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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Worldwide Occupy Movement?

123578

Comments

  • #202
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Godge wrote: »
    Ah, you did miss the point. I was saying that the gardai have procedures in place (and that includes the Garda Ombudsman, you may have missed the links and quotations from the Garda Ombudsman's Report) to deal with miscreants and that demonstrates a certain attitude to miscreants i.e. they are not tolerated or condoned.
    no they don't .. the garda ombudsman is not a procedure of the irish police force. it is a method to police the irish police force because the irish police force was unable to do it themselves. it is an external body.
    Godge wrote: »
    A similar approach from Occupy would see them reporting their miscreants to the relevant authorities. Some hope of that which demonstrates the difference. How anyone can say that the Gardai with the convictions secured in recent years against their members as well as their co-operation with the Garda Ombudsman can be compared to the Occupy Movement with their tacit tolerance of violence is beyond me. It is not so long ago that we had one of the defenders of Occupy saying in one of the threads that if the Central Bank decided to enforce its legitimate private property rights (remember you defend private property rights, hatrick) that there would be violence and riots.
    does this only apply to the occupy movement? what about politicians not reporting bribes? or other gardai not arresting gardai? or priests not reporting priests? very convenient to muddle the 'point' ...

    when you get the time, i'd like you to go back to your original goal posts and address post #192

    or even the previous post to that, you know where i destroyed your point two #191 ...

    i know that some people here have the utmost respect for the gardai, and the conveniently forget what happened in donegal in the 90's, but facts are facts, and selectively twisting a valid point will only result in someone else untwisting it ... but can we do that in another thread?

    you guys should have kept to the 'no goal' misinformation/lie ...


  • #203
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Inclusion wrote: »
    Not true. What about the Non-payment of the Household Charge demo at which I was present at City Hall here in Galway when Occupy Galway members stormed into the chamber ? Then stood there chanting like some kind of cult?
    (that was cringeworthy to witness)
    oh my god they were chanting? without a cross? burn the witches!!!
    Inclusion wrote: »
    Granted there was nobody hurt, but it was violent and could have ended in injury.
    but won't somebody think of the children!! there could have been endangered pandas there, and pandas are very much against chanting, it makes their heads explode!!!
    Inclusion wrote: »
    Because of this myself and others have withdrawn our support for the Household charge campaign
    so now you have converted to a new faith? that's a bit drastic from one bad sermon ... it's not like they were abusing kids ...
    Inclusion wrote: »
    They may despise politicians but protest through peaceful means is the only way to go.
    Occupy Galway are NOT about peaceful protest.
    chanting is not peaceful, i agree. maybe they should stay at home or sit in a pub and say "well things should be different ..."


    we are not discussing a single branch of occupy, but the entire movement here, and despite what the protester bashing garadi supporters here might say, occupy advocating peaceful protesting. if you don't like them, grand, but don't spread misinformation ...


  • #204
    Inclusion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 72 ✭✭Inclusion


    davoxx wrote: »
    oh my god they were chanting? without a cross? burn the witches!!!


    but won't somebody think of the children!! there could have been endangered pandas there, and pandas are very much against chanting, it makes their heads explode!!!


    so now you have converted to a new faith? that's a bit drastic from one bad sermon ... it's not like they were abusing kids ...


    chanting is not peaceful, i agree. maybe they should stay at home or sit in a pub and say "well things should be different ..."


    we are not discussing a single branch of occupy, but the entire movement here, and despite what the protester bashing garadi supporters here might say, occupy advocating peaceful protesting. if you don't like them, grand, but don't spread misinformation ...

    Would be helpful if you read the complete post , I was referring to how they stormed the council chambers, the heavy door was forced open, there was pushing and shoving, and somebody could easily have been hurt.

    The chanting was weird to say the least. What on earth was that supposed to achieve?


  • #205
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Inclusion wrote: »
    Would be helpful if you read the complete post , I was referring to how they stormed the council chambers, the heavy door was forced open, there was pushing and shoving, and somebody could easily have been hurt.

    The chanting was weird to say the least. What on earth was that supposed to achieve?

    If chanting is weird to you maybe protest isn't your thing lol.


  • #206
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    davoxx wrote: »
    no they don't .. the garda ombudsman is not a procedure of the irish police force. it is a method to police the irish police force because the irish police force was unable to do it themselves. it is an external body.


    does this only apply to the occupy movement? what about politicians not reporting bribes? or other gardai not arresting gardai? or priests not reporting priests? very convenient to muddle the 'point' ...

    when you get the time, i'd like you to go back to your original goal posts and address post #192

    or even the previous post to that, you know where i destroyed your point two #191 ...

    i know that some people here have the utmost respect for the gardai, and the conveniently forget what happened in donegal in the 90's, but facts are facts, and selectively twisting a valid point will only result in someone else untwisting it ... but can we do that in another thread?

    you guys should have kept to the 'no goal' misinformation/lie ...

    Look, there is little point responding to your posts as most of the time they do not make sense.

    The "no goal" exchange is a clear example where when it is put to you that Occupy have no goals, you respond that they have a goal of world peace, when it is explained to you that everyone from Kim Il Sung to Ronald Reagan claim to have a goal of world peace, you just say that the American version of world peace is peace for Americans unbeknowingly exposing as hollow any movement's claim to have goal of world peace as world peace is only the version of world peace according to whatever movement or person - it is intangible, like saying we are in favour of motherhood and apple pie, great let's talk about something real. You will read back about 20 pages and you will find where I wrote about the intangible nature of the goals being equivalent to saying you are in favour of motherhood and apple pie. We can all say that we support the goal of world peace and better democracy but does anyone know what they mean?

    At least the goal of taking back Ireland's non-existent oil reserves is more tangible than world peace even though the oil reserves don't exist.


  • #207
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Inclusion wrote: »
    Would be helpful if you read the complete post , I was referring to how they stormed the council chambers, the heavy door was forced open, there was pushing and shoving, and somebody could easily have been hurt.

    The chanting was weird to say the least. What on earth was that supposed to achieve?
    i did, but i thought the chanting was what was the most unsettling for you.

    if pushing and shoving equates to not being peaceful, you've never been to a sale, a concert, an actual protests, a paddy's day parade ...

    i'm sure someone could have been hurt, but it depends on the recklessness and intent off it .. and i think you are over reacting.


  • #208
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Godge wrote: »
    Look, there is little point responding to your posts as most of the time they do not make sense.
    i agree 100%, your responses make no sense. i point this out each time, but you twist the meaning and go off in a tangent once proven wrong.
    Godge wrote: »
    The "no goal" exchange is a clear example where when it is put to you that Occupy have no goals, you respond that they have a goal of world peace, when it is explained to you that everyone from Kim Il Sung to Ronald Reagan claim to have a goal of world peace, you just say that the American version of world peace is peace for Americans unbeknowingly exposing as hollow any movement's claim to have goal of world peace as world peace is only the version of world peace according to whatever movement or person - it is intangible, like saying we are in favour of motherhood and apple pie, great let's talk about something real. You will read back about 20 pages and you will find where I wrote about the intangible nature of the goals being equivalent to saying you are in favour of motherhood and apple pie. We can all say that we support the goal of world peace and better democracy but does anyone know what they mean?

    At least the goal of taking back Ireland's non-existent oil reserves is more tangible than world peace even though the oil reserves don't exist.
    wow that was a load of nonsense. seriously, it's not even backtracking, it's just an incoherent argument that has already been addressed.

    so when i showed you that occupy had a goal you made up nonsense saying that 1) someone else had the goal, and 2) that it was not a goal in the first place.
    spot the contradiction? either it is a goal or it is not, you can't have it both ways.

    i've dealt with regan's version of world peace, as from his quote, but sure ignore that.
    when did you provide a quote from kim il sung? i suppose he did say "i'd like some peace and quiet" and "what's wrong with the world these days" ... you can jumble them up together to give you that quote you wanted ... you know make up stuff like you like to.

    i know you can't conceive what world peace is, but some of us can, so don't throw your inabilities onto those who can.

    now back to the nonsense point about occupy condoning violence ... oh you've failed to mention that? did google prove you wrong?
    what about me destroying your bad, illogical point two ... oh yeah google did that, yet i don't see your acknowledgment for that ...

    i know you have an agenda here, that's okay, but don't try to spread misinformation and then run away when called on it.

    you've made several bad points, and i've destroyed them. the least you could do is stop posting them or acknowledge that you were wrong.


  • #209
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    If people can't have a civil debate about this issue, there won't be one at all. If you can't make your point without belittling other posters, think twice before posting in this thread again. This is the last warning.

    SSR


  • #210
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    This is an odd interpretation on Godge's illustrative responses to the counter arguement.

    Maybe I'm just dim,but I fail to note any seeking of high-ground in the posts,moral or otherwise,all I'm seeing is links to factual reports of Garda Accountability in action....is this not good ????

    Godge was claiming that other Gardai police themselves, which I am pointing out is not the case, the Ombudsman is independent and only refers things back in cases of very minor incidents.

    In New York, the entire investigation into Anthony Bologna's outrageous behavior was internal, the verdict? "He did nothing wrong" by pepper spraying unarmed, non violent women in the face. Surprise surprise.

    Therefore, Godge's assertion that Occupy won't police itself, but the police force does, is invalid. The police force most certainly does not, in an absolutely vast number of cases.

    EDIT Also Godge when you claim there is "no goal", why are you ignoring the anti financial system, anti bailout agenda of the Occupy movement?
    One of the goals is to get governments to stop forcing innocent bystanders to pay for the mistakes of gamblers.
    You may not agree with that goal, but it is a goal, therefore while you are more than free to claim it has foolish goals, you simply cannot claim it has "no goal". It's just not true, no two ways about it.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Therefore, Godge's assertion that Occupy won't police itself, but the police force does, is invalid. The police force most certainly does not, in an absolutely vast number of cases.
    The problem with that argument is that it carefully circumvents the actual point being made.

    The actual point being made is that there are structures in place to deal with bad apples in police forces. Those structures function to greater or lesser extents, but in all cases the existence of the structures illustrates that there is at least a commitment to eliminating misbehaviour in police forces.

    The question, then, is: what structures are in place to ensure that anti-social or other destructive behaviours are systematically dealt with within the Occupy movement? If it has such structures, they should be easy to outline. If it doesn't have such structures, then it is tacitly accepting misbehaviour in its ranks just as a police force would if it didn't have the appropriate structures in place.
    One of the goals is to get governments to stop forcing innocent bystanders to pay for the mistakes of gamblers.
    On a superficial level it's a noble goal, but it needs an awful lot of flesh on the bones. For starters, you need to clarify whom you mean by "gamblers", and ideally describe them in less pejorative terms. Then you need to explain in detail how society can restructure itself around not financing national debts through privately-issued bonds. Finally, you need to explain how camping on a public street is going to get governments to do anything of the sort.


  • #212
    grazz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭grazz


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    What are its objectives? What would success be for the Occupy movement? Any time these questioned have been asked the questions been ignorned or goal posts shifted and thats before you even look for properly thought out proposals. Even the whole 99% v 1% thing there was a whole thread about that and no agreement was reached, the 1% kept changing.

    Thats what I percieve about the Irish version. Obviously the Wall Street version has achieved international attention so it is a success in that sense. The problem is all they seem to do is protest and beyond that have no plans even the US one spent 3 months protesting before being hold to move(Also a sign of success that it managed to recruit enough people to inconviance the locals). Again basing from what I've seen from the Irish version the movement is not interested in democracy unless its them or their decsions.

    As whole they seem a very well meaning group of people who are hopelessly nieve and at times don't seem to have done basic research about what ever they're protesting about. Look its nice to protest but unless you have an alternative idea thought out your're wasting your time as option 1 can't be changed without an option 2.

    It is a movement long overdue, for too long we've had a culture that indulges in and celebrates greed and deems inequality and the position of the poor as been deserved. Large companies have also made a mockery of the democratic system having had politicians from all sides in their pockets since the 80s. In the US the Democrats and Republicans are no different at this stage. I think thats a scary Orwellian thought, and its time we recover democracy and inequality from our corporate and banker overlords, and I think movements such as Occupy Wall Street are a step in the right direction.


  • #213
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    grazz wrote: »
    It is a movement long overdue, for too long we've had a culture that indulges in and celebrates greed and deems inequality and the position of the poor as been deserved. Large companies have also made a mockery of the democratic system having had politicians from all sides in their pockets since the 80s. In the US the Democrats and Republicans are no different at this stage. I think thats a scary Orwellian thought, and its time we recover democracy and inequality from our corporate and banker overlords, and I think movements such as Occupy Wall Street are a step in the right direction.

    For Ireland it matters not who occupies the White House, as long as he (or she) turns a blind eye to American jobs flowing out of the US and into our hedonistic little tax haven.


  • #214
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    grazz wrote: »
    ...its time we recover democracy and inequality from our corporate and banker overlords, and I think movements such as Occupy Wall Street are a step in the right direction.
    Beyond underpants gnome logic, how are they a step in that direction?


  • #215
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Beyond underpants gnome logic, how are they a step in that direction?

    Um, I vaguely remember this from South Park, but what does 'underpants gnome logic' mean, exactly? :o

    (I can't watch videos, so I'd appreciate it if someone could just say what it was).


  • #216
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    southsiderosie wrote: »
    Um, I vaguely remember this from South Park, but what does 'underpants gnome logic' mean, exactly? :o
    The general meme is a three step process:

    1. Collect underpants.
    2. ???
    3. Profit!

    In this case, it's:

    1. Occupy Wall Street.
    2. ???
    3. Solve the world's problems!

    In both cases, there's a small but probably important step missing. There seems to be a collective belief among occupiers that the process of occupation is an important step in the process of fixing a broken world, but I have an annoying engineer's habit of wanting to see the steps lined up in a staircase before I'm convinced that the first step is, in fact, heading in the right direction.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Godge was claiming that other Gardai police themselves, which I am pointing out is not the case, the Ombudsman is independent and only refers things back in cases of very minor incidents.

    .

    I was claiming that there are structures in place - including the gardai themselves and the Garda Ombudsman - that deal with miscreants within the Gardai. I also pointed to how the Gardai have referred cases themselves to the Ombudsman. See below link to garda ombudsman report and extract. I provided these several pages ago but they were ignored. So the undisputed factual evidence is that there are structures in place to deal with miscreants in the Gardai and these, according to the Garda Ombudsman Commission in its own reports are actually used by the gardai. No amount of anecdotal she said this or he saw that or twisting the facts of a newspaper story can contradict the official report. So not only is there a commitment to dealing with miscreants, not only is there a structure in place to deal with them, but the official reports demonstrate that they have been used by the Gardai themselves.


    http://www.gardaombudsman.ie/GSOC/Five-yearReport2012.pdf

    "The Commission has responded to 650 referrals from the Garda Síochána under Section 102 of the Act. "


    My question is can the Occupy Movement demonstrate the same commitment, structures and reports that show they deal with their miscreants? If they can, they are similar to the gardai, if not, they are different and they do not show any commitment to dealing with miscreants and are condoning violence through inaction.





  • #218
    Memnoch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Godge wrote: »
    I was claiming that there are structures in place - including the gardai themselves and the Garda Ombudsman - that deal with miscreants within the Gardai. I also pointed to how the Gardai have referred cases themselves to the Ombudsman. See below link to garda ombudsman report and extract. I provided these several pages ago but they were ignored. So the undisputed factual evidence is that there are structures in place to deal with miscreants in the Gardai and these, according to the Garda Ombudsman Commission in its own reports are actually used by the gardai. No amount of anecdotal she said this or he saw that or twisting the facts of a newspaper story can contradict the official report. So not only is there a commitment to dealing with miscreants, not only is there a structure in place to deal with them, but the official reports demonstrate that they have been used by the Gardai themselves.


    http://www.gardaombudsman.ie/GSOC/Five-yearReport2012.pdf

    "The Commission has responded to 650 referrals from the Garda Síochána under Section 102 of the Act. "


    My question is can the Occupy Movement demonstrate the same commitment, structures and reports that show they deal with their miscreants? If they can, they are similar to the gardai, if not, they are different and they do not show any commitment to dealing with miscreants and are condoning violence through inaction.




    I'm confused, why are we comparing a protest group to the guards?


  • #219
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Memnoch wrote: »
    I'm confused, why are we comparing a protest group to the guards?
    Have you read the thread?


  • #220
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Memnoch wrote: »
    I'm confused, why are we comparing a protest group to the guards?

    The discussion arose from the following exchange below several pages ago.
    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    This is a thread about the worldwide occupy movement... so the damage it is doing to local businesses is important. I just heard about a story in the US where occupiers are throwing bricks through breaking restaurant windows.

    They also caused random destructive acts. Source
    davoxx wrote: »
    i'm not sure what the point is here ... i mean there are corrupt police, does that mean that the entire police force should be dismissed?


  • #221
    Memnoch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Godge wrote: »
    The discussion arose from the following exchange below several pages ago.

    I see.

    I think the point is valid. It's wrong to generalise an entire movement based on the actions of a few individuals.

    You seem to have taken it into a very semantical and specific argument about the guards while missing/ignoring the broader general point.

    This is only accentuated by the fact that the guarda are 1) employed by the taxpayer, 2) have statutory powers as well as obligations.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Memnoch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Have you read the thread?

    I have not read every single post on 15 pages of discussion.


  • #223
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Memnoch wrote: »
    I think the point is valid. It's wrong to generalise an entire movement based on the actions of a few individuals.

    You seem to have taken it into a very semantical and specific argument about the guards while missing/ignoring the broader general point.

    This is only accentuated by the fact that the guarda are 1) employed by the taxpayer, 2) have statutory powers as well as obligations.
    You're repeating the mistake made by an earlier poster of skirting around the actual point being made. The Occupy movement doesn't appear to take seriously the very real problem of violent and antisocial elements that may appear in its midst. It seems content to distance itself from those elements, shrugging them off with an attitude of "we don't condone violence, so it's not our problem".

    That's an attitude that we don't accept from police forces, so we expect that processes will be put in place to deal with rogue elements. Occupy seems to feel it can evade the need for such processes.

    If you want to use the argument that the police should be held to a higher standard, fair enough: but remember that the corollary to that argument is that the Occupy movement is accepting that the police have higher standards than they themselves do. Is that the message the movement should be sending?
    Memnoch wrote: »
    I have not read every single post on 15 pages of discussion.
    You probably should, it saves the rest of us repeating ourselves.


  • #224
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Really good documentary about the anti-apartheid movement on the BBC last night. The parallels with the occupy movement were startling. They were also called hippys and leftists at the beginning. Then it evolved when the serious media, academics and intellectuals got interested and started examining the subject. Occupy is at this stage now.
    Next stage is the nexus where Wall St money becomes toxic and the thieves lose their political protection. Once they lose that its game over. There are signs of this happening in the US and worldwide already.

    Another lesson form the documentary is that small actions alone look quite futile but when combined are very powerful. Awareness was the biggest hurdle for them also but when they got past that it started to snowball. Great quote from it: Each action is only a tiny drop but the ocean is made up of drops! Inherent unfairness never lasts too long it will eventually fall. Occupy is just one of many pushing to make that day come faster.

    Was called the world against apartheid check it out!


  • #225
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,960 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    20Cent wrote: »
    Really good documentary about the anti-apartheid movement on the BBC last night. The parallels with the occupy movement were startling. They were also called hippys and leftists at the beginning. Then it evolved when the serious media, academics and intellectuals got interested and started examining the subject. Occupy is at this stage now.
    Next stage is the nexus where Wall St money becomes toxic and the thieves lose their political protection. Once they lose that its game over. There are signs of this happening in the US and worldwide already.

    Another lesson form the documentary is that small actions alone look quite futile but when combined are very powerful. Awareness was the biggest hurdle for them also but when they got past that it started to snowball. Great quote from it: Each action is only a tiny drop but the ocean is made up of drops! Inherent unfairness never lasts too long it will eventually fall. Occupy is just one of many pushing to make that day come faster.

    Was called the world against apartheid check it out!

    Occupy and the anti-apartheid have very little in common. The anti-apartheid had a very specific goal equal rights regardless of race. Something which existed in other countries. The Occupy movement from what I've deduced from its supporters doesn't have any goals or a least anything that can stand up to critical analysis.

    How does camping in a street other than damaging local businesses do anything?


  • #226
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Occupy and the anti-apartheid have very little in common. The anti-apartheid had a very specific goal equal rights regardless of race. Something which existed in other countries. The Occupy movement from what I've deduced from its supporters doesn't have any goals or a least anything that can stand up to critical analysis.

    How does camping in a street other than damaging local businesses do anything?

    Equal rights you say? Sounds like communism you know some people work harder then others, but the ANC were violent, those anti-apartheid people were secretly run by communist Russia, where is the risk assessed and priced detailed report into exactly how apartheid could be ended, what will replace apartheid, its just hippies handing out flyers, there aren't very many of them are there, there's too many of them they are damaging business etc etc etc

    Annoying isn't it.

    Occupies goals are pretty clear if after 15 pages in this thread and all the other threads maybe you don't want to get it.


  • #227
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #228
    Tanner Crooked Variation
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Tanner Crooked Variation


    less of the "thieves" stuff please, no hippies or thieves or any other general insults, let's keep it all nice and civil


  • #229
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,960 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    20Cent wrote: »
    Equal rights you say? Sounds like communism you know some people work harder then others, but the ANC were violent, those anti-apartheid people were secretly run by communist Russia, where is the risk assessed and priced detailed report into exactly how apartheid could be ended, what will replace apartheid, its just hippies handing out flyers, there aren't very many of them are there, there's too many of them they are damaging business etc etc etc

    Annoying isn't it.

    Occupies goals are pretty clear if after 15 pages in this thread and all the other threads maybe you don't want to get it.

    The anti-apartheid had a very clear goal which was that all races were equal in the eyes of law. That goal was achieved when all races were on an equal legal footing. It was achieved through a combination of external diplomatic pressure and internal agitation.

    Occupy is nothing like that. Its for equality(I think but I wouldn't mind some clarification) but what type? income equality? but there are multiple causes for income inequality which of those does the Occupy movement feel it could remedy and how. It should be remembered that the anti-apartheid movement only solved one type of inequality(which was their aim) and didn't create absolute equality in South Africa. It was successful because its aim was very specific and easy to explain(meaning it was very hard for oppenents to make it look as if the movement supported something else other than its true aims). This is something the Occupy movement could learn from.

    I would like to know the goals of Occupy and I wouldn't keep asking the question if I didn't. What would it take for their specific protest to stop? How does Occupy plan to achieve it goals? I'm not the only poster here who has a problem figuring this out. That implies that Occupy is not very good at communicating its message. Could you point me to specific post/external scource were a clear easy set of goals were laid out. I'm only applying critiquing the Occupy movement like I would the current gov/IMF or any other organisation.

    The question which you didn't answer was how does camping in a street other than damaging local businesses do anything?


  • #230
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    20Cent wrote: »
    Occupies goals are pretty clear if after 15 pages in this thread and all the other threads maybe you don't want to get it.


    Maybe I am stupid but after reading all of these threads the only goals I am clear about are:

    (1) Give us back our oil
    (2) World Peace
    (3) Something incoherent about equality

    I will admit that at the start I thought they had no goals but that the posters on these threads have made me aware of the above three.

    Now I can understand where Permabear and others are coming from because my responses to the above three are:

    (1) What oil?
    (2) Who doesn't claim to want world peace (even if it is only their own definition of world peace)? I mean the Israelis think that bombing Iran may help preserve world peace but the Russians don't agree but they all state (including Iran) that they want world peace.
    (3) Equality of what exactly?


  • #231
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Godge wrote: »
    Maybe I am stupid but after reading all of these threads the only goals I am clear about are:

    (1) Give us back our oil
    (2) World Peace
    (3) Something incoherent about equality

    I will admit that at the start I thought they had no goals but that the posters on these threads have made me aware of the above three.

    Now I can understand where Permabear and others are coming from because my responses to the above three are:

    (1) What oil?
    (2) Who doesn't claim to want world peace (even if it is only their own definition of world peace)? I mean the Israelis think that bombing Iran may help preserve world peace but the Russians don't agree but they all state (including Iran) that they want world peace.
    (3) Equality of what exactly?

    The thread is about the worldwide Occupy movement. Each country has separate sub issues they wish to highlight. None of them are anything like what you have in your list above. They have been posted here many times. The Dame St ones can be found at the bottom of their homepage.
    http://www.occupydamestreet.ie/


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    The anti-apartheid movement was equally as colourfull, the average march would have had a lot of the groups you mention above. Even then I bet there was the Ian O'Doherty equivalent saying they didn't know what it was about and calling them communists (many in the ANC actually were communists).

    Economic Justice is the goal the Occupy Movement has had since the start.
    Or do you contend that all these different groups just simultaneously decided to gather together in the same place at the same time for some reason!!!!!!!!!


  • #233
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    It's not like they are running short on real grievances in the states, though. Seems to me your problem is with each individual section here. Hippies! omg! maoists! omg! these people have a cheek existing!


  • #234
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    20Cent wrote: »
    Economic Justice is the goal the Occupy Movement has had since the start.
    I don't know what that means.


  • #235
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #236
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I don't know what that means.

    Obama does
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH99q2CRNZg

    Ben Bernanke does
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9rjqjr0An4

    Patrick Hounihan does:
    "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."

    Alan Dukes
    he added, but acknowledged that many people would like to see more being done “to alleviate the burden that all of that stupidity in banking has placed on us.”

    and many many more.


  • #237
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    The phrase economic justice to me seems to be a rather thin cover for the phrase redistributive justice, or am I wrong?


  • #238
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Valmont wrote: »
    The phrase economic justice to me seems to be a rather thin cover for the phrase redistributive justice, or am I wrong?

    No not at all, you can pick any two words an infer loads from them if you want. Its not anti-capitalism, just take a cursory look at what wall st has been up to and the fallout from it shows there is something rotten happening that needs to be changed or the exact same thing will happen again and again. On top of which its not capitalism at all anyway! In capitalism you lose bad bets not get paid. Good article about it here:
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216

    The influence of corporate money in politics is eroding democracy worldwide this is clear. Making private debt public is obviously wrong. No one wants to turn the world into Cuba or North Korea this is the same smear that is spread about anything that even questions the status quo. Get past that and see that the occupy movement is actually a good thing for everybody in the long run. Why does there have to be some sinister ulterior motive or conspiracy behind everything!!!


  • #239
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    20Cent wrote: »
    Obama does
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH99q2CRNZg
    I didn't hear the phrase "economic justice" anywhere in that clip.
    Ben Bernanke does
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9rjqjr0An4
    I didn't hear the phrase "economic justice" anywhere in that clip either.
    Patrick Hounihan does:
    "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."
    I don't see the phrase "economic justice" anywhere in that quote.
    Alan Dukes
    he added, but acknowledged that many people would like to see more being done “to alleviate the burden that all of that stupidity in banking has placed on us.”
    I don't see the phrase "economic justice" anywhere in that quote either.

    So - in clear, consise and coherent terms - what does "economic justice" mean, and how do you plan to achieve it?


  • #240
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I didn't hear the phrase "economic justice" anywhere in that clip. I didn't hear the phrase "economic justice" anywhere in that clip either. I don't see the phrase "economic justice" anywhere in that quote. I don't see the phrase "economic justice" anywhere in that quote either.

    So - in clear, consise and coherent terms - what does "economic justice" mean, and how do you plan to achieve it?

    Does it really matter if you are not hearing it when those in power are?

    In the US the presidential race it has become one of the main issues.
    Obama
    For most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people. Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefitted from that success. Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and investments than ever before. But everyone else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t - and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up.

    Even the republicans are talking about it and are attacking each other for being greedy capitalist! Newt Gingrich made a half hour documentary about it.
    A close connection to Wall St is becoming a hindrance to politicians instead of a benefit.
    New legislation is being brought in the like Dodd-Frank reform bill which has passed and is being implemented right now.

    In Ireland corruption and the influence of money is a big story, front page of the Indo today, surveys show 86% of Irish people think corruption is a big problem. The current gov want substantial changes made to the constitution and a citizens assembly in order to fix the democratic deficit.
    Nama is being widely discussed and examined, it will be under the freedom of information act by the summer because people were demanding it.

    How democratic is the whole eurozone is currently under discussion and debate!

    You think politicians just decide to do all of this? Its just happening by accident or would have happened anyway!
    Of course not its because many many people made it their business to Not claiming Occupy is responsible for all of it but it certainly played a role in encouraging it.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,960 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    A question. If Occupy can't define what economic justice is how does it know that the people who they claim support it are talking about the same thing and want the same result as Occupy?

    Its an ambigous term and depending on the person could lead to very different results all in the name of economic justice. Obama and Alan Dukes could potenially both support that ideal but produce very different solutions neither of which might be to Occupys liking.


  • #242
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    20Cent wrote: »
    You think politicians just decide to do all of this? Its just happening by accident or would have happened anyway!
    Of course not its because many many people made it their business to Not claiming Occupy is responsible for all of it but it certainly played a role in encouraging it.

    All of the things you listed, in relation to Ireland, were issues highlighted way before Occupy came to the scene late last year. The independent Citizens Assembly report has nothing to do with the Occupy movement what-so-ever. The public "discussion" about the "democracy in the eurozone" further proceeds this. The proposed constitutional changes were put the people in the general election early last year. The feeling about corruption is hardly anything new. I don't really see how Occupy contributed anything significant to any of those.

    And crucially, none of it explains what Occupy means by "economic justice".


  • #243
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    All of the things you listed, in relation to Ireland, were issues highlighted way before Occupy came to the scene late last year. The independent Citizens Assembly report has nothing to do with the Occupy movement what-so-ever. The public "discussion" about the "democracy in the eurozone" further proceeds this. The proposed constitutional changes were put the people in the general election early last year. The feeling about corruption is hardly anything new. I don't really see how Occupy contributed anything significant to any of those.

    And crucially, none of it explains what Occupy means by "economic justice".

    So you agree that Occupy has made significant impact in the US then at least.

    I was giving examples of how increasing awareness of issues and campaigning is used to achieve tangible results. You think some politician dreamed up the citizens assembly? It was due to a lot of people campaigning, organising and putting in a lot of work. They still are btw. Think Enda just decided to make Nama accountable to the freedom of information act over breakfast one morning? Again it is a lot of people campaigning to achieve this.


    If two words are confusing you adding more will just make it worse I think.


  • #244
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    A question. If Occupy can't define what economic justice is how does it know that the people who they claim support it are talking about the same thing and want the same result as Occupy?

    Its an ambigous term and depending on the person could lead to very different results all in the name of economic justice. Obama and Alan Dukes could potenially both support that ideal but produce very different solutions neither of which might be to Occupys liking.

    Why do you need it defined?
    Surely anything that moves the cause in a forward direction is a good thing whoever comes up with it.


  • #245
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,960 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    20Cent wrote: »
    Why do you need it defined?
    Surely anything that moves the cause in a forward direction is a good thing whoever comes up with it.

    I need defined because. I could argue for economic justice more than one way. I'll give you two very different examples.

    One - I could say that we all should be responsible for our own decisions and that if there was economic justice there would be no welfare state minimum wage etc.

    Or

    Two - I could say we are all human and fundementally the same and that if there was economic justice we would all earn the same amount.

    I could also argue plently of other things in the name of economic justice.

    Its just two words and is wide open to interpretation. What does Occupy think it means?(Not anyone else)

    Also if don't define your goal how can you work towards it. How do you know you are moving towards it?


  • #246
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    I need defined because. I could argue for economic justice more than one way. I'll give you two very different examples.

    One - I could say that we all should be responsible for our own decisions and that if there was economic justice there would be no welfare state minimum wage etc.

    Or

    Two - I could say we are all human and fundementally the same and that if there was economic justice we would all earn the same amount.

    I could also argue plently of other things in the name of economic justice.

    Its just two words and is wide open to interpretation. What does Occupy think it means?(Not anyone else)

    Also if don't define your goal how can you work towards it. How do you know you are moving towards it?


    I see now why you might need it defined. I was assuming an average level of comprehansion and use of context. You clearly have no interest in it and are just playing semantics or whatever, at this stage its boring.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    20Cent wrote: »
    I was giving examples of how increasing awareness of issues and campaigning is used to achieve tangible results.

    Which ironically only serves to highlight the failures of Occupy. The Citizens Assembly for example, set out its aims, carried out its actions based on achieving those aims, and reported on the results - validating whether those aims had been met. It has been presented in a clear, easy to access unambiguous document.

    Occupy has sat in tents and doesn't tell anyone why.
    If two words are confusing you adding more will just make it worse I think.

    :confused:

    Is it really that hard a question to answer?
    Why do you need it defined?
    Surely anything that moves the cause in a forward direction is a good thing whoever comes up with it.

    No it's not "sure" because Occupy seem reluctant to articulate exactly what this cause is. You can't just put out loose, arbitrary statements that are open to any kind of interpretation and expect people to support it unconditionally.

    If I told you I was going to start a campaign to fight for £)%("!(%((%£!, and refused to explain what I meant by £)%("!(%((%£! (assuming it was self-explanatory), would you be much tempted to join or support the £)%("!(%((%£! cause? Particularly if it involved an action as obtuse as sitting in a tent. It may seem like an exaggeration but that is how unclear the aims of Occupy are.

    It seems you are trying to find an ulterior motive for people asking the simple question, "hey, what do you actually mean by that?"


  • #248
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    20Cent wrote: »
    I see now why you might need it defined. I was assuming an average level of comprehansion and use of context. You clearly have no interest in it and are just playing semantics or whatever, at this stage its boring.
    Seriously: this is why people say the movement has no coherent message.

    When asked what the goal is, the answer varies from "the same thing Obama, Bernanke, Honohan and Dukes want" to "if you don't know, I'm not telling you".

    If you had to write a business plan, would it consist of more than a single paragraph?


  • #249
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    There have been multiple warnings on this thread to keep it civil, and they have been ignored.

    20cent, don't post on this thread again.

    SSR


  • #250
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The problem with that argument is that it carefully circumvents the actual point being made.

    The actual point being made is that there are structures in place to deal with bad apples in police forces. Those structures function to greater or lesser extents, but in all cases the existence of the structures illustrates that there is at least a commitment to eliminating misbehaviour in police forces.

    The question, then, is: what structures are in place to ensure that anti-social or other destructive behaviours are systematically dealt with within the Occupy movement?

    The police.
    No one is suggesting that the police shouldn't arrest those involved in actual criminal behavior and vandalism, we are suggesting that (a) they should not use excessive violence to do so, (b) standing in the street holding a banner is not a crime, and (c) even if it is, it is not a VIOLENT one and does not warrant the drawing of batons, the firing of tear gas, the macing of unarmed bystanders, the use of flash bangs and tasers, etc.

    From the reaction of the police, you'd swear they were trying to stop a mass murder in progress, not a peaceful protest.
    If it has such structures, they should be easy to outline. If it doesn't have such structures, then it is tacitly accepting misbehaviour in its ranks just as a police force would if it didn't have the appropriate structures in place.

    "It" doesn't have them just as the police doesn't have them either - did you miss the part where the ombudsman was independent, and where there ARE "internal" police complaints units they nearly always whitewash everything?
    I never suggested the police shouldn't do their jobs, the argument is about what their job actually is, and how they conduct themselves whilst performing it.
    On a superficial level it's a noble goal, but it needs an awful lot of flesh on the bones. For starters, you need to clarify whom you mean by "gamblers", and ideally describe them in less pejorative terms.

    If I go into a bookies and bet on a losing horse, I can't just go out and rob every bystander on the street, as bank bondholders are doing to the general public. It was their choice, their risk, THEIR loss. Why should I pay them back for their own decisions? Nobody bails ME out if I make a stupid investment decision...?
    Every single cent owed to Anglo Irish bondholders is something I had no involvement in creating and should have no involvement in repaying. It's their problem, and the decision to transfer that (and other bank debts in other countries) to the ordinary citizenry while the people who created the banking mess take the money and run, is scandalous, despicable, and heads need to roll over it. So far, not one actually has.
    Then you need to explain in detail how society can restructure itself around not financing national debts through privately-issued bonds.

    I'm not sure what you mean by this? Where did I suggest doing such a thing?
    On the first hand, I wasn't talking of national bonds but bank bonds. A bank is a private company, their problems are not my problems and should not be transferred to the taxpayer.
    On the second hand, I'm talking about a radical reform of what money actually is and how it circulates, right down at the very lowest and earliest level. The whole concept that all money is debt, and more of it is "created" by borrowing more and storing up future repayment issues is complete lunacy. The only winners in that scenario are central banks.

    It's like a game of musical chairs in which there are never enough chairs for everyone. A sane financial system would have the right numbers of chairs so that it wouldn't fall apart at the drop of a single hat.
    Finally, you need to explain how camping on a public street is going to get governments to do anything of the sort.

    In exactly the same way as marching in the street would. It's a PROTEST. It's the first step to a drive for change. Would you ask Martin Luther King the same question? The function of a protest is (a) to raise awareness, and (b) to send a warning shot to those in power.


  • #251
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    20Cent wrote: »
    Why do you need it defined?
    Surely anything that moves the cause in a forward direction is a good thing whoever comes up with it.


    Interesting, I googled economic justice because as an ignorant simpleton I did not know what it means.

    The Wikipedia entry redirected me to social justice which is surely not the same thing? Even they don't know enough about it to distinguish it from social justice, maybe I am not such an ignorant simpleton, just a simpleton.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economic_justice&redirect=no

    Found another definition here:

    http://www.cesj.org/thirdway/economicjustice-defined.htm


    Some interesting concepts. One caught my eye.

    The Principle of Distribution
      [FONT=Times,Times,serif]The principle of distribution defines the "output" or "out-take" rights of an economic system matched to each person's labor and capital inputs. Through the distributional features of private property within a free and open marketplace, distributive justice becomes automatically linked to participative justice, and incomes become linked to productive contributions. The principle of distributive justice involves the sanctity of property and contracts. It turns to the free and open marketplace, not government, as the most objective and democratic means for determining the just price, the just wage, and the just profit.[/FONT]
      [FONT=Times,Times,serif]Many confuse the distributive principles of justice with those of charity. Charity involves the concept "to each according to his needs," whereas "distributive justice" is based on the idea "to each according to his contribution." Confusing these principles leads to endless conflict and scarcity, forcing government to intervene excessively to maintain social order.[/FONT]

      Now that is interesting - "to each according to his contribution". Well let us say we have a bank. A number of people contribute to financing that bank, a small amount by shareholders, a large amount by depositers and a significant amount by bondholders. In turn, that bank lends money to customers to buy things. Now down the road, the bank runs into trouble because suddenly the nice customers who borrowed money can't pay it back, oops, they are turning nasty but the principle of economic justice outlined above suggests that they must pay back every penny. One thing is clear - no help for mortgage-holders. Now, the government steps in and on behalf of the taxpayers says that the bondholders and depositers who financed the bank deserves their money back. Hey what about the shareholders? The government just took their money and they lost everything. That must be against economic justice, they should be paid back their contribution, like everyone else. So another couple of things are clear - pay back the bondholders and pay back the shareholders as well.

      See what happens when you put up a motherhood and apple pie slogan as an objective that nobody could possibly disagree with, say world peace or economic justice, a simpleton like me comes along and says that's a great idea, it means

      (1) no bailout for mortgage-holders
      (2) pay back the bondholders
      (3) compensate the shareholders as well

      What's the problem?


      Seriously, (and the above was tongue-in-cheek to those that missed it), putting up a slogan like world peace or economic justice makes the Occupy Movement look silly. We all fuzzily want things like that but lots of us have a different picture of what that slogan means. "More democracy" "World Peace" "Economic Jutice" " Give us back our oil", they are all empty slogans (some a little more empty than others as technically we don't have any oil). When are we going to get some idea from one of the Occupy people as to what the Occupy Movement (especially the Irish one) actually stands for?


    • Advertisement
    Advertisement