Occupy Wall Street Protests

Post by gamerunknown

Err, I was justifying the Tea Party's distinction between Marxists and Communists. It's not as silly to distinguish between them as it might first appear. Though Marx specifically rejected socialism and wholeheartedly endorsed Communism, he'd probably have equally rejected Maoism and Stalinism given the knowledge we have today.

I really did hope to clarify there, not just to condescend or whatever. Sometimes when I'm posting I feel like writing a personal anecdote to establish a connection with other posters then go back and delete it, sometimes because it is irrelevant and sometimes because I could draw flak for it. But I figure in this situation I'll go ahead anyway... I read in "the Language Instinct" that there are people with a mental illness that score far below average in most cognitive tests, but that pick up and use very unusual words in their every day speech, often referring with confidence to events that haven't happened. I often wonder if I'm one of those people.

Reading some of the stuff people have done on wowhead actually intimidates me: like your serving in the army, your brother's commitment to university work, strangerwitcandy's apparent grasp of both programming and Japanese... I often feel like I'm armed with a toothpick in comparison. I know for a fact that my writing isn't as good as other people my age on top of everything else. I spent several hours writing two articles for a student writing competition that I just got rejected for.

But anyway, I'd like to echo ElhonnaDS in hoping your week gets better.

Post by Heckler

Reading some of the stuff people have done on wowhead actually intimidates me: like your serving in the army, your brother's commitment to university work, strangerwitcandy's apparent grasp of both programming and Japanese... I often feel like I'm armed with a toothpick in comparison. I know for a fact that my writing isn't as good as other people my age on top of everything else. I spent several hours writing two articles for a student writing competition that I just got rejected for.

For the record, gamer, I've sincerely appreciated your contributions to any threads I've seen them in. I don't pretend to know enough about proper grammar, prose, and all that to say whether or not you're a "good writer" or a bad one -- but for what my opinion is worth, I'm glad you take the time to type the posts you do, and I hope you continue.

Post by gamerunknown

Appreciate it Heckler, look forward to seeing more posts from you too.

\o7

Post by MyTie

Indeed. This place isn't really about grammar at all. Ensure the point you are trying to make is effectively communicated, and let grammar and spelling fall to the wayside if that is your desire. If someone does try to pick apart your spelling/grammar it is because they have no other options against the spirit of what you are saying.

Post by Heckler

Two quick links worth reading:

First, a blog post by Krugman (he uses some interestingly similar language to gamerunknown) on the "methods" of the right wing (specifically, the attacks on OWS as "trying to end capitalism" or "full of anti-Semites").

. . . this is the way the right goes after everyone who stands in their way: accuse them of everything, no matter how implausible or contradictory the accusations are. Progressives are atheistic socialists who want to impose Sharia law. Class warfare is evil; also, John Kerry is too rich. And so on. . .

. . . movement conservatism has become a closed, inward-looking universe in which you get points not by sounding reasonable to uncommitted outsiders — although there are a few designated pundits who play that role professionally — but by outdoing your fellow movement members in zeal.

And the second, a Daily Beast interview with Elizabeth Warren, in which she endorses Occupy Wall Street (in fact, she points out she did a lot of the research which was provided the force that created OWS). Also interesting that she was a registered Republican until 1995. Lots of interesting information in there actually, Warren is an impressive person.

Post by MyTie

Heckler -

1) While I agree that many conservatives are like that, I wouldn't buy that generalization.

2) Being a Republican doesn't mean that one is conservative. You can be a liberal Republican. Many republicans are very liberal. It usually means that the person either isn't paying attention to politics, or sometimes it means they have 'team mentality', usually gained because their parents were Republicans. I'm sure there are others, but those are the ones I have encountered.

Post by Heckler

Post by MyTie

1) While I agree that many conservatives are like that, I wouldn't buy that generalization.

2) Being a Republican doesn't mean that one is conservative. You can be a liberal Republican. Many republicans are very liberal. It usually means that the person either isn't paying attention to politics, or sometimes it means they have 'team mentality', usually gained because their parents were Republicans. I'm sure there are others, but those are the ones I have encountered.
So I think you're basically saying: it's improper to generalize an entire group of people based on the actions of a minority of them, even if the minority does actually exist? Interesting.

Yes. It's even dangerous to generalize even if the group can be perceived to be a majority. However, it isn't improper to observe those groups. It is sad that there are some crazy conservatives. It is also sad that some OWS protesters are socialist. I'd disagree with many generalizations made about both sides, even if I have been guilty of something like that in the past. It wasn't my intention.

Post by 134377

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by 134377

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by 134377

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Heckler

Yes. It's even dangerous to generalize even if the group can be perceived to be a majority. However, it isn't improper to observe those groups. It is sad that there are some crazy conservatives. It is also sad that some OWS protesters are socialist. I'd disagree with many generalizations made about both sides, even if I have been guilty of something like that in the past. It wasn't my intention.
Hmm... dangerous, you say? Interesting.

On a lighter note, this made me laugh! http://newsthump.com/2011/10/25/anarchists-welcome-westminsters-new-protester-lanes/

lol, I suppose that's the UK version of the Onion? Pretty funny. This one made me chuckle: http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6633406/we-are-the-1

Why do Americans settle for this? It looks like Syria or Yemen without the live rounds. Yet.
I think there's a huge disconnect in America (maybe everywhere) between what people discuss as unacceptable, and what they're actually willing to stand up and take action against. If you could go back in time one month and ask anyone whether a hypothetical situation like that in Oakland would be okay, probably very few would say yes. However, now that it's happened, you could ask the same group of people if they will take any action in response, and many would say no.

You can find multiple instances in history where the "principles" of America were blatantly violated, and the public just watched silently (here's an interesting example somewhat related to OWS, in a way: The Bonus Army of 1932 -- this is a really interesting history lesson if you've never heard of it).

However, I don't think it does anything but help OWS as a movement when things like this happen (so long as it can be shown that the aggression was unfounded), so I'm thankful for the courage of the Occupy Oakland protesters.

Post by MyTie

Post by Heckler

Hmmm... being vague, I see? Interesting... errr.. not really. Just come out and say what is so interesting, instead of making pondering statements as if you were Sherlock Holmes on the trail of your arch nemesis. It's nice to allude to stuff, but I can't even follow you here. Were you going somewhere with this?
No, not being vague. Your word choice in your last three posts have been interesting.

First, you tell gamer that someone who doesn't attack the substance of your post has no proper attack to make -- yet your previous attack on gamer was exactly that; an ad hominem on his 'big word' usage which completely ignored, misunderstood, or denigrated the substance of his post.

Next, you say that Krugman shouldn't generalize groups of people (referring to Republicans and/or Conservatives), but that basically describes what you've done for this entire thread (referring to OWS), whether intended or not.

And finally, you use the word "dangerous" without qualification as if that's perfectly fine, when a few pages back you said I was "flame throwing" for the exact same word used without (immediate) qualification.

These things are interesting because your lurching demeanor throughout this entire thread makes it difficult to know which of your attitudes to follow, and which to dismiss (and due to their contradictory nature, surely they must be split this way).

Some people have brought up the "irrational zeitgeist" of OWS -- I find it interesting that there's an at-least-equally irrational zeitgeist on the opposite side. The reason I find your statements interesting is because it looks to me that you're proving Krugman right, at least as applied to you. You're all over the place, as if you're not even thinking about consistency in your arguments as you form them. I'm sure in your own mind you see perfect consistency throughout every post in this thread, but from my vantage point, your thoughts seem erratic or malformed (or at least, formed from different logical bases).

That's interesting, to me (and I'm not trying to convince you of this, I'm only answering because you asked -- this post is not designed to attack or offend).

Keeping on topic, the main reason I haven't elaborated on these thoughts more in previous posts is because I'm not interested in getting into a discussion with you about the proper way to have a discussion (at least not in this thread, and probably not in any other). Some of the 'opposition' posts in this thread have really made me think, and further analyze my own views. None of your posts have however, and I've started to assume that they won't, because that doesn't seem to be your intention.

If your intention (as you stated somewhere earlier in this thread) is to carry out your "obligation" to "erode their destructive efforts as much as possible" then I really don't see what I have to gain by listening to you seriously - you've advertised your bias so much as to taint anything further you post on the subject for those that are honestly and rationally trying to analyze the topic.

Post by pezz

Why do Americans settle for this? It looks like Syria or Yemen without the live rounds. Yet.
I think there's a huge disconnect in America (maybe everywhere) between what people discuss as unacceptable, and what they're actually willing to stand up and take action against. If you could go back in time one month and ask anyone whether a hypothetical situation like that in Oakland would be okay, probably very few would say yes. However, now that it's happened, you could ask the same group of people if they will take any action in response, and many would say no.

You can find multiple instances in history where the "principles" of America were blatantly violated, and the public just watched silently (here's an interesting example somewhat related to OWS, in a way: The Bonus Army of 1932 -- this is a really interesting history lesson if you've never heard of it).

That's a general principle of psychology, isn't it? I can't remember the proper name for it, but by and large few people put their money where their mouth is.

Post by Heckler

That's a general principle of psychology, isn't it? I can't remember the proper name for it, but by and large few people put their money where their mouth is.
I suppose I wouldn't be surprised. I haven't studied much psychology though. It's just a little depressing that discussing a trampling of principles seems to ignite a fiery passion in people; but watching it happen right it front of them leaves them apathetic. It's a tangential glimpse into the very real power of despotism.

Though I'm not currently writing a letter to the Police Chief of Oakland, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised at all.

Post by pezz

Yeah. I've spent so much time nestled up in my ivory tower I've bought new furnishings for the place at this point. And I'm barely in my 20s.

Post by MyTie

That's more like it Heckler!No, not being vague. Your word choice in your last three posts have been interesting.

First, you tell gamer that someone who doesn't attack the substance of your post has no proper attack to make -- yet your previous attack on gamer was exactly that; an ad hominem on his 'big word' usage which completely ignored, misunderstood, or denigrated the substance of his post.I wasn't pointing to his grammar, or his spelling, but his lack of meaningful criticism toward the substance of what he was examining. I also explained it as such. If you read further, I explained that the argument was a "Don't you mean" argument, and was a poorly constructed one, at that. Now, I admit it wasn't the nicest post on my part, and I definitely retract my attitude, but not my meaning.Next, you say that Krugman shouldn't generalize groups of people (referring to Republicans and/or Conservatives), but that basically describes what you've done for this entire thread (referring to OWS), whether intended or not.I haven't been generalizing. I've been making observations about the majority groups, but I never made a statement that pointed to ALL OWS protesters. You see, that is what a generalization is. I think that the majority of OWS protesters stand a good chance of being socialist, and I'd like to examine that. The material you linked earlier was to the tune of "Conservatives do this", which is a wild generalization.And finally, you use the word "dangerous" without qualification as if that's perfectly fine, when a few pages back you said I was "flame throwing" for the exact same word used without (immediate) qualification.You want a qualifier? Fair enough. When one generalizes about an entire group, they run the danger of not understanding the minorities in groups, which, although a minority, represent the beliefs of a large group. It isn't to say that this danger is a threatening danger, as much as it is a risk of being mistaken. The word "dangerous" you used earlier was apparently more of a threatening danger. Examine the difference: You are a danger if you think like that. VS You are in danger of misunderstanding something.These things are interesting because your lurching demeanor throughout this entire thread makes it difficult to know which of your attitudes to follow, and which to dismiss (and due to their contradictory nature, surely they must be split this way).Is it possible that I am not sending contradictory information, but that your assumptions about my statements have contradicted other parts of what I am saying? I can't help it if your predisposed to understand my position from a certain way, and then find yourself confused when you find me making statements that run contrary to your prejudices.If your intention (as you stated somewhere earlier in this thread) is to carry out your "obligation" to "erode their destructive efforts as much as possible" then I really don't see what I have to gain by listening to you seriously - you've advertised your bias so much as to taint anything further you post on the subject for those that are honestly and rationally trying to analyze the topic.Because I find that OWS is destructive, and because I admit my biases, I am unable to honestly and rationally analyze OWS? On the contrary, I am honest about my biases. This is a topic that if you know enough about it, you will develop opinions on it. For you to make this statement shows that you are not being honest about your own biases, or find yourself somehow at an impossible neutral state. It is true that I don't find OWS to be a positive productive force. However, you are trying to make me out to be a rambling incoherent biased fool. If you want to dismiss me because I have an opinion about OWS that isn't positive, that's your choice, however, just shows you are only interested in looking at positive opinions of it.

Now, listen. I've been reasonable in this thread. I got abrasive earlier, but we are all past that. You don't need to pick at me, either in a way that alludes to your discontent, or in a direct attack way (even if you insist it isn't an attack). Go back to presenting factual arguments. You are better at that than you are the personal affront.

Post by ElhonnaDS

http://memebase.com/2011/10/16/internet-memes-pushing-patrick-concerned-sloths-unite/

Thought this fit in here, as the discussion is about lack of reaction to things we disagree with.

Post by Heckler

I wasn't pointing to his grammar, or his spelling, but his lack of meaningful criticism toward the substance of what he was examining.
This is where you missed his point, and then flew off the handle attacking your misunderstanding. He was justifying the Tea Party Nation's distinction between Marxist and Communist, not criticizing it (as Azazel's post seemed to be poking fun at an unnecessary distinction). The part of his post that was a criticism, you seemingly ignored completely.

. . . *snip* . . .
I won't bother to post a reply to the rest, because this is exactly the conversation I don't want to have in this thread. But rest assured, I read your rebuttal in full. Since much of what you wrote was perfectly predictable before you wrote it; I'll just let you predict what I would say in response, satisfied that you'll probably be close enough to end the conversation.

Moving on?

Occupy Wall Street Protests

Post Reply