U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-28-2014, 12:35 PM
 
2,485 posts, read 1,764,608 times
Reputation: 2140

Advertisements

We all know the famous slogan of the occupy movement. The argument is that the movement represents the 99%. There was a lot of buzz in the media. Finally the 99% had their own "tea party movement".

So why the OWS began after the tea party and ended earlier? Why didn't the American public pour more support to OWS? Where did the 99% go?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-28-2014, 12:52 PM
 
Location: Fredericksburg, Va
5,119 posts, read 12,720,764 times
Reputation: 7220
Because, there never was 99%...someone made up that figure!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2014, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Spokane, WA
1,991 posts, read 2,057,971 times
Reputation: 2363
Because it was nothing more than Moderator cut: language excuses to make a scene. OWS was not very useful to either "side" politically so it dried up. If you're not throwing rocks (I'm not saying they should have) your "revolution" will always fail.

Last edited by Oldhag1; 04-28-2014 at 01:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2014, 01:15 PM
 
2,485 posts, read 1,764,608 times
Reputation: 2140
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplcr0331 View Post
Because it was nothing more than excuses to make a scene. OWS was not very useful to either "side" politically so it dried up. If you're not throwing rocks (I'm not saying they should have) your "revolution" will always fail.
The tea party people didn't throw rocks, yet they were much more successful.

I think the point holds that the OWS is not useful to either side of the mainstream. Anti capitalism is not what the Democratic Party represents. Yet the OWS seemed focused on this vague idea. Exactly how are you going to be anti capitalism I this global economy?

Also the OWS gave people a feel of a white, middle class intellectual movement, as was reflected in their leadership, membership and vocabulary. As such it was for everything and ultimately for nothing. What's your take on their culture?

Last edited by Oldhag1; 04-28-2014 at 01:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2014, 01:25 PM
 
Location: USA
7,456 posts, read 5,446,493 times
Reputation: 12249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress View Post
We all know the famous slogan of the occupy movement. The argument is that the movement represents the 99%. There was a lot of buzz in the media. Finally the 99% had their own "tea party movement".

So why the OWS began after the tea party and ended earlier? Why didn't the American public pour more support to OWS? Where did the 99% go?
Several reasons:

1) No money to be made off of it. The Tea Party has survived because it has tapped into deep-set hatred, bigotry, and ignorance, and there's a lot of money to be made off of that. Of course, that all happened after the Tea Party was bought up by corporate interests. Keep in mind that the Tea Party was originally started as a protest against corporate Bailouts in late 2008. Funny how it is how now morphed into a pro-corporate movement... all thanks to corporations buying up the Tea Party while still convincing people it is a "grass roots" movement by "real 'mericans!"

Even if OWS did represent 99% of the people, nobody cares if there's no money to be made from them.

2) Bad behavior: We all saw scenes of OWS protesters leaving behind total messes where they were located, which didn't sit well with the public. Some of this may have come about from people being planted in the OWS movement to make a mess, but it still looked bad.

3) Lack of a clear message: No sane person can deny the absurd influence of the elite in this nation, or that the rich are growing richer while the middle class vanishes. Unfortunately, while those are statements of fact, it is not a policy on which one can act. That was part of where OWS hit the wall. You could ask them what was wrong, but when it came to a solution, they ranged from logical to crazy, and (of course) the powers that be focused on the crazies to discredit the movement.

4) "I've got mine, so to heck with you!" This is now one of the driving ideas in America, and when the OWS people brought up valid points regarding economic injustice, all that did was enrage people who declared them all "lazy" and brought up useless stories about how "back in my day, I worked 60 hours a week at the steel mill, so you people are bums if you're not willing to do the same." Nevermind that the steel mill is long gone, as are countless other good jobs, no - it's clearly the fault of the unemployed if they are out of work. This ties into the Just World Fallacy which dominates American thinking. In short, far too many Americans honestly believe that "everyone gets what they deserve in life." This insane Just World viewpoint is used to bash the poor and unemployed and worship the rich. Obviously, the rich support it since it allows them to claim they "deserve" their wealth, and far too many people buy into it. So, valid discussions about economic problems fall on deaf ears because in the eyes of a Just World loon, the world is always exactly as it should be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2014, 01:53 PM
 
28,411 posts, read 14,134,205 times
Reputation: 19545
OWS failed because lily white liberals have no attention span, and the Democrat party doesn't want to tick off their ultra rich backers. Liberals are pro-business to the businesses they want to pick and choose. They also know they have their built in voting blocks who they buy off with EBT cards. As long as they can keep the poor poor, they will continue playing their games and pretending like they are the party of inclusion. Liberals will invite you to the party, to serve them and clean up the mess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2014, 01:53 PM
 
2,485 posts, read 1,764,608 times
Reputation: 2140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123 View Post
Several reasons:

1) No money to be made off of it. The Tea Party has survived because it has tapped into deep-set hatred, bigotry, and ignorance, and there's a lot of money to be made off of that. Of course, that all happened after the Tea Party was bought up by corporate interests. Keep in mind that the Tea Party was originally started as a protest against corporate Bailouts in late 2008. Funny how it is how now morphed into a pro-corporate movement... all thanks to corporations buying up the Tea Party while still convincing people it is a "grass roots" movement by "real 'mericans!"

Even if OWS did represent 99% of the people, nobody cares if there's no money to be made from them.

2) Bad behavior: We all saw scenes of OWS protesters leaving behind total messes where they were located, which didn't sit well with the public. Some of this may have come about from people being planted in the OWS movement to make a mess, but it still looked bad.

3) Lack of a clear message: No sane person can deny the absurd influence of the elite in this nation, or that the rich are growing richer while the middle class vanishes. Unfortunately, while those are statements of fact, it is not a policy on which one can act. That was part of where OWS hit the wall. You could ask them what was wrong, but when it came to a solution, they ranged from logical to crazy, and (of course) the powers that be focused on the crazies to discredit the movement.

4) "I've got mine, so to heck with you!" This is now one of the driving ideas in America, and when the OWS people brought up valid points regarding economic injustice, all that did was enrage people who declared them all "lazy" and brought up useless stories about how "back in my day, I worked 60 hours a week at the steel mill, so you people are bums if you're not willing to do the same." Nevermind that the steel mill is long gone, as are countless other good jobs, no - it's clearly the fault of the unemployed if they are out of work. This ties into the Just World Fallacy which dominates American thinking. In short, far too many Americans honestly believe that "everyone gets what they deserve in life." This insane Just World viewpoint is used to bash the poor and unemployed and worship the rich. Obviously, the rich support it since it allows them to claim they "deserve" their wealth, and far too many people buy into it. So, valid discussions about economic problems fall on deaf ears because in the eyes of a Just World loon, the world is always exactly as it should be.
A romantic, for the "greater good" movement will never have money to be made off of it or power to be gained.

They did have a clear message but it's too vague. Like you said, it's not clear what specific policies they were supporting. The problem is not first and foremost wealth distribution, but jobs and employment. On top of that, the rising cost of education and healthcare. But what exactly is getting money out of politics?

But think about this. You are making good money. Your neighbor used to make good money but is now unemployed. Now things got worse and the government says you have to pay more so that your neighbor can have a bit more. Human nature says you two are now going to be suspicious of each other. You are still making the same amount, and who wants to pay more? Who wants to see their own quality of life reduce? On top of that, Americans are well aware that there is a growing population who need more and more. How much is enough? How much more before this country completely falls? The majority of those making decent money will not be wiling to go into a lower standard of life. My guess is that we will continue to be a highly divided society along fiscal issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2014, 02:58 PM
 
3,050 posts, read 2,512,585 times
Reputation: 3959
Because they were disorganized and a lot of the movement, at least in NYC, was conducted by Trustafarians who didn't have anything to gain from a positive outcome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2014, 03:09 PM
 
Location: A Land Not So Far Away
3,942 posts, read 2,724,149 times
Reputation: 5496
It was nothing more than a meaningless movement which accomplished nothing. People only saw mostly conduct that was disorderly, and that's what appeared to gain a lot of headlines. If they were going to see what it was meant to stand for, then few actually saw it. I only took it to be an anti-work movement, and regardless of what the real intention on the organizers' part may have been, that's how many perceived it to be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-28-2014, 03:27 PM
 
48,519 posts, read 81,030,761 times
Reputation: 17978
Basically it was quickly found that unions r organized and tried to control people learned abut street people attracted by free food. Many showing up for entertainment promises in way of bands that never showed. The unions tried to stop interviews but the problems showed up when women complained assaults and then they left parks they used in a mess. This is the 60's was what they learned and local taxpayers did like the cost to them to cleanup afterwards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top