If the Wall St. protestors wore suits and ties would that legitimize their grievances?

[devilgrrl]

Is it the choice of attire that the protestors are wearing what puts people off? Is that the reason why the MSM is ignoring them? Is that why they ignored the protests against the war in Iraq?

After all, if someone is protesting the powerful they've got to be a bunch of filthy loser hippies right? As opposed to doughy pasty know-it-alls sitting behind their computer keyboards.


:sarcasm:

[leveymg]

1. No. They'd still have to buy candidates and political parties, just like everyone else on Wall St

[tama]

What's the current cost of money

to buy candidates and political parties to make sure the cost of money is as cheap as can be for... few chosen banks? Why can't we have free money from Federal reserve, only few corporate persons can? Me wanna! Me wanna free money to buy me all the politicians I can!

[leveymg]

38. If you were a Fed Primary Dealer, they would pay you to buy Capitol Hill

with negative real interest rates, you get 3 free Congressmen with your next order of Senator. Hold the mustard.

Isn't democracy fun?

[Dreamer Tatum]

2. Maybe if they were organized and had a cohesive message that actually applied to Wall Street.

But that's just me.

Right now it's a bunch of disorganized protesters caterwauling about stuff that is better handled in Washington. Oh, and those Wall Street banksters that are supposed to be terrified right now? This might be the most entertaining diversion they've had in a long, long while.

[devilgrrl]

5. What are you basing your opinion on? MSM coverage?

:popcorn:

You're incessant condemnation of any progressive or slightly left of center is amusing btw.

[Dreamer Tatum]

8. Example for you:

Oooh. Real firebranders there.

Let's suppose someone standing more than 12 inches away from that "sign" could read it. What exactly is the point of occupying Wall Street with that message? Wall Street doesn't assign personhood to corporations. Washington does. Aren't those protesters a little too far north to accomplish anything?

[devilgrrl]

12. So those are the only people there protesting Wall St. huh?

Dig that broad brush!!!

Guess that gives the cops license to beat the shit out of them!

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[devilgrrl]

27. So everyone should go home and let Wall St do it's business - what your solutions

answer man?

You've got all the answers!

Do share with us!

Educate us.

[Dreamer Tatum]

29. Again, either learn to read, or learn to apply your reading to your rhetoric

I have said that the protestors are in the wrong place.

My solution is that they protest on Capitol Hill.

[dana_b]

33. but how do you get their attention

when they don't seem to give a damn when we call, write, petition or even vote? Shut it down and MAYBE they will start to listen. it took the protestors in Tahir Square, Wisconsin and other places weeks if not months before the politicians joined in.

Personally, I think the Oct. 6th rally against the wars will out-shadow this one. I wish it wasn't so but that is just my opinion.

[libmom74]

42. Perhaps you haven't noticed

the incestuous relationship between Wall Street and Washington DC? K Street lobbyists ring a bell? How about the revolving door between Goldman Sachs and Presidental appointees?

[Ignis]

47. Have you read Amy Goodman's article on this subject?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/21/occupy-wall-street-amy-goodman

[hedgehog]

3. It would sure make it harder for the provocateurs to know who to beat up!

[99th_Monkey]

37. +1 nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Gandhi

[bluestateguy]

6. I will say this

It would certainly help.

Suits and ties might be going overboard, but maybe a pair of slacks and a polo shirt, neatly trimmed hair or beards, yes I think that would make their message more effective to the people who need to hear it.

It's not fair, but that's the way it is.

[MineralMan]

13. That can be true, but not everyone has to fit the mold.

I protested at the Pentagon wearing my USAF uniform. I was still in the service at the time. Risky, certainly, but very noticeable, too. There were photos. Fortunately, I didn't end up getting court-martialed, although the USAF decided to discharge me before my term of enlistment was up, but under honorable status. There were others like me, standing against the war while serving and in uniform. Not many, but we were noticed.

So, a few people in suits, with some sort of ties to Wall Street would be really helpful. I haven't seen any such people, but they may be there.

[hedgehog]

17. Get clean for Gene?

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Bullshit.

The media decides on the coverage based upon the message; not the outfit.

[devilgrrl]

28. Is that why they always hone in on the hippie with the Grateful Dead T-shirt?

Because of the message?

Sure they do?

:eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

40. 10 crazies with teabag laden hats got way more coverage than 100K iraq protesters

I'm sorry if you can't appreciate good music, but that's a subject for a different thread.

[devilgrrl]

49. And I'm sorry that the camera man will focus in a the most unkempt person in the crowd.

Especially if the protest is against the most powerful.

:hi:

The Grateful Dead - isn't that Ann Coulter's favorite band?

[Warren DeMontague]

50. Yeah, I think she tuned out during the line about "aint no time to hate"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjsHLDnIxB4

However, the Grateful Dead played live in front of more human beings, total, than any other performing act in human history (a fact) so it's probably inevitable that at least a few of them would be assholes.

Like Ann Coulter.

And it does explain the vague memory of the screaming argument I think I had with some psycho fucking harpy in a parking lot at Alpine Valley circa some time around 1988 over my left-wing bumper stickers.

But you know what? If you think you're going to wait until everyone who cares enough about the issues that you also care about to go out on the streets and protest; also submits their wardrobe to you for prior approval...

you're going to be waiting a LONG fucking time and/or attending some very lonely protests. :hi:

[chillspike]

41. No!!! Don't assume the uniform of the enemy!!!

The protestors look the way they do because their minds are free, free to choose their own appearance. They are individuals not robots. The ones in suits and clipped hair are the corporate zombies who have surrendered their minds and freedoms to conform to the mindless and soulless system of their owners.

The protestors look just fine!!! Be yourself, no matter what they say!!!

[KurtNYC]

7. The MSM is not ignoring the protests -- MSM is hiding them

wouldn't worry much about clothes OR the MSM.

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."

[ipaint]

9. Corporations that own the media will NEVER legitimize their grievances.

Who needs the cooperation of the corporate criminals in charge anyway. This movement will grow despite the massive pushback from the status quo and preferably not with their "help".

[MineralMan]

10. What they're wearing makes no difference, really.

Guys in suits wouldn't make any better point. What matters is numbers of people and what the demands are. When there are lots of people with clearly stated demands it will be covered by the media. If this grows and continues, it will be covered. In fact coverage is already increasing. There have been some arrests, as there must be in any serious protest. Civil disobedience requires arrests. They are what generates the coverage and the ensuing court cases, etc.

So, no, suits and ties aren't necessary. Speaking with one voice, however, is.

During the anti-Vietnam protests in 1968 and 1969 in DC and at the Pentagon, there was one voice, with only a few people calling for unrelated things like marijuana legalization. They were ignored, but the large numbers of people participating who spoke with one voice were not ignored. Many were arrested. Some were beaten in the process. I was arrested a couple of times during those protests, but never beaten, and the government simply let us go later to avoid dealing with the reasons for the protests in court.

[steve2470]

11. + 1 nt

[chillspike]

43. +2

[Cats Against Frist]

14. Anecdote?

I recently had one of my friends on Facebook (friend of my boyfriend's) tell everybody to, let's see, "fuck your kid and fuck your job and get your ass to Wall St."

This is a man who has faked bipolar disease for decades and lives off SSI in a prime Seattle location, cannot sustain interpersonal relationships enough to have a job or a partner, and does not have a child.

I would feel that the protests would be much more effective if it even slightly appeared that there were other people who were invested in this besides people collecting Social Security checks, students living off their parents and "hippie" types who clearly lack the desire to own property. The idea that one has some serious "skin in the game" gives a lot of credibility. Unfortunately, most of the people who DO have "skin in the game," are busy at their jobs they can't leave so they can maintain their property that they couldn't pay for if they lost their jobs.

We've talked about this before here -- trying to make sure that you get clean-cut before you head to the protest and most protesters choose either not to -- or can't. Those usually vocal about refusing to change stress the right of individual freedom and not emulating the very construct you're supposed to be protesting.

In which case, to me, it sounds like maintaining one's personal "color" if you will, is more important than taking down Wall Street. And then again, we're back to where we started. Joe Bob's not getting out from in front of the football game to come to Wall St. Protesters ain't getting haircuts to effectively occupy Wall St.

Fuck you hair -- fuck your clothes, right? Put on some business casual and then we'll talk.

[MineralMan]

18. I have no problem with unusual-looking people protesting.

The more the merrier. But, the more diverse the protestors, the more people they speak to. A guy in a suit with a sign at this protest is far more likely to appeal to the general run of the population than the kid with the mohawk and piercings. They may both be saying exactly the same thing, but it's a matter of who's listening.

[Cats Against Frist]

23. I absolutely agree

I do think there are more effective outlets than protesting, but if there's going to be a protest, it's the diversity that would be interesting and also help the cause.

[MineralMan]

25. Well, that may end up happening. I don't know.

Right now, this looks like a counterculture protest. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't represent the spectrum of people who are affected by Wall Street or anything close to that.

I saw one photo of a woman with her shirt open, exposing her breasts. On her stomach was: "Free Bradley Manning!" Now, that's a legitimate protest, but it isn't pertinent to a protest against Wall Street without a lot of verbiage explaining the connection. But, some newsperson or someone else took that photo as representative of this protest.

It all has to make sense, somehow, if it's going to have impact, and the group must speak with some sort of coherent voice.

Props to all the people who are there in the street, but so far, this isn't working as well as it might. Nobody newsworthy has shown up for this, either, and that's always good to have if you want media coverage. I don't know why that is not happening, but it should be.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. Particularly at the protests demanding rights

for unusual looking people.

[tama]

32. Lumpenproletariat

Marx despised them (ok, us). Dirty hippies and punks and other bums. We just want same access to free money as banksters got. Money to the people!

[FirstLight]

16. god no...

unless they were gonna wear them in a way to mock the corporate bastards! :P

It's not being legitimized because the corporations want it that way. watch, once the people show up in DC next week, and wall st continues to gain momentum, they won't be able to say it's not newsworthy anymore. But how many will it take? 50K? 100K? how many cities will we have to occupy as the 99% to get the point across that it isn;t kosher to run things this way anymore.

I don't think it has to be a cohesive message either...the problems are too scattered for that anyway. It comes down to the class warfare thing (by them not us), and that 99% of the people are marginalized by the top 1% of corporate "plantation owners"

just my 2 cents (and that's all i got to rub together! lol)

[MineralMan]

22. If the claim is that 99% are being marginalized, then an effective

protest has to somehow represent that 99%. If it is seen to be a protest of 1% or 10%, it will be far less effective. It's a tough thing. If you're trying to create some sort of mass awareness, then you need to have people who represent all the groups you're supposedly representing. I haven't seen that yet in this protest. It may be a different matter in DC on 10/6. We'll see.

If you remember the civil rights protests in the mid-60s, you remember seeing a broad spectrum of America doing the protesting. Priests and nuns. White college boys like I was at the time. White men in suits. All standing together with the people who were being oppressed. Look at the photos. Representation among the protesters has to reflect the target audience or you have a smaller impact.

[FirstLight]

24. i have seen some of the variety

but i think the MSM et al are trying to make it look more like a bunch of rowdy kids... there's been grandmas and guys in suits, it just isn't getting out there.

and as the movement grows, you will see more people who are gonna take it tot the streets...many who are lost and jobless who will get to the point of nothing left to lose and will march... I believe in it. I know we will see that...

[MineralMan]

26. You may be right. This may be the beginning of something.

At this point, it's hard to say. Watch future demonstrations and protests. That will tell the story. This one may be coming towards its close.

[AngkorWot]

19. Which grievance would that be?

I've heard two grievances.

The one grievance from the guy who was crying because the bank repossessed his parents' house when they didn't pay their mortgage.

The other grievance was about Georgia executing a convict who may, or may not, have been guilty of murder.

The second grievance may be legitimate if they were addressing it to the right people, whom they are not.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Crap. I remember the "cut yer hair & leave the tie-dyes at home" bullshit during the Iraq protests.

I remain skeptical as to how effective or coherent the messaging is with the wall st. protests, but I don't think the outfits have anything to do with that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. There is a small case to be made on that

Why civil rights marchers went out in their Sunday best.

But it is a small point.

[Proud Public Servant]

31. Honestly?

Of course not. But the fact is, the protesters do look, overwhelmingly, like a bunch of hippie college students.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, as Seinfeld would say. But a couple of things are true. First, at this point in history -- more than 40 years after the great protests of the late 60s -- this kind of protest starts looking like kabuki: the kids play the grungy countercultural protesters (complete with tie-dye and white-boy dreads), the cops play brutal authority, and the rest of America looks on, not really identifying with either group and pretty sure they've seen this one before. Second, the problem of the protesters looking like college lefties (and I think they look more like that than your characterization of "filthy loser hippies") is that they're easily dismissed as the same old naive, over-excited niche that protests everything else. If you look at the civil rights protests, by contrast, you'll find a cross-section of generations and a fair number of people in bourgeois garb; and that had a powerful role in helping other Americans connect with the protests and build support for a protest.

This is not to say that I endorse the protesters being ignored. But it is to say that, as a communications professional, I find it not in the least bit surprising. You take a tactic that already looked tired decades ago, you couple it with somewhat muddled action (as others have pointed out, everything the protesters are demanding would have to come from Washington, not Wall St.), and you're going to lose people's attention.

[dana_b]

36. they seem to have the most time

I read that almost 50% of the people under 25 are unemployed. They also usually don't have the responsibilities of a family to get home to. However what I do notice is the lack of older folks that you might see at some protests (i.e. Tar Sands, US Uncut, etc.) and I wonder if it is due to a lack of organization and/or it seems more dangerous at this protest.

[pintobean]

34. Who are these doughy pasty know-it-alls you speak of?

[steve2470]

35. It might help with more conservative voters but....

I'd hate to get tackled and roughed up while in a good suit.

[LiberalFighter]

39. Maybe they should wear a uniform?

[Bragi]

44. They need a clear message for Wall Street

Since they're at Wall Street, they need to say something relevant, such as:

- Stop stealing peoples' money, and/or

- Give back the money you stole, and/or

- Tax greed, not work, etc.

That sort of thing.

And demand that the Obama Justice department investigate Wall Street crimes, and the possible seizure of assets bought with the proceeds of crimes.

I think they'd get huge public support if they could get those kind of messages out.

[Buns_of_Fire]

45. Sounds like a job for the "Billionaires for Bush" folks!

http://billionairesforbush.com/

Granted, ridicule is only one facet (although the one I'm most attracted to), but you can say one thing about their methods -- they get noticed!

[Fire Walk With Me]

46. I'm hoping those made destitute by banks create a Hooverville/Bushville on Wall Street.

[loyalsister]

48. It would send a message

Maybe.... just maybe there are more Warren Buffetts than republicans thought. Maybe even some who work on wall st. and joined on the way to work.
There's something to be said for visuals. Civil rights activists used it to their advantage.

[southmost]

52. they need to hang teabags on three cornered hats

[pmorlan1]

53. An Issue Worth Discussing

It wouldn't de-legitimize or legitimize their protests but it would be a smart thing to do. We all know there is a strong bias in the media against the protesters and by dressing in suits and business attire it would make it much harder for them to portray the protesters like they always do (nothing to see folks...just dirty hippies). It also makes it harder for the cops to beat up people dressed up (makes for really bad photos). When everyone is dressed up you take away their ability to use their propaganda to portray protesters as "other". Is it right, NO but it is something to think about. Use their prejudice against them if it will get more coverage.

[OneGrassRoot]

55. That's actually a good point.

When everyone is dressed up you take away their ability to use their propaganda to portray protesters as "other". Text

Of course, the protestors represent literally 98% of us, so all types of attire would be appropriate, but given they're on Wall Street, general business attire, might be good for the reason you state: to negate the ability to portray them as the "other."

Another thing. I'm personally a huge fan of profanity. :evilgrin: I definitely feel there is a time and place, however.

And, trust me, I TOTALLY get the anger and frustration we 98%ers feel, and anger is a catalyst that's needed for awakenings and revolutions.

Yet the clips I've seen of the crowds, especially the ones where the police are involved, have a LOT of profanity being spewed. There are also the outcries reminding people they are peaceful, that they are there in peaceful protest, but the vulgar language overshadows that message, I fear.

The teabaggers, even with their offensive messages, verbally and with signs, didn't use profanity.

I just think it may help our cause if we're more mindful of our language, even in the face of injustice and brutality and the myriad reasons to BE angry.

Then again, maybe not.

I wonder if any of the crowds in Egypt and other countries were spewing profanity in their language during their protests and during their struggles with the police/military?

:shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

57. "The crowds in Egypt..." you mean before or after they sexually assaulted Lara Logan?

Oh, yeah, but I'm sure they were all well dressed and didn't swear, nary a tie-dye in sight which is what is really important.

[OneGrassRoot]

58. No, it's not what is really important...

(Edit to say that, upon re-reading, I'm hoping you meant the crowds yelling AT the animals who were assaulting Lara Logan were likely using profanity. Yeah, I would agree, if that's what you meant)

Are you implying that the animals who sexually assaulted Lara Logan are indicative of the thousands of people who gathered in Tahrir Square? I saw an amazing display of courage and humanity. Yes, I am curious if using profanity is as much a knee-jerk response in other cultures as it is here (myself included...I'm controlling myself by not spewing some at your shitty reply). I never thought about it before, but in the videos I've seen of the various uprisings, even when English was used, I don't remember seeing it as much as I see here in the States.

I thought the person to whom I replied had a good point regarding clothing, as a means for the media to not have a way to separate "the others." That's a huge aspect of this protest: Conveying how 98% of us are, essentially, in the same boat.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. I'm implying that if you're complaining about too much tie dye or swearing

maybe the crowds in Egypt aren't the best comparison.

I don't know too many Egyptian swear words, so I can't say whether they were swearing or not.

However, I'm sorry -really, I am- if the poor attire and vulgarity of our protesters don't meet your high standards or expectations.

[OneGrassRoot]

61. For the record, I'm not "complaining" about a thing. n/t

[Raine]

54. It couldn't hurt and would be worth a try

put it to the test. It would be good PR then they can't be called dirty hippies. I know some will say they can't afford suits but they can be gotten at second hand stores very inexpensively.

[Warren DeMontague]

56. Here's my suggestion: Next time you're protesting, wear what you think is best.

It's this neverending urge to tell other people what to do that so many of us find friggin' noxious.

[Warren DeMontague]

60. I think we should organize a protest of all the cultural doily-clutchers.

Seriously, think of the fun, everyone can complain endlessly about baggy pants, bratty kids in supermarkets, how folks wear white after labor day in clear violation of everything the lord intended, how no good music was made after 1973 except for maybe Hall and Oates, how the millennials and X'ers don't appreciate the gains the boomers made for them, swear words, tie-dye, long hair, unkempt beards, unkempt armpits, sex on tv, porn on tv, porn on the internet, porn on the radio, porn in the newspaper, porn transmitted by smoke signal.. it'll be a great venting opportunity for the "Get Off My Lawn" gang.