Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Are the methods of Occupy effective?

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 18, 2012, 9:24 a.m. EST by RoughKarma (122)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The goal of Occupy should be to end the deathgrip that Corporate America has on our political system and its boundless greed. This goal should be tempered by the facts, though. We need corporations. We need them for jobs. We need them for innovation. They can be and have been a positive force in American society. And whether we like it or not, it's their money. They can do whatever they want with it. Microsoft has made as much profit as any of them and was despised for its aggressive tactics, and yet the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does a lot of good work and donates a whole lot of money to help the vulnerable of society. They certainly are in the 1%, but I don't think they're evil. This label thing, the 1% and the 99% thing, its divisive and it is being used to degrade they very people that can help. The plan should not be to divide the 99% from the 1%, it should be to divide the 1%. Convince corporations it is in their interest to act responsibly and they will. Show them they can use their responsible behavior to gain marketshare and they will do it. If they give back to the communities that support them, do we really care that they benefit from it? A win-win scenario is the only way we will succeed in bringing change. Pick the worst corporate offenders and boycott. Praise and support others that do the right thing by society. Promoting hatred, anger, violence, and class warfare will not and must not succeed. We must be committed to evolution, not revolution. I constantly see supporters exhorting Americans to "Wake Up!". We aren't asleep, we're waiting...

52 Comments

52 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

I support the Occupy movement not because I agree with the more poorly targeted rhetoric on here that seeks to demonize anyone making over $250,000 per year, but because so far they're the only group I've found with enough anger and enough raw manpower to begin to push for change. I don't worry about the content of the more extreme rhetoric I see on here because given the sheer volume of people like you out there I can't see it gaining enough traction to ever be implemented.

I feel like given the current economic climate and the current strength of the ties between the government and private industry (especially Wall Street) the Occupy movement has enormous potential as a catalyst for change (if not the movement itself then one or more of its spinoffs) and it would grieve me greatly to see that potential go to waste. Your complaints are valid, and more often than not when it comes to this specific matter I agree with your position; I just find it easier to offer those criticisms as a concerned supporter (which I am) than a detractor or dissenter.

I say that because if everyone who disagrees with particular pieces of the movement's conduct or rhetoric decides not to support it, then the only ones left inside the movement will be a ragtag group of idiots and radicals and its capacity to push for change will be pretty much neutralized. If however, enough people choose to say "I support Occupy Wall Street" and then suggest rational, practical policy initiatives that are in the spirit of the movement but sans deliberately inflammatory rhetoric, then in time that is what Occupy Wall Street will become. The more reasonable and moderate the movement can become without compromising its principles, the more support it will gain, and instead of fizzling out on the fringe the movement will become a strong positive force in American politics.

I want Occupy Wall Street to become a positive force for the entire American populace, and I personally prefer getting on board early and attempting to influence them in that direction over waiting for them to become that before getting involved.

However, there has come a point where I'm starting to give up on this thing as far as policy initiatives are concerned; in terms of actual implementation of change I'm looking more toward the 99% Declaration (and on a personal level toward involvement in the political process through any avenue that presents itself to me). Anger is a bit of a necessary evil; only when we realize that something is wrong do we move to fix it, and often when we find out that something as central to our collective identity as our government and our economy is flawed there is a great deal of anger.

We've already identified a number of basic issues that cross damn near all social, economic, and philosophical lines, in particular the degree of corruption associated with our current system of campaign finance and lobbying. Now that we've identified these issues, it's time to start looking at how exactly we want to go about fixing them, and I really want OWS to get past the "Holy balls, it's broken!" stage and reach the "Alright, how can we rebuild it?" stage. Perhaps I'm holding out more hope than I should, but it would be such a waste if the movement fails to make that jump that I want to try to push for that jump from the inside to the end.

We've had our big moment in the sun to demonstrate to the world that we exist and now it's time to do something with that moment. The Tea Party was able to do what it did because of an incredibly disciplined multifaceted approach that involved a fair amount of popular hell-raising in the beginning to let people know that they existed and that they were mad as hell, but they hardly restrained themselves to just that. These days if you look at where the Tea Party is, it's now in the House of Representatives to a very significant extent, in the Senate to a lesser extent, and in the halls of K Street to a rather disquieting extent. While I don't agree with a fair amount of the policies they're fond of, I have to admire their tactics and I would like to see OWS adopt those tactics.

[-] 1 points by gosso920 (-24) 2 years ago

I don't see... any method.

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I think OWS should create the world it wants instead of trying to destroy the world it hates.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-and-how-ows-must-change-or-onto-anarcho-syndic/

[-] 1 points by DiMasciosBridge (170) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

That's exactly what we're doing! creating a world we want.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I have seen OWS try to destroy the current world by using direct action and civil disobedience, but I haven't seen OWS working to build a new economy by doing such things as creating anarcho-syndicalist startups.

[-] 0 points by DiMasciosBridge (170) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

Just as a racist sees a "boy" instead of man; Just as a pimp sees a "bitch" instead of a woman; Just as a dealer sees a "dollar" instead of a life; You see what you want to see. Can't you see THAT?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I can see that you have no counter-arguments of worth and so you are desperately trying to convince yourself that you are right by throwing ad hominem at me. If it makes you feel better to compare me to a racist, a pimp, and a drug dealer all in one sentence, that's fine by me. You should realize however that it isn't an argument or worth. It's a lame logical fallacy and will get you nowhere fast.

[-] 1 points by DiMasciosBridge (170) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

Point on! YOU.....see. Check out your posts. EVERYONE of them begins with...."I".

[-] -1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Is that another empty ad hominem or some kind of red herring? Really, hasn't your mother taught you how to debate properly? You haven't addressed my arguments at all. Anyways, I'm just wasting my time here so I'll let you post your lame ad hominem to some other users. Good day sir.

[-] 1 points by DiMasciosBridge (170) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

Let's debate my nuts on your mothers chin. How's that for debate? lol. You ARE wasting your time. I suppose I'd be pretty upset too if I was watching history unfold and couldn't understand how to get on the right side of it. It HURTS huh? LMFAO!

[-] 1 points by DiMasciosBridge (170) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

Yeah, that's what I thought...;)

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

the only problem is the people of OWS are worthless losers angry at the world. They couldn't produce a pile of crap after a hardy meal .

[-] 0 points by muddFlapp (-108) 2 years ago

The hard left is full of hate and wants to see our Country on it's knees

[-] 1 points by occupypuppies (71) 2 years ago

So it's just so obvious who is in power right now. It's us. By token of the fact that our generation grew up with the internet, took computer classes in elementary school, and intuitively interact in the digital world, while the people in the government probably still don't really understand it, that means

WE ALREADY WON!

They are drowning, it's incredible. They are whittling away all credibility. Either way, we will win and win and I'm starting to think the government might be replaced by us, but maybe that's a fantasy.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE MORE POWER AND MORE INTELLIGENCE THAN THEM because of the internet. It's all up to us now, not them. We have to keep going out and marching and they'll eventually just lose it completely. I think we are in for a really interesting year.

Think about it, SOPA makes them look incredibly out of sync with the times and with how things work. The law makes no sense, and it makes them look bumbling, old, out of touch, and illegitimate.

They're so screwed. It's amazing to read about how angry they get when we forced them to table a bill. It's amazing because they aren't used to it, but soon they will be. This is just the beginning.

[-] 1 points by DiMasciosBridge (170) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

Just the beginning. Perfectly said!

[-] 1 points by RoughKarma (122) 2 years ago

I am saddened by your post. But it is helpful to have an example of what I was trying to say. Your arrogance and hostility will devour this movement and if this is the face of the New Order, it bears a strong resemblance to the Old. Power and glory are the only important things. I have never known anyone with real power or intelligence that had to announce it. You make this out to be a battle and it isn't.

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

"By token of the fact that our generation grew up with the internet, took computer classes in elementary school, and intuitively interact in the digital world, while the people in the government probably still don't really understand it, that means WE ALREADY WON!"

Umm, me and many other "old fogies" got our first computers in the late 70's. We've been on-line before there was an internet. Also, our generation INVENTED all of the gadgets you are now addicted to.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

Ahhhhh the old green blinking box of joy.....we had to wait 20 minutes for the *&^^%$ machine to actually LOAD the program we wanted to use and after that we had to use manual command prompts back then-no WINDOWS. Would love to sit "occupypuppies" down with an old IBM, a 5.25 inch floppy and a dot matrix printer and see what he/'she produces with it!

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

By the way, do you knw how the "internet" came about?

[-] 1 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

Research from DARPA and other government departments.

In other words - public money, not corporations.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

"The origins of the Internet reach back to research of the 1960s, commissioned by the United States government in collaboration with private commercial interests to build robust, fault-tolerant, and distributed computer networks. The funding of a new U.S. backbone by the National Science Foundation in the 1980s, as well as private funding for other commercial backbones, led to worldwide participation in the development of new networking technologies, and the merger of many networks. The commercialization of what was by the 1990s an international network resulted in its popularization and incorporation into virtually every aspect of modern human life. As of 2011, more than 2.1 billion people — nearly a third of Earth's population — use the services of the Internet"

The "internet" even in the initial stages that were controlled by the military, used private funding sources and other collaborative efforts-not "just public money". (Private interests and money have ALWAYS been involved in the government kiddo...just like they are today) By the time it was possible for a private residence to "connect to the internet" the majority of the funding was private-NOT public.

The point here is, that the "government" has never created or rolled out ANYTHING of significant value to the American people without the assistance and MONEY from private citizens and other organizations.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

The government created "networks" not the internet. Let me give you a clue "SYSOPS".

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

To occupypuppies

Let me open your eyes young man:

BORN 1925-1970

No matter what our kids and the new generation think about us, WE ARE AWESOME !!! OUR Lives are LIVING PROOF !!!

To Those of Us Born 1925 - 1970 :

TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED THE 1930s, '40s, '50s, '60s and 70s!!

First, we survived being born to mothers who may have smoked and/or drank while they were pregnant.

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.

Then, after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-based paints. We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, locks on doors or cabinets, and, when we rode our bikes, we had baseball caps, not helmets, on our heads.

As infants and children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, no booster seats, no seat belts, no air bags, bald tires and sometimes no brakes... Riding in the back of a pick- up truck on a warm day was always a special treat..

We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle. We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle, and no one actually died from this. We ate cupcakes, white bread, real butter, and bacon. We drank Kool-Aid made with real white sugar. And we weren't overweight. WHY?

Because we were always outside playing...that's why! We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on. No one was able to reach us all day. --And, we were OKAY.

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride them down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes.. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem. We did not have Play Stations, Nintendos and X-boxes. There were no video games, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVDs, no surround-sound or CDs, no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet and no chat rooms.

WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them! We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth, and there were no lawsuits from those accidents. We would get spankings with belts, wooden spoons, switches, ping-pong paddles, or just a bare hand, and no one would call child services to report abuse.

We ate worms, and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever. We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, 22 rifles for our 12th, rode horses, made up games with sticks and tennis balls, and although we were told it would happen- we did not put out very many eyes.

We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them. Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law! These generations have produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers, and inventors ever. The past 50 to 85 years have seen an explosion of innovation and new ideas. We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it all.

If YOU are one of those born between 1925-1970, CONGRATULATIONS! You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids before the lawyers and the government regulated so much of our lives for our own good. While you are at it, forward it to your kids, so they will know how brave and lucky their parents were.

Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn't it ? ~~~~~~~

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20477) 2 years ago

Very funny post. But, at least we weren't expected to read and write in full paragraphs by age 4.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

Basically, the way you grew up and the way I grew up don't necessarily sound all that different, even though I come from the Bronx and was only born in 1993. I got a lot of things, and was lucky enough not to have to pick up a full-time job in high school, but the way things worked was that academics were my job. I didn't work outside of that because school was comprised of 60- to 80-hour weeks; first with my mom at the table from when I was four or five up through eighth grade and then at Bronx Science until this fall when I started at MIT.

As far as school was concerned, it was never a matter of being punished for not working or not participating; it was simply drilled into my brain that if I wanted to make anything of myself then education was the way to do it, and it was made clear to me multiple times that if I didn't want to waste my life pumping gas or bagging groceries I was going to do whatever I had to do to succeed.

Authority wasn't that simple; there was my dad (who was rather dysfunctional, and was more into nitpicking and setting us up to fail than into helping us succeed) and then there was my mom (who put in the time right alongside me and then some, always giving it her all but demanding that I do the same in return out of respect). In my case, discipline wasn't (and as far as I'm concerned shouldn't be) accepted from an outside source, but was and should be developed internally and then held onto as a personal yardstick for how l live my life.

As far as self-esteem and economics were concerned, my life looked hard on the outside but in reality we managed to get a hell of a lot done and my mom, my sister, and I became incredibly tight-knit. I never thought of myself as poor, because in the ways that mattered we managed to pull off a middle-class lifestyle on a pauper's budget. Near the end my dad lost his job and things got tough enough that we needed Food Stamps for a few months to get by, but in the end it paid off dramatically. In the sense that mattered, I can say that we lived quite austerely at times, but were never in fact poor, and I can honestly say that my childhood was one of the happiest times of my life.

Do I want my kids to do it all again the way I did? Now that's where it gets interesting. I'm pretty torn when it comes to that (although thankfully I'm not going to have to worry about that question in earnest for at least the next six or seven years). There are incredible strengths to the way that I grew up, and I have to say that there really is no substitute for cutting your teeth on adversity. On the other hand, do I want to find a better way to teach them budgeting than the object lesson of Cocoa Puffs for dinner for a couple of days because somebody overdrafted the bank account? Absolutely.

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

ARod, I told you this before... Get away from this group of OWS losers.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

ARod1993 - you are an example of someone who "knows what it means to work to have something" and as a result you don't "expect something for nothing".

There is no doub that you will survive and "be greatly successful" because you have the "attitude to succede".

Not so with a lot of todays younger generation - they think they know what's good for everyone else when in fact they have yet to "experience life" to find out what's really out there for them.

Learning "independence" leads to "success" regardless of what a persons endouvers are. The "bar" is set, and they let no obsticle get in their way.

Many millionaires have gone bankrupt have had numerous failures but in the end they became and did what they aspired to do.

We had a motto in high school - "less then your best is failure". I have always lived by that motto and have always suceeded in whatever endevours I undertook.

[-] 1 points by CatLady2 (248) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Love this post ! Thank you for reminding me just how good it is to be a part of that generation.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

Not only all of these great points, but the 1925-1970 born generation also controls more of "this country" at the moment than any other age group and those young whippersnappers aren't going to get their way yet. :-)

[-] 0 points by muddFlapp (-108) 2 years ago

Are the methods of Occupy effective? ///////////////////////////////////// hahahhahaha you fool, occupy is broke bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[-] 1 points by RoughKarma (122) 2 years ago

So is the country. I hope both survive and become something greater.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Job creation comes from our medium to small businesses, not our big corporations. When you walk into a store and go down an aisle, over 70% of the products are made by about two companies. Those two companies simply raise the price on products when they want more money. There is no need for innovation.

Secondly, be careful who you call the 1%. There are those pushing to include those who make a minimum of $250,000. That isn't the case. It is convenient to include them because those people then become a buffer.

No one is promoting violence.

The one thing that I dislike is the mic check. When you are dealing with someone like Donahoe and we know exactly what he is doing and why he is doing it that is one thing. However, when it comes down to a Q $ A session for a candidate.............you have a shot to ask a legit question. Ask the question. You may not get a legit answer but that isn't the fault of the person asking. Mark Provost asked a question. I thought that he could have asked a better question because it was framed in a way that you knew what the answer was going to be. However, he asked a question and got an answer.

Outside of that, keep on going. That division existed already and OWS didn't start it. OWS simply brought attention to it. There are corporations that have had ample time to control (regulate) themselves and they do not need to be taught or convinced to act appropriately. They aren't children.

[-] 1 points by RoughKarma (122) 2 years ago

I'm not sure how you can say small and medium companies create jobs and then describe how large corporations make everything. If small and medium businesses aren't manufacturing goods to sell in stores, how can they employ people? As I've said, I think it is the lack of social responsibility that makes a large corporation bad, not their profit margin. A job is a job. As long as I have to work for someone else, the size of the company matters very little to me. I haven't noticed a lack of innovation in the market place.

Some people ARE promoting violence and not acknowledging it and dealing with it is dangerous for everybody. Read the post below from occupypuppies and see if you don't think it delusional and a tiny bit power mad. And this is mild compared to what I have read elsewhere. The problem with promoting on the internet is the anonymity. You can't really tell whether occupypuppies is fringe or the guiding force of the movement. The movement lacks identifiable leadership and will be marginalized as a result.

Asking questions is good. Having answers is better.

The fact that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer can't be said to be a new idea that needed attention. We have always known the problem. Finding a solution has been the tricky bit. And though I agree OWS didn't create the division, it should be their aspiration to end it, not just point at it and say "Ooooo, that's bad!" Corporations are only concerned, and rightfully so, with the bottom line. When you influence that, you influence the corporation. You can look at a boycott as a punitive thing or trying to teach a lesson, but it really is just an ethical decision on the part of the consumer. While acknowledging their right to conduct business as they see fit (and they do have that right), you don't have to support it by giving them money. We made these monsters by giving them our money to feed on. What happens if the food source dries up?

[-] 1 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

Finally, another person who can think and is able to express himself adequately. Welcome to this forum. Your kind is rare in this small corner of the Internet.

[Removed]

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I can say it because of the following: Let's say that you have a smaller corporation that makes a product and there is a much, much larger corporation that makes a similar product or the same product. The larger corporation can flood the market which lowers the price and will eventually force the smaller one out of business or be forced to sell their business. The major corporations have enough money that they can keep it up until the other one folds. No need for innovation.

I do not find anything in what I have written that says that profit=bad. Nor do I read much from anyone that is OWS that says that profit=bad. The issues that have been presented (that I have read) are profit before people. We find this in the health care industry, the food industry, and things of this nature. Yes, this has been a problem in the past, hence, labor law and unions. It is not ok to stand on the side and say capitalism and corporations are only concerned with the bottom line.........ah, well, you will have that. It is not ok to bring people into the US (or outsource) to lower wages and other tactics. We do not sit on the sideline and say, Oh, you will have that. It is not ok to stand on the sideline and allow ALEC the privilege of writing legislation. It is not ok to privatize prisons, jails, and public education. We do not just stand there with our wallets open for faux privatization.

What happens when the food sources dry up? Good question. Speculation leads to an increase of food prices. OWS was involved in Food Justice and moving farm to table. This is important. We didn't make these monsters. Not when these monsters have unlimited income to write legislation and pay for lobbyists.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Ok, I need a full cup of coffee before I respond to the rest but I want to get this out of the way. Why don't you run a search on occupypuppies and take a real good look at what this.....individual has written. That isn't a voice of OWS. That is a troll posing as someone from OWS. I don't know how you can read what it has written and not come to that conclusion.

[-] 1 points by RoughKarma (122) 2 years ago

I choose to believe you are right, but I do so without any proof. What I was trying to say is that you can't tell who represents OWS. You say "troll" but you can't really prove that. Not really. And if not occuppypuppies, then who? Do I represent it? Do you? If it continues to be merely an aggregate of what people are saying, then all comments reflect the movement, at least a portion of it and occuppypuppies is not the only of his kind. The anonymity of the web leaves us always in doubt as to the identity and the motives of the speaker. It is even possible that I am occuppypuppies using a different logon and rhetoric. A movement with transparency is a good thing. A movement without accountability is a bad thing.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

OWS does not promote violence. If someone is promoting violence then it is not OWS. Secondly, you can run a user search and read through material that is written.

When I say troll, you know what I am talking about. We know that we have groups that are paid to troll. We have known they exist since 2002. It isn't a secret. It isn't a dun, dun, dun moment. Astroturf.

So, while it may be ok for you to pretend that you cannot know motivations, I think their agenda becomes all to clear.

[-] 1 points by RoughKarma (122) 2 years ago

If someone says they represent OWS and they promote violence it is a lie that they represent OWS because OWS doesn't promote violence. The logic is wrong. Johnny didn't steal the bike because Johnny doesn't steal and if Johnny says he stole the bike then it just proves he's not Johnny. I don't just pretend to not know the motives of posters, I truly don't know them. I have talked to people face-to-face that have expressed very scary extreme ideas. Why should here be different?

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

OWS does not support violence. They are for peaceful protest. So, when you have thread starters that are (and you can find them here) that are literally begging for OWS to become violent, then you know what they are about.

That said, I have read elsewhere that there are those that will use that to their full advantage. Don't be naive for either side.

You want organization. They don't have that. This is both a pro and a con. You want someone to annihilate when something goes wrong. Someone in control to change what is already known as wrong.

What OWS does not realize is that in order to implement change it has no choice but to become political. The process of implementing change is political.

I talk to people that have extreme ideas all the time. I also encounter people that have their heads buried in the sands.That is neither here nor there.

[-] 1 points by RoughKarma (122) 2 years ago

The really weird thing is that I mostly agree with you. I don't think I want to annihilate anybody, but it would be nice to have someone to complain to if I start to disagree with the message or ask if I am unsure of what the message is. But mostly I think we are saying similar things. My overarching theme was that it is time to begin the next phase of the process of change, as was (I think, anyway) yours. The rest is triviality.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I don't know if OWS will have a next phase. I think that this is dependent on if the GAs can figure out how to deal with all of the different types of personalities found in any group.

Many of the issues that are presented can be addressed at the national level but must also be addressed at the state level. I don't think that it is imperative that they choose a political party but in order to change something they will need a plan.

[-] 1 points by RoughKarma (122) 2 years ago

Good morning. I hope you've had your coffee this time. I agree with your thinking here. I would like your opinion of this thread. http://occupywallst.org/forum/ok-ows-is-great-but-now-what/#comment-598617

[-] -2 points by muddFlapp (-108) 2 years ago

OWS is all about violence and that is why it is going belly up. Anyone in here know how to play the "taps" Bye OWS did not even make it six Months

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Good morning, Mudd. So glad you could make it. Still scared, eh?

[-] -1 points by muddFlapp (-108) 2 years ago

And a very good morning to you also

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

You should ask the moderators to ban this user if he is posing as the voice for OWS.

[+] -6 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I'm not so sure that they are either going to A) be available and B) be able to stop them from logging in as someone else and C) care. I'm looking at all the variations on our names that are present and the consistent anti-OWS threads.

It presents itself as mentally unstable, and an anarchist, a drug user and all the other stereotypical nonsense.

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

jart should add a filter to disallow usernames with "occupy" or "OWS" in them.

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Doesn't this, at some point, become like dealing with children in a school yard?

[-] 0 points by Thrasymaque (-2138) 2 years ago

I'm not suggesting much, just to reserve Occupy terminology.

As you know, there are paid psyops governmental agents around here ;-)