4 ms·

I think the Occupy Movement is a poor comparison because that was a protest, not a strike. And I don't recall protesters in the Occupy Movement being belittled

by PakG1 9y ago

I think the Occupy Movement is a poor comparison because that was a protest, not a strike. And I don't recall protesters in the Occupy Movement being belittled. I agree that labourers may often get unfairly blamed when things go wrong. Corporate overlords can be also very harsh and unfair. But it is difficult to differentiate between unions that have valid claims and unions that are just riding the gravy train with an iron grip and not adding value. These are very muddy waters, and truth is often hard to find.

dmix 9y ago
The Occupy movement was hardly universally attacked or belittled by the media. To say so is a strange interpretation of history. Maybe people are remembering the end when the movement fizzled out and critiqued for it's ultimate 'directionless' and lack of specific objectives. But Occupy was very much rah-rah'd by the press and various mainstream media venues in the early days. Or at the minimum not maligned. The critiques that did come were almost always around the process, the act of camping out and blocking public areas, but the movement itself against Wall St was very popular during the peak of the recession. And it was a populist movement regardless. With all the highs/lows that type of movement brings. It's failure to bring meaningful change had little to do with the media, right-wing/tea-party, or older democrats attacking it. The issues being protested were very complex and deeply deeply ingrained in the current US political crony economic establishment. And the democrat administration at the time did little to affect change despite this popular support, besides some token efforts. And despite the rhetoric of the democratic party being a counterbalance against the rich they largely continued (and sometimes incentivized) the status quo in the finance world. A mere temporary speed block and back to business as usual. Which had repercussions long after including up to the latest election. It was used by the right to feed off of the mistrust people had with Hillary (and the Obama crew she inherited) with regards to their appeasement of bankers. Particularly with how the republicans hammered home her connections to Goldman Sachs (et al). Not that the right was any better in regards to cronyism, clearly, but the point is that it hit a nerve among Americans which was a legacy of cynicism and bitterness following the recession and Occupy movements.

by PakG1 9y ago

dmix 9y ago

The Occupy movement was hardly universally attacked or belittled by the media. To say so is a strange interpretation of history. Maybe people are remembering the end when the movement fizzled out and critiqued for it's ultimate 'directionless' and lack of specific objectives. But Occupy was very much rah-rah'd by the press and various mainstream media venues in the early days. Or at the minimum not maligned. The critiques that did come were almost always around the process, the act of camping out and blocking public areas, but the movement itself against Wall St was very popular during the peak of the recession. And it was a populist movement regardless. With all the highs/lows that type of movement brings. It's failure to bring meaningful change had little to do with the media, right-wing/tea-party, or older democrats attacking it. The issues being protested were very complex and deeply deeply ingrained in the current US political crony economic establishment. And the democrat administration at the time did little to affect change despite this popular support, besides some token efforts. And despite the rhetoric of the democratic party being a counterbalance against the rich they largely continued (and sometimes incentivized) the status quo in the finance world. A mere temporary speed block and back to business as usual. Which had repercussions long after including up to the latest election. It was used by the right to feed off of the mistrust people had with Hillary (and the Obama crew she inherited) with regards to their appeasement of bankers. Particularly with how the republicans hammered home her connections to Goldman Sachs (et al). Not that the right was any better in regards to cronyism, clearly, but the point is that it hit a nerve among Americans which was a legacy of cynicism and bitterness following the recession and Occupy movements.