Jesus - for the love of god, donât call it âoccupyâ anything. That term is tainted and going to turn off a certain percentage of people right off the bat. Itâs an important subject that needs to not be seen as a âcauseâ by any political leanings, but a universal one we can all get behind.
If thatâs what it takes to make the news, so be it. Cable companies want to keep this quiet. F*ck them.
Itâs only âtaintedâ because a great many people only believe what the TV tells them to believe. They also believe the TV is an impartial source, with no agenda at all.
donât call it âoccupyâ anything. That term is tainted
Thank you for your message of unity.
If the term is âtaintedâ, then thatâs because it is tainted. As one who is in total sympathy for the âoccupyâ movement, I think the term has become over-used and counter productive. Iâm just waiting now for âOccupy-Gateâ.
If the term is âtaintedâ, then thatâs because it is tainted
Thatâs like saying if the Tea Party was for Net Neutrality, suddenly everyone who opposes them will change their stance on Net Neutrality. Itâs not going to happen.
Anyone that would be obtuse and dense enough to stubbornly change their position on Net Neutrality simply because the word âtea partyâ or âoccupyâ is used in a lone FCC protest are either already dense enough to already be against Net Neutrality no matter what in the first place, donât care about Net Neutrality no matter what anyway or wouldnât have the brains to make an impact either way.
As one who is in total sympathy for the âoccupyâ movement, I think the term has become over-used and counter productive.
You just contradicted yourself there. Maybe the better word is partial sympathy if you think usage of the term itself is over-used and counter productive considering the positive gains made by its usage. And, if you donât see the positive gains, then I would then suggest âlukewarmâ sympathy at best.
Oh for fuckâs sake Cowicide. NO, it is nothing like saying, âif the Tea Party was for Net Neutrality, suddenly everyone who opposes them will change their stance on Net Neutralityâ. All Iâm saying is that the word has lost its mojo as far as being inspirational and winning people to a cause,
is concerned.
All Iâm saying is that the word has lost its mojo as far as being inspirational and winning people to a cause, is concerned.
How are you gauging this? By what you see on TV? According to most corporate television, sure. But, thereâs a world beyond the status quo that even some of the corporatist news outlets canât ignore completely.
While you may not be inspired by it, many others are nationwide as well as worldwide:
FCC chairman Tom Wheeler came out to meet with Occupy the FCC demonstrators on May 14th. We made it clear that weâre glad heâs willing to talk but we need action: reclassifying the Internet as a common carrier is the only way to protect net neutrality for the longerm. the Chairmanâs favored path is â 706 â a bandaid, not a solution.
More:
http://www.cwi.it/net-neutrality-oggi-fcc-decide-cresce-lottimismo-19195
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/7/fcc-occupy-neutrality.html
Oh for fuckâs sake Cowicide.
Oh for fuckâs sake, no one is stopping you from getting your ass out there and representing those who are tired of the word âoccupyâ and are for Net Neutrality. Or, perhaps you could put some energy into this thing called gratitude for those who are doing their part out there and putting themselves out to gather more begrudging media attention to the cause⌠no matter how much their âoccupyâ label may hurt your semantic sensibilities.
I have nothing but gratitude for these people out there and I feel the same whether some of them are Tea Party members, Occupy Wall Street members or not.
I totally agree. Many people who disparaged the original âoccupyâ movement did so due to the characterization that everyone protesting were communist hipsters or some other thing ânot like themâ. So the movement became discredited because they didnât like the people who seemed to be at the forefront, even though if they sat down and analyzed what they were protesting they would probably find a lot of common ground.
Hey man, I didnât start the fire. Iâm just commenting on the reality of it.
You could start an âoccupyâ movement on a factory that makes plastic water bottles from live babies, and you would have people instantly turned off to it. Conversely, you could have something like, âNazis for gay rightsâ, and even if you agreed with gay rights, you wouldnât be for their protest because of who they are.
People are sheep and propaganda and marketing/advertising has effects.
People are sheep
Oh great, the âsheepleâ thing⌠More of your sincere efforts at unity, I see? In your initial post, you spoke of how important unity was, yet youâve ironically and hypocritically achieved the very opposite with your dismissive and increasingly insulting posts.
âNazis for gay rightsâ, and even if you agreed with gay rights, you wouldnât be for their protest because of who they are.
You just basically compared the Occupy movement to the unpopularity of the Nazi party.
Is this your effort to further bring about unity? Great going⌠/s
So the movement became discredited
What? The status quo attacked a movement against the status quo?
Maybe if you listen less to the status quo and open your eyes to the positive changes that resulted from OWS, youâd have a different opinion.
This âdiscreditedâ movement has pushed our country forward from an utter state of denial. As many wise people have said, first you have to admit you have a problem before you can tackle it.
People like you just keep chasing your own tails instead.
Hey man, I didnât start the fire.
So, someone forced you to come into a thread that supports the efforts of those who got their asses out to the FCC to support Network Neutrality and shit all over it? Who twisted your arm?
At least try to take some self-responsibility for attacking those who truly understand what it means to utilize self-responsibility. Iâm sure those people could have found a million excuses not to get out there, but they took it upon themselves (self-responsibility) to do it anyway. I find this very commendable. You, on the other hand, canât even take some self-responsibility for dismissing them.
I have nothing but gratitude for these people out there and I feel the same whether some of them are Tea Party members, Occupy Wall Street members or not.
Man you need to switch to decaf or cut yourself off at 2 5hr Energy Shots a day. Youâre reading way too much into this and coming up with things Iâm not even saying.
Iâll try to simplify and lay it out again:
If I were creating a protest for Net Neutrality (or what ever), I would make every effort to be as inclusive and as broad appealing as possible.
But by using a term like âoccupyâ you automatically now lump it in with a whole different protest. One canât use the term âoccupyâ with out oneâs previous biases not affecting how you feel about the new movement. Itâs how our brains work.
Like the original âoccupyâ movement? Youâre going to be more likely to take interest and accept this new one using the same term. Disliked the original âoccupyâ movement? Youâre going to be more likely to discredit and dislike this new movement. Fallacy of association. Fallacy of the Bandwagon. Confirmation bias. Too many people wonât take the time look a little deeper and come up with their own conclusions.
So - in conclusion - I would be as broad appealing as possible and avoid associating it with any other group directly, even if it is just the superficial use of the word âoccupyâ. Why shoot yourself in the foot with bad PR?
If I were creating a protest for Net Neutrality
But, youâre not, are you?
They are already out there right now.
This isnât the planning stages and this isnât some postmortem discussion after the fact. Itâs May 15th. Youâre yelling at a runner in a race mid-stride after the starting gun has already gone off. The only thing youâll achieve at this point is demoralization and your own self-satisfaction of dismissing a tactic you donât agree with. You are the very epitome of anti-solidarity at this point while ironically espousing how important it is.
Theyâve already called themselves âOccupy the FCCâ and they are out there right now doing their part in the manner they saw best.
What good does it do for you to shit on them right now? Where were you in the planning stages?
Donât give lip service to solidarity when you obviously have little grasp of the term. The way to destroy solidarity is to convince yourself that you must agree with every tactic of your compatriots in order to support them. (Something I need to seriously work on myself, I have to admit)
This isnât constructive criticism before or after the fact. Please stop fooling yourself, this is wasting your time shitting on a parade in process for your own selfish desires.
Itâs obvious to anyone reading your drivel this isnât about unity, itâs about your ego.
So⌠I⌠butâŚ
yeah, okâŚ
Iâll put it this way. Iâd be cheering you on right now if you were out there in front of the FCC with a sign that humorously said:
Because theyâre not Red-State ranchers occupying federal land with loaded weapons pointed at police officers, theyâll be vilified by FOX News.
theyâll be vilified by FOX News.
Maybe, maybe notâŚ
you know what they say about broken clocksâŚ
Here we gooooâŚ
Bankrolled by broadband donors, lawmakers lobby FCC on net neutrality
Watchdog decries politiciansâ claims that they âare acting in the public interest.â
