Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

What is the point of a protest in your opinion?


Califan007

Recommended Posts

Peace thru superior firepower.....I'm missing the pacifist gene:)

Most protests to me simply illustrate the weakness of their argument and reverting to hoping to gain by annoyance what they cannot thru discourse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peace thru superior firepower.....I'm missing the pacifist gene:)

Most protests to me simply illustrate the weakness of their argument and reverting to hoping to gain by annoyance what they cannot thru discourse.

depends on how they do it,

the Oakland "Commune" was a protest, but it was also participatory democracy, people gathered in the town square and had an exchange of idea, people took turns speaking their minds in a peaceful way. I see that as more useful than yelling at people and blocking sidewalks. And also, more useful than voting for what the scum try pass off as leaders nowadays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

depends on how they do it,

the Oakland "Commune" was a protest, but it was also participatory democracy, people gathered in the town square and had an exchange of idea, people took turns speaking their minds in a peaceful way. I see that as more useful than yelling at people and blocking sidewalks. And also, more useful than voting for what the scum try pass off as leaders nowadays.

More useful towards achieving the desired change?...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberty I would term that more a rally than protest from your description.

The descriptions I read in the press sound like a protest and not peaceful.

http://sanhati.com/articles/4310/

This mix of action and deliberation might seem a little hazardous at times, but the strength of this movement is perhaps in its very fragility. I thought, for example, that it was unproductive when yesterday (November 2nd) in the midst of the `Anti-Capitalist March’ around downtown Oakland which began at 2pm, a `mike check’ suggested that part of the march split off from the masked Anarchists who decided to engage in some destruction of property, mostly bank windows. The action of the ten or twenty young people was seen by some to constitute `violent’ as opposed to `peaceful’ protest, as well as an incitement to the police. While the question was never really resolved, we just kept moving. It was obvious that a decision to split off would have been a decision to criminalize and expose a segment: the question was answered by feet moving forward on the street. This was a test. Later last night when we spontaneously surrounded a car trying to speed through and access the docks, a `mike check’ allowed us to emphasize that we should not hurt any of the people in the car and instead allow them to retreat unharmed. In both cases, the `mike check’ ultimately served to calibrate and refine an action in real time and infuse it with the genius of the collective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

depends on how they do it,

the Oakland "Commune" was a protest, but it was also participatory democracy, people gathered in the town square and had an exchange of idea, people took turns speaking their minds in a peaceful way. I see that as more useful than yelling at people and blocking sidewalks. And also, more useful than voting for what the scum try pass off as leaders nowadays.

+1

Particularly when good ideas are generated from such discourse. Also affords a platform for new leaders to emerge and replace the "scum".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of protesters in a democracy...so yes,methods and justifiability matter

if it is truly just it is worth bloodshed

I realize you're probably just stirring the :pooh: pot but I'll take the bait anyway.

This has got to be one of the sillier things I've heard uttered around here. It's akin to saying that every crime, no matter how minor deserves the death penalty. So for example, let's say I hate red light cameras (which I do) and want to start a movement to get rid of them. Is that worth bloodshed?

IIRC you're against abortion. If my memory is correct, have you initiated any bloodshed about that very worthy issue? If not, you're either a hypocrite or you're just stirring the :pooh: pot as previously mentioned.

Every agitator from George Washington to Jim Jones, the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh and everything in between has been absolutely certain their cause was just. If peaceful demonstrations give the crackpots a nonviolent outlet to voice their discontent, I'd say that's a good thing, nevermind that whole free speech thingy.

You people and your 2nd ammendment solutions. Sheesh! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom of Speach. (Peaceful)

taken for granted till you leave the States and try it in 93% of the other countries.

the other 7% will give you and afternoon, before they decide you've had enough.

Are you saying the point of a protest is to exercise your freedom of speech?...Or that freedom of speech in this country is what allows people to protest, but not the point OF the protest? (or both? lol)

---------- Post added November-26th-2011 at 08:04 AM ----------

Draw attention to an issue

To feel a part of

How do you know when enough attention has been drawn by the protest?

I definitely understand the "to feel a part of" explanation :yes:...I think that's a huge part of the motivation for a lot of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It only sums it up if you're an idiot.

No jobs. No money trickling down like it was supposed to.

If these corporations were following through on their end of the deal as to why they get all the tax breaks then there would not be a protest of such size. If these people had jobs they could go to, there would not be such large protests. (Oh, but wait,, they're all just smelly hippy kids, right?)

But hey,, so long as a propagandist can show you that protesters have to wear clothing (made by corporations) and eat food ( distributed by corporations) and use products (made by corporations) and you believe that makes the whole point moot, then all it does it make it easy for the 1% to manipulate you into believing that you should fight for their right to plunder and loot this country.

Wake the **** up. Don't be such a sucker.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This pretty much sums it up

Except it doesn't. Who says only huge multinationals would or could produce all the products mentioned in the pic you posted? Oh noes!! We can't lives without our Walmart!! :rolleyes:

Without huge multinationals some products or services might not be possible and others would undoubtedly cost more. However we'd likely have more/higher paying jobs, more local control over business interests, more variety and innovation, higher quality, better service and less corporate control over government,. On balance I'd say it's not a bad trade.

So the pic is a bit of mildly amusing social commentary. Unfortunately it oversimplifies and leaves out a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the pic is a bit of mildly amusing social commentary. Unfortunately it oversimplifies and leaves out a lot.

That's what humorous social commentary does, though lol...it oversimplifies and leaves out a lot while getting a certain viewpoint across. Jon Stewart has made his living off of oversimplifying and leaving out a lot, but doing so in a smart and funny way. Political cartooons do the same thing. Hell, Bang's cartoons oversimplify and leave out a lot in their humorous sports commentary.

---------- Post added November-26th-2011 at 09:06 AM ----------

Follow-up question for anyone who wants to answer:

Which protests do you feel have been the most effective at drawing attention to an important issue and igniting changes concerning that issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...