I'm not much of an OWS supporter, but a lot of the criticism of it really bothers me. Just a lot of hypocrisy to be frank.
- This entitlement thing. I don't see what's entitled about giving one's own time or money to a cause you believe in, to go camp out for weeks or whatever. It seems like a lot of criticism of OWS centers on them acting like they deserve to be given jobs, but I have trouble taking this seriously when the same pundits complain about slow growth in their stocks/financials due to decreased consumer spending and unemployment, and want to know what the government's going to do about it.
- Civil liberties and free speech are supposed to be the cornerstone of American democracy and yada yada, but people suddenly feel extremely threatened when people want to exercise them. Who cares, let the hippies have their say and their signs. Why let it bother you?
- Loan forgiveness, bank bailouts. This is the one that really annoys me because criticisms of OWS on this front tend to be so inconsistent. If a student gets over their head in debt trying to earn a degree, we shouldn't think of helping her out because that's a terrible case of moral hazard, and we'll only encourage that sort of risk-taking behavior. But if bank executives commit fraud and bet against their customers, then get multi-billion bailouts for their companies and multi-million severance checks for themselves, well, you know how business is, these things just happen, there's no help for it.
Anyway sorry for the rant, but I just think if you disagree with what OWS proposes, you should make an argument against it (or even better, just ignore it) rather than resorting to personal attacks or condescending catchphrases like "entitlement".
> Civil liberties and free speech are supposed to be the cornerstone of American democracy and yada yada, but people suddenly feel extremely threatened when people want to exercise them.
Notice the government doesn't get their panties in a bunch over the Westboro church, or Tea Party townhalls, but turn your attention towards the plutocrats and suddenly there's riot police in the street. The fact that the government feels threatened lends credence to their critique.
With a straight face, you're going to tell me that the reason there was such a brutal crackdown on OWS was that people were smoking pot and there were isolated incidents of rape?
Also keep in mind that the Tea Partiers were carrying around assault rifles.
You're saying something doesn't exist on one side of a thing and implying it does on another without explicitly stating it. What do you hope to achieve with this?
When I said entitlement, I should have been more specific. I was referring to the growing belief that all student debt should be forgiven and that things like medical care should be free for everybody. Whether the word "entitlement" sounds dirty or not is entirely up to the reader but that's exactly what these things are. One person's "entitlement" is another person's "right". I just happen to disagree that these things should be rights.
- This entitlement thing. I don't see what's entitled about giving one's own time or money to a cause you believe in, to go camp out for weeks or whatever. It seems like a lot of criticism of OWS centers on them acting like they deserve to be given jobs, but I have trouble taking this seriously when the same pundits complain about slow growth in their stocks/financials due to decreased consumer spending and unemployment, and want to know what the government's going to do about it.
- Civil liberties and free speech are supposed to be the cornerstone of American democracy and yada yada, but people suddenly feel extremely threatened when people want to exercise them. Who cares, let the hippies have their say and their signs. Why let it bother you?
- Loan forgiveness, bank bailouts. This is the one that really annoys me because criticisms of OWS on this front tend to be so inconsistent. If a student gets over their head in debt trying to earn a degree, we shouldn't think of helping her out because that's a terrible case of moral hazard, and we'll only encourage that sort of risk-taking behavior. But if bank executives commit fraud and bet against their customers, then get multi-billion bailouts for their companies and multi-million severance checks for themselves, well, you know how business is, these things just happen, there's no help for it.
Anyway sorry for the rant, but I just think if you disagree with what OWS proposes, you should make an argument against it (or even better, just ignore it) rather than resorting to personal attacks or condescending catchphrases like "entitlement".