Please tell me someone on here has heard about "OCCUPY WALLSTREET"

[Explorer]

The movement failed for a reason; it lacked direction, demands were out there, there were no baby steps (that's the way it seemed at least), the media trivialized the movement, people who like to just cause trouble slowly joined in on the fun (like that idiot kid from that video posted earlier). That doesn't change the fact that something needs to change and things need fixing (something that they arguably achieved, check out the Democrat's political position) whether or not the company involved had ill intent or not.

I remember reading the Seattle stories about how their Occupy Seattle movement went from having support from churches, community groups and so on, to having zero support due to their having voted to embracy any means deemed necessary, including violence.

I have nothing against unlawful protest, incidentally. I very much admire those who have the courage of their convictions, willing to pay the price for breaking the law.

That's quite a distance from those who dress in black in large groups so they can vandalize without getting caught individually. I think the same Seattle stories said that a members of such a group, as a protest, had destroyed the car of some Canadian tourists. (Almost on target, but not owned by AdBusters. *laugh*

My point being that a good idea should never be dismissed out of hand simply because of where it came from and the motives behind it (although knowing the source of an idea could potentially merit closer scrutiny to determine whether or not it really is a good idea).

And I think we both agree that just because a group espouses a good idea publicly, it and its motives shouldn't be exempt from scrutiny.

Most extreme example? Hitler not an ideal poster child for vegetarianism.

*laugh*

 

[flint757]

I agree overall. Their approach was way off and they expected too much.

I've considered starting a grass root movement myself, but lack the free time. Some of the things I'd do though are inspired from this movement, just toned down by a thousand degrees and an overall more active approach.

As an example, people should buy things based on how the manufacturers/distributors manage their company (internally, externally and politically). If a company does not treat their employee's or customer's right then people shouldn't buy their products. Assuming anyone could get enough people to agree to do so (unlikely as apple would be one of those companies that doesn't treat employee's fairly ), we can force the stockholders to take care of the stakeholders or risk losing their profit margin.

I'd prefer to revert back to when stakeholders were more important to the company than stockholders. IMO stockholders are no different than someone gambling at a sporting event; if I bet on a football team I don't get to then coach the damn team so the same should be the case in a company. However, I'm well aware that this will not happen and even if it were to happen it would take a very long time to achieve (probably involve new laws as well and since government is in big businesses back pocket it'd be easier to pull someone's teeth out).

That is why exercising buying power is the only way to achieve these goals IMO, but people are far too concerned with convenience and cheap products to do so it seems, so if I go through with this I have my work cut out for me. In other words my idea is dead in the water, but I'm still willing to give it a shot.

I have other ideas as well like education reform, upward mobility inside a company (a lot of companies hire externally for positions nowadays), finding a way to overturn citizens united, repealing GLB act, and much more. Some of these ideas I imagine OWS embraced, but an all or nothing approach won't work, baby steps are a must.

This is a poor example, but when everyone got worked up about Chick-Fil-A and many began boycotting over their financial practices in politics it forced Chick-Fil-A to not only rewrite their policies, but they agreed to stop funding these organizations as well. Boycotts are successful regularly when executed in a uniform manner and publicly embraced. We have more control than we give ourselves credit for (when the public supports an idea, politicians usually follow suit as well which is what helped achieve Chick-Fil-A's reform).

Windows has redefined what we expect from products as well. We have gone from a society that expects things to work to a society that gets a BSOD and reboots (many companies now follow suit). The truth is even in terms of just product satisfaction (ignoring the political/economical aspect) that shouldn't be okay. If you pay an arm and a leg for something it should work, simple as that.

 

[ddtonfire]

That is a poor example, since Chic-Fil-A did not change their policies and still give money to those organizations. As best as I can tell, they didn't feel any effects of a boycott, either.

Chick-fil-A Sets the Record Straight | CitizenLink

 

[flint757]

That is a poor example, since Chic-Fil-A did not change their policies and still give money to those organizations. As best as I can tell, they didn't feel any effects of a boycott, either.

Chick-fil-A Sets the Record Straight | CitizenLink

Well I said that. and that sucks that the reports I had heard were bogus. It is a shame.

Why do they insist so much...I'm sure they feel it, to what magnitude I do not know.

In any case that was an example not my actual point and despite the overall failure does not prove that boycotting can't work because it does.

 

[vampiregenocide]

I've seen the list of OWS's demands before, and that doesn't look like the list that I saw. Seems more like a mockery.