Printable View
Wow I gotta say you guys sure have a LOT of hipsters. Clever of them to make use of the most-attention grabbing tactic at their disposal ie. cause trouble where the money is. You know it's weird how you harp on about them being privileged iphone-flashing kids. Relevance? Apart from just letting you patronise people you disagree with that is.
Thank glod for wikipedia or I'd have no idea what this was about:
Quote:
Occupy Wall Street is an ongoing demonstration[3] opposing corruptive corporate influence over U.S. politics, the monied corruption of democracy[4] and a lack of legal repercussions over the global financial crisis.
...
The aim of the demonstration is to begin a sustained occupation of Wall Street, the financial district of New York City, to protest perceived corporate greed and social inequality. Organizers intend for the occupation to last "as long as it takes to meet our demands." Demands are in the process of being negotiated and developed.
the Adbusters Media Foundation, best known for its advertisement-free anti-consumerist magazine called Adbusters, proposed a peaceful occupation of Wall Street in protest against the current leadership, U.S. politics and the failure to prevent or make effective changes in the global financial crisis.
According to Adbusters, a primary protest organizer, the central demand of the protest is that President Barack Obama "ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence money has over our representatives in Washington."
The protest has been criticized for its lack of focus and actionable agenda. In an article that was critical of the protesters, Ginia Bellafante wrote in The New York Times: "The group’s lack of cohesion and its apparent wish to pantomime progressivism rather than practice it knowledgably is unsettling in the face of the challenges so many of its generation face — finding work, repaying student loans, figuring out ways to finish college when money has run out."[15][16] Glenn Greenwald responded to this criticism, writing :
The desire to form a more coherent agenda was evident around the 13th day of the occupation, with sentiment in the encampment generally split along two lines: those who want the protest to remain amorphous and to grow through spectacle; and those who want to draft focused demands about wealth disparity.[18]Quote:
"Does anyone really not know what the basic message is of this protest: that Wall Street is oozing corruption and criminality and its unrestrained political power—in the form of crony capitalism and ownership of political institutions—is destroying financial security for everyone else?"[17]
The movement is centered upon the statement: “the one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%,”
The protesters' messages seem to be varied with a variety of demands such as raising taxes on the rich, raising taxes on corporations, ending corporate welfare, support for trade unionism, and protecting Medicare and Social Security in their traditional forms. Libertarians who are protesting want to end the Federal Reserve, end corporatism, end all wars, and are protesting the execution of Troy Davis.
Canadian writer Naomi Klein supported the protest, saying, "This is not the time to be looking for ways to dismiss a nascent movement against the power of capital, but to do the opposite: to find ways to embrace it, support it and help it grow into its enormous potential. With so much at stake, cynicism is a luxury we simply cannot afford."
Educator and author Cornel West addressed the frustrations that some critics have expressed at the protest’s lack of a clear and unified message, saying:
It’s impossible to translate the issue of the greed of Wall Street into one demand, or two demands. We’re talking about a democratic awakening...you’re talking about raising political consciousness so it spills over all parts of the country, so people can begin to see what’s going on through a set of different lens, and then you begin to highlight what the more detailed demands would be. Because in the end we’re really talking about what Martin King would call a revolution: A transfer of power from oligarchs to everyday people of all colors. And that is a step by step process.[57]
These dumbfucks *are* the privileged class they're ostensibly protesting against; they're just jealous that they don't have the fabulous wealth that some more privileged people have. They're petulant children, complaining that some other kid got a little more ice cream than they did... and while this is in the nature of children (and democratic politics, it seems), it's hardly a sound basis to craft political change or constitutional amendments on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Where would you place them on Loki's income graph? And it's a good thing someone has the time, the money and the energy to protest :o
3rd and 4th quintile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Damn straight. Otherwise there wouldn't be anything funny on the news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
So we're not really talking about just a little more ice-cream are we, and also congrats on having some fabulously rich 20-year-olds in that country of yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Sure we are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
A) NYC.
B) They're still "students," and as Dread pointed out, they're hipsters who live off their parents, and thus, "count" (or don't as they case may be) as dependents under their parents, and live off of their parents' income. Parents who are undoubtedly 4th quintile for being able to send their children to college in NYC.
Yeah, I saw that graph, you clearly don't understand the meaning of "little" (now look what you made me say :mad: ) even if we assume they're only fighting for their own quintiles. It'd be even more fun to see the graphs on asset-distribution :oQuote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
I'd like to see the demographic dataQuote:
Thanks!
A) NYC.
B) They're still "students," and as Dread pointed out, they're hipsters who live off their parents, and thus, "count" (or don't as they case may be) as dependents under their parents, and live off of their parents' income. Parents who are undoubtedly 4th quintile for being able to send their children to college in NYC.
So now we're complaining that the kid whose father owns the ice cream store gets ice cream anytime he wants? :cry: How unfair! It's almost as if life isn't inherently fair or something... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I doubt that's the case, since once you saw it, and had proof that these protesters are all well above the median and average incomes for the country, you'd have to come up with some reason why it doesn't matter, in order to square things with your highly socialist world view. Sounds like a lot of work to me, hence I doubt you truly do want what you say you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Cain and Fuzzy may be aggressive, but they outline and try to justify their views in detail. You have a habit of sniping at people. You snipe cleverly, but it's still just sniping at what other people say. Your reluctance to stick your neck out there just makes you seem extraordinarily thin-skinned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
So no one has ever patronized the Tea Party and called them "racist"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I am criticizing these hipsters because they are wasting space. That the best they can do is make loud, incoherent rants about a system that has mostly benefitted them. If they were clearly and definitely supporting a real policy that would be one thing —*this country has a long tradition of activism to promote certain causes.
But Occupy Wall Street is just a bunch of misdirected angst by people too young or immature to realize that economies stumble.
You're putting cain in the same class as Fuzzy? :haha: no
And therefore nefarious and evil? I cannot influence your life in any way, so by moderating my discourse on political issues I'm not doing you any disservice (in other threads you'd argue it the other way around, in fact!), I'm just saving everyone a whole lot of trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Again I ask, are you the same man who said he "liked reading [my] essays"? I haven't made a secret of what I think of matters, but the conversation that followed my explanation thereof was never fruitful and was almost always hurtful. I'm not gonna lie and pretend this forum somehow deeply hurt my feelings or made me change my views, but I'm almost people-savvy enough to know my audience; there's nothing to be gained in being the left-wing mouth-piece in here, the "community leaders" will ridicule you and the prominent jackals shoot down discussion with dishonest tactics. So why not be one of the jackals instead?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I also find it amusing that in your opinion Kain justifies his views in detail, when recently most of his activity has centered around calling everyone else a racist.
Why do you think lolli or, say, Unheard Of, hasn't posted in D&D in a while? I doubt either have adopted strong, favourable opinions on uncle Reagan and auntie Thatcher.
lost in the analogy? :bulb: anyway the third and fourth quintiles (which you claim these people belong to) are still not The Enemy. The Enemy is not a person, the Enemy is a Corrupt System.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
And that's how we LOVE it :D :D :D way to rob a discussion of its content genius.Quote:
How unfair! It's almost as if life isn't inherently fair or something... :rolleyes:
I would like to see it just to see how truthful you guys are about that particular matter. It doesn't matter one whit if they're privileged kids because I love it that privileged kids are protesting injustice. They're among the ones who can take the risk :o way to assume things genius. Why would I want them to be impoverished? :bulb:Quote:
I doubt that's the case, since once you saw it, and had proof that these protesters are all well above the median and average incomes for the country, you'd have to come up with some reason why it doesn't matter, in order to square things with your highly socialist world view. Sounds like a lot of work to me, hence I doubt you truly do want what you say you do.
I'm sure they have but how is that relevant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Okay fine if we can make them write in paragraphs will you concede that being benefitted by a corrupt or broken or dangerous system doesn't remove your right or your obligation to protest it? Meanwhile Cain can rant about the gummint and the cops and how they should be shot :haha:Quote:
I am criticizing these hipsters because they are wasting space. That the best they can do is make loud, incoherent rants about a system that has mostly benefitted them.
So you'll love them once they've become more clear? :heart: Of course you won't. The issue isn't with their clarity or with their present lack of focus, the issue is with every single one of their principal grievances. That's what you're opposed to. Everything else just follows from your fundamental disagreement with their view of what may be wrong. Okay, so I guess you love Wall Street or something.Quote:
If they were clearly and definitely supporting a real policy that would be one thing —*this country has a long tradition of activism to promote certain causes.
...Quote:
But Occupy Wall Street is just a bunch of misdirected angst by people too young or immature to realize that economies stumble.
Quote:
Occupy Wall Street is an ongoing demonstration[3] opposing corruptive corporate influence over U.S. politics, the monied corruption of democracy[4] and a lack of legal repercussions over the global financial crisis.
...
The aim of the demonstration is to begin a sustained occupation of Wall Street, the financial district of New York City, to protest perceived corporate greed and social inequality. Organizers intend for the occupation to last "as long as it takes to meet our demands." Demands are in the process of being negotiated and developed.
the Adbusters Media Foundation, best known for its advertisement-free anti-consumerist magazine called Adbusters, proposed a peaceful occupation of Wall Street in protest against the current leadership, U.S. politics and the failure to prevent or make effective changes in the global financial crisis.
According to Adbusters, a primary protest organizer, the central demand of the protest is that President Barack Obama "ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence money has over our representatives in Washington."
The protest has been criticized for its lack of focus and actionable agenda. In an article that was critical of the protesters, Ginia Bellafante wrote in The New York Times: "The group’s lack of cohesion and its apparent wish to pantomime progressivism rather than practice it knowledgably is unsettling in the face of the challenges so many of its generation face — finding work, repaying student loans, figuring out ways to finish college when money has run out."[15][16] Glenn Greenwald responded to this criticism, writing :
"Does anyone really not know what the basic message is of this protest: that Wall Street is oozing corruption and criminality and its unrestrained political power—in the form of crony capitalism and ownership of political institutions—is destroying financial security for everyone else?"[17]
The desire to form a more coherent agenda was evident around the 13th day of the occupation, with sentiment in the encampment generally split along two lines: those who want the protest to remain amorphous and to grow through spectacle; and those who want to draft focused demands about wealth disparity.[18]
The movement is centered upon the statement: “the one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%,”
The protesters' messages seem to be varied with a variety of demands such as raising taxes on the rich, raising taxes on corporations, ending corporate welfare, support for trade unionism, and protecting Medicare and Social Security in their traditional forms. Libertarians who are protesting want to end the Federal Reserve, end corporatism, end all wars, and are protesting the execution of Troy Davis.
Canadian writer Naomi Klein supported the protest, saying, "This is not the time to be looking for ways to dismiss a nascent movement against the power of capital, but to do the opposite: to find ways to embrace it, support it and help it grow into its enormous potential. With so much at stake, cynicism is a luxury we simply cannot afford."
Educator and author Cornel West addressed the frustrations that some critics have expressed at the protest’s lack of a clear and unified message, saying:
Quote:
It’s impossible to translate the issue of the greed of Wall Street into one demand, or two demands. We’re talking about a democratic awakening...you’re talking about raising political consciousness so it spills over all parts of the country, so people can begin to see what’s going on through a set of different lens, and then you begin to highlight what the more detailed demands would be. Because in the end we’re really talking about what Martin King would call a revolution: A transfer of power from oligarchs to everyday people of all colors. And that is a step by step process.[57]
The Corrupt System that places these whiners in the top percentile of world wealth? Yeah. Say, this Corrupt System you speak of... might it be run by scheming Zionists, perhaps?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Oh, my apologies. I though you'd mentally progressed to the level of a 5 year old, and understood that life is inherently "unfair" and that there's nothing that can be done to change that. If/when you progress to that level, let me know, and maybe we can have a constructive discussion, and not one where you rage against the wind and command the waves to cease.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I thought maybe you'd prefer "your" side to have a whit of credibility, but if you're happier to align yourself with a bunch of spoiled hypocrites who are too stupid to see that they're really protesting themselves, well, that's definitely one way to go, I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Wait now they've moved up to the top??! Stop the presses American class mobility caught in rare live footage :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
I long ago realised you'd never progress to the level of an adult that realises life is unfair and that there are things we can do to change some of that unfairness, esp. by understanding how and why life is unfair. It's among the things that've enabled modern human civilisation but perhaps that's why you don't get it :bulb:Quote:
Oh, my apologies. I though you'd mentally progressed to the level of a 5 year old, and understood that life is inherently "unfair" and that there's nothing that can be done to change that. If/when you progress to that level, let me know, and maybe we can have a constructive discussion, and not one where you rage against the wind and command the waves to cease.
Why? :bulb: What makes you think I share your ideas on "credibility" and "hypocrisy"? :bulb: "Credibility" and "hypocrisy" are totally irrelevant except to, well, suckers such as Dread and yourself. You know very well why you harp on about those things. It's because you can't resist muddying up the waters with irrelevant things if it also means casting aspersions on an opponent's character. I'm not glad to see Loki's handed over the job of hypocrite-calling to such inadequate successors.Quote:
I thought maybe you'd prefer "your" side to have a whit of credibility
Hypocrisy is the dumbest angle to pursue. You would do better to show that the things they are protesting are in fact benefitting your country as a whole more than anything else would. Maybe that's true. Hey, you make a good enough case and they may instead go off to protest the one thing that's made them--and you--more privileged than anything else in the world, namely the State.
Seems like your reading skills have devolved significantly during your self-righteous frenzy.
Should you wish to re-read my post and respond to what I actually said, please feel free to do so.
My apologies, I missed the part about "world wealth", everything else stands (your stuff falls). Also, you can't comment on reading skills, considering your own track record. Hypocrite much?
This persecution complex is unbecoming. You're acting like you're being forced into not posting because there are people who may actively disagree with you. Agree or disagree with his logic, but Cain devoted a few paragraphs to explaining his view and more posts to defending it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
That's not being a jackal. As you seem to acknowledge, you're being more of a jackal here.
As if you have no habits of demonizing those who may disagree with you? I make no secret that I wouldn't agree with these people if they had a specific policy view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
But I especially dislike them because their demands are so immature, vague and mushy. "We want justice, jobs, rainbows, etc." They are basically demanding a perfect world. The only unifying theme so far is the idea that higher taxes will somehow magically make their lives better.
But posting a Wikipedia summary of these protests is hardly going to convince me that there is a specific policy being advocated here. These protests are deliberately pointless.
Look, between you and Wiki, Wiki strikes me as the most reliable and the least biased source when it comes to figuring out what people are saying. Also the most fruitful. Your contribution so far: "people I disagree with are big babies".
You know what, I think most of them would be happy for a while just getting a slightly less imperfect country. It's kinda like how most people would be happy if your healthcare system didn't suck so very much.
I like this thread. In this thread, demanding justice is immature :noob:
Not you Fuzzy, I mostly trust you over wiki, except on your moody days.
I'm not arguing force, coercion or anything of that nature. I simply do not want the kind of back-talk I can expect from any honest inquiry or post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
My views are as clear as Kain's, for God's sake man we've known each other for eight years! Why must you now all of a sudden persist that after a couple of months of being snarky I am an evasive, unclear and shadowy figure? We both know what's near and dear to me (well, you phrase it in terms that fit your narrative, but either way you know where I land on the political spectrum!), and you're coming at me like this because you don't have the first clue on how to make your community more open. I have a hint: this isn't helping.
Aw, he deleted his post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Fuzzy, I give you a wide berth because we don't obviously get along. And I am not educated enough to speak on your level on most things you raise. But it is unfair to say I don't want to talk to "anyone"; I would very much love discussions with say wiggin, or you when you're not snarky, even Loki if he could be civil. The point is, we're not civil anymore.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone would look to anything like an encyclopedia for information about current events. It literally cannot properly encompass the multiple immediate narratives and perspectives and interactive nature that make up the structure of current events.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Eh, I think you're putting on some rose colored glasses Nessus. This community has in one way or another always been lacking in the civility department.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
What will make it more open and civil? How do you define civility?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I know. And I'm certainly one of the guilty parties. But you are a good example; I would very much like to talk with you without the idea that either party is trying to trap the other into some kind of fallacy. We both sincerely believe in very different things, and I would be interested in exploring why, and how. But, and the history of the community is mostly to blame, the atmosphere and culture right now means we can't reach out to one another without risking some gaffe. We cannot interact without both of us having something to "lose", even if there really isn't anything at all but habits and compulsion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Haha, in our uncivil atmosphere, I will answer "how about you do your job?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
On more serious terms, if you don't see what is wrong, I don't know what to tell you. If you see what is wrong but can't work on it, I...I guess I have some suggestions? But I don't pretend to have answers.
It doesn't have to, it just has to give a slightly more complete and slightly less biased picture than Dread's. I mean, I wasn't going to get any of the info I quoted from Dread, was I? No offense to Dread, I just mean that I wanted to know what those people were saying :pQuote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I think that is both noble and worthwhile. I think that requires both parties to accept the premise you laid out, that an honest and open exchange of ideas doesn't necessarily have winners or losers, even if we disagree. I'm not opposed to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Is it really too much to ask you to define what you think is wrong and what you think should be done?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Didn't Dread claim to put me on ignore because he was tired of me "harrassing" him?
All I can aknowledge is that I've got a habit of pointing out bullshit claims and arguments based on factless opinions, but as we can all see, I'm still here and not banned for any rule violations.
Yet he is unable to comprehend where Nessus is coming from in all this?
Good! I had an inkling you'd say something like that, you've always come off as a very good person to me. The problem here, I think, is that we can't escape our audience; how can we phrase things honestly if we fear the input of those outside? I know you argue mostly out of good faith and are only snarky when provoked, but even so. Can we lay ourselves bare without fear?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
It is too much for you to ask, I'm sorry. I have explained what I think is wrong elsewhere, and as I said, I don't think I know how to fix it, but I have a couple of ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
You're implying we should be intervening in specific ways and doing specific things. I'm intrigued, so why not be specific? No one is going to call you a shithead for having an idea.
You're conflating two rather separate things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Maybe it's an idea people can agree on, maybe it's not.
But why is it so hard to simply say what's wrong and what you want done about it?
Uh, as I posted above, I have said itQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
You identified something that bothers you, but I'm curious if you have ideas about what to do. You're suggesting what could be potentially very subjective and big brothery intrusions into posts.
I mean, maybe set a low bar to temporarily suspend access D&D? Or from specific threads if possible?
Truthfully? There's probably only one way to find out. If a man is only as good as his word, I suppose the same can be true of his online persona. For what it's worth, I'll make a good faith effort to raise my level of discourse and civility here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus