Pages

Jump to bottom

21 comments

1 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 28, 2011 6:27:22pm

Yes, because if we’re being honest, this list should just be called Declaration Of Why People Suck.

Pretty much.

It's a laundry list of vague platitudes. I respond better to these platitudes than to right-wing platitudes, but I can still tell a platitude when I see one.

Also, I think it was written by consensus. That's not a compliment to the writing.

2 CuriousLurker  Fri, Oct 28, 2011 6:38:10pm
I don’t expect anyone to be particularly interested in my 2 cents, but I decided this was too big for a comment, so I made it a page.

I'm interested. You're not being snarky, and even if I disagree with some of your points they still give me alternate views to consider.

3 Charleston Chew  Fri, Oct 28, 2011 6:41:47pm

re: #1 SanFranciscoZionist

Yes, because if we’re being honest, this list should just be called Declaration Of Why People Suck.

Pretty much.

It's a laundry list of vague platitudes. I respond better to these platitudes than to right-wing platitudes, but I can still tell a platitude when I see one.

Also, I think it was written by consensus. That's not a compliment to the writing.

Someday in the future, extra-terrestrials will read out this list of grievances as an explanation for why they have decided to blow up our planet like in The Day The Earth Stood Still.

4 Charleston Chew  Fri, Oct 28, 2011 6:43:18pm

re: #2 CuriousLurker

I'm interested. You're not being snarky, and even if I disagree with some of your points they still give me alternate views to consider.

I'm curious about which points you disagree and why, if you have the time to explain.

5 CuriousLurker  Fri, Oct 28, 2011 6:45:03pm

re: #4 Charleston Chew

I'm curious about which points you disagree and why, if you have the time to explain.

Can I get a rain check for tomorrow? It's been a long day and I'm kinda brain dead right now. ;)

6 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Oct 28, 2011 6:53:11pm

re: #3 Charleston Chew

Someday in the future, extra-terrestrials will read out this list of grievances as an explanation for why they have decided to blow up our planet like in The Day The Earth Stood Still.

Could anyone blame them?

7 MichaelJ  Fri, Oct 28, 2011 7:10:14pm

The list has to be vague unless they are going to name specific individuals or corporations that they feel are the biggest offenders. They are obviously not against every single corporation in the world, so it's kind of silly to look at their list of grievances as being all-inclusive. They are calling out the evil, greedy bastards out there. I think they should be more specific about who they are against.

8 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Oct 28, 2011 7:29:41pm

They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.

I have no clue what this means.

It means you're reading a declaration written and approved by a group of people too stupid or brainwashed to realize that "colonialism" as a policy requires active and assertive colonization.

9 Charleston Chew  Fri, Oct 28, 2011 7:34:35pm

re: #7 MichaelJ

The list has to be vague unless they are going to name specific individuals or corporations that they feel are the biggest offenders. They are obviously not against every single corporation in the world, so it's kind of silly to look at their list of grievances as being all-inclusive. They are calling out the evil, greedy bastards out there. I think they should be more specific about who they are against.

That's my problem with the anti-corporation wording. Not all corporations are comprised of evil greedy bastards, and plenty of non-corporations are evil greedy bastards, so the anti-corporate message is wrong in two ways simultaneously.

10 Daniel Ballard  Fri, Oct 28, 2011 8:18:20pm

Repeat from my poll thread-
We can argue against a lack of specifics. But yet we seem to nearly all agree the checks and balances have swung too far in the direction of corporate interests. Share value over product value. Corporations are "people" under the law.
So, given a terribly slow recovery and renewed peril on the economic front we get OWS. Such as it is. For all it's flaws it attempts to address an imbalance with direct grass roots advocacy. Because we have this understanding that this very imbalance caused the recession. We better hope this works.

11 Charleston Chew  Fri, Oct 28, 2011 8:40:51pm

re: #10 Rightwingconspirator

The general anti-corporate message becomes a red herring that takes away focus from problems such as hedge fund managers paying low income tax because their income is counted as capital gains. The biggest hedge fund, Bridgewater Associates, manages approximately $125 billion in global investments. But any anti-corporate rhetoric would explicitly exempt them from calls for reform because they are a limited partnership.

12 Dark_Falcon  Fri, Oct 28, 2011 9:15:40pm

re: #11 Charleston Chew

The general anti-corporate message becomes a red herring that takes away focus from problems such as hedge fund managers paying low income tax because their income is counted as capital gains. The biggest hedge fund, Bridgewater Associates, manages approximately $125 billion in global investments. But any anti-corporate rhetoric would explicitly exempt them from calls for reform because they are a limited partnership.

Indeed. That declaration seems a triumph of emotion over reason.

13 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sat, Oct 29, 2011 1:40:05am

As much as their declaration is vague, your critique of it is hyperliteral.

14 Charleston Chew  Sat, Oct 29, 2011 7:17:10am

re: #13 Sergey Romanov

As much as their declaration is vague, your critique of it is hyperliteral.

I take them at their word. Shouldn't I? Should I read between the lines? How is hyperliteral different from literal? How do you interpret the words?

Words matter. Especially in politics. In 1776 Thomas Jefferson wrote,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

to which abolitionist Thomas Day responded,

If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves.

Was Day also being hyperliteral by not interpretting "all men" as, "Well, not all men..."?

15 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sat, Oct 29, 2011 7:26:34am

re: #14 Charleston Chew

You know, you're not dealing with a mathematical statement.

Just to give an example. Your very first "problem".

Problem 1. One can “feel wronged” with or without actually being wronged.

However, how is it a problem? Why was it important to emphasize this and treat it as a separate "problem"? How does this word usage detract from the message?

Second "problem":

Problem 2a. “Corporate forces of the world” — although I’m tempted to make a poetic interpretation of this phrase (the physical laws of the universe made flesh?) I assume it’s meant as a catchall term for all incorporated organizations in the world.

However, why would you assume that it means each and every corporation without exception? Just because they don't make it more specific? This doesn't pass - charity of interpretation is a must unless you simply want to put the statement down. When someone disses the Confederate America without getting more specific, does this mean they want to diss each and every Confederate citizen as a bad human being? Etc.

16 Charleston Chew  Sat, Oct 29, 2011 8:29:20am

re: #15 Sergey Romanov

The word "feel" should be deleted. It should read "all people wronged" because that limits the grievances to ones that are real. It's possible to feel wronged without actually being wronged. It's possible to be wrong about being wronged.

In 1980, Mark David Chapman murdered John Lennon because he felt Lennon had wronged him. He hadn't. Discerning the difference between one's feelings and reality is an important part of being sane and thus an important part of political rhetoric.

Assuming that "corporate forces of the world" does or does not mean "all corporations" is just two sides of the same coin. Both assumptions are equally valid or invalid. That's the problem with a lack of specificity. My default interpretation is to assume it means what it actually says. I consider that a prudent default position for interpreting anything. You interpret it to mean what you want it to mean, what you hope it means.

Why is charity of interpretation a must? Their enemies won't be charitable. If I, a powerless asshole, can demolish their professed beliefs, think of what a powerful asshole could do.

As an example, here's something else not very charitable -- a crash test:

Would one feel more safe or less safe if the crash tests performed on the car one drives to work every day were charitable?

I crash tested this Declaration. It failed.

When someone disses the Confederate America without getting more specific, does this mean they want to diss each and every Confederate citizen as a bad human being? Etc.

Is it wrong to say the Chinese are untrustworthy? I don't know. I haven't met them all yet.

Is it wrong to make a generalization about a group if you don't mean everything in that group? Yes, it is.

Best case scenario: The authors of this Declaration and organizers of this protest are sensible, rational people who used imprecise wording.

Worst case scenario: They are irrational people involved in a secular version of what religious people call a prayer meeting, begging non-existent gods to cast the imaginary Great Satan ("corporate forces of the world"), the originator of all Sin who is to blame for all the things in the universe they don't like, into the Lake Of Fire.

17 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sat, Oct 29, 2011 8:37:05am

re: #16 Charleston Chew

The word "feel" should be deleted. It should read "all people wronged" because that limits the grievances to ones that are real. It's possible to feel wronged without actually being wronged. It's possible to be wrong about being wronged.

In 1980, Mark David Chapman murdered John Lennon because he felt Lennon had wronged him. He hadn't. Discerning the difference between one's feelings and reality is an important part of being sane and thus an important part of political rhetoric.

Um. That's my point. You for some reason see it as important, but it's really not, as far as it's this particular declaration is concerned. It's not some law or constitution, where every jot and tittle is of paramount importance. So I see it as nothing but nitpicking, and thus hyperliteralism.

Assuming that "corporate forces of the world" does or does not mean "all corporations" is just two sides of the same coin. Both assumptions are equally valid or invalid. That's the problem with a lack of specificity.

Then saying that the declaration is too vague is quite sufficient in my humble opinion, so stopping at 2a is an option. Driving the point home for the next x items? That's what I don't get.

My default interpretation is to assume it means what it actually says. I consider that a prudent default position for interpreting anything.

Uh, no. This literalism is a prudent default position for interpreting mathematical statements or legal contracts. It doesn't necessarily work with texts like the above.

18 Daniel Ballard  Sat, Oct 29, 2011 8:39:47am

You said it well Sergey. I could not articulate my sentiments on this, you nailed it.

19 Charleston Chew  Sat, Oct 29, 2011 8:57:39am

re: #17 Sergey Romanov

You for some reason see it as important, but it's really not, as far as it's this particular declaration is concerned. It's not some law or constitution, where every jot and tittle is of paramount importance.

Should I take it less seriously? If the Declaration's authors and supporters don't take it seriously, why should anyone else?

Driving the point home for the next x items? That's what I don't get.

I went through all the points because I considered my disagreement to have the "burden of proof". Ironically, it was an attempt to avoid being perceived as "nitpicking". One nit is no big deal, but a swarm of nits is a real problem. I was just being thorough. Once I decided to take the time to do it, I thought I might as well go through the whole thing.

That's a prudent default position for interpreting mathematical statements. It doesn't work with texts like the above.

Why is it prudent for math but not this? Why doesn't it work?

20 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Oct 30, 2011 3:24:53am

I wonder: When has "corporations" replaced "capital" in leftist lingo?

21 CuriousLurker  Sun, Oct 30, 2011 3:46:51am

re: #4 Charleston Chew

I'm curious about which points you disagree and why, if you have the time to explain.

I'm coming back kind of late, so some of what I was going to say has already been said. I'll start by agreeing with SFZ that the declaration was most likely written by consensus, which is probably one of the reasons it's not more specific.

I also agree with Sergey in that I don't think the document should be interpreted hyperliterally. It's like the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law, a matter over which it appears both Constitutional scholars and the general public are divided. If there's some latitude in interpreting such an important legal document as our own Constitution, then I don't see any reason why the creators of the OWS declaration should be held to a stricter standard.

FWIW, I agree with what I believe is the spirit of their message if not the delivery.

I'm sure they can do better if they put their minds to it, and I hope they will. I also hope they'll find a way to exercise better control over their movement, both the messaging and the unsavory characters. If they can do that, then they may have a chance at making a difference. If they can't, then the movement will eventually either implode & fizzle out with a whimper.

That's pretty much all I have to say about it for now. Time and the decisions they make going forward will decide the rest.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
4 minutes ago
Views: 14 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0