[ExI] Capitalism, anti capitalism, emotional arousal

Sat Nov 12 22:06:01 UTC 2011

Spike,
Thank you to take the time to illustrate all your well argued points. I was
not aware of all these issues. I can see your point.
But again this is as you said something the OWS movement has to deal with
and be able to address than something that defines the movement.

I can see how this movement is more an expression of an underlying desire
for change and creating a better society.
The movement itself will not bring necessarily the change but I'm
sympathetic to it because I wish that this energy, this desire for change,
this dream of a better world could be tapped for real world changing
activities.

I just feel that our transhumanist dreams have a lot of common themes with
what these young people desire. Maybe not in the details but for sure in
general spirit.
The tea party is also moved by frustration and discontent but I find it too
misguided and ignorant to be something to feel sympathetic towards.

Giovanni

2011/11/12 spike <spike66 at att.net>

> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *>…* *On Behalf Of *Giovanni Santostasi
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Capitalism, anti capitalism, emotional arousal****
>
> ** **
>
> >>…Because so many of the participants appear to engage in hunting for
> drugs and gathering other people’s personal property?  spike****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> >…I think it is unfair to characterize the movement because of these
> individuals (that are likely a minority). Unfortunately there are many
> young people that do drugs and also this kind of social events attract a
> lot of people that are into drugs and other dysfunctional ways to deal with
> stress and the difficulties of life. But OWS cannot be reduced to a bunch
> of hippies and rastafarians. I expect better from this group.****
>
> Giovanni****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> Giovanni, the OWS movement is inherently a target for that element of
> society.  Compare for instance any video of any Occupy gathering anywhere,
> then compare with video from any Tea Party gathering anywhere.  What do you
> find most striking?****
>
> ** **
>
> I will freely grant that the OWS movement has those among them who really
> are just the homeless and crazy, but the underlying premise seems to
> attract these.  I never recall seeing them at the Tea Party functions.  But
> the OWS movement must face the fact that the premises under which it formed
> will naturally result in cognitive dissonance.****
>
> ** **
>
> For instance, is it not easily foreseen that camping in a park displaces
> the local feral humans who have been camping there for some time?  If the
> feral humans put away their “Will Work For Food” signs and make “Support
> Occupy Wall Street” signs, then pocket the money, is that not perfectly
> legitimate?  Or at least as legitimate as their absurd claim that they will
> work for food?  And if the OWS people either fight the cops or barricade
> them out, is it not easily foreseen that the cops will go around town,
> round up all the homeless crazies and take them over to Zuccotti?  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Consider: Youtube video shows a protester, Rocky Iskender, delivering a
> well deserved thrashing to a crazy homeless guy:****
>
> ** **
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ-T-I2ZZgE****
>
> ** **
>
> Then afterwards, OWS security, in the yellow vest with the + sign, hauls
> the deranged screamer away, again perfectly legitimately so it would seem.
> However, if you watch, the OWS protester threw the first punch (the water
> bottle), and certainly the best one.  The homeless screamer did not
> actually commit assault other than audio.  So legally, both Rocky Iskender
> and the unidentified OWS security guard could be charged with assault!  The
> evidence is as abundant as anything that ever makes it to court.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Cops know they can’t punch out the crazy homeless guy.  But the OWS people
> are not cops, nor are the OWS makeshift security team.****
>
> ** **
>
> So the OWS people are already mired in self-contradiction.****
>
> ** **
>
> Another example: a highly regarded black civil rights guy, congressman
> John Lewis, is pointedly refused the opportunity to speak at the Occupy
> Atlanta gathering.  A white guy is the one speaking and organizing the vote
> to disallow Lewis.  They spend several minutes deciding they will not allow
> Rep. Lewis a few minutes to speak:****
>
> ** **
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QZlp3eGMNI****
>
> ** **
>
> Contrast, the October 2010 Tea Party rally, in which the keynote speaker
> was a minority, and a strong defender of civil rights.  In fact, as I
> recall, nearly all the speakers that day were minorities:****
>
> ** **
>
>
> http://sanramon.patch.com/articles/conservative-talk-at-tea-party-rally-in-pleasanton
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Ironically, the movement which repeatedly demonstrates that it is not
> racist is repeatedly attacked for being racist, while the movement which
> demonstrated on video available to the whole world that it is clearly
> racist is said to stand against racism.****
>
> ** **
>
> Gio, I recognize the actions of the few do not represent the views of the
> many, but notice the vote at Occupy Atlanta.  Apparently the views of the
> many Tea Partiers is to include, to welcome minorities, and the views of
> the many OWSers is apparently racist.****
>
> ** **
>
> Do the OWSers get a free pass?  Why?  Had we **ever** seen such a
> shameful thing at a Tea Party rally, would we too get a free pass?  Why not?
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> spike****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20111112/7ac30610/attachment.html>