Forum Post: Hard-line Liberals are the enemies of the Occupy movement
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 24, 2011, 8:39 p.m. EST by MyHeartSpits
(448)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
This is not a liberal movement! It is not partisan. Get that through your thick skulls. Ethics is not liberal. Direct democracy is not liberal. Anti-corruption is not liberal. The process of consensus is NOT LIBERAL ALONE. It is all-inclusive.
I get so angry when liberals don't listen to opposing viewpoints, and worse, actively push them to the side. You are harming the movement. You are the problem. If we are the 99%, that means we welcome EVERYONE into the tent. We're so worried about being co-opted by the Democrats, the unions, or other corrupt entities/special interests (I'm not at all anti-union, by the way), but we're already co-opting this movement away from the other half of the country - the half that doesn't think quite like us, but still agrees on some very important points. Don't make this mistake! We won't be able to turn back. Watch the divisive language. Be tolerant of others. Be respectful and 100% inclusive, otherwise you are in direct opposition to the heart of the movement. Stop wanking on the forums and make a difference on the ground, in your own community. You do OWS no favors by acting partisan on these forums and pretending to represent the movement. You don't represent anyone but yourself and your media-manufactured ideology.
I've been talking to a friend up at the Occupy Toronto action and he says that they are marginalizing all non-left participants. What the fuck, liberals. What the fuck...
Signed, embarrassed liberal and OWSNY veteran since 9/17
I think Chris Rock said it best: "Everybody's so busy wanting to be down with the gang. "I'm conservative", "I'm liberal", "I'm conservative". Bullshit! Be a fucking person! Lis-ten! Let it swirl around your head. Then form your opinion. No normal, decent person is one thing, okay? I've got some shit I'm conservative about, I've got some shit I'm liberal about. Crime, I'm conservative. Prostitution, I'm liberal!"
This post is true. However, if we want to abolish the two party system, we have to first work through that system, and use it to our advantage. Personally, I have decided to join the Green Party, since they have been down at the OWS movement every day. And support most our varied demands. It's the closest thing we have to our own political party, IMO.
Go Green!!!
Indeed! ;-)
I support this message!
I support this post.
one of the problems, is the right has been fed an inflated opinion of itself, through the corporate media. When folks holding these fox news memes in their heads, get out of the house, and meet and interact with the rest of us,. they may feel marginalized because so few actually share the warped views generated by fox and talk radio. When you look at good public opinion polls you will see that the MAJORTY of people support a much more moderate and often left leaning society. Most people do not support inequity, and freedom of wealth to dominate politics and life. These views that the right have been fed,. are extremest, and not nearly as popular as the unbalanced corporate media has led them to believe,. . Sorry, if it makes some uncomfortable to learn that the community just does not hold those corporatist views.
liberal means "of the people"
I don't know the regional definition
The practical definition is a political one. That's what I was referring to.
which is ?
Huh? The political left that express values outlined by the Democratic party, not the dictionary definition.
those are?
Wha? I'm not following you. You're asking what the values of the Democratic party are?
I'm trying to identify what these hard line liberals aforementioned represent
Not sure what they represent, aside from the democratic party. They don't represent OWS, because they are pushing their own agendas above that of the general assemblies.
everyone comes to the GA assembly with its own agenda
And some do not come at all, instead telling everyone what OWS stands for on this forum.
true
Nice point. There's a natural disrespect for folks whose opinions are not "pure" on both the left and the right. I'm put off by both fringes and prefer to call myself a radical moderate. I wish this perspective sold better within our political class.
Everyone should be included, Including those who have disagreements. A lot of te time, disagreements are agreements mis-represented. Remember the Occupy movement is a POPULIST movement.
Exactly. The Tea Party and Occupy actually have some things in common, for instance, but the media has pitted us against each other as opposites and rivals.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/a-very-simple-venn-diagram-of-where-the-tea-party-and-occupy-wall-street-agree/246687/#.TqTvr7on7_Q.facebook
I agree. I agree so much, that if you ran for prez I'd vote for you.
I know there are other respectful voices on this forum and I appreciate them very much. =)
Good luck in TX! I'm trying my best to get conservatives involved, especially the ones that believe in business ethics and fairness. There are many!
Well, I'm no conservative, Teabagger, or GOPper. They've put me off with unbridled sociopathy.
I'm progressive, but no Dem. The Dems put me off with their neocon attitudes and lying.
Both do nothing for the common man, and everything against him.
I'm Independent, and have decided to dish out votes of No Confidence until their madness stops.
Good for you man/woman. You are right, those things are not partisan issues.
The media has been beating this thing into a corner for a couple weeks not. They are winning.
I would define myself as a 9/10 liberal but I disagree with "pushing out" the "others". We are not Torquemada or Pastor Hagee!
But, on the other hand, I have seen and read a number of our OWS people who seem to be disruptive rather than constructive.
While all minorities deserve a voice, our "consensus" structure that REQUIRES 90% votes is a real impediment to progress. I do not want to throw out the libertarians that I disagree with, but if they represent 20% of us, we are filibustered - and blockaded by a minority. Excluding a minority - which I submit is really antithetical to the liberal/progressive movement - may be the step of desperation of a majority that cannot get anything done.
"Consensus" is a nice philosophy - but we have to ask -
IS CONSENSUS OUR FUNDAMENTALIST RELIGION
that we cannot reason without?
Consider this: It's not an impediment to progress if we work on the things that we agree on. Those things do exist. If we want to go outside of those lines, then we can't call ourselves the 99%.
thanq for the cordiality- but I thought the 99% meant we were the exploited - by the 1%
not that 99% or 90% have to agree on a specific goal or solution. My primary concern is that we are mired in process. I prefer that we present our members CHOICES.
I do believe in democracy.
If 60% of us are willing to ACT on making sure the rich pay taxes - GOOD!
If 45% of us are willing to ACT to end the Fed - GOOD!
If 70% of us are willing to ACT to end voter supression - GOOD!
If, for example, 90% of us wanted to ACT to do __, am I, as one of the 10% obligated to that action?
Interesting. I'm not sure that's the common way that people define the 99%, but maybe it's a better definition, or even the intended one. I don't know. I agree with you in principal, but is that the way to fix the system? The system is the problem; if we don't get everyone on board to fix it, they'll just ignore us. Now, what is the problem with it? Corruption? What's the result of corruption? It's that we are no longer represented by our elected officials. Now, are we represented by the General Assembly, if we attend? I believe so, even if they eventually decide against us. Can we ask for more than a 90% consensus without a hard block? I'm not sure that's fair. I'm not sure that we'd ever accomplish a single thing.
I don't think you'd be obligated to take part if you were the 10%, if it was an action proposal, but if you accept the consensus process, then you'd have to accept the result, especially if you did not actively block it.
No, not deems nor libs, I blame the progressives.
Finally....someone who makes sense! THANK YOU!......I am a conservative and I couldn't agree more with this post. My time here has come to an end now that I have finally read a post the makes total sense. The above post tells it like it is. This is why people other then your own mindset are laughing their asses off at you.
Says you.
Hard line Republicans are worse. Says me.
They might be ruining the movement more if they showed up, but they won't because hard-line liberals are already fucking it up for everyone. 99%? Not without conservatives we're not.
"liberal" and "conservative" are not partisan, those are sets of ideals. Liberals have just as much a right to be mad at the system as conservatives do.
The fact of the matter is, a lot of the talk coming out of OWS (regulate Wall St., make the rich pay their fare share, get money out of politics) all happen to be ideas typically shared by liberals and not conservatives.
You talk about avoiding divisive language then call everyone with a particular set of ideals "thick skulled" just because they're talking about them.
I'm not going to stop talking about how Wall St needs more regulation just because a conservative might be put off by it.
Hmm, I'm not sure we're disagreeing so much. I'm calling the people thick-skulled that PUSH dissenting ideologies to the side while claiming that their pet agenda is the agenda of OWS. I do think that getting money out of politics is widely shared by conservatives and liberals, though it's not one of your more typical, media-pushed conservative ideals. As for regulating Wall St., personally, I don't think that is a solution, seeing as all regulations of Wall St. have utterly failed. I have to note, also, that regulations and making the rich pay have not been official stances of OWS, but are rather the default stance since most of the people on the ground are liberals.
Actually when the regulations were in place they worked quite well and kept Wall St. in check. Over the last 30 years the bankers have invaded politics and systematically dismantled the regulations that kept them in check, and here we are today. Wall St. fights against regulations with everything it has, and there is a reason for that. Not because they want to protect regular hard working Americans.
There are no official stances however what have you been hearing more?
"Let Wall St. do what they want and they'll police themselves!" or
"Reign in Wall St.!"
Well, that's all really beside the point. I don't have issues with people talking and having opinions, especially those on the ground participating. I just don't like when they actively exclude those with different opinions, often calling them names or belittling them in the process.
are we trying to get money out of politics in this country or just be inclusive of everyone.
http://www.themultitude.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=386&p=2098#p2098
Hey! Here's a response.
And what a response it was... Aren't you the guy who quit a while ago?
You assume I'm a guy.
All of the top level organizers are either hard line liberals, socialists, communists, or anarchists.
Most of the people at the protests are leftists. According to their signs, many are outright communists.
You are full shit by claiming this is not a leftist movement. Everything about this movement is leftist.
The values of the movement make the movement. The movement's values are anti-corruption, direct democracy, and inclusive consensus. If more conservatives showed up, you'd have more of a voice. I'd like to see you there.
There are no-top level organizers anymore. Anyone can be a top-level organizer if they just show up and express an interest. As someone who was there from the start, I think I know what I'm talking about.
I've been there.
I've been told that people like "me" don't belong there. You know, people who are perceived as conservative or to the right.
So, don't give me any crap that the so-called "movement" is inclusive of all views because it is not.
The movement is. Individuals may not be. Those are the people I'm yelling at.
If the movement is inclusive, why is that being hidden?
There aren't very many "tolerant" people in this movement. Tolerant of ideas other than their own.
Come to think of it, everything about this movement is hidden. Hidden goals. Hidden agendas. Hidden leaders.
Anything so secret, can't be good.
There aren't hidden leaders. There are no leaders. There aren't hidden goals. There are no goals yet, other than the process of direct democracy and consensus and those goals are actively being practiced every day. I wish I could convince you of this, but I think you're just a naturally cynical person =)
Sure there are leaders. Why are you lying?
There are top level professional organizers who put this whole thing together. They don't want their names to be publicly revealed because the motivations and agenda will be revealed.
A NY Times reporter was outed today as one of the organizers. That's outrageous. Mainstream journalists being involved with organizing this movement.
Whose names are on the bank account at Amalgamated Bank?
How can there be leaders when the entire movement denies leaders any individual power? Of course there were organizers at first, but we're far beyond that already.
That is the face they are trying to show the public and the sheep in the General Assemblies. That is one of the main ruses of this movement.
The organizers are still the ones pulling the strings.
Whose names are on the bank account at Amalgamated Bank? The movement certainly didn't pick a few people at random out of the crowd at Zuccotti Park and give them authority to withdraw funds from the account.
Who are those people with the power over the bank account?
Who cares who they are? If they take the money and run, the whole world will know their names. The organizers are NOT still pulling the strings. It's its own animal now.