Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vester]

If the milling around takes place on forbidden space, sure.  The stuff I like the most is the marches that go places they're not supposed to -- like inside of banks or up onto billionaire's doorsteps.  Non-violent but still pushing boundaries and demonstrating that this is a confrontation and not just a bunch of people standing around complaining.

I think I get it. You're interested in subversion - any subversion? Are there any other ways that the people have access to that might give them the same agency, without taking to the streets?

[Vector]

Part of the issue is that a physical presence in the street is a hell of a lot harder to cover up.  Letters to officials, petitions, all of these things are much easier to hide or diminish or trivialize.  But people walking through residential districts and areas of commerce, areas where other people gather... well, it's like a reconstruction of the Greek agora, in a certain sense.  A call to dialogue in the marketplace.

What more appropriate venue could there be than Wallstreet?

[SalmonGod]

I think I get it. You're interested in subversion - any subversion?

Isn't that the point?  We want change.  We want to replace what is with something else.  Even if those changes are minor, subversion is still the nature of it.  If you want to re-shape boundaries, you have to push against them somehow...

And if there is resistance to that change, then that's conflict.  Doesn't have to be violent, but there will be confrontation.  Those who maintain and benefit from the current state of things aren't just going to give in unless forced in some manner.

The ideal outcome, in my opinion, is for us to marginalize them, the 1%, the same way they have marginalized us, the 99%.  We're human beings.  Our lives have value.  If they won't recognize that, then we will demonstrate that their orders are meaningless when we stop obeying them.  Then they'll be just be people like the rest of us.

It's astronomically unlikely to happen that way, but the more people support the movement, the closer we get to that ideal.

Are there any other ways that the people have access to that might give them the same agency, without taking to the streets?

Anonymous has been pretty good about this.

[sluissa]

Anonymous has been pretty good about this.

They're a bit anarchist for some people's taste (mine as well, even though I do agree with some things they do.)

What more appropriate venue could there be than Wallstreet?

I would argue possibly D.C. But I know there are already people there. For me, it'd be a tossup. Both are very public places with lots of people around to see though and both are connected to the people who either caused this problem, or allowed it to happen.

[Vector]

All revolution will have the taste of anarchy, first and foremost.

Why respect power and structure solely for the purpose of respecting them?  Shouldn't we respect what is right?  It's clear that the former things are not inherently good.  I mean, just look at Naz---

Oh god, oh no, get them off me

*killed by ducks*

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I would argue possibly D.C. But I know there are already people there. For me, it'd be a tossup. Both are very public places with lots of people around to see though and both are connected to the people who either caused this problem, or allowed it to happen.

Police and....other "security forces" within our government get very nervous when people assemble in D.C, given it's proximity to the people they are tasked with protecting through lethal force because said people won a popularity contest.

[sluissa]

I would argue possibly D.C. But I know there are already people there. For me, it'd be a tossup. Both are very public places with lots of people around to see though and both are connected to the people who either caused this problem, or allowed it to happen.

Police and....other "security forces" within our government get very nervous when people assemble in D.C, given it's proximity to the people they are tasked with protecting through lethal force because said people won a popularity contest.

But it's a traditional place to gather and protest. They may not like it, but it's been done before, and done successfully, and there's even at least one monument there to people who have done that. (Martin Luther King Jr.)

[SalmonGod]

because said people won a popularity contest.

Somehow I can't help but laugh at calling it that.  It's more like a least unpopular of the unpopular contest.  Lesser of two evils and all that.

But yes, you are right.

And I don't think it's necessary, anyway.  It should be everywhere.  If we're taking power back into our own hands, why organize that process around existing power structures?  It just undermines our own sense of independence, and makes it seem like we're still begging the powers that be to care about us.

[sluissa]

All revolution will have the taste of anarchy, first and foremost.

Why respect power and structure solely for the purpose of respecting them?  Shouldn't we respect what is right?  It's clear that the former things are not inherently good.  I mean, just look at Naz---

Oh god, oh no, get them off me

*killed by ducks*

A taste of anarchy sure. Just like I like a taste of salt on my food. But, I'm not going to go pouring the whole shaker on there with the idea that a little is good, more must be better.

[Vector]

Anonymous is nowhere near the whole shaker--at least, so far =/  You're right that there is a sliding scale of saltiness going on with them.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

because said people won a popularity contest.

Somehow I can't help but laugh at calling it that.  It's more like a least unpopular of the unpopular contest.  Lesser of two evils and all that.

Not exactly. Obama caught a good deal of the nation up in a personality cult dedicated to himself during the 2008 election and for about half a year after that. Bush Jr. had approval ratings in the mid-90s after 9/11, he only began to lose strength when we kept occupying Iraq. (The war itself, however, wasn't very bad for him, given that Saddam's government folded somewhere around two months in 21 days after the invasion began.)

[Vester]

Not exactly. [insert name here] caught a good deal of the nation up in a personality cult dedicated to himself during the [insert year here] election

Might be more accurate.

Granted Obama had a tremendous push.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Not exactly. [insert name here] caught a good deal of the nation up in a personality cult dedicated to himself during the [insert year here] election

Might be more accurate.

Granted Obama had a tremendous push.

That's hardly true at all. Admittedly, I've not been alive for that many election cycles, but there are plenty of times when the view towards the new President has been rather "meh". Bush's second term, to give an example I was able to experience myself.

Obama used campaign phrases like "Yes We Can", "Change We Can Believe In", and (Well, this one was coined by Oprah, but it still affected him.) "The One". With phrases like that he was practically setting himself up to be the Messiah, and it actually worked for a little bit. That's not too common.

[RedKing]

Not exactly. [insert name here] caught a good deal of the nation up in a personality cult dedicated to himself during the [insert year here] election

Might be more accurate.

Granted Obama had a tremendous push.

That's hardly true at all. Admittedly, I've not been alive for that many election cycles, but there are plenty of times when the view towards the new President has been rather "meh". Bush's second term, to give an example I was able to experience myself.

Obama used campaign phrases like "Yes We Can", "Change We Can Believe In", and (Well, this one was coined by Oprah, but it still affected him.) "The One". With phrases like that he was practically setting himself up to be the Messiah, and it actually worked for a little bit. That's not too common.

Eisenhower in 1952, Kennedy in 1960, Reagan in 1980, to name a couple. And if you go back to the 1800's, pretty much every President was elected more based on personality and charisma than on substantial policy issues. We had a slew of Presidents who got elected mostly because they were former Generals and/or war heroes (Jackson, Harrison, Tyler, Pierce, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, T. Roosevelt, Eisenhower).

2nd terms aren't a good basis to judge by. The fact that Clinton's 2nd term was so well received (even with all his other baggage) is something of an anomaly and a testament to the guy's charisma.

[Angle]

That's not even counting George Washington himself, who got shoved into office almost against his will by the force of his personality cult.