Posted by Dinah on November 10, 2011, at 20:36:58
In reply to Re: The top 1% » Dinah, posted by floatingbridge on November 10, 2011, at 19:32:26
I tend to see attacks (verbal) on the 1% wealthiest individuals as attacks on a class of people. Warfare may be inaccurate since no violence has been done, but I see saying bad things about the "1%" as being a verbal attack.
Also, given history, I think it's dangerous to whip up anger against a class of people. If people start believing the rhetoric, it's a short step to acting on the rhetoric.
The anecdotal reports I hear about our own local group don't include a lot of support from any large proportion of the "99%" they purport to represent. But those are hearsay reports. I rarely have reason to go near City Hall.
Why are sweeping generalizations about a group of people only sometimes wrong?
poster:Dinah
thread:1002133
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20110926/msgs/1002213.html