What is the proper way to protest?

[tshile]

nope everything is straight or curved

[Zguy28]

11 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

I may have shared this. Last year, my daughter was studying the causes of the Civil War. Slavery was #5.

 

I told her if he was asked to list 5 causes on the test, she was to write, "Slavery, Slavery, Slavery, Slavery, and also Slavery" and I would handle the fallout.

It was about state's rights.......

 

 

....to own slaves.

5 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Wait, angles aren't real???

I've been lied to all these years. Who were those people in post-Roman Britain then?

[zoony]

1 hour ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

I may have shared this. Last year, my daughter was studying the causes of the Civil War. Slavery was #5.

 

I told her if he was asked to list 5 causes on the test, she was to write, "Slavery, Slavery, Slavery, Slavery, and also Slavery" and I would handle the fallout.

 

Is TX on common core?  My son is in 5th grade and they just spent two weeks on the civil war.  I had him prepared to pick a fight if they brought up "states rights".  He reported that they unequivocally taught that it was about slavery.  This would be entire state of TN.

 

[thebluefood]

Despite being Episcopalian, I've found myself going back to the Wicca Well time and time again for this phrase:

Quote

Harm none. Do what thou wilt.

I think this applies to most protesting. Unless provoked (and that's only in very dire situations - one in which you or someone you love is in imminent danger), doing serious harm to property or Creation (flora or fauna) is often counter-productive. Not only do you usually end up hurting yourself and your neighbors, but you also don't do much good for your cause.

Along those lines, if you're going to protest, I'd suggest taking this word of wisdom from my tradition's scriptures (regardless of your faith tradition):

Quote

Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you

If you want to make a stand, especially if you're in a vocation where socio-political protests aren't usually made (like sports) - it's always in your best interest to have a good reason for it and to be able to articulate it in the best way possible.

From what I've seen and read from Colin Kaepernick (which, mind you, isn't too much) - he's done both.

[twa]

49 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

Is TX on common core?

No

 

[Destino]

I think protests have to communicate two things, whatever the grievance is and demands of the group, in addition to being entirely non-violent.  This is not to say that violence breaking out means the protestors were on board with it, but they have to show that they are against it clearly.  I also include attempting to shut down an event by disrupting it from the inside or blocking people from entering, to be a form of violence. 

I have no problem at all with what Kaepernick is doing.  I question how effective it is and if he realizes the kind of trouble he's borrowing, but he's doing his thing for his reasons.  I can respect that.

For a protest to be extremely effective I think you need things like charismatic leaders communicating an inspiring positive vision that people want to be a part of.  Those kinds of people don't come around very often, so it's unrealistic to expect everyone with a real grievance to trot out someone destined to have their own chapter in history books.  They can, however, remember to give people a positive reason to join them.  If a protest is all about declaring everyone outside the group horrible, people are going to react predictably. 

 

 

[jpyaks3]

5 hours ago, Destino said:

I think protests have to communicate two things, whatever the grievance is and demands of the group, in addition to being entirely non-violent.  This is not to say that violence breaking out means the protestors were on board with it, but they have to show that they are against it clearly.  I also include attempting to shut down an event by disrupting it from the inside or blocking people from entering, to be a form of violence. 

For a protest to be extremely effective I think you need things like charismatic leaders communicating an inspiring positive vision that people want to be a part of.  Those kinds of people don't come around very often, so it's unrealistic to expect everyone with a real grievance to trot out someone destined to have their own chapter in history books.  They can, however, remember to give people a positive reason to join them.  If a protest is all about declaring everyone outside the group horrible, people are going to react predictably. 

 

 

From personal experience I would argue vehemently against both of these assertions. I was in Cairo for the Arab Spring and the overthrow of the Hosni Mubarak dictatorship and there was no single leader and it often got quite violent as police stations burned, the NDP building burned, and almost a thousand people were killed; however, that was an overwhelmingly successful and positive protest (what happened afterwards with the coup and subsequent dictatorship notwithstanding). My second experience is with student protests for equality in education in Chile, specifically the large Santiago marches, which had a slightly more coherent leadership (through college and high school student unions) but were often riot and were described as riotous and were demonized in the press, this was combined with large scale sit ins and school takeovers by student bodies often spontaneously. After years of sustained protest, disruptions, and marches (and quite a bit of property damage) the state began to take steps to rectify the situation and has been passing a series of laws that are in accordance with some of the demands. Neither of these protests fit your model of being non-violent, they also involved forcibly removing or preventing people from entering places, and neither had a unified or charismatic leader. For me all protest needs to be successful is authentic and dedicated action on the part of the people, organization helps, as does popular opinion but dedicated authentic protest does not follow laws, does not come in any one shape or size, and is often extremely disruptive to society.

[BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93]

Just stop giving a **** and do what you think/know will work. 

 

Throughout history, many different ways of protests have worked. The only common factor is not caring what the backlash is. 

[Destino]

2 hours ago, jpyaks3 said:

From personal experience I would argue vehemently against both of these assertions. I was in Cairo for the Arab Spring and the overthrow of the Hosni Mubarak dictatorship and there was no single leader and it often got quite violent as police stations burned, the NDP building burned, and almost a thousand people were killed; however, that was an overwhelmingly successful and positive protest (what happened afterwards with the coup and subsequent dictatorship notwithstanding). My second experience is with student protests for equality in education in Chile, specifically the large Santiago marches, which had a slightly more coherent leadership (through college and high school student unions) but were often riot and were described as riotous and were demonized in the press, this was combined with large scale sit ins and school takeovers by student bodies often spontaneously. After years of sustained protest, disruptions, and marches (and quite a bit of property damage) the state began to take steps to rectify the situation and has been passing a series of laws that are in accordance with some of the demands. Neither of these protests fit your model of being non-violent, they also involved forcibly removing or preventing people from entering places, and neither had a unified or charismatic leader. For me all protest needs to be successful is authentic and dedicated action on the part of the people, organization helps, as does popular opinion but dedicated authentic protest does not follow laws, does not come in any one shape or size, and is often extremely disruptive to society.

My comments were intended for protests within the context of the US.  There are places where violence can be seen as necessary... but I am not quick to trust violent mobs are anything more than power grabs.  As for your examples, there is room to argue.  

Egypt: I question your use of the words protest and positive.  Violence on that scale is something else.   I also question any commentary concerning large groups of angry people being moved to extreme acts of violence without looking closely examining at who benefits, who is hurt, and what follows.  

I'm Chilean, and I'm glad you brought up the student protests.  That movement is precisely what I was thinking of when I wrote the words "This is not to say that violence breaking out means the protestors were on board with it, but they have to show that they are against it clearly."  That communist backed movement has always excused their own violence while playing lip service to peace.  Berkeley liberals might fan themselves over it, but I'm not seeing success.  Years and years of violent protests and what do they have to show for it?  A government scholarship program that they themselves see as so disappointing that another wave student protests are starting again.  

Education reform in Chile has not benefitted from this lunacy.  Calm peaceful focus on attainable goals and gradual change would have accomplished a great deal more in my opinion.  Threatening to burn everything to ashes if the plan isn't extreme enough, quickly becomes counter productive.

 

[Renegade7]

Like a couple points being made in here.  

 

I almost prefer it to be disruptive to help make sure it isn't ignored, but I don't consider violence to be a form of protest.  I'd prefer an organized protest to have a clear message, plan, and goals, but I dont believe that should be a requirement for individuals trying to bring attention to certain issues.

 

 Please try to make sure you have your facts straight first, don't be a sheep.

[jpyaks3]

32 minutes ago, Destino said:

My comments were intended for protests within the context of the US.  There are places where violence can be seen as necessary... but I am not quick to trust violent mobs are anything more than power grabs.  As for your examples, there is room to argue.  

Egypt: I question your use of the words protest and positive.  Violence on that scale is something else.   I also question any commentary concerning large groups of angry people being moved to extreme acts of violence without looking closely examining at who benefits, who is hurt, and what follows.  
 

I agree that massive mobilizations of people like what happened throughout the Arab world is different from the current climate in the United States but I think it does provide a counterpoint to the need for a charismatic individual or a unified front. 

I am curious why you think that the Arab Spring and specifically the Egyptian revolution wouldn't qualify as a protest or as positive.

I'm Chilean, and I'm glad you brought up the student protests.  That movement is precisely what I was thinking of when I wrote the words "This is not to say that violence breaking out means the protestors were on board with it, but they have to show that they are against it clearly."  That communist backed movement has always excused their own violence while playing lip service to peace.  Berkeley liberals might fan themselves over it, but I'm not seeing success.  Years and years of violent protests and what do they have to show for it?  A government scholarship program that they themselves see as so disappointing that another wave student protests are starting again.  

Education reform in Chile has not benefitted from this lunacy.  Calm peaceful focus on attainable goals and gradual change would have accomplished a great deal more in my opinion.  Threatening to burn everything to ashes if the plan isn't extreme enough, quickly becomes counter productive.

I think it is undeniable that the protests have had impacts on the governance in Chile. The fact that the movement hasn't accomplished all their goals doesn't mean it has been a failure.

It is pretty easy to say that calm peaceful focus and gradual change would have accomplished a great deal more but where is the evidence of that? I think that the frustration with the lack of real movement from the government is legitimate and I am not sure that a gradual approach would really bear fruit since there doesn't seem to be an authentic push for change within the government.

Connecting it to my other protest point Egypt one of the reasons in my mind for the failure of the Egyptian revolution was the inability for the protests and the revolution to continue once Mubarak stepped down, this was largely managed by the military promising gradual reforms and not making "too extreme" a break from the dictatorship. This deflated protests and set the stage for the coup the occurred in 2013 so I think there are major issues with trying for a gradual path because you lose momentum, you are easily co-opted and re-directed, and those gradual demands often act as a pressure valve that prevents your bigger goals from being accomplished, in short there is temporary appeasement with the promise for more that never comes because it relives the pressure of the protest. 

[Destino]

A violent revolution and a protest are as different as saying the words "This is wrong" and shooting someone.  The two may have similarities, a revolution may start as a protest, but a violent revolution is not a protest.  As for the Arab Spring being positive, I simply don't see how it could be described as such.  The death toll and millions displaced and for what?  Civil wars, entrenched and resurgent terrorist groups, and a return to dictatorship for Egypt.  

The lack of a capable leader, the charasmatic visionary, to keep people moving towards the goal really hurt in Egypt.  When it came time to answer "what do we do now?"  They ended up with the Muslim Brotherhood... and an eventual return to military dictatorship.  

 

As for Chile, it's not that the movement hasn't accomplished all of their goals.  It's that the movement has accomplished almost none of them.  Student protestors will gladly tell you that their goal, the heart of what they stood for, was eliminating the entire concept of paying for school.  They wanted all education in Chile to be entirely government run and paid for.  What they've won is a scholarship program that helps some attend college, and political careers for a few of the leaders that took advantage of the spotlight.  They are so dismayed with those results that they are taking to the streets again.  The poor continue to struggle in bad schools and everyone else pays for better options.  Chilean education remains among the most expensive as a percentage of average yearly income.  

So by their own definition the government has refused to do what they've asked.  How can I call it a success when they say otherwise?  

The benefits of peaceful action and gradual change are seen in the transition from winning the political battle to actually creating the change.  Once they won a friendly President, there was never a shift to actual solutions.  The angry mobs are comfortable making demands but not in pivoting to the less glamorous role of developing a unified plan and then supporting that plan by volunteering for elections, knocking on doors, and educating voters on the plan.  Not as flashy or fun as rioting, and certainly a harder sell to students.

You say gradual change results in a loss of momentum but in Chile on this issue I disagree.  The absence of it and the inability to seize upon small victories as evidence of success, is what kills momentum.  Change within a democracy is rarely immediate and quick.  

[RonArtest15]

In any way that properly annoys TWA. 

[Springfield]

So what about refusing to police an event because one of th characters at the event disparages you?

[twa]

55 minutes ago, Springfield said:

So what about refusing to police an event because one of th characters at the event disparages you?

 

they are not slaves....I'm assuming you mean off duty cops?

 

of course no work ,no pay.

[TheGreatBuzz]

On 9/2/2016 at 11:12 AM, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

I may have shared this. Last year, my daughter was studying the causes of the Civil War. Slavery was #5.

 

I told her if he was asked to list 5 causes on the test, she was to write, "Slavery, Slavery, Slavery, Slavery, and also Slavery" and I would handle the fallout.

Out of curiosity,  what were causes 1-4?

[twa]

14 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Out of curiosity,  what were causes 1-4?

Yankees 

[zoony]

12 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Out of curiosity,  what were causes 1-4?

1. Lincolns philosophy of coercion

2. States rights 

3.  Yankee assholes

4. Price of tea in China 

[tshile]

12 hours ago, Springfield said:

So what about refusing to police an event because one of th characters at the event disparages you?

Like, CK's actions, I don't like them and question whether they will actually further their view on an issue or hurt it. The criticism is known before they even made the decision. But it's their choice. 

They're giving up extra pay, so at least they're actually sacrificing something for their protest (unlike CK - unless he actually donates that money)

Sort of reminds me when people started throwing rocks at police, chanting nasty things about police, then got bitter when the police significantly backed off and crime rose dramatically.