She got offended because he humiliated her deliberately, and he did, but fundamentally he did not lie. That's why it was humiliating: he didn't point out the biggest flaw in Occupy Wall Steet, he got her to admit it herself.
@@cash_burner Yes and there is you raging and cussing at a comment that's just explaining a scene from the very fictional movie you talked about. You must have half an IQ and lots of time to write rubbish where it doesn't matter.
+Marine T yep -that's his job -her job was to be prepared -she wasn't. He's right wing -she's left wing -she is thrown into the lion den-as Mackenzie anticipated:'here comes dinner'.
Tim Mullens His job is not to be a dick. No one's job is to be a dick. He could have show the weaknesses of her reasoning without being mean (and he did come to apologise after).By the way, a journalist is supposed to be neutral, his political opinion should not matter (whatever the political side of the channel). So no he was not professional. From her, yeah she was not prepared enough. But I do think it's also very hard to think clearly and react well facing stress and camera. Both characters did wrong, but they're so human, that is why this show is so awesome.
Its also what happens when the unprepared self appointed spokesperson meets a prepared professional who actually cares about what they are talking about. This is the same character who later uses "I teach college" as some magical status putting her above all of us dullards.
I think it's obvious that if you watched the show, Will sympathized with the sentiments behind the movement, he just thought the people involved were going about it all wrong, and they themselves were dooming it to failure. The only way he could get that across was to put her on the spot. Before the interview, he tried to steer her in the right direction, but it was soon apparent to him, that she could not see his point.
+John G. Hill Will was spot on in this interview. This was exactly the problem that I foresaw with the OWS movement. I supported their intent, but they had no end game. They wanted change, like a lot of us do, but no real plan for actually making that change occur. Emotion without action is pointless.
Also important to note is that Will admitted later on that he deliberately went at her in order to dispel the notion that ACN had a liberal bias, since Will attacks the GOP so frequently.
He was totally right on Occupy Wall Street this is why it ultimately failed because while the tea party loons was getting their candidates elected to office and engaging with the political process, the OWS was sitting in the park singing kumbaya.
Yes and no. OWS suffered the same problem the progressive movement did back when Ginsburg screwed everything up, it was overwhelmed with a propensity for garbage idealism and unrealistic goals, coupled with the mindset that "Leaderless" somehow meant that no one was responsible if the movement was cracked down on. What it failed to realize is that "Leaderless" inevitably means EVERYONE involved is responsible if there's a crackdown. That said, OWS set in motion the same factor of progressive idealism that brought us a fringe candidate winning 22 states in a primary, and if not in this election, certainly in the next one, we're gonna see some major force in play in terms of younger voters that understand that paying slightly higher taxes is a small price to pay for better security in terms of living conditions, healthcare, well-being, infrastructure, preparedness for disasters and otherwise, and of not being so interventionist that we wind up having to overspend on military hardware no one asked for solely so we can effectively create yet another terrorist group that'll make sure that Americans travelling abroad have to look over their shoulders for the next several decades. They may have been a bunch of disorganized assholes squatting in parks, but they set in motion, or at least put some momentum behind the mindset that America, one of the richest nations in the world, can't afford to be behind every single other developed nation out there in terms of the treatment of its people, the refusal to adhere to basic human rights charters around the globe, and the inability to keep its businesses held under the understanding that if they want to do business in a nation, they're going to abide by that nation's rules.
TacComControl We can always hope for a progressive candidate but right now its four more years of establishment rule with Hillary or possible world war with Trump.
Hillary is a heavy handed interventionist, so we have the very real chance of world war with her as well. More to the point, we also have the very real chance that she may get a late indictment post-election but pre-inauguration, which would mean that her VP choice would immediately take the slot. If Hillary is Smart, and wants to get SOME of the Sanders supporters under her wing come election-cycle, she'll name him as her VP, and that could end that way for her, which would have the added benefit of keeping some of the hardest hard-line Republicans from attempting to impeach once she Does get elected(She would have the ability to pardon herself and personally order the FBI and the AG to never pursue the charges against her, a chilling thought) in a thought that some of them might not want Sanders in charge. That said, I think there're more Republicans on the floor, not counting tea party freshmen, that actually are looking forward to a Sanders candidacy.
Years later looking back we can see that this show, while ridiculously condescending was right about the weakness of a movement without focus. "What do we want?" "Everything" doesn't cut it as a slogan. I have no idea how to get justice in a country where so much power is concentrated in so few hands, OWS may be a step somewhere but not necessarily in the right direction
They thought things were so bad that a step in _any_ direction was better than the status quo. But it's hard to make progress when you don't know where you're going, how to get there if you did know, and repeating slogans to people who ask questions.
You have *no* idea? You don't know how to vote only for the best candidates and don't accept bullshit? Because that's the best you can do next to running for office yourself.
He wasn’t saying that he cause was wrong, he was displaying the blatant fact that she was much more interesting in “rebelling” than she was actually causing tangible change. (“How does this end?” “It doesn’t”)
@@MikinessAnalog The character of Will was a former prosecutor, and a damn good one. Mac was with him during that time and knows how good he is. Another good example of how strong good a reporter he is, in the pilot, they did a report completely off the cuff. Will just asked for numbers and basically did the entire thing off the top of his head. Questions, follow ups, etc etc. And he rocked it.
Paul she wasn’t expecting anything. Just reading her lines thy were written for her. You people speak about Will and her like they are real people with real jobs! They are characters in a terrible show
@@Brendannolan1986 its called venting... Like maybe how you get pissed at a character on game of thrones or whatever show you may like... its the same here my friend.. and they are also reading lines that are written for them... Cheers!
@@Brendannolan1986 Characters still have motivations, thoughts and expectations. And these characters are caricatures of people, or at least types of people, who existed in real life. If you were to claim that this scene was unrealistic, sure that's a critique you can make of the writing. Though, there are morons like her everywhere so it seems pretty spot on to me. Finally, why are you watching clips if you think its a terrible show? Have you watched the rest of UA-cam already?
@@garbour456 if I actually believed what I was saying and had conviction to do whatever it takes to get it done, yes. That’s the thing with lots of people like her. They talk the talk for attention and to virtue signal…but when it comes to taking real action and living up to your own standards, they can’t do it as they only say what they do for attention or because they are told to. How many white liberals who claim to want diversity would give their job to a minority? How many of them pay extra taxes while claiming they support higher taxes? How many open their homes to immigrants while demanding to let all in? Maybe .000001% does.
@@russ7009 if she is that easily disabled, maybe she doesn’t actually believe them. Maybe she is just brain washed into thinking them but will not do what it takes to make it happen. She likes being the victim and virtue signaling. She said it herself. Her protesting will never end.
@@tjg801 You're glossing over the fact that she was humiliated on national TV and is rightfully angry. People who are angry tend not to act rationally. Yours is not an indictment of "people like her", but of humans being humans. When it comes to policy, how does giving up a job to a minority or paying extra taxes work in practice? It doesn't because 1. 99% of workers don't get to choose their replacement when they quit and 2. you have to submit tax returns every year. A better question would be, how many of these folks actively support diversity hiring policies and higher taxes (by which I assume you mean a more progressive tax policy)? I would wager that for most folks, the virtues they signal align with their voting record.
He ridiculed her because she has no plan to get to her endgame. It's easy to just say "something needs to be done." It's harder to organize a plan to do something.
Every time I watch this scene it pisses me off. Will asked questions that she should have had the answers to. Will wasn’t rude, he was curt. If you’re going on national tv to explain your movement I would think it would make sense that you would be prepared for these questions. She was embarrassed and mortified because she had no answers to such basic questions. “What are you protesting?” That’s an easy question, yet she had no real answer. And for her to punch Neil like that was uncalled for. Neil held up his end of the deal. It wasn’t his fault that she didn’t have anything solid to hang her hat on. How do you claim to represent something but can’t intelligently articulate yourself enough so people understand what the movement is. She was a teacher. She shouldn’t be nervous or stressed to speak in front of people. As an educator she wouldn’t have accepted unpreparedness and non answers in her class, why should Will have accepted it?
See I always get frustrated at this episode, because it's framed in a way that makes it look like Will is asking straight, to the point questions, but when you examine the actual questions without the news ticker and background music, they're way over the top compared to Shelly's initial answers. Shelly was asked what were some of the things that they were protesting, and she listed Citizens United (ruling that established that companies are people), co-opting of the government by the ultra-rich (in reference to the bailouts in 2009-10 and the appointing of Goldman-Sachs execs as governmental figures), and the fact that no wall street execs had been arrested after the financial collapse. Will then states they're not protesting anything specific, gives a very condescending explanation of his worth, and then asks what should replace capitalism? The list Shelly had of what they were protesting were all tied around the failure to hold large companies and execs accountable for their actions that impacted millions, not that the entire system of American capitalism should be replaced. There's more in the whole segment I didn't like, but this comment is getting too long, this clip was from almost 10 years ago now, and I'm tired.
@@kidfantastic93 I agree with you. I would also add that "Is it a good idea not to have a leader?" is pointless derailing bullshit because really, is this the time for a history lesson about grassroots movements and decentralised organisations or a thorough breakdown of their organisastional structure? No, it's demagogue bs aimed at delegitimising the movement. Similarly, "what should replace capitalism?" is demagoguery, and an ironically unspecific reply to her specific complaints. Now, all of those are probing questions that she COULD have given answers to (including pointing out what he was doing), but at this point it's less an interview and more a grapple for control of the conversation. Even if she has experience in public speaking, she is not a lawyer or a news anchor yourself. It takes a particular kind of skill and experience to take someone attacking down your position in bad faith and calmly use the opportunity to make you position look BETTER.
Sorry Dude - I know you're tired but she was a child on TV dealing with an adult world. She got exactly what she deserved. OWS was a overly nebulous and unfocused movement which is why it never went anywhere and was never relevant. @@kidfantastic93
@@pavelshliaha1706 that last sentence you wrote didn't even make sense. but this was a completely fair interview, and neal said it best she answered all of his questions "incorrectly." It is an interview because he plays both sides of the fence, asking tough questions to guests especially ones with ridiculous and unthought out ideas. no matter how pretty they might sound, ideas don't mean shit if they don't stand up to heat.
What's cool is that my APUSH teacher in high school taught us the exact same lesson. He showed us clips of interviews of some of the protesters and they were all so clueless. None of them could give clear, or even SIMILAR answers to what they wanted from their protest. He taught us that historical change has very rarely occurred solely because of morality or compassion. Most change, which was naturally by lawmakers, occurred because they were pressured into it. Constant letters, emails, phone calls, and large (but harmless) crowds towards their offices is what pressures them into making change. You literally annoy them into it. And if you're lucky, they may also agree with you. Just congregating at a place and complaining where they don't need to interact with you just makes you look uneducated.
So......she shows up unprepared for the best opportunity any "movement" could ask for and tanks. Then, she is mad at the fact that she tanked and punches the guy who made it all happen......seems reasonable....
Neal's right. She utterly tanked, and he wasn't at fault. If she had prepared for an actual interview, she'd have had far better answers. Neal wasn't at fault for her coming to an interview with an experienced news anchor who has been shown to hit hard before. And yet she yells at him and even hits him for being made a fool of. She wasn't 'made' anything. She was a fool. And I admit I disagree with the whole 'woman hits a man' being funny. Its not. Especially when you see how extreme the dissonance can get. You have women throwing books, bricks or toasters at men, who barely dodge, and its often shown for comedic effect. Nevermind that any of those actually connecting would injure, sometimes greatly, possibly fatally. And its still supposed to be funny. Because its the woman who shot it at the man. And if the man, in the same scene, walked back to the woman and slaps her for shooting a toaster at his face, the slap is treated as FAR worse than throwing the toaster, even if the woman was actually in the wrong to begin with.
Nic Hautamaki Exactly. What she did was pure, physical abuse. Its nothing less than assault. But because Neal is a man, its not depicted as a big deal. Now, if Neal had hit her right back, Neal would have been depicted as a slimeball. Double standard.
Came here after the r/antiwork debacle on Fox “News”. And compared to that interview this woman here looked like a business savant. I hope r/workreform has a better time of representing the interests of the declining working conditions.
They won't, but perhaps I'm jaded. Those movements typically end up evolving into pissing and moaning because the group will attract those types of people. Before you realize it, the group will be almost indistinguishable from antiwork. Best suggestion: find clever ways to make yourself more valuable in the job market. Certs, courses, videos, etc.
And, to be clear, Fox performed a more effective interview with that guy than CNN, MSNBC, and the rest would have because they are all the same side of the political spectrum. So, in short, you can thank Fox (yuck) for conducting an interview that was able to show how badly things had gotten with the antiwork movement. The others would have thrown softball questions.
There is a lovely West Wing episode that explores the same themes, of people screaming into the void about the things they are mad about with nowhere to go. Sorkin explores the argumen t with more nuance there. These themes are really well expressed when Sorkin writes.
OWS signifies people that want drastic change on the current system but have no input or starting point as to HOW things should change. Anyone with a brain can address the "WHAT is wrong" but it takes a little bit more brain power as to address the "HOW are we going to fix this". Very few TV shows and movies ever address this type of issue, and although having everyones voice heard is great but thats also a problem. Focus on the steps to change one specific thing first and then contact your congressman to help execute it out. Yes, the process of passing a bill into a law is daunting and tedious but its the best system we have. Sure corruption is there but thats what fighting (not fist fight) what you believe in is what this country's forefathers fought and die for so don't let all that go in vain.
Which is why I, and probably others like me, were so repulsed by the movement. It wasn't that they didn't have a message or a point, it's just the point and message had no follow through. They wanted change but had either no clue or no drive to make a real change. It was just a bunch of unwashed people making a mess and shouting a lot.
Well I wasn't so repulsed as I was curious. It was refreshing to see the initial reason for OWS but as time passed that statement "we are the 99 percent" got tiresome. I was rooting for them to find a solution to any of the issues OWS raised. This also unfortunately strikes deeper if you think about the real stigma OWS failure brings to future generations minds. Which is basically "resistance is futile", you can march up and down Wall st. or even capitol, yet in the end all nothing changed. Having a solution or not didn't matter, all the "1 percent" had to do was to wait for the "99 percent" to tire themselves out. Basically its like the aristocrats are looking down at the local peasants from their chateaus as to laugh at their folly for change.
I think Sorkins was more trying to make a point that any one with a brain can spout off WHAT is wrong with our government /society. Yet when it comes to HOW to fix it , the average citizens voice is just as either one deluded or two simply don't know where to start. We have a myriad of problems which can not be solve by just standing behind an enlightening tagline.
Exactly. It was blatantly clear from the first episode of the second season, where even Dev Patel's character pointed out the main problem behind OWS where he basically said "or you guys are gonna be a joke" (or something, I forgot).
Ya, Occupy Wallstreet had great intentions but their execution wasn't the most thought out. and yes, a man got punched in the balls for telling the truth.
Okay, what exactly was their great intentions. It seemed like an excuse for a fun summer break acting like "The Lord of the Flies" with some constraints.
Is she being portrayed as a hero here? No, she's portrayed as an egotistical flake, and a little violent to boot. Are you sure you know what double standard means? She was a pseudo-antagonist in this clip.
@John Roush Doesn't matter. A guy doing that would have been brought up on charges. We'd have seen it happen, too. Or at least heard about it. Here, nada.
Why is COOL if a women hit a man but BAD if man does so? Both is wrong. Violence is no opinion - and if women don't wanna have violent men then stop surporting violence against men. In wisdom of KUNGFU it's said that violence only bears violence.
bornbillsmith except for the fact that if he hadève hit her it would be a public outcry. things like this should be equally reprimanded, ifnot both should be equally accepted. you choose. thats what the US is all about right?
If no injury results, almost all jurisdictions would actually only consider it harassment or misdemeanor assault at most. You can't get over one year in jail unless you seriously harm someone or come at them with a deadly weapon.
You can't change a system if you're not willing to take part in it. Well, you can, but revolution still needs an incredible amount of organization and leadership.
water5000 That's because you can't critically analyse, you watched ONE interview from ONE film and now you blindly believe the other side of the story, well done you are EXACTLY what the US media dreams of, drone that cannot think for themselves. And for 4 decades the Yanks mocked the left in Europe Ha! How the tables have turned.
workoutfanatic787 thanks and I just kind of stumbled upon the interview today it was BRUTAL but Tim Sebastian did ask a lot of good and tough questions that should be asked
I would like to now call on all conservatives that bitched about this being a liberal propagandist show to now defend their position after watching this clip or admit that you are completely full of shit and hate it when people point that out. Good day everyone.
Obo Agboghidi Will McAvoy's criticism of the OWS movement IS a conservative moment, and he IDENTIFIES as Republican. He just doesn't let his ideals lead to blind ideological nonsense like the denial of scientific facts and the condemnation of homosexuals. If you don't think it counts as a conservative moment, then you're just typifying the absurd extremism that allows people to argue there is a "liberal bias" in the majority of media when it reports things factually. I'm sure the media looks "liberal" when you refuse to define conservative as anything other than the most extreme, uncompromising right-wingers. Hence how nutjobs--and I actually KNOW a couple people like this--somehow reach the conclusion that Fox News is too LIBERAL. (Are you kidding me?)
Im a republican, and Aaron Sorkin is a liberal! But he is an open minded, well informed, intelligent individual who does what he believes is right, not what is popular. His writing is fantastic, his opinions are fair, and he has my respect. As does every other reasonable human being, regardless of political affiliation.
Flash Gordons Themesong Well if you think that you are now officially a RINO to the Tea Party Republicans. Welcome to the club, we have hats, shirts and coffee mugs thinking of getting jackets this fall.
@@modernsophist. He was standing in front of her to talking to her. She was standing there listen until he said "you tanked" then she hit him in anger. That's assault, I'm not a lawyer but i think it's aggravated assault.
With him blocking her way, she has a semi-plausible case that he was preventing her from leaving, which meets the US federal definition of kidnapping. If that affirmative defense was accepted, that would make this self-defense and, therefore, non-criminal. The US federal definition of kidnapping is so broad that international comparisons of kidnapping rates inevitably leave the US off the list. At the very least, it would be an argument that would move the plea deal a bit more her way.
When you think about it - She screwed up her interview on merits (she really did!) , she physically attacked a guy and she welched on a deal she had with him. And she never learned from it, never appologized... Fascinating! What a horrible toxic aggressive person. And in the series she is later apologized by crew and eventually by Will... because she was a "victim". Got it.
What is McAvoy doing at the beginning when he was acting like talking to producer while he was not? I saw the script said "Is he screening with us? Come on." What is the meaning of screen with us?
Occupy wallstreet should have looked at this clip and changed their ways. Make it all about putting the right people in jail for the financial crisis and elect a spokesperson, not a "leader", to get it done. If there is something else they feel must be done, do that second, but keep the same level of focus. People were mad about the recession and threw mud at every conceivable problem all at once.
Which I think was the point. She, like most in the OWS movement, had very little clue and got made to look like a fool; emphasized by her rash action of a nut shot.
Holy shit! That's stormfront! I've seen the news room 2 times and I didn't noticed her hahahaha and now this show is not gonna be the same for me :'v (stormfront second origin story XD)
I love the way casual assault is accepted in television if it is a woman who is assaulting a man. She viciously punches him in the stomach, and gets to walk away.
how is it just TV then? IRL, He could only put it on social media it happened and be called everything from a coward for not punching back. A misogynist for complaining about it. Being called a sissy because he talked about getting suckerpunched by a woman when they were alone in a hallway. And everyone will start to weave a tale about whether is was him coming onto her and he got grabby, or he was close and overbearing and "she had to defend herself" etc. Either way he becomes a pariah and she is a fake hero for a month. OR the legal aspect. He can press charges for assault. Either the attorney's tell him there is enough wiggle hearsay that a defense lawyer can use ANY above referenced situation statement and poison the trial if it even got past that point. He could try civil court but the same issue occurs. Point is instead of lambasting TV as being culpable for accepting a man being assaulted by a woman and there isn't a fair comeuppance for it, you should point out as well that it's IRL too. This makes me sound like a misogynist but I really am more "Equalist" when possible here. If a man assaults a woman, who is more likely smaller and weighs less with smaller reach and strikes back The man started it and deserves retribution. If a Woman starts a fight, and assumes she can use the status of 'women smaller, are victims more often' and lie about the situation when the cops show up after he hits back after a few times. The cops will defer to the most likely scenario without videography to reference. Assume it's all him and arrest him instead. Hard to be equal to both parties when issues predate the situation.
It's because women's weakness makes their assaults generally unimportant. Getting upset about it is like getting upset about a kitten trying to bite a lion: the only issue significant is stopping the lion from mauling the weak little kitten.
The only thing worse that seeing people expertly build something you hate to a quality such that it will never collapse, is seeing people haphazardly constructed something that you love and which will absolutely collapse at the slightest upset.
McAvoy's question is legit. If you're protesting on something, then you must propose of what should be done to tackle the problem. And you don't do it on street, you do that in congress.
I don't mean to throw shade, but that's a ridiculous statement. One does not need to know how to fix a problem in order speak out about the problem. When the AC in my office makes the place too cold, I protest to management. They then tell the maintenance dept to turn up the heat. In other words, my protestations reach the ears of those that DO know how to fix the problem. (Full disclosure: that was a fictitious example, but it does get my point across.) Our world is full of complex problems that will require complex solutions which in many cases will need teams of experts for fixes. It's silly to say "shut up if you don't personally know what to do".
Here’s the thing, I’m a social democrat though by American standards I’d be branded a socialist or even a commie but it illustrates the fact that the left are more focussed on theory. It’s fantastic that there’s so much debate and room for people to be heard but it leads to so much fragmentation that the right don’t even need to divide and conquer and in a most votes wins political system (as opposed to PR) it’s 1 conservative voice who are mostly unified against 5 left/lib voices that have broadly similar platforms but the stuff they differ on is enough to keep them fighting each other
I used to dispute that the right was unified. But then the President took forever to condemn the KKK and half-assed it and everything else he's ever done and everybody on the right just stopped criticizing him for it like the mythical suicidal lemmings walking off a cliff... so, yeah, the right is a little too united. Except a few like me.
The one thing I don't get... Neal clearly knows what Will is all about, and what he would do to this guest. He even mutters "Don't take the bait!" when Will calls her a "leader" because he saw that Will was going to use her predictable response to get his teeth into her before the "Death roll". WHY DID HE NOT PREP HER? He knew 100% how this interview would turn out, he's clearly close to her and cares about her, AND she was the one with access to the source he needed. There is no reason to have let her go in unprepared. Sure, all the prep in the world wasn't going to save her, but maybe the end would have at least been merciful.
Will lighted her up so bad, he literally turned her into Stormfront!
Hello 2020
was about to comment this
Holy shit I didn’t realize that was stormfront
Holy shit, I thought she looks familiar from somewhere
Oh, yeah., It is her.
She got offended because he humiliated her deliberately, and he did, but fundamentally he did not lie. That's why it was humiliating: he didn't point out the biggest flaw in Occupy Wall Steet, he got her to admit it herself.
holy fuck this is fictional you dumbass, the neoliberals make you more concerned with a fucking fictional narrative instead of reality
@@cash_burner Wow 👏
Get some help.
@@MH3Raiser remove your eyes from the spectacle of the shadows moving and leave the cave
@@cash_burner Yes and there is you raging and cussing at a comment that's just explaining a scene from the very fictional movie you talked about. You must have half an IQ and lots of time to write rubbish where it doesn't matter.
@@cash_burner people arevery arrogant. Now they love capitalism because of this bad scene omg.
Sometimes saying "I don't know" is the best thing you can do.
Not when the question is “what cause are you fighting for?”
one of the few smartest replies in science, so much it has a bit of respect aka conjecture
I keep trying to tell my boss that...
@@gonzgonzalez2575 I assume you are now fired?
she was not as savvy as she thought she was and her lack of preparation was inexcusable.
+Tim Mullens it's a fictional character
+frackle as the fictional 'forest gump' was told by the fictional 'colonel dan' when it was pointed out that he had no legs 'yes, I know that'.
+Tim Mullens To be fair he was a bit a dick here^^
+Marine T yep -that's his job -her job was to be prepared -she wasn't. He's right wing -she's left wing -she is thrown into the lion den-as Mackenzie anticipated:'here comes dinner'.
Tim Mullens His job is not to be a dick. No one's job is to be a dick. He could have show the weaknesses of her reasoning without being mean (and he did come to apologise after).By the way, a journalist is supposed to be neutral, his political opinion should not matter (whatever the political side of the channel). So no he was not professional. From her, yeah she was not prepared enough. But I do think it's also very hard to think clearly and react well facing stress and camera. Both characters did wrong, but they're so human, that is why this show is so awesome.
This is how you create supervillains...
You can see the electricity building.
@@Sfdjdhrh I smell a storm coming.
Its also what happens when the unprepared self appointed spokesperson meets a prepared professional who actually cares about what they are talking about. This is the same character who later uses "I teach college" as some magical status putting her above all of us dullards.
@@adamsmyth1156 ya. We are just joking about how she plays a character in another show...
@@adamsmyth1156 r/whooosh
I think it's obvious that if you watched the show, Will sympathized with the sentiments behind the movement, he just thought the people involved were going about it all wrong, and they themselves were dooming it to failure. The only way he could get that across was to put her on the spot. Before the interview, he tried to steer her in the right direction, but it was soon apparent to him, that she could not see his point.
+John G. Hill Didn't Bill Maher say something similar?
+faolan1686 Yup he said they have to get out of the park and into the voting booth.
+John G. Hill Will was spot on in this interview. This was exactly the problem that I foresaw with the OWS movement. I supported their intent, but they had no end game. They wanted change, like a lot of us do, but no real plan for actually making that change occur. Emotion without action is pointless.
They didn't want "change"; they wanted to protest. That is what Will was exposing.
Also important to note is that Will admitted later on that he deliberately went at her in order to dispel the notion that ACN had a liberal bias, since Will attacks the GOP so frequently.
He was totally right on Occupy Wall Street this is why it ultimately failed because while the tea party loons was getting their candidates elected to office and engaging with the political process, the OWS was sitting in the park singing kumbaya.
+thatnorwegian guy (warp10ck) OWS was also a much smaller movement.
Yes and no. OWS suffered the same problem the progressive movement did back when Ginsburg screwed everything up, it was overwhelmed with a propensity for garbage idealism and unrealistic goals, coupled with the mindset that "Leaderless" somehow meant that no one was responsible if the movement was cracked down on. What it failed to realize is that "Leaderless" inevitably means EVERYONE involved is responsible if there's a crackdown.
That said, OWS set in motion the same factor of progressive idealism that brought us a fringe candidate winning 22 states in a primary, and if not in this election, certainly in the next one, we're gonna see some major force in play in terms of younger voters that understand that paying slightly higher taxes is a small price to pay for better security in terms of living conditions, healthcare, well-being, infrastructure, preparedness for disasters and otherwise, and of not being so interventionist that we wind up having to overspend on military hardware no one asked for solely so we can effectively create yet another terrorist group that'll make sure that Americans travelling abroad have to look over their shoulders for the next several decades. They may have been a bunch of disorganized assholes squatting in parks, but they set in motion, or at least put some momentum behind the mindset that America, one of the richest nations in the world, can't afford to be behind every single other developed nation out there in terms of the treatment of its people, the refusal to adhere to basic human rights charters around the globe, and the inability to keep its businesses held under the understanding that if they want to do business in a nation, they're going to abide by that nation's rules.
TacComControl We can always hope for a progressive candidate but right now its four more years of establishment rule with Hillary or possible world war with Trump.
Hillary is a heavy handed interventionist, so we have the very real chance of world war with her as well. More to the point, we also have the very real chance that she may get a late indictment post-election but pre-inauguration, which would mean that her VP choice would immediately take the slot. If Hillary is Smart, and wants to get SOME of the Sanders supporters under her wing come election-cycle, she'll name him as her VP, and that could end that way for her, which would have the added benefit of keeping some of the hardest hard-line Republicans from attempting to impeach once she Does get elected(She would have the ability to pardon herself and personally order the FBI and the AG to never pursue the charges against her, a chilling thought) in a thought that some of them might not want Sanders in charge. That said, I think there're more Republicans on the floor, not counting tea party freshmen, that actually are looking forward to a Sanders candidacy.
TacComControl Looks like Elisabeth Warren is being considered for VP.
"My stupidity and lack of preparedness was exposed by my voluntary appearance on this show! Better get mad and assault other people about it!"
Years later looking back we can see that this show, while ridiculously condescending was right about the weakness of a movement without focus. "What do we want?" "Everything" doesn't cut it as a slogan. I have no idea how to get justice in a country where so much power is concentrated in so few hands, OWS may be a step somewhere but not necessarily in the right direction
They thought things were so bad that a step in _any_ direction was better than the status quo. But it's hard to make progress when you don't know where you're going, how to get there if you did know, and repeating slogans to people who ask questions.
@@jamietodd2560 Oh I don't know... our politicians here in the UK have been doing that for years! 😂
You have *no* idea? You don't know how to vote only for the best candidates and don't accept bullshit? Because that's the best you can do next to running for office yourself.
Perfectly ok for a feminist to violently assault a man, but it a man did that to a woman….
Well... for Queen it worked ^^
He wasn’t saying that he cause was wrong, he was displaying the blatant fact that she was much more interesting in “rebelling” than she was actually causing tangible change. (“How does this end?” “It doesn’t”)
SW: Like most of the media, I don’t think you’re taking this seriously.
WM: Is there any chance that’s because you’re not?
"Aaand here comes dinner." I love Mac
she knew Will would tear her up?
@@MikinessAnalog The character of Will was a former prosecutor, and a damn good one. Mac was with him during that time and knows how good he is.
Another good example of how strong good a reporter he is, in the pilot, they did a report completely off the cuff. Will just asked for numbers and basically did the entire thing off the top of his head. Questions, follow ups, etc etc. And he rocked it.
"Is there any chance it's because you're not?"
BAM
I fucking love this line, puts her in her place.
That lady needs to chill and realize that Will is a reporter, if he's not asking the big questions, he's not doing his job right.
He makes very good points especially about where and who they are protesting
what was she expecting? That is what really baffles me... Just to skate on in and say "hey we have a movement... please. promote it" hahaha
Paul she wasn’t expecting anything. Just reading her lines thy were written for her. You people speak about Will and her like they are real people with real jobs! They are characters in a terrible show
@@Brendannolan1986 its called venting... Like maybe how you get pissed at a character on game of thrones or whatever show you may like... its the same here my friend.. and they are also reading lines that are written for them... Cheers!
@@Brendannolan1986 Characters still have motivations, thoughts and expectations. And these characters are caricatures of people, or at least types of people, who existed in real life.
If you were to claim that this scene was unrealistic, sure that's a critique you can make of the writing. Though, there are morons like her everywhere so it seems pretty spot on to me.
Finally, why are you watching clips if you think its a terrible show? Have you watched the rest of UA-cam already?
It’s amazing how she refuses to do something that may help her all because she feels embarrassed.
would you? I think it would be amazing if she did
She can’t.
As soon as she sat in that chair she was DOA.
@@garbour456 if I actually believed what I was saying and had conviction to do whatever it takes to get it done, yes. That’s the thing with lots of people like her. They talk the talk for attention and to virtue signal…but when it comes to taking real action and living up to your own standards, they can’t do it as they only say what they do for attention or because they are told to. How many white liberals who claim to want diversity would give their job to a minority? How many of them pay extra taxes while claiming they support higher taxes? How many open their homes to immigrants while demanding to let all in? Maybe .000001% does.
@@russ7009 if she is that easily disabled, maybe she doesn’t actually believe them. Maybe she is just brain washed into thinking them but will not do what it takes to make it happen. She likes being the victim and virtue signaling. She said it herself. Her protesting will never end.
@@tjg801 You're glossing over the fact that she was humiliated on national TV and is rightfully angry. People who are angry tend not to act rationally. Yours is not an indictment of "people like her", but of humans being humans.
When it comes to policy, how does giving up a job to a minority or paying extra taxes work in practice? It doesn't because 1. 99% of workers don't get to choose their replacement when they quit and 2. you have to submit tax returns every year. A better question would be, how many of these folks actively support diversity hiring policies and higher taxes (by which I assume you mean a more progressive tax policy)? I would wager that for most folks, the virtues they signal align with their voting record.
He ridiculed her because she has no plan to get to her endgame. It's easy to just say "something needs to be done." It's harder to organize a plan to do something.
Every time I watch this scene it pisses me off. Will asked questions that she should have had the answers to. Will wasn’t rude, he was curt. If you’re going on national tv to explain your movement I would think it would make sense that you would be prepared for these questions. She was embarrassed and mortified because she had no answers to such basic questions. “What are you protesting?” That’s an easy question, yet she had no real answer. And for her to punch Neil like that was uncalled for. Neil held up his end of the deal. It wasn’t his fault that she didn’t have anything solid to hang her hat on. How do you claim to represent something but can’t intelligently articulate yourself enough so people understand what the movement is. She was a teacher. She shouldn’t be nervous or stressed to speak in front of people. As an educator she wouldn’t have accepted unpreparedness and non answers in her class, why should Will have accepted it?
Bravo
See I always get frustrated at this episode, because it's framed in a way that makes it look like Will is asking straight, to the point questions, but when you examine the actual questions without the news ticker and background music, they're way over the top compared to Shelly's initial answers.
Shelly was asked what were some of the things that they were protesting, and she listed Citizens United (ruling that established that companies are people), co-opting of the government by the ultra-rich (in reference to the bailouts in 2009-10 and the appointing of Goldman-Sachs execs as governmental figures), and the fact that no wall street execs had been arrested after the financial collapse. Will then states they're not protesting anything specific, gives a very condescending explanation of his worth, and then asks what should replace capitalism? The list Shelly had of what they were protesting were all tied around the failure to hold large companies and execs accountable for their actions that impacted millions, not that the entire system of American capitalism should be replaced. There's more in the whole segment I didn't like, but this comment is getting too long, this clip was from almost 10 years ago now, and I'm tired.
@@kidfantastic93 I agree with you. I would also add that "Is it a good idea not to have a leader?" is pointless derailing bullshit because really, is this the time for a history lesson about grassroots movements and decentralised organisations or a thorough breakdown of their organisastional structure? No, it's demagogue bs aimed at delegitimising the movement. Similarly, "what should replace capitalism?" is demagoguery, and an ironically unspecific reply to her specific complaints.
Now, all of those are probing questions that she COULD have given answers to (including pointing out what he was doing), but at this point it's less an interview and more a grapple for control of the conversation. Even if she has experience in public speaking, she is not a lawyer or a news anchor yourself. It takes a particular kind of skill and experience to take someone attacking down your position in bad faith and calmly use the opportunity to make you position look BETTER.
Sorry Dude - I know you're tired but she was a child on TV dealing with an adult world. She got exactly what she deserved. OWS was a overly nebulous and unfocused movement which is why it never went anywhere and was never relevant. @@kidfantastic93
i like how many people in the comment section got upset over her punching neal. i was pissed off by that too.
Doctor Doom Why did he deserve it?
Bitch deserved to get pile driven
Dr pimple popper
I seriously wished there’d been someone else in that hallway to call 911 immediately and had her picked up before she left the building
Not gonna lie, you had us in the first half
He takes apart the NRA and the Tea Party the same exact way, by asking honest questions and using common sense
How is asking a loaded question fair? Also he constantly makes snarky comments to have the last word. This is not an interview
@@pavelshliaha1706 It's called "adversarial questioning."
@@bourne2crimson397 how is deliberately messing of camera with your guest who is first time giving an interview called?
@@pavelshliaha1706 that last sentence you wrote didn't even make sense. but this was a completely fair interview, and neal said it best she answered all of his questions "incorrectly." It is an interview because he plays both sides of the fence, asking tough questions to guests especially ones with ridiculous and unthought out ideas. no matter how pretty they might sound, ideas don't mean shit if they don't stand up to heat.
@@pavelshliaha1706 His questions aren't loaded. They are perfectly reasonable. She just had no answers.
What's cool is that my APUSH teacher in high school taught us the exact same lesson. He showed us clips of interviews of some of the protesters and they were all so clueless. None of them could give clear, or even SIMILAR answers to what they wanted from their protest.
He taught us that historical change has very rarely occurred solely because of morality or compassion. Most change, which was naturally by lawmakers, occurred because they were pressured into it. Constant letters, emails, phone calls, and large (but harmless) crowds towards their offices is what pressures them into making change. You literally annoy them into it. And if you're lucky, they may also agree with you. Just congregating at a place and complaining where they don't need to interact with you just makes you look uneducated.
Thanks for uploading this!
So......she shows up unprepared for the best opportunity any "movement" could ask for and tanks. Then, she is mad at the fact that she tanked and punches the guy who made it all happen......seems reasonable....
Not even a minute in and Neil already lost all hope.
Neal's right. She utterly tanked, and he wasn't at fault. If she had prepared for an actual interview, she'd have had far better answers.
Neal wasn't at fault for her coming to an interview with an experienced news anchor who has been shown to hit hard before. And yet she yells at him and even hits him for being made a fool of.
She wasn't 'made' anything. She was a fool.
And I admit I disagree with the whole 'woman hits a man' being funny. Its not. Especially when you see how extreme the dissonance can get. You have women throwing books, bricks or toasters at men, who barely dodge, and its often shown for comedic effect. Nevermind that any of those actually connecting would injure, sometimes greatly, possibly fatally.
And its still supposed to be funny. Because its the woman who shot it at the man.
And if the man, in the same scene, walked back to the woman and slaps her for shooting a toaster at his face, the slap is treated as FAR worse than throwing the toaster, even if the woman was actually in the wrong to begin with.
+Ares99999 I wonder how this scene would have gone over if Neal's character was female and the OWS representative was male.
Nic Hautamaki Exactly. What she did was pure, physical abuse. Its nothing less than assault. But because Neal is a man, its not depicted as a big deal. Now, if Neal had hit her right back, Neal would have been depicted as a slimeball.
Double standard.
+Ares99999 That's quite a tangent you found yourself on.
faolan1686 Does it make it any less true?
+Ares99999 No, but you just seemed to get lost in your own train of thought.
Came here after the r/antiwork debacle on Fox “News”. And compared to that interview this woman here looked like a business savant. I hope r/workreform has a better time of representing the interests of the declining working conditions.
They won't, but perhaps I'm jaded. Those movements typically end up evolving into pissing and moaning because the group will attract those types of people. Before you realize it, the group will be almost indistinguishable from antiwork.
Best suggestion: find clever ways to make yourself more valuable in the job market. Certs, courses, videos, etc.
And, to be clear, Fox performed a more effective interview with that guy than CNN, MSNBC, and the rest would have because they are all the same side of the political spectrum. So, in short, you can thank Fox (yuck) for conducting an interview that was able to show how badly things had gotten with the antiwork movement. The others would have thrown softball questions.
The problem with her character is, she's nowhere near as smart as she thinks she is.
Best part is this was better than the actual interview
There is a lovely West Wing episode that explores the same themes, of people screaming into the void about the things they are mad about with nowhere to go. Sorkin explores the argumen t with more nuance there. These themes are really well expressed when Sorkin writes.
Are you talking about big block of cheese day?
@@jimmy2k4o yeah when Toby meets with those protesters, and CJ arranges it so that there are no cameras
Gods, I miss this show
OWS signifies people that want drastic change on the current system but have no input or starting point as to HOW things should change. Anyone with a brain can address the "WHAT is wrong" but it takes a little bit more brain power as to address the "HOW are we going to fix this". Very few TV shows and movies ever address this type of issue, and although having everyones voice heard is great but thats also a problem. Focus on the steps to change one specific thing first and then contact your congressman to help execute it out. Yes, the process of passing a bill into a law is daunting and tedious but its the best system we have. Sure corruption is there but thats what fighting (not fist fight) what you believe in is what this country's forefathers fought and die for so don't let all that go in vain.
Which is why I, and probably others like me, were so repulsed by the movement. It wasn't that they didn't have a message or a point, it's just the point and message had no follow through. They wanted change but had either no clue or no drive to make a real change. It was just a bunch of unwashed people making a mess and shouting a lot.
Well I wasn't so repulsed as I was curious. It was refreshing to see the initial reason for OWS but as time passed that statement "we are the 99 percent" got tiresome. I was rooting for them to find a solution to any of the issues OWS raised. This also unfortunately strikes deeper if you think about the real stigma OWS failure brings to future generations minds. Which is basically "resistance is futile", you can march up and down Wall st. or even capitol, yet in the end all nothing changed. Having a solution or not didn't matter, all the "1 percent" had to do was to wait for the "99 percent" to tire themselves out. Basically its like the aristocrats are looking down at the local peasants from their chateaus as to laugh at their folly for change.
Which is exactly what this show pointed out. Sorkin blasted the Occupy movement. It was almost pitiful to watch.
I think Sorkins was more trying to make a point that any one with a brain can spout off WHAT is wrong with our government /society. Yet when it comes to HOW to fix it , the average citizens voice is just as either one deluded or two simply don't know where to start. We have a myriad of problems which can not be solve by just standing behind an enlightening tagline.
Exactly. It was blatantly clear from the first episode of the second season, where even Dev Patel's character pointed out the main problem behind OWS where he basically said "or you guys are gonna be a joke" (or something, I forgot).
and here come dinner! love this scene
She is a great actress.
I love this show...
God I love this show
My favorite scene from the episode.
Ya, Occupy Wallstreet had great intentions but their execution wasn't the most thought out. and yes, a man got punched in the balls for telling the truth.
Okay, what exactly was their great intentions. It seemed like an excuse for a fun summer break acting like "The Lord of the Flies" with some constraints.
Looked like a gut punch to me ... a bit over a foot higher.
How do you know they had great intentions? O still don't know what their intentions were.
Does anyone know where I can find the scene where Will talks to her at the end
Terrible double standard. If a guy did that to a girl he'd get hell.
Is she being portrayed as a hero here? No, she's portrayed as an egotistical flake, and a little violent to boot.
Are you sure you know what double standard means? She was a pseudo-antagonist in this clip.
@John Roush Doesn't matter. A guy doing that would have been brought up on charges. We'd have seen it happen, too. Or at least heard about it. Here, nada.
The guy should have sued her. Think if a man would hit a woman that way? Two years in jail?
Why is COOL if a women hit a man but BAD if man does so? Both is wrong. Violence is no opinion - and if women don't wanna have violent men then stop surporting violence against men. In wisdom of KUNGFU it's said that violence only bears violence.
It's television.
It's not real life.
They just wanted to show you how angry she is.
You are taking it to literally.
bornbillsmith
except for the fact that if he hadève hit her it would be a public outcry. things like this should be equally reprimanded, ifnot both should be equally accepted. you choose. thats what the US is all about right?
If no injury results, almost all jurisdictions would actually only consider it harassment or misdemeanor assault at most. You can't get over one year in jail unless you seriously harm someone or come at them with a deadly weapon.
Really one year? I just was joking about the 2 years. I didn't like that scene because it was cheap idea to beat the "bad man".
Man I miss this show!
Well, something people still haven't learned you see!..and I mean not only in America but all over the world!
“The same way change has always happened.” OK, how? I guarantee she wouldn’t be able to accurately answer how OWS would have any effect at all.
Will obliterates her and Neil says so casually "It didn't go that badly"
"he didn't do anything. You tanked!" hahaha! bad time to drop a truth bomb
You can't change a system if you're not willing to take part in it.
Well, you can, but revolution still needs an incredible amount of organization and leadership.
There is no change without compromise.
I've never seen an OWS supporter this well spoken.
I've never seen such a sound argument as to why the OWS is extremely flawed. My eyes are opened.
water5000 That's because you can't critically analyse, you watched ONE interview from ONE film and now you blindly believe the other side of the story, well done you are EXACTLY what the US media dreams of, drone that cannot think for themselves. And for 4 decades the Yanks mocked the left in Europe Ha! How the tables have turned.
taos treror Its interesting that you're judging him for something you, yourself, are doing.
Ares99999 I judge no one, I analyse, of course you understood the difference because you're a so called clever American.......... aren't you?
taos treror Heh.
And looking back now from 2019 with everything going on in Hong Kong you see exactly how shrewdly this scene was written
this is the same as the Joey Siu interview on DW news, which was just posted yesterday. So your comment is timely
workoutfanatic787 thanks and I just kind of stumbled upon the interview today it was BRUTAL but Tim Sebastian did ask a lot of good and tough questions that should be asked
No comparison.
I would like to now call on all conservatives that bitched about this being a liberal propagandist show to now defend their position after watching this clip or admit that you are completely full of shit and hate it when people point that out. Good day everyone.
Aaron Sorkin is obviously back tracking.
lol is this suppose to be the conservative moment?
Obo Agboghidi Will McAvoy's criticism of the OWS movement IS a conservative moment, and he IDENTIFIES as Republican. He just doesn't let his ideals lead to blind ideological nonsense like the denial of scientific facts and the condemnation of homosexuals.
If you don't think it counts as a conservative moment, then you're just typifying the absurd extremism that allows people to argue there is a "liberal bias" in the majority of media when it reports things factually. I'm sure the media looks "liberal" when you refuse to define conservative as anything other than the most extreme, uncompromising right-wingers. Hence how nutjobs--and I actually KNOW a couple people like this--somehow reach the conclusion that Fox News is too LIBERAL. (Are you kidding me?)
Im a republican, and Aaron Sorkin is a liberal!
But he is an open minded, well informed, intelligent individual who does what he believes is right, not what is popular. His writing is fantastic, his opinions are fair, and he has my respect.
As does every other reasonable human being, regardless of political affiliation.
Flash Gordons Themesong Well if you think that you are now officially a RINO to the Tea Party Republicans. Welcome to the club, we have hats, shirts and coffee mugs thinking of getting jackets this fall.
Personally I'd have her charged with assault.
ya, welcome to equality babe would have been on the lips of the arresting officer
I get your point, but if a man did this to me I still wouldn't have them charged with assault. Come on
@@garbour456. If a man did that to me he'd wake up in hospital to find himself being charged with assault.
@@modernsophist. He was standing in front of her to talking to her. She was standing there listen until he said "you tanked" then she hit him in anger. That's assault, I'm not a lawyer but i think it's aggravated assault.
With him blocking her way, she has a semi-plausible case that he was preventing her from leaving, which meets the US federal definition of kidnapping. If that affirmative defense was accepted, that would make this self-defense and, therefore, non-criminal.
The US federal definition of kidnapping is so broad that international comparisons of kidnapping rates inevitably leave the US off the list.
At the very least, it would be an argument that would move the plea deal a bit more her way.
lol "and here comes dinner"
When you think about it - She screwed up her interview on merits (she really did!) , she physically attacked a guy and she welched on a deal she had with him. And she never learned from it, never appologized... Fascinating!
What a horrible toxic aggressive person.
And in the series she is later apologized by crew and eventually by Will... because she was a "victim". Got it.
Awesome
aaaaand normalizing of assaulting men at any point - check!
What is McAvoy doing at the beginning when he was acting like talking to producer while he was not? I saw the script said "Is he screening with us? Come on." What is the meaning of screen with us?
Shelly Wexler in The Newsroom, Sherri Wexler in The West Wing.
I started watching the second season of The Boys and I knew I recognized Stormfront!
Occupy wallstreet should have looked at this clip and changed their ways. Make it all about putting the right people in jail for the financial crisis and elect a spokesperson, not a "leader", to get it done. If there is something else they feel must be done, do that second, but keep the same level of focus. People were mad about the recession and threw mud at every conceivable problem all at once.
So many comments that read like this isn't a piece of fiction.
Under no circumstances is it ok to punch a man in the genitals. Emotional or not.
Which I think was the point. She, like most in the OWS movement, had very little clue and got made to look like a fool; emphasized by her rash action of a nut shot.
*stomach
Holy shit! That's stormfront! I've seen the news room 2 times and I didn't noticed her hahahaha and now this show is not gonna be the same for me :'v (stormfront second origin story XD)
The perfect postmortem on Occupy Wallstreet.
Yup, where’d they all go? To Twitter to whine about other things.
Will McAvoy: he slices, he dices, he makes julienne fries!!!!
He made hash browns...
Lol watching this and GME is happening. 😂😂😂
I would love to watch this show. (I know it's over but still)
Genius!!
After being humiliated on live TV, Stormfront vowed revenge!
I love the way casual assault is accepted in television if it is a woman who is assaulting a man. She viciously punches him in the stomach, and gets to walk away.
how is it just TV then? IRL, He could only put it on social media it happened and be called everything from a coward for not punching back. A misogynist for complaining about it. Being called a sissy because he talked about getting suckerpunched by a woman when they were alone in a hallway. And everyone will start to weave a tale about whether is was him coming onto her and he got grabby, or he was close and overbearing and "she had to defend herself" etc. Either way he becomes a pariah and she is a fake hero for a month. OR the legal aspect. He can press charges for assault. Either the attorney's tell him there is enough wiggle hearsay that a defense lawyer can use ANY above referenced situation statement and poison the trial if it even got past that point. He could try civil court but the same issue occurs. Point is instead of lambasting TV as being culpable for accepting a man being assaulted by a woman and there isn't a fair comeuppance for it, you should point out as well that it's IRL too.
This makes me sound like a misogynist but I really am more "Equalist" when possible here. If a man assaults a woman, who is more likely smaller and weighs less with smaller reach and strikes back The man started it and deserves retribution. If a Woman starts a fight, and assumes she can use the status of 'women smaller, are victims more often' and lie about the situation when the cops show up after he hits back after a few times. The cops will defer to the most likely scenario without videography to reference. Assume it's all him and arrest him instead. Hard to be equal to both parties when issues predate the situation.
It's because women's weakness makes their assaults generally unimportant. Getting upset about it is like getting upset about a kitten trying to bite a lion: the only issue significant is stopping the lion from mauling the weak little kitten.
OMG this is exactly happening in india
Is this a indirect mockery of the colbert report ketchup interview?
He's paid too little! LOL
He also points out that without goals, the OWS movement has no end.
The hipocrsy ..if a man punched a women it'd be what the clip was about but the women punches the man and it's about wall street
+Tony Abraham It's about a TV show; You seem to have missed the point entirely.
No he did not he was just making another one.
That isn't hypocrisy. That character isn't the show.
Reporter should've said "But why you mad bruh?"
Heyyyy it's stormfront!!!
And this clip perfectly explains why Occupy Wall Street aren't around
watch doug stanhope's comedy bit on occupy wall street, it's probably the best point that can be made about it.
STanhope is a national treasure, carrying the legacy of Carlin and HIcks
I could be wrong, is she the same actress who plays Stormfront on the show called The Boy’s
you are correct
you know I only wanted hbo max for all the cn cartoons, but after seeing these clips I really want to see this show
Keep scrolling to see an entire comment thread reacting as if this scene really happened.
Please give the link to the TEXT. I will use google Translate
Je viens de découvrir que SUR LA VIDEO on peut avoir les sous-titres en français
She's the actor who played Stormfront in the Boys. Good actor.
Stormfront what are you doing here?👀
Is that StormFront?
The only thing worse that seeing people expertly build something you hate to a quality such that it will never collapse, is seeing people haphazardly constructed something that you love and which will absolutely collapse at the slightest upset.
McAvoy's question is legit. If you're protesting on something, then you must propose of what should be done to tackle the problem. And you don't do it on street, you do that in congress.
I don't mean to throw shade, but that's a ridiculous statement. One does not need to know how to fix a problem in order speak out about the problem. When the AC in my office makes the place too cold, I protest to management. They then tell the maintenance dept to turn up the heat. In other words, my protestations reach the ears of those that DO know how to fix the problem. (Full disclosure: that was a fictitious example, but it does get my point across.) Our world is full of complex problems that will require complex solutions which in many cases will need teams of experts for fixes. It's silly to say "shut up if you don't personally know what to do".
It is like Will is talking to his audience, showing how stupid the majority of his audience is. Genius and mean at the same time.
Is that Stormfront??
Here’s the thing, I’m a social democrat though by American standards I’d be branded a socialist or even a commie but it illustrates the fact that the left are more focussed on theory. It’s fantastic that there’s so much debate and room for people to be heard but it leads to so much fragmentation that the right don’t even need to divide and conquer and in a most votes wins political system (as opposed to PR) it’s 1 conservative voice who are mostly unified against 5 left/lib voices that have broadly similar platforms but the stuff they differ on is enough to keep them fighting each other
I used to dispute that the right was unified. But then the President took forever to condemn the KKK and half-assed it and everything else he's ever done and everybody on the right just stopped criticizing him for it like the mythical suicidal lemmings walking off a cliff... so, yeah, the right is a little too united.
Except a few like me.
will's lucky shes not stormfront at that time..😁🤣😅
damn, she went from alternate left to alternate right.
If she was better prepared she would know how to take control of the interview. Instead of answering with 'yes'.
This aged well.
imagine assaulting a reporter and getting away with it
Turn the roles around, and have a man strike a woman, putting her to the ground. Still acceptable for prime-time television?
Who's the actress playing the occupy girl?
what happened in HK was similar
Liberty, Liberty, Liberty 🎶
Didn't he end up apologizing to her later?
The one thing I don't get... Neal clearly knows what Will is all about, and what he would do to this guest. He even mutters "Don't take the bait!" when Will calls her a "leader" because he saw that Will was going to use her predictable response to get his teeth into her before the "Death roll".
WHY DID HE NOT PREP HER? He knew 100% how this interview would turn out, he's clearly close to her and cares about her, AND she was the one with access to the source he needed. There is no reason to have let her go in unprepared. Sure, all the prep in the world wasn't going to save her, but maybe the end would have at least been merciful.
A movement without leadership or strong organization is hardly a movement, and not likely to achieve its goals.