Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 65

Thread: Occupy campers shout down Oakland council members

  1. #41
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,873

    Re: Occupy campers shout down Oakland council members

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Because YOU made assumption about their structure. YOU brought it up. I was clarifying that the assumptions you were making to comment on the faction and their interaction with the whole was an assumption since you don't know under what rules and structure they were using.
    Sorry, but I've made no assumptions about their structure. I've read their own words about their structure.

    Perhaps you should do the same. Here's a link: Enacting the Impossible (On Consensus Decision Making) | OccupyWallSt.org
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  2. #42
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,873

    Re: Occupy campers shout down Oakland council members

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    How do you know it has "majority influence"? Perhaps there was no reconciling the two groups and since they have no strict form of government, they just dropped it. You made assumption to apply to the group as a whole.
    Sorry about that...I responded to the wrong post.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1059943795 should be in reference to this post.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  3. #43
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Occupy campers shout down Oakland council members

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Sorry, but I've made no assumptions about their structure. I've read their own words about their structure.

    Perhaps you should do the same. Here's a link: Enacting the Impossible (On Consensus Decision Making) | OccupyWallSt.org
    OK, so this is what I got out of it. Some self appointed committee decided to make a structure under which there could perhaps be a bit more cohesive movement. The idea they came up is rather ignorant of overall government construct and cannot actually operate large scale, but if they keep it isolated enough they can almost make it work. Each ideology gets a "spoke" and decisions are reached not through voting (the article is a bit confusing, I don't know if the people who wrote it themselves know what the hell they're doing with this) but rather through some general assent. "Consensus is not a unanimous voting system; a “block” is not a No vote, but a veto." is the interesting point. In that it further explains "That participants know they can instantly stop a deliberation dead in its tracks if they feel it a matter of principle,..." So what we see is that each block can stop any motion if they feel it is against their principles.

    Now some of the group, probably the anarchist block, probably feels that violence is an acceptable form of revolt and wishes to hold onto it. The motion to commit to purely non-violent means comes up, which is ideologically opposed to this blocks philosophy. As such, they can essentially veto it. It looks as if this was the case here. The motion was withdrawn probably because consensus could not be reached because each little part has extreme power in preventing anything coming to light which may be counter to their full philosophy. It does not, then, represent any actual demographic of the overall OWS movement. These aren't elected officials, and there is no basis of proportional voting based on how big any one block may be. Each are represented in committee as equal, which further removes the committee from any actual demographic of the OWS movement.

    So what does this mean? It means that we cannot infer ANY demographic information based on the way this self appointed committee operates. Thus the faction, the block, was able to make it so the resolution towards only peaceful means was blocked and that it ultimately then had to be removed from consideration. It doesn't mean that the majority wants violent action, in fact you cannot infer any amount of demographic from the act. The committee is not representative of the whole, it takes all blocks whether they "represent" a large population or small population, and give them equal weight.

    So as I said, you cannot determine if this represents the majority of the OWS movement or not and thus cannot be generalized to mean anything about the whole. There is simply no information on the actual demographics since every different ideology is given equal weight and there is no voting on the committee members. So you cannot take this case and say "Look! They [meaning the whole of OWS] want violence!" The most you can say is that there is at least one block within the larger OWS movement which wishes to retain the ability for violent protest.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #44
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Occupy campers shout down Oakland council members

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    If any faction of the OWS group becomes violent then the other members should immediately disassociate themselves, or turn in those who are advocating violence.

    There is no way that "some" members of a group can become violent without all members of the group being tainted, or even guilty through conspiracy to commit violence. Individual OWS members are going to have to make up their minds quite soon as to which direction they want to take.
    I think it is certainly possible that part of the group acts violently without indicating the wishes and desires of the whole given the ass backwards make up of their "committee".
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  5. #45
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Occupy campers shout down Oakland council members

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue_State View Post
    General Assembly was used in the article. My point stands.
    It is influential in terms of the makeup of the committee, but by no means speaks to any larger demographics of the entire group.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  6. #46
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,873

    Re: Occupy campers shout down Oakland council members

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    OK, so this is what I got out of it. Some self appointed committee decided to make a structure under which there could perhaps be a bit more cohesive movement. The idea they came up is rather ignorant of overall government construct and cannot actually operate large scale, but if they keep it isolated enough they can almost make it work. Each ideology gets a "spoke" and decisions are reached not through voting (the article is a bit confusing, I don't know if the people who wrote it themselves know what the hell they're doing with this) but rather through some general assent. "Consensus is not a unanimous voting system; a “block” is not a No vote, but a veto." is the interesting point. In that it further explains "That participants know they can instantly stop a deliberation dead in its tracks if they feel it a matter of principle,..." So what we see is that each block can stop any motion if they feel it is against their principles.

    Now some of the group, probably the anarchist block, probably feels that violence is an acceptable form of revolt and wishes to hold onto it. The motion to commit to purely non-violent means comes up, which is ideologically opposed to this blocks philosophy. As such, they can essentially veto it. It looks as if this was the case here. The motion was withdrawn probably because consensus could not be reached because each little part has extreme power in preventing anything coming to light which may be counter to their full philosophy. It does not, then, represent any actual demographic of the overall OWS movement. These aren't elected officials, and there is no basis of proportional voting based on how big any one block may be. Each are represented in committee as equal, which further removes the committee from any actual demographic of the OWS movement.

    So what does this mean? It means that we cannot infer ANY demographic information based on the way this self appointed committee operates. Thus the faction, the block, was able to make it so the resolution towards only peaceful means was blocked and that it ultimately then had to be removed from consideration. It doesn't mean that the majority wants violent action, in fact you cannot infer any amount of demographic from the act. The committee is not representative of the whole, it takes all blocks whether they "represent" a large population or small population, and give them equal weight.

    So as I said, you cannot determine if this represents the majority of the OWS movement or not and thus cannot be generalized to mean anything about the whole. There is simply no information on the actual demographics since every different ideology is given equal weight and there is no voting on the committee members. So you cannot take this case and say "Look! They [meaning the whole of OWS] want violence!" The most you can say is that there is at least one block within the larger OWS movement which wishes to retain the ability for violent protest.
    In all my postings concerning OWS, I've never maintained that ALL of them condone violence. In fact, I've specified many times that those who started and continue to direct OWS are the ones who want heads to be busted. I have identified the majority of the protesters as being "useful idiots".

    Regardless, I stand with the the words I offered in my OP:

    As I've been saying all along...the OWSer's movement will die out if they take a peaceful protest attitude. They can't have that. They want the authorities to bust some heads.

    More violence on the part of OWS is on it's way.

    To be clear, when I reference the OWS movement, I'm not talking about the useful idiots...I'm talking about those behind them.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

  7. #47
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Occupy campers shout down Oakland council members

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    To be clear, when I reference the OWS movement, I'm not talking about the useful idiots...I'm talking about those behind them.
    While that's a rather vague "clarification", it is not how your original comment is phrased. Your original comment refers to the overall OWS movement; not particular blocks are subgroups thereof.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Occupy campers shout down Oakland council members

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I think it is certainly possible that part of the group acts violently without indicating the wishes and desires of the whole given the ass backwards make up of their "committee".
    Then the smarter ones should disassociate themselves from the OWS as quickly as they can. Whatever points they have attempted to make should have been made by now, otherwise it's clear they are putting themselves above the law and the good of their country and fellow citizens.

  9. #49
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Occupy campers shout down Oakland council members

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Then the smarter ones should disassociate themselves from the OWS as quickly as they can. Whatever points they have attempted to make should have been made by now, otherwise it's clear they are putting themselves above the law and the good of their country and fellow citizens.
    I'm not 100% sure about that. Assembly and protest are exceedingly important and this is just a consequence of freedom. I think we should have to see it and deal with it and understand what it means to be free.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #50
    Sage
    Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,873

    Re: Occupy campers shout down Oakland council members

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    While that's a rather vague "clarification", it is not how your original comment is phrased. Your original comment refers to the overall OWS movement; not particular blocks are subgroups thereof.
    <shrug>

    I'm not going to explain myself every time I make a post about OWS. You are free to read the many posts I've made in these forums in the short amount of time I've been here to understand my position...or not.
    TANSTAAFL

    “An armed society is a polite society.”
    ― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •