Occupy Protests Go Global

[Feelings]

I've heard of this a lot lately and it carries such a negative connotation yet I have not heard one reason (either legitimate or illegitimate) as to why it is bad. I watched that documentary The Corporation on netflix and it opened with "corporate personhood is bad" but they didn't specifically state as to why that would be. It just went into how they do things that harm the environment and how large ones don't care about individual employees.

What exactly does personhood let a company do that is so bad?

It's usually people with no business background or knowledge trying to pretend like they do.

 

[Feelings]

I'm glad this is going global. I spent the last week helping out Occupy Atlanta, and was eagerly waiting for Saturday to roll around.

Here's hoping we get change as a result of all of our efforts.

HAHAHA You won't. It's a fad. There's no unified platform. Even those who are in a position of power to help you won't be able to, if you have no specific demands.

 

[Feelings]

I saw two statements that sum it all up:

The government is failing to represent us
Corporate America/Capitalism is failing to benefit us

I certainly wouldn't disagree with this. Ironically, this Occupy "movement" is failing to represent these statements

 

[InvisibleJim]

LoL. So violence is OK, as long as the people are doing it for a cause that YOU approve of.

Violence has always been and will always be an important platform for systematic change.

 

[Lerxst]

LoL. So violence is OK, as long as the people are doing it for a cause that YOU approve of.

Considering I'm a well-developed, above-average in intelligence person with a conscience, a good sense of right and wrong, studied in history, pretty decent understanding of politics and am able to see both sides to an issue, then yes... thank you for the compliment! You really didn't have to flatter me so much!

 

[Feelings]

Violence has always been and will always be an important platform for systematic change.

Yes. I was hoping that would help people see that our values, beliefs, and opinions are largely subjective. The values, beliefs and opinions that are enforced through power (primarily law), are only there because people who held those values, beliefs and opinions had the power to make it so. So when people get all riled up about their "rights" and how so and so, or who and what is wrong and unethical, and that they should be stopped, what it comes down to is "They have power, and I don't like what they are doing with it. I would like power so that I can run things MY way." The sense of "nobility" is exaggerated and misplaced.

 

[Feelings]

Considering I'm a well-developed, above-average in intelligence person with a conscience, a good sense of right and wrong, studied in history, pretty decent understanding of politics and am able to see both sides to an issue, then yes... thank you for the compliment! You really didn't have to flatter me so much!

In YOUR opinion, your beliefs make the most sense. Well everybody feels that way about their own beliefs. So everybody is thereby justified in using violence to enforce those beliefs.

 

[Lerxst]

In YOUR opinion, your beliefs make the most sense. Well everybody feels that way about their own beliefs. So everybody is thereby justified in using violence to enforce those beliefs.

Not only mine, but the opinions of people who's are well developed, above-average in intelligence, have a conscience, a good sense of right and wrong, are studied in history, have a decent understanding of politics and are able to see both sides of an issue. In other words, the people I would have actually elected to represent me in office.

This is all about representation. When a democratic government gets to the point where the people protest against it, then it means they are no longer representing the people the way a democratic government should. There can only ever be one outcome in that case, violent or non.

 

[Sebastian]

Yeah enough people are starting to wake up for a small noise to be heard now. The internet has been a great catalyst for propagating thoughts and ideas outside the controlled mainstream.

It seems that as a species we begin with an altruistic world view, e.g. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111007161636.htm

...it's the existing and past that is constraining our somewhat more equitable existence.

Many people with whom I have had deep discussions about the current state of humanity are able to talk about the dynamics with an open and untainted world view... up to a point, and then it becomes too hurtful to face the brutal facts, because the final reality is that they have to wake up the next morning and go into that world... it's too traumatic, they retain a protective layer by effectively submitting... I don't blame them, and frankly I do the same thing... I don't know anyone that doesn't. However, what progress it would be to actually acknowledge that we do that rather than pretend and feeling, amongst other things, hypocritical.

Still more are nothing more than observers... regurgitating the state of things around them and referring to the past and past dynamics, as if there is no possibility that the future can or ever will be different from the present or the past.

Me? Personally I think we have nothing to unite us as a species at the moment, I think we need that. It will happen eventually if we want it to or not... the scenarios that come to mind are not pleasant but they are nevertheless unifying. I genuinely think we will eventually reach a level of social intelligence where we understand that need to have something to work towards collectively. It becomes a replacement for something that has served a somewhat similar role in many varied societies in the past, on a different level and can't really do the job now, but with some similarity... religion.

A common goal that is connected with our physical reality. But then again, have we even agreed that we want humanity to survive? And for how long? A thousand years? Ten thousand? A million?

 

[Feelings]

Not only mine, but the opinions of people who's are well developed, above-average in intelligence, have a conscience, a good sense of right and wrong, are studied in history, have a decent understanding of politics and are able to see both sides of an issue. In other words, the people I would have actually elected to represent me in office.

This is all about representation. When a democratic government gets to the point where the people protest against it, then it means they are no longer representing the people the way a democratic government should. There can only ever be one outcome in that case, violent or non.

And what constitutes a "good sense" of right and wrong? Who's to judge what is considered a "good conscience"? There is no scientific or empirical conclusion on these matters. Ethics are very subjective. They are based on PERSONAL feelings. Your deeply held beliefs on these matters that you may not even REALIZE are not empirically proven to be correct, are completely subjective.

I would certainly agree that any government needs to have the support of their people in order to have "legitimacy". But my main point is that when people get all riled up when they think that something's going on that is "wrong", they usually don't realize how subjective their assessment is. When they assess something as "wrong", that is not a scientific or empirical wrong. They basically take "I don't like this" and play it up as something more than that. Essentially, when people protest, they are saying "I don't like this. I want things to be run the way I like".

Further, when you support violence as a means to further causes that YOU agree with, you're basically saying that violence is OK as long as it is helping YOU get what YOU want, because YOUR personal beliefs and feelings are more important than other people's who may not share your beliefs. There's an assumption there that you are infallible.

 

[Feelings]

Many people with whom I have had deep discussions about the current state of humanity are able to talk about the dynamics with an open and untainted world view... up to a point, and then it becomes too hurtful to face the brutal facts, because the final reality is that they have to wake up the next morning

details plz

 

[acd]

I see it differently.
I don't see it as a: we're blaming everyone else for our problems because we are not willing to take responsibility for them, sort of thing.
There are legitimate concerns being raised. The biggest, as I already have said, is the fact that American politicians care more about their careers and making money than they do representing the people... and that is the root of it.

 

[the]

Absolutely.

Uh... and the proposed alternative form of doing business would be.....?

Uh... how does one make all of humanity unselfish and ungreedy?

What is this?

Oh Princess, you just trollin'.

 

[Trifoilum]

I humbly think the Princess, who is going Out to Lunch, is rolling today. *laughs* Brava, brava. *slow clap*

Oh, those words -are- valid concerns, for people who aren't espousing the same values, experiencing the same experience, thinking from the same perspective. Even sane people with perfect sense and deep understanding of the world -can- have different beliefs, -can- have different values. The only thing the protesters have in common are disappointment.

From an outsider's perspective, then, this is an amalgamation of those personal values and disappointment. Not that there is something wrong with that, but I also think as far as 'effectiveness' goes, it's like a war, or revolution, I guess, against the entire kingdom. And the high amount of issues does not mean anything if there are no ways to fix it. From my own politics I can say that changing merely -one- and two, will only make things worse. Of course, the movement itself is honorable and heroic and such, but 'efficient' isn't the word I'm going to use.

But isn't most social movement essentially that way, or at least having those aspects? The small and downtrodden, be bigger and stronger so you can bully the bully back. History s written by the victors, and may the best group win.

That being said,
seriously, London? AGAIN? I wonder how many of those protesters are second-time protesters....

 

[InvisibleJim]

I found this article interesting:

Here Are The Four Charts That Explain What The Protesters Are Angry About...

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/here...testers-are-angry-about-2011-10#ixzz1axKvgXBm

 

[Jabberwocky]

I'm not aiming this at you Hoggle but...

I've heard of this a lot lately and it carries such a negative connotation yet I have not heard one reason (either legitimate or illegitimate) as to why it is bad. I watched that documentary The Corporation on netflix and it opened with "corporate personhood is bad" but they didn't specifically state as to why that would be. It just went into how they do things that harm the environment and how large ones don't care about individual employees.

What exactly does personhood let a company do that is so bad?

When I first heard of this, I thought it was something new that happened during the Regan or Nixon administration, not something that happened in the late 19th century.

Honestly, I think (and I could be wrong, but...) that it has more to do with Marxism than anything. I'm not saying the protestors are Marxists, but the theme of "them vs us" or "bourgeoisie vs proletariat" definitely seems to carry a lot of weight here. It's not specified what's so bad about it because they don't know; they just "know" that they should be angry at those in power/with status because as middle-class people, it's what they're "supposed to do." Most people probably don't even make the connection to Marxism - the herd activity that goes on during protests is just as prevelant as it is in modern society, if not moreso, at least as far as I've seen.

 

[InvisibleJim]

I loved this one where they locked people closing their accounts in citibank in so they could arrest them and then the police allowed and protected a security guard to pick up someone outside and carry her inside.

[video=youtube;TH3kiaJ1-c8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH3kiaJ1-c8[/video]

 

[GracieRuth]

The article says that the police blame anarchists for starting a riot... who compose a small number out of all the people who are protesting....

Sounds like something my anarchist brother would do. He is hell bent on destroying the present system, has no firm ideas of what a better replacement would be, and looks for opportunities to create or magnify social unrest. He wears his arrest record like a badge. So yeah, there IS a small group of anarchists who stick in their noses like that.

 

[Lerxst]

It's sad that a comedy program is more accurate then an entire news network

[video]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-october-18-2011/scorn-in-the-u-s-a-?xrs=share_copy[/video]

 

[InvisibleJim]

I have a comment.

When is the police brutality in the US - where the police defacto are behaving like a violent counter protest/paramilitary - going to lead to protests forming their own spontaneous paramilitaries/militias in defence?