OWS pivoted the entire political conversation in the US away from debt and towards income inequality.
That's not a failure at all.
Truth, but I don't expect them to do much else until they move away from the 100% consensus nonsense and realize that they are going to have to alienate some groups to get further. The fact that they don't seem to get that the anarchists and libertarians not only hurt their causes but are actively against the solutions says quite a bit.
Can I not hate someone for being stupid, rather than evil?
You ought not.
Ignorance deserves to be despised, but the ignorant do not. Also, it's unproductive to discourse. When you are frothing mad at the opposition because you think they're stupid, then it's not going to give them much incentive to work with you, and hell, it's not going to give you much ability to compromise.
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Can I not hate someone for being stupid, rather than evil?
You ought not.
Ignorance deserves to be despised, but the ignorant do not. Also, it's unproductive to discourse. When you are frothing mad at the opposition because you think they're stupid, then it's not going to give them much incentive to work with you, and hell, it's not going to give you much ability to compromise.
Except he's running for president.
And ignorance doesn't happen in a vacuum. Certainly not for people running for president.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
ROMNEY: I'm in this race because I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich, they're doing just fine. I'm just concerned about the very heart of America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans right now who are struggling, and I'll continue to take that message across the nation.
We will hear from the Democrat party, the plight of the poor. And there’s no question it’s not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor, but my campaign is focused on middle income Americans.
What additional context is needed for this to not be horrible?
I actually don't see how this can be interpretted as being horrible, unless you are deliberatly trying to make it look bad. Both quotes are clearly saying America is helping the poor, but not the middle class, so let's help the middle class too. he even explicitly says we should fix the safety net for the poor. Regardless of how you feel about Ronbey's real feelings on the matter, I think it is a real stretch to make this soundbyte a bad thing.
No.
it's really not. It's a stretch to defend it.
Mitt Romney does not care about the poor. Sure, they have this whole safety net thing. that he has repeatedly said he would help to destroy. The Paul Ryan budget, getting rid of Obamacare, defunding Planned parenthood, all of these things that Romney has promised to do when he become president that would directly or even indirectly harm the poor. And destroy the safety net of the government and even parts of the private safety net that is set up through private organizations (PP).
It's a bad thing. And even if you're only sort of paying attention to politics and not as involved or aware as most people are on this board, even if you only start to pay attention on Halloween, that line "I'm not concerned about the very poor" is horrible. Most people will hear 'very poor' and will conjure up the images of children from africa or south america who are on those 'save the children' commercials. The ones that everybody turns the channel on because nobody wants to be reminded of it all. Or they will think of the people in their neighborhood, or even their family, who are struggling to get by. And people who are honest with themselves might even hear themselves in that quote. Suddenly, even to those people that have no idea what is going on, Mitt Romney lacks empathy and compassion, he's just another rich man wanting to make a bigger name for himself.
It's a bad thing.
Like I said before, the issue really is not what Romney's views are. This statement, standing alone, has been twisted into something it simply is not. I think it is extremely disappointing that our level of discourse has fallen so far that we are literally taking portions of sound bytes that sound bad and making them into major talking points. For the record, I am not voting Romney and don't even want him to be the candidate (I don't like the attention it is bringing on private equity, and am dreading having to come up with a work around when the now inevitable carried interest changes are passed). I just don't like seeing the left act as bad as the right when it comes to messaging.
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
and this is your biggest disconnect.
of course part of the issue is what his views are.
Maybe he made a mistake in stating them, but he said those things clear as day. A man as polished and practiced a politician as Romney is and he's still making amateur level mistakes? This is not just about us (and by us I mean the left or the center or democrats or whatever) taking something he said out of context. It's about the fact that he said it.
Mitt Romney is a terrible candidate for anything. he's a practices politician, but he's horrible at it! He thinks he's amazing, but he's not. Not at this. In a million light years nobody in their right minds would make that statement, or anything resembling that statement, and not expect it to blow up. Even taking the quote in context it's horrible. I can promise there are no less than five or ten of Romney's staff who facepalmed as soon as those words left his mouth.
This is not about the level of discourse dropping below civility, it's been there for a few years at least already. What would you like us to do with that statement that isn't worse than the words themselves. We don't need to do anything to it to make that entire conversation toxic, Romney is doing that for himself. And his staff is crying the whole way through.
OWS was sparked, fed, and flamed by the inequality between rich and poor in this country. The haves and the have nots. The income equality, or lack thereof. And the complete tone deafness of those who are presuming to be leaders of this country. Of the people. Mitt Romney is asking the people of this country to put him into power. To hand their lives and livelihoods over into his keeping. To trust him to help make the decisions that will either keep us all fed or toss us out into the cold. The majority of this country who may not see themselves as very poor, or even poor, but most of that majority rely on that social safety net. The same safety net that Romney has touted to one crowd and then promised to shred to another. These are the people that Romney is asking to vote for him. It has to be. Because if the decisions of who would be president were really made in the back rooms of hotels and smoke-filled offices of CEOs, then John McCain would be president.
OWS is in part all about the income equality of this country. It was in part all about how we can and should make this country a better place for all of us. All of us. And this one man who is going out to place after place, meeting after meeting, rally after rally, he's going out and begging for votes from people who are struggling and hurting. He's doing this day in and day out and has been for six years. And then he makes these bone-headed comments. Tone deaf doesn't even begin to apply to that.
Romney does not understand the mood of the country. He does not understand the purpose of OWS, or the anger that brought it about. He does not comprehend that people are hurting as badly as they are. He has never lived that life, so how could he?
That quote, and the dozens of others that are being mentioned about and against this man are not lowering the discourse of anything. They are shedding light on the discourse that already exists. It's his own words. If he can't be and won't be held accountable for his own words, then maybe he shouldn't open his mouth.
Can I not hate someone for being stupid, rather than evil?
You ought not.
Why not? If they wanted to be better educated on a subject, they would seek to be so. Willful ignorance in the hands of a policy-maker is incredibly dangerous.
Also, Mitt Romeny is the LAST person who has any right to complain about being taken out of context.
A cursory look at Mitt Romney's plan makes his intentions obvious and that statement far more sinister.
He wants to lower capital gains taxes and taxes on the wealthy and business. He also wants to gut regulation on those same entities.
And at the same time, to pay for this, he wants to gut social safety net programs.
He literally wants to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.
I don't think that's true. I don't think that he wants to take wealth from the poor and give it to the rich.
That's what will happen, but I don't think that's what Romney necessarily is trying to do.
? So... he doesn't want to do the wrong thing, but will be forced to? Or will do so accidentally? Or he doesn't recognize what he's doing? Or it's incidental to what he really wants to do? What?
He likely believes that it will in fact help the very poor. He's wrong, but that's what he believes I imagine. At the very least he might be concerned about what effect it will have on the poor however it's more in line with what is right to go ahead and do it.
Really my point is that Romney likely isn't a person who just wants to hold down poor people and fuck them in the ass for his own pleasure.
It's a symptom of American political discourse (as well as the discourse in lots of other places I imagine) that we choose to see those people we are opposed to as evil because we predict the damage that they are going to do and we figure that they must see it too so they are doing that damage deliberately. The right uses it to demonize the left, the left uses it to demonize the right. There are probably people on one or both sides who truly want to hurt or fuck up certain groups of people (rich, poor, etc) but I imagine that the majority of people are just trying to do the right thing as they see it. This doesn't necessarily mean that we can't judge them for doing the wrong thing, but minimally they're doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. An example would be that the libertarians don't want to eliminate government programs because they want to hurt anyone, but more because they believe that everyone will be better off because of it.
I agree with this.
Also, I may disagree with someone and think they are stupid. But do I hate them for it?
Like I said before, the issue really is not what Romney's views are.
That statement, along with his views, fits them perfectly. It's not out of context. I grew up poor. I am now middle class. My life, worried about it as I am, is nowhere near as bad as the poor. If he thinks helping the middle class is so important as to make the lives of the poor horribly worse with little benefit to the middle class if at all, which is what his views would do, then fuck him. He's flat out said he's not concerned about them because of the terrible, terrible safety net. That is a stupid thing and he is stupid for thinking it.
Ignoring everything else and just taking his statement at face value, Romney thinks the poor in America are doing fine right now.
Like ... seriously. This is stupid, out of touch and heinous all at once.
shryke on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
There is a clear disconnect here. He never said "I don't care about the very poor because there is a safety net, and if it sucks, fuck them. Yay middle class!". He literally said "if it needs repair I'll fix it."
I feel like he said "of course, I'd never say that we should abandon the poor" and everyone is saying he stated "we should abandon the poor"
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
There is a clear disconnect here. He never said "I don't care about the very poor because there is a safety net, and if it sucks, fuck them. Yay middle class!". He literally said "if it needs repair I'll fix it."
I feel like he said "of course, I'd never say that we should abandon the poor" and everyone is saying he stated "we should abandon the poor"
He said "if it needs repair, I'll fix it" as an after thought.
And let's not ignore his stated plans to gut the safety net that he talks about everywhere outside of that interview.
Mitt Romney is no friend to the working poor in America, few politicians are.
Hell, even thinking that the safety net is good enough is pretty horrible. Have you had to live on it? It isn't fun or really all that safe.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
There is a clear disconnect here. He never said "I don't care about the very poor because there is a safety net, and if it sucks, fuck them. Yay middle class!". He literally said "if it needs repair I'll fix it."
I feel like he said "of course, I'd never say that we should abandon the poor" and everyone is saying he stated "we should abandon the poor"
He said "if it needs repair, I'll fix it" as an after thought.
And let's not ignore his stated plans to gut the safety net that he talks about everywhere outside of that interview.
Mitt Romney is no friend to the working poor in America, few politicians are.
Hell, even thinking that the safety net is good enough is pretty horrible. Have you had to live on it? It isn't fun or really all that safe.
Like I said before, I'm not defending or voting for Romney. I just think that policies, past history, and even stated intentions aside, that one statement, standing on its own, does not mean what people are trying to make it mean, and it is the intentional misuse of the quote that I am objecting to. Personally, every time I hear someone say "Romney said he doesn't care about the poor" I lose respect for their political views, because I feel like they are showing a lot of bias, and a lack of commitment to good faith, issues focused discourse.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
There is a clear disconnect here. He never said "I don't care about the very poor because there is a safety net, and if it sucks, fuck them. Yay middle class!". He literally said "if it needs repair I'll fix it."
I feel like he said "of course, I'd never say that we should abandon the poor" and everyone is saying he stated "we should abandon the poor"
He said "if it needs repair, I'll fix it" as an after thought.
And let's not ignore his stated plans to gut the safety net that he talks about everywhere outside of that interview.
Mitt Romney is no friend to the working poor in America, few politicians are.
Hell, even thinking that the safety net is good enough is pretty horrible. Have you had to live on it? It isn't fun or really all that safe.
Like I said before, I'm not defending or voting for Romney. I just think that policies, past history, and even stated intentions aside, that one statement, standing on its own, does not mean what people are trying to make it mean, and it is the intentional misuse of the quote that I am objecting to. Personally, every time I hear someone say "Romney said he doesn't care about the poor" I lose respect for their political views, because I feel like they are showing a lot of bias, and a lack of commitment to good faith, issues focused discourse.
I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that Romney has proven on many occasions to be a lying dirtbag who doesn't really care if he takes other people out of context to pretend to make a point (He's done it to Obama and Gingrich that I know of).
And this isn't really taking his quote of of context, the context is even worse.
Mitt Romney doesn't care about poor people, it's a common refrain in his interviews. He doesn't know anything about being poor in America. The poor are, to borrow from E.M. Forster, "unthinkable" to him. If he thinks the safety net is fine and that by raising taxes on poor people, cutting them for the rich, refusing to cut ridiculous military spending that we don't need (our navy is bigger than the next thirteen or so combined, hardly the smallest since world war one), and gutting social spending he will somehow fix any possible holes in the net, he's an idiot and has no business being in government.
AManFromEarth on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
All the points you raise are completely valid on a substantive level (although I have a higher opinion of Romney than you seem to, I agree completely that he never says anything you can rely on while campaigning) but I still say that we should not sink to his level, and it just makes the left look bad when it does so. There are tons of substantive, valid points to be made against Romney, so why is everyone repeating this one, stupid, relatively innocuous in context quote?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
All the points you raise are completely valid on a substantive level (although I have a higher opinion of Romney than you seem to, I agree completely that he never says anything you can rely on while campaigning) but I still say that we should not sink to his level, and it just makes the left look bad when it does so. There are tons of substantive, valid points to be made against Romney, so why is everyone repeating this one, stupid, relatively innocuous in context quote?
I'll agree with you that we shouldn't sink to his level. The high road is pretty nice.
I think people have coalesced around it because it's a very good encapsulation of the general view of Mitt Romney. He is the 1980s made flesh and when he says things like this it's easy to latch onto.
It's a "Peace in our time", "the fundamentals of our economy are strong", "I didn't know about the Contras" moment; the kind of saying that--true or not--it becomes symbolic of what's wrong with a given situation.
I'm much happier to go after him in context myself, but I'm not too miffed by people who use this against him for the reasons I outlined above.
All the points you raise are completely valid on a substantive level (although I have a higher opinion of Romney than you seem to, I agree completely that he never says anything you can rely on while campaigning) but I still say that we should not sink to his level, and it just makes the left look bad when it does so. There are tons of substantive, valid points to be made against Romney, so why is everyone repeating this one, stupid, relatively innocuous in context quote?
Because really it's the cherry on top of the gaffe-sandwich that nails home everything wrong about the Romney candidacy. His stated policies he's intent on pursuing will all do the exact opposite of what he claims to be "for" it doesn't matter that there are mountains of evidence that suggest this. He's just going to get elected, cut taxes, cut spending on the poor, talk about "rugged individualism" as well as the oft mentioned "bootstraps" despite all evidence to the contrary suggesting that he is telling myths so convincing that it would make Baron Münchhausen green with envy.
So it becomes like the Republican Freudian slip we were all waiting for. Because we all get that the only way you could combine such rhetoric with such policies is if you're a huckster or psychopath. So harping on that comment becomes one of those "Ah-hah! they finally said it! They just want to feast on the misery of the poor!" type ah-hah moments. It's stupidly partisan but you know, one would hope there's some level of collective shame that can be brought upon those who are basically espousing we should force half of our current American society to go die in slow, degrading and painful ways, to change their positions before they end up driving us into a new civil war.
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.
Romney also thinks only a few percent of America is poor
He has no fucking idea
Hell even Obama doesn't realize just how bad it is for how many people it's bad for, but at least he realizes times are rough, and not just in the "I can't afford a second car" or "my kids might have to go to an in state school" sense that Republicans think is about the worst thing to be going on right now
I don't think there's much argument that Romney is ignorant of the poor. His quote shows that.
However that's different from claiming his quote shows him to viscerally enjoy feasting upon the dried carcasses or poor Americans, or some such.
Really, when people distort quotes to fit a pre-determined strawman* but then simultaneously complain about the political process... all that enters my mind is "garbage in, garbage out". It's like our politics are the monster we deserve. And I'm talking about both sides of the divide here; Every time someone who watches Fox News goes to complain about media distorting political discourse, I retch a little inside.
This strikes me as what SKFM is protesting, rather than any desire to shine up anyone's perception of Romney.
*Yes, my second line is a pre-determined strawman. A hyperbole even. Yes I'm aware of the irony.
I don't think there's much argument that Romney is ignorant of the poor. His quote shows that.
However that's different from claiming his quote shows him to viscerally enjoy feasting upon the dried carcasses or poor Americans, or some such.
He personally doesn't need to, but it showcases the emotional mood of the electorate that would chose Romney. He's considered the inevitable front-runner, his plus is supposed to be regarding his ability to fix the economy. Yes, the poor have "a safety net" and he's so not worried about them he wants to institute policies which gut it despite saying they'll be fine and alluding with his very same statement he wouldn't do such a thing. Personally if it weren't for his quite apparent history of policy and rhetoric changes I would wonder if he himself thought that way. At this point I'm pretty sure Romney's joined at the hip to opinion polls and supports whatever he thinks will be popular with the base.
Really, when people distort quotes to fit a pre-determined strawman* but then simultaneously complain about the political process... all that enters my mind is "garbage in, garbage out". It's like our politics are the monster we deserve. And I'm talking about both sides of the divide here; Every time someone who watches Fox News goes to complain about media distorting political discourse, I retch a little inside.
I really wonder what the solution is to the situation. I mean even when I try to be non-confrontational about it I've yet to find an issue thread where I was able to form a clear consensus with the conservatives here outside of copyright threads, and also on police militarization surprisingly. (Thanatos and Spool agreeing in the same thread is priceless) I'm not sure at this point if or how we can talk to each other rather than trying to talk past each other on certain issues. I think it's because in a lot of cases we've reached a point where no one just wants to change their positions because of a good argument since it's seen as a sign of personal weakness. It's sad. :-/
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.
There is a clear disconnect here. He never said "I don't care about the very poor because there is a safety net, and if it sucks, fuck them. Yay middle class!". He literally said "if it needs repair I'll fix it."
That is still a stupid statement. Of course it needs repair. It's in desperate need of repair. It's take a complete, utter goose to be unaware of this.
There is a clear disconnect here. He never said "I don't care about the very poor because there is a safety net, and if it sucks, fuck them. Yay middle class!". He literally said "if it needs repair I'll fix it."
That is still a stupid statement. Of course it needs repair. It's in desperate need of repair. It's take a complete, utter goose to be unaware of this.
Oh right.
There's also the fact that many of the very poor were middle class until recently. Helping the very poor get back into the middle class should be the goal here not necessary helping those who are already middle class.
The idea that we should ignore the actions of the wealthy and leave the poor to a system of support that just helps them live in poverty is a problem.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
He personally doesn't need to, but it showcases the emotional mood of the electorate that would chose Romney. He's considered the inevitable front-runner, his plus is supposed to be regarding his ability to fix the economy. Yes, the poor have "a safety net" and he's so not worried about them he wants to institute policies which gut it despite saying they'll be fine and alluding with his very same statement he wouldn't do such a thing. Personally if it weren't for his quite apparent history of policy and rhetoric changes I would wonder if he himself thought that way. At this point I'm pretty sure Romney's joined at the hip to opinion polls and supports whatever he thinks will be popular with the base.
Well yeah, but that isn't entirely conveyed in the popular soundbite. Seems silly to misquote Romney when you can just use actual statements about everything you just said. Though I suppose that doesn't give you a catchy one-liner.
I really wonder what the solution is to the situation. I mean even when I try to be non-confrontational about it I've yet to find an issue thread where I was able to form a clear consensus with the conservatives here outside of copyright threads, and also on police militarization surprisingly. (Thanatos and Spool agreeing in the same thread is priceless) I'm not sure at this point if or how we can talk to each other rather than trying to talk past each other on certain issues. I think it's because in a lot of cases we've reached a point where no one just wants to change their positions because of a good argument since it's seen as a sign of personal weakness. It's sad. :-/
The only solution that comes to mind is the complete destruction of modern cable TV political discourse. Axe the telly, unplug the compy, everyone back to the bars and argue politics over a pitcher of ale.
Cheekiness aside, really most political "discourse" seems to be disseminated from television clips. Political arguments are often just two people talking past each other with quotes from their favored news program, the sort of quotes that make no sense out of context. People hardly talk to one another, but rather to imagined caricatures of each other.
Though given the history of journalism, I have to wonder if that is simply the norm. In any case I consider it an unfortunate and unavoidable fact of politics.
The Houston OWS folks have left the park they were occupying. They're not moving to another park.
The protest movement needs to reduce it's street presence and work on consolidating their philosophy and message anyway ... I don't feel great about this, but I think OWS's online activism and interactions are much more rational and effective and harder to make fun of, so if this leads the street movement in that direction, then I guess I'm for it? :x
The Houston OWS folks have left the park they were occupying. They're not moving to another park.
The protest movement needs to reduce it's street presence and work on consolidating their philosophy and message anyway ... I don't feel great about this, but I think OWS's online activism and interactions are much more rational and effective and harder to make fun of, so if this leads the street movement in that direction, then I guess I'm for it? :x
OWS would do well to follow the Anonymous example and stage short, focused and unpredictable acts of protest and activism. If they stick to any tactic for too long, their targets will figure out effective strategies for messaging against them. The one thing that organizations are not good at it dealing with unforeseen and random acts of dissent.
The idea is that by the time the powers-that-be can clear their schedules and meet to determine a strategy, OWS should already have moved on to the next tactic.
The Houston OWS folks have left the park they were occupying. They're not moving to another park.
The protest movement needs to reduce it's street presence and work on consolidating their philosophy and message anyway ... I don't feel great about this, but I think OWS's online activism and interactions are much more rational and effective and harder to make fun of, so if this leads the street movement in that direction, then I guess I'm for it? :x
OWS would do well to follow the Anonymous example and stage short, focused and unpredictable acts of protest and activism. If they stick to any tactic for too long, their targets will figure out effective strategies for messaging against them. The one thing that organizations are not good at it dealing with unforeseen and random acts of dissent.
The idea is that by the time the powers-that-be can clear their schedules and meet to determine a strategy, OWS should already have moved on to the next tactic.
:^:
0
Options
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
I wonder how OWS and the rest of the Occupiers feel about the whole shitstorm over the SOPA stuff?
I mean, with SOPA, people got shit done about it in a few weeks. OWS has been doing this for a while, and has only slightly shifted the direction of things. Do we have to wait until spring to start really hearing about it again?
The Houston OWS folks have left the park they were occupying. They're not moving to another park.
The protest movement needs to reduce it's street presence and work on consolidating their philosophy and message anyway ... I don't feel great about this, but I think OWS's online activism and interactions are much more rational and effective and harder to make fun of, so if this leads the street movement in that direction, then I guess I'm for it? :x
People have been saying this since the first week of Occupies happening, though.
I think it gets to issues that are not entirely resolved about it: is the point to zero in on specific "Wall Street" policy issues via waving placards and marching, or is this a demonstration of an entirely different set of assumptions about using public space and the mores of social interaction?
There's probably something to be said for reframing things as Occupy being a part of a larger American Spring for "messaging" clarity. Anon has a lot of good operating principles as far as "do things that will get attention" but I like the good cop / bad cop idea of having a very diverse population of people interacting face to face ocuppy-style alongside that.
Flash mob type protests that change every time are good, but it's not necessarily a weakness to stubbornly refuse to give up physical space, is it? There are a lot of community activist groups in the mix for whom real real estate is an immediate concern before abstract finance industry complaints. I guess I just worry that online activism is both very effective and cheap -- but also clicking "like" on Facebook doesn't replace a General Assembly as demonstration of direct democracy.
I don't have any bright ideas, but I guess I just hope that people are able to push forward in an election year to grab the national microphone. Someone gets mic checked in a funny, pithy, or just way and that is leveraged via YouTube hits and both approaches (online and off) are working in conjunction. There will be a lot of opportunities to be heard amidst the electioneering, but getting the media to pay attention will probably be the tricky part. :l
I wonder how OWS and the rest of the Occupiers feel about the whole shitstorm over the SOPA stuff?
I mean, with SOPA, people got shit done about it in a few weeks. OWS has been doing this for a while, and has only slightly shifted the direction of things. Do we have to wait until spring to start really hearing about it again?
Anti-SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/etc have found other wealthy interests that align with theirs because those bits of paperwork make their goal of making money harder.
Occupy has had a much harder path to row since the issue of wealth disparity has far fewer wealthy people who realize greater disparity is bad for their earnings. "Tax the rich!" as much as it makes sense doesn't make you a lot of wealthy friends, even when it would benefit them greatly.
What makes this so sad is that as was pointed out previously, many of those elected are the wealthy, so they tend to only listen to other wealthy interests because it aligns with theirs. To change things we (other countries too) basicly need to elect people who have known poverty and had to deal with it ... which given that those who spend the most on their campaigns usually win, which kinda seems like the various media oligarchies decide who win, it usually means a poor person who doesn't align their interests with rich backers won't get elected.
I think it basicly means our various forms of representative government are not being representative and our current ails are the result.
At least, that is my short and probably too simplistic take on it.
I wonder how OWS and the rest of the Occupiers feel about the whole shitstorm over the SOPA stuff?
I mean, with SOPA, people got shit done about it in a few weeks. OWS has been doing this for a while, and has only slightly shifted the direction of things. Do we have to wait until spring to start really hearing about it again?
SOPA was easy, because the message was clear: SOPA = Antichrist.
The OWS peeps I've spoken to don't really care how long reform takes, they aren't going anywhere, and as a personal aside, even if OWS morphs into something else, the fundamental issue of economic justice isn't going away anytime soon. Most likely other like-minded groups will form, splinters if you will, kinda like what happened to the "99% Movement": it predates OWS, it's still happening, but OWS took over the media but they fight for the same thing.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I wonder how OWS and the rest of the Occupiers feel about the whole shitstorm over the SOPA stuff?
I mean, with SOPA, people got shit done about it in a few weeks. OWS has been doing this for a while, and has only slightly shifted the direction of things. Do we have to wait until spring to start really hearing about it again?
SOPA was easy, because the message was clear: SOPA = Antichrist.
The OWS peeps I've spoken to don't really care how long reform takes, they aren't going anywhere, and as a personal aside, even if OWS morphs into something else, the fundamental issue of economic justice isn't going away anytime soon. Most likely other like-minded groups will form, splinters if you will, kinda like what happened to the "99% Movement": it predates OWS, it's still happening, but OWS took over the media but they fight for the same thing.
Let's see how long they "aren't going anywhere" if things turn around and they get good jobs. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I still think just about anyone who was in Zuccotti Park would have switched to the "dark" side pretty fast if Goldman offered them a job.
If Goldman spent their money employing more people rather than on grotesque severance benefits for the top execs I'd agree given one of the biggest issues OWS has brought to the forefront would no longer exist.
Let's see how long they "aren't going anywhere" if things turn around and they get good jobs. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I still think just about anyone who was in Zuccotti Park would have switched to the "dark" side pretty fast if Goldman offered them a job.
The irony in this is that if Goldman could Magick up enough "Good Jobs" to employ all of OWS they'd have basically proven that the only reason the economy's in the crapper is because the Rich don't feel like the poor deserve to eat.
edit:
Also, having visible encampments is a necessary thing. Public spectacle for 1, and recruiting ground for 2. They need to have a space where people can gather, talk, but most importantly disengage entirely from the current 9-5 world. One thing encampments do if they get enough donations, which strangely enough Occupy did, was that it let people be more like full time activists by taking care of the essentials. There are a number of pluses really, and the only problem from encampments comes that it's all too easy now for the media to smear them. We've had enough police press releases parroted that everyone will think of them as filthy hives of disease despite no evidence of such uncleanliness ever actually surfacing.
I think it's the single most miraculous thing about Occupy. For as "dirty and smelly" as these camps all supposedly were not one person could produce a photograph showing trash everywhere or other serious sanitation issues. People just whined on about smells which could come from a number of sources. Like not having public showers for one?
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.
I could see the board of some Fortune 500 company now, every one in top hats and twirling their mustaches as they declare "Ya ha! We know how to show these people up! We'll employ them all! Then how will they protest? Muahahaha!"
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Let's see how long they "aren't going anywhere" if things turn around and they get good jobs. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I still think just about anyone who was in Zuccotti Park would have switched to the "dark" side pretty fast if Goldman offered them a job.
The irony in this is that if Goldman could Magick up enough "Good Jobs" to employ all of OWS they'd have basically proven that the only reason the economy's in the crapper is because the Rich don't feel like the poor deserve to eat.
edit:
Also, having visible encampments is a necessary thing. Public spectacle for 1, and recruiting ground for 2. They need to have a space where people can gather, talk, but most importantly disengage entirely from the current 9-5 world. One thing encampments do if they get enough donations, which strangely enough Occupy did, was that it let people be more like full time activists by taking care of the essentials. There are a number of pluses really, and the only problem from encampments comes that it's all too easy now for the media to smear them. We've had enough police press releases parroted that everyone will think of them as filthy hives of disease despite no evidence of such uncleanliness ever actually surfacing.
I think it's the single most miraculous thing about Occupy. For as "dirty and smelly" as these camps all supposedly were not one person could produce a photograph showing trash everywhere or other serious sanitation issues. People just whined on about smells which could come from a number of sources. Like not having public showers for one?
I'm just saying its easy to protest a system when it is not benefitting you.
I never went to the encampment, but my friends that live near where it was hated it. Hating the camp seemed to cut across party lines and ideology. Democrat or republican, everyone just wanted to get to work, walk their dog, and get some sleep in peace!
Posts
Truth, but I don't expect them to do much else until they move away from the 100% consensus nonsense and realize that they are going to have to alienate some groups to get further. The fact that they don't seem to get that the anarchists and libertarians not only hurt their causes but are actively against the solutions says quite a bit.
You ought not.
Ignorance deserves to be despised, but the ignorant do not. Also, it's unproductive to discourse. When you are frothing mad at the opposition because you think they're stupid, then it's not going to give them much incentive to work with you, and hell, it's not going to give you much ability to compromise.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Except he's running for president.
And ignorance doesn't happen in a vacuum. Certainly not for people running for president.
Like I said before, the issue really is not what Romney's views are. This statement, standing alone, has been twisted into something it simply is not. I think it is extremely disappointing that our level of discourse has fallen so far that we are literally taking portions of sound bytes that sound bad and making them into major talking points. For the record, I am not voting Romney and don't even want him to be the candidate (I don't like the attention it is bringing on private equity, and am dreading having to come up with a work around when the now inevitable carried interest changes are passed). I just don't like seeing the left act as bad as the right when it comes to messaging.
of course part of the issue is what his views are.
Maybe he made a mistake in stating them, but he said those things clear as day. A man as polished and practiced a politician as Romney is and he's still making amateur level mistakes? This is not just about us (and by us I mean the left or the center or democrats or whatever) taking something he said out of context. It's about the fact that he said it.
Mitt Romney is a terrible candidate for anything. he's a practices politician, but he's horrible at it! He thinks he's amazing, but he's not. Not at this. In a million light years nobody in their right minds would make that statement, or anything resembling that statement, and not expect it to blow up. Even taking the quote in context it's horrible. I can promise there are no less than five or ten of Romney's staff who facepalmed as soon as those words left his mouth.
This is not about the level of discourse dropping below civility, it's been there for a few years at least already. What would you like us to do with that statement that isn't worse than the words themselves. We don't need to do anything to it to make that entire conversation toxic, Romney is doing that for himself. And his staff is crying the whole way through.
OWS was sparked, fed, and flamed by the inequality between rich and poor in this country. The haves and the have nots. The income equality, or lack thereof. And the complete tone deafness of those who are presuming to be leaders of this country. Of the people. Mitt Romney is asking the people of this country to put him into power. To hand their lives and livelihoods over into his keeping. To trust him to help make the decisions that will either keep us all fed or toss us out into the cold. The majority of this country who may not see themselves as very poor, or even poor, but most of that majority rely on that social safety net. The same safety net that Romney has touted to one crowd and then promised to shred to another. These are the people that Romney is asking to vote for him. It has to be. Because if the decisions of who would be president were really made in the back rooms of hotels and smoke-filled offices of CEOs, then John McCain would be president.
OWS is in part all about the income equality of this country. It was in part all about how we can and should make this country a better place for all of us. All of us. And this one man who is going out to place after place, meeting after meeting, rally after rally, he's going out and begging for votes from people who are struggling and hurting. He's doing this day in and day out and has been for six years. And then he makes these bone-headed comments. Tone deaf doesn't even begin to apply to that.
Romney does not understand the mood of the country. He does not understand the purpose of OWS, or the anger that brought it about. He does not comprehend that people are hurting as badly as they are. He has never lived that life, so how could he?
That quote, and the dozens of others that are being mentioned about and against this man are not lowering the discourse of anything. They are shedding light on the discourse that already exists. It's his own words. If he can't be and won't be held accountable for his own words, then maybe he shouldn't open his mouth.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Why not? If they wanted to be better educated on a subject, they would seek to be so. Willful ignorance in the hands of a policy-maker is incredibly dangerous.
Also, Mitt Romeny is the LAST person who has any right to complain about being taken out of context.
Steam: pazython
I agree with this.
Also, I may disagree with someone and think they are stupid. But do I hate them for it?
No. You know what I do fucking hate?
that shit fucking sucks :v:
That statement, along with his views, fits them perfectly. It's not out of context. I grew up poor. I am now middle class. My life, worried about it as I am, is nowhere near as bad as the poor. If he thinks helping the middle class is so important as to make the lives of the poor horribly worse with little benefit to the middle class if at all, which is what his views would do, then fuck him. He's flat out said he's not concerned about them because of the terrible, terrible safety net. That is a stupid thing and he is stupid for thinking it.
Ignoring everything else and just taking his statement at face value, Romney thinks the poor in America are doing fine right now.
Like ... seriously. This is stupid, out of touch and heinous all at once.
I feel like he said "of course, I'd never say that we should abandon the poor" and everyone is saying he stated "we should abandon the poor"
He said "if it needs repair, I'll fix it" as an after thought.
And let's not ignore his stated plans to gut the safety net that he talks about everywhere outside of that interview.
Mitt Romney is no friend to the working poor in America, few politicians are.
Hell, even thinking that the safety net is good enough is pretty horrible. Have you had to live on it? It isn't fun or really all that safe.
Like I said before, I'm not defending or voting for Romney. I just think that policies, past history, and even stated intentions aside, that one statement, standing on its own, does not mean what people are trying to make it mean, and it is the intentional misuse of the quote that I am objecting to. Personally, every time I hear someone say "Romney said he doesn't care about the poor" I lose respect for their political views, because I feel like they are showing a lot of bias, and a lack of commitment to good faith, issues focused discourse.
I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that Romney has proven on many occasions to be a lying dirtbag who doesn't really care if he takes other people out of context to pretend to make a point (He's done it to Obama and Gingrich that I know of).
And this isn't really taking his quote of of context, the context is even worse.
Mitt Romney doesn't care about poor people, it's a common refrain in his interviews. He doesn't know anything about being poor in America. The poor are, to borrow from E.M. Forster, "unthinkable" to him. If he thinks the safety net is fine and that by raising taxes on poor people, cutting them for the rich, refusing to cut ridiculous military spending that we don't need (our navy is bigger than the next thirteen or so combined, hardly the smallest since world war one), and gutting social spending he will somehow fix any possible holes in the net, he's an idiot and has no business being in government.
All the points you raise are completely valid on a substantive level (although I have a higher opinion of Romney than you seem to, I agree completely that he never says anything you can rely on while campaigning) but I still say that we should not sink to his level, and it just makes the left look bad when it does so. There are tons of substantive, valid points to be made against Romney, so why is everyone repeating this one, stupid, relatively innocuous in context quote?
I'll agree with you that we shouldn't sink to his level. The high road is pretty nice.
I think people have coalesced around it because it's a very good encapsulation of the general view of Mitt Romney. He is the 1980s made flesh and when he says things like this it's easy to latch onto.
It's a "Peace in our time", "the fundamentals of our economy are strong", "I didn't know about the Contras" moment; the kind of saying that--true or not--it becomes symbolic of what's wrong with a given situation.
I'm much happier to go after him in context myself, but I'm not too miffed by people who use this against him for the reasons I outlined above.
Because really it's the cherry on top of the gaffe-sandwich that nails home everything wrong about the Romney candidacy. His stated policies he's intent on pursuing will all do the exact opposite of what he claims to be "for" it doesn't matter that there are mountains of evidence that suggest this. He's just going to get elected, cut taxes, cut spending on the poor, talk about "rugged individualism" as well as the oft mentioned "bootstraps" despite all evidence to the contrary suggesting that he is telling myths so convincing that it would make Baron Münchhausen green with envy.
So it becomes like the Republican Freudian slip we were all waiting for. Because we all get that the only way you could combine such rhetoric with such policies is if you're a huckster or psychopath. So harping on that comment becomes one of those "Ah-hah! they finally said it! They just want to feast on the misery of the poor!" type ah-hah moments. It's stupidly partisan but you know, one would hope there's some level of collective shame that can be brought upon those who are basically espousing we should force half of our current American society to go die in slow, degrading and painful ways, to change their positions before they end up driving us into a new civil war.
He has no fucking idea
Hell even Obama doesn't realize just how bad it is for how many people it's bad for, but at least he realizes times are rough, and not just in the "I can't afford a second car" or "my kids might have to go to an in state school" sense that Republicans think is about the worst thing to be going on right now
However that's different from claiming his quote shows him to viscerally enjoy feasting upon the dried carcasses or poor Americans, or some such.
Really, when people distort quotes to fit a pre-determined strawman* but then simultaneously complain about the political process... all that enters my mind is "garbage in, garbage out". It's like our politics are the monster we deserve. And I'm talking about both sides of the divide here; Every time someone who watches Fox News goes to complain about media distorting political discourse, I retch a little inside.
This strikes me as what SKFM is protesting, rather than any desire to shine up anyone's perception of Romney.
*Yes, my second line is a pre-determined strawman. A hyperbole even. Yes I'm aware of the irony.
that is going to kill him in the general if he gets that far.
He personally doesn't need to, but it showcases the emotional mood of the electorate that would chose Romney. He's considered the inevitable front-runner, his plus is supposed to be regarding his ability to fix the economy. Yes, the poor have "a safety net" and he's so not worried about them he wants to institute policies which gut it despite saying they'll be fine and alluding with his very same statement he wouldn't do such a thing. Personally if it weren't for his quite apparent history of policy and rhetoric changes I would wonder if he himself thought that way. At this point I'm pretty sure Romney's joined at the hip to opinion polls and supports whatever he thinks will be popular with the base.
I really wonder what the solution is to the situation. I mean even when I try to be non-confrontational about it I've yet to find an issue thread where I was able to form a clear consensus with the conservatives here outside of copyright threads, and also on police militarization surprisingly. (Thanatos and Spool agreeing in the same thread is priceless) I'm not sure at this point if or how we can talk to each other rather than trying to talk past each other on certain issues. I think it's because in a lot of cases we've reached a point where no one just wants to change their positions because of a good argument since it's seen as a sign of personal weakness. It's sad. :-/
So we've reached Poe's singularity finally? ;p
Actually I think he might BE the Republican version of John Kerry. In every single way.
NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION! Oh bugger.
I coined Republikerry like a year ago, dammit.
That is still a stupid statement. Of course it needs repair. It's in desperate need of repair. It's take a complete, utter goose to be unaware of this.
Oh right.
There's also the fact that many of the very poor were middle class until recently. Helping the very poor get back into the middle class should be the goal here not necessary helping those who are already middle class.
The idea that we should ignore the actions of the wealthy and leave the poor to a system of support that just helps them live in poverty is a problem.
Well yeah, but that isn't entirely conveyed in the popular soundbite. Seems silly to misquote Romney when you can just use actual statements about everything you just said. Though I suppose that doesn't give you a catchy one-liner.
The only solution that comes to mind is the complete destruction of modern cable TV political discourse. Axe the telly, unplug the compy, everyone back to the bars and argue politics over a pitcher of ale.
Cheekiness aside, really most political "discourse" seems to be disseminated from television clips. Political arguments are often just two people talking past each other with quotes from their favored news program, the sort of quotes that make no sense out of context. People hardly talk to one another, but rather to imagined caricatures of each other.
Though given the history of journalism, I have to wonder if that is simply the norm. In any case I consider it an unfortunate and unavoidable fact of politics.
Er... I hadn't meant to, but I suppose we did. Huh.
The Houston OWS folks have left the park they were occupying. They're not moving to another park.
OWS would do well to follow the Anonymous example and stage short, focused and unpredictable acts of protest and activism. If they stick to any tactic for too long, their targets will figure out effective strategies for messaging against them. The one thing that organizations are not good at it dealing with unforeseen and random acts of dissent.
The idea is that by the time the powers-that-be can clear their schedules and meet to determine a strategy, OWS should already have moved on to the next tactic.
I mean, with SOPA, people got shit done about it in a few weeks. OWS has been doing this for a while, and has only slightly shifted the direction of things. Do we have to wait until spring to start really hearing about it again?
People have been saying this since the first week of Occupies happening, though.
I think it gets to issues that are not entirely resolved about it: is the point to zero in on specific "Wall Street" policy issues via waving placards and marching, or is this a demonstration of an entirely different set of assumptions about using public space and the mores of social interaction?
There's probably something to be said for reframing things as Occupy being a part of a larger American Spring for "messaging" clarity. Anon has a lot of good operating principles as far as "do things that will get attention" but I like the good cop / bad cop idea of having a very diverse population of people interacting face to face ocuppy-style alongside that.
Flash mob type protests that change every time are good, but it's not necessarily a weakness to stubbornly refuse to give up physical space, is it? There are a lot of community activist groups in the mix for whom real real estate is an immediate concern before abstract finance industry complaints. I guess I just worry that online activism is both very effective and cheap -- but also clicking "like" on Facebook doesn't replace a General Assembly as demonstration of direct democracy.
I don't have any bright ideas, but I guess I just hope that people are able to push forward in an election year to grab the national microphone. Someone gets mic checked in a funny, pithy, or just way and that is leveraged via YouTube hits and both approaches (online and off) are working in conjunction. There will be a lot of opportunities to be heard amidst the electioneering, but getting the media to pay attention will probably be the tricky part. :l
Anti-SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/etc have found other wealthy interests that align with theirs because those bits of paperwork make their goal of making money harder.
Occupy has had a much harder path to row since the issue of wealth disparity has far fewer wealthy people who realize greater disparity is bad for their earnings. "Tax the rich!" as much as it makes sense doesn't make you a lot of wealthy friends, even when it would benefit them greatly.
What makes this so sad is that as was pointed out previously, many of those elected are the wealthy, so they tend to only listen to other wealthy interests because it aligns with theirs. To change things we (other countries too) basicly need to elect people who have known poverty and had to deal with it ... which given that those who spend the most on their campaigns usually win, which kinda seems like the various media oligarchies decide who win, it usually means a poor person who doesn't align their interests with rich backers won't get elected.
I think it basicly means our various forms of representative government are not being representative and our current ails are the result.
At least, that is my short and probably too simplistic take on it.
The OWS peeps I've spoken to don't really care how long reform takes, they aren't going anywhere, and as a personal aside, even if OWS morphs into something else, the fundamental issue of economic justice isn't going away anytime soon. Most likely other like-minded groups will form, splinters if you will, kinda like what happened to the "99% Movement": it predates OWS, it's still happening, but OWS took over the media but they fight for the same thing.
Let's see how long they "aren't going anywhere" if things turn around and they get good jobs. Maybe I'm just cynical, but I still think just about anyone who was in Zuccotti Park would have switched to the "dark" side pretty fast if Goldman offered them a job.
The irony in this is that if Goldman could Magick up enough "Good Jobs" to employ all of OWS they'd have basically proven that the only reason the economy's in the crapper is because the Rich don't feel like the poor deserve to eat.
edit:
Also, having visible encampments is a necessary thing. Public spectacle for 1, and recruiting ground for 2. They need to have a space where people can gather, talk, but most importantly disengage entirely from the current 9-5 world. One thing encampments do if they get enough donations, which strangely enough Occupy did, was that it let people be more like full time activists by taking care of the essentials. There are a number of pluses really, and the only problem from encampments comes that it's all too easy now for the media to smear them. We've had enough police press releases parroted that everyone will think of them as filthy hives of disease despite no evidence of such uncleanliness ever actually surfacing.
I think it's the single most miraculous thing about Occupy. For as "dirty and smelly" as these camps all supposedly were not one person could produce a photograph showing trash everywhere or other serious sanitation issues. People just whined on about smells which could come from a number of sources. Like not having public showers for one?
I'm just saying its easy to protest a system when it is not benefitting you.
I never went to the encampment, but my friends that live near where it was hated it. Hating the camp seemed to cut across party lines and ideology. Democrat or republican, everyone just wanted to get to work, walk their dog, and get some sleep in peace!