Support NeoGAF

[badcrumble]

http://studentactivism.net/2011/10/27/ows-popularity/

Occupy Wall Street Is More Popular Than Civil Rights or Feminist Movements In their Heyday

A recent CBS poll found that 43% of Americans agree with the views of Occupy Wall Street, with only 27% disagreeing. (Other polls have found similar sentiments.) But what do these numbers mean?

Here’s some historical context:

In 1959, five years after Brown v. Board of Ed, a 53-37 majority of Americans thought the decision had “caused a lot more trouble than it was worth.”
In 1961, Americans believed by a 57-28 margin that civil rights demonstrations were doing more harm than good to the cause of integration.
In October 1964, some 57% of Americans thought racial integration was moving “too fast,” and only 18% thought it wasn’t moving fast enough.
In 1971, a national poll found only 39% percent of Americans “sympathetic … with efforts of the women’s liberation groups,” with 47% unsympathetic.
That’s right. More Americans support Occupy Wall Street than supported Brown v. Board of Ed in 1959, the civil rights movement in 1961, desegregation in 1964, or feminism in 1971.

Oh, and here’s one more: In 1948, Americans disapproved of “women of any age wearing slacks in public” by a 39-34 margin.

Yep. OWS is more popular today than pants on women was 63 years ago.

 

[Dash27]

I think the movement is heading for backlash too actually. Might not happen but these recent attempts to remove the protesters and the subsequent refusals combined with no end game scenario for OWS makes it look to me like there's trouble ahead.

Mayors are dealing with the mess being made, the costs involved in policing, the residents being upset about the noise in places like NYC... not to mention the fact that laws are being essentially suspended to allow the protests to stay in the parks overnight.

Maybe it all works out and they can find a compromise but that's certainly no foregone conclusion.

If this does come down to tear gas by the cops and protesters throwing bottles, suddenly the people only casually aware of whats going on will start to ask questions. Images of european style "protests" with masked kids trashing things and fighting with cops wont play well for anyone involved.

 

[Enron]

Enron and Manos predicting widespread backlash against OWS

I'm literally laughed out loud

Im not really predicting a widespread BACKLASH, but rather the public will grow weary of it. Atlanta is an example; it's already happened here.

 

[alstein]

And that will only further alienate the general public from their cause.

Until they're the majority of the general public: They're already at 46%.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Sounds like you're in a kindergarten. We'll see what the students will think when they actually start up a business and wether "helping the community" will interest them in the slightest (it won't).

And what, pray tell, do you do that gives you the right to deride the experiences of my peers and I? To dismiss the arguments of my teachers, some of whom spent 20+ years will companies like P&G?

Well said. I'd like to add that Finance courses are also very much aware of the problems of the latest crisis (even if they're probably much more "profit" oriented). In fact, my Capital Markets teacher mentioned the OWS movement as a relevant trend.
BTW, "sustainable business" practices aren't against profit - in fact, they're a way of maximizing profit. The notion that short sighted profit seeking is bad for long term company goals is accepted by almost everyone.

It's a way of maximizing profit for the long run, something that doesn't suit rapid-fire traders and brokers very well.

Fortunately, a lot of finance students get the causes of the crisis in 2008 and advocate smart regulation. There's always that one guy, though...

 

[empty vessel]

And what, pray tell, do you do that gives you the right to deride the experiences of my peers and I? To dismiss the arguments of my teachers, some of whom spent 20+ years will companies like P&G?

It's a way of maximizing profit for the long run, something that doesn't suit rapid-fire traders and brokers very well.

Fortunately, a lot of finance students get the causes of the crisis in 2008 and advocate smart regulation. There's always that one guy, though...

One thing to keep in mind is that the law as currently written in most states--probably all states, but I cannot guarantee the accuracy of that--imposes fiduciary duties on the corporate form to maximize profits for shareholders. These laws must be repealed, and we must return to imposing public interest requirements on corporations. After all, we created them to serve the greater good in the first place. If they cannot serve the greater good, the corporate form is useless to us and we shouldn't use it. I happen to think that the corporate form can do us good, but we have to reassert our control over it.

In short, I agree with you very much about your business philosophy, but the current legal landscape--which is much altered from the landscape that existed historically vis-a-vis corporate governance--is an obstacle.

http://studentactivism.net/2011/10/27/ows-popularity/

Ha. Good find. People forget that those movements were needed to overcome entrenched status quos. The civil rights movement, for example, was aimed specifically at obtaining political gains (minority rights) for a political minority, which is necessarily going to face fairly stiff public opposition. OWS, by contrast, is targeting the subject of popular discontent and genuinely represents the interests of a political majority (whether some in that majority understand it or not). In may ways, it should have an easier row to hoe. Let's hope that the public support continues and even increases. Indeed, let's hope that there eventually is no discernible difference between the two (which I think is already further along than many think).

 

[balladofwindfishes]

If this does come down to tear gas by the cops and protesters throwing bottles, suddenly the people only casually aware of whats going on will start to ask questions. Images of european style "protests" with masked kids trashing things and fighting with cops wont play well for anyone involved.

You don't think it could have the opposite effect and cause people to get more angry at the cops rather than the protesters?

That's how it went down for Vietnam.

 

[TheFightingFish]

If I do, does that make me a "climate change denier denier"? And if I were, would that mean I was being stigmatized?

Not sure why you picked this example to expand on. It seems like your weakest. Pro-choice is easier to argue, although I think pro-life is more stigmatizing (being, by induction, anti-choice seems pale compared to being, also by induction, anti-life).

Honestly even about issues that I feel strongly on I'm really not a fan of "renaming" the folks that I would disagree with. I'll call pro-choicers "pro-choice" and pro-lifers "pro-life." It seems to me to just be starting off discourse at a low level especially as renaming your opponent is usually a bit of a dehumanizing tactic (i.e. NeoCon, FemiNazi or whatnot).

Not really sure where Red Nightmare's argument figures into this though. To complain about "climate change denier" at the same time as using the "hippies/slackers/pinkos" term to name the OWS protesters seems disingenuous at best. And this is coming from a guy who is probably to the right of the GAF average in general.

 

[venne]

Looks like Oakland's mayor is backing down.

http://blog.sfgate.com/aallison/201...es-contrite-statement-after-police-crackdown/

 

[Dash27]

You don't think it could have the opposite effect and cause people to get more angry at the cops rather than the protesters?

That's how it went down for Vietnam.

I'm not sure about the vietnam thing, but it could get sympathy for the protesters for sure if the cops are using very tough tactics and the protesters are very restrained. That's a huge if though. From what I saw on the Oakland protest it was at best mixed.

 

[Jak140]

Most Americans are socialists by any other name:

Are the American people a bunch of crazy socialists? By comparison to their representatives in Washington, the answer is a resounding yes. When I say “representatives in Washington” I mean Democrats, too (although the Republicans are obviously the far bigger problem). We get a lot of hot air blown on us about how horrible it is that “the extremes” control our politics and we need a new party of the center. But if anything, what we actually need is a party willing to take more aggressively redistributionist economic positions that Republicans despise and Democrats are terrified of espousing, if indeed they still believe them at all.

I was looking through The New York Times poll in Wednesday’s paper, the one the Times trumpeted as showing that Americans’ faith in government is at an all-time low. Certainly, that was a painful number to see. Only 10 percent said they trusted government to do the right thing always or most of the time. Responses to that question going back to the 1970s typically put those two combined categories (“always” and “most of the time”) around 25 percent, up to 40 or 45 percent during better times. So the Times wasn’t wrong to lead with that.

But I found responses to three other questions far more fascinating. First, people were asked if they felt “the distribution of money and wealth in this country is fair” or if it “should be more evenly distributed.” That’s a pretty straight-up question, and 66 percent of respondents replied that wealth should be more evenly distributed. Just 26 percent think the current distribution is fair.

In the next two questions of interest, people were asked whether they thought the Republicans in Congress and the Obama administration pursued policies that favored the rich, the middle class, the poor, or treated all three groups equally. People have the GOP pegged for what it is. Fully 69 percent said the GOP favors the rich, while just 9 percent said it backs the middle class. But the most fascinating part is that 28 percent—a plurality—said that Obama’s policies favor the rich. This compares to 23 percent who said Obama favors the middle class, 21 percent who said he treats all three groups equally, and 17 percent who think he favors the poor. Four months after Obama took office, just 12 percent thought he favored the rich.

Since this doesn’t have anything to do with raising hysteria about the deficit or advance the narrative that “excessive” entitlements (average yearly Social Security distribution: $13,000) are destroying America, the high punditocracy is not going to get up in arms about this finding. But I am. It’s shameful that this is the perception of Obama, and it’s disgraceful that he has been weak enough vis-à-vis the GOP to allow this perception to build. But wait; perception? Could it be that this is more than a perception? Alas, there’s more truth to it than many Democrats would care to acknowledge.

It took the administration nearly three years to come up with a mortgage plan, announced this week, to help underwater homeowners. But even this plan will benefit only a fraction of affected families. The administration felt it could not go bigger for all the usual reasons—fear of seeming too profligate and so on. While the administration has tried to do many good things—including this week’s student-loan-relief plan, which seems bolder than the mortgage proposal—it’s played small ball with most of them. Meanwhile, the president extended the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy last December, something 65 to 70 percent of Americans oppose. People notice these things.

This is the state of our representative democracy today: the Republicans represent the top 2 percent and increasingly don’t even pretend otherwise, and the Democrats represent roughly about the next 13 percent, or maybe 18 percent on good days. In other words, the Democrats do a reasonable job of representing the point of view and priorities of households with low six-figure incomes (if your household income is $100,000 you are in the 81st percentile; check out this neato calculator).

Every so often, Democrats still do something for the remaining 80 percent, but those somethings keep getting smaller and smaller, or they come with some weight attached to them, like the health-care bill, which gives poor people subsidies to buy health insurance but still makes them spend up to about 9 percent of their income on coverage, which will be difficult for some people. But for the most part, median-wage families (around $50,000) don’t get much from either party, and while they may not have advanced degrees, they know why.

You may have already read about the new Congressional Budget Office study. From 1979 to 2007, after-tax incomes of the top 1 percent grew by 275 percent. For the middle quintile, growth was just under 40 percent. It’s a moral affront, not to politicized, left-wing people, but to regular people. This is not how America is supposed to work. But this is how both parties are letting it work, which is why twice as many regular Americans support the goals of Operation Wall Street than those of the tea party.

I don’t seriously want a third party of left. It would inevitably be led by insufferable and self-righteous gasbags who probably wouldn’t even make class economics their central idea but would instead zoom off into Free Mumia land or something. What I want is the Democratic Party to be the Democratic Party. I want “middle class” to be every fourth word (every fourth and fifth words?) out of Obama’s mouth. I want what a clear and large majority of Americans wants, something that inside the Beltway is regarded as extreme and unserious: I want a party that isn’t afraid to redistribute a little wealth, and at the very least, a president who is ashamed by the result of that poll question about favoring the rich and resolves to do something dramatic about it.

http://news.yahoo.com/rich-man-rule...RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3

 

[Evlar]

Looks like Oakland's mayor is backing down.

http://blog.sfgate.com/aallison/201...es-contrite-statement-after-police-crackdown/

General strike in Oakland? I wonder if they can pull it off.

 

[thezerofire]

Most Americans are socialists by any other name:



http://news.yahoo.com/rich-man-rule...RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3

It's awesome how they got the median wage wrong. It's actually $26,000

edit: it's actually for household wage, so that looks to be correct. but still sad.

 

[SouthernDragon]

The Democrats are fucking dumb. If they pulled and FDR and spoused full throated support for policies PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIKE and stopped listening to pundits, they'd be solid.

 

[sangreal]

Pro-choice is simply the correct description; nothing to do with manipulation. Most people who are pro-choice are not in favor of abortion -- they simply oppose Government interference in what they consider a personal health matter. Calling them pro-abortion is intellectually dishonest.

It is certainly less manipulative than "pro-life" which implies that there are people who are "anti-life". In contrast, "pro-choice" implies that there are people that are "anti-choice" which is precisely the position of pro-lifers.

edit:

doubting proposed higher-taxation solutions to global warming becomes the Naziesque-sounding "climate change denial"

This is also a lie. Nobody is called a climate change denier because they don't agree with a specific proposed solution to climate change. Climate change denial is the refusal to accept any science which purports to show human impact on climate change.

 

[dave is ok]

Mass State GOP is trying to smear Elizabeth Warren by associating her with OWS

Warren herself hasn't really said much about the movement, but I could see this backfiring on them in a big way.

 

[empty vessel]

It's awesome how they got the median wage wrong. It's actually $26,000

Household versus individual. It's sad that household is about double individual, meaning that two-incomes are a virtual necessity for most all Americans.

But, man, the median individual wage earner making $26,000 is atrocious.

 

[sangreal]

Mass State GOP is trying to smear Elizabeth Warren by associating her with OWS

Warren herself hasn't really said much about the movement, but I could see this backfiring on them in a big way.

She has, but I agree this will certainly backfire on them. Besides the fact that people generally support the protests... it's fucking Massachusetts.

 

[thezerofire]

Household versus individual. It's sad that household is about double individual, meaning that two-incomes are a virtual necessity for most all Americans.

But, man, the median individual wage earner making $26,000 is atrocious.

That's a good point. But it is sad if both parents have to work full time to make $50K

 

[Dies Iræ]

edit: i'm slow

 

[.GqueB.]

http://studentactivism.net/2011/10/27/ows-popularity/

This isnt surprising. OWS is a bit more universal. The examples you gave were mostly for one group so not many could relate.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

http://studentactivism.net/2011/10/27/ows-popularity/

I doubt most people today support "women's liberation groups" lol.

 

[richiek]

I doubt most people today support "women's liberation groups" lol.

I don't think that deriding women's rights is "lol"worthy.

 

[teruterubozu]

http://studentactivism.net/2011/10/27/ows-popularity/

Well, to be fair, "polling" in the 50s/60s was a completely different animal before the internet.

 

[badcrumble]

This isnt surprising. OWS is a bit more universal. The examples you gave were mostly for one group so not many could relate.

I know it's not surprising. I'm just illustrating the fact that the people saying that OWS is going to rapidly decline in popularity and go away overnight are idiots.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I don't think that deriding women's rights is "lol"worthy.

I didn't say women's rights, I said "women's liberation groups." Bit of a difference

 

[badcrumble]

I didn't say women's rights, I said "women's liberation groups." Bit of a difference

is this the part where you start calling anyone who calls herself a feminist a 'feminazi'

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

is this the part where you start calling anyone who calls herself a feminist a 'feminazi'

Nah, that's a Rush thing right?

I try not to Godwin the crap out of everything.

"women's liberation groups" is funny enough on its own.

 

[Dartastic]

Uh-huh. So, the solution is - more "stimulus"? Tried that, didn't work. Ummm.... what then.... how about... uhhh... higher taxes? Nope, that won't help. Put all bankers in concentration camps? Abolish private banking and allow the government to take over all banking? Bad, bad, bad.

Actually, the the majority of the nine best studies on the stimulus seem to agree that the stimulus has worked, for the most part.

We don't want bankers in concentration camps and the abolition of private banking. We want the government to protect us by putting in regulations (that once were in place) that protect us from these destructive practices that the banks have engaged in, and we want the people who have engaged in potentially illegal acts to be investigated, and potentially held accountable for their crimes.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

We don't want bankers in concentration camps and the abolition of private banking.

I'll agree with the former(well at least with that phrasing), but eh I've been hearing people talk about wanting the banks nationalized.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Red Nightmare is just taking his talking points one at a time.

 

[Sky Chief]

Household versus individual. It's sad that household is about double individual, meaning that two-incomes are a virtual necessity for most all Americans.

But, man, the median individual wage earner making $26,000 is atrocious.

That's pretty unbelievable. I was at In N Out in Plano, TX last night and they had a help wanted sign that said that wages started at $10/hr. Extrapolate that over a year and that's $20,000. The fact that the median income is only a few thousand more than what you can make working fast food with no education is pretty shocking.

 

[SouthernDragon]

I'll agree with the former(well at least with that phrasing), but eh I've been hearing people talk about wanting the banks nationalized.

Having nationalized banks doesn't mean the abolition of private banking.

 

[jamesinclair]

I just can't believe the shower of shit occupying my local market square. Half of them are unemployed drunks and the other half are hypocrites (Starbucks in one hand, Blackberry in the other). It's really frustrating. If I knew what the message was, I might agree with it. The way it's being presented is self-defeating though.

Whats hypocritical about using products while protesting fraud by companies?

Last I checked, no one is protesting to ban business.

Im typing from a Dell computer.

My business with dell was as follows:

I give them money, they give me a quality computer. I gain the tools I need, they make a sale and a bit of profit.

Everyone is happy. I have no problem with them making money by selling me something I want. If another company better offered what I wanted, I would go to them.

Yay free market!

So why the protest?

If Dell takes said profit, and begins to lobby, we have a problem. I was buying a computer, not campaign ads for a person I don't support. If said lobbying results in laws that help dell, but hurt their competition, then we really have a problem. If said lobbying results in weakening of environmental rules, and the shifting of the tax burden from them to other, then we have a very serious problem.

I was buying a PC, not the beginning of anti-consumer imperialist intentions.

Thats the problem.




Again, this train of thought that to protest something you mus abstain from everything related is 100% retarded.

"Hey look, the people protesting air pollution are breathing air! Lol! Lol! What hypocrites!"

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Having nationalized banks doesn't mean the abolition of private banking.

I didn't say it was exactly the same, it was more I've heard that and mixed with the generic end Capitalism stuff, I'm sure some do think that. Sorry, wasn't as clear I could have been.

 

[kame-sennin]

Nah, that's a Rush thing right?

I try not to Godwin the crap out of everything.

"women's liberation groups" is funny enough on its own.

I don't know why. Women lacked freedom in society, in fact, they lacked freedom in their own households. Liberation is clearly a necessary goal and an appropriate name.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I don't know why. Women lacked freedom in society, in fact, they lacked freedom in their own households. Liberation is clearly a necessary goal and an appropriate name.

No, it isn't. Equality is, liberation is not.

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

barring down the discourse in semantics, classy

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

barring down the discourse in semantics, classy

?

 

[Jak140]

No, it isn't. Equality is, liberation is not.

Do you even care about the distinction, or is being a contrarian your sole raison d'être?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Do you even care about the distinction

Yes.

 

[The Librarian]

Whats hypocritical about using products while protesting fraud by companies?

Last I checked, no one is protesting to ban business.

Im typing from a Dell computer.

My business with dell was as follows:

I give them money, they give me a quality computer. I gain the tools I need, they make a sale and a bit of profit.

Everyone is happy. I have no problem with them making money by selling me something I want. If another company better offered what I wanted, I would go to them.

Yay free market!

So why the protest?

If Dell takes said profit, and begins to lobby, we have a problem. I was buying a computer, not campaign ads for a person I don't support. If said lobbying results in laws that help dell, but hurt their competition, then we really have a problem. If said lobbying results in weakening of environmental rules, and the shifting of the tax burden from them to other, then we have a very serious problem.

I was buying a PC, not the beginning of anti-consumer imperialist intentions.

Thats the problem.

This is a very good train of thought.

 

[Joe]

Fuck, is manos weirding up this thread again...?

Ows should start endorsing (not align with) green party candidates, they need to get the ball rolling on actual change.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Fuck, is manos weirding up this thread again...?

2/10

Ows should start endorsing (not align with) green party candidates, they need to get the ball rolling on actual change.

It's a free country, if people want to toss their money down a rat hole go for it.

 

[FlyinJ]

So, on top of everything else, Manos is a chauvinist as well.

Go figure.

 

[PantherLotus]

Yeah it's a predictable schtick at this point.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

So, on top of everything else, Manos is a chauvinist as well.

Go figure.

Yeah because being in far of equality is being a chauvinist. Man you and Panther are some oddballs.

 

[TestOfTide]

You really can't deny that the term "climate change denier" was deliberately created to stigmatize opponents of the global warming crowd. "Denier" is a term that is generally widely used only after the word "Holocaust". Using it after "climate change" is an obvious tactic to paint opponents as Naziesque creeps. Come on, son, this is self-evident.

It was used because the they are denying something factual, like the holocaust. The only reason that creationists don't get called evoution deniers is because that group already gave themselves a fittingly dumb name.

When the polar ice-caps are shrinking in volume and the average temperature of the earth is increasing, then you are a denier to say that nothing has been changing.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Yes, you need to learn something about sourcing your material. I found it in google image is the response of some too lazy to dig deeper. With Gooogle Images, its not evenvery hard to do.

Your attempt to make it look like I did something wrong to cover up your own ignorance is typical of you. You want a higher standard for others, but you cannot even hold yourself to one for sourcing, that's pretty pathetic.

Dude its a bloody image used to make a joke... what the hell are you talking about

 

[Fusebox]

Sorry if already posted:

http://swampland.time.com/2011/10/27/violence-gone-viral-and-the-lessons-of-occupy-oakland/

About Oakland mayor Jean Quan.

Nearly a day after the event, Quan, who has gone through several police chiefs in recent months, issued a statement of near complete contrition. “We have decided to have a minimal police presence at the plaza for the short term and build a community effort to improve communications and dialogue with the demonstrators,” she wrote. “I want to express our deepest concern for all of those who were injured last night, and we are committed to ensuring this does not happen again. Investigations of certain incidents are underway and I will personally monitor them. We understand and recognize the impact this event has had on the community and acknowledge what has happened. We cannot change the past, but we are committed to doing better. Most of us are part of the 99%, and understand the spirit of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. We are committed to honoring their free speech right.”

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/10/2...-the-lessons-of-occupy-oakland/#ixzz1c1sU1vvN

Dude its a bloody image used to make a joke... what the hell are you talking about

He's not talking about that Ann Colter pic is he?