Your opinion of this person?

[k-onmmunist]

Liar, since they are in the bottom 99% for almost certain, and HP for continuing with this idiotic "I BUST MY ASS OFF"ery that somehow is supposed to make you superior to everyone else. Seriously, shut up, no-one cares.

[k-onmmunist]

    A good person, & emblematic of the right kind of attitude.

How so? The whole point of him posting that is to show his superiority to everyone who doesn't fit into that particular box he sets himself. Why else boast of going to be in the 1%? I mean who does that, really?

     I understood his "I am not the 99%" bit to be declaring that he does not feel solidarity with the occupier crowd, not necessarily that he is the 1%. Of course, such subtleties can be difficult to communicate over the internet.

     The way I see it, so many people today suffer from a need for instant gratification & an inability to take responsibility. His lifestyle demonstrates a great deal of self-control and responsibility. I'll admit that his tone is slightly patronizing, but I still find his story to be something intensely admirable.

massa treats me real good! i don't know what all y'all is complaining about

I hereby take offense to this.

Some things never change.

[k-onmmunist]

By the way folks- hard work DOES make some one superior! Sorry I'm not sorry to say it- I don't believe being wealthy does or any racial or ethnic or religious belief does... but working hard makes some one better then another who doesn't

Superiority is subjective.

Also, attention whoring about how hard you work automatically negates much of its value imho.

[k-onmmunist]

It is astounding to me how liberals can bash this person because he or she chooses not to identify with the radical Occupy protests... this is a person putting himself thru school doing the best he can for himself. He is making every right decision but because he ignores the talking points of a leftist group- you all disregard him

Truly astounding

No-one is disregarding him, we just know he's talking nonsense.

Also, if the belief that social inequality is unjust is now "radical" then I despair for our society...

[k-onmmunist]

It is astounding to me how liberals can bash this person because he or she chooses not to identify with the radical Occupy protests... this is a person putting himself thru school doing the best he can for himself. He is making every right decision but because he ignores the talking points of a leftist group- you all disregard him

Truly astounding

No-one is disregarding him, we just know he's talking nonsense.

Also, if the belief that social inequality is unjust is now "radical" then I despair for our society...

I'm talking more of the methods and side beliefs- such as disruptive "mic checks", the radical anti-Americanism, etc... there is social inequality- every one believes that...but these people give me memories of those in the 60s who simply hated authority

Except they have an aim. I see both Occupy and the Tea Party as only addressing one side of the problem, for the record - the government and corporate elite are so entwined that they should both be the subject of these protests.

[k-onmmunist]

It is astounding to me how liberals can bash this person because he or she chooses not to identify with the radical Occupy protests... this is a person putting himself thru school doing the best he can for himself. He is making every right decision but because he ignores the talking points of a leftist group- you all disregard him

Truly astounding

No-one is disregarding him, we just know he's talking nonsense.

Also, if the belief that social inequality is unjust is now "radical" then I despair for our society...

There is nothing nonsensical about hard work. What we have here is ridicule of those that defy the zeitgeist- not so much about what he does but what he says, the refusal to join in the whinging. Society today is all talk and no action, and we see him lambasted for his words and his action.

You're mixing things up here. We all respect those who work hard. What we don't respect is those who proceed to attention whore and pour hatred on those who are less fortunate, as this whole movement seems to be aiming at. If you have a job, great, you're lucky. Just remember, you're a resource that they can do away with at any point they like.

[k-onmmunist]

It is astounding to me how liberals can bash this person because he or she chooses not to identify with the radical Occupy protests... this is a person putting himself thru school doing the best he can for himself. He is making every right decision but because he ignores the talking points of a leftist group- you all disregard him

Truly astounding

No-one is disregarding him, we just know he's talking nonsense.

Also, if the belief that social inequality is unjust is now "radical" then I despair for our society...

I'm talking more of the methods and side beliefs- such as disruptive "mic checks", the radical anti-Americanism, etc... there is social inequality- every one believes that...but these people give me memories of those in the 60s who simply hated authority

Except they have an aim. I see both Occupy and the Tea Party as only addressing one side of the problem, for the record - the government and corporate elite are so entwined that they should both be the subject of these protests.

I think that's a fair statement and I agree... I simply find Occupy to be disgusting. It sounds anecdotal but compare a park after a Tea Party protest and a square after an Occupy protest...the former is clean and you couldn't tell any one was there- the other is trashed

On the other hand, the Tea Party have engaged in racism, bizarro conspiracy theories and other such activities... not a group you want to defend in particular.

[k-onmmunist]

It is astounding to me how liberals can bash this person because he or she chooses not to identify with the radical Occupy protests... this is a person putting himself thru school doing the best he can for himself. He is making every right decision but because he ignores the talking points of a leftist group- you all disregard him

Truly astounding

No-one is disregarding him, we just know he's talking nonsense.

Also, if the belief that social inequality is unjust is now "radical" then I despair for our society...

There is nothing nonsensical about hard work. What we have here is ridicule of those that defy the zeitgeist- not so much about what he does but what he says, the refusal to join in the whinging. Society today is all talk and no action, and we see him lambasted for his words and his action.

You're mixing things up here. We all respect those who work hard. What we don't respect is those who proceed to attention whore and pour hatred on those who are less fortunate, as this whole movement seems to be aiming at. If you have a job, great, you're lucky. Just remember, you're a resource that they can do away with at any point they like.

Yes you are- you are a human resource. That's the way it works...they pay you and they can choose to stop paying you. I've let go many an employee for  malfeasance, negligence, intoxication on the job, criminal records, etc...

You can work hard all yr life and then have the company let you go in favour of outsourcing all the jobs to the Third World. The current system owes no loyalty to humanity or nationality - corporatism is utterly psychotic and it needs to be ended, before it leads to a race to the bottom for wages, as it already has begun to since the 1980s...

[k-onmmunist]

It is astounding to me how liberals can bash this person because he or she chooses not to identify with the radical Occupy protests... this is a person putting himself thru school doing the best he can for himself. He is making every right decision but because he ignores the talking points of a leftist group- you all disregard him

Truly astounding

No-one is disregarding him, we just know he's talking nonsense.

Also, if the belief that social inequality is unjust is now "radical" then I despair for our society...

There is nothing nonsensical about hard work. What we have here is ridicule of those that defy the zeitgeist- not so much about what he does but what he says, the refusal to join in the whinging. Society today is all talk and no action, and we see him lambasted for his words and his action.

You're mixing things up here. We all respect those who work hard. What we don't respect is those who proceed to attention whore and pour hatred on those who are less fortunate, as this whole movement seems to be aiming at. If you have a job, great, you're lucky. Just remember, you're a resource that they can do away with at any point they like.

Yes you are- you are a human resource. That's the way it works...they pay you and they can choose to stop paying you. I've let go many an employee for  malfeasance, negligence, intoxication on the job, criminal records, etc...

maybe people don't want everything to be commodified. maybe certain things like the family have intrinsic value and should be protected by the state or nation/tribe/community. you obviously did not read my previous posts though which already explained my problem obviously had nothing to do with this person's alleged work ethic and everything to do with his apologism for a system that is literally robbing us and destroying anything of lasting value within our culture.

oh and btw i have made it clear before i don't like occupy, if it was actually directed against the criminal banks i would support it but it clearly is not. just like the tea party was/is clearly not about 'fiscal responsibility.'

Fair enough- and I agree that the family ought to be protected...and I agree with WinDis that people ought to be respected more and if that requires laws to be passed to do so...that is an improtant discussion to have

For conservatives, I suppose, the important conflict is between their duties to the capitalist hierachy/order and their duties to tradition/family etc... my own belief (as a non-conservative with some sympathy for certain tenets of it, nonetheless) tends towards the monopolization and commodity fetishization of everything as being one of the worst culprits in what social conservatives would call "moral degradation"

[k-onmmunist]

i should point out i'm not blaming 'capitalism' entirely for this. if anything i agree with a lot of the (relatively) mainstream right-wing criticism of the us government encouraging the worst excesses of the banks, and the modern welfare state producing a lot of perverse incentives. i suspect a lot of our problems would be diminished if the government governed according to basic microeconomics.

however i think its a bad idea to view people in entirely econocentric terms. if that sort of thinking doesn't work under marxist systems it won't work under 'capitalism' either. people are not rational. they are not all equal. they do not all have the same wants. they do not conform to neat little models. they are not merely your workers. ironically for all people tend to criticize them for being 'free market fundamentalists' libertarians tend to at least understand that much, along side the other elements on 'the fringes.'

The main problem I have with yr. argument (as much as we agree, which should be bizarre given that we supposedly lie on opposite sides of the political spectrum) is the acceptance of all inequality however. I still hold, as most would, that equality under the law is a key tenet of any modern society and I also believe that social/class inequalities are responsible for much of the social conflict in "free market" countries. The problem then, of course, is the difficulties in making a "one size fits all" model for tackling social inequality, given that it only seems to work ideally in monocultural nations such as Sweden...

[k-onmmunist]

true equality is undesirable and impossible because of our natural differences in talents and preferences. it is also clearly a totally subjective concept that can not be totally measured objectively. that obviously does not mean that i disagree with the modern consensus of providing the poor with access to say, public/subsidized healthcare and education and the ideal of equal treatment under the law. just that i think it is potentially tyrannical not to mention destructive to the majority to attempt to impose 'equality' beyond those bare minimum levels.

I don't believe in "true equality" either... I don't think many people do. But everyone is equal in some terms, as even Hobbes pointed out, because everyone has the potential to kill another person (personally, through machinations/conspiracy with others etc.). What I'm saying is, the lesser the gap between the top and bottom of society the better, because a highly hierachial order inevitably breeds conflict.

[k-onmmunist]

if that is not the goal then why the endless pursuit and use of it rhetorically by the left? (well a lot of the 'right' too...) anyway wormy already posted something pretty good awhile back about how savings affects the income inequality rate and why that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

My aim here, like I said, would not be full equality, but to narrow the gap as far as is possible.

[k-onmmunist]

true equality is undesirable and impossible because of our natural differences in talents and preferences. it is also clearly a totally subjective concept that can not be totally measured objectively. that obviously does not mean that i disagree with the modern consensus of providing the poor with access to say, public/subsidized healthcare and education and the ideal of equal treatment under the law. just that i think it is potentially tyrannical not to mention destructive to the majority to attempt to impose 'equality' beyond those bare minimum levels.

I don't believe in "true equality" either... I don't think many people do. But everyone is equal in some terms, as even Hobbes pointed out, because everyone has the potential to kill another person (personally, through machinations/conspiracy with others etc.). What I'm saying is, the lesser the gap between the top and bottom of society the better, because a highly hierachial order inevitably breeds conflict.

You don't think that constantly forcing people to conform to a societal structure you decided was ideal is something that would breed conflict? More specifically, you don't think that defining all resources as potentially belonging to anyone, i.e. everyone having a claim to everything is something that breeds conflict?

What do you mean exactly? I'm citing the argument that more equal societies tend to be happier, Sweden being a good case in point.

[k-onmmunist]

true equality is undesirable and impossible because of our natural differences in talents and preferences. it is also clearly a totally subjective concept that can not be totally measured objectively. that obviously does not mean that i disagree with the modern consensus of providing the poor with access to say, public/subsidized healthcare and education and the ideal of equal treatment under the law. just that i think it is potentially tyrannical not to mention destructive to the majority to attempt to impose 'equality' beyond those bare minimum levels.

I don't believe in "true equality" either... I don't think many people do. But everyone is equal in some terms, as even Hobbes pointed out, because everyone has the potential to kill another person (personally, through machinations/conspiracy with others etc.). What I'm saying is, the lesser the gap between the top and bottom of society the better, because a highly hierachial order inevitably breeds conflict.

You don't think that constantly forcing people to conform to a societal structure you decided was ideal is something that would breed conflict? More specifically, you don't think that defining all resources as potentially belonging to anyone, i.e. everyone having a claim to everything is something that breeds conflict?

What do you mean exactly? I'm citing the argument that more equal societies tend to be happier, Sweden being a good case in point.

But that's not true indefinitely. Sweden is still a fundamentally capitalist society. And equality is not exogenous either. If you're forcing it through heavy intervention that in itself is a source for conflict.

I know it's capitalist. I never said what I was supporting wasn't, it's simply a managed form of capitalism.