Rhetoric on Both Sides of the OWS Issue

The rhetoric on both sides of the aisle in this issue needs to be examined by us and weighed carefully. Words have both definitions and connotations, and in such a heated and large issue as OWS, we need to use them carefully.

The OWS camp: Perhaps the most flagrant example I see of this is the use of the word "fascist". Fascism has a specific definition and connotation. Were the bankers, Wall Street, etc. to truly be fascists, there would be very specific consequences as well; consequences that, based upon the word's definition and connotation, have not been met. I believe it is quite unjust to call these people fascists.

The anti-OWS camp: I have seen lazy, naive, scumbags, and many others said; all of these seem fair if that is your viewpoint. However, I have also seen these people labeled as domestic terrorists, and this is the one that disturbs me.

If we call these people terrorists, that label has distinct definitions and connotations, but it also has consequences; namely, that these people should be locked up in maximum security prisons with extremists who have tried, and in some cases succeeded, in murdering scores of people.

Basically, when we call these protesters domestic terrorists, we're advocating such consequences for what amounts to hippies camping out in a park and complaining. I believe that it is quite unjust to call these people domestic terrorists.

Bottom line:

Fascist is a serious accusation and label. Domestic terrorist is a serious accusation and label. Let us be careful in our rhetoric in this situation.

Disclaimer: If it seems that I devote more time to the "domestic terrorist" label, it is because it is the more serious of the two. If one were to be indeed considered a fascist by society, they would just be thought to have a very loopy political philosophy by most. If one were to be considered a domestic terrorist by society, one would be put in prison, likely for a very long time.