The Talking Points of the “Occupy Wall Street” Movement

I read an article today that was posted on Facebook that gave “Seven Snappy Comebacks for Those Lame Anti-“Occupy” Talking Points.”  In an age when public debate is primarily held on our rear bumpers, this doesn’t surprise me.

If I went to a church and the pastor stood up on Sunday and said “Here are seven snappy ways to come back at people who object to Christianity!”  I would think he either needs to get out of his study and interact with people or he really doesn’t understand Christianity.  I don’t think politics are all that different in this regard.

Also, I hate the word “snappy.”

The article begins:

Lame, pat, pre-pack­aged put­downs of Oc­cupy Wall Street: We all deal with ‘em, whether we’re ar­gu­ing with a neigh­bor, ap­pear­ing on Fox, or an­swer­ing the jeers of rel­a­tives who’ve just re­ceived a chain email that “re­ally puts the pro­test­ers in their place.”

Here are a few easy come­backs for your next ar­gu­ment.

Translation: Look how stupid those people are using their lame, pat, pre-packaged, putdowns.  Here are some lame, pat, pre-packaged putdowns you can use.

By the way, if what is meant by “argument” is a “quarrel” then by all means, soundbite and quip away until you out-perform your opponent.  But if what you mean is “rational discourse” then let’s stop reducing everything to “snappy” talking points.

Man, I hate that word.

Anyway, here are a couple of the seven “comebacks.”

 

3.​They say “But it’s hyp­o­crit­i­cal to buy cor­po­rate prod­ucts and then protest cor­po­ra­tions!” You say “You sound like a Com­mu­nist.”

Sorry, but I have to quote more on this one because their “snappy comeback” unfortunately has to be elaborated on.  Thus making it ineffective as a “snappy” (gah!) comeback.

That’s right – like a Com­mu­nist. I spent a lot of time in East­ern Eu­rope as protests very much like these were over­throw­ing the So­viet em­pire. You know what the old-timers in those coun­tries said back then? They said “These peo­ple are protest­ing the State, but they’re wear­ing clothes made at state-run fac­to­ries and wav­ing signs made with state re­sources! What hyp­ocrites!”

(Well, they said it in Hun­gar­ian, or Czech, or Pol­ish. But the mean­ing was the same.)

Tell your de­bate op­po­nents they sound just like old Com­mies as they de­fend the un­com­pet­i­tive, in­flex­i­ble, and to­tal­i­tar­ian sys­tem the cor­po­ra­tions now run. Don’t blame the demon­stra­tors. They can’t op­er­ate within the new sys­tem until we’ve re­formed the old one.

That’s why they’re protest­ing.

This point is an insult to those who opposed Soviet Communism.  So our system is uncompetitive?  Maybe it is competetive and we’ve bred a generation unwilling to compete.  Inflexible?  In what regard is it inflexible?  There are some things I like being inflexible…like the foundation of my house.  Totalitarian?

The 20 million men, women, and children murdered by Stalin are asking you to stop talking now.

 

7. They say “Ha ha! Look at that bearded guy in the san­dals!” You say “Hmmm … A bearded guy in san­dals protest­ing the money­len­ders. Where have we seen that be­fore?”

It’s fascinating how often Jesus shows up in these conversations.  It’s a respect for a Jesus based on the selective use of history.

I just need to point out that Jesus didn’t protest moneylenders to reform an oppressive government (though the Jews had been subjugated to Rome’s rule.)  He made a whip and drove them out of the temple. So, sure…let’s do like he did.  Put on sandals, grow beards, and become completely consumed by our zeal for God’s holiness.

I would spend more time elaborating on the other points, but I’m self-employed.  And now I have to go compete for some money to buy food.