5 ms·

This whole 99% vs 1% BS is just getting ridiculous. Maybe they should be happy they're not the 99% of the world who die of starvation and preventable diseases

This whole 99% vs 1% BS is just getting ridiculous. Maybe they should be happy they're not the 99% of the world who die of starvation and preventable diseases instead of whining that it's so unfair. The protestors ARE in the 1%. It's depressing to see their open greed and belief they are entitled to more. Maybe if they applied all that energy toward creating wealth instead of protesting, they would be in a better situation. Or better yet, try and help the 99% of the world that's worse off than them.

jeffool 15y ago
I'm reminded of people who argue against high-paid athletes going on strike for being greedy, despite the institution owners pulling in far larger portions of the wealth. "They're paid millions to throw a ball around! They should be happy with a fraction of the wealth they generate!" Which is, of course, the underlying point. Who is really "creating" the wealth? That's a matter of perspective. I'm sure the self-described "99 percenters" feel they're the ones who "created" much of the wealth the "1%" has.
- maximusprime 15y ago
  I don't think that's the point at all personally. Protesting that other people have more money than you is just the same as a 2 year old throwing a tantrum.
  - jotto 15y ago
    the "too big to fail" situation is dangerous. the banks are _correctly_ making big bets because they know it's impossible to default since the government HAS to bail them out to prevent contagion.
    - maximusprime 15y ago
      I don't think that's true. Many banks have fallen. Big ones as well. Also, the proper way is to vote out the government if they do something like that, and to make it clear you don't think it was a good idea. Protesting on streets is a barbaric way to do things.
khafra 15y ago
"Some people have it worse than you" is a fully general counterargument which can be applied to any complaint.
- mseebach 15y ago
  It's (sometimes) useful for providing perspective. The linked article thankfully avoids it, and kudos for that, but I've seen many mentions of protesters self-identifying with the Arab spring. In that perspective it seems reasonable to point out the vast difference in the scale of abuse rendered to the protesters.
  - _delirium 15y ago
    That was, oddly enough, used against the Egyptian protestors also--- many of them were comparatively well off, educated Egyptians, who were accused of ignoring how good their lives were in comparison to the lives of the average Arab, and of prioritizing middle-class issues like newspaper freedom over economic issues more important to the poor masses.
mseebach 15y ago
Another thing that's important to keep in mind is that some of the biggest crimes against humanity has happened when the perpetrators claimed to represent the interests of "the 99%" (or "the people" or similar). In reality, they represented what they thought the 99% should want (marxists call it "false consciousness"), and the same is the case here. I'm not saying these protesters have the means or the will to actually go perpetrate serious crimes, but some humility would suit them. If the 99% (or even 50%) really sympathized, there is no point in camping in a park, just run some candidates for office and take over government. The large sums floating around in politics can possibly swing a margin across the middle, but there's no way it can shut up 99%.
eavc 15y ago
It's about having a functional system, not about absolute wealth or even comfort. Laws that serve the common good. Economic policies that promote progress and well-being.
- maximusprime 15y ago
  Can you give some concrete examples of why things are currently stacked in the favor of a 1% and against the 99%? If such things exist, what would your solution be to make things "fairer"? IMHO, things ARE pretty fair, and these protests are just basically "We don't know how to make money, we messed up buying crap we didn't need, but you lot are rich. therefore it's not fair and you must have some unfair advantage"
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

jeffool 15y ago

I'm reminded of people who argue against high-paid athletes going on strike for being greedy, despite the institution owners pulling in far larger portions of the wealth. "They're paid millions to throw a ball around! They should be happy with a fraction of the wealth they generate!" Which is, of course, the underlying point. Who is really "creating" the wealth? That's a matter of perspective. I'm sure the self-described "99 percenters" feel they're the ones who "created" much of the wealth the "1%" has.

maximusprime 15y ago
I don't think that's the point at all personally. Protesting that other people have more money than you is just the same as a 2 year old throwing a tantrum.
- jotto 15y ago
  the "too big to fail" situation is dangerous. the banks are _correctly_ making big bets because they know it's impossible to default since the government HAS to bail them out to prevent contagion.
  - maximusprime 15y ago
    I don't think that's true. Many banks have fallen. Big ones as well. Also, the proper way is to vote out the government if they do something like that, and to make it clear you don't think it was a good idea. Protesting on streets is a barbaric way to do things.

khafra 15y ago

"Some people have it worse than you" is a fully general counterargument which can be applied to any complaint.

mseebach 15y ago
It's (sometimes) useful for providing perspective. The linked article thankfully avoids it, and kudos for that, but I've seen many mentions of protesters self-identifying with the Arab spring. In that perspective it seems reasonable to point out the vast difference in the scale of abuse rendered to the protesters.
- _delirium 15y ago
  That was, oddly enough, used against the Egyptian protestors also--- many of them were comparatively well off, educated Egyptians, who were accused of ignoring how good their lives were in comparison to the lives of the average Arab, and of prioritizing middle-class issues like newspaper freedom over economic issues more important to the poor masses.

mseebach 15y ago

Another thing that's important to keep in mind is that some of the biggest crimes against humanity has happened when the perpetrators claimed to represent the interests of "the 99%" (or "the people" or similar). In reality, they represented what they thought the 99% should want (marxists call it "false consciousness"), and the same is the case here. I'm not saying these protesters have the means or the will to actually go perpetrate serious crimes, but some humility would suit them. If the 99% (or even 50%) really sympathized, there is no point in camping in a park, just run some candidates for office and take over government. The large sums floating around in politics can possibly swing a margin across the middle, but there's no way it can shut up 99%.

eavc 15y ago

It's about having a functional system, not about absolute wealth or even comfort. Laws that serve the common good. Economic policies that promote progress and well-being.

maximusprime 15y ago
Can you give some concrete examples of why things are currently stacked in the favor of a 1% and against the 99%? If such things exist, what would your solution be to make things "fairer"? IMHO, things ARE pretty fair, and these protests are just basically "We don't know how to make money, we messed up buying crap we didn't need, but you lot are rich. therefore it's not fair and you must have some unfair advantage"
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]