Right, that's what civil disobedience is all about. But if you are going to do that, then it is really stupid to be outraged when the police tell you you are violating the law.
The people who were chanting things like "This is our home" are the problem. They have no right to live in the park. Occupying it was supposed to be an act of CD that made a point. Yet they are acting as though they are somehow entitled to live in tents in a park as a matter of course.
Where does it say that people were chanting things like that? I didn't see it in the NPR article I posted earlier, but I've been busy today and haven't really been able to take a look again.
Right, that's what civil disobedience is all about. But if you are going to do that, then it is really stupid to be outraged when the police tell you you are violating the law.
The people who were chanting things like "This is our home" are the problem. They have no right to live in the park. Occupying it was supposed to be an act of CD that made a point. Yet they are acting as though they are somehow entitled to live in tents in a park as a matter of course.
Where does it say that people were chanting things like that? I didn't see it in the NPR article I posted earlier, but I've been busy today and haven't really been able to take a look again.
You hear it a lot on the live feeds along with several other things that aren't helping the cause
Where does it say that people were chanting things like that? I didn't see it in the NPR article I posted earlier, but I've been busy today and haven't really been able to take a look again.
"The protesters, about 200 of whom have been staying in the park overnight, initially resisted with chants of “Whose park? Our park!” "
"The operation to clear the park had begun near the Brooklyn Bridge, where the police gathered before riding in vans to the block-square park. As they did, dozens of protesters linked arms and shouted “No retreat, no surrender,” “This is our home” and “Barricade!” "
Oh yeah, so the protesters got a Temporary Restraining Order this morning which is WHY the police stopped letting them back into the park. It was to deal with the legal action.
And here's what the judge said:
A state Supreme Court judge upheld the city's right to enforce rules that bar the Occupy Wall Street protesters from camping at Zuccotti Park.
The judge, Michael D. Stallman, wrote in his ruling Tuesday afternoon, "The court is mindful of movants' First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and peaceable assembly." But he added, quoting from another case, "Even protected speech is not equally permissible in all places and at all times." He said that the protesters "had not demonstrated that the rules adopted by the owners of the property, concededly after the demonstrations began, are not reasonable time place and manner restrictions permitted under the First Amendment."
Yeah, I'm in the "if you engage in civil disobedience, expect to get arrested" camp. It's part of the point - you tire "The Man" out and strain the system until you provoke change.
They should've enforced the rules consistently from the start.
I'm torn about so many aspects of this whole affair. I'm going to continue to reserve judgment, though I still agree with the core message.
The majority of corporations are fine. Most small businesses in America are corporations! It is the few bad apples acting like asshats that give the rest a bad name. Sort of like Christians. Or Police. Or Occupy Wall Street Protestors.
It just so happens that large, profitable corporations acting like dicks disproportionately affect us. And Congress.
I really like that poster. I don't really understand what they're trying to do, though occupying the subways sounds like a really stupid and annoying idea.
Occupying subways is probably counterproductive. I think it's evidence some people are starting to lose patience. staging sit ins to shut down transportation is still relatively tame though. If populist rage truly gets to be too much and there seems to be no redress, then you start getting a more Jacobin mindset, and best that be avoided at all cost.
The comparison to Tiananmen Square is utterly ridiculous. Seriously guys, you're not helping.
I like that in a poster about "Reclaiming the economy" the figure in front is carrying plastic bags as if he just finished shopping at Urban Outfitters
I think that graphic artists just get overly excited about this sort of thing because it gives them an excuse to imitate cool old Soviet propaganda posters, and sometimes they get carried away. I'd do the same thing if I was a graphic artist.
Oh man, if they try to shut down the subways I will be pissed. They are not hurting the 1%, because the 1% takes their cars to work. They are directly hurting and annoying me. I am aware of them, I am aware of their message. I am quite sympathetic to it! However, if a movement repeatedly blocks me in my daily life, I will sour on it, no question. Not their original ideals, but the movement itself.
Isn't that the whole point of a protest? To piss EVERYONE off? Especially those, like you, who support their cause but do nothing about it? If they piss enough people off, people will start demanding that their grievances be address so they can get on with their lives again.
Isn't that the whole point of a protest? To piss EVERYONE off? Especially those, like you, who support their cause but do nothing about it? If they piss enough people off, people will start demanding that their grievances be address so they can get on with their lives again.
Except that instead of joining or sympathizing more, they'll want the protest gone because now they're bothering the wrong people.
Isn't that the whole point of a protest? To piss EVERYONE off? Especially those, like you, who support their cause but do nothing about it? If they piss enough people off, people will start demanding that their grievances be address so they can get on with their lives again.
This is not supposed to be a comfortable process.
Who says we're doing nothing about it? I went to law school to attempt to affect some change. I feel like that puts me in a significantly better position to do something than standing in a park for a few months.
See, but the grievance they cause is completely different than the grievance they (and I, myself) want to address. If the grievance becomes that they are getting in the way of transportation, they become a problem too. Now I have two problems: Corporate ties to government and lack of regulation adversely affecting the economy, and PEOPLE BLOCKING THE SUBWAY. Now my life is just worse. Can't I do something to mitigate and fight against the first problem without making things miserable for the common man?
Isn't that the whole point of a protest? To piss EVERYONE off? Especially those, like you, who support their cause but do nothing about it? If they piss enough people off, people will start demanding that their grievances be address so they can get on with their lives again.
This is not supposed to be a comfortable process.
I am so sick of this accusation that I do nothing because I am not out in the park! I engage in political activism on a regular basis! I write my senators and representatives, I have even helped, along with my mom, state senatorial campaigns before. I was fairly vocal about the gay marriage vote, for example. Just because I don't want to be loud in a park doesn't mean I am apathetic.
Isn't that the whole point of a protest? To piss EVERYONE off? Especially those, like you, who support their cause but do nothing about it? If they piss enough people off, people will start demanding that their grievances be address so they can get on with their lives again.
This is not supposed to be a comfortable process.
No, the point of a protest is not to piss everyone off. The point of a protest is to make a stand, piss of a select group, and garner support in doing so.
It's not a sprint. The problem with the Occupy Movement is that the protesters will begin to overstay their welcome. Instead, they disperse for now, and come back in a month and do it again. Then disperse and do it again. And again. And again. And again. That's how societal change is generally affected - with a pervasive and consistent movement.
The problem, I think, is that we're increasingly a generation that demands instant gratification. Not everything works that way. You can't sit in a park and demand change. Sit in parks everywhere, day in and day out, for a decade. Then, people will actually take notice.
Well, another part of the problem is that they aren't demanding a specific change. They are sitting in a park yelling "Shit be fucked up, yo!" Many of them have different views on what needs to change. Many of them don't even know what they want to change.
Well, another part of the problem is that they aren't demanding a specific change. They are sitting in a park yelling "Shit be fucked up, yo!" Many of them have different views on what needs to change. Many of them don't even know what they want to change.
They probably want change from the vending machine.
Pete, if they stagger protests, they'll fall victim to the law of diminishing returns.
Oh right, because it totally didn't work for the civil rights movement.
Sit-ins worked because they kept coming back. No matter what, they kept coming back. And every time the protesters were removed, they left, and then they came back.
A single, protracted protest gives the impression that a very specific population is upset. But if you have frequent protests over a period of time, it gives the impression that everyone is upset. It's a matter of the presentation of the problem.
It's all advertising - advertising works because it is pervasive in a way that you can't necessarily point to and say "AHA! That's advertising." And it doesn't go away.
The civil rights movement was slightly different, in that it was about the rights of a class of people who could not change the color of their skin. Meanwhile, occupiers can change their social and economic stations. They aren't fighting something that is intrinsic to their identities. It's not about prejudice.
Second, the civil rights movement had a clear set of well-defined objectives toward which the nation could be either pro or con. The occupy movement has no black or white (pardon the pun) set of criteria for "winning" the day. Ask the average American what protesters want, and you will get a very fractured response, and likely a less-than-accurate one (not to mention politically amped).
Comments
"The protesters, about 200 of whom have been staying in the park overnight, initially resisted with chants of “Whose park? Our park!” "
"The operation to clear the park had begun near the Brooklyn Bridge, where the police gathered before riding in vans to the block-square park. As they did, dozens of protesters linked arms and shouted “No retreat, no surrender,” “This is our home” and “Barricade!” "
Oh yeah, so the protesters got a Temporary Restraining Order this morning which is WHY the police stopped letting them back into the park. It was to deal with the legal action.
And here's what the judge said:
They should've enforced the rules consistently from the start.
I'm torn about so many aspects of this whole affair. I'm going to continue to reserve judgment, though I still agree with the core message.
It just so happens that large, profitable corporations acting like dicks disproportionately affect us. And Congress.
Fuck everything about this idea.
Would you like to elaborate?
http://imgur.com/W8fhA.png
This is not supposed to be a comfortable process.
No wonder you are losing.
It's not a sprint. The problem with the Occupy Movement is that the protesters will begin to overstay their welcome. Instead, they disperse for now, and come back in a month and do it again. Then disperse and do it again. And again. And again. And again. That's how societal change is generally affected - with a pervasive and consistent movement.
The problem, I think, is that we're increasingly a generation that demands instant gratification. Not everything works that way. You can't sit in a park and demand change. Sit in parks everywhere, day in and day out, for a decade. Then, people will actually take notice.
Or sack up and just riot.
I actually quite liked Ampersand's quip in the Starbucks thread -- Occupy Bathrooms would do far more damage to corporate targets than Occupy Subways.
Sit-ins worked because they kept coming back. No matter what, they kept coming back. And every time the protesters were removed, they left, and then they came back.
A single, protracted protest gives the impression that a very specific population is upset. But if you have frequent protests over a period of time, it gives the impression that everyone is upset. It's a matter of the presentation of the problem.
It's all advertising - advertising works because it is pervasive in a way that you can't necessarily point to and say "AHA! That's advertising." And it doesn't go away.
Second, the civil rights movement had a clear set of well-defined objectives toward which the nation could be either pro or con. The occupy movement has no black or white (pardon the pun) set of criteria for "winning" the day. Ask the average American what protesters want, and you will get a very fractured response, and likely a less-than-accurate one (not to mention politically amped).
I think the comparison is an especially poor one.