tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7532871.post9160956025251986604..comments2024-03-13T13:29:33.800-05:00Comments on SocraticGadfly: #OWS - young, white, well-educated ... latte-sipping?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7532871.post-53692537615869556702011-11-17T16:27:10.005-06:002011-11-17T16:27:10.005-06:00You're right. There are lots of other people m...You're right. There are lots of other people making those kinds of statements. It's just that none of those people have much of a body of scientific research to support what they're saying.Joshua Plethoranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7532871.post-83650490968926970982011-11-17T15:52:17.356-06:002011-11-17T15:52:17.356-06:00What Joshua calls "rampant stereotyping"...What Joshua calls "rampant stereotyping" others might call "generalizations." And, since I linked to a serious, in-depth article by a Gen-Xer (and noted Gen-Xers as well as older Gen-X helicopter moms might be at fault) there's plenty of people besides me making these observations.<br /><br />There's also been mainstream stories about recent college graduate Gen-Yers turning down job offers, stories that have included comments from the individuals actually turning down jobs.<br /><br />Yes, these things are generalizations, and even generalizations don't totally "fit" a situation. But, the average intelligent person can distinguish between the reasonable fit of a generalization and what somebody might call "rampant stereotyping."Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7532871.post-43922546032575984792011-11-17T15:35:21.537-06:002011-11-17T15:35:21.537-06:00I'd be way less annoyed by your post if you di...I'd be way less annoyed by your post if you didn't have such rampant stereotyping. There's not really been much research into "Helicopter" parenting. So, before you just make blanket assumptions that people have them based on very little information, you should probably wait until the research actually connects that style of parenting with various behaviors.Joshua Plethoranoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7532871.post-55408095973694824652011-11-11T02:16:32.473-06:002011-11-11T02:16:32.473-06:00Chris: First, it is legitimate to question why peo...Chris: First, it is legitimate to question why people change their political views. Many do it for shamelessly opportunistic reasons, from the one-time Socialist Mussolini to the one-time Rockefeller Republican Newt Gingrich. <br /><br />Nor is it an ad hominem to point out actual reasons why people may have changed their views. If the change was for selfish reasons, and appears to still have an element of selfishness involved, it's not an ad hominem to point out possible hypocrisy, either. As a person on Google+ notes, blacks have faced these deteriorating conditions for some time. So have many poor whites.<br /><br />Related to that: Are they actually learning that much? We'll see.<br /><br />And, I never attacked anybody's authority to speak. I have, consistently, though, questioned the mythmaking that surrounds OWS, and the motives behind two backers of it, Adbusters and Anonymous. And, I've far from alone in pointing out the "character" of both those entities. I"ve been suspicious of Adbusters' "iGeneration" mentality for 15 years, Looong before Occupy Wall Street; even before Glass-Steagall was repealed.<br /><br />Beyond that, if you really believe I am "another force intended to keep the powerless from speaking," I'm flattered you think I might have that much power. And, seriously, you don't know me. If you read my links, for example, you'll see "Green Party" among them. I'm anything but a "disenfranchiser."Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7532871.post-74517001238541770132011-11-10T23:37:46.469-06:002011-11-10T23:37:46.469-06:00This is a small part of your post, but I want to p...This is a small part of your post, but I want to pick on it because it really bothers me, and I see it a lot.<br /><br />Is it really a problem for you if someone's political views change? If these are people who come from a certain background are somehow born into a certain political stance, then should we invalidate their beliefs for changing them? I've never understood this argument. <br /><br />First off, none of the OWS people are running for the position of an elected official, so being able to trust their consistency isn't an issue.<br /><br />More importantly, though, I don't understand why we should vilify someone for changing their political views. Because, I mean, god forbid people actually LEARN something, right?<br /><br />If you're so against people learning, then what is the purpose of you maintaining this blog? Aren't you hoping that someone will read your writing and be convinced? <br /><br />Moreover, isn't the purpose of education-- isn't the purpose of living-- to develop and grow as a person? Isn't this going to require that our political views change?<br /><br />I can't help but feel that your insistence on attacking people's authority to speak for the disenfranchised is just another force intended to keep the powerless from speaking.<br /><br />You can say what you want about the weakness of their political views, but attacking them based off of their background is an ad hominem fallacy whichever way you look at it.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00206627435545056621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7532871.post-6873914057054972232011-11-10T23:21:08.143-06:002011-11-10T23:21:08.143-06:00Eric, I can agree in part with the "does it m...Eric, I can agree in part with the "does it matter" on demographics. I still think it is of some importance if many of the OWS, per my speculation, didn't think the Street was evil until it wouldn't hire them.<br /><br />At the same time, movements in the past have either gotten involved with the political system and produced change, or else become "Summer of Love" social phenomena only. That's why I riffed on Rahm Emanuel about the possibility of wasting a good crisis.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7532871.post-1011633641487762122011-11-10T22:02:14.570-06:002011-11-10T22:02:14.570-06:00I have to agree with a lot of this--the movement d...I have to agree with a lot of this--the movement doesn't seem truly indicative of the 99%. I've always (at least since the beginning of the movement) felt that the 99% vs 1% was a catchy but needlessly divisive mindset. I mean that in two ways: One, it assumes that all persons not in the "99" are for this movement, which they most certainly are not. But it also makes the same conclusion that you've made here--people in the 1% are the opposition. Their earnings earmark them as affluent, careless members of the elite, in the eyes of many. However, as we have seen in your numbers, this simply isn't true. It is very possible to be financially successful and still support the (vague) reforms proposed by the Occupy movement. The 5%'ers do lend some legitimacy to the movement, in my mind, as they are among the few who can't merely be labeled as reactionary college graduates, protesting a system merely because they couldn't get into it.<br /> Lastly, my feeling towards much of the criticism leveled against OWS (though to be fair your s is by far the best written and thought out I've read so far) reminds me of my response to climate-change denial: It doesn't really matter. I honestly don't care that much about the demographic of OWS, or about the legitimacy of greenhouse gases. In the case of global warming, I support renewable and alternative energy because of the overall toll on the world, and because of the reality of finite fuel sources--not just because I think the atmosphere can't take much more. Likewise, the OWS movement is protesting loudly about things that I completely agree with--campaign funding reform, reduction of the power of private lobbying and interest groups, serious banking reform--and it's really just icing on the cake if the group pushing for that can truly stay independent from party interest, get over their coffee addictions, etc.<br /> I suppose that missed the point a bit. Your criticism aren't really aimed at all supporters of the OWS, more those who would label the OWS as a pure haven of political representation and power. In some ways, I agree with you. In others, I have to ask--does it even matter?Eric Johnsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7532871.post-79602087453637054372011-11-05T18:26:30.452-05:002011-11-05T18:26:30.452-05:00You may be right. OTOH, they could have other plac...You may be right. OTOH, they could have other places to protest besides Wall Street, too. And, since the poll WAS taken on Wall Street, I'll stand by my guesses being reasonably valid for Occupy Wall Street, even if not for, say, Occupy Oakland.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7532871.post-87467336206640673942011-11-05T16:53:14.117-05:002011-11-05T16:53:14.117-05:00If we were to use the same poll in Detroit or Oakl...If we were to use the same poll in Detroit or Oakland the result would differ and your hypothesis would fall apart. Its been my experience that those who claim to be Independent really are undecided and have no idea what an Independent in the political sense really is. Are these people interested in a third party choice? Maybe, but the question wasn't asked. As to the possiblity of this set of protesters possessing MBA's or MFA's, maybe but Wall Street is not the only place they could be hired if they so desired to work there. In my mind its not logical. The types who desire those jobs would not step foot in Zucotti Park.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com