Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
St Pauls Eviction Tonight!!!!
Why did it take so long?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by trt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Its the same in the Market Square in Nottingham, they have been there since October and they are evicting them very soon. It makes the City Centre look so scruffy and they never seem to be doing anything except live there free .................... we go camping/caravanning and as someone said on this thread, we would not be allowed to just pitch tent anywhere for a free holiday without paying site fees. The protestors probably have their strong opinions but other people have to be considered too. I agree with them being moved on.
"So what alternative did they suggest, and how did they intend to implement it?"
This wasn't what they were trying to do. I can see how that might be a very convenient excuse not to listen to them or engage with them, but I think that's a rather weak attitude to take.
The Occupy movement is, by and large, not trying to change any laws, it's not trying to set up something new, and it's not trying to come up with a new structure. This does not mean they're not trying to do anything - it just means their targets are different. The people they're targetting ultimately are not governments or the powerful, because they see them as part and parcel of what it is they're attacking. They're trying to target normal, everyday people and encourage them to think about the flaws in the socioeconomic system they live under. Not everyone agrees on what those flaws are - but there aren't many people who disagree that they're there.
What it amounts to is just an invitation to debate/think about issues which aren't normally considered in the mainstream, and they're trying to make the statement as intrusive and powerful as possible by setting themselves up right in the face of the public. Your average Occupy site (or at least all the ones that I've seen) will often - if they can - get some speakers in for public lectures and encourage people to come along and debate. That's the fundamentals of what they're trying to do. Personally, I think dismissing an invitation to think is a shameful act of intellectual cowardice - especially if it's done on such facile grounds as some pre-conceived looking-down-your-nose idea of how they ought to be protesting or how they ought to dress or how clean they ought to be.
This wasn't what they were trying to do. I can see how that might be a very convenient excuse not to listen to them or engage with them, but I think that's a rather weak attitude to take.
The Occupy movement is, by and large, not trying to change any laws, it's not trying to set up something new, and it's not trying to come up with a new structure. This does not mean they're not trying to do anything - it just means their targets are different. The people they're targetting ultimately are not governments or the powerful, because they see them as part and parcel of what it is they're attacking. They're trying to target normal, everyday people and encourage them to think about the flaws in the socioeconomic system they live under. Not everyone agrees on what those flaws are - but there aren't many people who disagree that they're there.
What it amounts to is just an invitation to debate/think about issues which aren't normally considered in the mainstream, and they're trying to make the statement as intrusive and powerful as possible by setting themselves up right in the face of the public. Your average Occupy site (or at least all the ones that I've seen) will often - if they can - get some speakers in for public lectures and encourage people to come along and debate. That's the fundamentals of what they're trying to do. Personally, I think dismissing an invitation to think is a shameful act of intellectual cowardice - especially if it's done on such facile grounds as some pre-conceived looking-down-your-nose idea of how they ought to be protesting or how they ought to dress or how clean they ought to be.
have a look at some these pics, this was a beautiful green space for people to enjoy.
before. http://cache.virtualtourist.com/15/5900660.jpg
after. http://www.bristol247...ege-Green-Bristol.jpg
Dave.
Dave.
before. http://cache.virtualtourist.com/15/5900660.jpg
after. http://www.bristol247...ege-Green-Bristol.jpg
Dave.
Dave.
"Not necessarily, but actually I think it rather presumptuous of them - or anyone - to assume that other people don't think."
Can you really blame them? Really? It seems pretty obvious to me that the kind of things they're highlighting aren't necessarily thought about by everyone. Your main line of criticism, so far as I can make out, is towards their methods rather than their messages or goals - which you've openly admitted are quite distinct things. Unless I'm mistaken, the only time you've said anything about the latter is to criticise the movement for not 'not offering an alternative' - which isn't really a viable criticism considering what they're trying to do.
Can you really blame them? Really? It seems pretty obvious to me that the kind of things they're highlighting aren't necessarily thought about by everyone. Your main line of criticism, so far as I can make out, is towards their methods rather than their messages or goals - which you've openly admitted are quite distinct things. Unless I'm mistaken, the only time you've said anything about the latter is to criticise the movement for not 'not offering an alternative' - which isn't really a viable criticism considering what they're trying to do.
//The Occupy movement is, by and large, not trying to change any laws, it's not trying to set up something new, and it's not trying to come up with a new structure.//
//Your main line of criticism, so far as I can make out, is towards their methods rather than their messages or goals//
//considering what they're trying to do.//
So what are they trying to do? If they’re not trying to change any laws, or to set up something new, or to come up with a new structure, it would appear their only ‘goal’, as far as you can see, is to encourage people to think – and if they achieve that, then what?
//Your main line of criticism, so far as I can make out, is towards their methods rather than their messages or goals//
//considering what they're trying to do.//
So what are they trying to do? If they’re not trying to change any laws, or to set up something new, or to come up with a new structure, it would appear their only ‘goal’, as far as you can see, is to encourage people to think – and if they achieve that, then what?
"their only ‘goal’, as far as you can see, is to encourage people to think – and if they achieve that, then what?"
Then people are thinking, debating and speaking about things that they wouldn't otherwise have spoken about, and often on terms that they wouldn't previously have used to speak about them. The issues the occupiers wish to raise gain cultural currency. I'm not saying I necessarily buy into this fully, but what the Occupiers are hoping that will do is encourage people to scrutinise things which went unscrutinised in the minds of lots of people before. The idea is that if you achieve that, it will have an effect on what people expect out of politics and maybe on how they read newspapers - that's what thinking does, or should do anyway.
A law is just worthless piece of paper without a society and wider culture to enforce it or uphold it - and, typically, they do not instigate social change, they just react to it. Regarding protest objectives, it's no more idealistic to think that you can try to change things by encouraging a critique of political culture than it is to simply think that if you can just change the law then that's all you need to do to make change happen.
What's so wrong about trying to achieve that? Why are you so scornful about this as an aim? Why should they necessarily be seeking the particular form of change that you happen to think is acceptable?
Then people are thinking, debating and speaking about things that they wouldn't otherwise have spoken about, and often on terms that they wouldn't previously have used to speak about them. The issues the occupiers wish to raise gain cultural currency. I'm not saying I necessarily buy into this fully, but what the Occupiers are hoping that will do is encourage people to scrutinise things which went unscrutinised in the minds of lots of people before. The idea is that if you achieve that, it will have an effect on what people expect out of politics and maybe on how they read newspapers - that's what thinking does, or should do anyway.
A law is just worthless piece of paper without a society and wider culture to enforce it or uphold it - and, typically, they do not instigate social change, they just react to it. Regarding protest objectives, it's no more idealistic to think that you can try to change things by encouraging a critique of political culture than it is to simply think that if you can just change the law then that's all you need to do to make change happen.
What's so wrong about trying to achieve that? Why are you so scornful about this as an aim? Why should they necessarily be seeking the particular form of change that you happen to think is acceptable?
"Where have I openly admitted their messages and goals are quite distinct things?"
Sorry, bad writing on my part. I didn't mean to write that 'messages' and 'goals' were distinct things - I meant to write that 'methods' and 'messages and goals' were distinct things, a distinction which you appeared to share when I asked you if the methods of the movement necessarily discredited their message.
Sorry, bad writing on my part. I didn't mean to write that 'messages' and 'goals' were distinct things - I meant to write that 'methods' and 'messages and goals' were distinct things, a distinction which you appeared to share when I asked you if the methods of the movement necessarily discredited their message.
ummmm
/// It took so long because we live in a democracy...We, luckily, are allowed to protest ///
I wonder if your thoughts would have been the same if the EDL had set-up up camp for over 4 months, so as to protest?
But no, their protest would have been banned, long before they got their tents unpacked.
/// It took so long because we live in a democracy...We, luckily, are allowed to protest ///
I wonder if your thoughts would have been the same if the EDL had set-up up camp for over 4 months, so as to protest?
But no, their protest would have been banned, long before they got their tents unpacked.
ChuckFickens
/// What on earth would the EDL want to stage a legal protest about? ///
Perhaps not just the EDL, but after witnessing what is taking off in the Middle East, there must be many in Britain, who are concerned about the rise of Islam, but would they be allowed to protest over such a matter?
Surely it is not racist to discuss such things?
/// What on earth would the EDL want to stage a legal protest about? ///
Perhaps not just the EDL, but after witnessing what is taking off in the Middle East, there must be many in Britain, who are concerned about the rise of Islam, but would they be allowed to protest over such a matter?
Surely it is not racist to discuss such things?
"Krom, I beg to differ with you, the occupy movement the same as occupy Wall Sr in USA and in other countries all in the financial areas,and are being used as a mouthpiece for a greater concern to have a new Global Financial system, backed by big big money and very large organisations."
This seemed to me to be more what they were attacking rather than what they were trying to achieve. They're trying to encourage criticisms of those same institutions - but government and corporations are part and parcel of what they want to be criticised and what they feel is inadequate. That's why the specific slogans and (I suppose) arguments put forward by each individual camp vary.
This seemed to me to be more what they were attacking rather than what they were trying to achieve. They're trying to encourage criticisms of those same institutions - but government and corporations are part and parcel of what they want to be criticised and what they feel is inadequate. That's why the specific slogans and (I suppose) arguments put forward by each individual camp vary.
