The Gaming Den

Consensus sucks. It's like trying to eat an elephant with a tea spoon.

The anarchists were uninterested in policy. SMASH THE STATE. Ugh.

Seriously, consensus sucks.

HAHA, I thought I had a lot to add here. I don't.

No raping, though. A few drunks got kicked out though.

...and I didn't camp out. That's why I bought a house. Besides, my kids would've loved it only for the first few days.


EDIT - Thank God it wasn't Oakland.

There won't be real mass movements in the western world anymore (at least on the foreseeable future) because the people in power figured the bread and circus formula. We're not hungry anymore, and there's too much entertainment around for people to get really angry and focused to topple anything worth toppling. Besides, the means to monitor and coerce people are much better now.

Riots? Sure. Revolutions? In the occident? I'd love to see them, but I'm not hopeful.

mean_liar wrote:Consensus sucks. It's like trying to eat an elephant with a tea spoon.

The anarchists were uninterested in policy. SMASH THE STATE. Ugh.

Seriously, consensus sucks.

HAHA, I thought I had a lot to add here. I don't.

No raping, though. A few drunks got kicked out though.

...and I didn't camp out. That's why I bought a house. Besides, my kids would've loved it only for the first few days.


EDIT - Thank God it wasn't Oakland.

Occupy needs a leader or a group of leaders as spokesmen. You can't just shove a bunch of anti-big business guys together and expect a coherent message to come out. Socialists, Anarchists, and Libertarians (who are only against government-supported big business) disagree on so many fiscal issues that the closest thing you'll get is "we're pissed off at the mega-rich!" Movements need a leader to direct people in a worthwhile direction.

As for the "raping" thing, that was started by Andrew Breitbart who claimed that Occupy movements were explicitly condoning protesters raping people. But the sites that he linked to were news reports where a.) the rape victim was an Occupy Protester, b.) the rapist was unaffiliated with Occupy Wall Street. Breitbart was also drunk at the time he was engaged in a screaming match with the protesters.

My experience with Occupy was similar. Decent ideas, good people, targetting the right things...and utterly incapable of organizing their way out of a brown paper bag, or dealing with single disruptive members (seriously, the dude that says he's here to expose us as fascists? Let's not give him equal speaking time and let him interrupt whenever he wants.)

A mob of unruly, disgusting, foul, deranged people if ever there was one …

Oh wait, I wasn’t thinking of Occupy Boston, I was thinking of Boston Red Sox fans. Nevermind.

nockermensch wrote:There won't be real mass movements in the western world anymore (at least on the foreseeable future) because the people in power figured the bread and circus formula.

Pretty much.

The real problem with the Occupy movement is that it has a problem but no solution.

Consider the tea party movement. They had a problem and a solution.

(What's the problem) Our taxes are too high.
(What do you want to do) Lower our taxes.
(How) Elect people to lower our taxes.
--- tea party people then leave and work on elections ---

The occupy movement barely can get to the first question. When they do get to the first question, their answers are vague and not well thought out. Why are some rich people EVIL and others are not? Why are some company's profits obscene while another company's profits is not?

And if there are valid reasons, what do you want to be done about it?

And if you have specific things you want done, how are you going to get it done?

Instead you have a bunch of hippie wannabees that want to recreate Woodstock, totally forgetting that Woodstock was THREE DAYS, not six months or more. That's one of the reason why there is a Woodstock museum (The Museum at Bethel Woods - 200 Hurd Road, Bethel NY) and fourty years from now there is going to be nothing for this Occupy movement.

I've been less than thrilled with Occupy Boston as a coherent political force. It's been a good way to meet other local activists, though - more like a convention than anything.

I never actually camped, though. I chipped in some cash and labor to help clean up the camp, but that's it.

Edit: Hey, MeanLiar, me and some friends from the Exalted forum are meeting up tomorrow around noon at Hei La Moon in Chinatown for Dim Sum. Does that sound like a thing you might want to get involved in?

My experience with Occupy Quebec was different from Mean Liar's. People had it pretty much under control until the local right-wing trash radio started called them a bunch of homeless wellfare bums, and ranted for hours about how it would be such a shame if a tent caught on fire.
*wink wink nudge nudge*

So yeah, some asshole did set a tent on fire! Then guess what, the city administration decided that such an installation was was too dangerous, and took away their power generator. (The fire couldn't have been electrical, and started outside the tent, so they just needed an incentive, I guess)

One week later, police came and took all the wood and matches.

Two weeks laters it was the tents. They're inflammable, you see!

Did I mention all this happened mid-December? In FUCKING CANADA?

I wish Radio X would just burn.

*wink wink nudge nudge*

Guyr, that's definitely crap, but who is to blame here, the idiot of the right-wing radio host, the idiot who started the first (and only fire) that might have actually been an accident, or officials who simply were looking for a lame excuse to shut things down?

I'm going to have to go for the later, because the actions are not justified in any manner by the actions above.

tzor wrote:Guyr, that's definitely crap, but who is to blame here, the idiot of the right-wing radio host, the idiot who started the first (and only fire) that might have actually been an accident, or officials who simply were looking for a lame excuse to shut things down?

I'm going to have to go for the later, because the actions are not justified in any manner by the actions above.

Sounds like the blame is spread around, but mostly upon the radio host and the guy who set the fire. It sounds like the radio host knew what he was doing based upon Guyr's description of events, and fully intended to cause trouble. So, yes, he deserves some of the blame. And the timing of the fire sounds too soon to be an accident.

That's one of the consequences of fear-mongering speech. You can scare people and rile them up by what you say, and some weak-minded people are going to be strung along and "take action." Even in nations that attempt to restrict such speech, it can still get out through underground media and secret buzzwords and doublespeak.

Who's to blame? All of them, to be honest. The trash-radio encouraged violent behaviour, so the sheep jumped on the occasion, and the establishment found an opening. I could solely blame the mayor's thugs for this, but that would be foolish. The enemy has always been stupidity, and sensationnalist "shock" medias have it in spades.

Libertad wrote:Sounds like the blame is spread around, but mostly upon the radio host and the guy who set the fire. It sounds like the radio host knew what he was doing based upon Guyr's description of events, and fully intended to cause trouble. So, yes, he deserves some of the blame. And the timing of the fire sounds too soon to be an accident.

Yes but the result (possible) was a tent on fire. I'm sorry but I don't see what the big deal is here. The official repsonse to basicaly shut down the protest becuase the tents were inflammable is nothing but total crap. I can see shuting down the protest becuse they already had laws on the books against that sort of thing. (Camping, for example, on the Mall in Washington DC was already prohibited by law.) But using some sort of lame nanny state excuse is just beyond the pale and is totally unjustified.

But you don't think it's totally unjustified to call for someone to commit arson. You think that's totally fine.

tzor wrote:I'm sorry but I don't see what the big deal is here.

Crimes tzor does not understand:
rape
arson

What will be next on the list?

Whatever wrote:

tzor wrote:I'm sorry but I don't see what the big deal is here.

Crimes tzor does not understand:
rape
arson

What will be next on the list?

Well, pretty sure his post about how the first amendment doesn't protect you from being strangled predates arson, so the actual order is:

Rape
Assault
Arson

Whatever wrote:

tzor wrote:I'm sorry but I don't see what the big deal is here.

Crimes tzor does not understand:
rape
arson

What will be next on the list?

Perhaps you should learn to fucking read? You know, text within its context? Yes I know that's a hard thing for a person with only a kindergarden level education to understand. (No I take it back, most kindergardeners probably understand context better than you do.)

I don't see why the buring of a single tent (arson or not) would lead to the removal of electric generators, matches and eventually every tent in the area.

Moreover, given the information from Guyr it is a crappy arson event. "The fire couldn't have been electrical, and started outside the tent ..." It burnt down ONE TENT.

That is no justification for the officals to do what they did.

tzor wrote:That is no justification for the officals to do what they did.

Actually, while there might very well be a justification for what the officials did, something about fire codes, no one here is arguing that they did have one. Instead, the thing people are making fun of you for is that you apparently think that the actions of the radio host and arsonist are justified.

Kaelik wrote: Actually, while there might very well be a justification for what the officials did, something about fire codes, no one here is arguing that they did have one. Instead, the thing people are making fun of you for is that you apparently think that the actions of the radio host and arsonist are justified.

Tzor referred to the radio host's actions as idiotic, so I don't think that he's saying that the shock jock was in the right to indirectly advocate violence.

Libertad wrote:Tzor referred to the radio host's actions as idiotic, so I don't think that he's saying that the shock jock was in the right to indirectly advocate violence.

My concern is not that we realize the shock jock and arsonist are idiots. My concern is that we realize they are blameworthy.

Tzor's comments were: "but who is to blame here, the idiot of the right-wing radio host, the idiot who started the first (and only fire) that might have actually been an accident, or officials who simply were looking for a lame excuse to shut things down?

I'm going to have to go for the later,"

That means he doesn't think the radio host who advocated arson, or the actual arsonist are to blame. He thinks they are not blameworthy for their actions.

I don't care if we think he's smart or stupid. Even if a smart person advocates or commits arson, they are in fact to blame. Maybe the police are to blame as well, but "the latter" is not a correct answer to the question he posed. There are two possible correct answers: 1) All three, and mostly the first two. 2) Just the first two.

The Decolonize To Liberate presentation at Christ Church last night was incredibly powerful. Very eye-opening.

Jesus H Christ people. If Tzor agrees with you, why would you try to talk him out of it?

You say the end result is unconscionable. He also says it's unconscionable. Break out the damn champaign.

If you can't pull your head far enough out of your ass to work with people who agree with you less than 100% of the time, then you will always lose to people who can.

fectin wrote:Jesus H Christ people. If Tzor agrees with you, why would you try to talk him out of it?

You say the end result is unconscionable. He also says it's unconscionable. Break out the damn champaign.

If you can't pull your head far enough out of your ass to work with people who agree with you less than 100% of the time, then you will always lose to people who can.

Because Tzor doesn't agree with us. Tzor believes that it's perfectly acceptable to advocate that others commit arson, perfectly acceptable to commit arson, but not acceptable for government officials to clear up a demonstrated fire hazard.

He lives in a backwards shithole where arson is not a blameworthy activity. And no, I'm not trying to convince Tzor, I am making Tzor look like the psychopath he is so that well meaning idiots, like for example, you, will realize that the bad guys in this story are the people who committed crimes, and not the people who cleared out a fire hazard.

Though it is quite possible that they were not violating any fire codes, and it is possible that the officials were acting outside the scope of their discretion or for impure motives, even still they would be less blameworthy than an arsonist and someone who encourages arson.

We can all agree that the holocaust was bad. But some people believe that because the actions of murdering millions of people is unconscionable, and some people believe that because failing to successfully kill all the Jews is unconscionable. It doesn't matter that two people agree that result is unconscionable if they fundamentally disagree about what makes it so, such as for example, believing the only people not at fault are the people who are actually at fault, or that the people who committed crimes deserve no blame.

Kaelik wrote:Because Tzor doesn't agree with us.

Us who? Looks like you're taking positions opposite him solely to be antagonistic.

Kaelik wrote:Tzor believes that it's perfectly acceptable to advocate that others commit arson, perfectly acceptable to commit arson,

err, source? All I see is this:

Tzor wrote:Guyr, that's definitely crap, but who is to blame here, the idiot of the right-wing radio host, the idiot who started the first (and only fire) that might have actually been an accident

I don't see a defense of arson anywhere. I also don't see a defense of the radio host anywhere. Calling them crappy and idiots is pretty far from "perfectly acceptable". I guess you can complain that he questions whether it was arson at all, but that's actually undermining his main point so I'm not sure why you would.

Kaelik wrote:but not acceptable for government officials to clear up a demonstrated fire hazard.

Uh, no.

Guyr Adamantine wrote:Then guess what, the city administration decided that such an installation was was too dangerous, and took away their power generator. (The fire couldn't have been electrical, and started outside the tent, so they just needed an incentive, I guess)

One week later, police came and took all the wood and matches.

Two weeks laters it was the tents. They're inflammable, you see!

Did I mention all this happened mid-December? In FUCKING CANADA?

That doesn't seem to be a description of "clearing up a demonstrated fire hazard." Do you think that was a reasonable and necessary police action? If so, why are you arguing with Tzor? Guyr's the one who implied that it wasn't. If not, why are you arguing with Tzor? He is also condemning it.

Kaelik wrote:He lives in a backwards shithole

Yeah, I don't like New York either.

Kaelik wrote:where arson is not a blameworthy activity.

again, source?

Kaelik wrote:And no, I'm not trying to convince Tzor, I am making Tzor look like the psychopath he is so that well meaning idiots, like for example, you, will realize that the bad guys in this story are the people who committed crimes, and not the people who cleared out a fire hazard.

Then you're doing a really bad job of it.
Apparently, he's a psychopath because he thinks it's bad to take tents, power, and fire from protesters in the middle of the Canadian winter, where you're a moderate for believing same is just "clearing out a fire hazard."

Kaelik wrote:Though it is quite possible that they were not violating any fire codes, and it is possible that the officials were acting outside the scope of their discretion or for impure motives, even still they would be less blameworthy than an arsonist and someone who encourages arson.

Really. So this bile comes from disagreeing over which of two bad things is worse? Bear in mind that on one side is saying mean things and destroying property, and on the other is exposing several hundred people to winter without proper shelter, and you're the one saying arson is worse.