Some protesters favored a fairly concrete set of national policy proposals…but this was regarded as an attempt to “co-opt” the “Occupy” name,…this disagreement illustrated a larger tension between the people inside the movement, such as people who wanted specific legislative demands and other people who believed that it is strength coming from remaining open, decentralized, and very broadly representative.
You don’t have to look far that same Wikipedia article to see an entire large section on the exact criticism I raised, coupled with a large body of evidence behind it?
Check your own ignorance.
Occupy had goals but they had like 50 of them and they were poorly coordinated in protests, slogans, and to the media - which is why they had very limited success enacting meaningful change.
No, that’s what billionaire owned media told people too ignorant to realize they weren’t on our side by 2011…
https://occupywallst.nyc/demands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street#Goals
Just because you’re still ignorant of their goals 15 years later, doesn’t mean their goals didn’t exist.
Just that you’ve never even taken the two minutes to check…
That’s crossing the line into willfull ignorance
Dunno dude. From your own link:
You don’t have to look far that same Wikipedia article to see an entire large section on the exact criticism I raised, coupled with a large body of evidence behind it?
Check your own ignorance.
Occupy had goals but they had like 50 of them and they were poorly coordinated in protests, slogans, and to the media - which is why they had very limited success enacting meaningful change.
So…
First they didn’t have any goals…
Now they have too many…
I’m sorry Goldilocks, I can no longer think of a way you’d be saying any of this in good faith.