Occupy "World" Protests- Decrying Everything "Evil"

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**WarOne**

Occupy Wall Street as gone global. Essentially the American protest but in the context of the society they are in.

I put "Evil" as the tagline because essentially it appears the protests are against those who the protesters perceive as the ones responsible for what is wrong with the world.

Japan- Against nuclear power plants.

Phillipines- Against US Imperialism

Australia- Change the economic pecking order (akin to US protests)

Taiwan- Benefits for middle class (economic issue)

Italian protests broke into a Goldman Sachs in Milan.

Greece, Spain- anti-austerity measures.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-15/anti-wall-st-protests-in-australia/3573134

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/15425/indignant-protests-across-asia

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Wall-Street-sit-in-protest-goes-global/Article1-757521.aspx

I thought this quote from the above article was succinct in how the rich are dealing with the crisis:

The targets of the protesters' wrath are also unlikely to be around to feel it. The City of London, for example, is deserted at weekends as wealthy city workers head for the golf club, country house or enjoy a spot of rest and recreation.

This article also gives another example of how the protests are being treated:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/10/15/occupy-wall-st-goes-global.html

“Most people view it as a ragtag group looking for sex, drugs and rock ’n’ roll,” one hedge-fund manager tells The New York Times. A bank executive says it’s “fringe groups” while a money manager calls them “just disgruntled people.” The money manager is particularly angry at New York Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand for not coming to their defense, despite Wall Street’s generous campaign contributions: “They need to understand who their constituency is.”

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/10/2011101413634658783.html

The above article draws a parallel with another movement in Latin America:

This report from Liberty Plaza connects tactics and philosophies surrounding the Occupy Wall Street movement with similar movements in Latin America, from the popular assemblies and occupation of factories during Argentina's economic crisis in 2001-2002, to grassroots struggles for land in Brazil.

**murdog**

Well, people everywhere have alot to protest. The way we run the world is unsustainable and unjust, and I think people have finally begun to wake up to that. Of course they will be mocked, and dismissed, and attacked. I hope that they've reached a critical mass that will make it difficult to derail.

I've been finding democracynow.org to be a fabulous resource in keeping track of this movement. They've had amazing coverage, bringing reams of images and the voices of those down there to the world.

**Melissia**

I think this needs to be kept in mind....

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/occupy-wall-street

MY COLLEAGUE is right that a relatively small number of pedestrians deliberately stepping into traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge is probably not going to be an effective method of social protest or political activism. But I think he's wrong to use that episode as a general characterisation of what's going on with the Occupy Wall Street protests. And I think a comparison to the tea-party movement actually turns up plenty of potential similarities.

One thing that became clear to me in watching the development of the tea-party movement over the course of 2009-10 is that I'm not necessarily a good judge of what sorts of direct-action strategies are going to lead to mass movements with significant influence, and what sorts aren't. I would never have believed, watching Rick Santelli rant on the floor of the NYSE about the possibility that he might have to chip in to bail out a neighbour who was underwater on his mortgage, that this might be part of the seeding of a major political movement. Wall Street traders complaining about the possibility that anyone besides Wall Street traders might receive government assistance did not seem to me, at that moment in political history, like a discourse that was likely to catch on with the public. The invocation of a new Tea Party seemed like a slogan pitched to eighth graders working through the American history year in their junior-high curriculum. And, as tea-party rhetoric caught on and spread around the country, many of the things said and done under its rubric were...well, not very intelligent or attractive. People with very limited or idiosyncratic fringe understandings of the financial system were making passionate pitches to abolish the Federal Reserve. It seemed hard to imagine how those people could find common cause with the Wall Street traders who initially cheered Mr Santelli. And that's not even taking into account the birthers, or the get-your-government-hands-off-my-Medicare folks. How could these people seriously hope to get anything accomplished?

As it turns out, they did. You don't necessarily know, at the beginning of a movement that generates a lot of spontaneous grassroots energy, which direction it's going to go, who's going to get involved, or what its lasting effects will be. The various tea-party organisations have pulled plenty of silly stunts over the past two years, but they have also shifted the right wing of Congress dramatically to the right, virtually paralysing the country's legislature. Whatever ineffectual and indeed offensive, anti-intellectual nuttiness the tea-party movement embraced, it also effectively focused the political attention of dissatisfied conservatives on the spectre of government action, creating a space where all sorts of different actors could intervene and grow. To the extent the Occupy Wall Street protests are working, it's because they do the same thing, focusing attention on a different entity of tremendous power which the mass of Americans resent and fear: the financial industry. Many tea-partiers, of course, are no fans of Wall Street either, and there are plenty of people who would likely be at home in both a tea-party protest and the Occupy Wall Street protest.

Anyway, I would try not to make the same mistakes in assessing these protests that I did in assessing the tea-party protests two years ago. Many of those involved in the Liberty Plaza protests are veterans of earlier left-wing protests. This is hardly surprising; many tea-partiers had experience in the pro-life movement and other conservative causes. Currently, unions and established progressive organisations are taking advantage of the protests and can be expected to infuse them with more of an agenda and more representative organisational strategy, much as conservative interest groups did with the tea-party movement. At that point the Occupy Wall Street protests may become engines for more effective political mobilisation. Or they may flame out and disappear. It's hard to say at this point.

Honestly? If I weren't busy with life I might join that occupy whatever protest. We need serious reform in the form of political donations (bribes) by corporations, a monetary policy dedicated to increasing demand (we have lots of supply, but not enough demand-- and have had excess supply for decades), and less religious nutjobbery in general (hey, I have no problem with any religious people, but stop pushing your religious ideas into my life via lawmaking and committee-stuffing).

**daedalus**

Melissia wrote:

Honestly? If I weren't busy with life I might join that occupy whatever protest. We need serious reform in the form of political donations (bribes) by corporations, a monetary policy dedicated to increasing demand (we have lots of supply, but not enough demand-- and have had excess supply for decades), and less religious nutjobbery in general (hey, I have no problem with any religious people, but stop pushing your religious ideas into my life via lawmaking and committee-stuffing).

I do not believe I've ever agreed with you as much as I do at this particular moment. I feel guilty that I'm not a part of this.

Having that been said, these protests aren't going to change anything. I still think they're vital though toward effecting change overall. They've shown that people are getting sick of the current situation. Sick enough of it to uproot themselves and travel somewhere to make a point, as opposed to complaining about it on the internet or in their local coffee shop. That's going to give them the chance to meet in person and better organize. That's big. Honestly, I figured it would take the masses standing in line to get a loaf of bread before protests would even begin, but perhaps people aren't quite as complacent as I thought. I wish I wasn't.

**Frazzled**

daedalus wrote:
Melissia wrote:

Honestly? If I weren't busy with life I might join that occupy whatever protest. We need serious reform in the form of political donations (bribes) by corporations, a monetary policy dedicated to increasing demand (we have lots of supply, but not enough demand-- and have had excess supply for decades), and less religious nutjobbery in general (hey, I have no problem with any religious people, but stop pushing your religious ideas into my life via lawmaking and committee-stuffing).

I do not believe I've ever agreed with you as much as I do at this particular moment. I feel guilty that I'm not a part of this.

Having that been said, these protests aren't going to change anything. I still think they're vital though toward effecting change overall. They've shown that people are getting sick of the current situation. Sick enough of it to uproot themselves and travel somewhere to make a point, as opposed to complaining about it on the internet or in their local coffee shop. That's going to give them the chance to meet in person and better organize. That's big. Honestly, I figured it would take the masses standing in line to get a loaf of bread before protests would even begin, but perhaps people aren't quite as complacent as I thought. I wish I wasn't.

So, er...who are you and Melissia going to vote for, for President?

**dogma**

Melissia wrote:...and less religious nutjobbery in general (hey, I have no problem with any religious people, but stop pushing your religious ideas into my life via lawmaking and committee-stuffing).

Just about the only way you're accomplishing that politically is via some rather...unsavory methods.

Religiosity ebbs and flows with culture, for the most part.

**biccat**

Frazzled wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Melissia wrote:

Honestly? If I weren't busy with life I might join that occupy whatever protest.

I do not believe I've ever agreed with you as much as I do at this particular moment. I feel guilty that I'm not a part of this.

So, er...who are you and Melissia going to vote for, for President?

Who indeed.

Spoiler:

dogma wrote:Just about the only way you're accomplishing that politically is via some rather...unsavory methods.

Well, the protestors are in favor of some "rather unsavory methods." The anti-semitism and general anarchist tendencies of the movement are plainly evident.

**Frazzled**

I doubt it. That would require like effort and stuff. If there's one thing I've learned about hippy tree hugger protesters, work is not their thing.

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
Well, the protestors are in favor of some "rather unsavory methods." The anti-semitism and general anarchist tendencies of the movement are plainly evident.

I don't see how antisemitism and anarchism indicates advocacy of "unsavory methods" (the definition of which I imagine we will not agree on). One could be a perfectly well mannered antisemite who wishes to restrict Jewish rights by Amending the Constitution, or an Anarchists who wishes to repeal it via the same process.

I'm also confused as to how a movement that is often criticized for having no coherent message beyond "Angry!" can exhibit, across its breadth, antisemitic and anarchist tendencies. But I'm sure you merely misspoke, and weren't trying to use labels, and guilt by association, to make a political statement.

I also like the Obama picture, though I'm sort of wondering what a "real job" is, though I generally wonder that whenever the cliche is used.

**daedalus**

Why, I'm going to vote for... uh.. well, that's the thing, there's no candidate that I've seen that isn't either a nutcase or solely interested in lining his/her and their sponsoring corporation's pockets with taxpayer gold.

Buddy Roemer talked a good fight on the Daily Show a couple months ago. The backing of the Faith and Freedom Coalition is a little troubling, but I'm willing to tolerate a zealot if it gets us true reform. Don't get me wrong, I'm not holding my breath for him, but we'll see what he looks like a little closer to time. Call it quiet optimism.

**biccat**

dogma wrote:I don't see how antisemitism and anarchism indicates advocacy of "unsavory methods" (the definition of which I imagine we will not agree on). One could be a perfectly well mannered antisemite who wishes to restrict Jewish rights by Amending the Constitution, or an Anarchists who wishes to repeal it via the same process.

While you may have a point, philosophically, practically speaking anarchists and anti-semites tend not to be the most reasonable people in the world.

dogma wrote:I'm also confused as to how a movement that is often criticized for having no coherent message beyond "Angry!" can exhibit, across its breadth, antisemitic and anarchist tendencies. But I'm sure you merely misspoke, and weren't trying to use labels, and guilt by association, to make a political statement.

Because no one on this board ever makes those types of broad-based assertions of right-wingers. This must be more of your selective outrage.

dogma wrote:I also like the Obama picture, though I'm sort of wondering what a "real job" is, though I generally wonder that whenever the cliche is used.

I saw it on one of my favorite VRWC blogs. It amused me.

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
While you may have a point, philosophically, practically speaking anarchists and anti-semites tend not to be the most reasonable people in the world.

I generally think that's true of anyone with strong convictions, which is also a fair description, in most cases, of protesters in general.

biccat wrote:
Because no one on this board ever makes those types of broad-based assertions of right-wingers. This must be more of your selective outrage.

I consistently respond to those points as well (I have a history of objecting to charges of the Tea Party's racism), which leads me to believe its an issue of selective memory on your part (or a combination of the two), though I'm sure you won't agree.

Additionally, it most likely isn't the best idea to respond to sweeping generalizations about a political group you're sympathetic towards, with sweeping generalizations to one you're hostile towards.

**CT GAMER**

dogma wrote:

Additionally, it most likely isn't the best idea to respond to sweeping generalizations about a political group you're sympathetic towards, with sweeping generalizations to one you're hostile towards.

Common sense is not a requirement to post in OT...

[/sarcasm]

**Melissia**

dogma wrote:
Melissia wrote:...and less religious nutjobbery in general (hey, I have no problem with any religious people, but stop pushing your religious ideas into my life via lawmaking and committee-stuffing).

Just about the only way you're accomplishing that politically is via some rather...unsavory methods.

Religiosity ebbs and flows with culture, for the most part.

It's practically institutionalized here, what with the Texas Board of Education...

They're as uncorrupt as Rick Perry is capable of winning a debate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:So, er...who are you and Melissia going to vote for, for President?

I don't know. If McCain was running and not running as a Bush clone, him. But that seems unlikely...

If it's Cain, Perry, etc. though, I'm voting for Obama simply because of the lesser of two evils concept. I shudder to think what the tea party would accomplish with both a majority and the president. It could quite possibly set the country back a few decades. Romney might be moderate enough to reign in the more stupidly extremist members of the party, so it'd really depend on which of the two of them have more substance in their platforms and debate...

Hell, by now, Obama at least can claim he has more experience actually governing and running things than Cain does, even though he was inexperienced when he got in to office.

**dogma**

Melissia wrote:
They're as uncorrupt as Rick Perry is capable of winning a debate.

Of the Republican nomination, if his numbers continue on their current course.

Just based on campaign acumen, its pretty obvious that Romney is the only present (serious) candidate used to playing to a nation audience.

Melissia wrote:
If it's Cain, Perry, etc. though, I'm voting for Obama simply because of the lesser of two evils concept. I shudder to think what the tea party would accomplish with both a majority and the president. It could quite possibly set the country back a few decades. Romney might be moderate enough to reign in the more stupidly extremist members of the party, so it'd really depend on which of the two of them have more substance in their platforms and debate...

I would guess that, even if Cain or Perry is elected, that the Democrats won't lose the filibuster in the Senate. Indeed, I would be surprised if they lost the majority, though the House will probably become more Republican.

**Melissia**

But then again, if Cain or Perry wins the nomination, Obama will have a far easier time winning the presidency anyway because they're not centrist enough to pick up independents while at least Obama can claim he's tried to cross the isle (much to the chagrin of his own party), even if his attempts were usually rebuffed.

If Cain DOES get into the presidential seat, I'd damned well hope his tax plan is filibustered to death. Emperor that thing is attrocious.

**Da Boss**

I hope something does come of this, but I am sceptical. The main problem I have with everything that is currently happening is the fact that when the going is good we privatise the profits, but when the gak hits the fan we socialise the losses. And then demonize the public sector to cover.

So, yeah, hippie scum want to whinge, but I kinda agree with them, this time.

**dogma**

Melissia wrote:But then again, if Cain or Perry wins the nomination, Obama will have a far easier time winning the presidency anyway because they're not centrist enough to pick up independents while at least Obama can claim he's tried to cross the isle (much to the chagrin of his own party), even if his attempts were usually rebuffed.

If Cain DOES get into the presidential seat, I'd damned well hope his tax plan is filibustered to death. Emperor that thing is attrocious.

I doubt he would even find much support in his own party for getting it to the floor, at least not in any approaching its current form. I think he knows that too, and that his campaign basically decided that he needed some kind of brand piece to set himself apart from the field.

Besides, Romney will just say something to the effect of "Last time we elected an outsider (Obama), and look what happened!"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Da Boss wrote:I hope something does come of this, but I am sceptical. The main problem I have with everything that is currently happening is the fact that when the going is good we privatise the profits, but when the gak hits the fan we socialise the losses. And then demonize the public sector to cover.

So, yeah, hippie scum want to whinge, but I kinda agree with them, this time.

Well, the losses are always social, that's just the nature of living in an interconnected social system. But yes, privatizing profits generally leads to a dangerous centralization of fiscal power, which helps no one; not even the people at the top in the long wrong (imbalanced economic systems tend to create highly unstable states, absent an iron fist).

**Frazzled**

Melissia wrote:
dogma wrote:
Melissia wrote:...and less religious nutjobbery in general (hey, I have no problem with any religious people, but stop pushing your religious ideas into my life via lawmaking and committee-stuffing).

Just about the only way you're accomplishing that politically is via some rather...unsavory methods.

Religiosity ebbs and flows with culture, for the most part.
It's practically institutionalized here, what with the Texas Board of Education...

They're as uncorrupt as Rick Perry is capable of winning a debate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:So, er...who are you and Melissia going to vote for, for President?
I don't know. If McCain was running and not running as a Bush clone, him. But that seems unlikely...

If it's Cain, Perry, etc. though, I'm voting for Obama simply because of the lesser of two evils concept. I shudder to think what the tea party would accomplish with both a majority and the president. It could quite possibly set the country back a few decades. Romney might be moderate enough to reign in the more stupidly extremist members of the party, so it'd really depend on which of the two of them have more substance in their platforms and debate...

Hell, by now, Obama at least can claim he has more experience actually governing and running things than Cain does, even though he was inexperienced when he got in to office.

Yet, you sympathisize with the OccupyDumpwater crowd. Obama has received the most campaign donations from Wall Street in history. He just signed three free trade agreements.

Watched an interview last night where an "Occupier" was saying we need to get all the evil Zionists Bankers out of the USA. Priceless.

**Melissia**

Frazzled wrote:He just signed three free trade agreements.

Which is a good thing, not a bad one.

One of the agreements, for example, forced a certain South American country to start to adapt new safety regulations in their copper mines, for example-- definitely appaudible. While it will raise the prices of that comany's exports, at the same time, having more copper will lower prices here; we're in a bit of a shortage, which is why you see things like people stealing copper off of church items and so on. Having more in the market will help alleviate the price and, as copper is a very commonly used material, help a lot of industries.

Don't forget that I'm a capitalist by heart, I just don't agree with megacorporation-focused capitalism that the US government has been pushing for the last few decades... I think smaller companies are the answer-- more competition, more innovation, more jobs,and better for the country overall.

Obama's campaign money from wall street is worrying-- then again, republicans have long accepted just as much money from the same donors (the party of big business, essentially) so I don't really see an alternative on that end. That will have to be solved through political donation regulation reform. In fact, I kinda like the idea of outright outlawing campaign contributions from corporations, myself... but that's about as likely as Perry becmoing democrat.

**Easy E**

Da Boss wrote:So, yeah, hippie scum want to whinge, but I kinda agree with them, this time.

I would side with Hippie scum over Yuppie scum any day of the week.

**Frazzled**

Why? Hippies don't make anything, or for that matter, do anything. Smoking dope and refusing to bath is anot a job occupation, unless your a hobo of course.

**daedalus**

Frazzled wrote:
Watched an interview last night where an "Occupier" was saying we need to get all the evil Zionists Bankers out of the USA. Priceless.

And I've seen interviews where farmers genuinely believe they were abducted by aliens. I've also seen interviews where Christians believe that the Rapture will occur for reals this time this Friday. Does that mean that all farmers believe in aliens/that they will get abducted by aliens or that all Christians believe that they alone can predict events of divine intervention, when they've been wrong so many times before?

My point is that one person shouldn't spoil the message. Just because they found the most unhinged nut (and you KNOW they looked hard for him) to embarrass himself in the name of ratings/diminishing their cause doesn't mean they're all like that.

This is all assuming it was even a real interview and not staged.

**Infreak**

Say what you will about Hobo's, but they are a proud and noble bottom class! I'd really like to see National Geographic do a piece on them with a follow up on Hippies.

From what I understand the Occupy Bay Street (Toronto's financial distict) is a bit of a joke. A small rag tag group sitting around with a few getting high. They can barely get a chant going and don't really have an idea as to why they're even there.

**Frazzled**

Infreak wrote:Say what you will about Hobo's, but they are a proud and noble bottom class! I'd really like to see National Geographic do a piece on them with a follow up on Hippies.

From what I understand the Occupy Bay Street (Toronto's fincial distict) is a bit of a joke. A small rag tag group sitting around with a few getting high. They can barely get a chant going and don't really have an idea as to why they're even there.

Wait a month and they won't be there.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Watched an interview last night where an "Occupier" was saying we need to get all the evil Zionists Bankers out of the USA. Priceless.

And I've seen interviews where farmers genuinely believe they were abducted by aliens. I've also seen interviews where Christians believe that the Rapture will occur for reals this time this Friday. Does that mean that all farmers believe in aliens/that they will get abducted by aliens or that all Christians believe that they alone can predict events of divine intervention, when they've been wrong so many times before?

My point is that one person shouldn't spoil the message. Just because they found the most unhinged nut (and you KNOW they looked hard for him) to embarrass himself in the name of ratings/diminishing their cause doesn't mean they're all like that.

This is all assuming it was even a real interview and not staged.

but the Tea Party are evil racists because...

**kronk**

If you collapse from exhaustion on a campaign bus, you're a dedicated statesman.

If you collapse from exhaustion every night in a park, you're a hobo.

**Frazzled**

kronk wrote:If you collapse from exhaustion on a campaign bus, you're a dedicated statesman.

If you collapse from exhaustion every night in a park, you're a hobo.

If you collapse from exhaustion at your high school reunion, you're living in the past.
If you collapse from exhaustion after a day at Disney, you're a parent.
If you collapse from exhaustion after climbing the stairs, you need to lay off the Doritoes.
If you collapse after exhaustion from walking an ancient wiener dog 200 yards in 2 hours because the little bastard meanders about a foot a minute without his personal seeing eye dog, you're Frazzled.

**Albatross**

I walked past the rather sad-looking tent 'village' (more of a small hamlet) belonging to Occupy Manchester this morning on my way to work. It was lashing down with rain, as per usual. I couldn't resist a sly chuckle, if only because I find the overly-earnest hilarious.

In my opinion, some of those people looked like they need to 'occupy' a shower. And after that, the Jobcentre.

**purplefood**

I wonder if we could get a Occupy North Korea group going...

**Monster Rain**

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/opinion/the-milquetoast-radicals.html?_r=3&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

This is pretty much exactly how I feel about the ones in the US.

For example:

Unfortunately, almost no problem can be productively conceived in this way. A group that divides the world between the pure 99 percent and the evil 1 percent will have nothing to say about education reform, Medicare reform, tax reform, wage stagnation or polarization. They will have nothing to say about the way Americans have overconsumed and overborrowed. These are problems that implicate a much broader swath of society than the top 1 percent.