This seems like a dodge peppered with an ad hominem attack. Look, I legitimately don't know when I was preachy. Even though I tried to present my own position on this matter, I didn't think I was terribly dogmatic, and I thought my general tone was inquisitive. In fact I even think I went out of my way to not insult you. If it wasn't, I suppose it's too bad that I struck the wrong tone, since I was genuinely interested what you had to say on this topic. But I guess I must've struck a nerve.
The thing that's unfortunate is that you could've responded to literally everything I wrote with only this and then maybe we could've had a civil conversation. Like, if you had only said this, my take away would've been: ok, we probably agree on about 70-80% on this topic.
Maybe the point was not to have a civil conversation? I don't know.
It wasn't a strawman, it was a question. Anyway, you seem to be fine with vigilantism, so: there's that. I learned something about your position, perhaps despite you?
The benefit to kicking this guys ass seems to be that it would feel good - manly, even. It seems to accomplish less than calling his sexual assaulting ass on the cops and making him do hard time.
Because their boss is a human being, and it's generally good to be decent to human beings, and besides a boss-employer relationship isn't necessarily defined by antagonism? Maybe that's stupid, but I can't say that I thought so as I typed it out.
Huh. Ok. I think you're missing something pretty fundamental here.
Oooph. I look forward to seeing what happens when you ask for a raise from your slave master whom you've bravely struggled against.
Kids today. I really don't understand the complete lack of tact here. As Bob Dylan said, you gotta serve somebody. If you want to be a complete prick, go for it: doesn't mean you're doing yourself any favors.
And you political position is equally as well summarized by this tweet:
which is to say: not very well, but sick burn, I guess? I don't know. Are you trying to be rude in order to make a point?
But leaving that aside, I think you overestimate how effective OWS was. It didn't produce any substantive change. I think it's largest achievement was that it made income inequality an issue that could be talked about without being dismissed as a "communist". For a while, it was even a bipartisan issue -- people talked about the faltering middle class. But I don't think it posed a real threat, even in the minds of the powerful, and, to be honest, I don't think it's goal was to be threatening. I thought it's goal was to demonstrate that if you try to create an alternative society based on moral principles, it works, and so you could disprove the people who dismissed optimism for a better world as pie-in-the-sky idealism. At least that's what I thought when I was hanging out in Zuccotti Park myself, back in 2011.