reply to post by OutKast Searcher
The problem is when people, in a transparent attempt to voice disagreement with something that is very hard to logically disagree with, use statements
such as yours (I'm not trying to imply that you are guilty of this, since you clearly weren't trying to refute anything in your statement) about
organization as an effective means to ignore the overriding issues.
It is impossible to argue that the laws regarding corporate influence of the political process in the U.S. have become softer in the last two decades.
It is impossible to argue that the role of money in that political process, while always a factor, has become increasingly so, and increasingly
utilized for self-preservation and gain.
It is impossible to argue that this state of affairs has not had an adverse impact on the general population.
Funny thing though, is that I don't hear anti-OWS folk discussing those points or attempting to rethink them. I don't hear "the influence of
corporations has had a positive impact" or "these problems would have happened even if corporations did not wield such power." Those would be
logical, though difficult, approaches to the actual issues.
Instead,I hear "dirty hippies" and "disorganized" and "vandals." It's simple, it's moderately effective, and it's easy to repeat ad
I've sunken to petty levels when trying to call attention to this in the past. Mainly, I get angry when faced with such a complete disregard for
honest, logical discourse on the side of the debunkers (again, not referring to your post, but it was a perfect jumping off point.)
So, when angry OWS'ers call you "sheeple", which is the worst word in the language, with the possible exception of ginormous, I don't imagine that
most are saying that if you don't agree with them, you're a moron. I think, like many of you, people get upset when the disagreement doesn't even
stem from a single issue, and the counterarguments don't address them either. OWS makes a clear statement about the three positions I mentioned
earlier, and while the movement does diverge from there depending on locale and personal agenda, any criticism of the movement as a whole has to
involve a dispute of those three fundamental points, among others, to be an actual counterargument.
Is there an anti-OWS'er here who is willing to say that things are fine? Corporatism is cool? The Ron Paul media blackout is good for discourse?
Buying elections is American?
It just appears that, out of a very real difficulty in addressing those issues, people resort to the disorganization clause. Basically, I don't have
to respond to your message if I simply say it's incoherent over and over. This is highly frustrating to people who want to start a dialogue about
things, and sometimes, in moments of weakness, they resort to name calling.
OWS wants you to disagree. They want you to start talking. That's the whole point! However, even though I'm sure the main perpetrators of this
already know exactly what they're doing, simply saying "Ah HA! Some of them smoke weed in this youtube video, so the entire movement is invalid"
or "they want Communism so I hate them" should be equally ridiculed by both sides of the actual argument. It isn't.
That ticks people off.