Was just waiting for this to happen, in the agreements people sign with their banks they state you need to give notice before you can withdraw large amounts of cash and they can suspend withdrawals at any time, they do this to prevent bank runs since banks are only required to keep a certain amount of cash on hand and most of the money in a bank is tied up in investments.
And it's the protestors fault the banks set up such a stupid system? It's the bank's fault for running a Ponzi scheme that allows them to hold less printed currency than there exists in accounts. Those people aren't wrong for trying to demand their money, they aren't being stupid or acting like unreasonable jackasses. What's stupid is the fact that if everybody comes to claim their money at once, there won't be enough to fill all claims.
And it's the protestors fault the banks set up such a stupid system? It's the bank's fault for running a Ponzi scheme that allows them to hold less printed currency than there exists in accounts. Those people aren't wrong for trying to demand their money, they aren't being stupid or acting like unreasonable jackasses. What's stupid is the fact that if everybody comes to claim their money at once, there won't be enough to fill all claims.
It must be incredibly convenient fabricating arguments for yourself to defeat all the time.
It must be incredibly convenient fabricating arguments for yourself to defeat all the time.
And it must be nice to be able to discredit people with hyperbole. What you said implies that that since they signed something, that it's their fault, no matter how horribly wrong and unethical it is. If you aren't arguing that it's their fault for signing, then make it clear.
Otherwise: It's a one-sided clause to support something that is so fundamentally wrong, that it doesn't matter that they signed it. The reasons for the clause are completely unconscionable, therefore the terms are have no merit.
"We can't let you withdraw your money because it doesn't actually exist. Besides that, you signed an agreement that you would give notice so that we could continue to use this unethical practice." Our money exists entirely as numbers in their ledgers that they get to play money games with and hold dominion over the people's economy.
Otherwise: It's a one-sided clause to support something that is so fundamentally wrong, that it doesn't matter that they signed it. The reasons for the clause are completely unconscionable, therefore the terms are have no merit.
Seriously man, fact or opinion? 99% of the shit you post here is clearly opinion, but stated in an authoritarian way, as if it is fact.
"therefore the terms are have no merit."
This is an opinion, not a fact. You understand that right? Its reasonable to disagree or have a problem with the legalese in said contracts, but to simply claim that because you disagree with them, they have no legal merit is complete ignorance of the law and reality. Its not even an opinion on how it actually works in reality, but an opinion on "how it should be". But you're going to present this as fact?
Let me spell it out for you further, as you're continually making a fool of yourself by doing this, and discrediting even the most sane and reasonable opinions that you've expressed.
A. "I disagree with the contracts that these people have signed, allowing banks to arbitrarily hold funds if they attempt to withdraw or close accounts. This should not be allowable by law."
B. "Because I disagree with these contracts, it makes the law invalid".
One of these makes you seem like a completely reasonable, level headed guy. People would probably listen to you and even have polite conversations with you if you said it. The other makes you look like a complete nut-job, and even people that generally understand and agree with your points simply cringe and walk away or call you out for your blatant stupidity.
Seriously man, fact or opinion? 99% of the shit you post here is clearly opinion, but stated in an authoritarian way, as if it is fact.
"therefore the terms are have no merit."
This is an opinion, not a fact. You understand that right? Its reasonable to disagree or have a problem with the legalese in said contracts, but to simply claim that because you disagree with them, they have no legal merit is complete ignorance of the law and reality. Its not even an opinion on how it actually works in reality, but an opinion on "how it should be". But you're going to present this as fact?
Let me spell it out for you further, as you're continually making a fool of yourself by doing this, and discrediting even the most sane and reasonable opinions that you've expressed.
A. "I disagree with the contracts that these people have signed, allowing banks to arbitrarily hold funds if they attempt to withdraw or close accounts. This should not be allowable by law."
B. "Because I disagree with these contracts, it makes the law invalid".
One of these makes you seem like a completely reasonable, level headed guy. People would probably listen to you and even have polite conversations with you if you said it. The other makes you look like a complete nut-job, and even people that generally understand and agree with your points simply cringe and walk away or call you out for your blatant stupidity.
I didn't say the law was invalid, you are the only one making that claim. I said it was unethical what they are doing and therefore he didn't have any business making snarky remarks about the people trying to close their accounts being the ones in the wrong. Your example A is actually the point I was trying to make. I didn't once use the word legal, nor law and I didn't intend to imply it either. The legality of it one way or another is irrelevant to my point. But since you brought it up, I do believe that the contract should be voided because excessively one-sided terms and unmet considerations are grounds to dissolve any contract.
Yes it is an opinion. I never tried to claim it was anything else, but, more often than not, you take what I say in a manner that you can leverage to discredit me. You also repeatedly use hyperbolic interpretations and ad hominem versions of what I say to cast me in a light that attempts to makes me look foolish.
I'm really starting to think you have some personal grudge against me to "put me in my place" because you think everything I say is opinion masquerading as fact. Yet, you almost always try to combat that by injecting your opinions as authoritative facts. For example:
Seriously man, fact or opinion? 99% of the shit you post here is clearly opinion, but stated in an authoritarian way, as if it is fact.
Pure hyperbole and opinion. Perhaps I should just use a tag when I post something that is my opinion and include a citation to anything I want to submit as fact?
Was just waiting for this to happen, in the agreements people sign with their banks they state you need to give notice before you can withdraw large amounts of cash and they can suspend withdrawals at any time, they do this to prevent bank runs since banks are only required to keep a certain amount of cash on hand and most of the money in a bank is tied up in investments.
The FDIC is what prevents bank runs. Requiring written notice to close an account isn't even consistent across state lines *within* BoA and is certainly not industry policy across all banks.
Even if it's legal and fine, you can't be certain it wasn't setup specifically because BoA knows it is over-leveraged and many customers started cancelling accounts, and this is their method to make it more difficult.
I bet BofA loves the idea that they are paying their new CEO to make horrific decisions. You know what he needs right now to help him make better decisions...
Do you honestly think your own behavior has no bearing on how other posters respond to you? We're just "out to get you" for no apparent reason?
Pure hyperbole and opinion. Perhaps I should just use a tag when I post something that is my opinion and include a citation to anything I want to submit as fact?
Right, because all of a sudden its out of line to use hyperbole to counter the most hyperbolic poster on polycount? You can't have it both ways, you can't fly off the handle with hyperbolic and vitriolic shit constantly and then complain that you're being unfairly persecuted when you get it thrown back into your face.
I mean honestly, there is a pattern here. It isn't a conspiracy, you're not being oppressed; you bring it upon yourself. When you give others no reason to respect you, you wont get any respect. Until you change your own behavior, that is the constant in this situation. This isn't an isolated issue or a recent occurrence, it has been the case since you first started posting here.
You constantly attacking greevar for his opinion isn't fair to greevar and isn't fair to the legitimate points he brings up.
It's very easy to recognize that he is posting his own opinions and thoughts on the matter. Don't try to make up stuff like 'he's treating it as fact' because you have some sort of personal grudge against the guy.
This is a place of discussion and understanding.... or well, it should be. As long as you close your eyes and ears to the insights of others, you will never be able to expand your own viewpoints.
Your personal bias will filter everything to the point to where it doesn't actually matter what someone really said, your bias filter just created whole new meanings for words! I've been guilty of this too, we all do sometimes just because of the limitations of text.
Greevar never said it was a conspiracy....? Now you're just pulling stuff out of thin air to *attempt* to discredit the guy.
It's the limitations of text. I bet you'd know where greevar was coming from if you were talking in person. Text destroys all context as there is no tone of voice or intent in a voice to read.
We all fall into the trap of interpreting text the way we think it should be interpreted, but instead of attacking someone straight up, ask for more clarification through PM perhaps?
RexM: I'm not going off of a few posts here, but instead his entire post history. Again, this isn't an isolated issue. Its nice that you want to stick up for the guy, but if all you're doing is basing it off a few random posts in this thread you're missing the bigger picture.
At some point someone needs to speak out on the issue, someone needs to stand up for the 99%(yes, hyperbole but I can't help myself in this context) of polycounters who would like to see this guy banned, for all the complaints we get about the guy etc. We're doing him a huge favor by continuing to let him post on polycount, the least he can do is check his behavior and try to understand that the continual problems he has with people(not just me) are not some misunderstood aberration, but instead a pattern of behavior with a direct cause and effect.
I totally understand Greever's viewpoint and think it's fucking idiotic. I'm a pretty reasonable guy, but some shit is just laughably stupid. I don't even have enough time to make fun of all the stupid shit Greever says that's worth making fun of.
Ultimately it comes down to this: a lot of people's belief systems are fantasies designed to make them feel special. They get to be the chosen ones, or the guys with secret special knowledge, or be some kind of martyr. For some people it is the only thing that makes their lives bearable, and so they will fight arguments like their life literally depends on it.
but that shit has nothing to do with me, or anything real. Why should I pay attention to it?
You're doing him a huge favor by allowing him to continue to post here, for expressing his opinion?
Dude.... this really sounds just like a personal grudge and dare I say a little elitist. I've followed greevar's posts for... well, as long as I have been here and unless there is some secret section of the forums I am not seeing, I haven't seen anything to warrant such an attitude towards the guy.
Again; talk to him over voice chat to get these things cleared up. I bet you'll realize that it's just the limitations of text which can be interpreted a variety of ways depending on how you were taught, raised, personal inclinations, etc.
I totally understand Greever's viewpoint and think it's fucking idiotic. I'm a pretty reasonable guy, but some shit is just laughably stupid. I don't even have enough time to make fun of all the stupid shit Greever says that's worth making fun of.
Ultimately it comes down to this: a lot of people's belief systems are fantasies designed to make them feel special. They get to be the chosen ones, or the guys with secret special knowledge, or be some kind of martyr. For some people it is the only thing that makes their lives bearable, and so they will fight arguments like their life literally depends on it.
but that shit has nothing to do with me, or anything real. Why should I pay attention to it?
You and EarthQuake really have it out for the guy. So his viewpoint is idiotic and stupid just because you haven't actually done any research on what he says?
That doesn't mean his viewpoint is stupid. That just means you are willing to remain ignorant on the subjects that greevar brings up. Most of what he posts is his opinions on the state of the world and what not, it isn't hard to recognize, and it isn't hard to respect his opinions, because you and I are no better than him. He has the right as a goddamn human to express his opinions on a given subject.
Hell, I see YOU two single him out and attack him FAR more than he calls either of you out.
I still think that driver should be penalized. You don't try to go through a road that is blocked by hundreds of people, that's just...idiotic. Meanwhile they arrest people just for standing on sidewalks in the wrong area?
In my part of the USA, the civilian always has the right of way on the street, as it should be. In WA.
You're doing him a huge favor by allowing him to continue to post here, for expressing his opinion?
Yes, he's been warned multiple times in the past and is still allowed to post.
Lets clear up some misconceptions:
A. Polycount is not a democracy, it never has and never will be.
B. Polycount is a privately owned and operated website. Freedom of speech does no apply to you here. Your account can be closed and your IP can be banned at any time for what we(as administrators and moderators) feel is a negative contribution to the community. You agree to this when you open your account.
So, Greevar as a user who is continually stirring shit up and has been warned multiple times in the past about his behavior, simply allowing him to keep his account open is a huge favor.
Dude.... this really sounds just like a personal grudge and dare I say a little elitist. I've followed greevar's posts for... well, as long as I have been here and unless there is some secret section of the forums I am not seeing, I haven't seen anything to warrant such an attitude towards the guy.
Again; talk to him over voice chat to get these things cleared up. I bet you'll realize that it's just the limitations of text which can be interpreted a variety of ways depending on how you were taught, raised, personal inclinations, etc.
Its perfectly acceptable for you to hold that opinion, just understand that you're in the clear minority on the issue.
What you should try to do is seperate Greevar himself, from Greevar's opnions. The fact that I feel Greevar's behavoir is out of line has nothing to do with his specific opinions(many of which I even agree with). You're getting upset because you think I'm anti occupy or some conservative rebuplican asshole or something, which couldn't be further from the truth.
No, I am completely for the occupy movement, even If I am cynical and do no expect much from it. To me Greevar does more harm than he does help, causing vitriolic arguments with people who generally even agree with him on a lot of issues.
At the end of the day, everything Greevar talks about turns sour. If it was one or two topics sure maybe thats just a coincidence, but there is a clearly define pattern of behavior here. Is this Greevar, or does everyone simply irrationally have it in for Greevar?
Do you honestly think your own behavior has no bearing on how other posters respond to you? We're just "out to get you" for no apparent reason?
Right, because all of a sudden its out of line to use hyperbole to counter the most hyperbolic poster on polycount? You can't have it both ways, you can't fly off the handle with hyperbolic and vitriolic shit constantly and then complain that you're being unfairly persecuted when you get it thrown back into your face.
I mean honestly, there is a pattern here. It isn't a conspiracy, you're not be oppressed, you bring it upon yourself. When you give others no reason to respect you, you wont get any respect. Until you change your own behavior, that is the constant in this situation. This isn't an isolated issue or a recent occurrence, it has been the case since you first started posting here.
The proper response to hyperbole is more hyperbole? That's not the least bit logical.
"We're just "out to get you" for no apparent reason?"
No, not everyone. Just you. It seems quite personal for you and I don't know why you take it upon yourself to knock me down a peg or what you intend to accomplish by doing so. Do you think I'll just start agreeing with your point of view by lambasting me over and over again?
What conspiracy? I don't see a conspiracy.
I bring it upon myself? Why, because what I say doesn't align with your point of view? It has only been a constant issue here because you constantly take a contrary stance on almost everything I say and argue with me ad nauseam. You have such a personal disdain for me that you complain any time I do say something you begrudgingly agree with. Face it, it's not the message you have issue with, it's the messenger.
I said something early on when I started posting on PC that rubbed you the wrong way and ever since then, you've been my polar opposition on almost every topic. You have me pigeon-holed into this category that colors everything I say from your perspective. My behavior has only been disruptive after the fact that people start attacking me personally. Since then, I've learned to control my anger and have conducted myself in a fairly calm demeanor.
I know this is true, because Mr. Mathis and I are almost of the exact same opinion in this thread and he doesn't get nearly as much flaming as I do. So it's clearly a personal issue.
Now, I don't say any of this in an adversarial tone. No, I'm speaking calmly and without animosity. So I'll say this to you: Just let it go, you're only adding fuel to a never-ending flame war between you and me. It's a waste of time and energy we could both be putting to better use. Honestly, I'm quite tired of it. Can we please stop fighting?
What you should try to do is seperate Greevar himself, from Greevar's opnions. The fact that I feel Greevar's behavoir is out of line has nothing to do with his specific opinions(many of which I even agree with). You're getting upset because you think I'm anti occupy or some conservative rebuplican asshole or something, which couldn't be further from the truth.
No, I am completely for the occupy movement, even If I am cynical and do no expect much from it. To me Greevar does more harm than he does help, causing vitriolic arguments with people who generally even agree with him on a lot of issues.
At the end of the day, everything Greevar talks about turns sour. If it was one or two topics sure maybe thats just a coincidence, but there is a clearly define pattern of behavior here. Is this Greevar, or does everyone simply irrationally have it in for Greevar?
Separate Greevar himself from Greevar's opinions? Alright, that pretty much proves that it's nothing but a personal grudge towards the guy.
Why don't you point out an instance in the last couple of pages where Greevar is so out of line that your current behavior is warranted?
I don't care about anyone's stance on the occupy movement.. I would like it if more supported it, but America is about having this diversity in perspectives. That's what being an American is all about!
I have good friends who think the movement is ridiculous bullshit, but that's their opinion and we can calmly talk about the thing from our different viewpoints and learn things from each other.
That's the beauty of different perspectives. You can learn from them.
I am getting upset because three people are attacking a guy who really doesn't seem to deserve it. I just don't interpret his words as abrasively as you guys seem to.... To each their own... I guess...?
Every country was created from inhabitants of another country who didn't agree with how it was run. It's all just different perspectives and they ALL must be taken into consideration to truly have sound judgement.
The proper response to hyperbole is more hyperbole? That's not the least bit logical.
"We're just "out to get you" for no apparent reason?"
No, not everyone. Just you. It seems quite personal for you and I don't know why you take it upon yourself to knock me down a peg or what you intend to accomplish by doing so. Do you think I'll just start agreeing with your point of view by lambasting me over and over again?
Just because I am the loudest voice does not mean I am the only voice.
I bring it upon myself? Why, because what I say doesn't align with your point of view? It has only been a constant issue here because you constantly take a contrary stance on almost everything I say and argue with me ad nauseam. You have such a personal disdain for me that you complain any time I do say something you begrudgingly agree with. Face it, it's not the message you have issue with, it's the messenger.
Again, its just petty to assume I call you out simply because I disagree with your opinions, many of which I actually do agree with on a fundamental level. If you think thats why I get after you, you're missing the point entirely.
I said something early on when I started posting on PC that rubbed you the wrong way and ever since then, you've been my polar opposition on almost every topic. You have me pigeon-holed into this category that colors everything I say from your perspective. My behavior has only been disruptive after the fact that people start attacking me personally. Since then, I've learned to control my anger and have conducted myself in a fairly calm demeanor.
Right, nothing is EVER your fault. You're only an ass after someone has been rude to you. We'll ignore everything you do that causes the initial response and only focus on how people react to your behavior, not your actual behavior itself. Make sense to me.
I know this is true, because Mr. Mathis and I are almost of the exact same opinion in this thread and he doesn't get nearly as much flaming as I do. So it's clearly a personal issue.
Pointing to Ben Mathis, another user who has been warned multiple times in the past for trolling isn't going to do you any favors.
Now, I don't say any of this in an adversarial tone. No, I'm speaking calmly and without animosity. So I'll say this to you: Just let it go, you're only adding fuel to a never-ending flame war between you and me. It's a waste of time and energy we could both be putting to better use. Honestly, I'm quite tired of it. Can we please stop fighting?
Its a bit funny that you have a snarky counter-point to my entire post, but then decide to take the high ground? Anyway I'll bite, I will drop it for now because honestly, I have more important shit to do today.
It isn't petty because you aren't saying anything about what he actually did to warrant being called out.
Sure, he may have done stuff in the past that was way over the line, but apparently you never let that go and that continues to color your impressions of the guy. Currently, he's being perfectly respectable, and I couldn't really find any instances where he was out of line in the last 5 pages....?
Lots of interesting news articles on the supposed main site of OWS.
Separate Greevar himself from Greevar's opinions? Alright, that pretty much proves that it's nothing but a personal grudge towards the guy.
Why don't you point out an instance in the last couple of pages where Greevar is so out of line that your current behavior is warranted?
I don't care about anyone's stance on the occupy movement.. I would like it if more supported it, but America is about having this diversity in perspectives. That's what being an American is all about!
I have good friends who think the movement is ridiculous bullshit, but that's their opinion and we can calmly talk about the thing from our different viewpoints and learn things from each other.
That's the beauty of different perspectives. You can learn from them.
I am getting upset because three people are attacking a guy who really doesn't seem to deserve it. I just don't interpret his words as abrasively as you guys seem to.... To each their own... I guess...?
Every country was created from inhabitants of another country who didn't agree with how it was run. It's all just different perspectives and they ALL must be taken into consideration to truly have sound judgement.
Your post is very confusing.
Having issue with Greevar simply because I do no agree with his opinions would be wildly inappropriate.
Having issue with Greevar because I do not agree with his behavior, is to me, perfectly acceptable/logical.
Judge the man by how he acts, not what he believes.
Again, you're free to opine that nothing Greevar says is out of line or offensive, or trolling or whatever, again you would be in the minority in this opinion but you're free to it none the less.
What's snarky? I'm just expressing my interpretation of your behavior towards me and pointing out how it looks from my perspective. If that's snarky, I can do nothing about it. I've made an intentional effort to not be offensive in these forum, but apparently I have failed miserably. So I can only say that I am sorry. I don't want drama nor conflict. I only want to continue to discuss topics here in peace.
What's snarky? I'm just expressing my interpretation of your behavior towards me and pointing out how it looks from my perspective. If that's snarky, I can do nothing about it. I've made an intentional effort to not be offensive in these forum, but apparently I have failed miserably. So I can only say that I am sorry. I don't want drama nor conflict. I only want to continue to discuss topics here in peace.
Yeah, lets get it back on topic.
I'll ask this question again:
What sort of things can people do to help the occupy movement without physically being there?
We know about donating food or money, but what else? Please don't say "get the word out"(as that is a bit nonspecific) but maybe some suggestions on good places to send articles or commentary that is likely to be viewed by people who are out of the loop. Or any other suggestions.
I know you ignored this question last time because I was being an asshole, but I'm sure you have some good suggestions.
I did judge him by how he has acted on the last 5 pages, and I still don't see anything that warrants singling him out....?
I have to be missing something here lol, regardless I was just posting my thoughts, and pointing out that I am a minority in my opinion really does nothing but to suggest that somehow makes me wrong from your point of view.
Putting ideas out there/awareness has to be one of the most useless, over admired concept of the 21st century. Raising awareness and getting your opinion out there was a great concept when information was slow and a major hindrance to getting your message heard.
Today, anyone and everyone freely voices their opinions on the internet. Simply raising awareness or posting on an internet forum amounts to very little in modern society. You have to actually get out and do something about it, if all you're doing is sitting at your computer/couch posting on the internet to small niche groups of people who generally share the same opinions, but have little/no individual power to enact change, what have you accomplished?
Have you been out in the streets organizing for this OWS thing? Have you attended a single OWS/occupy anything meeting? At least these people are actually trying, instead of ranting endless on Polycount.
If you're not out doing it, who is? The masses of people you're recruiting to fulfill your agenda on polycount?
I regularly post news articles on Facebook and can guarantee that 70% of my friends list doesn't even know about the movement.
How do you stop a movement? You don't let the majority know it is happening.
Getting information out there isn't a concept, it's an action. One person reads an article I posted. That person shares it on facebook, their friends share it, and then they all talk about it in person as well.
A society that uses currency will always have inequality. A society that uses currency will always, eventually, either destroy itself or go through massive, massive reform.
We have the resources to do away with currency, and people smart enough on this rock to make it happen.
Do you even understand what needs to be done in the next 6 months to stop the US from going bankrupt?? Do you actually have ANY understanding as to how fucked the US is if we keep doing things the way we currently are?
I actually know people who are stocking up on survival supplies and learning new survival skills, wiring generators to their house with a hole to exhaust outside, completely rational people who have even served in the military who are beginning to stockpile foods that last for a long time.
Do you have ANY idea how close to the tipping point we are if nothing is done?
I did...? The majority of my last post was pretty on-topic. It's from like 5 pages ago mostly, but was ignored and is answering a question that EQ asked 5 pages ago and just asked again now.
Plus some of my own thoughts and opinions on things.
I did judge him by how he has acted on the last 5 pages, and I still don't see anything that warrants singling him out....?
I have to be missing something here lol, regardless I was just posting my thoughts, and pointing out that I am a minority in my opinion really does nothing but to suggest that somehow makes me wrong from your point of view.
I regularly post news articles on Facebook and can guarantee that 70% of my friends list doesn't even know about the movement.
How do you stop a movement? You don't let the majority know it is happening.
Getting information out there isn't a concept, it's an action. One person reads an article I posted. That person shares it on facebook, their friends share it, and then they all talk about it in person as well.
A society that uses currency will always have inequality. A society that uses currency will always, eventually, either destroy itself or go through massive, massive reform.
We have the resources to do away with currency, and people smart enough on this rock to make it happen.
Do you even understand what needs to be done in the next 6 months to stop the US from going bankrupt?? Do you actually have ANY understanding as to how fucked the US is if we keep doing things the way we currently are?
I actually know people who are stocking up on survival supplies and learning new survival skills, wiring generators to their house with a hole to exhaust outside, completely rational people who have even served in the military who are beginning to stockpile foods that last for a long time.
Do you have ANY idea how close to the tipping point we are if nothing is done?
Government. By the people, FOR the people.
I think the problem with the concept of "getting the word out" is that most people are going to "get the word out" to their like-minded buddies. So if you're posting articles about OWS stuff to your friends that read The Young Turks and The Huffington Post already, what have you really accomplished?
I'm not sure how productive it is to wax rhetoric to people that are already sympathetic to the cause, which would mean most people in this thread as well(the majority of posters in this thread have been clearly FOR it).
So, when you identify that problem, what can you do?
One thing to do would be specifically targeting friends/family that may be on the fence about it, with content that they specifically would be sympathetic towards.
An example: Posting links to the police brutality committed towards Iraq veterans, on your conservative/pro military friends/family's facebook pages.
Simply spamming links indiscriminately will probably do more harm than help, so I think having a bit of thought into what you're doing would be more productive. Any tips or suggestions with that mentality would probably be appreciated.
Its really easy to "get the word out" to people who already agree with you, its much much harder to get the word out to people who really need to hear it.
Anyone know how successful Nov 5th "Bank Transfer Day" was?
Remember remember... to transfer... yea just not as catchy.
I drove past my bank a local credit union and the lobby was packed so was the parking lot. But I haven't seen much coverage on its effects, probably too soon to tell, or probably not significant.
but what else? Please don't say "get the word out"(as that is a bit nonspecific) but maybe some suggestions on good places to send articles or commentary that is likely to be viewed by people who are out of the loop.
this is why half the policies that are being debated as having pros and cons would be laughed out of the debate if brought up in Iceland or Germany. Convincing fence sitters or people who haven't made up their minds fully (obviously fundamentalists are entrenched) can have a very large affect. You have a point that just discussing it in an echo chamber like a carefully pruned facebook friend's list isn't going to do anything, but discussing it on message boards, or in real life, can actually accomplish quite a bit, if everyone who felt passionately were doing the same.
wow, someone not knowing this has to be actively avoiding any news, or even just media all together. Stand up comedians use it in their act, it has crossed over into pop culture. I know people who get surprised by hurricanes who are aware of this.
this is why half the policies that are being debated as having pros and cons would be laughed out of the debate if brought up in Iceland or Germany. Convincing fence sitters or people who haven't made up their minds fully (obviously fundamentalists are entrenched) can have a very large affect. You have a point that just discussing it in an echo chamber like a carefully pruned facebook friend's list isn't going to do anything, but discussing it on message boards, or in real life, can actually accomplish quite a bit, if everyone who felt passionately were doing the same.
Right right, its a completely real thing, but far too often "getting the word out" means talking to your like-minded buddies about X issues and nothing ever comes from it. This is the often the case with the liberal left in the US in my opinion, the right seems to be much more efficient getting their message out. I never said it wasn't "real" just overrated in modern times.
So, if we identify that as a problem, what can we do to subvert it? What can be done to get your message to the fance-sitters, isn't that the question we should be asking?
Its really easy to "get the word out" to people who already agree with you, its much much harder to get the word out to people who really need to hear it.
But it's not a waste to do so. It's a good place to start when you need to build allies quickly. If you get everyone you know informed on the issue and on board with what you're trying to do, they can help you reach people you can't. It's not like your social group exists inside of a vacuum that doesn't interact with the rest of the world. Maybe they know somebody or many people they can inform in meat space that would bolster the ranks of a beneficial movement? Don't just tell people about it, urge them to tell others and ask around for those who might listen as well.
That said, I think it would be good for humanity to promote a economy without money and encourages people to help themselves by contributing for the benefit of the whole of humanity. Technology is at a point where we can take care of many basic needs that we don't need money to make it happen, just people willing to better us all so everybody can have a higher standard of living rather than just a handful of people at the top. But it's not a turn-key operation. It will be a gradual transition and it will probably be full of conflict from those that don't want to let go of the old economy and the excessively opulent lifestyle it has provided them.
First we need to put the infrastructure in place to provide free abundant energy for everyone. That means getting away from burning things for fuel and using the Earth's own ever-renewing internal heat to power our technology. Or solar, wind, tidal, or any combination of all of those. We also need to halt any production that produces harmful elements being released into the environment and either sacrifice that luxury or find a sustainable way to produce it.
Then, we need to establish equality in food, housing, and medicine. Nationalized Healthcare would be at the top of the list.
Transportation would need to be revamped. Building high speed Mag-Lev trains that can get people around the world in about the same amount of time as the wasteful airlines do. Personal vehicles need to be phased out in favor or highly abundant public transit to get people around their own home region.
Another important issue: Education. It's been done the same way for the past 150 years and it's flaws are increasingly apparent. It needs to be made more efficient and more effective by focusing on better goals and adapting teaching styles to the needs of the student. We would also need to teach children a new paradigm about working collaboratively with each other to meet common life goals rather than competitively to be king of the mountain. That money ultimately leads to inequality.
But what about money? Well, nationalizing the banks and indicting the Fed would be a start. We need to put a permanent end to profiting from the controlling of currency. Loans need to be made for the purpose of improving the standards of life for the lowest income people and the rich must sacrifice their comfort and power to make it possible (I know, that will be tough). The point of all this is so that nobody is homeless, sick, uneducated, or hungry because they just simply don't have the money.
Money will no longer be an incentive to work, but it will free us to develop new incentives. Like curing AIDS, Cancer, or ALS (Lou Gherig's Disease, my father died from this. My son and I could too.). People will be free to focus their lives on improving humanity rather than trying to scrape together what they can to live. This will free up people to focus on new beneficial technology and ideas rather than only that which is profitable or affordable. If we have the resources and the benefits are great, then we should build it so we can make use of it to raise humanity to even higher levels of existence. People will just start doing things because it's good for us. Helping my neighbors helps me.
This is my dream. This is my hope. I don't want my son to struggle to live on a dying planet that is in constant conflict with itself.
Okay, so he got the definition of "subsistence farming" pretty wrong (which is obvious if you know what the verb "to subsist" means), but you know, let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and say he was right. Let's check the veracity of his claim that that growing your food and selling it on the market is "not capitalism."
Wikipedia says this, and I think it's generally true: "Economists usually emphasize the degree that government does not have control over markets (laissez faire), and on property rights." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)
I'm a bit biased, as an economist, but I think looking at capitalism in this way is the best because unlike philosophy, economics is actually a science. Like other sciences, if something is not clear or useful for predicting the future in economics, it is not part of economics. I have met dozens of extremely intelligent, well versed experts who share my definition of capitalism, and by that definition, having private property (a farm) and selling or trading things on markets (crops) are the defining characteristics of capitalism.
Okay, but lets assume he was right about that too, even though he was wrong by most definitions.
Maybe the paragraph has some other deeper point he is getting at. Lets look at the broader context:
"Capitalism doesn't need employers. People can produce food on their personal farm and sell or trade the extra."
Those two sentences are not correct. Capitalism is a system for employers. It leverages the low wage labor to produce profit for the employer. Producing food for yourself and selling the surplus is not capitalism, it's subsistence farming. There's no profit, only an exchange of value of your labor in the form of selling what you produce yourself. You're not paying someone (typically, some farms do hire people) to produce crops and pocketing excess value beyond the labor and resources, you use your own labor and resources to do that. Just because there is capital involved does not make it capitalism.
before we go into deeper meaning, he is saying "Capitalism is a system FOR employers"(emphasis added) -- capitalism is in fact an economic system. All economic systems are FOR distributing scarce goods. Or at least that is what every textbook on the subject (a rather large number) has said, but if I stop to point out how fucking stupid every single sentence Greever writes is, we will never get done here so...
Okay, so his bigger point is that capitalism is what it's called when rich people hire poor people and make a profit from their work. That is a fucking worthless definition. By that definition anyone who loses money is not a capitalist, any person who runs his own business without employees is not a capitalist, any person who is poor and hires a rich person is not a capitalist, and a rich person hiring a rich person is not a capitalist -- so what are they then? I certainly don't know because it doesn't make any fucking sense.
The only reason to believe a definition like that is so that you can be a martyr and hate cartoonishly evil "capitalists". It is certainly not a useful definition in science or language.
So why single out Greevar when Poop says some of the same things?
Poop has personally given a lot back to the community. His website is filled with awesome tutorials. While I think Poop uses some dishonest tactics in arguments sometimes, I know it's not because he's dumb, but because he likes to win. He is the type of guy who goes and and gets what he wants.
Greevar writes reams of stuff on here, like that piracy is AOK, and so by extension doesn't see any reason why I should get paid for doing what I do. So he is really trying to damage the Polycount community. Beyond that, basically everything he writes is like this response to me above -- the most backwards stupid shit you can imagine.
So the problem isn't that I haven't researched Greevar's position, but that I researched them, then went to college for it, then read about it for 10 years.
Greevar.. being a bit of a dreamer there... but if you've got Netflix go watch "Future by Design", you may like it.
I may be a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Who says that dreams can't become reality? People told the Wright brothers that flying was a dream and if we were meant to fly, we'd have wings. Is it a dream to want and look for better, not only for myself, but for every human being on this planet? I think it's a tall order no doubt, but I don't think it can't happen. Actually, if humanity is to survive, it's probably an inevitability.
I may be a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Who says that dreams can't become reality? People told the Wright brothers that flying was a dream and if we were meant to fly, we'd have wings. Is it a dream to want and look for better, not only for myself, but for every human being on this planet? I think it's a tall order no doubt, but I don't think it can't happen. Actually, if humanity is to survive, it's probably an inevitability.
True enough, but still, watch that. Gives a little hope and a little bit of common sense knockdown to the "perfect world" concept when someone who's been thinking it out for sixty years talks about it.
So do you have some suggestions on the sorts of information, groups of people, and ways to go about getting said information out to those people? Anything practical that someone could read and maybe go out and do?
So do you have some suggestions on the sorts of information, groups of people, and ways to go about getting said information out to those people? Anything practical that someone could read and maybe go out and do?
No, I'm pretty much a novice in social movements. I just know that the more people know about it, the more there are to tell others. But if you want more information on the concept of a moneyless economy, look up "Resourced Based Economy", "The Zeitgeist movement", and "The Venus Project". They have spent more time planning this than I have.
No, I'm pretty much a novice in social movements. I just know that the more people know about it, the more there are to tell others. But if you want more information on the concept of a moneyless economy, look up "Resourced Based Economy", "The Zeitgeist movement", and "The Venus Project". They have spent more time planning this than I have.
I thought you said you were doing all sorts of stuff to help support the OWS movement? You can't even give us one practical example of how someone, without donating their money or physical presence to the protests, can help reach out to the uniformed?
I mean off the top of my head I gave an example, surely you can think of something?
fwiw getting the word out does have its place. I do argue with those against it. Where we can educate one another. I have slight success with at least one person backing the idea of a constitutional amendment if he still doesn't like the protestors themselves.
Speaking of such an amendment. I think its right to say that any lobbying group cannot lobby congress, not just illegalizing corporate personhood. This includes non-profits and unions.
Otherwise contacting your Senators and reps to tell them you want a real amendment (not the pussy footed one Udall submitted).
Oh PS I'm offended you didn't mention me EQ as one of the problem people on here that stir things up! How has it gone from the days where r13 was warning me of banning to not even worth a mention in problem posters!
there was once a time when there was no currency. ppl would trade what they produce for what they wanted, and that made commerce mostly inviable in the X/XI century. i find really hard to believe we can do without money. if we didn't have money, we would have food stamps, or anything like that. currency is just a resource used in a system made for distribution of assets, or maybe made to perpetuate an oppression of the wealthy against the poor, dunno really.
the only thing i think that should be pursued worldwide are ways to exerce direct democracy. to me this representative system has no logic anymore. i'm just a law student from brazil, and from where i stand i sincerely believe that only parasites occupy the high stances of the governments.
the only thing i think that should be pursued worldwide are ways to exerce direct democracy. to me this representative system has no logic anymore.
It only works in small settings where each person is knowledgeable on the subjects. Representative helps keep things balanced from people voting out of ignorance. So no majority can misplace a minority.
Where representative breaks down is the rep supposed to be knowledgeable of all sides of an issue and compromise where possible and have the foresight so see what such a law would do down the line. Many however are just appeasing a majority as they see it as their constituents and trying to get reelected.
I'll make this paragraph as clear as I can so that there can be no misunderstanding:
It is my opinion that capitalism is a system that is, as it exists, modeled for the sole benefit of an owner/employer to leverage the labor of the lower classes and take the excess value from production (or just take away part of the value from the workers) for their own benefit with the only justification that they should because they control the flow of goods and services between workers and consumers. That is what I see as the reality of capitalism or at least the reality of our economy. The written definition has little meaning to me since it doesn't represent what the system really is. You can disagree with that all you like, it's not a claim to fact as it is written. It's just me calling it as I see it. What you define as capitalism seems to be very broad as to encompass almost any type of trade that involves trading goods for currency.
I admit, I was wrong about the definition of subsistence farmers, but it's not entirely my fault as I've been shown what I was told to be examples of such but they still sold their excess crops to pay for things they need beyond food such as tools and building supplies.
"I'm a bit biased, as an economist, but I think looking at capitalism in this way is the best because unlike philosophy, economics is actually a science. Like other sciences, if something is not clear or useful for predicting the future in economics, it is not part of economics."
I'm going to disagree with that, as is my right. You're clearly a student of economics as pioneered by Adam Smith, a rational economics supporter. I follow a behavioral economics philosophy that takes into account that people are highly irrational when it comes to money and studies have shown that. My economics instructor said that economics is not a science because people's choices cannot be predicted because no one can know the mind of every person participating. It is impossible to clearly predict the movement of the economy when it is comprised of irrational people whose minds we do not know.
"Greevar writes reams of stuff on here, like that piracy is AOK, and so by extension doesn't see any reason why I should get paid for doing what I do. So he is really trying to damage the Polycount community."
I never said that infringement is acceptable, but it is inevitable (and has been shown to be helpful to gain more sales), thus fighting it should be ignored in favor of developing new business models that make it irrelevant whether it is happening or not. I also didn't say that you shouldn't get paid for your work, that is just false. Nor do I wish to harm the Polycount community. That I take offense to. It seems rather fantastical to think I could single-handedly damage this community of individuals, especially when my intent was to talk about ways the industry could work to abandon its reliance on a law that has little real effect in preventing what anyone can easily do.
Really, the reason copyright based business models fail against the forces of infringement are because they aren't selling exclusive and rivalrous goods/services. Everyone can have their own copy without diminishing what others have. My having a copy doesn't prevent another from having it as well because we all equally have the same. As I've said in the past, time and labor are exclusive and rivalrous. A person or persons cannot provide their time and labor to all people at the same time, so this is what has economic value.
EQ:
"I thought you said you were doing all sorts of stuff to help support the OWS movement? You can't even give us one practical example of how someone, without donating their money or physical presence to the protests, can help reach out to the uniformed?
I mean off the top of my head I gave an example, surely you can think of something? "
You thought wrong. I never said I was doing "all sorts of things" I said I was doing what I can. You're making a straw man attack on me. The only example I can offer has already been mentioned: Social networking such as Facebook. I am not a social movement organizer and I don't have to be to participate in one. Here's another, you can start your own website dedicated to the movement with all your boilerplates, links, and information ready to offer to anyone whom you can engage with on the topic.
Replies
That amendment is a joke.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/71154073/A-Constitutional-Amendment-to-Reform-Campaign-Finance
And it's the protestors fault the banks set up such a stupid system? It's the bank's fault for running a Ponzi scheme that allows them to hold less printed currency than there exists in accounts. Those people aren't wrong for trying to demand their money, they aren't being stupid or acting like unreasonable jackasses. What's stupid is the fact that if everybody comes to claim their money at once, there won't be enough to fill all claims.
And it must be nice to be able to discredit people with hyperbole. What you said implies that that since they signed something, that it's their fault, no matter how horribly wrong and unethical it is. If you aren't arguing that it's their fault for signing, then make it clear.
Otherwise: It's a one-sided clause to support something that is so fundamentally wrong, that it doesn't matter that they signed it. The reasons for the clause are completely unconscionable, therefore the terms are have no merit.
"We can't let you withdraw your money because it doesn't actually exist. Besides that, you signed an agreement that you would give notice so that we could continue to use this unethical practice." Our money exists entirely as numbers in their ledgers that they get to play money games with and hold dominion over the people's economy.
That would be asking way too much.
Seriously man, fact or opinion? 99% of the shit you post here is clearly opinion, but stated in an authoritarian way, as if it is fact.
"therefore the terms are have no merit."
This is an opinion, not a fact. You understand that right? Its reasonable to disagree or have a problem with the legalese in said contracts, but to simply claim that because you disagree with them, they have no legal merit is complete ignorance of the law and reality. Its not even an opinion on how it actually works in reality, but an opinion on "how it should be". But you're going to present this as fact?
Let me spell it out for you further, as you're continually making a fool of yourself by doing this, and discrediting even the most sane and reasonable opinions that you've expressed.
A. "I disagree with the contracts that these people have signed, allowing banks to arbitrarily hold funds if they attempt to withdraw or close accounts. This should not be allowable by law."
B. "Because I disagree with these contracts, it makes the law invalid".
One of these makes you seem like a completely reasonable, level headed guy. People would probably listen to you and even have polite conversations with you if you said it. The other makes you look like a complete nut-job, and even people that generally understand and agree with your points simply cringe and walk away or call you out for your blatant stupidity.
I didn't say the law was invalid, you are the only one making that claim. I said it was unethical what they are doing and therefore he didn't have any business making snarky remarks about the people trying to close their accounts being the ones in the wrong. Your example A is actually the point I was trying to make. I didn't once use the word legal, nor law and I didn't intend to imply it either. The legality of it one way or another is irrelevant to my point. But since you brought it up, I do believe that the contract should be voided because excessively one-sided terms and unmet considerations are grounds to dissolve any contract.
Yes it is an opinion. I never tried to claim it was anything else, but, more often than not, you take what I say in a manner that you can leverage to discredit me. You also repeatedly use hyperbolic interpretations and ad hominem versions of what I say to cast me in a light that attempts to makes me look foolish.
I'm really starting to think you have some personal grudge against me to "put me in my place" because you think everything I say is opinion masquerading as fact. Yet, you almost always try to combat that by injecting your opinions as authoritative facts. For example:
Pure hyperbole and opinion. Perhaps I should just use a tag when I post something that is my opinion and include a citation to anything I want to submit as fact?
The FDIC is what prevents bank runs. Requiring written notice to close an account isn't even consistent across state lines *within* BoA and is certainly not industry policy across all banks.
Even if it's legal and fine, you can't be certain it wasn't setup specifically because BoA knows it is over-leveraged and many customers started cancelling accounts, and this is their method to make it more difficult.
Do you honestly think your own behavior has no bearing on how other posters respond to you? We're just "out to get you" for no apparent reason?
Right, because all of a sudden its out of line to use hyperbole to counter the most hyperbolic poster on polycount? You can't have it both ways, you can't fly off the handle with hyperbolic and vitriolic shit constantly and then complain that you're being unfairly persecuted when you get it thrown back into your face.
I mean honestly, there is a pattern here. It isn't a conspiracy, you're not being oppressed; you bring it upon yourself. When you give others no reason to respect you, you wont get any respect. Until you change your own behavior, that is the constant in this situation. This isn't an isolated issue or a recent occurrence, it has been the case since you first started posting here.
It's very easy to recognize that he is posting his own opinions and thoughts on the matter. Don't try to make up stuff like 'he's treating it as fact' because you have some sort of personal grudge against the guy.
This is a place of discussion and understanding.... or well, it should be. As long as you close your eyes and ears to the insights of others, you will never be able to expand your own viewpoints.
Your personal bias will filter everything to the point to where it doesn't actually matter what someone really said, your bias filter just created whole new meanings for words! I've been guilty of this too, we all do sometimes just because of the limitations of text.
Greevar never said it was a conspiracy....? Now you're just pulling stuff out of thin air to *attempt* to discredit the guy.
It's the limitations of text. I bet you'd know where greevar was coming from if you were talking in person. Text destroys all context as there is no tone of voice or intent in a voice to read.
We all fall into the trap of interpreting text the way we think it should be interpreted, but instead of attacking someone straight up, ask for more clarification through PM perhaps?
At some point someone needs to speak out on the issue, someone needs to stand up for the 99%(yes, hyperbole but I can't help myself in this context) of polycounters who would like to see this guy banned, for all the complaints we get about the guy etc. We're doing him a huge favor by continuing to let him post on polycount, the least he can do is check his behavior and try to understand that the continual problems he has with people(not just me) are not some misunderstood aberration, but instead a pattern of behavior with a direct cause and effect.
Ultimately it comes down to this: a lot of people's belief systems are fantasies designed to make them feel special. They get to be the chosen ones, or the guys with secret special knowledge, or be some kind of martyr. For some people it is the only thing that makes their lives bearable, and so they will fight arguments like their life literally depends on it.
but that shit has nothing to do with me, or anything real. Why should I pay attention to it?
Dude.... this really sounds just like a personal grudge and dare I say a little elitist. I've followed greevar's posts for... well, as long as I have been here and unless there is some secret section of the forums I am not seeing, I haven't seen anything to warrant such an attitude towards the guy.
Again; talk to him over voice chat to get these things cleared up. I bet you'll realize that it's just the limitations of text which can be interpreted a variety of ways depending on how you were taught, raised, personal inclinations, etc.
You and EarthQuake really have it out for the guy. So his viewpoint is idiotic and stupid just because you haven't actually done any research on what he says?
That doesn't mean his viewpoint is stupid. That just means you are willing to remain ignorant on the subjects that greevar brings up. Most of what he posts is his opinions on the state of the world and what not, it isn't hard to recognize, and it isn't hard to respect his opinions, because you and I are no better than him. He has the right as a goddamn human to express his opinions on a given subject.
Hell, I see YOU two single him out and attack him FAR more than he calls either of you out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/latest-developments-in-the-occupy-protests-occurring-in-places-around-the-world/2011/11/05/gIQAgSUjoM_story.html
I still think that driver should be penalized. You don't try to go through a road that is blocked by hundreds of people, that's just...idiotic. Meanwhile they arrest people just for standing on sidewalks in the wrong area?
In my part of the USA, the civilian always has the right of way on the street, as it should be. In WA.
Yes, he's been warned multiple times in the past and is still allowed to post.
Lets clear up some misconceptions:
A. Polycount is not a democracy, it never has and never will be.
B. Polycount is a privately owned and operated website. Freedom of speech does no apply to you here. Your account can be closed and your IP can be banned at any time for what we(as administrators and moderators) feel is a negative contribution to the community. You agree to this when you open your account.
So, Greevar as a user who is continually stirring shit up and has been warned multiple times in the past about his behavior, simply allowing him to keep his account open is a huge favor.
Its perfectly acceptable for you to hold that opinion, just understand that you're in the clear minority on the issue.
What you should try to do is seperate Greevar himself, from Greevar's opnions. The fact that I feel Greevar's behavoir is out of line has nothing to do with his specific opinions(many of which I even agree with). You're getting upset because you think I'm anti occupy or some conservative rebuplican asshole or something, which couldn't be further from the truth.
No, I am completely for the occupy movement, even If I am cynical and do no expect much from it. To me Greevar does more harm than he does help, causing vitriolic arguments with people who generally even agree with him on a lot of issues.
At the end of the day, everything Greevar talks about turns sour. If it was one or two topics sure maybe thats just a coincidence, but there is a clearly define pattern of behavior here. Is this Greevar, or does everyone simply irrationally have it in for Greevar?
The proper response to hyperbole is more hyperbole? That's not the least bit logical.
"We're just "out to get you" for no apparent reason?"
No, not everyone. Just you. It seems quite personal for you and I don't know why you take it upon yourself to knock me down a peg or what you intend to accomplish by doing so. Do you think I'll just start agreeing with your point of view by lambasting me over and over again?
What conspiracy? I don't see a conspiracy.
I bring it upon myself? Why, because what I say doesn't align with your point of view? It has only been a constant issue here because you constantly take a contrary stance on almost everything I say and argue with me ad nauseam. You have such a personal disdain for me that you complain any time I do say something you begrudgingly agree with. Face it, it's not the message you have issue with, it's the messenger.
I said something early on when I started posting on PC that rubbed you the wrong way and ever since then, you've been my polar opposition on almost every topic. You have me pigeon-holed into this category that colors everything I say from your perspective. My behavior has only been disruptive after the fact that people start attacking me personally. Since then, I've learned to control my anger and have conducted myself in a fairly calm demeanor.
I know this is true, because Mr. Mathis and I are almost of the exact same opinion in this thread and he doesn't get nearly as much flaming as I do. So it's clearly a personal issue.
Now, I don't say any of this in an adversarial tone. No, I'm speaking calmly and without animosity. So I'll say this to you: Just let it go, you're only adding fuel to a never-ending flame war between you and me. It's a waste of time and energy we could both be putting to better use. Honestly, I'm quite tired of it. Can we please stop fighting?
He's a moderator, he doesn't have the luxury of the ignore list. He has to be able to see all posts in order to do his job.
Separate Greevar himself from Greevar's opinions? Alright, that pretty much proves that it's nothing but a personal grudge towards the guy.
Why don't you point out an instance in the last couple of pages where Greevar is so out of line that your current behavior is warranted?
I don't care about anyone's stance on the occupy movement.. I would like it if more supported it, but America is about having this diversity in perspectives. That's what being an American is all about!
I have good friends who think the movement is ridiculous bullshit, but that's their opinion and we can calmly talk about the thing from our different viewpoints and learn things from each other.
That's the beauty of different perspectives. You can learn from them.
I am getting upset because three people are attacking a guy who really doesn't seem to deserve it. I just don't interpret his words as abrasively as you guys seem to.... To each their own... I guess...?
Every country was created from inhabitants of another country who didn't agree with how it was run. It's all just different perspectives and they ALL must be taken into consideration to truly have sound judgement.
Just because I am the loudest voice does not mean I am the only voice.
Again, its just petty to assume I call you out simply because I disagree with your opinions, many of which I actually do agree with on a fundamental level. If you think thats why I get after you, you're missing the point entirely.
Right, nothing is EVER your fault. You're only an ass after someone has been rude to you. We'll ignore everything you do that causes the initial response and only focus on how people react to your behavior, not your actual behavior itself. Make sense to me.
Pointing to Ben Mathis, another user who has been warned multiple times in the past for trolling isn't going to do you any favors.
Its a bit funny that you have a snarky counter-point to my entire post, but then decide to take the high ground? Anyway I'll bite, I will drop it for now because honestly, I have more important shit to do today.
Sure, he may have done stuff in the past that was way over the line, but apparently you never let that go and that continues to color your impressions of the guy. Currently, he's being perfectly respectable, and I couldn't really find any instances where he was out of line in the last 5 pages....?
Lots of interesting news articles on the supposed main site of OWS.
http://occupywallst.org/
Seems it's still growing. To be honest I have hope, but I am also kind of scared of the kind of changes that a movement like this could bring.
So many ramifications.
Your post is very confusing.
Having issue with Greevar simply because I do no agree with his opinions would be wildly inappropriate.
Having issue with Greevar because I do not agree with his behavior, is to me, perfectly acceptable/logical.
Judge the man by how he acts, not what he believes.
Again, you're free to opine that nothing Greevar says is out of line or offensive, or trolling or whatever, again you would be in the minority in this opinion but you're free to it none the less.
Yeah, lets get it back on topic.
I'll ask this question again:
What sort of things can people do to help the occupy movement without physically being there?
We know about donating food or money, but what else? Please don't say "get the word out"(as that is a bit nonspecific) but maybe some suggestions on good places to send articles or commentary that is likely to be viewed by people who are out of the loop. Or any other suggestions.
I know you ignored this question last time because I was being an asshole, but I'm sure you have some good suggestions.
I have to be missing something here lol, regardless I was just posting my thoughts, and pointing out that I am a minority in my opinion really does nothing but to suggest that somehow makes me wrong from your point of view.
I regularly post news articles on Facebook and can guarantee that 70% of my friends list doesn't even know about the movement.
How do you stop a movement? You don't let the majority know it is happening.
Getting information out there isn't a concept, it's an action. One person reads an article I posted. That person shares it on facebook, their friends share it, and then they all talk about it in person as well.
A society that uses currency will always have inequality. A society that uses currency will always, eventually, either destroy itself or go through massive, massive reform.
We have the resources to do away with currency, and people smart enough on this rock to make it happen.
Do you even understand what needs to be done in the next 6 months to stop the US from going bankrupt?? Do you actually have ANY understanding as to how fucked the US is if we keep doing things the way we currently are?
I actually know people who are stocking up on survival supplies and learning new survival skills, wiring generators to their house with a hole to exhaust outside, completely rational people who have even served in the military who are beginning to stockpile foods that last for a long time.
Do you have ANY idea how close to the tipping point we are if nothing is done?
Government. By the people, FOR the people.
Plus some of my own thoughts and opinions on things.
I think the problem with the concept of "getting the word out" is that most people are going to "get the word out" to their like-minded buddies. So if you're posting articles about OWS stuff to your friends that read The Young Turks and The Huffington Post already, what have you really accomplished?
I'm not sure how productive it is to wax rhetoric to people that are already sympathetic to the cause, which would mean most people in this thread as well(the majority of posters in this thread have been clearly FOR it).
So, when you identify that problem, what can you do?
One thing to do would be specifically targeting friends/family that may be on the fence about it, with content that they specifically would be sympathetic towards.
An example: Posting links to the police brutality committed towards Iraq veterans, on your conservative/pro military friends/family's facebook pages.
Simply spamming links indiscriminately will probably do more harm than help, so I think having a bit of thought into what you're doing would be more productive. Any tips or suggestions with that mentality would probably be appreciated.
Its really easy to "get the word out" to people who already agree with you, its much much harder to get the word out to people who really need to hear it.
Remember remember... to transfer... yea just not as catchy.
I drove past my bank a local credit union and the lobby was packed so was the parking lot. But I haven't seen much coverage on its effects, probably too soon to tell, or probably not significant.
http://moveyourmoneyproject.org/
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=281139538577206
"getting the word out" is actually a real thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
this is why half the policies that are being debated as having pros and cons would be laughed out of the debate if brought up in Iceland or Germany. Convincing fence sitters or people who haven't made up their minds fully (obviously fundamentalists are entrenched) can have a very large affect. You have a point that just discussing it in an echo chamber like a carefully pruned facebook friend's list isn't going to do anything, but discussing it on message boards, or in real life, can actually accomplish quite a bit, if everyone who felt passionately were doing the same.
Right right, its a completely real thing, but far too often "getting the word out" means talking to your like-minded buddies about X issues and nothing ever comes from it. This is the often the case with the liberal left in the US in my opinion, the right seems to be much more efficient getting their message out. I never said it wasn't "real" just overrated in modern times.
So, if we identify that as a problem, what can we do to subvert it? What can be done to get your message to the fance-sitters, isn't that the question we should be asking?
But it's not a waste to do so. It's a good place to start when you need to build allies quickly. If you get everyone you know informed on the issue and on board with what you're trying to do, they can help you reach people you can't. It's not like your social group exists inside of a vacuum that doesn't interact with the rest of the world. Maybe they know somebody or many people they can inform in meat space that would bolster the ranks of a beneficial movement? Don't just tell people about it, urge them to tell others and ask around for those who might listen as well.
That said, I think it would be good for humanity to promote a economy without money and encourages people to help themselves by contributing for the benefit of the whole of humanity. Technology is at a point where we can take care of many basic needs that we don't need money to make it happen, just people willing to better us all so everybody can have a higher standard of living rather than just a handful of people at the top. But it's not a turn-key operation. It will be a gradual transition and it will probably be full of conflict from those that don't want to let go of the old economy and the excessively opulent lifestyle it has provided them.
First we need to put the infrastructure in place to provide free abundant energy for everyone. That means getting away from burning things for fuel and using the Earth's own ever-renewing internal heat to power our technology. Or solar, wind, tidal, or any combination of all of those. We also need to halt any production that produces harmful elements being released into the environment and either sacrifice that luxury or find a sustainable way to produce it.
Then, we need to establish equality in food, housing, and medicine. Nationalized Healthcare would be at the top of the list.
Transportation would need to be revamped. Building high speed Mag-Lev trains that can get people around the world in about the same amount of time as the wasteful airlines do. Personal vehicles need to be phased out in favor or highly abundant public transit to get people around their own home region.
Another important issue: Education. It's been done the same way for the past 150 years and it's flaws are increasingly apparent. It needs to be made more efficient and more effective by focusing on better goals and adapting teaching styles to the needs of the student. We would also need to teach children a new paradigm about working collaboratively with each other to meet common life goals rather than competitively to be king of the mountain. That money ultimately leads to inequality.
But what about money? Well, nationalizing the banks and indicting the Fed would be a start. We need to put a permanent end to profiting from the controlling of currency. Loans need to be made for the purpose of improving the standards of life for the lowest income people and the rich must sacrifice their comfort and power to make it possible (I know, that will be tough). The point of all this is so that nobody is homeless, sick, uneducated, or hungry because they just simply don't have the money.
Money will no longer be an incentive to work, but it will free us to develop new incentives. Like curing AIDS, Cancer, or ALS (Lou Gherig's Disease, my father died from this. My son and I could too.). People will be free to focus their lives on improving humanity rather than trying to scrape together what they can to live. This will free up people to focus on new beneficial technology and ideas rather than only that which is profitable or affordable. If we have the resources and the benefits are great, then we should build it so we can make use of it to raise humanity to even higher levels of existence. People will just start doing things because it's good for us. Helping my neighbors helps me.
This is my dream. This is my hope. I don't want my son to struggle to live on a dying planet that is in constant conflict with itself.
Since I am so unfair to Greevar let's take a concrete example from his first response to me and see how it stands up:
"subsistence farming - farming that provides for the basic needs of the farmer without surpluses for marketing" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subsistence+farming)
"Subsistence peasants are people who grow what they eat, build their own houses, and live without regularly making purchases in the marketplace." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsistence_agriculture)
"Form of farming in which nearly all the crops or livestock raised are used to maintain the farmer and his family, leaving little surplus for sale or trade" (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/570994/subsistence-farming)
Okay, so he got the definition of "subsistence farming" pretty wrong (which is obvious if you know what the verb "to subsist" means), but you know, let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and say he was right. Let's check the veracity of his claim that that growing your food and selling it on the market is "not capitalism."
Wikipedia says this, and I think it's generally true: "Economists usually emphasize the degree that government does not have control over markets (laissez faire), and on property rights." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)
I'm a bit biased, as an economist, but I think looking at capitalism in this way is the best because unlike philosophy, economics is actually a science. Like other sciences, if something is not clear or useful for predicting the future in economics, it is not part of economics. I have met dozens of extremely intelligent, well versed experts who share my definition of capitalism, and by that definition, having private property (a farm) and selling or trading things on markets (crops) are the defining characteristics of capitalism.
Okay, but lets assume he was right about that too, even though he was wrong by most definitions.
Maybe the paragraph has some other deeper point he is getting at. Lets look at the broader context:
before we go into deeper meaning, he is saying "Capitalism is a system FOR employers"(emphasis added) -- capitalism is in fact an economic system. All economic systems are FOR distributing scarce goods. Or at least that is what every textbook on the subject (a rather large number) has said, but if I stop to point out how fucking stupid every single sentence Greever writes is, we will never get done here so...
Okay, so his bigger point is that capitalism is what it's called when rich people hire poor people and make a profit from their work. That is a fucking worthless definition. By that definition anyone who loses money is not a capitalist, any person who runs his own business without employees is not a capitalist, any person who is poor and hires a rich person is not a capitalist, and a rich person hiring a rich person is not a capitalist -- so what are they then? I certainly don't know because it doesn't make any fucking sense.
The only reason to believe a definition like that is so that you can be a martyr and hate cartoonishly evil "capitalists". It is certainly not a useful definition in science or language.
So why single out Greevar when Poop says some of the same things?
Poop has personally given a lot back to the community. His website is filled with awesome tutorials. While I think Poop uses some dishonest tactics in arguments sometimes, I know it's not because he's dumb, but because he likes to win. He is the type of guy who goes and and gets what he wants.
Greevar writes reams of stuff on here, like that piracy is AOK, and so by extension doesn't see any reason why I should get paid for doing what I do. So he is really trying to damage the Polycount community. Beyond that, basically everything he writes is like this response to me above -- the most backwards stupid shit you can imagine.
So the problem isn't that I haven't researched Greevar's position, but that I researched them, then went to college for it, then read about it for 10 years.
I may be a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. Who says that dreams can't become reality? People told the Wright brothers that flying was a dream and if we were meant to fly, we'd have wings. Is it a dream to want and look for better, not only for myself, but for every human being on this planet? I think it's a tall order no doubt, but I don't think it can't happen. Actually, if humanity is to survive, it's probably an inevitability.
True enough, but still, watch that. Gives a little hope and a little bit of common sense knockdown to the "perfect world" concept when someone who's been thinking it out for sixty years talks about it.
So do you have some suggestions on the sorts of information, groups of people, and ways to go about getting said information out to those people? Anything practical that someone could read and maybe go out and do?
No, I'm pretty much a novice in social movements. I just know that the more people know about it, the more there are to tell others. But if you want more information on the concept of a moneyless economy, look up "Resourced Based Economy", "The Zeitgeist movement", and "The Venus Project". They have spent more time planning this than I have.
I thought you said you were doing all sorts of stuff to help support the OWS movement? You can't even give us one practical example of how someone, without donating their money or physical presence to the protests, can help reach out to the uniformed?
I mean off the top of my head I gave an example, surely you can think of something?
Speaking of such an amendment. I think its right to say that any lobbying group cannot lobby congress, not just illegalizing corporate personhood. This includes non-profits and unions.
Otherwise contacting your Senators and reps to tell them you want a real amendment (not the pussy footed one Udall submitted).
Oh PS I'm offended you didn't mention me EQ as one of the problem people on here that stir things up! How has it gone from the days where r13 was warning me of banning to not even worth a mention in problem posters!
the only thing i think that should be pursued worldwide are ways to exerce direct democracy. to me this representative system has no logic anymore. i'm just a law student from brazil, and from where i stand i sincerely believe that only parasites occupy the high stances of the governments.
It only works in small settings where each person is knowledgeable on the subjects. Representative helps keep things balanced from people voting out of ignorance. So no majority can misplace a minority.
Where representative breaks down is the rep supposed to be knowledgeable of all sides of an issue and compromise where possible and have the foresight so see what such a law would do down the line. Many however are just appeasing a majority as they see it as their constituents and trying to get reelected.
I'll make this paragraph as clear as I can so that there can be no misunderstanding:
It is my opinion that capitalism is a system that is, as it exists, modeled for the sole benefit of an owner/employer to leverage the labor of the lower classes and take the excess value from production (or just take away part of the value from the workers) for their own benefit with the only justification that they should because they control the flow of goods and services between workers and consumers. That is what I see as the reality of capitalism or at least the reality of our economy. The written definition has little meaning to me since it doesn't represent what the system really is. You can disagree with that all you like, it's not a claim to fact as it is written. It's just me calling it as I see it. What you define as capitalism seems to be very broad as to encompass almost any type of trade that involves trading goods for currency.
I admit, I was wrong about the definition of subsistence farmers, but it's not entirely my fault as I've been shown what I was told to be examples of such but they still sold their excess crops to pay for things they need beyond food such as tools and building supplies.
"I'm a bit biased, as an economist, but I think looking at capitalism in this way is the best because unlike philosophy, economics is actually a science. Like other sciences, if something is not clear or useful for predicting the future in economics, it is not part of economics."
I'm going to disagree with that, as is my right. You're clearly a student of economics as pioneered by Adam Smith, a rational economics supporter. I follow a behavioral economics philosophy that takes into account that people are highly irrational when it comes to money and studies have shown that. My economics instructor said that economics is not a science because people's choices cannot be predicted because no one can know the mind of every person participating. It is impossible to clearly predict the movement of the economy when it is comprised of irrational people whose minds we do not know.
"Greevar writes reams of stuff on here, like that piracy is AOK, and so by extension doesn't see any reason why I should get paid for doing what I do. So he is really trying to damage the Polycount community."
I never said that infringement is acceptable, but it is inevitable (and has been shown to be helpful to gain more sales), thus fighting it should be ignored in favor of developing new business models that make it irrelevant whether it is happening or not. I also didn't say that you shouldn't get paid for your work, that is just false. Nor do I wish to harm the Polycount community. That I take offense to. It seems rather fantastical to think I could single-handedly damage this community of individuals, especially when my intent was to talk about ways the industry could work to abandon its reliance on a law that has little real effect in preventing what anyone can easily do.
Really, the reason copyright based business models fail against the forces of infringement are because they aren't selling exclusive and rivalrous goods/services. Everyone can have their own copy without diminishing what others have. My having a copy doesn't prevent another from having it as well because we all equally have the same. As I've said in the past, time and labor are exclusive and rivalrous. A person or persons cannot provide their time and labor to all people at the same time, so this is what has economic value.
EQ:
"I thought you said you were doing all sorts of stuff to help support the OWS movement? You can't even give us one practical example of how someone, without donating their money or physical presence to the protests, can help reach out to the uniformed?
I mean off the top of my head I gave an example, surely you can think of something? "
You thought wrong. I never said I was doing "all sorts of things" I said I was doing what I can. You're making a straw man attack on me. The only example I can offer has already been mentioned: Social networking such as Facebook. I am not a social movement organizer and I don't have to be to participate in one. Here's another, you can start your own website dedicated to the movement with all your boilerplates, links, and information ready to offer to anyone whom you can engage with on the topic.