HappySqurriel said:
| richardhutnik said:
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.
|
Occupy Wallstreet was a protest without a message, led by no one, and followed by over credentialed fools ...
It wasn't sabotaged, it was a movement that could never be successful because it had no support or understanding of the mainstream. OWS was a hodgepodge of people none of which represented the typical American. Few Americans feel much sympathy for a person who builds up $120,000+ in student debt to get a masters degree in puppetry, or for the angry radical who needed an outlet for his rage because anti-war protests aren't acceptable when a Democrat is the president.
|
Apparently there was enough there to demonize it, particularly when trying to compare it to the Tea Party, as you see in this political cartoon:
