Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Please feel free to discuss Dan's shows.

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

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby kybkh » Thu May 03, 2012 2:10 pm

DBTrek wrote:Image

Behold the OWS of Dan Carlin's imagining.

1. Doesn't interrupt traffic.
2. Doesn't inconvenience the power structure.
3. Doesn't alienate fellow Americans (with the possible exception of lumberjacks).
4. Embraces some vaguely agreeable concept that people can get behind.
5. Could be an ok photo-op if the hugger were a little more photogenic.
6. Absolutely ineffective.

We have movements like those envisioned by Dan Carlin. You all haven't heard of them, or if you have you rarely think of them. This is not the path to success. This is the path to irrelevance.


What would you say was the most effective rebellion in the history of mankind?
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: 2578
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:50 pm
Location: KY, USA

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby Runicmadhamster » Thu May 03, 2012 2:11 pm

This is about the first episode that i have disagreed with Dan in. To my ears to sounded like he was saying conform to the will of the soccor mums, appease them. The country is slowly falling apart, a protest has begun to stop that but now that same protest is being told to tone down its message because it may make the soccer mums cross? No all that youthful passion Dan spoke about doesn't need constraints, or needs the constraints suggested in the show, it needs to express itself in the best way it can. If the U.S truly is falling into ruin (i dont live there so i cant say that it is) then the soccor mums and middle America will have to come to the realisation that they need to support OWS (or movements like it) if they want to have soccor games to take their kids to, or a stable and Democratic country to live in. And yeah the OWS group may loose some support if they stick to course, but if in order to regain that support that have to tone down the whole movement then they need to find another way to get that support back, or find support else where.
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby Runicmadhamster » Thu May 03, 2012 2:15 pm

DBTrek wrote: This is not the path to success. This is the path to irrelevance.


+1
I could not agree more, i am sorry Dan but the advice you gave didnt appeal to me at all
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby kybkh » Thu May 03, 2012 2:57 pm

Runicmadhamster wrote:This is about the first episode that i have disagreed with Dan in. To my ears to sounded like he was saying conform to the will of the soccor mums, appease them. The country is slowly falling apart, a protest has begun to stop that but now that same protest is being told to tone down its message because it may make the soccer mums cross? No all that youthful passion Dan spoke about doesn't need constraints, or needs the constraints suggested in the show, it needs to express itself in the best way it can. If the U.S truly is falling into ruin (i dont live there so i cant say that it is) then the soccor mums and middle America will have to come to the realisation that they need to support OWS (or movements like it) if they want to have soccor games to take their kids to, or a stable and Democratic country to live in. And yeah the OWS group may loose some support if they stick to course, but if in order to regain that support that have to tone down the whole movement then they need to find another way to get that support back, or find support else where.


Well you see half of the soccer moms and middle America are already there. The trick is bridging the gap with the disenfranchised Tea Party participants such as myself.

Making my life more difficult will do nothing but polarize my opinion about the people protesting.

The Tea Party people who also supported OWS got frustrated with one central idea:

OWS disparage the businessman for doing what he is paid to do which is maximize shareholder profit.

What I wish the OWS would understand is that the privately owned, motherfucking, Federal Reserve enables all this maleficence by purchasing US T-bills.

What the fuck is so difficult to understand about that?
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: 2578
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 12:50 pm
Location: KY, USA

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby Runicmadhamster » Thu May 03, 2012 3:38 pm

kybkh wrote:
DBTrek wrote:

What you fail to realize is without my financial support your grass roots movement better fucking be violent otherwise you will be siting on the same street corner holding the same faded sign for the next decade. Without middle-class suburbanites like myself who make a decent living, recognize the system is fucked and want to make a change your OWS is going to be SOL when the bills come due.


You obviously don't know the make up of OWS.

Highly educated
92.1% of the sample reported “some college, a college degree, or a graduate degree.”

They have jobs
50.4% reported full-time employment, and “an additional 20.4% were employed part-time.”

http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-demographic-survey-results-will-surprise-you.php


They don't need your pennies, and they'd probably advise you to go get an education. Either way, their success or failure surely does not hinge on the non-entities in this social war, like yourself.

Dude did you just read your quote? Only 50% have full-time jobs yet 92% have at least attended 1 credit hour of college. Sounds like a bunch of losers to me who are pissed off because they spent 50k getting a degree in Political Science.




No what it sounds like is a group of people who came out of college with a large debt but were unable to get employment for whatever reason.
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby Marmenthol » Thu May 03, 2012 3:58 pm

http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/15 ... rporations !

I think this man is on to something...

quote: Whose Corporations? Our Corporations!
The idea that corporations are obligated only to shareholders is a dangerous fad. Law and precedent say they owe a strong duty to the 99%
Marmenthol
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 9:52 am

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby Smitty-48 » Thu May 03, 2012 4:09 pm

Marmenthol wrote:http://www.alternet.org/occupywallst/154789/whose_corporations_our_corporations!

I think this man is on to something...

quote: Whose Corporations? Our Corporations!
The idea that corporations are obligated only to shareholders is a dangerous fad. Law and precedent say they owe a strong duty to the 99%


What does "strong duty" mean? Sounds like populist blather, with a quasi-marxist flavor.

The choice to remove Glass-Stegal, not regulate derivatives, was a political one and not corruption. Corruption would imply that people didn't elect Clinton, and that Clinton didn't actually embrace the concept totally, as being a good thing. nobody had to bribe the guy into doing it.

If the government doesn't regulate derivatives, or impose capital requirements, then there is no obligation.

It was a political decision and it was popular, because it produced rapid growth in the 90's.

Now people are crying, but the milk is already spilled, so it's pointless, if government is not going to regulate derivatives et al, in response to crying... which they're not.

Has to be forced on them and it has to be tied into electoral politics, like it or not. Not going to be done from the street, outside of the mainstream system. That's an adolescent power fantasy.

Carp about "strong duty" all you want, without the legal codification of said obligations, and enforcement, you got jack squat.
Last edited by Smitty-48 on Thu May 03, 2012 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nec Aspera Terrent
User avatar
Smitty-48
Archon
 
Posts: 20706
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby DrYouth » Thu May 03, 2012 4:18 pm

And there is Smitty - the poster boy for overinterpreting any social justice movement as neo-marxist.
If Dan is trying to keep the Smitty's of the world on board with the OWS - Good Luck!
Not going to happen no matter how much you try to cater...
Maybe that's whats annoying DB.
"Trek requires no sunshine to be happy. He feeds off the despair of others like a dementor." e_room_matt

"Thank you so much for your assessment of my wickedness and the depth of my depravity and immersion in sin." drtrech

"You pansy-ass hippy utopian naive fool" coyo7e
User avatar
DrYouth
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:42 am
Location: Canadastan

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby Smitty-48 » Thu May 03, 2012 4:24 pm

DrYouth wrote:And there is Smitty - the poster boy for overinterpreting any social justice movement as neo-marxist.


It's all Neo-Marxist at its core, in terms of its worldview and accepted orthodoxy. Obviously, it's the bourgeois, academic, pissant, watered down version, which is palatable, as DB has pointed out, to the bourgeoisie, as in; Dan and his wife. No disrespect, they just happen to be the bourgeoisie, which is why they don't like shit hitting the fan. They got kids n' stuff.

Personally, I have more respect for actual Marxists. Bolshies who are unashamed about it and know what they want, which is a long term project, which probably will come rapidly back into fashion, in the wake of any deep depression like downturn. Which is not a given, but which also not too far fetched, since nothing has actually been done to fix the system.

They are misguided, but at least they have balls, and the brazen courage of their convictions.
Nec Aspera Terrent
User avatar
Smitty-48
Archon
 
Posts: 20706
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby DrYouth » Thu May 03, 2012 4:29 pm

Overthrow of the system by the proletariat...
Come on Smitty - we all know Marx overestimated the proletariat as the agent of change... and with the advent of the post-industrial age talking about a proletariat doesn't even make sense...
Not to mention the idea of joint ownership of the means of production - you seriously have to get over your fixation on Marx.
The guy has his place - and deserves his credit - but it's time to move on.
"Trek requires no sunshine to be happy. He feeds off the despair of others like a dementor." e_room_matt

"Thank you so much for your assessment of my wickedness and the depth of my depravity and immersion in sin." drtrech

"You pansy-ass hippy utopian naive fool" coyo7e
User avatar
DrYouth
Hetairoi
 
Posts: 5379
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:42 am
Location: Canadastan

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby Smitty-48 » Thu May 03, 2012 4:45 pm

DrYouth wrote:Overthrow of the system by the proletariat...
Come on Smitty - we all know Marx overestimated the proletariat as the agent of change... and with the advent of the post-industrial age talking about a proletariat doesn't even make sense...
Not to mention the idea of joint ownership of the means of production - you seriously have to get over your fixation on Marx.
The guy has his place - and deserves his credit - but it's time to move on.


Well, obviously you are the height of the bourgeoisie, the very model of the establishment, so you're not going to get with any real change, or radical action either.

You like the "revolution" to be televised, so you can catch it from the beach in Honolulu.
Nec Aspera Terrent
User avatar
Smitty-48
Archon
 
Posts: 20706
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby Dan » Thu May 03, 2012 7:12 pm

A few points:

1st: I am not saying anything in this show that I haven't said in other shows. My position on OWS (and the Tea Party before it) is the same as in past shows...and my advice basically has been too.

2d: I am intrigued by these people who suggest that the tactics of "disruption" are what works historically in U.S. protests. Actually...looking at the history..."disruptive" tactics usually provoke a negative view from the public (soccer moms and everyone else) which leads politicians to adopt things like "Law and Order" strategies (see Nixon) in order to take advantage of the public mood and promise to do something about the problem (not the problem the protesters are trying to publicize...but the problem of disruptive protesters and malcontents!).
Can someone please give me their scenario...short of a complete overthrow of the system or a complete shutting down of things...where the "disruptive tactics" achieve the desired reforms?

3d: If you CAN see a scenario where the disruptive tactics achieve their goals...can you see such success without first getting a large percentage of the public behind your cause?

4th: If you allow your enemies to define you...you will not be portrayed in a positive (or even realistic) light. Can the disruptive tactics, as spun through outlets that are controlled by your enemies, ever be something that convinces the bourgeoisie (to use the "Smittestic" term) that your cause is righteous enough for them to support?

5th: Many have taken my point about controlling the signs of protesters to ridiculous extremes that were never implied in the show. If a Nazi shows up at a Tea Party rally with a swastika sign with anti-African American epithets painted on it...is it somehow out of line to say that such a guy can screw up thousands of hours of work and tons of dollars because you don't want to control the message? I even suggested it would be more of a movement peer pressure thing...not some rule. But heck...if I am Lee Atwater come back in zombie form, I am paying some homeless person a thousand bucks to go to an OWS rally with a sign saying "Assassinate Mitt Romney! Marxism for America in 2012!". You are asking to be "Agent Provocateured" if you ask me. And it wouldn't have to be a government conspiracy for it to happen. Goldman-Sachs could just hire some people to do it. You guys act like I am trying to control every dang message anyone comes to a rally with. No...just trying to close an obvious loophole. Your enemies control the media...and there's no control over what anyone could do to hurt you image/reputation wise at these events. It's like opening your public mic to all who want to use it at an OWS rally...and then letting the local Nazi party use it. What clip do you think ends up on the Sean Hannity show the next day?

6th: The idea of not being scary to the soccer moms (this is obviously a catch-all phrase for middle America). Why is this so derided? This is an attempt to influence the culture and to change people's perspectives in ways that might change their voting patterns. It has to be. (If not, you are suggesting that somehow the OWS protests are going to scare the big banks or Congress into making real changes without doing so through the voters. This is...uh...nigh impossible). If you alienate the people whose perspective you are trying to influence and whose voting patterns you want to change and sour them on your message because of your image (one that may not be truthful...but that's what they've seen or heard in the media, etc.) you lose.
Again...can anyone explain to me how the OWS agenda is successful without converting a great deal of the public to their side? Anyone?
User avatar
Dan
Master of Ceremonies
 
Posts: 11315
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 6:48 pm

Dan: What exactly IS the OWS agenda is the question.

Postby cgervasi » Thu May 03, 2012 8:25 pm

Dan wrote:Again...can anyone explain to me how the OWS agenda is successful without converting a great deal of the public to their side? Anyone?

The question is what is their agenda. You say they should focus on gov't corruption and forgo any talk of wealth disparity. They respond indigent that you suggest watering down their message, which centers around wealth disparity.

Their use of 99% phrases suggests to me they're against the financially successful regardless of whether they earned it honestly.

It feels like the discussion goes in circles with you saying to be careful not to let people think you want to take people's hard-earned money, but they in fact do want to take people's hard-earned money. It's not about corporate governance reform or getting money out of politics. You and I just wish it were.

I try to see their view on wealth disparity. I worry that trade liberalization will make every country like Rio de Janeiro, where you can see the third world on hilltop favelas from a fancy office buildings. (It's only the geography that makes the disparity standout in Rio; I'm not picking on Brazil in particular.) I'm saying the developing world won't be a country but rather areas in every country. I ask what effect that will have on the US.

I read an interview with an Occupy supporter saying something like he was told to take out student loans and a corporate job would be waiting for him and now he's mad no one's taking care of him after he did as he was told. I wanted to yell at him to STOP DOING WHAT YOU'RE TOLD. PRINT SOME CARDS; GO TO EVERY EVENT RELATED TO YOUR INDUSTRY, AND LOOK FOR PEOPLE WITH PROBLEMS YOU CAN SOLVE. If they did that, they would be on their way to being the despised 1%.

You rightly say, "But what about the ave guy who just wants a job? Clinton admitted aloud that globalization would be good primarily for the ambitious, gifted, etc." I say if the average person just wants a job, but is unwilling for that job to be mowing grass while he uses his degree to create a smartphone app either to sell or show off to prospective employers, we're in deep trouble. The ave person just wants a job, but he shouldn't be a afraid of hard work; and he shouldn't expect a lifestyle with a late-model car, house with extra rooms, lots of gadgets, etc unless he works his tail off.

For people who really are busting their bottoms and working 60hrs+ at two or three jobs and earning less than twice the poverty line, I think gov't should be very generous, esp at helping them get high-paying skills. The same goes for single parents doing 30 hrs of paid work and then doing harder work at home. I don't care if there's some fraud and abuse in the programs; we must help the needy. (I am a left-of-center person from Madison, WI.) But my impression of OWS is they're mostly (not all) a bunch of people who are mostly reasonably educated, not needy, who don't want to work hard and are envious at people who are succeeding in the modern economy.

If they're really about fighting corruption, they seriously need a marketing makeover.
cgervasi
New Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:21 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby Runicmadhamster » Thu May 03, 2012 8:26 pm

I will answer the chosen points as best i can

Dan wrote:A few points:

4th: If you allow your enemies to define you...you will not be portrayed in a positive (or even realistic) light. Can the disruptive tactics, as spun through outlets that are controlled by your enemies, ever be something that convinces the bourgeoisie (to use the "Smittestic" term) that your cause is righteous enough for them to support?


Ok is cutting tactics that may give you a bad image a good idea, if OWS were to follow your advice then they would denying themselves tried and tested tactics. Also from what i can gather certain News stations in the U.S will always report negatively on a group depending on its political orientation, which means anyone watching certain news stations will always get the bad side of OWS regardless of what it does. The best way (in my view) to define your own movement and not allow the enemy to define it for you is counter the most popular myths of that movement whenever you get the chance, for instance it used to be thought that atheists didnt have morality, now after a long period of countering that myth only the stupidest of our opponents ever try and play that card. Define your own movement by countering any unpopular myths, and do so at every occasion so that it is ingrained in the memories of the general public


Dan wrote:5th: Many have taken my point about controlling the signs of protesters to ridiculous extremes that were never implied in the show. If a Nazi shows up at a Tea Party rally with a swastika sign with anti-African American epithets painted on it...is it somehow out of line to say that such a guy can screw up thousands of hours of work and tons of dollars because you don't want to control the message? I even suggested it would be more of a movement peer pressure thing...not some rule. But heck...if I am Lee Atwater come back in zombie form, I am paying some homeless person a thousand bucks to go to an OWS rally with a sign saying "Assassinate Mitt Romney! Marxism for America in 2012!". You are asking to be "Agent Provocateured" if you ask me. And it wouldn't have to be a government conspiracy for it to happen. Goldman-Sachs could just hire some people to do it. You guys act like I am trying to control every dang message anyone comes to a rally with. No...just trying to close an obvious loophole. Your enemies control the media...and there's no control over what anyone could do to hurt you image/reputation wise at these events. It's like opening your public mic to all who want to use it at an OWS rally...and then letting the local Nazi party use it. What clip do you think ends up on the Sean Hannity show the next day?


Really that's another "counter the myths" if one person shows up at a rally of thousands with Nazi symbols then just point out (patiently) that one person amongst thousands doesn't represent the whole movement. Really i could just sum up my response to both the points by saying be active, get T.V and radio interview where spokesmen (or woman) for your group repeat the counter arguments to the popular myths, get involved with debates regarding your movement, alter your groups image by fighting the lies bullshit that the enemy throws out.


Dan wrote:6th: The idea of not being scary to the soccer moms (this is obviously a catch-all phrase for middle America). Why is this so derided? This is an attempt to influence the culture and to change people's perspectives in ways that might change their voting patterns. It has to be. (If not, you are suggesting that somehow the OWS protests are going to scare the big banks or Congress into making real changes without doing so through the voters. This is...uh...nigh impossible). If you alienate the people whose perspective you are trying to influence and whose voting patterns you want to change and sour them on your message because of your image (one that may not be truthful...but that's what they've seen or heard in the media, etc.) you lose.
Again...can anyone explain to me how the OWS agenda is successful without converting a great deal of the public to their side? Anyone?


If the U.S is as screwed as everyone keeps telling me then it seems nonsensical to expend a great deal of time trying to win over large group of people by limiting the tactics you can use, while don't annoy the soccer mums seems like a simple enough idea when put in pratcie it will limit what your group can do. For instance what if the soccer mums like the banks, boom you can longer oppose the banks directly because now trhe soccer mums (and middle America) will be pissed off at you for it. Obviously that's a extreme example but you get my drift. in the end whats more important: Achieving the goals of your movement or appeasing middle America?
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Marketing of Dissent Discussion

Postby Trotsky » Thu May 03, 2012 9:36 pm

This program hit close home in Uruguay, where we failed to gather enough votes to repeal the "Ley de Caducidad de la Pretensión Punitiva del Estado" (Impunity Law for *any* crime commited by a member of the army or police during the dictatorship) in part because many voters of the traditional parties saw it as a thing of the Frente Amplio (broad left party). In every gathering there were party flags to be spotted, and even some communist and anarchist ones, so the average blanco/colorado who wasn't into agrarian reform or anything near it dissed it as a "leftist" issue, when it actually was about human rights. There were two referendums against it, and both failed by a small margin. Several observers pointed out that if we had kept our party colours low when the issue didn't call for it, things would have turned out in a different way.

Sorry for being selfish, but I felt compelled to share this feeling.
Trotsky
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:14 am

PreviousNext

Return to Discuss the Common Sense Show

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests