If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Something I find interesting is that the protest is not anti-capitalist, despite the fact that the 1% are where they are because they have been most able to take advantage of the laissez-faire capitalist system. Most of the North American occupiers, anyway, support capitalism.
I'm not sure if there can be any substantial change, so long as the main features of capitalist economics hold sway. So I think that although the protest movement may be able to keep its momentum, despite establishment curtailment of occupier strategies, I fear it will lead to very little real reform.
Something I find interesting is that the protest is not anti-capitalist, despite the fact that the 1% are where they are because they have been most able to take advantage of the laissez-faire capitalist system. Most of the North American occupiers, anyway, support capitalism.
I'm not sure if there can be any substantial change, so long as the main features of capitalist economics hold sway. So I think that although the protest movement may be able to keep its momentum, despite establishment curtailment of occupier strategies, I fear it will lead to very little real reform.
Bob A.
To misquote Churchill, the occupiers seem to be willing to accept that: Capitalism is the worst system, except for all those other systems that have been tried. Their continued occupation, or whatever it morphs into, is constant reminder to fix the system. You might want to call it a conservative non-revolution. At least that's how I see it from the outside. If events (or non-events) convince that capitalism can't be fixed ... they can double that bidge when they come to it.
Something I find interesting is that the protest is not anti-capitalist, despite the fact that the 1% are where they are because they have been most able to take advantage of the laissez-faire capitalist system. Most of the North American occupiers, anyway, support capitalism.
Is the idea a redistribution of wealth and then captialism later?
Capitalism is "I've got mine. Get off your a$$ and get yours." You figure the occupiers support this? They already have it.
The current capitalist/government taxation system favours those who already have wealth - obvious - all studies show that the gap between rich and poor is getting wider - and the top part is going up still, while the bottom part is going down.
Ask the 20-somethings what their employment future seems to hold for most of them! And it seems to apply as well to the 30-somethings. They forsee a series of part-time, seasonal, short-term contract, supply replacement, positions, with no benefits.
Our system is broken where wealth newly created migrates up and there is no distribution downward and it leaves the bottom scrambling.
Bob A
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Wednesday, 16th November, 2011, 10:14 PM.
Our system is broken where wealth newly created migrates up and there is no distribution downward and it leaves the bottom scrambling.
Bob A
How come so many businesses being targeted are non-union?
I've noticed while driving around that many of the industrial and commercial places where I used to do service work are gone. Some of the buildings have been removed. I guess tax on vacant land is less. Wages in other countries lower.
I'm probably in the lower 10 or 5 percent of the 99%. I don't support the movement because I don't blame society for this.
Some of those people interviewed on TV at the demonstrations aren't what I consider hard done by. They have good jobs and make big money. Funny how that works.
Paul, but you are so EXTREME. :) But understandably so, residing in the USA, you are in the belly of the beast. You should come back to Canada!
Awareness is not the endgame. It is just the opening. From some of the posts I see, we clearly are still in the awareness phase for many.
Freezing our butts off in the cold doesn't sound very 99% to me. Sounds like the extreme 1% of the 99%, and it would be too easy to brand it as such. Better to keep the protests for the mainstream 99%, protest marches on the weekend, internet campaigns, town hall meetings.
Reform by peaceful protest is possible.
Bob, I think you misunderstood. I wasn't implying that violence and anarchy were MY goals. I really don't identify with protest movements because their tactics are all wrong. Just as an example: last night, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow (not sure if that's the correct spelling) on her nightly show put on a clip from 1964 of a civil rights protester making an impassioned speech on some open plaza at a California university as police tried to arrest fellow protesters. The plaza now bears his name, and on that very same plaza sometime in the last week, police were arresting Wall Street protesters.
The names, faces, and even the causes may change, but the result is always the same. You can go so far, until finally the police move in and arrest you. They don't care or learn from history, or whose name the plaza bears or why, they are just there to arrest you on behalf of the elite.
Reform by peaceful protest IS possible.... so is sharpening a brand new pencil with a marshmallow. It's never been done, but that doesn't make it impossible.
BTW, I mentioned that the 1964 protest was for civil rights, and today we supposedly have many of those civil rights (which can and will be taken away from you at any time). But any success of that movement didn't come from peaceful means alone. There was plenty of violence and civil disobedience along the way, including some of the methods I would advocate (boycotts).
I believe that in their heart of hearts, the hard-core Wall Street protesters are fully aware that they are leading a movement towards violence. They know it's coming and they want it to come, that is why they must continue the occupations. They are smart enough to know that just pitching tents for even a couple of months and then going home doesn't get it done.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Isn't it far too early to be talking about true goals. This 'movement', as people refer to it, is far too fragmented at this point for anyone to draw reliable conclusions about goals and consequences.
... and a good social services safety net!!
For some reason this reminds me of the riots that took place in Watts in 1965. I always wondered why the rioters mainly destroyed homes and businesses in their own neighbourhoods rather than doing the damage in predominantly white neighbourhoods. What you're suggesting in the preceding quote seems similar because it's a shotgun approach; i.e. the 99% would be hurting many of their own numbers in a general, non-necessity spending strike. I think it would be more effective if the 99% could target specific corporations for, say, a day or a week at a time as a demonstration of their 'wallet power'; i.e. put the fear into the elite regarding the reliability of their cash flow. Practically speaking, of course, the odds against the 99% being able to act in a concerted fashion are astronomical.
I don't get what you are saying about it being too early to talk about goals. Can you elaborate on this?
What I'm saying is, no one who knows what they are doing starts a company without having a mission statement; the company is being created to DO something. Similarly with a protest movement. Sure, this Wall Street one is fragmented because it's drawn in all the fringe elements as Bob has described. But the core of it definitely has at least one goal, and I think the primary one is to see some justice meted out for the consequences of the financial free-for-all of 2007/08, and some meaningful reforms to ensure it can't happen again.
You are probably right that the 99% would be doing themselves some harm by going into a non-necessities spending strike. Jobs would be lost, companies would cut back. But the alternative is the status quo, and that is quite obviously leading us to hell in a handbasket. Better, I think, to at least put up a fight for what you believe in: a society that is more than just hedonistic, more than the pursuit of capital from frivolous meaningless activities, that allocates significant resources, in fact the majority of resources, to the betterment of society in general.
Perhaps your more targeted approach would be better tactically. I like it.
BTW, there is almost no social services safety net in the U.S. by comparison to Canada. I think Michael Moore put out a documentary about U.S. health care that pretty much details that (although I haven't yet seen it).
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
BTW, I mentioned that the 1964 protest was for civil rights, and today we supposedly have many of those civil rights (which can and will be taken away from you at any time). But any success of that movement didn't come from peaceful means alone. There was plenty of violence and civil disobedience along the way, including some of the methods I would advocate (boycotts).
I believe that in their heart of hearts, the hard-core Wall Street protesters are fully aware that they are leading a movement towards violence. They know it's coming and they want it to come, that is why they must continue the occupations. They are smart enough to know that just pitching tents for even a couple of months and then going home doesn't get it done.
Paul, I agree. Some degree of violence is inevitable.
I just hope it is 90% peaceful, rather than 90% violence.
The mostly peaceful route will garner more public support and have a better chance for success. We will see.
Something I find interesting is that the protest is not anti-capitalist, despite the fact that the 1% are where they are because they have been most able to take advantage of the laissez-faire capitalist system. Most of the North American occupiers, anyway, support capitalism.
I'm not sure if there can be any substantial change, so long as the main features of capitalist economics hold sway. So I think that although the protest movement may be able to keep its momentum, despite establishment curtailment of occupier strategies, I fear it will lead to very little real reform.
Bob A.
I don't understand how you can say that? By definition capitalism allows for individual wealth and allows for wide disparities in wealth. If I'm a Steve Jobs or Bill Gates and am behind something that sells well then I become wealthy. If I'm a Martin Sheen and can make 1 million per episode then that will happen to. Requiring that everyone be in a narrow income range of each other is a hallmark of communism. Communism has never turned out well for anyone. As well the protestors would like to see the disappearance of the source of capital in our business system - namely the banks and stock exchanges. If that's not anti-capitalism then what is?
Last edited by Zeljko Kitich; Thursday, 17th November, 2011, 11:22 AM.
I think it is not exactly clear what type of modified capitalist system the " Occupy " movement wants to get to - I think they have no clue of the actual details yet - they are dealing in concepts at the moment ( an OK phase ).
But whatever they want, it isn't communism, nor are they communists ( though a small minority are ). Look at the wide range of protesters from the 99%, which is a big bag.
Bob A
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Thursday, 17th November, 2011, 11:40 AM.
I think it is not exactly clear what type of modified capitalist system the " Occupy " movement wants to get to - I think they have no clue of the actual details yet - they are dealing in concepts at the moment ( an OK phase ).
But whatever they want, it isn't communism, nor are they communists ( though a small minority are ). Look at the wide range of protesters from the 99%, which is a big bag.
Bob A
Granted there are many voices coming from the group but no one has ever taken a survey as to who they are and what their belief systems are. They are may not consider themselves communists but if their demands align with what communism doctrine would indicate then if it looks like a red duck, quacks like a red duck then I suggest it's a red duck.
According to what you are suggesting they haven't thought anything through and don't know what they want to see as an end result? I would think some of them would have thought about this sort of stuff already. I mean they've had 3 years since the financial crisis of 2008 to work something out.
Anyone trying to explain what the group wants should realize that they are but one voice in the mix and can no more define what the occupy movement wants then any other members of the movement.
However, those who are actually part of the movement, the one sleeping in the parks are probably more qualified as to having a say rather than someone peripheral to the movement who may have say marched in one protest etc.
I think it is not exactly clear what type of modified capitalist system the " Occupy " movement wants to get to - I think they have no clue of the actual details yet - they are dealing in concepts at the moment ( an OK phase ).
But whatever they want, it isn't communism, nor are they communists ( though a small minority are ). Look at the wide range of protesters from the 99%, which is a big bag.
Bob A
Excellent summary Bob A. You have clearly done your homework.
I think it is fair to add that various voices have specific details in mind, but that the movement as a whole have not agreed on specific demands. Otherwise the comment "have no clue" could be misinterpreted.
OWS does have the support of leading economists, Jeffrey Sachs, Michael Hudson, Joseph Stiglitz, and Paul Krugman. The 1% may characterize them as left leading, but certainly not communists.
Excellent summary Bob A. You have clearly done your homework.
I think it is fair to add that various voices have specific details in mind, but that the movement as a whole have not agreed on specific demands. Otherwise the comment "have no clue" could be misinterpreted.
OWS does have the support of leading economists, Jeffrey Sachs, Michael Hudson, Joseph Stiglitz, and Paul Krugman. The 1% may characterize them as left leading, but certainly not communists.
They are not in the process of agreeing on specific demands, nor will they likely ever. This is a movement where you have to listen to individual voices and not just armchair protestors that pontificate on what the movement is or is not. Each of the economists you quote would like to see certain changes made but that does not mean that those are the changes the OWS protestors want to see or agree on. It's nice that academics chip in their two cents as to what the protestors want without having to leave the comfort of their offices. The academics are part of the cozy 1%, if you will, while the 99% of protestors are out slogging away. It doesn't really matter what the opinion of those 4 economists are, they don't get to decide what the movement is nor do their personal political views define the movement. I've read enough writings from various activists (I'm on an email distribution list as it happens) to have an understanding of what their views are and those views go way beyond what someone with a PhD behind his name voices.
Tweet
Comment