Tthere is always a sense of orthodoxy among groups – even in those that proclaim they are anti-orthodox. In this case, the local instantiation of Occupy Wall Street -> Occupy NH. who, pretty much, have decided that the current American orthodoxy of individual freedom, liberty, and free markets is to be protested, hated, and torn down. As posted earlier this month, I’ve been spending time defending the Founders philosophy. For that, and along with the others (like a number of Libertarians – Conservatives have run away from the fight), discussions other than "OWS approved topics and speech" were labeled "divisive" (me, an ordinary schlub, divisive? Moi?) (lightly edited and emphasized):
…It is frequently found on OWS sites and chats. It is what keeps the Occupy movements going. "In this room we support OWS, but we don’t discuss the politics. Folks just to be clear, mods have opinions too, so we are not trying to stop you from having opinions and people you admire or don’t. I often agree with you, but we have rules to avoid conflict and division. And we leave politics out of our conversation. There are many irc channels where you can show your support of politics or candidates. But please not here. Thanks"
Leave politics out of it? This whole movement, along with the TEA Party, is ALL about politics! When I did the videos of Occupy Manchester, there was nothing BUT talk about politics. Politics should not just be considered what happens when candidates try to get elected. Or when difficult legislation spills over to the public and the call goes out to "leave the politics out of it" – at that point you KNOW politics IS what it is all about: differing views of how solutions are to be arrived at and what those solutions should be. Politics is the grease that allow different groups to do things (as manners are to the interactions between individuals).
At Manchester there have been many who have demanded that their divisive talks be embraced. When posts were deleted, as is done consistently at OWS, for containing political and potentially divisive dialogue, the accusation was strong, CENSORSHIP. It has been stated at many of the GA’s and in online forums that NH is different, that the GA that meets in Manchester is free to do as they wish. This is not consistent with OWS.
"demanded that their divisive talks be embraced". Yet, in the beginning, they advertised themselves as being open, inclusive, and welcoming to all comers. Yet, these words from Sherry Gould showed that the marketing and the actual reality she wanted (being one of the "leaderless movements leaders") were two different things (one reason why folks who describe themselves as "mere facilitators" are never just such).
Well of course, I just had to ask (twinkle in my eyes):
"Perhaps all the other Occupy sites were on to something when they stood together and made the commitment to not allow divisive political talk within their movements."
Saying that some speech is "divisive" and being in favor of "not allow divisive political talk" is rather nebulous and ephemeral. Such a term, unless strictly and unambiguously defined, can be perceived wrongly. Can you please define exactly what you mean by divisive and what should be and not be allowed? After all, the First Amendment allows for the Right to Assembly – often used or meant for "like minded folks". The operative question then, Sherry, in this context, is who should be allowed and who should not be?
And who is to be the determinate authority to ask people to leave if they do not fit your definition?
– Skip
(rather curious about this, after all the discussions of inclusiveness)
You know, I never got a direct answer back. Silly me for asking a pointed question…Skip, you SHOULD have known that Political Correctness would be present!
