I'd like to take this opportunity to wish the violence and torture you've inflicted onto others onto you.Originally Posted by Marcus
Morberis - Absolutely. Record everything, no "off" switch.
I'd like to take this opportunity to wish the violence and torture you've inflicted onto others onto you.
Morberis - Absolutely. Record everything, no "off" switch.
"you don't have to march off to the death camps of America"
OWS has never sounded more reasonable, I can see why you linked that.
NYPD kick out real Occupy Wall Street protesters out of Law & Orders: Special Victim Unit's fake OWS protest camp
And I wish you would get by a bus!
Will this work?
I think a much larger one would work better.Will this work?
Fuck off pig. We already know you're corrupt and incapable of any real ethical behaviour or thought from your posts in the taser thread where you defend your fellow cops because they are following procedure, not because their actions are morally correct.
Please just shut up and go die in a corner somewhere. You're even more odious than Marcus, because you're never made a single post that actually has any value in it.
You just bitch about people who believe in God, people who don't bitch about people who believe in God, and people who want their remains to be interred in a cemetery instead of a landfill.
Hahahahahahaha
Thanks for conceding.
Any person who believes in God is delusional and believes things for which there is no evidence. At best they are ignorant and foolish. At worst they are dangerous and evil. People who enable the religious to continue to be delusional by not pointing out that they believe in bronze age fairy tales and other such nonsense are foolish.
Last edited by PhoenixRising; 12-11-2011 at 01:24 PM.
Righto, so you agree with me.
I swear, the only thing more obnoxious to me than a devout theist proselytizing constantly is a devout atheist doing exactly the same fucking thing with his belief set.
Your actions have no net positive utility to them and were you a tenth the rationalist you suppose yourself to be, you wouldn't be a tenth as annoying and odious a human being as you are.
lrn2ancienthistory, nubbles
Oh, and you aren't allowed to be Dawn Falcon here. We already have one of those, thanks. I know times are tough and all, but there are only so many retards one board can support.
Cry more.
Aaron - Just start proselytizing the Noahide Laws. No ban on that!
This thread is in dire need of being swung back on topic. Allow me to do so now with an excellent analysis from the latest issue of Slingshot.
http://slingshot.tao.ca/displaybi.php?0108001What is Realistic? Rejecting the system's limits on the possible
By Kermit
I will remember that night for the rest of my life. After an early morning police raid, supporters of Occupy Oakland converged in the streets and stood up to riot police hurling tear gas canisters, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades. Despite how grim that sounds, my experience was one of cathartic elation; of being autonomous in a group of people aware of its own power; of having the lines between what I am for and what I am against rendered so clearly.
People around the world are rejecting the perceived inevitability of capitalist states and electoral democracy, citing their own needs for autonomy and community, which are not being met. Issues of class inequality and state violence have been front page news, and the kinds of conversations that it is possible to have with people in this atmosphere seem greatly expanded. Connections are being made between issues on a large scale and the energy generated is not being neatly channeled into small reforms or manipulated by hierarchical political machines.
Often, we go through life utterly surrounded by invisible systems which limit the actions and conversations that seem possible; which make any sentiment expressed outside of them seem crazy. Moments that create a rupture in this banality by making those systems visible allow us an opportunity to inhabit space and interact with each other in radically different ways; to become aware of tensions that are ever-present but often hidden and act in ways that did not previously seem possible. At their best, the Occupy actions and other demonstrations that have escalated around the world in the last year have created spaces for people to interact with each other and articulate their desires outside of established frameworks.
Useful realism
There are also tensions that arise as part of the occupation itself which are important to explore. Central to these is the tension between the beautiful possibility of this moment and the fact that we are still living within ugly and powerful systems that have trained us to think, speak and act on their terms. Thinking about what it means to be 'realistic' or 'strategic' is one way to map this particular tension usefully.
Large systems of calcified power like states, banks and corporations are very good at finding ways to make us believe that our best interest is what drives them, or failing that, that our goals can coexist harmoniously with theirs. They do this by shaping the conversations we have about what is necessary, possible and desirable; by encouraging us to abandon desires they cannot assimilate and by offering the promise of comfort, safety, and convenience in return
Appealing to realism is a tactic often used by these systems to convince people that their aspirations are too large. Any good idea or analysis that condemns systems of power or would require a radical shift in the status quo can be discredited easily as unrealistic by those who lack imagination. In this context, it is tempting to reject the concept of realism altogether; to believe that the audacity of demanding everything from our lives and nothing from established power negates any kind of rationality.
In fact, 'being realistic' is useful as a way of analyzing tactics and situations in light of a particular set of goals and desires. If we articulate our desires using only the narrow language of the system, "I want to make more money", then being realistic can only include finding ways to make the system work better for us. If our goals are understood to be more expansive, "I want to be able to meet my physical and emotional needs", then realistic options include subverting the logic of the system itself.
As the Occupy movement has gained momentum, some have claimed that the only way to be effective is with a centralized organization that can efficiently negotiate with power; they argue that having a specific set of reforms and charismatic leaders is the only realistic strategy for success.
I disagree with this analysis. The danger of making specific political demands is the danger of taking the energy of the moment and bending it to the service of something too small. The reason that the Occupy/Decolonize demonstrations have felt powerful to me is because they are leaderless and because they have not been interested in making specific demands. What is being rejected around the world is not just a tax system but the tenets of global capitalism itself and the particular brand of representative democracy that has helped it to become ascendant; not one incident of police brutality, but the presumption that a militarized police force is necessary in order to have communities that function.
Believing that the vast majority of people in our society are dissatisfied with the world that capitalism and state power has created is realistic to me but thinking that these people will be able to rally behind a single set of demands that is remotely powerful or interesting, does not. I am not particularly interested in finding ways to make small reforms in the systems that oppress us. I would rather use my energy to nurture communities that reject reformism and aren't easily co-opted by established systems of power. For me, this means being honest about the facts on the ground and choosing tactics that allow me to keep space open where people can act on and articulate desires that are not easily absorbed by conventional political narratives.
Daring to frame the conversation in these terms is far more energizing than borrowing the limited language those in power have given us to express ourselves. In this context creating more spaces where power is decentralized and people are able to act autonomously is a worthwhile political end in itself. If our desires are grand and beautiful, then what is useful is having ways to assess risk and make informed decisions in specific situations without compromising them. This involves being honest about our emotional and intellectual reactions to the world regardless of whether or not they conform to the dominant social order or the opinions of our peers.
What are we doing here?
To think that an entrenched system can be brought to its knees quickly is totally realistic; the historical record is filled with moments of collapse. To assume that people who have been raised in and broken by that system are going to be able to turn on a dime and create better, more interesting alternatives without working through their shit and learning how to set boundaries and understand one another is not. Many people have been unbalanced and made crazy by this system regardless of income bracket.
Insisting that these camps are a demonstration of how we would like the world to function is beautifully poetic, but it does not take into account the fact that we have been cast into systems which are destructive and predatory. A city park in a capitalist police state is not liberated because it is occupied by people who desire liberation. A demonstration that prohibits commerce is not the same as a space outside of capitalism. A day when the police don't show up is not the same as a world without police. The feeling of creative newness and possibility that has been experienced at various occupations should not be confused with the world we want. Confusing these things only sets folks up to burn out when they realize that utopia is not around the corner and learn how flawed even the communities planned and built with the best of intentions can be.
Being realistic about this situation means having realistic expectations of the work we would need to do to transform ourselves and each other into communities that are beautiful, strong, and allowed to thrive. This particular moment is part of a larger process that we cannot predict, let alone direct. A forest is more than a collection of trees; it is an interconnected ecosystem that will arise when the conditions are right. You cannot plant a field of forest, or design one with a city planner; all you can do is encourage new growth and try to protect it from toxic elements. Life arises abundant but we should not be confused about the nature of these glorious weeds, even as we celebrate their potential
The rest of the issue is pretty good as well.
Never eat a pig 'cause a pig is a cop, amirite?
Progress!
Occupy Our Homes is (one of the) the next steps, it seems. Pretty cool, right? I'm a fan.
I'm sure one of our resident trolls will be glad to chime in call the foreclosed upon stupid poor people that should have exercised magical powers of foresight and financial acumen that nobody else had, but until then I'm going to bask in the feeling of something good happening.
Attacking the concept of ownership sounds like a good plan. Why would you want to organize your society around such a concept? This will gain support, I know it. This is the future!
I don't think that is the point. The point is that banks made a lot of money off poor customers when times were good (securitization, etc), and when things went bad, dumped them and got bailouts.
The fault of the poor families this afflicted was to believe what the loan officers likely told them was achievable for their income. Net result for many affected, I am sure, is the destruction of several years plus of their wealth. What did it cost the bankers?
And these are principles we want to defend?
Yes, property is important. Yes, you can't just gve stuff to people for free. But hey, just consider it a trickle down bailout.
I like it. And also maybe part of the 10% of the massive profits made over years by these financial systems that all good proper capitalists see as their duty(unregulated off course) to give 'back to society'.
Exactly. Or Rand was full of shit.
This is a nice inequality graphic from the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...tml?ref=sunday
Banks spend millions each year both bribing elected officials and finding ways to squirm legally around existing rules and regulations so I'm not exactly fretting that we aren't being fair to them.
I put my money in a bank, they make money off that money, then have the balls to charge me a fee to store my money there? And don't even get me started on "overdraft fees". The bank assumes a $5 "risk" and gets to charge a 5,000% fee. WHILE manipulating the system to increase the overdraft risk exponentially by giving themselves the right to put in withdrawals before deposits AND charging me a fee for this "service" that I "agreed" to by not disagreeing. They make BILLIONS a year off of a few thousand in "risk".
They created a legal "poor tax" and now are trying to get sympathy. I say fuck 'em. They declared war on the poor and are crying "foul" when the poor fight back.
Actually for about a thousand years the common law concept of ownership has allowed people to acquire good title in land that has been abandoned. To some degree, adverse possession is not an attack on ownership, but an important component of property rights that ensures land is not going to waste.
Just to be clear, the current legal definition of abandonment does not seem to apply in this case (however, IANAL -- if an actual lawyer wants to chime in I would love to hear it). So I figure you are saying that we should move our definition back to the old ways (at least the old ways as you believe them to be). Right?
An appeal to the past, I can't argue with that. The old ways are always the best ways. Tried and true I always say. Like slavery, can't get more tried and true than that can you? Amirite?
Last edited by Huzurdaddi; 12-12-2011 at 08:15 AM.
I don't know whether or not it is legal in New York, nor whether adverse possession would apply in any case. Nor do I know whether it would be good policy in this case. I was just addressing your idea that squatting attacks the concept of ownership. I don't think it does, because the concept of ownership has always (in the common law world, anyways) been subject to the limit that where land or property is abandoned or in disuse, it can legally be put to use and good title can be based on that use.
You're the own who brought up the "concept of ownership" here, so I don't know why you're getting all pissy at me for actually providing some context for that concept.
Besides, most of the foreclosures were illegal anyway (because the banks did not have the correct paperwork, as said paperwork was deliberately lost in the process of selling the mortgages to holding companies) and the banks should be hammered for violating the law.
Bwahahaha, as if that'll happen.
Ugh.
We can't raise taxes either, because taxes were higher in the past, and since slavery is also in the past and slavery is bad then higher taxes is also bad. Because clearly, when someone looks back at one thing in the past they are actually trying to revert everything to how it was back then.
Aside from the (apparent) dubious nature of the foreclosure procedures enacted by many banks, I'm not sure these properties can be considered abandoned. Someone owns the title, and if it's to be contested it should be done in the courts.
To be clear, I'm a big fan of putting homeless people in foreclosed-upon homes for which there is no ready buyer. As onerous as it might sound to our conservative citizens, studies indicate the best cure for chronic homelessness is government-sponsored housing, not temporary shelters or halfway houses, but actual residential apartments paid for by the government. If there are empty houses sitting around, I don't see why we shouldn't put families in them, but I don't think we can just close our eyes to the fact these titles do exist, they are owned by the banks, and there are big debts attached to them. Sooner or later that has to be resolved, and unfortunately for this idea one of the best ways to resolve it is to find someone else willing to assume a portion of that debt to buy the house. That becomes difficult when squatters are occupying it.
And squatters are really good for property values. They are also known for taking good care of the property.
I seem to remember a story of some guy in England who took advantage of their squatter laws in inventive and lucrative ways.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote