Maybe all us angry nerds should OCCUPY something. Something big, related to SOPA. It would be cool to see EFF type concerns channeled into that movement.
The "Occupy" movement is a sinking ship run by anarchists. It's literally an expression of incoherent rage. I think a traditional, well-organized, on-message movement against SOPA would do a lot better than throwing in with OWS.
> [OWS is] literally an expression of incoherent rage.
You're clueless, likely intentionally so.
Many Occupy members are very coherent. If you haven't looked far enough to find one you must be getting your news from a TV.
And rage doesn't motivate Food not Bombs, or most other OWS participants and participating organizations.
But Occupy, like Anonymous, is a non-trademarked non-organization. Anyone can go, for any reason, and can say whatever they want under its auspices. You could cherry-pick anything you want.
The incoherent rage though is mostly to be found among the members of the armed forces who joined post 9-11 to go and kill well over a million people in the Afghan/Iraq/Pakistan-USA war (to date) to get revenge for something they didn't even attempt to understand. Yelling at our politicians and refusing to pay taxes is the sane response.
Not from anarchists, but from patriots who'll only support a government of the people, for the people.
So, if I can find ten people who claim to believe what you do but really say other random things, does it mean you no-longer have a message or merely that I've managed to distract from it? And who have I distracted, you? Unlikely. Just myself and whoever listens to me.
Similarly, only you and the Fox news crowd are confused about what OWS is.
And yes, there's a lot you pretend you didn't read. Like anything you can't counter. The truth hurts.
I'm not confused about what OWS is. It would be an embryonic version of the Jacobins or a gang of proto-fascists if only it had some sort of coordination. In my city it turned into a settlement of homeless people and street kids until they were finally evicted by the community college they were squatting at.
Anyone who joined the armed forces to avenge 9/11 joined for the cause of justice. It's not the fault of the troops that the politicians fucked the whole thing up. Under a more competent government, the mission would have been restricted to wiping out the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan, i.e. a reasonable, direct, and proportional response. But because we live in a democracy, the military doesn't get to decide where they're deployed. And because there's no conscription, whiny, entitled kids get to go on the Internet and spout ignorant little criticisms all day long without ever having to take the responsibility to defend the country themselves.
> I'm not confused about what OWS is. It would be ... if only it had some sort of coordination.
Like Anonymous, there are no leaders, there's no membership list, etc. It's fundamentally chaotic because it isn't trying to ram everyone's different message into one one tidy media-palatable sound-bite. So yes, you are totally confused about what OWS is.
> Anyone who joined the armed forces to avenge 9/11 joined for the cause of justice.
Not in the slightest. You don't join the army and prepare to bomb an innocent country for justice. That'd be like me setting fire to your house because an alleged murderer was rumored to be hiding there.
They joined out of pure incoherent rage.
> It's not the fault of the troops that the politicians fucked the whole thing up.
Yes, actually it is. Not only should they not have joined because Bush was obviously gearing up for a genocide from day two, but after having joined it's their obligation to refuse illegal orders. To pursue a war without justification is an obviously illegal order - it's just murder.
> But because we live in a democracy, the military doesn't get to decide where they're deployed.
If they have any morals at all they get to decide where they will not be deployed, and who they will not shoot. Far better to be imprisoned for refusing to fight than be forced to bomb an innocent family.
> And because there's no conscription, whiny, entitled kids get to go on the Internet and spout ignorant little criticisms all day long without ever having to take the responsibility to defend the country themselves.
It's not defending the country, you arrogant murderer-by-proxy, it's shooting innocent people because you can't find anyone to defend against.
But face it, if you actually cared in the slightest about defending the country you'd try to stop the unjust war. For every jet flown into a building in the USA the USA has flown ten-thousand times more aircraft into its perceived enemies. That doesn't breed friends and allies.
Wait, I don't know what OWS is because I say it's incoherent and uncoordinated, and you say it's chaotic and anarchic? Sounds like we agree what OWS is; you just think anarchy and chaos are good things.
I never voted for Bush or Obama, or for any congressman or senator who voted for any of the military actions this government has taken since I was eligible to vote. Where possible, I have voted for candidates promising to immediately end any and all such operations. I'm no more a murderer by proxy than any other taxpayer, including you--well, unless you're another one of those Occupy bums who doesn't work, doesn't pay taxes, and is a net drain on the economy. And I'm not so arrogant as to pass moral judgment on people I don't even know.
> Wait, I don't know what OWS is because I say it's incoherent and uncoordinated, and you say it's chaotic and anarchic?
You expect it to speak with one voice. Even organizations like the Republican party don't consistently speak with one voice and you expect an non-organization to produce a clear and concise mission statement in tv snippet lengths.
You're obviously stacking the deck.
> Sounds like we agree what OWS is; you just think anarchy and chaos are good things.
And again.
Many different people are protesting many different issues. It would be ridiculous to try to label them in a simplistic fashion because you'll miss all the nuances.
> I'm not so arrogant as to pass moral judgment on people I don't even know.
Oh, sorry. Dunno where I'd have gotten that idea from.
> another one of those Occupy bums who doesn't work, doesn't pay taxes, and is a net drain on the economy.
I don't expect OWS to be coherent, I'm just saying it isn't coherent, and any protest movement against SOPA should probably have more organization rather than less. I'm also not calling people murderers because I have political disagreements with them, but that's the difference between you and me.
My remarks that those of us opposed to SOPA should engage in more organized action rather than throwing in with Occupy were in response to this comment:
> Maybe all us angry nerds should OCCUPY something. Something big, related to SOPA.
Did you forget the context of this thread already?
You still haven't explained how I'm a murderer by proxy and you aren't. I'm actually curious as to your rationale. I've never actually voted for anyone who authorized any military action at all; did you think I had? If you voted for almost anyone currently in office, you're a murderer by proxy more than I am. I don't avoid paying taxes, but how would you know whether I did? If you really do make a "comfortable income", either you're evading a lot of taxes or you are far more of a murderer by proxy than I am. I haven't renounced my citizenship and left for a peaceful country--but how would you know if I did? If you stayed and worked in the US, you contributed to the war economy and are a murderer by proxy, likely more so than I.
So what gives you the right to call me a murderer by proxy? Because I said something to defend the troops? Does that mean you are by proxy guilty of everything that's happened in the Occupy camps that you defend?
> Did you forget the context of this thread already?
Did you forget saying that people joined OWS out of incoherent rage, and defending the troops who actually did join the armed forces to kill innocent people? Who painted racist slogans on munitions, etc?
> My remarks that those of us opposed to SOPA should engage in more organized action rather than throwing in with Occupy were in response to this comment:
Oh, I see. Your baseless slander of tens of thousands was because someone had said we should join forces with them. No problem then.
> You still haven't explained how I'm a murderer by proxy and you aren't.
I didn't say I'm not. To the degree that I am, and yes it involves a lot of avoiding taxes, I am trying to stop it. You on the other hand support the troops, etc, and are unwilling to apply your incoherent rage rhetoric to the actual destructive elements of society.
For all that you (may not have) voted for any war-mongers, you certainly support the conservative status-quo in your willingness to speak out against Occupy, etc.
For instance, you call Occupy members a net drain on society. Perhaps they even are (or rather, the needless police presence is...). But any society pursing a baseless war needs to be drained of its resources before it can use them to kill more innocent people.
> So what gives you the right to call me a murderer by proxy?
Huh? What gives me the right to call you something?
Rather, what do you think removes my right to call you something?
> ... but how would you know if I did?
You'd have said so. And you wouldn't defend the troops. For instance you'd have commented that the racist motivations they had and the armed forces' willingness to recruit them despite this (because of?) was the reason why you couldn't support them regardless of their superficial motivations such as "justice".
> Does that mean you are by proxy guilty of everything that's happened in the Occupy camps that you defend?
Did I defend blanket-defend Occupy? That'd be like defending Anonymous or any other non-group. As long as there's one under-cover Scientologist causing trouble I can't speak for them as a group even if the rest were all certified angels.
I never said anyone joined OWS out of incoherent rage; I said incoherent rage was the end result. If anything you're the one guilty of baseless slander, as if every member of the military was a racist war criminal. If anything, you're only demonstrating my point about OWS not being the kind of people to make a political coalition with.
> I never said anyone joined OWS out of incoherent rage; I said incoherent rage was the end result.
No. You didn't:
> "The 'Occupy' movement is a sinking ship run by anarchists. It's literally an expression of incoherent rage."
You said the movement is literally an incoherent expression of rage.
And not only did you claim OWS was run by someone, which is wrong, you said it was anarchists, which is a contradiction.
> If anything you're the one guilty of baseless slander, as if every member of the military was a racist war criminal.
Not at all. That's accurate. Well, they may not all be racists - some may merely be okay supporting racists. But they're all war criminals, except maybe Bradley Manning.
Soldiers aren't just allowed to protest and refuse to follow illegal orders, they're required to do so. The war against Afghanistan was clearly under false pretenses as there wasn't a good reason to believe Osama was doing anything other than passing through Afghanistan if he was there at all, and the war against Iraq was under false pretenses as there obviously (even in the beginning) were no WMDs and the USA had been forgiving of Saddam's murderous purges in the past. Now suddenly Bush's poll numbers were in the toilet and they want to attack someone.
Anyone who knew anything, which is a moral prerequisite for picking up a gun and killing someone, knew the wars were a sham. All good soldiers deserted, refused to fight, leaked documents, or otherwise sabotaged the war effort. Everyone else involved, from cook to gunner, is guilty of aiding and abetting wholesale murder.
It's the standard we applied to the Nazis and we were right to do so.
> If anything, you're only demonstrating my point about OWS not being the kind of people to make a political coalition with.
Absolutely. An non-organization like OWS can't be bribed into supporting anything odious. They'd never support a coalition because nobody could guarantee they wouldn't attack their "partner" if that organization acted contrary to any given OWS-member's interests.
You'd want a more "politically savvy" group, and a strict organization which would kick out misbehaving members so that they'd toe the party line, to partner with.
Occupy congress, "We demand INTERNET FREEDOM to replace SOPA [and other antiINTERNET FREEDOM bills?]".
SOPA could be renamed to SOCPA (Stop Online Child Pornography Act), then you will have a lot of hostile people towards the current and future INTERNET FREEDOM movements.
