As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

OWS - Finger-Wiggling Their Way To a Better Tomorrow

1747577798087

Posts

  • VanguardVanguard But now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2012
    Then why would you bother to engage me?

    I asked a series of pretty reasonable questions about the activity surrounding Union Square. The cops have been enforcing the curfew in the park, which they don't ever do. They shut down the subway at the park for two hours over a suspicious package during the peak hours of the protest.

    My entire point in bringing this stuff up was in response to the page-long argument that was being had about what constitutes fair use of the word "many". I figured people might want to talk about actual things that are happening rather than argue semantics.

    Vanguard on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I think maybe you're being a little touchy on this one, Vanguard. One coincidence that doesn't really seem that shady does not a conspiracy make.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • VanguardVanguard But now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    I'm not saying this is definitely what's going on, but I do think there is precedent. I'd much rather be told I'm being a goosey conspiracy theorist than spend another page talking about the use of a word like "many".

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Lol, that's an incredibly good point.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    Video is too short to prove anything.

    For what it's worth, the cop doesn't seem upset. He sounds like he's repeating a phrase he was instructed to say; I get the impression it has some secondary meaning to him and the other cops.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    FWIW, They shut down one line for "police investigations" all the time without shutting down the full station. Im not really sure how closing the L but leaving the 456 running hurts the protestors.

  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited March 2012
    I can't find anything about this on google. Was the N,Q,R down also?

    Deebaser on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    So... once a goose always a goose?

    It seems to me that discussions in general are way more productive if you don't assume that people are being completely unreasonable at every turn just because you tend to disagree with things they say. So, if there is a plausible explanation for their words that actually makes sense, go with that.

    I'm sorry, but some of us have longer memories then a goldfish.

    When someone spends ages ragging on a particular group for every little thing, one generally assumes a continuity of opinion when they post again.

    Is that really what you see me as having done? I have certainly posted criticisms of OWS, but I have also posted what I see as honest advice for conveying their messages to the other side. I'm just interested in exploring as many sides of an issue as we can here, which is why I started an antidrug thread and then ended it talking about viable strategies for pushing towards legalization and acceptance. More importantly, I'm the guy who may disagree with you at the start, but will actually change his mind based on the discussion that starts from this disagreement (I did this in the patriotism, IP and drug threads, just to name a few). Dismissing people based on the fact that you disagree repeatedly is unproductive at best, and can often be counter productive.

    I always try to argue in good faith, and to engage with people I disagree with, even if they become hostile towards me. I don't really see the point in doing anything else. It's just a message board, its not worth getting angry at a stranger over, imo.

    Sorry SKFM, thought it was another poster. My bad.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    IIRC, The top 1% of income is around $300,000. The top 1% of wealth is around $19,000,000
    What multi-millionaire is accepting 1.5% ROI? There's no way that that includes capital gains.

    Than, it's only counts as capital gains if you actually capitalize it. Also, I imagine, but I'm not sure. It includes assets like your home and car and is not limited to a money pile.

    19 million seems high to me as well, but I think it was @Feral that brought that source to the table.

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/about-that-99-percent/
    According to an analysis of Federal Reserve data by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research organization, the top 1 percent of Americans by net worth hold about a third of American wealth.

    The average net worth for the 99th percentile in net worth was $19,167,600 as of 2007, based on this research. The average net worth of the next 9 percent of Americans was $2,371,500.

    That was the best figure I could find. The report that it comes from is linked in the NYT article. And, yes, it does include assets like real estate.

    The problem here is that income statistics don't take into account the appreciation of capital assets unless that appreciation is taxable as income (which is more or less what you said, Deebaser). So if we want to call the appreciation of household equity 'income' for the purposes of our discussion, for example, then there are a lot of people with income much higher than the statistics suggest. I don't know all the rules on when you have to declare the appreciation of an asset as income and when you don't, so I don't know how much of a problem this represents for our discussion.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    People arguing about defining the exact numerical line above which the 99% are talking about are missing the point entirely.

  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    Houn wrote: »
    People arguing about defining the exact numerical line above which the 99% are talking about are missing the point entirely.

    Yeah. It's not like 98.9th percentile is doing terribly.

  • VanguardVanguard But now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    I can't find anything about this on google. Was the N,Q,R down also?

    Yes. Only the 4, 5, and 6 remained open.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Houn wrote: »
    People arguing about defining the exact numerical line above which the 99% are talking about are missing the point entirely.

    I disagree. If OWS has the goals of (1) raising awareness of income inequality and the unfair rules and other factors that help to perpetuate and increase this inequality and (2) trying to change these factors and decrease income inequality, then it seems both counterproductive and distracting to lump the lower portion of the 99% by income in with the "enemy." It is counterproductive because, while undeniably having benefited from luck, people making $300-500k a year are probably not the ones benefiting from the unfair rules, so they may well be just as open to trying to change them as people in the bottom 50%. I think that alienating potential allies who are more likely to have intimate knowledge of how the super wealthy exploit the system and who have more money to donate to the movement just doesn't make sense. I still think that the most credible thing that OWS has done was the report on Dodd-Frank, which was written by out of work finance professionals. Imagine how much more good work like that could be done if OWS's message wasn't so damning of similiar people who are still employed.

    I think that focusing on income also muddies the message, because the factors that allow someone to make $300k, like good luck and hard work, are much more sympathetic than the way that people at the top of the finance food chain made billions off of destroying the economy. When you say "1%" I think you want the image conjured to immeadiately be those people, not your doctor or your nephew who was lucky enough to get a job in finance right out of college.

    We already had this conversation earlier in the thread.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Given the past editting of these "citizen journalists" and their willingness to just outright fucking lie, I am amazed that you still give any credence to youtube clips.

    Yes, it's not like police ever lie when it benefits them.

  • VanguardVanguard But now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2012
    OWS doesn't actually hate the 1%, SKFM. It hates the system that exists to benefit the 1% almost exclusively. The entire movement is an indictment of the policies that allowed things like the financial collapse of 2008 to happen, the housing market crash, the soon to come student loan crash, the tax loopholes that allow corporations earning billions to pay less in taxes than someone like me (who only makes 30k).

    Income inequality is an important focus point because it shows very real effects of these toxic policies.

    So when you hear, "We are the 99%" they're not saying it in an us vs. them mentality, but rather, a, "we, the majority in this country, are not being served by these policies"

    This was linked earlier in the thread, but it's a good summary of this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRtc-k6dhgs&feature=player_embedded
    

    Vanguard on
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    It's a FUCKING CATCH-PHRASE, dudes. Are we gonna parse Obama's "Yes we can" now too? Can what? Can we really? Who are we? What if I don't want to?

    hippofant on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    It's a FUCKING CATCH-PHRASE, dudes. Are we gonna parse Obama's "Yes we can" now too?

    si se puede

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    OWS doesn't actually hate the 1%, SKFM. It hates the system that exists to benefit the 1% almost exclusively. The entire movement is an indictment of the policies that allowed things like the financial collapse of 2008 to happen, the housing market crash, the soon to come student loan crash, the tax loopholes that allow corporations earning billions to pay less in taxes than someone like me (who only makes 30k).

    Income inequality is an important focus point because it shows very real effects of these toxic policies.

    So when you hear, "We are the 99%" they're not saying it in an us vs. them mentality, but rather, a, "we, the majority in this country, are not being served by these policies"

    This was linked earlier in the thread, but it's a good summary of this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRtc-k6dhgs&feature=player_embedded
    

    Space is right in that they need to sell their message better. The leaderless system is biting them on the ass on that front.

    They'd do well to get rid of the psychos who damage their reputation, as well.

  • VanguardVanguard But now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2012
    We're having this conversation again? At the height of OWS, something like 70% of New Yorkers agreed with it. It had more support than the Tea Party, and close to a majority of support nation-wide. Sounds like they did a pretty good job to me.

    Vanguard on
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    It's a FUCKING CATCH-PHRASE, dudes. Are we gonna parse Obama's "Yes we can" now too? Can what? Can we really? Who are we? What if I don't want to?

    It is how they have been defined. There are countless articles written on the top 1% (many focusing on the top 1% by income, not wealth). Do you not see how "We are the 99%" would make someone in the 1% who is not abusing the system feel excluded? Messaging matters. As someone who spends a lot of time with borderline 1%ers (by income, not wealth) I can tell you that there are definitely generally left leaning people that have a bad impression of OWS because they feel that they are being personally attacked and lumped in with the "real bad guys" (actually, most people I talk to about OWS in real life seem to be opposed on this basis alone).

  • lonelyahavalonelyahava Call me Ahava ~~She/Her~~ Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    If there's somebody in the 1% who is not abusing the system, then one could possibly hope that they have enough empathy and understanding for their fellow human beings that they might understand the point of the protest, rather than just see numbers on paper.

  • hanskeyhanskey Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    hippofant wrote: »
    It's a FUCKING CATCH-PHRASE, dudes. Are we gonna parse Obama's "Yes we can" now too? Can what? Can we really? Who are we? What if I don't want to?

    It is how they have been defined. There are countless articles written on the top 1% (many focusing on the top 1% by income, not wealth). Do you not see how "We are the 99%" would make someone in the 1% who is not abusing the system feel excluded? Messaging matters. As someone who spends a lot of time with borderline 1%ers (by income, not wealth) I can tell you that there are definitely generally left leaning people that have a bad impression of OWS because they feel that they are being personally attacked and lumped in with the "real bad guys" (actually, most people I talk to about OWS in real life seem to be opposed on this basis alone).
    Frankly I'm 100% sure that rational people in OWS don't want to alienate the people you mention, because they would be the perfect kind of support for this movement. However, you are expressing impractical wishful thinking and so are the nearly wealthy people you like to rub elbows with.

    You would be better served by suggesting to your well-incomed "friends" that if they agree with the goals and sentiments of the movement then they should ignore the mostly meaningless catch-phrase. They will be much easier to reach out to and get to change than such a geographically and social disparate association as OWS. In fact, they should do something clever like become "1%-ers that love the 99%", or find a way to drive the message without having to be exposed to those who would be hostile to them personally.

    Edit: Maybe "Yuppies For Wealth For All", or "Yuppies Against Fascism", or "Borderline Rich Supporters of OWS", or "We Also Get Fucked By The Super Wealthy" or "We Hate The Rothschilds Too" or "End The Federal Reserve System And Restore Democracy And Freedom".

    hanskey on
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    hippofant wrote: »
    It's a FUCKING CATCH-PHRASE, dudes. Are we gonna parse Obama's "Yes we can" now too? Can what? Can we really? Who are we? What if I don't want to?

    It is how they have been defined. There are countless articles written on the top 1% (many focusing on the top 1% by income, not wealth). Do you not see how "We are the 99%" would make someone in the 1% who is not abusing the system feel excluded? Messaging matters. As someone who spends a lot of time with borderline 1%ers (by income, not wealth) I can tell you that there are definitely generally left leaning people that have a bad impression of OWS because they feel that they are being personally attacked and lumped in with the "real bad guys" (actually, most people I talk to about OWS in real life seem to be opposed on this basis alone).

    And when people playing online games complain about Chinese gold farmers or hackers, somehow I'm able to not get miffed about it because I've got enough brains to realise they're not talking about me despite my race.

    It's a fucking slogan. When you buy a Double-Down sandwich from KFC, you are neither paying twice the amount of money to receive twice the amount of food nor are you receiving any bread. Yet somehow, we're still able to wrap our heads around that shit. If someone isn't getting it, then they're either being intentionally obtuse about it or they're an idiot. Or they're being obstinately idiotic.

    Edit: Also, who the fuck would even KNOW they're in the top 1% of income earners until this thing started? Who's been regularly checking their annual income against the statistical distribution? If you WEREN'T SURE whether you were in the 1%, then went and found out you're in the 1%, and now are mad that they don't like the 1%, well, firstly, nobody knew you were 1% to start with and second, at least you know NOW.

    hippofant on
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    hanskey wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    It's a FUCKING CATCH-PHRASE, dudes. Are we gonna parse Obama's "Yes we can" now too? Can what? Can we really? Who are we? What if I don't want to?

    It is how they have been defined. There are countless articles written on the top 1% (many focusing on the top 1% by income, not wealth). Do you not see how "We are the 99%" would make someone in the 1% who is not abusing the system feel excluded? Messaging matters. As someone who spends a lot of time with borderline 1%ers (by income, not wealth) I can tell you that there are definitely generally left leaning people that have a bad impression of OWS because they feel that they are being personally attacked and lumped in with the "real bad guys" (actually, most people I talk to about OWS in real life seem to be opposed on this basis alone).
    Frankly I'm sure that OWS doesn't want to alienate the people you mention, because they would be the perfect kind of support for this movement. However, you are expressing impractical wishful thinking.

    You would be better served by suggesting to your well-incomed "friends" that if they agree with the goals and sentiments of the movement then they should ignore the mostly meaningless catch-phrase. They will be much easier to reach out to and get to change than such a geographically and social disparate association as OWS. In fact, they should do something clever like become "1%-ers that love the 99%", or find a way to drive the message without having to be exposed to those who would be hostile to them personally.

    Edit: Maybe "Yuppies For Wealth For All", or "Yuppies Against Fascism", or "Borderline Rich Supporters of OWS", or "We Get Fucked By The Super Wealthy Too".

    Why did you put quotes around friends?

    The problem with your approach (which seems to be suggesting that they "be the bigger person") is that there are people in OWS who are angry at people at the border. Hell, there are people several pages back in this thread who were arguing against the idea of delineating between the 1% by income and the 1% by wealth at all. If the movement wants to court these people, it needs to stop villianizing them. Saying "they are going to keep insulting you, but just ignore it" seems to be asking too much when it is OWS and not these people who with the most to gain from their support. You also have to remember that there may be people in this group who are undecided regarding OWS, and I think it is on OWS to get their support, not on other people outside the movement to mitigate OWS's active efforts to push them away or at best their complete disregard for courting this type of support.

    I am really just trying to help here. I disagree with a lot of things about OWS, especially a lot of their tactics, but I want to see them advocate for their position in the most effective way possible, and it seems to me like messaging clarity is an area they could really work on. "The wealthiest 1%" doesn't sound bad at all, but it much clearer. I also think they need to say "reduce income inequality" instead of just argue against it (since arguing against income inequality with no qualification sounds like radical redistribution, which is not what they are arguing for). I get that a large, disorganized group is hard to keep on message, or direct, but you can only make allowances based on this for so long before it starts to sound like the whole movement is too unwieldy to be effective (which actually seemed to be the case with the general assembly).

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    It's a FUCKING CATCH-PHRASE, dudes. Are we gonna parse Obama's "Yes we can" now too? Can what? Can we really? Who are we? What if I don't want to?

    It is how they have been defined. There are countless articles written on the top 1% (many focusing on the top 1% by income, not wealth). Do you not see how "We are the 99%" would make someone in the 1% who is not abusing the system feel excluded? Messaging matters. As someone who spends a lot of time with borderline 1%ers (by income, not wealth) I can tell you that there are definitely generally left leaning people that have a bad impression of OWS because they feel that they are being personally attacked and lumped in with the "real bad guys" (actually, most people I talk to about OWS in real life seem to be opposed on this basis alone).

    And when people playing online games complain about Chinese gold farmers or hackers, somehow I'm able to not get miffed about it because I've got enough brains to realise they're not talking about me despite my race.

    It's a fucking slogan. When you buy a Double-Down sandwich from KFC, you are neither paying twice the amount of money to receive twice the amount of food nor are you receiving any bread. Yet somehow, we're still able to wrap our heads around that shit. If someone isn't getting it, then they're either being intentionally obtuse about it or they're an idiot. Or they're being obstinately idiotic.

    Edit: Also, who the fuck would even KNOW they're in the top 1% of income earners until this thing started? Who's been regularly checking their annual income against the statistical distribution? If you WEREN'T SURE whether you were in the 1%, then went and found out you're in the 1%, and now are mad that they don't like the 1%, well, firstly, nobody knew you were 1% to start with and second, at least you know NOW.

    Or they read articles in the NY times saying "OWS is against the 1%" and "the 1% are people making $300k per year" and draw the perfectly reasonable conclusion that OWS is against people that make $300k per year.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    hippofant wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    It's a FUCKING CATCH-PHRASE, dudes. Are we gonna parse Obama's "Yes we can" now too? Can what? Can we really? Who are we? What if I don't want to?

    It is how they have been defined. There are countless articles written on the top 1% (many focusing on the top 1% by income, not wealth). Do you not see how "We are the 99%" would make someone in the 1% who is not abusing the system feel excluded? Messaging matters. As someone who spends a lot of time with borderline 1%ers (by income, not wealth) I can tell you that there are definitely generally left leaning people that have a bad impression of OWS because they feel that they are being personally attacked and lumped in with the "real bad guys" (actually, most people I talk to about OWS in real life seem to be opposed on this basis alone).

    And when people playing online games complain about Chinese gold farmers or hackers, somehow I'm able to not get miffed about it because I've got enough brains to realise they're not talking about me despite my race.

    It's a fucking slogan. When you buy a Double-Down sandwich from KFC, you are neither paying twice the amount of money to receive twice the amount of food nor are you receiving any bread. Yet somehow, we're still able to wrap our heads around that shit. If someone isn't getting it, then they're either being intentionally obtuse about it or they're an idiot. Or they're being obstinately idiotic.

    Edit: Also, who the fuck would even KNOW they're in the top 1% of income earners until this thing started? Who's been regularly checking their annual income against the statistical distribution? If you WEREN'T SURE whether you were in the 1%, then went and found out you're in the 1%, and now are mad that they don't like the 1%, well, firstly, nobody knew you were 1% to start with and second, at least you know NOW.

    Or they read articles in the NY times saying "OWS is against the 1%" and "the 1% are people making $300k per year" and draw the perfectly reasonable conclusion that OWS is against people that make $300k per year.

    Maybe they should FINISH READING THE ARTICLE. I'd hope that if you're smart enough to read the New York Times, you're smart enough to understand that the world isn't all about you, and that really, 99.999999% of the world's population couldn't give a shit less who you are, never mind how much you make.

    hippofant on
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    hanskey wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    It's a FUCKING CATCH-PHRASE, dudes. Are we gonna parse Obama's "Yes we can" now too? Can what? Can we really? Who are we? What if I don't want to?

    It is how they have been defined. There are countless articles written on the top 1% (many focusing on the top 1% by income, not wealth). Do you not see how "We are the 99%" would make someone in the 1% who is not abusing the system feel excluded? Messaging matters. As someone who spends a lot of time with borderline 1%ers (by income, not wealth) I can tell you that there are definitely generally left leaning people that have a bad impression of OWS because they feel that they are being personally attacked and lumped in with the "real bad guys" (actually, most people I talk to about OWS in real life seem to be opposed on this basis alone).
    Frankly I'm sure that OWS doesn't want to alienate the people you mention, because they would be the perfect kind of support for this movement. However, you are expressing impractical wishful thinking.

    You would be better served by suggesting to your well-incomed "friends" that if they agree with the goals and sentiments of the movement then they should ignore the mostly meaningless catch-phrase. They will be much easier to reach out to and get to change than such a geographically and social disparate association as OWS. In fact, they should do something clever like become "1%-ers that love the 99%", or find a way to drive the message without having to be exposed to those who would be hostile to them personally.

    Edit: Maybe "Yuppies For Wealth For All", or "Yuppies Against Fascism", or "Borderline Rich Supporters of OWS", or "We Get Fucked By The Super Wealthy Too".

    Why did you put quotes around friends?

    The problem with your approach (which seems to be suggesting that they "be the bigger person") is that there are people in OWS who are angry at people at the border. Hell, there are people several pages back in this thread who were arguing against the idea of delineating between the 1% by income and the 1% by wealth at all. If the movement wants to court these people, it needs to stop villianizing them. Saying "they are going to keep insulting you, but just ignore it" seems to be asking too much when it is OWS and not these people who with the most to gain from their support. You also have to remember that there may be people in this group who are undecided regarding OWS, and I think it is on OWS to get their support, not on other people outside the movement to mitigate OWS's active efforts to push them away or at best their complete disregard for courting this type of support.

    I am really just trying to help here. I disagree with a lot of things about OWS, especially a lot of their tactics, but I want to see them advocate for their position in the most effective way possible, and it seems to me like messaging clarity is an area they could really work on. "The wealthiest 1%" doesn't sound bad at all, but it much clearer. I also think they need to say "reduce income inequality" instead of just argue against it (since arguing against income inequality with no qualification sounds like radical redistribution, which is not what they are arguing for). I get that a large, disorganized group is hard to keep on message, or direct, but you can only make allowances based on this for so long before it starts to sound like the whole movement is too unwieldy to be effective (which actually seemed to be the case with the general assembly).

    Getting the 1%er's that believe in common goals can only help OWS. Not only with funds, but perhaps building up a faction dedicated to influencing the media from within not just with protests. Protesting only gets so far. They need spokespeople who can articulate the message to neutralize their opponents framing the issues against them.

    Harry Dresden on
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Do you not see how "We are the 99%" would make someone in the 1% who is not abusing the system feel excluded?

    It'd probably be a new and enlightening experience for someone who has likely never felt excluded before. Possibly leading to anger that other, irresponsible rich people are unjustly harming their reputation.

  • hanskeyhanskey Registered User regular
    hanskey wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    It's a FUCKING CATCH-PHRASE, dudes. Are we gonna parse Obama's "Yes we can" now too? Can what? Can we really? Who are we? What if I don't want to?

    It is how they have been defined. There are countless articles written on the top 1% (many focusing on the top 1% by income, not wealth). Do you not see how "We are the 99%" would make someone in the 1% who is not abusing the system feel excluded? Messaging matters. As someone who spends a lot of time with borderline 1%ers (by income, not wealth) I can tell you that there are definitely generally left leaning people that have a bad impression of OWS because they feel that they are being personally attacked and lumped in with the "real bad guys" (actually, most people I talk to about OWS in real life seem to be opposed on this basis alone).
    Frankly I'm sure that OWS doesn't want to alienate the people you mention, because they would be the perfect kind of support for this movement. However, you are expressing impractical wishful thinking.

    You would be better served by suggesting to your well-incomed "friends" that if they agree with the goals and sentiments of the movement then they should ignore the mostly meaningless catch-phrase. They will be much easier to reach out to and get to change than such a geographically and social disparate association as OWS. In fact, they should do something clever like become "1%-ers that love the 99%", or find a way to drive the message without having to be exposed to those who would be hostile to them personally.

    Edit: Maybe "Yuppies For Wealth For All", or "Yuppies Against Fascism", or "Borderline Rich Supporters of OWS", or "We Get Fucked By The Super Wealthy Too".

    Why did you put quotes around friends?

    The problem with your approach (which seems to be suggesting that they "be the bigger person") is that there are people in OWS who are angry at people at the border. Hell, there are people several pages back in this thread who were arguing against the idea of delineating between the 1% by income and the 1% by wealth at all. If the movement wants to court these people, it needs to stop villianizing them. Saying "they are going to keep insulting you, but just ignore it" seems to be asking too much when it is OWS and not these people who with the most to gain from their support. You also have to remember that there may be people in this group who are undecided regarding OWS, and I think it is on OWS to get their support, not on other people outside the movement to mitigate OWS's active efforts to push them away or at best their complete disregard for courting this type of support.

    I am really just trying to help here. I disagree with a lot of things about OWS, especially a lot of their tactics, but I want to see them advocate for their position in the most effective way possible, and it seems to me like messaging clarity is an area they could really work on. "The wealthiest 1%" doesn't sound bad at all, but it much clearer. I also think they need to say "reduce income inequality" instead of just argue against it (since arguing against income inequality with no qualification sounds like radical redistribution, which is not what they are arguing for). I get that a large, disorganized group is hard to keep on message, or direct, but you can only make allowances based on this for so long before it starts to sound like the whole movement is too unwieldy to be effective (which actually seemed to be the case with the general assembly).
    I guess I did put friends in quotes!?? ... feel free to ignore that, cause it wasn't intentional :)

    I totally get where you are coming from, however I'm just proposing that if you know people that are basically sympathetic to OWS, but don't like their catchphrase, then you might suggest that they take control of the message. Personally I think 1% is far too broad, but OWS is very hard to influence, just like any other movement, but creating an ancillary movement or movements that works in concert with it would be a damn good idea.

  • hanskeyhanskey Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Besides the nearly rich would hate protesting in public and getting a faceful of mace for the trouble. Plus, in KC, the protestors are mainly homeless people and even I don't want to be involved with that crew.


    Luckily, the protests are the smallest and least important part of what OWS is doing to effect change.

    hanskey on
  • SticksSticks I'd rather be in bed.Registered User regular
    Do you not see how "We are the 99%" would make someone in the 1% who is not abusing the system feel excluded?

    It'd probably be a new and enlightening experience for someone who has likely never felt excluded before. Possibly leading to anger that other, irresponsible rich people are unjustly harming their reputation.

    That's pretty naive. That anger would almost assuredly be directed at those fucking lazy jobless hippies who don't know what they are talking about.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    It's a FUCKING CATCH-PHRASE, dudes. Are we gonna parse Obama's "Yes we can" now too? Can what? Can we really? Who are we? What if I don't want to?

    It is how they have been defined. There are countless articles written on the top 1% (many focusing on the top 1% by income, not wealth). Do you not see how "We are the 99%" would make someone in the 1% who is not abusing the system feel excluded? Messaging matters. As someone who spends a lot of time with borderline 1%ers (by income, not wealth) I can tell you that there are definitely generally left leaning people that have a bad impression of OWS because they feel that they are being personally attacked and lumped in with the "real bad guys" (actually, most people I talk to about OWS in real life seem to be opposed on this basis alone).

    And when people playing online games complain about Chinese gold farmers or hackers, somehow I'm able to not get miffed about it because I've got enough brains to realise they're not talking about me despite my race.

    It's a fucking slogan. When you buy a Double-Down sandwich from KFC, you are neither paying twice the amount of money to receive twice the amount of food nor are you receiving any bread. Yet somehow, we're still able to wrap our heads around that shit. If someone isn't getting it, then they're either being intentionally obtuse about it or they're an idiot. Or they're being obstinately idiotic.

    Edit: Also, who the fuck would even KNOW they're in the top 1% of income earners until this thing started? Who's been regularly checking their annual income against the statistical distribution? If you WEREN'T SURE whether you were in the 1%, then went and found out you're in the 1%, and now are mad that they don't like the 1%, well, firstly, nobody knew you were 1% to start with and second, at least you know NOW.

    Or they read articles in the NY times saying "OWS is against the 1%" and "the 1% are people making $300k per year" and draw the perfectly reasonable conclusion that OWS is against people that make $300k per year.

    Maybe they should FINISH READING THE ARTICLE. I'd hope that if you're smart enough to read the New York Times, you're smart enough to understand that the world isn't all about you, and that really, 99.999999% of the world's population couldn't give a shit less who you are, never mind how much you make.

    I really don't understand why the idea that people in the 1% who are sympathetic or borderline sympathetic to OWS and who are generally opposed to the liberties taken by the super rich with laws and destructive behavior would be offended by being lumped in with the people they are opposed to bothers you so much. Put another way, OWS could just as easily have been the 90% against the 10% or the 99.9% against the .1%. Both of these include the real "bad guys" and the only difference is how many other people get lumped in with them. I think putting someone with $300k in income in the same category as the people with $100 million earned by selling CMOs is just as unjustified as lumping in someone who makes $50k. A category descriptor that is meant to encapsulate a specific group but which incorporates a large number of unrelated people is not accurate or useful.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Funny, I remember seeing all kinds of people on the news who were talking about how they were in the 1% and they were supporting the 99% and no one in the protests treated them poorly.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    Look. If you're technically in the 1%, and don't understand that the slogan is not a statement of animosity against you, but rather a society in which wealth concentration has destroyed the middle class and all chances for social mobility, and instead decide to take it personally be angry at the people saying it...

    Congratulations. You are, in fact, part of the problem that OWS is protesting.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    Sticks wrote: »
    Do you not see how "We are the 99%" would make someone in the 1% who is not abusing the system feel excluded?

    It'd probably be a new and enlightening experience for someone who has likely never felt excluded before. Possibly leading to anger that other, irresponsible rich people are unjustly harming their reputation.

    That's pretty naive. That anger would almost assuredly be directed at those fucking lazy jobless hippies who don't know what they are talking about.

    This is exactly like every other conversation about privilege and power since women's suffrage (and it's probably much older than that).

    When a not-privileged group complains that the privileged group has a disproportionate share of power, it's not exactly unusual for the privileged group to find that threatening no matter how politely it is phrased.

    Eventually each member of the privileged class wakes up and realizes, "Hey, it's not that these guys hate me, it's that they hate the power structures that make life way harder for people who aren't like me."

    There isn't really a single surefire rational way to break through to that. Some people will respond to polite rational argumentation, others will only get it when it's repeated for years, and still others will never get it. Some of them will only get it if the underclass plays a complicated game of "good cop, bad cop." 'Hey, Sticks, you're pretty reasonable... you're not like those hippies with their drums and their signs."

    But what doesn't work is asking members of that privileged class, "Hey, how I can get through to people like you?" because there's a good chance they're not actually going to answer that question. They're going to answer a different question, which is, "How can I be less threatening to people like you?" Sometimes those two goals are aligned, but not necessarily, not every time.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    Do you not see how "We are the 99%" would make someone in the 1% who is not abusing the system feel excluded?

    It'd probably be a new and enlightening experience for someone who has likely never felt excluded before. Possibly leading to anger that other, irresponsible rich people are unjustly harming their reputation.

    That's pretty naive. That anger would almost assuredly be directed at those fucking lazy jobless hippies who don't know what they are talking about.

    This is exactly like every other conversation about privilege and power since women's suffrage (and it's probably much older than that).

    When a not-privileged group complains that the privileged group has a disproportionate share of power, it's not exactly unusual for the privileged group to find that threatening no matter how politely it is phrased.

    Eventually each member of the privileged class wakes up and realizes, "Hey, it's not that these guys hate me, it's that they hate the power structures that make life way harder for people who aren't like me."

    There isn't really a single surefire rational way to break through to that. Some people will respond to polite rational argumentation, others will only get it when it's repeated for years, and still others will never get it. Some of them will only get it if the underclass plays a complicated game of "good cop, bad cop." 'Hey, Sticks, you're pretty reasonable... you're not like those hippies with their drums and their signs."

    But what doesn't work is asking members of that privileged class, "Hey, how I can get through to people like you?" because there's a good chance they're not actually going to answer that question. They're going to answer a different question, which is, "How can I be less threatening to people like you?" Sometimes those two goals are aligned, but not necessarily, not every time.

    I generally agree with what you said, but I think that you just prolong this process by defining the privileged class too broadly, thereby putting potential allies on the defensive.

    What do you think of what I said above:

    OWS could just as easily have been the 90% against the 10% or the 99.9% against the .1%. Both of these include the real "bad guys" and the only difference is how many other people get lumped in with them. I think putting someone with $300k in income in the same category as the people with $100 million earned by selling CMOs is just as unjustified as lumping in someone who makes $50k. A category descriptor that is meant to encapsulate a specific group but which incorporates a large number of unrelated people is not accurate or useful.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    I'm just not sure it matters in the long run. Any slogan short enough to fit in a soundbite is going to be inaccurate; any description long enough to be accurate is going to get TLDR'ed. You strike a balance between brevity and accuracy and hope that the slogan catches people's attention. "We are the 99%" seems to have worked well enough for that.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Fallout2manFallout2man Vault Dweller Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Yes, it's not like police ever lie when it benefits them.

    Quiet you! We need to always take the police at their word! If we didn't society would collapse, collapse I say! There must always be a good-off-camera-explanation for every single time the cops do something you think is bad. I don't have time to find it for you, so just believe it exists! Because man, police are good! So stop being an angry conspiracy theorist and take off the tin foil hat! They're here to serve and protect you, no matter WHAT any collection of audio/video evidence or a sordid history of court-cases says! ;p

    Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Feral wrote: »
    I'm just not sure it matters in the long run. Any slogan short enough to fit in a soundbite is going to be inaccurate; any description long enough to be accurate is going to get TLDR'ed. You strike a balance between brevity and accuracy and hope that the slogan catches people's attention. "We are the 99%" seems to have worked well enough for that.

    But the slogan has framed the group and the issue. There are people who could have been in the "us" category instead of the "them" category, and by drawing the lines the way they have, they have explicitly made these people enemies, and declared the success they enjoy to be unfair and exploitative. At the very least they have forced people that could have been allies to take a defensive stance and justify why they are different than the bad guys, instead of focusing on change.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Feral wrote: »
    I'm just not sure it matters in the long run. Any slogan short enough to fit in a soundbite is going to be inaccurate; any description long enough to be accurate is going to get TLDR'ed. You strike a balance between brevity and accuracy and hope that the slogan catches people's attention. "We are the 99%" seems to have worked well enough for that.

    But the slogan has framed the group and the issue. There are people who could have been in the "us" category instead of the "them" category, and by drawing the lines the way they have, they have explicitly made these people enemies, and declared the success they enjoy to be unfair and exploitative. At the very least they have forced people that could have been allies to take a defensive stance and justify why they are different than the bad guys, instead of focusing on change.

    But most people aren't hung up on this semantical and metaphorical rung of the ladder and move a bit beyond it.

    Basically, you've got to be looking for reasons to dislike this movement to think that 99/1 is the problem.

    I'd be more supportive if they weren't so keen on 100% consensus, not having leadership, and letting in the nutters.

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
Sign In or Register to comment.