This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Occupy Wall Street Protests
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
There's nothing wrong with local focus, but it shouldn't
completely
exclude other localities simply because you'll never see them. In the future, the localities may intermix -- meaning that they're worth consideration now. I like the "Seventh Generation Sustainability" concept by the Iroquois, which sort of demands consideration of non-local events due to the unpredictability of what "local" will mean seven generations from now.I guess what we are trying to communicate, that perhaps you aren't entirely picking up on, is our percieved nature of patriotism. Try to imagine that patriotism isn't "exclusive". What I mean is that the comradery and importance placed on one's immediate community doesn't necessarily mean that there are any negative actions, or even negative feelings associated with a different community. We understand that there is an importance to the world community, and that community indirectly and directly influences all local communities all the time, and undoubtedly will in the future. We are trying to say that being patriotic should NOT be understood as a positive feeling of local community coupled with a negative feeling of every other community, but SHOULD be understood as being a positive feeling of local community, as a concept, by itself. I am certain that there are people who couple the negative concept and the positive concept and label this blend as 'patriotism', but that it should be understood that that is not the accepted view of patritism for all.
I agree with the Heckler quote, but I think it is worth highlighting that patriotism not only doesn't automatically exclude other localities, but that it can be damaging to the very healthy and beneficial concept of patriotism to think otherwise.
Post by
donnymurph
Occupy Sydney got smashed by police straight away. Occupy Melbourne lasted 6 days. I am
strongly
sympathetic to the cause, but they caused a roadblock and crippled many of the major tram routes, the bastards!
Post by
Squishalot
Whoa, you're back? And you're in Melbourne?
Post by
donnymurph
Got here last week, I was in Geelong for a fortnight before that. Long story.
I also quit drinking... But started again (at a much slower pace).
Life has been pretty out there.
Post by
Squishalot
Fair enough, good to hear.
On topic:
Occupy Sydney got smashed by police straight away. Occupy Melbourne lasted 6 days. I am
strongly
sympathetic to the cause, but they caused a roadblock and crippled many of the major tram routes, the bastards!
See, that's why I'm not sympathetic to the cause, and why I also don't respect people who strike either. Trying to win support by screwing people over isn't the way to win in my books. (That said, I fly Virgin Australia, not Qantas...)
The reason that Occupy Sydney got smashed was that they were breaching City of Sydney rules by pitching tents, and it happened to be a very, *very* soggy weekend. They were also crowding around the major footpaths undercover in Martin Place and blocking pedestrian traffic.
Post by
donnymurph
Beyond maybe 10-15 leaders, Occupy Melbourne was mostly a bunch of dumb, stoned hippies. Which is another way to not win, since
no-one
takes stoned hippies seriously.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
I don't mind striking (theoretically) over serious issues and I think in certain cases I've heard, the unions have had legitimate grievances where it came to striking. I think that harassing "scabs", even if it is necessary for the strike to have any impact, is too far.
I think there are two instances in which it isn't justified, when wages that are significantly higher than average are demanded for workers in an arbitrary manner and when union talks break down over trivial issues. I don't know specific incidences where something like that has happened.
Some people have necessary jobs, such as the police (read about the Baltimore police strike to see what does happen when they aren't present), but that means that abuses of power could occur from either side, making equilibrium very tricky.
Maybe the drunk students were trying to provide food but were too off their head to come up with an appropriate method?
Post by
Azazel
I wish I could get more involved in this as I believe their cause is just.
The problem is, equality is some of the world's best in Denmark, so we have no protests at all.
Suckage =/
Post by
Heckler
A part of a "pledge" proposed by Tea Party Nation (
source
), sent to 30k people this week:
Resolved that: Our President, the Democrats-Socialists, most of the media, and most of those from Hollywood, have now encouraged and supported "Occupy" demonstrations in our streets, which are now being perpetrated across the globe, and which are being populated by various marxists, socialists and even communists, and are protesting against business, private property ownership and capitalism, something I thought I'd never see in my country, in my lifetime.
I, an American small business owner, part of the class that produces the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country, hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war against business and my country is stopped.
I hereby declare that my job creation potential is now ceased.
Patriotic indeed.
Post by
Azazel
marxists and even communists.
Post by
gamerunknown
I suppose they're referring to Mao/Stalin/Third International style as opposed to Trotskyists/ Mensheviks/Independent Dialectical Materialists. But why they think that ceasing hiring people that are willing to work is a good idea is beyond me. The Maoists would use it as evidence of the corruption of the bourgeois system and the necessity of central planning.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
donnymurph
A definition of insanity is "doing the same things, but expecting different results."
That's not a definition of insanity; just a really poorly thought-out, overused saying.
Post by
MyTie
I know so much! Look at all of these big words I know.
Indeed! But I think i would include Trotskisim in their "opposed" side, assuming we are speaking about his level of government influence in business.
*sarcastic intelligent bantering chuckle*
Post by
ElhonnaDS
You know MyTie, more and more I'm noticing that your latest posts are getting kind of nasty. Not just heated, like we all get from time to time, but almost sneering. I only notice, because generally that's not your style. Is everything alright?
Post by
MyTie
I suppose they're referring to Mao/Stalin/Third International style as opposed to Trotskyists/ Mensheviks/Independent Dialectical Materialists. But why they think that ceasing hiring people that are willing to work is a good idea is beyond me. The Maoists would use it as evidence of the corruption of the bourgeois system and the necessity of central planning.
I mean.. seriously. Do you REALLY expect the statement to look more like this:..."Occupy" demonstrations in our streets, which are now being perpetrated across the globe, and which are being populated by people of various beliefs which could be considered Mao/Stalin/Third International style schools of Marxist and socialists thoughts, but certainly not a Trotskyist/Menshevik/Independant Dialectical Materialist style of marxism...Or can they just say 'Marxist' without having to divide out all the specific factions of Marxism and clairify each that the groups may or may not fall into. I'm sure many of the OWS protesters do have a socialist viewpoint, and perhaps even marxist. Can you comprehend that? Can you draw meaning from that sentence without further clairification? I'm sure this isn't through enough to write a doctoral dissertation on, but the meaning is FRIGGIN CRYSTAL.
Post by
MyTie
You know MyTie, more and more I'm noticing that your latest posts are getting kind of nasty. Not just heated, like we all get from time to time, but almost sneering. I only notice, because generally that's not your style. Is everything alright?
There are some debate styles that I despise, and will attempt to use pressure to curtail future usage. One of those is the "Don't you mean" style of debate. An example is if I were to say "The sky is blue", and someone else were to say "Don't you mean that the sky is clear, but refracts light in such a way that it appears to be blue?". The entire point of the argument is to look down your nose at your opponent by feigning ignorance of their point. HSR was the master of this style of argument, and I was harsh with him about it then, too. If you notice, most of my debate replies are either questions, opinions, or reproach.
I have had a hard week, yes. I think my replies in WoW general may have been due to that, but then again, that guy was asking for it. I suppose I can cool it, since you so kindly addressed me. Thanks for your opinion. I value it.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I hope your week gets better.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.