Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: I occupy more about economics or social issues?

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 21, 2012, 3:19 a.m. EST by theshadowranger (20)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Much like the tea party, it's clear that occupy started out as being just about economics but I also see that social issues are important to you too. I see that most of you support abortion rights, and same sex marriage, things of that nature. But I wonder if you would sacrifice those things for the proper economic policies. If you had a candidate who supported you on the economic issues. More regulations, more taxes on the wealthy, end the wars, etc. you look at his/her record and see that the record reflects the words so you know they are telling you the truth. However, that same candidate says that abortion is murder and gay marriage will destroy america. Would you vote for him?

14 Comments

14 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21378) 2 years ago

No. I wouldn't, because economic and social issues go hand in hand. Can't have one without the other. It's all about control.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

They overlap. I refuse to sacrifice anything else.

[-] 1 points by 99time (90) 2 years ago

Bigotry. Discrimination, Entitlement. Over-privilege and under-privilege. Identity group disparities. Racism. All underlying and necessary causes of inequity. OWS started out by resolving these issues across the board with tolerance and support. That is the genius of the movement.

Do not give me excuses to support or condone inequities. You can always come up with something supposedly more pressing.

Now, having accepted our differences and supported the plights of other identity groups for justice, we can begin to come together and deal with economic issues.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

For any chance of success I believe we, OWS, need to make common cause with all who have been shunted aside by today's looters' (financiere looters) economy.

I see two possibilities. One, is simply not to iron out differences and concentrate on economic issues. The second, is to agree on core issues, such as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Choice is simply a right that comes from the right to personal freedom.

If it was my choice originally, I might have left abortion rights up to the majority votes in individual states. Most states (quite possible all) would have ended voting for it and quite likely the opposition would then have accepted choice as the democratic will of the majority -- as opposed to the imposition of the will of the Court. All these years later they still have not accepted it as the law of the land. (Incidentally Thom Hartman also thinks this way.) I would do the same with gay marriage, leave it up to majorities in the states. Perhaps this would be an acceptable compromise, perhaps not.

The bottom line, imo, is we have to find common cause with all damaged by this economy for any hope of success.

[-] 0 points by kingscrossection (1203) 2 years ago

Well as bad as this sounds I think people could live without abortion and no gay marriage for four years to get the country on the right track. I would certainly give up a meal a day to do so but that's not what you asked. Although I'm not sure wether or not stopping abortions would help.

[-] -1 points by buik6 (18) 2 years ago

to me, occupy is a social movement, not a political party. it is my hope that there is never an "occupy candidate." that is just a depressing concept.

when you see an occupy candidate, thats when you will know that occupy has failed. when you see increased societal awareness of unfair economic policies, thats when you know that occupy has been a success.

the way to affect change, as we have seen with women's and gay rights, as we have seen with the tea party, is not in the voting booth. political change is just a leetle eensy tiny piece of a social revolution, and comes naturally. no politician has ever changed my mind about shit : )

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The way to effect change has been both. One without the other has no power and effects nothing. Social and political (they are one and the same) activism has always been put into practice at the voting booth.

The voting rights act and civil rights act were pieces of legislation. Roe v Wade was a Supreme Court decision adjudicated by people appointed by elected presidents. Funding for Aids research and laws allowing gay marriage were voted upon by legislatures, who were in turn elected by the people.

There is no substitute for activism and raising social consciousness. Nor is there a substitute for implementing that raised consciousness into law written by elected officials.

[-] 1 points by buik6 (18) 2 years ago

the verb is "affect" with an a; the noun is "effect" with an e

the voting booth will never affect change. real change happens far, far before that.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The real change does NOT happen without legislation. Nor does that legislation happen without popular support, generally. You are operating under a false choice fallacy when you suggest it is one OR the other. It is, and always has been, BOTH.

[-] 0 points by buik6 (18) 2 years ago

well since we will never convince each other, how about you suck my dick?

hahahah i just felt like saying that as i was writing, but really, since we will never convince each other its probably time for you to make some kind of law saying i need to change my mind.

hahahah i cant stop. listen, since we will never convince each other hows about agreeing to disagree, on this one-of-infinite topics and concerns?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

We certainly don't have to agree. You certainly don't have to be familiar with recent American history, either. Was the Voting Rights Act a piece of legislation or not. What about the Civil Rights Act? What about Gay marriage in various States? Did they simply happen, poof, out of a wish, or were they dependent upon legislators having passed them into law?

Did Roe v Wade become law or not? Could it have been adjudicated by a majority of judges appointed by the right wing? Behaviors are regulated by law. Law is made by legislatures. Rights are upheld, expanded, or denied by the courts. Popular support influences these issues and it is real, but voting implements the results.

[-] 0 points by buik6 (18) 2 years ago

at this point, having tried the respectable and reasonable approach without avail, it is time for me to tell you this: suck my dick

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You have tried no such thing. You have simply ignored what has been said and repeated historically unfounded declarations.

You have no need for me to suck you dick. You are doing a pretty good job masturbating all by yourself.

[-] -3 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

obama is the occupy candidiate.