Congrats, Occupiers -- You ARE the 1%!

[WildCat]

Poorly, but ever since Citizens United, they don't have to disclose such information.

The Citizens United ruling implies no such thing.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The Citizens United ruling implies no such thing.

It just allows it.

 

[WildCat]

It just allows it.

How so? Can you quote the part which allows it?

 

[Piggy]

You don't get it. How will you take a picture of a corporation for a passport? How does a corporation go through customs? How does a corporation bear arms? Marry? Etc etc.

But a corporation can make contracts, issue paychecks, write a manual, etc etc.

But we're not in disagreement about any of that.

 

[WildCat]

But we're not in disagreement about any of that.

In which case your confusion is even more bizarre.

Do you think the New York Times should be allowed freedom of the press, or is that reserved solely for real biological persons? How does the NYT get a passport? Marry? Go to jail?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If none of that applies to corporations -- passports, marriage, driver licenses, a right to vote, etc. -- then neither does the 1st amendment guarantee of free speech.

At least some of those are rights and privileges of citizens, not persons. Corporations are not citizens, not even as a legal fiction.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It just allows it.

Actually part of the finding in Citizens United was that disclosure laws are OK. IIRC, the decision even hinted that Congress could go a lot further.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My (obvious and clearly stated) point is that the Occupiers are a small minority commandeering public resources for their exclusive use... in other words, doing precisely what they're protesting against. (But even worse, since they haven't even pretended to earn the resources they're taking from others.)

They have indeed set themselves up as another "1%" -- a tiny fraction of the population refusing to give everyone else access.

I haven't been coy about this. I've explained exactly what I meant by the "1%" in the header.

I understand you explained it, but it's still equivocation and grammatically (as I've shown) you're implying in the title that they're the same 1% that they're protesting against. I never claimed you were being coy. It only takes reading the OP to understand that you don't mean what the thread title implies.

ETA: Again, the key difference is between saying they're "a 1%" compared to "the 1%". "The 1%" can only have one referent, and in the context of the OWS protest it means the wealthiest 1% and not some other small minority.

ETA: BTW 1% of the U.S. population is 3 million. For income and wealth distribution, that means a LOT of our nation's wealth is in the hands of very few. For political activism, if the OWS movement really did comprise 1% of the population, it would be huge. This is another example of the problem of equivocation. When you're talking about two different things, the number can properly be seen as small in one case and very large in the other.

 

[dc1971]

I've had about enough of the Occupy Whatever street theater.

I really have.

Why? Because Fox news is "sick and tired" too?

 

[Robrob]

My (obvious and clearly stated) point is that the Occupiers are a small minority commandeering public resources for their exclusive use... in other words, doing precisely what they're protesting against. (But even worse, since they haven't even pretended to earn the resources they're taking from others.)

I've had about enough of the Occupy Whatever street theater.

I really have.

Have you or anyone you know been denied use of public facilities or in any way personally inconvenienced by OWS? Aren't public resources to be used by the public?

 

[WildCat]

delete

 

[Piggy]

In which case your confusion is even more bizarre.

Do you think the New York Times should be allowed freedom of the press, or is that reserved solely for real biological persons? How does the NYT get a passport? Marry? Go to jail?

Since the NYT is a press, the persons running it should be allowed freedom of the press.

They should also be allowed to get passports and married.

 

[Piggy]

I understand you explained it, but it's still equivocation and grammatically (as I've shown) you're implying in the title that they're the same 1% that they're protesting against.

You're saying that I'm implying something ridiculous and obviously wrong, which I've clearly stated from the get-go that I'm not saying.

OK.

 

[Piggy]

Why? Because Fox news is "sick and tired" too?

I wouldn't know about Fox. They're too predictable to need to check out very often.

But I've "had about enough of it" (my wording) for the reasons I've stated.

These folks are doing precisely the wrong things if they want to deal with the problems they say they want to deal with.

Like I said, they learned the wrong lesson from the '60s. It wasn't disruption that made things change. It was the organized movements, who were conscious of their image and savvy about media and psychology, which made the big changes happen.

Someone mentioned Kent State upthread, which is absurd because the protest that day wasn't even about the war, and the impact came from something the protestors didn't intend to have happen -- the killing of students by National Guardsmen.

It was John Filo's photo of Jeffrey Miller and Mary Ann Vecchio that made the students seem sympathetic. But in the days just before, when they were smashing up the streets and burning the ROTC building, they weren't getting that kind of traction.

Now let's look at an iconic civil rights success, the Montgomery bus boycotts, which led to a SCOTUS decision. This was organized action from day one, and the boycotters inconvenienced themselves, not others. They walked while others rode, and had a huge financial impact, demonstrating their muscle.

The OWSers, on the other hand, are inconveniencing everybody else in order to get the cameras turned their way, and then have nothing to offer besides "We're gonna stay here til somebody does something!"

Their Day of Action commemorated themselves.

Of course they're going to be viewed as kids pitching a tantrum.

Compare that action with striking garbage workers in ties wearing signs that say simply "I AM A MAN".

Who's got the moral high ground?

What OWS is doing is to get their political statements associated in the public's mind with radicalism, disruption, chaos, and lack of responsibility.

It's good that they got the topics on the table, but they should have packed up the tents several weeks ago and selected some people to begin organizing something other than a squatter village.

 

[WildCat]

Since the NYT is a press, the persons running it should be allowed freedom of the press.

They should also be allowed to get passports and married.

But it's a corporate-owned press, so according to you the 1st Amendment doesn't apply. The "person" running it is the New York Times Corporation.

 

[Piggy]

Have you or anyone you know been denied use of public facilities or in any way personally inconvenienced by OWS? Aren't public resources to be used by the public?

No, and yes, respectively.

To the first question, it doesn't matter whether I've been put out... what matters is how this group is perceived by the general public. And turning parks into tent ghettos doesn't make people love you.

That's my whole point. I agree with the mainstream ideas that the OWSers are trying to call attention to. But their tactics are self-defeating.

To the second question... I can't believe you'd even ask it.

I tell you what, go down to the nearest park, and camp out on the swingset for a couple of months. Nobody can swing their kids on that swing, you're there. Whenever anyone asks you what you're doing, tell them that the park is for public use, see where that gets you.

 

[Piggy]

But it's a corporate-owned press, so according to you the 1st Amendment doesn't apply. The "person" running it is the New York Times Corporation.

Really?

When does that person get up? Can anyone else get in the building before that person gets there?

So... who has the freedom of speech? The corporation? No. Because it's not speaking. It can't write or think. It has no speech to share with anyone.

People write the articles and stories and opinion pieces that get published in the NYT and they have freedom of speech. The press is a necessary part of that speech.

And since people have a right of free speech, it makes no sense to say that this right disappears when they show up at work.

The fact that the legal entity serves in many ways to group these folks (and certain physical and financial assets) together -- e.g. you don't have to serve a cease and desist notice on everyone at the Times -- is really beside the point.

 

[WildCat]

Really?

When does that person get up? Can anyone else get in the building before that person gets there?

So... who has the freedom of speech? The corporation? No. Because it's not speaking. It can't write or think. It has no speech to share with anyone.

People write the articles and stories and opinion pieces that get published in the NYT and they have freedom of speech. The press is a necessary part of that speech.

And since people have a right of free speech, it makes no sense to say that this right disappears when they show up at work.

The fact that the legal entity serves in many ways to group these folks (and certain physical and financial assets) together -- e.g. you don't have to serve a cease and desist notice on everyone at the Times -- is really beside the point.

Congratulations, you've just channeled your inner Mitt Romney.

You're actually starting to get it!

 

[Piggy]

You're actually starting to get it!

Like I said, I don't think we actually disagree there.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You're saying that I'm implying something ridiculous and obviously wrong, which I've clearly stated from the get-go that I'm not saying.

No. That's false. Your thread title is false unless you use a different meaning of "the 1%" than is conventional. This is the fallacy of equivocation.

ETA: And since equivocation depends on an ambiguous term, I've also already shown why it's a problem. Being 1% of the population for a political protest is a very high number. Being 1% and controlling a disproportionately large amount of the nation's wealth is a very low number.