by sacrifice everything for their families, you mean work 40 MAYBE 60 hours for a comfy office job right? I don't think sacrifice means what you think it means.
Comfy? Sitting down all day has been shown to increase the risk of death. Which is why there are more standing and treadmill desks these days.
Haha, an aside, but I love how Goldman people chortle with pride about their use of Excel, for god's sake. it's cute. They're dangerous because they're inordinate and aggressive takers when they're in their desks, not because they would ever venture outside of them. In any case, it's fair to say they'd look down at this movement too, and basically EVERYBODY else (have you ever been in a discussion with bankers?). They know what a losing cause is and how the levels of government work, at least, it's fair to say. Not sure what you're implying other than the fact that all of these hypothetical people you conjured to support this movement have better things to do with their life than a cause that fundamentally changes the dynamics of American politics. In other words, at best, you have an impotent apathetic force that prefers collecting trinkets to doing anything impactful. Congrats! At worst, you're sorta making imaginary friends. It ain't healthy, friend.
People of influence would laugh at some of these notions, particularly the one that says that carrying signs in front of government buildings is amazing brave and will result in change.
Question: How was America founded? Who are these people of influence you keep on harping about anyways? They should give you a couple of gold coins for your trouble. You're not talking about influential media figures, or technologists, that's for sure, they'd do better at getting people to move. JOFFREY?
oh yeah, can't forget the kicker on this one. your attempts to defend this sadsack movement have really placed you in an awkward position
Yeah, it was sparked by a bunch of people who decided to stay home because they'd miss one day's wages. You've placed yourself in a really weird position. 1) You've identified people as people of influence who "disparage" non-violent movements to change governments as "useless". 2) You've defended a non-violent movement to change government. The only escape hatch here is if you believe in violence as a measure of change. I'm guessing that's the one you'll take? or just like ignore this and frolic away. all's good that ends well.
Actually I have basically made two major points in this thread. 1) Movements like OWS are pretty much worthless. They do what they do precisely because they are powerless, otherwise they'd just effect the changed they wanted. Real movements aren't necessarily violent but are much more savvily organized. 2) Nonetheless we should be tolerant of views we disagree, lest those people gain power and are not tolerant of our ideas. But it is also true that sometimes violence is the only way to get the necessary change. It's just that the crazies always think violence is necessary.
So 1) Protests aren't cool unless they're "savvy". 2) I'll bow before my overlords when they come. 3) Sometimes violence is needed, but you only become a crazy when violence is needed all the time. I think you've made one point in this thread that is abundantly clear.
Added note, people who sympathize with OWS aims permeate society and have "savvy impact", have you ever wondered why Obama's GOTV effort worked so well, and Romney's was a technical failure? Look no further than the kind of views that attract top technologists and those that don't. The fact that OWS sparked the discussion it did is leading, more and more, to shifts in legislation and appropriate remedies, even if it's slow and tentative. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...al-charges-against-big-banks/article18335428/ but somehow an empty square is something to be proud of, because the TRUE, SAVVY ORGANIZERS are too busy setting aside billions for the inevitable, if somewhat corrupted, DOJ ramshackle.
You would've done REALLY well in any number of despotic regimes---Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Germany, Mao's China. Is that really why you think we should be tolerant of different views?
Did Milton Friedman ever make a clunky sign with a sharpie and walk around in birkenstocks? After answering that question, ask yourself this: did OWS accomplish more, less, or about the same as the free market movement?
It's incredibly dangerous to be intolerant of opposing views and that is what will lead us to become Communist. You are leading us directly towards what you claim you don't want. Aren't liberals always the ones who ask "why do they hate us?"
The Civil Rights movement and women's suffrage each took seventy years; you're just trying to invalidate the ambitions of the group without directly opposing their platform and by appealing to weird class and generational biases.
