The Gaming Den

FrankTrollman wrote:

Leress wrote:What were the demands/goals of OWS? I've been looking around and have not found a concrete answer. I found couple of list that have some overlap but not a unified list or final draft of goals.

Their #1 demand was simply to roll back changes to the tax code and regulations that give more wealth and political power to the largest corporations and wealthiest individuals.

Their #2 demand was to provide for aid programs such as student debt relief, healthcare subsidies, and unemployment insurance that would give a boost in standards of living for people below the top 1%.

These demands were so reasonable and so broadly popular that the media refused to accept that they had been made in the first place.

-Username17

Okay, that is pretty much what I found in the overlapping parts of what I've seen.

I'm pretty sure that prosecuting those responsible for the 2008 financial crisis was also a big thing of theirs.

The absolute, undisputed demand of literally everyone in OWS was "The gap between rich and poor keeps getting wider and wider. This is bullshit, change it." There was some disagreement on exactly how, but Frank's list had a strong majority of support.

Kaelik wrote:

Prak wrote:Well, and OWS was primarily built by the anti-capitalist fuckwits behind Adbusters who actually paid people to protest with the proceeds from their lazy-pretentious $55 subscription magazine.

What the fuck are you smoking?

Well, ok, I guess it was primarily the first protest that was created by Adbusters. Which is a Canadian anti-consumerist organization which prints a magazine full of "baw consumerism" essays that read like they were written by a college freshman and defaced ads from other magazines. I don't know how much the individual issues cost at B&N, but if you subscribe on their website, it'll cost you $55 for the privilege of being called an idiot for the way that marketing is designed to work on you by an anti-consumerist organization.

Prak wrote:

Kaelik wrote:

Prak wrote:Well, and OWS was primarily built by the anti-capitalist fuckwits behind Adbusters who actually paid people to protest with the proceeds from their lazy-pretentious $55 subscription magazine.

What the fuck are you smoking?

Well, ok, I guess it was primarily the first protest that was created by Adbusters. Which is a French anti-consumerist organization which prints a magazine full of "baw consumerism" essays that read like they were written by a college freshman and defaced ads from other magazines. I don't know how much the individual issues cost at B&N, but if you subscribe on their website, it'll cost you $55 for the privilege of being called an idiot for the way that marketing is designed to work on you by an anti-consumerist organization.

Repeating your crazy evidenceless assertion is not genuinely considered a solution to the problem of a crazy evidenceless assertion.

Prak wrote:

Kaelik wrote:

Prak wrote:Well, and OWS was primarily built by the anti-capitalist fuckwits behind Adbusters who actually paid people to protest with the proceeds from their lazy-pretentious $55 subscription magazine.

What the fuck are you smoking?

Well, ok, I guess it was primarily the first protest that was created by Adbusters. Which is a French anti-consumerist organization which prints a magazine full of "baw consumerism" essays that read like they were written by a college freshman and defaced ads from other magazines. I don't know how much the individual issues cost at B&N, but if you subscribe on their website, it'll cost you $55 for the privilege of being called an idiot for the way that marketing is designed to work on you by an anti-consumerist organization.

I can perfectly visualize the Kelly cartoon for what you just wrote. Complete with crying Statue of Liberty.

Ok, first I should say that I mis-typed, it's a Canadian org, not French. Dunno why I typed French.

That out of the way, yeah, seriously, OWS was started by Adbusters with their call for "A million man march on Wall Street." The Occupy Wall Street url was registered by founder of Adbusters founder Kalle Lasn,.

I mean, they were picking up on an overall belief that Wall Street sucks and we should do something about it, but they were the ones who pushed for the actual protest.

That the original Occupy Wall Street protest was inspired by a Canadian satire magazine is public record. That is in no way contentious. The rest of the movement was inspired by that protest and subsequent protests and wasn't especially influenced one way or the other by the magazine.

-Username17

Prak wrote:Ok, first I should say that I mis-typed, it's a Canadian org, not French. Dunno why I typed French.

That out of the way, yeah, seriously, OWS was started by Adbusters with their call for "A million man march on Wall Street." The Occupy Wall Street url was registered by founder of Adbusters founder Kalle Lasn,.

I mean, they were picking up on an overall belief that Wall Street sucks and we should do something about it, but they were the ones who pushed for the actual protest.

Okay, now can you see the difference between:

1) A Magazine called for a protest, and that protest happened and was way huger and more influential than what they imagined, and it moved right on without them.

and

2) The entire Occupy Wall Street Movement was primarily built by a magazine, not by the actual people who were protesting and had nothing to do with the magazine, in fact, this is so true, that most of the protesters were Paid to protest by the magazine, because no one would have wanted to protest if the magazine just said "hey, people should protest" so the magazine had to pay people to attend.

And which one did you fucking say? Oh yeah, the second one.

Yes, I did mistakenly say the second. Then when you asked what I was smoking, I checked my facts and said "oh, I guess it was just the first protest."

Prak wrote:Yes, I did mistakenly say the second. Then when you asked what I was smoking, I checked my facts and said "oh, I guess it was just the first protest."

Except you still haven't backed off your evidenceless claim that the first protest was a bunch of paid protesters.

Ok, sure, I have no evidence for that. I heard something to the effect when OWS was going on, and didn't think to try to find articles or whatever when I was responding to the broader thing. Given that I was mistaken as to how much Adbusters was involved in OWS, I don't much care about proving the paid protesters thing, because I'm probably wrong about that too.

So, sure, I officially back off my evidenceless claim that the first protest had people paid to protest.

edit- looks like the thing I remember hearing was probably reporting that conservative outlets were speculating on it.

FrankTrollman wrote:

Leress wrote:What were the demands/goals of OWS? I've been looking around and have not found a concrete answer. I found couple of list that have some overlap but not a unified list or final draft of goals.

Their #1 demand was simply to roll back changes to the tax code and regulations that give more wealth and political power to the largest corporations and wealthiest individuals.

Their #2 demand was to provide for aid programs such as student debt relief, healthcare subsidies, and unemployment insurance that would give a boost in standards of living for people below the top 1%.

These demands were so reasonable and so broadly popular that the media refused to accept that they had been made in the first place.

-Username17

Yeah, the list of demands I half-remembered were actually some random person spouting bullshit that was disavowed way after the media got to it. Weird thing is, I got to it from one of their forums.

"Officially" they didn't have demands in the "give us what we want or we shoot this dog" sense, but Frank's right on the core tenets.

Which was the mistake, I think.

If you ask for something reasonable then you've never going to get it. You need to start at the far edge of the overton window so that the other side can convince you to "compromise" toward the thing you actually want.

"The battle for the heart and soul of the Republican party has led many conservatives to discover that it has neither."

Ha! Fivethirtyeight flat out gives evidence supporting the Rubio-bot narrative.

It's by no means important, since there were only nine delegates, but strange and hilarious things happened in the Virgin Islands caucus last night.

I had to share this exchange:

Randal Milholland: Clinton says she mispoke.
Stephanie: She was thinking of the other Nancy Reagan who died.
Randal Milholland: Ah, Earth-2 Nancy Reagan.

Ancient History wrote:I had to share this exchange:

Randal Milholland: Clinton says she mispoke.
Stephanie: She was thinking of the other Nancy Reagan who died.
Randal Milholland: Ah, Earth-2 Nancy Reagan.

Wasn't Earth-2 Nancy Reagan married to President Superman?

Oh man, I'd never actually watched the Rubio-bot incident in full and it's even dumber than I had imagined from the edited versions that showed them back-to-back. I kind of assumed that it was actually relevant in context the first time he did it.

Earth-2 Nancy Reagan is especially funny due to the mix-up of pre-marriage to Ronald Reagan, Nancy (still) Davis back in Hollywood anti-communist blacklist days, and Ronald's role in clearing his wife-to be. You remember, the lead-in to the conspiracy theory which posited that Nancy was actually a Soviet spy.

People who understand the rise of fascism in the 30's keep saying about Trump "And I really don’t think he has any idea just how dangerous this is."

But, like, obviously he totally gets that, he just thinks it's a good thing, and so do all his supporters. He's very loudly proclaiming that he'll bring the party together by fucking over everyone who voices disagreement, or even questions, including by encouraging mob violence against them already, and proclaiming the intent to imprison or exile large chunks of the population after elected.

Which is very dangerous indeed, and not just for the victims.

He's blaming Sanders for the violent outbreaks at his rallies, which makes sense I guess: when people compare you to Hitler, you clearly want to start blaming Jewish people for your problems. It's not like that can work out badly, right?

Koumei wrote:He's blaming Sanders for the violent outbreaks at his rallies, which makes sense I guess: when people compare you to Hitler, you clearly want to start blaming Jewish people for your problems. It's not like that can work out badly, right?

STOP RIGHT THERE UNAUSTRALIAN TRAITOR! As a loyal patriotic Australian it is now my duty to inform on you to the Border Force black shirts.

It is all very well for some foreigner to go just saying that Hitler and the Nazis did bad things like blaming Jewish people for their problems. But as Australians WE are now required to insert the word "allegedly" before talking about bad things that Nazis "allegedly" did. The standard HAS been set by Herr Pezzullo* at the immigration department and as one of the highest ranking officials in that department he is possibly the second or third most powerful man under Australian law** so that's basically the new law of the land you unpatriotic swine!

Expect to be deported TRAITOR!

* No really in a bizarre unsolicited rant released to the media for no other apparent reason than to largely in attempt to "nuh uh no backsies forever" comparisons between his black shirted jack booted thugs with concentration camps and actual Nazis he just sort of "accidentally" started adding in "allegedly" not when talking about HIS own activities but when talking about historic Nazi activities. No really. That happened. Then when people noticed there were angry addendum and stuff that only got crazier.

** No really. Thanks to our various retroactive anything goes murder them if you need to legislation that has been passed. (yes actually literally murder them if you feel you need to IS now explicitly something the guards CAN do thanks to that legislation, which explicitly gives them immunity to all prosecution if they do so). Yes. Thanks to that the Minister for Immigration now has greater legal powers than ANYONE in our nation including the prime minister, hell, possibly including the Queen. (and by extension high ranking jack booted twats in the ranks of the black shirts, yes there is now a branch of the department that actually wears look alike SS uniforms, also have ludicrous legal powers).

edit: All in all you guys worry WAY too much about a slide into modern Nazism. I mean it's not like there is any modern nation doing that complete with uniforms, concentration camps, nazi crime denials, and a (brief but recent) prime minister that was actually brought into politics and mentored by an actual Nazi. It. Just. Cannot. Happen. I mean fuck what next? Someones going to ban public protesting and have our major capital cities apparently suddenly crawling with armed police with dogs in the lead up to elections?

Oh good, I was wondering when Trump's Brownshirts were going to get an official name.