Are you for or against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency?

[Elok]

There's a difference between inconsistency of principles and inconsistency of positions. The members of the tea party are generally aligned with each other on their positions. They have some positions which are inconsistent with stated principles. The OWS weirdos don't share consistent positions, and a large minority (majority?) of them appear to not have any articulated position at all, other than anger at their own personal financial situation.

Fair enough, but let's not forget that the TP, while less dysfunctional, had its fair share of mixed messages. You had libertarians in the crowd holding up signs about the gold standard, you had immigrant-phobes, you had birthers and the Obama's-a-Muslim-007 crowd, pro-lifers, hard theocrats, and every other GOP constituency in there yelling at once. They happened to be united under a small government message, and I guess that's one up on OWS for them, but HC made it sound like they were a well-organized group. He also left out the part where the blaggards tried to make us default on our debt.

[Elok]

If loads of people are unemployed and struggling to get by, by definition they got screwed.

While I don't know the individual stories of the OWS protesters, this isn't necessarily the case. A man with an art history major and a mountain of student loan debt is likely unemployed and struggling to get by. I'm not sure who screwed him.

[Jon Miller]

those who gave him loans

JM

[giblets]

While I don't know the individual stories of the OWS protesters, this isn't necessarily the case. A man with an art history major and a mountain of student loan debt is likely unemployed and struggling to get by. I'm not sure who screwed him.

Didn't he screw himself by getting into a mountain of debt while studying art history?

[Elok]

Possibly, but I don't think the protesters are yelling at themselves. Unless that's what that "human microphone" thing is about.

[Jon Miller]

Do we attack the people who get loans from the payday loans/etc?

Or do we recognize that they are not rational economic actors which have all the information needed to be successful?

The people who do payday loans provide a service, but most of the people who use it (and the people they market it to) are being harmed by it (using it is acting against their self interest, in many cases there are much better options that they just do not have knowledge about).

Same as the art history major with a lot of debt.

But I think you will find a lot of the protestors where this is not the case. My second cousin who I met in August has a physics degree, is working two jobs, and is struggling to make ends meet (She is not protesting, but was sympathetic when I talked to her).

JM

[giblets]

You can call them stupid, but it's still their fault they took loans they can't afford if they couldn't reasonably expect to be able to pay them back.

[Hauldren Collider]

those who gave him loans

JM

Then maybe we shouldn't have federally guaranteed loans, hm? They wouldn't be trapped under the debt if the government didn't subsidize their worthless "education".*

Frankly, if you're dumb enough to study a subject so obviously worthless, you have no one to blame but yourself for your failures. The fact that people who pursue worthless endeavors get nothing back, while people who actually spend their time developing useful skills makes it is a vindication, not an indictment of the system.

*Note: I don't actually have a problem with federally guaranteed loans. Just pointing out that the banks do this because of federal laws.

[Hauldren Collider]

Look, as an analogy, you can blame the smoker or you can blame the tobacco company. It's true that without the tobacco company the smoker wouldn't be able to smoke, but it's also true that without the smoker deciding to smoke he wouldn't be addicted to cigarettes. In my mind, it makes more sense to hold consumers accountable for their mistakes than producers for facilitating the mistakes.

[kentonio]

Look, as an analogy, you can blame the smoker or you can blame the tobacco company. It's true that without the tobacco company the smoker wouldn't be able to smoke, but it's also true that without the smoker deciding to smoke he wouldn't be addicted to cigarettes. In my mind, it makes more sense to hold consumers accountable for their mistakes than producers for facilitating the mistakes.

Kind of a bad example considering the tobacco companies spent decades lying about the effects of smoking and spent a lot of money glamorizing it. Bit like the banks really.

[rah]

But by the 70's the glamor was gone and no one could claim they didn't know about the real effects. So unless you're in your late 50 or older, you can't use that as an excuse. And to be truthful I'm almost 60 and I was aware of the dangers even when I was smoking.

[DaShi]

Look, a low unemployment rate is good for business. And what's good for business is good for America. So quit complaining and accept your lot in life.

[Sava]

Krazyhorse is an irredeemably insignificant nincompoop and a grotesque sheep-molesting object of execration.

astute observation

[The Mad Monk]

Ah, the place where everybody gets along by avoiding unpleasant disagreements?

I suppose thats one way to see it.

I think it's closer to disagreeing without unnecessary unpleasantness.

[Hauldren Collider]

I do think that people are generally more persuasive when they are less insulting.