Originally Posted by http://occupywallst.org/
Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants.
Didn't take me long to find, it looks to me like their goals are to seek solutions to the problem of the imbalance of wealth between the bottom 99% and the top 1%, sure it's general, but it's better than a stubborn insistence on only trying to solve it in a single way. Methods that come to mind are raising the tax on the rich, closing tax loop holes and preventing the influence of the rich over politics.
I'm not a spokes person, I searched google and watched the news, this should be obvious to anyone who has actually read into this debate. Further stating that they have no goals (without evidence or elaboration) will be met with your post being in some way moderated, be it a mod message or a delete, I wont infract for it because it doesn't count as a useless post, but it does still break the rules of entering into debate without proper fore knowledge.
That said, anyone who simply associates any movement with a blanket assertion, without backing up the assertion with evidence, will find they get an infraction, it's lazy and invalid as a form of argumentation even in an informal debate setting such as discussion.
Last edited by Vox; Oct 11, 2011 at 05:29 PM.
Originally Posted by Vox
Originally Posted by http://occupywallst.org/Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants.
That's just saying that they want something to change. There is nothing about how they want to change what is seen as 'wrong' nor any idea of the steps to bring about said change. That's why I believe the movement will not be succesful. It's all good and well wanting to do something, but not knowing what it is you want to do isn't going to achieve anything.
Originally Posted by Dalliance
That's just saying that they want something to change. There is nothing about how they want to change what is seen as 'wrong' nor any idea of the steps to bring about said change. That's why I believe the movement will not be succesful. It's all good and well wanting to do something, but not knowing what it is you want to do isn't going to achieve anything.
Originally Posted by Vox
...sure it's general, but it's better than a stubborn insistence on only trying to solve it in a single way. Methods that come to mind are raising the tax on the rich, closing tax loop holes and preventing the influence of the rich over politics.
I also don't believe a movement can fail for having generalised goals that people can specify when they need to, let me draw you an analogy:
Atheist means: Does not believe in god(s).
Many Atheists are naturalists, that do not believe in any super natural phenomenon.
All naturalists are atheists, and atheists have more than naturalists.
If you think about the success atheism has had over the globe in recent years, general concepts are not doomed, and it's obvious. I believe the reason people have been giving OWS a hard time over this is the poor media coverage that focuses on this point, sometimes in a seemingly deliberate fashion to undermine the organisation.
OWS does not need anything more than aiming for economic equality, there are many ways of achieving that, I pointed out three.
Originally Posted by Vox
I believe the reason people have been giving OWS a hard time over this is the poor media coverage that focuses on this point, sometimes in a seemingly deliberate fashion to undermine the organisation.
I definitely agree with this. The tiny bits of media coverage have not been favourable at all. Watch the CNN stories about it for example.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would say it is the 1% exercising their control over the media.
When I see you, my heart goes DOKI⑨DOKI
Fish: "Gorman has been chosen for admin. After a lengthy discussion we've all decided that Gorman is the best choice for the next admin."
". Doesn't work. Simple economics etc.