5 ms·

Maybe all us angry nerds should OCCUPY something. Something big, related to SOPA. It would be cool to see EFF type concerns channeled into that movement.

• Joakal 15y ago
  Occupy congress, "We demand INTERNET FREEDOM to replace SOPA [and other antiINTERNET FREEDOM bills?]". SOPA could be renamed to SOCPA (Stop Online Child Pornography Act), then you will have a lot of hostile people towards the current and future INTERNET FREEDOM movements.
• paul9290 15y ago
  Indeed we all should OCCUPY the capitol or the judiciary committee; inside the committee and outside. Though will 1,000s of citizens trying to save the Internet from the media be covered by the media?
  • rjurney 15y ago
    I think occupying Sutro Tower would be pretty cool.
• philwelch 15y ago
  The "Occupy" movement is a sinking ship run by anarchists. It's literally an expression of incoherent rage. I think a traditional, well-organized, on-message movement against SOPA would do a lot better than throwing in with OWS.
  • forensic 15y ago
    Expressions of incoherent rage have fuelled the majority of social change in history.
    • philwelch 15y ago
      Yes, but mostly the bad kind.
    • AndyKelley 15y ago
      My conclusion after learning European history for the first time was that revolutions don't happen until people are starving.
  • wnight 15y ago
    > [OWS is] literally an expression of incoherent rage. You're clueless, likely intentionally so. Many Occupy members are very coherent. If you haven't looked far enough to find one you must be getting your news from a TV. And rage doesn't motivate Food not Bombs, or most other OWS participants and participating organizations. But Occupy, like Anonymous, is a non-trademarked non-organization. Anyone can go, for any reason, and can say whatever they want under its auspices. You could cherry-pick anything you want. The incoherent rage though is mostly to be found among the members of the armed forces who joined post 9-11 to go and kill well over a million people in the Afghan/Iraq/Pakistan-USA war (to date) to get revenge for something they didn't even attempt to understand. Yelling at our politicians and refusing to pay taxes is the sane response. Not from anarchists, but from patriots who'll only support a government of the people, for the people.
    • philwelch 15y ago
      When you add together thousands of coherent, but differing signals, the aggregate becomes incoherent. This is a good summary of OWS. I will pretend I didn't read that remark about members of the armed forces.
      • wnight 15y ago
        So, if I can find ten people who claim to believe what you do but really say other random things, does it mean you no-longer have a message or merely that I've managed to distract from it? And who have I distracted, you? Unlikely. Just myself and whoever listens to me. Similarly, only you and the Fox news crowd are confused about what OWS is. And yes, there's a lot you pretend you didn't read. Like anything you can't counter. The truth hurts.
        • philwelch 15y ago
          I'm not confused about what OWS is. It would be an embryonic version of the Jacobins or a gang of proto-fascists if only it had some sort of coordination. In my city it turned into a settlement of homeless people and street kids until they were finally evicted by the community college they were squatting at. Anyone who joined the armed forces to avenge 9/11 joined for the cause of justice. It's not the fault of the troops that the politicians fucked the whole thing up. Under a more competent government, the mission would have been restricted to wiping out the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan, i.e. a reasonable, direct, and proportional response. But because we live in a democracy, the military doesn't get to decide where they're deployed. And because there's no conscription, whiny, entitled kids get to go on the Internet and spout ignorant little criticisms all day long without ever having to take the responsibility to defend the country themselves.