There's currently a 76-comment long thread on Occupy Fort Lauderdale's Facebook page about New Times' coverage of the group's choice to comply with a new city rule that effectively bans tents from the occupation spot at City Hall.
Among the things discussed are what's apparently a rift in the group over the tent issue, as well as the possibility of eating this writer's babies.
Thanks to our "cynicism hammer," there's now a bit of discussion available for public view over the group's decision to comply with the tent removal, most of it not related to feasting on infants.
The relevant non-baby-eating argument is that a practice of civil disobedience by keeping the tents at City Hall is that it wasn't the logical way to about things. One response to that, according to a Facebook comment, was that the few people who voted not to keep the tents were a "bunch of pussies."
One person proposed that the whole tent thing is just a catalyst for "phase II," which includes occupying more stuff, like houses and schools. Another said getting arrested is how you get your "cool kid stamp."
From what we've heard from the dissenters, Occupy Palm Beach is the place to go for folks not too fond of the Fort Lauderdale way of doing things, although they may be getting their occupation camp replaced by the "Trapeze Experience."
We Believe Local Journalism is Critical to the Life of a City
Engaging with our readers is essential to New Times Broward-Palm Beach's mission. Make a financial contribution or sign up for a newsletter, and help us keep telling South Florida's stories with no paywalls.
Support Our Journalism
Still, baby-eating appears to be on the table.