What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

pirate said:
That whole thing seems like it was written by an 11th grader for a social studies class.
Click to expand...

Remember the audience.

There is some merit there...but societal polarization and US due process will make it hard to put to practice.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

5mn_Major said:
Remember the audience.

There is some merit there...but societal polarization and US due process will make it hard to put to practice.
Click to expand...

I'd like to say everybody can read that document and find elements of truth, cause for action, mistakes in logic and worthless propaganda...however, depending on the viewpoint of the reader, most would say they only find the first two or the last two.

Personally, I try to see all 4 but since this ship already lists to the left that viewpoint doesn't need any more advocates (unless we're trying to do a "Pirates of the Caribbean" full 360).

But nobody wants to organize a sit in that promotes common ground and an acceptance that everything can't be exactly how "I" want it to be.

While some on here pat themselves on the back each time they can work teh SOCIALISM!!1!! into a post, they are fine with teh CORPORATIONS!1!1!! or teh RICH!!!1!1 being the cornerstone of their arguments.

I don't know the phrase for having an ideological blindspot that allows one to criticize a position as insanely polar while clinging to the exact opposite and thinking it is 'normal' but I suspect it is aptly summed up as politics as usual.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

pirate said:
But nobody wants to organize a sit in that promotes common ground and an acceptance that everything can't be exactly how "I" want it to be.
Click to expand...
That's false, although I can see how it plays into a comforting narrative that protesters are purists and at best Quixotic, at worst self-absorbed, which makes dismissing them that much easier.

In the real world, any time there's a protest with more than one guy holding a sign, it's a compromise and a search for the intersection of the Venn diagram of the protesters. That's why larger protests tend to become both less coherent (they tend to be unstable and break into their larger and more aggressive subsets) and less strictly logical (differences are papered over by emotional appeals, and of course there is the lowest common denominator effect that the larger the group the more it yields to its louder, dumber members -- or even if it doesn't that's where the cameras go).

It's easy to see these dynamics when it's a protest you agree with. When you think the protesters are wrong, or when they challenge your cherished belief, how much simpler to put them into some prefab intellectual box, close it up, and put it on a shelf. And there are always pundits, either explicitly paid by the status quo or just incidentally benefiting from it, to supply the boxes.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Kepler said:
That's false, although I can see how it plays into a comforting narrative that protesters are purists and at best Quixotic, at worst self-absorbed, which makes dismissing them that much easier.

In the real world, any time there's a protest with more than one guy holding a sign, it's a compromise and a search for the intersection of the Venn diagram of the protesters. That's why larger protests tend to become both less coherent (they tend to be unstable and break into their larger and more aggressive subsets) and less strictly logical (differences are papered over by emotional appeals, and of course there is the lowest common denominator effect that the larger the group the more it yields to its louder, dumber members -- or even if it doesn't that's where the cameras go).

It's easy to see these dynamics when it's a protest you agree with. When you think the protesters are wrong, or when they challenge your cherished belief, how much simpler to put them into some prefab intellectual box, close it up, and put it on a shelf. And there are always pundits, either explicitly paid by the status quo or just incidentally benefiting from it, to supply the boxes.
Click to expand...

Really? I didn't see the Tea Partiers looking for any common ground or compromise. And I sure didn't see you trying to find the compromise within their message.

You think I'm only dismissing the OWSers because that is the protest you agree with.

The idea behind most political protests has some merit...whether it is best for the majority or even makes a difference is case by case. Not as political, but if the PSU rally for stopping child abuse became more of a protest I wouldn't say there was no merit to the idea...but if they took to occupying city parks for weeks on end I'd question them as well. How does living in a tent make the rest of us want to stop child abuse? It sure doesn't get you a job.

There were race riots in this country; people took to the streets to change the civil structure of the country...riots over OJ, losing the super bowl, stanley cup or firing a football coach doesn't help the idea that riots are a possible, and justified, outcome of social injustice. Instead it makes rioters (in general) look selfish and stupid.

I don't think the OWS are doing civil disobedience a service with their current effort...I'm not even sure you could get 10 of them in a row to give the same answer about why they are protesting. Doesn't mean there is no merit to the idea of better opportunity etc. but the protest isn't going to produce that, in my opinion.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

I think we're all less likely to see protesters we disagree with in a positive light.

Part of civil disobedience is, well, being disobedient. So occupying a public park or blocking a public street might mean breaking a law, which might mean going to jail or getting fined. Protesters are saying "we'll do the time." If a protest become so large that it overwhelms the capacity of the state bureaucracy to impose legal sanctions on everybody, and/or if the protesters are non-violent in the face of violent state repression, public opinion is gradually bent towards the protesters' positions either out of pragmatism or conscience. If the protest is too small, the demands obnoxious to most people, or the protesters themselves violent, they don't win the battle for public opinion.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Kepler said:
or the protesters themselves violent, they don't win the battle for public opinion.
Click to expand...
Hence the need to portray an 84 year old woman as a dangerous threat who deserved to be pepper-sprayed by the police, not a frail old lady who fell victim to police brutality.
large.jpg
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

If you google "agent provocateur," some very interesting results come up.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Kepler said:
If you google "agent provocateur," some very interesting results come up.
Click to expand...

Hearing that the police were telling homeless people and recently released inmates that they could get free stuff at Zuccotti, in order to get them over there and stirring things up.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Kepler said:
That's why larger protests tend to become both less coherent (they tend to be unstable and break into their larger and more aggressive subsets) and less strictly logical (differences are papered over by emotional appeals, and of course there is the lowest common denominator effect that the larger the group the more it yields to its louder, dumber members -- or even if it doesn't that's where the cameras go).
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I agree with this - I can think of numerous examples of very large, very coherent protests. I think there are many variables which are much more important than size in determining the coherence (or lack thereof) of a protest. By historical standards, the OWS protests are actually pretty small - sure, they're occurring in lots (tens) of cities simultaneously, but at only a few hundred per city, that's still only a few 10s of thousands at most. The March on Washington for Jobs and Equality (a.k.a. "I have a dream") had over 250k in just that one protest, and that movement was pretty darn coherent.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

LynahFan said:
I think there are many variables which are much more important than size in determining the coherence (or lack thereof) of a protest.
Click to expand...

I don't know about "many," and I don't know about "much," but sure there are numerous factors in every human event.

In other news, the revisionists are winning.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

As muted as the left has been, if pushed it can lash out.

But as history has proven over and over, absolutely nobody does abject hate like the far right.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

5mn_Major said:
As muted as the left has been, if pushed it can lash out.

But as history has proven over and over, absolutely nobody does abject hate like the far right.
Click to expand...
Hate is good. It keeps a man alive.
We keep you alive to serve this ship. Row well and live.
 
Re: Obama XXII: Occupy the White House

Pretty sure Old Pio was banned because of the Penn State discussion...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top