Occupy Wall Street

fill me in again on why we are still wasting the effort on refuting this idiotic false-equivalence game that conservatives like to play?

when that comes apart, you inevitably get "yeah, well that's your opinion man and it comes from the liberal media" despite the fact that "the liberal media" is a fantasy constructed deep in conservativeland the sole function of which is to allow the people who confuse conservativeland with the world to discount reality when it becomes inconvenient.

 

So, is it my turn to point out the violent people at ows, the criminals and the rapists, the drug addicts, the vagrants looking for a free meal? See, I can generalize too.

 

So I guess you cant point to events organized by Ben or Jerry comparable to the Tea Party (Americans for Prosperity) march on Congress or the Tea Party (AFP) summit in Washington.

No surprise.
--- merged: Nov 18, 2011 6:15 PM ---

Oh well, so much for your suggesting that OWS act more like Ghandi or MLK or even the original (Boston) Tea Party...damn, that one hurt a handful of colonial businesses.

SO if you really dont support civil disobedience and passive resistance, just say so and dont make suggestions that the OWS should act in a manner that contradicts your own belief....IMO, it is disingenuous to suggest they adopt a protest strategy and then complain when they do.
--- merged: Nov 18, 2011 6:36 PM ---
Personally, I think OWS has raises awareness across the country and a level of support to the point that it is the time to expand from solely being a protest movement and to become a political movement as well. IMO, it is time to begin to work the system from within, while also continuing the actions on the streets in cities across the country, with a more focused political agenda on both fronts.

 

You may not be BUT they appear to be.

This was a well thought out reply and a very interesting read. Those points aside, I have to ask if I were to go to Zucotti Park and ask why were they there if what you said would come out of even 1 person's explanation of why they occupy.

That said, 1 thing I found stuck out more than the rest.

I am, I guess a neoliberalist according to you because I do believe private funding of parks allows businesses to take a cost of the city and have them put that money in emergency services, schools, social services. It is far better than selling that land off straight out and have buildings put up.

I do think though that in this situation, OWS is giving Brookfield a reason to close the park down. BUT OWS is giving them free advertising and was allowing them to look sympathetic to the cause. Once public opinion turns and it will Brookfield can close down the park for the numerous violations the OWS have been recorded to have committed.

Again, the OWS is being played like a violin and you are too blinded in your hatred and self righteousness to see it.

 

lets replace a few of these words and see how universally they apply:

fill me in again on why we are still wasting the effort on refuting this idiotic false-equivalence game that [my opposition] like to play?

when that comes apart, you inevitably get "yeah, well that's your opinion man and it comes from [my view] media" despite the fact that "the [my view] media" is a fantasy constructed deep in [opposition]land the sole function of which is to allow the people who confuse [opposition]land with the world to discount reality when it becomes inconvenient.

sounds like the same argument if you take out the words "liberal" and "conservative" no? this is basically becoming a "nuh-uh"/"yuh-huh" fest. lets hear some real arguments please

 

So I guess that whole paragraph I WROTE COMPARING OWS TO GHANDI AND MLK WASN'T WORTH QUOTING. JUST THE PART YOU FELT SUITED YOUR NEEDS.... WOW WAY TO PROVE ME WR...RIGHT!!!!!

You take out one little blurb and disregard the rest. Sorry if YOU don't feel like addressing the WHOLE post.

 

Damn...so I cant offer my opinion without you going into a rage.

Never mind.

 

well gee, event horizon, there's a lot of actual argument in this thread but mysteriously enough i haven't seen you take on a single one of them.

just an expression of weariness with the same old same old from the conservative camp, the inability to deal with facts, the fake equivalences (of which your post is yet another example), the distorted infotainment, the separation of politics from argument and its reduction to an assertion of identity---so there's no argument across positions and cannot be because you can't simultaneously hold a religious commitment and talk about that commitment--you talk through it---but even that is a pretty truncated notion of faith. some bizarre-o evangelical protestant thing mapped onto politics more like. i prefer theology. at least there are arguments there and a willingness to debate about them. with evangelicals, the matter is different---a belligerent assertion followed by a bringing-down on oneself of criticism or rejection followed by a celebration of one's faith as evidenced by the rejection. so a whole lot like direct-action anarchists, really. which i think is funny.

 

Not when you take a portion and totally, unapologetically ignore what was addressed further down. I addressed the difference between OWS and Ghandi/MLK, you just chose to ignore it because it didn't fit into your argument.

 

i see a little chicken vs. egg thing happening here. ows happens and B&J personnel show up, but they are supporting an already politically slanted cause differently than the Koch Brothers, who also bring in people, also organize, and also support their agenda.

i guess i'm wondering if you've considered that both sides are doing the same thing, but it's only "wrong" when the other side does it.

 

IMO, you are grossly rewriting past history and present events, exaggerating the actions of Ghandi, MLK to the good and OWS to the bad and that is why I responded as I did.
--- merged: Nov 18, 2011 6:53 PM ---

As I noted several times, I dont think it is the same to support and attend the events vs organize events and control or manipulate the agenda.

Perhaps you can tell me how the OWS agenda benefits the corporate B&J.

 

can you say "false equivalence"? i can say it. i am saying it.

 

which is why i'm getting involved now.

who said i'm conservative? aren't you just as weary as i am if you're going to say "same old same old"?

ok, i get that you think i can't deal with the "facts" and that i'm making "fake" equivalences, but how are they fake/false? where did i reference infotainment? where did i separate politics from argument? how the hell did religion get dragged into this?

 

Ahhh well then maybe you should school me. Instead you totally want to disregard it because it doesn't support your argument.

So, Ghandi and MLK made demands and refused to work with their respective governments? I see. They had innocent people they stated they were speaking out for lose their jobs and businesses? That's news to me. They had laptops and complained about not being able to charge them? They would be arrested and complained that they were above the laws that others had to follow and thus they were being harassed? OWS is making sacrifices? Really like what? What are the members of OWS sacrificing that MLK or Ghandi didn't or weren't willing to?

 

who do you think people from OWS are more likely to buy ice cream from? [anywhere] or B&J? i mean, just look at their image. 60's and 70's references in their flavors, tye-dye t-shirts, it's not exactly a mystery to see which side of center they fall on the political spectrum.

 

Pan, again you are taking the words and actions of a few of the OWS folks and applying to the entire movement. It is disingenuous.

I wont waste the time to school you on the actions of Ghandi and MLK that hurt many innocent bystanders and businesses but I would encourage you reread history and not rewrite it.
--- merged: Nov 18, 2011 7:06 PM ---

A bit of a stretch, dont you think?

I was thinking more in terms of broad public policy considerations rather than personal shopping preferences.

 

Be careful Event they like to put words into your mouth and bring things in that you never said or could rationally bring in, like religion. They seem to do this for their own self gratification."If I can make this person look a fool and redirect then I don't have to face my own inabilities to argue my point, because I have no true merits or rationale to my argument."

Can be either side saying it, just the same as "liberal/conservative" media is thrown about. If the media were truly biased one way, then, both sides could acknowledge it and accept the fact. the problem is the media (as a whole) is pretty fair and centristic. But if you are too far right or too far left than anything in the center will seem "extreme" and "biased".

 

event horizon: if you insist on the equivalence between how americans for prosperity et al astroturfed the tea party and how ben & jerry's might be channeling money to support the occupation and see only corporation here and corporation there, you are making a false equivalence.
it's a basic logical mistake, confusing superficial resemblance for something more than it is.

the fact is that this is stock in trade in conservative ideology as we've all grown to know and laugh at it over the years.

there's lots of repetitions of it. it's always the same shallow thinking. it has predictable effects and it moves to predictable second and third order arguments. lots of conservative bots think they're being heroically independent intellectually because they've been told about the false equivalences and they like to repeat them in that heroically individual way that they all seem to have in the same heroically individual way often down the phrasing.

but maybe, against all expectation, you have spontaneously generated this example of a conservative-specific false equivalence and aren't at all like the bots who typically make them. who can say when all i'm seeing is yet another version of the same old tedious and sophomoric logic particular to conservative bots?

if that's the case, then maybe i am making the false equivalence by reading your spontaneously generated false equivalence an example of a repetition of a false equivalence when it is one of your very own, complete with the same sophomoric logical mistakes as the official version?

if that's the case, i humbly apologize.

 

I would warn OWS. Be careful, there are folks out there who will take the words and actions of a few or grossly exaggerate or misrepresent those words or actions and apply to the entire movement. I suspect they do this for their own self-gratification or ideology or to make the entire movement look foolish.

 

How do I know? I went to the Cleveland Occupy, the Columbus Occupy and have several friends in several cities all saying the same things. That the Occupiers seem to worry more about their laptops and I phones being charged than truly about why they are there.

No, but you'll tell me I'm wrong and should read without showing FACTS, simply saying I am rewriting history should be good enough to dismiss the argument. Yeah.... ok.

Funny when I take the Right to task and I take the Left to task and expect either to explain their position and where I am wrong they have the same responses and yet neither will argue where my response was wrong, just ignore and dismiss. LOL Event...... you are so right in your observations.

And yes, in some areas I am probably wrong, because I address what I know and what I have been taught. So instead of saying, "well you are wrong, businesses suffered from MLK having marches and Ghandi cost businesses because he........ They both destroyed people's livelihoods day after day after day because......

As for the "original" Boston Tea Party, many of the "Partiers" were in fact the business owners that would be most affected.

BTW, I will post references at any time you question what I post, upon request.
--- merged: Nov 18, 2011 7:24 PM ---

Ah yes, the "I'm far more intelligent, but NEVER expected YOU to be near as intelligent as you may truly be" apology". How nice.