Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Vanishing Threads in OWS forum? If its going on its really Shady...

Posted 2 years ago on May 13, 2012, 2:26 p.m. EST by Endgame (535)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

So I noticed that when I was signed off and I was looking for a thread I just recently posted in (that I created) I noticed that I could not find it anywhere. I kept on refreshing the page and scrolling way down and it was nowhere to be found.

Then I signed in and even though it wasn't highlighted(which was odd because all of the other threads I entered were highlighted as all previously viewed links are) I was able to find my thread.

Thread in question: http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupys-choices-anarchism-violence-and-failure-or-/

SCREENCAP OF FORUM WHEN SIGNED OFF http://oi46.tinypic.com/2rfeded.jpg

SCREENCAP OF FORUM WHEN SIGNED IN http://oi46.tinypic.com/2vm69mt.jpg

So is this an error, or some cheap trick to silence some of the posts that the powers that be disagree with? I can understand if this was done to a troll spouting nonsense but I am a supporter and member of the movement but with some critical views of it.

Has this happened to anyone else? (EDIT: Yep when I sign off my thread vanishes...)

48 Comments

48 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I dropped the "Support the 99% ... " from the title as I believe it to be an unnecessary tag for the proposal of Election Holidays.

so that might seem to be missing

it now starts

demand elections be national and state holidays Though the working class population would benefit by voting with on their day off

I would hope for a stricter holiday in which most stores are closed like Christmas or Thanksgiving

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

mark you are completely ignoring every damn thing i've said. I've answered every single one of those questions you just asked multiple times already. You know damn well what you're doing. You completely ignore my points and try to twist my words without answering half of the questions I ask.

You want to see a real example of using plain english? This discussion with you is past the point where its just repetitive and pointless. You have done a terrible job defending the reluctancy of Anarchist to put Anarchism in the forefront of this movement when advertised.

Seems to me some of the Anarchists in this movement have been flying under false colors and are testing coming out. But have been tentative and nervous and because of that they have not been forthright about showing everyone those true colors. This continuous loop of a conversation I have been having with you reaffirms this for me. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2030) 2 years ago

Yeah, I've experienced it too. Maybe a way of dealing with this is to post new threads, and comments faster than they can delete them...

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Shouldn't have to resort to that. If you aren't trolling then you shouldn't have to worry about your opinion on something being deleted.

We shouldn't have to jump threw hoops to have our voice be heard. It goes to show that if you're in the movement and you question something that someone like the person that created this site does not like they just block your point of view from being heard.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2030) 2 years ago

I agree we shouldn't have to jump through hoops; that would be nice. I suppose that is up to whoever is running this site though.

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Wish there was a larger disclaimer on the front of the site that says something like "If I the creator of the site disagrees with you, you will be silenced". That would of been more of an honest statement.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Yes. I've seen many times where posts disappear or get shadow-banned.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupys-choices-anarchism-violence-and-failure-or-/

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

So the question has to be asked..why was this thread shadow-banned? What rules were broken?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Most stuff I've seen be deleted or shadow banned are things that are critical of OWS anarchistic methods.

Then again, I've seen these same types of discussions not get banned. It's somewhat random. Or maybe certain posts strike a nerve.

I think you can inquiry the moderators here. mailto:general@occupywallst.org

Here's another recent one that got shadow banned. http://occupywallst.org/forum/-5-fails-from-jart-and-the-moderators-or-why-this-/#comment-733495

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

HI, April.

There is a bot that has recently been deployed by someone who is opposed to voting. He claims to be officially OWS, but that is clearly a lie. He is someone who, I believe, threatened to do it a couple of weeks ago.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/obama-supporter-purge-initiated-by-ows-bots/

Notice that even the replies on that thread were collapsed. This guy is a autocrat posing as an anarchist. I would laugh at the irony of it if it didn't do harm.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

I have been nothing but supportive of peaceful civil disobedience tactics especially since I have been apart of some. The thread that go shadow banned wasn't critical of those tactics at all. So..wth.

I'll email the address you sent me. Doubt the reply I get will make much sense as to why they did what they did.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I'm not talking about the tactics. I'm referring to the concept of anarchism. As in - replace our current form of government, Representative Republic, for Direct Democracy. And ending capitalism. Replacing it with anarcho-syndicalism, or some other anarcho type thing. That's what OWS anarchists want. You were kind of making fun of that. That's the way I read it anyway. As if, it could never really happen. OWS anarchists truly believe it can happen. Why else do you think they're running the movement the way they are? They might have been offended - if a mod read it the way I did.

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

I was referring to the negative stigma that surrounds Anarchism. I wasn't making fun of anyone or what they believe in. I was just approaching this from a realistic stand point of how people have viewed Anarchism for centuries. I wasn't even disagreeing with anyone when they would constantly give me the definition of the word.

But for the sake of the argument lets say that I was doing all of those things(which I wasn't). Do the people here just try to shut the people up that they disagree with? I wasn't even trolling. I've always been supportive of this movement but I also like to focus on the flaws so we can find ways to improve the movement. Is that a banable offense? It just seems really petty to try to quite people that are NOT trolling that disagree with you.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I hear ya. I'm not in their heads. I'm just giving my opinion based on what I've seen.

I've seen lots of critical stuff about anarchism get deleted and banned. I don't think this movement wants advice in this respect. The anarchists are running it based on anarchy methods and thats not gonna change. The way they set up the system of voting in the GA's prevents it.

They know that people view anarchism negatively. That's why OWS exists. To enlighten the masses as to what anarchism is and get rid of the negative stigmas. OWS exists to promote anarchism as an alternative to our form of government and capitalism.

[-] 2 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

I appreciate your replies but again it basically just boils down to them shutting anyone up that disagrees with them. Not a good look for the site and definitely not a good view of their character. Its a shame really.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I'd say that is a correct assessment - as it relates to the core principles of OWS.

OWS rational for the censorship (ostracizing) is "solidarity". Either get with the program, the core principles - anarchy, accept it - or you're really not part of the club.

It's communism. Everyone has to do their share as part of the communal group or the group breaks down. Anyone that is not working towards the good of the communal group is ostracized. To be more precise, the communist result - you would probably be shot. Anarchy theory doesn't really support the use of brute force to get you to act in "solidarity". They just (gently) ostracize you.

Anarchy is the kinder and gentler communism.

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

If that is indeed the reasoning then..that is complete BS.

That rationale is so Faux News like. Basically if you disagree with us we try to shut you up and shun you away. If you truly believe in what you believe in then you should be able to back it up without trying to shut people up. Again, I can understand if someone is continuously trolling but as a supporter of the movement I wasn't even coming close to doing anything like that.

Also, if Communism and Anarchism is at the core of the movement why hasn't OWS advertised itself that way? Why isn't "Anarchy" front and center of Occupy in terms of how it brands itself to the public and even to its own supporters? Hell why isn't it on the front page of this site? If they are your core believes of this movement why hide it? From the very beginning if what you say is true then Occupy should of branded itself as a Communist and Anarchism movement. It never did publicly and continues not to. And to have anyone that associates this movement not even being able to question any of that is extremely troubling.

I have to say I hope your reply is more your opinion than it is the believes of the people that run this site.

Also I have to ask, April are you a mod?

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Hey, endgame. Go to forum page and click on that top 'best comment' by stevebol that has 8 points and tell me what you see. I'm curious if you see what I see.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I saw that too. 5 comments. 3 have been deleted. Including stevebols comment.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Yeah. What's up with that? Best comment of the day gets deleted? It doesn't make sense, that's why I'm not sure it's deliberate censorship. I'd like to know what the comment was. That would help determine if it's deliberate censorship or not. I wish someone with more knowledge of computers than me would give some insight as to whether this could just be computer-related as opposed to actual censorship.

And that's not the only thing I'm beginning to wonder about.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Funding. I think we've heard it all. Soros. DNC. Otpor/CANVAS. Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream. Mother Goose. Did I miss one??

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

There is a definite effort to delete and ban certain critical material. I'm sure of it. I've seen it too many times. For it not to be totally intentional. Not to say some critical stuff doesn't get left alone. There absolutely is some critical stuff that doesn't get deleted. There is some randomness about it. But I have zero doubt in my mind, there is the definite attempt to shut certain stuff down.

What else are you wondering about.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

The randomness is what I find most perplexing. There's no rhyme or reason to it, although I'm sure some of it is intentional. To what degree, though, is another matter. As far as what else I'm beginning to wonder about, I'm not sure I should say anything here.

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

gnomunny, that is odd. I would like an official explanation on that too.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

I'd like to think at least some of the random deletions aren't censorship. Why delete a 'best comment?' I'm puzzled as hell. It would be nice to have one of the admin's weigh in on this. Or, like I said below, someone with computer programming savvy tell us whether it could be computer-related.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I'm just relaying my observations. With some opinions thrown in there - based on those observations.

I agree with you - everything you're sayin'.

But anarchy is front and center. You just have to know what you're looking for. It is on the front page of this site. I think some people take it figuratively instead of literally. This movement says it's a revolution. As in, end our form of government and capitalism. This movement says "we don't need politicians". Because in a direct democracy form of government, there are no politicians. The movement isn't hiding it. It is publicly branding itself as anarchist. Even if it doesn't come out and directly say so. It really doesn't have to. Or maybe OWS doesn't come out more directly, because they know the negative stigma attached. But every core principle of the movement is anarchistic. Direct democracy, leaderless, non-hierarchical structure. All anarchy principles. It was anarchists that started this movment that put these principles in place.

Anarchists started the movement and are the most active particpants, running the movement. It's a pretty well known, even documented fact. It's not been hidden. I really don't understand why some people don't know this. It's kind of all over the place. Not to say there aren't lots of non anarchists involved. But the most active core, running the movement are the anarchists/anti-capitalists.

jart is the original programmer of this website. She's an anarchist.
http://www.gaycitynews.com/articles/2011/11/10/gay_city_news/news/doc4ebace95a0c26985577656.txt

A well known anarchist David Graeber, co-ord the original occupation.
http://anarchistnews.org/node/18271

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11293836/1/meet-the-man-behind-occupy-wall-street.html

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/28/111128fa_fact_schwartz?currentPage=3

It's not been hidden. And, no, I'm not a mod. I'm not an anarchist either. Just in case that thought crossed your mind. : )

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Again, thanks for the response. But with all due respect the founders of this site do NOT advertise this site with anything about Anarchism. On the front page there is absolutely no mention of it. In national interviews of with Occupy spokesman there has NEVER been any mention of Anarchism.

Which proves my point. Even the anarchists that run this site know that there is a devastating stigma tied to Anarchism. Which makes it more shady that my thread was shadow banned.

I don't buy this "anarchy is front and center. You just have to know what you're looking for" stance. Why do I have to look for it, why isn't it literally front and center?! I've heard many times from Anarchists on this site how they aren't interested in being phony or cryptic or sugar coding their believes in order to get more people into believing in Anarchism. Yet the irony is that the creators of this site are doing just that!

Again, if you believe in what you believe in why be cryptic about it? Why should anyone have to decipher the true meaning of what you believe in. Just have enough balls to speak plainly for what you stand for.

I think the creators of this site know that if they actually did advertise what they really stood for loud and clear that it would turn alot of would be supporters and even current supporters away.

The whole thing is just shady as hell. I really do appreciate your insight of where these guys are coming from. It has given me a lot to think about...

Also thanks for the email you gave me to ask the powers that be why they shadow banned my thread. I have yet to get a reply though.

[-] 1 points by markpaddles (143) from Denver, CO 2 years ago

"Again, if you believe in what you believe in why be cryptic about it?"

I don't see them being cryptic about anything. If you spent 1 hour reading and educating yourself on anarchist theory you wouldn't need for somebody to have to hold your hand and label it for you.

"Why should anyone have to decipher the true meaning of what you believe in. Just have enough balls to speak plainly for what you stand for."

I believe the true meaning of what they believe in is clearly stated right there on the front page in 2 concise paragraphs. I also believe they did speak plainly for what they stood for when they created the occupy movement. It took "balls" (courage would be a more appropriate word) to start what they started. And what they created was obviously so appealing to others that people of all political stripes came down to sit in with them. Since this time it has run into many issues, of course... but regardless, they ARE speaking plainly for what they stand for.

Your position here is a little inconsistent. First, you are talking about how the word anarchism has a negative stigma attached to it (which I agree with), and then 3 paragraphs later you are lambasting them for not putting the word anarchist to describe them on the front page of the website. wtf? So is your point to just discredit those who started this movement in order to co-op the movement?

Also, when you say... "In national interviews with Occupy spokesman there has NEVER been any mention of Anarchism." Now with this statement you are becoming even more inconsistent (at least for those who remember a few of your posts http://occupywallst.org/forum/does-occupy-need-help-in-pr/). Your post about the need for creating a PR department for occupy was entirely based on an Occupy spokesman going on national TV (Fox news) talking about how occupy was anarchist. You were up in arms about this, and now you are claiming that nobody has ever mentioned them being anarchist? wtf, again?

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Im not asking the website to hold my hand or anyone else's hand. Im asking for some basic transparency. If it turns out the core of what you stand for is Anarchism that should be front and center. How the hell is that asking for someone's hand to be held?

In the Civil Rights Movement you didn't have to "spend 1 hour reading" to find out what its about at its core. That explanation you gave just doesn't hold up.

Again, the front page says absolutely nothing about Anarchism. And I like what Occupy stands for judging by what is said on the front page. I wouldn't be apart of it if I didn't. And Anarchism is NOT spoken in plain English there. Seriously point out where its spoken plainly. It seems like the creator of this site uses word play to be able to later on and say "see it does mean Anarchism". Why not just literally use plain english? Again, not about holding peoples hands its about being as transparent as possible. And No one is disagreeing that it "took balls" to start this.

And my position has been completely consistent. You are basically saying i've been inconsistent because I want the owner of this site to be transparent and advertise in plain english what he stands for? How in any way does that show me being inconsistent? Just because it is fact that Anarchism is a negative stigma doesn't mean that I want someone to false advertise themselves if thats what they really believe in. There is no inconsistency in that at all.

And go back and read my "Does Occupy Need PR" thread. Never did I once say in that horrible interview that HE mentioned Anarchism or even called himself a Anarchists(which further proves my point of how even Anarchists are reluctant to publicly state what they really are due to the stigma). The guy on in the interview clearly was an Anarchist but I was the one that called him one. I think thats where YOU got confused. Here is a link to the thread so you can get your facts straight about what I really said. http://occupywallst.org/forum/does-occupy-need-help-in-pr/

So again, how is that being inconsistent?

[-] 1 points by markpaddles (143) from Denver, CO 2 years ago

Endgame wrote... "You have done a terrible job defending the reluctancy of Anarchist to put Anarchism in the forefront of this movement when advertised. "

The anarchists HAVE put the ideas of anarchism in the forefront of this movement - It's right there in plain English! It's what I have been trying to tell you the entire time. And it's this very idea (participatory democracy, horizontal and leaderless, empowering people to organize and create community) that created the biggest social movement this country has seen since the 70s. It seems that you have more of an issue because they didn't slap a label on these great ideas (which you apparently like so much). Is that what's bothering you?

Endgame wrote... "I've answered every single one of those questions you just asked."

Really? Not true at all. You didn't address your inconsistency in first saying you like what the occupy movement stands for (which is basic anarchist concepts), but then later you flip-flopped and said that it was extremist and unrealistic. So answer this question: How can you say that you like what Occupy stands for, and what is written on the front page (which is basic anarchist concepts, and has been for about 150 years), and then 5 hours later call this unrealistic and extremist? Like I said, you are inconsistent.

Or this question: If you have never read any anarchist literature then how can you say that it is extremist?

And this: How is asking who you work for equate to being a wacko or paranoid conspiracy theorist?

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

mark you are completely ignoring every damn thing i've said. I've answered every single one of those questions you just asked multiple times already. You know damn well what you're doing. You completely ignore my points and try to twist my words without answering half of the questions I ask.

You want to see a real example of using plain english? This discussion with you is past the point where its just repetitive and pointless. You have done a terrible job defending the reluctancy of Anarchist to put Anarchism in the forefront of this movement when advertised.

Seems to me some of the Anarchists in this movement have been flying under false colors and are testing coming out. But have been tentative and nervous and because of that they have not been forthright about showing everyone those true colors. This continuous loop of a conversation I have been having with you reaffirms this for me. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by markpaddles (143) from Denver, CO 2 years ago

Endgame wrote... "So have fun trying to achieve something completely unrealistic."

So now the movement and the reasons you gave us for supporting Occupy are unrealistic? I thought you liked what Occupy stands for? (those are your words) You say you support what is written on the front page of this site - which is the very things that anarchists have been consistently trying to create for over 150 years. And now the very things which you, only 10 hours ago, said you liked about the movement are unrealistic and extremist? And you wonder why I call you inconsistent? I'm starting to believe you are more than just inconsistent, and a few words that are coming to my mind are.. dishonest, at worst; and dense; at best.

"Because he knows the people that joined didn't sign up for extremism."

If you have never read any anarchist theory then how can you say that it is extremist? You can't... and you are just plain fucking ignorant for saying so. But keep on with that...

And asking who you might work for is a simple question. There is nothing wacko or paranoid about this. Why you choose to react with a slurry of ad hominems and indignation is strange, and telling.

And, no... you aren't right about anything here. And I have stayed on the same exact point the entire time here. There is no spin...It's all documented right above, and in plain English.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Im the one trying to hide a true agenda? You've got to be fucking kidding me.

And I do like what was ADVERTISED about Occupy. But looking deeper I see that there seems to be people hiding true agendas. Again, people like the creator of this site to go around to average people and trying to get them to join "an anarchist movement". He wouldn't be to successful. The Anarchists in the Faux News interview was a prime example of how that would go with the majority of Americans. I guess this is where you tell me to read some books about Anarchism..but thats not the damn point and you know it.

And I like how you named off mostly a bunch of moderate sites as if they're liberal. And the shows on MSNBC that are liberal whether you have your problems with them or not(and I do) clearly state they are liberal. Hell when you read the damn tv guide it says Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz, etc are liberal. They even mention it basically every time they're on air.

And thanks for the grammar lesson. A way to tell a guy is full of shit and has nothing to stand on is when he results into becoming a grammar nazi. But you got me there man. You win that one. Congradulations...

Who do I work for? LOL you are a joke. I've noticed a pattern of wackos on this site that claim that everyone that doesn't agree with them is automatically apart of some other organization. I have no doubt that there are some trolls here that are. But when you start labeling everyone that has a different point of view in that manner you just show that you're a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Again, you say I have the hidden agenda yet people like the one that created this site can't just come out and tell the world that this movement is about Anarchism. You know why people like him don't do it? Because he knows the people that joined didn't sign up for extremism. And he knows the majority would split away.

The more you try to spin this just proves my point more. I think we've said all we have to say to each other. We are just going in circles now. But even if you deny it, and you will. You know im right.

[-] 1 points by markpaddles (143) from Denver, CO 2 years ago

endgame wrote... "mark, you say Im having a hard time getting the point? Are you serious right now?"

I'm dead serious. I keep saying the same thing and you dance around the point. So I can't tell if you are just dense, or purposeful just trying to stab the creators of this movement in the back.

Endgame wrote... "The bottom line is that this movement isn't advertised to the masses as an Anarchists movement even if the theology of the movement derives from it."

It's not theology... it's THEORY. If you can't use proper terminology maybe you shouldn't continue pretending you know what is best for OWS. And their theory has been put into action, and the gist of this theory is written, IN PLAIN ENGLISH, on the front page of the website. And this theory that was put into action created the biggest social movement since the 70s because, quite simply, people like what it stands for. They "advertise" who they are by honestly stating their vision - in PLAIN ENGLISH. Why can't you understand this point?

"If I were to go to a Liberal website right upfront they say what they are. If I were to go to a Conservative website they say right upfront what they are. When you come here..."

Bullshit! Truthdig.com - where does it state that it is a Liberal or progressive site? Huffington Post - where does it state that it is a liberal website or progressive site? MSNBC - Where does it state that it is a liberal site? The Atlantic - where does it state that it is a conservative site? Alternet - where does it state is a liberal site? The tea party website where does it state that it is a conservative or libertarian site?

Endgame wrote... "So have fun trying to achieve something completely unrealistic."

So now the movement and the reasons you gave us for supporting Occupy are unrealistic? I thought you liked what Occupy stands for? (those are your words)... And now the very things which you, only 10 hours ago, said you liked about the movement are unrealistic? And you wonder why I call you inconsistent? I'm starting to believe you are more than just inconsistent, and the word that is coming to my mind is.. dishonest.

Endgame wrote... "The other 99% of the movement will eventually move on to actually accomplishing real goals. The all or nothing extremists are the ones holding this movement back."

And now your agenda is becoming more apparent - CO-OPTATION. Who do you work for? DNC? 99% Spring? The "extremists" are the ones who laid down and created the very structure which you supposedly like and support - which is basically admitting that you like the core concepts of anarchism. But it is pretty apparent that you would instead prefer to shoot them in the back, steal their ideas and stamp a new label on it. Your liberal ideology is bankrupt, and you all know it. So the only thing you got left is to hijack the movement and pretend that you started the parade. There is no honor or integrity in what you are doing.

"I just wish the creator of this site would show a little bit more transparency."

Says the dude who hides behind an anonymous screen name with an obvious hidden agenda.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

mark, you say Im having a hard time getting the point? Are you serious right now? You know what this isn't going anywhere.

The bottom line is that this movement isn't advertised to the masses as an Anarchists movement even if the theology of the movement derives from it. The point of what i've been stating over and over..and over is the negative stigma behind the word. AND the fact that Anarchism is not used in advertising the movement or this site. Not on the front page. I don't care how you try to spin it.

If I were to go to a Liberal website right upfront they say what they are. If I were to go to a Conservative website they say right upfront what they are. When you come here...

So have fun trying to achieve something completely unrealistic. The other 99% of the movement will eventually move on to actually accomplishing real goals. The all or nothing extremists are the ones holding this movement back. Im not the one thats not being helpful here. Its the ones that continue to allow the vandalizers and extremists to bring the whole movement down.

So I guess we'll just see where this goes. I just wish the creator of this site would show a little bit more transparency.

[-] 1 points by markpaddles (143) from Denver, CO 2 years ago

Endgame, I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time getting the point.

The majority of Anarchists for the past 150 years have been consistent and honest in what type of society they have wanted to create - leaderless (non-hierarchical), bottom-up participatory democracy, organized horizontally, general assembly meetings, ect... all which works to empower the people to build communities and create a better world. This can be proven by simply reading their literature.

So, all of these things above are written about in the front page and have been consistently what they have been stating for the past 150 years - IN PLAIN ENGLISH! They are the ones being honest here. "Both the intelligent man and the ignorant mass judge not from a thorough knowledge of the subject, but either from hearsay or false interpretation." It is these people who are not being honest (whether intentional, or unintentional does not matter)... and for you to try to invert the truth of this by suggesting it is the anarchists who aren't being truthful (your words, phony or cryptic or sugar coding) is pathetic and not helpful, at all.

You asked.. "Are you seriously going to try to get people on board the movement by telling them to go read a book or are you going to do the common sense thing and right there on the spot be able to articulate in an honest way the what your movement is and what its about at its core?"

No, and the people who started this didn't either. What they did was they started something that they believed in, and by simply putting this vision into ACTION people got on board with the movement because they really liked what they saw, regardless of their political knowledge. Isn't that why you joined? They didn't go say read a book; they said come join us! And for those who knew less about politics and economics, they had the opportunity to sit down at teach-ins with professors and learn about these things - for free!

You said.. "I've seen alot of people on this site that carry themselves like they live in a bubble."

Yeah, I know... you definitely like to throw out that anybody who disagrees with you is living in a bubble. Maybe you should take a look in the mirror sometime...

You said... "You try going to some middle of the road citizen and tell them "hey join Occupy and that its about Anarchism..but wait before you judge read some books about Anarchy""

There is no need to do this. As I stated above... they simply started what they believed in, put it into ACTION, and it happened to create the biggest social justice movement this country has seen since the 70s. So obviously what they are DOING is what matters, and not what some dense person who wants to treat it like a sales pitch thinks. Actions speak louder than words... and their actions to create the vision they have been writing about for over 150 years are what matters here.

You wrote... "The Anarchists will continue to achieve unrealistic goals that require the government and our society as a whole to completely collapse for them to achieve what they want."

Dude, The government and our society are going to completely collapse all by themselves - unsustainable systems that ignore the Laws of Thermodynamics have a way of doing this. So its pretty lame to try and blame the people who are courageously working hard to stop the death march - even if you have your disagreements with them on how to stop the death march. This kind of attitude is divisive and unhelpful.

"You can't be neutral on a moving train." - Howard Zinn

[-] 1 points by markpaddles (143) from Denver, CO 2 years ago

"Again, the front page says absolutely nothing about Anarchism."

I beg to differ... and I can confidently say this because I have read plenty of anarchist theory.

"And I like what Occupy stands for judging by what is said on the front page."

Then you like basic concepts of anarchism!

"And Anarchism is NOT spoken in plain English there. Seriously point out where its spoken plainly. "

Go read a book or an essay written by an anarchist about anarchist theory... and it will become plain enough. Educating yourself generally has a way of clearing the inconsistent, low-level clouds of ignorance...

[-] 1 points by markpaddles (143) from Denver, CO 2 years ago

You wrote today: "In national interviews with Occupy spokesman there has NEVER been any mention of Anarchism."

Is this a true statement? Just answer this one simple question.

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

mark, I have no doubt that you have read plenty of Anarchist theory, but that does not change the fact that most haven't and most think of Anarchism as a violent bad thing. So for the overwhelming majority of people that see the front page there is no sign of Anarchism at all. And the creator of this site knows this. And he knows what hes doing by not out right saying the word. In fact he goes out of his way to not.

Whether you feel I like the basic concept of Anarchism or not is besides the point. The point is the majority of the public does too. So why doesn't the creator of this site put Anarchism at the forefront of the page if he didn't feel it would turn people away? Thats a rhetorical question. We all know why by now.

Again, if this is what he believes IT SHOULD BE IN PLAIN ENGLISH. Are you seriously going to try to get people on board the movement by telling them to go read a book or are you going to do the common sense thing and right there on the spot be able to articulate in an honest way the what your movement is and what its about at its core?

I've seen alot of people on this site that carry themselves like they live in a bubble. You try going to some middle of the road citizen and tell them "hey join Occupy and that its about Anarchism..but wait before you judge read some books about Anarchy". lol I can almost guarantee you that if that was this movement's sales pitch from the beginning Occupy would never even of been a blip on the map. And people like the guy that created this site knows this.

That is why I really do believe this movement will eventually fracture off. The Anarchists will continue to achieve unrealistic goals that require the government and our society as a whole to completely collapse for them to achieve what they want. And the overwhelming majority of the rest of the members will make transformative changes to this society using realistic goals to bring people on board.

[-] 0 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

mark the guy that did the interview with Hannity does in fact identify himself an Anarchists...which is actually worse..(turns out he not only made the movement look horrible he made Anarchists look horrible)

But my point still stands. Thats like one random Anarchists that completely made this entire movement look bad out of how many Occupy spokesmen interviews so far?

I misspoke about him identifying himself as an Anarchists even though when the topic comes up he completely side steps the topic. Why is that?

But the overwhelming majority of the national interviews that Occupy Spokespeople have gave made absolutely no mention of Anarchism. I find it ironic that the one that does identify himself as one came off as completely erractic and the worse spokesman for anything i've ever seen.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

I agree.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

I think a lot of it is benign. I tried to find a post a week or so ago from another poster and although I scrolled down to threads almost two weeks old I never found it. I PM'ed them and told them it had been pulled, but they were able to find it rather quickly. I couldn't but the OP could. Makes no sense.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

I think its absolutely intentional. In this thread when there were NO comments it showed that this thread had -1 comments. How the hell do you have negative 1 comments?

I have no doubt gnomunny, that there have been other posters that have had the samething done to them. But there is no way its benign. This is clearly intentional. And to be honest its petty as hell.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6614) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

I've also seen posts that claimed a certain number of comments and the number was off. I've also had comments to me disappear occasionally. I'll click on the black box only to find their reply nowhere on the thread. And how to explain posts that disappear, only to reappear later, which I've seen. So, I don't know what to think of vanishing threads and comments. It is annoying.

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Im still not buying it. Its way to convenient. The thread didn't start having problems showing up offline until I started getting push back. And judging by some of the actions by some of the people in charge I definitely wouldn't put it past one of them to stoop this low.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (26689) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Luv U 2.

Quisling?

Examples of QUISLING

<warned that all quislings would be punished without mercy>

Origin of QUISLING Vidkun Quisling †1945 Norwegian politician who collaborated with the Nazis First Known Use: 1940 Related to QUISLING Synonyms: apostate, backstabber, betrayer, double-crosser, double-dealer, Judas, traitor, recreant, serpent, snake, turncoat


Funny.

Yeah.

Sounds just like you and your blind marching crew of greedy corrupt criminal supporters.

Good one.

Thanks for raising your hand and waving for those who might not have recognized you yet.

OH - BTW this is OWS.org I think they would likely get rid of me if I were the enemy of the movements against greed corruption and crime.

OH & BTW - my posts and comments are available for any one to review who would like to take the time and look them up.

And as for censoring your trollish comments? I wish the forum would not as that removes other contributors good material. I would like to see them collapse your comment instead.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

The fastest way to get banned on this (or any) forum is by being a d-u-m-b-a-s-s

[-] 1 points by Endgame (535) 2 years ago

Fair enough. But its not right to make threads disappear or even to ban someone just for disagreeing.

Now if someone is clearly trolling over and over and bringing nothing of substance to the conversation then I agree ban them. I just get the sense that some of the people that are in controlled of deleting threads,limiting thread views, and banning people might be being a little petty in some of their actions.