View Single Post
Old 05-03-2012, 03:34 AM   #112
Versus
 
Versus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despanan View Post
Sorry this took so long, I was out marching on Mayday. HOLYSHIT Mayday was awesome (I'll post a thread about it later.
No worries. I take so long because I can't read so good and am a little slow, so I appreciate your patience.

For ease of understanding, I want to differentiate occupant, OWS, and Occupy as terms that mean different things so there is less confusion in this thread.

Occupy: The global movement as a whole.

General Assemblies: Individual camps within the Occupy movement, such as OWS or Occupy Oakland.

OWS: A part of the Occupy movement based in NYC. I can't make the judgement if it is interchangeable with the NYC general assembly.

Occupant: A member of the global movement. A distinction should be made to associate them with any subdivision thereof, such as "Occupant of OWS."

Quote:
Well first of all, that's going to depend on what you mean by OWS. Once again, the Occupy Movement is not a political party, nor is it an ideology, it's an umbrella term for multiple communities around the world setting up their own camps.
This is a good point that I already brought up earlier, but you got distracted about the word "concensus." I was trying to say that when occupants of GAs do not adhere to the principals of the GA or it's mission statement or general intent, The GA IS responsible for it as the parent movement which the occupants belong. I'm am not implying that the existence of a hierarchy should be considered to control the occupants actions, but it DOES illiminate the need for accountability in some form or another, such as DIALOGUE within the GA to better communicate it's intent and address the actions of its occupants. That doesn't change if you look at Occupy as a whole. There should be accountability of Occupy Norfolk, and a dialogue should be created to express the concerns that GAs have within one another because ANYTHING less is ignoring a problem within the movement.

Quote:
Certain occupations, like Occupy Oakland, Occupy DC, Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Boston, Occupy Denver, Occupy Seattle, etc., are in contact with each other. HOWEVER it's not like OWS tells OO what to do, nor is Occupy Newfoundland obliged to listen to Occupy Denver.
And this is why there isn't representation or progress within the movement as a whole, or at the very least, why it is percieved that way. "We have nothing to do with them" is the same as "I have nothing to do with him." You don't see a problem with this? Again, it's not the responsibility of would-be supporters to ignore the problems within the movement as it does of itself, it is the responsibility of the movement to change itself in a meaningful way to foster a environment that occupants can contribute.

Quote:
If a bunch of Tea Party guys decide to camp out in a park in Louisiana and declare themselves "Occupiers" who am I to say that they aren't? Who is the NYC General Assembly to say they aren't and who are they to make policy for them?
Again, you are camps within the same movement. If you don't agree with another GA, it's the others' place to bring it up, JUST LIKE it's the responsibility of occupants of OWS to create dialogue about their concerns within OWS's GA. Isn't that how it works?

Quote:
You mentioned "No-True-Scotsman" before. You might assume that I'd say that Nan is not a "True" Occupier. It's quite the opposite, Nan is an Occupier, She's just a crazy Occupier that no one listens to trying desperately to destroy Occupy from within.
Quote:
When I criticize what Nan does in the meetings, I don't criticize her behavior as something that is representative of the Spokes Council, or the General Assembly, I criticize her behavior as being representative of fucking CRAZY PEOPLE.
What's wrong when you separate these two statements?
Quote:
I would actually like to see these things you're referencing.
I'll try. It's really hard to find on the Internet because nobody talks about it.

At this point, from what you have shown me, I can't deny that OWS is on its way, overall. It's nowhere it needs to be, not by a fucking long shot, but I feel that the fundamental process as I understand it is really great. I have major, major criticisms of it, and some things really disgust me, such as the articles you posted about individual response to million hoodie and Danny Cheng as well as that there wasn't dialogue within the GA (especially if it's the reason you suspect), but I am excited that something is being spoken about, even if it's really small right now. I want it to become larger, and I want people to talk about things that they are uncomfortable with. I want more disgusting articles because it creates the opportunity for it to be corrected, and maybe even understood.

I am also really pessimistic. That fundamental process, as I understand it, is largely absent from the movement as a whole and how it interacts with itself, and that absence trickles down to places like Occupy Norfolk. Where ever the fuck that is. I think that you are taking what you see in OWS and painting the rest of the movement like it.

New question: Why would Occupy, as a global movement, be making any progress if what you think is helping OWS is not present in other GAs?

TL;DR Please fix your shit for me.
__________________
Woke up with fifty enemies plottin' my death
All fifty seein' visions of me shot in the chest
Couldn't rest, nah nigga I was stressed
Had me creepin' 'round corners, homie sleepin' in my vest.


-Breathin, Tupac.
Versus is offline   Reply With Quote