Pyrian on 23/9/2011 at 02:38

---

Yes, I did. And you know why I left it off? Because it doesn't change anything. You'll excuse them for objecting to wrongs done to others because they're not destroying things? I don't care why you excuse them for it. I want to know why you think that's a problem in the first place.

Pyrian on 28/9/2011 at 00:35

---

Yeah, that. What's up with that? Why do you think there's something fundamentally "hypocritical" in protesting the wrongs of others, just because somewhere down the line if you're not careful enough you might have benefitted from it? Was it hypocritical to oppose slavery if you wore a cotton shirt 'cause it was the only kind for sale?

Isn't that just the nature of democracy? People live by the laws, including the ones they oppose? (Generally.) The laws constrain everyone equally (supposedly) while people influence the laws with their voice and vote? As opposed to each person behaving as they see fit, which is anarchy. In a democracy I do not think it is necessarily hypocritical to live by the laws as they are while trying to change the laws to what they should be.

Also, don't you think your viewpoint is hopelessly simplistic? "The system", that doesn't mean much. We need banks. Protesting their corruption (or their size or their actions of their deregulaton or even all of the above and more) isn't the same as protesting their existence, and has almost nothing to do with, say, academic tenure. Sure, everything's connected, but that doesn't mean people can't oppose a piece of the web. I mean, we're talking about things that are threats to "the system", that have damaged "the system" as a whole. If you look at this with more than one pixel, the whole notion of supposed hypocrisy will mostly boil right out of it.

And I still think that, even if it were true, it's not a big deal. I'm white. I'm told I benefit from racism, and I think racism's wrong. So what? Why is that sort of thing a problem for you? I think my taxes should be higher, but I don't donate extra from my salary. So what? Why can't I believe that the system should be different for everyone without believing that my place in the system should remain standard either way?

So another objection is that people aren't pure avatars of virtue? Shocking. How dare anybody attempt a good deed for even slightly conflicted motives.

Virtually nobody meets the sorts of standards (of altruism and non-hypocrisy) you're talking about, so much so that I don't see any value in making such judgments in the first place, and I find it hard to believe that you do. You've literally accused these people of both betraying their own interests and of being selfish, as if either of those are any reasonable objection to expressing a viewpoint. I'm genuinely suspicious of your motives, here; aside from efficacy, these are "insert anywhere" objections that could be applied to almost anybody. Almost everybody's part of the system, almost everybody wants it to be different, almost nobody is truly altruistic. (And I'm dubious that the "almost"s are even necessary.) They are therefore meaningless objections when any given group of people is singled out for them.

I am genuinely interested in what you might suggest. Financial re-regulation failed dismally, setting up a virtual guarantee of a repeat performance down the line, assuming there's enough of an economy left to loot. So if you have a good idea of how to combat the corruption of both political parties and push through some rather more functional regulation, I would love to hear it.

heywood on 28/9/2011 at 05:24

---

Pyrian, this discussion is going nowhere. We obviously have a different view of what the protests are all about. My view goes something like this:

(http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/nyregion/protesters-are-gunning-for-wall-street-with-faulty-aim.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1317140472-fsMggog8njP0iUK9Y+rSdg) NYTimes - Protesters are Gunning for Wall Street, With Faulty Aim

Also, you put more words in my mouth with every post. I can't really respond to statements like "Virtually nobody meets the sorts of standards (of altruism and non-hypocrisy) you're talking about" when I haven't talked about any standards. You're debating a strawman.

As for what would be a better use of their time and money, I can't believe I even have to explain. They could educate themselves about economics and the role of the financial system in the economy. They could help recruit and elect candidates who will actually work towards the policy changes they want. They could work to expand independent media. The more eloquent ones could write advocacy papers or books. They could organize a new political party.



Apparently, (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8792829/BBC-financial-expert-Alessio-Rastani-Im-an-attention-seeker-not-a-trader.html) he is a fraud.

Vernon on 28/9/2011 at 06:02

---

I dunno. I'm not sure he's a fraud - even if he is, what does it matter? It's not like this isn't a realistic archetype being portrayed

heywood on 28/9/2011 at 06:48

---

There may be some truth to what he said, but he's not in a position to really know. And neither are we.

The sad thing is that I get a lot of news from the BBC and this reflects poorly on their objectivity.