"OCCUPY WALL STREET"

Status
Not open for further replies.
kame-sennin said:
I still don't understand why marching against Wall Street criminal activity makes one an anti-capitalist.

I would expect that when that is infact not what was being discussed. This is with regards to anti-capitalists using designer products then whining about not having any money.

The optics are just awful.

And I'm first to say our generation is getting short changed, in terms of everything compared to our parents. But I don't see that as an economic debate, but a generational one.
 
Lead Based Paint said:
I"m talking about in the context of the fucking video that you refuse to watch like that makes you ok to post stupid shit.

And that context is "Getting pepper-sprayed without any prior "warning" or reasonable suspicion that she was doing something to warrant being pepper sprayed"

Enough context?


Also, give up on the

"Since a couple a noteworthy corporation CEOs have foundations and charities and big flashy donating parties, I believe all corporations are just the bees knees and any attempt at bringing it up must be met with denial like the idea is absurd." Schtick

It's time to grow up.

I can't watch it right now. I promise you I will.

How is it not being able to grow up when I'm the one distinguishing between "ALL EVIL CORPORATIONS" and a more nuanced "Hey not all corporations are evil"? Personally I think being able to keep yourself from jumping to knee jerk conclusions is a sign of maturity.
 
kame-sennin said:
I still don't understand why marching against Wall Street criminal activity makes one an anti-capitalist.

Many people have a trouble disassociating criticism with an organization as a whole with their own personal views. See also religious/cultural criticisms, where people's anger flares up whenever a critical thread is posted.
 
brucewaynegretzky said:
I can't watch it right now. I promise you I will.

How is it not being able to grow up when I'm the one distinguishing between "ALL EVIL CORPORATIONS" and a more nuanced "Hey not all corporations are evil"? Personally I think being able to keep yourself from jumping to knee jerk conclusions is a sign of maturity.


And I think attempting to downplay real problems with "its not ALL bad" sentiments are extremely silly and immature.
 
akira28 said:
You can stay on the sidelines then, bubba, and root against the protesters then, for all the good that you'll do.

I love how the assumption is I do nothing. Just because I don't think a poorly organized protest that reflects badly on all those who actually work towards progressive goals is useless doesn't mean I don't do my own thing.
 
Lead Based Paint said:
And I think attempting to downplay real problems with "its not ALL bad" sentiments are extremely silly and immature.

Who's downplaying? Have I EVER said there isn't a problem in this country? Find me the post where I said it. Go ahead.
 
brucewaynegretzky said:
How is it not being able to grow up when I'm the one distinguishing between "ALL EVIL CORPORATIONS" and a more nuanced "Hey not all corporations are evil"? Personally I think being able to keep yourself from jumping to knee jerk conclusions is a sign of maturity.


You mean taking someone's moderate argument and then pushing it to it's artificial extreme because that's the only way your argument would receive any consideration in the face of sanity? It has to be compared to bullshit you make up. That's real mature, like 50 year old Republican levels of mature. Shit you're real good at this game.


I never said you don't do your own thing. But you can also stand on the sidelines of their AWS protest and pitch a bitch too. You're basically there in spirit.
 
akira28 said:
You mean taking someone's moderate argument and then pushing it to it's artificial extreme because that's the only way your argument would receive any consideration in the face of sanity? It has to be compared to bullshit you make up. That's real mature, like 50 year old Republican levels of mature. Shit you're real good at this game.

You said corporations would not sponsor liberal events. I'm not pushing anything to any extremes. I'm simply addressing the point you made. There are plenty of outlets for liberal fundraising.
 
The interview on Here & Now yesterday (NPR, WBUR) with whatever some lady was from the Occupy Wall Street movement was just... hilarious. Everything she said was just unsupported... "our numbers are growing 10 fold every day." And Robin Young, who never wants to make some hodge podge directionless idiot movement look bad -- but still has to do her job as a journalist and interviewer -- was like "Well, what about the actual number and that protests in much smaller areas like Wisconsin and Iowa are much larger than this one in New York City?" And the response was some weird amalgamation of how they're providing refreshments for the homeless.
 
brucewaynegretzky said:
Who's downplaying? Have I EVER said there isn't a problem in this country? Find me the post where I said it. Go ahead.


Your posts ooze of it:

You're first post I read was you instantly placing blame on the protesters without even watching the video.

You argue petty semantics which are pointless to actual discussion. Taking arguments to absurd conclusion in order to have any validity.
 
dave is ok said:
Suddenly this thread makes a lot more sense

Hah, ok man. American addiction to living beyond their means had NOTHING to do with the housing crash, it was all the fault of greedy bankers. Got it!
 
People arguing over whether corporations are "good" or "evil" are seriously missing the point, or have allowed their political ideology to influence their thought process to a disturbing degree. A corporation is about as good or evil as a can opener, or a gun. The question is which set of rules and interactions between our government and corporations will be most beneficial to society.

I guess if you actually believe that collections of capital that exist to generate more capital are actually in never-ending warfare with their employees while attempting to exploit and suck the populace dry in the most efficient manner possible, your fanatical viewpoint becomes understandable.

kame-sennin said:
I believe the discussion was about cell phones and computers (I apologize if I'm misremembering). In that context, those devices are necessary for communication and organization - vital for a successful protest, mind you. I don't think there's really a difference between buying a cheap off-brand cell phone and netbook versus buying an iphone and a Macbook. I understand your point about basic needs versus luxury goods. But I think in terms of which brands you choose, there's not much of a difference from a political point of view.

It seemed like a more abstract argument, but even if we're limiting ourselves to cell phones and laptops, my particular observation would be more with the particular brand and less with the price. I think both pro and anti-Apple people would agree that a large part of Apple's success is due to their slick marketing and advertising, and their ability to build a brand and imprint it onto the public consciousness. In that context, it is somewhat amusing for people fighting against the ability of powerful corporations to manipulate the public while amassing more capital to all have succumbed to the same consumer impulse. Unless Apple products are so superior to their competition that everything else is irrelevant.
 
brucewaynegretzky said:
You said corporations would not sponsor liberal events. I'm not pushing anything to any extremes. I'm simply addressing the point you made. There are plenty of outlets for liberal fundraising.


I didn't say that either. You're just grasping for more points to pull in, not actually addressing those already made, and yes I don't disagree about liberal fundraising outlets existing. They're not on the level of engagement the conservatrive ones are witl the Tea Parties and various other conservative groups. But yes...oh yes you'll see them in full force when liberals finally fully mobilize.
 
Lead Based Paint said:
Your posts ooze of it:

You're first post I read was you instantly placing blame on the protesters without even watching the video.

You argue petty semantics which are pointless to actual discussion. Taking arguments to absurd conclusion in order to have any validity.

My first post was referring to two or three arrest videos I've seen. Specifically I said the protestors resisted arrest and officers used force. I've spend a good amount of time looking at use of force policies and I can tell you that those officers were justified in what they were doing. I specifically cannot speak to that ONE video you are talking about.

What is the absurd conclusion that I argued? Like I said earlier. Someone said there was no way you could get tea party level funding for liberal politics. I call bullshit.
 
Jangocube said:
Once again, joke them all you want, at least they are attempting to do something.

I especially like the parts of AWS that are protesting to End Hunger. On NPR yesterday, they listed that as one of the goals of the protest.

Feeling inspired, I emailed the leader of the movement, this smelly guy with oily hair playing a Dispatch song, and asked him if he could also add "Ending Fatigue" and "Increasing the Playing Field of Ultimate Frisbee Games to 125 yards" to the movement's goals. I haven't heard back yet, so I've taken to protesting at my local university's student union... permanently occupying one of the tables where the hipsters get together to drink fair trade coffee and talk about who liked Animal Collective first. I won't budge until those bastards give me the voice that CitizensUnited took away from me!
 
Enron said:
Hah, ok man. American addiction to living beyond their means had NOTHING to do with the housing crash, it was all the fault of greedy bankers. Got it!
Phew. You finally get it.

Banks wanted less than ideal candidates to be approved for mortgages in order to securitize and sell them, to the point where the investment side of a bank would demand more mortgages from the lending side. That's where the repeal of Glass Steagal hurt us

American greed or extravagance has very little, if anything, to do with the collapse. Americans debt being leveraged 10x over by banks did.
 
dave is ok said:
Phew. You finally get it.

Banks wanted less than ideal candidates to be approved for mortgages in order to securitize and sell them, to the point where the investment side of a bank would demand more mortgages from the lending side. That's where the repeal of Glass Steagal hurt us

American greed or extravagance has very little, if anything, to do with the collapse. Americans debt being leveraged 10x over by banks did.


Keith Olbermann, is that you? Holy crap, Keith Olbermann posts on GAF!

Seriously, if you can't see how America's addiction to cheap credit, consuming beyond our means, drive for home ownership by SEVERAL administrations (both Republican and Democrat) over the years at least contributed to this mess, you are delusional. Totally.
 
dave is ok said:
Phew. You finally get it.

Banks wanted less than ideal candidates to be approved for mortgages in order to securitize and sell them, to the point where the investment side of a bank would demand more mortgages from the lending side. That's where the repeal of Glass Steagal hurt us

American greed or extravagance has very little, if anything, to do with the collapse. Americans debt being leveraged 10x over by banks did.

I'm not saying this is wrong but I will say the conclusion seems a little skewed. That should realistically place blame on both sides.
 
Enron said:
Keith Olbermann, is that you? Holy crap, Keith Olbermann posts on GAF!

Seriously, if you can't see how America's addiction to cheap credit, consuming beyond our means, drive for home ownership by SEVERAL administrations (both Republican and Democrat) over the years at least contributed to this mess, you are delusional. Totally.


Americans would also enjoy access to crack cocaine which is why it's illegal and mildly difficult to obtain.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Listening to Michael Moore is pretty much the same as listening to Ann Coulter, the view is different, but the headache caused from listening is still the same.

Moore can be funny. I was genuinely a fan of his TV Nation series. Which is I think when he's at his best. Fighting hypocricy/facing down racists by just being there to confront them. His later works where he skated and then crossed into editorializing has hurt him much more because he turned a lot of people off by being put in the 'leftist' box.

Coulter is a witch.
 
Deku said:
Moore can be funny. I was genuinely a fan of his TV Nation series. Which is I think when he's at his best. Fighting hypocricy/facing down racists by just being there to confront them. His later works where he skated and then crossed into editorializing has hurt him much more because he turned a lot of people off by being put in the 'leftist' box.

Coulter is a witch.

I concur.
 
http://bostonreview.net/BR36.5/jeanne_mansfield_occupy_wall_street.php

As we circle Union Square, about twenty NYPD officers haul out orange plastic nets (the kind used to fence off construction sites) and close off the road, diverting the crowd. But the detour, too, is closed, leaving us only one option: straight down Broadway. The lighthearted carnival air begins to get very heavy as it becomes clear that we are being corralled. The main group, about 150 protesters, keeps on down the street, but the police are running behind with the orange nets, siphoning off groups of fifteen to twenty people at a time, classic crowd control.

A new group of police officers arrives in white shirts, as opposed to dark blue. These guys are completely undiscerning in their aggression. If someone gets in their way, they shove them headfirst into the nearest parked car, at which point the officers are immediately surrounded by camera phones and shouts of “Shame! Shame!”

Up until this point, Frank and I have managed to stay ahead of the nets, but as we hit what I think is 12th Street, they’ve caught up. The blue-shirts aren’t being too forceful, so we manage to run free, but stay behind to see what happens. Then things go nuts.

The white-shirted cops are shouting at us to get off the street as they corral us onto the sidewalk. One African American man gets on the curb but refuses to be pushed up against the wall of the building; they throw him into the street, and five cops tackle him. As he’s being cuffed, a white kid with a video camera asks him “What’s your name?! What’s your name?!” One of the blue-shirted cops thinks he’s too close and gives him a little shove. A white-shirt sees this, grabs the kid and without hesitation billy-clubs him in the stomach.

At this point, the crowd of twenty or so caught in the orange fence is shouting “Shame! Shame! Who are you protecting?! YOU are the 99 percent! You’re fighting your own people!” A white-shirt, now known to be NYPD Deputy Inspector Anthony Bologna, comes from the left, walks straight up to the three young girls at the front of the crowd, and pepper-sprays them in the face for a few seconds, continuing as they scream “No! Why are you doing that?!” The rest of us in the crowd turn away from the spray, but it’s unavoidable. My left eye burns and goes blind and tears start streaming down my face. Frank grabs my arm and shoves us through the small gap between the orange fence and the brick wall while everyone stares in shock and horror at the two girls on the ground and two more doubled over screaming as their eyes ooze. In the street I shout for water to rinse my eyes or give to the girls on the ground, but no one responds. One of the blue-shirts, tall and bald, stares in disbelief and says, “I can’t believe he just fuckin’ maced her.” And it becomes clear that the white-shirts are a different species. We need to get out of there.

The other end of the street is also closed off, and we are trapped on this one block along with about twenty frustrated pedestrians. My eye is killing me and I’m crying, partially from the pain and partially from the shock of the violence displayed by these police. A shirtless young “medic” with ripped cargo shorts, matted brown hair, and two plastic bottles slung around his neck runs up to me and says, “Did you get pepper sprayed? Okay here, tilt your head to the side, this isn’t going to feel great,” at which point he squirts one of the plastic bottles of white liquid into my left eye, then tilts my head the other way and does the other eye, then repeats with water. Then he unties the white bandanna from his wrist and wipes my eyes with it saying, “You’ll be okay, this is my grandfather’s bandanna, he got through Korea with it, and if he got through that, then you’re going to get through this. Just keep blinking.” Thanks to the treatment—liquid antacid, pepper-spray antidote—the burning behind my eyes subsides.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Biased and dramatized just a bit, perhaps?

Is that all you take from the article, that it's written in a skewed way? Is the content being reported not more worthy of comment?
 
That article was linked several pages back. Protesters being thrown head-first into parked cars, police billyclubbing people, and she claims they have it all on tape.

Well, every protester's video that detail these incidents don't show any of that actually happening. So yeah, i'd say biased and a healthy dose of OMFG DRAMA.
 
Officers in white shirts, those are the commisioned officers right? Anyone above sgt, etc? Capts and lieutenants, etc. Not sure how that dept does it, but that's how Fairfax PD did it in VA.

I could see those guys being really bad out there because they normally do admin and office work, but they will get sent for crowd control duties too if it's a sustained action since they only have so many blue shifts.

they might be auxiliary officers too. Usually untrained for crowd control or even working with people or doing anything but operating radios, writing tickets and doing observe and report duty.
 
richiek said:
Of course the NYPD has never had a history of mistreating protesters before, have they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_R...n_protest_activity#Police_tactics_and_Pier_57

They did it once obviously they will do it again!

Seriously though, the content is worthy if it as they are portraying it. The bias becomes a concern in that the adjectives may not be accurate and context may be left out. You'll remember the video of the guy who was "brutalized" a few pages back where the guy resisted arrest and the cops had to drag him away, despite him violating regulations that prohibited the megaphone he was using.
 
Enron said:
Hah, ok man. American addiction to living beyond their means had NOTHING to do with the housing crash, it was all the fault of greedy bankers. Got it!

The lenders were predatory, plain and simple. They pushed houses on people that had no business being in one.
 
The Albatross said:
I especially like the parts of AWS that are protesting to End Hunger. On NPR yesterday, they listed that as one of the goals of the protest.

Feeling inspired, I emailed the leader of the movement, this smelly guy with oily hair playing a Dispatch song, and asked him if he could also add "Ending Fatigue" and "Increasing the Playing Field of Ultimate Frisbee Games to 125 yards" to the movement's goals. I haven't heard back yet, so I've taken to protesting at my local university's student union... permanently occupying one of the tables where the hipsters get together to drink fair trade coffee and talk about who liked Animal Collective first. I won't budge until those bastards give me the voice that CitizensUnited took away from me!

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the economic crisis and the events that lead up to it? Do you support lobbying of the government on the behalf of Wall Street for the purposes of deregulating the financial sector?

Quixzlizx said:
It seemed like a more abstract argument, but even if we're limiting ourselves to cell phones and laptops, my particular observation would be more with the particular brand and less with the price. I think both pro and anti-Apple people would agree that a large part of Apple's success is due to their slick marketing and advertising, and their ability to build a brand and imprint it onto the public consciousness. In that context, it is somewhat amusing for people fighting against the ability of powerful corporations to manipulate the public while amassing more capital to all have succumbed to the same consumer impulse. Unless Apple products are so superior to their competition that everything else is irrelevant.

I guess I see what you're saying; that if you're against capitalism but need products produced in a capitalist system, at the very least you should avoid products produced by the most successful capitalists. That's an interesting argument, but it feels like a distinction without a difference to me.

More importantly, the real problem with the macbook/iphone critique is that not all of the people spotted with those products are confirmed anti-capitalists. You don't need to oppose capitalism to oppose Wall Street corruption.

ToxicAdam said:
That would imply a plan, a concerted effort by many people.

The interesting thing about Wall Street and their lobbying of government (and the economic collapse that resulted) is that organization or conspiracy is actually not necessary. All parties involved, Wall Street investors and Washington politicians, are acting independently in their own self-interests. Individual investors will constantly push against regulations in order to turn a profit, and Washington politicians will consistently deregulated in order to gain campaign funds from Wall Street (as well as trying to appear pro-business, a major factor during the Clinton administration). No one planned for things to go the way they did, but when Wall Street lobbyists saw that the government was willing to remove certain regulations, they were bound to push for more deregulation. It's a machine without a brain. These protests are necessary to get that machine under control.

Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Biased and dramatized just a bit, perhaps?

It's a first-person account from someone who got maced. How could they not be biased in favor of themselves? Why would it not be dramatic?
 
Quixzlizx said:
People arguing over whether corporations are "good" or "evil" are seriously missing the point, or have allowed their political ideology to influence their thought process to a disturbing degree. A corporation is about as good or evil as a can opener, or a gun. The question is which set of rules and interactions between our government and corporations will be most beneficial to society.

I guess if you actually believe that collections of capital that exist to generate more capital are actually in never-ending warfare with their employees while attempting to exploit and suck the populace dry in the most efficient manner possible, your fanatical viewpoint becomes understandable.



It seemed like a more abstract argument, but even if we're limiting ourselves to cell phones and laptops, my particular observation would be more with the particular brand and less with the price. I think both pro and anti-Apple people would agree that a large part of Apple's success is due to their slick marketing and advertising, and their ability to build a brand and imprint it onto the public consciousness. In that context, it is somewhat amusing for people fighting against the ability of powerful corporations to manipulate the public while amassing more capital to all have succumbed to the same consumer impulse. Unless Apple products are so superior to their competition that everything else is irrelevant.

This is a great post. Hits both of things that bug me about these "protests."
 
Marleyman said:
The lenders were predatory, plain and simple. They pushed houses on people that had no business being in one.

No one is denying that. Please point me to where I or anyone else said any different?

The blame does not solely lie on them, however. Many parties came together over several years to create this enormous shitstorm, including the American public themselves.
 
Enron said:
No one is denying that. Please point me to where I or anyone else said any different?

The blame does not solely lie on them, however. Many parties came together over several years to create this enormous shitstorm, including the American public themselves.
Lies. (sorry fellow SMT fan. but I didn't do shit. do you accept any part of that blame?)
 
Marleyman said:
The lenders were predatory, plain and simple. They pushed houses on people that had no business being in one.

Something that often goes unmentioned is how many politicians who have come out as ardently against predatory lendors, like Barnie Frank, were strongly supportive of those lending policies that could put financially struggling families into homes. What is considered predatory lending now was widely argued as social justice for decades.
 
The Albatross said:
Something that often goes unmentioned is how many politicians who have come out as ardently against predatory lendors, like Barnie Frank, were strongly supportive of those lending policies that could put financially struggling families into homes. What is considered predatory lending now was widely argued as social justice for decades.


There's financially struggling, then there's paying someone to go out and basically give mortgages away to anyone after asking them if they want a house. And then selling that bad deal to a bad deal seller. A guy that actually sells bad deals so they can be bet on how bad they are. Such a thing exists. I thought such things only existed in gambling, like sidebets in a craps game. This. Shit's. Cray.
 
Enron said:
No one is denying that. Please point me to where I or anyone else said any different?

The blame does not solely lie on them, however. Many parties came together over several years to create this enormous shitstorm, including the American public themselves.

You aren't denying that, but you are, to me at least, downplaying their role. I knew many former employees from that industry that I work with now and they admit that they went after the money and could give two shits less about the people.
 
Enron said:
That article was linked several pages back. Protesters being thrown head-first into parked cars, police billyclubbing people, and she claims they have it all on tape.

Well, every protester's video that detail these incidents don't show any of that actually happening. So yeah, i'd say biased and a healthy dose of OMFG DRAMA.

The Lawrence O'Donnell video posted somewhere in this thread shows a guy being tossed head first into the front of a Volvo.
 
The Albatross said:
Something that often goes unmentioned is how many politicians who have come out as ardently against predatory lendors, like Barnie Frank, were strongly supportive of those lending policies that could put financially struggling families into homes. What is considered predatory lending now was widely argued as social justice for decades.

Social justice was the goal however once it got in the hands of these lenders all bets were off.
 
kame-sennin said:
It's a first-person account from someone who got maced. How could they not be biased in favor of themselves? Why would it not be dramatic?

That's the point, the person is more likely to exaggerate what occurred, minimize their culpability, and increase the actions of the officers. It's in their best interest. The detail of the man being arrested in this recounting doesn't really go with what the videos show.
 
akira28 said:
There's financially struggling, then there's paying someone to go out and basically give mortgages away to anyone after asking them if they want a house. And then selling that bad deal to a bad deal seller. A guy that actually sells bad deals so they can be bet on how bad they are. Such a thing exists. I thought such things only existed in gambling, like sidebets in a craps game. This. Shit's. Cray.

This is not how I remember the world being ten years ago. People were not giving houses to whoever wanted them. Sure it was WAY easier, but this is hyperbole. Like I've said earlier, why can't it be both the fault of the American people AND the lenders? At the time it was win/win. Person X got a house, and Bank Y got an asset to be securitized.
 
Marleyman said:
You aren't denying that, but you are, to me at least, downplaying their role. I knew many former employees from that industry that I work with now and they admit that they went after the money and could give two shits less about the people.

I'm the one downplaying? No, THIS is downplaying.

2qteer9.jpg
 
kame-sennin said:
I guess I see what you're saying; that if you're against capitalism but need products produced in a capitalist system, at the very least you should avoid products produced by the most successful capitalists. That's an interesting argument, but it feels like a distinction without a difference to me.

Not the most successful, but the most cynical/manipulative capitalists who embrace the values and techniques that the anti-capitalists claim to be disgusted by (although I suppose to an anti-capitalist, they are synonymous).
 
brucewaynegretzky said:
This is not how I remember the world being ten years ago. People were not giving houses to whoever wanted them. Sure it was WAY easier, but this is hyperbole. Like I've said earlier, why can't it be both the fault of the American people AND the lenders? At the time it was win/win. Person X got a house, and Bank Y got an asset to be securitized.


I do remember people being hired as mortgage brokers, and they would COLD CALL people and tell them they could qualify. You know they have phone lists based on economic data right? They would comb neighborhoods looking for people who may have been rejected before, people in bad neighborhoods, apartment complexes, they would call them up and offer them a chance at a new home. And guess what? People went for it, believe it or not. The housing boom. Just refinance it. Everyone knew that, everyone heard that lie. Most of us trusted it.

It's not that hyperbolic.
 
CNN just did a little report on Occupy Wall Street. I found it funny how they tried to find the lamest people there to downplay it. CNN exists for Wall Street...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom