Phoenix Wright Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) All joking aside, what are your guys' thoughts on this [pretty much] worldwide movement? Does anyone agree with it, is anyone against it? I disdain indifference towards things that matter, people, but nevertheless I enjoy thoughts being shared. I'm in *almost* total support of the movement. I need to see more professionalism, "proper," non-violent protests, and a march on the capitol building... I'll go into satisfactory detail when people start responding. Or if someone wants to have a discussion with me personally. EDIT: Here's some information on why people are angry: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1 Edited October 22, 2011 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearissoslow Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 they have the right idea about wanting a scaled income tax and all that, but a lot of the stories are fucking stupid. 90% of them are "my life: the story of bad decisions" while the other 10% are just stories of bad luck (i.e. medical expenses from a terminal disease). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandjackal Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 More professional indeed would be appreciated, crapping on a police car and wrecking up small business joints is not helping your cause. However, the protest I feel is called for, considering they're basically collecting tax dollars with interest for...Basically no reason(who's bright idea was that, by the way?), essentially robbing us and then presenting to sit on their ass and do nothing with said money because they don't have to. I'd imagine a healthy economy would be one that has a strong cashflow through banks, business, consumer, wages and pay, all of the such, and this money-sitting is quite strangling. It's basically the big cause of the problem of unemployment since the money is going somewhere where it's being completely wasted than to people who would use that money to hire people to do things...I think that's called job creating, but I could be wrong. I'm just some dude. And essentially, the money the banks are being given could be lended and thus could bolster out of this hole, but banks refuse cause "fuck you" apparently. Thus, protest. Also, 90% bad decisions? That's quite a skewed number. How about people who are just starting off wanting to get into the workforce but can't because employers can't afford to hire people who are most likely to fuck up as they have no experience? People who got laid off because their employer's budget got strangled too tight? Employers themselves who had to get shut down because they couldn't get what they needed to get off the ground in the first place? How about you wanna invest, and to invest you gotta go to a bank, and you are basically going in fully well knowing they won't give you anything close to a fair share in return due to being pointlessly tight fisted so you have even less means to earn real money if you're starting out low, and your investment will basically prove meaningless to the bank itself? Saying it's bad luck is insulting, and implying 90% of the unemployed are bad decision makers (though clearly a few of them are, you're bound to get a few animals into any situation) is even worse. This protest on wall street is because this situation could easily not be this bad, but the place that has all the money going to it (wall street) is deciding to do nothing with it and is making the problem significantly worse for essentially no reason than "Look, my numbers are bigger", and due to the bail out and "interest collecting", it's US that's paying them to do this. These people have every right to be absolutely 110% pissed off. I just don't agree on the few that are 110% stupid on top of it. Violence, vandalism and shitting on cop cars (law enforcement had nothing to do with this after all, cops aren't exactly stepping in to break up the protest with firehoses and noiseblasters) again isn't helping. In this protest, is there a proper leader of it that's keeping it as civil as possible? Last thing that needs to happen is this thing blowing up into a riot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sikker Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 All joking aside, what are your guys' thoughts on this [pretty much] worldwide movement? Does anyone agree with it, is anyone against it? I disdain indifference towards things that matter, people, but nevertheless I enjoy thoughts being shared. I'm in *almost* total support of the movement. I need to see more professionalism, "proper," non-violent protests, and a march on the capitol building... I'll go into satisfactory detail when people start responding. Or if someone wants to have a discussion with me personally. EDIT: Here's some information on why people are angry: http://www.businessi...ut-2011-10?op=1 Worldwide? Its just in America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Sholes Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 They see what's wrong with the government and they want to change it. Simple as that. Whether you want to call it Illuminati or just a bad government they want to change it. I personally agree with them and support this movement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted October 22, 2011 Author Share Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) Worldwide? Its just in America. http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/15/world/occupy-goes-global/index.html Unless you mean we can't label these protests as "Occupy" protests, which I believe is valid. EDIT: I think the movements' philosophy that "everyone is the leader" is crap. Every successful revolution had a leader. Someone with superior articulation, abilities, education, comprehension (or at least a team of people that have these qualities to a minor degree). We need someone to spearhead the movement. Organization is key, in my opinion. Edited October 22, 2011 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 There still isn't a clear direction to anything. Mostly, it's people accumulating because either the hysterics of the movement (and their personal reaction to what the movement is supposed to be against), or because a sincere wish to do something... but do nothing at all in return. It's also full of some stupid-ass youth who, if you watch the raw uploads, are fucking with police who are just doing their job. And very whiny youth at that--the slightest flinch is apparently means to cry wolf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balcerzak Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 The movement has no solid gameplan. All it has is a vague idea that something is wrong, and that they are unhappy, but no steps to rectify the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandjackal Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 The movement has no solid gameplan. All it has is a vague idea that something is wrong, and that they are unhappy, but no steps to rectify the situation. Rather good point, but I figured that would be obvious by the fact that...They're occupying Wall Street. Ok, you're in front of basically the banking industry. You know it's robbing the nation blind...What good is being at their doorstep doing? You don't exactly go find the house of the guy who mugged you, go there and ask for your money back. Cause chances are you're not gonna get results. But then again, what else can really be done? Holding a demonstration at D.C. isn't going to make it any more effective. They just passed the law that allowed this idiocy to happen in the first place. Best you can do is give one of the two the finger, and both are used to it by now, then wait for next election to vote for representitives/senators/what have you that won't pull this sort of idiocy again/fix this issue, and chances of that happening are about as likely as the Rapture happening tomorrow. So yes you have a point, but what would you suggest otherwise since any other option seems hopeless? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defeatist Elitist Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 The movement has no solid gameplan. All it has is a vague idea that something is wrong, and that they are unhappy, but no steps to rectify the situation. While this is largely true, I don't think you need a solution in order to point out a problem. I think AIDs in Africa is a problem, but I have no fucking clue how to solve it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) Just gonna post my opinion here...I'd rather work and get a wage then sit on my ass and get covered by safety nets, it contributes to my sense of self-worth to work and I like doing it, hopefully I can get a break into paid employment again, but if the safety nets for the unemployed were expanded (or prices fall, naturally or not, to allow safety nets to cover basic living expenses and a cab to the library if it's not in walking distance) I'm not going to complain if the banking industry ends up with most of the pie as long as there's enough to keep me going. I think AIDs in Africa is a problem, but I have no fucking clue how to solve it. Isn't there a cure? If you set up a facility to produce the cure and shipped it over there, that might help. Not sure how expensive the cure is to produce though (fuck the buying price cuz it's probably raised dramatically by patents or something). Edited October 22, 2011 by BlueMartianKitty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansem Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 The movement has no solid gameplan. All it has is a vague idea that something is wrong, and that they are unhappy, but no steps to rectify the situation. Pretty much this, my SS teacher said that most newspapers are under republican rule and don't publish what the protesters want but I think that's bull. Could be though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Pretty much this, my SS teacher said that most newspapers are under republican rule and don't publish what the protesters want but I think that's bull. Could be though. ...It's not newsppers jobs to publish wht protestors wnt, just becuse they publish independently doesn't men they rne obliged to go by OWS tlking points. But tht doesn't men newsppers ren't under republicn rule/ownership. It could be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Pretty much this, my SS teacher said that most newspapers are under republican rule I have heard the media is also under the control of them... Anywho, this whole protest seems rather fragmented. Although there is one point which i have seen that i definately agree... The cost of medical expenses. Seriously, how can people be expected to pay bills of thousands of dollars? Its a bad system imo... How are hospitals going to get any money when most people struggle to pay rent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted October 23, 2011 Author Share Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) Just gonna post my opinion here...I'd rather work and get a wage then sit on my ass and get covered by safety nets... Yeah, so do the majority of US citizens and non-citizens alike. People like earning their living. This does not mean, though, that you should work two jobs just to get by. The "safety net" is indeed a "safety net." It's supposed to be temporary. Socialists believe that the government should create these programs, but make them much more strict so the country doesn't bankrupt itself. We realize these things cost tons of money, that is the reason we want things to be strict. We want people to get back on their feet, not receive benefits their whole lives. I'm not sure why so many conservatives can't wrap their heads around this concept (not talking about you personally, I'm just saying). It's the correct way to go about doing things in a nation where you want a prosperous majority, not a minority. Edited October 23, 2011 by Phoenix Wright Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blademaster! Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 but a lot of the stories are fucking stupid. 90% of them are "my life: the story of bad decisions" while the other 10% are just stories of bad luck (i.e. medical expenses from a terminal disease). This. I haven't looked very hard, but I have yet to see a single person who's reason for occupying wall street doesn't fit one of the two descriptions above. that most newspapers are under republican rule and don't publish what the protesters want Your SS teacher is an idiot. There are more liberal media outlets than there are conservative. I can't really bring myself to care about this sort of thing though, since I get job opportunities presented to me all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Media outlets outnumber operating newspaper services. Newspaper services target a specific audience who still cares about newspapers. It's not as simple as you respond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) Yeah, so do the majority of US citizens and non-citizens alike. People like earning their living. This does not mean, though, that you should work two jobs just to get by. The "safety net" is indeed a "safety net." It's supposed to be temporary. Socialists believe that the government should create these programs, but make them much more strict so the country doesn't bankrupt itself. We realize these things cost tons of money, that is the reason we want things to be strict. We want people to get back on their feet, not receive benefits their whole lives. I'm not sure why so many conservatives can't wrap their heads around this concept (not talking about you personally, I'm just saying). It's the correct way to go about doing things in a nation where you want a prosperous majority, not a minority. If I'm a conservative, then the notion of what conservatism has changed radically since I last checked, because socially I'm liberal (not personally but in terms of what I'd allow others to do, mostly), and fiscally I don't know whether to be liberal or conservative. In terms of foreign policy I'm not sure that there is a clear distinction between what liberals and conservatives will do considering that Obama, a liberal, is now engaging in interventionist foreign policy, but my gut inclination is to avoid such measures. Frankly, if you're talking about getting people back on their feet, then I don't really care whether we have wealth redistribution or just wealth distribution to those who are struggling to get by and will be more likely to spend what they get to stimulate the economy, which is why I don't understand why Wall Street, rather than govt, is where protesting is going on. It's going to be very hard for the country to bankrupt itself on a partially electronic currency system in the short term, which is why I don't take that worry quite so seriously. I don't know the terms of US bonds in terms of how they must be paid out, but presumably the US sets them. Inflation from distributing wealth to the poor, should it occur, will only harm those with excess wealth - there will be a balancing effect. I don't know how much silicon etc we have for storing information electronically in the long term, though, or how easy it is to reuse. One other thought. I don't see why we don't want people receiving benefits their whole lives unless you have that niggling worry that even essential jobs would not get done if we went too far in the direction of government handouts. Having an excessively large population that seeks work in a country that doesn't need to employ all its human beings is no particularly great advantage. It might be preferable to have absolutely everyone looking for a job, but realistically you're not likely to ever find the absolute best candidate, and it's OK if not everyone is in the job pool as you try and employ. Edited October 23, 2011 by BlueMartianKitty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 So how about that Oakland protest and the war vet guys? The situation seems to be seriously heating up at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 I'm against it since Hollywood stars decided to show up at the rallies. When K'Naan appears, I get sick. He's not even paying any taxes in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikethfc Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 (edited) they have the right idea about wanting a scaled income tax and all that, but a lot of the stories are fucking stupid. 90% of them are "my life: the story of bad decisions" while the other 10% are just stories of bad luck (i.e. medical expenses from a terminal disease). Well that's the ones the media are showing anyway, but if the coverage will be exactly the same with the riots/student cuts here, broadcasting an interview with the biggest simpletons they could find, along with anything they can use to get you to condemn it, whilst ignoring the legitimate protests going on, [spoiler=or the faults of the other side for that matter.] http://occupywriters.com/works/by-lemony-snicket I found this to be a rather good analysis Edited October 27, 2011 by Mikethfc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inactive Account Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 (edited) ...Are celebrity appearances being set up by the Occupy organizers? It does seem kind of twisted for them to show up, especially if they do so without acknowledging how easy they have it in some ways, but if they showed up of their own accord it can hardly defeat the whole purpose of the movement. Regardless of whether you support the movement or not though, anyone who lives in the states ought to be disgusted by the violent police responses we've been seeing. There's no justifying those. (I'm not going to say it's shocking or surprising, because police brutality has been a problem for a very long time, just much less publicized, but that only makes it worse-- it's taken this long to start reacting to it on a large scale.) Belated edit: That Lemony Snicket thing is actually an excellent outline, yes. Edited October 27, 2011 by Kiryn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 That Lemony Snicket thing put a smile on my face. I hope one of the protesters puts it on a sign out there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Actually, I've been tossing around some bad flavors of this Occupy stuff. There's a lot of people who are really getting into a romantic side of it, trying to play it as a larger revolt than it actually is. Photos circulate of youths "giving it to the man," kissing in the streets, being harassed by police (conveniently leaving out a big part of protesters fucking with them first or together with)--most recently the Oakland incident which is being blown out of context (misquoted statements on the issue to make it sound like it was a defendable, intentional action when it was and is neither). Contrasting this with the Arab Spring, which has been a real revolt and with real consequences, the Occupy idea is rather tame and poster-esque. It's a popular image, not an authentic one. Especially the reactions which happen in response--I've been following many raw upload websites and repositories, and what is actually happening for Occupy is really privileged and almost, absurdly, jestful. "Much gravity is spooned on so little a game." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nayr Farros Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 2011, the year of protest and revolution. But I doubt anything will change in the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.