The occupation of wallstreet

**Gadritan** · 2011-09-21 00:31

Originally Posted by Plow

In other words, you destroyed any semblance of credibility by stating that the current tax system needs reform, such as turning it into pretty much the most regressive, unfair, and easily abused system imaginable.

Yeah, it was a piss poor example, I just couldn't think of anything else off the fly at the time that was easy to say as far as a radically different system. It was a tiny detail amongst everything else I was trying to say and apparently is going to overshadow my message since some people will latch on to that one detail to go "HOMG YOURE SO FUCKING STUPID HA."

Edit: Just failing at finding the proper analogies tonight.

**Senoska** · 2011-09-21 00:35

Incoming wall of text. Gonna reply to every point you made.

Originally Posted by Gadritan

You're right and wrong at the same time. What we're arguing here, is ideology, which in and of itself isn't factual. Some of those beliefs may be based on facts, but that doesn't mean that they are facts.

I think we might be on a different page here because my point was that the right has moved substantially to the right. Without slipping into semantics, these ideas are rooted in facts and in history. We're able to examine ourselves to see where we're at. We're self aware creatures that posses that ability. While removing yourself from the reference of your culture may be something difficult to do, its not entirely impossible. We can say, judged on the last few years of politics, that the right, being clearly defined by being part of the culture we're in, has moved farther to the right than at any point in the past. We can gauge the accuracy of this statement based upon our recorded history which tells us this is the case. With that being said, opinion breaks down when compared to fact. It is true that you can say there is an inherent bias in history or the present, but I think that this could be said for everything, and becomes a moot point. What I'm getting to is this: I could say my opinion is that the Germans never killed any Jews, and there are in fact people that think this (Firas?), however, historically we know this to be false, and thus, the opinion is incorrect.

Obviously by the previous statement, there is no right or wrong as far as these subjects. Thus, this statement is wrong. I challenge you to do what you claim I can't. Own up to it.

As I covered in the last point, can you say that the opinion of those that deny the holocaust is wrong? Even though it is their opinion.

Didn't stop any of them from joining in the cause that you seem to support so adamantly.

I dont know if you missed the part about me not living anywhere near new york or the fact that I have work and class. You seemed to skip right to the part where I said "I have work" and ignored the rest. I cannot drop what I'm doing to go to New York for a protest. If it happened near me, you best bet I would be there. I have attended several protests in my home state, and go whenever I can. But either way, does me not being there in person nullify any of my points? I'm a little confused why you're even trying to bring this up.

I believe this is an exaggeration based on extremes. To make these generalized statements about the right is unfair. Most do not have these hardline stances. Using an admittedly biased facet of the media as a way to reaffirm your point is also completely unfair and ironic.

Its hardly an exaggeration. Again, I hope this doesnt get into semantics, but the things I had listed are almost all from the definition of the word. The GOP IS the fascist party right now. You can choose to say I'm wrong, and that is fine, but if you actually look up what makes a government a fascist government and compare that with the policies and rhetoric of the GOP and current candidates from the party, this would become blatantly obvious. If we used Stanley Payne's classic theory of Fascism, its pretty clear where we are:

Fascist Negations:

Anti-Liberalism
Anti-Communism
Anti Conservatism (Although, Fascist groups are willing to undertake a group from another sector, most typically the right.)

And their characteristics:

Creation of nationalistic authoritarian state
Organization of some kind of regulated, multi-class, integrated national economic structure
The goal of Empire.
Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarism creed.
Emphasis on aesthetic structure, stressing romantic and mystical aspects
Attempt mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and the goal of mass party militia
Positive evaluation and use of violence
Extreme stress on the masculine principle
Exaltation of youth
Specific tendency toward and authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command.

I think if you seriously took some time and applied these principles to the GOP, or shit, read the wiki page, you'd understand why I'm saying these things. It wasn't an analogy, I meant it how I typed it. The right are Fascist. Its not meant to be necessarily a bad word. I'm not using it in the same context as "He's a commie!" I'm just calling it what it is.

This is another huge problem. This split between right/left. It's ridiculous. There shouldn't be an "us," against "them," "right," vs "left." It's self defeating. The blame is with the government and the people. The country. Not the left or the right. Picking and choosing which parts each side is responsible for is part of what's fundamentally flawed and it perpetuates the cycle. I'm neither for the record. I don't agree with tax increases on the rich as they've been proposed, nor the middle class. I believe there needs to be a complete reformation of taxes, such as the Fair Tax Act. This would help alleviate the strain of the social safety nets and entitlement programs that aren't being removed because they're "socialist," or impede corporate agendas, it's simply because they're failing. They realistically can not continue in their current forms.

Any type of society has the others. By defining who you are, you also define who you're not. The split between the left and the right are real splits on fundamental ideologies, and is something that is separated in language for a reason. Also, causality does exist in the world. We can do something and say "This happened as a result." While you can try and spin history with that bias I mentioned earlier, examining the statistics beyond just opinions gives us a history that is impossible to ignore.

Also, lol fair tax act. That's absolutely crazy. You're for getting rid of all federal income tax, death tax, capital gains tax, payroll tax, etc? Not to mention a flat 23% on services would affect the bottom far more than the top. 23% to someone making $20,000 - $30,000 is going to hurt someone a hell of a lot more than someone making a million or more. Tax brackets exist for a reason, as do the other taxes.

When the protest are misguided, I feel they can do more harm than good to a cause. I've already covered that with what was deemed a poor analogy, but I believe the idea I was trying to convey was still understood. The media does have to pick and choose what events they show. Yes, there is bias there, however, I think the lack of coverage has more to do with how small of a showing and how weak the message is. What coverage they have gotten has actually exaggerated the numbers for them. It hurts their credibility as well when they try to compare this to Egypt, or when they're stuttering in front of a camera completely unsure of what to say when they're asked what they're doing there. This feels much more typical of the short attention span these generations have. Rather than ripples causing waves, they're more likely to simply dissipate.

Why are these protests misguided? Because you say so? You're buying into a stereotype that you set up. This is circular logic. Stop doing it.

You covered nothing. It wasnt an analogy. I meant exactly what I typed. The media does pick and choose what they show, and I'm glad we agree there is bias, but the lack of coverage has nothing to do with the amount of people showing up. The news has shifted from something that came on in the morning and the night to a 24 hour cycle on their own channels, and they've focused more on ratings than actual reporting. The media has shifted to lazy sensationalism. Rather than cover a story about the wars we're fighting, the people in the streets dying, the object poverty seen around the country, and those that are fighting against it, its easier just to show a youtube video about a cat to keep people happy. Or maybe a story about how that new movie contagion could happen in real life just to scare the shit out of you. Its a business model, thats whats wrong with it.

And you're going to blame them for not having answers to questions you yourself have no answers to? Of course they're going to stutter. Quick! Whats the meaning of life and everything?! "uh... um..." "YOU'RE HURTING OUR CAUSE! WAHHH." is basically what you're saying.

I explained to you why these events matter and drew on MacIntyre to explain in more detail why the things that happen today play a role in the future. It seems you chose to ignore that.

Again, we have to get out of this mindset of right vs left. Neither is 100% right, and until we evolve beyond this split party mentality, we'll never get it right either. It starts with us.

The You're I agree, it starts with us, whoever that us is, business man or hippy.

I disagree here as well. It's always seemed to me that it's when things hit rock bottom that the protests really began to thrive. When people have simply "had enough." And idle mind can be dangerous. Especially when combined with a mob mentality. Most people are somewhat content to be working, have a roof over their heads, and have food in their belly. They may want to shake things up a little bit, but they're typically too preoccupied to devote themselves entirely to an idea. Like you, I'm simply making assumptions as well on this point. It just seems to be more logical to me.

You can disagree, but people have typically had enough when they're able to think about what it is that they are having. Most people are somewhat content? You say this shortly after poverty statistics come up with a huge rise in the amount of people in poverty. The majority of people are worried about their job, worried about their home, and their family. The minority are secure in their present environment.

The internet has helped solve a lot of this. Being able to go to the BBC for American news alone has been wonderful. It really opens your eyes to how terrible our media is, and how much real news we miss because of it. Solution on a personal level right now, use international sources. Long term...I'm just as lost as you.

The internet is full of misinformation and ideas that reaffirm talking points. Anyone can make a website about any topic, and as long as their logo is impressive enough and people are thick headed enough to believe it, it becomes 'fact.' The internet, in my opinion, has added nothing but ambiguity in news. There are some good sites out there, but how many of those do you think reach a wide portion of Americans comparative to fox news?

The issue I have with this is that 99% of where you are in life is by your own decisions and actions. There's not much you can blame on anyone else, especially at that point in your life. Twenty year olds that are fresh out of college without a job simply don't have a job because they feel entitled to something better than what's available. It's not news that it's incredibly hard to find a job right out of college in your field, nor is it a shocker that most people end up in a field that isn't related to their degree. You suck it up and work at a grocery store, a gas stations, whatever the fuck you have to to get by. I have more respect for people who will work as a janitor to make ends meet than turn their nose up at it. Those that rely on their parents to pay for their college were doomed from the get go. Why is it your parents responsibility in the first place? Big life lesson right there. The only person you can rely on is yourself. That's another problem caused by this self-entitlement attitude. And yes, the decisions we make now will directly affect our lives and how we live for not just the next 10-20years, but the rest of your life. Again, 99% of where you are in life is because of your own decisions and actions. Own it. That's life.

This is the bit I take most issue with, and is another one of those "Your opinion is based on bullshit" arguments. Are you implying that America does not have a class system? Some people are born into money, and a lot more people are born into poverty. Who you are in life and what you do has no effect on anything if you're stuck in an impoverished area. Near where I live, high school students have a higher chance of ending up in prison than they do graduating with a highschool diploma. Do you think that this is by choice, or by environment? Keep in mind we're talking about 52% to 48%.

And yeah, if you graduate with a PhD and are having trouble finding a job, something is seriously wrong. You as an American SHOULD be entitled to a job. This is what we have the government in place for. To say that we should do nothing and sit around being unemployed because of bad policy decisions on behalf of our government is straight up outrageous. If it were my decision to allow free trade, money in government, wars, etc, I'm sure the situation would be different, but ALL of those choices affect my life as well as yours, and they are totally out of our hands.

You're acting on the premise that everyone agrees with these ideas and that they are right. First of all, not everyone does agree with them. Secondly, they're only stating what they they disagree with, yet have no solutions. The solutions need to come first, then you have something truly compelling. That way when someone says "well what should we do about it," you have an answer, rather than just shrugging and saying "I don't know, but it's wrong and needs to be changed."

Btw, not everyone in the south is fat, or a hillbilly, or someone who lacks political awareness thank you very much.

The solutions dont always come first. You've ignored the analogy I made with the doctor. I may not have the solution to your cancer, but you sure do have it.

They're doing it to themselves when they're interviewed and with the signs that they're making. They're destroying their own credibility. We joke about their age, but that's not truly the issue. It's just easy to say "ha, stupid kids," because most of them are rather young. It doesn't help that most of the coherent discussions about the protest have been from elders. The vast majority can't even articulate their grievances, so it's honestly hard to tell if they're legitimate or not. So I'll give you the fact that they might have legitimate grievances, but they definitely need to find a better way to express them to really drive the message home. It's not wise to try to learn about what you're protesting at the protest. They had quite a bit of time to study up on it.

To people like you, they might destroy their creditability. To people that assume that because they're younger and use the word "like" in a sentence, they must be completely ignorant, sure, I'm sure their creditability is destroyed. But those types of people are ignorant, because they're judging the people, and not their ideas.

I wrote you a book. I decided to title it "Fried Butter." Let me know what you think.

edit: Rethought the left vs the right argument and changed the wording.

**Plow** · 2011-09-21 00:38

lol screw this, I'm going to watch some whose line ><

Spoiler: show

**Tyche** · 2011-09-21 00:38

Fair tax was discussed ad nauseum on BG about 3 or 4 years ago. I think there was a 100+ page thread talking about it. I wrote an Econ paper on it years ago.

In so many words, it sucks.

**Gadritan** · 2011-09-21 00:48

Like I said, we just disagree.

Just wanted to make the point that I wasn't hiding from anything. I just didn't feel like going in circles with you writing novels back and forth, which is precisely where we'd be headed again right now since I still think you're wrong about quite a few things...and you still think I'm wrong about quite a few things.

Brick talking to a wall.

**Senoska** · 2011-09-21 00:51

You know, we don't have to write novels to each-other. There was just a lot of points in the post you made. Out of everything said, I felt this point was the most important, so address that if you want, and forget the rest.

Its hardly an exaggeration. Again, I hope this doesnt get into semantics, but the things I had listed are almost all from the definition of the word. The GOP IS the fascist party right now. You can choose to say I'm wrong, and that is fine, but if you actually look up what makes a government a fascist government and compare that with the policies and rhetoric of the GOP and current candidates from the party, this would become blatantly obvious. If we used Stanley Payne's classic theory of Fascism, its pretty clear where we are:

Fascist Negations:

Anti-Liberalism
Anti-Communism
Anti Conservatism (Although, Fascist groups are willing to undertake a group from another sector, most typically the right.)

And their characteristics:

Creation of nationalistic authoritarian state
Organization of some kind of regulated, multi-class, integrated national economic structure
The goal of Empire.
Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarism creed.
Emphasis on aesthetic structure, stressing romantic and mystical aspects
Attempt mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and the goal of mass party militia
Positive evaluation and use of violence
Extreme stress on the masculine principle
Exaltation of youth
Specific tendency toward and authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command.

I think if you seriously took some time and applied these principles to the GOP, or shit, read the wiki page, you'd understand why I'm saying these things. It wasn't an analogy, I meant it how I typed it. The right are Fascist. Its not meant to be necessarily a bad word. I'm not using it in the same context as "He's a commie!" I'm just calling it what it is.

Given these criteria, which do you take issue with?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
for reference ^

**Gadritan** · 2011-09-21 00:59

I wasn't referring to that part actually, lol. Fascism isn't a derogatory term for the most part and is pretty spot on. It was the abortion, religion, immigration, socialist, communist part.

**Senoska** · 2011-09-21 01:01

What specifically about those things? The fact the right apposes abortion, is religious in nature, is anti immigration, anti socialist and anti communist? All of which are tendencies of a fascist government?

Super relevant.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_972267.html

**Gadritan** · 2011-09-21 01:04

Originally Posted by Senoska

What specifically about those things? The fact the right apposes abortion, is religious in nature, is anti immigration, anti socialist and anti communist? All of which are tendencies of a fascist government?

That's not true about everyone in the right though. That's what I meant. That's also why I think this whole left/right thing has got to fucking go.

Because of it, even if someone on the right has a good idea, so many people on the left will refuse to acknowledge it simply because it came from the right and vice-verse. It's insane.

**notorious bum** · 2011-09-21 01:05

Originally Posted by Gadritan

Btw, why even bring up a country that has over half it's population living in poverty as an example of doing it right?

Every reply you make on here just reeks of "2hr wikipedia research expert." You should have just asked me WHY Bolivia is an example of successful protest and uprising instead of making an ass of yourself by pointing out an obvious and irrelevant stat; trying to say something while actually saying nothing at all.

EDIT: I was about to make a short list of the success in Bolivia, but I found this handy log of the year of notable protests to save me the effort.

http://woborders.wordpress.com/2011/...-ten-protests/

**Plow** · 2011-09-21 01:06

Except that's not how it works. The right rejects any ideas that "come from" the left, even if they originated with the right. The left attempts to cooperate. Hence the left getting shit and the country getting shit on for the last 10 years.

**Senoska** · 2011-09-21 01:08

Thread: The occupation of wallstreet

Thread Tools

Fried Butter

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads