"Occupy" Superthread

The point of Protests is to get people attention, Martin luther king was a Skilled leader, The occupy movement is a tad disorganized, But they are still getting peoples attention.

Are you fucking with me? It's not that hard.Economic inequality and corporate influence on the government, it's all that they're talking about. An October poll of New York City voters found that 72 percent of voters understand their views. Why is it so hard for you?

But there are getting people's attention in a bad way. When someone hears that protesters are shitting on peoples property and the likes, even if it is a small majority, they categorize the whole group from those statements. Again, can you imagine if these people were tea partyers or african americans during the civil rights movement? Like I said the media would just be going nuts if that were the case.

There is no such thing as a bad way of getting attention, If you get there attention in the first place you've already gotten the point your trying to prove across, Protests themselves don't do anything but its the reaction and Publicity they get from the Attention they get, also why do you keep on bringing up the civil rights movement, you now that that they got little to no room in the press right? It has nothing to do with how they get your attention all that matters is if they convey there message to you. You following me camera Guy?

The point of the protest is to bring attention to want you want changed, not to bring attention to the protest itself. The occupy movement has no real goals or demands, they are just saying over and over that the rich are bad and the corporations are evil.
And are you high? The civil rights protest of the 50's and 60's recieved national media attention. The March on washington alone, with over 200,000 people did not just get a side column in the local newspaper.

Anyone who honestly believes the Civil Rights movement never occupied public space or went head-to-head with the fuzz is a fucking moron. Just sayin.

Well, they didn't occupy like the Occupiers, they did more constructive things. But really, hell yeah they went up against the police, and it was a little more then "OMG that guy just got sprayed with pepper spray!"

Well If you are making your movement look like its run by a bunch of idiots by people pissing on other peoples property, I call that attention that you dont want. If a stranger walked up to your front lawn and took a crap right in front of you on your lawn, he would be getting attention but not the good kind of attention.

Regardless, the point is that it wasn't all fucking sunshine and cooperation. At times there were in fact full-scale fucking riots. Why it keeps getting brought up in this thread as a model example of peacefully protesting while cooperating with the authorities is beyond me.

I believe that most, and emphasis on most, people referencing the Civil Rights movement as a success of public protest, and contrasting it with the Occupy movement.

It's funny because I never even heard about this behavior until the people on this forum brought it up.

Again, missing the point. I am specifically referring to Sly's use of the Civil Right movement as example of a peaceful movement that lacked major conflict with its opposition and was never an inconvenience to bystanders.

Which is a complete load of bullshit btw.

If you want to use the Civil Rights movement as an example of a more organized or successful movement, fine. But as an example of a peaceful and convenient movement? MalcolmX says gtfo.

Looks like the banks are scared by Occupy Wall Street:

Can you ever find a source other than the young turks?

The Young Turks are a good source.

*sigh* http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/19/us-lobbying-banks-idUSTRE7AI0YA20111119

Its not property of people, nobody lives there, therefor its a common as far as I am concerned.

It has been argued that they are taking squatters rights. Why the judge said they camnot have tents.