Kasz216 said:
Yeah I couldn't help but think about how much it plays up to the validity of this article. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443931404577549223178294822.html?mod=e2tw |
Image problems will arise, when you end up not meeting oppositon on some common ground, acknowledge some validity, and try to frame it in a way that is favorable to what you have. What you had come out of Occupy Wall Street was repeated yelling at them that they are just lazy bums who want nothing but handouts, and villifying everything there. Even when things are pointed out that the middle class is shrinking, and so on, it was "Get a job loser". There was very little, if any tipping of the hat to excesses of Wall Street, just a reduction to "get a job" and it must be laziness. Yes, the excesses of Occupy ended up fostering a degree of that (heck I witnessed first-hand the rabble), but the discussion was polarizing, and winner take all. End result is that a side that wants to defend Capitalism does little to help itself in that regard, and opens itself, by denying there are issues, to an image problem the article spoke on.