Distinguishing between OWS and the Tea Party...

[theprestige]

It depends on your ideological goggles and priorities. If you are unconcerned about the alleged crimes of wall street, the financial institutions and the failure to investigate and prosecute the crimes (if crime happened and I think it clearly did, JMO) then OWS is silly and absurd.

I propose that it is possible to be silly and absurd even if you are concerned, and even if your concerns are legitimate. I further propose that the OWS movement has, in general, actualized this possibility. I finally propose that no amount of harping on whatever real and legitimate concerns you believe OWS has, will detract one iota from the silliness and absurdity of the movement.

tl;dr: having concerns is not an antidote for silliness and absurdity.

 

[leftysergeant]

OWS people don't pack heat in an inflamatory manner and do not advocate the 2nd Amendment Solution if we don't elect some drongo that they wanted for congress.

 

[RandFan]

I propose that it is possible to be silly and absurd even if you are concerned, and even if your concerns are legitimate. I further propose that the OWS movement has, in general, actualized this possibility. I finally propose that no amount of harping on whatever real and legitimate concerns you believe OWS has, will detract one iota from the silliness and absurdity of the movement.

tl;dr: having concerns is not an antidote for silliness and absurdity.

Yeah, you have a point. I remember the sillingess and absurdity of the civil rights movement, those who marched and protested against the war, those who fought for women's rights, gay rights, to end segregation. No amount of harping on whatever real and legitimate concerns anyone believed the civil rights movement had could detract on iota from the silliness and absurdity of the movement.

BTW: Your entire post is based on an argument by assertion. A red letter day for the JREF. Thanks for that.

 

[Robrob]

Apparently the worst thing anyone can find to say about OWS is they are silly?

That's a thousand times better than being pistol packing, anti-government nut jobs who advocate murdering the opposition and overthrowing democracy.

 

[portlandatheist]

OWS people don't pack heat in an inflamatory manner and do not advocate the 2nd Amendment Solution if we don't elect some drongo that they wanted for congress.

So you feel much differently about occupiers with loaded hand guns, swords, and explosives, right?

 

[leftysergeant]

So you feel much differently about occupiers with loaded hand guns, swords, and explosives, right?

Sounds like you have a serious problem with anarchists in portland. Please do not confuse those freaks with liberals. They are just teatards who didn't make it in the labor or financial market.

 

[Virus]

Apparently the worst thing anyone can find to say about OWS is they are silly?

That's a thousand times better than being pistol packing, anti-government nut jobs who advocate murdering the opposition and overthrowing democracy.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Hey maybe not all of the OWS members believe in spirit channelling I get it. But when things like this are getting people fired up at the rally, it's safe to laugh.

Or when a hippie named "Lotus" puts her 4 year old on the train tracks and thinks that somehow makes sense, it's safe to laugh.

 

[AlBell]

...

I remember the sillingess and absurdity of the civil rights movement, those who marched and protested against the war, those who fought for women's rights, gay rights, to end segregation.
...

Yup. The sillingess and absurdity of OWS is that they have no such definable, shared, goals.

I do recall at least one poster here who cherry-picked signs from photos & youtubes pretending those were 'wide-spread ideals' of OWS.

 

[dc1971]

Hey maybe not all of the OWS members believe in spirit channelling I get it. But when things like this are getting people fired up at the rally, it's safe to laugh.

But getting people fired up about carrying guns and resorting to "2nd amendment solutions" is perfectly fine?

 

[dc1971]

Considering I took several classes, I'll give you a little education on video production... This is simple 101 stuff...

The previous video has been subjected to what is known as EDITING. To edit means to change the context of a document, film, publication, or in this case... VIDEO.

If this video WAS NOT edited, then you would have what is known as RAW FOOTAGE... I will suggest to look up that phrase yourself. I know you're quite capable of looking this stuff up considering... well... you are most likely sitting in front of a computer right now.

When editing a video, you take RAW FOOTAGE and cut out any parts of such footage that you feel might not fit the context of a story or in this case a point you're trying to get across. As for how the above video plays, I'm certain that there was a story the YouTube poster was trying to get across. However lame that story is, they had to resort to editing in order to make it happen!

In the meantime, you should do a google search for video editing. I'm sure you will find some of the material that is available on the inter-webs quite fascinating.

Good luck and go get 'em tiger! GRRRR!

 

[Robrob]

Considering I took several classes, I'll give you a little education on video production... This is simple 101 stuff...

The previous video has been subjected to what is known as EDITING. To edit means to change the context of a document, film, publication, or in this case... VIDEO.

The first clue is the video has screen credits for the two producers!

 

[RandFan]

Yup. The sillingess and absurdity of OWS is that they have no such definable, shared, goals.

Which is a lie. BTW: Many of the goals of OWS are the same as the civil rights marchers. Many were communist and wanted to end capitialism. You are selectively remembering (I don't know how old you are). I was born in 1961 and I remember the calls for overthrowing the govt, the calls for ending capitalism. The communes (do you even know about that?). Ever hear of Turn on, tune in, drop out?

I'm sorry but your idyllic revisionist history is nonsense. There were MANY ideas and contradictions.

 

[Pardalis]

If this video WAS NOT edited, then you would have what is known as RAW FOOTAGE...

It's rather boring to watch through hours of unedited footage of an event. Edited or not, these things depicted in the video occurred, do yo deny that?

 

[dc1971]

It's rather boring to watch through hours of unedited footage of an event. Edited or not, these things depicted in the video occurred, do yo deny that?

Oh Pardalis, tsk tsk tsk, you kind yet feeble soul!

What happened in that video was typical of anarchists and how they feel things should be solved. Whoever the producer is, they decided to cherry pick this and call it the work of the OWS. Anarchists are not representative of the OWS, fortunately!

However, if I was with a group of people chanting "**** the police" I would probably be joining in with as much volume and with as much pride!

 

[dc1971]

Which is a lie. BTW: Many of the goals of OWS are the same as the civil rights marchers.

Many of the goals of the OWS are that of the Tea Party too. The problem with the tea party is that Fox News and Dick Armey got involved and turned it into a talking point-three ring circus.

Google "Dylan Ratigan Andrew Breitbart" and you will see what I mean.

 

[dc1971]

The first clue is the video has screen credits for the two producers!

Explain that to Virus. I'm not sure if he (she?) understands!

 

[TJM]

Anarchists are not representative of the OWS, fortunately!

But in yet another poor decision, OWS let them march alongside them.

To their credit however, some of the OWS did intervene when the anarchists started their usual BS. Too little, too late though - a better decision would've been to tell them to **** off when they showed up.

 

[dc1971]

But in yet another poor decision, OWS let them march alongside them.

To their credit however, some of the OWS did intervene when the anarchists started their usual BS. Too little, too late though - a better decision would've been to tell them to **** off when they showed up.

Well then... maybe it's here where I should say that there are times violence needs to happen in order to get a point across!

 

[TJM]

Well then... maybe it's here where I should say that there are times violence needs to happen in order to get a point across!

So violence is OK so long as it serves your purpose.

Un ******* believable.