When Newt Gingrich imparts his wit and wisdom to us regarding OWS, and Rush Limbaugh points to 'rape, and property damage' in Zuccotti Park, remember one thing: it's not about any of that, so there's no need to defend against any of that. That's a typical ploy of someone who's trying to argue from a weak position. They try to change the focus of the debate, and it works too damned often.
Ignore this bullshit - you can say straight out that it's not about any of that if you feel the need, but you must avoid helping them prop up their straw man. If you take that particular bait, you'll end up sounding like you're trying to justify or rationalize criminal activities on the part of OWS protesters.
So pick a few of the points that are most important to you - points you think OWS represents to you - and stick to your guns. BTW: these things don't have to have anything to do with any "Official OWS Statement". Whatever you'd be protesting if you were organizing the thing is what you get to argue. At it's heart, it's about free speech in a democracy, remember?
If you wanna try it, you can do a little sales-y thing called Isolating the Objection. To wit: "So except for some bad actors, you agree with what OWS stands for - good - let's talk about the decline in wages over the last 35 years...; the dramatic rise in childhood poverty last year...; the fact that 52% of all Americans can expect to spend at least one year below the poverty level..."
You can also try a variation on The Turnaround: "So we're agreed that illegal activity in any venue is immoral, and that it doesn't matter who the perpetrator is - so if it was a few very rich and powerful bankers committing crimes in Zuccotti Park, would you be arguing for or against holding them accountable?"
No comments:
Post a Comment