Protest in NY: "Occupy Wall Street"

[Welshidiot]

Are you under the impression that the BBC is a standard media source in America?

1: No, but it surprises me that none of their coverage on this has made it into the wider public realm, via the internet,...after all when we had the riots in UK this summer footage from the BBC was being reposted on various sites.
2: Are you sure you can't access the BBC's news output? Even their textual news coverage?
3: People from more than one country are already joining in with this thread. Similarly people from more than one country are joining in with the coverage, commentary, and discussion of the Wall St protest, some are even going as far as to actively support, and/or promote the protest. Also it appears that at the moment there is a general feeling in the western world, that all media news coverage is biased and/or suspect, not just US news media.
So why should I view this as a solely US issue?

As for the rest, grow up. Herding people like cattle and then making mass arrests just isn't funny and your remarks aren't clever.

No it isn't funny, but neither is it as serious as the current noise about it suggests.

Obey the NWO!

 

[Gnomesmusher]

No it isn't funny, but neither is it as serious as the current noise about it suggests.

Definitely not as serious as the civil rights protests but then again, I didn't see anyone make that comparison except you in the previous post. I still think it's a serious issue though.

 

[televator]

Looks like an Anarcho-capitalist decided to have some discussion with some of the occupiers in DC.



The video starts with some seemingly agreeable questions, which is probably why the vid has a good rating (people get through 1/4 of the video and rate it.) Later on he starts to catch some of these people off guard by suddenly changing his posturing in the questions he poses and suddenly dropping some very loaded diatribes.

I can't say I agree with all the protesters, but once again, I'm blown away by the naive thinking going on by the "free marketeer" mentality.

 

[Welshidiot]

No it isn't funny, but neither is it as serious as the current noise about it suggests.

Definitely not as serious as the civil rights protests but then again, I didn't see anyone make that comparison except you in the previous post. I still think it's a serious issue though.

You "didn't see anyone make that comparison except" me in my post. So you think it's worthy of note that I was the only one making my point in my post, do you?

The rest of what you wrote has already been said by Kenandkids, and is what my last post was in answer to, so either you're not paying attention, or you have a need to make a point, even though you have no point to make.
I believe the latter is known as "empty can" syndrome.

Obey the NWO!

 

[Welshidiot]

Looks like an Anarcho-capitalist decided to have some discussion with some of the occupiers in DC.



The video starts with some seemingly agreeable questions, which is probably why the vid has a good rating (people get through 1/4 of the video and rate it.) Later on he starts to catch some of these people off guard by suddenly changing his posturing in the questions he poses and suddenly dropping some very loaded diatribes.

I can't say I agree with all the protesters, but once again, I'm blown away by the naive thinking going on by the "free marketeer" mentality.

No offense, but your meaning eludes me TV.
I didn't see much, if any "posturing".
I didn't hear any diatribes, unless you count the protesters diatribes.
Is Adam Kokesh the "free marketeer" you're talking about?

Obey the NWO!

 

[Gnomesmusher]

You "didn't see anyone make that comparison except" me in my post. So you think it's worthy of note that I was the only one making my point in my post, do you?

The rest of what you wrote has already been said by Kenandkids, and is what my last post was in answer to, so either you're not paying attention, or you have a need to make a point, even though you have no point to make.
I believe the latter is known as "empty can" syndrome.

I have no idea what you're going on with your "empty can" claim nor do I know what it is but I do know that what you did was strawman when you made it sound like people were making this sound worse than what happened to folks in some civil rights protests. I'm not looking for a fight here but I don't appreciate my views being misrepresented. I think what the police did was a serious issue, not because of any physical brutality equal to that in past civil rights protests but because of the underhanded way they are trying to stifle the protests.

That was the point I was making and not because I wasn't paying attention. Sheesh.

 

[televator]

No offense, but your meaning eludes me TV.
I didn't see much, if any "posturing".
I didn't hear any diatribes, unless you count the protesters diatribes.
Is Adam Kokesh the "free marketeer" you're talking about?

I mean he started off with some open questions as though just trying to gather what people thought amongst the protesters. Then almost abruptly starts to retort with long and loaded opposition of his own. He was posing questions so it's natural that protesters would go into diatribes, but he started to insert his own before asking other questions. Not saying it's wrong to ask questions, but it did seem a bit sneaky how he turned his questions into a quasi-debate without the protester initially knowing his position. He already asked them what they were about so their arguments were already on display. Again, I didn't agree with some of the responses but I did feel a bit bad about how caught off guard they seemed.

And yes, that's who I'm talking about, though I'm using "free marketeer" as a broad term. Unless I'm mistaken somehow, but he did make the case for a "true free market" in his own words. He even threw in the staple positions against "violent government" and "all force is bad".

 

[Welshidiot]

You "didn't see anyone make that comparison except" me in my post. So you think it's worthy of note that I was the only one making my point in my post, do you?

The rest of what you wrote has already been said by Kenandkids, and is what my last post was in answer to, so either you're not paying attention, or you have a need to make a point, even though you have no point to make.
I believe the latter is known as "empty can" syndrome.

I have no idea what you're going on with your "empty can" claim nor do I know what it is but I do know that what you did was strawman when you made it sound like people were making this sound worse than what happened to folks in some civil rights protests. I'm not looking for a fight here but I don't appreciate my views being misrepresented. I think what the police did was a serious issue, not because of any physical brutality equal to that in past civil rights protests but because of the underhanded way they are trying to stifle the protests.

That was the point I was making and not because I wasn't paying attention. Sheesh.

I didn't straw man you, Kenandkids, or anyone else. Google the definition of "straw man". I did not misrepresent anyone's views, or positions, in either post.

Interesting thing here though,....someone else has erroneously accused me of "straw man" attack in a PM. I won't reveal that persons name, but I just want to make it clear to them that I'm not the only one who's spotted their habit of appropriating pat phrases, and using them (incorrectly) in order to try to insult and aggravate.

Obey the NWO!

 

[Welshidiot]

I mean he started off with some open questions as though just trying to gather what people thought amongst the protesters. Then almost abruptly starts to retort with long and loaded opposition of his own. He was posing questions so it's natural that protesters would go into diatribes, but he started to insert his own before asking other questions. Not saying it's wrong to ask questions, but it did seem a bit sneaky how he turned his questions into a quasi-debate without the protester initially knowing his position. He already asked them what they were about so their arguments were already on display. Again, I didn't agree with some of the responses but I did feel a bit bad about how caught off guard they seemed.

And yes, that's who I'm talking about, though I'm using "free marketeer" as a broad term. Unless I'm mistaken somehow, but he did make the case for a "true free market" in his own words. He even threw in the staple positions against "violent government" and "all force is bad".

Firstly I'd like to make it clear that I don't share Kokesh's politics, and I'm no fan of his media work.

Nextly,...Kokesh does show up just how vapid some of the protesters actually are, and I don't think the tactics he employs are any more "sneaky", than some of the tactics used by atheist activists when they interview religious people in similar circumstances.

The one thing he's done in the editing suite (I should imagine) is to leave any footage of protesters making lucid, well informed arguments on the floor. I've seen some protesters talking totally clearly, and cogently on the subject of their "demands", and views, and yet Kokesh hasn't managed to find one. I'm of the firm opinion that that was Kokesh's choice, rather than a true reflection of what the protesters are really like.

Obey the NWO!

 

[Gnomesmusher]

I didn't straw man you, Kenandkids, or anyone else. Google the definition of "straw man". I did not misrepresent anyone's views, or positions, in either post.

Interesting thing here though,....someone else has erroneously accused me of "straw man" attack in a PM. I won't reveal that persons name, but I just want to make it clear to them that I'm not the only one who's spotted their habit of appropriating pat phrases, and using them (incorrectly) in order to try to insult and aggravate.

Um okay. Care to explain what the hell was your mocking post about then? Why did you sarcastically bring up the civil rights protests if not to mock others and to strawman then? Now it's my turn to ask you what your point was. I mean, you're accusing people of incorrectly accusing you of strawman in order to insult and aggravate you but yet it looks like you're the one doing that. Like I said, I'm not looking for a fight and I'd like to give you a chance to explain your point if you weren't trying to misrepresent others' views.

Anyway, here's a TYT vid on Occupy LA:

 

[Welshidiot]

Um okay. Care to explain what the hell was your mocking post about then? Why did you sarcastically bring up the civil rights protests if not to mock others and to strawman then?

Mockery and "straw man" are not automatically the same thing,...neither generally, nor in this specific instance.
I've explained everything else already.

Your first post addressed at me actually quoted something that was specifically said to someone else......
Seems to me like you're looking for an argument,.....and that what you'd like to argue about.....is.....arguing.

No thank you.

Obey the NWO!

 

[Gnomesmusher]

No, not looking for an argument but since I'm not going to get any explanation from you except more sidestepping, I'll just let it end right here.

 

[televator]

I try not to take it personally when someone makes an assessment of any point I'm making. If it gives me food for thought I'll go think it over. If the a refutation or claim of fallacy doesn't stick I'll explain why I think so...can't say I've always been calm about it though.

My assessment of Welsh's response to Ken, was that it did seem presumptuous to make it appear as though Ken had equal regard for the rope incident as he would for the brutality during the civil rights movements. Going as far as saying "therefore MLK knew nothing" is something I would consider a straw man. If it was meant to mock Ken, I still don't think it invalidates the straw man accusation.

 

[Prolescum]

Ahem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

Read, learn, distinguish.

 

[televator]

Edit: No, I still stand by it. Even if it is sarcasm, it falsely portrays a mood or stance that I can't see as derived from Ken's position. He simply stated an observation of his. Nothing more.

I went back and re-read Ken's original post and it was a rather dry summation of what he has observed of the events.

 

[Prolescum]

If that really was the angle, I think the sarcasm would have been more distinguishable without the whole civil rights parallel. It just obscured the real intent. It was crappy sarcasm.

Sorry my friend, but that's just silly. It isn't a case of if, it's obvious... It's one of the clearest cases of a sarcastic post you could come across.

Let's refresh our memories, as it seems pertinent. Pay special attention, as each of the highlighted parts are evidently taking the piss:

Every video account of the Bridge Incident shows the cops leading and allowing the people across the bridge and suddenly roping them off and arresting hundreds.

Jesus! Really!? Nooo.....?!?!! Were those poor people really roped off....?

Wow! That really puts those pathetic 1960s Civil Rights marches into perspective, doesn't it. What were they whining about back then, just because they were being sprayed with water-cannon, and in some cases live rounds, they thought they had it tough. The pussies!

Martin Luther King never faced the trauma of being "roped off",....therefore he knew nothing!

[showmore=Original Post]

Every video account of the Bridge Incident shows the cops leading and allowing the people across the bridge and suddenly roping them off and arresting hundreds.

Jesus! Really!? Nooo.....?!?!! Were those poor people really roped off....?

Wow! That really puts those pathetic 1960s Civil Rights marches into perspective, doesn't it. What were they whining about back then, just because they were being sprayed with water-cannon, and in some cases live rounds, they thought they had it tough. The pussies!

Martin Luther King never faced the trauma of being "roped off",....therefore he knew nothing!

As has been the problem with press coverage during this entire event, you'll need to use non-standard sources.

Really? Could you please explain to me then how come I've been able to keep up with these protests via BBC's rolling news channel?

[/showmore]

Edit to your edit:

it falsely portrays a mood or stance that I can't see as derived from Ken's position.

Irrelevant. Kenandkids' view on the subject is of no consequence, as it is the event (roping) being construed as serious that Welshidiot is aiming at.

 

[televator]

Ah, ninja edit. Sorry.

 

[Prolescum]

Heh, I added an edit to your edit

 

[Gnomesmusher]

It's sarcasm therefore it's not misrepresentation? Wow, that's just dishonest.

 

[Prolescum]

It's sarcasm therefore it's not misrepresentation? Wow, that's just dishonest.

[centre]

[/centre]

He didn't misrepresent anyone, and trying to assert that people are dishonest on the basis that they can read (or write) better than you is bordering on offensive.

Your reputation for mis-applying terms you clearly don't fully understand is becoming legendary, you might want to attend to that.