Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Please feel free to discuss Dan's shows.

Moderators: Loki, exposno1, Parrot, Quasigriz, NickDupree, nmoore63, robroydude, Spinny Spamkiller

Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby Clay34 » Tue May 01, 2012 10:27 pm

Hello to all,

After listening to the newest Common Sense I have to say Dan has done it again. His thought provoking discussion of the Occupy (and some discussion of the Tea Party) have brought me to different ends with different questions about both movements the the main goal of what Dan was discussing. First and foremost Noam Chomsky has released a book about the Occupy movements origins and future on May Day 2012. In it I believe he addresses the mainstream perception of Occupy as a progressive movement. I feel that in the Occupy movement there is an overt belief of populism that seems to be made more genuine by their inability to unify. Though I am young I have read a bit about the 1960's-70's activist movements and as it seems there were isolated organizations that worked together for a common cause but didn't necessarily see eye to eye on all issues.

Whereas Occupy seems to have the individualism of my modern generation attempting to unify under banners of a multitude of different subjects. I feel that the "Branding" of the movement was a first a white-wash of liberal youngsters who sought to make noise. Similarly the Tea Party was excused as a neo-conservative movement that was more afraid of a Black POTUS than any of the tax reforms for which the protested. I believe that the main issue that Occupy has is that it doesn't want the money trail that the Tea Party has, which leads to the likes of the Koch brothers. That is not to say that those who are Tea Party members are cronies but rather that since there is an involvement of finance, the discourse now seems to be controlled less by the grassroots protesters and more by the financial backers of the movement. I think that Occupy has an identity crisis because they are attempting to do this with a small internet media and world of mouth on the streets.

Typically protesters and progressives are seen by average Americans going about their day as antagonists as Dan addressed when talking about his wife. And yes they do get in the way and disturb order but I don't believe they do it intentionally to cause an obnoxious "Me ME!" attention grab. Rather that they do it because they are isolated to areas and are not allowed to peacefully protest. Furthermore Anarchists will always appear at progressivist movements because it is, whether it seems a backwards ideology or not, one of the most progressive political ideologies out there. I think the issue with comparing Occupy and Tea Party protests is that one is progressive and another is conservative. History has shown that the progressive dialectic is enacted through Protest and different methods and conservatism is enacted through policy. If you don't believe me look at Radical republicans in the 1860s and then Andrew Johnson's Black Codes or Leftist groups in the 60's and McCarthyism, or Reagan and leftist groups in america in the 80's. Both groups have valid arguments going forward and I feel that perhaps a moderate middle ground can be found but I am not sure that it is possible.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F Kennedy

"When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

"All tyranny needs to gain a afoothold is for people of a good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson

"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before." - Kurt Vonnegut

"...repression alone turns evolutions into revolution." - Benjamin Tucker

My Political Compass
User avatar
Clay34
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 10:06 pm

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby harddeterminism » Tue May 01, 2012 11:14 pm

Dan hits the nail on the head yet again. This movement is in deep deep trouble as the vast majority of people that don't live in big cities and don't see the ground level effort learn about the movement through our busted media system. Broken windows and blocked bridges have replaced the images of students sitting like monks getting pepper-sprayed. We are losing the sympathies of the very average American we are fighting so hard to wake up. I would classify Mayday as a cataclysmic disaster given the bridge bombing story, the acts of vandalism, and general nuisance images emerging from this mess. If the movement is to continue down the right path we must sway the iconic images of the movement back in Occupy's favor.
I almost typed "if I were in control of the movement I would..." but didn't since I feel this sense of amused "armchair historian" detachment is something detrimental to a cause I believe so strongly in *COUGH* DAN! *COUGH*
Instead I will attempt to gather a few artistic friends together to start a Yweoccupyphotos meme that attempts to create viral iconic photos ( I envision something like a gas pump with a Rolls Royce on one side and a pick-up truck on the other, with a hard working man swiping his credit card while the pump snakes to the other side as a chauffeur pumps gas into the Rolls). I love the podcast, I love the enthusiasm, but goddammit if I have to market you to the occupy movement and the rest of the 99% I will sir. Your voice isn't heard by nearly as many as it should be. And while your marketing may frustrate me, whatever you do please don't stop talking.
harddeterminism
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 8:10 am

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby ceolfrin » Wed May 02, 2012 12:45 am

Love to hear the that song and the fabulous Bill Barret has come back, Dan! :thanks:
User avatar
ceolfrin
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:40 pm

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby RAnthony » Wed May 02, 2012 4:05 am

John Adams - 1776 wrote:"It's a revolution dammit, we're going to have to offend somebody!"
...I don't think you can make everyone happy Dan, even if you limit it to corruption in government. There are segments of Republican, Democrat and a good portion of Libertarian thought (Voluntaryists, especially) that would tell you that good governance is an oxy-moron. People who think all taxes are theft. People who think that we can get by without government (what anarchy means, but that anarchists are not for some reason) and that is a larger percentage of activists in politics than you're probably comfortable thinking about.
"I unsettle all things. No facts are to me sacred; none are profane; I simply experiment, an endless seeker with no past at my back." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"So who the fuck are you RAnthony? Are you anything like the people you don't respond to say you are?"
User avatar
RAnthony
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5459
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:27 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby wamphari » Wed May 02, 2012 6:42 am

Wow, this rant on the evils of the occupy movement sounds remarkable similar to something my racist conservative uncle would spout. I have disagreed with your show before (and welcome valid dissent), but never have I felt one of your shows was disingenuous. Saying that the occupy movement supports socialism is right out of the fox news playbook. I found it ironic during this episode that you supported protesting, yet your argument seemed to suggest that it should be done quietly when it wouldn't bother anyone. Perhaps as people get older they are simply less able to deal with change, but the act of protest is intended to be disruptive. Disruption is the goal, because in disruption we force the other side to reconsider the stability of their position. A non-disruptive protest is masturbation.

The second thing that bothered me about this episode was this phantom desire for overall consensus through inclussion. Inclussion is what the occupy movement is all about. For anyone who has actually attended a General Assembly anyone who shows up has an equal vote. The occupy movement is the most democratic movement I have ever seen. And when you say that its bad to say that it might be the fault of the wealthy in a time when we have record low tax rates for the wealthy, I question whether you understand our current tax structure, or have some big check from industry waiting in your swiss bank account (joking [mostly]).

The final and most disturbing part of this rant is your attack on occupy (don't fool yourself, this was an attack, when you offer advice to a movement which runs counter to that movement principles it is an attack) is your criticism of the occupy movement and inherent acceptance of deplorable media coverage. You admit that if you were covering this stuff you would film and report on the most extreme examples you could find. While I might use the word journalism in the description of what that is, I would feel it necessary to add the word "yellow" before it. If I was a real journalist I would feel like I had some sort of a higher duty and, whether covering occupy or tea party, would search for the true voice of the movement. Yes there have been a few occupy protesters who have gone over the line. But mainstream tea party groups advocated bringing guns to town hall meetings for Christ's sake. We shouldn't accept that journalism should be about finding the biggest, loudest, nakedest, bloodiest thing in sight and pointing a camera at it. I certainly don't hold out a great degree of hope (having recently taken a journalism class and seen students fawn over any pseudo-celebrity journalist regardless how morally bankrupt they are.

One other thing, both related to this episode and to the show in general, the idea of false balance is one of the most popular in this country. This is illustrated by the large number of people who seem to love to declare themselves independents; even though most so-called independents, vote for one party at a huge ratio. But when it comes to issues a middle ground between two positions is not balance. The republican position is that social safety net should be gutted and taken away, the democratic position is that it shouldn't, so should we half gut the social safety net? And next time should he half gut it again? The republican position is to cut taxes for the wealthy further the democratic position is that we shouldn't, so is half way to simply cut them a bit more? And next time cut them a bit more? Balance is not weighing two sides and coming up with something that is the average of the two, balance is finding out what is right for the most amount of people in the country. Sometimes one side is right and one side is wrong. And as far as this idea of class war, the other side already declared it, when they started paying a smaller and smaller portion of their wages in taxes, when they bought our politicians, when they took away our safety net. Don't yell at a bunch of activists because they've simply begun to fight back. 1-2-3-4-I declare a class war.
wamphari
New Member
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 6:03 am

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby Rojik of the Arctic » Wed May 02, 2012 7:38 am

wamphari wrote:Wow, this rant on the evils of the occupy movement sounds remarkable similar to something my racist conservative uncle would spout.... etc


Wow. You got all that out of the show? Somebody states the bleeding obvious - that the OSW movement is getting murdered in the PR battle, and that the average Joe sees them as a threat to his / her way of life rather that a movement that can make it better - and they're the bad guy? Wow.

Maybe you agree or disagree with the advice, but there is no denying that what could have been a great thing is going to fade into irrelevancy unless there is someway to actually get the 99% on board rather than have them think that the movement is a bunch of spoilt kids that want a free ride. That's how it is being painted and - unfair as it may be - that is how most people are seeing it.
To hell with you Old Man! We're eating fish!
User avatar
Rojik of the Arctic
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:16 pm

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby insular » Wed May 02, 2012 8:22 am

I agree with you Dan, I'm forwarding your podcast to some of the university and college students protesting the tuition hikes here in Montreal. We also have a corruption problem that needs to be address before we start discussing stuff like health care, and education, and everything else. Thanks man.
insular
New Member
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:29 pm

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby Dan » Wed May 02, 2012 10:31 am

My responses in color:

wamphari wrote:Wow, this rant on the evils of the occupy movement sounds remarkable similar to something my racist conservative uncle would spout. I have disagreed with your show before (and welcome valid dissent), but never have I felt one of your shows was disingenuous. Saying that the occupy movement supports socialism is right out of the fox news playbook.
One might want to go back and listen to the way I said what I said...and see that you have misunderstood it. :wink:

The "occupy movement" doesn't officially support anything. This is part of what is allowing everyone NOT in OWS to have a more influential role than they would otherwise normally have in defining what OWS is and isn't. If a movement doesn't make this clear itself, it leaves the playing field free for others to do this for them (and those "others" might be your adversaries!)




I found it ironic during this episode that you supported protesting, yet your argument seemed to suggest that it should be done quietly when it wouldn't bother anyone. Perhaps as people get older they are simply less able to deal with change, but the act of protest is intended to be disruptive. Disruption is the goal, because in disruption we force the other side to reconsider the stability of their position. A non-disruptive protest is masturbation.

You could not be more wrong here. Believe me...your enemies are not only PRAYING that OWS protests will get more invasive and dangerous, if history is any guide, your corporate/wealthy targets would be wise to hire "plants" to infiltrate your protests and act as Agents Provocateurs sparking exactly the activities you are telling me are required to make progress towards your goals. I'm telling you a truth that will be backed up in the near future if OWS adopts the ideas you suggest: You will be givng the authorities the excuse to crack down on you, and you are losing the support of the great mass of uninvolved people (the soccer moms for example) whose sympathy you will be hoping for once the authorities DO crack down on the movement. If you make the great mass of people (the hearts and minds your movement really is after) see you as negative, they not only won't care when the whip comes down...they will wholeheartedly support it.
I'm sure that will make the "other side" "reconsider the stability of their position" :roll: . I may be old my friend...(46), but experience is worth more than you think in situations such as this. :wink:


The second thing that bothered me about this episode was this phantom desire for overall consensus through inclussion. Inclussion is what the occupy movement is all about. For anyone who has actually attended a General Assembly anyone who shows up has an equal vote. The occupy movement is the most democratic movement I have ever seen. And when you say that its bad to say that it might be the fault of the wealthy in a time when we have record low tax rates for the wealthy, I question whether you understand our current tax structure, or have some big check from industry waiting in your swiss bank account (joking [mostly]).

I mentioned this welcoming tendency in the show...did you not hear me do so?

And you don't seem to understand your goals here, if I may say so. I mean...so you go after "the wealthy"...jack up their taxes to the 90% level of the 1950s tax code...and perhaps you manage to achieve something as unbelievable as getting the Big Banks broken up (wouldn't you consider these big achievements for the OWS movement?)...what have you gained? Don't you understand that you are merely changing the ranking of who happens to be richest in the leadership standings/rankings? If the political system's corruption is left as it is, whomever is the richest under the new system will be the one(s) buying influence. It may not be the same people as it is now (and if it is, they may have less wealth overall) but on a relative scale, they will still be the Big Dogs. And they will certainly be buying influence to overturn your anti-wealth reforms too. Have you fixed anything? Or have you just re-positioned the deck chairs on the Titanic?

BUT

If you fix the corruption problem, you cut off the access of all these entities that buy influence. The Big Banks (to use one example) can't have as much control over government policy if the system finds a fix for the corruption problem. If you DON'T find a fix for it, all other legislation to "fix" things will be a sham anyway...tainted and debased by the corruption that will see to it that no rules have teeth...or enforcement money...and that it will include plenty of loopholes...

The corruption is the root issue that must be addressed. If you don't address it, you leave those entities you want to dis empower with control of things. If you DO solve it, you needn't worry so much about either "the Rich" or "The Powerful" as you will have cut off a main artery they use to exert such influence.


The final and most disturbing part of this rant is your attack on occupy (don't fool yourself, this was an attack, when you offer advice to a movement which runs counter to that movement principles it is an attack) Well...it's the same "advice" I've been giving them since DAY ONE (same advice I gave to the Tea Party people too. It's all there...the past episodes are available online...). If this is believable, then I have been attacking both the Tea Party and OWS since they first arrived.

And how does my advice "run counter to the movement's principles"? Did I miss the place where those principles were posted so that I could see/read them? Oh wait...wasn't that one of the things I said was needed? Oh wait...doesn't having such publicly stated aims/views run counter to the movement's principles?
I see how I got confused. :wink:



is your criticism of the occupy movement and inherent acceptance of deplorable media coverage. You admit that if you were covering this stuff you would film and report on the most extreme examples you could find.

I tried to tell you how News is done. If you don't understand this, you can never avoid the pitfalls of being mischaracterized by the media outlets covering your events.

The reporter's job is to come back with the most compelling story they can. This has always been the case. Even in the "Golden Years" of News coverage. If you have 2 reporters covering the same event, and one shows up with a tame, but more accurate story, and his colleague returns with a story that can be bumped up into the "lead" spot on the nightly newscast...which reporter do you think gets promoted and which do you think gets fired?
This isn't new, by the way. We have done plenty of shows on journalism in the past. The better "story" (as we have said in those shows) has always been the real bias of journalists (remember "Extra, Extra, read all about it!"?). It's one of the reasons I left News. As I told the local media at the time, "I don't think one minute, forty second news stories are doing anyone any good."


While I might use the word journalism in the description of what that is, I would feel it necessary to add the word "yellow" before it. If I was a real journalist I would feel like I had some sort of a higher duty and, whether covering occupy or tea party, would search for the true voice of the movement. Yes there have been a few occupy protesters who have gone over the line. But mainstream tea party groups advocated bringing guns to town hall meetings for Christ's sake. We shouldn't accept that journalism should be about finding the biggest, loudest, nakedest, bloodiest thing in sight and pointing a camera at it. I certainly don't hold out a great degree of hope (having recently taken a journalism class and seen students fawn over any pseudo-celebrity journalist regardless how morally bankrupt they are.

As I said...we have discussed this topic endlessly on past shows. My position lines up with yours more than you might think.

One other thing, both related to this episode and to the show in general, the idea of false balance is one of the most popular in this country. This is illustrated by the large number of people who seem to love to declare themselves independents; even though most so-called independents, vote for one party at a huge ratio. Not I.


But when it comes to issues a middle ground between two positions is not balance. The republican position is that social safety net should be gutted and taken away, the democratic position is that it shouldn't, so should we half gut the social safety net? And next time should he half gut it again? The republican position is to cut taxes for the wealthy further the democratic position is that we shouldn't, so is half way to simply cut them a bit more? And next time cut them a bit more? Balance is not weighing two sides and coming up with something that is the average of the two, balance is finding out what is right for the most amount of people in the country.

Um...did I miss when this discussion turned into a Republican versus Democratic one? :unsure: Are OWS people taking sides in this? Certainly you can see that the Democrats are taking money hand over fist from the very outlets you rail against? The Dems are just as corrupt as the Repubs...are you suggesting we should like them more because their rhetoric is nicer to the OWS ear? The people who give them money are the ones in charge. Go look at the contribution lists...and don't be naive. Again...I may be "old", but part of being "old" is to have already seen how this works close-up. Take off the rose-colored glasses please.


Sometimes one side is right and one side is wrong. And as far as this idea of class war, the other side already declared it, when they started paying a smaller and smaller portion of their wages in taxes, when they bought our politicians, when they took away our safety net. Don't yell at a bunch of activists because they've simply begun to fight back. 1-2-3-4-I declare a class war.


Well...I hope you have some fun with it, because that's the best you can get out of that strategy. Until you fix the corruption, you can't get a real populist candidate elected. Until you fix the corruption, the "rich" and "powerful" will continue to have undue interest over the direction things go. What is your goal in a "class war"? What are your victory conditions? A class war without corruption reform gains you nothing. If you manage to somehow achieve corruption reform, you don't need a class war (because the mechanism to influence government will be curtailed).

The Class War idea comes with all sorts of downsides and baggage. Perhaps you can suggest it is worth it to achieve the goals. What are the goals?
User avatar
Dan
Master of Ceremonies
 
Posts: 11339
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby Peevis » Wed May 02, 2012 10:56 am

Would like to big up Mayday. It's the first day of spring, and a global opportunity to express worker solidarity. All workers, across the world, from the sweatshops to even the bankers. I think that's important. If Santa gets Christmas, the Ghosts get Halloween, even the Bunnies get Easter. Why not let the the workers have their mayday? They do all the work afer all. :wink:

Anyway, this age old celebration of new spring energy surely needs some good PR in the USA if all it reminds you of is seventies Red square missiles!

With Love from London...

http://occupylondon.org.uk/archives/8300
Peevis
New Member
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 10:28 am

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby DBTrek » Wed May 02, 2012 11:20 am

This sad, sad, show should’ve been titled more appropriately. Perhaps something like “Dan Carlin: Lesson to OWS on How to be Ineffectual”, “Dan Carlin: His Family Has to get Somewhere and Your Freedom is Fucking it Up so STOP!”, or “How to Say Nothing By Saying Everything”.

Really, it was a pretty dreadful show that meandered from what seemed like whining over traffic problems created by people expressing their freedom to completely nonsensical and contradictory statements about how OWS should not divide Americans but they probably should videotape themselves being harassed by the 1% during a food drive.

For the bulk of the show he came off sounding like some kind of Rodney King caricature by urging OWS to fight ‘nobody’, demanding that Americans not be divided (because 1% vs 99% is a HUGE division apparently), and also suggesting that OWS focus on concrete problems like “The System is Broken” or “Take Money Out Of The Political Process”. Nevermind the fact that a movement which stands for nothing accomplishes nothing (a point he makes), Dan is completely comfortable advising OWS to tilt at windmills by effectively advising they commit themselves to doing nothing lest some segment of America somewhere be offended. Highly ironic sentiments considering he also complains that OWS has no leadership, no message, and no control over their image.

The show was a lot like watching a dog chase its own tail . . . except it took this trick that is mildly amusing when performed by man's best friend and beats it like a dead equine for a painfully long time. If this show has any merits, they probably lay in the way DC slyly mocks his audience by making contradictory statement after contradictory statement while seeing if he can drag them all the way to the pointless end of this monstrosity.

I like Dan Carlin and I generally like his shows, but this particular one is a dog minus the charming qualities inherent to canines.

:shakinghead:
User avatar
DBTrek
Archon
 
Posts: 28001
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 5:37 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby Smitty-48 » Wed May 02, 2012 11:38 am

:lol:

"Excuse me, dirty anarcho-leftist, faux bolshevik hippie twats, but you're unwashed class warcrimes are blocking the entrance to the Grey Poupon boutique, and the ol' ball and chain has sent me out for mustard, wot... OMG! Is that Jane Fonda over there!"
Nec Aspera Terrent
User avatar
Smitty-48
Archon
 
Posts: 21081
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby Harry K » Wed May 02, 2012 11:42 am

Going by the two lasts posts, should I even bother downloading it? The last one was the first time I stopped and not bother to finish a CS show.
The best way to catch a Wolpertinger, according to legend, is to be a beautiful young woman (or be in the company of one), since Wolpertingers have a weakness for female beauty. The woman should go out into a forest at night while the moon is full and find a secluded nook where a Wolpertinger is likely to be. Hopefully, the creature will soon reveal itself. When it does the woman should expose her breasts. This will cause the Wolpertinger to instantly fall into a stupor, allowing it to easily be bagged.
User avatar
Harry K
Archon
 
Posts: 13511
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:59 pm

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby Smitty-48 » Wed May 02, 2012 11:56 am

"Stay out of the airports, ya wannabe commie assbadgers, the 1%ers got places to be, people to see... podcasts to mangle... shuffle off back to the park, faux bolshie jackmuffins, before we unleash the water cannons on your bourgeois, facebook phony, 'class warrior' asses."
Nec Aspera Terrent
User avatar
Smitty-48
Archon
 
Posts: 21081
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby kybkh » Wed May 02, 2012 12:27 pm

Dan wrote:The corruption is the root issue that must be addressed. If you don't address it, you leave those entities you want to dis empower with control of things. If you DO solve it, you needn't worry so much about either "the Rich" or "The Powerful" as you will have cut off a main artery they use to exert such influence.


I have a thread in Current Events which I feel may be relevant to this discussion in that the topic I started was aimed at identifying what I term the "enabler" of the corrupt political system.

I mean we all know the system is corrupt. Congressional approval is in the teens yet incumbents are re-elected 80%+ of the time because of the goods and services they provide their communities using borrowed money.

I suggest that there is one factor which enables to corruption to continue and that variable is the Federal Reserve.

All else aside. Whether or not the wars are "good wars" or the bailouts "saved" America is secondary and inconsequential. Bottom line: We are operating a country in which 1.3 trillion dollars are being financed through debt spending.

There is only one reason why this is possible while maintaining artificially low interest rates on our debt and that is because the Federal Reserve is buying US Treasuries.

We will never be able to form proper policies until the books are laid bare.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

Thomas Jefferson - 1816
User avatar
kybkh
Satrap
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:50 pm
Location: KY, USA

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby Smitty-48 » Wed May 02, 2012 12:43 pm

Harry K wrote:Going by the two lasts posts, should I even bother downloading it?


I wouldn't bother. Try this instead.

F-15's + Bad Company = Fuck Yeah.



Big question is, which one is better? The original, or FFDP's cover? I have to say, I dig that cover. That's still a bad ass jam.

(F-15 Eagle's provided by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District 837 of St Louis Missouri.)
Nec Aspera Terrent
User avatar
Smitty-48
Archon
 
Posts: 21081
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:23 am

Next

Return to Discuss the Common Sense Show

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jebei the Arrow and 2 guests