Forum Post: Teacher at Zuccotti Park tells truth about OWS
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 20, 2011, 8:02 p.m. EST by Talleyrand
(59)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Public Forum
1 comments 2 weeks ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 weeks ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 weeks ago by agkaiser
0 comments 3 weeks ago by agkaiser
1 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
1 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
2 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
3 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 3 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 3 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 3 months ago by agkaiser
4 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 5 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 5 months ago by agkaiser
15 comments 5 months ago by grapes
0 comments 6 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 6 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 6 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 6 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 6 months ago by agkaiser
By that logic, the death of capitalism would be inevitable as Ravi Batra has predicted. While I agree that OWS is a sign or symptom of America's corrupt government, It is too early to assume that it is some kind of new awakening. Things have to change. There is no doubt about that.
It's funny that with all the criticism in this thread, not one person actually provided any FACTS to counter his argument.
Here is that teacher's blog. I doubt any of you can come close to rising to his level of discourse. The proof is in this thread.
http://theassailedteacher.com/
He didn't provide any FACTS to prove his argument.
And you did not even attempt a counter narrative or interpretation.
Recording video statements and putting them on youtube pretty much ends any possibility for myself and the subject in the video to engage in counter narrative/conversation doesn't it? BUT-it allows everyone on the planet to interpret what he said, any freaking way they wish to.
Which means you can say you agree with/believe him, and I can say I don't agree/believe him and each one of us has exactly the same chances of being wrong as we are right.
So, does that mean that nobody can have a discussion about the ideas at hand? You'd rather clog the forum of free public speech with half-cocked theories about him being "dishonest' when you can partake in an honest discussion by pointing out WHERE you believe he is wrong. You might be able to change his mind but discussing ideas can affect the minds of others. Who cares if you or him may be wrong? There is no wrong here, only interpretation and, hopefully, a free flow of ideas.
If there is no wrong here, then there cannot be a right here either. And without either of those parameters to guide the "free flow of ideas" we might as well inject purple flying frogs into the discussion and hope it ends up somewhere "productive".
It's a shame that you have such a view. I am of the William James stripe who believes what is "right" is defined by how well it helps you and/or the community to cope with and improve upon circumstances. In that case, there are many potential "right" responses and a free flow of ideas helps us arrive at a consensus of a path all of us can live with.
But I guess those are just our differences.
Ah. So then determining what is "right" depends on measuring how well or how much help, ability to cope, or improvement upon circumstances each "right" produces. Which means that some "rights" are lesser rights by measurement and some rights are higher rights. Semantics.
The problem with seeking to form a consensus among the OWS that they can live with, and then trying to apply those decisions to the rest of the citizens of this country is that THE REST of the citizens were not part of that decision.
Don't you think it's even a TAD hypocritical for a group that insists that everyone has a unique voice that deserves to be heard to be making decisions WITHOUT hearing every single one of those voices?
Yes, truth, in my view, are the things that have what James would call "cash value", meaning some sort of use. Things with no use to you get discarded and those that have shown their cash value become adopted. You can call things "higher" or "lower' if you want. Those are just categories, in other words, SEMANTICS and are too small to constrain what is a much more nuanced idea. Truth is conditional and what is what you call higher at one place or time might be lower the next. It also can be both higher and lower at once. So, you see, those words to me make no sense in the context in what I am positing. That is why I do not use them.
Why do you use them?
Um, the DEFINITION of a movement is when a large cross-section of people work for a common cause. You know what that is called? A CONSENSUS.
So, EVERY single person in the country needs to agree before any change can happen at all? Are you saying the abolitionists were hypocrites because they did not ask the slave owners if they wanted abolition? Just because the abolitionists were able to build a CONSENSUS among a wide group of people, they should have piped down because others did not want abolition?
Your questions really make so sense at all and I really do not think you can be serious at that point. All movements have been based upon consensus building. They do not NEED to ask every single one of those people their opinions. They just need to convince enough people to get things done, like voting for Lincoln or pressuring law-makers.
You think ALL movements do not start by trying to enlist as many voices as possible in order to figure out the cause or issue that would stick? Segregated blacks wanted better conditions but not all of them agreed that desegregation was the best way to go about it at first. But, OVER TIME, a wide enough group of people agreed that desegregation was the cause to push for. Are they hypocrites because they wanted to foist changes on white racists?
Think man.
Yes. One GROUP of people formed a consensus against slavery. And then went to WAR with a group that had formed another consensus. Do you plan to wage war on everyone who does not agree with the OWS movement? Oh wait...you can't...because that would be HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF.
But I don't recall either group claiming that they represented the other. You're the history professor....did they?
I thought you said my responses weren't worth a reply....and yet you keep doing it.
HAHA!! That dope is the reason I sent my kids to private school. If this guy wants to make more money, do a job that delivers more value to the market, take some risk. That's how it's done, not eating time with OWS.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/criminal_occupation_oh3CnKANUqYHrGPCaZaLRK
This must be credible, he's a teacher
i loled.
Ignorance is bliss.
That's the truth.
Someone who reads body language might tell you this man is lying or at least fabricating a great deal of 'his opinion'. But hey...YOU trust him right?
Why would you say that? How do you fabricate an opinion? And WHY would one do such a thing.
Why would I say that? Because it's what I think.
I'll retract the word opinion. Better term might be "his version of history".
Because they want people to believe their agenda. People lie all the time because they think the end justifies the means.
Fair enough. What is it that you dispute?
"What is it that you dispute?"
Absolutely everything for which there is not irrevocable proof. You?
Right, in history "proof" is a malleable thing. Someone standing on a corner giving an opinion is not a doctoral thesis. That being said, he mentioned two examples of privatization before the interviewer cut him off: media and prisons.
He gave a certain interpretation of history that is very widespread and has credence is scholarly circles. "Downsizing Democracy" by Crenson and Ginsburg comes to mind.
Can't everything be given credence if the "proof" of that thing is malleable?
Yes, that is the point. History is an art, not a science. Narratives about the past have a strong impact on the present. That is why discussing it is productive and, also, an exercise in democracy.
And facts clarify why history continues to repeat itself. Perhaps if we stopped viewing it as an exhibit and attempted to apply it to the future, we'd actually advance more than a couple of hundred years before we try to overthrow each other the next time.
Not to mention the FACT that most people don't like to exercise democracy any more than they like to exercise in general.
History repeating itself is a tired bromide. It is something people just say but it is not true. Applying history to the future is EXACTLY what he is doing in this video: he is angry enough to protest and he knows why he is protesting. He wants to change the trajectory we have been on for 40 years.
But we have had a long discussion and I see that your posts are still general and vaporous.
You really should have spent more time in your logic classes.
You just said that the idea of history repeating itself is not true. Then you immediately attempt to defend the speaker for "applying history to the future" because he wants to "change" the trajectory we are on. Niiiiiiiiiiice professor.
If history does not repeat itself, then every future is an unknown, and there is no way to know where the trajectory we are on will take us now is there?
Don't look at my posts as being general and vaporous-look at them as being malleable, a form of art, free flowing ideas. :)
um, "history repeating itself" is different from "how we got here". History repeating itself assumes we are in another Great Depression, that Hussein was another Hitler, etc.
How we got here means events in the past that led up to this moment. History repeating itself is a futile exercise in finding parallels. Learning what brought us to today is an examination of DIRECT CAUSATION.
Speaking of logic class, it's amazing that you do not know the difference.
Tallyman- (below)
If what has happened in history will never happen again, then we don't have to study what caused our current conditions now do we? We can examine the direct causation all we want to, but the same effect will never be reproduced.
Perhaps you have chosen to interpret phrases like "History repeats itself" and "Those who do not study history are destined to repeat it" as meaning LITERAL repetitions of exactly the same events. But that wouldn't be a very logical thing to do.
Someone else might say he was nervous about being filmed, but hey, you've got YOUR mind made up...
He may very well be nervous about being filmed, but why would he be? Someone who is confident in their facts and their opinion has no reason to be nervous. He's in front of an "audience" all day as a teacher isn't he?
Nervous, honest people exhibit certain behaviors and nervous dishonest people exhibit different ones.
You do realize that the camera was constantly moving, amplifying any jitters he might have had and maybe giving the impression of jitters where there was not any?
Besides, if you do believe he is being dishonest, then the honest thing for you to do would be to point out how.
I wasn't talking about his jitters. The honest thing would be for him to be honest. If I tell you what signs he's exhibiting, then other people who lie will just try to NOT do those things, and then where will we be? :)
Well, there you go and still, no indication about what, specifically, he is being "dishonest" about. You said you disgree with his interpretation of history, yet never explained what you disagree about. Perhaps because it would force you to state some beliefs of your own when your only interest is to troll.
Perhaps. But perhaps not too. Perhaps I'm interested in how willing you are to believe him simply because you agree with him.
Perhaps I am just here sharing this in hopes of spreading a concise view of US history of the past 40 or so years. Perhaps I am a history professor at a private New York university who specializes in the 20th century. Perhaps I am familiar with the emerging scholarship in the field and have spent the past few weeks spreading a very similar interpretation of history at OWS. Perhaps this video was something I recognized as an informed opinion and believed that others should benefit from hearing it.
But it is cute how you play coy. I assume you actually have no good response to the ideas posted in this video. I expect your next response to be the usual pap, devoid of facts but full of righteous judgement.
You might very well be a three time Ph.D packing, Mensa board sitting, historical genius who specializes in human sociology and its impact upon the weave of the fabric of space and time, and in the end, you must still admit that you can only assume why I respond the way I do.
Why is it that you are snarky about my lack of facts and my "righteous" judgement and yet have no problem embracing the speakers video-which was also void of facts and filled with righteous judgement upon entire groups of people?
It seems you do not apply the same standards to everything. And just because you recognized an opinion that was as ductile as your own, doesn't automatically guarantee it is actually beneficial does it?
Because he gave facts. Plus, his interpretation is correct. Disagree? Float a counter-interpretation. If not, there is no point in responding.
There are no facts remember. There are only interpretations of facts. And there is no correct or incorrect here-remember. My interpretation is that he is lying, or mistaken. If you do not have to back up your interpretation with facts-(and really...how can you when history is malleable and you can mold it in any way you need to to support your argument...as I can to) then it is unfair to ask me to back up my interpretation.
I LOVE your brand of logic. It makes arguing so much easier. All I have to do is present my own interpretation based on whatever I want to and you cannot say it's wrong. It must be incredibly easy to get an A in your class Professor......
But you have no fact nor interpretation. You actually have said nothing throughout this entire discussion.
You have been an utter waste of time. A perfect ignoramus.