Folks have made the point that people who use the block repeatedly in one evening, and then return the next evening, are abusing that protocol, which is meant to be used when someone wants to say “I would have to seriously consider leaving this movement if this particular proposal was consensed upon.”
If the group overrides the block, and the person who blocked just continues on in the movement as if nothing happened, then the question arises: “Why didn’t this person seriously consider leaving the movement, as they suggested they would when they used the block?”
This appears to be a case of people repurposing a protocol for their own purposes. The block protocol does not mean the same thing to them as it does to the rest of the community. Some argue that this repurposing is in violation of the “Principles of Solidarity,” but I’m not sure exactly how. The Principles of Solidarity state
Through a direct democratic process, we have come together as individuals and crafted these principles of solidarity, which are points of unity that include but are not limited to:
Engaging in direct and transparent participatory democracy;
Exercising personal and collective responsibility;
Recognizing individuals’ inherent privilege and the influence it has on all interactions;
Empowering one another against all forms of oppression;
Redefining how labor is valued;
The sanctity of individual privacy;
The belief that education is human right; and
Endeavoring to practice and support wide application of open source.
We are daring to imagine a new socio-political and economic alternative that offers greater possibility of equality.
The interrelationality and plurality of all formations are good places to start and ongoing axioms in an argument not the payoffs of one which had better be sought in the creative and counterhegemonic possibilities of their pluralities and contradictions.
Policymaking power and money are redistributed upward in a restoration
Loudness of oppositional language forced conservatives to come forward even louder in attempt to reimpose universal standards. Massive communications campaignd thrust onto society 1) career education 2) Literacy Crisis 3) demand for academic excellence.
Marcuse wrote in 1964 about thwarting of opposition. (One Dimensional Man. ) Consumerism mass culture and official tolerance of some dissent are bulwarks against radicalism.
If the 1960s included more activists from the 30s, it could have been less of a Childrens Crusade
Put business schooling and govt on the defensive.
Accusations of antisemitism followed by pop up prayer booth for Jewish holiday. Accusations of not sharing food followed by sign saying OWS Kitchen loves You. Accusations of not sharing donations with other occupations yields calls to send a van down to Philly. Accusations of drug use followed by teachins on substance abuse.
How to take critiques seriiously without being defined by ones critics?
Suspension of formal markets. How do they go about working?
Autonomous discourse invented from below puts the establishment on defensive
Bourdieu argues that the unification of the market is never so complete as to prevent dominated individuals from finding, in the space provided by private life, friends, markets where the laws of price formation which apply to more formal markets are suspended.
It offers free food, empathy, phone calls., cigarettes, education.
“Kind of sounds like that entitlement syndrome that they’re often accused of”
Chomsky quotes someone as saying, “Rationality is a very narrowly restricted skill… Those with rationality have to create necessary illusions and emotionally potent oversimplifications.”
See Cult of Amateur
See Hardt and Negri
(Miller 3)Reflexivity connects ideas to the circumstances that produce them
Brandt talks about the move from reading to writing that has been happening. Keen desponds over the movement from consumption toward construction by amateurs/students. “Todays kids are so busy selfbroadcasting that they no longer listen to professional musicians, novelists, or filmmakers…. The cultural tastemakers have lost power. Keen is upset about their demise. He promotes the vision of edward Bernays. Keen is a modern day Bernays.
what to say to our reasonable-minded pro-SOPA friends?
Yes, there’s gonna be people who think SOPA is fine and dandy especially if they are in music industry, but there’s no doubt that it makes the Net less free and it gives power over internet to people who have shown that they will do whatever they can to please huge multinational companies in their pursuits of profits.
The law would benefit the balance sheets of some people (not me or my brothers and sisters… it wouldn’t help us at all) and reduce the cultural resources of others (like me and my brothers and sisters). It’s your typical 99% vs. 1% fight. So I side against it. No doubt. I know that folks like Tim Berners-Lee are on our side, which gives me even more confidence.
Don’t mess with net neutrality, I say. SOPA is just one of many, many initiatives that are working to chip away at it. (If someone knows of an article that methodically puts SOPA/PIPA into context with other net neutrality fights, I’d love to read it. This great post from Ankatank Design brings a lot of important writing together.)
Intellectual property is changing (for the better i think) and the recording industry and movie industry want to go back to the old way, where they know where there profits were gonna come from. (This is why we are always hearing about how we need to make laws that “reduce uncertainty” for big business. They want to be certain to get their 20% profits. that’s called “socialism for the rich.”) Now it is less clear how big businesses are going to make money so they send their lobbyists and lawyers out to draft laws like SOPA and to prosecute teenagers who engage in filesharing and they extend copyrights from a reasonable 25 years or something to now like 125 years. That’s not how people want to live anymore (if they ever did) and it’s a perversion of the original intent of copyright laws.
Last night, I stopped by the General Assembly at 100 William Street. It was a large crowd, which caused some problems with following the rules and regulations of the place.
There needed to be a clear alley way for people to walk through, and that was easy enough. They just separated the facilitators from the assembly and people were able to walk between. A few people walking through seemed to feel wierded out by that, what with the people’s mic in operation and everything.
The head of security for that building was on hand, letting everyone know what she needed from the Occupy group. She was very professional and matter-of-factly said which mini-stairways needed to be clear, what Starbucks doors needed access, etc.
I had to leave because my feet started getting numb. I had worn the wrong shoes for the 25 degree weather. I ran over to the ferry in order to try to get the blood pumping.
But I followed the rest of the meeting by twitter from the East River Ferry. They were having an oft-repeated conversation about expending funds for Metrocards. Without Metrocards, people who are sleeping at churches around the city won’t be able to attend meetings while reaching the churches at the right time.
As they were having this conversation, an announcement was made that police vans were on their way. Very suspenseful for me to be following this from the ferry. I kept refreshing my terrible Blackberry Twitter app.
It turned out that one of the rules of this PoP was that groups cannot take up more than 50 percent of the public space. OWS was taking up a bit more than that. So they had to skwoosh together.
With the added police presence, they finished the meeting, albeit with a familiar banner rolled out, the one below asking for sanctuary for assembly.