THOSE GUYS IN ANONYMOUS
THEY'RE FIGHTING FOR CHANGE
SEE HERE IS THEIR CHANGE FACTORY:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1715856/anon_wtf.jpg)
Edit: Split from pics thread - Dok
Yeah. They should prolly stick with artisinal anonymasks.
Quote from: V3X on July 02, 2013, 07:56:59 PM
THOSE GUYS IN ANONYMOUS
THEY'RE FIGHTING FOR CHANGE
SEE HERE IS THEIR CHANGE FACTORY:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1715856/anon_wtf.jpg)
This is the future I was expecting. Orton Nenslo wrote some brilliant shit about this very thing. I can try to find it and paste it if anyone's interested.
Just so you all know, those dust masks make NO difference to your health when painting. Filter masks or don't bother.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 02, 2013, 10:11:34 PM
Quote from: V3X on July 02, 2013, 07:56:59 PM
THOSE GUYS IN ANONYMOUS
THEY'RE FIGHTING FOR CHANGE
SEE HERE IS THEIR CHANGE FACTORY:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1715856/anon_wtf.jpg)
This is the future I was expecting. Orton Nenslo wrote some brilliant shit about this very thing. I can try to find it and paste it if anyone's interested.
This comment expresses interest in said thing.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 02, 2013, 10:17:31 PM
Just so you all know, those dust masks make NO difference to your health when painting. Filter masks or don't bother.
I'm impressed they've got masks at all. PR shot? That piece sounds interesting too if you come across it.
Great image though. Did anyone think that their cheap generic protest mask was made with a clean labour and production chain? Of course not. Practically everything, at every level, has a significant cost to other humans. Even your righteous cause.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 02, 2013, 10:17:31 PM
Just so you all know, those dust masks make NO difference to your health when painting. Filter masks or don't bother.
Notice the fumes just hanging in the air...They don't even have a good fan. I mean, at the least, they could be doing that in an open shed.
I have to paint in waterbase, aromatic petroleum products are not my friends.
...There is a small galvanizing operation near where I was working at the time when I got sick.
I drove past there.
They do the galvanizing work in open bays, and the workers were working with
no respiratory protection at all.All brown people too, so I suspect they use folks with no papers.
When you're illegally here, I guess you either don't know or don't care you're bloody well galvanizing your lungs...and if you complain La Migra shows up.
:sad: :argh!:
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 02, 2013, 10:48:54 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 02, 2013, 10:17:31 PM
Just so you all know, those dust masks make NO difference to your health when painting. Filter masks or don't bother.
I'm impressed they've got masks at all. PR shot? That piece sounds interesting too if you come across it.
Great image though. Did anyone think that their cheap generic protest mask was made with a clean labour and production chain? Of course not. Practically everything, at every level, has a significant cost to other humans. Even your righteous cause.
HUMANS: EVEN WHEN WE DO GOOD THINGS, SOMEONE TAKES IT IN THE ASS.
Quote from: V3X on July 02, 2013, 07:56:59 PM
THOSE GUYS IN ANONYMOUS
THEY'RE FIGHTING FOR CHANGE
SEE HERE IS THEIR CHANGE FACTORY:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1715856/anon_wtf.jpg)
Yeah, that's fucking depressing.
Quote from: V3X on July 02, 2013, 10:46:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 02, 2013, 10:11:34 PM
Quote from: V3X on July 02, 2013, 07:56:59 PM
THOSE GUYS IN ANONYMOUS
THEY'RE FIGHTING FOR CHANGE
SEE HERE IS THEIR CHANGE FACTORY:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1715856/anon_wtf.jpg)
This is the future I was expecting. Orton Nenslo wrote some brilliant shit about this very thing. I can try to find it and paste it if anyone's interested.
This comment expresses interest in said thing.
Same here. Also, Doc, what is the title off that piece
you wrote about how at every level someone is someone else's slave?
I'd like to see all that stuff, too.
And I saw somebody else talking about this a couple of years back - it might have been John Trudell? - saying how when people protest they're buying posterboard and markers from Them.
Deck = too goddamn stacked.
We have to buy everything from "Them" anyway, that's why we protest.
I have heard many versions of "pointing out the hypocrisy in protesters" and they all boil down to the same basic message, which is "How dare that slave try to run away wearing trousers the Master gave him".
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 03, 2013, 06:25:56 AM
We have to buy everything from "Them" anyway, that's why we protest.
I have heard many versions of "pointing out the hypocrisy in protesters" and they all boil down to the same basic message, which is "How dare that slave try to run away wearing trousers the Master gave him".
Yeah, this. :x Well said.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 03, 2013, 06:25:56 AM
We have to buy everything from "Them" anyway, that's why we protest.
I have heard many versions of "pointing out the hypocrisy in protesters" and they all boil down to the same basic message, which is "How dare that slave try to run away wearing trousers the Master gave him".
:lulz:
That's awesome.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 03, 2013, 06:25:56 AM
We have to buy everything from "Them" anyway, that's why we protest.
I have heard many versions of "pointing out the hypocrisy in protesters" and they all boil down to the same basic message, which is "How dare that slave try to run away wearing trousers the Master gave him".
Thank you. I was getting all mad about this and I couldn't articulate it.
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s526x395/1010695_374233219343158_1366493416_n.jpg)
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/de32b2185c63dc06da41d2849261e9b9/tumblr_mont5kdSMW1qabj53o1_400.jpg)
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/5752df92c7e0939b9c300ea152578dff/tumblr_mp9mbnjIh81qbt9ldo1_400.jpg)
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/d78cfbf127280546ed130c823d1484df/tumblr_mp9mxoFvr81qb5xxvo1_400.jpg)
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 03, 2013, 06:25:56 AM
We have to buy everything from "Them" anyway, that's why we protest.
I have heard many versions of "pointing out the hypocrisy in protesters" and they all boil down to the same basic message, which is "How dare that slave try to run away wearing trousers the Master gave him".
Actually it's more than just making masks with cheap labor. I mean, that by itself is morally equivalent to broadcasting pirate TV or radio on frequencies owned or licensed by somebody else. What I object to isn't the physical act of making the masks and how that ultimately benefits the same entities who benefit from consumerism, but the fact that Anonymous, like everything else, is just another Brand™ to choose from. Another prepackaged, rebel-based motif with which to decorate your entirely docile, domesticated, non-threatening existence. Like anything that called itself "punk" after 1980.
Anonymous is now a product on the shelf, and though that isn't what it's intended to be and certainly isn't what it started out as, it has been effectively consumerized in record time. The picture sort of illustrates that point, for me at least.
Quote from: V3X on July 03, 2013, 05:02:59 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 03, 2013, 06:25:56 AM
We have to buy everything from "Them" anyway, that's why we protest.
I have heard many versions of "pointing out the hypocrisy in protesters" and they all boil down to the same basic message, which is "How dare that slave try to run away wearing trousers the Master gave him".
Actually it's more than just making masks with cheap labor. I mean, that by itself is morally equivalent to broadcasting pirate TV or radio on frequencies owned or licensed by somebody else. What I object to isn't the physical act of making the masks and how that ultimately benefits the same entities who benefit from consumerism, but the fact that Anonymous, like everything else, is just another Brand™ to choose from. Another prepackaged, rebel-based motif with which to decorate your entirely docile, domesticated, non-threatening existence. Like anything that called itself "punk" after 1980.
Anonymous is now a product on the shelf, and though that isn't what it's intended to be and certainly isn't what it started out as, it has been effectively consumerized in record time. The picture sort of illustrates that point, for me at least.
That's what Orton Nenslo was talking about.
(http://i44.tinypic.com/2nbbqlg.jpg)
That's not a park. It's an office cubicle with occasional rain :argh!:
Quote
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/8446_482305451846392_1842982889_n.jpg) (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1715856/anon_wtf.jpg)
I wonder what they would say to each other if they ever met.
Quote from: V3X on July 03, 2013, 05:02:59 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 03, 2013, 06:25:56 AM
We have to buy everything from "Them" anyway, that's why we protest.
I have heard many versions of "pointing out the hypocrisy in protesters" and they all boil down to the same basic message, which is "How dare that slave try to run away wearing trousers the Master gave him".
Actually it's more than just making masks with cheap labor. I mean, that by itself is morally equivalent to broadcasting pirate TV or radio on frequencies owned or licensed by somebody else. What I object to isn't the physical act of making the masks and how that ultimately benefits the same entities who benefit from consumerism, but the fact that Anonymous, like everything else, is just another Brand™ to choose from. Another prepackaged, rebel-based motif with which to decorate your entirely docile, domesticated, non-threatening existence. Like anything that called itself "punk" after 1980.
Anonymous is now a product on the shelf, and though that isn't what it's intended to be and certainly isn't what it started out as, it has been effectively consumerized in record time. The picture sort of illustrates that point, for me at least.
Actually, I think that's nonsense. Saying that it's been "consumerized" because the emblematic mask that was chosen for its symbolic link to the freedom fighter from V for Vendetta is now more recognizable as a symbol of Anonymous protest is blatantly ridiculous. It's like saying that protesting is consumerized because of the recognizable prevalence of red bandanas as protest wear. Red bandanas were already being mass-produced before people started wearing them to protect their airways from teargas, and Guy Fawkes masks were already being mass-produced before they were latched onto by protesters (which happened before Anonymous co-opted them, by the way). Anonymous is a tiny fraction of the market for those masks... and if it's more than a tiny fraction, then they are indeed a movement for the powers-that-be to fear.
Being "Consumerized" is what we call it when products are
driven to market by a movement, not what we call it when a movement happens to pick something up that is widely available and cheap.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 04, 2013, 01:16:22 AM
Quote from: V3X on July 03, 2013, 05:02:59 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 03, 2013, 06:25:56 AM
We have to buy everything from "Them" anyway, that's why we protest.
I have heard many versions of "pointing out the hypocrisy in protesters" and they all boil down to the same basic message, which is "How dare that slave try to run away wearing trousers the Master gave him".
Actually it's more than just making masks with cheap labor. I mean, that by itself is morally equivalent to broadcasting pirate TV or radio on frequencies owned or licensed by somebody else. What I object to isn't the physical act of making the masks and how that ultimately benefits the same entities who benefit from consumerism, but the fact that Anonymous, like everything else, is just another Brand™ to choose from. Another prepackaged, rebel-based motif with which to decorate your entirely docile, domesticated, non-threatening existence. Like anything that called itself "punk" after 1980.
Anonymous is now a product on the shelf, and though that isn't what it's intended to be and certainly isn't what it started out as, it has been effectively consumerized in record time. The picture sort of illustrates that point, for me at least.
Actually, I think that's nonsense. Saying that it's been "consumerized" because the emblematic mask that was chosen for its symbolic link to the freedom fighter from V for Vendetta is now more recognizable as a symbol of Anonymous protest is blatantly ridiculous. It's like saying that protesting is consumerized because of the recognizable prevalence of red bandanas as protest wear. Red bandanas were already being mass-produced before people started wearing them to protect their airways from teargas, and Guy Fawkes masks were already being mass-produced before they were latched onto by protesters (which happened before Anonymous co-opted them, by the way). Anonymous is a tiny fraction of the market for those masks... and if it's more than a tiny fraction, then they are indeed a movement for the powers-that-be to fear.
Being "Consumerized" is what we call it when products are driven to market by a movement, not what we call it when a movement happens to pick something up that is widely available and cheap.
No, that wasn't what I was saying. It isn't "consumerized" just because it has a symbol, or just because that symbol is co-opted from mass media, or because it is mass-produced. It's consumerized because rebellion in general is now a brand. A subculture. Almost as easily defined and prepared for as it is recognizable. "Down with the system" is the new "Just do it." The net result on society is zero -- not because nothing changes but because those changes are gradual enough for the status quo to adapt to them ahead of time.
Protesters brought down a string of governments across North Africa and the Middle East, but so far their revolutions have failed to accomplish anything very impressive at a cultural level. In the rest of the world, these protesters have done even less. We amass in Free Speech Zones, wave signs, make a racket with drum circles, get kicked and shot at by the police, choke on tear gas, get knocked over by water cannons, arrested, released, and then we go home and blog about it between community service assignments.
The revolution is a product, another group identity available to anyone who's too jaded to be a Wiccan. It's barely more dangerous than being a Goth kid was when I was in high school, and all the extra danger is to your own reputation and employability.
Part of the reason that is that way is because there are no alternatives.
Kids don't want to burn down Starbucks or turn over police cars, they want to go to college, live in a house, and eat food. Go to the movies have a drink.
The only way yo dismantle all of that is to burn it all to the ground, and nobody is willing to do that because they just want the world to be a nice place to.live.
Quote from: Alty on July 04, 2013, 03:20:15 AM
Part of the reason that is that way is because there are no alternatives.
Kids don't want to burn down Starbucks or turn over police cars, they want to go to college, live in a house, and eat food. Go to the movies have a drink.
The only way yo dismantle all of that is to burn it all to the ground, and nobody is willing to do that because they just want the world to be a nice place to.live.
"What do you get when you burn down the ghetto? You get a burned-down ghetto."
- MLK.
Quote from: Alty on July 04, 2013, 03:20:15 AM
Part of the reason that is that way is because there are no alternatives.
Kids don't want to burn down Starbucks or turn over police cars, they want to go to college, live in a house, and eat food. Go to the movies have a drink.
The only way yo dismantle all of that is to burn it all to the ground, and nobody is willing to do that because they just want the world to be a nice place to.live.
Right, they don't want to burn it down. That might get in the way of enjoying all the benefits of this evil system they hate so much. Nobody
wants Asian sweatshops or blood for oil but let's not be
hasty. Everybody wants an equitable world where justice is the rule instead of the exception, you know, as long as it doesn't cost too much.
Quote from: V3X on July 04, 2013, 03:48:23 AM
Quote from: Alty on July 04, 2013, 03:20:15 AM
Part of the reason that is that way is because there are no alternatives.
Kids don't want to burn down Starbucks or turn over police cars, they want to go to college, live in a house, and eat food. Go to the movies have a drink.
The only way yo dismantle all of that is to burn it all to the ground, and nobody is willing to do that because they just want the world to be a nice place to.live.
Right, they don't want to burn it down. That might get in the way of enjoying all the benefits of this evil system they hate so much. Nobody wants Asian sweatshops or blood for oil but let's not be hasty. Everybody wants an equitable world where justice is the rule instead of the exception, you know, as long as it doesn't cost too much.
Yeah.
I think my cynicism is bigger than yours. Justice is as illusory and meaty as love, man. It's something we chase but can never catch.
I don't disagree with you, but would ask:
Why should anyone want to burn down their world when a few greedy people are the only thing keeping it from being beautiful?
People want factories to work in. They don't want slavery.
It's like saying it's the fault of the legion of homeless are to blame for fucked up toxic mortgages. Sure they could not pay the bill.
WHY could they not? How did they get there?
Quote from: V3X on July 04, 2013, 03:48:23 AM
Quote from: Alty on July 04, 2013, 03:20:15 AM
Part of the reason that is that way is because there are no alternatives.
Kids don't want to burn down Starbucks or turn over police cars, they want to go to college, live in a house, and eat food. Go to the movies have a drink.
The only way yo dismantle all of that is to burn it all to the ground, and nobody is willing to do that because they just want the world to be a nice place to.live.
Right, they don't want to burn it down. That might get in the way of enjoying all the benefits of this evil system they hate so much. Nobody wants Asian sweatshops or blood for oil but let's not be hasty. Everybody wants an equitable world where justice is the rule instead of the exception, you know, as long as it doesn't cost too much.
At some point, you have to make the decision to fix something or scrap it.
Where are you in that process?
I would so work in a factory, to fill the gaps in income, given the chance.
There are no factories.
I'd open up a Guy Fawkes mask factory, if I could compete with the Big Boys.
That would.make BANK.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 04, 2013, 04:02:35 AM
Quote from: V3X on July 04, 2013, 03:48:23 AM
Quote from: Alty on July 04, 2013, 03:20:15 AM
Part of the reason that is that way is because there are no alternatives.
Kids don't want to burn down Starbucks or turn over police cars, they want to go to college, live in a house, and eat food. Go to the movies have a drink.
The only way yo dismantle all of that is to burn it all to the ground, and nobody is willing to do that because they just want the world to be a nice place to.live.
Right, they don't want to burn it down. That might get in the way of enjoying all the benefits of this evil system they hate so much. Nobody wants Asian sweatshops or blood for oil but let's not be hasty. Everybody wants an equitable world where justice is the rule instead of the exception, you know, as long as it doesn't cost too much.
At some point, you have to make the decision to fix something or scrap it.
Where are you in that process?
I help fix people who are broken from a sedentary life of bland servitude be as free from pain as possible. I breaka my body down to do so,and end up strong for it.
I can't speak for others, but that still doesn't help me.sleep at night.
Meanwhile, if you folks bring the kerosene, I've got the matches.
I'm all for it burning, I'm growing BUGS for FOOD.
I am PREPPING.
I'd rather get in their cute.little faces RE: their gross lack of human nature so one more.person is less satisfied with the shitshow they is their lives. I like to employ a personal touch.
All I know is that if painless dentistry goes, I'm going with it.
I feel like most people can't afford to burn it all down. It seems like you'd need to be self sufficient in a "I will eat bugs and hunt for my meals, I know where to find water and how to make it safe to drink, I know how to make a shelter or can defend my shelter well enough that I won't die of exposure" sort of way, or at least have a lot of money and food stocked up, in order to survive such a major overhaul of society, and I am not sure even fifty percent of the population of anywhere that has these sort of problems can say that they can do that.
Hi. I'm part of the problem. Deal with it.
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 04, 2013, 12:52:13 AM
Quote
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/8446_482305451846392_1842982889_n.jpg) (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1715856/anon_wtf.jpg)
I wonder what they would say to each other if they ever met.
"Sorry bro, no refunds."
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 04, 2013, 04:19:58 AM
Hi. I'm part of the problem. Deal with it.
We all are, but at least i try not to be so cavalier and cynical about it.
Quote from: The Johnny on July 04, 2013, 04:24:55 AM
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on July 04, 2013, 12:52:13 AM
Quote
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/8446_482305451846392_1842982889_n.jpg) (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1715856/anon_wtf.jpg)
I wonder what they would say to each other if they ever met.
"Sorry bro, no refunds."
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
INTERBUTTS OVER. JOHNNY WINS.
What's to fix? Everything works just fine, or at least better than it does in a lot of places. We have elections. More votes get counted than thrown out. The problem isn't that we're thoroughly fucked by powers too big to overcome, it's that we consistently choose to keep being fucked. I'm less disgusted by the fat cats and useless politicians than by the masses who let them keep calling the shots. And that robs me of my motivation to shake things up, because what am I going to do, declare myself Emperor? Whatever happens, you eventually have to hand the keys over to 300 million ignorant monkeys and hope for the best. The way things are now, at least I have a house and food to eat. So, obviously, I'm not even one to preach at Anonymous for being a toothless subculture based on the superficial appearance of revolutionaries. I'm in the same boat.
So where I am in the process is, I guess, the "more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed" phase.
Quote from: The Johnny on July 04, 2013, 04:26:32 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 04, 2013, 04:19:58 AM
Hi. I'm part of the problem. Deal with it.
We all are, but at least i try not to be so cavalier and cynical about it.
That's one way to put it.
"Honest" would also work. I have real motivations for trying to fix the system. I have no motivation to destroy it, because I benefit from it. I would prefer that more people benefited and less people got pooped on.
If we burn it down, everyone gets pooped on.
Quote from: V3X on July 04, 2013, 04:28:39 AM
What's to fix? Everything works just fine, or at least better than it does in a lot of places. We have elections. More votes get counted than thrown out. The problem isn't that we're thoroughly fucked by powers too big to overcome, it's that we consistently choose to keep being fucked. I'm less disgusted by the fat cats and useless politicians than by the masses who let them keep calling the shots. And that robs me of my motivation to shake things up, because what am I going to do, declare myself Emperor? Whatever happens, you eventually have to hand the keys over to 300 million ignorant monkeys and hope for the best. The way things are now, at least I have a house and food to eat. So, obviously, I'm not even one to preach at Anonymous for being a toothless subculture based on the superficial appearance of revolutionaries. I'm in the same boat.
So where I am in the process is, I guess, the "more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed" phase.
Okay, I can buy that.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 04, 2013, 04:29:02 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 04, 2013, 04:26:32 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 04, 2013, 04:19:58 AM
Hi. I'm part of the problem. Deal with it.
We all are, but at least i try not to be so cavalier and cynical about it.
That's one way to put it.
"Honest" would also work. I have real motivations for trying to fix the system. I have no motivation to destroy it, because I benefit from it. I would prefer that more people benefited and less people got pooped on.
If we burn it down, everyone gets pooped on.
The devil is in the details.
If 50% of the population had a spine and basic human empathy, everything would be different within the same system that we use.
this video came to mind: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ5WPXxNzPU
in which the singer can be interpreted as the plutocracy speaking... macabrely calm while the rioting goes on, for they kmow that all the petty directionless squabbling will end at any given moment, and since nobody has a spine will just proceed to buy everyone out.
there you go, a. Mona Lisa for the 1% :lulz:
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/7c7bfe70975d2262c92643bf30d7e5db/tumblr_mpdx73Zurf1qb5gkjo3_250.jpg)(http://25.media.tumblr.com/ca21fd72937c734c1a8976b79a378661/tumblr_mpdx73Zurf1qb5gkjo4_250.jpg)
Quote from: V3X on July 04, 2013, 04:28:39 AM
The problem isn't that we're thoroughly fucked by powers too big to overcome, it's that we consistently choose to keep being fucked.
Tell me more about how the people getting fucked over
choose it.
Quote from: V3X on July 04, 2013, 04:28:39 AM
I'm less disgusted by the fat cats and useless politicians than by the masses who let them keep calling the shots. And that robs me of my motivation to shake things up, because what am I going to do, declare myself Emperor?
On one hand the masses "let them keep calling the shots", as though there is a workable alternative. On the other hand, you let yourself off the hook because you can't articulate an alternative either—and it's the masses fault for not coming up with one to
inspire you.
:tyra:
Quote from: V3X on July 04, 2013, 04:28:39 AM
The way things are now, at least I have a house and food to eat. So, obviously, I'm not even one to preach at Anonymous for being a toothless subculture based on the superficial appearance of revolutionaries. I'm in the same boat.
You're not one to preach at Anonymous... even though that's exactly what you did?
And who exactly are you in the same boat with?
Quote from: Alty on July 04, 2013, 03:20:15 AMthey just want the world to be a nice place to.live.
This.
Regardless of the rhetoric involved, all protest damage is intended as symbolic (whether or not it really is purely symbolic), because in the end the point of protest is to make the world a better place, rather than to fuck things up out of spite against a world that isn't equitable enough. A protest says "we could fuck up your shit, but we don't want to", and a riot proves it, but neither one does or should actually cause major economic damage because that isn't the point.
People who don't want to work within the system, and who would rather replace it with some other system, don't buy masks and shout in the streets. They form independent communes and fuck off into the woods. Protests and riots are tools of incremental improvements of existing societies through displays of strength and popular opinion. They achieve fuck-all, but they aren't intended to ever be quite as revolutionary as their rhetoric claims, because otherwise they wouldn't be protests -- they'd be revolutions.
Quote from: V3X on July 04, 2013, 03:12:53 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 04, 2013, 01:16:22 AM
Quote from: V3X on July 03, 2013, 05:02:59 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 03, 2013, 06:25:56 AM
We have to buy everything from "Them" anyway, that's why we protest.
I have heard many versions of "pointing out the hypocrisy in protesters" and they all boil down to the same basic message, which is "How dare that slave try to run away wearing trousers the Master gave him".
Actually it's more than just making masks with cheap labor. I mean, that by itself is morally equivalent to broadcasting pirate TV or radio on frequencies owned or licensed by somebody else. What I object to isn't the physical act of making the masks and how that ultimately benefits the same entities who benefit from consumerism, but the fact that Anonymous, like everything else, is just another Brand™ to choose from. Another prepackaged, rebel-based motif with which to decorate your entirely docile, domesticated, non-threatening existence. Like anything that called itself "punk" after 1980.
Anonymous is now a product on the shelf, and though that isn't what it's intended to be and certainly isn't what it started out as, it has been effectively consumerized in record time. The picture sort of illustrates that point, for me at least.
Actually, I think that's nonsense. Saying that it's been "consumerized" because the emblematic mask that was chosen for its symbolic link to the freedom fighter from V for Vendetta is now more recognizable as a symbol of Anonymous protest is blatantly ridiculous. It's like saying that protesting is consumerized because of the recognizable prevalence of red bandanas as protest wear. Red bandanas were already being mass-produced before people started wearing them to protect their airways from teargas, and Guy Fawkes masks were already being mass-produced before they were latched onto by protesters (which happened before Anonymous co-opted them, by the way). Anonymous is a tiny fraction of the market for those masks... and if it's more than a tiny fraction, then they are indeed a movement for the powers-that-be to fear.
Being "Consumerized" is what we call it when products are driven to market by a movement, not what we call it when a movement happens to pick something up that is widely available and cheap.
No, that wasn't what I was saying. It isn't "consumerized" just because it has a symbol, or just because that symbol is co-opted from mass media, or because it is mass-produced. It's consumerized because rebellion in general is now a brand. A subculture. Almost as easily defined and prepared for as it is recognizable. "Down with the system" is the new "Just do it." The net result on society is zero -- not because nothing changes but because those changes are gradual enough for the status quo to adapt to them ahead of time.
Protesters brought down a string of governments across North Africa and the Middle East, but so far their revolutions have failed to accomplish anything very impressive at a cultural level. In the rest of the world, these protesters have done even less. We amass in Free Speech Zones, wave signs, make a racket with drum circles, get kicked and shot at by the police, choke on tear gas, get knocked over by water cannons, arrested, released, and then we go home and blog about it between community service assignments.
The revolution is a product, another group identity available to anyone who's too jaded to be a Wiccan. It's barely more dangerous than being a Goth kid was when I was in high school, and all the extra danger is to your own reputation and employability.
Tell that to Egypt.
Quote from: Alty on July 04, 2013, 04:01:10 AM
Quote from: V3X on July 04, 2013, 03:48:23 AM
Quote from: Alty on July 04, 2013, 03:20:15 AM
Part of the reason that is that way is because there are no alternatives.
Kids don't want to burn down Starbucks or turn over police cars, they want to go to college, live in a house, and eat food. Go to the movies have a drink.
The only way yo dismantle all of that is to burn it all to the ground, and nobody is willing to do that because they just want the world to be a nice place to.live.
Right, they don't want to burn it down. That might get in the way of enjoying all the benefits of this evil system they hate so much. Nobody wants Asian sweatshops or blood for oil but let's not be hasty. Everybody wants an equitable world where justice is the rule instead of the exception, you know, as long as it doesn't cost too much.
Yeah.
I think my cynicism is bigger than yours. Justice is as illusory and meaty as love, man. It's something we chase but can never catch.
I don't disagree with you, but would ask:
Why should anyone want to burn down their world when a few greedy people are the only thing keeping it from being beautiful?
People want factories to work in. They don't want slavery.
It's like saying it's the fault of the legion of homeless are to blame for fucked up toxic mortgages. Sure they could not pay the bill.
WHY could they not? How did they get there?
Thank you for bringing a little depth of thinking to this thread.
Quote from: V3X on July 04, 2013, 04:28:39 AM
What's to fix? Everything works just fine, or at least better than it does in a lot of places. We have elections. More votes get counted than thrown out. The problem isn't that we're thoroughly fucked by powers too big to overcome, it's that we consistently choose to keep being fucked. I'm less disgusted by the fat cats and useless politicians than by the masses who let them keep calling the shots. And that robs me of my motivation to shake things up, because what am I going to do, declare myself Emperor? Whatever happens, you eventually have to hand the keys over to 300 million ignorant monkeys and hope for the best. The way things are now, at least I have a house and food to eat. So, obviously, I'm not even one to preach at Anonymous for being a toothless subculture based on the superficial appearance of revolutionaries. I'm in the same boat.
So where I am in the process is, I guess, the "more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed" phase.
Awww, you're adorable! :lulz:
Quote from: Polyethyline Glycol on July 04, 2013, 03:06:58 PM
Quote from: Alty on July 04, 2013, 03:20:15 AMthey just want the world to be a nice place to.live.
This.
Regardless of the rhetoric involved, all protest damage is intended as symbolic (whether or not it really is purely symbolic), because in the end the point of protest is to make the world a better place, rather than to fuck things up out of spite against a world that isn't equitable enough. A protest says "we could fuck up your shit, but we don't want to", and a riot proves it, but neither one does or should actually cause major economic damage because that isn't the point.
People who don't want to work within the system, and who would rather replace it with some other system, don't buy masks and shout in the streets. They form independent communes and fuck off into the woods. Protests and riots are tools of incremental improvements of existing societies through displays of strength and popular opinion. They achieve fuck-all, but they aren't intended to ever be quite as revolutionary as their rhetoric claims, because otherwise they wouldn't be protests -- they'd be revolutions.
And also this.
I am astonished to find myself agreeing with you, but this was perfectly stated.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 04, 2013, 07:25:06 PM
Tell that to Egypt.
You mean that country that successfully kicked out a secular tyrant and replaced him with an Islamist, then got tired of him and opted for a military coup instead? Rah, progress!
Or maybe we should talk about Tunisia and its continued unrest, assassinations, and political chaos.
Or Libya. Or Syria, maybe, where things are going so well that they have a full-blown civil war and we are now arming the guys who literally eat their enemies' hearts. I have a hard time being impressed by revolutions that always devolve into sectarian bullshit because nobody can get past the whole "my god vs. your god" thing. Reasonable secular protests give way to religious chaos and violence. That isn't really "accomplishing" anything.
But then I'm not talking about the Arab Spring or any other country where protesters at least make the news. I'm talking mainly about America, where a protest is an overblown barbecue and half the people can't even list the reasons they're there coherently. They're there for a social event.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 04, 2013, 07:30:30 PM
Quote from: Polyethyline Glycol on July 04, 2013, 03:06:58 PM
Quote from: Alty on July 04, 2013, 03:20:15 AMthey just want the world to be a nice place to.live.
This.
Regardless of the rhetoric involved, all protest damage is intended as symbolic (whether or not it really is purely symbolic), because in the end the point of protest is to make the world a better place, rather than to fuck things up out of spite against a world that isn't equitable enough. A protest says "we could fuck up your shit, but we don't want to", and a riot proves it, but neither one does or should actually cause major economic damage because that isn't the point.
People who don't want to work within the system, and who would rather replace it with some other system, don't buy masks and shout in the streets. They form independent communes and fuck off into the woods. Protests and riots are tools of incremental improvements of existing societies through displays of strength and popular opinion. They achieve fuck-all, but they aren't intended to ever be quite as revolutionary as their rhetoric claims, because otherwise they wouldn't be protests -- they'd be revolutions.
And also this.
I am astonished to find myself agreeing with you, but this was perfectly stated.
I guess at this point it's worth stating what exactly I hate about the system, and why I think protesting in Free Speech Zones is completely useless in the first place, even if the people are doing it are fully committed.
I hate that the system empowers the greedy and enables the stupid. That the cardinal sin of any movement, whether you're "conservative" or "liberal" or "vegan" or whatever, is seeing the debate from your opponent's perspective. That it is so easy to settle into an environment where all the inputs reassure you about how right you are and how wrong Those People are, where you can filter opposing views out completely or at least make sure they're always portrayed as ignorant and wrongheaded.
I hate that financial security -- when it's even achievable -- comes at the cost of spending the prime of your life on autopilot making piles of cash for people who don't care if you live or die. I hate that we have the technology and the means of production to raise the global standard of living above what most people will even let themselves dream about, but we just don't. I hate that we still kill each other over imaginary friends and invisible boogey men.
And I hate that we are told the best way to fix these things is to get a protest license, go downtown during appropriate hours, where everyone's expecting us anyway and have shut the drapes and put their blinders on so they don't have to see it, wave flashy signs and chant slogans that make good bumper stickers but terrible policy. Protests have been short-circuited by being cornered into "legal" zones and "permitted" times, and everyone's so gosh-darn sure to make sure nobody feels threatened that the establishment can pretend the protest is just a street fair or something, because what are these asshats going to do? Vote? HA. Plenty of riot police on hand though, just in case anybody starts taking things too seriously.
I chortled the whole way through the occupy thingies.
Like they were going to magically make banking regulation a realty.
Then again, a lot of people talk about banks these days.
As I said, I try to help people, physically. By fix them I mean: help them to stop staring at the distraction supplied by The Machine long enough to look in their own bodies and realize the near limitless value therein.
If not doing this I'd be helping the homeless, disabled, sick, dying, or otherwise helpless.
I mean, we can talk all day long about how useless protests are. We could talk about how useless talking about protests are.
When it comes to making a difference in this world, a healthy, educated population is the only way. And since BUSINESS/GOVERNMENT is not going to help us, we have to help ourselves in whatever way we can.
Hate shitting on Anonyclones, while fun as shit, does not stop The Man from fucking us anymore than using a handcrafted, biodegradable, locally produced Guy Fawkes mask that you received under a bridge from a stranger wearing a trenchcoat to whom you must first give the secret password.
Did that kid that took a rubber bullet to the face look like a poser?
So now you're backpedaling on your statement that protesting doesn't engender change, and changing it to protesting doesn't engender change for the better?
:lulz:
OK.
Even if that's now the point you're defending, history indicates that it can, and does, engender positive change, even in America.
Furthermore, I would argue that protesting is only the surface of a change movement: you SEE people squatting in public parks, and what you DON'T SEE for each of those people are hundreds more who are angry and trying to come up with other ways to push the system to change. So a few years later you end up with this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324251504578582101593420808.html
I think there's a very good argument to be made for the efficacy of protesting, even when it leads to a coup and the replacement of one bad government with another. The argument is that it alarms policymakers, who are likely to be directly affected by a coup, so they start scrambling for ways to change the system from within, often in fairly radical ways that wouldn't be considered if the regime wasn't threatened.
I also think that the "There's no point in protesting, it won't change anything anyway" rhetoric is designed to get the majority of people to SHUT UP, and it does a very effective job of doing so.
Dear A Mod: is there any way we can get this thread split out of Pics? The reason I ask is that I think it's a good discussion and worth its own thread so it doesn't get lost/buried.
It is interesting to me that protests are often viewed as a social event, and that this view is met with disdain by so many.
It is a clear example of how strongly people desire to be more social in the relatively isolated lives we lead. Without a tribe to call home we band together for what we feel is right.
One thing mentioned recently, there's no alternative.
If we do more than protest, if we dismantle how we do things, how else will we do them? What mechanisim will keep The Human Machine running. People want a clear picture of that before they lay their lives down.
I do not think protests deliver the sort of results required to change the shitstorm of highway robbery that is taking place every day. But I don't really know what to do about that, period.
AND ANOTHER THING:
As far as toothless subcultures go...who the fuck cares. If kids want to put on GF masks and get hit with rubber bullets...or just stand around a mall, not buying things and making people uncomfortable, so be it.
Just like anything punk post 80's.
It is the 21st God damned century. If you want to be a part of a punk/metal/dissatisfied with the value placed upon your self by others for the purposes of control SO FUCKING BE IT.
It is actually, none of your God damned business. If you want to be a part of a subculture that does nothing but bemoan the state of other subcultures, feel free.
But I would have to ask,why? To what end? Are you just waiting for a group to come along you can respect enough to finally become a part of? A timeless, perfect set up philosophy that produces real world results? Let me know when you do.
Meanwhile, I am going to dress and act exactly as I please, using whatever time period hair and clothing style I feel like. That's my chosen subculture, the only one that does not give a fuck about your subculture. Or its questionable authenticity.
It is sort of like kids who read Twilight. Would you rather they watch The Disney Channel? Or is the fact that they read enough to give their humanity the benefit of the doubt?
Dear A Mod:
I request that the thread this is broken into is named "People on the internet repeat minor variations on conversations had in Paris in 1968"
Quote from: Polyethyline Glycol on July 04, 2013, 10:52:16 PM
Dear A Mod:
I request that the thread this is broken into is named "People on the internet repeat minor variations on conversations had in Paris in 1968"
And in Boston in 1773, and countless other times throughout history, yet it appears to be a conversation that needs to happen over and over and over again, because we always seem to forget, even though it was deemed important enough to write it into the US Constitution.
Protest is significant to the political process on a number of psychological levels. It visibly demonstrates to every frustrated person that there are others who have the same frustration. It is a visible expression of discontent. There is a reason governments try to quash protests, and there is a reason corporate-run media avoids reporting on them, and casts them in a negative/pathetic light when they do. It's because they're dangerous to the status quo, and it's unfortunate that so many people buy into the media-fed, politico-fed notion that protesting is meaningless.
"I will sneer my cynical sneer, call them hipsters, and continue to do nothing". It's exactly what you're supposed to do.
There's a lot frustration involved in this topic because it is born of frustration.
It's not good enough.
It is not fast enough.
It is, GAWD FORBID, not authentic enough.
And that us super understandable. I get mad. We should all get mad.
But, you know, I get a lot more mad when I realize I am not doing my part. Sometimes I look for external factors upon which to project that anger at my own self.
If you don't like the way people protest do it your own way. I do. I also,KYFMS, but I have my fun and hopefully change people's minds, one at a time. Or let them change their own, rather.
Quote from: Polyethyline Glycol on July 04, 2013, 10:52:16 PM
Dear A Mod:
I request that the thread this is broken into is named "People on the internet repeat minor variations on conversations had in Paris in 1968"
Dear Enki: Stop being a shithead.
I have to take a shit-ton of meds just to breathe.
I happen to like breathing properly, and think it superior to the various options of Not Breathing properly.
I can "prep" all I want. Inhalers stay chemically active for about 4 years, I believe.
After that I am going to slowly succumb to a degenerative illness-untreated asthma causes lung capacity to shrink, you see.
Eventually I'll die...slowly.
When I was younger I didn't really care if I lived or died-I felt like dying for a cause would justify my heretofore shitty life, so I was ok with that concept.
I'm selfish enough to want to keep my oxy habit now.
So I'm predisposed to NOT want to rip it all down.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 05, 2013, 04:47:25 AM
I have to take a shit-ton of meds just to breathe.
I happen to like breathing properly, and think it superior to the various options of Not Breathing properly.
I can "prep" all I want. Inhalers stay chemically active for about 4 years, I believe.
After that I am going to slowly succumb to a degenerative illness-untreated asthma causes lung capacity to shrink, you see.
Eventually I'll die...slowly.
When I was younger I didn't really care if I lived or died-I felt like dying for a cause would justify my heretofore shitty life, so I was ok with that concept.
I'm selfish enough to want to keep my oxy habit now.
So I'm predisposed to NOT want to rip it all down.
Yep. Burn it all down, you kill everyone who needs dialysis, insulin, etc.
The way I look at it, civilization is like a car with cruise control. If you leave it to its own devices for long enough, you are going to end up in a ditch. Protest movements are one of the few ways you can apply pressure to the people who are ostensibly steering, and that works a lot better than blowing up the car.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 05, 2013, 02:45:52 PM
The way I look at it, civilization is like a car with cruise control. If you leave it to its own devices for long enough, you are going to end up in a ditch. Protest movements are one of the few ways you can apply pressure to the people who are ostensibly steering, and that works a lot better than blowing up the car.
But that's hard work. :sad:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 05, 2013, 02:54:40 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 05, 2013, 02:45:52 PM
The way I look at it, civilization is like a car with cruise control. If you leave it to its own devices for long enough, you are going to end up in a ditch. Protest movements are one of the few ways you can apply pressure to the people who are ostensibly steering, and that works a lot better than blowing up the car.
But that's hard work. :sad:
Well, you could also spend your life trying to get on the committee to discuss the probable outcomes of adjusting the steering wheel by .2 degrees, if you want hard work.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 05, 2013, 02:56:09 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 05, 2013, 02:54:40 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 05, 2013, 02:45:52 PM
The way I look at it, civilization is like a car with cruise control. If you leave it to its own devices for long enough, you are going to end up in a ditch. Protest movements are one of the few ways you can apply pressure to the people who are ostensibly steering, and that works a lot better than blowing up the car.
But that's hard work. :sad:
Well, you could also spend your life trying to get on the committee to discuss the probable outcomes of adjusting the steering wheel by .2 degrees, if you want hard work.
Is there coffee on?
Dok,
Channeling Mike the Engineer.
To expand on the idea a little bit, success in a civilization is by definition a moving target. We don't, and cannot, want a civilization that stands still, we want something that will continue moving in better directions. Even in arbitrarily frozen sub-cultures, there is pressure to improve access to justice over time. You can't get that by setting a system in place and trusting it to go, no matter how well-engineered the system is. You need hands on the wheel to make adjustments as things change. You also need people making sure that whoever's steering isn't asleep at the wheel, or changing directions entirely to suit their own purposes. But even with all those safeguards in place, the people way in the back need to start yelling if they notice a problem. Nobody likes it, because it's noisy and sometimes they yell about things that aren't problems at all, or problems that the guys up front are already trying to work on, or no one can agree which fork to take and it's just a screaming match forever and ever, but it's still better than being in the ditch.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 04, 2013, 11:44:01 PM
Quote from: Polyethyline Glycol on July 04, 2013, 10:52:16 PM
Dear A Mod:
I request that the thread this is broken into is named "People on the internet repeat minor variations on conversations had in Paris in 1968"
And in Boston in 1773, and countless other times throughout history, yet it appears to be a conversation that needs to happen over and over and over again, because we always seem to forget, even though it was deemed important enough to write it into the US Constitution.
Protest is significant to the political process on a number of psychological levels. It visibly demonstrates to every frustrated person that there are others who have the same frustration. It is a visible expression of discontent. There is a reason governments try to quash protests, and there is a reason corporate-run media avoids reporting on them, and casts them in a negative/pathetic light when they do. It's because they're dangerous to the status quo, and it's unfortunate that so many people buy into the media-fed, politico-fed notion that protesting is meaningless.
No, no. I meant, specifically, talking about the ways in which signs and symbols of protest get co-opted back into the spectacular-consumerist process.
I'm all for talking about protest and its effectiveness (and I do believe it to be effective, in particular ways, for particular purposes). But, rehashing the Society of the Spectacle with the caveat that somehow all rebellious posturing prior to 1980 was authentic is foolish, when we could just read the thing and recognize that rebellious posturing prior to 1968 was also inauthentic.
We're not spending time talking about rebellion so much as talking about manufactured symbols of rebellion and their reintegration and absorption back into the system from whose opposition they sprang -- which is an interesting topic with a
great deal of existing work on it. I mention the Situationists because they focused on this angle, and invented much of the terminology and many of the basic memes we use when talking about it, and because their work on it is freely available, relatively accessible (as far as french marxist philosophers performing literary criticism and studying the effects of media on society go), and familiar to a lot of people on the board already. But, even Baudrillard did work on this, not to mention Zizek. And, we're spending far too much time assuming nobody else has read Society of the Spectacle and repeating bits of it only marginally incorrectly. If we assume instead that everybody has already read and understood the Situationist arguments, we can move forward by critiquing them directly, building upon them, or producing variations upon them -- since they form a powerful and almost ubiquitous foundation for discussion on this topic.
(One meme that is not directly addressed in Society of the Spectacle, but is implied, is that dissent and protest are a feature that the spectacle uses to generalize itself: dissent is encouraged and cultural representations of dissent are encouraged, and when those cultural representations of dissent become sufficiently autonomous they are reintegrated into the spectacular system in a de-fanged manner, after which the spectacular system covers an area of memetic territory closer to that of the radical splinter group and thus the radicals seem less radical, but it never covers the entirety of the group because of that group's actions. It takes a more extreme group with more extreme demands to fully normalize and assimilate an extreme group.)
Quote from: V3X on July 04, 2013, 03:12:53 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 04, 2013, 01:16:22 AM
Quote from: V3X on July 03, 2013, 05:02:59 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 03, 2013, 06:25:56 AM
We have to buy everything from "Them" anyway, that's why we protest.
I have heard many versions of "pointing out the hypocrisy in protesters" and they all boil down to the same basic message, which is "How dare that slave try to run away wearing trousers the Master gave him".
Actually it's more than just making masks with cheap labor. I mean, that by itself is morally equivalent to broadcasting pirate TV or radio on frequencies owned or licensed by somebody else. What I object to isn't the physical act of making the masks and how that ultimately benefits the same entities who benefit from consumerism, but the fact that Anonymous, like everything else, is just another Brand™ to choose from. Another prepackaged, rebel-based motif with which to decorate your entirely docile, domesticated, non-threatening existence. Like anything that called itself "punk" after 1980.
Anonymous is now a product on the shelf, and though that isn't what it's intended to be and certainly isn't what it started out as, it has been effectively consumerized in record time. The picture sort of illustrates that point, for me at least.
Actually, I think that's nonsense. Saying that it's been "consumerized" because the emblematic mask that was chosen for its symbolic link to the freedom fighter from V for Vendetta is now more recognizable as a symbol of Anonymous protest is blatantly ridiculous. It's like saying that protesting is consumerized because of the recognizable prevalence of red bandanas as protest wear. Red bandanas were already being mass-produced before people started wearing them to protect their airways from teargas, and Guy Fawkes masks were already being mass-produced before they were latched onto by protesters (which happened before Anonymous co-opted them, by the way). Anonymous is a tiny fraction of the market for those masks... and if it's more than a tiny fraction, then they are indeed a movement for the powers-that-be to fear.
Being "Consumerized" is what we call it when products are driven to market by a movement, not what we call it when a movement happens to pick something up that is widely available and cheap.
No, that wasn't what I was saying. It isn't "consumerized" just because it has a symbol, or just because that symbol is co-opted from mass media, or because it is mass-produced. It's consumerized because rebellion in general is now a brand. A subculture. Almost as easily defined and prepared for as it is recognizable. "Down with the system" is the new "Just do it." The net result on society is zero -- not because nothing changes but because those changes are gradual enough for the status quo to adapt to them ahead of time.
Protesters brought down a string of governments across North Africa and the Middle East, but so far their revolutions have failed to accomplish anything very impressive at a cultural level. In the rest of the world, these protesters have done even less. We amass in Free Speech Zones, wave signs, make a racket with drum circles, get kicked and shot at by the police, choke on tear gas, get knocked over by water cannons, arrested, released, and then we go home and blog about it between community service assignments.
The revolution is a product, another group identity available to anyone who's too jaded to be a Wiccan. It's barely more dangerous than being a Goth kid was when I was in high school, and all the extra danger is to your own reputation and employability.
I see your point, but I think the difference is Anonymous now and then actually does fuck with people who deserve to be fucked with. Yeah, sometimes its a couple of douchebags from Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares, but since Anonymous is -by definition- anonymous, anyone can claim an act in their name... but every once in a while they take a good sized chomp on Scientology, or kiddie porn sites, or the Westboro Baptists. These people desperately need to be fucked with, and since I don't know enough computer voodoo to do it myself, I am glad that they are out there. They are batman enough for me.
Yes, protest has become a subculture, and people reposting outrage on Tumblr while waiting for their poptart to warm in the toaster are worthy of your ire, I don't really think most of Anonymous is.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on July 05, 2013, 04:47:25 AM
I have to take a shit-ton of meds just to breathe.
I happen to like breathing properly, and think it superior to the various options of Not Breathing properly.
I can "prep" all I want. Inhalers stay chemically active for about 4 years, I believe.
After that I am going to slowly succumb to a degenerative illness-untreated asthma causes lung capacity to shrink, you see.
Eventually I'll die...slowly.
When I was younger I didn't really care if I lived or died-I felt like dying for a cause would justify my heretofore shitty life, so I was ok with that concept.
I'm selfish enough to want to keep my oxy habit now.
So I'm predisposed to NOT want to rip it all down.
And that's the thing... the vast majority of protesters and activists don't WANT revolution, they don't want to "rip it all down". They just want things to be better. They want labels on their food, and adequate compensation for their work, and health care, and not to be foreclosed on.
And as loud as some people keep repeating that protesting and activism doesn't do anything, it, nonetheless, does have an effect on both other people's minds (think that the nationwide shift towards acceptance of gay marriage just happened magically, on it's own?) and on the political powers-that-be, as witness to the fact that after next year State universities in Oregon will switch to the pay-it-forward system, we are having a review of health care practices with an eye to switching to a single-payer system, and we require banks that are foreclosing on mortgage holders to attend independent mediation, at their expense, wherein they must demonstrate that they followed correct legal procedure, including a good-faith attempt to work with the homeowner to keep their house. Minimum wage here is $8.95 and servers cannot be paid less just because they also receive tips.
We haven't gotten jobs or the housing situation sorted out yet, but changes are in the works, and you better believe that a LOT of this has come about due to pressure put on our politicians; pressure that was visibly demonstrated by protests and marches and activism. If everybody just stayed home and kept their mouths shut, do you think any of this would be happening? Would gay marriage and marijuana be legal in Washington without activism? LOL NO.
You don't need any amount of computer voodoo to Anonymous, for the record.
Thing is, Nigel, this has resulted in the population galloping to the left. It's hard to see day-to-day, because the 20% that thought Palin was a good idea are LOUD. But looking at things from a results-based viewpoint, what's changed, there's no doubt that a bit of sanity is returning.
It's a long game. Results take time, but they are occurring. Getting impatient and declaring the system defunct plays directly into the hands of the people who aren't really happy with the idea of a republic...The Koch brothers, among other people.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 05, 2013, 06:40:53 PM
Thing is, Nigel, this has resulted in the population galloping to the left. It's hard to see day-to-day, because the 20% that thought Palin was a good idea are LOUD. But looking at things from a results-based viewpoint, what's changed, there's no doubt that a bit of sanity is returning.
It's a long game. Results take time, but they are occurring. Getting impatient and declaring the system defunct plays directly into the hands of the people who aren't really happy with the idea of a republic...The Koch brothers, among other people.
Bingo.
And the screeching and trying to pass insane restrictive laws... that is a sign of fear, because the right knows they're losing ground.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 05, 2013, 06:45:08 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 05, 2013, 06:40:53 PM
Thing is, Nigel, this has resulted in the population galloping to the left. It's hard to see day-to-day, because the 20% that thought Palin was a good idea are LOUD. But looking at things from a results-based viewpoint, what's changed, there's no doubt that a bit of sanity is returning.
It's a long game. Results take time, but they are occurring. Getting impatient and declaring the system defunct plays directly into the hands of the people who aren't really happy with the idea of a republic...The Koch brothers, among other people.
Bingo.
And the screeching and trying to pass insane restrictive laws... that is a sign of fear, because the right knows they're losing ground.
This is true. The fear, of course, isn't in the representatives, it's in the louder portion of their constituents. The representatives are merely - for the most part, there are some genuine nuts - pandering to their base.
And yet the Overton Window appears to be moving Right?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2013, 06:47:24 PM
And yet the Overton Window appears to be moving Right?
I disagree entirely. The loud bastards in the window just make it look that way, as they are dragged to the left.
Gay marriage is now considered to be a right by most Americans.
Most Americans don't give a shit about whether or not you smoke weed.
Most Americans are becoming outraged by our prison system.
The GOP congress now has less than a 9% approval rating, due to obstructionism and insane bills.
You have a few portions of the government still in the hands of the whackos (SCOTUS, for example), but even THEY are softening their tone.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 05, 2013, 06:50:42 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2013, 06:47:24 PM
And yet the Overton Window appears to be moving Right?
How so? :?
The media is portraying that, but it hasn't been true for about 7 years now.
Gonna write Objection II now.
Hmm. I was looking at it like, the current administration's policies, for a large part, seem further right than many republicans in the 60s and 70s, and Obama's considered a "Liberal". But I can see your point.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2013, 06:58:29 PM
Hmm. I was looking at it like, the current administration's policies, for a large part, seem further right than many republicans in the 60s and 70s, and Obama's considered a "Liberal". But I can see your point.
Obama is considered a "liberal" by the sort of people who thought that Bachmann would make a fine president. Again, they are few, they are LOUD, and they are DUMB.
This discussion got off the track of my original statement, which was that the Protest Culture™ is largely ineffective in the West. I was not talking about actual protests/riots that have overtaken a number of countries around the planet and resulted in at least some kind of deviation from the established norms in those countries. I was talking specifically about what it means to protest in the West, specifically in America.
And what I was saying was that here, where things are relatively comfortable for most people, protests are pretty harmless to the status quo. Occupy has done absolutely nothing to threaten Big Money, or really even to spread meaningful awareness of the problems caused and exacerbated by the financial industry. Throngs of people in Wisconsin didn't stop Governor Brown from sticking it to unions. In Texas massive protests failed to garner the support of anyone who wasn't already on the protesters' side, or impede the advancement of the draconian laws on their agenda. Anonymous has been known to take a web page offline for a day or two, and seriously annoy a handful Scientologists, but beyond that I'm not sure exactly what it is they're accomplishing.
It isn't that protests are inherently powerless, it's that they are now a known entity and as such the status quo can stay out of their reach. A protest is just a lot of people stinking up a park for a while, as far as anyone in power is concerned. Protests can't last forever, and even if they could, who cares? A permanent street fair isn't going to hurt anything. To be successful, a mass protest must be a display of popular force, not popular sentiment. That doesn't mean rioting or property damage is necessary, but you've got to do more than just show up with a picket sign and chant slogans. Organized civil disobedience is a form of protest that goes a long way toward making a difference, for example.
I'm just saying that as long as there are so many people more interested in identifying themselves as subversive than in actually subverting anything, their squawking is mostly harmless. And any movement that gives people a venue to vent their frustration will be allowed, and even encouraged, so long as that movement remains ineffective at really upsetting the social order. Anonymous manufacturing their most recognizable symbol in a sweatshop isn't the problem, but it's symbolic of a situation where identifying yourself as an agent of change is culturally equivalent to actually being an agent of change.
Additional note:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1715856/pd/huh.gif)
Quote from: V3X on July 05, 2013, 07:11:40 PM
This discussion got off the track of my original statement, which was that the Protest Culture™ is largely ineffective in the West. I was not talking about actual protests/riots that have overtaken a number of countries around the planet and resulted in at least some kind of deviation from the established norms in those countries. I was talking specifically about what it means to protest in the West, specifically in America.
Again, do you think the right for Gays to marry just happened? Or the right for them to not have the shit kicked out of them with a wink and a nod from the legal system just appeared?
That's one example. I can name a lot of others.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 05, 2013, 07:14:21 PM
Quote from: V3X on July 05, 2013, 07:11:40 PM
This discussion got off the track of my original statement, which was that the Protest Culture™ is largely ineffective in the West. I was not talking about actual protests/riots that have overtaken a number of countries around the planet and resulted in at least some kind of deviation from the established norms in those countries. I was talking specifically about what it means to protest in the West, specifically in America.
Again, do you think the right for Gays to marry just happened? Or the right for them to not have the shit kicked out of them with a wink and a nod from the legal system just appeared?
That's one example. I can name a lot of others.
No, but I'm not convinced it was protests that got that done. Protests were part of it, maybe, but I think most of the progress in that area specifically came from a cultural shift at the lowest levels. The LGBTQ community was portrayed positively in media on a large scale; gays began to tell their stories and share their experiences and come out of the closet in larger numbers; almost everyone in the country can say they have a gay friend, relative, or coworker. It wasn't Gay Pride parades or picket signs that changed America's mind, it was forcing people to account for the way they personally treated others that caused a huge shift in popular sentiment.
Quote from: V3X on July 05, 2013, 07:18:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 05, 2013, 07:14:21 PM
Quote from: V3X on July 05, 2013, 07:11:40 PM
This discussion got off the track of my original statement, which was that the Protest Culture™ is largely ineffective in the West. I was not talking about actual protests/riots that have overtaken a number of countries around the planet and resulted in at least some kind of deviation from the established norms in those countries. I was talking specifically about what it means to protest in the West, specifically in America.
Again, do you think the right for Gays to marry just happened? Or the right for them to not have the shit kicked out of them with a wink and a nod from the legal system just appeared?
That's one example. I can name a lot of others.
No, but I'm not convinced it was protests that got that done. Protests were part of it, maybe, but I think most of the progress in that area specifically came from a cultural shift at the lowest levels. The LGBTQ community was portrayed positively in media on a large scale; gays began to tell their stories and share their experiences and come out of the closet in larger numbers; almost everyone in the country can say they have a gay friend, relative, or coworker. It wasn't Gay Pride parades or picket signs that changed America's mind, it was forcing people to account for the way they personally treated others that caused a huge shift in popular sentiment.
The American public doesn't change its mind unless it has been shamed.
Pride parades showed America that Gays were actually people, and that they were actually kind of cool in their outrageous flamboyance in some of the parades. Then you show them the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard. The effect isn't very much different than the civil rights movement, where the Blacks were shown marching and calmly demanding their rights, contrasted with yahoos and bull cops beating on them.
With the shame thing, it's also kind of a public suffering thing.
Horrific shocking act against X (repeated often enough, or just once, really really badly) = eventual rights/liberations.
Once it's at the point where the media cannot ignore it and it strikes enough of the populace as fundamentally, morally wrong you start getting change.
Considering the effect of protest in general on western governments, it seems to me to be largely ineffective. Protest marches don't get the same kind of result as bloody headlines generally. Riots tend not to cause serious policy discussions in the same way as a missing/murdered child would, even when there are several innocent dead as a result of the protests.
Good reform laws seem to come from someone being fucked up is what I'm trying to get at. Need to think about this more.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 05, 2013, 07:22:27 PM
Quote from: V3X on July 05, 2013, 07:18:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 05, 2013, 07:14:21 PM
Quote from: V3X on July 05, 2013, 07:11:40 PM
This discussion got off the track of my original statement, which was that the Protest Culture™ is largely ineffective in the West. I was not talking about actual protests/riots that have overtaken a number of countries around the planet and resulted in at least some kind of deviation from the established norms in those countries. I was talking specifically about what it means to protest in the West, specifically in America.
Again, do you think the right for Gays to marry just happened? Or the right for them to not have the shit kicked out of them with a wink and a nod from the legal system just appeared?
That's one example. I can name a lot of others.
No, but I'm not convinced it was protests that got that done. Protests were part of it, maybe, but I think most of the progress in that area specifically came from a cultural shift at the lowest levels. The LGBTQ community was portrayed positively in media on a large scale; gays began to tell their stories and share their experiences and come out of the closet in larger numbers; almost everyone in the country can say they have a gay friend, relative, or coworker. It wasn't Gay Pride parades or picket signs that changed America's mind, it was forcing people to account for the way they personally treated others that caused a huge shift in popular sentiment.
The American public doesn't change its mind unless it has been shamed.
Pride parades showed America that Gays were actually people, and that they were actually kind of cool in their outrageous flamboyance in some of the parades. Then you show them the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard. The effect isn't very much different than the civil rights movement, where the Blacks were shown marching and calmly demanding their rights, contrasted with yahoos and bull cops beating on them.
I won't argue with that at all. But again it's the two sides to the story that have to be illustrated -- both the peaceful demonstrations
and the brutal oppression of those outside the popularly accepted definition of "equal." Showing up for a protest is only half the story. The other half of the story will never be told if the Status Quo can manage to contain its urge to smash people under tank treads or conduct widespread illegal home invasions in broad daylight.
Having watched the protests here in Turkey and talking with the people who were in the front lines (and had a back, arms and chest full of bruises to prove it)... both sides of the coin were present. The 70 year old grandmas that were handing food out to protesters weren't trying to be part of a brand (one lady was handing out bread and apologizing because she couldn't carry fruit from her fruit tree to them, because the bag was too heavy for her). Then 80 year old guy that stood in front of a dozen cops calling out "yazıklar olsun" (shame on you, pity on you) wasn't trying to be part of the in-crowd. At the same time, some fool dressed in a cape and a Guy Fawkes mask was walking in the streets, basically daring the cops to go after him.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 05, 2013, 08:02:17 PM
Having watched the protests here in Turkey and talking with the people who were in the front lines (and had a back, arms and chest full of bruises to prove it)... both sides of the coin were present. The 70 year old grandmas that were handing food out to protesters weren't trying to be part of a brand (one lady was handing out bread and apologizing because she couldn't carry fruit from her fruit tree to them, because the bag was too heavy for her). Then 80 year old guy that stood in front of a dozen cops calling out "yazıklar olsun" (shame on you, pity on you) wasn't trying to be part of the in-crowd. At the same time, some fool dressed in a cape and a Guy Fawkes mask was walking in the streets, basically daring the cops to go after him.
Quote from: The Chao te Ching, CH30
If you're going to do some Covert Ops in the name of Discordia,
keep your head down, and Keep Your Fucking Mouth Shut.
A mowhawk is as good as a target during Police Action.
The wise spags toss a wrench into the Machine™,
and then walk away.
They strike against Authority, but don't put it on the Internet.
They subvert the paradigm, but don't stick around to watch.
They mindfuck the people, but don't pat themselves on the back.
If two people know a thing, it is not a secret.
Getting away with it means staying away from it.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 05, 2013, 08:02:17 PM
Having watched the protests here in Turkey and talking with the people who were in the front lines (and had a back, arms and chest full of bruises to prove it)... both sides of the coin were present. The 70 year old grandmas that were handing food out to protesters weren't trying to be part of a brand (one lady was handing out bread and apologizing because she couldn't carry fruit from her fruit tree to them, because the bag was too heavy for her). Then 80 year old guy that stood in front of a dozen cops calling out "yazıklar olsun" (shame on you, pity on you) wasn't trying to be part of the in-crowd. At the same time, some fool dressed in a cape and a Guy Fawkes mask was walking in the streets, basically daring the cops to go after him.
What's the current feeling with people you know? Any solid feel for how it's going to turn out?
Protestors? How many divisions do they have?
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 05, 2013, 08:07:12 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 05, 2013, 08:02:17 PM
Having watched the protests here in Turkey and talking with the people who were in the front lines (and had a back, arms and chest full of bruises to prove it)... both sides of the coin were present. The 70 year old grandmas that were handing food out to protesters weren't trying to be part of a brand (one lady was handing out bread and apologizing because she couldn't carry fruit from her fruit tree to them, because the bag was too heavy for her). Then 80 year old guy that stood in front of a dozen cops calling out "yazıklar olsun" (shame on you, pity on you) wasn't trying to be part of the in-crowd. At the same time, some fool dressed in a cape and a Guy Fawkes mask was walking in the streets, basically daring the cops to go after him.
What's the current feeling with people you know? Any solid feel for how it's going to turn out?
At this point, they're really trying to get outside pressure from the EU and seem to be collecting their power to aim at the elections next year. Enough force was applied a couple weeks ago to quash the public protests, but it seems to have galvanized the group that was content with whining before... in large part because the older generations are telling the younger generation to get the hell off their ass.
Of course, the real problem is the 'majority' when it comes to elections lean conservative... the minority are secular and no one wants to turn the place into Syria. If these people keep it together for the next year, they just might keep Erdogan from becoming President (his term as PM is up). If Erdogan loses office, the AK Party will probably become much more reasonable than it has been in the past few years.
Another interesting thing to watch is next year when all of those 17-18 year old kids go spend their required time in military service, I doubt they'll forget being trounced by their government.
Finally, it has led to a very interesting change in how the secular/urban/generally whitish Turks are talking about the Kurds and other minorities that have been getting the same treatment from the cops for years. Its gone from "Damned Kurds, why can't they just be Turks like the rest of us" to "I see what they've been fighting for". Guys I know a year ago that spit on the ground when they talked about the Kurdish protesters, now show some respect.
How it will end, I don't know. I suppose it will depend on what Erdogan thiinks he can get away with and what the people (and the army) will let him get away with. He was livid over the military coup in Egypt... no doubt because he could easily see himself in the same position.
It will be interesting to see how the military system deals with an influx of protesters. I imagine that generation will be split up as much as possible to avoid cells of solidarity forming. Military indoctrination tends to be quite effective nowadays, but I doubt there's been as much concious resistance to the lifestyle changes than before.
Tangent, but a reason I've always been wary of compulsory military service is that you're making someone take up arms. I can't be totally sure that if I shove a gun into a kids hand that they will not point it at
me. Being in charge of a country and making everyone do it seems like madness. Then again, the alternative of only arming those who want to join the gang has similar issues. In short, stop giving people guns unless you trust them. And even then, not really.
This:
QuoteFinally, it has led to a very interesting change in how the secular/urban/generally whitish Turks are talking about the Kurds and other minorities that have been getting the same treatment from the cops for years. Its gone from "Damned Kurds, why can't they just be Turks like the rest of us" to "I see what they've been fighting for". Guys I know a year ago that spit on the ground when they talked about the Kurdish protesters, now show some respect.
Has resonances of other civil liberties struggles and success. De-facto acceptance eventually becomes legislative acceptance.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 05, 2013, 08:30:27 PM
It will be interesting to see how the military system deals with an influx of protesters. I imagine that generation will be split up as much as possible to avoid cells of solidarity forming. Military indoctrination tends to be quite effective nowadays, but I doubt there's been as much concious resistance to the lifestyle changes than before.
Tangent, but a reason I've always been wary of compulsory military service is that you're making someone take up arms. I can't be totally sure that if I shove a gun into a kids hand that they will not point it at me. Being in charge of a country and making everyone do it seems like madness. Then again, the alternative of only arming those who want to join the gang has similar issues. In short, stop giving people guns unless you trust them. And even then, not really.
This:
QuoteFinally, it has led to a very interesting change in how the secular/urban/generally whitish Turks are talking about the Kurds and other minorities that have been getting the same treatment from the cops for years. Its gone from "Damned Kurds, why can't they just be Turks like the rest of us" to "I see what they've been fighting for". Guys I know a year ago that spit on the ground when they talked about the Kurdish protesters, now show some respect.
Has resonances of other civil liberties struggles and success. De-facto acceptance eventually becomes legislative acceptance.
Remember though, the military here is very secular and has overthrown the government three times (including a Islamic led government similar to the current one). They're so secular, they won't let you on military property if you have facial hair.
Not so secular they wont work with Al-Qaeda, though.
Quote from: V3X on July 05, 2013, 07:11:40 PM
This discussion got off the track of my original statement, which was that the Protest Culture™ is largely ineffective in the West. I was not talking about actual protests/riots that have overtaken a number of countries around the planet and resulted in at least some kind of deviation from the established norms in those countries. I was talking specifically about what it means to protest in the West, specifically in America.
And what I was saying was that here, where things are relatively comfortable for most people, protests are pretty harmless to the status quo. Occupy has done absolutely nothing to threaten Big Money, or really even to spread meaningful awareness of the problems caused and exacerbated by the financial industry. Throngs of people in Wisconsin didn't stop Governor Brown from sticking it to unions. In Texas massive protests failed to garner the support of anyone who wasn't already on the protesters' side, or impede the advancement of the draconian laws on their agenda. Anonymous has been known to take a web page offline for a day or two, and seriously annoy a handful Scientologists, but beyond that I'm not sure exactly what it is they're accomplishing.
It isn't that protests are inherently powerless, it's that they are now a known entity and as such the status quo can stay out of their reach. A protest is just a lot of people stinking up a park for a while, as far as anyone in power is concerned. Protests can't last forever, and even if they could, who cares? A permanent street fair isn't going to hurt anything. To be successful, a mass protest must be a display of popular force, not popular sentiment. That doesn't mean rioting or property damage is necessary, but you've got to do more than just show up with a picket sign and chant slogans. Organized civil disobedience is a form of protest that goes a long way toward making a difference, for example.
I'm just saying that as long as there are so many people more interested in identifying themselves as subversive than in actually subverting anything, their squawking is mostly harmless. And any movement that gives people a venue to vent their frustration will be allowed, and even encouraged, so long as that movement remains ineffective at really upsetting the social order. Anonymous manufacturing their most recognizable symbol in a sweatshop isn't the problem, but it's symbolic of a situation where identifying yourself as an agent of change is culturally equivalent to actually being an agent of change.
So you're moving your goalposts again, this time to declare that protesting in the West, specifically, has no effect.
And you're choosing to ignore the many, many examples I posted of cultural and political change that were brought on through protest and activism why, exactly?
Quote from: V3X on July 05, 2013, 07:18:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 05, 2013, 07:14:21 PM
Quote from: V3X on July 05, 2013, 07:11:40 PM
This discussion got off the track of my original statement, which was that the Protest Culture™ is largely ineffective in the West. I was not talking about actual protests/riots that have overtaken a number of countries around the planet and resulted in at least some kind of deviation from the established norms in those countries. I was talking specifically about what it means to protest in the West, specifically in America.
Again, do you think the right for Gays to marry just happened? Or the right for them to not have the shit kicked out of them with a wink and a nod from the legal system just appeared?
That's one example. I can name a lot of others.
No, but I'm not convinced it was protests that got that done. Protests were part of it, maybe, but I think most of the progress in that area specifically came from a cultural shift at the lowest levels. The LGBTQ community was portrayed positively in media on a large scale; gays began to tell their stories and share their experiences and come out of the closet in larger numbers; almost everyone in the country can say they have a gay friend, relative, or coworker. It wasn't Gay Pride parades or picket signs that changed America's mind, it was forcing people to account for the way they personally treated others that caused a huge shift in popular sentiment.
You seem to be wilfully overlooking the fact that the cultural shift happened in the first place because of queers refusing to stay hidden, ie. protesting. Are you familiar with the Stonewall Riots?
I am incredulous that you don't think protests, Pride parades, etc. were influential in shifting general public attitudes to gays towards acceptance. Absolutely just WTF.
I think you are digging in your heels, and the thing is, not only are you wrong, you are documentably, demonstrably wrong.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 05, 2013, 08:02:17 PM
Having watched the protests here in Turkey and talking with the people who were in the front lines (and had a back, arms and chest full of bruises to prove it)... both sides of the coin were present. The 70 year old grandmas that were handing food out to protesters weren't trying to be part of a brand (one lady was handing out bread and apologizing because she couldn't carry fruit from her fruit tree to them, because the bag was too heavy for her). Then 80 year old guy that stood in front of a dozen cops calling out "yazıklar olsun" (shame on you, pity on you) wasn't trying to be part of the in-crowd. At the same time, some fool dressed in a cape and a Guy Fawkes mask was walking in the streets, basically daring the cops to go after him.
Sometimes it only takes one person behaving outrageously to inspire a thousand people to act.
We usually call them "martyrs".
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 05, 2013, 08:48:58 PM
Quote from: V3X on July 05, 2013, 07:11:40 PM
This discussion got off the track of my original statement, which was that the Protest Culture™ is largely ineffective in the West. I was not talking about actual protests/riots that have overtaken a number of countries around the planet and resulted in at least some kind of deviation from the established norms in those countries. I was talking specifically about what it means to protest in the West, specifically in America.
And what I was saying was that here, where things are relatively comfortable for most people, protests are pretty harmless to the status quo. Occupy has done absolutely nothing to threaten Big Money, or really even to spread meaningful awareness of the problems caused and exacerbated by the financial industry. Throngs of people in Wisconsin didn't stop Governor Brown from sticking it to unions. In Texas massive protests failed to garner the support of anyone who wasn't already on the protesters' side, or impede the advancement of the draconian laws on their agenda. Anonymous has been known to take a web page offline for a day or two, and seriously annoy a handful Scientologists, but beyond that I'm not sure exactly what it is they're accomplishing.
It isn't that protests are inherently powerless, it's that they are now a known entity and as such the status quo can stay out of their reach. A protest is just a lot of people stinking up a park for a while, as far as anyone in power is concerned. Protests can't last forever, and even if they could, who cares? A permanent street fair isn't going to hurt anything. To be successful, a mass protest must be a display of popular force, not popular sentiment. That doesn't mean rioting or property damage is necessary, but you've got to do more than just show up with a picket sign and chant slogans. Organized civil disobedience is a form of protest that goes a long way toward making a difference, for example.
I'm just saying that as long as there are so many people more interested in identifying themselves as subversive than in actually subverting anything, their squawking is mostly harmless. And any movement that gives people a venue to vent their frustration will be allowed, and even encouraged, so long as that movement remains ineffective at really upsetting the social order. Anonymous manufacturing their most recognizable symbol in a sweatshop isn't the problem, but it's symbolic of a situation where identifying yourself as an agent of change is culturally equivalent to actually being an agent of change.
So you're moving your goalposts again, this time to declare that protesting in the West, specifically, has no effect.
And you're choosing to ignore the many, many examples I posted of cultural and political change that were brought on through protest and activism why, exactly?
Not moving goalposts. You're the one who decided I was talking about protests worldwide when from the beginning that was not the case. I was specifically talking about protesters in the West being more concerned with joining a subculture than actually protesting anything.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 05, 2013, 08:55:05 PM
Quote from: V3X on July 05, 2013, 07:18:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 05, 2013, 07:14:21 PM
Quote from: V3X on July 05, 2013, 07:11:40 PM
This discussion got off the track of my original statement, which was that the Protest Culture™ is largely ineffective in the West. I was not talking about actual protests/riots that have overtaken a number of countries around the planet and resulted in at least some kind of deviation from the established norms in those countries. I was talking specifically about what it means to protest in the West, specifically in America.
Again, do you think the right for Gays to marry just happened? Or the right for them to not have the shit kicked out of them with a wink and a nod from the legal system just appeared?
That's one example. I can name a lot of others.
No, but I'm not convinced it was protests that got that done. Protests were part of it, maybe, but I think most of the progress in that area specifically came from a cultural shift at the lowest levels. The LGBTQ community was portrayed positively in media on a large scale; gays began to tell their stories and share their experiences and come out of the closet in larger numbers; almost everyone in the country can say they have a gay friend, relative, or coworker. It wasn't Gay Pride parades or picket signs that changed America's mind, it was forcing people to account for the way they personally treated others that caused a huge shift in popular sentiment.
You seem to be wilfully overlooking the fact that the cultural shift happened in the first place because of queers refusing to stay hidden, ie. protesting. Are you familiar with the Stonewall Riots?
I am incredulous that you don't think protests, Pride parades, etc. were influential in shifting general public attitudes to gays towards acceptance. Absolutely just WTF.
I think you are digging in your heels, and the thing is, not only are you wrong, you are documentably, demonstrably wrong.
The Stonewall Riots and pride parades weren't and aren't inconsequential, they're just not the most important or most influential source of the changing popular perception of gays. Those attitudes didn't even start changing until 20 years after the Stonewall Riots, and while they have changed as a result of LGBTQ people protesting, it was protest in the truest sense of the word: refusing to be the subject of abuse and mistreatment by the system; acts of civil disobedience and firmly claiming and defending one's dignity. This is not the sense of protesting I'm talking about and I think I've repeated that quite a few times. I'm not talking about civil disobedience, I'm talking about showing up at a rally to wave a flag or chant something
instead of actually doing anything, and the tendency to accept that kind of frivolous "protest" as all that really needs to happen to instigate change.
Those attitudes didn't even start to change until 20 years later? :? Where do you read your history?
Protests are an instrumental method for engendering change. You can redefine and redefine and redefine and dig your heels in all you want, it doesn't change that fact.
Quote from: V3X on July 05, 2013, 09:07:00 PM
Not moving goalposts. You're the one who decided I was talking about protests worldwide when from the beginning that was not the case. I was specifically talking about protesters in the West being more concerned with joining a subculture than actually protesting anything.
That's been the case for half a century, and the protests still worked. Hipsters on parade and effective demonstrations are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
The hipster strutting, IMO,
does reduce the impact, but does not eliminate it.
Also, you are asking for purity of purpose with regard to primates, if you think about it. That never ends well.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 05, 2013, 09:10:26 PM
Quote from: V3X on July 05, 2013, 09:07:00 PM
Not moving goalposts. You're the one who decided I was talking about protests worldwide when from the beginning that was not the case. I was specifically talking about protesters in the West being more concerned with joining a subculture than actually protesting anything.
That's been the case for half a century, and the protests still worked. Hipsters on parade and effective demonstrations are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
The hipster strutting, IMO, does reduce the impact, but does not eliminate it.
Also, you are asking for purity of purpose with regard to primates, if you think about it. That never ends well.
If they'd all just do it
my way, they wouldn't have all the problems associated with being
individuals.
But check it-- for social change, hipsters adopting the protest means that the issue is NORMALISED. The idea of a hipster adopting gay rights prior to 1969 is hard to imagine. When hipsters adopt a protest, that protest has become SAFE. And when it is SAFE and NORMAL, it's only a small step towards acceptance.
So hipster adaptation of protest is a bellwether of change in the larger society.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2013, 10:02:10 PM
But check it-- for social change, hipsters adopting the protest means that the issue is NORMALISED. The idea of a hipster adopting gay rights prior to 1969 is hard to imagine. When hipsters adopt a protest, that protest has become SAFE. And when it is SAFE and NORMAL, it's only a small step towards acceptance.
So hipster adaptation of protest is a bellwether of change in the larger society.
An excellent point. Hipsters are the polar opposite of punk...They won't touch ANYTHING that isn't safe.
To speak to the Scientology thing briefly:
More than 1,500 ex-scientologists have chosen to speak out about the shit that went down while they were in the church as a direct result of the protests outside the Orgs. We have no idea how many people left because of them, but I've made good friends with several people who would have stayed in a bad situation without the protesters. The media is now able to print negative stories about Scientology without fear of insane lawsuits as a direct result of the protests. The Freewinds had insanely dangerous blue asbestos professionally removed only in 2008 after being shamed by, again, protesters. Due to the nature of asbestos, we will not know how many lives were put in danger over the decades they knowingly operated a ship with the most deadly form of asbestos all over the fuck place, or how many lives were saved by finally taking it out.
I know most people aren't aware of all that shit, and that's okay because they don't need to. Scientology was a dumbfuck problem that needed dumbfuck action to deal with it, and everyone else should really worry about other shit. Just don't go telling me protests aren't effective because you haven't taken the time to educate yourself.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2013, 10:02:10 PM
But check it-- for social change, hipsters adopting the protest means that the issue is NORMALISED. The idea of a hipster adopting gay rights prior to 1969 is hard to imagine. When hipsters adopt a protest, that protest has become SAFE. And when it is SAFE and NORMAL, it's only a small step towards acceptance.
So hipster adaptation of protest is a bellwether of change in the larger society.
I would really like people to start thinking a little more critically about the word "hipster" and the people it's used to describe.
In general, I consider it a lazy pejorative. It's a mindless categorization that doesn't mean a fucking thing. To look at you, you're a hipster, LMNO. So am I.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 06, 2013, 01:16:40 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2013, 10:02:10 PM
But check it-- for social change, hipsters adopting the protest means that the issue is NORMALISED. The idea of a hipster adopting gay rights prior to 1969 is hard to imagine. When hipsters adopt a protest, that protest has become SAFE. And when it is SAFE and NORMAL, it's only a small step towards acceptance.
So hipster adaptation of protest is a bellwether of change in the larger society.
I would really like people to start thinking a little more critically about the word "hipster" and the people it's used to describe.
In general, I consider it a lazy pejorative. It's a mindless categorization that doesn't mean a fucking thing. To look at you, you're a hipster, LMNO. So am I.
I think the general-consensus PD-based definition of "hipster" is a known quantity, and language that might be too vague to use somewhere else is sort of taken in stride here. I'd never call anyone a "damn dirty hipster" outside of this forum and my workplace, but only because everyone sort of has a culture-based idea of what the word means in context.
You're right about pinning down definitions with critical thought, though. When I say "hipster" here it means a different thing than when I say it at work. Both are pejorative though, and both of them often include those hats that aren't really fedoras but people call them fedoras anyway.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 06, 2013, 01:16:40 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2013, 10:02:10 PM
But check it-- for social change, hipsters adopting the protest means that the issue is NORMALISED. The idea of a hipster adopting gay rights prior to 1969 is hard to imagine. When hipsters adopt a protest, that protest has become SAFE. And when it is SAFE and NORMAL, it's only a small step towards acceptance.
So hipster adaptation of protest is a bellwether of change in the larger society.
I would really like people to start thinking a little more critically about the word "hipster" and the people it's used to describe.
In general, I consider it a lazy pejorative. It's a mindless categorization that doesn't mean a fucking thing. To look at you, you're a hipster, LMNO. So am I.
I have something specific in mind when I think of that word. And neither one of you qualify.
You both have very strong beliefs. Neither one of you is looking to be some fucking guru over the next big thing, at the expense of that next big thing.
Shitty Italian shoes and Brad Pitt hats don't make the hipster.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 06, 2013, 04:54:52 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 06, 2013, 01:16:40 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2013, 10:02:10 PM
But check it-- for social change, hipsters adopting the protest means that the issue is NORMALISED. The idea of a hipster adopting gay rights prior to 1969 is hard to imagine. When hipsters adopt a protest, that protest has become SAFE. And when it is SAFE and NORMAL, it's only a small step towards acceptance.
So hipster adaptation of protest is a bellwether of change in the larger society.
I would really like people to start thinking a little more critically about the word "hipster" and the people it's used to describe.
In general, I consider it a lazy pejorative. It's a mindless categorization that doesn't mean a fucking thing. To look at you, you're a hipster, LMNO. So am I.
I have something specific in mind when I think of that word. And neither one of you qualify.
You both have very strong beliefs. Neither one of you is looking to be some fucking guru over the next big thing, at the expense of that next big thing.
Shitty Italian shoes and Brad Pitt hats don't make the hipster.
Yeah.
They don't fit the "I don't care what ANYBODY thinks and to PROVE it I'll wear ugly-ass grandpa shoes and listen to what
Pitchfork says I'm supposed to like" thing.
Quote from: V3X on July 05, 2013, 09:07:00 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 05, 2013, 08:48:58 PM
Quote from: V3X on July 05, 2013, 07:11:40 PM
This discussion got off the track of my original statement, which was that the Protest Culture™ is largely ineffective in the West. I was not talking about actual protests/riots that have overtaken a number of countries around the planet and resulted in at least some kind of deviation from the established norms in those countries. I was talking specifically about what it means to protest in the West, specifically in America.
And what I was saying was that here, where things are relatively comfortable for most people, protests are pretty harmless to the status quo. Occupy has done absolutely nothing to threaten Big Money, or really even to spread meaningful awareness of the problems caused and exacerbated by the financial industry. Throngs of people in Wisconsin didn't stop Governor Brown from sticking it to unions. In Texas massive protests failed to garner the support of anyone who wasn't already on the protesters' side, or impede the advancement of the draconian laws on their agenda. Anonymous has been known to take a web page offline for a day or two, and seriously annoy a handful Scientologists, but beyond that I'm not sure exactly what it is they're accomplishing.
It isn't that protests are inherently powerless, it's that they are now a known entity and as such the status quo can stay out of their reach. A protest is just a lot of people stinking up a park for a while, as far as anyone in power is concerned. Protests can't last forever, and even if they could, who cares? A permanent street fair isn't going to hurt anything. To be successful, a mass protest must be a display of popular force, not popular sentiment. That doesn't mean rioting or property damage is necessary, but you've got to do more than just show up with a picket sign and chant slogans. Organized civil disobedience is a form of protest that goes a long way toward making a difference, for example.
I'm just saying that as long as there are so many people more interested in identifying themselves as subversive than in actually subverting anything, their squawking is mostly harmless. And any movement that gives people a venue to vent their frustration will be allowed, and even encouraged, so long as that movement remains ineffective at really upsetting the social order. Anonymous manufacturing their most recognizable symbol in a sweatshop isn't the problem, but it's symbolic of a situation where identifying yourself as an agent of change is culturally equivalent to actually being an agent of change.
So you're moving your goalposts again, this time to declare that protesting in the West, specifically, has no effect.
And you're choosing to ignore the many, many examples I posted of cultural and political change that were brought on through protest and activism why, exactly?
Not moving goalposts. You're the one who decided I was talking about protests worldwide when from the beginning that was not the case. I was specifically talking about protesters in the West being more concerned with joining a subculture than actually protesting anything.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 05, 2013, 08:55:05 PM
Quote from: V3X on July 05, 2013, 07:18:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 05, 2013, 07:14:21 PM
Quote from: V3X on July 05, 2013, 07:11:40 PM
This discussion got off the track of my original statement, which was that the Protest Culture™ is largely ineffective in the West. I was not talking about actual protests/riots that have overtaken a number of countries around the planet and resulted in at least some kind of deviation from the established norms in those countries. I was talking specifically about what it means to protest in the West, specifically in America.
Again, do you think the right for Gays to marry just happened? Or the right for them to not have the shit kicked out of them with a wink and a nod from the legal system just appeared?
That's one example. I can name a lot of others.
No, but I'm not convinced it was protests that got that done. Protests were part of it, maybe, but I think most of the progress in that area specifically came from a cultural shift at the lowest levels. The LGBTQ community was portrayed positively in media on a large scale; gays began to tell their stories and share their experiences and come out of the closet in larger numbers; almost everyone in the country can say they have a gay friend, relative, or coworker. It wasn't Gay Pride parades or picket signs that changed America's mind, it was forcing people to account for the way they personally treated others that caused a huge shift in popular sentiment.
You seem to be wilfully overlooking the fact that the cultural shift happened in the first place because of queers refusing to stay hidden, ie. protesting. Are you familiar with the Stonewall Riots?
I am incredulous that you don't think protests, Pride parades, etc. were influential in shifting general public attitudes to gays towards acceptance. Absolutely just WTF.
I think you are digging in your heels, and the thing is, not only are you wrong, you are documentably, demonstrably wrong.
The Stonewall Riots and pride parades weren't and aren't inconsequential, they're just not the most important or most influential source of the changing popular perception of gays. Those attitudes didn't even start changing until 20 years after the Stonewall Riots, and while they have changed as a result of LGBTQ people protesting, it was protest in the truest sense of the word: refusing to be the subject of abuse and mistreatment by the system; acts of civil disobedience and firmly claiming and defending one's dignity. This is not the sense of protesting I'm talking about and I think I've repeated that quite a few times. I'm not talking about civil disobedience, I'm talking about showing up at a rally to wave a flag or chant something instead of actually doing anything, and the tendency to accept that kind of frivolous "protest" as all that really needs to happen to instigate change.
Why is wanting to belong to a subculture so bad? And hasn't that always been the case in every movement? Some Punks were in it to piss off their parents, some hippies were in it for the drugs and the sex, and some beatniks just looked REALLY good in berets. It's not that having these sorts of individuals is a new thing, its that the news media focuses on them as a more convenient and entertaining narrative to help spin protests into something that can be either laughed at or ignored.
as for what really needs to be done, I think one thing that needs to be addressed is expectations. Rebels get all excited to riot in the streets and then get disappointed when all their catharsis results in them having nothing but a bunch of broken windows and a police record. Sometimes, effective movements have to be prepared to do boring things like coalition building and legislative lobbying in order to win small reasonable victories over a long period of time.
also this:http://www.cracked.com/video_18560_why-its-time-to-stop-calling-everything-hipster.html
I think the LGBTIQQ rights battle may actually be won in my lifetime...though Transsexual/Transgender people still either get the back of the bus or chucked under it...and if you ever want to be properly outraged about what happens to intersex babies, please read "As Nature made him," by John Colapinto.
I came out in '92...we've come a long way. :)
Nigel, you're right-- I was using a lazy pejorative as shorthand in order to make my point. The person I was talking about was the kind of person who uses protest as a fashion accessory. I should not have used the word "hipster".
So, the feeling I get is that this is less about the usefulness of protests, and more about how people choose to accessories their rebellion against a perceived status quo.
Or the perceived meaning behind the manner in which people dress in regard to protesting the status quo.
Basically, the point I'm getting is: our pitiful sense of rebellion should be more authentically accessorIzod. To fit the stankard of a proper rebellion. Or something.
What I do know is that LMNO and Nigel are indeed total fucking hipsters.
Not this kid though, nope, nuh uh.
Anyway, the next time I see someone on a GF mask instead of gap clothes and a glassy eyed, slack jaw that speaks of many hours of watching TV, I will be sure to let that ffucking Hipster piece of shit know his efforts are worthless.
I mean, check my ass if I have misunderstood something, but "HEY quit making discontent fashionable, I'm trying to do nothing over here and you look silly." is just about the lamest battle cry ever.
ETA: SOMETHING SOMETHING REALLY REAL FOR REAL REBELS AGAINST TYRANNY ROOL, GUY FAWKES MASKS DROOL.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 06, 2013, 04:54:52 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 06, 2013, 01:16:40 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2013, 10:02:10 PM
But check it-- for social change, hipsters adopting the protest means that the issue is NORMALISED. The idea of a hipster adopting gay rights prior to 1969 is hard to imagine. When hipsters adopt a protest, that protest has become SAFE. And when it is SAFE and NORMAL, it's only a small step towards acceptance.
So hipster adaptation of protest is a bellwether of change in the larger society.
I would really like people to start thinking a little more critically about the word "hipster" and the people it's used to describe.
In general, I consider it a lazy pejorative. It's a mindless categorization that doesn't mean a fucking thing. To look at you, you're a hipster, LMNO. So am I.
I have something specific in mind when I think of that word. And neither one of you qualify.
You both have very strong beliefs. Neither one of you is looking to be some fucking guru over the next big thing, at the expense of that next big thing.
Shitty Italian shoes and Brad Pitt hats don't make the hipster.
So... how can you tell by looking at someone that they're a hipster, or not a hipster? Because I don't mean to be a dick (I just can't help it) but the language of "I don't mean you, I mean other people, you're one of the good ones" makes me pretty uncomfortable, in general.
I mean, as far as I can tell the only thing that really distinguishes a "hipster" from anyone else is that they aren't rednecks or backwards-mesh-cap-wearing Abercrombie & Fitch drones. And you can't tell a person's ideology by looking.
Quote from: Chelagoras The Boulder on July 06, 2013, 08:58:14 AM
Why is wanting to belong to a subculture so bad? And hasn't that always been the case in every movement? Some Punks were in it to piss off their parents, some hippies were in it for the drugs and the sex, and some beatniks just looked REALLY good in berets. It's not that having these sorts of individuals is a new thing, its that the news media focuses on them as a more convenient and entertaining narrative to help spin protests into something that can be either laughed at or ignored.
as for what really needs to be done, I think one thing that needs to be addressed is expectations. Rebels get all excited to riot in the streets and then get disappointed when all their catharsis results in them having nothing but a bunch of broken windows and a police record. Sometimes, effective movements have to be prepared to do boring things like coalition building and legislative lobbying in order to win small reasonable victories over a long period of time.
also this:http://www.cracked.com/video_18560_why-its-time-to-stop-calling-everything-hipster.html
Bingo. This this this.
Quote from: V3X on July 06, 2013, 03:29:31 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 06, 2013, 01:16:40 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2013, 10:02:10 PM
But check it-- for social change, hipsters adopting the protest means that the issue is NORMALISED. The idea of a hipster adopting gay rights prior to 1969 is hard to imagine. When hipsters adopt a protest, that protest has become SAFE. And when it is SAFE and NORMAL, it's only a small step towards acceptance.
So hipster adaptation of protest is a bellwether of change in the larger society.
I would really like people to start thinking a little more critically about the word "hipster" and the people it's used to describe.
In general, I consider it a lazy pejorative. It's a mindless categorization that doesn't mean a fucking thing. To look at you, you're a hipster, LMNO. So am I.
I think the general-consensus PD-based definition of "hipster" is a known quantity, and language that might be too vague to use somewhere else is sort of taken in stride here. I'd never call anyone a "damn dirty hipster" outside of this forum and my workplace, but only because everyone sort of has a culture-based idea of what the word means in context.
You're right about pinning down definitions with critical thought, though. When I say "hipster" here it means a different thing than when I say it at work. Both are pejorative though, and both of them often include those hats that aren't really fedoras but people call them fedoras anyway.
It's never been my consensus and the board is littered with plenty of threads demonstrating that.
As far as I can tell, for most people, "hipster" means "anyone I don't like".
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 06, 2013, 05:24:45 PM
Nigel, you're right-- I was using a lazy pejorative as shorthand in order to make my point. The person I was talking about was the kind of person who uses protest as a fashion accessory. I should not have used the word "hipster".
Thanks, man.
Quote from: Alty on July 06, 2013, 07:10:26 PM
I mean, check my ass if I have misunderstood something, but "HEY quit making discontent fashionable, I'm trying to do nothing over here and you look silly." is just about the lamest battle cry ever.
ETA: SOMETHING SOMETHING REALLY REAL FOR REAL REBELS AGAINST TYRANNY ROOL, GUY FAWKES MASKS DROOL.
Annnnnd this.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 06, 2013, 10:00:52 PM
Quote from: V3X on July 06, 2013, 03:29:31 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 06, 2013, 01:16:40 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 05, 2013, 10:02:10 PM
But check it-- for social change, hipsters adopting the protest means that the issue is NORMALISED. The idea of a hipster adopting gay rights prior to 1969 is hard to imagine. When hipsters adopt a protest, that protest has become SAFE. And when it is SAFE and NORMAL, it's only a small step towards acceptance.
So hipster adaptation of protest is a bellwether of change in the larger society.
I would really like people to start thinking a little more critically about the word "hipster" and the people it's used to describe.
In general, I consider it a lazy pejorative. It's a mindless categorization that doesn't mean a fucking thing. To look at you, you're a hipster, LMNO. So am I.
I think the general-consensus PD-based definition of "hipster" is a known quantity, and language that might be too vague to use somewhere else is sort of taken in stride here. I'd never call anyone a "damn dirty hipster" outside of this forum and my workplace, but only because everyone sort of has a culture-based idea of what the word means in context.
You're right about pinning down definitions with critical thought, though. When I say "hipster" here it means a different thing than when I say it at work. Both are pejorative though, and both of them often include those hats that aren't really fedoras but people call them fedoras anyway.
It's never been my consensus and the board is littered with plenty of threads demonstrating that.
As far as I can tell, for most people, "hipster" means "anyone I don't like".
I think that's it, "hipster" is shorthand for "anyone I don't like." I could type out "anyone I don't like," but "hipster" rolls off the keyboard much more easily.
Quote from: Alty on July 06, 2013, 07:10:26 PM
I mean, check my ass if I have misunderstood something, but "HEY quit making discontent fashionable, I'm trying to do nothing over here and you look silly." is just about the lamest battle cry ever.
ETA: SOMETHING SOMETHING REALLY REAL FOR REAL REBELS AGAINST TYRANNY ROOL, GUY FAWKES MASKS DROOL.
Fair point. I think my gripe boils down to 'actions speak louder than words' and I'm mostly preaching to myself. Discontent being fashionable is awesome, but when it amounts to no net progress it's frustrating. It's especially frustrating when I see myself being the epitome of what I'm railing against, full of discontent and nothing to do about it. Too jaded to write a letter to an unpaid intern in my senator's office, too busy at work to take a day off and go protesting, too strapped for cash to worry about where the shit I'm buying is made or what kind of GMOs are in the food I feed my kids.
"Change is occurring more slowly than anyone would like" =/= "No net progress".
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 06, 2013, 10:34:23 PM
"Change is occurring more slowly than anyone would like" =/= "No net progress".
Considering how long it took to go from the African slave trade to the Civil Rights Act (not that that fight is over by a long shot), I should be impressed with how quickly we've gone from "homosexuality is a contagious mental illness" to the demise of DOMA's most horrific provision.
But it's a hard pill to swallow to know that, whenever change comes, it washes over the blank faces of most of humanity. They shift their direction to match the current of new social norms, but they do it mostly unconsciously at best, and usually begrudgingly. While change and progress may not be defeated, they're recognized by most people, either.
Quote from: V3X on July 06, 2013, 10:48:28 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 06, 2013, 10:34:23 PM
"Change is occurring more slowly than anyone would like" =/= "No net progress".
Considering how long it took to go from the African slave trade to the Civil Rights Act (not that that fight is over by a long shot), I should be impressed with how quickly we've gone from "homosexuality is a contagious mental illness" to the demise of DOMA's most horrific provision.
But it's a hard pill to swallow to know that, whenever change comes, it washes over the blank faces of most of humanity. They shift their direction to match the current of new social norms, but they do it mostly unconsciously at best, and usually begrudgingly. While change and progress may not be defeated, they're recognized by most people, either.
Humanity sucking is not the responsibility of the revolution.
Quote from: V3X on July 06, 2013, 10:48:28 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 06, 2013, 10:34:23 PM
"Change is occurring more slowly than anyone would like" =/= "No net progress".
Considering how long it took to go from the African slave trade to the Civil Rights Act (not that that fight is over by a long shot), I should be impressed with how quickly we've gone from "homosexuality is a contagious mental illness" to the demise of DOMA's most horrific provision.
But it's a hard pill to swallow to know that, whenever change comes, it washes over the blank faces of most of humanity. They shift their direction to match the current of new social norms, but they do it mostly unconsciously at best, and usually begrudgingly. While change and progress may not be defeated, they're recognized by most people, either.
I'm so glad I'm not you.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 07, 2013, 02:27:12 AM
Quote from: V3X on July 06, 2013, 10:48:28 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 06, 2013, 10:34:23 PM
"Change is occurring more slowly than anyone would like" =/= "No net progress".
Considering how long it took to go from the African slave trade to the Civil Rights Act (not that that fight is over by a long shot), I should be impressed with how quickly we've gone from "homosexuality is a contagious mental illness" to the demise of DOMA's most horrific provision.
But it's a hard pill to swallow to know that, whenever change comes, it washes over the blank faces of most of humanity. They shift their direction to match the current of new social norms, but they do it mostly unconsciously at best, and usually begrudgingly. While change and progress may not be defeated, they're recognized by most people, either.
I'm so glad I'm not you.
You really enjoy condescension, don't you? :lulz:
Quote from: V3X on July 07, 2013, 02:29:00 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 07, 2013, 02:27:12 AM
Quote from: V3X on July 06, 2013, 10:48:28 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 06, 2013, 10:34:23 PM
"Change is occurring more slowly than anyone would like" =/= "No net progress".
Considering how long it took to go from the African slave trade to the Civil Rights Act (not that that fight is over by a long shot), I should be impressed with how quickly we've gone from "homosexuality is a contagious mental illness" to the demise of DOMA's most horrific provision.
But it's a hard pill to swallow to know that, whenever change comes, it washes over the blank faces of most of humanity. They shift their direction to match the current of new social norms, but they do it mostly unconsciously at best, and usually begrudgingly. While change and progress may not be defeated, they're recognized by most people, either.
I'm so glad I'm not you.
You really enjoy condescension, don't you? :lulz:
Yes I do, thank you for noticing!
No, but seriously. I mean, yeah, people do shitty things. But unrelenting pessimism is just so narrow and dismal.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 07, 2013, 02:51:34 AM
Quote from: V3X on July 07, 2013, 02:29:00 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 07, 2013, 02:27:12 AM
Quote from: V3X on July 06, 2013, 10:48:28 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 06, 2013, 10:34:23 PM
"Change is occurring more slowly than anyone would like" =/= "No net progress".
Considering how long it took to go from the African slave trade to the Civil Rights Act (not that that fight is over by a long shot), I should be impressed with how quickly we've gone from "homosexuality is a contagious mental illness" to the demise of DOMA's most horrific provision.
But it's a hard pill to swallow to know that, whenever change comes, it washes over the blank faces of most of humanity. They shift their direction to match the current of new social norms, but they do it mostly unconsciously at best, and usually begrudgingly. While change and progress may not be defeated, they're recognized by most people, either.
I'm so glad I'm not you.
You really enjoy condescension, don't you? :lulz:
Yes I do, thank you for noticing!
No, but seriously. I mean, yeah, people do shitty things. But unrelenting pessimism is just so narrow and dismal.
I don't know about narrow and dismal, but it's exhausting, that's for sure. And I am not always pessimistic, I've just been having a shitty last few days that have aimed my overall outlook at "meh." I should really avoid trying to have Big Ideas when I feel this way, to be honest.
Of course, I also feel that most people are basically decent, and also that this is true:
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/sheeple.png)
I mean, that's sort of what that whole "common walls" project was about.
I tend to think that people who put themselves in the "special, thinking person" category and the majority of others in the "mindless followers" category are kind of delusional. False uniqueness and all that.
Quote from: V3X on July 07, 2013, 02:56:25 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 07, 2013, 02:51:34 AM
Quote from: V3X on July 07, 2013, 02:29:00 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 07, 2013, 02:27:12 AM
Quote from: V3X on July 06, 2013, 10:48:28 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 06, 2013, 10:34:23 PM
"Change is occurring more slowly than anyone would like" =/= "No net progress".
Considering how long it took to go from the African slave trade to the Civil Rights Act (not that that fight is over by a long shot), I should be impressed with how quickly we've gone from "homosexuality is a contagious mental illness" to the demise of DOMA's most horrific provision.
But it's a hard pill to swallow to know that, whenever change comes, it washes over the blank faces of most of humanity. They shift their direction to match the current of new social norms, but they do it mostly unconsciously at best, and usually begrudgingly. While change and progress may not be defeated, they're recognized by most people, either.
I'm so glad I'm not you.
You really enjoy condescension, don't you? :lulz:
Yes I do, thank you for noticing!
No, but seriously. I mean, yeah, people do shitty things. But unrelenting pessimism is just so narrow and dismal.
I don't know about narrow and dismal, but it's exhausting, that's for sure. And I am not always pessimistic, I've just been having a shitty last few days that have aimed my overall outlook at "meh." I should really avoid trying to have Big Ideas when I feel this way, to be honest.
Understandable, and I hope things get better soon.
That's very honest of you, and I appreciate that.
This reminds of of why i hate when people use the word sheeple. It implies that everyone who is not doing it the way you think its supposed to be done are mindlessly following someone elses ideas. Maybe in some cases thats true but its unfair to the people who just happen to like it that way or actually have thought it out and still get lumped under that term. Likewise i have a particular image in my head when someone says hispter much in the way that i get an image when someone says metalhead. But thats still an exaggeration and overemphasizing their tastes instead of their ideas. Theres more to a person than deliberate obscurity in their entertainment selections or what kind of hats they like to wear.
Scion had a commercial a few years ago about "sheeple".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWxp3Pe8hmI
I couldn't imagine who they thought they were marketing to. Kids, I guess.
Quote from: Emo Howard on July 07, 2013, 05:50:12 AM
Scion had a commercial a few years ago about "sheeple".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWxp3Pe8hmI
I couldn't imagine who they thought they were marketing to. Kids, I guess.
Wow, that is an astonishingly bad commercial. WTF?
"Sheeple" reminds me of this:
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wake_up_sheeple.png)
I can't go into details but, I have a friend...
This friend bitches about a specific organization that has a front of helping a certain vulnerable group just to divert resources to their own pockets... bitch up and down Righteous Avenue...
"Dude, you should report them, you have first-hand knowledge of what is happening."
"Oh but, I could get into trouble, I fear for myself."
"Fine, then stfu and stop bitching about it, because you are basicly co-opted and are benefitting from it."
**Cue shamed, silent face**
It's what i would call the "Daria easy-way-out"... cynical attitude, witty sarcasm, but ultimately supports the status-quo with its passivity and lack of action.
So either get off your ass and come up with a better plan AND implement it, or just shut up and get out of the way.
Vice on UK Policing:
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-metropolitan-police-cops-out-of-control
QuoteIn the wake of 9/11, British and American authorities were quick to embrace more aggressive policing approaches and grew increasingly impatient and intolerant of political protest. The USA Patriot act and its British legislative equivalent, the Terrorism Act, both made it significantly easier for police to criminalise dissent and have each been routinely abused. While the Met and other police forces pay lip service to "facilitating peaceful protest", any kind of political expression outside of the tick-box electoral process is treated with suspicion. Sure, you have the right to protest, but show up at a political demonstration and you run the risk of being kettled for hours on end, being aggressively photographed and filmed by police photography teams or just getting a good, old-fashioned kicking in the back of a police van.
I asked Val Swain of FITWatch, a group that monitors the policing of political groups, what she made of the recent revelations of undercover policing. She told me, "This isn't just about undercover policing. The police treat protest as something to prevent, deter and disturb, so they've created an environment in which people are fearful of becoming involved in political protest and distrustful of those who are already are."
Much of the article applies to other Police forces, particularly the move towards militarization.
Yeah, protesting hasn't exactly been "safe" for quite a while here, either.
There's something in my head about the relationship between the state and dissent with some "coping" (This could mean acknowledging grievances and providing redress to well, not.)
There seems to be an issue with states that have effective grievance procedures do not tend to need or have many protests for this reason. Which kind of gets me thinking that pretty much every protest is somehow wrong by focusing on the issue and not how to change the system to provide "compensation" of some sort and ensure further lapses don't happen.
By taking the "X is Bad, Lets protest" you force the system into an authority reaction. "X is bad so lets change Y and Z to prevent X reoccurring" is not a catchy protest chant however. Less focus on the issue and more on the systemic failing is what I'm getting at. Otherwise you just seem to end up repeating the same protests over and over again.
I'm also kind of leaning to any protest being much more effective directly related to the horrific event spurring it. Been reading a lot about "story-telling" of late, and it would appear that people are much more involved with any protest if it's got a nasty human tragedy to begin the conversation.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 04, 2013, 10:16:19 PM
I also think that the "There's no point in protesting, it won't change anything anyway" rhetoric is designed to get the majority of people to SHUT UP, and it does a very effective job of doing so.
There's always a point in protesting...it may not be to effect change, but then it doesn't need to be. At a given point there is nothing left to do but to take to the streets and scream FUCK THIS SHIT. Even if it doesn't result in some big dramatic change in the world, it does result in a big dramatic change in the person who does it -- that is to sayc they go from feeling pissed off and shitty to pissed off and really, REALLY good.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 05, 2013, 06:40:53 PM
Thing is, Nigel, this has resulted in the population galloping to the left. It's hard to see day-to-day, because the 20% that thought Palin was a good idea are LOUD. But looking at things from a results-based viewpoint, what's changed, there's no doubt that a bit of sanity is returning.
It's a long game. Results take time, but they are occurring. Getting impatient and declaring the system defunct plays directly into the hands of the people who aren't really happy with the idea of a republic...The Koch brothers, among other people.
Have you heard the one about the two bulls?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHcoMMaW2ZU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHcoMMaW2ZU)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 05, 2013, 07:22:27 PM
Quote from: V3X on July 05, 2013, 07:18:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 05, 2013, 07:14:21 PM
Quote from: V3X on July 05, 2013, 07:11:40 PM
This discussion got off the track of my original statement, which was that the Protest Culture™ is largely ineffective in the West. I was not talking about actual protests/riots that have overtaken a number of countries around the planet and resulted in at least some kind of deviation from the established norms in those countries. I was talking specifically about what it means to protest in the West, specifically in America.
Again, do you think the right for Gays to marry just happened? Or the right for them to not have the shit kicked out of them with a wink and a nod from the legal system just appeared?
That's one example. I can name a lot of others.
No, but I'm not convinced it was protests that got that done. Protests were part of it, maybe, but I think most of the progress in that area specifically came from a cultural shift at the lowest levels. The LGBTQ community was portrayed positively in media on a large scale; gays began to tell their stories and share their experiences and come out of the closet in larger numbers; almost everyone in the country can say they have a gay friend, relative, or coworker. It wasn't Gay Pride parades or picket signs that changed America's mind, it was forcing people to account for the way they personally treated others that caused a huge shift in popular sentiment.
The American public doesn't change its mind unless it has been shamed.
Pride parades showed America that Gays were actually people, and that they were actually kind of cool in their outrageous flamboyance in some of the parades. Then you show them the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard. The effect isn't very much different than the civil rights movement, where the Blacks were shown marching and calmly demanding their rights, contrasted with yahoos and bull cops beating on them.
And too, it should be noted, that the Stonewall riots were seen as a galvinizing moment. Had they just gone on and burnt everything to the ground, that would have been bad, yes. But had the big momentary flare of that possibility not occurred, how many people would have never been privy to the fact that there was a movement of people out there just as pissed as them?
I do think that ultimately it is a long game, but you do need step-stones...and sometimes those step-stones are, well, messy.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 08, 2013, 02:25:18 PM
There seems to be an issue with states that have effective grievance procedures do not tend to need or have many protests for this reason. Which kind of gets me thinking that pretty much every protest is somehow wrong by focusing on the issue and not how to change the system to provide "compensation" of some sort and ensure further lapses don't happen.
I think you're putting the cart before the horse.
Don't people need to agree on what the issues
are before they can organize to plan and implement changes?
And in order plan and implement changes, don't you need to know if you have significant support? I think that's one of the crucial aspects of protests that a lot of people completely miss. If you feel alone in your grievance, how likely are you to try and implement anything?
Knowing that many other people share your concerns is inspiring and leads to people looking for ways to make changes because they feel like it's possible. The whiny pessimism that Vex displayed is a great example of the viewpoint that leads people to not even looking for ways to change the status quo,
because they don't think it's possible.
Yes.
Protests here have already led to significant changes, in part because lawmakers KNEW, thanks to the visibility of support, they had constituent support for bills that would have just five or ten years ago been dismissed as too socialistic.
The flip side is also true: Portland will never, ever be fluoridated short of Federal intervention, and it's looking like more GMO will be outlawed due to consumer pressure, which may or may not be a good thing, depending. Sometimes protests lead to totally stupid laws, or to good things being rejected. But hey, that's democracy for you.
QuoteDon't people need to agree on what the issues are before they can organize to plan and implement changes?
(somewhat disconnected thoughts, forgive or ignore. Or other.)
That kind of shoves me back to the "Need Martyr" mindset. From what I've seen, most protests are against something being wrong. Fundamentally wrong. X(over5?seems high)/10 people see it and feel negative. Discontent registers from all levels not just the street. The million man march had the backing of more than a million men. It also had a number of horrific incidents and martyrs to galvanise the changes.
Women's civil rights in the UK were seen as a terrorist threat for many years. Again, the martyr galvanised the movement and allowed the public discourse. As it affected half the population, the result was then somewhat inevitable in some ways.
A lot of the protest in the middle east seem to be getting shit done, for better or worse. No shortage of martyr figures here either.
I wonder what the situation of Occupy would be like if there were a few(More? can recall none) dead college kids.
I would suggest that it is considerably easier today to communicate grievances to peers than ever before in human history. As such, it's much easier to organise protests at the expense of actually doing something to cause/force/discuss change.
A Pride parade in San Francisco is no longer a protest or even a real declaration of pride. Take that to Texas and it's a whole new conversation.
I may be somewhat jaded. I've been in my share of marches, rallies and various discontent against X. Rarely have I seen these people attack anything that could be considered the root of the problem.
It's probably harder to be optimistic in places which have less activism and are less progressive, since you can't actually see the effects of political activism happening in front of you short-term, though. It does raise the question of whether places like Arizona are less progressive because they lack activism, or whether they lacks activism because they're less progressive, though.
Pride parades here are no longer protests, but speaking as a person with a gay child, they fucking well are so displays of pride.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 08, 2013, 10:57:07 PM
It's probably harder to be optimistic in places which have less activism and are less progressive, since you can't actually see the effects of political activism happening in front of you short-term, though. It does raise the question of whether places like Arizona are less progressive because they lack activism, or whether they lacks activism because they're less progressive, though.
In Arizona's case, we are less progressive because fuck going outside right now. Seriously, I would rather be hauled off to an internment camp than be irradiated by that god damn Thing in the sky, just to register an in-person complaint with Governor Leatherface or her trusty sidekick Sheriff Joe that will be immediately tossed in the wastebin anyway.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 08, 2013, 10:57:07 PM
It's probably harder to be optimistic in places which have less activism and are less progressive, since you can't actually see the effects of political activism happening in front of you short-term, though. It does raise the question of whether places like Arizona are less progressive because they lack activism, or whether they lacks activism because they're less progressive, though.
I'd suspect it's both feeding into each other in a cycle. That's why you get some places becoming more regressive. Crazy picks up steam fast, and it's much more vocal than reform.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 08, 2013, 10:58:27 PM
Pride parades here are no longer protests, but speaking as a person with a gay child, they fucking well are so displays of pride.
I'll gladly stand corrected. My experience of Pride parades is minimal. One, in fact. I saw many emotions but pride was not one of then. This was Brighton however, so that may explain something.
I suspect that we can all agree that protests are a form of PR, and that the mechanism of action by which protests foment change is not inherently different from other PR mechanisms like advertising or like the publicization of symbolic acts (Corporation X spends a million dollars on a hospital in the Congo and spends six million dollars telling everyone about it). Protests affect mindshare, but are not inherently directly effective, and they are weak to barriers in information flow (with the exception that heavy-handed censorship makes them more powerful due to the Streisand effect). Protests can be manufactured, and in some cases that's a good thing for the sake of effectiveness (because they aren't sabotaged from within by people who refuse to stay 'on-message'), but they have a populist angle the same way that the Anonymous brand does (and because of this, people perform protests for causes they genuinely believe in for free).
Regarding "what's wrong with wanting to belong to a subculture", the subculture as a mixed-bag has been discussed in BIP and elsewhere. The tl;dr version as I see it (and I may be bringing in points I've seen elsewhere; I don't intend to misrepresent it, but I haven't read it in years) is: belonging to a subculture is fine but a little bit dangerous; it's easy to identify with a subculture and begin to react to threats upon it as threats upon you, or to defend it when it is indefensible; it's easy to buy into ideas that are floating around in the subculture you frequent and reject ones from outside regardless of whether the ideas in question are true or useful; subcultures, since they merge signs and signifiers with ideas, make it easy for people to pidgeonhole you or to predict you based on broad strokes, and while this is not necessarily useful -- while the predictions are not necessarily correct -- it leads to assumptions that are very hard to change; while subcultures and their internal symbolism are useful for communicating with other people within the same subculture, they are alienating to outsiders, and that is part of their function -- if you don't want that, you then need to throw off some of the symbols and code-switch, because group identification hinders communication.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 08, 2013, 10:57:07 PM
It's probably harder to be optimistic in places which have less activism and are less progressive, since you can't actually see the effects of political activism happening in front of you short-term, though. It does raise the question of whether places like Arizona are less progressive because they lack activism, or whether they lacks activism because they're less progressive, though.
That's probably the most interesting question I've heard in a while.
Quote from: V3X on July 08, 2013, 11:01:58 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 08, 2013, 10:57:07 PM
It's probably harder to be optimistic in places which have less activism and are less progressive, since you can't actually see the effects of political activism happening in front of you short-term, though. It does raise the question of whether places like Arizona are less progressive because they lack activism, or whether they lacks activism because they're less progressive, though.
In Arizona's case, we are less progressive because fuck going outside right now. Seriously, I would rather be hauled off to an internment camp than be irradiated by that god damn Thing in the sky, just to register an in-person complaint with Governor Leatherface or her trusty sidekick Sheriff Joe that will be immediately tossed in the wastebin anyway.
It's the same here in New England. Summer just sucks in general. I think the difference is, that we actually have 4 seasons here: 5 months of winter, 1 month of spring, half of the time, it rains, 5 months of summer, 1 month of autumn, and again, half rain. We don't mind marching in the rain. We just don't like marching in Wicked Fahkin Summah. Which, usually happens the last week of June.
You know, except for those crazy people who set traditions like, lets sit out in the sun playing with fire and drinking beer all day during the hottest month of the year because some dead guys wrote an angry letter to some king, and then throw fire in the sky when we're all dehydrated and the sun goes down.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 08, 2013, 10:55:31 PM
QuoteDon't people need to agree on what the issues are before they can organize to plan and implement changes?
(somewhat disconnected thoughts, forgive or ignore. Or other.)
That kind of shoves me back to the "Need Martyr" mindset. From what I've seen, most protests are against something being wrong. Fundamentally wrong. X(over5?seems high)/10 people see it and feel negative. Discontent registers from all levels not just the street.
And you don't have a tangible idea of how prevalent that discontent is until you see it in the street.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 08, 2013, 10:55:31 PM
I would suggest that it is considerably easier today to communicate grievances to peers than ever before in human history. As such, it's much easier to organise protests at the expense of actually doing something to cause/force/discuss change.
That's a false dichotomy. I see that you don't want to address points made about the utility of protests and are back to the unexamined assumption that protests do nothing in and of themselves.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 08, 2013, 10:55:31 PM
I may be somewhat jaded. I've been in my share of marches, rallies and various discontent against X. Rarely have I seen these people attack anything that could be considered the root of the problem.
Sounds like a bad case of SGitR, and impatience.
What is the root of the problem and how should people be attacking it?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 08, 2013, 10:57:07 PM
It's probably harder to be optimistic in places which have less activism and are less progressive, since you can't actually see the effects of political activism happening in front of you short-term, though. It does raise the question of whether places like Arizona are less progressive because they lack activism, or whether they lacks activism because they're less progressive, though.
It's the second one. A huge portion of our state is retired, and they're law & order types.
Quote from: Net on July 09, 2013, 02:53:01 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 08, 2013, 10:55:31 PM
QuoteDon't people need to agree on what the issues are before they can organize to plan and implement changes?
(somewhat disconnected thoughts, forgive or ignore. Or other.)
That kind of shoves me back to the "Need Martyr" mindset. From what I've seen, most protests are against something being wrong. Fundamentally wrong. X(over5?seems high)/10 people see it and feel negative. Discontent registers from all levels not just the street.
And you don't have a tangible idea of how prevalent that discontent is until you see it in the street.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 08, 2013, 10:55:31 PM
I would suggest that it is considerably easier today to communicate grievances to peers than ever before in human history. As such, it's much easier to organise protests at the expense of actually doing something to cause/force/discuss change.
That's a false dichotomy. I see that you don't want to address points made about the utility of protests and are back to the unexamined assumption that protests do nothing in and of themselves.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 08, 2013, 10:55:31 PM
I may be somewhat jaded. I've been in my share of marches, rallies and various discontent against X. Rarely have I seen these people attack anything that could be considered the root of the problem.
Sounds like a bad case of SGitR, and impatience.
What is the root of the problem and how should people be attacking it?
Hardly SGitr, as many, many of my posts will note.
Take the london Riots/Protest. Widespread discontent about police corruption and racism. Very few "protestors" able to articulate anything like that, if indeed that was their actual grievance. Or how about EDL/White pride/ Westboro/ Anti-Westboro? All directly attack X IS bad but little rational mention of why X is bad, or how to resolve X.
How about war protests? Did that "No blood for Oil" chant (Pick a decade) stop blood being exchanged for Oil? No. Or Rarely, at best.
ETA- There is something on a knock-on effect worth noting in regards to recent attitudes to Syria. I'm not sure if it's an indication that the population is war-weary or actually changing in a positive regard. I unfortunately suspect it's probably more of the former. Consistent Hawk is not a good election strategy.
QuoteQuote from: Junkenstein on Yesterday at 09:55:31 pm
Quote
Don't people need to agree on what the issues are before they can organize to plan and implement changes?
(somewhat disconnected thoughts, forgive or ignore. Or other.)
That kind of shoves me back to the "Need Martyr" mindset. From what I've seen, most protests are against something being wrong. Fundamentally wrong. X(over5?seems high)/10 people see it and feel negative. Discontent registers from all levels not just the street.
And you don't have a tangible idea of how prevalent that discontent is until you see it in the street.
You actually need to see people in the street before you can have social change? Really? I'd suggest many powerful social changes have taken place without anyone even really knowing, let alone taking to the street about it. How many protests can you recall offhand about changes to Banking (de)regulation? None. It's not a visceral, moral issue until recently when the jam ran out.
QuoteThat's a false dichotomy. I see that you don't want to address points made about the utility of protests and are back to the unexamined assumption that protests do nothing in and of themselves.
Consider Occupy. What has that achieved in and of its self beyond raising the general level of awareness? I don't see any massive reforms or changes to the system as a result. A protest does nothing in and of itself. It's a shout of "NO". That really needs to be followed by "Try this instead" or you just seem to keep shouting "NO" a lot.
I see you don't want to address anything else I raised, which is odd as it all involved protests being much more effective with Martyrs.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 09, 2013, 03:14:14 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 08, 2013, 10:57:07 PM
It's probably harder to be optimistic in places which have less activism and are less progressive, since you can't actually see the effects of political activism happening in front of you short-term, though. It does raise the question of whether places like Arizona are less progressive because they lack activism, or whether they lacks activism because they're less progressive, though.
It's the second one. A huge portion of our state is retired, and they're law & order types.
I hadn't considered that. Ageing populations tend to get more conservative anyway, which explains a lot about how things have developed in the UK over the past few decades.
That said, I still think it's some kind of feedback loop. The majority establish laws favourable to their world view and inclusion isn't that high on the list in many societies beyond lip service. Controls create discontent which is used to create further controls which etc. etc...
Occupy is a special case insomuch as it didn't have a message to be on-message about. There was an intended message, constructed by Adbusters, which wasn't really as prominent as it should have been, and other messages that it was associated with (like forgiving student loans, support for other kinds of banking reforms, and so on) came out of the protests after they were underway. There was a lot of shit that came out of particular localized version of Occupy that weren't picked up by the rest, in some cases because they were stupid (the one in New Haven I went by almost daily, and there were a lot of things specifically about chemtrails but none about forgiving student loans, because that camp was made up almost entirely of Yale students, who are generally from extremely wealthy families).
Quote from: Polyethyline Glycol on July 10, 2013, 08:51:44 PM
Occupy is a special case insomuch as it didn't have a message to be on-message about. There was an intended message, constructed by Adbusters, which wasn't really as prominent as it should have been, and other messages that it was associated with (like forgiving student loans, support for other kinds of banking reforms, and so on) came out of the protests after they were underway. There was a lot of shit that came out of particular localized version of Occupy that weren't picked up by the rest, in some cases because they were stupid (the one in New Haven I went by almost daily, and there were a lot of things specifically about chemtrails but none about forgiving student loans, because that camp was made up almost entirely of Yale students, who are generally from extremely wealthy families).
Yale students believe in chemtrails?
Quote from: Emo Howard on July 11, 2013, 09:55:25 AM
Quote from: Polyethyline Glycol on July 10, 2013, 08:51:44 PM
Occupy is a special case insomuch as it didn't have a message to be on-message about. There was an intended message, constructed by Adbusters, which wasn't really as prominent as it should have been, and other messages that it was associated with (like forgiving student loans, support for other kinds of banking reforms, and so on) came out of the protests after they were underway. There was a lot of shit that came out of particular localized version of Occupy that weren't picked up by the rest, in some cases because they were stupid (the one in New Haven I went by almost daily, and there were a lot of things specifically about chemtrails but none about forgiving student loans, because that camp was made up almost entirely of Yale students, who are generally from extremely wealthy families).
Yale students believe in chemtrails?
They believe in supply-side economics, so why not?
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 09, 2013, 08:24:37 AM
Consider Occupy. What has that achieved in and of its self beyond raising the general level of awareness? I don't see any massive reforms or changes to the system as a result. A protest does nothing in and of itself. It's a shout of "NO". That really needs to be followed by "Try this instead" or you just seem to keep shouting "NO" a lot.
I see you don't want to address anything else I raised, which is odd as it all involved protests being much more effective with Martyrs.
YOU KEEP IGNORING THE LINKS I POST AND EXAMPLES I GIVE ABOUT REFORMS IN OREGON THAT STEMMED DIRECTLY FROM THE OCCUPY PROTESTS
WHY IS THAT?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 11, 2013, 03:08:52 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on July 11, 2013, 09:55:25 AM
Quote from: Polyethyline Glycol on July 10, 2013, 08:51:44 PM
Occupy is a special case insomuch as it didn't have a message to be on-message about. There was an intended message, constructed by Adbusters, which wasn't really as prominent as it should have been, and other messages that it was associated with (like forgiving student loans, support for other kinds of banking reforms, and so on) came out of the protests after they were underway. There was a lot of shit that came out of particular localized version of Occupy that weren't picked up by the rest, in some cases because they were stupid (the one in New Haven I went by almost daily, and there were a lot of things specifically about chemtrails but none about forgiving student loans, because that camp was made up almost entirely of Yale students, who are generally from extremely wealthy families).
Yale students believe in chemtrails?
They believe in supply-side economics, so why not?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 11, 2013, 05:56:53 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 09, 2013, 08:24:37 AM
Consider Occupy. What has that achieved in and of its self beyond raising the general level of awareness? I don't see any massive reforms or changes to the system as a result. A protest does nothing in and of itself. It's a shout of "NO". That really needs to be followed by "Try this instead" or you just seem to keep shouting "NO" a lot.
I see you don't want to address anything else I raised, which is odd as it all involved protests being much more effective with Martyrs.
YOU KEEP IGNORING THE LINKS I POST AND EXAMPLES I GIVE ABOUT REFORMS IN OREGON THAT STEMMED DIRECTLY FROM THE OCCUPY PROTESTS
WHY IS THAT?
Because I am dumb? I've got years of evidence supporting that theory. Will re-read thread.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 11, 2013, 05:56:53 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 09, 2013, 08:24:37 AM
Consider Occupy. What has that achieved in and of its self beyond raising the general level of awareness? I don't see any massive reforms or changes to the system as a result. A protest does nothing in and of itself. It's a shout of "NO". That really needs to be followed by "Try this instead" or you just seem to keep shouting "NO" a lot.
I see you don't want to address anything else I raised, which is odd as it all involved protests being much more effective with Martyrs.
YOU KEEP IGNORING THE LINKS I POST AND EXAMPLES I GIVE ABOUT REFORMS IN OREGON THAT STEMMED DIRECTLY FROM THE OCCUPY PROTESTS
WHY IS THAT?
OOH! OOH! I KNOW! PICK ME!
(http://imageshack.us/a/img801/2807/corebeliefs2.jpg)
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 11, 2013, 06:39:29 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 11, 2013, 05:56:53 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 09, 2013, 08:24:37 AM
Consider Occupy. What has that achieved in and of its self beyond raising the general level of awareness? I don't see any massive reforms or changes to the system as a result. A protest does nothing in and of itself. It's a shout of "NO". That really needs to be followed by "Try this instead" or you just seem to keep shouting "NO" a lot.
I see you don't want to address anything else I raised, which is odd as it all involved protests being much more effective with Martyrs.
YOU KEEP IGNORING THE LINKS I POST AND EXAMPLES I GIVE ABOUT REFORMS IN OREGON THAT STEMMED DIRECTLY FROM THE OCCUPY PROTESTS
WHY IS THAT?
Because I am dumb? I've got years of evidence supporting that theory. Will re-read thread.
It's when you have years of evidence supporting a theory that you should, you know, be far more eager to read counter-examples. That's, of course, if you're trying to see reality and not putting on a nice comfortable uniform.
You may be right. You may be mistaken. But if you stop looking, you're
wrong. Even if you happen to be factually correct.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 11, 2013, 06:41:49 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 11, 2013, 06:39:29 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 11, 2013, 05:56:53 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 09, 2013, 08:24:37 AM
Consider Occupy. What has that achieved in and of its self beyond raising the general level of awareness? I don't see any massive reforms or changes to the system as a result. A protest does nothing in and of itself. It's a shout of "NO". That really needs to be followed by "Try this instead" or you just seem to keep shouting "NO" a lot.
I see you don't want to address anything else I raised, which is odd as it all involved protests being much more effective with Martyrs.
YOU KEEP IGNORING THE LINKS I POST AND EXAMPLES I GIVE ABOUT REFORMS IN OREGON THAT STEMMED DIRECTLY FROM THE OCCUPY PROTESTS
WHY IS THAT?
Because I am dumb? I've got years of evidence supporting that theory. Will re-read thread.
It's when you have years of evidence supporting a theory that you should, you know, be far more eager to read counter-examples. That's, of course, if you're trying to see reality and not putting on a nice comfortable uniform.
You may be right. You may be mistaken. But if you stop looking, you're wrong. Even if you happen to be factually correct.
Agreed, most emphatically. I'll try and look at this fresh and see what changes. I seem to have missed some important shit or at least have a bias I've not fully considered.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 11, 2013, 06:39:29 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 11, 2013, 05:56:53 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 09, 2013, 08:24:37 AM
Consider Occupy. What has that achieved in and of its self beyond raising the general level of awareness? I don't see any massive reforms or changes to the system as a result. A protest does nothing in and of itself. It's a shout of "NO". That really needs to be followed by "Try this instead" or you just seem to keep shouting "NO" a lot.
I see you don't want to address anything else I raised, which is odd as it all involved protests being much more effective with Martyrs.
YOU KEEP IGNORING THE LINKS I POST AND EXAMPLES I GIVE ABOUT REFORMS IN OREGON THAT STEMMED DIRECTLY FROM THE OCCUPY PROTESTS
WHY IS THAT?
Because I am dumb? I've got years of evidence supporting that theory. Will re-read thread.
Well... your "evidence" seems to be a lack of change as a result of protest, and if you can't see/refuse to acknowledge change that results from protest, you get stuck in a self-reinforcing bubble.
What I've seen you do so far is dismiss any change that occurs after protests as "going to happen anyway", which indicates to me that your mind is made up and there is no evidence you would accept. In Oregon, in the wake of the Occupy protests (which included not only the Occupy movement itself, but a wave of other activism triggered by Occupy) we are seeing changes such as a State law requiring lenders to attend (and pay for) mediation with homeowners they are foreclosing on, a pilot "pay-it-forward" program for attending the first four years of college at no charge, instead paying 3% of your income after graduation, and a bill that was just approved, to investigate the most fiscally efficient way of managing Oregon's health care... which all evidence indicates will be to move to a single-payer system.
Now, you can argue that all those things would have happened ANYWAY, but the evidence is that lawmakers became receptive to what would previously have been considered "radical" measures because the protests demonstrated to them that their constituents demanded reform. At least two of the bills in question were brainstormed by people directly involved in the protests. The college bill was brainstormed by college students at PSU who were also involved in the protests.
This is social change, happening verifiably right in front of my eyes. I can SEE IT HAPPEN. The whole process, from stem to stern.
Is Oregon different from the whole rest of the US? Sure, we like to say it is... fuck, our unofficial slogan is "it's different here". But I look around at other states who are also moving in directions with new policies that would have been considered radical five years ago, and I can't help thinking we aren't all that different after all.
You misunderstand I think, I meant I have years of evidence supporting the theory that I'm dumb.
Re-reading, I certainly seem to have downplayed the role protest have taken in accelerating change. The self-reinforcing loop is probably on the mark too anyway. I'd guess that my bias towards protests=largely ineffective is being coloured more by personal experience and therefore projecting a negative view towards other protests.
Which is a little un-nerving really, I've usually been quite enthusiastic about people getting out and protesting pretty much anything. I may have moved into the realm of treating it as spectacle rather than an actual socio-political event. That's a disturbing shift I'll need to consider.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 11, 2013, 03:08:52 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on July 11, 2013, 09:55:25 AM
Quote from: Polyethyline Glycol on July 10, 2013, 08:51:44 PM
Occupy is a special case insomuch as it didn't have a message to be on-message about. There was an intended message, constructed by Adbusters, which wasn't really as prominent as it should have been, and other messages that it was associated with (like forgiving student loans, support for other kinds of banking reforms, and so on) came out of the protests after they were underway. There was a lot of shit that came out of particular localized version of Occupy that weren't picked up by the rest, in some cases because they were stupid (the one in New Haven I went by almost daily, and there were a lot of things specifically about chemtrails but none about forgiving student loans, because that camp was made up almost entirely of Yale students, who are generally from extremely wealthy families).
Yale students believe in chemtrails?
They believe in supply-side economics, so why not?
Fair enough.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 11, 2013, 08:02:33 PM
You misunderstand I think, I meant I have years of evidence supporting the theory that I'm dumb.
Re-reading, I certainly seem to have downplayed the role protest have taken in accelerating change. The self-reinforcing loop is probably on the mark too anyway. I'd guess that my bias towards protests=largely ineffective is being coloured more by personal experience and therefore projecting a negative view towards other protests.
Which is a little un-nerving really, I've usually been quite enthusiastic about people getting out and protesting pretty much anything. I may have moved into the realm of treating it as spectacle rather than an actual socio-political event. That's a disturbing shift I'll need to consider.
I have identified my bias of protests as being ineffective as being inculcated by the media. During the anti-war protests of 2003-2005 (which were largely ineffective at the time), the media showed pictures of every special interest group involved holding signs pimping out their particular cause, rather than anything to do with the war. This DID happen, I saw it with my own eyes. However, they were a minority of the protestors, but were the ONLY ones shown on mass media.
Likewise, the Occupy protestors were shown as crazy homeless people, ridiculous hipsters (this was a problem, but later on) and their "general assemblies", and anarchists (the one shitting on a squadcar comes to mind). When I went down to see the protests first hand, I saw a bunch of former marines and other veterans, in a campsite so clean and organized as to make any sergeant cry for joy.
Quote from: Emo Howard on July 11, 2013, 09:55:25 AM
Quote from: Polyethyline Glycol on July 10, 2013, 08:51:44 PM
Occupy is a special case insomuch as it didn't have a message to be on-message about. There was an intended message, constructed by Adbusters, which wasn't really as prominent as it should have been, and other messages that it was associated with (like forgiving student loans, support for other kinds of banking reforms, and so on) came out of the protests after they were underway. There was a lot of shit that came out of particular localized version of Occupy that weren't picked up by the rest, in some cases because they were stupid (the one in New Haven I went by almost daily, and there were a lot of things specifically about chemtrails but none about forgiving student loans, because that camp was made up almost entirely of Yale students, who are generally from extremely wealthy families).
Yale students believe in chemtrails?
The thing is, Yale isn't a very good school for learning things at. You don't go to Yale to get an education; you go to Yale so that your resume can say that you went to Yale (which, among other things, implies that your parents are wealthy and probably politically powerful, and that you have met a lot of other rich, powerful people socially and probably seen their drunken antics). Yale has high entrance requirements, but doesn't really do due diligence when checking transcripts.
A few years ago, a guy who had dropped out of high school and failed to get a GED managed to get into Yale by faking a high school transcript from a non-existent high school in a foreign country. He proceeded to get straight As in all his classes until his junior year, when someone he had told snitched on him. When asked, some of his professors said that they gave As to all their students (because if you got into Yale, you had to be smart).
Yale is interesting, because a lot of the most intelligent people on earth are there doing the most intelligent and advanced research on earth, and politically and economically barred from teaching undergraduates a damned thing. Meanwhile, the undergraduates have only one thing in common: they can afford Yale tuition. Many of them also have the ego that often goes with extreme wealth, which is why Prescott Bush introduced a secret society whose rituals include jerking off onto a stolen skull in public, and after joining said secret society his son and grandson became president. In other words, the distinction between graduate and undergraduate work there is extreme. Yale graduate students are pretty much universally very smart, and not necessarily extremely wealthy.
In other words, it is not strange that an undergraduate at Yale would believe in chemtrails and spend a whole year skipping classes to camp out in a tent in the middle of New Haven, but it would be extremely strange if a graduate student did so.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 11, 2013, 08:26:08 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 11, 2013, 08:02:33 PM
You misunderstand I think, I meant I have years of evidence supporting the theory that I'm dumb.
Re-reading, I certainly seem to have downplayed the role protest have taken in accelerating change. The self-reinforcing loop is probably on the mark too anyway. I'd guess that my bias towards protests=largely ineffective is being coloured more by personal experience and therefore projecting a negative view towards other protests.
Which is a little un-nerving really, I've usually been quite enthusiastic about people getting out and protesting pretty much anything. I may have moved into the realm of treating it as spectacle rather than an actual socio-political event. That's a disturbing shift I'll need to consider.
I have identified my bias of protests as being ineffective as being inculcated by the media. During the anti-war protests of 2003-2005 (which were largely ineffective at the time), the media showed pictures of every special interest group involved holding signs pimping out their particular cause, rather than anything to do with the war. This DID happen, I saw it with my own eyes. However, they were a minority of the protestors, but were the ONLY ones shown on mass media.
Likewise, the Occupy protestors were shown as crazy homeless people, ridiculous hipsters (this was a problem, but later on) and their "general assemblies", and anarchists (the one shitting on a squadcar comes to mind). When I went down to see the protests first hand, I saw a bunch of former marines and other veterans, in a campsite so clean and organized as to make any sergeant cry for joy.
The media, or rather the corporations that own the media, have a deeply vested interest in portraying protests as disorganized, ineffective, and laughable. So when they're forced to cover protesting at all (which they almost never do unless the protests have so much hype that they can't simply ignore them, which they started doing in the early 90's) they always downplay the protests and try to make the protesters look as stupid and awful and as much like people you would never associate with as possible.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 11, 2013, 08:02:33 PM
You misunderstand I think, I meant I have years of evidence supporting the theory that I'm dumb.
Re-reading, I certainly seem to have downplayed the role protest have taken in accelerating change. The self-reinforcing loop is probably on the mark too anyway. I'd guess that my bias towards protests=largely ineffective is being coloured more by personal experience and therefore projecting a negative view towards other protests.
Which is a little un-nerving really, I've usually been quite enthusiastic about people getting out and protesting pretty much anything. I may have moved into the realm of treating it as spectacle rather than an actual socio-political event. That's a disturbing shift I'll need to consider.
Ah, well... glad I could help, and glad to see you being a biped, as usual.
I remember when the Occupy Protest came out i was very excited at the prospect of bankers being taken to task for their role in the financial meltdown. When my sister(very socially conservative) found out about this we got into a huge debate about whether they were "right" to protest. There was some stuff about how they shouldn't go after the bankers and whether the police were right in their handling of the protest(her husband was working as a cop at the time) but what really infuriated me was that she made it sound like because maybe some of the protests hadn't followed the exact procedure for protest permits and whatnot, that made what the cops did okay, and that made the issue they were trying to redress irrelevant.
So if we're talking about the effectiveness of protests, I think that this is one area where what someone said about protesting the system procedure as opposed to X issue could be applied. I can see it pretty damn hard to get anything done when someone can declare you a bunch of radicalized homeless people just because you didn't check the right box on your protest permit.
As far as protest not at least causing some change?
In '92 I was out in a marching-around sort of way.
And the police deliberately beat up a bunch of LGBTIQ people outside the Astrodome where the RNC was being held.
ANYway...
The police beating up gay people was bad press for Bush and *may* have helped Clinton win.
...And then he threw us under the bus like a typical Dem...
ANYway...
...But gay rights have come a long way in 21 years, and it was in part due to...well, people like me, willing to act a fool in public.
But in this case...you're trying to get people to question the entire system, which is a bit more of a stretch than gay rights.
It NEEDS to be questioned, reformed, remade...because it ain't working.
Occupy got the discussion going, at least, though I had more hopes for it than that.
Something interesting and related I saw on G+:
Quote
Shava Nerad originally shared:
The Bank Anarchy Overlay
Wall Street makes their own laws
Wall Street as a voluntary association is now, paradoxically, more successfully anarchistic than Occupy Wall Street, creating its own environment of domestic and treaty law in which to operate unimpeded.
There is an entire body of financial law like this in the US, which meshes with international treaties and standards to give financial multinationals their own operating environment that -- especially in "hard times" (and who helps make and define those?) -- national governments and central banks can't or won't rein in.
Note how this legislation was passed despite objections by Treasury.
I have said before: capitalism sees growth as its biological directive, and greed as sex, so of course, without good manners or reining in by long perspectives of culture, "greed is good," and any capitalist will have difficulty gainsaying it without major cultural backup.
But capitalism, because of this "biological directive," sees law and regulation as damage, and routes around them.
They are not unique in this sort of trap, where the public must put checks and oversight on a system. DHS and law enforcement are stuck in a cycle of dependence on slack investigative clauses (PATRIOT, CALEA, CFAA...) that often violate civil liberties and encourage corrupt and sloppy investigative work (and swift promotions to those willing to "red bait" and grand stand). Older and/or more ethical/principled officers must grit their teeth and use these possibly unconstitutional methods or be in violation of current law/policy, and abandon their agencies to the "Young Turks" who give not a damn about the history or constitutionality of the system they operate under, only bad guys and/or advancement.
Bush's diplomatic corps -- many of them, conservative or not -- were in a similar situation,, grinding teeth for eight years while sometimes secretly apologizing to their counterparts.
But DHS/LE got no relief from the Obama administration, and now whistleblowers are emerging from DHS, which -- trust me -- is a very bad precedent and a sign of tragic pathology.
Finance, on the other hand, has drifted so far from any charter of operating as a public good, it hardly can operate in its own enlightened self interest by its own vaunted principles anymore. With an abstract machine running at the speed of supercomputers on trust-reliant protocols and antiquated accounting and metrics, the financial system is just waiting for the next set of social engineers to exploit it, game it, and bring it down. It is critically, laughably vulnerable to "hackers" after short term gains, and the international system can't rely on producing excess to cover exploits -- that is the real underpinnings of every financial crisis of the last three or so decades.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/banks-lobbyists-help-in-drafting-financial-bills/
H/t Sen +Bernie Sanders