Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: OWS And The Myth Of Fence Sitters (It's Time To Not Be Nice)

Posted 10 years ago on Sept. 23, 2013, 10:47 a.m. EST by TogetherWeAreTheForce (0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

In the classic 1989 film, Roadhouse, thespian Patrick Swayze inhabited the role of James Dalton, head bouncer at a seedy establishment called the Double Deuce Club. Dalton was armed with a PhD in philosophy from New York University and his three rules of bouncing:

  1. Never underestimate your opponent.
  2. Take it outside.
  3. Be nice until it's time to not be nice.

Note to those striving for enduring social change: It's time to not be nice.

Define “Respectful” I was reminded -- yet again -- of the infamous Dalton Rules when I was recently censored from a popular Occupy Wall Street Facebook page.

Yes, you read that correctly.

You see, I had been an admin on this page for quite some time -- given the mandate of posting my own articles, photos, and events -- and I was appreciative of the opportunity to reach such a large, diverse audience.

All was going well until I posted an article of mine called What If the Emperor Had No Soldiers? (Re-think: “Support the Troops”). The next thing I know, the post is deleted and I'm removed as admin -- without even the courtesy of a message explaining why. I inquired, of course, and was told I had made a “classic mistake” by not being “respectful” of soldiers.

Epic fun being lectured about respect after being censored without notification.

Here’s what I learned: If you volunteer to be paid to help the U.S. wage illegal and immoral wars, you're deserving of respectful treatment. If you're a proven comrade who's been on the ground since Day 8 of OWS? Not so much.

Heaven forbid we turn off those fence sitters who would surely join OWS tomorrow if only we weren't so damn disrespectful of the Empire's mercenaries.

Earth to OWS (and all activists): De-occupy the fantasy of appeasing fence sitters and focus more energy being worried about the impending economic, social, and environmental collapse.

Mythical Fence-Sitters Don't alienate the poor misunderstood cops. Don't judge those misguided souls who voted for Obama. Don't condemn capitalism, some folks are attached to it. Don't be disrespectful to soldiers -- they just didn't know better. The excuses, the counterproductive rationales never end.

Wake-Up Call: Fence sitting is a myth. There is no neutral. Complacent = complicit.

Any “fence sitter” who claims activists are “too radical” is just looking for excuses to stay uninvolved. Why cater your message to them when they demonstrate time and time again that they won’t join any movement in any meaningful way any time soon? Sure, you might be able to eventually/maybe/perhaps convince a few of these souls but how much time do you think we (the eco-system, all life on earth) have?

I’ve even heard some animal rights comrades express fear that the word “vegan” can provoke a negative reaction. Let me make sure I understand: The global animal by-products industry murders 53 billion land animals per year, consumes and destroys one-third of the planet's landbase, and is the No. 1 source of human-created greenhouse gases but it's the word “vegan” that makes folks squirm?

Suggestion #1: Stop being so “respectful” in the face of ecocide.

Suggestion #2: Instead of wasting even one millisecond wondering what might inspire and motivate these fictional fence sitters, follow your heart. I don't mean offending just for the sake of it. I'm talking about integrity, e.g. having a mission and not compromising on it.

Suggestion #3: Stop being so goddamned nice.

“It's time to not be nice” Being nice has given us a nation that pats itself on the back for its freedom and democracy while relegating most of its citizenry to a life of debt, a life without sufficient health insurance, a life of wiretapping and color-coded terror warnings, a life of undrinkable water, polluted air, and inedible food (sic), etc.

Being nice means the United States constitutes less than 5 percent of the world’s human population but consumes roughly 35 percent of the planet's “resources” and is home to 25 percent of the world’s prison population.

Being nice means U.S .women are paid 77 cents for every dollar a man makes.

Being nice got us believing that coal is clean, nukes are green, and we must vote Democrat ‘cause the Republicans are mean. Yeah, being nice resulted in the Legend of Barack Obama™ -- the most remarkable example of programming and conditioning since the yellow ribbon sticker.

Being nice has us more fearful of offending mythical fence sitters than of 80 percent of the forests and 90 percent of the large fish in the ocean being gone or 150-200 animal and plant species going extinct each day.

Being nice mean 54 percent of our tax dollars goes to fund the U.S. Department of Defense (sic) -- the most violent institution on the planet -- but we're being told to remain “respectful” to those who willingly play a role.

Fuck that.

As MLK once reminded us: “When you're right, you can never be too radical.”

hashtag: shifthappens

Original source: http://worldnewstrust.com/ows-and-the-myth-of-fence-sitters-its-time-to-not-be-nice-mickey-z

© WorldNewsTrust.com -- Share and re-post this story. Please include this copyright notice and a link to World News Trust.

19 Comments

19 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by RomperRoom (3) 10 years ago

The movie Roadhouse? you need to go watch it again. Because there were 4 rules, not 3. The 4th rule was "live by the sword, die by the sword."

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

the classic system of respecting the soldiers is just a myth to violent actions taken by the military

whistle blowers do a lot more to defend the people than a soldier doing what it is told

[-] 1 points by OccupyMindz (5) 10 years ago

Generally speaking "fence sitting" in politics doesnt refer to someone's beliefs, it refers to someones willingness to "get off the fence" and into the game, join the action.

"Complacent = complicit." That mindset can either give someone on the fence the kick they need, or can tear things apart.

At this point, the country is already being torn apart.

Its a tough call on how nice or not nice we are to those on the fence. While their help is needed, after a while its apparent that nothing will ever happen. How many of us have friends that always say "oh let me know when the next meeting is!! " and then you let em know and its the same lame story....

So do you rip these slugs a new one and explain what their duty as a human being is? Or do you simply not even ask em anymore?

I usually go with the later.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 10 years ago

The first thing that I would like to address is the FB moderator removal. That just sounds like some arbitrary back stabbing drama. That would be a disillusioning experience. Not sure that there would be a point where any type of forgiveness would set in. I read the article in question and it makes zero sense for it to have been removed. Simply because it addresses some of the primary issues. I am trying to figure out where the hell someone would take issue with it. I have issues with it but I doubt that they are the same ones.

Secondly, I agree with fence sitters and not being nice or wasting time trying to appeal. It's why I don't even bother with Libertopians. That whole not being nice part. I don't have time for these freaks to get it. Why should I pay because a bunch of YDC dingalings are naive?
Why should I have to wait for these clowns to grow up and get it? I don't, my kid doesn't, my parents don't, my city doesn't, my state doesn't have time to waste pretending these clowns are worth a damn. They aren't. They are bunch of idiots playing dress up in grown up clothes that think they are worthwhile and have something unique and new to say.

That said, I'm a little wary of just listening to people scream. I see the same repetitive shit that goes nowhere. Even when gifted with information on the Democrats.........people are too damned lazy to use it.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/09/11/13391/dc-corruption-probe-spreads-hillary-clintons-2008-campaign

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/09/24/13314/pro-clinton-super-pac-creators-have-dubious-pasts

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/09/19/12965/see-ambassadorships-big-money-can-bring

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by jemcgloin (63) from Staten Island, NY 10 years ago

I don't think you should have been thrown off for what you said, but I wouldn't blame soldiers for being soldiers. Most of them have no choice or perceive that they have no choice. Its a way to survive, and get an education.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

I am not sure if this is the direction or one of the paths you are pointing to - but this is what I put out on another Post in response to a member of government:

Don't ya think it is time to take off the gloves ?

Time to stop messin around and go at it tooth and nail hammer and tongs?

Time for every politician in office State & Federal who are trying to represent the people who are trying to save the environment who are trying to make the economy work for the people who are opposing war. Don't ya think it is time to band together and SPEAK-UP SPEAK-OUT and not just call out party road-block - but call out individuals that are supporting/pushing the road-block and their backers in the wealthy and corp(se)oRAT class.

Don't you think it is time to get past politically correct and just get down to speaking truth - truth to power and truth to the people.

Stop dancing and get down to it.

Now or Never.

This Country is Dying

And it is due to our lack of good government.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by mrbadexample (15) from Brooklyn, NY 10 years ago

I'm sorry--I just walked away from participation in an OWS group because the planners conflated opposition to a proposal with support for the thing they were protesting. It doesn't work that way. I know what I'm responsible for in a larger world, and I don't need somebody in OWS telling me that if I'm questioning the commitment of resources to a cause, I don't care about it. OWS is being used as everybody's fire brigade--'I don't have anybody organized to deal with X, but it should be an OWS cause so I'll ask them to protest.'

[-] 1 points by owsarmy (271) 10 years ago

What proposal did you oppose?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

That was wonderfully non specific.

Do you always speak in such vagaries?

[-] -2 points by mrbadexample (15) from Brooklyn, NY 10 years ago

shooz, I don't want to publicly call out the folks who were organizing this. That's why I chose to be vague. Suffice to say we were being asked to approve an action that had originated with another organization, and when some of us had a problem with that, we were castigated for not believing in the cause.

[-] 1 points by owsarmy (271) 10 years ago

If a proposal is good what does it matter what organization also proposes it? Sounds a bit immature, is it because the other organization is of a particular political persuasion. That would be just self defeating partisanship.

It's best to minimize partisanship, don't you agree?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

Instead you present a lame bitch with no contextual meaning. Best not to bring it up at all. Don't ya think?

[-] 0 points by mrbadexample (15) from Brooklyn, NY 10 years ago

Part 2--I'm not willing to ascribe motives to people who might simply be naive. If I wanted to go back and confront the individuals over this, I'd do that. As it stands, I had a perfectly useful evening wasted over a debate that shouldn't have started.

[-] -1 points by mrbadexample (15) from Brooklyn, NY 10 years ago

No I don't. I've seen organizations kidnapped by other groups with different priorities, and the phrase is 'glomunist'--some group that can't get more than a dozen people at a rally offers to 'help out' in a demo that they suggested in the first place. Happened a lot with Act UP in the mid 1990's. People saw that ACT UP demos had heat and press coverage and they tried to drag them into 'coalition' protests.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

I sort of know the vague feeling.

I too was castigated for suggesting the dissolution of borders.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by MyBrothersKeeper (-36) 10 years ago

I think the idea of sides is misguided. Left, right, rich, poor, ect... I really don't even try to understand borders. These are all creations of men that can be changed by men. They are ideas, not tangible things. As such, they only exist because someone wants them to exist, in our minds. How do we create an enforcement against these types of destructive ideas? This is the task at hand. OWS, if it were a side to pick, would be yet one more of these ideas and thus become part of the problem.

I choose people. Not borders, sides, parties, ideologies, but people.

[-] 1 points by jemcgloin (63) from Staten Island, NY 10 years ago

Sorry to twist your words, but i choose the side that chooses people. That is where I think Occupy should draw the line. Those that would step over a hungry child will have to wait until we can bring more reasonable people into the fight. And although I like radicals and don't think you need to be polite all of the time, I don't think you can toss out all of our possible allies because they are too nice. I know a lot of very nice people in Occupy getting a lot of important work done, and some others that go around insulting people and causing disruptions that stop important work from being done. I am not accusing Togetherwearetheforce (who was probably treated unfairly) of this.
But, there is more to building a new world than not being nice.