talkpolitics | Simple Q:

Entry tags:

Simple Q:

http://labornotes.org/2012/02/chicago-occupation-challenges-corporate-school-agenda

This isn't terribly big news. But it does show that an occupation of space can lead to a positive result.

To be fair, I felt occupation was a silly tactic back in early September 2011. I've come around sense then.

Have you? Does this article mean anything to you? Does it make you think that maybe occupying spaces is a tactic that gets results?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

This isn't terribly big news. But it does show that an occupation of space can lead to a positive result.

What's the positive result here? That they got access that they could have gotten by acting like adults instead of children?

If anything, the occupiers should be supporting such charter schools and school choice, since that's going to do more than the status quo that's failing our kids.

What defines a "positive result" here?

Have you? Does this article mean anything to you? Does it make you think that maybe occupying spaces is a tactic that gets results?

I've held that it's childish and juvenile, and that it doesn't really accomplish much. Nothing, to this point, has been shown to me to suggest otherwise, and the continued behavior of the occupy supporters and sympathizers isn't helping matters.

If you don't know what "positive result" means, I cannot imagine you are arguing in good faith, and as such, you are not worth any time.

Good day.

If you can't even define the terms to discuss them, what's the point of your post?

Anybody with half a brain knows that the definition game can go on indefinitely. If you cannot understand what is meant by an insanely common sense phrase then there is no point talking to you.

You are being deliberately obtuse.

I know what I think a "positive result" would be, and I'm not seeing it here. You never explain what the "positive result" is here, so I'm asking you to expand on it. Can you do that?

the occupiers did force all seven school board members to each engage a team of parents and community members in intensive discussions on the future of the school, cracking a wall of silence from city leaders

so no reversal, just a meeting. Well that is more than nothing...

(no subject)

dwer.livejournal.com - 2012-02-22 19:00 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

telemann.livejournal.com - 2012-02-22 19:17 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

dwer.livejournal.com - 2012-02-22 21:04 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

telemann.livejournal.com - 2012-02-22 21:33 (UTC) - Expand

How did the occupiers force it? Are you seriously claiming that they would not have gotten the same result being adults about it?

Furthermore, if "engagement" means "opposition to a good charter school," is that a "positive result?" If so, how is the status quo on schooling better than the alternative being floated?

(no subject)

dwer.livejournal.com - 2012-02-22 23:21 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2012-02-23 00:18 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

dwer.livejournal.com - 2012-02-23 00:43 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2012-02-23 00:46 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

enders-shadow.livejournal.com - 2012-02-23 06:00 (UTC) - Expand

http://occupyourhomes.org

is this not positive?

This is actually very negative, and rewards defaulting on contracts as opposed to rightful ownership.

If I don't pay my mortgage, what right do I have to the home I'm not paying for?

What gives someone the right to own land?

THE 10th AMMENDMENT, BUSTER!!!11

lol

The common desire to not have to fight everyone else all the time over everything.

true!
but the people who dont have land agree to other people owning land because....?

Because they know that when they own land, they will need the same right.

You're simplifying the issue to just a bunch of people who didn't follow through with paying instead of including the factors that led to the foreclosures.

A lot of it wasn't their fault, and a lot of it wasn't legal.

A lot of it wasn't their fault, and a lot of it wasn't legal.

I have my doubts. I'm certainly not taking their word for it, and the Occupy Homes lunatics have not really differentiated between legal and what they deem as illegal foreclosures.

lunatics is a strong word for people who are spending all of their time trying to help others - whether they're succeeding or not.

Jeff isn't interested in people who aren't explicitly about law and order, especially when they're long-hair hippie types.

They probably already were. There's nothing to suggest they weren't, after all - one can hear what plenty of people have to say and dismiss it without comment.

No, Jeff. They weren't.

Facts not in evidence, etc.

lack of knowledge about the situation, yes, you've got that.