Forum Post: Success, already!!!!
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 14, 2011, 3:26 a.m. EST by Harrisonbergeron
(8)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
By not engaging the dominant left/right paradigm a victory has already been achieved. Case in point is coverage by The Onion which mocks the american ability to ignore a movement once it states a series of "demands" in my view demands are what you put forth in a negotiation. This is not a negotiation, the subjugated many do not negotiate with the ruling few. There ae of course compromises, but this is not a negotiation, this is not a request, this is not a polite " please sir may I have some more", to me this is as clear a statement as was ever that the consent to be governed can and will be revoked when those entrusted to govern and lend ethically shirk their duties. Revoke your consent. Stand with US, not "me" the is no I in team and the is no "me" in country.
OWS succeeded the moment it caught fire and spread across the country... but the Onion is nice too. ;-)
Given the mathematical exponential function of interest plus principle which compounds at a rate above the growth of the underlying economy. The eventual repudiation of a certain portion of debts is nothing but a negotiation with math. This is why the old testament( not that I'm a fan) prescribed jubilee. I'm not calling for a jubilee, but the fact is that, those debts that cannot be repaid, will not be repaid. Life is not fair whether you owe money or are owed. Deal.
I'm not sure how this comment is relevant to the post. Although, it is an interesting commentary on debt.
I made the initial post. The notion of debt, for me is inseparable from the %1. If a person has the legal ability to issue debt in massive amounts; that person can warp the price of many things. In short the welfare/warfare state is supported by the same mechanism, ongoing debt expansion.
I like the initial post...and the concept that we need to reduce debt. What do you think about advocating a third party candidate?
No, OFFERS are what you put forth in negotiation. DEMANDS are either what you dictate to the losing side OR what you state you will fight for. Since this movement seems to be put forth as a modern day Magna Carta, just remember that the Barons didn't get the king to give them rights by saying "we're angry at the way you are running this country, but we don't want to tell you how to change it". They got their way by saying: "now kingy, here's what's going to happen: you're going to...".
Although if the protest becomes too loud to ignore by remaining unaffiliated with a side, you can't discount the possibility that kingy will finally say "What will it take to get this to stop", or, "Would you be satisfied if [...]?"
Again, when asked "what will it take to get this to stop", you're going to have to tell them something. And do you really think any "king" is going to offer you exactly what you want?
If need be we can wait until that actually happens and formulate concrete demands then. And we of course won't be offered exactly what we want, but whatever we are offered would be a starting point to negotiate what we do want.
Until then, it might actually be a sound strategy to remain on the fence, so to speak, so that everyone will be on board and not have a reason to reject the movement prematurely. Movements can get scrambled when their details are more defined and polarizing than they need to be.
Or it could just be that you will eventually lose momentum when people get tired of being asked "so what exactly does your movement hope to accomplish" and are unable to give a concrete answer.
Waiting until you win to decide what you won is kind of like when you're a kid and you make a bet with another kid, saying "if you win, I'll give you this, but if I win I get anything of yours I want, I'll decide what when I see what all you have."
Not to mention that without a concrete destination, how do you know when you've got to the place you've been going?
Could be. We're just talking theories and predicting the future, so I'll submit that you could be right. Or I could be right. We don't know.
It's not like making a bet with undefined rewards, because engaging in protest doesn't require that the people you're protesting agree to any terms beforehand.
As for how we'll know when we get there -- as I already said, we'll know when we get asked by kingy what we want in order to make it stop.
Ah but it IS a bet. "If you win, I'll go away and shut up. If I win, I get what I want." The bet is on how long the protesting group can keep is cohesion.
And honestly, why do you keep typing kingy?
That's a bit different. Your bet example pointed to the way the other party is bound to reject the bet beforehand because of the undefined risk. I'm saying this is inapplicable, because the other party in this case doesn't need to accept anything in order for us to protest. We just do it.
According to the new model you've switched to, it's true we don't know how long we can keep our cohesion, but that's true of any protest. So far our numbers seem to be rising rather than falling though.
You used the kingy terminology and I thought it was as apt a word as any for the powers that be.
Ah, a mis-spelling on my part. I meant to type king. That's what I get for typing stuff up at 3 in the morning.
If you don't like the term bet, replace it with the term "game of chance." It's like two-face in the batman comics. You didn't have a choice whether to participate in the game of "do I shoot you in the face or not", you just did.
As as far as cohesion and size increase... try this experiment: Take a pencil and put it slanted downwards under a slowly dripping faucet. at the bottom you'll see that a bead of water forms. It will get bigger and bigger until it falls off and becomes a droplet. It will fall until it hits something, and if that something is the floor, it fragments, splashing many smaller droplets every which way. Here's another one: Take one brick. Set it on the ground. Take another one, sit it on top. Repeat step two until the tower falls over.
It's the way of nature: objects in order tend towards disorder. You don't drop a bunch of glass shards, no matter how high and expect them to reform into a glass. But you if you drop a glass glass from high enough up, you can bet it's going to shatter into a bunch of glass shards.
There's something though, that opposes this fact in your protest: your common goal.
That's the bet I'm seeing: you're betting your common goal can hold your movement together long enough to get what you want. But if your movement falls apart before that because of in-fighting and an inability to agree on terms or direction of the movement, then you've lost the bet. I'm not saying you're betting at long odds or anything, just that you're making a bet.
Any movement would be subject to those same pitfalls. As I stated above, the possibility exists that the lack of clear demands could be a strength. If you wanted to say it's a gamble due to the fact that it's a new concept never before tried (and I think that is actually what you mean to get at), I'd have to agree. It's definitely new ground.
I think I see now. I'm sorry if this is offensive, but this seems to be a perfect analogy:
It's like a flash mob!
A random group wants violence but doesn't seem to care where they turn for it. You don't usually get flash mobs (a true one, not a planned one) appearing out of nowhere saying "we all want to hurt this one guy". The flash mobs are more along the lines of "we want to hurt someone NOW". If you try to slow them down and explain to them that they need to hurt these specific guys, the movement loses steam.
I don't mean to insinuate that the Occupiers are a mob, or are out to hurt people, just that you're trying to point out that the movement is similar in certain aspects to one.
The exclamation point and other aspects of your language here make it difficult for me to accept your claim that you're actually respecting my side of the debate, but alright.
Except that a flash mob out to hurt someone doesn't have any actual concern they're fighting for; and it's not that we refuse to slow down when you explain what we should be doing merely due to the fact that it would slow us down. We may reject the suggestion of direction that focuses us inappropriately away from parts of our concern in favor of others.
I apologize. I have a tendency to be sarcastic, rude, and facetious when I'm tired... and it's 4:30 down here.
I really do respect your opinions and your right to have them, even if I don't understand or agree with them.
That's okay, I suppose it was poetic justice for my "cerebral" remark below.
And the same to you, as far as respecting your opinions.
I just realized, you're the guy I've been debating with in both of my on-going debates on here... and they're both on this same page.
Yep, it's time for me to log off and get some sleep.
Ha yeah that's the sign that it's time for bed.
We do not plan on being the losing side. We are many they are few. Trying to put down this movement will actually only make it stronger. We are about to show the politicians and the corporations of the world what "to big to fail" looks like.
Honestly, the reason I want demands is so when I walk up to an occupier and ask "so, what exactly do you want?" I can get a strait answer, so I can tell exactly what they hope to accomplish. Until I do, I cannot in good faith even think about supporting the movement.
But that is how it is in a democracy. This isnt about what i want, or what those protesters on the street want or what your neighbor wants. It is about what you want.
This recession didnt affect you the same way. So you need your own wants. That is how democracy works. To line of protesters, "Do you want to raise taxes on rich people?" Answers: Yes, yes, no, yes, no, yes, yes, yes, no, no, yes,no, yes,yes, no, yes, no, no, yes , yes , yes , yes, no, yes.
"Ok tally up the answers and tell me the results". After tallying: "15 yay, 9 nay".
Then "yay" it is to increasing taxes on the rich. You are one of those yes or no's. If you do not make your voice heard here it will not be heard. Because no one here speaks for you. Everyone speaks for themselves.
We are a pure democracy.
And with pure democracy, can't you tally up the votes you get and come up with some demands? I'm not asking you to conform to my way of thinking, but you're out there purporting to speak for 99% of America, of which I am a part. I can't just stay silent, because if I don't actively refute the fact that you speak for me, then I'm passively supporting you. And again, until I get a clear cut view of exactly what this movement wants, I cannot do that.
They are working on a list of popular demands now. They have to make sure they get enough people to represent enough of the population to make most of the people happy or else we lose support and potential support.
Making demands that most people in the US agree to first will get us enough support to give those demands meaning.
You can make demands all you want but if you dont have any support to back it up, it isnt going anywhere. This movement is a long term thing. Probably will last a couple more months at least. Democracy is a slow process.
Yes, clearcut slogans etc would certainly be useful in attracting those who can't get behind anything more cerebral.
First off, if you're going to try to call me stupid, just say it to my face.
Second, for all I know, OWS could decide that they want the government to be overturned and the capitalist USA to become the socialist USSA. I doubt that will happen, but I've heard enough noise to know that it ISN'T an impossibility.
It's like TV. I don't say I like a show without first watching it to see what's actually in it. It's like clothing. I don't say a shirt fits me until I try it on to see if it actually does. It's like real life. I don't join a movement unless I know for certain that that movement is fighting for the same things I want.
I used sarcasm there to point something out. Since protests generally have had clearcut agendas, many people demand that before getting behind them.
This protest is about being heard on the fact that THERE IS A BIG PROBLEM. We've outlined the details of the problem, and only seek, for now, to have them recognized.
I don't think you're stupid. I want you to open your mind and try not to continue being a slave to your preconceptions of what protest must necessarily be.
If you've been paying attention on this forum then you known the movement is clearly not about enacting any -ism. A couple of individuals, possibly under a false flag, have suggested it, and were consistently shot down.
There's no candidate, no -ism, nothing but declaring that things are not right and need to be fixed. We're protesting the fact that no one's trying to fix them. Our only demand so far is that people realize these problems exist and need to be dealt with somehow. This may not fit your mold for a protest, but that's what it is.
Okay, so you have made your point. There's a problem. You're on the news, you have people talking about you in the dairy isle at wal-mart (at least down here in Texas). Heck, you're getting people talking about this in the junior high where my little sister goes to school. You've brought attention to the fact that you're unhappy and that something's wrong.
Now what? Why are you still out there then? If your only intention was to bring attention to the problem, then congratulations, you've succeeded. However, you have to realize that quite a large amount of people in this country are apathetic. They just don't care. You're going to need something more concrete than "something's wrong" to create the change that everyone seems to want.
We haven't made our point yet. We don't just want attention. We want recognition of the problem by the powers that be. When they accept the fact that things must change and start working towards changing them, or asking for ideas, we'll consider that a victory. Again, remember, we're protesting the fact that no one's doing anything.
Regarding needing something more concrete, we've already been through that, so I have to direct you above rather than repeat myself.
So you say you want the government to do SOMETHING. It doesn't matter what, as long as it's in the general direction you want?
Of course not. That's a strawman argument. The recognition of a problem and work towards fixing it would be a victory.
Work towards fixing it -- not doing merely anything at all. We'd have to be convinced that they were actually working towards a fix. And, seeing preliminary work would be A victory, and not necessarily mean the end-all. When we're convinced changes are being made that WILL fix the problem, I suppose that would more likely be the end. We don't necessarily have clearcut notions beforehand of what would satisfy those criteria though.
Again you're back to: we see the problem, when the government fixes it to our satisfaction we're done. We don't know quite what we're aiming for, but when the government gets there, we'll know it and be happy.
I'm having a hard time understanding this.
When you go to the doctor because something hurts, do you necessarily know what he should do to cure you?
I'm the wrong person to ask for that. Aside from the fact that two of my sisters are nurses and I took enough classes in school to have at least a general idea of what's wrong in my body, I only get sick in several ways: a stomach virus, out-of-joint vertebrae, or a cold. All of which I've had recurring since my 10th grade year.
But even for normal people, I would think, when you go to the doctor you can list off enough symptoms that you have a basic idea of what the doctor's going to tell you. You may not know exactly what he'll proscribe, but if you go in with severe chest pains, an erratic pulse, and shortness of breath, you can probably say in all sincerity: "doctor, I think I may be having a heart attack. Should I go take some Bayer?"
But following the doctor analogy: my grandfather went to the doctor with all the classic signs of stroke. The doctor said it was actually NOT a stroke, gave him some medicine for what he thought it was, and sent him home. We took him to another doctor, he said the same thing. Said it would get better after time, and sent him home again with more medicine. We had to keep taking him to other doctors until one finally said: let's give him a cat scan. Turns out, it WAS a stroke. Now, he has trouble walking, eating, and writing because it was left for so long.
We all KNEW it was a stroke. Those other doctors, however, were so enamored with their theory that it was something else that they ignored the simplest explanation.
So the excuse that the "doctor always knows best" doesn't exactly hold water in my family.
The doctor in this case clearly doesn't know best, as in your scenario, or else things would already be fine.
We, as you, have a clear enough picture of the state of affairs to know whether or not a suggested fix has a good chance of working, or not, though.
And yet you don't have a clear enough view to suggest these fixes yourself?
We do have some good ideas, but I'm arguing from the perspective that it's fine not to, because we don't officially endorse any particular demands yet.
So yes, we consult with the doctor to find out what he thinks would help. We can then either agree or disagree with his recommendation, or ask that he tweak it in a particular way.