# Occupy Columbus ruins it for all future protesters



## Pheonix (Sep 10, 2012)

http://www.abc6onyourside.com/shared/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wsyx_vid_19564.shtml

In order to remove the Occupy tent from the sidewalk in front of the Statehouse city council changed the protest permit laws so now a 72 hour protest will cost $600 for a permit.


----------



## scatwomb (Sep 10, 2012)

So, you're blaming protesters for the government making it more difficult for people to protest legally?

Wow.


----------



## Pheonix (Sep 10, 2012)

people aren't protesting it's a tent that never has anyone at it. If people feel strongly about the protest then they should protest in person not set up an unmanned tent that takes up half the sidewalk when the protesters don't bother showing up until the city is about to evict them. Yes, I blame them for what the government did cause the government wouldn't have done it if it wasn't for them. I used to go past this tent every day on my way to panhandle and I have never seen anyone there.


----------



## EphemeralStick (Sep 10, 2012)

I feel like the occupy protest started out as something noble, now it seems like just an excuse to make waves without really having a set goal. I met quite a few Occupiers during the NATO protest and of the ones I talked, a lot of them didn't even know what they were protesting. They were there because they didn't agree with the establishment or the 1% but then they go around stealing from the nearby houses and causing trouble. They're doing more harm to their "cause" than good, in my humble opinion.


----------



## The Cack (Sep 10, 2012)

NeoMaxxAKI said:


> I feel like the occupy protest started out as something noble, now it seems like just an excuse to make waves without really having a set goal. I met quite a few Occupiers during the NATO protest and of the ones I talked, a lot of them didn't even know what they were protesting. They were there because they didn't agree with the establishment or the 1% but then they go around stealing from the nearby houses and causing trouble. They're doing more harm to their "cause" than good, in my humble opinion.


 
Yeah, I agree with this whole-heartedly. In October of last year in DC, old "hippies" and others in tie-dye apparel were waiting to get arrested as if it were a vacation. There were sign up booths for "what an arrest is like" and some people even went on vacation from Hawaii to show their "support". For what, old people cred??? When the night ended and the city decided to renew their permit, it lost all the steam of enthusiasm. 

In Durham, NC, the occupy movement was so sparse it looked like a ghost town. Only young children with their parents were there to gawk, as if the thing was a sideshow clown act.

In Athens, GA, the occupy movement was basically idealistic college law students moderated by their teachers in an exercise in "democracy". They even really got into having the handsignals and started to wean out people whose opinions were esoteric and forehead-slappingly idiotic. Sounds like business as usual, right?

Come winter, they took down their tents in Athens (though they were slashed by haters) and it was invaded by homeless people who robbed the donations (stupidly left unattended...). 

I started to feel it was on the wane and wouldn't last beyond the winter. Sure enough, once the students came back, it was harder to have a protest without the weather being nice. 

The only real lasting change I saw from Occupy was that Bank of America took down an innocuous fee, which probably was just to weather out the ill will by the then-recent bank bailouts. 

(As a side note, we contributed some money to help out the Occupiers in D.C., buying some "cheap cups for coffee." When we came back after driving to Dupont Circle and back, the woman looked at me as if I committed some heinous crime. "Styrofoam cups?!" she scoffed, "I hope no one burns their hands." Enough said.)


----------



## Derrian (Sep 10, 2012)

Pheonix said:


> people aren't protesting it's a tent that never has anyone at it. If people feel strongly about the protest then they should protest in person not set up an unmanned tent that takes up half the sidewalk when the protesters don't bother showing up until the city is about to evict them. Yes, I blame them for what the government did cause the government wouldn't have done it if it wasn't for them. I used to go past this tent every day on my way to panhandle and I have never seen anyone there.


 I was there every day for a while, and while, undoubtedly, Occupy Columbus wasn't organized enough to be vital- I think the blame lies more with the government than any one person- we were all just ordinary people trying to do extradinary things. Columbus Food Not Bombs was started by 5-6 occupiers (myself included) and I think all in all we did a good job- until we started fighting the in-fight. At the same point in time, if you walked by everyday on your spange, and you cared enough to comment about it on a public forum, sure would've been tight to see you at those tortuous meets, wracking your brain for solutions and making things a bit more viable so that you'd have no reason to justify the government stepping in :O -Please know that I intend no disrespect -Tigger


----------



## Pheonix (Sep 10, 2012)

Derrian said:


> I was there every day for a while, and while, undoubtedly, Occupy Columbus wasn't organized enough to be vital- I think the blame lies more with the government than any one person- we were all just ordinary people trying to do extradinary things. Columbus Food Not Bombs was started by 5-6 occupiers (myself included) and I think all in all we did a good job- until we started fighting the in-fight. At the same point in time, if you walked by everyday on your spange, and you cared enough to comment about it on a public forum, sure would've been tight to see you at those tortuous meets, wracking your brain for solutions and making things a bit more viable so that you'd have no reason to justify the government stepping in :O -Please know that I intend no disrespect -Tigger


 
I never stopped at the tent cause the Occupy camps I went to in Cali made me feel like my ideas are stupid cause I don't blindly agree with everything they have to say. Liberals, Conservatives and Occupiers all have one think in common and that's to try to force their opinions and ideas on the rest of the nation. I found it rare to actually find an Occupier with an open mind (and the ones with an open mind had nothing to do with the organization of the movement) I don't care to debate with close minded individuals. (or an empty tent) I agree the city council made a stupid law but if you know anything about the city of Columbus you should have been expecting no less. If I was on the city council I would have used a variation of one of their slogans when asked about protesters rights "tents are not people" but I would have keep the law the same and ordered that if no people are there protesting then the tent is abandoned property and should be treated as such. I think the unmanned tent made the Occupy movement look worse in the eyes of Columbus citizens. If they want to make some noise they should have occupied the Oval at OSU and got all the students bitching about their high tuition fees, like at several Cali universities (the students are more likely to protest anyways)

PS. Kudos on Food Not Bombs


----------



## nameless (Sep 10, 2012)

anyone ever seen occupy OKC? its about 12 people, half juggalos, half high school kids, and they have a leader too which is some scrawny white high school boy lol what a joke that is...if you guys wanna protest why not re-enact the WTO seattle protest and go fuck shit up
occupy NOLA was pretty much a regional rainbow gathering/bum feed in downtown new orleans, still not gonna change the world
occupy austin is just a bunch of homebums and juggalos camped out on those steps with all the cops watching you 24/7, how is that fun? lol


----------



## scatwomb (Sep 11, 2012)

Pheonix said:


> people aren't protesting it's a tent that never has anyone at it. If people feel strongly about the protest then they should protest in person not set up an unmanned tent that takes up half the sidewalk when the protesters don't bother showing up until the city is about to evict them. Yes, I blame them for what the government did cause the government wouldn't have done it if it wasn't for them. I used to go past this tent every day on my way to panhandle and I have never seen anyone there.


 
So, you think the government making protest more difficult is somehow a fair response to people leaving a tent on the sidewalk? 

Like, I understand why you and many others dislike the Occupiers, but, anything the government does to hinder protest is a bad thing. And, ultimately, it's the lawmaker's decision to make it more difficult. They could have created a "no tent on sidewalk law" rather than a "give us a bunch of fucking money for a protest permit law." 

I guess I don't see why you're acting like a government apologist.


----------



## shiftingGEARS (Sep 11, 2012)

At least there is people out there doing something, even tho there is some communication problems or flaws in their tactics, but one thing is for sure, they are still making people talk and think about the movement so they are doing something right.

Step 1 = public awareness, Step 2 = mass civil disobedience, Step 3 = A complete revolt of the people... 

Evolution through revolution takes time, if things are not moving fast unuff for you people, instead of smashing your 40's in the ally way or on the tracks, take those bottles to the gas station and fill them up, and then bring them to the institutions that have fucked you over the most and you can

(A) Toss that flaming mother fucker through a window and help the cause or.
(B) Drink that bottle of gasoline in return killing yourself so as you might stay out of our way. 

Stop your pussy ass crying about how the occupy movement has wronged you and get off your fat asses and do something about it or shut your fucking bullshit spewing holes.


----------



## Pheonix (Sep 11, 2012)

scatwomb said:


> So, you think the government making protest more difficult is somehow a fair response to people leaving a tent on the sidewalk?
> 
> Like, I understand why you and many others dislike the Occupiers, but, anything the government does to hinder protest is a bad thing. And, ultimately, it's the lawmaker's decision to make it more difficult. They could have created a "no tent on sidewalk law" rather than a "give us a bunch of fucking money for a protest permit law."
> 
> I guess I don't see why you're acting like a government apologist.


 
I'm not a government apologist I'm a Occupy hater if your going to call me names at least get them right. Do I think it was a fair response to the Occupy protest? NO I do Not, Do I think it was the likely response? YES I do. I once had 7 undercover cops stick guns in my face and throw me in jail for littering my cig. butt on the Columbus city council's orders, their answer to the homeless problem was to throw them all in jail.

What is fair? It's an imaginary word that has different meanings. What's fair for one group of people is considered unfair for others. Also who said life is fair, I would like to know so I can drag them into the streets and kick their ass. Life is far from fair, the government is VERY far from fair and the Occupiers know that so why would they expect to be treated fair by the people they accuse of being unfair. These occupiers already know how fucked up the government is so why do they poke the bear. They poke the bear until it attacks to prove how violent the bear is, the bears use this same tactic they say weed makes people stupid so in order to prove it they refuse financial aid to those with cannibus convictions, thus stoners never go to college. The Occupiers at UC-Davis refused to move even when the cops threatened to pepper spray them, they choose to be pepper sprayed to show that the cops are violent.


----------



## EphemeralStick (Sep 12, 2012)

scatwomb said:


> So, you think the government making protest more difficult is somehow a fair response to people leaving a tent on the sidewalk?


I wouldn't say its fair, but I have to agree with Pheonix here and say that it was definitely likely. Leaving an unmanned tent just sitting around is a very poor way to get a point across. In the public eye it comes across as if the Occupiers themselves are no longer passionate about their cause, this gives the government more cause to complicate things further for the protesters. 

Does it suck? Yes it does. However, I feel like this could have been prevented if the Occupiers took their own protest more seriously.


----------



## scatwomb (Sep 12, 2012)

EphemeralStick said:


> I wouldn't say its fair, but I have to agree with Pheonix here and say that it was definitely likely. Leaving an unmanned tent just sitting around is a very poor way to get a point across. In the public eye it comes across as if the Occupiers themselves are no longer passionate about their cause, this gives the government more cause to complicate things further for the protesters.
> 
> Does it suck? Yes it does. However, I feel like this could have been prevented if the Occupiers took their own protest more seriously.


 
Yeah, I mean, I agree with you and Pheonix to a certain extent for sure. I think that, if there was real investment in the movement, people would have been at the tent regularly and not just there to protect it when the police wanted to take it away. As it stood, it was restricting the walkway without a real purpose - it was just there. Screw Occupy Columbus for not taking the responsibility to manage their occupation. 

But, my point is that the government's response to people leaving a tent in a walkway was to make protest less attainable and more difficult for the everyday person. Now, the only groups that can protest must have some sort of institutional capital. 

I mean, personally, I say fuck the state and protest without permits. It's completely absurd that people need a permit from the government to protest. And that the permits usually only last a few hours and they restrict the movement of a protest to a predetermined route, etc. But, this just prevents folks from protesting who don't have the privilege to be able to be cited or arrested without serious life consequences. And, well, like I said earlier, any limitations on our rights to protest is a bad thing.


----------



## finn (Sep 12, 2012)

"...Now, the only groups that can protest must have some sort of institutional capital."

I think this was the problem with occupy in the first place, it had no institutional capital, in that it was essentially a bunch of wingnuts who (as a whole) aren't putting forth much effort in building a movement compared with making a spectacle. And when I say institutional capital, I mean an infrastructure, as in having supporters and networks- aka popular support. Without popular support, you're not going to get away with much.

And I agree that this has ruined it for future protesters, as in if you wanted to put in a kiosk about some issue that people didn't know about, you're pretty much stuck with either doing it illegally, expensively, or entirely on the internet, because of peoples shortsightedness.


----------



## scatwomb (Sep 12, 2012)

finn said:


> "...Now, the only groups that can protest must have some sort of institutional capital."
> 
> I think this was the problem with occupy in the first place, it had no institutional capital, in that it was essentially a bunch of wingnuts who (as a whole) aren't putting forth much effort in building a movement compared with making a spectacle. And when I say institutional capital, I mean an infrastructure, as in having supporters and networks- aka popular support. Without popular support, you're not going to get away with much.


 
I think the major tradeoff of popular support is that a movement generally shifts from revolution to reform. And, I think Occupy faced a cross-roads early on where they had to choose between these two imagined futures, and became more reformist in nature. This disenfranchised the radicals who were integral in the early development of the movement and led to not "putting much effort in building a movement" among anarchists. This, coupled with the coordinated closures of occupations by the police across the country, led to its dimise. The battle for space between the state on the protesters was extremely important - Occupy used radicalized public space as a place to organize against the state. The state recognized this and, in a coordinated effort, quelled any notion that the People (with a capital-fucking-P) can have any sustained organizational space without paying rent, and thus becoming reformist.

As people on SQUAT THE PLANET, this should be really-fucking-important for many of us. Battles over space and its definition are EXTREMELY important to us.

I was involved with Occupy Chicago and Minnesota early on, so, I am very bias in this respect, but, I sincerely think that the US government viewed the Occupy Movement as a real threat. Maybe not as an existential threat, but, something that could have been the beginnings of something larger.

And, well, I still think it was a great time for the radicalization of many people and I hope it came with the realization of how we must embrace a diversity of tactics and ideologies in the furtherance of the revolution.

I will say, however, that as an anarchist, I am very much in defense mode. We are unable to move forward if the state continues its war against us. But, then again, why wouldn't the state attack anti-statists?

TANGENT WOO!


----------

