This page shows the source for this entry, with WebCore formatting language tags and attributes highlighted.
Occupy vs. Burning Man
Chuck Palahniuk on Joe Rogan says that there was only one Occupy because it wasn't any fun. Burning Man, on the other hand, has been going on for 30 years and is bigger and better every year. This is an insipid analysis of the two events. Occupy is about a revolution, against the corporate dominance. Burning Man is about subsuming revolutionary fervor in a corporate way. Tickets cost $200-$1200. At least Joe Rogan pushed back against that. Occupy never got a chance because it was squashed as dangerous immediately. Burning Man was co-opted early and isn't in any way dangerous, so it's allowed to exist. It's an outlet for emotions and inclinations that could turn into revolutionary fervor. The way that Joe Rogan responded though was typically all over the place. I honestly can't tell what he was trying to say. He went on to say that Burning Man is the event that says everything's fucked and needs to be rebuilt from the group up, whereas Occupy was the one that didn't understand what it was fighting against. This is wrong.