The Problem with Progressive Stacking

[Lynette]

@psychojediboy Sorry if I came off as abrasive, I was using my mobile to post.  I was merely trying to inform you that if the issue was really important to you and you were carrying a moral opposition to the practice of progressive stacking, that you should indeed address your concerns at the GA.  I just want your opinion to be heard by all, not silenced.  Again, sorry I was not trying to make any sort of personal attack, just trying to help!

[psychojediboy]

You're really too self-absorbed and sensitive for this stuff aren't you.

Wrong again. I just object to my words being wildly mischaracterized. Nice to see you still have nothing better to do than go around randomly insulting people.

[daryl]

Wrong again. I just object to my words being wildly mischaracterized. Nice to see you still have nothing better to do than go around randomly insulting people.

Jesus son, I've read you drivel on here, who doesn't "insult" you?  You are what you decry.  Have a lovely evening.

[psychojediboy]

@psychojediboy Sorry if I came off as abrasive, I was using my mobile to post.  I was merely trying to inform you that if the issue was really important to you and you were carrying a moral opposition to the practice of progressive stacking, that you should indeed address your concerns at the GA.  I just want your opinion to be heard by all, not silenced.  Again, sorry I was not trying to make any sort of personal attack, just trying to help!

I'm sorry for responding the way I did to it, too. That wasn't helpful at all. I find it a lot easier to get my thoughts out in a format like this where I can think through what I'm saying and choose my words carefully...though clearly I need to work on that a lot.

[Lynette]

VIBES CHECK.  We are the 99%, our strength is in our solidarity.

[daryl]

VIBES CHECK.  We are the 99%, our strength is in our solidarity.

It'll be constant with him, best of luck to you.

[psychojediboy]

Jesus son, I've read you drivel on here, who doesn't "insult" you?  You are what you decry.  Have a lovely evening.

Most everyone, except you. Not quite sure what your issue is.

---------- Post added at 04:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:46 PM ----------

It'll be constant with him, best of luck to you.

Wow, Daryl, exactly what is your problem? You're the one who keeps showing up in threads I post in randomly taking cheap shots. Do they have a name for what's wrong with you?

[TNJED]

folks,

firstly, i think this is an EXCELLENT thread.  i can kinda / sorta see where each of you is coming from in your opinions.  my primary observation is this is a conversation that needs to be continued in a "policy / philosophy" context rather than a GA next obstacle in front of us context.

i will give a caveat that i have only read the posts once, though thoroughly, and will revisit them.  some things did stick in my mind. in no particular order:
psychojediboy - i believe it was you who said "The most basic tenet of democracy is that all people have an equal voice and no one is more or less valuable than another."  i whole heartedly agree.  in regards to the progressive stack, having each say his piece before one gets seconds only makes sense.  isn't that what you would do at the dinner table?  

as to different demographics being "preferred" in the stack (ie an economically depressed, specific social group) and getting more weight to their ability to comment, i must honestly say i have a problem with that.  i will also freely admit that i don't have a complete comprehension of the "progressive" stack.

one possible solution to any of this ambiguity, especially the individual having their say, would satisfy the short term and benefit the long term.  we have established the mission critical working groups.  although all of us would admit it has been overwhelming, the next phase needs to be considered.  i could see working groups on a myriad of issues:  basic human rights being one, subsets of women and or people of color to throw out a couple important ones; i would like to see specific lines of corruption developed for individual sectors of finance and industry.  i could go on for days.  

bottom line is we are moving to fast now to get consensus on a lot of important things, which in a perfect world would be discussed and resolved before presenting them to the world.  no one is to be excluded.  however, the group as a whole needs to develop enough trust to give some degree of autonomy to different elements (tech especially.  who the hell knows what they're talking about anyway ).  

so, my big idea?  a "blind" stack.  each working group would have x amount of time to deliver a report.  ask for dissent.  if dissent, ask dissenter to get with the working group, get clear on the issue, move on with the agenda.  when it came time for the "blind" stack, pass some shoe boxes around the crowd with random letters / numbers.   let it be known that if you don't have anything to say, pass your number to the person nearest you with their hand up.  it's a rough idea.  one concrete plus is this would make the facilitator's call on speakers absolutely transparent.

as to some concrete, it is happening now reality.  psychojediboy's comment "The most basic tenet of democracy is that all people have an equal voice and no one is more or less valuable than another." was used as the ammunition of choice in several scathing reports out of atlanta last sunday.

i won't bore you with the details, but you might have heard about congressman lewis being "dissed" by the atlanta occupation.  fox spun this as hard as they could, using exactly psycho.... words.  alternative media reported that the congressman, being a veteran of sncc, completely understood what was going on and respected the group  / process.

i am firmly convinced that some, though not all, of the media is seeking any crevice in our foundation which they can expand to a fracture.  do not be fooled.  everything we do is being dissected by all sorts of pundits around the world.  the "1%" is not only becoming aware of the pending tidal wave, they are becoming afraid.  glenn beck recently announced to bankers, the wealthy, the main stream media "they will drag you out of your houses, into the streets, and kill you" repeatedly in a broadcast.  we have skin in this game now.  we are up against the best in the business of spin, slander, and manipulation.  we must stand united.

sorry.  my two cents.
buck

[Liz]

My 2 cents: I know little of progressive stacking but at the moment, we don't have time to quibble. Let's just use whatever works for now. Some folks decided to try progressive stacking, so what the heck, let's give it a shot. Don't try to fix it until/unless it breaks. Seems to me that diverse voices are now being heard and everyone's getting a chance to respond yea or nay. Whatever works. Let's just get the job done, folks. We can always debate the issue later, or if it REALLY seems to be failing.

I think War Room, or General Discussion, is a good place to continue this excellent debate. At the moment, though, GA's have MANY more important things to accomplish, in a very short time.

[Shire]

"The most basic tenet of democracy is that all people have an equal voice and no one is more or less valuable than another."

I think this is at the heart of "progressive stacking" or whatever (maybe that's not the name we need to use) but the issue is that we need to make sure that all voices are being heard equally and that is not something that happens naturally, it must be intentional.

If this group is going to be an 'imaginative group' -- one that sees problems affecting our society and wants to envision a better future -- we need to be vocal about the fact that racism, sexism, homophobia, etc are still very real and we need to actively combat that. I don't think you can separate economics from sociology. There's a term for that, and it would be socio-economics. They are very, very, very intertwined. So, if we don't call it 'progressive stacking' we need to at least be clear that ON is a safe space for women and minorities. That means their voices are heard and valued and will sometimes, yes, be sought out on issues that particularly affect them. If we're not vocal about the fact that this is a safe space and diverse voices are welcome, it will not happen naturally. It has to be intentional. If this was something that happened naturally, our society wouldn't be seeing the socio-economic problems we do today. ON is an extension of society -- we are a part of this society and learn from it, and aren't immune from its problems. Racism, sexism, etc. So -- that is why I say we must be intentional

[MmmBeefy]

"so, my big idea? a "blind" stack. each working group would have x amount of time to deliver a report. ask for dissent. if dissent, ask dissenter to get with the working group, get clear on the issue, move on with the agenda. when it came time for the "blind" stack, pass some shoe boxes around the crowd with random letters / numbers. let it be known that if you don't have anything to say, pass your number to the person nearest you with their hand up. it's a rough idea. one concrete plus is this would make the facilitator's call on speakers absolutely transparent."

This sounds very sensible.

[nwo51501]

You really need to understand these people are not rational.  If you disagree with them they ban you from their chatroom so they can continue their circle jerk.  They have very limited brain power and no balls to actually talk to anyone who disagrees with them.

[0v3rki11]

I have only one thing to say about the progressive stacking issue, and I haven't taken the time to read every response here because I just want to give everyone a reminder. While I agree that there has to be some form of unbiased order to the stacking process there is one very big issue to keep in mind. This is NOT New York, we are in the South.

The South has a VERY long and dark history with segregation and discrimination, a history we do NOT want repeated. The way the progressive stacking was "worded" (to me anyway) has a hint of segregation and division and that is not healthy for the whole of the group no matter a persons race. I know that was not the intent, but again you have to remember where we are and remember our history. The way things are worded, as good intentioned as they may be, can quickly get taken out of context and create a very large problem.

Please just keep this in mind. That said I'm all for everyone having a say in whatever order the GA sees fit as long as everyone stays on topic and isn't bouncing around like rubber ball all over the place.

[Emily <3.]

I support progressive stack.  In a group without formal rules on who speaks when, people will often gravitate toward paying attention to those who seem like "natural," authoritative leaders... and it just so happens those people are often middle-class, educated white men.  Rethinking who's a proper authority or source of ideas is part of what our movement is about.

You write that progressive stack is a far-left proceeding.  But I think it's a reasonable response to the fact that racism/sexism/classism are still powerful forces in our society.  Denying that these -isms still exist is, in my opinion, a far-right opinion -- albeit one that's become so common as to appear mainstream.

"Progressive stacking has nothing to do with the stated goals of Occupy Nashville."  I respectfully disagree with this.  Our movement is saying everyone is an equal citizen & deserves an equal voice in how gov't is run, regardless of whether they have money and influence.  A ideology that says "we're all equal, so if you didn't get your ideas heard, it's your own fault" is similar to the Republican-peddled ideology that "we all have equal opportunity, so if you're poor or can't get a job, it's your own fault!"  We're not primarily about social issues, but we are addressing systematic inequality.

"This absolutely will prevent people from the center and the right from joining. It's extremely divisive in a group that claims to want everyone to feel welcome... It creates a very easy target for the right wing media to attack."  I think this type of "what will the neighbors say" argument can verge on sounding like concern trolling.  Women and minorities are used to hearing that their concerns might be unpopular, and so they can't be addressed until every other problem is solved.  If some non-left-wing people get turned off by our policies... that's too bad for us, and them?  Sleeping on a plaza is not exactly a big hit with right-wing media, either.  Every Tennessean doesn't have to be comfortable with everything Occupy Nashville is doing.  Tapping in to mainstream frustrations is an important part of our mission, but challenging assumptions is another.

[Shire]

Women and minorities are used to hearing that their concerns might be unpopular, and so they can't be addressed until every other problem is solved. If some non-left-wing people get turned off by our policies... that's too bad for us, and them? Sleeping on a plaza is not exactly a big hit with right-wing media, either. Every Tennessean doesn't have to be comfortable with everything Occupy Nashville is doing. Tapping in to mainstream frustrations is an important part of our mission, but challenging assumptions is another.

Reblogging for agreement.