@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Occupy contends that not only does it represent 99% of Americans, it consists of 99% of Americans.
Clearly the latter is not true.
I believe the campaign is "I am the 99%" not "you are the 99%"
It's matter of composition. The group is made of those from that income level.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
That it represents 99% of Americans is a conceit, just as it was that the Moral Majority represented all moral Americans
To the former, I disagree. I think people there are representing themselves. I believe you're projecting.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The mere fact that the entirety of the population can be divided into two groups based on a specific income level, doesn't result in homogenization of the two groups...particularly when one of them is said to consist of 99% of the population.
The division isn't arbitrary though. The problem is that the political representation of the top 1% so overwhelms the voice of the others and this results in social preference and impunity.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The division can be made on the basis of age where one group below 104 years of age consists of 99% of the population, and the other, 104 and older, represents 1%.
Sure, and if the political system was rigged to unfairly cater along such a age line, I'd encourage such a message. It doesn't.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
While obviously the group of Americans under 104 have certain shared interests it would be ridiculous to suggest that an organization or loosely organize movement might represent the primary interests of all of them.
The same is true with Occupy.
Even if they didn't have shared interests, they deserve a place at the table; they deserve adequate representation. If such a fictional divide existed (unlike the very real one we deal with on economic divides), yes, the 99% of people under 104 would have reason to protest.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
By virue of the income criteria, I fall within the so called 99%, but this hardly means that my interests are 100% aligned with all of my fellow members.
So go to a GA and be heard. You keep saying they don't represent you, and I keep telling you that people representing themselves. If they represent you so poorly, go to a GA and tell them how much better you are represented by your elected politicians. It really doesn't matter about "them," but what you are willing to do. So what are you willing to do to better gain your representation? Or are you perfectly content with your representation and it's care to your interests?
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
It would be the height of arrogance to assert that indeed Occupy represents my interests, but I simply do not want to admit it because of some fanciful longing I have to be considered a billionaire.
I think you're struggling, yes. Call it arrogant if you wish. I think you're comfortable in an older political paradigm that has people divided against their own interests, but flatters their ego.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The mere fact that the 99% is as diverse as you suggest reinforces the reality that Occupy does not represent it.
Hardly. I'm not sure how you take that away. A diverse group will have a diverse message. The desire for uniformity is misplaced.
A
R
T