Occupy Wall Street

[DrunkDestroyer]

UTAlan's video doesn't surprise me, our pathetic version of Occupy is pretty much the same, the whole thing looks like it could just as easily be a Legalise Marijuana protest as the Occupy movement (both of which I am in support of actually, although I as a person feel no need to join any protests this badly run when my life is currently okay, and there is no legitimate or actual progress and/or direction, and I would have to try to fit in among the mohawks and mullets of the world, which really isn't my style)

In fact, none of them even seemed to have a legitamate, or even agreed upon goal. Just the basic 'Capitalism = Bad', then a lot of other issues from Global Warming to War to Drugs, but nothing further than yep, they're bad, down with the government, the government should fix them, or we should take matters into our own hands, and tell the government to do it!



In theory though, I am fully in support of it. The 99% is me (well, not in Nigeria), and I personally am against pretty much everything, and definitely more pro-equality, the rich-poor gap is ridiculous, and growing. I don't know how to solve anything, which is why I'm not protesting.

When it's run well, I might even stand behind it. For me personally, it is almost joke in some of these local ones - I hope that there is some real direction and intelligence in the better formed ones. (Like Occupy Wall Street - I haven't gone to much effort to research anything outside a short drive away, so it could really be the real thing that people really should be in support of)

[Uppercut]

Getting international coverage and getting a backlash from news corporations trying to use broad brushstrokes to paint the whole thing as immature is pretty much the definition of well run. Real progress takes years, the occupy protests have been happening a few months. We've made tons of headway in a small span of time, calling it poorly run is ridiculous.

[Neopergoss]

In fact, none of them even seemed to have a legitamate, or even agreed upon goal. Just the basic 'Capitalism = Bad', then a lot of other issues from Global Warming to War to Drugs, but nothing further than yep, they're bad, down with the government, the government should fix them, or we should take matters into our own hands, and tell the government to do it!

In theory though, I am fully in support of it. The 99% is me (well, not in Nigeria), and I personally am against pretty much everything, and definitely more pro-equality, the rich-poor gap is ridiculous, and growing. I don't know how to solve anything, which is why I'm not protesting.

When it's run well, I might even stand behind it. For me personally, it is almost joke in some of these local ones - I hope that there is some real direction and intelligence in the better formed ones. (Like Occupy Wall Street - I haven't gone to much effort to research anything outside a short drive away, so it could really be the real thing that people really should be in support of)

As Belthus pointed out, the organization has not yet existed for long. There is no official list of demands yet, but that's not a bad thing (http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2011/10/03/occupy-wall-street-doesnt-need-to-issue-any-demands-yet/). There are many that have been proposed and most of them share certain critical aspects, but no one wants to limit the scope of this beyond "We are the 99% and we want to take the country back from the 1%." It should be clear what this group is about even without an official list of demands. As stated in the article

The persistent calls for Occupy Wall Street to make their demands may be understandable but they stem from those in media and in power, who are getting anxious because they do not seem to want to use already established mechanisms to create the change they desire. Instead, the occupiers intend to influence society without urging citizens to go out and vote, without asking people to call their representatives or senators to demand they support a bill, without latching on to a slick, well-funded advocacy campaign designed to survive media spin. They want citizens to no longer be afraid and isolated and go out and find hope in connecting with fellow Americans, who wish to deliberate and further create political space for influencing society. They want a nonviolent uprising to further take shape, something that makes the media and the power elite uncomfortable.

Plus I was ninja'd by Uppercut who makes a good point.

Oh and also, although there are definitely people there who think capitalism = bad, there are more (at least in Houston) who support well-regulated capitalism (you know, like when corporate criminals break the law they actually get punished).

[darkrobe]

Im generally of the opinion that protests arent supposed to be about solutions, if the solutions to our problems were common knowledge and obvious then there would be no issues. Protests are about protesting, aka about identifying a problem and bringing it to the attention of the general public.

OWS seems to have the goal of bringing to the public the "problem" that that wealth of 1% is stifling the wealth of 99%. If that is indeed their goal, then they have already done their job. There is nothing more i would require of them as a "protest" movement.

For actual solutions, you dont look to the average person on the street, you look to the people who develop policy, regulations, etc. Thinktanks and research institutions. Once OWS begins to propose solutions to "problems" i would no longer consider them a protest movement. they would be more in the realm of a political party at that point.

[Skotadi Phobos]

This will seem harsh but I will speak my mind. These people are starting to annoy me. They haven't done anything but stand around chanting not really knowing what they want and ,in some cases, what they are protesting against. I also am starting to get tired of them being on the news every day. I think that if they got use to the idea that they don't start out at the top they wouldn't have started in the first place.
(pardon my probably poor choice of words, I have some trouble putting thoughts into sentences)

[darkrobe]

This may ruffle some feathers.

Other than the direction of the anger. Is there any difference between OWS and the Tea party?

The tea party is slightly older, but it generally started in the same vein of anger as OWS, and was attacked in the same way by people not associated with it as a movement. (aka being made up of ignorant and or uniformed people who did not know what they want and werent giving any solutions)

Im not saying that that is true. But I can see some definite parrallels between the two groups and how they have interacted with the media.

[Uppercut]

The fact that OWS actually has a valid point is a distinction worth mentioning. Tea Party was also started as a media circus created by people like Beck, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly while OWS was a group of people who got coverage through their efforts. Basically, yeah, everything about OWS is different and you're dumb for implying otherwise.

[UTAlan]

The fact that OWS actually has a valid point is a distinction worth mentioning. Tea Party was also started as a media circus created by people like Beck, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly while OWS was a group of people who got coverage through their efforts.

Source?

Basically, yeah, everything about OWS is different and you're dumb for implying otherwise.

Calling people dumb is not the best way to have a civil discussion, especially when you are making sweeping comments without backing them up.

[darkrobe]

Thats completely alright. My statement was meant to draw response.  Granted, I expected most of the furious response to come from tea partiers who dont want to be compared to OWS. not the other way around. lol

[KeeperofDreams]

Other than the direction of the anger. Is there any difference between OWS and the Tea party?

The tea party is slightly older, but it generally started in the same vein of anger as OWS, and was attacked in the same way by people not associated with it as a movement. (aka being made up of ignorant and or uniformed people who did not know what they want and weren't giving any solutions)

Im not saying that that is true. But I can see some definite parallels between the two groups and how they have interacted with the media.

Yes, they come from the same anger and frustration, but from a different starts, perspectives, and methods.
A bit of the Tea Party's path:
The Tea Party started from Ron Paul's libertarian party who want the smallest form of government possible, having a lot of it's membership mixed and taken over from the social conservative members after McCain lost but Sarah Palin had a lot of grassroots support.  Fox News trying to support McCain had picked up Beck and others and used it for ratings as well as supporting their executive's agendas continued to support this movement in what became the Tea Party.  This Tea Party like the libertarians see most problems as stemming from the government in general, and want the smallest form of government possible but mixed in is the extreme social conservative.  The GOP and Corporate entities with strong Republican ties,  saw this movement and did not want it to operate out of GOP control.  In other words, they did not want another Independent Party/Ross Perot interruption of future elections like what happened with Bush/Clinton.  The figure head at the time being Sarah Palin was unfortunate for the movement as we would later get even verbal confirmation from her and her husband, were sellouts just looking for money.  So she sold out the Tea Party brand, got her spot of Fox, etc, etc.  And made statements like the Tea Party will not be a separate party, but operating within the establishment, and named their specific demands.  The movement still carriers on and has it's effect is felt.  The establishment I think wanted it to become a shadow of what it could have been and be more of a puppet control method to keep conservatives in line.  However, one thing the Tea Party has is it's convictions and is hard to control, although it's power and numbers have waned quickly.
A bit of the OWS path:
OWS came from a lot of different sources collective internet sites and hive mind outrage building up over time.  It has influences from all different sorts and places, and each person's individual out rage is different, but the collective theme being Corporatism and/or Plutocracy has taken over America.  (Sadly, it seems it maybe true as many documents for JPMorgan/Chase show a concerted effort to shift America to a Plutocracy have come to light.)  It's hard for them to explain what they want is the Plutocracy to end when most people do not even know what a Plutocracy is or as an economy Corporatism is.  They come from a mostly more liberal view point with their bases being the Rich and various major industries control our government and that's the problem if we are to be a democracy or at least a decent functioning republic.  So instead they are trying to get everyone to show their hand.  For example, almost no-one knew that Guilliani put in a program where members of the LAPD can be purchased from the city for various policing tasks by individual corporations, while if a false arrest is made by performing this task, the state is on the dime for the fall out.  Our the militarization of local police as shown when the Florida police department brought out a tank.  Now a lot more people know about it and they can start seeing such corruptions exist outside of crazy conspiracy theories.  They also wanted to change the terms of conversation, instead of liberal versus conservative or democrats versus republicans which tend to be shifting around 50% and neutralized, as setup by Game Theory advocates of the Cold War suggested it should be.  Hence the 99% term.  This is probably their biggest contribution to the political dialog as it's significantly changed many of the conversations and even some of the policy making.  It's also brought out things like a lot of the problems with the Tar Sands Pipeline.  Finally, they don't want to fall into a flash in the pan, and if you come with a specific set of demands they can be attacked, brought down, and mocked.  Instead it's hard to kill the movement, the only way to do it is to try to make it not looked organized and immature and to attempt to dismantle the groups in the camps to keep a physical presence existing.

so the tl;dr; version
Tea Party, Same source of Anger but directed at the government with conservative view points and specific heads with specific demands
OWS, Same source of Anger but directed at corporations and the rich with liberal view points with no specific heads and goals are generalized exposure to change the nation's viewpoint.