Bio not provided
Great job, some of these I suspected, some are new to me, all make sense. Nice to have the science behind it!
1 year, 6 months ago on 6 Web Design Tips Based on Brain Science
@margieclayman That's not what I meant, Margie. ... I am never opposed to conversation and civil disagreement. Nor I would ever suggest that we not talk about our feelings about our country -- I probably talk about mine too much. I only take issue with what is, in my opinion, a thinly veiled rant against the movement, something that is clearly biased but wants to be read as the middle-ground. When I say it feels unsafe, it is because I do not expect those kind of shenanigans here. I can go to Fox News or MSNBC anytime I want to. If the post is going to lean toward one side, that is fine, but present it as such from the beginning, or I do not trust the writer. That's all.
Also, there is a TON being written about this in the blogosphere, it just depends on which sphere you are reading I guess. Most of the mainstream stuff is still hoping it all just goes away, so that they are not called not he carpet for purposefully ignoring it.
3 years, 1 month ago on Debunking the Myths of Occupy Wall Street
@margieclayman Allow me to put it a different way: It feels like a whitewash to me because the author attempts to establish herself as someone with a balanced point of view and then attempts to pigeonhole the movement into a nice set of easily dismissible "myths". The post starts down that path with the title, and does not stray. It is not objective, really, at all. There is an easily made opposing view to each of the points, to the "cold hard facts". I believe to be objective this post should have presented both sides, or else started off with something along the lines of "why an investment banker thinks this movement is silly" so that readers would not be, well misled seems harsh, but something along those lines. You've done a lot of hard work to build a platform for yourself that feels safe, I think, to your readers, and, to me, this post seems unsafe.
@NicoleFende When someone is a victim, the you-should-have-known-better defense is, in my opinion, always flawed. I believe that is the point other posters were attempting to make as well. Of course some people were surprised, that is my point as well: if the big bank said you were good enough to get a loan, and you thought you weren't, that is too much temptation for most people. The banks took advantage of that temptation, of the misplaced trust people had in financial institutions, and government oversight, that is why they are to blame.
@NicoleFende Well...OK. You gave your definition of poor in 7, when you said "Do you know what I call poor?". How does that, at all, debunk or support a myth that the protestors are poor? You could very easily have pointed out that the participants are from a wide socioeconomic spectrum. You defined poor as something extreme, and what other conclusion is there for a reader to make except that if a person does not fit your definition, they are not poor? Maybe I bought a dozen cups of coffee from Starbucks and handed them out to people living on the streets - so they are not poor anymore? Maybe my organization collects and distributes use laptops to the poor to help them in a technologically driven society - if they are still on food stamps and living in a housing project, they are not poor anymore because I gave them a laptop?
In my opinion, your writing in this section dismissed poverty as something that if it is to the extreme example you described, it is not poverty. Which in my opinion is analogous to my other the other things I wrote.
7 - To be honest with you, this one made me throw up a little. To define poverty as an extreme third world situation, is to say to the poor in this country, basically, "it could be worse, so shut up." Yes, it could be worse. And we could live in a country where women have to wear burkas and can not work, so we should not care about glass ceilings and gender discrimination in the workplace? We could live in a country where if you are from the other side of an imaginary border, your family is raped and tortured, so we should not care about race discrimination here in the US? That is a terrible, terrible position to take.
5 - To say that it is as simple as looking at looking at your household budget and not taking a loan you can't afford; if you really believe that, if you can not see how predatory the banking industry was, preying on people who were not proficient or experienced at just that skill, I don't know what else to say, except that your point of view is *exactly* what has people on the streets: you are disconnected with the reality of most people. I am sure you have a great deal of budgeting experience, and that seems easy to you. To most people, 5 years ago, if you went to a bank and the person in the suit in the fancy office said "we've reviewed your finances, and you are approved for this loan!" that was good enough; same with a credit card or car loan. There was a level of blind trust that people placed in banks. Whether that was smart or not is irrelevant. That the banks laughingly took advantage of that trust is fact.
Nicole, being an active proponent of fair trade, or recycling, is great. But it does not absolve other sins, really; and I don't mean to imply that your "other world", as you called it, is a sin, but rather that if it is viewed that way by some, explaining that you do these other things doesn't really make it OK to those who would take issue with the stock market, investment banking, and capitalism in general. It is disingenuous to imply such, just as it is disingenuous to imply that if you support one big business, you support all big business, and anything else is hypocritical or something. Saying "vote with your dollar" is a cliche that only has two outcomes: denying people access to tools and technology that a a small, local business can not provide if they do not buy from big business, or if they do buy using against them as a cheap shaming tool.
More to your request for an example, I would look at your position on #s 5 & 7:
Margie, if that was what the post was about, perhaps the title should have been something more along the lines of "Debunking some of the things that some people may have said at Occupy Wall Street". I feel that this post is just trying to whitewash the situation, and cherry pick a few easy targets to leave people with a sense that the movement is filled with people who are repeating things that are not true, and therefore can (continue to be?) dismissed my the media. Even if that were the title, I would still take issue with much of the post.
This is a disappointing post by someone clearly not "straddling both worlds", lol. Instead of debunking the myths of the rally, you have instead proven the point of it.