This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Occupy Wall Street Protests
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
I really don't think they're winning.
They have no stated goal, or method of getting anything done or changed. Their only commonality seems to be the ability to be gathered at a certain place. You can't criticize them or their movement because there is nothing to ascribe the criticism to.
So, if you support it, like Heckler does, you just link a bunch of people talking about Occupy Wall Street, and cherry pick the articles that seem to be positive toward the movement. If you don't support it, like me, the best you can do is ignore it. If you do try to link something, or point to their flaws, the supporters will indignantly explain that your criticism doesn't reflect the movement in its entire. It's a little frustrating.
My instincts tell me this movement is all about increasing government control, and being spiteful toward capitalism. This is a movement of self entitled people that have nothing better to do than blame the system that supports them, instead of holding individuals responsible for their crimes. If they were to be honest, they would be occupying Pennsylvania Avenue.
Post by
Heckler
N17 huh?
lol, never heard of that, probably not the best choice of 3 characters to use =)
This video is a little better than the other one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhEjBcEgDAQ
Post by
Monday
Exactly, MyTie, which is why I just ignore it.
Post by
Heckler
Exactly, MyTie, which is why I just ignore it.
Based on the experiences of the Tea Party, this is your strongest weapon as a detractor. You can already see the physical occupations foundering, as well as the morale and support for their existence (even among OWS supporters). Even to someone who is sympathetic to the physical action, it seems silly to turn the entire movement into a nightly battle with police to "retake" some park. When you add in the public health concerns and physical safety problems, I don't think continuing to use the same strategy will be helpful. And as I've also said many times before in this thread, their refusal to take meaningful political action is just silly -- drum circles aren't going to solve anything. The power of the physical occupation is only the power to draw attention. Stop paying attention, and they'll just fade away eventually.
But the fact remains that among the litany of ideas being pushed under the banner of OWS there's many that I agree with (and supported long before OWS came around). OWS' existence has given me the opportunity to speak about these ideas with more people than was possible before. And the ideas are powerful, you could easily make the argument that recent election results in Ohio were indirectly steered by OWS, for example.
So sure, if you want to attack the actual physical occupiers in some way, then I'll probably take the easy way out (and most probably, the proper way -- just like the Tea Party) and say that the actions of a minority do not define the movement (or I'll just ignore you). I'll even admit that there's a case to be made about a considerable chunk of OWS being misguided, irrationally angry, and uninformed (I said this before too). But to me, these things have almost nothing to do with 'OWS' as a concept; to me, OWS is these ideas. So if you want to have a debate about the substance of the ideas, then I would be interested -- not to demagogue my side, but to refine my own viewpoint, which like every other viewpoint I have, is still very much refine-able.
Post by
Monday
There's ideas that I agree with OWS on as well. However, there's some I don't agree with, and I tend not to like the people who associate themselves with OWS (based on my experiences with OSLC).
Post by
Heckler
There's ideas that I agree with OWS on as well. However, there's some I don't agree with, and I tend not to like the people who associate themselves with OWS (based on my experiences with OSLC).
Honestly, I've never talked with an occupier for an extended period, but I would probably agree with you in many cases if I had (based on what I've seen on Livestream). It seems like a lot of them have no grasp of the things that (at least in my mind) OWS stands for. They just like screaming, or maybe they like being part of a group, I don't know -- but there's also many who really feel strongly about these things that I feel are important. And those people are shining more light on this topic than has been since I started paying attention to such things (~2001), and for that I have been and continue to be grateful to them.
Also, it would be damaging to the strength of OWS if it were to devolve into squabbling factions. So I'd rather focus on the good parts, and ignore the bad parts hoping they will draw more attention than cause harm (ie. I fully realize that much of the publicity OWS has gained has probably been because of the uninformed, angry people -- the academic crowd isn't known for making the nightly news, given the current media landscape).
That discussion aside, it would be nice to see OWS shift to a strong public advocacy 'phase' and away from the 'sleeping in parks' phase. I could see the huge majority of people who "agree at least partially with OWS" being much more receptive to that sort of behavior than the current tactic. I doubt it will happen, but who knows (it definitely wouldn't get as much media coverage, good or bad, and many people would just tune it out as more political claptrap, much like people now do when they hear 'Tea Party').
Post by
Monday
Honestly, OWS is kind of like the Tea Party. There are some intelligent and motivated people in it, but the majority couldn't find their way out of a wet paper bag.
Post by
MyTie
So if you want to have a debate about the substance of the ideas, then I would be interested -- not to demagogue my side, but to refine my own viewpoint, which like every other viewpoint I have, is still very much refine-able.
The difference between "refining your viewpoint" and "demagoguery toward your side" consists of nothing more than how much you agree with the points offered. Pointing to the socialistic and destructive tendencies of doing away with capitalism is demagoguery, but saying that this protest is about righting injustices and seeking a fair environment for the impoverished is refining.
It's as if you want us to believe that your side is based in reason and everyone else is just an appeal to emotion.
Guess what. I don't buy that. I find it much more likely that OWS is based largely on emotion. Occupy Wall Street believes in a perceived injustice between how much the top 1% is taxed versus the bottom 99%. Never-mind the actual levels that the top 1% pays (
source
source
). There are plenty of sources of level headed criticisms of socialism and occupy wall street.
So, wanna have a level headed discussion? What would be YOUR end goal in protesting wall street? If you could devise a conclusion to the protests, what would it be?
Post by
Heckler
Honestly, OWS is kind of like the Tea Party. There are some intelligent and motivated people in it, but the majority couldn't find their way out of a wet paper bag.
I largely agree -- sadly, I think that could adequately describe just about any large group of human beings =)
Post by
Monday
Honestly, OWS is kind of like the Tea Party. There are some intelligent and motivated people in it, but the majority couldn't find their way out of a wet paper bag.
Sadly, I think that would adequately describe just about any large group of human beings =)
*tips hat*
Well said.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
Guess what. I don't buy that. I find it much more likely that OWS is based largely on emotion. Occupy Wall Street believes in a perceived injustice between how much the top 1% is taxed versus the bottom 99%. Never-mind the actual levels that the top 1% pays (
source
source
).
Allow me to highlight one of the chief reasons I've chosen to ignore you, since you've given such a glaring opportunity to do so:
you don't pay attention to my replies
.
http://www.wowhead.com/forums&topic=195597.2#p2884900
In this post (my first in the thread!), I already addressed both of those sources you provided (and while I realize it was not you who posted them, I had also done this in a
different thread
where you had), and explained various problems with the data contained in them. In two separate threads, you either didn't read my post, or you didn't pay attention to it.
In either case, that's not the type of discussion I
want
to have. Repeatedly, you've shown that you're often incapable or unwilling to have the type of conversation I
enjoy
participating in. It does not benefit me at all to spend effort typing out my reasoning to someone who has neither intention nor desire to change their mind, nor is even willing to give my thoughts a thorough read (much less a thoughtful analysis).
Therefore, it's best for me if I just continue to ignore you completely. My only other recourse, within the forum rules, is to continue to repeat myself with the same basic line of reasoning presented in this post; and it really is tiresome. I hope you understand.
Post by
Heckler
@gamerunknown RE: Direct Democracy --
I'm currently reading a book that you might be interested in. It's called
Democracy Derailed
by David S. Broder. It's a pretty even-handed (in terms of Democrat v. Republican) critical analysis of the modern Ballot Initiative in the United States. It's from 2000 and focuses mainly on the 1998 election cycle. It's been an interesting read so far (I'm about 80% done), with a lot of focus on the actual process of enacting a ballot initiative from start to finish, the amazing costs associated with it, and how those costs really restrict access. The thesis of the book seems to be a warning about how the original goals of the Populists and Progressives who got the Initiative into State Constitutions has been largely warped -- changing the voters from the source of political action, into pawns in the larger agenda of special interests.
Given your earlier focus on Direct Democracy, I thought you might enjoy it. A description:
A new form of government is sweeping across America: the initiative process, available in half the states and hundreds of cities. Where once most state laws were passed by legislatures, now voters decide directly on such explosive issues as drugs, affirmative action, casino gambling, assisted suicide, and human rights. Ostensibly driven by public opinion, the initiative process is, in reality, manipulated by moneyed interests, often funded by out-of-state millionaires pursuing their own agendas. In this highly controversial book David Broder tells how this revolution came about. A movement that started with Proposition 13 in California is now a multimillion-dollar business in which lawyers, campaign consultants, signature gatherers, and advertising agencies sell their expertise to interest groups or to do-gooders with private agendas. Broder takes the reader into the heart of these battles as he talks with the field operatives, lobbyists, PR spinners, labor leaders, and business executives, all of whom can manipulate the political process.
The book hasn't convinced me that the Initiative is a bad thing, but it has definitely given me a lot to think about =)
On an unrelated note, I also found this video today that some might enjoy:
The Story of Citizens United v. FEC
Post by
Heckler
A few things that caught my eye today:
First: So I might be the only one who thought the "bat signal" projection show yesterday was cool, but in case I wasn't here's an interview with the person responsible for the show, Mark Read. He explains his motivations, and how he did it (it also has a longer, better video of the sequence). Link:
http://boingboing.net/2011/11/17/interview-with-the-occupy-wall.html
Second, here's another video that hit YouTube about 2 hours ago:
Police pepper spraying and arresting students at UC Davis
. While I still think it's counterproductive to get into conflicts with police; I don't think police behavior like this is defensible, and it should be widely publicized. In a similar U.S. district court case in 2002, the use of pepper spray against non-violent protesters was ruled an excessive use of force under California law. Here's the case, it's worth reading in full IMO:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1332957.html
And third, a humorous little nugget of wisdom from twitter:
“If only they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn’t be in this mess.” (
s
).
Post by
MyTie
In this post (my first in the thread!), I already addressed both of those sources you provided (and while I realize it was not you who posted them, I had also done this in a
different thread
where you had), and explained various problems with the data contained in them. In two separate threads, you either didn't read my post, or you didn't pay attention to it.
If you hadn't noticed, I'm trying out not being sarcastic, and honestly trying to be as 'gentle' as possible. So, here it is, straight, for you and everyone else:
I feel that from time to time, like the rest of us, it will be necessary for you to repeat yourself. It isn't my intention to ignore you, but this thread has gone on for 22 pages, and I haven't read most of the replys more than once. I don't have it memorized, or even a very good grasp on each individual's point of view. I can only invest effort in one or two people completely in one discussion for a short period of time, then move onto another thread. I'm only human, and I haven't been taking notes on your point of view. I generally know where you stand, but I'm not an expert in your opinion.
Further, when I question you on an issue, such as "what is the end goal here", it can be understood that I have either not understood an earlier reply of yours, not seen it, or not felt that you adequately stated the position. As far as I'm concerned "what is the end goal here" is the only aspect of Occupy Wall Street that needs to be discussed, with the exception of how Occupy got started and who's behind it.
I understand and agree with Occupy's motive, but not what I can discern as a goal. It's like asking someone who is throwing gasoline on a house fire what their intention is. I agree the fire is a problem, but neither the method of extinguishing nor the end result of the efforts appear to be headed down a path that will benefit the original problem. Putting this back from 'example' mode to 'actual' mode: I agree that some companies traded on Wall Street have too much control over politics, but I don't think protesting the system of capitalism which these companies are founded on will end the problem, but will create more problems.
What I want to know from you, Heckler, or Occupy, or anyone who empathizes with the Occupy movement, is
what is the goal?
Perhaps it is my fault for not understanding something that has been explained. Maybe I just missed it.
If you would be so kind, please, state in a nutshell (or direct me to where it was earlier posted in a concise manner):
What conclusion to Occupy Wall Street would be the most beneficial?
The thrust of my earlier post was NOT income tax debate, but was about the conclusion of wall street. Read the rest of my post:So, wanna have a level headed discussion? What would be YOUR end goal in protesting wall street? If you could devise a conclusion to the protests, what would it be?
This is the ONE aspect of Occupy Wall Street, or its empathizes that makes me the most leery of offering my support. They see a problem I see. They want it fixed as badly as I do. Their actions are the polar opposite of what mine are.
Heckler. You are articulate. You are patient. You can communicate this to me effectively. At some point that communication channel broke down. That was probably no fault of either of us. Now, for the sake of my sanity, please, reopen that channel of communication, and attempt to explain to me this one thing.
You cannot imagine the self restraint it takes for me to be this patient. Reciprocate.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gnomerdon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmJmmnMkuEM
=D
Post by
gamerunknown
Sorry for the late reply Heckler, but I don't have access to the net at home any more: I'm furtively snatching times to post at uni. I've got a bunch of books to read since I can't get online (starting with "Capital" - I don't know why I thought it'd be a light read), but I'll definitely give the book a read once I get through the backlog.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Heckler
I've had a really busy week and haven't had much time to form a response, but here's what I pieced together in my downtime. My apologies if it feels disjointed, this was written in at least 3 separate pieces over the past week.
First, let me address this:
. . . I haven't read most of the replys more than once. I don't have it memorized, or even
a very good grasp on each individual's point of view
.
I can only invest
effort
in one or two people completely in one discussion for a short period of time, then move onto another thread
. I'm only human, and I haven't been taking notes on your point of view. I generally know where you stand, but I'm not an expert in your opinion.
Further, when I question you on an issue, such as "what is the end goal here",
it can be understood that I have either not understood an earlier reply of yours, not seen it, or not felt that you adequately stated the position
.
The underlined parts perfectly outline you
agreeing
with my statement that you're not having the type of discussion that I enjoy participating in (one where all parties are invested to some minimum level). In other words, you're thoroughly justifying my decisions to ignore you by describing to me how you acted precisely in the way I accused. You posted this earlier (page 4):
. . . I had a chance finally to go back and reread this thread
The taxation post was on page 2, and your quote above was pulled from page 4. While I'm not saying that I expect you to memorize my posts, I honestly thought that if you actually had read the post twice (and by read, I mean carefully paid attention to each idea, followed links provided for elaboration, and arranged the concepts somewhere in relation to your own for contrast and analysis) -- you would have at least retained enough of the information to prevent you from posting the exact same talking point.
But it didn't, and
by your own admission
, the reason it didn't was because you are not investing enough of your effort or attention in this thread. I don't want to discuss things with you if you're not willing to do that. Read that again; because it's strange that you can agree that you're NOT paying enough attention, but still see it as perfectly reasonable and acceptable to demand an answer from me about anything at this point: I do not want to have a discussion with someone who isn't paying enough attention to my side of it to respond meaningfully.
Irrespective of your new leaf concerning sarcasm and gentleness, I still don't believe that you will pay any more attention to my posts on this topic in the future. I think I've already expended all the patience I'm willing to. Therefore I have very little reason to reengage you in conversation now (in fact, I feel a strong motivation not to). However...
Because I thought it was a fruitful exercise in self-exploration (and therefore worth the effort, even if you don't read it), here's a general answer to your question (given in the hopes that you will read it):
What conclusion to Occupy Wall Street would be the most beneficial?
First, I'm not sure what you mean by conclusion. Has the Tea Party "concluded"? Or the Civil Rights movement? A movement based around a group of feelings and ideas isn't going to just go away. Even if people stop sleeping in parks, the "story" of Occupy Wall Street is firmly established, and they have convinced and continue to convince huge masses of people that they're not alone -- there is a giant group around the globe ready to stand in Solidarity with a general concept of empowering People, and promoting equality, fairness, and truth.
However, vague statements like this are easy to make. I could easily construct a similar paragraph about the Tea Party that would be similarly positive. But this is all I can do when speaking of the "movement" as a whole. I haven't participated in any marches, I've never been to a General Assembly, I haven't stood in any parks, I haven't even had an in-depth in-person talk with someone who has. The closest I've come to active participation are my writings in this thread (which have at times contained criticism), and my decision to close my bank accounts with Chase and Wells Fargo (however, the MoveYourMoney project has been around longer than OWS, and the main reason I hadn't acted sooner was simply apathy -- apathy that OWS snuffed out).
What I
can
say about the "movement" is that it definitely strikes a chord with almost everyone in some way, and whether that's the "corporate boogeyman on Wall Street" or "The 1% who control everything" or whatever... Almost everyone agrees that there is something broken with our culture, and at least a few of the causes can be seen in this abstract concept of "Corporate Greed" encompassed in the idea of "Wall Street." It's not an attack on Corporations in general, or even Capitalism in general -- if it's an attack on anything, it's attacking those who act in their own self interest to the detriment of humanity as a whole. Those who have allowed their greed to grow to a size where it completely drowns out their conscience. I'm sick of people who profit at the expense of society, and I'm also angry at a system which allows (and even encourages) them to.
I'm pissed that our system, which works so well when everyone
plays by the rules
(probably better than any other in humanity's history), is being run into the ground by
cheaters
who are willing to burn the house down in order to line their own pockets.
OWS has captured that abstract feeling and held it up as a rallying point for all of these various loosely aligned views to coalesce.
I don't think anyone has a "conclusion" in mind, the goal has been and continues to be to simply get people thinking, and talking, and realizing their own power -- what action they take from there will vary by person. If the ideas are powerful enough, there won't be a conclusion at all -- these ideas and values will just integrate into the ever-forming human culture, hopefully changing it for the better.
So, to give you a personal response, I can list a few things that I would consider beneficial changes to the American system. The list certainly isn't inclusive, and there's probably OWS supporters out there who would disagree with some things I've included, and chide me for some things I haven't. However, these are all things that Occupy's existence has shed more light on and promoted more discussion about, and if any of them came into existence tomorrow, I would give OWS most of the credit for causing the landscape change which made them possible:
Regulatory Reforms:
Reinstate common sense financial sector regulations (ie. Glass-Steagall separation, or at least the Volcker Rule).
Strictly enforce corporate regualtions, even to the point of arresting violators and revoking corporate charters.
Clean up housing through forced arbitration of mortgages which meet certain criteria.
Enforce anti-trust acts (ie. The Sherman Act) to encourage competition and stifle monopoly.
Corporate Influence on Politics:
Constitutional Amendment which overturns the rulings of Citizens United v. FEC (ie. puts an End to corporate personhood).
Explore public financing of campaigns as an option (to allow a more vibrant field of candidates for office, and weaken the powers of special interest).
Enact strong campaign finance regulations written under the new amendment (to include severe limitations on non-persons like Corporations and Unions, and major transparency requirements).
Stop the "revolving door" between Congress and Lobbyists which toxifies our Representative Democracy.
Remove all Election activities from the private market (voting machines, ballot counters, etc).
Taxation / Spending / Inequity
Restore proper progressivity to total taxation (ie. Let the Bush tax cuts expire, perhaps even roll back the Reagan tax cuts).
Increase the progressivity of long-term capital gains.
Consider the enactement of a STET to "slow" the speculative influence of the stock market.
Redefine the "top marginal" brackets and rates of income tax (ie. add more brackets). Through progressive increase, raise the new top bracket at least above 50%.
End corporate subsidies that don't make sense (ie. Farm subsidies which give Large AgriBusiness the leverage to put small farmers out of business; Oil subsidies on the front and back end which allow Exxon to not pay for half of their operations, none of their environmental externalities, no U.S. taxes, and even recieve tax refunds), and encourage those that do make sense.
Redesign the corporate tax code in a way that encourages manufacturing and the growth of exports, and discourages (or even punishes) off-shoring, and removes the "cheating" of the tax code as a requisite to corporate success with competitors who also cheat.
End Free Trade agreements with Nations that do not have worker's rights laws at least as strong as our own. Renegotiate trade agreements with countries that do not, in a way that uses our economic power to encourage human rights.
Enact a public health plan which guarantees some minimum level of care to all citizens.
(secondary effects of these changes would include stronger social safety nets, and increased access to education through lower tuition at public schools, and increased spending on public works projects to keep our economy running smoothly like roads, bridges, power, etc. All of these things will build jobs and a future.)
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.