Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

The Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations are considered fictional people under the 14th Amendment, and as such have the same rights as an actual person does.

So... are you saying that there's some other part of the constitution that means that all fictional people have the same rights as actual people?  Because if so this could have severe ramifications for crime writers.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations are considered fictional people under the 14th Amendment, and as such have the same rights as an actual person does.

So... are you saying that there's some other part of the constitution that means that all fictional people have the same rights as actual people?  Because if so this could have severe ramifications for crime writers.

"Fictonal people" isn't the exact term. I forget what the legalbabble for it is, but the point is that certain entities are considered pseudo-"people conglomerates". That I have such difficulty describing it should be a sign of how convoluted corporate personhood is as an idea.

[SalmonGod]

How Occupy Wall Street Cost Me My Job

[Aqizzar]

How Occupy Wall Street Cost Me My Job

A fascinating and rather chilling story, especially the cases of people being fired from jobs that politics had no impact on.  Firing an opera reporter for attending a protest on her own time, by NPR no less, because some Drudge blog happened to find her.  NPR seriously needs to grow a spine.

I think the original Atlantic article the sign was drawn from needs some attention to.  This Friedersdorf character is speaking right out of my heart.

There is a time for battling over first principles and political philosophy, especially for those of us who enjoy doing it. But it isn't all the time. How remarkable that in America, where the political spectrum is so narrow relative to other countries, and the consensus in favor of being a mostly free market liberal democracy so large, our politics is so frequently mired in ideological battles; and waged in rhetoric that is absurd when one reflects on the continuity in ideology and policy from one Congress and presidency to another. It's no wonder that so many Americans are frustrated by political debate, political protest, and political campaigns. More often than not, they're all conducted at a level of abstraction that is both needless and maddening.

[Truean]

The Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations are considered fictional people under the 14th Amendment, and as such have the same rights as an actual person does.

So... are you saying that there's some other part of the constitution that means that all fictional people have the same rights as actual people?  Because if so this could have severe ramifications for crime writers.

"Fictonal people" isn't the exact term. I forget what the legalbabble for it is, but the point is that certain entities are considered pseudo-"people conglomerates". That I have such difficulty describing it should be a sign of how convoluted corporate personhood is as an idea.

"Legal Person(s)" Corporations are people when it benefits them and not when it does not. Corporate Taxation is actually a gift to corporations. Imagine if corporations, as "people" paid personal income tax in tax brackets reflecting their earnings....

How Occupy Wall Street Cost Me My Job

Yes. I really have mixed feelings about the "at will employment" system. I don't think you should be able to be fired at the drop of a hat. In the same breath, you should not be able to quit at the drop of a hat.

I think the original Atlantic article the sign was drawn from needs some attention to.  This Friedersdorf character is speaking right out of my heart.

There is a time for battling over first principles and political philosophy, especially for those of us who enjoy doing it. But it isn't all the time. How remarkable that in America, where the political spectrum is so narrow relative to other countries, and the consensus in favor of being a mostly free market liberal democracy so large, our politics is so frequently mired in ideological battles; and waged in rhetoric that is absurd when one reflects on the continuity in ideology and policy from one Congress and presidency to another. It's no wonder that so many Americans are frustrated by political debate, political protest, and political campaigns. More often than not, they're all conducted at a level of abstraction that is both needless and maddening.

Yes. Very. I often say I have no political party, I care only of logistics, processes, and practicality. It leads to a strange mix of Left and Right wing ideas. Sadly, instead of people finding the many common points we share, they do tend to focus on the differences.

[GlyphGryph]

Mayor Jean Quan has released an official video statement on her facebook page addressing the protesters.  She tried to attend their general assembly to speak with them directly.  She even attended alone, with no protection.  I thought that was rather brave and a strong display of good faith after what happened.  She got chased away.  I understand the occupiers in Oakland are angry, but they really need to show as much maturity as possible right now.

I'm sorry, were her words going to be "I'm going to fire the thug I placed in power for doing this without my permission"? Because that's the only thing I could see her saying that wouldn't be pretty rage-inducing at this point.

From what I understand, the problem people have with her isn't that she's a bad person - its that she's pathetic and incompetent, at best, and people are sick of listening to her and aren't really in the mood for excuses.

Of course, this is all second-second-hand opinions, but that's what I've read and understand of the situation.

[SalmonGod]

Yeah, I kind of get that impression, too.  I can't really judge their reaction too strongly.

[Dwarf]

It seems Oakland is going to strike.

Also a sad, disturbing and disgusting tale of state conformity.

[RedKing]

That article touches on an issue that's really starting to divide the movement: does the Occupy movement stick to the rules and try to be as compliant with laws as possible (in order to protect a "benign" image and not alienate uncomitted neutral parties), or do they recognize that the existing power structure is going to use those laws (and in a number of cases, flaunt the laws themselves) to prevent assembly and prevent the Occupy movement from accomplishing anything and thus say, "Fuck your laws"?

I would have placed myself in the former camp initially, but after things like Oakland and some of what's going on in Chicago and Denver and even in Raleigh...I dunno. People seem to forget that the labor movement in the early 20th century wasn't peaceful sit-ins and lovefests and Kum Ba Ya...it was often-violent strikes and clashes with private security firms, the police and even the National Guard. And in the end, it worked.

[Gantolandon]

I would have placed myself in the former camp initially, but after things like Oakland and some of what's going on in Chicago and Denver and even in Raleigh...I dunno. People seem to forget that the labor movement in the early 20th century wasn't peaceful sit-ins and lovefests and Kum Ba Ya...it was often-violent strikes and clashes with private security firms, the police and even the National Guard. And in the end, it worked.

The whole concept of protesting only according to the law is ridiculous and undermines its entire point. If the social contract has been broken, people at least need to be willing to show that, if the thing continues, they will not be willing to obey it themselves anymore. Policing themselves to obey the very laws that were set to prevent them from accomplishing anything, obviously, won't get them far.

[Loud Whispers]

I would have placed myself in the former camp initially, but after things like Oakland and some of what's going on in Chicago and Denver and even in Raleigh...I dunno. People seem to forget that the labor movement in the early 20th century wasn't peaceful sit-ins and lovefests and Kum Ba Ya...it was often-violent strikes and clashes with private security firms, the police and even the National Guard. And in the end, it worked.

The whole concept of protesting only according to the law is ridiculous and undermines its entire point. If the social contract has been broken, people at least need to be willing to show that, if the thing continues, they will not be willing to obey it themselves anymore. Policing themselves to obey the very laws that were set to prevent them from accomplishing anything, obviously, won't get them far.

Look at the London riots, nothing was achieved because they protested the wrong way :[

[Sheb]

Breaking the law doesn't mean direspecting property/lives.

You can break the law without rioting.

[Bauglir]

Yeah, I've been thinking about that. It seems to me that the only way to go there is for movements to police themselves in individual cities unless and/or until crackdowns that violate the law start - such as in Oakland. Escalation has problems, but it seems the only way of demonstrating that there are consequences to trying to crush these things that way. This is my "I just woke up 20 minutes ago" line of thinking, so possibly problems exist. And, of course, I'm far from influential in the movement.

Also, what Sheb said. When the protests start breaking the law, I hope they keep to breaking only the laws that are being exploited to shut them down, because that's the best way to communicate.

[Dwarf]

I would have placed myself in the former camp initially, but after things like Oakland and some of what's going on in Chicago and Denver and even in Raleigh...I dunno. People seem to forget that the labor movement in the early 20th century wasn't peaceful sit-ins and lovefests and Kum Ba Ya...it was often-violent strikes and clashes with private security firms, the police and even the National Guard. And in the end, it worked.

The whole concept of protesting only according to the law is ridiculous and undermines its entire point. If the social contract has been broken, people at least need to be willing to show that, if the thing continues, they will not be willing to obey it themselves anymore. Policing themselves to obey the very laws that were set to prevent them from accomplishing anything, obviously, won't get them far.

Look at the London riots, nothing was achieved because they protested the wrong way :[

The London riots were another matter...

Also, I suppose it will depend on whose property is going to be destroyed.
Smashing homes is definitely going into the wrong direction.
Financial industry and other highly exploitative businesses are much better targets.

Perhaps one would have to commit such actions seperate from the mainstream movement, so as to not make it generally accountable.

[palsch]

Look at the London riots, nothing was achieved because they protested the wrong way :[

Those were flat out riots, not protests.

There was no unifying reason to hit the streets, no goals or objectives, no coordination or attempts at coordination. It was people stealing things and trashing businesses.

Some people tried to assign political purpose to their actions, but that was a stupid attempt at opportunism and simply hurt their causes.

Worse, it hurt the causes of people trying to explain or understand the riots in political terms as they were painted as trying to excuse such behaviour.

The danger with these protests is that they can go the same way. Or be dragged that way

If there was a group that decided - for clear political reasons and with definite goals - to break the law, that would be fine with me. Similarly if a general protest crosses the line occasionally in terms of legality, that's fine, so long as the crimes are justifiable in terms of the protest (eg, illegally occupying a space).

When a protest is used to cover illegal behaviour just for shits and giggles, I have problems. And so does the group and movement behind that protest.

In Oakland it looks like the police have messed up badly. The mix of groups reported, both before and after the crack down, would likely have self destructed and possibly harmed the wider movement. The violent police reaction both gave extra cover to the more violent protesters and galvanised the peaceful groups.