# #occupywallstreet



## JBirdVegas (Jun 11, 2011)

I like to believe we (as a community) are all intelligent and all come from a wide variety of backgrounds, race, creeds, nationalities and financial status. What started as a small group of campers protesting Occupying Wallstreet has became a worldwide protest with many sometimes unclear goals.

That being said do you agree with the Occupy movement?

MODS: If this is too controversial of a topic, then please close and/or delete thread

Please no negative comments you can't be wrong for having a view point!


----------



## ninjabeaver (Aug 20, 2011)

Peacefully assembling is one thing its another to ruin Parks and whine about not having a job. They all expext stuff to be handed to them without any hard work.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## dickenam (Jun 14, 2011)

JBirdVegas said:


> I like to believe we (as a community) are all intelligent and all come from a wide variety of backgrounds, race, creeds, nationalities and financial status. What started as a small group of campers protesting Occupying Wallstreet has became a worldwide protest with many sometimes unclear goals.
> 
> That being said do you agree with the Occupy movement?
> 
> ...


This is my view point http://www.reddit.com/tb/lyw47
That being said, let us please keep this as constructive as we can.
Thanks!


----------



## Mustang302LX (Jun 28, 2011)

I completely disagree with the entire thing. I get the fact people in the US are tired of the junk economy BUT it would better benefit them to be civilized and talk with law makers. Instead they chose to party it up in parks ruining them and also to destroy/vandalize banks and other businesses.

It seems the vast majority of these people have no idea why they are even at these protests. It's just something for them to do and then try and say they are there to help the country. Give me a break! If you don't have a job go look for one. I get it's hard to find a job right now but come on sleeping in a park and holding signs or dressing like a freakshow isn't going to help you or the economy.


----------



## Jotokun (Sep 24, 2011)

To be honest, I'm not sure I understand the movement. On one hand it seems to be saying that corporations shouldnt have a hand in shaping politics (by slipping money to the right people to get what they want), and that is something I agree with the movement on.

But, there also seems to be a lot of "I'm poor, you're rich, its unfair" when the people in those corporations earned what they have through hard work, and I disagree with the movement on that. If you cant get a job, you're probably looking in the wrong places or doing something that makes you considered unsuitable. The fact that many of them are messing up parks demonstrates that. The economy may be poor, but that's something you have to adapt to, not scream and hope it goes away.

Based on my understanding of it, I would have to disagree with it. Right idea, wrong reasons and wrong approach.


----------



## Mustang302LX (Jun 28, 2011)

Jotokun said:


> To be honest, I'm not sure I understand the movement. On one hand it seems to be saying that corporations shouldnt have a hand in shaping politics (by slipping money to the right people to get what they want), and that is something I agree with the movement on.
> 
> But, there also seems to be a lot of "I'm poor, you're rich, its unfair" when the people in those corporations earned what they have through hard work, and I disagree with the movement on that. If you cant get a job, you're probably looking in the wrong places or doing something that makes you considered unsuitable. The fact that many of them are messing up parks demonstrates that. The economy may be poor, but that's something you have to adapt to, not scream and hope it goes away.
> 
> Based on my understanding of it, I would have to disagree with it. Right idea, wrong reasons and wrong approach.


Very well said!


----------



## dickenam (Jun 14, 2011)

Mustang302LX said:


> To be honest, I'm not sure I understand the movement. On one hand it seems to be saying that corporations shouldnt have a hand in shaping politics (by slipping money to the right people to get what they want), and that is something I agree with the movement on.
> 
> But, there also seems to be a lot of "I'm poor, you're rich, its unfair" when the people in those corporations earned what they have through hard work, and I disagree with the movement on that. If you cant get a job, you're probably looking in the wrong places or doing something that makes you considered unsuitable. The fact that many of them are messing up parks demonstrates that. The economy may be poor, but that's something you have to adapt to, not scream and hope it goes away.
> 
> Based on my understanding of it, I would have to disagree with it. Right idea, wrong reasons and wrong approach.


All very valid points, in some ways the movement is a cop out. The idea behind it is solid, lacking on implementation - that's for sure.


----------



## Dr. Carpenter (Jun 10, 2011)

Jotokun said:


> To be honest, I'm not sure I understand the movement. On one hand it seems to be saying that corporations shouldnt have a hand in shaping politics (by slipping money to the right people to get what they want), and that is something I agree with the movement on.
> 
> But, there also seems to be a lot of "I'm poor, you're rich, its unfair" when the people in those corporations earned what they have through hard work, and I disagree with the movement on that. If you cant get a job, you're probably looking in the wrong places or doing something that makes you considered unsuitable. The fact that many of them are messing up parks demonstrates that. The economy may be poor, but that's something you have to adapt to, not scream and hope it goes away.
> 
> Based on my understanding of it, I would have to disagree with it. Right idea, wrong reasons and wrong approach.


The ability of corporations to donate to political campaigns is a recent change, and one could argue that it was pushed for in response to that ability being allowed to unions for years. It has only become an issue in the media since corporations have been allowed to, but when it was just unions, it was fine.

I need to find the exact numbers again, but of the total amount of money contributed by unions in the 2008 campaign, virtually all (>90%) went to Democrat candidates. Funny how no one at ows is ranting about that.

When it comes to corporations (or unions) donating to campaigns with expectations or promises of specific, targeted benefits (think solyndra, ge), then I agree wholeheartedly with ows on that point. Unfortunately, the ows protesters are after the wrong people. I disagreed with the bank bailouts as well, but the root of the problem wasn't with the banks or wall street, it was in Washington DC. In some cases, the banks were forced to accept the bailouts, even if they didn't need them (Wells Fargo). I suppose turning down the bailouts would send the "wrong" signal to the public: that not everyone was affected by the downturn, and therefore, that those institutions that were, were so because of bad decisions they had made, which went against the portrayal at the time that the banks were victims of the fickle economy.

To keep on subject, though, I agree that the ows has turned into a "you have more than me, and that's not fair, so give it to me or we'll take you down" kind of thing, and whatever the justification at the beginning, it has turned into a very dangerous movement. The rampage in Oakland, the clashes with police in pretty much every occupy location, and the ever-increasing reports of theft, rape, assault, and vandalism in NY especially, point to that. This is not a group that is able to take care of itself in any way, and needs to be shut down. They have long since gone past any reasonable definition of a "peaceful assembly", they have not even attempted to obtain the required permits, and they have broken too many laws to keep track of anymore. Not to mention the blatant disregard for private property, the trashing of parks, the disruption of traffic and business, and the massive taxpayer costs for police and city worker's overtime pay.

All of that aside, what these people are demanding goes against the very core of our country's founding. America was never meant to be a democracy, the founders felt that a democracy was just as dangerous to individual freedom as a monarchy. In a democracy, a simple majority rules and the views of the minority mean absolutely nothing. This country was set up to be a representative republic, and the goal was make it extremely difficult for the government to actually do anything (and thereby limiting its ability to trample on individual rights), hence the complex system of checks and balances and electoral processes.

The ows movement, at its core, is about the rights of the collective, not the rights of the individual, and is therefore quite the opposite of what the founders stood for.

Sorry for the book


----------



## reygeoffrey (Jun 27, 2011)

Now my first question, what in god's name does Occupy Wall Street have to do with Linux? And since I'm here I might as well express my view on these protestors. In the Long Run there probally going to get what they want. In the shorter term they are causing more trouble for themselves and others then they already having. Being arrested for protesting vandlising, assault on police officers. Those who still have jobs that are in these protest may just end up loosing there jobs. Not to mention that we have already lost two marines that were in these protest. So if these people would just stop and think for a second, maybe they would realize that they aren't getting much out of this.


----------



## reygeoffrey (Jun 27, 2011)

And also i see that maybe it would be useful to create a local news thread.


----------



## SyNiK4L (Jun 7, 2011)

lets occupy rootzwiki :-D


----------



## PonsAsinorem (Oct 10, 2011)

SyNiK4L said:


> lets occupy rootzwiki :-D


Already got it in my signature, here and at other places.


----------



## DrMacinyasha (Jun 6, 2011)

My two cents:

People are tired of the government and businesses being in bed together. We all know they go hand-in-hand, making each other grow at the expense of the average citizen. People have tried to reach out to their representatives in the government, but those politicians are more concerned about getting re-elected (in the legislative branch), keeping their jobs (in the executive branch), and continuing the influx of money to their pockets (every branch). People got so tired of it, that they started protesting at the big businesses down on Wall Street in NYC. The media went from Blackout to Shitstorm mode, and the movement started getting lots of attention. However, through the media and other means, the messages of the Occupiers was distorted. Unions, homeless, anarchists, communists, and other radical groups started jumping in, diluting the occupiers into this giant "movement" with no real purpose or voice except to protest... Something.

Now, for those of who lurk in places like r/conspiracy, and to let my own cynicism and paranoia vent: It wouldn't surprise me if the big corporations are terrified of this. They're pulling strings to have the media demonize the whole thing. When the government realized that this movement could mean some sort of social changes that threaten their status quo, they joined with the corporations to try and paint the whole thing in a negative light. So they started pulling their strings, and had unions bus in hundreds of people to each movement, making the movements bigger, more diluted, and drawing in all the other radical groups because of each protest's sheer size. Add in a few hundred cops, campers, filthy and violent people, and you've got a ticking time bomb. They're just waiting for more shootings, bursts of violence, and anything else they can use to force the groups to disperse. By that time, the occupy movements will be remembered as violent groups of thugs and handout-seekers trying to mooch off everyone else. Based on the comments I'm seeing here and elsewhere, I'd say that message is already well-planted in people's minds.


----------



## reygeoffrey (Jun 27, 2011)

SyNiK4L said:


> lets occupy rootzwiki :-D


Im wiht you


----------



## Barney Stinson (Oct 25, 2011)

That many people have gathered in a location is not in dispute. That it is a movement, however, is. With disparate beliefs, many interviewed unable to cogently espouse his own belief and/or reason for participation, this is a hoard at best.

People have a right to peaceably-assemble. Should that assembly exist to impair- or impede the free exercise of liberty of others, or should they actively interfere with proximate business(es), foot traffic, et al, then it is neither peaceable nor an assembly, and ought not be tolerated further.

Those who are open minded are capable of learning. I, however, do not conflate open mindedness with accepting all assertions as true.

This hoard fails on: persuasion, coherence, credibility.


----------

