Occupy Weakness

At 12/3/2011 3:51:44 PM, Danielle wrote:

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.com...

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.

I believe the point he was trying to make was that the movement was using the bank they were protesting at all, even if it is just temporarily.

At 12/3/2011 3:51:44 PM, Danielle wrote:
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.

Thank you for that Danielle... the bolded word in that quote is all you need to know to sum up this entire thread.

Yes, it is such a conundrum to have to work so hard at protesting against policies that reward workers. No wonder they are upset that this whole OWS thing is not easy, it's actually harder work than they deserve! the poor things.

I'm laughing because you think that's actually an argument against their cause. That's like saying every Libertarian who utilizes a government service at any point is a hypocrite. They are not technically forced to pay taxes (they can live off the grid -- illegal immigrants do it all the time). However they have chosen to cooperate within the system they are trying to fight because it is probably the easiest and best course of action to achieving their goal (overriding the system), even if they have to cooperate within it temporarily. The same applies to these people. Few options has made this a last resort decision.

At 12/4/2011 9:15:43 AM, Danielle wrote:
I'm laughing because you think that's actually an argument against their cause. That's like saying every Libertarian who utilizes a government service at any point is a hypocrite. They are not technically forced to pay taxes (they can live off the grid -- illegal immigrants do it all the time). However they have chosen to cooperate within the system they are trying to fight because it is probably the easiest and best course of action to achieving their goal (overriding the system), even if they have to cooperate within it temporarily. The same applies to these people. Few options has made this a last resort decision.

It's a lot harder to live off the grid when you're already on the grid. The government is allowed to coerce people, while corporations aren't (unless you sign up for it?).

What makes it really silly is that they already vandalized the place, then decide they want to use it for a purpose. It's rather contradictory.

At 12/3/2011 3:41:11 PM, rogue wrote:
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 12/3/2011 1:20:46 PM, Danielle wrote:

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?:

Because it tends to invalidate one's position when railing about the evil wiles of outsourcing labor for cheap while simultaneously bringing in revenue to the very corporation that supports the objectionable behavior.

The one% has so much and conducts horrible business practices that we pay for.:

Okay, so retroactively going back to the initial sentiment of the OP, don't buy their products or they're every bit as culpable. If they know a company practices unethical standards but purchase their products regardless, then they have no room to bitch. They're therefore further exacerbating the very problem they claim to want to stop.

As Mongeese already mentioned, what is the point of the "protest?" Who is it directed towards? Never mind the ineffectiveness of their tactics; it's business as usual on Wall Street. I'm more interested in understanding their specific grievances, because as best I can tell, these people are mad that other people figured out how to make money. Somehow that's "unfair," of course, that's a sophomoric understanding of how fairness works, but I digress.

At 12/4/2011 9:48:52 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

At 12/3/2011 1:20:46 PM, Danielle wrote:

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?:

Because it tends to invalidate one's position when railing about the evil wiles of outsourcing labor for cheap while simultaneously bringing in revenue to the very corporation that supports the objectionable behavior.

Socialists are programmed to think that they do not vote with their dollars, or that it doesn't matter. You really can't blame them for being ignorant PL. I wonder if they could outsouce OWS to some Chinese capitalists? That could put new life to the movement!

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.com...

You haven't heard of Bank Transfer Day?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

At 12/4/2011 9:29:17 AM, mongoose wrote:

At 12/4/2011 9:15:43 AM, Danielle wrote:
I'm laughing because you think that's actually an argument against their cause. That's like saying every Libertarian who utilizes a government service at any point is a hypocrite. They are not technically forced to pay taxes (they can live off the grid -- illegal immigrants do it all the time). However they have chosen to cooperate within the system they are trying to fight because it is probably the easiest and best course of action to achieving their goal (overriding the system), even if they have to cooperate within it temporarily. The same applies to these people. Few options has made this a last resort decision.

It's a lot harder to live off the grid when you're already on the grid. The government is allowed to coerce people, while corporations aren't (unless you sign up for it?).

Ok, read the Anarchist Cookbook. Haven't you seen "The Big C?" People do it all the time. Further, the whole "But these are products of capitalism!" argument is such bullsh!t. You can't be a product of capitalism. Capitalism merely refers to the relationship between the government and economic production. Some of these people have absolutely no gripe with corporations; instead they might simply be promoting regulating Wall Street, protesting the income disparity or wanting higher levels of unionzation. None of those things are necessarily anti-corporation. I've pointed this all out before, though not one person had a good answer against me. Instead, you're relying on strength in numbers in a board full of capitalists as if all of you vs. me somehow intimidates me or makes me feel like my points have less merit. It doesn't.

What makes it really silly is that they already vandalized the place, then decide they want to use it for a purpose. It's rather contradictory.

People scribble on bathroom stalls all the time... and still use the bathroom. Point negated.

I also see you ignored the tidbit about your dishonest forthcomings.

Regardless, even if it was a silly move by these people, doesn't undermine their entire movement -- just shows they have poor decision making. However, I'm sure they can and have justified this decision already.

At 12/4/2011 9:48:52 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Because it tends to invalidate one's position when railing about the evil wiles of outsourcing labor for cheap while simultaneously bringing in revenue to the very corporation that supports the objectionable behavior.

Okay, let me ask you something, pl. Do you support slavery?

The gist of this will be that I'm sure you bought your wife a nice diamond engagement ring. Where do you think diamonds come from? (Hint: watch Blood Diamond). Look up Sierra Leone. I also have a ton of other examples.

Now look up this website (http://slaveryfootprint.org...). We buy things on a daily basis that support slavery... does this mean you support slavery, pl?

At 12/4/2011 11:16:48 AM, Greyparrot wrote:

At 12/4/2011 9:48:52 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

At 12/3/2011 1:20:46 PM, Danielle wrote:

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?:

Because it tends to invalidate one's position when railing about the evil wiles of outsourcing labor for cheap while simultaneously bringing in revenue to the very corporation that supports the objectionable behavior.

Socialists are programmed to think that they do not vote with their dollars, or that it doesn't matter. You really can't blame them for being ignorant PL. I wonder if they could outsouce OWS to some Chinese capitalists? That could put new life to the movement!

OSW =/= Socialists

Further they can realize that and still want to change the system.

Btw the Chinese aren't capitalist.

You are totally right the occupy idiots are costing the new york economy millions! Their just lazy @$$3$ Wanting the rich to give hem money, well occupy idiots, if you want money stop being so lazy and occupy a DESK! Work for a living you morons dont just be lazy scums living of the rich, they earned that money! So occupy, you have every right of protesting, but I disagree with you and want to make a counter protest. Occupy a job you stupid occupy idiots.

Wanna know what I really feel lol

P.S. Some of the occupy people do work for a living and that's great, but some of them need to pull their head out.

^ What an intelligent, well thought out post... ... ... ...

Thank you so much for your input. You're totally right. I see the light now.

Several media outlets reported Occupy Oakland recently voted to deposit a $20,000 donation at Wells Fargo.

"It was a heat of the moment decision over the safety of protesters who were in jail," Kevin Seal, an Occupy Oakland member, told the San Jose Mercury News. "We want to reassure people we will remove it from Wells Fargo as soon as possible."

Occupy Oakland's general assembly voted Monday to deposit the money at Wells Fargo, according to the publication.

Tim Fong, a California attorney, offered to accept the donation in his Wells Fargo client trust account.

"I could've sat back and done nothing," Fong told the publication, adding he is moving his account to a credit union. "But if there were mass arrests and people hurt, I'd feel really stupid for not doing anything."

The donation was set to be used to assist those persons who were jailed recently in connection with the clashes with police in Oakland, Calif. Occupy Oakland has said it will eventually move the funds to a credit union.

-----------------------------------------

So they decided the best course of action to save people unjustly fined and jailed (we saw how the Oakland, CA police completely brutally beat protesters for absolutely no reason). You're using that as so-called evidence against their cause. Lol, go with that. And I suppose if I can show footage of police brutality, it somehow undermines the entire purpose behind having a police force...?

http://feministing.com...

@ darkkermit and everyone else who said this was a "violent" movement... (and proving that this is the case by pointing out "violence" can refer to strong emotions... lol... yes there are certainly a lot of strong emotions here... glad that constitutes as violence... noted for future discussions).

Undercover Oakland cop comes forward and says he supports the movement and is against the police brutality being used.

http://thinkprogress.org...

At 12/4/2011 10:14:52 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
As Mongeese already mentioned, what is the point of the "protest?" Who is it directed towards? Never mind the ineffectiveness of their tactics; it's business as usual on Wall Street. I'm more interested in understanding their specific grievances, because as best I can tell, these people are mad that other people figured out how to make money. Somehow that's "unfair," of course, that's a sophomoric understanding of how fairness works, but I digress.

And as I already pointed out, the same questions mongeese raised could just as easily be asked about the Tea Party movement. I specifically asked them (conveniently they went ignored, which is an acknowledgment that my point is valid. My point was that there can almost never be consensus in a big group about all the problems let alone solutions. Since you're a Libertarian, if you support the TP movement then you recognize there are innumerable questions about their movement just as there are about OSW.

Additionally, saying protesters are sore because "people figured out how to make money" is incredibly sophmoric and ignorant. Slave owners figured out how to make money too. Does that mean people against slavery just hate capitalism? People have various gripes with the system. You're trivializing them; this is an appeal to emotion.

At 12/5/2011 8:02:40 AM, Danielle wrote:

At 12/4/2011 9:48:52 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Because it tends to invalidate one's position when railing about the evil wiles of outsourcing labor for cheap while simultaneously bringing in revenue to the very corporation that supports the objectionable behavior.

Okay, let me ask you something, pl. Do you support slavery?:

No.

The gist of this will be that I'm sure you bought your wife a nice diamond engagement ring. Where do you think diamonds come from? (Hint: watch Blood Diamond). Look up Sierra Leone. I also have a ton of other examples.

Now look up this website (http://slaveryfootprint.org...). We buy things on a daily basis that support slavery... does this mean you support slavery, pl?:

But if I know a corporation willingly and knowingly supports it, yet buy it anyway, then I am complicit in perpetuating the problem. That's the beauty of it. Boycotting these companies forces them to rectify their ill behavior or suffer the consequences of losing lots of revenue.

And as I already pointed out, the same questions mongeese raised could just as easily be asked about the Tea Party movement. I specifically asked them (conveniently they went ignored, which is an acknowledgment that my point is valid. My point was that there can almost never be consensus in a big group about all the problems let alone solutions. Since you're a Libertarian, if you support the TP movement then you recognize there are innumerable questions about their movement just as there are about OSW.:

I'm a libertarian, but I don't support the Tea Party movement. I am, however, curious of the questions you asked. I might be able to answer it.

Additionally, saying protesters are sore because "people figured out how to make money" is incredibly sophmoric and ignorant.:

That's the perception, whether it's accurate or not. I genuinely don't quite understand what their specific grievances are.

Slave owners figured out how to make money too. Does that mean people against slavery just hate capitalism?:

Non-sequitur. Are you drawing comparisons to slave owners and corporations?

People have various gripes with the system. You're trivializing them; this is an appeal to emotion.:

Well, that's part of the problem. When people throw around terms like "The System" it's often ambiguous. I am curious as to what the grievances specifically are and what they hope to gain by parading in the streets.

Please note that I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong. I just want to understand it better.

At 12/5/2011 8:03:30 AM, Danielle wrote:
Btw the Chinese aren't capitalist.

Interesting theory.

That was a pretty concise explanation of why the leader decided to use Wells Fargo temporarily to avoid harm to members in a jail environment.

The question still remains, if the protestors are not willing to suffer a night in jail, what are they willing to put up with? Why is a night in jail more aggregious to these people than McWall street?

At 12/5/2011 8:31:20 AM, Danielle wrote:
^ What an intelligent, well thought out post... ... ... ...

Thank you so much for your input. You're totally right. I see the light now.

That was showing my opinion, not a well though out post. If you want one I will gladley show you one. So thanks for your abnoxious sarcasam.

At 12/5/2011 11:11:12 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

Additionally, saying protesters are sore because "people figured out how to make money" is incredibly sophmoric and ignorant.:

That's the perception, whether it's accurate or not. I genuinely don't quite understand what their specific grievances are.

If you'd really like to know, go find out. Here's a great place to start:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Slave owners figured out how to make money too. Does that mean people against slavery just hate capitalism?:

Non-sequitur. Are you drawing comparisons to slave owners and corporations?

Yes, she clearly was, but to a very limited degree, which was not non-sequitur. Her point was that within the economic climate during the time that slavery was legal, slave owners "figured out a way to make money," but neither the legality of the practice, nor the viability of the practice to generate income while it was legal, is a logical rationale for whether it should be an accepted practice in our society.

Likewise, corporations have "figured out a way to make money" during a time that exploitation in a different way is legal, but neither the legality of the practice, nor the viability of the practice to generate income while it remains legal, is a logical rationale for whether it should be an accepted practice in our society.

People have various gripes with the system. You're trivializing them; this is an appeal to emotion.:

Well, that's part of the problem. When people throw around terms like "The System" it's often ambiguous. I am curious as to what the grievances specifically are and what they hope to gain by parading in the streets.

"The System" in this regard can be accepted as a pronoun referring to our socioeconomic construct, as I would figure is obvious.

Please note that I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong. I just want to understand it better.

If you'd really like to know, go find out. Here's a great place to start:

Wow, that was very informative. Thank you.

Yes, she clearly was, but to a very limited degree, which was not non-sequitur. Her point was that within the economic climate during the time that slavery was legal, slave owners "figured out a way to make money," but neither the legality of the practice, nor the viability of the practice to generate income while it was legal, is a logical rationale for whether it should be an accepted practice in our society.:

The disconnect is that making large sums of money is in and of itself a moral travesty to most socialists, regardless of how those funds are created, unless an exorbitant amount of money is given towards taxes or donations.

My school of thought says that private charity is a wonderful thing when done of their own volition, but that "taking" money in order to "give" it to someone else is not really giving... that's theft.

Likewise, corporations have "figured out a way to make money" during a time that exploitation in a different way is legal, but neither the legality of the practice, nor the viability of the practice to generate income while it remains legal, is a logical rationale for whether it should be an accepted practice in our society.:

The common man is not indefensible from predatory practices within crony capitalism. I remain steadfast on my initial point that if you take strong exception to the unethical practices of a corporation, then boycott them altogether. But please don't buy an iPad, if you think it was manufactured in a third world sweatshop, only to turn around and bitch about it. Kind of defeats the purpose.

"The System" in this regard can be accepted as a pronoun referring to our socioeconomic construct, as I would figure is obvious.:

And it should be substituted for what?

I'm trying Danielle but....I just can't. I can't give the OWS crowd any respect. Listen I'm not naive, I know the corporations don't give two flying fucks about me. Something needs to be done. But I've always been a huge believer in "If you're going to do something, do it right" OWS is never going to succeed. The more i read, the less impressed and supportive I am. And it was doomed from the start. Because they've made this about money. You can not, will not, get people to give up money. Everyone in this thread, if you were a billionaire you'd be selfish and greedy. I know this is the internet so most people are going to reply" Omg i wouldn't. I would share". Shut up. You're a liar. Science says we're greedy people and you can't beat science. Now the fact that we are all greedy still doesn't make it OK but they should have made this about the governments failure to protect us. Not people being greedy.

At 12/6/2011 2:33:11 AM, MarquisX wrote:
I know the corporations don't give two flying fucks about me. Something needs to be done.

Most corporations cannot be successful without doing something good to people. I think people heavily undervalue the moral aspect of the success of corporations.

At 12/5/2011 8:50:47 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The disconnect is that making large sums of money is in and of itself a moral travesty to most socialists, regardless of how those funds are created, unless an exorbitant amount of money is given towards taxes or donations.

See, that's a pretty extremist perspective. I figure that, generally speaking, belief and perspective falls along a bell curve in terms of its distribution. What I mean is, there is a minority with both very conservative and liberal views regarding a belief system or perspective, with the vast majority falling somewhere in the middle.

Therefore, if we're referring to the average perspective regarding OWS and others who see something wrong with the system, then socialism is irrelevant. Sure, socialists agree, but so do libertarians.

My school of thought says that private charity is a wonderful thing when done of their own volition, but that "taking" money in order to "give" it to someone else is not really giving... that's theft.

That depends on where your values lay. My school of thought relies on balance between majority and individual benefit. It is most logical, and thus, what I consider most moral.

To explain, I do, of course, want what's best for me and my loved ones. However, both (most) of my loved ones and I are dependent on the state of this society in general. The general state of this society depends on how cooperatively we work toward a general benefit. Therefore, what's best for me is also what's best for my society, to a degree. That doesn't mean that we should become an anthill, but that also doesn't mean that I can possibly agree with exploitation.

The common man is not indefensible from predatory practices within crony capitalism. I remain steadfast on my initial point that if you take strong exception to the unethical practices of a corporation, then boycott them altogether.

Someone already mentioned this -- that's an irrational perspective. It isn't really possible to "boycott corporations" in a corporate global economy. Your best bet is to move somewhere else. However, it sounds more practical to assume you can somehow lobby for a system that doesn't benefit those already in a favorable position.

But please don't buy an iPad, if you think it was manufactured in a third world sweatshop, only to turn around and bitch about it. Kind of defeats the purpose.

You do realize, that's subversive. Instead of compromising the stability of the economy, corporate leaders and management can ensure that ethical and legislative standards are upheld, thereby ensuring that the economy ends up in a better position. Wouldn't that make more sense?

"The System" in this regard can be accepted as a pronoun referring to our socioeconomic construct, as I would figure is obvious.:

And it should be substituted for what?

What?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com......

Great link Ren.

I was drawn to the part where they wanted corporations to stop meddling in politics.

Sounds like the same old case of prostitution, do you go after the prostitutes, or the people that buy prostitutes?

I say lets slap the hoes around and get em off the street. Abolish all consecutive terms, and that will really give these corporations very little incentive to throw the big bucks around to those prostitutes in Washington for starters.

At 12/5/2011 11:11:12 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I'm a libertarian, but I don't support the Tea Party movement. I am, however, curious of the questions you asked. I might be able to answer it.

That's the thing - You won't be able to answer them, because you'd only be able to give your own opinion and answers to the questions (some of them included whether or not the TP was against all government services or just social welfare, what they wanted to replace government services with, etc.). Similarly, talk to someone from OSW and you will only hear one perspective. You will hear what that individual in particular disliked most, and what they suggest as an alternative. You can't criticize the movement for the answer of one person.

That's the perception, whether it's accurate or not. I genuinely don't quite understand what their specific grievances are.

And that's the problem. There is no doubt that OSW is completely vague. My problem are with the same bullsh!t criticisms I hear day in and day out (Oh but they're using iPads... Oh but they're just jobless hippies... Oh this generation is just so spoiled... Oh but capitalism is just so totally obviously the best... etc.). In order for a movement to be successful, even with conflict within the movement there has to be some specific problem and some SPECIFIC solution or goal they are trying to achieve, and that's the whole benefit of strength in numbers hence the reason for a movement in the first place. This is what OSW lacks. It doesn't mean their overall message is stupid; there is clearly a problem with the way our government and economy is run... and it certainly doesn't mean they should be getting all this backlash of both police brutality and public bashing (which is sooo ridiculous, IMO... stand up for your right to protest, regardless of your beliefs!!!).

Non-sequitur. Are you drawing comparisons to slave owners and corporations?

No, Ren explained my point. Thanks Ren.

Well, that's part of the problem. When people throw around terms like "The System" it's often ambiguous. I am curious as to what the grievances specifically are and what they hope to gain by parading in the streets.

Please note that I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong. I just want to understand it better.

I appreciate your open-mindedness. You are not wrong at all in pointing out the obvious problems (lack of clear resolution). I think at this point a lot of the problems are obvious, and the potential solutions are just a bit hazy. The main problem I think is the blatant corruption between politicians and Wall Street. In another thread I am going to post a link to a great documentary called Inside Job. I hope you watch it, or at least read my post (I'll get into more detail there).