I'm just saying its easy to protest a system when it is not benefitting you.
It is indeed easy to hate being shit on, yes. That is, in fact, the point of the protest. People would like the rich to cease shitting on them and demanding thanks for it.
I'm just saying its easy to protest a system when it is not benefitting you.
It is indeed easy to hate being shit on, yes. That is, in fact, the point of the protest. People would like the rich to cease shitting on them and demanding thanks for it.
Yep and annyoing the rich is best way to get them to stop. If the OWS had taken place in the middle of nowhere, they would have gotten nowhere as a result.
If they got jobs, then the system would have been working. They don't have them, therefore the system doesn't work. Protesting was the only way to make the rich see that.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
I'm just saying its easy to protest a system when it is not benefitting you.
It is indeed easy to hate being shit on, yes. That is, in fact, the point of the protest. People would like the rich to cease shitting on them and demanding thanks for it.
Yep and annyoing the rich is best way to get them to stop. If the OWS had taken place in the middle of nowhere, they would have gotten nowhere as a result.
If they got jobs, then the system would have been working. They don't have them, therefore the system doesn't work. Protesting was the only way to make the rich see that.
and not just the rich, but also pretty much everybody else as well.
It wasn't just to inconvenience you and your friends.
It's to raise awareness about the issue of income disparity and a number of other things. The conversation has changed since OWS started, nationally.
There is a clear disconnect here. He never said "I don't care about the very poor because there is a safety net, and if it sucks, fuck them. Yay middle class!". He literally said "if it needs repair I'll fix it."
That is still a stupid statement. Of course it needs repair. It's in desperate need of repair. It's take a complete, utter goose to be unaware of this.
Oh right.
There's also the fact that many of the very poor were middle class until recently. Helping the very poor get back into the middle class should be the goal here not necessary helping those who are already middle class.
The idea that we should ignore the actions of the wealthy and leave the poor to a system of support that just helps them live in poverty is a problem.
Solution! Fire all the middle class. Then they'll all be the very poor and there won't be anything to worry about any more!
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
It sure would've been nice if all those poor and disadvantaged people had protested somewhere else. And more quietly. Such an inconvenience they caused!
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
It sure would've been nice if all those poor and disadvantaged people had protested somewhere else. And more quietly. Such an inconvenience they caused!
My friend and her dog aren't the reason income is distributed unequally in America. All the poor restaurant owners in the area did not deserve to have their restrooms destroyed. And drum circles and shouting at night are just rude things to do. Even if they did camp out right infront of a building that is filled with noone but the people who orchestrated the recession, it still would be wrong to not even let them sleep, IMO.
My friend and her dog aren't the reason income is distributed unequally in America. All the poor restaurant owners in the area did not deserve to have their restrooms destroyed. And drum circles and shouting at night are just rude things to do. Even if they did camp out right infront of a building that is filled with noone but the people who orchestrated the recession, it still would be wrong to not even let them sleep, IMO.
Can you propose an alternative that would've been just as effective? If you want to criticize that's fine and dandy but without adding your own suggestion into the mix it's hard to hear you over the cries of people upset that they had to pass the rabble on their way to work today. It's not a particularly fair characterization, as you do have legitimate points but it'll be made none the less. Because at the end of the day, what else is there to do?
We haven't had a major protest movement since Americans were dying in the thousands in Vietnam; that one only really took off because of the DNC and Kent State incidents as well. Before that? We had to regularly shut down entire industries or cities to get protesters grievances aired. Ones like non-oppressive working environments and civil rights. There certainly wasn't a lot of "respect for property owners" shutting entire southern cities down for the day, but it took that to get Civil Rights. So given that, we need to hear a more compelling alternative so we can actually say "You know, yeah, they were kind of bad to do that, if only they'd done Y" instead of just chiding them for how much noise they made. (Literally, and metaphorically)
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
It sure would've been nice if all those poor and disadvantaged people had protested somewhere else. And more quietly. Such an inconvenience they caused!
My friend and her dog aren't the reason income is distributed unequally in America. All the poor restaurant owners in the area did not deserve to have their restrooms destroyed. And drum circles and shouting at night are just rude things to do. Even if they did camp out right infront of a building that is filled with noone but the people who orchestrated the recession, it still would be wrong to not even let them sleep, IMO.
Heavens to betsy can't have people protest where it would inconvenience other people!
Your concern for the area the protest where held in is touching it really is, but all you are doing is trying to shift the focus from WHY they protested.
/Sarcasm: Why don't your friend just move. Why didn't the resturants open somewhere else? Goddamn Hippies, when life gives you lemons make lemonade!
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
YES! If only OWS would only occupy the internet, where no one has to go and there is a built-in army of trollfaces and bored people to shout them down and the mainstream can simply COMPLETELY IGNORE THEM or ban them! Then things would get done and the national discourse would change and people would pay attention to the fact that bankers on Wall Street held the world hostage, committed acts of fraud, and then gave themselves bonuses!
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
My friend and her dog aren't the reason income is distributed unequally in America. All the poor restaurant owners in the area did not deserve to have their restrooms destroyed. And drum circles and shouting at night are just rude things to do. Even if they did camp out right infront of a building that is filled with noone but the people who orchestrated the recession, it still would be wrong to not even let them sleep, IMO.
Can you propose an alternative that would've been just as effective? If you want to criticize that's fine and dandy but without adding your own suggestion into the mix it's hard to hear you over the cries of people upset that they had to pass the rabble on their way to work today. It's not a particularly fair characterization, as you do have legitimate points but it'll be made none the less. Because at the end of the day, what else is there to do?
We haven't had a major protest movement since Americans were dying in the thousands in Vietnam; that one only really took off because of the DNC and Kent State incidents as well. Before that? We had to regularly shut down entire industries or cities to get protesters grievances aired. Ones like non-oppressive working environments and civil rights. There certainly wasn't a lot of "respect for property owners" shutting entire southern cities down for the day, but it took that to get Civil Rights. So given that, we need to hear a more compelling alternative so we can actually say "You know, yeah, they were kind of bad to do that, if only they'd done Y" instead of just chiding them for how much noise they made. (Literally, and metaphorically)
They could have occupied the national mall in DC, or a business district that is not also a residential neighborhood. NYC happens to have tons of people living in the financial district, which made it more inappropriate than it needed to be.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
there was an occupation in DC.
And where in NYC are you going to find a district that's not mixed business and residential?
symbolism means something. And a protest is a protest. Not a PTA meeting with cake and cookies and tea.
And where in NYC are you going to find a district that's not mixed business and residential?
symbolism means something. And a protest is a protest. Not a PTA meeting with cake and cookies and tea.
There are parts of midtown that have very little residential space. But them who says they had to protest in NYC anyway? DC is where it should have been from the start, IMO.
Except OWS inspired a myriad of smaller local movements across the country, with places like Oakland and Boston getting a fair amount of national attention. People were protesting based on where they lived. It's not like all the riff-raff and undesirables just congregated only in NYC.
They could have occupied the national mall in DC, or a business district that is not also a residential neighborhood. NYC happens to have tons of people living in the financial district, which made it more inappropriate than it needed to be.
Guess what posters from DC find really inconvenient.
There are parts of midtown that have very little residential space. But them who says they had to protest in NYC anyway? DC is where it should have been from the start, IMO.
There are protests in DC. There are also protests in NYC. Also across the country. Because it is not necessary or even wise to protest in one area and one area only.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
There are parts of midtown that have very little residential space. But them who says they had to protest in NYC anyway? DC is where it should have been from the start, IMO.
There are protests in DC. There are also protests in NYC. Also across the country. Because it is not necessary or even wise to protest in one area and one area only.
How is this relevant? Fallout2man asked me for a suggestion for how they could have protested without inconveniencing people or being irrelevant. I made a suggestion.
There are parts of midtown that have very little residential space. But them who says they had to protest in NYC anyway? DC is where it should have been from the start, IMO.
There are protests in DC. There are also protests in NYC. Also across the country. Because it is not necessary or even wise to protest in one area and one area only.
How is this relevant? Fallout2man asked me for a suggestion for how they could have protested without inconveniencing people or being irrelevant. I made a suggestion.
A suggestion that would have made them far more irrelevant.
There are always protests in DC and far fewer people overall would have been able to participate. So you pretty much didn't solve that part and seem to have decided to ignore the fact that people in DC would still be inconvenienced, something you're rather rudely ignoring.
There are parts of midtown that have very little residential space. But them who says they had to protest in NYC anyway? DC is where it should have been from the start, IMO.
There are protests in DC. There are also protests in NYC. Also across the country. Because it is not necessary or even wise to protest in one area and one area only.
How is this relevant? Fallout2man asked me for a suggestion for how they could have protested without inconveniencing people or being irrelevant. I made a suggestion.
A suggestion that would have made them far more irrelevant.
There are always protests in DC and far fewer people overall would have been able to participate. So you pretty much didn't solve that part and seem to have decided to ignore the fact that people in DC would still be inconvenienced, something you're rather rudely ignoring.
So rudely.
The mall is not a residential area. I also suggested non residential areas of midtown. The NY financial district happens to be a thriving residential area, with many families with young children. It was a poor choice of location for that reason.
There are parts of midtown that have very little residential space. But them who says they had to protest in NYC anyway? DC is where it should have been from the start, IMO.
There are protests in DC. There are also protests in NYC. Also across the country. Because it is not necessary or even wise to protest in one area and one area only.
How is this relevant? Fallout2man asked me for a suggestion for how they could have protested without inconveniencing people or being irrelevant. I made a suggestion.
A suggestion that would have made them far more irrelevant.
There are always protests in DC and far fewer people overall would have been able to participate. So you pretty much didn't solve that part and seem to have decided to ignore the fact that people in DC would still be inconvenienced, something you're rather rudely ignoring.
So rudely.
The mall is not a residential area. I also suggested non residential areas of midtown. The NY financial district happens to be a thriving residential area, with many families with young children. It was a poor choice of location for that reason.
Protesting Wall St. necessitates the location. OWS would have set up camp directly on Wall St., if they were allowed, so they chose the park.
This complaint is goosery of the highest order. You're nitpicking at this point. Think of all the people the inconvenienced in lower Manhattan!
Yeah, those people making a liveable wage in one of the most expensive cities in America are being put out by people who have defaulted on loans because they've been out of work for a few years, or lost their house in the crash.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Protesting Wall St. necessitates the location. OWS would have set up camp directly on Wall St., if they were allowed, so they chose the park.
This complaint is goosery of the highest order. You're nitpicking at this point. Think of all the people the inconvenienced in lower Manhattan!
Yeah, those people making a liveable wage in one of the most expensive cities in America are being put out by people who have defaulted on loans because they've been out of work for a few years, or lost their house in the crash.
They were never really able to protest on wall street at all, and the banks they hate are all in midtown anyway, so I really fail to why this is a compelling argument. They set up camp there because the park did not close at night, and I understand that, but I really don't think it was right of them to inconvenience people like they did. I also really don't want to lose sight of the damage they did to local merchant's rest rooms. That was just flat out unacceptable, and when I read about it in the NYT it was the final straw that set me against the protests.
And why shouldn't people's feelings count just because they are better off than the protestors? If they set up shop outside my house, I would have been furious, and would have been doing anything I could to get them removed. Even if the message they were pushing was to get tax breaks for lawyers that work in manhattan, I still wouldn't tolerate them making my life so much harder or keeping me awake at night. To me, it is just a matter of basic decency and respect for your fellow man. I didn't think this was an issue that had to do with class at all.
Once again, The protests location was relevant to the issue being protested. They chose to protest near wall street because they protested the behavior of wall street firms. If they had protested somewhere else, the location would not have made sense. They chose to protest Wall street where wall street could see their protests. What good does it to protest wall street in the middle of the fucking praire in Wyohming?
Do you understand the words written above?
Your lack of comprehension doesn't really matter, because your complaints are not about the OWS geographic location. Its you and every other silly goose conservative barging into this thread trying to shift the focus of the debate. From WHY the OWS protest, to WHERE. Every last one of them including you now you come in here, say "I respect their right to protest, but they should really do it somewhere else because they are noisy and stink". While never adressing the Why of the protests.
Did really think you where the first silly goose to make this argument? Did you really think we wouldn't see you trying to shift the debate?
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Once again, The protests location was relevant to the issue being protested. They chose to protest near wall street because they protested the behavior of wall street firms. If they had protested somewhere else, the location would not have made sense. They chose to protest Wall street where wall street could see their protests. What good does it to protest wall street in the middle of the fucking praire in Wyohming?
Do you understand the words written above?
Your lack of comprehension doesn't really matter, because your complaints are not about the OWS geographic location. Its you and every other silly goose conservative barging into this thread trying to shift the focus of the debate. From WHY the OWS protest, to WHERE. Every last one of them including you now you come in here, say "I respect their right to protest, but they should really do it somewhere else because they are noisy and stink". While never adressing the Why of the protests.
Did really think you where the first silly goose to make this argument? Did you really think we wouldn't see you trying to shift the debate?
I actually came into this thread making similiar arguments a while back. I don't think there is a debate to shift, because the thread has not been very active lately. . .
Please back off on the personal attacks here. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I don't understand what you are saying (this seems to be a depressingly common pov around here). I also find it really funny that I am being called a conservative, when I consider myself to be pretty socially liberal.
They protested "wall street" but Goldman, Merrill Lynch, etc. are not on wall street anymore, and have not been there for years. They are located in midtown, which is much less residential. I get the symbolism, but the location was a poor choice if they wanted to be in the faces of the actual bankers, and was also poorly chosen because of how many people live there.
This has nothing to do with the why of the protest of course. Whether or not I agree with it, I'm not saying they should not protest, or even they should not protest in areas that are symbolically relevant. I am just saying they chose poorly in this case, from both perspectives.
It's pretty demoralizing to be repeatedly confronted since week 1 of protests with people, in apparent total seriousness, weighing convenience in one hand and the rights of speech and peaceable assembly in the other while making "ruh roh, I dunno!" noises.
Also I wish that when being a human was getting smeared by the media they would at least cook up new cockamamie stories and not just use the same slurs every single time. The "dirty" meme as mentioned above is so old that as soon as one hears it being applied, obviously one can just tune out whatever is coming next since it will b almost guarantees to be equally unserious.
If they don't even fake the romance with new sexy put-downs then you know that societal sloth and fear are just going through the motions of hating.
They were never really able to protest on wall street at all, and the banks they hate are all in midtown anyway, so I really fail to why this is a compelling argument. They set up camp there because the park did not close at night, and I understand that, but I really don't think it was right of them to inconvenience people like they did. I also really don't want to lose sight of the damage they did to local merchant's rest rooms. That was just flat out unacceptable, and when I read about it in the NYT it was the final straw that set me against the protests.
And why shouldn't people's feelings count just because they are better off than the protestors? If they set up shop outside my house, I would have been furious, and would have been doing anything I could to get them removed. Even if the message they were pushing was to get tax breaks for lawyers that work in manhattan, I still wouldn't tolerate them making my life so much harder or keeping me awake at night. To me, it is just a matter of basic decency and respect for your fellow man. I didn't think this was an issue that had to do with class at all.
Frankly I'm having a hard time taking your argument seriously when you don't even have the decency to consider the feelings of people in DC. To think you would inconvenience people just to make your life better.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
They were never really able to protest on wall street at all, and the banks they hate are all in midtown anyway, so I really fail to why this is a compelling argument. They set up camp there because the park did not close at night, and I understand that, but I really don't think it was right of them to inconvenience people like they did. I also really don't want to lose sight of the damage they did to local merchant's rest rooms. That was just flat out unacceptable, and when I read about it in the NYT it was the final straw that set me against the protests.
And why shouldn't people's feelings count just because they are better off than the protestors? If they set up shop outside my house, I would have been furious, and would have been doing anything I could to get them removed. Even if the message they were pushing was to get tax breaks for lawyers that work in manhattan, I still wouldn't tolerate them making my life so much harder or keeping me awake at night. To me, it is just a matter of basic decency and respect for your fellow man. I didn't think this was an issue that had to do with class at all.
Frankly I'm having a hard time taking your argument seriously when you don't even have the decency to consider the feelings of people in DC. To think you would inconvenience people just to make your life better.
Now you seem to be arguing in bad faith. I have been pretty explicit that nonresidential areas of DC or NYC would both have been fine. I also never said I was inconvenienced (I never even went near the protest).
They were never really able to protest on wall street at all, and the banks they hate are all in midtown anyway, so I really fail to why this is a compelling argument. They set up camp there because the park did not close at night, and I understand that, but I really don't think it was right of them to inconvenience people like they did. I also really don't want to lose sight of the damage they did to local merchant's rest rooms. That was just flat out unacceptable, and when I read about it in the NYT it was the final straw that set me against the protests.
And why shouldn't people's feelings count just because they are better off than the protestors? If they set up shop outside my house, I would have been furious, and would have been doing anything I could to get them removed. Even if the message they were pushing was to get tax breaks for lawyers that work in manhattan, I still wouldn't tolerate them making my life so much harder or keeping me awake at night. To me, it is just a matter of basic decency and respect for your fellow man. I didn't think this was an issue that had to do with class at all.
Frankly I'm having a hard time taking your argument seriously when you don't even have the decency to consider the feelings of people in DC. To think you would inconvenience people just to make your life better.
Now you seem to be arguing in bad faith. I have been pretty explicit that nonresidential areas of DC or NYC would both have been fine. I also never said I was inconvenienced (I never even went near the protest).
This is the pot calling the kettle black. Truth is, if the protesters had camped in front of Goldman Sachs main office building you would have made exact same arguments with a minor twist(Goldman Sachs is only one of the many Wall Street firms, Its unfair to single them out and also its anyoing the residents of the area + the protesters are dirty and smell).
This is because your every post is trying to shift the debate from WHY people occupied Wall Street. You couldn't give a rats ass about the community around the protests. In fact you have barely mentioned it in your posts, avoiding it at every turn.
The Protesters where protesting Americas major finacial institutions, know informally as WALL STREET after the street the majority had their offices located. The fact that they have since moved does not change the fact that they call them selves Wall Street firms(The British Press is still called Fleet street despite not having their offices there anymore). They where not protesting any specific institution, but everything about the Finacial sector and its behavior in the last 30 years.
This last paragraph will go right over your head, because "HIPPIES SMELL" is your only counterargument and anything that disproves that must be ignored.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
They were never really able to protest on wall street at all, and the banks they hate are all in midtown anyway, so I really fail to why this is a compelling argument. They set up camp there because the park did not close at night, and I understand that, but I really don't think it was right of them to inconvenience people like they did. I also really don't want to lose sight of the damage they did to local merchant's rest rooms. That was just flat out unacceptable, and when I read about it in the NYT it was the final straw that set me against the protests.
And why shouldn't people's feelings count just because they are better off than the protestors? If they set up shop outside my house, I would have been furious, and would have been doing anything I could to get them removed. Even if the message they were pushing was to get tax breaks for lawyers that work in manhattan, I still wouldn't tolerate them making my life so much harder or keeping me awake at night. To me, it is just a matter of basic decency and respect for your fellow man. I didn't think this was an issue that had to do with class at all.
Frankly I'm having a hard time taking your argument seriously when you don't even have the decency to consider the feelings of people in DC. To think you would inconvenience people just to make your life better.
Now you seem to be arguing in bad faith. I have been pretty explicit that nonresidential areas of DC or NYC would both have been fine. I also never said I was inconvenienced (I never even went near the protest).
This is the pot calling the kettle black. Truth is, if the protesters had camped in front of Goldman Sachs main office building you would have made exact same arguments with a minor twist(Goldman Sachs is only one of the many Wall Street firms, Its unfair to single them out and also its anyoing the residents of the area + the protesters are dirty and smell).
This is because your every post is trying to shift the debate from WHY people occupied Wall Street. You couldn't give a rats ass about the community around the protests. In fact you have barely mentioned it in your posts, avoiding it at every turn.
The Protesters where protesting Americas major finacial institutions, know informally as WALL STREET after the street the majority had their offices located. The fact that they have since moved does not change the fact that they call them selves Wall Street firms(The British Press is still called Fleet street despite not having their offices there anymore). They where not protesting any specific institution, but everything about the Finacial sector and its behavior in the last 30 years.
This last paragraph will go right over your head, because "HIPPIES SMELL" is your only counterargument and anything that disproves that must be ignored.
I honestly do not think that I am arguing in bad faith. I am just disagreeing with you. I understand all of your points, but, I am a strong believer in property rights (which is why I commiserate with the store owners who had their bathrooms ruined) and I can't stand it when people are loud or otherwise intrude on my privacy or personal space, so I feel really bad for the people that live there and had to put up with all this. That is really my only point here. I don't like loud drunk people on the train, I don't like being in restaurants that have a big loud party in them, and I don't think I would like living near a protest encampment. You are saying that all these things should fall by the wayside, because the WHY of the protests is important, and that's fine. I am just saying that civility, property rights, and respect for other people's privacy and expectation of being able to relax in their homes are also important. Are they more important than the why of the protests? I don't know. Are they more important than setting up the encampment in a residential neighborhood when there were other options? I would say yes.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited February 2012
Well hey we all know "Occupy Midtown" has the same symbolic weight as OWS, but these dirty protesters were too stupid and disrespectful to get it right, amiright?
#iamtheasshole%
This is the game you are playing: you don't want to attack the message of the protests because it's a populist movement, so you shift your target to where they chose to protest. Had they set up camp in Midtown, you would have criticized them because they're nowhere near Wall St. This is why people are calling you out for being a goose, because there is no set of conditions which OWS could realistically fulfill that would make you support them.
And thats why SKFM is a silly goose arguing in bad faith, because there is nowhere that OWS could have camped that would have met with his aproval. Because he doesn't really care about the all the property rights bullshit he spouts, he just wants to shut OWS down and silence their argument.
He is such a silly goose that he doesn't even realise that he isn't the first to try this very tactic in this very thread. Or the last one. Or the one before that. Its getting old.
Hell, if it had been Conservatives protesting Obama wanting to camp out right on the front lawn of the White House. He would have loudly defended their right to do so. (By the way if he posts yes to that idea, I am going to hold him to it the next time there is a Republican president).
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Well hey we all know "Occupy Midtown" has the same symbolic weight as OWS, but these dirty protesters were too stupid and disrespectful to get it right, amiright?
#iamtheasshole%
This is the game you are playing: you don't want to attack the message of the protests because it's a populist movement, so you shift your target to where they chose to protest. Had they set up camp in Midtown, you would have criticized them because they're nowhere near Wall St. This is why people are calling you out for being a goose, because there is no set of conditions which OWS could realistically fulfill that would make you support them.
Wait a minute. Are you saying I have to support OWS or I am in the wrong? I don't think it matters one bit if I support them or not. My grievance is with how they chose to conduct the protest. I can agree that they are doing it in a way that is ok without supporting the message, or I can support the message and reject how they presented it. There is nowhere that they could have conducted their protest that would make me "support" them, but there are plenty of ways that they could have protested that I would not object to.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited February 2012
No, I'm not saying that. You've used the way the protest was conducted as the reason to not support them, which is pretty much the dumbest fucking thing ever. Again, you don't want to address the message for fear of retaliation because of how much mainstream traction it has, so you highlight what are essentially non-issues. The park is fine, those bathrooms are clean (I used them at the height of the protest and they weren't really that gross for a public bathroom), and those people can go back to living in their skyscraper apartments without hassle.
Consider this: over the course of four months, tens of thousands of protesters flooded the streets of Manhattan, holding daily and weekly actions, some on Wall St., some at City Hall, some on the Brooklyn Bridge, etc. How many incidents of violence were there on the part of the protesters? How many times did it erupt into a riot? The former, not many; the latter, never.
If your biggest criticism is that public bathrooms were a little dirtier than usual and some residents had their nights disrupted, you are going to sound like a fucking asshole.
They could have occupied the national mall in DC, or a business district that is not also a residential neighborhood. NYC happens to have tons of people living in the financial district, which made it more inappropriate than it needed to be.
They did though, they were or are in the process of being evicted there as well. There are still some encampments going in lower profile areas but any major-city encampment has been busted up or is in the process of being busted up. Unfortunately we've already tried that. :-/ It's not like the government is going to simply "allow" a public space to be indefinitely occupied no matter where that is. So that doesn't do much to counteract the strategy of at least spreading out these encampments across the USA for maximum effect. If we had just one DC encampment then it'd have generated far less press and less evidence of institutional police brutality. It'd also have probably already been evicted. So I'm still not seeing what would've produced greater results there.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
No, I'm not saying that. You've used the way the protest was conducted as the reason to not support them, which is pretty much the dumbest fucking thing ever. Again, you don't want to address the message for fear of retaliation because of how much mainstream traction it has, so you highlight what are essentially non-issues. The park is fine, those bathrooms are clean (I used them at the height of the protest and they weren't really that gross for a public bathroom), and those people can go back to living in their skyscraper apartments without hassle.
Consider this: over the course of four months, tens of thousands of protesters flooded the streets of Manhattan, holding daily and weekly actions, some on Wall St., some at City Hall, some on the Brooklyn Bridge, etc. How many incidents of violence were there on the part of the protesters? How many times did it erupt into a riot? The former, not many; the latter, never.
If your biggest criticism is that public bathrooms were a little dirtier than usual and some residents had their nights disrupted, you are going to sound like a fucking asshole.
That's what I'm saying.
I'll happily address the message. I don't agree with it. Now that that's out of the way. . .
The financial district is not exactly home to tons of millionaires. People live there because it is one of the cheaper residential communities in Manhattan, and it has good access to mass transit. It is a "young families and young professionals" area. The people who were being inconvenienced were largely blameless with regard to OWS's complaints. On the bathrooms, all I can go off of is the NYtimes article I read where people said they bought locks and the protestors broke the doors down, and about sinks being destroyed. What did they do to deserve that? If I was the business owner, I would be furious.
As I said in the OP of the patriotism thread, I think it is awesome how peacefully the protest was handled. But that is a completely different topic than if they were fair to the people that lived there.
If you think I sound like a fucking asshole, because I feel bad for the people who were inconvenienced, I can live with that. I respect their right to protest, even though I did not agree with a lot of the message, but I don't respect the decision to hold it in a residential area.
They could have occupied the national mall in DC, or a business district that is not also a residential neighborhood. NYC happens to have tons of people living in the financial district, which made it more inappropriate than it needed to be.
They did though, they were or are in the process of being evicted there as well. There are still some encampments going in lower profile areas but any major-city encampment has been busted up or is in the process of being busted up. Unfortunately we've already tried that. :-/ It's not like the government is going to simply "allow" a public space to be indefinitely occupied no matter where that is. So that doesn't do much to counteract the strategy of at least spreading out these encampments across the USA for maximum effect. If we had just one DC encampment then it'd have generated far less press and less evidence of institutional police brutality. It'd also have probably already been evicted. So I'm still not seeing what would've produced greater results there.
I never said it would have better results, just that it could have been done without inconveniencing people and hurting business owners.
Wait a minute. Are you saying I have to support OWS or I am in the wrong? I don't think it matters one bit if I support them or not. My grievance is with how they chose to conduct the protest. I can agree that they are doing it in a way that is ok without supporting the message, or I can support the message and reject how they presented it. There is nowhere that they could have conducted their protest that would make me "support" them, but there are plenty of ways that they could have protested that I would not object to.
See, this is where you are being a silly goose. Doing anything and everything but actually confront what the protesters where protesting. First with the locations of the protests, now with the strawman that we are saying that people that must agree with the protesters.
Not once have you tried adressing the issue at the heart of the OWS: Why where they protesting?
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
I never said it would have better results, just that it could have been done without inconveniencing people and hurting business owners.
Then your criticism is a bit hollow. Yes, we should always strive for an ideal situation where nobody is wrongly inconvenienced. That said when you consider the severity of what's being discussed and the need for serious debate, serious solutions, and serious change of dialog in Washington sometimes you have to accept that there will be a few eggs broken. The Civil Rights movement would shut down areas of the south at its height, entire cities and regions could not do business. Is it right to the non-racist property owners that they were robbed of income? Absolutely not! But, given what was necessary to ensure that our fellow Americans were not treated like subhumans because of the color of their skin, I'd also say it was a worthy sacrifice. There will always be collateral damage in any pitched battle, the question therefore should always be about whether the cause being fought for is worth the collateral "damage" it may cause.
Talking about inconveniences alone is silly given that. Because nobody wants to bother or harm anyone, but harm has already been done of a most grievous kind and in a cunning way that most people might never know it had occurred. Economic harm is not something you can just explain to the average passer by in a five minute sound byte. Something has to be done, and while we should always strive to be on our best behavior to demonstrate the moral imperative of the cause we cannot deny that limiting the spread of encampments only to specific out-of-the-way areas would do nothing but hurt the ability for grievances to be aired.
It'd be far more productive argument if you were to suggest new ways of trying to enforce better internal policy amongst the encampments to minimize any delinquent (such as people not cleaning up public restrooms) behavior that might be associated with the movement. OWS in New York actually had some pretty strict rules regarding who would be allowed to stay in the area as part of a way of trying to make a public statement about who they were. Not all encampments did the same but many did. It might be worth reviewing and considering as another argument you could put forth. Just saiyan'
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Wait a minute. Are you saying I have to support OWS or I am in the wrong? I don't think it matters one bit if I support them or not. My grievance is with how they chose to conduct the protest. I can agree that they are doing it in a way that is ok without supporting the message, or I can support the message and reject how they presented it. There is nowhere that they could have conducted their protest that would make me "support" them, but there are plenty of ways that they could have protested that I would not object to.
See, this is where you are being a silly goose. Doing anything and everything but actually confront what the protesters where protesting. First with the locations of the protests, now with the strawman that we are saying that people that must agree with the protesters.
Not once have you tried adressing the issue at the heart of the OWS: Why where they protesting?
That was not a straw man. I thought it was the position that was being advocated. It was subsequently clarified.
Of course I am not addressing the issues, because that is not what I am talking about. I am just talking about how the protest was run, not why it was or if it was right or wrong. Its been debated to death, and I don't feel like going in circles about it anymore. Whether they were right or wrong to protest has nothing to do with if they should have broken people's sinks and made it hard for my friend to walk her dog.
Posts
It is indeed easy to hate being shit on, yes. That is, in fact, the point of the protest. People would like the rich to cease shitting on them and demanding thanks for it.
Yep and annyoing the rich is best way to get them to stop. If the OWS had taken place in the middle of nowhere, they would have gotten nowhere as a result.
If they got jobs, then the system would have been working. They don't have them, therefore the system doesn't work. Protesting was the only way to make the rich see that.
and not just the rich, but also pretty much everybody else as well.
It wasn't just to inconvenience you and your friends.
It's to raise awareness about the issue of income disparity and a number of other things. The conversation has changed since OWS started, nationally.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Solution! Fire all the middle class. Then they'll all be the very poor and there won't be anything to worry about any more!
My friend and her dog aren't the reason income is distributed unequally in America. All the poor restaurant owners in the area did not deserve to have their restrooms destroyed. And drum circles and shouting at night are just rude things to do. Even if they did camp out right infront of a building that is filled with noone but the people who orchestrated the recession, it still would be wrong to not even let them sleep, IMO.
Can you propose an alternative that would've been just as effective? If you want to criticize that's fine and dandy but without adding your own suggestion into the mix it's hard to hear you over the cries of people upset that they had to pass the rabble on their way to work today. It's not a particularly fair characterization, as you do have legitimate points but it'll be made none the less. Because at the end of the day, what else is there to do?
We haven't had a major protest movement since Americans were dying in the thousands in Vietnam; that one only really took off because of the DNC and Kent State incidents as well. Before that? We had to regularly shut down entire industries or cities to get protesters grievances aired. Ones like non-oppressive working environments and civil rights. There certainly wasn't a lot of "respect for property owners" shutting entire southern cities down for the day, but it took that to get Civil Rights. So given that, we need to hear a more compelling alternative so we can actually say "You know, yeah, they were kind of bad to do that, if only they'd done Y" instead of just chiding them for how much noise they made. (Literally, and metaphorically)
Heavens to betsy can't have people protest where it would inconvenience other people!
Your concern for the area the protest where held in is touching it really is, but all you are doing is trying to shift the focus from WHY they protested.
/Sarcasm: Why don't your friend just move. Why didn't the resturants open somewhere else? Goddamn Hippies, when life gives you lemons make lemonade!
They could have occupied the national mall in DC, or a business district that is not also a residential neighborhood. NYC happens to have tons of people living in the financial district, which made it more inappropriate than it needed to be.
And where in NYC are you going to find a district that's not mixed business and residential?
symbolism means something. And a protest is a protest. Not a PTA meeting with cake and cookies and tea.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
There are parts of midtown that have very little residential space. But them who says they had to protest in NYC anyway? DC is where it should have been from the start, IMO.
Guess what posters from DC find really inconvenient.
Pretty rude of you to suggest this, really.
There are protests in DC. There are also protests in NYC. Also across the country. Because it is not necessary or even wise to protest in one area and one area only.
How is this relevant? Fallout2man asked me for a suggestion for how they could have protested without inconveniencing people or being irrelevant. I made a suggestion.
A suggestion that would have made them far more irrelevant.
There are always protests in DC and far fewer people overall would have been able to participate. So you pretty much didn't solve that part and seem to have decided to ignore the fact that people in DC would still be inconvenienced, something you're rather rudely ignoring.
So rudely.
Clearly DC has nobody living in it to be inconvenienced
or they were until very recently.
I haven't checked in on them lately, although I know that I should.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
The mall is not a residential area. I also suggested non residential areas of midtown. The NY financial district happens to be a thriving residential area, with many families with young children. It was a poor choice of location for that reason.
They're breaking up the encampment. Rather more peaceably than many others were broken up.
Link
Protesting Wall St. necessitates the location. OWS would have set up camp directly on Wall St., if they were allowed, so they chose the park.
This complaint is goosery of the highest order. You're nitpicking at this point. Think of all the people the inconvenienced in lower Manhattan!
Yeah, those people making a liveable wage in one of the most expensive cities in America are being put out by people who have defaulted on loans because they've been out of work for a few years, or lost their house in the crash.
They were never really able to protest on wall street at all, and the banks they hate are all in midtown anyway, so I really fail to why this is a compelling argument. They set up camp there because the park did not close at night, and I understand that, but I really don't think it was right of them to inconvenience people like they did. I also really don't want to lose sight of the damage they did to local merchant's rest rooms. That was just flat out unacceptable, and when I read about it in the NYT it was the final straw that set me against the protests.
And why shouldn't people's feelings count just because they are better off than the protestors? If they set up shop outside my house, I would have been furious, and would have been doing anything I could to get them removed. Even if the message they were pushing was to get tax breaks for lawyers that work in manhattan, I still wouldn't tolerate them making my life so much harder or keeping me awake at night. To me, it is just a matter of basic decency and respect for your fellow man. I didn't think this was an issue that had to do with class at all.
Do you understand the words written above?
Your lack of comprehension doesn't really matter, because your complaints are not about the OWS geographic location. Its you and every other silly goose conservative barging into this thread trying to shift the focus of the debate. From WHY the OWS protest, to WHERE. Every last one of them including you now you come in here, say "I respect their right to protest, but they should really do it somewhere else because they are noisy and stink". While never adressing the Why of the protests.
Did really think you where the first silly goose to make this argument? Did you really think we wouldn't see you trying to shift the debate?
I actually came into this thread making similiar arguments a while back. I don't think there is a debate to shift, because the thread has not been very active lately. . .
Please back off on the personal attacks here. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I don't understand what you are saying (this seems to be a depressingly common pov around here). I also find it really funny that I am being called a conservative, when I consider myself to be pretty socially liberal.
They protested "wall street" but Goldman, Merrill Lynch, etc. are not on wall street anymore, and have not been there for years. They are located in midtown, which is much less residential. I get the symbolism, but the location was a poor choice if they wanted to be in the faces of the actual bankers, and was also poorly chosen because of how many people live there.
This has nothing to do with the why of the protest of course. Whether or not I agree with it, I'm not saying they should not protest, or even they should not protest in areas that are symbolically relevant. I am just saying they chose poorly in this case, from both perspectives.
Imagine how much more they could have accomplished if they'd been protesting somewhere innocuous!
Also I wish that when being a human was getting smeared by the media they would at least cook up new cockamamie stories and not just use the same slurs every single time. The "dirty" meme as mentioned above is so old that as soon as one hears it being applied, obviously one can just tune out whatever is coming next since it will b almost guarantees to be equally unserious.
If they don't even fake the romance with new sexy put-downs then you know that societal sloth and fear are just going through the motions of hating.
Frankly I'm having a hard time taking your argument seriously when you don't even have the decency to consider the feelings of people in DC. To think you would inconvenience people just to make your life better.
Now you seem to be arguing in bad faith. I have been pretty explicit that nonresidential areas of DC or NYC would both have been fine. I also never said I was inconvenienced (I never even went near the protest).
This is the pot calling the kettle black. Truth is, if the protesters had camped in front of Goldman Sachs main office building you would have made exact same arguments with a minor twist(Goldman Sachs is only one of the many Wall Street firms, Its unfair to single them out and also its anyoing the residents of the area + the protesters are dirty and smell).
This is because your every post is trying to shift the debate from WHY people occupied Wall Street. You couldn't give a rats ass about the community around the protests. In fact you have barely mentioned it in your posts, avoiding it at every turn.
The Protesters where protesting Americas major finacial institutions, know informally as WALL STREET after the street the majority had their offices located. The fact that they have since moved does not change the fact that they call them selves Wall Street firms(The British Press is still called Fleet street despite not having their offices there anymore). They where not protesting any specific institution, but everything about the Finacial sector and its behavior in the last 30 years.
This last paragraph will go right over your head, because "HIPPIES SMELL" is your only counterargument and anything that disproves that must be ignored.
I honestly do not think that I am arguing in bad faith. I am just disagreeing with you. I understand all of your points, but, I am a strong believer in property rights (which is why I commiserate with the store owners who had their bathrooms ruined) and I can't stand it when people are loud or otherwise intrude on my privacy or personal space, so I feel really bad for the people that live there and had to put up with all this. That is really my only point here. I don't like loud drunk people on the train, I don't like being in restaurants that have a big loud party in them, and I don't think I would like living near a protest encampment. You are saying that all these things should fall by the wayside, because the WHY of the protests is important, and that's fine. I am just saying that civility, property rights, and respect for other people's privacy and expectation of being able to relax in their homes are also important. Are they more important than the why of the protests? I don't know. Are they more important than setting up the encampment in a residential neighborhood when there were other options? I would say yes.
#iamtheasshole%
This is the game you are playing: you don't want to attack the message of the protests because it's a populist movement, so you shift your target to where they chose to protest. Had they set up camp in Midtown, you would have criticized them because they're nowhere near Wall St. This is why people are calling you out for being a goose, because there is no set of conditions which OWS could realistically fulfill that would make you support them.
He is such a silly goose that he doesn't even realise that he isn't the first to try this very tactic in this very thread. Or the last one. Or the one before that. Its getting old.
Hell, if it had been Conservatives protesting Obama wanting to camp out right on the front lawn of the White House. He would have loudly defended their right to do so. (By the way if he posts yes to that idea, I am going to hold him to it the next time there is a Republican president).
Wait a minute. Are you saying I have to support OWS or I am in the wrong? I don't think it matters one bit if I support them or not. My grievance is with how they chose to conduct the protest. I can agree that they are doing it in a way that is ok without supporting the message, or I can support the message and reject how they presented it. There is nowhere that they could have conducted their protest that would make me "support" them, but there are plenty of ways that they could have protested that I would not object to.
Consider this: over the course of four months, tens of thousands of protesters flooded the streets of Manhattan, holding daily and weekly actions, some on Wall St., some at City Hall, some on the Brooklyn Bridge, etc. How many incidents of violence were there on the part of the protesters? How many times did it erupt into a riot? The former, not many; the latter, never.
If your biggest criticism is that public bathrooms were a little dirtier than usual and some residents had their nights disrupted, you are going to sound like a fucking asshole.
That's what I'm saying.
They did though, they were or are in the process of being evicted there as well. There are still some encampments going in lower profile areas but any major-city encampment has been busted up or is in the process of being busted up. Unfortunately we've already tried that. :-/ It's not like the government is going to simply "allow" a public space to be indefinitely occupied no matter where that is. So that doesn't do much to counteract the strategy of at least spreading out these encampments across the USA for maximum effect. If we had just one DC encampment then it'd have generated far less press and less evidence of institutional police brutality. It'd also have probably already been evicted. So I'm still not seeing what would've produced greater results there.
I'll happily address the message. I don't agree with it. Now that that's out of the way. . .
The financial district is not exactly home to tons of millionaires. People live there because it is one of the cheaper residential communities in Manhattan, and it has good access to mass transit. It is a "young families and young professionals" area. The people who were being inconvenienced were largely blameless with regard to OWS's complaints. On the bathrooms, all I can go off of is the NYtimes article I read where people said they bought locks and the protestors broke the doors down, and about sinks being destroyed. What did they do to deserve that? If I was the business owner, I would be furious.
As I said in the OP of the patriotism thread, I think it is awesome how peacefully the protest was handled. But that is a completely different topic than if they were fair to the people that lived there.
If you think I sound like a fucking asshole, because I feel bad for the people who were inconvenienced, I can live with that. I respect their right to protest, even though I did not agree with a lot of the message, but I don't respect the decision to hold it in a residential area.
I never said it would have better results, just that it could have been done without inconveniencing people and hurting business owners.
See, this is where you are being a silly goose. Doing anything and everything but actually confront what the protesters where protesting. First with the locations of the protests, now with the strawman that we are saying that people that must agree with the protesters.
Not once have you tried adressing the issue at the heart of the OWS: Why where they protesting?
Then your criticism is a bit hollow. Yes, we should always strive for an ideal situation where nobody is wrongly inconvenienced. That said when you consider the severity of what's being discussed and the need for serious debate, serious solutions, and serious change of dialog in Washington sometimes you have to accept that there will be a few eggs broken. The Civil Rights movement would shut down areas of the south at its height, entire cities and regions could not do business. Is it right to the non-racist property owners that they were robbed of income? Absolutely not! But, given what was necessary to ensure that our fellow Americans were not treated like subhumans because of the color of their skin, I'd also say it was a worthy sacrifice. There will always be collateral damage in any pitched battle, the question therefore should always be about whether the cause being fought for is worth the collateral "damage" it may cause.
Talking about inconveniences alone is silly given that. Because nobody wants to bother or harm anyone, but harm has already been done of a most grievous kind and in a cunning way that most people might never know it had occurred. Economic harm is not something you can just explain to the average passer by in a five minute sound byte. Something has to be done, and while we should always strive to be on our best behavior to demonstrate the moral imperative of the cause we cannot deny that limiting the spread of encampments only to specific out-of-the-way areas would do nothing but hurt the ability for grievances to be aired.
It'd be far more productive argument if you were to suggest new ways of trying to enforce better internal policy amongst the encampments to minimize any delinquent (such as people not cleaning up public restrooms) behavior that might be associated with the movement. OWS in New York actually had some pretty strict rules regarding who would be allowed to stay in the area as part of a way of trying to make a public statement about who they were. Not all encampments did the same but many did. It might be worth reviewing and considering as another argument you could put forth. Just saiyan'
That was not a straw man. I thought it was the position that was being advocated. It was subsequently clarified.
Of course I am not addressing the issues, because that is not what I am talking about. I am just talking about how the protest was run, not why it was or if it was right or wrong. Its been debated to death, and I don't feel like going in circles about it anymore. Whether they were right or wrong to protest has nothing to do with if they should have broken people's sinks and made it hard for my friend to walk her dog.