Merged Occupy Wall St.'s drumbeat grows louder

Well, as I said, there wasn't a unifying message there. Quite a few people I talked to (and not just the libertarians) said right off the bat they weren't against coprorations or capitalism as a general rule. Some there, for instance, really only had a problem specifically with big banks and financial firms, or with the Federal Reserve or some other specific institution....so it wouldn't necessarily be hypocritical for them to patron other corporations.

But I definitely did see things like socialists who actually did have signs that were anti capitalist or anti corporate drinking out of Dunkin Donuts coffee cups while smoking Marlboro cigs and typing on their smart phones and wearing Chuck Taylors.
Maybe the one unifying message is that they like the golden eggs but don't much care for the goose that lays them. :p

And yes, many would like to kill the goose in order to extract the eggs.
 
Someone please explain how using things made by a corporation means the person using the thing surrenders his/her right to protest the corporation's inflated influence in politics.
 
I know, not being a hypocrite is hard! All those corporate-produced goodies are like crack! Crack is banned, so shouldn't we ban corporate-produced goods?

I'm not trying to defend these people; I'm simply acknowledging that mass communication is effectively impossible without using some kind of corporate product or service, such is the pervasiveness of "corporate America". I suppose they could use smoke signals or something, or deliberately stop communicating for the sake of preventing cheap shots.
 
Maybe the one unifying message is that they like the golden eggs but don't much care for the goose that lays them. :p

And yes, many would like to kill the goose in order to extract the eggs.

I definitely do see a huge disconnect on the left when it comes to generalized corporate bashing (by those who do that sort of thing). A lot of times it really just means that corporations they don't personally like are inherently bad. So McDonalds = inherently bad just by being a corporation. But Apple? Not so much.

To go off topic briefly, you see this a lot with anti vaccine people. Just about every anti vaxxer I've ever heard from is upper middle class or upper class, where either they or their spouse work for a large company. Yet one of their main arguments against vaccines is that the fact that Big Pharma is in fact a big corporation makes vaccines automatically suspect and those who design them evil for this reason alone. Yet for some reason them working for a tech company which is also owned by a big corporation does not make them evil by default.

You'll also see a lot of people using their Mac computers to bash on vaccines on message boards. Vaccines are evil and kill and maim bajillions of babies and children every year. They would never buy a vaccine! But they have no problem buying products which fund the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which runs enormous vaccination programs that vaccinate millions of children.
 
I know, those Chinese and Sri Lankens don't deserve jobs in their own countries. They're not fully human like you and I after all, and besides I'm sure they'd be happier slogging through subsistence-farm rice paddies for 2 cents a day, that's what the FSM made them for. :rolleyes:

And I care about them.....

why?
 
In fairness, I suppose the fact that they wouldn't be able to find non-outsourced shoes and clothes, wouldn't be able to stock the medical tent with non-"Big Pharma" supplies, wouldn't be able to social network without corporate-produced devices on corporate-provided social networking services and etc even if they tried, might serve more as an argument for them rather than against them.

Not really.

Why do you think we have all these foreign products? Cars, t-shirts, shoes, etc all used to be made in the US. Until, one day, some corporation figured out that they could make this stuff cheaper overseas, and charge less for their products. And everyone flocked to their stores. Then their competitors did the same thing, because they didn't want to go out of business. So that fact that these hippies can't buy US made sneakers is because they want their sneakers to be made in China. It's their own fault.

In other words, we*** get the retailers we ask for.



***Before some idiot comes along and says "Well, I didn't ask the textile industry to move to Sri Lanka", I'm talking about the collective "we". As in society. You know, it's funny. Everyone hates Wal-Mart. No one shops there. And yet, somehow they've managed to become the world's largest retailer.
 
Someone please explain how using things made by a corporation means the person using the thing surrenders his/her right to protest the corporation's inflated influence in politics.
Their money is paying for the corporate influence.
 
Someone please explain how using things made by a corporation means the person using the thing surrenders his/her right to protest the corporation's inflated influence in politics.

Either stop buying their products, which puts them out of business, or vote for different politicians who are immune to this influence.

Or whine.
 
Either stop buying their products, which puts them out of business, or vote for different politicians who are immune to this influence.

Or whine.

To be fair though, it's not always a system you can opt out of. Sure there are some items which are luxury items which one could forgo. Or there are things which have an alternative. So for instance, you don't like Company B because they ship jobs overseas, so you buy from Company A which does not.

But some things there is no alternative and its not really viable to just opt out if you want to survive. For instance, you need health insurance, you need a given prescriptions, you need housing, you need health care services. You can't just forgo these things. So does that mean you can't ever criticize the business practices of landlords, or pharmaceutical companies, or hospitals, or health insurances? Yes, your money goes to these very things that you are complaining about, but what other choice do you have if you want to live? And sometimes you might have the problem with the industry in general due to guidelines they all follow, so it's not a matter of just going to their competitor, if all their competitors do the same thing.

Also, when it comes to Walmart, I personally don't shop there (there aren't any around me even if I wanted to). But my husband's family is from a rural farming community in the deep south. They complain about how they don't have a choice but to shop at Walmart because it is literally the only store within a hundred miles that has many things they need just to get by. They complain about some of Walmart's practices, but there is no where else to shop except for Walmart. And no, just moving isn't an option because they own a cattle ranch that has been established for several generations. They can't just pick up all their land and cows and move to a place where somewhere other than Walmart exists. Frankly anywhere with the space they need at a price they could afford probably would be in the same situation, Walmart's it as far as options go for many products.

I think there are people who are hypocritical in terms of complaining about corporate policies while patroning those corporations. But sometimes you really don't have much of a choice.
 
Last edited:
Also, when it comes to Walmart, I personally don't shop there (there aren't any around me even if I wanted to). But my husband's family is from a rural farming community in the deep south. They complain about how they don't have a choice but to shop at Walmart because it is literally the only store within a hundred miles that has many things they need just to get by. They complain about some of Walmart's practices, but there is no where else to shop except for Walmart. And no, just moving isn't an option because they own a cattle ranch that has been established for several generations. They can't just pick up all their land and cows and move to a place where somewhere other than Walmart exists. Frankly anywhere with the space they need at a price they could afford probably would be in the same situation, Walmart's it as far as options go for many products.

Were there no retailers in that area before Wal-Mart?
 
Here are two marine vets with a brief NFSW message to Sean Hannity:
If a ex-serviceman didn't get his college tuition paid for under the GI Bill it's because he didn't contribute to it in his first 12 months of serving, or he didn't attend an eligible school, or his tuition was more than the $50K max, or he didn't complete at least 2 years of service.
 
Were there no retailers in that area before Wal-Mart?

My guess (but I'm not positive on this) is that there were and that they shopped there when they existed, but they went out of business after Walmart came around because even if his family patroned these other businesses, enough people switched over to Walmart to drive the others out of business.

I do know that there are quite a few products they just didn't have access to prior to Walmart, particularly in terms of entertainment, and products for children. The area they are from (I've been there) is just so sparsely populated that you could not get everything available at Walmart prior to its existence, I just don't see how there would be the market to support stores that are very specialized.

But his family still would prefer to not have Walmart as their only shopping outlet, even if it means they didn't have access to certain products due to lack of a Walmart.
 
Last edited:
My guess (but I'm not positive on this) is that there were and that they shopped there when they existed, but they went out of business after Walmart came around because even if his family patroned these other businesses, enough people switched over to Walmart to drive the others out of business.

Thus proving my point. We get the retailers we ask for.
 
Their money is paying for the corporate influence.

But they aren't forcing the corporations to inject themselves into politics. I see nothing inconsistent with liking a product while disagreeing with some of the policies or actions of the company making the product.
 

Back
Top Bottom