Occupy Weakness

At 12/2/2011 2:51:04 PM, Danielle wrote:

At 12/1/2011 4:20:45 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
The thing I find funny about the Occupy movement here is that they inexplicably choose to occupy their tents when it's doing the normal Seattle mist. Also, they seem unwilling to actually go occupy someplace when the hill up to their camp is wet.

So you're saying the fact that they don't feel compelled to get wet somehow undermines their POV? Uh, sure.

A lack of willingness to actually suffer and make sacrifices for their message undermines the seriousness of the cause, yes.

What does OSW hope to accomplish? Realistically, there is nothing they as protesters can do. They cannot change public policy. They cannot change fiscal policy. They cannot write laws or enact laws. They can't bring down the system. They can barely fight the system. So what do they hope to achieve? I think the vast majority are just sick of this bullsh!t system we have -- not just "capitalism" (or rather, crony capitalism) but the entire crap package that pretty much does nothing but screw us for a variety of reasons. See: George Carlin video.

I think the only realistic goal of this campaign is to get people thinking about the issue (that our government and economic system sucks) instead of just ignoring it and suffering through it. I mean, the government literally BLATANTLY STOLE from tax payers when they bailed out the banks (and this isn't some libertarian argument about taxes being theft -- no -- they straight up took our money and gave it to fraudulent and incompetent enterprises, and nobody batted an eyelash).

Everyone sits around on the internet complaining about the government. These people are saying, hey, we've got nothing to lose -- maybe because, you're right, we DON'T have jobs (or whatever their individual situation may be...). Either way, the point being that they are actually taking to the streets to vocalize their contempt, rather then whine and complain about it. I think they're hoping to rally up the masses to get angry enough to fight the entire thing and implement something new. What? We dunno yet. But unless a significant majority of people are REALLY upset, nothing will change. I think that's why the phrase "We are the 99%" is being used.

At 12/2/2011 2:55:48 PM, darkkermit wrote:
A lack of willingness to actually suffer and make sacrifices for their message undermines the seriousness of the cause, yes.

What has the Tea Party done to suffer for their cause? Also, this is fallacious.

Oh mah gawd I LOVE Carlin!

At 12/2/2011 3:05:54 PM, Danielle wrote:

At 12/2/2011 2:55:48 PM, darkkermit wrote:
A lack of willingness to actually suffer and make sacrifices for their message undermines the seriousness of the cause, yes.

What has the Tea Party done to suffer for their cause? Also, this is fallacious.

They haven't.

No its fallacious to say that it changes the message.

However, the point of protesting is to signal to others that this is an important issue. Most people don't care about logic used. Persuasion is more about emotions. If the occupy movement stood their in the rain and took it, they would get more support.

At 12/2/2011 3:12:33 PM, darkkermit wrote:

At 12/2/2011 3:05:54 PM, Danielle wrote:

At 12/2/2011 2:55:48 PM, darkkermit wrote:
A lack of willingness to actually suffer and make sacrifices for their message undermines the seriousness of the cause, yes.

What has the Tea Party done to suffer for their cause? Also, this is fallacious.

They haven't.

Okay, so the point is that one's activism or lack thereof doesn't take away from the merit of their argument. Just because Gandhi suffered to prove a point doesn't mean everyone has the willpower or desire to. Besides, I highly doubt that even if these people stayed out in the rain, that people would OH SO SUDDENLY start seeing their point of view.

No its fallacious to say that it changes the message.

No, it's fallacious because you're saying that one's POV is weakened by their desire (or lack thereof) to suffer in support of that perspective. Your profile says you are against abortion. Are you willing to be homeless in protest to prove that abortion should be illegal? Probably not. Meanwhile, if I were willing to go homeless to prove that abortion should be legal, does that give my point anymore merit? Absolutely not. It proves a variety of things, but nothing in defense or against my case. It's clearly bad reasoning.

However, the point of protesting is to signal to others that this is an important issue. Most people don't care about logic used. Persuasion is more about emotions. If the occupy movement stood their in the rain and took it, they would get more support.

That is complete bullsh!t. If that were true, terrorists would have more support because they are willing to die for their cause in suicide bombings.

Just because the vast majority of people react to their emotional responses over the logical ones doesn't make it right. If you disagree with the movement, fine. But don't say them not wanting to get wet is somehow an argument against their cause. That's stupid and I can't believe you and someone like JCMT would even suggest that nonsense. I doubt either of you suffer for your beliefs, but I bet you still firmly believe they're correct.

At 12/2/2011 3:20:35 PM, Danielle wrote:

At 12/2/2011 3:12:33 PM, darkkermit wrote:

At 12/2/2011 3:05:54 PM, Danielle wrote:

At 12/2/2011 2:55:48 PM, darkkermit wrote:
A lack of willingness to actually suffer and make sacrifices for their message undermines the seriousness of the cause, yes.

What has the Tea Party done to suffer for their cause? Also, this is fallacious.

They haven't.

Okay, so the point is that one's activism or lack thereof doesn't take away from the merit of their argument. Just because Gandhi suffered to prove a point doesn't mean everyone has the willpower or desire to. Besides, I highly doubt that even if these people stayed out in the rain, that people would OH SO SUDDENLY start seeing their point of view.

However, Gandhi's suffering did play some significant in fighting his cause. It had an impact.

Also a strawman that it would suddenly cause people to suddenly see their point of view. It doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will do it, but it could cause people to gain respect for them more.

Part of the reason I'm anti-OWS is not necessarily the message but how they convey the message. Reports of vandalism, dumping on cars, leaving the area a mess, attacking others, blocking traffic, trapping people in buildings and occupying public parks are all things that show that they really are inconsiderate.

No, it's fallacious because you're saying that one's POV is weakened by their desire (or lack thereof) to suffer in support of that perspective.

It does.

Your profile says you are against abortion. Are you willing to be homeless in protest to prove that abortion should be illegal? Probably not.

No, but
(a) I don't care that much about the issue
(b) Unless it was symbolic and there were multiple people involved, it wouldn't raise awareness.
(c) it is likely I would do more by giving money to politicians that are anti-abortion.

The OWS movement hasn't really done more 'civilized' ways of protesting (contributing to charities that could help) and are a big enough crowd and would be symbolic enough to raise awareness.

Meanwhile, if I were willing to go homeless to prove that abortion should be legal, does that give my point anymore merit? Absolutely not. It proves a variety of things, but nothing in defense or against my case. It's clearly bad reasoning.

As I said, it's not about the merits of the point, but persuasion others, which is not a matter of merits of a point.

However, the point of protesting is to signal to others that this is an important issue. Most people don't care about logic used. Persuasion is more about emotions. If the occupy movement stood their in the rain and took it, they would get more support.

That is complete bullsh!t. If that were true, terrorists would have more support because they are willing to die for their cause in suicide bombings.

They do.......just not in the US.

Just because the vast majority of people react to their emotional responses over the logical ones doesn't make it right.

The point of protesting isn't to engage in logic, but to get action done. If you want to appeal to the majority, you use emotions. If you want to engage in logic, write an academic paper.

If you disagree with the movement, fine. But don't say them not wanting to get wet is somehow an argument against their cause.

Strawman, I never said it was an argument against the cause, because protesting isn't about logical argument. It is however about affecting the behaviors of others to get action done.

That's stupid and I can't believe you and someone like JCMT would even suggest that nonsense. I doubt either of you suffer for your beliefs, but I bet you still firmly believe they're correct.

We don't because, I honestly don't care too much whether my beliefs are followed by the population or not. I'm interested in engaging in logic and debate about my beliefs because I enjoy it, but I don't necessarily care If we live in a world where drugs are legal, because I don't care too much about doing drugs.

I don't hold too strongly to my beliefs because I change them a bit. I used to lean Austrian, now I lean more Keynesian. I used to believe in the non-aggression principle, now I don't.

At 12/2/2011 2:54:59 PM, Danielle wrote:
@ Marquix -- Lasagna pretty much summed it up...

At 12/2/2011 8:26:52 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Marquis I think she's saying that what the OWS have in common is anger, but if you actually handed each one the keys to the economy and told them to do whatever they wanted with it they probably wouldn't be able to agree about what to do, if they even had an idea for themselves.

This is basically the liberal version of the teaparty. Teapartiers will tell you about the ebil liberals and how the government "shouldn't be" doing all this stuff, but they don't have any actual ideas of what to do about it. They are an anti group. They exist only in relation to a specific problem, without any viability of their own merit.

Left-wingers are pretty much the same way. They can list all the atrocities of the US Military and ebil corporations, but they have no idea what to replace it with. There's not much use in just being against something, because being against the problem doesn't necessarily mean that you are for the solution.

What they have in common is that they know the way things are currently being run is wrong. They have different proposed solutions (and some don't have any, as Lasagna pointed out). They just want things to change; I've talked to people who admitted they haven't the slightest clue what to do, but believe other economists may have better suggestions. Indeed there are economists who support the OSW movement... http://presstv...

There are times when people with different views come together to protest a single enemy (in this case, the only identifiable enemy isn't "capitalism" or "Wall Street" or "corporations" -- it's just the current system).

OK. But if you have some people with one idea and some with another and some with no idea and there all together, how is anything going to get done? At this point I'm not even arguing with you, just looking for answers.

At 12/2/2011 4:10:59 PM, MarquisX wrote:
OK. But if you have some people with one idea and some with another and some with no idea and there all together, how is anything going to get done? At this point I'm not even arguing with you, just looking for answers.

Well consider the feminist movement of the 1970s, or any other movement for that matter. Obviously a lot of women are going to fight for "women's rights." But what does that mean? Workplace equality? Implementation of pro-choice laws? The women wanted different things, but them coming together (though definitely fighting amongst themselves!) ultimately got some goals accomplished.

Similarly, not everyone in the colonies agreed on what the best form of governance would be for the new world (America). However they agreed that being a colony of England was bad. So, people came together and America won its independence. Then the colonists were left to argue among themselves over policy :P But the point is that people need to come together to fight a common enemy.

@ darkkermit, I am signing off for a bit but I will wb to you later.

At 12/2/2011 3:04:50 PM, Danielle wrote:
What does OSW hope to accomplish? Realistically, there is nothing they as protesters can do. They cannot change public policy. They cannot change fiscal policy. They cannot write laws or enact laws. They can't bring down the system. They can barely fight the system. So what do they hope to achieve? I think the vast majority are just sick of this bullsh!t system we have -- not just "capitalism" (or rather, crony capitalism) but the entire crap package that pretty much does nothing but screw us for a variety of reasons. See: George Carlin video.

Complete BS that you can't change policy. Did the slaves not get emancipated? There are fundamental ways that public policy can change.

I think the only realistic goal of this campaign is to get people thinking about the issue (that our government and economic system sucks) instead of just ignoring it and suffering through it.

I wouldn't call our system broke. The US is one of the wealthies nations on the earth. We have higher life expectencies, healthier lives, and lower crime then any other time period. Do I think its perfect? no, but nobody does, and most people have differences in opinion on it on what direction we should go.

I mean, the government literally BLATANTLY STOLE from tax payers when they bailed out the banks (and this isn't some libertarian argument about taxes being theft -- no -- they straight up took our money and gave it to fraudulent and incompetent enterprises, and nobody batted an eyelash).

I actually recently had a debate with bluesteel about it. I forfeited (I don't think I really cared since I knew I was going to lose). But he made some good points in favor of the bailouts.

The banks are able to make profits through the money we put in savings account. So even If the bailouts didn't occur, the bank would have lost our savings and the government would still have to bailout the saver, since they are all insured. So basically you have to pay the same around the same amount of money, likely going to create a bigger panic, and lose the financial instruments vital to an economy.

There's obviously more examples of individuals getting hand-outs from the government even before the crisis. This is nothing new, and If Your against the bailouts then you should be against any specialized use of money. I mean, what is welfare but just a hand-out.

Also why didn't the occupy movement start immediately after the bank bail outs (tea party were the first ones to protest the bank bail outs, and people laughed at them)?

Everyone sits around on the internet complaining about the government. These people are saying, hey, we've got nothing to lose -- maybe because, you're right, we DON'T have jobs (or whatever their individual situation may be...).

Although they gained a nice chunk of land in the process.

Either way, the point being that they are actually taking to the streets to vocalize their contempt, rather then whine and complain about it. I think they're hoping to rally up the masses to get angry enough to fight the entire thing and implement something new. What? We dunno yet.

COMMIEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But unless a significant majority of people are REALLY upset, nothing will change. I think that's why the phrase "We are the 99%" is being used.

But the OWS does not get much support from the populace, especially since they use many negative tactics, oh and a lot of them are ignorant about economics (original list of demands said put a minimum wage of $20, close the borders for international trade, but open them for immigrants).

At 12/2/2011 4:09:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
However, Gandhi's suffering did play some significant in fighting his cause. It had an impact.

Also a strawman that it would suddenly cause people to suddenly see their point of view. It doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will do it, but it could cause people to gain respect for them more.

You're admitting that them willing to suffer more for their cause wouldn't make people suddenly take their cause more seriously. At best you can say they will be "respected more," but this isn't necessarily true. In fact I think people would call them stupid and/or nuts even more than they already do. Regardless, this is a moot point because unless their suffering would accomplish something (aside from respect - which isn't what they're after), then there's no point.

Part of the reason I'm anti-OWS is not necessarily the message but how they convey the message. Reports of vandalism, dumping on cars, leaving the area a mess, attacking others, blocking traffic, trapping people in buildings and occupying public parks are all things that show that they really are inconsiderate.

First of all, lol @ you listening to these so-called reports. Have you been to any Occupy events? Probably not. These people are peaceful and for the most part incredibly considerate. They specifically find ways to keep the camps clean; they have devised waste and other garbage removal systems.

Second of all, you're saying THEY'RE being violent? Are you joking? Turn off Fox News for a minute, go to YouTube and check out the dozens and dozens of videos of police brutality or other aggressive measures taken against these peaceful protesters.

Let's look at your complaints again for the lulz...

- Vandalism (show me evidence of this)
- Dumping on cars (okay... what?)
- Leaving a mess (so do concerts, so do carnivals)
- Attacking others (okay Bill O'Reilly, who do they attack?!)
- Blocking traffic (yeah, that's kind of the point of a protest...)
- Trapping people in buildings (lol, what? Accidentally maybe?)
- Occupying public parks (where the fvck are they supposed to protest if you can't do it on public property?!)

No, it's fallacious because you're saying that one's POV is weakened by their desire (or lack thereof) to suffer in support of that perspective.

It does.

Um. Are you serious? Debate me on it.

Your profile says you are against abortion. Are you willing to be homeless in protest to prove that abortion should be illegal? Probably not.

No, but
(a) I don't care that much about the issue
(b) Unless it was symbolic and there were multiple people involved, it wouldn't raise awareness.
(c) it is likely I would do more by giving money to politicians that are anti-abortion.

Not only does this do absolutely nothing to negate my point, but it's silly that you think giving money to politicians is the answer and suggest that's what OSW should do... are you joking?! You think they want to give more money to politicians? That is the OPPOSITE of what they think would be helpful, and in fact some think it's straight up immoral to do so!!! They want money OUT of politics.

The OWS movement hasn't really done more 'civilized' ways of protesting (contributing to charities that could help) and are a big enough crowd and would be symbolic enough to raise awareness.

I really, really don't want to insult you (not trying to be izbo here) but keeping my mouth shut is incredibly hard. Um. The most cordial way I could put this right now is that "contributing to charities" is about the most useless suggestion I have ever heard. And I think it's bullsh!t that they're considered "uncivilized." Absolutely bullsh!t with nothing to back it up except pretentious people thinking they sound superior by putting others down for presumed weakness (because anti-capitalists are always portrayed as weak, lazy hippies). Yawn.

As I said, it's not about the merits of the point, but persuasion others, which is not a matter of merits of a point.

But you already admitted that more people wouldn't see their point, just "respect them more," so you've already argued against yourself.

They [suicide bombers] do.......just not in the US.

No, that is not why they have support elsewhere. Do your homework.

The point of protesting isn't to engage in logic, but to get action done. If you want to appeal to the majority, you use emotions. If you want to engage in logic, write an academic paper.

You can use logic to appeal to the masses. Nonetheless, this point is boring me. Even if OSW wanted to appeal to people's emotions, sitting out in the rain isn't a good way to do it.

Strawman, I never said it was an argument against the cause, because protesting isn't about logical argument. It is however about affecting the behaviors of others to get action done.

"A lack of willingness to actually suffer and make sacrifices for their message undermines the seriousness of the cause, yes." -- darkkermit

I'm sorry, what were you saying?

You also continue to contradict yourself considering you've already said - hold on let me quote it - "Also a strawman that it would suddenly cause people to suddenly see their point of view. It doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will do it, but it could cause people to gain respect for them more."

It seems you just like throwing the word straw man around. It's annoying when people name drop fallacies when they're not even being used correctly (most notably "ad hom" -- everyone loves that phrase lol they barely use it in proper context). Anyway, you admitted that people might "respect them more," but that doesn't mean they will support their cause. Respect without support is useless.

I don't hold too strongly to my beliefs because I change them a bit. I used to lean Austrian, now I lean more Keynesian. I used to believe in the non-aggression principle, now I don't.

If we suddenly because an authoritarian, communist nation, I'm sure you would have some gripes with the establishment.

At 12/2/2011 4:43:27 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Complete BS that you can't change policy. Did the slaves not get emancipated? There are fundamental ways that public policy can change.

I'll pull a darkkermit and say STRAWMAN, STRAWMAN! Nowhere did I ever say you can't change policy.

I wouldn't call our system broke. The US is one of the wealthies nations on the earth. We have higher life expectencies, healthier lives, and lower crime then any other time period. Do I think its perfect? no, but nobody does, and most people have differences in opinion on it on what direction we should go.

First, just because you wouldn't call our system broken doesn't mean it isn't. Second, those things might all be true (wealth, life expectancy, etc.) yet it does not argue in favor of the current system at all. Other nations exceed the U.S. in some of those areas and employ different policies. Third, when you say "the U.S. is so wealthy," it really is a useless assertion considering 1% of the population controls 42% of the nation's wealth. So basically the 1% of the U.S. is wealthy. Great. I think OSW acknowledges that...

I actually recently had a debate with bluesteel about it. I forfeited (I don't think I really cared since I knew I was going to lose). But he made some good points in favor of the bailouts.

I could make good points on just about anything... so...

The banks are able to make profits through the money we put in savings account. So even If the bailouts didn't occur, the bank would have lost our savings and the government would still have to bailout the saver, since they are all insured. So basically you have to pay the same around the same amount of money, likely going to create a bigger panic, and lose the financial instruments vital to an economy.

Blah blah blah, I'm not going to debate the banking issue here. It's irrelevant to the discussion. Besides, even if you prove it would be helpful under our current system, doesn't validate that the current system is a good one.

There's obviously more examples of individuals getting hand-outs from the government even before the crisis. This is nothing new, and If Your against the bailouts then you should be against any specialized use of money. I mean, what is welfare but just a hand-out.

zzZZZz too off topic. I'm not getting into this. This is an OSW thread.

Also why didn't the occupy movement start immediately after the bank bail outs (tea party were the first ones to protest the bank bail outs, and people laughed at them)?

OSW isn't protesting the banks, specifically. Regardless, all this proves is that the masses laugh at people. This country has become a bunch of pansies insofar as civil disobedience and protest (concepts our so-called democracy is founded on) are automatically considered weak and the people crazy.

Although they gained a nice chunk of land in the process.

Their possessions were bulldozed away and many endured other harsh exposure to abuse, poor weather, etc. But I know, I know... that's not enough. They REALLY need to suffer in order for you to take them seriously. *Eye Roll*

But the OWS does not get much support from the populace, especially since they use many negative tactics, oh and a lot of them are ignorant about economics (original list of demands said put a minimum wage of $20, close the borders for international trade, but open them for immigrants).

I've already argued that ignorant supporters don't mean anything. I know plenty of completely retarded capitalists who don't know their a$s from their elbow. They are idealistic, unrealistic, ignorant and unintelligible. Does that discredit capitalism? No. Anyway, I was just explaining why they might like the phrase "We are the 99%." It's basically appealing to people's emotions, which you should recognize as something positive and useful according to your standards about effectiveness.

This back and forth is boring me, and I hate big chunks of things to respond to. If you have a direct criticism, make it. I'll respond to it, negate it, but at the end of the day the movement will still be considered futile and weak regardless. People want them to fail (without ever even understanding their gripe), and that's a shame. Now, I'm not saying OSW is perfect by any means. I do think they could have done a lot of things differently and better. But I think a lot of the criticisms are complete bullsh!t.

At 12/3/2011 8:33:42 AM, Danielle wrote:
This back and forth is boring me, and I hate big chunks of things to respond to. If you have a direct criticism, make it. I'll respond to it, negate it, but at the end of the day the movement will still be considered futile and weak regardless. People want them to fail (without ever even understanding their gripe), and that's a shame. Now, I'm not saying OSW is perfect by any means. I do think they could have done a lot of things differently and better. But I think a lot of the criticisms are complete bullsh!t.

I'll debate you on the following issue:
-The current OWS movement is an unjustified movement.

At 12/3/2011 12:18:34 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I'll debate you on the following issue:
-The current OWS movement is an unjustified movement.

That is incredibly vague. Besides, it is 100% biased in my favor if people don't vote-bomb. It's basically about whether or not people have the right to protest.

At 12/3/2011 12:29:27 PM, Danielle wrote:

At 12/3/2011 12:18:34 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I'll debate you on the following issue:
-The current OWS movement is an unjustified movement.

That is incredibly vague. Besides, it is 100% biased in my favor if people don't vote-bomb. It's basically about whether or not people have the right to protest.

I don't deny whether they have the right to protest or not. However, people have the right to peaceful protest.

What's my point? You occupy idiots are still riding the bus. You complain about the corporations, the billionaires, the 1%ers but why on earth ARE YOU STILL USING THIER PRODUCTS!?!?:

I've commented on that too. I've seen a lot of footage showing them whining and complaining while on their iPhone, which completely emasculates their point. I can only conclude that they don't want to give up their niceties... they'd rather covet whatever they don't have and claim it's somehow unfair that others have more money than they do.

Seems to me that if they don't boycott Wallstreet, it amounts to nothing more than shrill squawking.

At 12/3/2011 12:41:51 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I've commented on that too. I've seen a lot of footage showing them whining and complaining while on their iPhone, which completely emasculates their point.

How?

And while we're at it, what is their point?

At 12/3/2011 12:41:03 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I don't deny whether they have the right to protest or not. However, people have the right to peaceful protest.

Peaceful = non-violent. Being loud and obnoxious, not having a clear argument or goal, making a lot of noise and occupying space might all be annoying to you, but they are not violent.

I think the greatest weakness of the Occupy movement is their complete and utter lack of a central message. Do they hate all corporations? Do they only hate corporations that get breaks from government? Do they advocate mass reform, or a full-scale revolution? Do they want to abolish corporations? Do they want wealth redistribution? How many of them agree to those ten steps to a collapsed economy that was posted earlier? Nobody knows, so misinterpretation abounds.

Regarding this argument about what does and does not qualify as "violence," here's a dictionary:
http://www.merriam-webster...
http://www.merriam-webster...

It looks like vandalism would qualify, and arguably occupying roads and blocking traffic as well.

At 12/3/2011 1:26:39 PM, mongeese wrote:
I think the greatest weakness of the Occupy movement is their complete and utter lack of a central message. Do they hate all corporations? Do they only hate corporations that get breaks from government? Do they advocate mass reform, or a full-scale revolution? Do they want to abolish corporations? Do they want wealth redistribution? How many of them agree to those ten steps to a collapsed economy that was posted earlier? Nobody knows, so misinterpretation abounds.

I completely agree with this. However I don't think this warrants a lot of the criticisms made about OSW, and especially not the backlash of the police and government. There are a lot of problems within the movement - absolutely... but if people say they don't have a coherent goal (and I think that's obviously true), then you can't say their goal, message or intent is stupid, because you wouldn't even know what you are criticizing.

Also, as we have been pointing out, not everybody within the Tea Party movement agrees either, or necessarily has a cohesive solution that everyone stands behind. Instead they just agree on what they don't like. There are sub-factions within sub-factions. Do they ALL hate all government? Do they only hate social welfare? Do they advocate mass reform, or a full-scale revolution? Do they want to abolish the government? If so, what will they replace it with? Obviously not everyone will agree on everything, but I think the point are people coming together to raise awareness against a common enemy. Once people realize the enemy exists, the conversation can begin about proposed solutions.

I stand behind OSW despite their imperfect collective for the simple fact that I agree we have a huge problem in this country in terms of government and the economy, and unlike the TP I don't necessarily think that "capitalism" (though that is a divisive and non-specific term in itself, but I digress) is necessarily the answer.

At 12/3/2011 1:29:22 PM, mongeese wrote:
Regarding this argument about what does and does not qualify as "violence," here's a dictionary:
http://www.merriam-webster...
http://www.merriam-webster...

It looks like vandalism would qualify, and arguably occupying roads and blocking traffic as well.

Maybe I was wrong, and it would indeed become a semantic argument. One description of violence according to that dictionary is vehement feeling or expression, such as fervor. Another dictionary I saw said the same thing. Now, I think any reasonable person here would agree that fervor (which means intense feeling) does NOT constitute as violence. Those dictionaries include emotional reactions as violence. Wut? I was completely ignorant to this; point noted.

However let the record show then (because we need to be clear) that when darkkermit complains about the violence of the OSW crowd, he is NOT saying they are causing any physical harm.

Now as far as vandalism accusations go, a couple of things:

1. I have been to OSW (the original one in New York - holla) and I have not seen ANY vandalism on behalf of any protester. That is not to say it hasn't happened, but that I haven't seen it...

2. On that note, the media (ahem, Faux News) likes to greatly exaggerate things in order to make the movement look bad... ya know, kinda like how they all flipped out about a cooking knife or something being discovered in the camps there where people eat (these are the same people who are against gun control LULZ). Now, everyone at OSW knows that people specifically vandalize things and blame it on the Occupiers. And no, this is not a conspiracy.

The vast majority of people are completely non-violent. I'd venture to say all, but obviously there is probably a very tiny minority who would not be opposed to violent revolution. However, the second someone says anything violent or what have you, everyone boos and immediately takes the floor and attention away from them. They constantly reiterate the fact that it's a peaceful movement. Pretty much EVERYONE looks heavily down upon violence and stifles it the moment it is even mentioned, specifically to make it harder for people to lie and say it is a violent movement.

I encourage everyone who feels comfortable making these kinds of accusations to actually visit one of these things and see the truth about what's going on.

3. Finally, I'm not even sure I'm opposed to violent movements (though I don't think it's warranted here). I mean, there have been successful, violent Revolutions before. When we learn about the storming of the Bastille, we look at those people like they did the right thing. There are a lot of comparisons you can make to the situation then and now, even if they're not immediately clear.

I think it's scary that people are so afraid of protest and revolution these days. I think we are being brainwashed by a variety of influences to become completely apathetic sheep. There are a lot of issues I think OSW and the Tea Party can even come together on. Again, once we recognize the problem, we can find a solution. I think the current relationship between the government (politicians) and the economy is something we can all agree is harmful.

Another thing I wanted to mention -- Newly sprung ex-cons and vagrants rousted from other parks are crashing the Occupy Wall Street protest, where gourmet meals are free and boozy, drug­fueled parties are on tap, the movement's leaders griped yesterday. "They're telling people who leave prison to go to Zuccotti Park," lamented Daniel Zetah, a leader of the OWS community-relations group.

Volunteer Lauren Digioia, 26, said, "We have drug dealing going on here, gang activity, public intoxication. There are a lot of instigators. There are a lot of vultures. Everyone knows we give out free food and sleeping bags, and it's a perfect opportunity for squatters."

Occupy Wall Street organizers say legitimate protesters like these are being overrun by released Rikers inmates and derelicts who come to Zuccotti Park for the free gourmet meals.Digioia said she recently met a man who just before getting sprung from Rikers, was told by a fellow inmate to hit Zuccotti for the free accommodations.

http://www.nypost...

Now, at OSW there was a cop who verified this to us (that released prisoners were being encouraged to hit up Zucotti Park - even by police). There is no official record of this, but he said it. Anyway, the point here is that there will always be bad seeds within movements. However it would be incredibly irresponsible to base the merit of a group on these few. All you can hope is that peaceful protest wins, such as MLK's approach vs. Malcolm X's. However that is not to say that I don't think X made some really good points :P

Sure, they can't boycott every corporation. But they could at least boycott the ones they hate the most, like banks. Or at least the banks that they vandalize.

But they don't even do that. The gave money to a bank, after vandalizing it.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal...

Why are you so angry at them? People on this forum have already pointed out when it isn't sensible to boycott every product made by corporations. We'd have to give up not just ipads and cell phones and such, but hygiene products, clothes, beds, couches, pretty much everything. I would honestly say that getting sprayed by pepper spray is worse than boycotting buses. That's a rather easy task. Plus people during the civil rights movement were going against an idea and a culture. That is much easier to bring down than huge corporations that run the government. The one% has so much and conducts horrible business practices that we pay for. And the middle class isn't half as bad off as the lower class. That is what they are protesting. Why you are targeting those who don't harm your way of life and not those that do is beyond me.

At 12/1/2011 3:37:00 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Hehe.

I think one of the main problem is though is that you can't really target every corporation, because you know, you'll kind of lose like all your supply of goods. A boycott doesn't really make much sense If your target audience is general.

That's one of my main problems with the OWS is their fixation with the 1% and corporations as evilz. It's too generalized. Your telling me that every person who is part of the 1% is an evilz? Give me a break. Pick a specific target or goal and focus on that.

No not everyone in the 1% is evil. You are kind of strawmanning the cause. I think a lot of them don't realize how badly off so many people are and how they affect everyone when they fail. My old high school is facing getting rid of our entire sports program and arts and music program to make up the deficit. We'd have to raise taxes by 25% to make up the deficit. Or we can cut 42 teachers and have class sizes of 30 kids in every grade for every class. If that 1% gave so little of what they had, my old high school could have our entire sports program, all the teachers we lost back, and our entire arts and music program. But no, they use bad business practices and screw the rest of us over. I think a lot of them just don't care.

At 12/3/2011 3:21:07 PM, mongoose wrote:
Sure, they can't boycott every corporation. But they could at least boycott the ones they hate the most, like banks. Or at least the banks that they vandalize.

But they don't even do that. The gave money to a bank, after vandalizing it.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal...

From your source itself:

An Occupy statement said the money only will be with Wells Fargo temporarily while they work to establish an account with a credit union or community bank. Protesters said it was the easiest way to access the money to bail out people from jail.

Nice try at manipulating information. I see all of that Fox News journalism has taught you well.

At 12/3/2011 3:45:49 PM, rogue wrote:

At 12/1/2011 3:37:00 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Hehe.

I think one of the main problem is though is that you can't really target every corporation, because you know, you'll kind of lose like all your supply of goods. A boycott doesn't really make much sense If your target audience is general.

That's one of my main problems with the OWS is their fixation with the 1% and corporations as evilz. It's too generalized. Your telling me that every person who is part of the 1% is an evilz? Give me a break. Pick a specific target or goal and focus on that.

No not everyone in the 1% is evil. You are kind of strawmanning the cause. I think a lot of them don't realize how badly off so many people are and how they affect everyone when they fail. My old high school is facing getting rid of our entire sports program and arts and music program to make up the deficit. We'd have to raise taxes by 25% to make up the deficit. Or we can cut 42 teachers and have class sizes of 30 kids in every grade for every class. If that 1% gave so little of what they had, my old high school could have our entire sports program, all the teachers we lost back, and our entire arts and music program. But no, they use bad business practices and screw the rest of us over. I think a lot of them just don't care.

You realize that schools have continuously had more and more funding yet test scores have remained the same.

Taxing he rich won't solve our problems because:
a. Even taxing the rich will not solve the deficit problem.
b. wealthy citizens can find loopholes
c. It does not provide incentives to create efficiency.