Wall Street Protesters

I don't have a problem with people making millions.

I don't have a problem with people making millions and not donating much to charitable causes.

I have a problem with people who make millions by exploiting others, damaging the environment etc. And I have a problem with the tax code where many make millions and pay lower effective tax rates than the middle class as most of their income is from capital gains and other things not taxed in the regular income brackets.

The wealthy aren't the problem. The people who only care about wealth and don't care about fucking everyone else over to make as much money are the problem, along with an antiquated tax code that doesn't treat all forms of income equally.

I don't have problems with people who make money selling art, acting, playing sports or even running businesses as long as they aren't exploting the working stiff, destroying the environment etc. along the way. Just make them pay their full income tax bracket rate on all their income, and they're good in my book.

And for the record, I don't care much for Moore or his one-sided documentaries. I agree with a lot of his views, but he's still nothing more than a propagandist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']Speaking of logic... Government gives money to the banks, banks give money to executives... rabble rabble rabble.

Government gives money to the banks, bank gives money to Moore so Moore can stand outside the bank and shout out "Where'd the money go?" and... well, that's cool.[/QUOTE]

Man you really need to cut down on the Jesse Ventura.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Isn't this the very same logic that is used to explain why we were attacked on 9/11 and why we need to re-evaluate our foreign policy?[/QUOTE]

Oh boy. Where do I start.

We didn't give Saddam money that he used for chemical weapons that were used on Iranian troops. We SOLD him the effing chemical weapons WHILE he was at war with Iran. This wasn't a two step financial transaction. On top of that, we somehow got the Contras from Nicaragua involved as they tried to topple a ruthless dictatorship and replace it with an equally ruthless banana republic. And the cherry on top of all that, we invaded Panama a few years later even though we supplied arms and cash so Noriega could provide a stabilizing influence on Nicaragua's southern border AND somehow we couldn't convince the new theocracy in Iran that we were the good guys in this whole situation. I wonder why they don't like us?

We directly supplied the muhjahadeen of Afghanistan with arms and advisers as they fought the Soviets but then bounced as soon as the Russians did. Hello, Taliban! I wonder why they don't like us?

We allowed Lebanon to devolve into a horrible civil war while letting Saddam and the Sauds run their countries like sweatshops because.....Lebanon doesn't have a shit ton of oil. I wonder why they don't like us?

We allowed Israelis spies to "steal" several nuclear devices but we're dead set against any Muslim nation other than Pakistan to have one. I wonder why the Muslim world doesn't like us?

How about a historical grudge? We sat back as Britain and France carved up the old Ottoman empire and then sold arms to the ruthless puppet dictators put in place. Hi, Shah! Hey, King of Jordan we've got an American woman for you to marry! It'll be just like when we were all English! Take a woman and peace will be maintained as long as she keeps her head.

Our policy in the Middle East is dominated by financial and religious BS. We need oil to run our cars but we'll always consider the Middle East as part of the third world because they're gosh darn Moozlums.

After all that, it's still not fucking comparable to Michael Moore taking some bucks from Goldman Sachs. Get back to me when CIA operatives are clandestinely slipping him suitcases full of gold bullion.
 
A list leaked out of an early "manefisto" they are writing as demmands. I agree with a lot of it but def not all of it.

• Halt foreclosures for the unemployed, sick and elderly

• Increase funding to public services by taxing the richest 1 percent

• Forgive all student loan debt

• Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act in order to control speculation

• Work with the other G20 nations to implement a 1% “Robin Hood” tax on all financial transactions and currency trades

• Ban high-frequency ‘flash’ trading and bring sanity to the markets

• Break up the “too big to fail” banks that threaten our future

• Arrest the financial fraudsters responsible for the 2008 meltdown and bring them to justice

• Ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence corporate money has on our elected representatives in Washington

http://news.yahoo.com/occupy-wall-street-draft-manifesto-183205447.html
 
I'm more on the OWS side than the others, and I think those demands are stupid.

• Halt foreclosures for the unemployed, sick and elderly
Just because you're unemployed, you deserve a house? Some people who have jobs can't afford houses, so fuck that.

• Increase funding to public services by taxing the richest 1 percent
How much is that really even going to generate?

• Forgive all student loan debt
HAHAHA. I have student loans and I still think this is ridiculous. How about getting rid of the notion that you should go to college no matter what, and racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt at a private liberal arts school is a good idea?

• Work with the other G20 nations to implement a 1% “Robin Hood” tax on all financial transactions and currency trades
This is also stupid, because our wealth distribution is far worse than the other G20 nations. Telling Japan to do this is absurd, when they have the least variance in wealth. See how much stars and CEOs earn in countries like Japan and compare it to ours.

• Break up the “too big to fail” banks that threaten our future
Or let them fail, instead of bailing them out... It'd wreck havoc, but at least the ultra-huge corporations won't keep doing risky things knowing they'll just be bailed out.

• Arrest the financial fraudsters responsible for the 2008 meltdown and bring them to justice
Eh, there's a lot of factors, including a lot of people in the housing business, and all the companies that sent jobs offshore, etc. This is basically impossible.

• Ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence corporate money has on our elected representatives in Washington
Obama already started this. The problem is that our law supports lobbying by big corporations who can afford to send tons of people there. We can't get rid of lobbying, because then the smaller groups also lose their voice. The solution isn't so simple as a commission, IMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='elessar123']I'm more on the OWS side than the others, and I think those demands are stupid.[/QUOTE]
It's nice to know you think they're stupid. Care to explain why?

edit: And just to clarify, this is an early draft by someone and not something that was ratified or even widely discussed in general assemblies. It was just a discussion among some participants in the movement. The fact that this is being reported as a "manifesto" is meant to illicit strong negative responses that are associated with communism to delegitimze the movement.

edit2: The original article is here: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/17/occupy-wall-street-the-draft-manifesto/. The Daily Caller is a right-wing conservative news site. This is why people need to vet their sources and be wary of this type of fear mongering.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If I think power plants shouldn't emit tons of mercury into the air, would I then be a hypocrite for turning on my lights?
 
[quote name='dohdough']It's nice to know you think they're stupid. Care to explain why?[/QUOTE]

I did, and I went back and edited it.
 
The only two that I disagree with are that student loan debts should be forgiven and that people who loose their job should not have their house forclosed upon. However I put an asterick next to both.

I dont think student loan debt should be forgiven(and this is coming from a family holding about $50,000 worth)but I do think its out of control as are the fees. I think something should be done to reduce both existing and future debt. Personally I say create goverment run universities where attendance is free then pass a tax to cover this. If you have existing student loan debt you are forgiven from paying the tax. This way people with student loan debt do not get their bill wiped clean but they also dont get butt fucked in whatever new system that comes along benefiting society.

As for not foreclosing on the home of someone who lost their job. I dont think its right that a bank has to pay for someones house just because they lost their job and may never find a job. At the same time though I dont think its right that banks fucked up our system and now get to forclose on people either. I think there needs to be a happy in between. Maybe they cant foreclose for at least a year or something but after a year if you still have not found a job then its possible. In the mean time the person must also show they are activly seeking work as we do to collect unemployment benefits(meaning it basically is an extension of the current system).

I am not saying I think either of these ideas are perfect. I am just saying I dont agree with those two demands...but I agree something must be done and these are options im more comfortable with.
 
[quote name='elessar123']• Halt foreclosures for the unemployed, sick and elderly
Just because you're unemployed, you deserve a house? Some people who have jobs can't afford houses, so fuck that.[/quote]
Stopping foreclosures does not mean they get a free house. Working out another payment schedule is what most people have been asking for and is more than a reasonable request considering the bailouts.

• Increase funding to public services by taxing the richest 1 percent
How much is that really even going to generate?
Click to expand...
If we bring it back to Reagan levels? A shit load of money.

• Forgive all student loan debt
HAHAHA. I have student loans and I still think this is ridiculous. How about getting rid of the notion that you should go to college no matter what, and racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt at a private liberal arts school is a good idea?
Click to expand...
I agree with your reasoning, but part of the problem is that student loans are not dischargable debts under bankruptcy laws.

• Work with the other G20 nations to implement a 1% “Robin Hood” tax on all financial transactions and currency trades
This is also stupid, because our wealth distribution is far worse than the other G20 nations. Telling Japan to do this is absurd, when they have the least variance in wealth. See how much stars and CEOs earn in countries like Japan and compare it to ours.
Click to expand...
Another good point.

• Break up the “too big to fail” banks that threaten our future
Or let them fail, instead of bailing them out... It'd wreck havoc, but at least the ultra-huge corporations won't keep doing risky things knowing they'll just be bailed out.
Click to expand...
People still need banks and other financial institutions. Unless you think another Depression would be productive, and they always hit the poor the hardest, letting them fail would bring much more immediate harm than the bailouts.

• Arrest the financial fraudsters responsible for the 2008 meltdown and bring them to justice
Eh, there's a lot of factors, including a lot of people in the housing business, and all the companies that sent jobs offshore, etc. This is basically impossible.
Click to expand...
We've spent trillions of dollars on the War on Drugs and have the highest rate of incarceration in the world because of it. It's not impossible because there are too many people; it's impossible because those people OWN the system.

• Ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence corporate money has on our elected representatives in Washington
Obama already started this. The problem is that our law supports lobbying by big corporations who can afford to send tons of people there. We can't get rid of lobbying, because then the smaller groups also lose their voice. The solution isn't so simple as a commission, IMO.
Click to expand...
The barrier to entry is already so high that small groups are already drowned out by big money. This is probably a reference to the Citizens United case.

At the end of the day, this was still a very early draft, so it should be given some leeway because it is highly unpolished.

Thanks for clarifying btw.:thumbs up:
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']But again Im talking to Bob....so I guess this all comes down to liberals hate the rich and love goverment, not the truth which is people are upset at government, at corporations, the fed and everyone else thats corrupt right now.[/QUOTE]

I can wholly appreciate that.

But there's not a lot to do about the corrupt corporations. We can protest them - they don't care. We can spend our money else where - and the other business will then just become big and corrupt. Attempting to "fix" business isn't going to get you very far. Business isn't supposed to be "Of the people, by the people, for the people, etc..."

Government is where *we* should be able to make a change and should be working to make a change. instead, it's like everyone (including those here) will tell you how corrupt government is, but, apparently, that isn't the problem...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Government is where *we* should be able to make a change and should be working to make a change. instead, it's like everyone (including those here) will tell you how corrupt government is, but, apparently, that isn't the problem...[/QUOTE]

You can't fix a corrupt government until you fix the source. In the US's case, it's the corporations. If you somehow manage to fix the government, it'll just get corrupt again eventually. If you fix the corporations, then there's nothing (or at least a lot less) to cause the government to go corrupt again. In which case, you could argue that fixing the corporation caused either the government to fix itself, or that it wasn't inherently corrupt.

tl;dr: You still need to fix the corporations.
 
[quote name='elessar123']You can't fix a corrupt government until you fix the source. In the US's case, it's the corporations. If you somehow manage to fix the government, it'll just get corrupt again eventually. If you fix the corporations, then there's nothing (or at least a lot less) to cause the government to go corrupt again. In which case, you could argue that fixing the corporation caused either the government to fix itself, or that it wasn't inherently corrupt.

tl;dr: You still need to fix the corporations.[/QUOTE]

We can't fix the corporations though. The government will have to. Thus, we have to fix the government in such a way that it can/will fix the way corporations operate.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']We can't fix the corporations though. The government will have to. Thus, we have to fix the government in such a way that it can/will fix the way corporations operate.[/QUOTE]

Problem is, corporations pay for much of presidential campaigns... And a lot of politicians' buddies are part of the corporations. I honestly don't know how we can uncouple the two.
 
[quote name='elessar123']Problem is, corporations pay for much of presidential campaigns... And a lot of politicians' buddies are part of the corporations. I honestly don't know how we can uncouple the two.[/QUOTE]

That... is the 14 Trillion Dollar Question.

But fixing a handful of corporations won't solve the problem and fixing all the corporations... well, suddenly fixing the government seems more likely...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I can wholly appreciate that.

But there's not a lot to do about the corrupt corporations. We can protest them - they don't care. We can spend our money else where - and the other business will then just become big and corrupt. Attempting to "fix" business isn't going to get you very far. Business isn't supposed to be "Of the people, by the people, for the people, etc..."

Government is where *we* should be able to make a change and should be working to make a change. instead, it's like everyone (including those here) will tell you how corrupt government is, but, apparently, that isn't the problem...[/QUOTE]

You have forgot about a magic little thing called taxes and regulations. Goverment can fix that and then the people can fix the goverment by voting for specific politicians. This is not hard if you just take your conservative ear muffs off for a moment and just listen to the people of this board.

Again you just said that corrupt corporations are the problem....then go right back to railing against goverment. So basically you say corporations are the problem, goverment lets that happen, so we should get rid of goverment......and then do what about the corporations? You just handed them more fucking power! This is common sense bob. The people need to fight, the goverment will have to listen, they will put regulations in place, tax those who have benefited from the corrupt system and then prosecute those who had a hand in making it happen. Corporations wont be able to pull the same shit and the people can vote out politicians who allowed/allow it to happen.

Your solution is like saying iv got a pain in my foot but its being caused by a nerve in my toe. Well we cant do anything about the toe so lets chop off the whole fucking foot(except your solution would somehow leave the rotton toe in place and worse then ever!). What to do is obvious...just take the toe out and let the foot heal.
 
[quote name='depascal22']We can't fix the government at this point. Time for clean sweep.[/QUOTE]

You mean like we did last election and the one before that? Look Americans have knee jerk voted for a good two decades now. It doesnt fucking work. The only way to fix things is to educate yourself on the issues and fight for change.
 
There are solutions to plenty of our problems out there. The cons would of course be against all of them because they don't care about anything other than sticking it to anyone who is not a member of their tribe.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Again you just said that corrupt corporations are the problem....[/quote]
No, I said corporations are part of the problem.

Corporations wont be able to pull the same shit and the people can vote out politicians who allowed/allow it to happen.
Click to expand...

Now we're getting somewhere.

The politicians currently in play simply cater to personal interests. You have all these great ideas of regulations (which are already there, simply not enforced) and taxes. Current politicians hear your great ideas and, frankly, they don't care. They're not going to start taxing and regulating these businesses. Period. At best, they'll throw a token bill your way so everyone will be happy.... until the next season of American Idol starts.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']The only two that I disagree with are that student loan debts should be forgiven and that people who loose their job should not have their house forclosed upon. However I put an asterick next to both.

I dont think student loan debt should be forgiven(and this is coming from a family holding about $50,000 worth)but I do think its out of control as are the fees. I think something should be done to reduce both existing and future debt. Personally I say create goverment run universities where attendance is free then pass a tax to cover this. If you have existing student loan debt you are forgiven from paying the tax. This way people with student loan debt do not get their bill wiped clean but they also dont get butt fucked in whatever new system that comes along benefiting society.

As for not foreclosing on the home of someone who lost their job. I dont think its right that a bank has to pay for someones house just because they lost their job and may never find a job. At the same time though I dont think its right that banks fucked up our system and now get to forclose on people either. I think there needs to be a happy in between. Maybe they cant foreclose for at least a year or something but after a year if you still have not found a job then its possible. In the mean time the person must also show they are activly seeking work as we do to collect unemployment benefits(meaning it basically is an extension of the current system).

I am not saying I think either of these ideas are perfect. I am just saying I dont agree with those two demands...but I agree something must be done and these are options im more comfortable with.[/QUOTE]

Okay, you can't really talk about student debt without discussing the hikes in tuition. There's a certain cause and effect, in that the government provides financial aid to students and this gives the universities leeway to charge more to everyone in a vicious cycle. If you forgive the student loans, how does that work? Is that just the government giving the university system more free money?

I think the real problem is that the education system is more concerned with profit, and there's no accountability whether or not they produce a functioning workforce within x amount of time. What there should be is some sort of tuition cap, bring it back within range of the cost of living or rate of inflation. Barring this, I'm sorry, but if you have to take out $150,000 in loans there should be some contractual guarantee that you'll receive a position at the end of the rainbow for a set number of years. And if you can't get employment with your education then the college should be made to refund your tuition in full.
 
Tuition is going up primarily because states keep slashing higher education budgets. Thus public universities have to raise tuition to recoup the lost expenses. As well as make cuts etc.--but most easily cut things have been dropped after several years of continued cuts. So cutting more just means more negatives for students with even larger classes, more classes taught by adjuncts and grad students than professors (much cheaper) etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Tuition is going up primarily because states keep slashing higher education budgets. Thus public universities have to raise tuition to recoup the lost expenses. As well as make cuts etc.--but most easily cut things have been dropped after several years of continued cuts. So cutting more just means more negatives for students with even larger classes, more classes taught by adjuncts and grad students than professors (much cheaper) etc.[/QUOTE]

I think its really both fueling the increase in tuition costs. The universities are definitely getting their state funding cut but the fact that they know the government will still keep giving the loans guarantees that in order to make ends meet all they have to do is raise tuition costs because they know the loans will cover it. If it were just the fact that state funding was being cut then there really wouldn't be much of a reason for private college tuition costs to rise as well.

It's both really, and the only people getting the shaft are the students who have to pay the increased tuition costs. The sad part is that government representatives (primarily republicans) like to indicate it only affects students and the government needs to "tighten it's belt" and that everyone can strike it rich by starting their own business, blah blah blah. Anyway, the real truth is that it trickles out into the economy in the form of increased need for professionals to charge higher for their services to cover their student loan payments, particularly with regard to the medical profession but it is by no means limited to that sector.
 
Should I post what I think is a better manifest? It's only about 1/3 done, written right after I replied here about the reported manifest... Maybe I should finish it first.
 
True, that's part of it as well. But loans aren't going away, so state budgets improving and stopping slashing the higher ed budget every few year is the only way tuition increases slow down.

It's really up to students to be smart and not take on big debt unless they 1) Get a degree in a field where it's very likely to help them get a job or get into a top grad school that will lead to a good job. 2) Get into a decent university where the prestige and networking/internship opportunities afforded there will help greatly in their careers.

It's their own fault if they take on big debt getting some useless degree like philosophy or getting a degree from some fourth tier university that employers don't respect and that didn't give them many opportunities to do good internships and network etc.

I won't say more than that as we've beaten higher ed issues to death on this forum many times in the past and I don't see any point in rehashing all that again.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']True, that's part of it as well. But loans aren't going away, so state budgets improving and stopping slashing the higher ed budget every few year is the only way tuition increases slow down.

It's really up to students to be smart and not take on big debt unless they 1) Get a degree in a field where it's very likely to help them get a job or get into a top grad school that will lead to a good job. 2) Get into a decent university where the prestige and networking/internship opportunities afforded there will help greatly in their careers.

It's their own fault if they take on big debt getting some useless degree like philosophy or getting a degree from some fourth tier university that employers don't respect and that didn't give them many opportunities to do good internships and network etc.

I won't say more than that as we've beaten higher ed issues to death on this forum many times in the past and I don't see any point in rehashing all that again.[/QUOTE]
This entire forum is one big re-hash after another.:lol:

I will also add that externalizing training and labor costs through internships and requiring higher educational degrees is another facet.
 
[quote name='dohdough']This entire forum is one big re-hash after another.:lol:[/QUOTE]

Thus a big part of the reason I duck out all the time. Whats the point arguing with Bob one more time that yes goverment and corporations are the problem, but only because corporations corrupt goverment. It wont sink in and you will just spend days of your life wasted.

I dont understand how you guys can do it ;(
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Thus a big part of the reason I duck out all the time. Whats the point arguing with Bob one more time that yes goverment and corporations are the problem, but only because corporations corrupt goverment. It wont sink in and you will just spend days of your life wasted.

I dont understand how you guys can do it ;([/QUOTE]
Well, there are a few reasons. For me, it's about catharsis, schadenfreude, fighting stupidity/ignorance, educating, refining my own thoughts, practicing praxis, and for the fence-sitters. Not necessarily in that order of course...heh...so time isn't ever really wasted as long as you get something done.:)
 
[quote name='dohdough']Well, there are a few reasons. For me, it's about catharsis, schadenfreude, fighting stupidity/ignorance, educating, refining my own thoughts, practicing praxis, and for the fence-sitters. Not necessarily in that order of course...heh...so time isn't ever really wasted as long as you get something done.:)[/QUOTE]

Thing is though you will never educate most people. People are naturally stuck in their ways. When I meet people IRL I try VERY hard and take it if anything as a duty to speak up. But online you are basically just dealing with people who are not just entrenched in their own ways/views but so far dug in that they feel the need to come online and try and force others to agree with them.

Really it just comes down to one big disgusting circle jerk
 
[quote name='dohdough']This entire forum is one big re-hash after another.:lol:
[/QUOTE]

Which is why I haven't been posting/reading here very much lately.

Always the same shit (from the same few shit heads), different day.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Thus a big part of the reason I duck out all the time. Whats the point arguing with Bob one more time that yes goverment and corporations are the problem, but only because corporations corrupt goverment. It wont sink in and you will just spend days of your life wasted.

I dont understand how you guys can do it ;([/QUOTE]

I think deep-down I always thought it would be possible to teach a tea-partier how stupid, backwards, and self-defeating their philosophy is (similar to those movies where they teach the retarded kid how to read or the android how to love)

Yeah it was naive, but I thank UB because now I know better.
 
You can't teach anybody anything about politics for the most part.

People have deeply engrained views on most political issues by the time their an adult, and those seldom change. And if they do it's for their own reasons as they age rather than someone changing their mind--i.e. people getting more conservative about money once they start making more and losing a lot more to taxes etc.

Just a waste of time trying to change anyone's mind on this kind of stuff. Argue and discuss it if you find it fun to do so. But don't do it because you think you can change the mind of other people--much less random people on the internet.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']kill college sports.[/QUOTE]

I wonder how many college sports are truly self-sustaining. I'd imagine that outside of football, basketball, and perhaps hockey there aren't many.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I wonder how many college sports are truly self-sustaining. I'd imagine that outside of football, basketball, and perhaps hockey there aren't many.[/QUOTE]

Even football and basketball lose money at all but the top programs.

And those top programs are pretty much the only ones who have whole athletic departments in the black as they make enough on those sports to cover the revenue losing sports.

I don't necessarily support abolishing college sports because I'm a pretty big fan of college football and basketball from growing up in a state with no pro sports.

But I do think they should require athletic departments to at least break even and cut whatever sports they have to to make that happen.

I also think the NFL and NBA should be chipping in to support college football and basketball instead of just using them as a free minor league system to evaluate talent.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Even football and basketball lose money at all but the top 20 or 30 so programs.

And those top programs are pretty much the only ones who have whole athletic departments in the black as they make enough on those sports to cover the revenue losing sports.

I don't necessarily support abolishing college sports because I'm a pretty big fan of college football and basketball from growing up in a state with no pro sports.

But I do think they should require athletic departments to at least break even and cut whatever sports they have to to make that happen.

I also think the NFL and NBA should be chipping in to support college football and basketball instead of just using them as a free minor league system to evaluate talent.[/QUOTE]

Yes, very much so.
 
[quote name='camoor']I think deep-down I always thought it would be possible to teach a tea-partier how stupid, backwards, and self-defeating their philosophy is (similar to those movies where they teach the retarded kid how to read or the android how to love)

Yeah it was naive, but I thank UB because now I know better.[/QUOTE]
HAHAHAHA...funny. :D

But I'm going to address the meat of your post at the end with dmaul.

[quote name='dmaul1114']You can't teach anybody anything about politics for the most part.

People have deeply engrained views on most political issues by the time their an adult, and those seldom change. And if they do it's for their own reasons as they age rather than someone changing their mind--i.e. people getting more conservative about money once they start making more and losing a lot more to taxes etc.[/quote]
I have to disagree with the theory that people get more politically conservative as they get older, if that's what you're implying. I hear that a lot from my older boomer relatives and when I ask them about their younger days, I've come to realize that they were always politically conservative even when adjusting for the Overton Window. Personally, I find it more accurate to say that most people are neo-liberals as opposed to "liberal" or "conservative," but most people haven't quite caught up to that ability to frame it as such yet.

Just a waste of time trying to change anyone's mind on this kind of stuff. Argue and discuss it if you find it fun to do so. But don't do it because you think you can change the mind of other people--much less random people on the internet.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree that you can't change anyone's mind. Now I agree that you can't change someone's mind that is so ideologically entrenched in certain belief systems that it would make them suicidal, but for most people, it's a cummulative process that requires new tools/frameworks/lenses to examine things. Learning takes time and I didn't come up with my vocabulary on my own, but by reading(a lot) of opinions, facts, methodologies, and rhetoric, I was able to refine my own. Things had to happen.

Not everyone is going to be like thrust and go all-in on some superficial libertarian bullshit after what his wife went through, and a lot of people can come to an epiphany when some shit goes down. And despite the shit that I give to bob and nasum, but not knoell...heh, I still believe that they can have that eureka moment. I don't know if it'll ever happen, but it might.
 
Fair enough. I'll put it more that I've just quit giving a shit about changing people's minds and I'm starting to not give much of a shit about politics in general. Tired of wasting energy arguing about things that don't have any direct impact on my life anyway.

I will say that in your peronsal example it's again self selection bias. You want to learn and seek out things and better yourself. That's what I meant when saying you can change peoples minds if they are flexible and open minded.

Unfortunately most people don't fit that bill and just have deep set ideological beliefs engrained by their families, their religions etc. and don't have that drive to seek out other viewpoints, read widely etc.
 
I think that politics in our country would be much better off if people spent less time trying to educate others and more time trying to understand them. Maybe we should all stop trying to argue our way through issues and instead look for common ground.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Unfortunately most people don't fit that bill and just have deep set ideological beliefs engrained by their families, their religions etc. and don't have that drive to seek out other viewpoints, read widely etc.[/QUOTE]


Ironic how much of a two way street that statement can be.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I will say that in your peronsal example it's again self selection bias. You want to learn and seek out things and better yourself. That's what I meant when saying you can change peoples minds if they are flexible and open minded.[/QUOTE]
Fair point, but I don't believe in objectivity.:lol:
 
Daily show really was on point last night. They started off lampooning Republicans who are crying class warfare after 2 years ago telling the conservative base to hit the streets and fight to take America back from the liberals. They then however followed that segment up with another on the 99% and how douchey they are. They covered them playing the drums, dressing stupid and putting up stupid little things like an "empathy donation box". They covered how there is a legitimate problem and people are legitimately upset, but their voice is being drowned out by the hippies and goofballs and how normal people who otherwise back the movement are refusing to join in because of that type of behavior. They ended the segment by going and talking to normal every day people who again were saying they agree with the ideology of the movement but just cant stand the people they perceive as making up the majority of that movement. Finally John Olliver pointed out that if people like them actually showed up that the annoying hippies would no longer be the majority.

So
A reminder that Republicans are hypocritical douche bags who only care about money
Pushing that the 99% stand for something amazing
Pointing out that the something amazing is often being pushed to the back by annoying fucking hippies
Pointing out the only way to change that is for normal people to stop being so fucking lazy and passive

Edit - Ok just finished watching it and at the end they had a poet on who had the best damn poem ever.

Mitt Romney As Doll
Yes, Mitt's so slick of speech and slick of garb, he
Reminds us all of Ken, of Ken and Barbie —
So quick to shed his moderate regalia,
He may, like Ken, be lacking genitalia.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Daily show really was on point last night. They started off lampooning Republicans who are crying class warfare after 2 years ago telling the conservative base to hit the streets and fight to take America back from the liberals. They then however followed that segment up with another on the 99% and how douchey they are. They covered them playing the drums, dressing stupid and putting up stupid little things like an "empathy donation box". They covered how there is a legitimate problem and people are legitimately upset, but their voice is being drowned out by the hippies and goofballs and how normal people who otherwise back the movement are refusing to join in because of that type of behavior. They ended the segment by going and talking to normal every day people who again were saying they agree with the ideology of the movement but just cant stand the people they perceive as making up the majority of that movement. Finally John Olliver pointed out that if people like them actually showed up that the annoying hippies would no longer be the majority.

So
A reminder that Republicans are hypocritical douche bags who only care about money
Pushing that the 99% stand for something amazing
Pointing out that the something amazing is often being pushed to the back by annoying fucking hippies
Pointing out the only way to change that is for normal people to stop being so fucking lazy and passive

Edit - Ok just finished watching it and at the end they had a poet on who had the best damn poem ever.

Mitt Romney As Doll
Yes, Mitt's so slick of speech and slick of garb, he
Reminds us all of Ken, of Ken and Barbie —
So quick to shed his moderate regalia,
He may, like Ken, be lacking genitalia.[/QUOTE]
If you really think that stereotypical hippies, goofballs, and pot-smokers are the ones directing OWS, you have no idea about what's on with the Occupy movement. The corporate media(political leaning is irrelevant because it's more marketing than anything else at this level) has been trying to frame it as neo-Woodstock since it's inception. If you actually look at the demographics and figure out who's actually participating, organizing, and occupying, it's not the hippies. A clip that lasts a few seconds or even minutes of leisurely activites is not emblematic of a movement.

Then again, I stopped being a fan of the Daily Show since before the Rally for Sanity eventhough I'm a fan of Oliver and Cynac, so I'm drinking some Stewart hatorade anyways...heh.
 
That's a pretty accurate portrayal of the whole thing.
Your average talk radio clown will point out the loonies to discredit the whole...
 
[quote name='dohdough']If you really think that stereotypical hippies, goofballs, and pot-smokers are the ones directing OWS, you have no idea about what's on with the Occupy movement. The corporate media(political leaning is irrelevant because it's more marketing than anything else at this level) has been trying to frame it as neo-Woodstock since it's inception. If you actually look at the demographics and figure out who's actually participating, organizing, and occupying, it's not the hippies. A clip that lasts a few seconds or even minutes of leisurely activites is not emblematic of a movement.

Then again, I stopped being a fan of the Daily Show since before the Rally for Sanity eventhough I'm a fan of Oliver and Cynac, so I'm drinking some Stewart hatorade anyways...heh.[/QUOTE]

You always take what I say out of context. I am not saying the leaders of this movement are those types of people or even that those types of people make up the majority. However if you go to even youtube(which is not ran by the "mainstream media" that people hate so much, you can clearly see there are a LOT of fucking hippies and weirdos.

I dont think they make up the majority of this movement. However I do think there are a fairly large number of peple who are hippies, people beating drums, people wearing masks and just acting like douche bags in general. Majority or not, they are loud, they are annoying and they draw attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top