demands shemands
By shag carpet bomb • Jan 16th, 2012 • Category: WGAF Filesthere’s a debate on the demands working group email list that’s cracking me up.
guy posts a list of web sites with pieces about the demands working group. i think he was trying to show that there is lots of positive publicity for a Jobs For All demand and, therfore, a lot of support for the demand so, being popular and supported, it must be what da peepul want.
another guy points out that all but one of the articles, one by someone at glen beck’s web site, are about the controversy over demands: that the demands working group emerged but is a controversial working group because lots of people at OWS oppose demands in any form. so, there’s no consensus on what da peepul want, let alone what active participants in OWS NYC wants. all the articles seem to do is show that there is a lot of debate over the idea that there should be demands.
another guy says, the demands working group won’t get taken seriously because the thing they are demanding - jobs for all — isn’t something the 90% of the movement supports. He then says that the problem is that the demands working group doesn’t name and support things that the movement can get consensus on. Rather, the demands working group puts forward a demand that they want regardless as to the rest of the people in the OWS ‘movement’ want.
Another guy retorts that Jobs for All is in the interest of society as a whole. He says that obviously the Jobs for All demand will help the 99% so, therefore, if you are against it, then you are against the 99% and should get out of the movement because you are obviously in it for your own selfish interests.
And that’s the debate in a nutshell, I guess.
shag carpet bomb is
Email this author | All posts by shag carpet bomb
