HappySqurriel said:
fordy said:
HappySqurriel said:
fordy said:
Wow, the amount of ignorance in this thread is absolutely staggering. First they say "We don't know what the movement is about", and then you state "it's had more than enough news coverage". Then you state that it's nothing but a bunch of whiners who do not want to work. That, my friends, is called prejudice.
For those lazy people who do not do their research and instead decide to assume, the occupy movement relates to government persuasion and favouritism by funds from the private sector, effectively turning the country into a plutocracy. Plus, investing in a congressman can be considered one of the best investments a wealthy investor or corporation can make, with average calculations of return at 17,000% of the original investment via subsidies etc. Somebody tell me then, if a politician mostly is under the influence of corporate "donations", which side would he stand if a conflict arose between the people and said corporations? |
I think you're the one who is looking at the movement through your own biased and seeing what you want to see ...
While there are people who are making statements along the lines of what you're claiming there are also claims being made by countless groups for countless causes which act as noise for any meaningful message from the movement. When you have socialist, anarchist, communist, pro-union, pot-legalization, anti-Semitic, student-debt forgiveness, and anti-corruption messages being delivered in an environment of squalor, drug abuse, and crime from people who seem to be playing parliament similar to the kids in Lord of the Flies it becomes difficult to see much of a serious point to the movement.
|
As I mentioned before, do your research.
Canadian based foundation, Adbusters, proposed the occupy movement based on the following:
- Corporate influence on democracy
- A growing disparity in wealth
- The absence of legal repercussions behind the recent global financial crisis.
Some may want to take it to other levels, but those are the BASE meanings behind the movement.
(Yes, this is a repeated post, but it's interesting how it goes ignored in order to hold up the whole "nobody knows what they're protesting for" bubble)
|
What percentage of the protestors could actually communicate that as the origin and/or meaning behind the movement? If it is less than an overwhelming majority it can’t really be said to be the point of the movement. If the percentage is as low as I suspect it is (in the 1% to 5% range) it is just one of many messages being drowned out in the noise of the movement.
|
I'd appreciate if you don't bring speculative figures into the conversation. If you don't know the figure, then don't assume that's the case.
On the flip side, I could say the ravenous Tea Party movement had no clear goal because it consisted of conservatives, religious nuts, pro lifers, gun fanatics, no-government anarchists and people with racial intolerance.
