Just polled all my tech co-workers. Five out of five are relatively sympathetic to the protests and five out of five agree you don't fuck with the trains.
Again, doesn't that prove that fucking with the trains would be an effective strategy?
Protest has to hurt. If protest does not hurt, then what is the point of the protest? You might as well lock OWS people up in "free speech zones" out of the way where they can be ignored.
For that matter, if something is not worth causing some sort of mass disruption, is it a worthy cause at all?
Just polled all my tech co-workers. Five out of five are relatively sympathetic to the protests and five out of five agree you don't fuck with the trains.
Again, doesn't that prove that fucking with the trains would be an effective strategy?
Protest has to hurt. If protest does not hurt, then what is the point of the protest? You might as well lock OWS people up in "free speech zones" out of the way where they can be ignored.
For that matter, if something is not worth causing some sort of mass disruption, is it a worthy cause at all?
If you can't get people to support your movement without ruining someone's day is it worth being a part of?
Just polled all my tech co-workers. Five out of five are relatively sympathetic to the protests and five out of five agree you don't fuck with the trains.
Again, doesn't that prove that fucking with the trains would be an effective strategy?
Protest has to hurt. If protest does not hurt, then what is the point of the protest? You might as well lock OWS people up in "free speech zones" out of the way where they can be ignored.
For that matter, if something is not worth causing some sort of mass disruption, is it a worthy cause at all?
So you're driving home from work today. There's huge traffic. Apparently some guys turned their car sideways and blocked the road. You can't go forward or back. You're stuck. Sounds to me like you're going to cheer them on and maybe even refuse to move your own car after they finally tow the other guy away, right?
Me? No. But I'm not the end they're looking for. This is advertising for them. This is a stunt. What I think is irrelevant compared to the impact of the advertising.
Think of all the inconvenience the public has already endured because of OWS. You were in a bank and a bunch of smelly punks were sitting in and preventing you from getting your withdrawal. You had a meeting at Chicago city hall, but couldn't get there because of the OWS protesters blocking the entrance. You couldn't cross the Brooklyn Bridge because protesters were spanned across its mouth.
The few local people who are negatively impacted by demonstrations are nothing compared to the sympathy curried by the masses across the country. And those casualties are nothing compared to the sweat OWS wants to cause on the brows of politicians.
A successful movement is larger than the mere inconveniences it causes to a few locals.
The few local people who are negatively impacted by demonstrations are nothing compared to the sympathy curried by the masses across the country.
Disrupting the 456 line in New York severely impacts not a few people. Some 1.3 million people use just that one line every day. That's more than the combined ridership of San Francisco and Boston's entire transit systems per Wikipedia, just on ONE line.
The system is the only realistic means for the 22 million or so people here to get to work, school, or medical facilities. A small disruption cascades rapidly. It's a literal disaster if the transit system here fails.
If OWS tried to disrupt it, they might well be attacked by bystanders. They'd be lucky if arrest was the only thing that happened to them. Public opinion would demand immediate harsh crackdowns on the entire movement, and it would be swept from the streets before you could blink. OWS would cease to exist as a force in New York.
A successful movement is larger than the mere inconveniences it causes to a few locals.
What movement? I see general unrest and vague, often contradictory goals. What do you honestly expect ANYONE to do after seeing the news of millions of New Yorkers lives disrupted by a movement with no stated goals?
And those casualties are nothing compared to the sweat OWS wants to cause on the brows of politicians.
Are you kidding? No politician gives one shit about them unless they can co-opt them into being a vote-factory. OWS, in actually disrupting the transit system, would be galvanizing the right while simultaneously alienating moderates, undecideds, and anyone in New York.
My favorite fighting is when people put messages in art to win the minds of the public.
I do not live in NYC. I just think that deriding them for doing a sit-in is not really the right attitude. Also, attacking me for my action or lack thereof is besides the point.
But that's exactly what you were doing to me! I was just asking if you had any ideas that were productive.
Disrupting the 456 line in New York severely impacts not a few people. Some 1.3 million people use just that one line every day.
Whoopti-shit. Meanwhile, 300 million people across the nation are getting a message blasted at them, the movement has spread to a dozen other domestic cities, and it's causing more sympathy and unrest worldwide. It's elicited response from the White House and is becoming an issue in the 2012 presidential race. From a marketing perspective, pissing off 1.3 million customers in order to get your brand in front of hundreds of millions of potential customers is a good idea.
What movement? I see general unrest and vague, often contradictory goals. What do you honestly expect ANYONE to do after seeing the news of millions of New Yorkers lives disrupted by a movement with no stated goals?
Again, I'm not betting any money on the movement's efficacy. I think the rich have too much sway in this nation for any disorganized grassroots movement to make a difference. However, again, from a marketing stance, were I in charge of the movement, I'd be willing to sacrifice some goodwill from the populace of New York in a bid -- a risky bid! -- to win sympathy from new "customers" elsewhere. This is a public opinion war, and the opinion of New Yorkers won't be enough to win it. To find any measure of success, OWS will have to win sympathy from swing voters in the middle states. And that will take a big splash.
Also, let's face it -- those in NYC who are sympathetic politically to OWS's message, however disorganized and vague, will probably not move significantly to the right if subways are disrupted. These sit-ins aren't going to transform Dems into Reps, so that mitigates the risk.
Disrupting the 456 line in New York severely impacts not a few people. Some 1.3 million people use just that one line every day.
Whoopti-shit. Meanwhile, 300 million people across the nation are getting a message blasted at them, the movement has spread to a dozen other domestic cities, and it's causing more sympathy and unrest worldwide. It's elicited response from the White House and is becoming an issue in the 2012 presidential race. From a marketing perspective, pissing off 1.3 million customers in order to get your brand in front of hundreds of millions of potential customers is a good idea.
What movement? I see general unrest and vague, often contradictory goals. What do you honestly expect ANYONE to do after seeing the news of millions of New Yorkers lives disrupted by a movement with no stated goals?
Again, I'm not betting any money on the movement's efficacy. I think the rich have too much sway in this nation for any disorganized grassroots movement to make a difference. However, again, from a marketing stance, were I in charge of the movement, I'd be willing to sacrifice some goodwill from the populace of New York in a bid -- a risky bid! -- to win sympathy from new "customers" elsewhere. This is a public opinion war, and the opinion of New Yorkers won't be enough to win it. To find any measure of success, OWS will have to win sympathy from swing voters in the middle states. And that will take a big splash.
Also, let's face it -- those in NYC who are sympathetic politically to OWS's message, however disorganized and vague, will probably not move significantly to the right if subways are disrupted. These sit-ins aren't going to transform Dems into Reps, so that mitigates the risk.
Why would you think this would sway people for OWS? What message does it send? People will see a small group destroying the country's economy for a day because they are unhappy. I can't imagine anyone who would change their opinion to positive over a stunt like this.
People will see a small group destroying the country's economy for a day because they are unhappy. I can't imagine anyone who would change their opinion to positive over a stunt like this.
I hardly think anyone (except maybe the stupidest, most-right-leading morons) thinks that OWS are "destroying the nation's economy." I mean, things were pretty well in the shitter a few... you know... years before OWS started. And people already have identified with the movement because of OWS stunts. That's why there is an Occupy Chicago and an Occupy Oakland and an Occupy Your Mom's House. Clearly the message has some sway, and clearly OWS has to continue adding energy to the equation in order to maintain intertia. If they don't continue stunts, the movement (such as it is) will die.
Anyone who thinks they need a leader is someone who is of the old way of thinking. Does the Internet have a leader? It's the single largest most important organization in the entire history of humanity. It has worked perfectly well for many years now without any leadership. There are organizations that govern individual systems, such as DNS, but there is no overarching leadership. Just like OWS has someone who runs the library, but nobody who runs the whole show.
A country consisting only of "our people" I honestly believe would require no single central authority. It will definitely lack efficiency with our current level of technology. That lack of efficiency matters a lot more in the real world than on the Internet, thanks to Moore's law. It may even lack so much efficiency as to be infeasible at the present time. But regardless of feasibility or practicality, it is perhaps the only structure that can accommodate our future generations. They may feel that any centralized power structure whatsoever is tyrannical, no matter how it rules.
Maybe it's old-fashioned, but the entirety of history disagrees with you. So does every other observable population of pack animals. Someone somewhere is in charge for some reason. I mean, fuck, taking charge happens in day-to-day situations in small ways. Group is indecisive? Someone takes charge and makes a decision.
Changing the way we've approached leadership is probably a good goal. Abandoning the concept of leadership entirely? I think you're fucking crazy.
People will see a small group destroying the country's economy for a day because they are unhappy. I can't imagine anyone who would change their opinion to positive over a stunt like this.
I hardly think anyone (except maybe the stupidest, most-right-leading morons) thinks that OWS are "destroying the nation's economy." I mean, things were pretty well in the shitter a few... you know... years before OWS started. And people already have identified with the movement because of OWS stunts. That's why there is an Occupy Chicago and an Occupy Oakland and an Occupy Your Mom's House. Clearly the message has some sway, and clearly OWS has to continue adding energy to the equation in order to maintain intertia. If they don't continue stunts, the movement (such as it is) will die.
I mean specificly shutting down the subway would have an economic impact on the country. I also doubt that any of the occupy francises were because of "stunts" they pulled. If a movement needs to keep one uping and pulling stunts I'm pretty sure it means that the message has no weight to support itself.
How about we talk about some shit that actually will fuck up the economy, like how the Super Committee will more than likely fail to make the required cuts and cause an automatic self-destruct?
How about we talk about some shit that actually will fuck up the economy, like how the Super Committee will more than likely fail to make the required cuts and cause an automatic self-destruct?
But I was told we could cut our way to prosperity.
"About 700 protesters started a march from City Hall to the bridge over 30th Street to show their anger with the conditions of local bridges, and people should be put to work fixing them." Again, Occupy Philly is very vocal about why it does what it does :-p
"About 700 protesters started a march from City Hall to the bridge over 30th Street to show their anger with the conditions of local bridges, and people should be put to work fixing them." Again, Occupy Philly is very vocal about why it does what it does :-p
Pete, why do you keep bolding words? It doesn't make you more persuasive.
I try to replicate my in-person diction patterns in text. Yes, I would have bolded those words in normal conversation.
Also this:
I like using italics and bold because they inject a weight that is usually lacking in print. It humanizes the conversation.
How about we talk about some shit that actually will fuck up the economy, like how the Super Committee will more than likely fail to make the required cuts and cause an automatic self-destruct?
You're probably right. Nobody is really willing to make any meaningful cuts in government spending - it's impractical anyhow. It makes far more sense to pursue revenue-generating endeavors.
Anyone who thinks they need a leader is someone who is of the old way of thinking. Does the Internet have a leader? It's the single largest most important organization in the entire history of humanity. It has worked perfectly well for many years now without any leadership. There are organizations that govern individual systems, such as DNS, but there is no overarching leadership. Just like OWS has someone who runs the library, but nobody who runs the whole show.
A country consisting only of "our people" I honestly believe would require no single central authority. It will definitely lack efficiency with our current level of technology. That lack of efficiency matters a lot more in the real world than on the Internet, thanks to Moore's law. It may even lack so much efficiency as to be infeasible at the present time. But regardless of feasibility or practicality, it is perhaps the only structure that can accommodate our future generations. They may feel that any centralized power structure whatsoever is tyrannical, no matter how it rules.
Maybe it's old-fashioned, but the entirety of history disagrees with you. So does every other observable population of pack animals. Someone somewhere is in charge for some reason. I mean, fuck, taking charge happens in day-to-day situations in small ways. Group is indecisive? Someone takes charge and makes a decision.
Changing the way we've approached leadership is probably a good goal. Abandoning the concept of leadership entirely? I think you're fucking crazy.
I fully recognize that. But never before in history has the Internet existed. Most likely it will not be a real change. But I hope, and fight for, the real but improbable chance that yes we are truly at the dawn of a new era.
For all of history's repeating itself there have been big changes. When we invented reading and writing, big change. When the populace gained the ability to read and write, another big change. When the printing press allowed the elite to broadcast, yet another big change. The camera, telegraph, radio, television, all brought about major social changes. Now that the masses have the ability to broadcast it is happening yet again. Only the ability for anyone to share information with anyone on the entire planet is so great, that it will dwarf even the revolution brought about by radio or television.
Less than 200 years ago the elite could print and distribute to the local area while the masses could read and not distribute widely at all. Now anyone on earth can create and distribute text, audio, and/or video to anyone else. The only power retained by the elite is the ability to program while the masses are mere users. When the masses learn to program it will be another revolution as large as when literacy was no longer restricted to nobles and clergy.
All previous information dissemination technologies in human history have been top down. The wise village elder remembers the stories. The religious figure is the only one who can read the holy book to you. The rich guy is the only one who can afford printing, radio towers, television satellites, etc. For the first time ever our information sharing structure is not top down. It may very well be different this time. The man has been half defeated. His information monopoly is lost. When he loses the monopoly of physical resources, his downfall will be complete. Makerbot exists now. We may see it happen late in our lifetimes.
And again, we really can't lose in the long run unless they invent immortality too soon.
I had a thought this morning - certainly a dangerous prospect - while in the shower.
As I said, I like the "distributed culture" line that has been coming out of some Occupy-related people. It really does sum up the culture class succinctly. I've also seen a meme floating around among some friends of mine, that essentially says "if you want to stick it to the 1%, buy small and local."
I'm not sure how much I necessarily agree with that sentiment, but it's an interesting one and perhaps an idea worth pursuing.
So that got me really thinking about the "distributed culture" idea - if the problem really is the widespread consolidation, then one potential fix is to get the government into the business of supporting self-starters.
We already have programs to get funding to existing businesses, and certain population segments can get various types of government funding and assistance - NSF grants, farm assistance, those sorts of things - but how about a federal program that gives low-interest loans to people aiming to start small businesses or other forms of self-employment?
I believe things like that are already in place, but they're highly competitive, largely implemented by the private sector, and not widespread. If we start expanding these programs and decouple them from private sector administration, I could see it stimulating the growth of a self-employed class.
Distributed culture isn't about lots of local things or small things. It's about the entire earth being one. The singularity, instrumentation. You should know this stuff!
Distributed culture isn't about lots of local things or small things. It's about the entire earth being one. The singularity, instrumentation. You should know this stuff!
Distributed-cooperative doesn't have to mean that everyone is part of one culture. It can manifest as cooperative microcosms under a single cultural umbrella.
We're all geeks, but we're all different kinds of geeks, each with a slightly different flavor. But we all speak the same language.
So yes, it can be all manner of small and local things, all of which are still connected together. Ultimately, it winds up being the same thing.
Regarding the shutting down of subways, over here in Seattle OWS protesters blocked off a busy bridge for an hour or so yesterday. What did it accomplish? Created a lot of pissed off people.
Instead of doing whatever gets attention, do a positive thing. If you can get 1000 people together, you can do something good instead of something disruptive. It can even be good and illegal simultaneously.
Here are just some quick ideas.
You can go to a bad neighborhood with power washers and clean the fuck out of it.
Go to the park and setup a huge dance party for everybody.
Real world denial of service! Bombard a charity with simultaneous physical donations. Go to some bodega and buy literally everything (except tobacco, alcohol, and lottery tickets).
Everyone can find a tourist and be their personal tour guide for a day. Give them the real deal.
At the very least make art or do performance art. Here's one I thought of. Everyone make a condolences card for America, freedom, justice, or something else which is dead. Everyone dress for a funeral. Make a huge long line, that is not blocking any sidewalks or streets or anything. Just one long coordinated single file line. You can line up at City Hall, the stock exchange, the court house, the police station, or whatever. Everyone walk slowly, leave their card, candle, and/or flowers at the entrance and move on very slowly one at a time over the course of many hours. Cry and put on an act if you want. At the end there will be a gigantic pile. Imagine if they came up with a new clever idea like this every single day. Even every other day.
Comments
Protest has to hurt. If protest does not hurt, then what is the point of the protest? You might as well lock OWS people up in "free speech zones" out of the way where they can be ignored.
For that matter, if something is not worth causing some sort of mass disruption, is it a worthy cause at all?
Think of all the inconvenience the public has already endured because of OWS. You were in a bank and a bunch of smelly punks were sitting in and preventing you from getting your withdrawal. You had a meeting at Chicago city hall, but couldn't get there because of the OWS protesters blocking the entrance. You couldn't cross the Brooklyn Bridge because protesters were spanned across its mouth.
The few local people who are negatively impacted by demonstrations are nothing compared to the sympathy curried by the masses across the country. And those casualties are nothing compared to the sweat OWS wants to cause on the brows of politicians.
A successful movement is larger than the mere inconveniences it causes to a few locals.
The system is the only realistic means for the 22 million or so people here to get to work, school, or medical facilities. A small disruption cascades rapidly. It's a literal disaster if the transit system here fails.
If OWS tried to disrupt it, they might well be attacked by bystanders. They'd be lucky if arrest was the only thing that happened to them. Public opinion would demand immediate harsh crackdowns on the entire movement, and it would be swept from the streets before you could blink. OWS would cease to exist as a force in New York. What movement? I see general unrest and vague, often contradictory goals. What do you honestly expect ANYONE to do after seeing the news of millions of New Yorkers lives disrupted by a movement with no stated goals? Are you kidding? No politician gives one shit about them unless they can co-opt them into being a vote-factory. OWS, in actually disrupting the transit system, would be galvanizing the right while simultaneously alienating moderates, undecideds, and anyone in New York.
Also, let's face it -- those in NYC who are sympathetic politically to OWS's message, however disorganized and vague, will probably not move significantly to the right if subways are disrupted. These sit-ins aren't going to transform Dems into Reps, so that mitigates the risk.
Changing the way we've approached leadership is probably a good goal. Abandoning the concept of leadership entirely? I think you're fucking crazy.
Also this: You're probably right. Nobody is really willing to make any meaningful cuts in government spending - it's impractical anyhow. It makes far more sense to pursue revenue-generating endeavors.
For all of history's repeating itself there have been big changes. When we invented reading and writing, big change. When the populace gained the ability to read and write, another big change. When the printing press allowed the elite to broadcast, yet another big change. The camera, telegraph, radio, television, all brought about major social changes. Now that the masses have the ability to broadcast it is happening yet again. Only the ability for anyone to share information with anyone on the entire planet is so great, that it will dwarf even the revolution brought about by radio or television.
Less than 200 years ago the elite could print and distribute to the local area while the masses could read and not distribute widely at all. Now anyone on earth can create and distribute text, audio, and/or video to anyone else. The only power retained by the elite is the ability to program while the masses are mere users. When the masses learn to program it will be another revolution as large as when literacy was no longer restricted to nobles and clergy.
All previous information dissemination technologies in human history have been top down. The wise village elder remembers the stories. The religious figure is the only one who can read the holy book to you. The rich guy is the only one who can afford printing, radio towers, television satellites, etc. For the first time ever our information sharing structure is not top down. It may very well be different this time. The man has been half defeated. His information monopoly is lost. When he loses the monopoly of physical resources, his downfall will be complete. Makerbot exists now. We may see it happen late in our lifetimes.
And again, we really can't lose in the long run unless they invent immortality too soon.
As I said, I like the "distributed culture" line that has been coming out of some Occupy-related people. It really does sum up the culture class succinctly. I've also seen a meme floating around among some friends of mine, that essentially says "if you want to stick it to the 1%, buy small and local."
I'm not sure how much I necessarily agree with that sentiment, but it's an interesting one and perhaps an idea worth pursuing.
So that got me really thinking about the "distributed culture" idea - if the problem really is the widespread consolidation, then one potential fix is to get the government into the business of supporting self-starters.
We already have programs to get funding to existing businesses, and certain population segments can get various types of government funding and assistance - NSF grants, farm assistance, those sorts of things - but how about a federal program that gives low-interest loans to people aiming to start small businesses or other forms of self-employment?
I believe things like that are already in place, but they're highly competitive, largely implemented by the private sector, and not widespread. If we start expanding these programs and decouple them from private sector administration, I could see it stimulating the growth of a self-employed class.
We're all geeks, but we're all different kinds of geeks, each with a slightly different flavor. But we all speak the same language.
So yes, it can be all manner of small and local things, all of which are still connected together. Ultimately, it winds up being the same thing.
Instead of doing whatever gets attention, do a positive thing. If you can get 1000 people together, you can do something good instead of something disruptive. It can even be good and illegal simultaneously.
Here are just some quick ideas.
You can go to a bad neighborhood with power washers and clean the fuck out of it.
Go to the park and setup a huge dance party for everybody.
Real world denial of service! Bombard a charity with simultaneous physical donations. Go to some bodega and buy literally everything (except tobacco, alcohol, and lottery tickets).
Everyone can find a tourist and be their personal tour guide for a day. Give them the real deal.
At the very least make art or do performance art. Here's one I thought of. Everyone make a condolences card for America, freedom, justice, or something else which is dead. Everyone dress for a funeral. Make a huge long line, that is not blocking any sidewalks or streets or anything. Just one long coordinated single file line. You can line up at City Hall, the stock exchange, the court house, the police station, or whatever. Everyone walk slowly, leave their card, candle, and/or flowers at the entrance and move on very slowly one at a time over the course of many hours. Cry and put on an act if you want. At the end there will be a gigantic pile. Imagine if they came up with a new clever idea like this every single day. Even every other day.
If only they could think of more things like: "Transfer Your Money Day" that actually has a chance of affecting banks, they'd have better results.
Now, if they started doing a voter registration drive across the country, that would actually scare some people.