so keen on 100% consensus, not having leadership, and letting in the nutters.

    The best thing about OWS is that they created a far-left for the USA. As it was, the right-wing voices were so loud extreme that people started thinking of a political moderate like Obama as far-left. OWS reminds people that you can be much further left than that! So they have a use even if you don't agree with them. I wouldn't go to an OWS protest, but I'm glad they exist.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I think I'm with you on this one, Badger. I don't think I'd go to a protest, but I'm glad they're turning people on to political involvement. I do wish that either their message would be co-opted by the Democrats or that they'd become more useful in Real World Political Terms (butts in seats and voters in booths), but I guess this year will tell us that.

    I will say that they need to nuke the nutters, though. If you go carrying pictures of chairman mao you're not gonna make it with anyone any how.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Remember when you were crying about the horrors of Citibank having their customers arrested for trying to close their accounts and you said pretty much the same thing?

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/20857367#Comment_20857367

    Stop falling for the same nonsense over and over.

    You mean that time where the disruptive person turned out to be an undercover cop? Where there were undercover cops waiting in the group of protestors to immediately begin arrests? Where they weren't given any time to leave the bank after being told to?! Nope, I can't say that I do! I'm too much of a police apologist to remember those sorts of situations. ;p

    Post edited by Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • DeebaserDeebaser Alpha Teemo Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Remember when you were crying about the horrors of Citibank having their customers arrested for trying to close their accounts and you said pretty much the same thing?

    http://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/20857367#Comment_20857367

    Stop falling for the same nonsense over and over.

    You mean that time where the disruptive person turned out to be an undercover cop? Where there were Undercover cops waiting in the group or protestors to immediately begin arrests? Where they weren't given any time to leave the bank after being told to?! Nope, I can't say that I do! I'm too much of a police apologist to remember those sorts of situations. ;p

    Remind me again, which one in that video of the teach-in was the "disruptive undercover cop"?

    http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/10/marshall_garrett_citibank.php
    ]We met at Washington Square Park. And we wanted to talk about, you know, entering the banks. But we made it an effort to not be violent, or extremely disruptive of the banks we were protesting. We chose to go to a Chase and a Citibank near Washington Square Park, and we were very, very careful in planning it. We talked and didn't want to create any violence, but we wanted to create a scene that would get our point across to everyone. That's what planned actions have historically been. We're a very smart, very, very peaceful group of people. We didn't want it to turn violent, or into the mass arrest which it did. We planned to stay until the moment we were told to leave or we'd be arrested, and then leave.

    So we split into two groups. I was going to go to Chase, because I have an account there and I was going to close it. Part of the planning involved closing down our accounts. But we needed more people to support the Citi action, so me and three of my friends decided to go to Citi.

    "Derp. We were pussies and didnt wanted to get arrested and didn't understand the law. It's totes unfair that you can't disrupt a business, be asked to leave, and continue to disrupt the business until the cops show up"

    One of your links was titled: "DON’T close your Citibank account today. They’re arresting people." lol

    Post edited by Deebaser on
  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    I would hope that the whole bolded, underlined links would actually get read. I suppose I had set my hopes too high in believing you'd actually take the time to read them for a proper sarcastic response. -_-;;

    Namely, the guy in glasses who talks about student loans? The one who was heralded as the pinnacle of disruptiveness in that video? Yeah, that guy, he was a cop, and there was another undercover cop by the door who immediately blocked the protester's exit after those few speeches ended. There were no threats of arrest, there was no mention of police. A bunch of protesters entered the bank, many customers, they went to close their accounts and give some very benign speechifying (the biggest of which came from an apparently undercover cop). The bank told them to leave, and moments later an undercover cop at the door blocked their exit and everyone was rounded up for arrest. Shortly thereafter? That woman in the first video was pulled back inside and arrested entirely because she was with the main group of protesters. She had not been disruptive, she was not trespassing. She was outside, after the fact, and arrested for being there.

    So yes, the event was created by the police explicitly to round up and arrest protesters as a punitive measure; considering the exact same sort of protest/account closing happened at a Chase and nobody had any problems. Funny that huh? Please try again! :D

    Post edited by Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • DeebaserDeebaser Alpha Teemo Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular

    Namely, the guy in glasses who talks about student loans? The one who was heralded as the pinnacle of disruptiveness in that video? Yeah, that guy, he was a cop

    The guy in purple?
    Bullshit.
    Prove it.

  • MillMill Registered User regular
    So since it looks like OWS is ramping up again now that the weather is getting warmer, I'm contemplating about trying to convince them to actually make use of the system to enact change. Last time around I wrote the OWS in Richmond about how they should do something more than protest, as in go out and vote. I even suggested that in cases where one couldn't support any of the choices available on the ballot, that they should take advantage of write in on VA's ballots and put OWS in instead. I explained that while protesting was well and good, most of our elected leaders wouldn't care too much if the protesters couldn't impact the election and that either voting out people most hostile to the movement's goals or getting a sizable "other" vote percentage going would motivate many of our elected officials. Needless to say they pretty much blew off the suggestion and we so how well served VA was by the low voter turn out.

    That's probably one of my biggest gripes with OWS. Yes, it's great to air your grievances but it's pretty fucking stupid to not make use of the system to get the ball rolling towards change. If people keep doing the whole circle jerk about how the system is so broken that their votes don't matter because both major parties are the same, we run the risk of ending up with a situation where it may be illegal to even protest. It's also pretty fucking stupid to let the country slide back on progress because people would rather let the crazy people run a so called "broken" system, than to try to make that system work for them.

    I'm also got irritated with the whole, "people need to stop with the whole armchair protesting and participated in our general assembly meetings" BS. At the time, even now, I just don't have the time or resources to take part in the protest and the general assembly meeting because I happen to live far away from any of the noticeable protest spots and I had other responsibilities.

  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    I had a different more positive response to putting forth the notion of getting out the vote with the Occupy groups I talked to (Nanaimo, Victoria, Vancouver) via twitter, facebook, and their website forums, the different groups have different responses, as varied as individuals before they attend their respective GAs, these aren't one cohesive inter/national group, more like ... affiliates. "We stand in support with the other groups, yadda yadda yadda..." I am in a similar situation, its a day's travel (when the car is even working) for me to go to any of these so attending the GAs is out for me as well. Perhaps you would find other like minded individuals through other means and with other Occupy groups.

    steam_sig.png
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Well I'm currently looking at doing some volunteer work for the democrats running in my area. I figure I'd have an easier time finding people who would be interested in the notion of the first step to unfucking our government is to vote out the people who want to maintain the current problems. I know the University of Mary Washington had its OWS group but personally, I don't think I could work with those 10-12 guys because they picked some really dumb things to protest about and wanted to create a human chain on I-95. o_O

    Sadly, at this point I think we're in damage control. I'll admit the dems aren't ideal and they have their issues but the GOP has lost it. So really the choice is work with the ones that are still sane despite their vaults or let the crazy party continue maintaining the problems while fucking our country over by being as regressive as possible. (if it was quicker to type GOP, might might have actually started calling them the regressives since it does start with r).

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Feral wrote: »
    I'm just not sure it matters in the long run. Any slogan short enough to fit in a soundbite is going to be inaccurate; any description long enough to be accurate is going to get TLDR'ed. You strike a balance between brevity and accuracy and hope that the slogan catches people's attention. "We are the 99%" seems to have worked well enough for that.

    But the slogan has framed the group and the issue. There are people who could have been in the "us" category instead of the "them" category, and by drawing the lines the way they have, they have explicitly made these people enemies, and declared the success they enjoy to be unfair and exploitative. At the very least they have forced people that could have been allies to take a defensive stance and justify why they are different than the bad guys, instead of focusing on change.

    But most people aren't hung up on this semantical and metaphorical rung of the ladder and move a bit beyond it.

    Basically, you've got to be looking for reasons to dislike this movement to think that 99/1 is the problem.

    I'd be more supportive if they weren't so keen on 100% consensus, not having leadership, and letting in the nutters.

    I didn't say it's the problem. I do think that clear communication is vital, especially since the movement has been criticized from the start for not having a clear aim. This is just one facet of the larger challenge presented by the action by consensus approach the group has taken, but I think that anything which denies the movement access to people that can help it move beyond camping (such as helping with reports like he Dodd-Frank report) really hurts them.

    It's only denying access to people who refuse to get their head out of the clouds. We've had this conversations like this before, SKFM, so I'm going to just come out and say it: one cannot plan for every eventuality. Therefore, one should plan for the majority, not the fringe BUT OMG WHAT IF cases you bring up all the time.

    Most people don't have a problem with the 99-1 imagery because it's accurate. It doesn't mean all rich people are cocks or even that everyone in the 1% should be drug out into the city square and flogged, it talks about a very real disparity between wealth and worker that is currently crippling our democracy and our economic future. If someone is so petty that they can't move beyond a catchy and effective bullet line that gets that point across they are very much part of the problem that needs to be addressed.

    Fair enough. I think it's interesting to think about fringe cases and extreme examples, since they can expose flaws which may not be apparent otherwise. It is also what I do for a living :)

    As a more practical concern, I think starting up the gatherings again is not helpful. OWS has already gotten all the good it can out of such things, IMO, and continued gatherings may do more harm than good, by allowing the homeless and other crazies to remain as part of the public face of the movement. Better to try new, targeted tactics, and do more in system work like the Dodd-Frank report which show cases that at least some of the movement really understands the issues.

  • VanguardVanguard The system was breaking down. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    OWS needs to continue the gatherings. It doesn't need to rebuild the camp they had in Zuccotti, but having a demonstration on the ground at any given moment is important. Otherwise, they're not much different than a left-wing special interest group.

    Seriously, part of their effectiveness is their visibility.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Well let's get serious, OWS isn't any different than a left wing special interest group. Just because many may support them, it doesn't make them any more special than any other group of citizens trying to push for change.

    If you mean that it's important for them to transcend that and actually try to affect political change, yeah I'll agree to that since something needs to be done about the way people make money in this country or we really will lose out to China, but there's nothing magical and novel about OWS.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • DeebaserDeebaser Alpha Teemo Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    edited March 2012
    The Zuccotti park camp raised awareness. Translating awareness it into action is much harder and doesn't have the same instant gratification.

    Volunteer! Challenge the party! Show up at democratic events! Fucking engage people! People can't just "raise awareness" and expect others to do the heavy lifting if they actually want change.

    Post edited by Deebaser on
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    The Zuccotti park camp raised awareness. Translating awareness it into action is much harder and doesn't have the same instant gratification.

    Volunteer! Challenge the party! Show up at democratic events! Fucking engage people! People can't just "raise awareness" and expect others to do the heavy lifting if they actually want change.

    Visibility is important, but only if you have control over the message you are displaying. The camp raised awareness when it went up, and when it grew. It even raised awareness and generated headlines by lasting longer than people expected. But the camp was also the source of all the negative press about the homeless being part of it, the crazy people with the disparate messages, and the rape accusations. I think OWS has gained about as much awareness as it can from having a standing protest, and every day the standing protest continues, it risks another negative headline like the rape thing. Now is the time to take action, and to get that action actually reported by the media (which should happen, since everyone knows what OWS is). I think OWS needs to be planning and executing discrete, varied events and actions, as a way to maintain awareness (the media won't report on day 38 of the union square rallies, but will report each of 38 varied actions, like protests in front of the banks, reports on laws OWS wants changed, advertising by OWS (it has money now), etc.), to convince people it can do more than get bodies in the room (but not in the voting booths), and to actually have a shot at changing anything.

  • hanskeyhanskey Registered User
    I think at some point a charismatic leader (or leaders) will need to arrive on the scene if OWS really wants to become a major force for change. They have a lot of work to do since a big part of their message is helping people remember that the small tyrannical fiefdoms we call employers are even less trustworthy than government. Right now people are still caught up in the world view that Reagan argued so eloquently for where government is always your enemy and as long as that persists, then OWS and movements like it will find traction difficult to come by.

  • VanguardVanguard The system was breaking down. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    It's amazing how short of an attention span people have in this thread. Our national dialogue has already changed due to them.

    We're entering an election season where a grass roots movement is still very much in the nation's political conscience. They will be active, they will be framing the conversations, and they will be getting a lot of people to participate (both for and against their agenda).

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Vanguard wrote: »
    It's amazing how short of an attention span people have in this thread. Our national dialogue has already changed due to them.

    We're entering an election season where a grass roots movement is still very much in the nation's political conscience. They will be active, they will be framing the conversations, and they will be getting a lot of people to participate (both for and against their agenda).

    Lol wut?

    No one is knocking OWS, but it isn't some super special magic time group of collective action. If they bring people out in the election, good on them, but I'm not going to let them off for some very real flaws and a very over-inflated sense of importance based on possible future action.

    I don't dislike OWS. I think they did some good, I hope they do more. But hey've got some serious organizational and message control issues (which is the natural by product of 100% consensus and being "leaderless") that they need to work on.

    Post edited by AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    It's amazing how short of an attention span people have in this thread. Our national dialogue has already changed due to them.

    We're entering an election season where a grass roots movement is still very much in the nation's political conscience. They will be active, they will be framing the conversations, and they will be getting a lot of people to participate (both for and against their agenda).

    OWS has been much more successful than I ever expected (in part because I expected total failure due to their organizational issues) but while they have definitely put income inequality on the map, I don't really see how you can attribute much else to them. If income inequality becomes a big issue in the general, then OWS will have had a strong impact in that respect, but I am pretty confident that the massive political parties with the huge war chests and access to tons of advertising and bodies on the ground will be the ones framing the issues.

  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    If income inequality becomes a big issue in the general, then OWS will have had a strong impact in that respect, but I am pretty confident that the massive political parties with the huge war chests and access to tons of advertising and bodies on the ground will be the ones framing the issues.

    It's not as simple as that. You can't simply buy votes - ask Romney. Voters are cynical about the big money politicians who are in bed with all sorts of interests, and OWS are very genuine and very earnest, and I think most people realise that, even if they do think they are a bunch of hippies. I think they even struck a chord with the baby boomers by reminding them of the idealism of their youth.

    Some of the things that OWS did that seem hamfisted and boneheaded got them a lot of publicity - the media needs a story, and by doing a bunch of sub-optimal things, they got back in the press in a way that they wouldn't have if they had done everything "right." And their slogans are very pithy and good, so when they are repeated, they stick.

  • VanguardVanguard The system was breaking down. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    It's amazing how short of an attention span people have in this thread. Our national dialogue has already changed due to them.

    We're entering an election season where a grass roots movement is still very much in the nation's political conscience. They will be active, they will be framing the conversations, and they will be getting a lot of people to participate (both for and against their agenda).

    Lol wut?

    No one is knocking OWS, but it isn't some super special magic time group of collective action. If they bring people out in the election, good on them, but I'm not going to let them off for some very real flaws and a very over-inflated sense of importance based on possible future action.

    I don't dislike OWS. I think they did some good, I hope they do more. But hey've got some serious organizational and message control issues (which is the natural by product of 100% consensus and being "leaderless") that they need to work on.

    OWS is special because it's a real grassroots movement with populist support. That doesn't happen all the time. People protest all the time, but few have the effects that OWS has had. It's indicative of something in the culture.

    I should note I'm being defensive because I think this criticism is boring and is ultimately ignorant of why OWS has been so successful. I don't see OWS getting involved any particular election or candidate or party; what I do see is them creating an air where the ordinary person feels they have more say than what the ballot allows and getting those people to participate in ways and areas they haven't prior.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Well, that's great, but people are allowed to talk about things they see wrong with OWS.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • VanguardVanguard The system was breaking down. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    I'm not saying they aren't; I'm just saying they're wrong.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    And you're welcome to your opinion. In my opinion, if OWS doesn't engage the system then all of this is a bunch of hot air.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • hanskeyhanskey Registered User
    Lack of coverage from corporate news is pretty much the reason for that. I prefer to find out about them on Facebook, because they are pretty open about how they are engaging our system.

    When was the last time you heard a TV interview with an OWS participant?

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    hanskey wrote: »
    Lack of coverage from corporate news is pretty much the reason for that. I prefer to find out about them on Facebook, because they are pretty open about how they are engaging our system.

    When was the last time you heard a TV interview with an OWS participant?

    Could you share some of what they say about engagement? I'm really curious.

  • hanskeyhanskey Registered User
    edited March 2012
    I would if I could share more than my personal impressions and recollections that engagement with interest groups of all sorts is a big issue and that, by my reading, they definitely recognize that they have an interest in bringing in more stakeholders into the overall thrust of the movement for economic justice.

    Unfortunately, I'm going to have to recommend that you check out their Facebook presence on your own, because of my employer. I'm sure that is disappointing, but my hands are tied at work, because, like many employers, mine block Facebook. However, since most of the related profiles are public, you should be able to google them up and scan through their many feeds. Their online presence is the easiest to interact with and to be participatory in for working people and I would encourage you to seek it out on your own, because it's nice to be free of the media caricatures and that way you can form your own more informed opinions.

    Edit: In fact, any person that posts in this thread, really should be following them online, or expect to have no idea what OWS is doing or what they are all about and you certainly won't know about the hundreds of other spin-off groups that participate in overall movement for economic justice along side OWS, let alone what their goals are.

    Hell, this is now a global movement with tens of thousands participating, but you'd think this is a small National protest movement if you only watch corporate media.

    Post edited by hanskey on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited March 2012
    My local OWS facebook page was fairly worthless. Though the Tampa papers covered the protests fairly well I think.

    While there was under representation on the national media stage, from my point of view there is some serious paranoia surrounding OWS, especially here at PA.

    Though if you think you can affect change by just circling around outside of the system and somehow bringing awareness without media coverage, good luck with that.

    Post edited by AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • hanskeyhanskey Registered User
    edited March 2012
    My local OWS facebook page was fairly worthless...
    I'd encourage you to not stop there, since that is just one of many, many groups attached to the economic justice movement.

    Edit: I do recognize that it is much easier to criticize and ignore than to try to participate or even get basic facts, but I'd postulate that it is worth my time, although convincing PA denizens of anything is not.

    Post edited by hanskey on
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    hanskey wrote: »
    I would if I could share more than my personal impressions and recollections that engagement with interest groups of all sorts is a big issue and that, by my reading, they definitely recognize that they have an interest in bringing in more stakeholders into the overall thrust of the movement for economic justice.

    Unfortunately, I'm going to have to recommend that you check out their Facebook presence on your own, because of my employer. I'm sure that is disappointing, but my hands are tied at work, because, like many employers, mine block Facebook. However, since most of the related profiles are public, you should be able to google them up and scan through their many feeds. Their online presence is the easiest to interact with and to be participatory in for working people and I would encourage you to seek it out on your own, because it's nice to be free of the media caricatures and that way you can form your own more informed opinions.

    Edit: In fact, any person that posts in this thread, really should be following them online, or expect to have no idea what OWS is doing or what they are all about and you certainly won't know about the hundreds of other spin-off groups that participate in overall movement for economic justice along side OWS, let alone what their goals are.

    Hell, this is now a global movement with tens of thousands participating, but you'd think this is a small National protest movement if you only watch corporate media.

    We are talking about a movement that is trying to effect change in policy, and to get the public behind it. Doesn't it make more sense to judge its effectiveness based on information that the public has ready, easy access to instead of based on less widely available information which will most likely only be possessed by people who already support OWS?

    Also, if OWS says one thing, and the entire media says another, I don't really understand why we would automatically believe OWS. Isn't the more prudent course to approach all information for both sides with skepticism?

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    hanskey wrote: »
    My local OWS facebook page was fairly worthless...
    I'd encourage you to not stop there, since that is just one of many, many groups attached to the economic justice movement.

    Edit: I do recognize that it is much easier to criticize and ignore than to try to participate or even get basic facts, but I'd postulate that it is worth my time, although convincing PA denizens of anything is not.

    I didn't stop there, as the rest of my post pointed out. I'm not anti-OWS, the reason I want to see it fix it structural and message control is because I want income inequality to be solved. But I guess it is easier to criticize and ignore that than talk about ways to work on that. I'd postulate that that would be worth anyone's time, even at PA.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • hanskeyhanskey Registered User
    edited March 2012
    hanskey wrote: »
    I would if I could share more than my personal impressions and recollections that engagement with interest groups of all sorts is a big issue and that, by my reading, they definitely recognize that they have an interest in bringing in more stakeholders into the overall thrust of the movement for economic justice.

    Unfortunately, I'm going to have to recommend that you check out their Facebook presence on your own, because of my employer. I'm sure that is disappointing, but my hands are tied at work, because, like many employers, mine block Facebook. However, since most of the related profiles are public, you should be able to google them up and scan through their many feeds. Their online presence is the easiest to interact with and to be participatory in for working people and I would encourage you to seek it out on your own, because it's nice to be free of the media caricatures and that way you can form your own more informed opinions.

    Edit: In fact, any person that posts in this thread, really should be following them online, or expect to have no idea what OWS is doing or what they are all about and you certainly won't know about the hundreds of other spin-off groups that participate in overall movement for economic justice along side OWS, let alone what their goals are.

    Hell, this is now a global movement with tens of thousands participating, but you'd think this is a small National protest movement if you only watch corporate media.

    We are talking about a movement that is trying to effect change in policy, and to get the public behind it. Doesn't it make more sense to judge its effectiveness based on information that the public has ready, easy access to instead of based on less widely available information which will most likely only be possessed by people who already support OWS?

    Also, if OWS says one thing, and the entire media says another, I don't really understand why we would automatically believe OWS. Isn't the more prudent course to approach all information for both sides with skepticism?
    Yes, be skeptical. Yes, get all the info you can. Yes, make up your own mind based on the facts available. No, the media doesn't cover many facts about OWS, and instead mainly shares the opinions of pundits which typically make no reference to verifiable fact.

    However, Facebook is not hard to use, nor would I consider things in Facebook to be hidden or "... less readily available ...", because it has far more users than corporate TV media. In fact, Facebook is constantly criticized for how easy it is to find out information about users and this remains the case for OWS and other groups involved in working toward economic justice with a Facebook presence. Naturally, some of these groups are better at social media than others.

    However, the rest of the argument makes the incorrect assumption that the media is not influenced by the corporate owners, whom we know to be obviously hostile toward the economic justice movement. Personally, I don't see how we can lay the blame of lack of coverage at the feet of OWS when those editorial decisions are made within the corporate structure of the media outfits doing the coverage, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

    Post edited by hanskey on
  • hanskeyhanskey Registered User
    edited March 2012
    hanskey wrote: »
    My local OWS facebook page was fairly worthless...
    I'd encourage you to not stop there, since that is just one of many, many groups attached to the economic justice movement.

    Edit: I do recognize that it is much easier to criticize and ignore than to try to participate or even get basic facts, but I'd postulate that it is worth my time, although convincing PA denizens of anything is not.

    I didn't stop there, as the rest of my post pointed out. I'm not anti-OWS, the reason I want to see it fix it structural and message control is because I want income inequality to be solved. But I guess it is easier to criticize and ignore that than talk about ways to work on that. I'd postulate that that would be worth anyone's time, even at PA.
    That's cool, I'm a mildly dissatisfied OWS supporter myself.

    I would simply respond that merely talking about it on PA forums will not get your message to OWS, and getting in touch directly through FB or other means could. If you want to influence political movements you actually have to participate, despite the inconvenience. :P

    Post edited by hanskey on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited March 2012
    hanskey wrote: »
    hanskey wrote: »
    My local OWS facebook page was fairly worthless...
    I'd encourage you to not stop there, since that is just one of many, many groups attached to the economic justice movement.

    Edit: I do recognize that it is much easier to criticize and ignore than to try to participate or even get basic facts, but I'd postulate that it is worth my time, although convincing PA denizens of anything is not.

    I didn't stop there, as the rest of my post pointed out. I'm not anti-OWS, the reason I want to see it fix it structural and message control is because I want income inequality to be solved. But I guess it is easier to criticize and ignore that than talk about ways to work on that. I'd postulate that that would be worth anyone's time, even at PA.
    I would simply respond that merely talking about it on PA forums will not get your message to OWS, and getting in touch directly through FB or other means could. If you want to influence political movements you actually have to participate, despite the inconvenience. :P

    Right, because having a discussion on a forum means that one would be doing nothing else. Good to know. But I would simply respond that this is exactly the point of this webzone. When I write in the primary forum or the film thread I don't expect Mitt Romney or George Lucas to read and consider my points, I do it to sound ideas out and get other points of view.

    If you're not interested in that, there's a little red X at the top of your window that you can use.

    Post edited by AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • DeebaserDeebaser Alpha Teemo Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    hanskey wrote: »
    However, Facebook is not hard to use, nor would I consider things in Facebook to be hidden or "... less readily available ...", because it has far more users than corporate TV media. In fact, Facebook is constantly criticized for how easy it is to find out information about users and this remains the case for OWS and other groups involved working toward economic justice with a Facebook presence. Naturally, some of these groups are better at social media than others.

    So....ummm....locally speaking and in your experience, how are they engaging?

Sign In or Register to comment.