Emerged "Visible" Leadership at Occupy Los Angeles

Submitted by Nevada on

Nevada's picture

Forums: 

(This post has been deleted by a moderator, while we believe in free speech personal attacks will not be allowed. Links to personal information will be removed.)

Why does it matter

Submitted by whydonate on

what her background is? the person simply stated and asked legitimate questions, we cannot affor to be ovine like in this movement, we DO NEED transparency and I'm beginning to think that you would prefer to bury your head in the ground and let nature take it's course...

Look back in history and see what has happened to grassroots movements that had no accountability toward leadership... We NEED COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY!

 

My Position

Submitted by whydonate on

Is that she is not perceived as one of the leaders, and for legitimacy to continue surely we should have some background information on the people who are vicariously or deliberately leading this movement, why do you call it "Character assasination," when she clearly states that the links she posted could be taken with a grin of salt?

What significance is it that she disclose her background? does it matter where she went to school, what jobs she has held down, where she lives, what the content of her bank account is? That is not the issue here, the issue is transparency from the AC and every other committee.

Speaking of which not one of them has offered any reply to my asking for the need for donations...

So Buffalo Beast, sit back down at your boring office job and keep searching the internet for those big words so you can try and impress me, too late though you already exhibited your ignorance by using an expletive in here and that my friend is the most patetic show of immaturity that one can show in public!

 

cryptomnesiac's picture

I apologize for lumping you

Submitted by cryptomnesiac on

I apologize for lumping you in with Nevada. I've read your other posts, and they differ from hers, since she never offers anything constructive, on-topic, or about her own intentions. At all.

Her background matters because she's directing accusations of ulterior motives at other participants, with the implication it should discredit them. As such, she's trying to affect leadership and direction without actually participating directly, yet offering no solutions whatsoever. That's why it matters.

On this forum I've called for transparency, too. I'm not hiding my ID because I want to coordinate with others on the ground when I'm there. I'd rather know who everyone on here is, so I can speak with them in person to continue any directives discussed here.

As to the donations, bring it up in person. Go to the finance meeting, or ask -- after going through a stacker and getting in line -- at the GA why there isn't greater transparency in xyz. This forum isn't useful for bringing up concerns. Just consider it a sounding board, not something effectual to policy.

Mike C.
Buffalo Beast - Twitter - Facebook

Actually

Submitted by whydonate on

You have no need apologizing for "lumping me in" with Neveda, I think she has valid points and I think they bear the need for further conversation, so while I respect your right to disagree what I do not respect is the way you verbalize the attacks, every person has a right to state concerns and if she had made up the links or was in anyway responsible for the writing in those posts, then you would have a fair argument. You do not though have any ground on which to stand when you resort to the pettiness and immaturity shown in your post towards both her and I.

I do appreciate the apology, but it needs to be retracted and aimed at both of us.

 

Thats a smart

Submitted by whydonate on

decision, because as others have now pointed out along with me, you are so wrong on this and I still maintain that you offer Nevada an apolgy, or the one you offered me is meaningless

 

Mahayana's picture

Nevada's background is

Submitted by Mahayana on

Nevada's background is irrelevant. She does not hold a leadership role in this movement nor is she being considered for one, unlike the 3 people she is commenting on. I don't know if you could consider what she is saying as "character assasination". I have only read a few of the links but they seem to be informational on the background of these people, which is very important if OLA is considering joining forces with them.

"I've posted in the general forum how people use process as a wedge to drive well-intended people to fight over bullshit."

Are you insinuating we should'nt question the methods, goals and objectives, allocation of funds and resources or motives of those who have fallen into leadership positions within this movement? Sounds a lot like the mentality that got us all here in the first place. We have to question everyone and everything because for some of us, we have just come to the realization over the last few years that our government and other institutions we thought we could trust are fucking us over big time. You bet we are going to question the hell out of everything. Does that mean we should be paranoid, fearing that everyone is out to co-opt us? No, of course not. It is possible to be cautious, questioning and productive all at once.

The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves - in their separate, and individual capacities. -Abe

Fex's picture

Hrmmmmmm

Submitted by Fex on

Personally I haven't seen them emerging as leaders. They sure as hell are not my leaders.

If there's not enough transperency give specifics. Perhaps visit each committee and see how each does their thing (committees form and run however they wish, they don't have to follow the GA rules unless at and a part of a GA), ask questions to committee members, or even join every committee and can have a voice in them all.

Regarding the way the GA is run, if want to get involved talk to the Facilitation Committee as providing moderators and discussing the GA process itself is a big part of that committee's purpose. From sitting in on Facilitation committee meetings a couple of times (granted, not 24/7) seems to me the committee allows all ideas and voices to be heard.

If you think someone's trying to wrest leadership control of Occupy, well writing on these forums is one way. There's already a previous forum topic on it I believe. Discussing with people at the Occupy site itself would be much more effective (maybe you already do so).

Another way is to step up yourself and volunteer for tasks or encourage others you think would do a good job to do so.

"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal

cryptomnesiac's picture

Dude, I doubt there'll be

Submitted by cryptomnesiac on

Dude, I doubt there'll be specifics. There definitely won't be constructive answers.

Fex, I don't agree with some of your methods and positions, but at least I recognize methods and positions are there.

I've posted in the general forum how people use process as a wedge to drive well-intended people to fight over bullshit. That's what I think is happening with these two.

Mike C.
Buffalo Beast - Twitter - Facebook

Fex's picture

If there's concern

Submitted by Fex on

If there's concern I agree it's *nice* to have constructive solutions offered as well, but I disaagree that that is necessary.

Someone brings up a concern without an solution does not mean to me that their concern is invalid or not worth the time. Through discussion people as individuals can determine if a concern is valid as well as brain storm solutions.

Occupy itself started with concerns and many people have joined the movement without any answers what-so-ever, seems to have worked fine thus far. We are all here in the first place because we have concerns. Some of us have no solutions, some solutions, or think we have all the solutions- the amount of solutions isn't a requirement to take part.

Perhaps as you say they are using process as a wedge, I haven't decided myself on that.

"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal

WOW!

Submitted by whydonate on

Again you go after people because they don't subscribe to your way of thinking! and again you find the need to resort to the use of profanity in an attempt to get a point across...

Mike, Mike, Mike grow up kid, not everyone will agree with your point of view, and its not up to you to police the posts of others on here and then decry them as people wanting to drive a wedge!

Mahayana's picture

CENSORED?

Submitted by Mahayana on

The only thing that should ever be removed on this site should be SPAM. I am in disbelief that a moderator would feel that removing any post on here would be justifiable. Plus, there was NOTHING in her post that would even bring up question for whether it was appropriate or not. She had wiki links for goodness sakes.

The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves - in their separate, and individual capacities. -Abe

This is an

Submitted by whydonate on

OUTRAGE,

How can you purport to endorse free speech and then remove someones post, what gives you the right?

We can't allow this form of censorship, its the absolute antithesis of what this movement is about!

Who are you as a moderator to remove that? I am completely shocked and in disbelief that you did this, SHAME ON YOU!

FREE SPEECH IS FOR EVERYONE, not simply those that you deem have the right!

 

Fex's picture

Moderation tip

Submitted by Fex on

I do agree with Mahayana and whydonate that everyone should be able to speak, even should a topic be crazy, so long as it's not spam. Heh check out NYC's forums... it might be messy but daaaaaayuuummmm a lot more productive and serious discussions as well (of course, they also have much more of a media spotlight and thus tons more  flocking to their site).

Course, I also think you can say that something's bullshit, that's your view, fine. Removing someone's post that way is bullshit- my view.

Now, if you left at least one of Nevada's posts up where she posted the same information (did you?), stated you removed the post because it was a duplicate and then gave a link to where the same post still exists, then I think that would not only be more justified it would be productive as it gives easier access to the discussion for everyone. It's also considered good forum moderation. Removing posts because they are not your view is bad forum moderation.

"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal

alhs06's picture

Leader's? Excuse me?

Submitted by alhs06 on

When we talk about Leaders or Leadership roles, which is thrown about quite abit in this thread, are we actually referring to "Spokesperson or Point person" As my understanding was that this movement, this revolution is, & I quote off the Founding Groups Site "Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%."

Any change to this doctrine is a direct departure from the Original Ideology presented by the founder's, which caused my enlistment to the cause. A change to this doctrine would be viewed by myself as a fracture to the cornerstone of this once in a lifetime socially moral opportunity.

examples of my concern:

Nevada's background is irrelevant. She does not hold a leadership role in this movement nor is she being considered for one,

&

Personally I haven't seen them emerging as leaders. They sure as hell are not my leaders.

My picture reads

"Sell a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you ruin a perfectly good business opportunity."

The 1% philosophy

cryptomnesiac's picture

The people involved shape the

Submitted by cryptomnesiac on

The people involved shape the decisions. Anyone can be involved.

Bottom line: be involved.

IMO, the people we should worry about are the politicians jockeying for support. I like the verbal lockout of campaigning politicians from speaking in any approved capacity at OLA events (if they want to be around and talking to people, can't stop 'em). It's not so much that I fear them influencing people, but that they'll use OLA as a backdrop, and imply its presence equates to its support in some deceptive ad.

I'm wary of the city council. The motives of social climbers and careerists are forever in suspicion. They go where the wind blows. They'll pay us lip service as long as it suits them, but until we do something (like getting private money out of political campaigns, banning lobbying, reversing Citizens United, and ending corporate personhood), they were easily sidestep any meaningful legislation (as the city council did in removing contentious language about affiliations with banks from the resolution passed).

Mike C.
Buffalo Beast - Twitter - Facebook

Fex's picture

Ah I should reword that

Submitted by Fex on

To clarify my statement "Personally I haven't seen them emerging as leaders. They sure as hell are not my leaders."

What I meant to say is that I do not see the people mentioned as leaders hijacking the movement, and I myself am not going to follow ANY leader in this movement. I don't mind spokespeople and pointpeople.

An easy way to reword what I meant right now is: I agree with everything you just wrote alhs06.

"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal

alhs06's picture

Thanks Bro

Submitted by alhs06 on

Thanks for the support of a leaderless movement Fex!

My picture reads

"Sell a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you ruin a perfectly good business opportunity."

The 1% philosophy

alhs06's picture

The people involved shape the

Submitted by alhs06 on

The people involved shape the decisions. Anyone can be involved.

Bottom line: be involved.

You mean get onsite, let my mug be seen & my voice be heard. Slap a few backs, shake a few hands, shake my finger & shout my outrage @ the BofA building. Hustle & pitch @ the GA, promise to take control of this or that, maybe make a big loud well advertised donation, start taking those who I feel may advance my campaign to be a leader or The Leader out to lunch, dinner or drinks. Smear the ones who could threaten or challenge my campaign for leader. See where I'm going here?

My initial question was glossed over, "Spokesperson, Point person or Leader"??? I would really like to know if this movement is preparing to amend or Spin our founders doctrine of a "LEADERLESS RESISTANCE MOVEMENT" into a politburo or monarchy or dictatorship or Czar or a majority vote PM/PRES, maybe a Chairman elected/appointed by committee?

IF IT'S NOT LEADERLESS IT'S NOT OCCUPY & THE 99%, IT'S A FAKE. Or a better description a "Knock Off"

I'm sincerely concerned.

My picture reads

"Sell a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you ruin a perfectly good business opportunity."

The 1% philosophy

alhs06's picture

I feel compelled

Submitted by alhs06 on

I feel compelled & sometimes overwhelmed in just trying to keep people "focused & on task" in this forum. As I do understand this simple yet Immensely Important message I saw as a call to arms.

Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants.

The people involved shape the decisions. Anyone can be involved.

Bottom line: be involved. Well, working this forum is keeping me busy & involved. It allows me a satisfaction of helping @ least away from the mic, crowd & temptation to call for a Leader to this passionate resistance movement.

My picture reads

"Sell a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you ruin a perfectly good business opportunity."

The 1% philosophy

cryptomnesiac's picture

I don't think anyone wants to

Submitted by cryptomnesiac on

I don't think anyone wants to walk the path to cronyism, but there remains humanity's social instincts. There's a difference between lobbying, making behind the scenes decisions with no disclosure, etc., and having a few people regularly show up to things, develop a rapport, and feel they have more at stake in what happens than someone who just walked up during the last stage of decision making (which is where most, if not all, complaints I've heard have originated).

There are legit complaints, but attacking people for planning, outreach, etc., doesn't leave much left to any organizational effort. We can't plan, and not be responsible for our roles. Being leaderless means that decisions aren't imposed by fiat — it doesn't mean they're not suggested by individuals or groups. Being democratic means people get to vote on each decision, but it is, in reality, a two or more step process, and most people only deal with the last: the GA. The ideas are more malleable, and in a rawer form, during brainstorming discussions and committee meetings. Won't or didn't sit in on a meeting is different from can't — is in we have no transparency or power regarding the US congress and lobbyists. Here, we do. This is an important distinction.

If, however, unfinished, ambiguous, raw ideas were floated at the GA, and not turned into finished proposals by the handful of people sitting on those steps earlier in the afternoon, we'd still be discussing the first ever proposal now.

It's good to be concerned. Stay concerned, or at least aware of the threat of any form of co-opting. I just think any apparent concentration of power as of this moment relates to the marginal participation of the overall occupation.

Mike C.
Buffalo Beast - Twitter - Facebook

alhs06's picture

walk the path to cronyism

Submitted by alhs06 on

If, however, unfinished, ambiguous, raw ideas were floated at the GA, and not turned into finished proposals by the handful of people sitting on those steps earlier in the afternoon, we'd still be discussing the first ever proposal now.

What is the Facilitation & all our other committees developed for? I think if you sit on a committee, you do it out of the compassion for the movement, knowing your days will be busy in representing the ones who are not present, & your evenings filled in organizing that evenings GA comments & action responsibilities.

My 23 year career in Public Works construction projects have placed me in thousands of "Weekly Progress Meeting's" no leaders, but rotating moderators for the most part. Yet all our action item's were always clear in who's responsibility it was & time allotted to complete it. Our minutes were distributed by the next day for review & remarks by the attendees. And with the Architect, Owner & Contractors acting as facilitators among the contractor, design team, QC/Inspections & the Client, our projects were always completed.

BTW, most of us worked on a 40 hour a week based salary. My weeks averaged 60 to 70 hours, same pay check for 40. But it was what it took to get the job done that we signed up for. To a person we all bitched about it, but loved it & the involvement. It takes a certain breed I suppose. To work to completion without an appointed leader

My picture reads

"Sell a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you ruin a perfectly good business opportunity."

The 1% philosophy

Pages