Maybe if I try to explain myself in iambic pentameter...

Anyway, we've strayed vastly from the point, and I should have known better than to allow that to happen by mentioning Shakespeare and Nietzsche to you. My point is, your position on politics seems designed more or less to completely justify your life exactly as it is, and deny yourself the tools to ask deep and or searching questions about your place in society and the impact of your actions and such. And I think that's a dangerous position to take.

obi-raham wrote,..."And if I'm wrong, I learn something new!"
################################################################
But you never own up to being wrong, because you're a full-of-shit-jew.

Mafialligator + infinity cubed.

It shouldn't be much of a surprise that I'm not entirely sure how I feel about getting approval from mapleleaf, aside from rather surprised, but it's at least reassuring to know that I'm not the only one who finds obiwanobiwan arrogant, elitist and insufferably pretentious.

In spite of the billions of argument style threads pumped out by Mr. Daniel Freeman, he has yet to admit that he was/is wrong about anything.

Again, a common trait of the merchant class.

Pathetic.

They wonder why they're universally loathed.

There are some occupy wall street solidarity people in my town. They've been out there for 3 or 4 days now. The signs make no sense to me and I'm not even sure what their objective is. It seems to me that the protest is:
"They have money! We don't!" and then confusion as to what exactly is the cause.

"You actually haven't really understood a single thing I've tried to say and I think you might be being deliberately obtuse, just to make me crazy. Stop it."

If the student isn't udnerstanding the teacher's lesson...

Perhaps it's not only the student who needs help understanding how to communicate?

Hey cool, my name on the Internet...thanks for unmasking my secret identity, mapleleaf...

lol

"My point is, your position on politics seems designed more or less to completely justify your life exactly as it is, and deny yourself the tools to ask deep and or searching questions about your place in society and the impact of your actions and such. And I think that's a dangerous position to take."

Yes...my position on politics is in favor of my way of life and my values and the preservation of those values...

It'd be pretty odd if I valued education but said I'd be open-minded about teaching Creationi--er, Intelligent Design Theory in school.

Political positions USUALLY are formed on the basis of values one cares and holds about.

I think your view of politics and political positions is intellectually noble...but not practical.

"There are some occupy wall street solidarity people in my town. They've been out there for 3 or 4 days now. The signs make no sense to me and I'm not even sure what their objective is. It seems to me that the protest is:
"They have money! We don't!" and then confusion as to what exactly is the cause."

+1 swordsman

"obi-raham"

Can I be Obi-Rahm for Rahm Emmanuel instead, mapleleaf?

how fine a line is there between protesters 'whining' and 'standing up for justice/their rights?'

infact where do you draw that line? is it based entirely on history and who wins?

Where do I draw the line?

As soon as they define their terms on more concrete and less abstract terms--ie, lose thw whole "Eliminate global greed" and "We are the 99%" schtick--I'll let you know.

Again:

I'm NOT saying they don't have a right to protest.
I AM saying their protest ITSELF is a whine-fest with ill-defined and conflicting goals, no focus, and on the merits of what they've done and said so far, I find it an utter waste.

I'm not "Shut up and enver protest ever."

I am "Shut up and sit down unless you're ready to articulate your points like mature adults rather than kidds getting nude on Spring Break and whining about abstract philosophical bullshit that puts even my pointless philosophizing to shame."

I think it's far MORE harmful to say "Any protest should be respected as...well, its a protest and we have freedom of speech."

You wouldn't do that with other forms of free spech.

You wouldn't say "*Insert Bad Movie here* is a good movie because, even though it has a million plot holes, shitty CGI, terrible acting and directing, and was 7 hours long, it was still someone's expression, and THAT automatically makes it worth noticing and viewing."

Or "Ayn Rand might have gone off on an Objectivist rant far too often and bastardized her philosophy and her novels are written stiffly and horribly...but she should still be viewed as a great philosopher because, hey, she spoke her mind, and that's what counts, JUST speaking your mind, right?"

Put them together and you get:

"Atlas Shrugged was a good film because, even though it had tons of bad movie problems, tons of Ayn-Rand-Bullshit problems, was panned by critics and audiences alike, and was even viewed as a joke by fans of the book, it was sTILL someone expressing themselves, and damnit, THAT'S just precious and invaluable!"



Shakespeare--that's write, SHAKES, I'm using him--wrote SHIT SOMETIMES.

Watch "A Comedy of Errors" or "As You Like It" and tell me those are palys that really deserve to stand the test of time and be here forever.

Watch "Romeo and Juliet" and tell me with a straight face that was an original, fresh, and exhilerating story with deep characters and conflicts.

They're not.
They're all three of them shallow, and passable for what they are, but by no means good works.

NIETZSCHE wrote shit!
His political views are convoluted, contradictory, and CRAP!

PLATO wrote shit!
His Eugenics in "The Republic" are reprehensible and his metaphysics are laughable at times!

MOZART comnposed shit!
There are some of his piano pieces that are jsut so repetitive or so bubbly it's like Bieber-izing in the 18th century.

EVERYONE writes shit! (I do this a lot, doncha know!) ;)

Just because its expression doesn't make it good or worth hearing or seeing or reading--even if it's shit "The Greats" composed or wrote or staged.



Egypt's protests were good in my opinion, so I took heed and backed them, did the whole "Spread the word on Facebook!" schtick and everything (which didn't do anything realsitically, but whhatever, I live 4,000+ miles or so from Egypt, what else am I gonna do but banal bullshit like that?)

THIS comes across as convoluted and whining by brats, and so I treat it as such!

And finally...

We do the same thing HERE on WebDip!

When Eden or Draug or whomever writes something we find sound, we give the +1 and agree and listen.

When someone--including me, sas I'm NOT putting myself on a pedestal--writes crap, we treat it as crap, and not as if its "good" or "worthwhile" *just* because its expression.

Appreciating expression for expression's sake makes said expression worthless...lending whole new meaning to another hero of mine, Oscar Wilde, and his phrases:

"Art for art's sake" AND "All art is quite useless."

Ditto for respecting a protest just for protest's sake.

OK obiwan let me try and explain what I mean in simple easy concepts so that, hopefully there can be no misunderstanding. Let's start with a very very very simple concept indeed.
Do you, or do you not accept that your place in life has been very, very heavily influenced by the larger social system in which you live?

Also your argument about the quality of the protest is similar to common arguments about the nature of gay pride parades and such. The point isn't to favourably impress wall street executives with how reasonable and pro-corporate the protesters are willing to be. The point is to challenge the very nature of the society that created Wall Street in the first place. The point isn't to buy into corporate culture saying "mostly it's pretty good minus a few changes here or there". If that were the concern there wouldn't be a protest. They have a certain number of goals here, but the point is social change. Changing the way people think, so that you can change the underlying system altogether. You're still thinking about the protest like someone who wants the corporate system to succeed. That's exactly why you aren't getting it.

"Oh shit...

If Fasces likes my post, I might have to reconsider my position..."
I love how I have gained the reputation that if I think something it must be bad.

Now all I have to do is start advocating for the left, lol

"Now all I have to do is start advocating for the left, lol"

Who knows, you might accidentally say something intelligent.

""Now all I have to do is start advocating for the left, lol"

Who knows, you might accidentally say something intelligent."

Let the sarcastic pissing-contest parade continue...

"Who knows, you might accidentally say something intelligent."
So you think agreeing with Putin is intelligent?

"So you think agreeing with Putin is intelligent?" - Ummm, do I think everything he's ever said is intelligent? No. Are some of the things he says intelligent? Yes. With a handful of exceptions, most people say intelligent things here and there.
And this may be surprising to learn, but Putin is not the only leftist in the world. Nor does he represent the beliefs of every leftist that does exist, nor do we all think the same things all the time.

+1 to MafiALLIGATOR's response...

As much as I dislike Putin's comments and views on the whole, they're still owrthwhile hearing, most folks here are worth hearing...

And he's definitely not emblematic of every Leftist--*I* am a Democrat and I count myself as Center-Left, and he and I clash on almost every point.

(Makes you wonder how much point there really is in the whole Left/Right alignment idea...)

Thanks ObiWANOBIWAN (sorry). I'm glad that even though we argued like hell earlier we can still read each other's posts fairly and objectively. This may be hard to believe but even when I get super frustrated and annoyed at you, I actually still do like reading your posts.

And yeah, on the one hand I agree that there's more to politics than the left-right thing, but it can still be useful sometimes. I mean, even though you might disagree with Putin a lot, we can all agree that your views differ from those of Tettleton's Chew and krellin. We can even, I think, agree that both you and Putin and myself for that matter, all differ from TC and krellin in the same direction. So it's not completely without merit. Now of course someone will pull out that left-right, libertarian-authoritarian chart and say it's much better. It does have it's advantages, but I feel like that chart has a way of glorifying the centre. It's kinda like "The Fallacy of the Golden Mean: Now in New and Improved Chart Form!"

Ok, so I just went to Wall Street/Liberty Park/Washington Park more as a spectator than a protestor. It was fun (there was a really good saxophone player and drum band). Yes their goals are ill defined, but that's because I believe they are attempting to include a large group of people in the process and allowing time for their goals to develop. The police didn't cause any problems, and were quite helpful.

While much of the protest is and looks very disorganized, going to the general assembly meeting, is actually quite organized. Not being allowed to use megaphones has introduced in interesting way to communicate, by yelling, and having people repeat (I heard a pundit compare it to the game telephone), and then wave and wiggle their hands up or down depending on whether you favor something. It sounds silly and inefficient, and it actually is really silly and inefficient, but it works. And then you find out that there are many different smaller working groups that are discussing different actions. For some reason the media has not shown this much at all. I think one of the best parts about this is that it gives anyone, the right to speak in front of large crowds of people, and speak their mind. Not everyone has access to internet forums after all.

Personally the main thing that my friend and I are for, are limiting corporations spending on politicians, hopefully via a constitutional amendment to keep corporations for being people. This would mean that freedom of speech would not apply. Its not ideal, but I believe it can be done.

I'm going back on Monday maybe to do a bit more. And I actually had a job, that I quit so that I could go into substitute teaching. However, there are lots of people who legitimately cannot get a job.

@urall i did mean to ask where Obiwan was getting his idea of what the protest stands for.

Main stream media being the most trustworthy source in the universe.

Your impression gives a differ side.

"keep corporations from being people."

I have no idea how that would work. If i as CEO of a company have freedom of speech, i can spend company money on hat speech. I mean as the company director, i can exercise my own speech and the company can direct me to use it as part of my employment... (though as i'm the CEO i give the directions myself...) Practically i don't see how you can prevent this with any sensible law....

Changing the money which politicians are allowed spend might make more sense...

Ugh! I can never understand what makes people so hateful of corporate personhood. The whole thing basically exists so that the CORPORATION is liable for debts and not the investors personally. For example, if the Mom-and-Poppa Shoe Store has incorporated and the business fails then the Store's assets are liquidated to pay the debts and not the people's house. With a corporation investors usually only lose their investment, while in a sole proprietorship or general partnership there's unlimited liability. Without corporate personhood doing business is prohibitively risky because any investor's private assets are on the line if the firm fails. Wanting to abolish corporate personhood shows a stunning amount of ignorance of the most basic ideas of how businesses function. Getting rid of it because of abuses in how some corporations spend their money is like throwing the baby, your car keys, passport, and liver out with the bathwater.

"Yes their goals are ill defined, but that's because I believe they are attempting to include a large group of people in the process and allowing time for their goals to develop."

Therein lies one of the chief problems:

This should really be many smaller groups calling for many different things in smaller, organized settings and protests--and I would still say PACs or lobbying and playing the system at its own game to beat it could be a possible avenue as well--rather than the whole-sale sort of carnival atmosphere they have going on.

If nothing else...it makes it pretty hard to take these people seriously--at least for me--as anything more than a bunch of people who are young/on the younger side of the age lines and cannot or do not have jobs and want more money.

And that's FINE.

Go ahead and protest for more jobs, more power to you...

But when your chants boil down to:

"What do we want?"
"JOBS!"
"When do we want 'em?"
"NOW!"
How are we gonna get 'em?"
"...Ummmm...er...well...STOP GREEDY PEOPLE! (Yeah, that's it!)"

Then I have a problem.

We're all aware there's a jobs problem, and these folks don't seem to have any answers, so I don't see the point of their protest from that perspective, and from another, it seems wasteful and not just a bit hypocritical to criticize others when you yourself don't have the solutions, and once again, the utter lack of organization of goals--due to their trying to be inclusive of everybody--just shoots any attempt to mobilize as a coherent group in the foot.

It's sort of like if you were doing a school play...
And someone wants to do a drama.
"OK," you say.
"And let's make it a musical, too!" says someone else.
"Sure," you say.
"And a comedy! Those are fun, too!"
"Why not, all those are great."
"And let's set it in the 60's, that's such a cool era!"
"Yeah, let's go with that."
"And let's set it in pre-historic times!"
"OK."
"And let's have a rock concert in the middle of it!"
"Sure!"
"And a gymnastics show?"
"Why not?"
"And a debate for student body president, can we fit that in?"
"OF COURSE, ALL ideas are welcome!"

And...this play never gets done due to no one wanting to say:

"Sorry...that doesn't QUITE fit in with what most of the rest of us want...maybe next time, but right now, we're doing A,B, and C for our show, not A all the way through K."

"The whole thing basically exists so that the CORPORATION is liable for debts and not the investors personally. For example, if the Mom-and-Poppa Shoe Store has incorporated and the business fails then the Store's assets are liquidated to pay the debts and not the people's house."

yes, exactly, though it could be argued that this leads the owners of companys to take more risks than they would otherwise.

I know the default position is to encourage small businesses to actually take on some debt and not risk their homes. Thus facilitating entrepreneurship.

However, have a separate legal identity and having 'personhood' - thus being entitled to freedom of speech as it applies to persons - seems like a bit of a stretch.

I don't see what the point in making such a ruling...