We want to stop paleo- and neocolonialism by what ever name and we want freedom from the social structures that cause it.
1.) The great thing about Occupy, at least at one time, is that it wasn't a monolithic game of guilt trips and resentment statements. The minute someone comes up with "You know you owe my people X, because your ancestors oppressed us by doing Y..." I know the person has literally nothing to say to ME, they just want a convenient punching bag.
That is a tough question for liberal middle classes who wish well but can't handle the fact that their consumerist way of life is materially dependent from neocolonialist structures of oppression and exploitation and escalating destruction of Earth's ecosystem.
2.) Let's unpack that one, shall we? Facts are not in evidence for your blanket assumption! You're making a blanket assumption to cover ALL of the middle class. (As the middle class was the hated group for the POMO-POCO crowd {mostly using socialist terms}, I'm not surprised certain groups are blaming them.
2a.) Fair trade ring a bell?
2b.) Local food movement ring a bell?
2c.) If you are going to cast aspersions, How about that computer you are using?
2d.) I've already mentioned on other threads a few ways to reverse global warming.
So it is not surprising that eurocentric liberal middle classes - globally one percenters - have to large extent left the global movement after a short visit, and are looking for finishing their race to the bottom before they rejoin.
3.) Why should liberal middle class people stay? If other people are going to constantly get nasty, setting up folks as straw men and convenient scapegoats... Why stay?
In more philosophical terms, the "destabilization of western ways of thinking" refers to European alienated metaphysics of subjecthood or "ego". But as ego is a defense mechanism of collective insanity, it's rather useless to try to talk to it sense and expect that it would stop behaving like what it is.
Are you speaking from psychological training? Also, I've noticed that if someone argues against a "collective action" point, on the grounds of personal taste, others will bring in the pop-term, Ego.
Look..a while back, I noticed a number of the POMO-POCO crowd use roughly the same argument structures, throughout the spectrum of their statements. They use a variation on Monroe's Motivated Sequence:
-1 Get their attention
-2 Bring up a problem...make it sound movie scary
-3 Show a forced choice solution
-4 Make the listener visualize horrible alternatives, if the speaker's choice isn't used
-5 make a ringing call to action
--If someone calls the speaker on point 2, find way to either attack the question, or use terms that attempt to show that questioner somehow agreed with the speaker....then repeat point 2
--If someone shows a better alternative to point 3, use emotionally laden statements showing questioner's alternate solution won't work.
= new reply since forum marked as read