What Happened to Occupy Wallstreet?

[Deleted]

I will - and I will tell them to try to do that.

I know you did not read the entire definition of slavery.

So you are going to simply ignore the bit about how when you are not paid sufficiently you are a slave?

And you are going to tell people to quite their jobs and have their families starve because they should not work like this? Yea that is certainly going to help loads /s

[Forogil]

So you are going to simply ignore the bit about how when you are not paid sufficiently you are a slave?

No - I am will tell people that if they don't like the salary they should walk away, since they are not slaves.

And you are going to tell people to quite their jobs and have their families starve because they should not work like this?

Yes, and get a better job. And more importantly - spend their money more wisely - since your present a false choice.

The idea that the poor prioritize food and shelter before other wants is actually contradicted by evidence. The poor are not significantly smarter with their money than the rich.

[Deleted]

No - I am will tell people that if they don't like the salary they should walk away, since they are not slaves.


Yes, and get a better job. And more importantly - spend their money more wisely - since your present a false choice.

The idea that the poor prioritize food and shelter before other wants is actually contradicted by evidence. The poor are not significantly smarter with their money than the rich.

Yes telling people that have no where else to go to that they should leave their jobs and starve certainly means that they are not enslaved to their jobs.. That you do not agree with the definition of slavery doesn't make it any less slavery, it just makes you argue against the meaning of a word.

Not everyone is able to get a better job or spend their money better, the choice isn't false, the fact that you deny that there are poor working people is the falsehood here.

[Kaleredar]

There where slaves for thousands of years. Saying that something didn't happen for the last bit says more about America then it does about slavery in general.

Allowing people to "buy their freedom" doesn't justify slavery, its history being largely irrelevant to the subject.

[Deleted]

Allowing people to "buy their freedom" doesn't justify slavery, its history being largely irrelevant to the subject.

Yea nice strawman, i never said it justifies anything. And just because it wasn't very popular in the Americas doesn't mean that it is largely irrelevant to the whole of the subject.

[Alydael]

Often I hear things about BLM protests, organized Pride events, Feminist rallies, and more, but Occupy Wall Street seems to have vanished. When I searched YouTube on the topic, the only recent uploads were seemingly old videos of Ben Shapiro and topless women protesters. Their website hasn't even posted any news since February. I often wonder if "divide and conquer" tactics were used to separate the supposed "99%" into smaller groups based on gender, sex, sexuality, race, etc for easier control by the government. Is that no more than a conspiracy or did the Occupy Wall Street just disperse because it wasn't effective or because people opted to focus in on issues that affected them more as individuals?

What do you guys think happened to Occupy Wall Street and what are your opinions of it in hindsight?

What evidence do you have that the government used "divide and conquer" tactics to splinter these groups or that the government took any action against these groups at all?

I wouldn't put it past them. The Dems and the Repubs both live on "divide and conquer" and misinformation, so it wouldn't shock me.

It''s just that I haven't seen any evidence of this at all, anywhere.

As for occupy- it was leaderless and had no real message. It was a mess.

The other groups you are talking about have basically become "politicized." Once that happens, they become severed from their message and they are just a political tool at that point.

[Paulosio]

Oh really, care to point me to a slave market then?

Why don't you try googling "modern day slavery in the US"?

If you really think slavery doesn't exist in the US 2017 you are fooling yourself. Even Ivanka Trump was asking Teresa May for information on the matter at the G20 summit. You will find modern day slavery exists to some extent in all countries (last year an official home office report estimated 10,000-13,000 slaves in the UK http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36934853). It doesn't have to take the form of slave markets or shackles. It's a major problem in the world today.

It can be women forced into prostitution by people who have lured them to the country with the promise of work. When they arrive they are locked in a room, have their documents taken away from them, have food withheld and are threatened with violence. They are made to sleep with dozens men every day and told they aren't leaving until they make tens of thousands of dollars to pay back the people who paid for their travel after tricking the victim into thinking there was an actual job waiting for them. You can call this human trafficking, forced servitude or whatever you want but it's still essentially slavery... Sadly some people are unable to see past the movie "12 years a slave" for their own personal definition of the word slavery.

https://www.state.gov/j/tip/what/

[Stormdash]

Slavery does exist in the US today. It just doesn't refer to anyone, in any context, who is doing above the table, paid W-2, 1099, or I-9 labor.

- - - Updated - - -

Incidentally, the public policy position that most enables modern slavery in the US? Immigration amnesty, the posture that we shouldn't be trying to close border access to illegal immigration or returning, under most circumstances, those brought here to their country of origin. With vigilantly enforced immigration law, traffickers have to no product to sell, and aspiring slavers have no market. Even the most desperate of migrant is unlikely to forfeit their liberty and property to reach a country that will turn them out for linejumping other than in few narrow and defined circumstances. Gotta be cruel to be kind sometimes.

[Forogil]

Yes telling people that have no where else to go to that they should leave their jobs and starve certainly means that they are not enslaved to their jobs..

You haven't proven that they don't have anywhere else to go to.

You are trying to make them slaves - by telling them that they have no-where to go to. You are also trivializing actual slavery - it is no coincidence that many slave owners liked the term "wage slavery" - because it made light of their own slaves.

[Deleted]

You haven't proven that they don't have anywhere else to go to.

You are trying to make them slaves - by telling them that they have no-where to go to. You are also trivializing actual slavery - it is no coincidence that many slave owners liked the term "wage slavery" - because it made light of their own slaves.

No, they already are slaves, see i can use bold too.

[Forogil]

Why don't you try googling "modern day slavery in the US"?

If you really think slavery doesn't exist in the US 2017 you are fooling yourself. Even Ivanka Trump was asking Teresa May for information on the matter at the G20 summit. You will find modern day slavery exists to some extent in all countries (last year an official home office report estimated 10,000-13,000 slaves in the UK http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36934853). It doesn't have to take the form of slave markets or shackles. It's a major problem in the world today.

That is really bad for the actual victims - and we should not trivialize it by saying that someone with a normal job is a "wage slave".

However, it is small problems, since compared to the population it seems to be that the slaves are about 0.01% of the population.

Compare that to Rome where slaves were perhaps 20% and more than 10% of the population in the Roman empire (as I understand it the slave percentage was even higher in the south of the US).

Now, you might say that it 10,000-13,000 compared to the UK population is 0.02% not 0.01% - and you would be making an error. The reason is that the report does not say that there are estimated 10,000-13,000 slave victims in the UK. It says that there are estimated 10,000-13,000 potential slave victims, and of investigated potential slave victims only about half are during investigations found to be slavery victims.

- - - Updated - - -

No, they already are slaves, see i can use bold too.

Which makes the point that you are on the side of the slave owners, and the side devoid of facts.

[namecraft]

wallstreet told the protestors if they leave they get 300 million dollards, all of them

[Deleted]

That is really bad for the actual victims - and we should not trivialize it by saying that someone with a normal job is a "wage slave".

However, it is small problems, since compared to the population it seems to be that the slaves are about 0.01% of the population.

Compare that to Rome where slaves were perhaps 20% and more than 10% of the population in the Roman empire (as I understand it the slave percentage was even higher in the south of the US).

Now, you might say that it 10,000-13,000 compared to the UK population is 0.02% not 0.01% - and you would be making an error. The reason is that the report does not say that there are estimated 10,000-13,000 slave victims in the UK. It says that there are estimated 10,000-13,000 potential slave victims, and of investigated potential slave victims only about half are during investigations found to be slavery victims.

- - - Updated - - -


Which makes the point that you are on the side of the slave owners, and the side devoid of facts.

No it makes you make baseless claims about me devoid of any facts.

[Forogil]

No it makes you make baseless claims about me devoid of any facts.

Now you are just going for insults.

I'm stating that your statement that "wage slaves" are slaves since they cannot find another job is devoid of facts - since no facts have been presented. Your lack of facts speak for themselves - I don't need to show that you have no facts, when you don't show them.

I'm also stating that many slave owners throughout history have called "wage workers" for "slaves" - similarly as you do, and in both cases the effect is to trivialize actual slavery - whether intentional or unintentional does not matter. Do you want evidence for that? If so just Wikipedia "wage slavery".

[Theodarzna]

Unlike Black Lives Matter or Linda Sarsour or most of Antifa, It had no major media backing. It wasn't popular in the courtly circles of power and wasn't the darling of powerful people, so either it was a dumb movement with no point or an actual threat that was crushed.

[Deleted]

Now you are just going for insults.

I'm stating that your statement that "wage slaves" are slaves since they cannot find another job is devoid of facts - since no facts have been presented. Your lack of facts speak for themselves - I don't need to show that you have no facts, when you don't show them.

I'm also stating that many slave owners throughout history have called "wage workers" for "slaves" - similarly as you do, and in both cases the effect is to trivialize actual slavery - whether intentional or unintentional does not matter. Do you want evidence for that? If so just Wikipedia "wage slavery".

Me going for insults as apposed to you going "you are on the side of slave owners" .
Fact that there are more people without a job then that there are jobs available, even in our western world, means that you are full of it. Oh, and lets not forget that these jobs include all the jobs way below a livable wage. You know, the people who are supposed to find the other jobs that make more money..

And what you call "throughout history" isn't much more then a few hundred years, as if the millennia that came before that not count or something. All in all it says more about America then it does about slavery in general.

Not to mention that there is such a thing as "wage slavery", and that this has very insidious practices that didn't even come with normal slavery. Working conditions that are very poor due to to employers simply not caring for their workforce. At least as a slave a owner would have the slaves well being at hart, as not doing so would cost him money. This is not downplaying slavery, it is simply stating how thing are and where.

[Forogil]

Me going for insults as apposed to you going "you are on the side of slave owners" .

I'm telling you the facts - if you don't like the company; change yourself.

Fact that there are more people without a job then that there are jobs available, even in our western world,

Except that the facts are different.

The number of potential "jobs available" are not limited, and certainly not limited to jobs that are announced as available.
That's why we have been able to find jobs for millions and millions more during the last century.

This potential for growth is the part that "occupy wall street" was missing, together with the facts that they were leaderless, lacked political leadership, and were unable to find a street named "wall street" on a map.

Another issue with the term "wage slavery" is that it assumes that the exploitation is tied to wages, whereas companies such as Uber show that independent contractors that are not paid wages can be exploited at least as ruthlessly - without the ties of employment.

Not to mention that there is such a thing as "wage slavery", and that this has very insidious practices that didn't even come with normal slavery. Working conditions that are very poor due to to employers simply not caring for their workforce.

You are once more downplaying slavery. Some slaves were treated fairly well, since they were intended to last long (and can then pay to become free - freeing the slave owner of responsibility) - some slaves were literally worked to their death in a short period of time - without a care for their well-being.

[Triggered Fridgekin]

I knew a girl that was in occupy wall street. She now a school bus driver. I'm guessing the movement didn't pay off.

Not sure about down there but up here school bus drivers make a nice amount of money with a full benefits package.

I wouldn't do it because I'd probably turn in to the bus driver from Billy Madison.



Same can be said for garbage men too. Everyone dumps on them but they can make pretty good money for something that doesn't require secondary education.

[Deleted]

I'm telling you the facts - if you don't like the company; change yourself.


Except that the facts are different.

The number of potential "jobs available" are not limited, and certainly not limited to jobs that are announced as available.
That's why we have been able to find jobs for millions and millions more during the last century.

This potential for growth is the part that "occupy wall street" was missing, together with the facts that they were leaderless, lacked political leadership, and were unable to find a street named "wall street" on a map.

Another issue with the term "wage slavery" is that it assumes that the exploitation is tied to wages, whereas companies such as Uber show that independent contractors that are not paid wages can be exploited at least as ruthlessly - without the ties of employment.


You are once more downplaying slavery. Some slaves were treated fairly well, since they were intended to last long (and can then pay to become free - freeing the slave owner of responsibility) - some slaves were literally worked to their death in a short period of time - without a care for their well-being.

You are not telling "facts" you are making baseless claims on uneducated opinions.

Right, these potential jobs are really overflowing the market Stop making a fool of your self. Fact is that automatization is killing of jobs, fast. This is not going to chance and will only pick up more pace.

That doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with the term wage slavery, it just doesn't encompass the whole situation of slavery, and no one other then you ever claimed it should.

The only one downplaying anything is you downplaying wage slavery, the fact that there are some slaves that are taken care of is allot more then the wage slave ever got. It is still a form of slavery no matter if you do not like the term. You are a historic revisionist that makes baseless claims to try and win an argument at best. If you do not like how history played out then i would suggest you keep your reading at fantasy as this clearly is more up your ally.

[downnola]

The only one downplaying anything is you downplaying wage slavery, the fact that there are some slaves that are taken care of is allot more then the wage slave ever got. It is still a form of slavery no matter if you do not like the term. You are a historic revisionist that makes baseless claims to try and win an argument at best. If you do not like how history played out then i would suggest you keep your reading at fantasy as this clearly is more up your ally.

All you're doing is using words so loosely that they lose coherent meaning. Comparing low wage workers to slaves is false on almost every rational level you can break it down to. Your argument that slavery was somehow negotiable shows not only shows how low you'll sink to justify using the term, but also your complete disregard for historical facts. You'll continue to use the term how you want, and that's fine; do what you please. Anyone with sense, however, will leave you and your ilk to your delusions.