Occupy Correction, Corrected

It started with the image to the left which someone on Facebook added the text to the right to. Underneath is a correction of the response to the right. Click for the full size

——————
Here is the text from the image:

I’m sorry to tell you this (jk. Im totally mocking you. Not sorry about it at all) because you seem to feel quite adamantly about your position on the issue, but it seems clear to me that you don’t understand the issue at all. When Occupy Wall Street protesters say “we are the 99%” it does not mean simply that “we are the 99% of Americans who are not billionaires”. Accepting your premise that the “we are the 99%” line refers exclusively to economics makes the statement a tautology. The 1% is not the 99%, yes, correct. That is definitional. The statement is actually a declaration that the authors current financial state of affairs is the fault of 1% of the population and not their own. The format of blaming billionaires for your problems via writing and holding up a piece of paper with a financial summary started and is archived at http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com. This picture is responding to those posts with a counter sentiment that emphasizes personal responsibility for ones own actions and choices and the consequences that come with both. Unless you are claiming that everyone who is not a billionaire thinks exactly alike then you have missed the entire point, leading you to falsely claim that this person has themselves missed the entire point. The author didn’t miss anything, as “I am NOT the 99%” is a legitimate declaration that “I, like you, am not a billionaire but I, unlike you, have made and continue to make radically different choices in life than you which has lead me not to take to the streets and internetz blaming others for my problems”. First, you dishonestly changed the authors phrase from “I am NOT the 99%” to create a strawman argument pointing out the fact that they are * in * the 99%. The entire point is that the person is “in” the 99 percentile but that they are not part of the current movement and they explain why in the preceding text that you ignored. You then use another strawman fallacy by changing the consistent theme of personal responsibility and anti-entitlement philosophy to make up a sentiment not present on the paper: “you don’t think people have a right to be angry”. People can be legitimately angry over a lot of things, but you completely missed the point when you made the illogical deduction that anger over fraud or government bailouts equals a moral entitlement to the wealth of an entire class of people, not based on their specific actions, but based on the fact that they have earned a uniquely large sum of money. Your argument against the author going to a college they could afford instead of one they can’t is incoherent. You claim this choice will impact their finances negatively but fail to cite a source or make any argument as to how because again, you missed the point that this is a response to people complaining that they chose to attend a college they couldn’t afford and how that is the fault of a street in Manhattan where people work and not their own. The movement, despite what you appear to think it is, is very much what you claim it is not. This is evidenced by the earliest official unofficial website for the movement (http://occupywallst.org/about/), the aforementioned “I am the 99%” tumblr blog and dozens of news reports from around the country. I implore you to pay a little attention to the media, or the movement you presume to summarize or at very least the words of a single piece of paper you presume to correct and rebut. If you wish to combat misconceptions about the Occupy movement, you must do so with facts, not platitudes about a corporate conspiracy to misrepresent it. If you have evidence that such corporations are behind the OccupyWallSt.org website and the wearethe99percent tumblr, then break the story instead of making baseless claims that these do not in fact represent the movement. But please, do your research before you lash out against a movement of hard working people willing to take responsibility for their own actions and lives.

———————–

The author of the false rebuttal also posted pictures of her Occupy Wall Street protesting, including the following:

She says in the pictures caption: Our signs: “How’s Fox News gonna twist this story?”
“If the rich insist on being called “job creators” where the hell are all the jobs?” “If the Gap is widened any farther, this country will have two Grand Canyons.” and “No Fracking Way! I prefer my water not on fire”

Just as she saw the legitimate “I am not the 99%” sign, failed to understand it and rebutted it, we here have similar misgivings about these signs bizarre implications:

1) “How’s Fox News gonna twist this story?” – how does this person think Fox News has “twisted” that particular protest or the story at large now that it is well underway? Why make a baseless accusation making a bogus prediction?

2) “If the rich insist on being called “job creators” where the hell are all the jobs?” – all around you. If you can’t find a “corporate media” source that you trust then go through the government and look at all the jobs rich people are responsible for. It’s a matter of public record. Job growth is low because we are in a recession, not because rich people aren’t the ones building new things and hiring new staff (hint: they are). This too of course ignores the false premise: what rich people are insisting on being called “job creators”? There is no mass movement of wealthy individuals insisting on such a title, rather people who are informed about job growth and employment stagnation know that what employment we have is due far more to “the rich” hiring, building, manufacturing, shipping and engaging in leisure activity.

TIP: Don’t complain about media outlets “twisting” your message when you yourself take to the streets with cardboard signs flaunting your ignorance on the current state of the workings of the economy.

3) “If the Gap is widened any farther, this country will have two Grand Canyons.” – What I responded to this in the silly way you responded to the 99% paper above? ie: You don’t like the Grand Canyon? Why don’t you want another one then? -OR- “You seem to have missed the point but ones economic success does not effect physical geography”.

I’m sorry to tell you this (I’m considering adopting this snide rhetorical device of hers), but the Occupy movement has not been twisted by Fox News, the rich are creating what jobs there are and there is nothing inherently wrong with people earning a great deal more than others.

Other gems from the protest she posted are the following signs:

^This person should have used the empty space at the end of the cardboard to explain where they plan on getting all the slave labor required to keep government running after the dollar signs are taken out of politics.


^I wonder if the person who made this sign knows that the quote was never said by Marie Antoinette but rather was attributed to Antoinette in 1789 by radical agitators who were trying to turn the populace against her. Is this person ignorant of history? or just intentionally trying to repeat it by using the same smear tactic of a mob that was employed by the radicals in the French Revolution (which was about “equality” where as the American revolution was about Liberty).

^Now here is a good one. Exclamatory buildings equal people. Exclamatory money equals speech. how profound…

0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Using Gravatars in the comments - get your own and be recognized!

XHTML: These are some of the tags you can use: <a href=""> <b> <blockquote> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>