Occupy Wall Street

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Your former statement was correct.... you don't understand true voluntary anarchism.

 

[Draehl]

So silly. After a great deal of consideration I'm of the opinion the best system is somewhere half way between the Libertarian ideal and the system we currently have.

 

[Death Aflame]

OWS or something similar to it was bound to happen considering the causes of the financial collapse of 2008. The wool can only be pulled over the people's eyes so much.

I think it's also too easy to paint the movement as a bunch of "loony leftists" who don't know what exactly they are protesting (see the media). As far as I can tell the movement is heterogeneous with people from many different political perspectives joining the discussion. This is fundamentally a good thing. While libertarians, liberals, anarchists, and socialists tend not to agree on much, I think having a space where discussions can happen and actions can be coordinated for a more focused protest effort is a great step forward from the boring and utterly ineffectual G20 protests that prop up from time to time.

 

[Dak]

So silly. After a great deal of consideration I'm of the opinion the best system is somewhere half way between the Libertarian ideal and the system we currently have.

What is this opinion based on, other than opinion?

 

[Einherjar86]

Oh for fuck's sake, really? Someone took the time to actually write a book about the social ills caused by public restrooms?

Not "caused by"; the book's claim is that public restrooms, if considered critically, can offer some insight into the contradictory ideals of a liberal democratic society. The evidence is compelling.

Yes, anarchy with a system is possible. At the very least, it's conceptually possible, though you might think it's empirically impossible (it's not...I think...maybe...fuck...). Anarchy is, at least according to market anarchists, simply the absence of a state. Not too difficult to imagine a "system" in the absence of a state. Anarcho-communists and other goofballs typically think of anarchy as more than just the absence of a state; they'll add conditions like the lack of hierarchies or power disparities or something along those lines (good fucking luck; what universe are these people living in???)

Exactly; power disparities are inherent in the very process of individual self-consciousness and societal interaction, in my opinion. It's ridiculous to espouse such a utopic vision.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Not "caused by"; the book's claim is that public restrooms, if considered critically, can offer some insight into the contradictory ideals of a liberal democratic society. The evidence is compelling.

How? The fact that bathrooms are segregated by sex? Or maybe that most ladies rooms have chairs and sofas for waiting in comfort, which (and I being tongue in cheek here), reinforces the stereotype that women enjoy going to the restroom together and spend great deals of time in them to socialize and have a private refuge from men? The whole point of such an analysis seems to be utterly absurd.

 

[Dak]

How? The fact that bathrooms are segregated by sex? Or maybe that most ladies rooms have chairs and sofas for waiting in comfort, which (and I being tongue in cheek here), reinforces the stereotype that women enjoy going to the restroom together and spend great deals of time in them to socialize and have a private refuge from men? The whole point of such an analysis seems to be utterly absurd.

Having not read the book, this would be my initial assumption as well.

 

[Death Aflame]

Exactly; power disparities are inherent in the very process of individual self-consciousness and societal interaction, in my opinion. It's ridiculous to espouse such a utopic vision.

I think this perspective is on the defeatist side. It would be all too easy to go from this premise to something like "given that power and income disparities are seemingly inevitable, it is pointless to try and create a more equal society."

I don't anyone think anyone actually argues for an absolute egalitarian distribution of power anymore (if ever). But a more equal society in terms of access and opportunity seems to me to be a good thing. How we get there from here is where it becomes messy. I certainly don't think statist policies that try to fix the problem after the fact are the solution. On the contrary, I tend to think the evidence points to the idea that "There is a unity of virtue in pursuing equality with freed markets."

 

[Death Aflame]

Not "caused by"; the book's claim is that public restrooms, if considered critically, can offer some insight into the contradictory ideals of a liberal democratic society. The evidence is compelling.

Sounds like Zizekian type of critique.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzXPyCY7jbs&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Einherjar86]

How? The fact that bathrooms are segregated by sex? Or maybe that most ladies rooms have chairs and sofas for waiting in comfort, which (and I being tongue in cheek here), reinforces the stereotype that women enjoy going to the restroom together and spend great deals of time in them to socialize and have a private refuge from men? The whole point of such an analysis seems to be utterly absurd.

Having not read the book, this would be my initial assumption as well.

That's not its concern. It's claim is that public restrooms manifest the contradictory democratic ideals of security and privacy; as a political entity, our government takes the ensurance of our security as one of its responsibilities. However, in order to effectively secure us, it must invade our privacy. The book notes how public restrooms demonstrate the remarkable and impossible convergence of these ideals (public restrooms feature stalls with doors that close, but with spaces between the doors and stalls through which people can peer, as well as space beneath the door and a completely open top).

Going to the bathroom is potentially the most private act one can do as an individual. The convergence of the physical and the social in these facilities sheds interesting light on what a culture values and what its concerns are (and yes, segregation has some role in this).

I think this perspective is on the defeatist side. It would be all too easy to go from this premise to something like "given that power and income disparities are seemingly inevitable, it is pointless to try and create a more equal society."

I don't anyone think anyone actually argues for an absolute egalitarian distribution of power anymore (if ever). But a more equal society in terms of access and opportunity seems to me to be a good thing. How we get there from here is where it becomes messy. I certainly don't think statist policies that try to fix the problem after the fact are the solution. On the contrary, I tend to think the evidence points to the idea that "There is a unity of virtue in pursuing equality with freed markets."

I don't mean to imply that we shouldn't strive for a better society (although I always seem to give that impression). My arguments almost always take a skeptical approach to anyone else's utopic vision for an ideal society, since I feel that the knowledge we use to navigate toward a better society can never be deemed foolproof. Despite that fact, I don't think it means we shouldn't bother trying to progress.

 

[Dak]

Going to the bathroom is potentially the most private act one can do as an individual.

That's an extremely culturally dependent statement.

Despite that fact, I don't think it means we shouldn't bother trying to progress.

If you have no idea of what progress actually is, how can we be sure we are progressing? Mere change =/= progress.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's an extremely culturally dependent statement.

It is, but the very fact that what we would define as "civilized" cultures provide discrete (and discreet), cordoned areas in which to defecate should tell us something.

Even ancient Rome had public restrooms; while these were not divided into private stalls, they did require individuals to sit down. So now, you can see a person sitting upon the toilet, and you know what he or she is doing; but you cannot witness the actual act of defecation. It's concealed.

Furthermore, the tendency toward sitting is strange in that it is actually not the most efficient method (biologically speaking). The most glaring advantage to sitting, in fact, is cultural privacy.

If you have no idea of what progress actually is, how can we be sure we are progressing? Mere change =/= progress.

I agree. What's your point?

 

[Dak]

It is, but the very fact that what we would define as "civilized" cultures provide discrete (and discreet), cordoned areas in which to defecate should tell us something.

Even ancient Rome had public restrooms; while these were not divided into private stalls, they did require individuals to sit down. So now, you can see a person sitting upon the toilet, and you know what he or she is doing; but you cannot witness the actual act of defecation. It's concealed.

Furthermore, the tendency toward sitting is strange in that it is actually not the most efficient method (biologically speaking). The most glaring advantage to sitting, in fact, is cultural privacy.

I think Western Civilization overvalues itself in regards to being "civilized" as compared to other cultures.

Sitting is more comfortable than squatting. The chase of comfort over function is not necessarily a good thing.

I agree. What's your point?

I do not agree with the current narrative that we have been progressing over the last thousand years at least. Blundering our way forward without stopping to purge the accumulation of systemically entrenched mistakes is only going to get us buried deeper in a pile of proverbial shit.

 

[Einherjar86]

I do not agree with the current narrative that we have been progressing over the last thousand years at least.

I'm confused; do you think that I do believe we've been progressing? If so, I'm perplexed as to how you arrived at that conclusion. My argument with Dodens in the other thread a few days ago should reveal that I'm more skeptical of "progress" than anyone.

My posts were meant to suggest that the current state of public bathrooms illuminates the dysfunction of our contemporary society; not its progress. I'm emphasizing the value that modern "civilized" societies place on privacy, whilst simultaneously abandoning it for the value of security.

 

[Dak]

My posts were meant to suggest that the current state of public bathrooms illuminates the dysfunction of our contemporary society; not its progress. I'm emphasizing the value that modern "civilized" societies place on privacy, whilst simultaneously abandoning it for the value of security.

I obviously misunderstood your intent. I completely agree with you, but I don't really think public bathrooms are any sort of micro-example.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It's possible that the media has cherry picked. But the Corbett report would be looking to prove the OWS is actually a movement against the Fed, not a movement to push more government. The amount of signs picturing people demanding student debt forgiveness paints the movement as backed by the whiny and ignorant.

The fact that the official movement is backed by Soros and uses Communist symbols also does not lend itself credibility.

What do you mean when you say it's backed by Soros?

 

[Dak]

What do you mean when you say it's backed by Soros?

Soros gave money to a group that gave money to Adbusters IIRC. He is claiming no connection.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

What is Adbusters, and how is it connected to Occupy Wall St?

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

A lot of groups are connected with OWS, many of whom have conflicting interests.

I thought this was pretty cool, though not technically OWS related, it is relevant:



And a good editorial on the subject: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/11/19/police-response-to-occupy-wall-street-is-absurd/

 

[unknown]

What is Adbusters, and how is it connected to Occupy Wall St?

Adbusters is a magazine/organization orchestrated by a guy named Kalle Lasn. Their many targets include consumerism, evil corporations and all sorts of other things. During my misguided youth I was a big fan of Adbusters. Now I'm apathetic. Here's their website:

www.adbusters.org