Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

[Berkut]

I think Oex's description fits the tenor of discussion pretty well, even if it doesn't entirely cover any individual.

I think anytime someone says something along the lines of "Those who don't agree with what I say all do/say/think X, Y, Z" and the universal response from those who do not agree with them is "I don't think X, Y, or Z", then it is pretty safe to say it doesn't fit much of anything.

It is pretty cheap shelf to fall back on "I think it fits the tenor of the discussion, even if it doesn't actually fit anyone participating...". That isn't a position that anyone can answer to, or defend themselves from - and you are basically pigeonholing those you want to debate with, and then refusing to actually defend the pigeonhole by retreating to something as vague as "tenor of the discussion".

[Sheilbh]

It is pretty cheap shelf to fall back on "I think it fits the tenor of the discussion, even if it doesn't actually fit anyone participating...". That isn't a position that anyone can answer to, or defend themselves from - and you are basically pigeonholing those you want to debate with, and then refusing to actually defend the pigeonhole by retreating to something as vague as "tenor of the discussion".

I'm not saying anyone's a reactionary.  But I think this is a very accurate description of lots of positions taken on Languish and the general tone:

It would be someone who'd wish dissent to be silent, by pointing to salt mine slavery when faced with plantation slavery, to slavery when faced with apartheid, to apartheid when faced with segregation, and to segregation when faced with discrimination. It is someone for whom any sort of protest - if any -  should always be authorized, hushed, sanitized, intellectualized, rendered bland, and hopefully utterly meaningless; someone for whom the law is always right first, and wrong only after a lengthy, costly process which should hopefully lead to the castration of any sort of actual demand for change; someone for whom injustice, to the extent that it exists, should be fought, if they really must, politely, through careful application of money, and with an agenda which should span the next century or so.

[Berkut]

It is pretty cheap shelf to fall back on "I think it fits the tenor of the discussion, even if it doesn't actually fit anyone participating...". That isn't a position that anyone can answer to, or defend themselves from - and you are basically pigeonholing those you want to debate with, and then refusing to actually defend the pigeonhole by retreating to something as vague as "tenor of the discussion".

I'm not saying anyone's a reactionary.  But I think this is a very accurate description of lots of positions taken on Languish and the general tone:

It would be someone who'd wish dissent to be silent, by pointing to salt mine slavery when faced with plantation slavery, to slavery when faced with apartheid, to apartheid when faced with segregation, and to segregation when faced with discrimination. It is someone for whom any sort of protest - if any -  should always be authorized, hushed, sanitized, intellectualized, rendered bland, and hopefully utterly meaningless; someone for whom the law is always right first, and wrong only after a lengthy, costly process which should hopefully lead to the castration of any sort of actual demand for change; someone for whom injustice, to the extent that it exists, should be fought, if they really must, politely, through careful application of money, and with an agenda which should span the next century or so.

I think it is a very inaccurate description. Almost exactly the opposite of what the actual tone is on Languish.

And what sucks is that comments like yours and Oex is, IMO, nothing but an attempt to stifle discussion with pretty standard pseudo-intellectual arrogance. It can be that people do not agree with you for reasons that are not because they are just so damn stupid and "reactionary". Oex can pretty up the words all he likes, and you can avoid owning them by saying "Oh, they don't apply to anyone, just the 'tenor' of discussion", but it amounts to nothing more than an attempt to sit around and tell each other how smart you are for agreeing with one another, unlike those dumb ass reactionaries who "wish dissent to be silent". The fact that nobody (much less the majority who define "tenor") would ever agree to that as being reflective of their position should tell you *something*.

I mean really - "I am not saying anyone is reactionary...but I think it is a very accurate description of lots of positions...". Seriously? How can it be such a dominating "tenor" if nobody actually puts those positions forth? What is the point of a comment like that, if you aren't even willing to pin it on someone specifically?

You might as well say "I don't think you are a racist, but I think you put forth lots of racist positions..."

Weak. Very weak.

[The Brain]

There used to be three tenors.

[chipwich]

I'm not saying anyone's a reactionary.  But I think this is a very accurate description of lots of positions taken on Languish and the general tone:

I'm not saying it so I'll just announce a strawman I created on a whim

Pathetic.

[chipwich]

Nobody in the thread had the slightest idea if pepper cop was in violation until Seedy came along,

Anyone with common sense and human empathy knows that pepper spraying someone who isn't violent is unnecessary and cruel

Do you think the policeman should have shot him, you bloodthirsty savage? Keep in mind that if the guy had asthma, he would've been just as dead as if the police unloaded a machine gun into his body.

[Sheilbh]

You're taking the word reactionary very hard.  It's nowhere near comparable to racism and I don't think it implies stupidity or anything so sneerish. 

Seriously? How can it be such a dominating "tenor" if nobody actually puts those positions forth? What is the point of a comment like that, if you aren't even willing to pin it on someone specifically?

Because I think most languishites a pretty varied on their opinions.  This sort of attitude comes up in almost any thread - just look at this one or any on the Arab revolutions - but it's not always the same people or for the same reasons.  That's why I'm distinguishing between the tenor of discussion and positions taken which I think fits (and has nothing to do with being a majority of people) and people, which I don't think does.  There's noone consistent enough to fit the description as a whole - though Yi says he comes close supporting two of the three

For me it's more a tone that comes up in many threads.  Things are always worse somewhere else, that's what people should focus on, because of that change is suspicious.  Any social movement needs to be 'respectable' and ideally have a clear list of demands that have ideally been written by a think tank and are implementable - this has come up in almost every thread I can think of on a protest movement, it was a criticism of the TP, the OWS, the Arabs, the unions, the anti-war and more - failure on that makes the protests sort-of invalid.  And I think there's a general bias towards authority on Languish as I said before.

[Admiral Yi]

There's noone consistent enough to fit the description as a whole - though Yi says he comes close supporting two of the three

I didn't say two of the three, I said two or three.  There were about 12 or 14 descriptions in Oex's post.

[Sheilbh]

I didn't say two of the three, I said two or three.  There were about 12 or 14 descriptions in Oex's post.

I read them as a few points that were exemplified by different descriptions, so I thought you meant you were agreeing with a couple of the general points.  Soz :p

[Admiral Yi]

I read them as a few points that were exemplified by different descriptions, so I thought you meant you were agreeing with a couple of the general points.  Soz :p

Soz who?

[Berkut]

Nobody in the thread had the slightest idea if pepper cop was in violation until Seedy came along,

Anyone with common sense and human empathy knows that pepper spraying someone who isn't violent is unnecessary and cruel

What does that have to do with whether or not it was SOP? Nice emotive language - I like the implication that if someone does not agree with you they are not just lacking in human empathy, but also common sense, and is probably cruel as well! Nicely done.

Do you think the policeman should have shot him, you bloodthirsty savage?

Clearly, asking if the police was operating under some SOP means I think the cop should have shot them.

Keep in mind that if the guy had asthma, he would've been just as dead as if the police unloaded a machine gun into his body.

Well, I guess we are lucky he doesn't have asthma. If only more cops carried machine guns though.

[chipwich]

What does that have to do with whether or not it was SOP?

Ah so it doesn't matter if it's right, only that it's legal. Gotcha.

[Berkut]

You're taking the word reactionary very hard. 

I doubt that, since I don't even know what the hell it really means. It is surely used as something of a expletive though.

And the further "clarification" of what it means is pretty over the top insulting.

It's nowhere near comparable to racism and I don't think it implies stupidity or anything so sneerish. 

Oh please - you whole heartedly agreed that it means someone who justifies slavery, because there is worse slavery somewhere else! That implies stupidity at the very least.

Seriously? How can it be such a dominating "tenor" if nobody actually puts those positions forth? What is the point of a comment like that, if you aren't even willing to pin it on someone specifically?

Because I think most languishites a pretty varied on their opinions.  This sort of attitude comes up in almost any thread - just look at this one or any on the Arab revolutions - but it's not always the same people or for the same reasons.  That's why I'm distinguishing between the tenor of discussion and positions taken which I think fits (and has nothing to do with being a majority of people) and people, which I don't think does.  There's noone consistent enough to fit the description as a whole - though Yi says he comes close supporting two of the three

For me it's more a tone that comes up in many threads. 

Since the "tone" basically amounts to "Wow, some people, all of whom of course are on the OTHER side of my position, sure to seem to be effing idiots!", I suspect the way to "tone comes up in many threads" is that there are many threads where people do not see things the same way you do.

But here is the thing - people might not agree with you, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are simply "reactionary". THat is a cheap stereotype that attempts to dismiss discussion by what amounts to a sweeping and generalized ad hom.

[Berkut]

What does that have to do with whether or not it was SOP?

Ah so it doesn't matter if it's right, only that it's legal. Gotcha.

If you say so - but don't pin those words on me - they are all yours.

[Sheilbh]

Oh please - you whole heartedly agreed that it means someone who justifies slavery, because there is worse slavery somewhere else! That implies stupidity at the very least.

  That was an example of attitude not a statement that any reactionary Languishite posters support slavery.

That's a nonsense and extreme reading of it, I think you're really assuming the worst of me (and Oex I imagine) if you think we're saying there are people here justifying slavery.  I can't believe you're reading that that literally.

Since the "tone" basically amounts to "Wow, some people, all of whom of course are on the OTHER side of my position, sure to seem to be effing idiots!", I suspect the way to "tone comes up in many threads" is that there are many threads where people do not see things the same way you do.

Not at all.  I don't think I've got that reactionary attitude (maybe I've just not found the issue here), in comparison, I think Tim is probably its antithesis on Languish.  On the issues though I generally disagree with Tim.  Similarly there have been threads where I agree with someone on the actual issue but I'd say their position fits the description of reactionary.

Soz who?

You, I'd misunderstood what you said.