If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Jay-Z confused by Occupy Wall Street, 'What are you fighting for?'   (nydailynews.com) divider line 434
    More: Amusing, Occupy Wall Street, Jay Z, Russell Simmons, fixed rate mortgage, Zuccotti Park, demonization  
•       •       •

15635 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Sep 2012 at 5:59 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



434 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-09 07:06:23 PM

Mr. Carpenter: SweetSaws: Because People in power are Stupid: [treygivens.com image 497x327]

"weaponized" tear gas, because it's normally not used as a weapon

There is a big difference between civilian and military grade "tear gas." Most people who use "weaponized" to describe the difference between the two are drawing attention to the fact that police are using a much, much, much more potent weapon than something you could buy over the counter.


Maybe call it "prescription strength"?
 
2012-09-09 07:06:44 PM

cman: Awesome post. Enjoy


Mahalo!
 
2012-09-09 07:07:01 PM

joshiz: rocky_howard: And now that we're at it, Capitalism doesn't "produce" these things. People do. It's a fallacy to say capitalism is responsible for that.

You are getting it twisted. I'm saying it's hypocritical to protest against corporate profits using your MacBook Pro or Twitter - without the system you are railing against, those things would not be possible.


And that's where you're flat wrong. You're missing the forest for the trees. Humankind can produce things without capitalism, y'know?


Also, saying they shouldn't use things made by capitalism to protest is a weak argument considering they live in a capitalist society. So they should renounce to the mediums available just because it doesn't comply with your fictional moral quandary? What? America shouldn't have used the rocketry and scientist taken from Nazi Germany?

Tools are neutral and they exist to be used. Not the protesters problem Capitalism made them.
 
2012-09-09 07:07:12 PM

ScreamingHangover: Welcome to the real world, you little snowflakes. This crap happens all the time, and in the end, there will be no "participant" medals passed out to anyone who showed up.


We get it, you're angry because your wife wont sleep with you and you're too low rent to have a secretary on the side. Deal with your issues on your own time.

/At least as relevant as your comment.
//At least as well sourced.
///Far more likely to actually be part of reality.
 
2012-09-09 07:08:00 PM

joshiz: rocky_howard: Capitalism produces tomatoes. Am I going to stop eating tomatoes because of it?

The earth produced tomatoes
silicon
long before there was capitalism.


or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.

/take your pick
 
2012-09-09 07:08:06 PM
i'm educated, but i don't really know what its about either.
 
2012-09-09 07:08:47 PM

beer4breakfast: And yet some are surprised when people say capitalism has failed to raise the bulk of the population in this country?


The 1% don't want the "rising tide to lift all boats", they just want that tide to lift their yachts.
With enough money, singularly or in groups, that tide can be controlled.
This is what OWS is against... too few people controlling way too much of that water.
 
2012-09-09 07:11:08 PM

FreetardoRivera: ScreamingHangover: rewind2846: FTA: "He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American."

While he knows how to make money (most crack dealers do), he should really take some time to read a few newspapers from say 2000 onwards.
No one is 'demonizing' the rich. Plenty of rich people out there who don't catch flack because they are not greedy amoral assholes. Plenty of poor amoral assholes out there as well, but the rich ones do more damage.

Here's a hint Jay-Z - take some time and sit down with your friend and fellow businessman Russell Simmons, and let him explain all this to you. It may take awhile, but it may also break you out of the bubble you seem to be in. Remember how it was when you were hustling the streets, and you will remember how the 99% feels now.

Here's a hint OWS: if you can't get someone who grew up in the projects to understand what you're doing, the problem is with you, not the other guy. .


or he is just a really really stupid monkey


Wow, dude.

Go fark yourself
 
2012-09-09 07:12:06 PM

rewind2846: beer4breakfast: And yet some are surprised when people say capitalism has failed to raise the bulk of the population in this country?

The 1% don't want the "rising tide to lift all boats", they just want that tide to lift their yachts.
With enough money, singularly or in groups, that tide can be controlled.
This is what OWS is against... too few people controlling way too much of that water.


Do they have a viable solution...or are they just against it?
 
2012-09-09 07:12:52 PM
cman:
ScreamingHangover: cman: There are a lot of racists in the tea party. Surely they do not represent the Tea Party like these anti-capitalists do, right?


And here are plenty of racists in OWS.

I never said that there weren't. The point I was trying to convey to Jim was that if OWS is anti-capitalist movement then surely he would have to admit that the Tea Party movement is racist.

Nope. False equivalency is false, on several different levels at once. I understand you're trying to make a point with VERY shaky evidence, but, please, do try harder.
 
2012-09-09 07:14:10 PM

RembrandtQEinstein: three step process to make this country work better

all the numbers are napkin math so substitute whatever smart people thing is right, the idea is the important part

1. ~10-15% duty on all currency leaving the country, no duty on goods.
2. abolish all federal income taxes including corporate and payroll taxes
3. create a national property tax equal to somewhere between 1-2% of the value of the goods calculated monthly and paid annually. Property would include all real property such as land, buildings, and equipment. It would also include all intellectual property including copyrights, patents, and trademarks which are enforced by the government. And it would also include investment vehicles such as stocks, bonds, tbills etc.

It is possible to calculate this national property tax to be revenue neutral with the current tax system, the only change will be in who pays. There would be no distinction between corporate owned property and individually owned property. There would be no loopholes because ownership of anything of real value is generally easy to trace. There would be no difference between foreign owned property and citizen owned property. If the property has the protection of the government then the tax is paid.

This tax is fair in that the number one function of government is to enforce property rights. Those who own more property use this function more therefore should spend more to finance the government in absolute terms. But everybody except the very poor use this function to some extent so everyone pays for it.

The one issue I can think of is the land value of farms is much greater than the value of the food produced on them. I don't know a good solution to that. Maybe a deferment where property tax is accumulated but not collected until the land is transferred to a non-relative or until the land use is transferred to something other than food production.


Its indirect taxation...I like this. As far as the farmers go, the solution would likely use a value as if it were not being used for farming. My question to you on this is how to handle depreciation.
 
2012-09-09 07:14:44 PM

GeneralJim: cman: ScreamingHangover: cman: There are a lot of racists in the tea party. Surely they do not represent the Tea Party like these anti-capitalists do, right?


And here are plenty of racists in OWS.

I never said that there weren't. The point I was trying to convey to Jim was that if OWS is anti-capitalist movement then surely he would have to admit that the Tea Party movement is racist.
Nope. False equivalency is false, on several different levels at once. I understand you're trying to make a point with VERY shaky evidence, but, please, do try harder.


THis is why I wish fark had an edit button.

I quoted myself and elaborated on what I said


I never said that there weren't. The point I was trying to convey to Jim was that if OWS is an anti-capitalist movement because they have a lot of anti-capitalists then surely he would have to admit that the Tea Party movement is racist because the Tea Party has a lot of racists.
 
2012-09-09 07:17:28 PM

RembrandtQEinstein: three step process to make this country work better

all the numbers are napkin math so substitute whatever smart people thing is right, the idea is the important part

1. ~10-15% duty on all currency leaving the country, no duty on goods.


If that means I don't have to read any more comments on Amazon that "You can get it cheaper from Amazon UK", then I'm all for it.
 
2012-09-09 07:18:58 PM

GeneralJim: So, you're saying that you PREFER a system that is MUCH more efficient at producing abject poverty and environmental abuse, and MUCH less efficient at producing consumer goods and food? Interesting choice.


Nope. Never said that. Award yourself no points. Plus the "Communism competing directly against Capitalism" is another whole different discussion. The Soviet Union was farked right from the start. It was an un-winnable battle. Capitalism had the two biggest advantages: (1) It could produce much more resources at a faster rate and (2) the capitalism PR is much easier to accept once you start enjoying the fruits of the system (like eating a Big Mac whenever you want and having air conditioner). Comfort begets complacence, as any rags to riches person can attest. Heck, we're in a thread about one of them.

I don't know if I'm a capitalist if capitalism is what's presented by the WallStreeters.

I believe in free enterprise. I also believe in big government, at least for key areas like education and health.
I believe in people having paid jobs. I also believe in companies sharing the benefits with the workers beyond the simple salary, not just the owner keeping everything (granted, the owner/founder still should get the bigger part due to his initial investment)
I don't believe in the stock market and I think it's the single largest scam in history.
I believe in scaled taxes where the more you earn, the higher rate you pay.
I believe in other things too.
 
2012-09-09 07:19:26 PM

rewind2846: beer4breakfast: And yet some are surprised when people say capitalism has failed to raise the bulk of the population in this country?

The 1% don't want the "rising tide to lift all boats", they just want that tide to lift their yachts.
With enough money, singularly or in groups, that tide can be controlled.
This is what OWS is against... too few people controlling way too much of that water.


Shouldn't that mean global warming is a good thing, creating more water for regular people? Lex Luthor should be a hero, he was going to give the low income families million dollar homes with a nice waterfront view in Superman.
 
2012-09-09 07:22:29 PM

cman: FreetardoRivera: ScreamingHangover: rewind2846: FTA: "He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American."

While he knows how to make money (most crack dealers do), he should really take some time to read a few newspapers from say 2000 onwards.
No one is 'demonizing' the rich. Plenty of rich people out there who don't catch flack because they are not greedy amoral assholes. Plenty of poor amoral assholes out there as well, but the rich ones do more damage.

Here's a hint Jay-Z - take some time and sit down with your friend and fellow businessman Russell Simmons, and let him explain all this to you. It may take awhile, but it may also break you out of the bubble you seem to be in. Remember how it was when you were hustling the streets, and you will remember how the 99% feels now.

Here's a hint OWS: if you can't get someone who grew up in the projects to understand what you're doing, the problem is with you, not the other guy. .


or he is just a really really stupid monkey

Wow, dude.

Go fark yourself


then why did you just send me a private message saying "lol he is a monkey" ?
 
2012-09-09 07:24:25 PM
If he asked me what I was fighting for, I'd answer him - in broken english.
 
2012-09-09 07:26:51 PM

rocky_howard: The Soviet Union was farked right from the start. It was an un-winnable battle. Capitalism had the two biggest advantages: (1) It could produce much more resources at a faster rate and (2) the capitalism PR is much easier to accept once you start enjoying the fruits of the system (like eating a Big Mac whenever you want and having air conditioner).


Yes, that was the point.

I also believe in companies sharing the benefits with the workers beyond the simple salary, not just the owner keeping everything

I take that to imply that you are against freedom of contract?

I don't believe in the stock market and I think it's the single largest scam in history.

You sound like a creationist. Not that you'll understand why.

I believe in other things too.

That wasn't a complete list?
 
2012-09-09 07:27:10 PM

BMFPitt:
rewind2846: No one is 'demonizing' the rich.

There's 2-3 threads on Fark that do just that.


Go back and read the threads (I'm assuming that at least one of them is the Australian millionaire pig thread). She and those like her are not being "demonized" because they are rich. They are catching flack because they're assholes. Rich assholes can do more damage to others than poor assholes.

Most folks like me don't care how much money you have, what car you drive (or have driven for you), where you live or how many russian fish eggs you eat every day with your eggs. None of that affects me in the slightest, unless I'm in the business of selling you cars, houses, bank accounts or caviar. It's when you decide to be all assholey with that money that I become concerned, the Koch brothers being one of the more egregious examples these days.

If all this was about "demonizing the rich", then what about all those rich people like Ellison and Gates and Branson and Soros and Buffett and Zuckerberg and Ballmer who don't catch flack, and the Walton(s), Adelson, Kochs, and others like the Australian PigB*tch who do? Seeing a pattern here?

If you're rich, be thankful for what you have. If you were given that money and didn't earn it, be even more so.
Don't sh*t on those who don't have what you do, help them get where you are.
 
2012-09-09 07:29:32 PM

rocky_howard: Tools are neutral and they exist to be used.


Technology in and of itself is neutral but the specific tools are not.

rocky_howard: You're missing the forest for the trees. Humankind can produce things without capitalism, y'know?


Yes, we have and we do.

But not the specific things I mentioned. OWS would simply not have existed as it did without social media. Social media would not have existed without capitalism. See my example above regarding writing.

Another example: when I was in college, a group was protesting cutting trees by putting up thousands of posters all over campus. That is inherently hypocritical.

rocky_howard: saying they shouldn't use things made by capitalism to protest is a weak argument considering they live in a capitalist society.


You've just made my point. If you don't see the hypocrisy in that I can't help you.
 
2012-09-09 07:31:05 PM

joshiz: doyner: OWS wanted that paradigm to be dismantled.

How's that working out for you?

I'm really not trying to be snarky but to my point above, it doesn't seem like there was ever a clear strategy on how to get there.


If they're smart, they will try again with a more substantial agenda. It's a learning experience as all the ones with heavy protest experience are working for the very companies being protested against.
 
2012-09-09 07:31:10 PM
cman:
I never said that there weren't. The point I was trying to convey to Jim was that if OWS is an anti-capitalist movement because they have a lot of anti-capitalists then surely he would have to admit that the Tea Party movement is racist because the Tea Party has a lot of racists.

And, once more, you miss the point. The OWS movement is NOT anti-capitalist because some of the people attached to it are anti-capitalist, it is anti-capitalist (and pro-Marxist) because the founders of the movement made it that way.
 
2012-09-09 07:32:50 PM

Silly Jesus: rewind2846: beer4breakfast: And yet some are surprised when people say capitalism has failed to raise the bulk of the population in this country?

The 1% don't want the "rising tide to lift all boats", they just want that tide to lift their yachts.
With enough money, singularly or in groups, that tide can be controlled.
This is what OWS is against... too few people controlling way too much of that water.

Do they have a viable solution...or are they just against it?


ridiculous question, if the people were represented effectively the tide would "lift all boats." Do you have a viable solution to the tide, or are you just against it?
 
2012-09-09 07:34:29 PM

joshiz: rocky_howard: Tools are neutral and they exist to be used.

Technology in and of itself is neutral but the specific tools are not.

rocky_howard: You're missing the forest for the trees. Humankind can produce things without capitalism, y'know?

Yes, we have and we do.

But not the specific things I mentioned. OWS would simply not have existed as it did without social media. Social media would not have existed without capitalism. See my example above regarding writing.

Another example: when I was in college, a group was protesting cutting trees by putting up thousands of posters all over campus. That is inherently hypocritical.

rocky_howard: saying they shouldn't use things made by capitalism to protest is a weak argument considering they live in a capitalist society.

You've just made my point. If you don't see the hypocrisy in that I can't help you.


Maybe they were protesting certain aspects of capitalism, like the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, and not the entirety of capitalism. I know, it's hard to imagine for some people who like to make up stupid shiat to discredit others.

Having a problem with some aspects of capitalism doesn't equal "GIVE UP ALL THE PRODUCTS MADE BY CAPITALISM!!".
 
2012-09-09 07:36:21 PM
He understood a fast buck when he made the Occupy All Streets t-shirts he was hawking during the New York protests. I believe he applied for a copyright on the term.

/lying asshell.
 
2012-09-09 07:37:00 PM

fark'emfeed'emfish: or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.


Then use non-capitalistic computers do your family-owned social media organizing. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

Say what you want about the efficacy of the hippies, but when they advocated 'dropping out' of society, they meant it and did it. You have to live by example, otherwise no one will take you seriously.
 
2012-09-09 07:39:22 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Maybe they were protesting certain aspects of capitalism, like the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, and not the entirety of capitalism. I know, it's hard to imagine for some people who like to make up stupid shiat to discredit others.


The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich. The poor keep getting poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor. Poverty is a mental illness. Not flaming, not trolling, I seriously believe that. I've been in poverty and I've gotten out. I've had friends who've gotten out and I've had friends who haven't. There are some pretty stark contrasts in what I an others like me have done to get out and what those still there have done and continue to do. And what I have done isn't anything that would be considered immoral / greedy etc.
 
2012-09-09 07:41:54 PM

joshiz: fark'emfeed'emfish: or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.

Then use non-capitalistic computers do your family-owned social media organizing. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

Say what you want about the efficacy of the hippies, but when they advocated 'dropping out' of society, they meant it and did it. You have to live by example, otherwise no one will take you seriously.


1.bp.blogspot.com

I understand that it's a little impractical for them to try to get their message out in today's world without using a corporate camera etc., but at the same time it does take away from the message a little bit. The hypocrisy can't be completely ignored.
 
2012-09-09 07:42:14 PM

BMFPitt:
I take that to imply that you are against freedom of contract?


You seem to love to imply stuff on the things people say. Bad habit. That has little to nothing to do with "freedom of contract".
Wanting more benefits for the workers is being against "freedom of contract"? I love how you try to attach the word freedom to your argument as a way to instantly paint yourself as the good guy. Because, how can anyone be against FREEDOM!!?!?!?!

You sound like a creationist. Not that you'll understand why.

Don't worry, you sound like a sycophant cocksucker, and you'll understand why (since you have experience with how a sycophantic cocksucker sounds like)

That wasn't a complete list?

Nope, why?
 
2012-09-09 07:43:03 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Maybe they were protesting certain aspects of capitalism, like the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, and not the entirety of capitalism. I know, it's hard to imagine for some people who like to make up stupid shiat to discredit others.

Having a problem with some aspects of capitalism doesn't equal "GIVE UP ALL THE PRODUCTS MADE BY CAPITALISM!!".


I agree. I have a problem with some aspects of capitalism. I don't disagree with the main points of OWS. They just didn't go about it in a way that had any chance of affecting positive change.
 
2012-09-09 07:43:41 PM

Silly Jesus: Because People in power are Stupid: [treygivens.com image 497x327]

Ooh, ooh, I know the answer....

What is, the Tea Partiers weren't breaking any laws, Alex?


Also, the Tea Partiers weren't crapping in buckets and throwing it in the streets. (As someone who has to walk to work, that scores high on my list.)
 
2012-09-09 07:45:37 PM

joshiz:

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.



As I mentioned earlier, OWS is not an "anti capitalism" movement, they are anti-abuse of power and opposed to the centralization of wealth and influence.

Centralization of wealth is not a necessary feature of capitalism, and neither is abuse of power. It is possible to criticize abuse of the financial system without criticizing the existence of that system.

It is not at all hypocritical to use the products of capitalism to critique abuse and inequality.
 
2012-09-09 07:45:38 PM

Beaver Knievel: Silly Jesus: Because People in power are Stupid: [treygivens.com image 497x327]

Ooh, ooh, I know the answer....

What is, the Tea Partiers weren't breaking any laws, Alex?

Also, the Tea Partiers weren't crapping in buckets and throwing it in the streets. (As someone who has to walk to work, that scores high on my list.)


You mean that doesn't build credibility?
 
2012-09-09 07:46:06 PM

Silly Jesus: but at the same time it does take away from the message a little bit. The hypocrisy can't be completely ignored.


You said it a lot better than I did.
 
2012-09-09 07:46:32 PM

BeSerious: joshiz: doyner: OWS wanted that paradigm to be dismantled.

How's that working out for you?

I'm really not trying to be snarky but to my point above, it doesn't seem like there was ever a clear strategy on how to get there.

The strategy was fine, OWS just forgot who was going to be the ones showing them in whatever light they chose on television.
Nothing will ever change and the 1% will rule us until the end of days.


Yes blame the media! Bc the vast majority of reporters & editors aren't as broke & screwed over as the homeless people in OWS!

A lot of reporters would be down there with you fighting for equality if it wasn't a conflict of interest.

/get a clue
 
2012-09-09 07:48:11 PM

FloydA: Centralization of wealth is not a necessary feature of capitalism, and neither is abuse of power. It is possible to criticize abuse of the financial system without criticizing the existence of that system.

It is not at all hypocritical to use the products of capitalism to critique abuse and inequality.


That I can get down with. Unfortunately, that point was not made very clearly during the time of the OWS protests.
 
2012-09-09 07:48:44 PM

FloydA: joshiz:

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.



As I mentioned earlier, OWS is not an "anti capitalism" movement, they are anti-abuse of power and opposed to the centralization of wealth and influence.

Centralization of wealth is not a necessary feature of capitalism, and neither is abuse of power. It is possible to criticize abuse of the financial system without criticizing the existence of that system.

It is not at all hypocritical to use the products of capitalism to critique abuse and inequality.


Have they presented any viable solutions or is the extent of their goals to draw attention to the existence of said problems?
 
2012-09-09 07:49:20 PM
Thanks for the lively discussion all...one of the best ones I have had on TF/Fark. I gotta run...
 
2012-09-09 07:50:06 PM

FloydA: joshiz: cman: Problem is is that others took this movement and piled on their own causes instead of just sticking with the original idea. Thats where OWS lost the war.

I'll take that.

FloydA: OWS is not a protest against capitalism, so your critique doesn't have quite the strength that it might.

Ok, fair enough. Then answer Jay-Z's question: What are you fighting for?

Me? I'm not part of OWS. (I'm mainly fighting to get my students to avoid TXTSPEEK in their term papers, and it's a losing battle.)

OWS? They are fighting for regulations that would decentralize the concentration of power and influence from the banks and a few corporations to the broader population of citizens. They have a number of specific grievances, but they all boil down to the fact that, due to an extreme concentration of wealth, the boards of directors of a few banks and multinational corporations exert influence over the political, judicial, and regulatory systems in this country (and elsewhere) that is far in excess of their numbers, and in doing so, they subvert the democratic process.

For the past year, the corporate media have been repeating the claim that OWS doesn't have a coherent message, and now Jay-Z is repeating the same line, but that claim has never been accurate. They've been quite clear what the movement is about.

(There are, of course, other people who show up wanting to advocate for other issues. At any protest of sufficient size, there are going to be people who jump in and try to get their pet causes attached to a larger movement. But those hangers on do not alter the central message of the movement.)


Ask OWS protesters what they are protesting. Each one will give you a different answer.
 
2012-09-09 07:50:47 PM

cman: OWS folk had good intentions when they started out. They had a clear goal, to make the Wallstreet bankers pay for all the misery that OWS perceived that the bankers brought. Problem is is that others took this movement and piled on their own causes instead of just sticking with the original idea. Thats where OWS lost the war.


So much THIS.

I walked by the Occupy people up in Portland, OR months ago, and it looked like a bunch of transients, punks, and hippies just hanging out ( and dirtying up) a park to me. No organization and no focus.

/ contrast OWS to the Jacobins of the French Revolution
// IIRC , the Jacobins started out as a group of wealthy and influential men
 
2012-09-09 07:52:03 PM

joshiz:
Technology in and of itself is neutral but the specific tools are not.


Uh, yes they are. Cops use guns. Criminals use guns. Nazis uses guns. Allied used guns. Guns don't kill people, people do.

But not the specific things I mentioned. OWS would simply not have existed as it did without social media. Social media would not have existed without capitalism. See my example above regarding writing.

Social media could have existed without capitalism. Monetizing is the only reason people create stuff? No. (Not that monetizing is bad.)
Torrents exist without capitalism.

Another example: when I was in college, a group was protesting cutting trees by putting up thousands of posters all over campus. That is inherently hypocritical.

Ok. And? It's not a comparable situation. Also, you mean hypocritical because they were using paper? Were they protesting cutting trees at all, or a specific set of trees?

You've just made my point. If you don't see the hypocrisy in that I can't help you.

So they shouldn't do anything? That's a nice way for capitalism to ensure its eternal permanency on Earth. "Hey, don't do shiat against me since I created the tools you use to destroy me."

Also, what kind of values do you have that you put a perceived technical hypocrisy above the well being of the population? What's your stance on fighting a war to achieve peace? Do you find that hypocritical too?
 
2012-09-09 07:52:28 PM
The OWS protests have strong correlations to the Earth First! protests of the 90s.
 
2012-09-09 07:53:43 PM

dustman81: Ask OWS protesters what they are protesting. Each one will give you a different answer.


Ding! Ding! Ding!
 
2012-09-09 07:56:02 PM

FloydA: joshiz:

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.



As I mentioned earlier, OWS is not an "anti capitalism" movement, they are anti-abuse of power and opposed to the centralization of wealth and influence.

Centralization of wealth is not a necessary feature of capitalism, and neither is abuse of power. It is possible to criticize abuse of the financial system without criticizing the existence of that system.

It is not at all hypocritical to use the products of capitalism to critique abuse and inequality.


Exactly. This is the core point. The "job creators" equate centralization and abuse of power as inherent to capitalism as a way to shield themselves from criticism.

They also tend to believe socioeconomical inequality is the natural state of things and that we shouldn't do anything to mitigate its effects.
 
2012-09-09 07:57:58 PM
Everyone says what occupy was for is really what they were saying what they wanted occupy to be for. A lot of them are good ideas, but seriously, there was nobody who spoke for the movement. There was nobody to truly help advocate their positions. It was truly just rage. Very legitimate rage, but just unfocused. It really boils down to having nobody in the political system to advocate for them. A true failing of the two party system.
 
2012-09-09 08:01:02 PM

ScreamingHangover:
Welcome to the real world, you little snowflakes. This crap happens all the time, and in the end, there will be no "participant" medals passed out to anyone who showed up.


Being intentionally obtuse is not a good thing, whether you're from the projects or from a gated neighborhood. Someone's "presentation" should have nothing to do with their intent or their message, for anyone who is smart enough to actually listen, think, then listen again. The corporate media, whose job it was NOT to understand, didn't help much in this regard... but as the words of a popular song go, "when you own the information, you can bend it all you want".

BTW, there were a lot of people not only protesting but supporting OWS who are long past the "snowflake" euphemism you chose to use. They are people with homes, families and jobs, but they (unlike you) seem to have awakened to the fact that a very small group of people is f*cking them with a very big dick made of thousand dollar bills.

You'll get it once your prostate ruptures. Enjoy the push.
 
2012-09-09 08:02:17 PM
Just like the Tea Party, the individuals involved probably had a relatively diverse view of what they were protesting. Some were protesting all corporations (and were probably fairly hypocritical in doing so, as some have pointed out), others would have been protesting the specific financial practices which lead to the big bust and public bailouts. A lot of Tea Party supporters demand smaller government and less interventionist policy, but would oppose any actions which actually had negative consequences for their own communities (ie their state should not cop a loss of federal funding, just everyone else's).

Here in Australia, we had a very conservative government from 1996 to 2007. I was actively opposed to it. But they did some good things I must acknowledge. One of these was some relatively minor regulation of the banking sector, by establishing an independent financial services regulator. Australia's banks survived the crash much better than most, although our investment banks went backwards like everyone else's. Combine that with some well-targeted stimulus measures and our unemployment is lower than most of the developed world, and although just like everyone else we're feeling some pain, it's not as marked as in most countries.

The Obama government should have a good look at Australia's financial regulation system. It seems to have held up better than most systems in recent times, and was introduced by a government well to Obama's right, so he could presumably sell it with a good rebuttal for the inevitable "socialist" criticisms.
 
2012-09-09 08:05:22 PM

dustman81:

Ask OWS protesters what they are protesting. Each one will give you a different answer.


You've asked them all? Impressive.
 
2012-09-09 08:07:38 PM

FloydA: dustman81:

Ask OWS protesters what they are protesting. Each one will give you a different answer.

You've asked them all? Impressive.


Nope, didn't have time. I was working and being productive.
 
2012-09-09 08:07:57 PM

Silly Jesus: joshiz: fark'emfeed'emfish: or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.

Then use non-capitalistic computers do your family-owned social media organizing. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

Say what you want about the efficacy of the hippies, but when they advocated 'dropping out' of society, they meant it and did it. You have to live by example, otherwise no one will take you seriously.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 560x376]

I understand that it's a little impractical for them to try to get their message out in today's world without using a corporate camera etc., but at the same time it does take away from the message a little bit. The hypocrisy can't be completely ignored.


If you drive a car, you better never complain about the gas prices. Not even under your breath. It would be hypocritical. Cause lord knows, if you use a product, you are in complete agreement with all of the practices involved with with said corporation.

/When was the message to destroy all corporations and live like cavemen?
 
Displayed 50 of 434 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report