Forum Post: More of the same I see
Posted 13 years ago on May 26, 2013, 3:46 p.m. EST by Exhausted
(-20)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
More noise, complaining about sideshows and gossip, and lawsuit that have past. No forward thinking, posting, ideas, roadmaps, nothing. Nothing of substance. More noise and useless chatter. You people aren't activists. Frauds, idiots, whatever you are, concerned citizens you are not.
Quit crying. You are one of those that has done everything within their power to destroy this place. You won't be happy until you destroy all communication and then you can reinvent this place to your own liking. That way you can control all communication. You are so transparent.
That makes you a dirtbag. A dirtbag with an agenda.
[Removed]
Perhaps VQ just realized OWS is about anarchy, not US political discussions, and certainly not a pro-democrat site?
In your mind, what has this site accomplished for OWS? I agree with Exhausted, it just makes us look bad since most people here curse at others and aren't really here to discuss OWS issues. Barely anyone talked about Monsanto, one of OWS's most important events. It seems to me, this site is not really about anarchy or OWS, but more of a place to vent frustrations towards the republican party. No?
Well, hello there, DiegoSanchezAlfonso. I'll just call you Chris for short.
You look bad. There was actually a great deal of information that was being shared but, you hate that. It shows. So, it seems to me that you are really a dirt bag with an agenda.
Yes, anarchy, because this society has not figured out how to have a peaceful anarchy. Meaning the push to anarchy is sabotage. Sabotage because it indirectly advocates violence. The causes rejection by mainstream society and suggestion reason for police oppression.
Protesting usually leads to state oppressions (or suppression) by using police. This has nothing to do with anarchy. The same problem exists when protesting nuclear energy, Monsanto, G8 summits, or anything else.
Yes, protest in this way is an abuse of rights. It is not effective and does not make sense so the msm public resents it, making it easy for.
Good reply, I edited the comment you reply to because I was originally trying to think of what this societies anarchist activism inspires. "Oppression" was the word I couldn't think of.
By the same token there is another completly unaccountable faction here that only does distraction/problem/sensation/complaint and disses effective legal process useful for seeing demands met.
Legal processes don't work because the system is broken. Protesting is not an abuse of rights.
Protesting prematurely and not at least attempting to use your first constitutional right to see demands met, while also legitimizing the protest in the eyes of people who have taken oaths to defend the constitution from domestic enemies, is an abuse.
It won't be until later that such is plain to see, after protest becomes illegal and nothing is changed.
I see examples of roadmaps in the action database such as here. http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/el-salvadorans-bring-down-dictator-1944
Click on action button, next to forums, and there is searchable database of methods for multiple actions, and they actions are graded on points values, up to 10 points, based on how successful they were in achieving specific identified goals.
For example type in political justice, or economic justice, and there are pages of nonviolent international actions .
The above link is imethods and tactics to bring down El Salvador dictator, such as mourning processions, leaflets,
By studying what nonviolent actions have been effective there will be things that may be relevant and useful, to bring about more or effective action.
And http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/browse_waves
Is this a new link/button on the site?
Interersting...against apartheid http://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/us-activists-and-politicians-campaign-south-african-embassy-end-apartheid-1984-1985
The South African Embassy protests and arrests took place every day for over an entire year after the first sit-in, inspiring similar protests in 26 other US cities. In all, between three and six thousand people were arrested at the embassy in Washington including 23 members of Congress. Also arrested were clergymen, national labor and religious leaders, students, community leaders, teachers, and celebrity figures including heavyweight boxer Larry Holmes, Amy Carter, daughter of former US President Jimmy Carter, and Rev. Jesse Jackson and his two sons. Five thousand additional people reportedly were arrested in other cities in the US. The protests led to a heightened awareness among Americans of the atrocities of apartheid and influenced monumental action in Congress. Representative Ronald V Dellums introduced the first anti-apartheid legislation in 1972, and in 1986 his bill was finally passed. Support for the Dellums bill was so strong that it withstood a veto by President Reagan, the first time in the 20th century that a president had a foreign policy veto overridden. The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 imposed economic sanctions against South Africa, and listed five conditions for ending the sanctions, including release of Nelson Mandela and all political prisoners and agreement by the South African government to enter "good-faith negotiations" with the Black majority.
Oh, frick, it's Yoda!!
[Removed]
You have to remember that sites like this are heavily monitored. Any specific plans or actions stated here would not be a good idea.
Please. Enough with conspiracy theory type mumbo-jumbo. This site has barely any traffic, no one is monitoring it, and, if they are, they are wasting their resources. In any case, Monsanto and most other protests were announced worldwide, and Occupy's general assemblies where plans were made were open to anybody. Your argument is based on nonsensical fear mongering.
The original purpose of this site was to plan OWS activities, but pro-democrats highjacked it so that it became a an anti-republican US political forum.
How About Organize the next Global Protest, the Monsanto one was fine, didn't attract much media here, as a forbidden subject.
Can We Get Some Air Time on the Tele?....or YouTube news, make something try to get something to go viral.
Our media and free speech is boxed up http://occupywallst.org/forum/great-information-here-youll-want-to-see-before-yo/
And there's this with some ideas http://occupywallst.org/forum/moyers-on-corporate-coruption-excellent-news/
How about mini occupies in parks on random summer days, maybe distribute leaflets, if we had a budget.
Myself I feel a creativity exhaustion, but keep exhorting everyone, it keeps us bitter and less appealing
Monsanto is not an issue of inequality. Monsanto is an issue of our learning how to and not to use technology. Monsanto effects the rich and poor, do they not?
most of the rich do not eat GMO food
According to?
the rich people I know.... and I know a lot them.... they pride themselves in eating healthy.... & organic
What a ridiculous statement. Care to back up your claim with evidence, perhaps a serious scientific study? No? Of course not. Just talk in the wind.
It's inequity and inequality when Indian farmers are forced to fail and resort to suicide
Then you should be addressing WallST, because that is a result of corporate culture. Add McDs to your list, add all corporate farms, add AG Ashcroft, ect.. Just because an object has a flat side, does not make it a square.
Yes we should this does
And there's this with some ideas http://occupywallst.org/forum/moyers-on-corporate-coruption-excellent-news/
Organize the next international occupy marches. Time has maybe brought more people to awareness.
I have better things to do than organize wannabe anarchists and life inexperienced academics.
So you keep giving time here. What's your benefit, if this all has no value.
This social movement isn't only for activists and anarchists, it needs to be broad based, IMO.
I need to do some errands. Catch you later
Because apparently the people wasting this forum need a push.
It's an issue of inequality. Monsanto uses corrupt business practices to pass laws, own patents, and essentially create a monopoly. I'm for GMO's, but I'm not for companies like Monsanto. We need to open-source this technology.
Are you for GMO's that are based on spreading poison all over the planet to get them to work ?
I'm for the concept of GMO's in general, after that my moral stance is made on a per application basis. Being against all GMO's is like being against studying nuclear energy. It's just ignorant to be against a whole field of study. Some GMO's have nothing to do with poison. You'd have to give me a precise example for me to judge if I'm for the practice or not.
Your question is like asking if I'm against nuclear science used to make bombs. It's kind of a useless question. I think everyone is against bombs and spreading poisons across the planet.
.... I asked you a simple and clear question...
Give me a specific example or else your question is utterly useless and unanswerable. You can't apply moral justifications on such a complex field with hypotheticals which have no precision.
Traditional farming often use poisons. Does your hypothetical method use more poison than that of equivalent traditional farming?
What kind of poison? How harmful? What does it harm?
What do we gain from the GMO? Does it save 10,000,000 lives in the process of spreading a poison that causes no problems (many poisons are easily fought by our systems). What's the tradeoff?
There are tons and tons more questions I could ask. Provide a specific example and I'll answer it. Can you do that? What's the point of these hypothetical exercises that lead nowhere?
Your hypothetical question is not simple. It's extremely complex, especially since there are no specifics at all.
[Removed]
Sure, nature is extremely complex. That's why I advocate using GMO's.
It's a step above traditional farming which also causes genetic mutations, but is a blind shoot and miss type operation that was never properly tested in laboratories. In our struggle to cross breed the poisonous nightshades to create edible tomatoes, many people died from still poisonous tomatoes.
We have been modifying nature for thousands of years. There's barely a food you eat that wasn't genetically engineered through controlled breeding. Most foods we eat didn't exist in nature, we had to breed like crazy for many generations before arriving at them. We better learn to do it appropriately using deep scientific methods instead of rudimentary trial and error based activities.
Fear of science leads us nowhere. We must advance as a civilization. The problem with GMO's is not the concept, it's the fact that they are controlled by big corporations (the ones for food anyhow). We must open-source GMO's.
BTW - The links you provide are not from scientific sources. As such, they aren't really useful. One big problem with GMO's is that people who fight against them do not know the different between serious scientific journals, and vanity fair type articles written by housewives who like natural foods for reasons they don't even understand. Most anti-GMO arguments are based on ignorance stemming from reading bad sources filled with pseudoscience.
[Removed]
I didn't ask you to provide serious studies, I told you the articles you linked were not serious studies, hence they are useless for the debate.
I'm able to find serious studies on my own and I hope others here can as well.
Posting bad articles is worse than posting none at all. It keeps the problem of ignorance all to high. Ignorance is one of the biggest problems concerning GMO's.
Can you give us an example of an extreme genetic modification which is being used in practice? I'm not sure what you mean by extreme. Is there an official scale for such a thing?
It's obvious that every genetic modification must be tested profoundly and individually. Sometimes changing one gene can have more profound impact that changing thousands. It's a very complex field.
Yes, we agree, Monsanto is evil. That's why I want to push of open-source GMO's. This should not be controlled by corporations behind closed doors. The science must be open so that scientists from all over the world can cross check experiments, share ideas, and push the technology forward with more safety checks.
[Removed]
You need to peruse peer reviewed scientific journals. Most of them don't appear online so a trip to your local University's library is the best bet if you want in depth knowledge of this field.
There are some resources on the web, and a few articles.
This is a good start Internet wise: http://www.plosgenetics.org/
It's a peer-reviewed open journal.
Here's a list of many genetic journals: http://www.biochemweb.org/journals.shtml
You can also use Google and do a search such as "genetic scientific journal" or "genetic research paper"
I did follow your links and read some of the articles. The problem is they are not written in serious fashion. They aren't serious scientific articles. For example, one is from a website "naturalcuresnotmedicine" which is not a science based website.
[Removed]
Like I said, provide me with which position you want me to defend. I wrote many views and positions concerning GMOs. Which one would you like support for? Can you detail a few?
"seedsofdeception.com"? Come on. Don't provide links to sites that are obviously biased. That's not how you'll find truth on the matter. It's like providing a link to Monsanto to support GMOs. You need to provide articles in scientific peer reviewed journals, journals which are unbiased.
I wrote many views. If you provide an example of one or more views I shared that you want me to support, it will be my pleasure to provide you with articles that support my claims with strong scientific based evidence.
[Removed]
Where what? Which of my views or positions do you want me to defend? I'll find serious scientific articles that defend my position for you. You won't have to do any searching of your own. Just clarify what you want evidence for.
No kidding! Just like "seedsofdeception" doesn't count for the opposite view. That's why I don't use them to defend my position.
Peer reviewed scientific journals are not funded by Monsanto. They are funded by universities.
it ain't that hard ....
I'll give you my answer ....
I also believe that Genetically modified organism's might provide some benefits to the world ,,,,
however I believe that any GMO that is designed around a process that spreads ANY poison into the environment will cause far more harm than good...
That would depend on many factors. There are many grades of poisons, some can diminish the impact of other poisons. It's an extremely complex question and useless question without any specifics.
What if the GMO was first rigorously tested for decades by independent laboratories all around the world? What if this GMO had a very specific poison aimed at killing Malaria once and for all? What if this poison was so specific that decades of testing showed it killed Malaria and only Malaria; that it had no averse affects on thousands of plants, animals, and humans tested? What if the dose of the poison was extremely small, just enough to kill the small protists which causes Malaria? What if using this GMO instantly meant saving millions and millions of lives?
well ... in that case ... that might be good....
but in Monsanto's, Dow's, etc... cases .... not only is the poisons getting into the water supply and other foods... it's killing the honey bee's, butterflys... etc.... and it is all based on greed... not on good things.....
Even here, you should look at each GMO individually. Not all Monsanto and/or Dow's GMO's cause these things. We should identify which ones do, and which ones don't. It's important to be precise with scientific matters. The more precise the better.
I'm against Monsanto's evil capitalistic business practices, not against the general concept of GMO's. We need to open-source GMO's so they can be tested by independent scientists and owned by the people.
When we are responsible towards the environment in an effective way, then gmo's and nuke MIGHT be okay.
"I'm for the concept of GMO's in general, after that my moral stance is made on a per application basis. Being against all GMO's is like being against studying nuclear energy"
You sound like a cynic. You arent any better than they are.
Do YOU have an idea, roadmap, nothing? or is this just directionless bitching for the sake of bitching?
I know Im an idiot, but what are you?
I will be doing a free website for a charity that provides for impoverished families, and am networking with others to devise a way to use tech as a tool to reduce poverty. My meeting with them is next week. And yourself?
So why aren’t you in the streets with Golden Dawn or EDL? Is that the activism your looking for?
You could of just said that from the get go and it would avoided all this jimmer-jammer.
Are you targeting voluntary poverty or involuntary poverty?
As for me, I dont have any ideas whatsoever. Im an idiot, remember?
I'm just saying, this forum as a resource is being abused and wasted, whether intentionally or just as a matter of immaturity.
You are completely correct. Im not arguing the content of your point.
Are you targeting voluntary poverty or involuntary poverty?
There is no voluntary poverty, only the oppressed those who have lost hope. Not everyone has the same level of spiritual strength to push against the tide.
I can be impovershed if I want to, cant I? or is against the law to be poor?
Thoreau/Gandhi/Buddha/Jesus/Jack Kerouac would all disagree with you. Voluntary poverty is a GOOD thing and very much a Thing.
We could set a moral example, sell our cars and make a "educational communes" near capital cities, to educate and lobby for our causes.
That would make us more of a presence, maybe make some news again.
http://www.hippy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=110.
I would sell my car for my own benefit way, way, way before Id sell it to further any commune.
PS> Lobbying should be outlawed.
it could be set up like a corporation, maybe not the correct word, with shared stock ownership in land and buildings, which may increase in value in time. Fight corps on there level
Living in a plain cabin and commune may have drawbacks. believers in these ideas, they would be committing more than talk.
We could maybe then have foundations and think tanks, maybe credit unions could sponsor think tank costs.
your car, if it was valuable enough, would get you a home, a social setting, and even independent work of your choosing, of which you would keep your profits, and have less costs living on the commune
You can live in a plain cabin and not live in a commune. My objection is not the part about living in the plain cabin. My objection is the part about having to share that plain cabin with other people, whom I may or may not even like.
Ideally People should/would/could have individual / family cabins, unless by choice, maybe spread out, with a commons in the middle, and agricultural and art/industrial land on the outskirts, a quasi self-sufficient community, hopefully educational/recreation/camping opportunities, you could have a bus or vans for outreach, visiting legislators.
In other words: a city?
You realise we already have those don't you?
but geared to revitalization of America's workforce, given special tools to enable the people to solve their problems, including 0 percent loans, and ties to educational systems of 6-12 and higher ed. below it is discussed completely,... running out of replies
http://occupywallst.org/forum/models-to-transition-to-sustainable-systems-future/#comment-974899
The goal of education isnt and should never to be to simply "Get a Job". The goal of education is and always should be to simply Learn. To learn about the planets and the animals and math and literature and civics and much more. Vocational education is no good to anyone who wants to learn about the world and not a particular job.
Vocational education is fine, but it should only supplement a greater education.
more on scale of a village, walk across the town in 30 minutes or less. smaller scaled, somewhere those of choice could go and gain skills and knowledge, work skills, and practice in participatory democracy and or libertarian socialism, or whatever model they are voluntarily seeking residency.
Skills could be in many fields, construction, infrastructure, agriculture, tourism, and possibly a village specialty or focus skill, such as glass blowing, metalwork, pottery, art, education, health services, alternative energy from water/solar H20 hydrogen.
Another option for unemployed and underemployed to gain skills, have a lower cost technical mini college focus on certain skills that could be in high demand, but that could refocus, as the workforce and technology evolves, such as uses on renewable energy, construct efficient windmills or cost effective solar.
Possibly it could be geared towards younger generations, as hands-on nationally subsidized educational opportunities. But hopefully marketable products could be produced as a benefit. Even if they are learning sustainable agriculture, horticulture, build low energy systems, sustainable houses possibly "straw or adobe" construction, old is new.
.
Such a system could absorb many of the underemployed, and provide another safety net, that would not be giveaways, but for the betterment of society.
sounds like a progressive/practical post high school option, or another opportunity for the many who don't find the current school structure to their needs, alternative high school opportunities.
instead of cars, electric enclosed bicycles/tricycles or golf carts, could be constructed, and utilized in these zones, light rail could interlink neighboring opportunity zones.
the goal would be self-supporting, less expensive option to University, for the common person.
also elder care services could be another option, with mini-medical service in which residencies could be gained.
Villages are even older than cities. England is covered in them.
You are still describing reality as it is though. Free public education, a multi-faceted economy, unemployement insurance, public transportation, public subsidized health care. All of these are already in place.
If it's voluntary, it's not poverty. Self destructive behavior is not confined by income levels. Maybe you don't understand what poverty is?
Poverty: the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or money.
Voluntary poverty is not of my own creation, you know. Im not just making it up.
Poverty
Noun
Poor
Adjective
If you intentionally place yourself in a position where you cannot sustain your day to day living, you are being self destructive.
That is an opinion and not backup by fact.
I would argue that simple living is the only way to go and that living life with only the pursuit of wealth in mind is self destructive.
I have the right to be poor if I choose.
You're intentionally ignoring the vast canyon between wealth and poverty. I'm done with you now. Have a good day.
Im not ignoring anything. Involuntary poverty should be fought and brought to an end.
but that doesnt mean that I also shouldnt be allowed to be poor if I chose to do so.
Have a good day. Ill never be done with you. ;)
Very astute observation. I can show with reason that what you describe is a cognitive infiltration, a false Internet social group. The practice making the for inane with useless, sensational items.
If someone presents valid strategy, the infiltrators use their false social structure to attempt smear/dismissal of the idea.
Volunteers wanted. I am looking into the potential of starting a website for grading the economic impact of every business in the country. This grade will be made up of a few key points such as revenue vs output, taxes paid, subsidies, employees on food stamps and EIC, ect... There needs to be a bar set for what is considered to be a healthy economic impact and how they compare to that bar. The project will be marketed in the typical capitalist form in order to gain maximum exposure within the current framework of society.
People needed to make this happen will be educated in business management, economics, and data collection.
I will start a new thread for this if at least three people on this forum voice interest.
Wages? This is an issue that is on the table and will soon see movement in congress, and nobody is interested in building support ahead of this so there is pressure to act when the time comes?
Again ,just another sign that none of you are serious.
VQ, I agree this site is mostly a waste of time. Why do you still post here? I use it for entertainment purposes when I'm sick or can't leave the home for other reasons.