Originally posted by ottobot
The disorganization, unclear focus, volatile language, and recent shift toward violent protest does not appeal to me.

I see these "issues" a lot. Here's the thing; They're not true

There isn't "disorganization." These groups operate on consensus decision-making. In this regard they are actually more organized than, say, the "Tea Parties." Quick, top of your head, name a tea party "leader" - not a politician who they cheered for like Ron Paul or Sarah Palin, but someone who was actually out there leadin that movement. There wasn't one, was there? Okay, how often did people in the tea party protests get together to discuss "what next?" I'll admit, I was never in the thick of a tea party protest, so maybe they did do collective decision-making. My guess though, is that they all sort of milled around and did their own thing. Which - get this - is perfectly fine. A bunch of people who are protesting in the same direction without someone holding their reins is apparently only a bad thing when it's something the owners dislike?

No, there is no one guy leading OWS. Nominating a king just makes it way easier for him to be bought (which is, of course, the reason the mouthpeices of the owners want there to be a "king" in the first place.)

Next, this "unclear focus." Really? What's unclear about it? I'll grant it's not as simple and black-and-white as many people here might be used to from their "team's" protests, but there's a good reason for this - real life is not so simplistic. OWS addresses a great many issues, because those issues need to be addressed and are, ultimately, interconnected. Our current soundbyte-driven society doesn't support this well. I can kind of imagine had this been the condition back in the 50's and 60's, people would have been dismissing the civil rights movement because they had no clear leader and what was their issue anyway? Segregation? Voting rights? Equal housing and employment? An end to police brutality? Gosh, they were so disorganized and unfocused!

"Volatile language" is a new one, I'll give you that. Sorry, but at the end of the day, it is people who see their society and livelihoods crumbling because of easily-identified corruption in the system that is not being addressed by those in charge. So if you're expecting a lot of servile "please suh," and "thank you, missuz!" and a careful avoidance of reality that some Americans find uncomfortable (such as the root cause being unfettered lasseiz-faire "capitalism") then yeah, you're going to be disappointed. Not much I can offer you there, except mention that maybe you're just being a little too nitpicky

The "recent shift towards violent protest" is laughable. Allow me to explain.

Watching video of the frenzied people in full mob mentality at Occupy Oakland, I was disturbed.

Which video is this, exactly? There are two sources of violence in Oakland right now. One, the police. I dunno if you know a lot about Oakland, but even well prior to these protests, the OPD has had a long and inglorious history of corruption and brutality.
Second is a group calling itself the "Oakland Liberation Front." These are cretins aligned with the "black bloc" assholes, and their purpose is to cause carnage, disrupt the protests, and incite the police further. In other cities - Toronto for instance - these sorts have been proven to be part of the police forces. I dunno if that's the case in Oakland, but I do know that the OLF is no more affiliated with OWS than the KKK is affiliated with hte tea party. Occupiers respond to dudes in black masks and hoods about as well as tea partiers responded when hte dudes in white hoods and masks tried to show up, in fact. In the case of OWS, they've been actively trying to protect people and property from these asshats.

Did you see that video I linked, the Oakland folks marching on the highway? There's an easy 80,000 people there. If they were into "violent protest," Oakland would not be standing, and no police could stop it.

Honestly, it's much easier to tune out a shout when you are straining to hear a whisper.

maybe some things are worth shouting over.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
I see these "issues" a lot. Here's the thing; They're not true

Denial is a powerful motivator for those who choose to ignore facts.

There isn't "disorganization." These groups operate on consensus decision-making.

I'll admit, I was never in the thick of a tea party protest....
My guess though.....

Next, this "unclear focus." Really? What's unclear about it?

Lack of direction, Content and a real Agenda instead of just standing around proclaiming they they are really really really really mad.

but there's a good reason for this - real life is not so simplistic.

Exactly. You have to pay as you go instead of standing around with their hands outstretched Demanding a free handout

OWS addresses a great many issues, because those issues need to be addressed and are, ultimately, interconnected.

Yes.

And the answers are?

"Volatile language" is a new one, I'll give you that. Sorry, but at the end of the day, it is people who see their society and livelihoods crumbling because of easily-identified corruption in the system that is not being addressed by those in charge. So if you're expecting a lot of servile "please suh," and "thank you, missuz!" and a careful avoidance of reality that some Americans find uncomfortable (such as the root cause being unfettered lasseiz-faire "capitalism") then yeah, you're going to be disappointed. Not much I can offer you there, except mention that maybe you're just being a little too nitpicky

The "recent shift towards violent protest" is laughable. Allow me to explain.

Nah don't bother. People being violent towards one another shows how they really feel. That goes for both sides. It's a lose/lose prospect no matter how it's sliced.

maybe some things are worth shouting over.

Agreed.

Originally posted by relpobre000
I was speaking more to this kid's attitude. 1.) He wants something for nothing. 2.)He doesn't seem able to articulate a sound reason for his 'opinion'. PROTIP: 'Because' might win an argument for a parent against a child but when making a real argument one is expected to back it up with logic and reason.

Well, I have my doubts that you could manage to be concise and very clear, when put on hte spot by some camera-wielding dude on the street. I know I'd probably call into a lot of "uhm, er, ah, you know, uh..." without a little warm-up time. Public speaking is a skillset all on its own, after all.

That said... He wants a furthered education. That is, he wants to become a larger asset for future employers and his community, as well as himself. it's not as if he's saying "And I want a diamond-and-platinum tiara!" or something like that. he wants an education. An educated people is, with absolutely no question, beneficial to the state of a nation, both socially and fiscally. A great many jobs require college education. That is, unless you plan on digging ditches, as my mom used to say, you need one. It's mandatory for gainful employment. And tuition and side expenses keep going up every year. Meanwhile employment prospects keep dropping.

So in order to have a chance at getting a job that's probably not really there, you have to throw yourself into debt? You have to have a few dozen grand laying around to spare as a kid in order to further your education, or you get saddled with usurious rates

These two points seem to be the prevailing message from the OWS movement: 'Give Us Stuff--Because We Said So.'

Ever noticed that when the rank and file citizens ask for their due, it's "something for nothing?" But when others are demanding drastically lowered taxes, bailouts, subsidies, deregulation, exceptions to existing law, all while "cutting internal costs (i.e., throwing people out of a job,)" the media tells you that's perfectly fine? You obviously buy the first line.

Thought project here - if you took all of that "something for nothing" given to Pfizer, Bechtel, Lockeed-Martin, Microsoft, AIG, CitiGroup, tc... and instead turned it into "something for nothing" for the people of this country, do you think the country as a whole would see a net gain or a net loss?

Those several trillions doled out free of charge with no oversight to corporate welfare queens who had run their own businesses into the ground sure could have done a lot to improve the state of schools around the nation, don't you think? Could have been funneled into a great set of working antipoverty measures. Could have even been used to clean up and protect many of our nation's dwindling sources of fresh water. hell, it could have funded real public health care.

But no, it went into massive bonuses for the very people who had destroyed the company it was given to. Becuase that is apparently a better use of taxpayer money than improving the conditions that said taxpayers live under. After all, those people want "something for nothing."