FARK.com: (7027403) Remember #Occupy? Neither does anybody else

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Remember #Occupy? Neither does anybody else (nytimes.com)		577
		More: Obvious, Occupy movement, Project for Excellence in Journalism, right to protest, flash mobs, economic inequality, elections, interpersonal ties, Center for American Progress

• • •

20209 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Apr 2012 at 12:01 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7027403

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

577 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

Silly Jesus		2012-04-02 12:50:40 AM

Treygreen13: WhyteRaven74: Treygreen13: but coming up with some insane "diagnosis" from a still image is wasting your time, and everyone else's.

So you can think of a circumstance where what's happening in that picture is acceptable?

Any circumstance? We have no idea what she was being arrested for, or how she was resisting. But certainly, I can imagine a scenario where somebody might be carried by their arms or legs. I can also imagine a scenario where that's police brutality and is patently out of order.

That doesn't mean I'd look at the picture and immediately come to a medical diagnosis that she has grievous injuries and then deal with all further discussion with that presumption.

If you *really* want to jump to a conclusion, feel free. I can't stop ya. Even if I carried you around like that.

I think that they were drawing and quartering her and that they roasted and ate her later for supper with their donuts and coffee. Pigs, they all do stuff like that.

It's perfectly clear from that picture. How do you not see it? Has the MSM really gotten to you that much?

Constitution!

AverageAmericanGuy		2012-04-02 12:50:41 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: AverageAmericanGuy: WhyteRaven74: AverageAmericanGuy: As for the effectiveness of their methods, helping the poor and protesting outside of banks hasn't changed anything so far.

It took how many years of protests to bring about women's suffrage?

Approximately 15 years.

And that was given organization, leadership, and a clear message.

Can we expect OWS to develop any one of those positive attributes any time soon?

Seneca Falls was in 1848. The 19th Amendment passed in 1920.

Sorry, you're right, my numbers were off. I was basing the incorrect number on the years from Anthony's death rather than the correct date of 1869 as the beginning of the national fight for women's suffrage.

WhyteRaven74		2012-04-02 12:50:54 AM

Treygreen13: If you *really* want to jump to a conclusion, feel free. I can't stop ya. Even if I carried you around like that.

I can't imagine any scenario under which carrying someone that way is acceptable. Period. No exceptions. Ever.

naveline		2012-04-02 12:51:24 AM

Ummmm, what? #Occupy hasn't gone away. At all? What farking planet are you people on? Are you not aware of the enormous amount of planning and the insane funding and organizing blitz that has been happening all winter? If anything it has gained momentum and strength as the student-loan-bubble people are now pulling in lots of supporters.

but wuddever. They're just stinky hippies with no clear goals. Why don't they get jobs, I hear there's tons of jobs, and they're trying to take my money, and redistribute it. Etc.

violentsalvation		2012-04-02 12:52:23 AM

RanDomino: violentsalvation
That too. I don't agree with most of what they do, but I am happy they can protest.

What a shock that you support only activity which is completely ineffectual.

You're shocked that I support their First Amendment rights and that I think the cops who beat them up should be in prison? okay... what else do they have anyway? Camping isn't in the constitution, though maybe it should be. I like to camp. Not in cities though.

9beers		2012-04-02 12:52:25 AM

OWS was more about people wanting to feel like they were a part of something than it was supporting a cause and trying to bring change.

The All-Powerful Atheismo		2012-04-02 12:52:52 AM

Weaver95		2012-04-02 12:53:18 AM

9beers: OWS was more about people wanting to feel like they were a part of something than it was supporting a cause and trying to bring change.

it just burns you up that OWS didn't fold up and blow away, don't it?

TheShavingofOccam123		2012-04-02 12:54:52 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: TheShavingofOccam123: AverageAmericanGuy: WhyteRaven74: AverageAmericanGuy: As for the effectiveness of their methods, helping the poor and protesting outside of banks hasn't changed anything so far.

It took how many years of protests to bring about women's suffrage?

Approximately 15 years.

And that was given organization, leadership, and a clear message.

Can we expect OWS to develop any one of those positive attributes any time soon?

Seneca Falls was in 1848. The 19th Amendment passed in 1920.

Sorry, you're right, my numbers were off. I was basing the incorrect number on the years from Anthony's death rather than the correct date of 1869 as the beginning of the national fight for women's suffrage.

Yeah, it's hard to say when social movements start. It must have started with one pissed off American housewife and built from there. The strange thing to me is how issues like slavery were or are still being dealt with depending on the country in question.

stewmadness		2012-04-02 12:55:14 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: I won't forget them. Just like I won't forget Tank Man. Or watching protesters being killed in Tiananmen Square.

[www.balloon-juice.com image 640x426]

This guy? I'll never forget Lt. John Pike.

This photo makes me laugh every single damn time.

Flappyhead		2012-04-02 12:55:16 AM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Kittypie070: OWS hasn't gone away. Not a single bit.

But if it doesn't make the news then it may as well have. If people protest and nobody knows about it, does it affect anything? It's all about controlling what appears in the media in order to marginalize certain positions.

Twitter and Youtube, heard of 'em?

mr lawson		2012-04-02 12:55:18 AM

I have said many of times....it is not the message that is bad, it is the method.

whidbey		2012-04-02 12:56:34 AM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: [29.media.tumblr.com image 500x332]

As if anyone actually ever wondered just how awesome Vancouver is.

Snowflake Tubbybottom		2012-04-02 12:57:03 AM

Nothing came of Occupy and nothing will because in the end the hipsters would rather line up for the next iphone rather than make real effective change.

MayContainHorseGluten		2012-04-02 12:57:53 AM

trollmitter is a success!

cuzsis		2012-04-02 12:58:26 AM

I should've screen capped it....but when I was on the fark mainpage it looked like this.

[Obvious] Remember #Occupy? Neither does anybody else (99)

/I lol'ed.

Snowflake Tubbybottom		2012-04-02 12:59:01 AM

Weaver95: 9beers: OWS was more about people wanting to feel like they were a part of something than it was supporting a cause and trying to bring change.

it just burns you up that OWS didn't fold up and blow away, don't it?

encrypted-tbn3.google.com

AverageAmericanGuy		2012-04-02 12:59:08 AM

whidbey: AverageAmericanGuy: But maybe you could help me out and provide an official list of grievances.

Just stop it.

Then you'll agree that when any nitwit can list their own grievances with website names like www.occupywallstreet.com and that when there is very little in the way of official spokesmen and press, that people looking for an official idea of what OWS is about will find a cacophony of viewpoints including utterly ridiculous ones.

If there were a proper leadership, if there were official spokesmen, if there were a proper and focused message based on its goals, if there were a plan of action, then maybe people outside of OWS would take it seriously.

For a brief moment in 2011, the OWS movement looked like it was going to become something forceful and powerful in American society. The follow-through to organize and act has been really lacking, to put it bluntly.

alcoda		2012-04-02 12:59:41 AM

tenpoundsofcheese: SilentStrider: And the media is what again?
Liberal?

Right. Sure.

Reality has a conservative bias.

media is just catching up with reality. If it wasn't for Fox news and Breitbart, they would still be in de nile which isn't just a river in Spain anymore.

1/10

Silly Jesus		2012-04-02 12:59:50 AM

Weaver95		2012-04-02 12:59:58 AM

Snowflake Tubbybottom:

Nothing came of Occupy and nothing will because in the end the hipsters would rather line up for the next iphone rather than make real effective change.

For a movement that accomplished nothing, the right wing sure does seem scared of 'em.

Treygreen13		2012-04-02 01:00:07 AM

WhyteRaven74: Treygreen13: If you *really* want to jump to a conclusion, feel free. I can't stop ya. Even if I carried you around like that.

I can't imagine any scenario under which carrying someone that way is acceptable. Period. No exceptions. Ever.

Then you and I will not find common ground.

There's no evidence that carrying her in that manner injured her. We don't know the situation before (and after) this still image occurred. We don't know how long she was in that position, nor do we know if she was transported any meaningful distance in that position. We just don't know. I can't come to a conclusion based on one image.

If she was just sitting there with her protester friends and the police handcuffed her and yanked her up from that position into the one she's in in the image, and then carried her a good distance, then it's police brutality. If she was kicking and screaming and got turned briefly into that position, that's not something I'd be upset about.

Being arrested and resisting can end up with people in awkward positions. Some are inappropriate, some are necessary, unfortunately. I'm just encouraging you to not jump to a conclusion based on a still photograph.

Baloo Uriza		2012-04-02 01:00:33 AM

What's this about someone pooping on a police car?

King Something		2012-04-02 01:01:41 AM

Tony Baloney was macing Occupy protesters before it was popular.

/seriously, he's the guy who maced those two chicks for Contempt Of Cop
//and the NYPD started employing chemical warfare against the Occupiers just a few hours after they received a "generous donation" from JP Morgan Chase

odinsposse		2012-04-02 01:01:51 AM

I guess the NYT is laying the groundwork for an "Occupy resurgence!" story in a few months when they decide to report on all the things that are going on. This is why newspapers are dying.

Snowflake Tubbybottom		2012-04-02 01:02:40 AM

IronTom		2012-04-02 01:03:37 AM

Saturday's SciFi channel 9:00 p.m. movie, something about a megastorm in Seattle mentioned the occupiers.

The girl remembers where the heavy water is because she had 'peacefully occupied the docks' earlier in the year.

That two hour movie seemed to go on forever, and the old Russian guy could have easily escaped from the heavy water vats, if you ask me.

Weaver95		2012-04-02 01:04:02 AM

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Weaver95: Snowflake Tubbybottom:

Nothing came of Occupy and nothing will because in the end the hipsters would rather line up for the next iphone rather than make real effective change.

For a movement that accomplished nothing, the right wing sure does seem scared of 'em.

Scared? Only if your definition of scared means not giving them a second thought in the last 4 months.

encrypted-tbn3.google.com

WhyteRaven74		2012-04-02 01:04:03 AM

Snowflake Tubbybottom: in the end the hipsters

So it's nothing but hipsters?

To The Escape Zeppelin!		2012-04-02 01:04:06 AM

While I agree with their complaints, they have/had absolutely no organization at all. Hell, the anarchists are more organized than the Occupy people.

We have demands, do we chose a spokesperson, organize candidates, go door to door spreading our message? No, lets sit in the park and claim we're being suppressed when the city gets pissed we're messing the place up. To be honest they should have kept out the fringe nutters that made them look so bad on the news, but because they had nobody in charge they couldn't even distance themselves once they arrived. Popular uprisings only work if you've got some plan beyond "Let's all show up."

Weaver95		2012-04-02 01:05:06 AM

WhyteRaven74: Snowflake Tubbybottom: in the end the hipsters

So it's nothing but hipsters?

shhh! don't correct him. it'll be more fun this way...

9beers		2012-04-02 01:05:12 AM

Weaver95: it just burns you up that OWS didn't fold up and blow away, don't it?

You mean like it did? Remind us, how much time did you spend with the protestors?

spamdog		2012-04-02 01:05:31 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: If there were a proper leadership, if there were official spokesmen, if there were a proper and focused message based on its goals, if there were a plan of action, then maybe people outside of OWS would take it seriously.

Well, somehow I don't think OWS is going to be sponsored by Burger King, you know what I mean?

Weaver95		2012-04-02 01:06:20 AM

9beers: Weaver95: it just burns you up that OWS didn't fold up and blow away, don't it?

You mean like it did? Remind us, how much time did you spend with the protestors?

more than you did, apparently.

AverageAmericanGuy		2012-04-02 01:06:47 AM

TheShavingofOccam123: Yeah, it's hard to say when social movements start. It must have started with one pissed off American housewife and built from there. The strange thing to me is how issues like slavery were or are still being dealt with depending on the country in question.

Just following up with some additional reading on Wikipedia on this and found it interesting that the Susan B Anthony was opposed to passing the 15th Amendment because it would give blacks the right to vote before it gave women the right.

It really is an act of far reaching vision and leadership to take a position that might end up marring an otherwise exceptional life's work.

Treygreen13		2012-04-02 01:08:12 AM

spamdog: AverageAmericanGuy: If there were a proper leadership, if there were official spokesmen, if there were a proper and focused message based on its goals, if there were a plan of action, then maybe people outside of OWS would take it seriously.

Well, somehow I don't think OWS is going to be sponsored by Burger King, you know what I mean?

Certainly not. No corporation would sponsor something without a clear direction or meaning.

Except for Burger King, maybe. The King really didn't say anything other than "OMG LOOK AT THIS WEIRD GUY" and they ran him for a few years.
www.adweek.com

9beers		2012-04-02 01:08:25 AM

Weaver95: more than you did, apparently.

0 = 0

steamingpile		2012-04-02 01:08:41 AM

GAT_00: It made more impact than you might think. People seem less willing to accept 'in the good of the company' than they used to. It's colored the campaigns too.

That has been happening for the past decade, OWS had nothing to do with that, the reason OWS faded out is that it had no clear cut goal.........

Ohhhhh! The pay inequity!!! Give me a break that has existed for years, just buried better in the past, now you know what pay the CEOs get.

I would like them more if they would focus on one goal instead of being scatter shot, they seem to have the right idea but a piss poor plan, they take money from the left when some on the right would support if they changed their final end game to be separating wall street from capital hill, the biggest problem is how deep in the pocket most of the legislators are into wall street. As long as they are joined at the hip NOTHING will change.

Get rid of big money lobbyists and only let non-profits represent causes, then you will see a lot of the bullshiat dry up over night.

AverageAmericanGuy		2012-04-02 01:08:46 AM

spamdog: AverageAmericanGuy: If there were a proper leadership, if there were official spokesmen, if there were a proper and focused message based on its goals, if there were a plan of action, then maybe people outside of OWS would take it seriously.

Well, somehow I don't think OWS is going to be sponsored by Burger King, you know what I mean?

Of course it wouldn't be. I'm sure most people in OWS would consider royalty anathema.

Snowflake Tubbybottom		2012-04-02 01:09:07 AM

Weaver95: WhyteRaven74: Snowflake Tubbybottom: in the end the hipsters

So it's nothing but hipsters?

shhh! don't correct him. it'll be more fun this way...

Weaver, no matter how much you want Occupy to be a successful wave of change it's wave that just didn't reach the shore. Sure it started strong but has been ultimately aimless. The only measure of success to date has been that some cops are assholes and really, who didn't already know that? Corporate America hasn't changed an iota because of it nor will they.

The Jami Turman Fan Club		2012-04-02 01:09:07 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: whidbey: AverageAmericanGuy: But maybe you could help me out and provide an official list of grievances.

Just stop it.

Then you'll agree that when any nitwit can list their own grievances with website names like www.occupywallstreet.com and that when there is very little in the way of official spokesmen and press, that people looking for an official idea of what OWS is about will find a cacophony of viewpoints including utterly ridiculous ones.

If there were a proper leadership, if there were official spokesmen, if there were a proper and focused message based on its goals, if there were a plan of action, then maybe people outside of OWS would take it seriously.

For a brief moment in 2011, the OWS movement looked like it was going to become something forceful and powerful in American society. The follow-through to organize and act has been really lacking, to put it bluntly.

OWS is about Wall Street screwing over people. This includes in mortgages, student loans, and brokerages.

They've already succeeded in one area- getting banks to back off hidden and extra fees. Next should be going after fraudulent mortgage practices, followed by making sure that brokers do their fiduciary duty, instead of treating their customers like muppets. The most important one will probably take the longest- getting Glass-Stegal back up so that banks won't do the 'too big to fail' crap and make us bail them out. Again.

OWS stands for Occupy Wall Street. It is protesting the corrupt practices of Wall Street.

Anything else I can help you with?

Nem Wan		2012-04-02 01:09:14 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Beyond not having a clear message, OWS lacks an effective plan to enact whatever it is that they are supposedly protesting for.

There are no OWS politicians. There are no OWS businesses. There are no OWS leaders. There are no OWS lobbyists. There are no OWS militiamen. There is only a loud, petulant voice that lacks focus.

Who said OWS is protesting for something? What exists are the societal problems that motivated the protests, which presumably were less before the protests began. The obvious corrective action is reverting conditions to those that existed before people got so pissed off.

Smelly McUgly		2012-04-02 01:10:10 AM

Al-Jazeera has been following the Occupy movement and was indicating that this would be flaring up again soon. Hmm.

Zeno-25		2012-04-02 01:11:01 AM

miss diminutive		2012-04-02 01:11:12 AM

steamingpile: Get rid of big money lobbyists and only let non-profits represent causes, then you will see a lot of the bullshiat dry up over night.

I don't think anything short of a full-blown revolution will allow something like that to happen any time soon.

steamingpile		2012-04-02 01:11:52 AM

Weaver95: Snowflake Tubbybottom: Weaver95: Snowflake Tubbybottom:

Nothing came of Occupy and nothing will because in the end the hipsters would rather line up for the next iphone rather than make real effective change.

For a movement that accomplished nothing, the right wing sure does seem scared of 'em.

Scared? Only if your definition of scared means not giving them a second thought in the last 4 months.

[encrypted-tbn3.google.com image 243x207]

I hope you dont really believe anyone on the right took them seriously. To most of the right they were whining brats who are just pissy they dont have high paying jobs with college degrees that never really had high paying jobs in the first place.

The talk show people ranted about them but thats about it, after they found out people didnt give two shiats about them they quit ranting.

"Have a point while talking, it makes it so much more interesting for the listener"

hurdboy		2012-04-02 01:12:18 AM

Occupier at Thanksgiving Dinner: Corporate profits too high!!
Occupier's Dad: Your mom and I might be able to retire two years from now if this keeps up.
Occupier: Really?
Dad: Yup. You still interested in that third MFA? We can spare a couple hundred a month now.
Occupier: Sweet.
Dad: So, you'll be in the admissions office Monday?
Occupier: Totes.

nigeman		2012-04-02 01:12:22 AM

Weaver95: Snowflake Tubbybottom:

Nothing came of Occupy and nothing will because in the end the hipsters would rather line up for the next iphone rather than make real effective change.

For a movement that accomplished nothing, the right wing sure does seem scared of 'em.

No they don't. This wasn't hushed up by any cabal either.

No one is scared of them. Did the stock market change because of them? No. Did anyone leave the country for fear of them? No. A drum circle heard around the world, maybe.

It did give Obama the talking point of inequality, which makes the other side have to defend inequality. that's good, it means that it is now on the agenda and it can be used instead of a talking about recovery. Beyond that, not much happened.

WhyteRaven74		2012-04-02 01:12:48 AM

Smelly McUgly: Al-Jazeera has been following the Occupy movement and was indicating that this would be flaring up again soon. Hmm.

Funny what happens when a someone actually cares about journalism.

AverageAmericanGuy		2012-04-02 01:13:14 AM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: AverageAmericanGuy: whidbey: AverageAmericanGuy: But maybe you could help me out and provide an official list of grievances.

Just stop it.

Then you'll agree that when any nitwit can list their own grievances with website names like www.occupywallstreet.com and that when there is very little in the way of official spokesmen and press, that people looking for an official idea of what OWS is about will find a cacophony of viewpoints including utterly ridiculous ones.

If there were a proper leadership, if there were official spokesmen, if there were a proper and focused message based on its goals, if there were a plan of action, then maybe people outside of OWS would take it seriously.

For a brief moment in 2011, the OWS movement looked like it was going to become something forceful and powerful in American society. The follow-through to organize and act has been really lacking, to put it bluntly.

OWS is about Wall Street screwing over people. This includes in mortgages, student loans, and brokerages.

They've already succeeded in one area- getting banks to back off hidden and extra fees. Next should be going after fraudulent mortgage practices, followed by making sure that brokers do their fiduciary duty, instead of treating their customers like muppets. The most important one will probably take the longest- getting Glass-Stegal back up so that banks won't do the 'too big to fail' crap and make us bail them out. Again.

OWS stands for Occupy Wall Street. It is protesting the corrupt practices of Wall Street.

Anything else I can help you with?

Do you have a pamphlet or official website I can read about the goals of the national OWS organization?

Displayed 50 of 577 comments