We disagree about OWS, let's leave it at that...

dc1971 said:
Maybe you should make mention of that to Virus, Ziggurat, and yourself!
Click to expand...
NO U? Really?

I haven't used a single exclamation mark over the course of this thread.

You couldn't even stay neutral for the OP, and started using !s by your first post, and CAPS by your second.
 
stilicho said:
This is part of the problem that the supporters of OWS don't understand. It isn't just "right wingers" who don't like the group and think they are a disorganised mob with no perceptible aims, no identifiable leaders, and nothing to offer a civilised political debate. There was a smattering of empathy for them, in their early days, from civic leaders, business leaders, union leaders, and many other people who could have provided them support and guidance.

And they had one of the best marketing slogans in recent memory.

What did they do with it? They pissed it all down the drain and united everyone--leftists, centrists, rightists--business people and unions--educators and police--renters and property owners--net debtors and net creditors--against them. This is practically a first in the history of political movements. The OWS and the various Occupy movement have almost deliberately marginalised themselves into the same category as the Aryan Nations, LaRouchists, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Marxist-Leninists. None of those starry-eyed sociology students from upstate New York are ever going to include their participation in this train wreck on their resume without a substantial disclaimer about their withdrawal before it degenerated into a howling pack of violent criminals.
Click to expand...

That's about it. It's true that if you want people to notice you, you need numbers. However, it's just idiotic to pad your numbers with all the kooks, vagrants, and rabble-rousers you can find and then not expect people to notice who they are. And if you preach accountability, you don't get to say "not our fault" when those people start causing trouble.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Wow, the privilege in this thread is so thick it's suffocating.
Click to expand...

Wow, aren't we super serious?

Though I kinda gotta laugh that you think making fun of white, middle class college kids who decided to camp in my park against the man is the result of "privilege."
 
Last edited:
cambion said:
Though I kinda gotta laugh that you think making fun of white, middle class college kids who decided to camp in my park against the man is the result of "privilege."
Click to expand...

Well, they aren't all kids, and they aren't all middle class. There is demographic data, if you're actually interested. The middle class and the rich make up 30%, 1/3 of them are over the age of 35, and 1/5 are over 45. (And yes, they are predominately European-American.)

But, in any case, what does that have to do with their message? This is all just poisoning the well, a tactic commonly used to divide people and prevent a real dialog about issues.

who decided to camp in my park
Click to expand...
Wow, you own a park in New York? How did you get ahold of that?
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
No. The important thing is not that I recognize my superiority to "absolutely everyone in the world" or thinking I am "so above everyone". The point is that I find very little to engage with from either group and that I don't need to show any respect for two such movements which demonstrate almost nothing of a coherent message but seem to react very strongly to being dismissed as an incoherent rabble.
Click to expand...

Seems like lots of very successful and intelligent people are taking these groups very seriously, to me. Journalists, public officials, academia, even heads of state. It's true that they're more or less incoherent, but most public movements are; the civil rights movement, the '60s anti-war protesters, and the Egyptian protesters during the Arab Spring weren't exactly professionals.

So I ask you, what credentials do you have to discredit significant political movements, besides posting on an internet forum?
 
madfoot said:
Seems like lots of very successful and intelligent people are taking these groups very seriously, to me. Journalists, public officials, academia, even heads of state. It's true that they're more or less incoherent, but most public movements are; the civil rights movement, the '60s anti-war protesters, and the Egyptian protesters during the Arab Spring weren't exactly professionals.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word incoherent. All of the movements you mention had tangible goals that could be expressed in a few words: equal rights, an end to the Vietnam War, and increased democracy, respectively. OWS on the other hand had was a protest in search of a goal. Maybe you could argue that they wanted an end to capitalism, although I'm sure that you'd get some pretty stiff disagreement on that from some of their supporters.
 
You could start by not smashing up city hall, burning the flag and advocating rule by communes.
 
madfoot said:
Seems like lots of very successful and intelligent people are taking these groups very seriously, to me. Journalists, public officials, academia, even heads of state. It's true that they're more or less incoherent, but most public movements are; the civil rights movement, the '60s anti-war protesters, and the Egyptian protesters during the Arab Spring weren't exactly professionals.

So I ask you, what credentials do you have to discredit significant political movements, besides posting on an internet forum?
Click to expand...


I don't find the Civil Rights movement incoherent at all. It was certainly true that it included disparate elements which often disagreed on tactics. But I haven't seen any figures in the Occupy movement comparable to A Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin, Martin Luther King or Ralphe Bunche and find offensive the suggestion that the aforementioned could be considered as incoherent as the Occupy movement.

If you do have someone in mind that really gives full and coherent expression to its aims then please link me to them and let me hear them for myself.

As for what credentials I have to "discredit significant political movements", the answer is I have none and don't need any. They discredit themselves so any effort on my part would be purely superfluous.

Also, I don't have to pay attention to them just because "lots of very successful and intelligent people are taking these groups very seriously". That's their choice. I don't really care that "journalists, public officials, academia, even heads of state" take the Tea Party and the Occupy Movements seriously. It doesn't mean I need to. And I won't.
 
madfoot said:
Seems like lots of very successful and intelligent people are taking these groups very seriously, to me. Journalists, public officials, academia, even heads of state.
Click to expand...

The same could be said of people who were useful idiots for the Soviet Union.
 
angrysoba said:
As for what credentials I have to "discredit significant political movements", the answer is I have none and don't need any. They discredit themselves so any effort on my part would be purely superfluous.
Click to expand...

As for what credentials I have to "prove I read minds", the answer is I have none and don't need any. My ability to read minds is proof in itself.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
As for what credentials I have to "prove I read minds", the answer is I have none and don't need any. My ability to read minds is proof in itself.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct: credentials are irrelevant to mind reading. Nobody with any sense asks for credentials when evaluating mind reading. What they ask for is actual mind reading. Which, despite your attempted sarcasm, you can't actually do.

OWS has actually been discredited. But you're wrong to blame angrysoba. OWS discredited themselves.
 
Just to be boring, let's look at the meaning of the word, "discredit"

1. To damage in reputation; disgrace.
2. To cause to be doubted or distrusted.
3. To refuse to believe.
Click to expand...

How, have I damaged the Occupy movement's reputation? How have I disgraced it? How have I caused it to be doubted or distrusted?

I have made no smears against the Occupy Movement. I don't even say "Occutards". So why accuse me of discrediting the Occupy Movement?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom