Jump to content
jeskill

Wall Street Protestors: Do they lack a clear message?

Recommended Posts

We've been hearing this a lot: the wall street protesters lack a clear message. To me, the message is crystal clear: there's too much power at the top and the middle class is getting screwed. What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been hearing this a lot: the wall street protesters lack a clear message. To me, the message is crystal clear: there's too much power at the top and the middle class is getting screwed. What do you think?

 

In my town we do. There are Occupy San Francisco etc. all over.

 

As a science trained type I'll do it in simple math.

 

Why? $99% -------------------------------------> 1%

 

Think who controls mainstream media. That is the message that media wants to portray. But that guy talking to fox is premo and facebook is golden. I'll post him when I find it.

 

My blood pressure has gone -down- 20 points since it started. I am hoping we get back democracy in time to save our and our loved ones livelihoods.

 

Occupy Wallstreet!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my town we do. There are Occupy San Francisco etc. all over.

 

As a science trained type I'll do it in simple math.

 

Why? $99% -------------------------------------> 1%

 

<...>

 

Occupy Wallstreet!

I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, but that IS incoherent and lacking in clarity. You may as well be demanding that companies and investros be more awesome on a scale of 1 to cheese, and make rainbows softer for garden gnomes in suburbia, but only if gemini's third moon is crossing venus.

 

Yes, the protestors lack clarity in their message. They look like a bunch of whiney teenagers mad because their dad won't let them take the car out, and they're running around throwing an unfocused tantrum... as if their anger is just generalized unfocused spew being thrown at passers by with zero purpose or objective other than to vent and chant.

 

 

What specifically do you want changed? Do you want specific transactions regulated? Do you want some sort of increased oversight, or transparency? Do you want front end capital investments to be lower so more people can participate and get started? Do you want campaign finance reform so seats in congress cannot be bought as simply? Do you want more people to vote so representation is not only on the extremes? Do you want Citizens United to be overturned? What the hell do these people want? I'm pretty sure not even they know.

 

Be specific. You and the well-intentioned but painfully naive hippies playing frisbie and doing yoga on Wall Street right now sound like a tribe of bloody fools who are screaming at a casino for taking money they voluntarily fed into the slot machine. Either figure out what specifically you're requesting and form a plan to attain it, or STFU already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they can't get their message straight soon, they will get flooded by people who do have a message, and backing, and organization. And it will seem glorious until they realize their original intent just got shanghaied.

 

It's what happened to the original Tea Party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, but that IS incoherent and lacking in clarity. You may as well be demanding that companies and investros be more awesome on a scale of 1 to cheese, and make rainbows softer for garden gnomes in suburbia, but only if gemini's third moon is crossing venus.

 

Yes, the protestors lack clarity in their message. They look like a bunch of whiney teenagers mad because their dad won't let them take the car out, and they're running around throwing an unfocused tantrum... as if their anger is just generalized unfocused spew being thrown at passers by with zero purpose or objective other than to vent and chant.

 

 

What specifically do you want changed? Do you want specific transactions regulated? Do you want some sort of increased oversight, or transparency? Do you want front end capital investments to be lower so more people can participate and get started? Do you want campaign finance reform so seats in congress cannot be bought as simply? Do you want more people to vote so representation is not only on the extremes? Do you want Citizens United to be overturned? What the hell do these people want? I'm pretty sure not even they know.

 

Be specific. You and the well-intentioned but painfully naive hippies playing frisbie and doing yoga on Wall Street right now sound like a tribe of bloody fools who are screaming at a casino for taking money they voluntarily fed into the slot machine. Either figure out what specifically you're requesting and form a plan to attain it, or STFU already.

 

I give up.

 

It is impossible to speak even basic symbolic logic to those who are scientifically trained. Too pedestrian. No wonder in a technological advanced culture "the other half" are taught to remain clueless.

 

If you have any engineering understanding at all.

 

Number one- Define the problem.

 

I think you are blinded by emotion and should go get blinded by science. Reality is a big part of that. Consider it, please. Instead of tearing down, think.

 

 

 

 

If they can't get their message straight soon, they will get flooded by people who do have a message, and backing, and organization. And it will seem glorious until they realize their original intent just got shanghaied.

 

It's what happened to the original Tea Party.

 

The Tea party very,very quickly got dumped on with tons of cash. Never then saw it as much grass roots for real. Koch brothers anyone? Excellent media coverage for 50 paid whiteheads who show for ten minutes.

 

The message is straight. Occupy Wall street have a very clear list also if you info on their facebook. Finally, after you, me and a brother-in-law have kveched for years, they have decided to actually do. If you look at the posts from the other conversations there has been plenty of whining on this forum. Using the detached third person is such a thin disguise.

 

Ley's try again.

 

Define The Problem

 

$99% ----------------> 1%

 

$1% -----------------> $ politicians, supreme court lobbying, corporate malfeasance criminal avoidance, banks, media, offshore tax avoidance, rich CEOs ,lying financials = < democracy

 

 

Now, hopefully your blood pressure can remain steady. Is this too easy for this political forum? What to then do?

 

Solution

 

STOP DOING THE ABOVE

 

so, Occupy Wall Street

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tea party very,very quickly got dumped on with tons of cash. Never then saw it as much grass roots for real. Koch brothers anyone? Excellent media coverage for 50 paid whiteheads who show for ten minutes.

One of the best ways to make a vehicle go where you want it to go is to offer to drive. If you outright hijack it, there will be those who object.

 

The Tea Party got their cash but what went wrong was their agenda got taken over by those who offered to drive. "No taxation without representation" got warped into "No change in the tax structure". They grew their grassroots by deceiving their members into thinking their own middle class taxes would be raised and spent liberally. Add Fox News into the mix and you have people who watch nothing else get misinformed about what's really going on.

 

The message is straight. Occupy Wall street have a very clear list also if you info on their facebook. Finally, after you, me and a brother-in-law have kveched for years, they have decided to actually do. If you look at the posts from the other conversations there has been plenty of whining on this forum. Using the detached third person is such a thin disguise.

Don't get me wrong. I think the idea behind what they're doing is great and I admire their resolve. But they're vulnerable right now because the media is portraying them as uncoordinated. This does many things, but the three most dangerous are that 1) it makes them dismissible by the right (many of whom might actually have more common ground with OWS than with the Tea Party), 2) it slows grassroots growth, and 3) it makes them ripe for takeover by a leader (or group) who may share one or two of their goals but ultimately is much more self-serving.

 

Read the What is the Tea Party? and you'll see it's basic Republican platform. Do you want OWS to end up as basic Democrat platform so we're just back to square one again, shouting across a fence? OWS needs to show what makes them different while also showing how much common ground it shares with the vast majority of Americans. That's what they aren't doing well, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the best ways to make a vehicle go where you want it to go is to offer to drive. If you outright hijack it, there will be those who object.

 

The Tea Party got their cash but what went wrong was their agenda got taken over by those who offered to drive. "No taxation without representation" got warped into "No change in the tax structure". They grew their grassroots by deceiving their members into thinking their own middle class taxes would be raised and spent liberally. Add Fox News into the mix and you have people who watch nothing else get misinformed about what's really going on.

 

 

Don't get me wrong. I think the idea behind what they're doing is great and I admire their resolve. But they're vulnerable right now because the media is portraying them as uncoordinated. This does many things, but the three most dangerous are that 1) it makes them dismissible by the right (many of whom might actually have more common ground with OWS than with the Tea Party), 2) it slows grassroots growth, and 3) it makes them ripe for takeover by a leader (or group) who may share one or two of their goals but ultimately is much more self-serving.

 

Read the What is the Tea Party? and you'll see it's basic Republican platform. Do you want OWS to end up as basic Democrat platform so we're just back to square one again, shouting across a fence? OWS needs to show what makes them different while also showing how much common ground it shares with the vast majority of Americans. That's what they aren't doing well, imo.

 

I think it would surprise how well they are doing it.

 

Right out of the box the media had this weird party line. No matter how many times the message was repeated they fought them by saying they weren't clear. Odd. It gives comfort to see all these people and all this support that have a powerless message. It is not true. The message is so basic and is merely a sum of recent history and an understanding of what has happened.

 

This is the guy interviewed by Fox. Scientists would do well to meet the common man halfway. Reality is a separate thing from the hallowed halls of learning or insular research labs. IQ is a very different thing from understanding and especially openness.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJgWdfZqDj0

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What specifically do you want changed? Do you want specific transactions regulated? Do you want some sort of increased oversight, or transparency? Do you want front end capital investments to be lower so more people can participate and get started? Do you want campaign finance reform so seats in congress cannot be bought as simply? Do you want more people to vote so representation is not only on the extremes? Do you want Citizens United to be overturned? What the hell do these people want? I'm pretty sure not even they know.

 

Be specific. You and the well-intentioned but painfully naive hippies playing frisbie and doing yoga on Wall Street right now sound like a tribe of bloody fools who are screaming at a casino for taking money they voluntarily fed into the slot machine. Either figure out what specifically you're requesting and form a plan to attain it, or STFU already.

 

From this, it seems you would like to see the protesters rally around a solution to the problem of economic inequity? I agree that it would make life a lot easier if they did, but I also think that this would be impossible. There are so many possible solutions that could occur at so many different institutional levels. Based on the youtube videos I've watched, it seems to me that the organizers of this movement are saying, "We need to recognize that economic inequity has grown worse in the past 30 years, and this is bad for America. We therefore need to have a grown up conversation about this and implement a number of solutions that will reduce this inequity." Some of the protesters are discussing solutions (via youtube) -- at the individual, city, and state level. Unfortunately, these are not 15 second soundbites.

 

I just really hate the media's insistence to hold to pithy one-sentence rallying cries. We are effectively being told we can't have meaningful discussions about complex solutions to complex problems because people need their information as short and simplified as possible. Talk about infantilisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I give up.

 

It is impossible to speak even basic symbolic logic to those who are scientifically trained. Too pedestrian. No wonder in a technological advanced culture "the other half" are taught to remain clueless.

 

If you have any engineering understanding at all.

 

Number one- Define the problem.

 

I think you are blinded by emotion and should go get blinded by science. Reality is a big part of that. Consider it, please. Instead of tearing down, think.

 

The "It's you, not me" gambit rarely works. It's rarely right.

 

 

Ley's try again.

 

Define The Problem

 

$99% ----------------> 1%

 

$1% -----------------> $ politicians, supreme court lobbying, corporate malfeasance criminal avoidance, banks, media, offshore tax avoidance, rich CEOs ,lying financials = < democracy

 

 

Now, hopefully your blood pressure can remain steady. Is this too easy for this political forum? What to then do?

 

Solution

 

STOP DOING THE ABOVE

 

so, Occupy Wall Street

This reminds me of the "Then a miracle occurs" cartoon by Sidney Harris. The problem is how does "Stop doing the above" achieve any goals, when no specific goals are stated? It's a general "We don't like the current system" complaint, without any explanation what, specifically, is wrong and what, specifically, should be done about it. Like iNow already said.

 

"Occupy Wall Street" and "Stop doing the above" are analogous to "Work smarter, not harder" and other pithy motivational sayings. They sound good but don't actually help you with any distinct issues. "Tighten the flange" or "connect the components in parallel" would be helpful answers to a problem. Anything that translates as "make the system work better" isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "It's you, not me" gambit rarely works. It's rarely right.

 

 

 

This reminds me of the "Then a miracle occurs" cartoon by Sidney Harris. The problem is how does "Stop doing the above" achieve any goals, when no specific goals are stated? It's a general "We don't like the current system" complaint, without any explanation what, specifically, is wrong and what, specifically, should be done about it. Like iNow already said.

 

"Occupy Wall Street" and "Stop doing the above" are analogous to "Work smarter, not harder" and other pithy motivational sayings. They sound good but don't actually help you with any distinct issues. "Tighten the flange" or "connect the components in parallel" would be helpful answers to a problem. Anything that translates as "make the system work better" isn't.

 

As I was pointing out to the previous poster.

 

You should be put into a book about why our technological society is unable to have a lot of scientists engaged in the political process. It is not unfair that reality is messy.

 

From this, it seems you would like to see the protesters rally around a solution to the problem of economic inequity? I agree that it would make life a lot easier if they did, but I also think that this would be impossible. There are so many possible solutions that could occur at so many different institutional levels. Based on the youtube videos I've watched, it seems to me that the organizers of this movement are saying, "We need to recognize that economic inequity has grown worse in the past 30 years, and this is bad for America. We therefore need to have a grown up conversation about this and implement a number of solutions that will reduce this inequity." Some of the protesters are discussing solutions (via youtube) -- at the individual, city, and state level. Unfortunately, these are not 15 second soundbites.

 

I just really hate the media's insistence to hold to pithy one-sentence rallying cries. We are effectively being told we can't have meaningful discussions about complex solutions to complex problems because people need their information as short and simplified as possible. Talk about infantilisation.

 

My blood pressure has gone down because I have been continually perplexed. Seemingly intelligent people are soothed by the worse gobblygook. It rivals the idiocy of weirdness of the level of Jim Crow and even as far back as the Civil War. It isn't that we never had crazy, we just foolishly get optimistic that it is behind us.

 

Babyboomers are dropping like flies. Their parents who have found safe harbor at 65 applaud that as grandchildren lose parents. Cupboards get bare for 1 in 7 Americans. The number one reason for an early death other than gender? Scientists I ask never get this - IT IS SOCIOECONOMICS. iNow had excellent ideas to do like The New Deal and that is econ 101 to flow from the govt to the 99% which weird mouthpieces ignore. Saving the economy saves everyone.

 

Nero plays. The champagne flows above the little people below on Wall Street. That is a more lucid picture than some single comic.

Edited by amanda more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be specific. You and the well-intentioned but painfully naive hippies playing frisbie and doing yoga on Wall Street right now sound like a tribe of bloody fools who are screaming at a casino for taking money they voluntarily fed into the slot machine. Either figure out what specifically you're requesting and form a plan to attain it, or STFU already.

 

it is not necessary in either science or politics to be able to provide a solution as a prerequisite for claiming that a system is wrong. It is highly desirable to be able to posit an alternative rationale - but it cannot be essential to disproving a position; all one needs to do is to show that the current theory is incorrect and does not produce the results that are intended. I realise from your other posts that you are not a reactionary - but your argument plays straight into the hands of the powerful, who claim that the present system "works just fine", and that any other system must be fully functioning ab initio. The motivation for change is that the system has failed/is failing - it isn't the crash that doom-sayers predict daily, it is the divorce between productivity and reward, the wall street tail wagging the manufacturing/producing dog ... the triumph of debt over capital. I believe it is important to state clearly that a system is broken even when the minutiae of the corruption is beyond you. This forum is one of the few places I know with people who would be capable of understanding the intricacies of the market ( I freely admit I don't - but I know very bright people who have spent lives trying to) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps part of the appeal that is garnering support from many varied groups is the very fact that Occupy Wall Street is so far leaderless and unfocused. That actually may be a good thing since it can still be an unspecified identity focus for the vast majority that feel the US is simply "headed in the wrong direction". If it solidifies too quickly behind a certain approach or leadership message, it could lose groups that might otherwise be drawn to its nebulous goals.

 

Be specific. You and the well-intentioned but painfully naive hippies playing frisbie and doing yoga on Wall Street right now sound like a tribe of bloody fools who are screaming at a casino for taking money they voluntarily fed into the slot machine. Either figure out what specifically you're requesting and form a plan to attain it, or STFU already.

I meant to comment on this earlier. I think it's very important right now, especially for those who lean more left of center, to encourage dialogue about these issues which can start out unspecifically. And I think it is absolutely mandatory to acknowledge the patriotism involved in protest, and the efforts to which these people have gone to make sure their voices are heard.

 

I do not agree with "STFU".

 

As I was pointing out to the previous poster.

 

You should be put into a book about why our technological society is unable to have a lot of scientists engaged in the political process. It is not unfair that reality is messy.

Given the quote to which this is attached, I have no idea what you're saying here. It makes no sense to me.

 

I hope you can forgive me, I've followed many of your posts and I've meant to comment on your style but I didn't wish to derail the threads. I have to make these comments now though before I go mental.

 

My blood pressure has gone down because I have been continually perplexed.

You've used this reference a few times now and I don't get it at all. Usually stress makes blood pressure rise.

 

Seemingly intelligent people are soothed by the worse gobblygook.

If you could explain this too, I would appreciate it. Who seems "soothed" here to you?

 

It rivals the idiocy of weirdness of the level of Jim Crow and even as far back as the Civil War.

I understand the reference but not why you use it in this context. This could just be a straw man argument.

 

I'm sorry, when I hear word salad like this it makes me think a computer is putting these sentences together. No offense meant, perhaps I'm too old to understand your style of writing.

 

Babyboomers are dropping like flies.

Do you mean financially or literally, as in dying?

 

Their parents who have found safe harbor at 65 applaud that as grandchildren lose parents.

What?! Why would someone applaud when their children are failing or dying? Who is doing this?

 

iNow had excellent ideas to do like The New Deal and that is econ 101 to flow from the govt to the 99% which weird mouthpieces ignore. Saving the economy saves everyone.

Obama is trying to get some money for infrastructure improvements, investing while interest rates are low, putting lots of people to work and strengthening our future. I don't see where anyone was disagreeing with you here about this.

 

What is a "weird mouthpiece"? That sounds like something translated from another language to English.

 

Nero plays. The champagne flows above the little people below on Wall Street. That is a more lucid picture than some single comic.

But isn't that what a single comic is, a "lucid picture"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I was pointing out to the previous poster.

 

You should be put into a book about why our technological society is unable to have a lot of scientists engaged in the political process. It is not unfair that reality is messy.

 

I didn't say it was unfair that reality is messy. I agree that it is. But that's precisely why you need more detail to diagnose and fix the problem. Engines are complex, too. "My engine is making disagreeable noises. Make it stop doing that." doesn't do very much to help the mechanic fix the problem — all it does is call attention to the existence of a potential problem. Oner would not even know if the person just didn't like the normal sounds the engine made.

 

Guess what? A lot of people already recognize that there is a problem. I applaud OWS for the effort, but they don't have a coherent message about the details. Implying that this is "our" fault (as scientifically literate people) fails miserably; you have yet to actually convey what their detailed message is. To me the message sounds like "We don't like capitalism very much." Good luck with that. You might as well protest the sun rising every morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Implying that this is "our" fault (as scientifically literate people) fails miserably; you have yet to actually convey what their detailed message is.

Is that what amanda more was doing when she quoted you, implying that it was the fault of scientifically literate people?! That couldn't be further from the truth. How many times has the government and the mega-corporate special interests ignored, misquoted or even outright falsified scientific data in the last ten years? Scientists get misquoted on the front page but retractions are printed days later near the obituaries, if at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You've used this reference a few times now and I don't get it at all. Usually stress makes blood pressure rise.

 

 

Do you mean financially or literally, as in dying?

 

 

What?! Why would someone applaud when their children are failing or dying? Who is doing this?

 

 

 

Ironically, for many of us yelling at TV's etc. does no good. Finally we are heard. Blood pressure plummets.

 

Babyboomers die. Especially because who wants to cover a 55 year old? So, the "story problem" is

4 grandparents Half make it to 65. They have health insurance and have a good chance of making it to 75. But that would mean that the grandchildren would have lost half their parents. Say, left with Mom but have two grandparents to step in to the void.

 

I held my breath til my Mom made it to 65. Now her health problems are being treated.

 

Now data would help but also obscure. I'm amazed that those babyboomers born before 1964 have radioactive Strontium in their bones. Did the nuclear explosions postwar cause enough fallout exposure to kill them? Well, yes. How many? Chernobyl has good numbers because of thyroid cancer that radioactive fallout causes cancer. It is so rare those exposed have to have gotten it from the radioactive food. One reason that childhood cancer made such advances starting in the fifties is the increase in Leukemia among the young then. Many children died.

 

Ok, does lack of health insurance kill baby boomers? Well, yes. How many?

 

So retirees who hate healthcare for babyboomers should at least rethink this. They don't seem to care. It doesn't take any science to know that lack of healthcare endangers life and lack of health insurance endangers access to healthcare. The recent economic crash has hurt this age group. Who wants to hire a lot of 55 year olds and put them on the company's health insurance?

 

And before anyone repeats the now constant mantra about exercise,eating, etc. , the diseases these influence are half caused by genetics. So even if you throw under the bus the stressed out Mcdonalds eaters, half would have those challenges anyway. Oddly enough, it is the low socioeconomics that kills the obese. Leave out the lower socioeconomics group and there is no separate risk factor effect for the majority.

 

Yea, I could add the papers but then those here spend endless pages with the distraction of details not germane to real discussion of the topic and I love discussing the topic. I do prefer examples to washingtonDCspeak so I am stuck.

 

In cowboy country they prefer the "are for me or agin me" with simplistic either/or choice. As wonderful a cowboy movie as that makes the real world is just messy enough to make that infantilistic. (was that your word?)

 

So summary of my point here: Grownups can see the message.

 

note: I have used &^#*% before so that could be criticized but initials used by iNow are blatant. I also had suggested he be emotional. Be careful what you wish for. Perhaps he has relatives in England where things can get very dicey.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

it is not necessary in either science or politics to be able to provide a solution as a prerequisite for claiming that a system is wrong. It is highly desirable to be able to posit an alternative rationale - but it cannot be essential to disproving a position; all one needs to do is to show that the current theory is incorrect and does not produce the results that are intended. I realise from your other posts that you are not a reactionary - but your argument plays straight into the hands of the powerful, who claim that the present system "works just fine", and that any other system must be fully functioning ab initio. The motivation for change is that the system has failed/is failing - it isn't the crash that doom-sayers predict daily, it is the divorce between productivity and reward, the wall street tail wagging the manufacturing/producing dog ... the triumph of debt over capital. I believe it is important to state clearly that a system is broken even when the minutiae of the corruption is beyond you. This forum is one of the few places I know with people who would be capable of understanding the intricacies of the market ( I freely admit I don't - but I know very bright people who have spent lives trying to) .

 

yes. We are a fast paced world.

 

Going back to some non real past is hugely radical. Making it seem so "well planned" is not sainthood.

 

Would one deeply admire the Third Reich for being well planned?

 

Good people are currently producing good results. One can still have a kind of faith even if steeped in science.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world is watching . Gone are the days of ' it happened last week ' , ' it happened yesterday ' , it's on the net within an hour . Nearly live yoga , ooooh , alongside coppers , ask swansont for a translation , beating brains on the front of automobiles . Gandhi passivism , does it work ? Need a petrolbomb , wanna smash every window within a mile ? Is this the poor peaceful middle class , down to the lower lower lower class now ? Is it time to steal food to eat ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world is watching . Gone are the days of ' it happened last week ' , ' it happened yesterday ' , it's on the net within an hour . Nearly live yoga , ooooh , alongside coppers , ask swansont for a translation , beating brains on the front of automobiles . Gandhi passivism , does it work ? Need a petrolbomb , wanna smash every window within a mile ? Is this the poor peaceful middle class , down to the lower lower lower class now ? Is it time to steal food to eat ?

 

 

 

I know an 85 year old In 2006 I asked him what would happen in another Great Depression?

 

1) Your relatives will move in with you

 

2) Get a gun

 

He recalls the thirties vividly. I am one of the deluded masses who believes it is my fault. I don't care if it is only 1 in 300 millionth my fault. It is when the good do nothing that evil triumphs. So the odd thing is that it is very natural for us to not do violence on a well-to-do person just because of their income. We had enough of destroying by color. In spite of what the America news media covers there is

amazing acceptance of difference here that I'm trying to think of where it can be found anywhere. We don't want to destroy a human we just don't want them to continue to take our money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it is important to state clearly that a system is broken even when the minutiae of the corruption is beyond you.

There is no chance at arriving upon a reasonable solution if you cannot even clearly define the problem. I have to repeat this point nearly every day in my job. "Make it more awesome" is not a measurable objective.

 

The protestors have clearly suggested there IS a problem, and that's fine, but they have thus far failed to clearly articulate what that problem is and what specifically they want done about it. It's a bunch of hot air at this point. That is my primary assertion. Please don't read much more into it than that.

 

 

The group needs more like this:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-four-habits-of-highly-successful-social-movements/2011/08/25/gIQAeifVNL_blog.html

 

As Harold Meyerson [wrote Tuesday] in The Washington Post, other groups around the country with a different leadership structure are making more concrete demands, including the modification of student and household debts and the imposition of a financial transaction tax.

 

Those are just a couple of ideas, and there are more, but at least they are clear and actionable.

 

 

 

 

I think it's very important right now, especially for those who lean more left of center, to encourage dialogue about these issues which can start out unspecifically. And I think it is absolutely mandatory to acknowledge the patriotism involved in protest, and the efforts to which these people have gone to make sure their voices are heard.

 

I do not agree with "STFU".

Your disagreement is noted, but my point remains. They're spinning their wheels right now, the lack of focus is hurting their cause, and it's sad to watch. If you're going to do something, do it right. At this point, it's all bark and no bite, or all smoke and no fire.

 

If that's all they can manage, then frankly I'm absolutely correct when I suggest that maybe they should just STFU, and you acting all affronted like you've suddenly come down with a case of the vapours as a result of my tone won't alter that in the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's all they can manage, then frankly I'm absolutely correct when I suggest that maybe they should just STFU, and you acting all affronted like you've suddenly come down with a case of the vapours as a result of my tone won't alter that in the least.

 

I think that Phi for All meant that we shouldn't, as a society, encourage groups to STFU if they believe they have a worthy cause, and are proceeding in a legal and peaceful manner. Yes, they need to focus on clarity, but they shouldn't be discouraged just because they are poorly organized at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your disagreement is noted, but my point remains. They're spinning their wheels right now, the lack of focus is hurting their cause, and it's sad to watch. If you're going to do something, do it right. At this point, it's all bark and no bite, or all smoke and no fire.

Well, they're young, they're in place and they've got momentum. You can eventually get up to speed on the right path if you're moving but you'll never get people's attention with a gag shoved in your mouth.

 

If that's all they can manage, then frankly I'm absolutely correct when I suggest that maybe they should just STFU, and you acting all affronted like you've suddenly come down with a case of the vapours as a result of my tone won't alter that in the least.

It's not your tone; your "STFU" sounds eerily similar to the ignorant Tea Party shit-for-brains who shout down people asking legitimate questions at a town hall meeting.

 

It sounds like an old lady I know who told her kids, "You'll never be a Mozart so why bother taking piano lessons?"

 

It sounds like a fascist trying to silence the dissenters.

 

I don't agree with STFU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that what amanda more was doing when she quoted you, implying that it was the fault of scientifically literate people?! That couldn't be further from the truth. How many times has the government and the mega-corporate special interests ignored, misquoted or even outright falsified scientific data in the last ten years? Scientists get misquoted on the front page but retractions are printed days later near the obituaries, if at all.

 

That's how I interpret "You should be put into a book about why our technological society is unable to have a lot of scientists engaged in the political process." I don't find any way to interpret it as a positive statement. I take it as saying It's my fault that I don't get the message. However, I am not willing to take responsibility for not being able to read someone else's mind. If they can't or won't articulate their grievances, I don't see how it's my fault.

 

The problem with "Scientists would do well to meet the common man halfway. Reality is a separate thing from the hallowed halls of learning or insular research labs." is that I've seen what happens when the "common man" gets "his" way in politics. One example: I was in Oregon when they passed Measure 5, a rollback in property taxes, and the ensuing furor when police and fire departments were cut, and state university funding was slashed, because the state was suddenly responsible for funding elementary and secondary schools. The "common man" got exactly what he asked for, but didn't understand the implications. The "common man" didn't associate tax cuts with loss of services. So what I worry about is vague calls for fixing "the problem" and then no tolerance for the actual fix to the problem, all because the complaints were too vague and no actual course of action was proposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's how I interpret "You should be put into a book about why our technological society is unable to have a lot of scientists engaged in the political process." I don't find any way to interpret it as a positive statement. I take it as saying It's my fault that I don't get the message. However, I am not willing to take responsibility for not being able to read someone else's mind. If they can't or won't articulate their grievances, I don't see how it's my fault.

She didn't clarify that one. I couldn't figure out any way to blame science for the fact that the system isn't working. Or that you're personally to blame for not understanding the specific deeper message behind the 1%-------99% blurb that seems to have so many interpretations.

 

The problem with "Scientists would do well to meet the common man halfway. Reality is a separate thing from the hallowed halls of learning or insular research labs." is that I've seen what happens when the "common man" gets "his" way in politics. One example: I was in Oregon when they passed Measure 5, a rollback in property taxes, and the ensuing furor when police and fire departments were cut, and state university funding was slashed, because the state was suddenly responsible for funding elementary and secondary schools. The "common man" got exactly what he asked for, but didn't understand the implications. The "common man" didn't associate tax cuts with loss of services. So what I worry about is vague calls for fixing "the problem" and then no tolerance for the actual fix to the problem, all because the complaints were too vague and no actual course of action was proposed.

We've had similar measures here, mostly due to the lovely Focus on the Family think tank south of where I live. It's a lot like them wanting anti-abortion, life-begins-at-conception legislation but never thinking about the legal morass you create giving a zygote the full rights of a human being.

 

Much of it is the short attention span of the average voter, coupled with the tempting quickie sound byte offerings from the media. It's like... fellistening. It's pleasant, makes you feel good, you don't have to work much at it and it's over quickly so you have time to go do something else.

 

People do need to understand that a big reason we're in this leaky boat is because we haven't been willing to do the hard work of digging for the details, figuring out what we want from our society and then finding someone who actually represents our view. People gripe every presidential election that they don't want to throw their vote away on an independent who doesn't have a chance, but then they gripe when the major party doesn't represent them. And if they aren't willing to do that much, the very least they should be able to figure out is that scientists are probably a better source of information on what works than politicians or special interests are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's how I interpret "You should be put into a book about why our technological society is unable to have a lot of scientists engaged in the political process." I don't find any way to interpret it as a positive statement. I take it as saying It's my fault that I don't get the message. However, I am not willing to take responsibility for not being able to read someone else's mind. If they can't or won't articulate their grievances, I don't see how it's my fault.

 

The problem with "Scientists would do well to meet the common man halfway. Reality is a separate thing from the hallowed halls of learning or insular research labs." is that I've seen what happens when the "common man" gets "his" way in politics. One example: I was in Oregon when they passed Measure 5, a rollback in property taxes, and the ensuing furor when police and fire departments were cut, and state university funding was slashed, because the state was suddenly responsible for funding elementary and secondary schools. The "common man" got exactly what he asked for, but didn't understand the implications. The "common man" didn't associate tax cuts with loss of services. So what I worry about is vague calls for fixing "the problem" and then no tolerance for the actual fix to the problem, all because the complaints were too vague and no actual course of action was proposed.

 

Man, you could really benefit from a quick scan of Plato.

 

One of the most advanced well educated scientifically productive societies got going politically. Unlike its more backward neighbors it felt strong. It still puzzles how Nazi germany had such a great run.

 

I didn't even know you were also an elitist. I just had a discussion with someone that the person in front in the checkout line had food stamps and bought- low and behold potato chips. Must have been too stupid to spend two bucks on two measly apples.

 

Perhaps it was viewing Social Network again. Constant, constant reactions on "this tree", "this tree" is not helpful for conversation. This is one reason that wives go nuts from their engineering husbands. I was lamenting this aspect of how poor communicators scientists are. But if they are trying to shout that the citizens are stupid perhaps it is a good thing that they find two way talking challenging.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't even know you were also an elitist.

Thanks for reminding me why I was justified in my STFU response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reminding me why I was justified in my **** response.

 

Moderator Surely this is close enough to obscenity.

 

I'm sorry you are caught in a high stress job that even at $150,000 has not kept pace with the $85,000 that managers got thirty years ago. At least you are in Austin where mansions are cheap. Really. Those private schools were 5000 and are now 30000.

 

Work hard and welcome back to the middle class.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.