Occupy Wall Street. Can someone please explain to me what it is?

[nailz]

Ok, I browse reddit almost constantly for 8 hours a day while at work. I feel like I never really miss much, but the first I've heard about Occupy Wallstreet was when the cop maced some protesters.

So, I ask, reddit, what the fuck is going on in NYC?

I get the gist of it. People are angry and have been on Wall Street for a few days. Beyond that, I know fuck-all about what's happening, and it has become relative to my interest as I'm going to be spending a week in NYC in Mid-October. Who all is there? Why are they there? Who organized this? Where did it come from? What are they attempting to change?

How likely am I going to be stepping off the plane and into riots? Can I go down and check out these protests without being punched in the dick by the NYPD? Will it be over before I even get there?

 

[Pellaz]

ummm.......lol.

 

[sh0kr0k]

I have no idea what's going on either. I'll read whatever people comment here, but otherwise I am happy to remain blissfully disinterested :Spin:

 

[booB]

I don't even think THEY know what they're protesting. They seem to be mad at the "upper one percent", but they're taking it out on the government and the market, simultaneously.

 

[nailz]

I don't even think THEY know what they're protesting. They seem to be mad at the "upper one percent", but they're taking it out on the government and the market, simultaneously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street

So I found this. And they're protesting Corporations being considered People, among other things. I only found out about this when the video of the cop pepperspraying corralled protesters hit the internets.

Also lol @ obvious copy-paste on original post.

 

[booB]

Ah, so they're standing up for freedom by protesting against economic freedom. Got it.

 

[adaher]

They are protesting freedom in general. If corporations aren't people, than the New York Times doesn't have 1st amendment rights.

Well, that's not entirely accurate. Corporations AREN'T people, but the law recognizes that organizations of persons carry the same rights as individual persons. I'm not sure how else this could work. If corporations don't have rights, then books can be censored at will, the press can be censored at will, businesses can be shut down without reason or cause and without compensation, and all the non-profit advocacy groups, from the ACLU to the NRA to the Sierra Club, could be shut down by a simple act of Congress because they are all incorporated. Even the two major political parties are corporations! The party in power could just vote that the other party has no rights because corporatoins aren't people and the other party is a corporation. Therefore, no rights whatsoever.

 

[adaher]

Interestingly enough, the group behind the protests isn't your typical left-wing group. Some kind of New Age anti-materialism publication called Adbusters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters

Of course, they play right into the hands of the authorities by advocating putting everything under the sun under "public control", which in practice has never meant anything other than government control by a few powerful people.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

Ah, so they're standing up for freedom by protesting against economic freedom. Got it.

lol "freedom." I love love love ridiculous hyperbolic buzzterms in the afternoon. Hate to break it to you bro but freedom doesn't exist. Neither does "terror," or "evil."

 

[AeonicSlumber]

They are protesting freedom in general. If corporations aren't people, than the New York Times doesn't have 1st amendment rights.

Well, that's not entirely accurate. Corporations AREN'T people, but the law recognizes that organizations of persons carry the same rights as individual persons. I'm not sure how else this could work. If corporations don't have rights, then books can be censored at will, the press can be censored at will, businesses can be shut down without reason or cause and without compensation, and all the non-profit advocacy groups, from the ACLU to the NRA to the Sierra Club, could be shut down by a simple act of Congress because they are all incorporated. Even the two major political parties are corporations! The party in power could just vote that the other party has no rights because corporatoins aren't people and the other party is a corporation. Therefore, no rights whatsoever.

Ehh no. The ACLU, NRA, etc are corporations by dictionary definition, but not by legal definition. A corporation is legally bound to monetize and create profit, so a non-profit organization cannot ever be a corporation. Also the New York Times' product is protected (as is any publishing company's product, or any intellectual property) by the first amendment, but it as a company should not be protected by the first amendment because a company is not a person, it is a body of people with outside forces and influences.

Anyone that thinks the bill making Corporations people or whatever is a good thing hasn't seen Colbert basically tear the whole thing down with his own Super Pac, allowing him to basically troll campaigns.

 

[nailz]

They are protesting freedom in general. If corporations aren't people, than the New York Times doesn't have 1st amendment rights.

Uh...

Freedom of the press or freedom of the media is the freedom of communication and expression through vehicles including various electronic media and published materials. While such freedom mostly implies the absence of interference from an overreaching state, its preservation may be sought through constitutional or other legal protections.

 

[TychoCelchu]

I'm in full agreement with people protesting injustice (or what they honestly perceive as injustice). For something like this though, I think it would've helped them PR-wise if they had begun stating a single, or small number, of very clear goals BEFORE starting the actual protest. They did sort of solidify around opposing corporate political spending, i.e. massive donations to politicians who pander to specific corporate interests, but that was a little later on. It's also becoming more clearly stated that they are not in favor of tight state control either, since that also amounts to what adaher points out. It's just that these things are being agreed to and announced later than they should be.

 

[Stingray11214]

Most of those people protesting on Wall Street are a) Lowlife out-of-town hipsters, who never worked a day in their lives and are supported hook, line and sinker by Mommy and Daddy. And, b) Over the hill ex-hippies who have not bathed since Woodstock and still think that Jerry Garcia is alive and the that Corporations need to end the war in Vietnam. Those people are a trip.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

Most of those people protesting on Wall Street are a) Lowlife out-of-town hipsters, who never worked a day in their lives and are supported hook, line and sinker by Mommy and Daddy. And, b) Over the hill ex-hippies who have not bathed since Woodstock and still think that Jerry Garcia is alive and the that Corporations need to end the war in Vietnam. Those people are a trip.

And Tea Partiers are either fat racist rednecks who would rather elect Larry The Cable Guy as President, or tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nutjobs who think reptiles run the world. See wut i did thur bro?

 

[TychoCelchu]

no kidding.

 

[TheLongshot]

Well, that's not entirely accurate. Corporations AREN'T people, but the law recognizes that organizations of persons carry the same rights as individual persons. I'm not sure how else this could work. If corporations don't have rights, then books can be censored at will, the press can be censored at will, businesses can be shut down without reason or cause and without compensation, and all the non-profit advocacy groups, from the ACLU to the NRA to the Sierra Club, could be shut down by a simple act of Congress because they are all incorporated. Even the two major political parties are corporations! The party in power could just vote that the other party has no rights because corporatoins aren't people and the other party is a corporation. Therefore, no rights whatsoever.

Over time, since it wasn't defined in the Constitution, it has been defined over time what the rights of corporations have. As you say, there are potential problems. Corporations were defined as people back in 1886, and has whittled down what doesn't make sense since then. (Particularly since it uses a perverted idea of the 14th amendment to make it so.)

The big issue right now is the ruleing last year from SCOTUS that corporations can offer unlimited funds for independant ads for elections. Many believe this subverts Democracy in this country and that it goes too far. Given the amount of influence corporations have in developing policy in this country (sometimes even authoring the laws that are put on the books.), the outrage is understandable.

 

[booB]

The big issue right now is the ruleing last year from SCOTUS that corporations can offer unlimited funds for independant ads for elections. Many believe this subverts Democracy in this country and that it goes too far. Given the amount of influence corporations have in developing policy in this country (sometimes even authoring the laws that are put on the books.), the outrage is understandable.

The obvious answer (to me at least) is not to protest the activities of corporations. The answer is, instead, to protest the activities of government. The fewer the laws that are made, the fewer circumstances corporations have to impose their will on private citizens (if that is indeed what is happening, as the protesters seem to believe).

 

[AeonicSlumber]

The obvious answer (to me at least) is not to protest the activities of corporations. The answer is, instead, to protest the activities of government. The fewer the laws that are made, the fewer circumstances corporations have to impose their will on private citizens (if that is indeed what is happening, as the protesters seem to believe).

Dude, do you have any idea of what you're saying?

These libertarian (or far-right) ideals are so hilariously contradictory and nonsensical, how any rational human being can adopt them makes no sense to me. People prattle on about "freedoms" and "liberties" but let me break it down to you: we are not free because freedom doesn't exist. Are you hungry? You need to eat? The neural impulses telling you to eat force you to eat, just like the threat of starvation forces you to eat. Now you might say that of course being bound to our body's needs is different from being bound to a government, but it's not. Let's go higher up the ladder. We are bound to natural disasters, floods, sickness and disease right? We can't do anything about those things, we are a slave to that natural order -- to nature. And you might say again that it has nothing to do with government but it does.

We are animals, and pack animals at that. You take away government for the "free market" but it's the same thing with a new name. By definition, ANY body that leads and ensures our welfare as a society is "government," whether it's corporations or congress. And you might say that the free market will handle things better, but it won't. Both the people in private sector and the people in public sector are just that -- people. The "bureaucracies" that you hate so much about the DMV or the TSA are no different from the "bureaucracies" in the current health insurance industry or hell -- waiting in the Apple store to get an appointment with Apple care. You pine for some sort of magical, hyperbolic deity in the free market to change everything but ultimately it's all the same human beings doing the same thing.

And so you might ask "if you feel that way, then why do you care so much if we switch to a 'libertarian' free market economy? If it's the same thing as now, then why protest it?" The answer is simple: I don't care about the difference between the "free market" and "government." What I protest are the cynics who will never be satisfied trying to impose something that they will ultimately not be satisfied with either, and at the cost of the well being of everyone else. You run on hyperbole and nonsense, buzzwords, magical hopes and dreams. You thought we were literally voting for Obama for literal "hope" and literal "change" when we actually voted for him because we were simply dissatisfied with the direction the last administration went in. Rationality, science, and intelligence brings about true change, not manufactured nonsense in the form of borderline propaganda. The kind of thinking on the Tea Party's part is NO different from that of Al Queda (and no, I am not calling the Tea Party terrorists -- I am however calling them extreme radicals), while maybe not religious, it most CERTAINLY is not objective or scientific.

To paraphrase Jon Stewart: let's restore sanity please.

 

[TheLongshot]

The obvious answer (to me at least) is not to protest the activities of corporations. The answer is, instead, to protest the activities of government. The fewer the laws that are made, the fewer circumstances corporations have to impose their will on private citizens (if that is indeed what is happening, as the protesters seem to believe).

So, your answer to corporations having too much say in government is to not govern corporations at all and let them do what they want? Yeah, that's a solution.

 

[Stingray11214]

And Tea Partiers are either fat racist rednecks who would rather elect Larry The Cable Guy as President, or tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy nutjobs who think reptiles run the world. See wut i did thur bro?

Hell, I'd elect Metal Sam as President over the current clueless clown that occupies 1600. Tinfoil hats? I though those were worn by the wealthy whack jobs who hang out at MoveOn or DailyKos. You know those people, right? They are the ones that feel guilty that they made it and wish to deny others that same right to make it.

Yes, I saw what you did thar, bro. Difference is what I said is what you will find at these protests. You can also add to that those who do it to make their lives worth something.