Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Worldwide Occupy Movement?

Options
24567…13

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Yeah so?
    Isn't one supposed to attack the post not the poster? As a mod you should know that.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Didn't know about that.
    Did you watch the video, he states that he is not an official occupy candidate and there is no such thing right at the start. It is a leaderless movement. Tough thing for a right wing extremist to get their head around I know.


  • Options
    #33
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    20Cent wrote: »
    Didn't know about that.
    Did you watch the video, he states that he is not an official occupy candidate and there is no such thing right at the start. It is a leaderless movement. Tough thing for a right wing extremist to get their head around I know.

    Isn't this the same with the Tea Party? Not one overarching organization but lots of small ones and affiliates?


  • Options
    #34
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #35
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    20Cent wrote: »
    Just to explain the cartoon to you and hopefully you might finally understand though I think at this stage you are pulling the p1ss.

    As you can see there are a large number of people there with lots of signs. When confronted with such a thing the media and people observing need to interpret what is going on.
    One way would be to take every sign literally and apply its content to everyone else there. This would be dishonest and not a correct interpretation. For instance claiming all the Tea Party were racist because some of them were holding racist signs. The shock media does this all the time or else it is a useful way to disregard the message if one doesn't like it.

    The other option is to try and make sense of the situation. Why are all these people here what can I deduce from what they are saying. Since there are lots of different signs and messages an intelligent person would deduct themes and ideas from what they see. The over riding theme is that they are protesting economic inequality. This is clear to anyone who wants to see it even the republican candidates in the US know this.

    If you still don't understand then I doubt it can be made simpler and I can't help you.

    You have missed the point of the cartoon which was "A plague on all your houses", lampooning all of them, the bankers, the media and the protesters. The inclusion of two CND logos among the protesters was a clear reference to the "usual suspects" criticism. The random and incoherent nature of some of the other banners was another reference to the "they don't know what they want" criticism. The banker radioing instructions to the dumb blonde news reporter was a pretty obvious dig at both of them. A most enjoyable cartoon.


  • Options
    #36
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    I get Occupy and don't get the Tea Party. You seem to be the other way around. Not mindboggling really. I do love that the tea party have made a situation where the republican candidate for president has been unelectable very amusing.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Depends on the situation, leaders did emerge from the tea party they have spokespeople and endorsed candidates. Occupy have not. Leaderless works better for occupy I think. Firstly how could leaders be selected and secondly the media etc would be concentrating on the leaders history clothes and length of hair as opposed to the issues they want to highlight.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Because Occupy is not "far left" the demands are very center of the road actually. Its just when wearing the libertarian blinkers everything seems far left.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    20Cent wrote: »

    Depends on the situation, leaders did emerge from the tea party they have spokespeople and endorsed candidates. Occupy have not. Leaderless works better for occupy I think. Firstly how could leaders be selected and secondly the media etc would be concentrating on the leaders history clothes and length of hair as opposed to the issues they want to highlight.


    Because Occupy is not "far left" the demands are very center of the road actually. Its just when wearing the libertarian blinkers everything seems far left.

    Does leaderless really work better for Occupy?

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-05/occupy-wall-street-movement-camps-pack-up/52978308/1


    I know, a fairly bland news story, but you can find stories like that all over the web, questioning Occupy's impact and whether it has any present, let alone any future.

    Interestingly, the same could be said about our own ODS. The website general assembly minutes do not seem to have been updated since December while the amount of space occupied outside the Central Bank appears to have gone down. Is it in decline?


  • Options
    #38
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    20Cent wrote: »
    I get Occupy and don't get the Tea Party. You seem to be the other way around. Not mindboggling really. I do love that the tea party have made a situation where the republican candidate for president has been unelectable very amusing.

    So basically your political opinions are totally arbitrary. If you support one person or group you'll maintain they're always right, while arguing against the group or person you don't support, even if they're doing the exact same thing.

    This hardly bodes well for a succesfully "occupied society." Does this mean that if Occupy are succesful, and I've some reasonable justifiable complaint about a particular governmental decision, you'll just ignore me because I'm not on "your side"? Whereas someone on "your side" can do as they please? Is the kind of equality Occupy have in mind?
    20Cent wrote: »
    Because Occupy is not "far left" the demands are very center of the road actually. Its just when wearing the libertarian blinkers everything seems far left.

    We're at least a little more intelligent than you'd like us to be - we don't fall for this spin. When Occupy Cork are promoting Shell to Sea, the anti-household tax campaign and other movements that are dominated by the ULA et al, it's a sure sign that it is embedded within the Irish hard-left paradigm. No amount of your FF-esque spin will change that.


  • Options
    #39
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Godge wrote: »
    Interestingly, the same could be said about our own ODS. The website general assembly minutes do not seem to have been updated since December while the amount of space occupied outside the Central Bank appears to have gone down. Is it in decline?

    A few weeks ago a member of Occupy Cork told me it (OC) would be closing down soon. His opinion was that the protest had already made its point and was was at risk of just becoming a piece of scenery.


  • Options
    #40
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I saw a piece on the news a few days ago where shopkeepers from the small shops that are in close proximity to the Central Bank were conveying the negative effects that the protest are having on their legitimate businesses.

    Now. That is end-game for me. Do whatever is necessary to remove this abhorrent shanty-town. The lack of consideration for the rights of other private citizens is disgusting, and only serves to demonstrate the lack of character and dignity in ODS.


    ODS are hurting local businesses and it must stop.


  • Options
    #41
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    So basically your political opinions are totally arbitrary. If you support one person or group you'll maintain they're always right, while arguing against the group or person you don't support, even if they're doing the exact same thing.

    This hardly bodes well for a succesfully "occupied society." Does this mean that if Occupy are succesful, and I've some reasonable justifiable complaint about a particular governmental decision, you'll just ignore me because I'm not on "your side"? Whereas someone on "your side" can do as they please? Is the kind of equality Occupy have in mind?

    No. You just made all that up and applied it to me!
    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    We're at least a little more intelligent than you'd like us to be - we don't fall for this spin. When Occupy Cork are promoting Shell to Sea, the anti-household tax campaign and other movements that are dominated by the ULA et al, it's a sure sign that it is embedded within the Irish hard-left paradigm. No amount of your FF-esque spin will change that.

    They have things in common with the ULA that is correct, also with FG, FF and Labour. So do most people actually. Private debt being paid by the public is hardly a left wing position. Pretty much anything that questions the status quo is always called "leftist" by some I thought people recognised that spin by now.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    20Cent, where do you (or the Occupy movement) stand on the issue of local businesses possibly suffering a drop in sales because of the disruption your encampments are causing?


  • Options
    #43
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Valmont wrote: »
    20Cent, where do you (or the Occupy movement) stand on the issue of local businesses possibly suffering a drop in sales because of the disruption your encampments are causing?

    Probably the rich or the bankers or the bondholders should compensate them, if you manage to get a coherent answer:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #44
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Valmont wrote: »
    20Cent, where do you (or the Occupy movement) stand on the issue of local businesses possibly suffering a drop in sales because of the disruption your encampments are causing?

    What disruption do you think the camp is causing?
    It's not "my" camp either!!

    They are camped outside the Central Bank not outside this guys shop. Don't see how it could be disrupting business maybe the worldwide recession has something to do with his drop in sales.


  • Options
    #45
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    20Cent wrote: »
    What disruption do you think the camp is causing?
    It's not "my" camp either!!

    They are camped outside the Central Bank not outside this guys shop. Don't see how it could be disrupting business maybe the worldwide recession has something to do with his drop in sales.

    Pathetic response. There are quite a number of small shops in the area whose footfall has been decimated. What tourist is going to shop around there? This is a person's livelihood (And their employee's) being directly and negatively effected by the abhorrent shanty town that (let's face it...) nobody wants there - and this is the best answer you have?


  • Options
    #46
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Godge wrote: »
    What is unfair about introducing a property tax that won't be paid by poor people on low wages and social welfare who can't afford to own their own houses?
    What is unfair about increasing capital gains tax?
    What is unfair about increasing capital acquisitions tax?
    What is unfair about a programme to target social welfare cheats and those who won't work rather than those who can't find a job?

    Every single one of those is unfair unless the corrupt bankers are also targeted. Simple as. They are getting off scott free, and as they created most of the mess they should be hit FIRST, BEFORE anyone who wasn't involved is asked to clean up other people's incompetence.


  • Options
    #47
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Godge wrote: »
    - Government for the people by the people (motherhood and apple pie)
    .

    That's the part which makes me sick. This is a DEMOCRACY. Why do you pour so much scorn on the idea that the people's rights should come first?


  • Options
    #48
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Rojomcdojo wrote: »
    Pathetic response. There are quite a number of small shops in the area whose footfall has been decimated. What tourist is going to shop around there? This is a person's livelihood (And their employee's) being directly and negatively effected by the abhorrent shanty town that (let's face it...) nobody wants there - and this is the best answer you have?

    What evidence do you have that these small shops are being harmed by the camp? The only story is one guy putting up posters in his window. I see no journalist has bothered to find out how business was before the recession and after or how the camp could be affecting business. That would require some effort. Do you know how much was paid out in unsecured bonds today and over the weekend? You won't hear it in the news or in the papers. Now that is pathetic.


  • Options
    #49
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    20Cent wrote: »
    What evidence do you have that these small shops are being harmed by the camp? The only story is one guy putting up posters in his window. I see no journalist has bothered to find out how business was before the recession and after or how the camp could be affecting business. That would require some effort. Do you know how much was paid out in unsecured bonds today and over the weekend? You won't hear it in the news or in the papers. Now that is pathetic.

    The owners were on the news. Giving personal accounts of exactly how the camp is putting them out of business. One reason - The camp has savaged footfall, hence has savaged income also.

    It's an ugly eye-sore that does nothing besides massage the ego of those involved.


  • Options
    #50
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Rojomcdojo wrote: »
    The owners were on the news. Giving personal accounts of exactly how the camp is putting them out of business. One reason - The camp has savaged footfall, hence has savaged income also.

    It's an ugly eye-sore that does nothing besides massage the ego of those involved.

    How does he know that the reduction in footfall is due to the camp and not the recession?
    Camp is well away from his shops anyway. There is a NAMA building rotting and falling apart near where I live. Local business are really pissed off about it. The scene must be repeated all over the country how about doing something about that.


  • Options
    #51
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,915 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    20Cent wrote: »
    How does he know that the reduction in footfall is due to the camp and not the recession?
    Camp is well away from his shops anyway. There is a NAMA building rotting and falling apart near where I live. Local business are really pissed off about it. The scene must be repeated all over the country how about doing something about that.

    We've been in recession for the last 3/4 years and ODS has been there for only a couple of months. Surely given the differences in the span of the time frames any trader who keeps any reasonable check on their books would be able to identify if a dramatic decline co-encided with the arrival of ODS. Given that the traders may have to go to court to remove ODS and the expense of time and money involved, I wouldn't imagine they'd complain about ODS for the sake of it. If it is due soley to the recession complaining about ODS wouldn't make any difference and hence the traders energies would be directed to solutions that might work.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    20Cent wrote: »
    Depends on the situation, leaders did emerge from the tea party they have spokespeople and endorsed candidates. Occupy have not. Leaderless works better for occupy I think. Firstly how could leaders be selected and secondly the media etc would be concentrating on the leaders history clothes and length of hair as opposed to the issues they want to highlight.
    I have not followed Occupy stuff in Ireland at all, but I have read a small bit about it in the US; what happened to the Tea Party in this case was they were co-opted by the republicans, which is why they adopted spokespeople and candidates.

    I am not 100% sure on this, but I think one of Occupy's strong points in the US is that they don't align to a specific set of issues or agenda, so as to not have their movement co-opted/hijacked by the most-aligning party, like happened with the Tea Party.

    Here is a good article on Occupy in the US, which begins to explain the logic of this (half-way through, albeit all is worth a read):
    http://www.salon.com/2011/11/19/heres_what_attempted_co_option_of_ows_looks_like/

    It still begs the question, exactly what are they protesting against, and while I think some kind of generalized answer to that is required in order to try and make people understand/relate, and to legitimize the movement locally, I don't think they should try to put forward specific changes or legislative steps.


  • Options
    #53
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    20Cent wrote: »
    No. You just made all that up and applied it to me!

    Well, of course - an occupied society doesn't exist so in order to think about one one has to, by definition, make things up.

    I was extrapolating your attitude to debate and other occupier's attitude to debate to reason that in an occupied society rational argument wouldn't necessarily have an effect on things. If you're willing to ignore Permabear's point, simply because you don't like Permabear. what's to stop you and other occupiers ignoring people in an occupied society?

    More generally, my greatest complaint with Occupy is not the particular left-wing views they promote but rather what I see as a lack of rationality in decision making in the movement. Occupiers make a lot of noise about their common assemblies - but if these assemblies are producing policies that simple reason- and evidence-based arguments can debunk, then these assemblies simply aren't worth that much.
    20Cent wrote: »
    They have things in common with the ULA that is correct, also with FG, FF and Labour. So do most people actually. Private debt being paid by the public is hardly a left wing position. Pretty much anything that questions the status quo is always called "leftist" by some I thought people recognised that spin by now.

    Spin to make FF proud!

    As I said, Occupy supports a number of initiatives that are basically defining characteristics of the Irish hard left. They their rhetoric aligns fully with the Irish hard left. From OC's website,
    A lot of people are suffering while the greedy 1% elite get richer – there are currently more billionaires in the world than in 2008. People must have economic and political control over their own lives – the bonds markets and the corporations are not democratic. The debt must not be socialized, and public goods and natural resources must be kept for all the people.
    Of course that includes politics that people in FG, FF etc. would support, but the key difference is first the rhetorical technique ("greedy 1%") and second the degree to which Occupy subscribes to these views. Here, the movement appears to be calling for corporations to made public and democratic. That is hard-left - and your denial of this point only reinforces the first point I made above about my perception of Occupy's unwillingness to listen to those they dislike.

    So either you concede that you habitually ignore those people you disagree with or you concede that Irish Occupy is hard-left. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


  • Options
    #54
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    the movement appears to be calling for corporations to made public and democratic.

    Except it's not. It's calling for them to be kept out of politics, and for government to act in the interests of the population as a whole rather than the corporations.

    Where do you see demands for corporations to be nationalized? In fact, the nationalization of banks is one of the main things we're protesting AGAINST.


  • Options
    #55
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Well, of course - an occupied society doesn't exist so in order to think about one one has to, by definition, make things up.

    I was extrapolating your attitude to debate and other occupier's attitude to debate to reason that in an occupied society rational argument wouldn't necessarily have an effect on things. If you're willing to ignore Permabear's point, simply because you don't like Permabear. what's to stop you and other occupiers ignoring people in an occupied society?
    I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. An occupied society!!!
    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    More generally, my greatest complaint with Occupy is not the particular left-wing views they promote but rather what I see as a lack of rationality in decision making in the movement. Occupiers make a lot of noise about their common assemblies - but if these assemblies are producing policies that simple reason- and evidence-based arguments can debunk, then these assemblies simply aren't worth that much.



    Spin to make FF proud!

    As I said, Occupy supports a number of initiatives that are basically defining characteristics of the Irish hard left. They their rhetoric aligns fully with the Irish hard left. From OC's website,

    Of course that includes politics that people in FG, FF etc. would support, but the key difference is first the rhetorical technique ("greedy 1%") and second the degree to which Occupy subscribes to these views. Here, the movement appears to be calling for corporations to made public and democratic. That is hard-left - and your denial of this point only reinforces the first point I made above about my perception of Occupy's unwillingness to listen to those they dislike.

    So either you concede that you habitually ignore those people you disagree with or you concede that Irish Occupy is hard-left. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

    Its not "hard left" they aren't calling for corporations to be made public where on earth are you getting that idea from ? they are saying that private debt should not be socialised. Simples.


  • Options
    #56
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Fair point. However one could easily interpret the "People must have economic and political control over their own lives" and "public goods and natural resources must be kept for all the people" as a call for increased government owned services in general.


  • Options
    #57
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Fair point. However one could easily interpret the "People must have economic and political control over their own lives" and "public goods and natural resources must be kept for all the people" as a call for increased government owned services in general.

    The people does not equal the government.

    Something doesn't have to be government owned for it to be democratic, it could simply be regulated through legislation.

    For instance, that the government should not be allowed to give away public free space for use by property developers, a la Save Our Seafront in Dun Laoghaire.


  • Options
    #58
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Even the governor of the Central Bank "get it".

    The governor also acknowledged that the group goes some way towards representing the views of wider society about the banking sector and the financial crisis:


    "While not everyone is happy with their being there, several people have said to me that their presence symbolises, albeit in a rather ambiguous and even incoherent way, the feelings of a large part of society in regard to what has gone wrong in the financial sector and with the banks."


  • Options
    #59
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    20Cent wrote: »
    Even the governor of the Central Bank "get it".

    The governor also acknowledged that the group goes some way towards representing the views of wider society about the banking sector and the financial crisis:


    "While not everyone is happy with their being there, several people have said to me that their presence symbolises, albeit in a rather ambiguous and even incoherent way, the feelings of a large part of society in regard to what has gone wrong in the financial sector and with the banks."

    Lol, more Comical ODS

    He certainly gets that they are ambiguous and incoherent, haven't people on here being saying exactly that for months, asking ODS to try and explain exactly what it is they stand for.

    Half-built houses and half-finished estates in the middle of nowhere also symbolise what has gone wrong in the financial sector. Most sensible people who want the country to get going again want those symbols bulldozed. Now there's an idea for ODS.......:D


  • Options
    #60
    wearytraveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14 ✭wearytraveller


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Posted this on AH a while ago as an example of what should happen and what I would consider a good outcome:

    Let me put this to YOU: What if I got MY way, and no corporate money was allowed in politics, any politician found to have cut a corrupt deal was immediately removed from office and a bye election held to determine if the people would tolerate it, bankers who f*ck up and developers f*ck up didn't get bailed out but had to face the harsh reality of the losses they inflicted on everyone else, and we created a truly democratic society in which each person has one vote, and there are no vested interests whatsoever controlling anything beyond that and overriding the will of the people?

    If there had to be a complete and total disconnect between the corporate world and the political world, and if this was vigourously regulated, with extremely harsh penalties for any politicians violating the rule?

    If accepting middle of the night phone calls from bank managers asking for multi billion euro bailouts without properly consulting the rest of the cabinet were not only outlawed, but resulted in an immediate expulsion from office?

    If white collar crime was vigorously pursued and there was absolutely no question whatsoever of any sweeping under the carpet, as has been the case with Anglo?

    If developers and others who made bad investments were left to deal with the consequences without taxpayer subsidised bailouts, just like any other citizen who chooses to gamble and finds that they gambled badly?

    These are just a few examples, I'm sure I could think of many, many more. What would you say to a society like that though? A society with proper equality, where everyone has to play by the exact same rules, and the penalty for failing to do so is the same - regardless of any personal connections you have or friends in high places? If confidential discussions between corporations and ministers simply weren't allowed? I could go on and on.

    How about it?
    A society of equals. No elite. No cronies. No VIPs. One set of rules for everybody. Politicians who are legally required to serve the nation, not their friends.

    What say you?

    I'd say I'd vote for you!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Godge I'm sure I've probably asked you this before, but all partuisan bickering aside, where do you actually stand on the financial sector? What's your opinion on it?

    Do you regard what went wrong as 'mistakes', or 'deliberate, greedy "as long as I'm ok no one else matters"-ism' on the part of those in charge of it?

    I think that's where our key ideological disagreement is here, you regard it as an accident, I (and other what you define as 'hard left' protesters) regard it as deliberate corruption for which the perpetrators should be penalized.

    Thoughts?


Advertisement