"manipulated as false propaganda for MoveOn's very white middle class agenda."

First of all, propaganda isn't necessarily 'false.' Calling it that seems strange. Propaganda is much more effective when it's true.

Secondly, MoveOn doesn't have a 'white' agenda. That's just.... ridonkulos. It's an insult to the large numbers of middle class people of color, let alone MoveOn Staff of color (and I'm thinking of a former CCC staffer who was hired not long ago, among others.)

Third, why would a middle class agenda be suspect? Aren't they, be definition, part of the 99? Of course, alienating middle class folks so they feel more in common with the wealthy is a classic..... REPUBLICAN strategy. Not sure I'd want to go there.

Fourthly, whatever happened to 'step back' if your voice is heard too often, eh?

Charles

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Cesar <wintersiroco@gmail.com> wrote:

No idea, perhaps those who know how it got there...?

Cesar

Sent from phone

 

On Nov 4, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Jon Good <therealjongood@gmail.com> wrote:

Cesar: I agree we should try and get MoveOn to take the thing down.  How?

Harrison: 

"just as false as your presumptuous assumption that I am white"

Google Image Search obviates the need for any assumption.  (If you don't identify as white, we maybe need to talk more about the privilege inherent in perception and in "passing.")

Shaista:

"nowhere on MoveOn's infomercial does it say that this research was
based on internet traffic"

Yes it does.  It says it right at the top (albiet in rather small print).

"...analyzed results from 5006 surveys completed surveys at occupywallst.org".

Both of you have good and valid arguments couched in spite and in assumptions about the malicious intentions of each other. It is blinding all of us. I'm sick of it.  If we can't trust one another we might as well give up now.

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 11:51 AM, shaista husain <shaistahusain@gmail.com> wrote:

Harrison, this work was co-opted to depict and illustrate something
you did not intend to show, or the research you conducted was
manipulated as false propaganda for MoveOn's very white middle class
agenda. Let's agree on some basic principles of solidarity-- we can
fight together as comrades towards a vision of inclusiveness,
diversity and plurality.  But that chart ultimately is a total
fabrication of your work. You refuse to acknowledge that fact and
continue your macho defensive aggression, like Grim, attacking my
intelligence. Forget me, why avoid the question--how did YOUR team's
research get manipulated and co-opted on MoveOn's page as official
demographics of OWS, when it was some internet research you did,
nowhere on MoveOn's infomercial does it say that this research was
based on internet traffic.... it gets about a thousand "likes" on
facebook--eliding and misrepresenting our efforts at multicultural
diversity and makes OWS look like Tea Party demographics. This is part
of a national effort to make OWS look like Tea Party alternative..
these are the underlying motives of the co-optation of our movement by
white middle class. I know you don't agree with that so stop attacking
me--bro. I am not here to make you feel guilty or racist, i just find
your continued attacks on my intelligence as racist. I knew the chart
was suspicious and finally when it was advertised validated and proved
all my worse fears. You refuse to realize here that MoveOn are
manipulative liars and took all your research and turned it into some
bogus hubris to define OWS.
Anyway, i am wasting my time. Your words are just hurtful thats all.

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Harrison Schultz <schuh072@gmail.com> wrote:
> A quick pragmatic comment...I am less than pleased with the fact that this
> infographic, which I didn't make but still happen to think looks cool,
> doesn't clearly communicate that this is traffic on occupywallst.org as
> opposed to actual occupiers on the ground.
>
> Shaista,
>
> I stand by my insult on your intelligence, having reconsidered your posts,
> just as you have stood by your assertion that I am a racist after far too
> many of my posts to this thread.  Your deliberate attempts to misconstrue
> empirical findings from this research which don't happen to fit your
> preconceived and highly prejudiced notions of what you think this movement
> should look like are far more racist than anything within the findings
> themselves.  I joined this movement precisely to oppose the sort of
> self-righteous willful ignorance you've demonstrate every time I've posted
> numbers because it's exactly the same sort of willful ignorance that enables
> Fox News and members of the 1% to deny climate change and rising
> unemployment rates.  I'll grant you that there's no scientifically reliable
> definition of race, and that continuing to use the category on surveys
> ultimately perpetuates the spurious belief in racial categories among the
> general population.  However I put out a call to meet, discuss a formal
> research and analytics committee and attempt to brainstorm of new ways to
> re-write that question (based on nationality), with the help of specialists
> on the subject of the sociology of race, which everyone including you
> ignored, which is precisely how I know that your accusations are based
> purely on spite as opposed to substance.
>
> I will not submit to moderation from any of the self-appointed moderators on
> this thread who seem to share your privileged belief that only white people
> are capable of racism, (which is just as false as your presumptuous
> assumption that I am white), since that would be tantamount to allowing more
> of your insidious racism to further spread throughout this movement.  I will
> not continue to share findings from this research on this thread since its
> way more trouble than its worth.  However I will remain on this thread in
> order to attack the basis of the privilege you seemed to have claimed in
> order to label myself, trusted colleagues, and random strangers I've never
> met on this thread as racists.
>
> Anyone who dares to persistently accuse me or any of my colleagues of being
> a racist on grounds as ridiculously incoherent as Shaista's should not be
> surprised to receive the full measure of my contempt in return for their
> efforts.
>
> I'll keep this up as long as I have to, unless of course you bore me in to
> quitting first.  Your move,
>
> H.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Winter Siroco <wintersiroco@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> ...together and ignoring our internal problems and the insults that we
>> inflict upon each other, and let's throw a few under the truck, some will
>> survive.
>> Cesar
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:57 PM, rob hollander <lesrrd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> It might have been more useful to release just the jobs, college, income
>>> and age data alone which show that it's the opposite of a bunch of
>>> unemployed kids: it's mostly people over 25, either gainfully employed,
>>> though underpaid, or trying to improve themselves in college, many of whom
>>> are both in school and working full time (at least 7% and quite possibly
>>> much more -- it's not explicit from the chart).
>>>
>>> But the graphic as it is has no methodology, no background, minimal
>>> explanation, no example of the survey questionnaire, no effort to make any
>>> point with the data. I'd have to say the graphic qualifies as flaunting.
>>>
>>> Ah, well, the movement will survive. I'm with grim here -- learn from our
>>> mistakes and missed opportunities, but by all means let's keep moving
>>> forward together.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Jon Good <therealjongood@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...fuck.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 3, 2011, at 2:47 PM, shaista husain <shaistahusain@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > And here it is JUST AS I THOUGHT --the official release---the
>>>> > demographic data of OWS ---released by MoveON!!!! yes you guessed
>>>> > it--the same folk we were taking about
>>>> > http://front.moveon.org/who-is-occupywallstreet/?rc=fb.fan
>>>> >
>>>> > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:01 PM, shaista husain
>>>> > <shaistahusain@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> Thanks Grim- for calling me irrational. i think my writing is self
>>>> >> evident---please be the change you want to see in the world.
>>>> >> I still offer you some herbs for healing....
>>>> >> peace
>>>> >> shaista
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:17 PM, gwomyn <grimwomyn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> I have published the email thread as a public document if anyone
>>>> >>> would
>>>> >>> like to read it: http://bit.ly/tPlXTw after Shaista sent me an
>>>> >>> invitation to meet I made a mistaken assumption. Regardless, I have
>>>> >>> no
>>>> >>> wish to engage with a person who has spoken to myself and others
>>>> >>> with
>>>> >>> such irrationality.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Nov 3, 11:50 am, shaista husain <shaistahus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>> Being defined as an arab, by Lauren, then told that arabs are
>>>> >>>> actually
>>>> >>> I have personal
>>>> >>>> threats from Grim "privately" sent to me, which i shall spare at
>>>> >>>> the
>>>> >>>> moment--and really really disturbing threats. Perhaps this is the
>>>> >>>> reason why i have been so "edgy" and emotional and paranoid, when
>>>> >>>> someone tries to silence you by threatening to turn you over to the
>>>> >>>> police:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Rob Hollander
>>> Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Development
>>> http://savethelowereastside.blogspot.com/
>>> 622 E 11, #10
>>> NYC, 10009
>>> 212-228-6152
>>>
>>
>
>