Public Forum

OWS community and MODS, why do I keep getting blocked? What is it about my questions that is so offensive? Is it that I don't understand? Or that I don't agree?

Here is what I have posted: As Unrelenting and as Seriously: So I came on to your site seeking answers, and somehow the Username Unrelenting got blocked from posting because I posted this:

So I do not consider myself to be a supporter of OWS. Rather I read the stories about your movement and ask myself numerous questions. So after trying to get a handle on why OWS acts in certain ways, I figured I would go directly to the source. Question 1; what is the income cutoff for being part of the 99%? I saw one news story that reported people earning $531,000 a year were part of the 99%. A different story led me to believe that it was closer to $375,000. In an article on MSNBC about the tents, one of your members was quoted as saying she is living paycheck to paycheck, but also that she lives in Manhattan. To people like me, this seems less like a case of financial equality and more a case of financial irresponsibility. This leads directly to Question 2; how can your movement ask for support if by all appearances your members are living above their means? Question 3; why are you not occupying Washington DC? Why not camp out in front of the White House? It seems like asking the 1% to voluntarily change is an act of futility. If they haven't changed their actions at this point, why would you camping in a park change it? Question 4; does your movement REALLY support the transformation of the United States into a Socialist Regime? Why should my money go towards people who didn't earn it? Question 5; if your movement is about a "redistribution of wealth", why does your movement want to exclude those who are less well off than yourselves? I am speaking of the homeless people that numerous news reports have quoted members of OWS and other sites as saying they do not want around because "it will enable others to disregard our movement" or "we want separation because they could be dangerous". If I could have CIVIL answers to these questions, I would appreciate it.

It looks as if the thread I started was deleted now, as it was updated 47 minutes ago and yet is not on the right side when you click on an individual post. However other, older posts still are, and derogatory posts are there. What was wrong with my questions?

Also, I have this as a follow up:

Point 1: I guess I just don't see how some making roughly 18 times the poverty line has in common with someone who is earning less than the poverty line. It seems like the reason your movement says 99% is because it is more catchy than truthful. How many people earning $500,000+ are really on your side?

Point 2: If the rent is too high, move. Why take to the street and complain that you can't live where you can't afford? Is it the wealthy's responsibility to pay for your rent?

Point 3: I have been perusing your forum, and there doesn't seem to be a logical reason for WHY you are occupying Wall Street as opposed to the White House. To the contrary, there seems to be A LOT of support for Obama.

Point 4: It seems like the general message is you think the wealthy (which is somehow people earning OVER $532,000?) have too much money. In the OWS commercial, there is a girl who states that the wealthy should be taxed to pay for her education. If that is not a step towards Socialism, I don't know what is.

Point 5: So why does your movement want to preclude the Homeless? They are less powerful than you.

So what is it that is getting me blocked? I am quickly going from trying to learn about your movement to learning to dislike your movement.

3 Comments

Read the Rules

[-] 1 points by Jelm430 (87) 13 years ago

"okay you have a lot. Question 1; what is the income cutoff for being part of the 99%? I saw one news story that reported people earning $531,000 a year were part of the 99%. A different story led me to believe that it was closer to $375,000. In an article on MSNBC about the tents, one of your members was quoted as saying she is living paycheck to paycheck, but also that she lives in Manhattan. To people like me, this seems less like a case of financial equality and more a case of financial irresponsibility."(( There is no cut off for this movement. its about a mess of things that boils down to big government, big business relationship and corruption. I'm sure you know politician who are bought and paid for by big union,corporation and the like.)))

Question 2((( We come from a large demographic we could be the student down the street, we could be the waitress severing your food We could be the doctor that has saw you your whole life.))) Question 3; why are you not occupying Washington DC? Why not camp out in front of the White House? It seems like asking the 1% to voluntarily change is an act of futility. If they haven't changed their actions at this point, why would you camping in a park change it? (((There is a march to D.C. going on it, may or may not be big but its a start.))) Question 4; does your movement REALLY support the transformation of the United States into a Socialist Regime? Why should my money go towards people who didn't earn it? (((NO, of course not. We want our voice be heard. I don't want your money. I don't need your money. I want to know that my government is for the people by the people and severing only the people.))) Question 5; if your movement is about a "redistribution of wealth", why does your movement want to exclude those who are less well off than yourselves? I am speaking of the homeless people that numerous news reports have quoted members of OWS and other sites as saying they do not want around because "it will enable others to disregard our movement" or "we want separation because they could be dangerous". If I could have CIVIL answers to these questions, I would appreciate it. (((If there causing problems kick them out if there cool, I'm cool.)))

↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink

[-] 1 points by AmericanExpat (13) 13 years ago

you aren't being blocked. this is the third time i have read your post. just stop obsessing about your post, that's all. and by the way, posts without a TON of exposure (comments, clicks, etc.) tend to get pushed down quickly because people are writing posts every 3 minutes- and you are writing in the middle of the night, so you know.

To answer some of your questions with one simple idea: perhaps the issue of "99%" and Occupying Wall St (vs white house) maybe seem too catchy or simplistic or symbolic, but I kind of think that is the point. I don't think OWS wants to influence DC, I think they want to spread their message to the people, and with The People form a new idea of government and a new practical government, a General Assembly. SO, they aren't occupying DC because that is an old system of government which is both removed from The Peoples' lives both theoretically and practically. And the place to do that is in the back yard of where a very high concentration of people live.

And the 99% thing: Yes there can be nitpicking between the numbers and percentiles, but I don't think that's the point. I think the point is that 99& has become synonymous with "the people" and again, we go back to a changing idea of government and who forms or controls it. It shouldn't be this small percent of people (ie 1%, give or take a percent); it should be the People in general.