Malazan Empire: PROTEST! - Malazan Empire

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

PROTEST! Down with STUFF!

#1 User is offline   cerveza_fiesta 

  • Outdoor Tractivities !
  • Group: Malazan Artist
  • Posts: 5,341
  • Joined: 28-August 07
  • Location:Fredericton, NB, Canada
  • Interests:beer, party.

Posted 10 June 2010 - 11:43 AM

A discussion under the oil spill thread got me thinking.... I wrote this:

View Postcerveza_fiesta, on 08 June 2010 - 11:24 AM, said:

Hearing stories about all the hippie protests on this thing is really starting to piss me off.

I mean, sure go for blood when the damn thing is over, but for right now protestation doesn't do anything but waste human effort. At this point, folks are literally protesting the existence of an inanimate object that nobody has the ability to do anything about, and actually trying to scuttle the only operation with the resources and ability to come up with a solution.

For fuck's sake hippies...you get off your lazy pot-smoking asses, drive your VW buses to Florida and start scrubbing seagulls if you care that much.

The day hippie protests actually do anything useful, I swear I'll dreadlock my hair and don the tie-dye grateful dead Tshirt myself.


To which I had an agree and a disagree from some other members, and then Cold Iron thoughtfully replied:

View PostCold Iron, on 09 June 2010 - 10:37 PM, said:

http://www.policyage...none_paper1.pdf

Throw out your soap, cf, this is just one of a swathe of studies that show the efficacy of public protest. Sure they could drive a few thousand miles and start scrubbing dead fish - or they could endeavour to influence public policy and potentially prevent future such events. Like you said, this disaster is now an engineering issue, not a policy issue. But all the future ones are still firmly in the policy basket - prevention is better than cure, mate eta: and much better than no cure.


Which got me thinking about the whole subject of protestation and what it really accomplishes.

Indeed I was a bit harsh in my quote. I was generalizing when I really just meant to bash the protesters of the oil spill issue in particular as doing nothing useful whatsoever.

I do realize that the entire environmental movement (at least up until the point legitimate science took up the cause too) was 100% hippie protests, and I agree that mass protestation has influenced public policy in the past. If done in sufficient strength, protestation can effect radical change.

A few recent examples of successful protests that spring to South-Eastern Canadian mind in my include:
  • the kibosh of a deal to sell the public power utility in my province to private industry, largely because of a public radio campaign and a strong anti-deal protest movement.
  • The tea-party movement in the USA basically torpedoing the health care reform
  • Small towns that protest and win against WALMART coming to their town.
  • Washington peace protests against vietnam war.

And recent examples of extremely unsuccessful protest
  • Thailand red-shirt movement
  • Iran green movement
  • Free tibet protests preceding 2008 summer olympics
  • Almost every G20 and G8 protest I can remember
So, I'm wondering what you think makes a protest effective and successful?

Do you participate in any? Why exactly do you do it and what do you think you contribute?

What do you think about the growing prevalence of "internet protests" via facebook and other websites? Effective or just a bunch of people too lazy to carry a picket?

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 10 June 2010 - 11:45 AM

........oOOOOOo
......//| | |oO
.....|| | | | O....
BEERS!

......
\\| | | |

........'-----'

1

#2 User is offline   Tapper 

  • Lover of High House Mafia
  • Group: High House Mafia
  • Posts: 6,702
  • Joined: 29-June 04
  • Location:Delft, Holland.

Posted 10 June 2010 - 11:56 AM

The Iranian green movement failed to bring about change, but they were a massively succesful rally (for Iranian standards), and a foundation for change in the future - see it as a test for development a new generation, establishing leadership, connections, methods, organization, etc. The diaspora really connected with the population in ways they never did before.

As for internet protests... it is basically the same as signing a support petition. It's low maintenance and easily accessible, for some things, such a passive way of protesting is enough, for others it will fail in any way whatsoever to get attention.
Everyone is entitled to his own wrong opinion. - Lizrad
0

#3 User is offline   Salk Elan 

  • Sergeant
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 20-November 09
  • Location:Austria

Posted 10 June 2010 - 12:48 PM

Just to add my two cents:

I think that the outcome of political protests is based foremost on to what extent the political opposition (the ruling party in your examples) is prepared to use weapon force on the people demonstrating, the willingness for which seem so be vastly higher in dictatorship (or near-dictatorship) states.

In democratic states it seems far more likely for a demonstration to cause effect if a majority is dedicated to it. So for example we in Austria do have one finished nuclear power plant which never actually got on line because the population was against it and now we are a nonnuclear state.

It's all a matter of balance imo, a demonstration will be successful the moment it becomes clear that not to give in to the demonstrants will cause more harm to the party giving offence than gain to be gotten from overriding them.

That's why most of the eco-potest-movements fizzled out over the course of time. Lobbyism and economic interests so far are always stronger.

View Postcerveza_fiesta, on 10 June 2010 - 11:43 AM, said:

Free tibet protests preceding 2008 summer olympics?

Heard of it since then? They just don't have to care for a maybe a bit tattered reputation abroad. We are all doing business with them anyway.

View Postcerveza_fiesta, on 10 June 2010 - 11:43 AM, said:

Small towns that protest and win against WALMART coming to their town.

By giving in and not coming they gain a good reputation, the statement being: "we are a responsible company, if you don't like us, we don't force you, we are GOOD". That's by far more gain than what they could have earned there, on the account of pissing off not only the inhabitants of these towns but maybe also a broad consumer-mass elsewhere.




0

#4 User is offline   Jusentantaka 

  • Emperor
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 863
  • Joined: 25-October 09

Posted 10 June 2010 - 03:33 PM

View Postcerveza_fiesta, on 10 June 2010 - 11:43 AM, said:

A few recent examples of successful protests that spring to South-Eastern Canadian mind in my include:
  • the kibosh of a deal to sell the public power utility in my province to private industry, largely because of a public radio campaign and a strong anti-deal protest movement.
  • The tea-party movement in the USA basically torpedoing the health care reform
  • Small towns that protest and win against WALMART coming to their town.
  • Washington peace protests against vietnam war.

And recent examples of extremely unsuccessful protest
  • Thailand red-shirt movement
  • Iran green movement
  • Free tibet protests preceding 2008 summer olympics
  • Almost every G20 and G8 protest I can remember
So, I'm wondering what you think makes a protest effective and successful?

...

What do you think about the growing prevalence of "internet protests" via facebook and other websites? Effective or just a bunch of people too lazy to carry a picket?


Taking those examples it seems to me a major difference is how they're reacted to by the people in power. When protest or dissent arises, he government in thailand, iran and china default to:

Posted Image



And G-protests fail because the people in the summits could give a fuck what the people protesting care about because they know their people at home will forget about it by the next election.


And internet protests: less useful than a signature on a petition, because anyone and everyone can be on the internet and can say whatever they want. No accountability for supporting some random ass internet petition. Its just 'oh look my facebook efriend sent me this link! *clicks and signs on to nuke the whales* ' At least picketers are standing out somewhere showing their support or anger. "I'm in an Internet protest!' just doesn't have any oomph behind it to me.


*edit* picture: In spite of seeing this pic dozens of times, I have never before noticed that the second tank doesn't have a cap on the barrel.

didn't see dis whens I typi-typed:

View PostSalk Elan, on 10 June 2010 - 12:48 PM, said:


View Postcerveza_fiesta, on 10 June 2010 - 11:43 AM, said:

Small towns that protest and win against WALMART coming to their town.

By giving in and not coming they gain a good reputation, the statement being: "we are a responsible company, if you don't like us, we don't force you, we are GOOD". That's by far more gain than what they could have earned there, on the account of pissing off not only the inhabitants of these towns but maybe also a broad consumer-mass elsewhere.


If it were some other, less reviled company, you'd be right. But canceling Walmart stores are like BP planning to build a new refinery next to some town and 'giving in' after being shot down by the locals. Giving in (and in the majority of cases, they don't. Instead they get a rubber stamp from the town council and plow on ahead no matter how many people protest) doesn't improve Walmart's reputation at all. It is shit before, and will be shit after no matter whether they build the store or don't build the store. Definite marker of the sad ass attention span of US consumer right there, and how we couldn't care less about reasonable wages, jobs and all the other shit we complain about day in and day out.

This post has been edited by Jusentantaka: 10 June 2010 - 04:15 PM

0

#5 User is offline   chill 

  • Child of Malkav
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 216
  • Joined: 05-May 07
  • Location:Dubrovnik, Croatia

Posted 10 June 2010 - 07:44 PM

Personally, I've always avoided protests of any kind, for two reasons:
If you're right, you'd be better off sitting at a table with the opposing side, trying to get your way, or at least a compromise, rather than shouting in the street. I'm not saying that protests have no influence or that they can't accomplish anything... It's just that I feel any goal can lose it's merit once potheads with nothing to do in their lives start waving banners and shouting slogans - and any cause is liable to attract that kind of crowd.

Which brings me to my second reason - no matter how just the cause, or how important the issue, I just can't bring myself to stand together with professional hipsters, rabid communists or random jerkoffs that don't really know what the current protest is about, but shout and wave their fists anyway, because you know, this country is all messed up, so why not protest against everything.

Of course, I can only speak about protests in a modern democratic society. I can understand that protests against dictatorship governments required brute force and as many people as they could get. Sad times.
Kif: Sir, remember your course correction?
Captain Zapp: No.
Kif: Well, it's proving somewhat more suicidal than we'd initially hoped.
1

#6 User is offline   Silencer 

  • Manipulating Special Data
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 5,683
  • Joined: 07-July 07
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Malazan Book of the Fallen series.
    Computer Game Design.
    Programming.

Posted 10 June 2010 - 10:36 PM

View Postchill, on 10 June 2010 - 07:44 PM, said:

Personally, I've always avoided protests of any kind, for two reasons:
If you're right, you'd be better off sitting at a table with the opposing side, trying to get your way, or at least a compromise, rather than shouting in the street. I'm not saying that protests have no influence or that they can't accomplish anything... It's just that I feel any goal can lose it's merit once potheads with nothing to do in their lives start waving banners and shouting slogans - and any cause is liable to attract that kind of crowd.

Which brings me to my second reason - no matter how just the cause, or how important the issue, I just can't bring myself to stand together with professional hipsters, rabid communists or random jerkoffs that don't really know what the current protest is about, but shout and wave their fists anyway, because you know, this country is all messed up, so why not protest against everything.

Of course, I can only speak about protests in a modern democratic society. I can understand that protests against dictatorship governments required brute force and as many people as they could get. Sad times.


This.

And the fact that I think protests of insufficient quantity are meaningless. We live in a democracy, a majority-based democracy, and so any protest of less than 50% of the population is meaningless, to my mind. Got 40,000 people marching down a NZ street protesting about mining. Well, good on ya, but 40,000 out of 4 million? To me, that means 3.96 million either don't care, or are in support of the mining.

It's a case of vocal minority. And I despise vocal minorities getting their way. You could say that perhaps I should start protesting myself so that they don't, but then I'm against it because it's against the democratic system and, see chill's post above. Protests imply to governments or organisations that there is a general lack of support for what they are doing, when in fact this may not be the case - and because the rest of the country doesn't care enough to protest IN FAVOUR of something, it gets changed against the will of the masses.
Besides which, you have to consider the affected parties - say a million people protest against the BP oil spill in the US. OK, so how many of those are not BP customers? How many are? These are relevant facts that no-one bothers to properly collect and consider before taking action. It's essentially a form of bullying, and imo should just be ignored. But time and again it results in the small angry mob getting their way.
Hell, to even participate in a protest you have to be of a certain frame of mind, and most protesters are prone to believe anything they read that is in line with their mission statement, even when blatantly untrue, which only gets them further agitated for no reason.

On a tangent:
My personal favourite is when protesters complain that the police used tear gas, or beat them over the head with their riot shields or whatever. Well, if you don't like it, don't KEEP ADVANCING ON A RIOT LINE THEN. Or, don't go to the protest. Then they get all uppity about their right to peaceful protest. Sure, but when that protest becomes unruly and the POLICE tell you to stop pushing? YOU FUCKING DO IT AND DON'T COMPLAIN IF YOU DIDN'T LISTEN AND GET HURT BECAUSE OF IT.

ESPECIALLY the people down the back who weren't pushing but got gassed. The police aren't omnipresent. They can't tell if you're in favour of pushing against their line or not. You should have left when things got unruly.
***

Shinrei said:

<Vote Silencer> For not garnering any heat or any love for that matter. And I'm being serious here, it's like a mental block that is there, and you just keep forgetting it.

0

#7 User is offline   worry 

  • Master of the Deck
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 14,860
  • Joined: 24-February 10
  • Location:the buried west

Posted 10 June 2010 - 11:46 PM

Protesting is one good way to get your message out there. The notion of "success" is kind of silly, since it's a long term means to an end, except in the case of some picket lines I suppose. You're raising an issue in the collective consciousness, and it may take generations to reach certain goals.

I don't see any particular reason to associate protesters with their worst elements, any more than with other types of causes. Sure protests attract turkeys, but so do movie theaters, sports events, and message boards.

As far as police go, there's a whole gamut of situations. I'm not gonna say the police cause just as many riots as they try to prevent, but it's disingenuous to suggest they aren't at fault (as a group or often enough as individual actors) in a significant proportion of incidents. That includes mistakes, overreactions, escalations of tension, and outright abuse and brutality. I guess I'm speaking about a US perspective rather than an international one, but if it's better here rather than par or worse then that doesn't speak highly for the world at large. The police aren't special, their powers over any other individuals end at the written word of law. There are plenty of people here who stuck out the protests through horrific police brutality (if you're familiar with the images of dogs and firehoses), and effected long term change as a result.
They came with white hands and left with red hands.
0

#8 User is offline   Silencer 

  • Manipulating Special Data
  • Group: Administrators
  • Posts: 5,683
  • Joined: 07-July 07
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Malazan Book of the Fallen series.
    Computer Game Design.
    Programming.

Posted 11 June 2010 - 12:10 AM

There's no reason to associate the Nazis with their worst elements, either...oh, wait, we do and there is. XD

Raising an issue in the collective conscience is good and all, but protest is more than that. It gives people false impressions of how much support the cause has, and on what grounds the cause is being upheld. There are other ways to get your message out there that are much more effective and less misleading. It's like the person who accosts you on the street and starts talking to you about some issue or another - it's an imposition rather than just spreading a message. It's bullying, and attempts to sway the general masses of sheep to a position they have no real understanding of - that's not raising awareness, that's playing off ignorance. And sure, the company/government who is being protested against probably does the same thing, but in a democratically elected government's case, at least, that's because they were elected by a majority vote, and so have the support of the majority until the next election or other special circumstances...yet they are forced to acquiesce to a vocal minority. To me, this is wrong.

And yes, the powers of the police end at the word of law, and one of their duties is to prevent and control riots - which protests often become simply because the police are there, and the people involved in the riots (those worst elements you talked about) unequivocally hate the police as they're a symbol of the government which has 'repressed' them and 'kept them down' etc etc. The thing is, if the police aren't there, and the protest becomes a riot, the police get blamed. If the police are there, and prevent a riot using force, they get blamed.
I mean, if someone throws something at the police, are they meant to just take it? What if more people start throwing things? That's then a riot, as far as I'm concerned, because people are assaulting police officers there to keep the peace. Can't blame them there. And sure, sometimes things get out of hand...but that's the problem with second-guessing decisions on the ground, in hindsight, and in the kind of situation where it gets out of hand, no-one really has control over more. It's attempting to survive and prevent things from spilling out everywhere.
We usually have quite successfully peaceful protests down here in NZ, though, which is good. But then again, they don't achieve a lot, either. And I'm talking long-ish term, too. And most of the people down here who bother to protest are the people leeching off society or the extreme radicals. I don't want them dictating to the government, thank you very much.
***

Shinrei said:

<Vote Silencer> For not garnering any heat or any love for that matter. And I'm being serious here, it's like a mental block that is there, and you just keep forgetting it.

0

#9 User is offline   hmqb 

  • The Abyssmal Army's Official Cult Expert and Brainwasher
  • Group: The Abyssmal Army
  • Posts: 270
  • Joined: 02-May 10

Posted 11 June 2010 - 12:15 AM

Bahh, if it was truely such a big deal to protest about, then that is why we have the right to bear arms in america. If its that bad then, hell lets go start a mob with guns! Atleast I think thats our philosophy is...
-
0

#10 User is offline   worry 

  • Master of the Deck
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 14,860
  • Joined: 24-February 10
  • Location:the buried west

Posted 11 June 2010 - 01:55 AM

Keep in mind, in your example the NAZIs would be the police, not the protesters. :p

Maybe it's cuz you're from New Zealand, but I don't see the "masses" as sheep. I think protests are generally meant to further a cause primarily through spreading the word. I can see your point that they're also meant to be a show of force, of sorts, but I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't think it's misleading, or bullying, and for the most part I don't think it just comes down to enforcing a group mentality. It's not that I'm dismissing everything you're saying, I just don't think it's the general rule.

I also don't necessarily agree with the "vocal minority" aspect. It happens, of course, where a small protest could cause some politician to flipflop a position. That has as much to do with the weak will of politicians than it does bullying though. But on the other hand, an elected official is not meant to represent majority will. That's simply false. We have state and federal constitutions, laws and regulations, research councils and think tanks, experts and intellects, all to help shape action and policy. Constituents are only one of many factors in how an official should go about making a decision (that goes for constituents on all sides of an issue, protesters or not). But as it so happens, the minority is often right on important issues, and it's certainly nice when a government does what's right regardless of majority opinion.

Lastly, I don't agree that protests "often" become riots. They simply don't, riots are rare. Most protests don't get dispersed, and when they do, there can be incidents of wrong from both protesters and police. But as far as I'm concerned, the burden is on the police to do things right and legal, 100% of the time, at their own risk. It's not their duty to survive, it's their duty to uphold the law. Cops have no problem arresting drunk and disorderlies at Mardi Gras, yet they have to shut down an entire protest when an individual misbehaves?

Fair enough on NZ protests producing little of value, but in the US protests are important, they have fueled major change for the better, they are peaceful the vast majority of the time, and when they're not the police force (or individuals therein) are often at fault. For instance: http://justgetthere....lee-At-DNC.html
There's no denying that there's plenty of Don't Tase Me Bros out there too. But the police here are waaaay too ready to use non-lethal force like beanbag guns, tear gas, pepper spray, and yes tasers with little provocation, expecting to get away with it.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 11 June 2010 - 01:56 AM

They came with white hands and left with red hands.
0

#11 User is offline   Sindriss 

  • Walker of Edges
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 897
  • Joined: 25-May 07
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 11 June 2010 - 10:44 AM

View Postchill, on 10 June 2010 - 07:44 PM, said:

Personally, I've always avoided protests of any kind, for two reasons:
If you're right, you'd be better off sitting at a table with the opposing side, trying to get your way, or at least a compromise, rather than shouting in the street. I'm not saying that protests have no influence or that they can't accomplish anything... It's just that I feel any goal can lose it's merit once potheads with nothing to do in their lives start waving banners and shouting slogans - and any cause is liable to attract that kind of crowd.

Which brings me to my second reason - no matter how just the cause, or how important the issue, I just can't bring myself to stand together with professional hipsters, rabid communists or random jerkoffs that don't really know what the current protest is about, but shout and wave their fists anyway, because you know, this country is all messed up, so why not protest against everything.

Of course, I can only speak about protests in a modern democratic society. I can understand that protests against dictatorship governments required brute force and as many people as they could get. Sad times.


I disagree with several points you have chill. I don't understand why you think that every protest is about

Quote

professional hipsters, rabid communists or random jerkoffs
, as protests can have a multitude of reasons in which these are not involved. In Denmark, we have had a lot of what I would consider succesful student protests in front of the parlament, Christiansborg. Both against lowering the student money from the state and the prohibitation of group exams. Mind you, the latter is still in effect, but from what I recall the opposition went out and promised to reinstate it if they got power in the next election. And I can assure you that every student protesting knew what it was about.

Silence: Even if only 40,000 march against mining out of 4 million, it still sends a message and it brings attention towards the rights of mining (or whatever they were protesting about). Getting media attention can help your cause a long way, as it helps create a debate.

Quote

I would like to know if Steve have ever tasted anything like the quorl white milk, that knocked the bb's out.

A: Nope, but I gots me a good imagination.
0

#12 User is offline   D'rek 

  • Consort of High House Mafia
  • Group: Super Moderators
  • Posts: 14,628
  • Joined: 08-August 07
  • Location::

Posted 11 June 2010 - 02:51 PM

View Postworrywort, on 11 June 2010 - 01:55 AM, said:

But as it so happens, the minority is often right on important issues, and it's certainly nice when a government does what's right regardless of majority opinion.


What?! No they aren't! For anyone who lives in a democratic society, the majority are right and the minority are wrong, that's the whole point! If the majority of the population say that 2+2=5, well then that should become policy in the country no matter what the president's personal mathematician says.

View Postworrywort, on 14 September 2012 - 08:07 PM, said:

I kinda love it when D'rek unleashes her nerd wrath, as I knew she would here. Sorry innocent bystanders, but someone's gotta be the kindling.
0

#13 User is offline   Jusentantaka 

  • Emperor
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 863
  • Joined: 25-October 09

Posted 11 June 2010 - 03:14 PM

View PostD, on 11 June 2010 - 02:51 PM, said:

View Postworrywort, on 11 June 2010 - 01:55 AM, said:

But as it so happens, the minority is often right on important issues, and it's certainly nice when a government does what's right regardless of majority opinion.


What?! No they aren't! For anyone who lives in a democratic society, the majority are right and the minority are wrong, that's the whole point! If the majority of the population say that 2+2=5, well then that should become policy in the country no matter what the president's personal mathematician says.


I didn't know you were an American! *insert wry smiley here*

This post has been edited by Jusentantaka: 11 June 2010 - 03:15 PM

0

#14 User is offline   chill 

  • Child of Malkav
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 216
  • Joined: 05-May 07
  • Location:Dubrovnik, Croatia

Posted 11 June 2010 - 08:26 PM

View PostSindriss, on 11 June 2010 - 10:44 AM, said:

I disagree with several points you have chill. I don't understand why you think that every protest is about

Quote

professional hipsters, rabid communists or random jerkoffs
, as protests can have a multitude of reasons in which these are not involved. In Denmark, we have had a lot of what I would consider succesful student protests in front of the parlament, Christiansborg. Both against lowering the student money from the state and the prohibitation of group exams. Mind you, the latter is still in effect, but from what I recall the opposition went out and promised to reinstate it if they got power in the next election. And I can assure you that every student protesting knew what it was about.


What I had in mind was a student protest held recently here in Croatia. In short, the University decided to introduce obligatory scholarship fees for every student, and a protest was organized against that decision. While the whole reform was not exactly well thought out, it had it's benefits and solid logic. However, the decision did not sit well with students, and a mass protest was organized - the aim was not only to overthrow the decision, but also to ban the scholarship fees that were already in place. Their point of view was reasonable as well, so they sat down and tried to reach a compromise. And they did. The protest was successful, in spite, or because of, professional hipsters and extreme communists that were most definitely involved.

Not choosing to protest with them had little or nothing to do with my opinion of the problem in question - it was, quite simply, my ego that didn't allow me to stand together with some people I hate, and my dislike of professional hipsters, rabid communists or random jerkoffs in general, rather than thinking such people are the only ones that benefit from it, or that the protesters were wrong. Which I forgot to mention in my previous post.

So yes, there are successful protests and no, not every one has to include social misfits. But the opposite is certainly possible.
Kif: Sir, remember your course correction?
Captain Zapp: No.
Kif: Well, it's proving somewhat more suicidal than we'd initially hoped.
0

#15 User is offline   Sindriss 

  • Walker of Edges
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 897
  • Joined: 25-May 07
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 12 June 2010 - 11:02 AM

Well, I am happy that is cleared out then (AND THAT I AM RIGHT !!!).

By the way, I can easily relate to how you see jerkoffs joining a wellthoughtout protest and taking away some of the thunder.

Quote

I would like to know if Steve have ever tasted anything like the quorl white milk, that knocked the bb's out.

A: Nope, but I gots me a good imagination.
0

#16 User is offline   Cold Iron 

  • I'll have some lasagna
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 2,026
  • Joined: 18-January 06

Posted 15 June 2010 - 04:58 AM

I was wondering why you didn't reply in the oil thread cf.

I'm personally a big fan of public protest as it can be an exceedingly difficult task to significantly change public policy, especially when a large industry stands to lose money or when a large arm of bureaucracy is threatened. The media is constantly manipulated by those in power, protest is simply a way for those with an alternative agenda to attempt the same. Either a movement creates a groundswell and gathers enough support to facilitate more rapid change, or it doesn't - democracy in action.

I certainly don't think that any government is prone to giving in to the minority demands of protesters, indeed even when an issue has broad majority support it is common for a government to pay lip service only and continue on with the status quo. Governments are large, slow moving entities with a lot of momentum, it takes a huge effort to change the trajectory of a state and I have yet to see a government over reacting or taking too drastic action on anything in the public interest. Indeed where it comes to policy making I'm in favour of the Richard Dawkins style reaction where in order to allow people to find the just middle ground, one must match the exaggerated position of the opposition. Lives are literally at stake in many of these issues, and we live in an age where people are too busy being outraged to notice a moderate and sensibly stated case, regardless of relative importance, relevance or risk.

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 15 June 2010 - 05:00 AM

0

#17 User is offline   cerveza_fiesta 

  • Outdoor Tractivities !
  • Group: Malazan Artist
  • Posts: 5,341
  • Joined: 28-August 07
  • Location:Fredericton, NB, Canada
  • Interests:beer, party.

Posted 16 June 2010 - 05:14 PM

View PostJusentantaka, on 10 June 2010 - 03:33 PM, said:

And internet protests: less useful than a signature on a petition, because anyone and everyone can be on the internet and can say whatever they want. No accountability for supporting some random ass internet petition. Its just 'oh look my facebook efriend sent me this link! *clicks and signs on to nuke the whales* ' At least picketers are standing out somewhere showing their support or anger. "I'm in an Internet protest!' just doesn't have any oomph behind it to me.

View PostTapper, on 10 June 2010 - 11:56 AM, said:

As for internet protests... it is basically the same as signing a support petition. It's low maintenance and easily accessible, for some things, such a passive way of protesting is enough, for others it will fail in any way whatsoever to get attention.


But around here, and I wonder if it is the same in a lot of other places, do they really even hold as much water as a physical petition piece of paper? Our provincial gov't won't even accept anything but a paper petition. I guess it keeps the (and I quote) "random jerkoffs" (RJs from now on) from just signing a petition they don't care about, but it also makes it difficult for the organizer of the petition (who is usually one or a few individuals) to demonstrate what might be wide support. As much as it makes the petition more accessible to RJs, it makes it more accessible to the folks who support the petition but can't drive 2 hours to the next city to sign a piece of paper.

Reason I bring this up is because I'm on the Avaaz.org mailing list through no fault of my own, and choose stay on it just to read up on the random subjects of their protest...and occasionally skoff at said subjects of protest.

The site always protests via mass internet petition, but nothing stops an individual from signing more than once and there is no requirement to list your contact info. That organization, to my knowledge, gains donations from subscribers to the website, and talks a big game, but I've never heard of them actually accomplishing anything whatsoever (beyond taking out a few political protest ads in newspapers) from any other news source. In this way AVAAZ comes off as a small group of dedicated Random Jerkoffs, taking advantage of a much larger population of slightly lazier random jerkoffs and doing nothing worthwhile with the resources they accumulate.

I think I'm mostly with Jusentantaka on this one. The RJ population far outweighs the concerned citizens on the internet and we are right not to pay attention to the protests at all.

View PostSalk Elan, on 10 June 2010 - 12:48 PM, said:

View Postcerveza_fiesta, on 10 June 2010 - 11:43 AM, said:

Free tibet protests preceding 2008 summer olympics?

Heard of it since then? They just don't have to care for a maybe a bit tattered reputation abroad. We are all doing business with them anyway.

View PostJusentantaka, on 10 June 2010 - 03:33 PM, said:

And G-protests fail because the people in the summits could give a fuck what the people protesting care about because they know their people at home will forget about it by the next election.

View PostCold Iron, on 15 June 2010 - 04:58 AM, said:

I was wondering why you didn't reply in the oil thread cf.

I'm personally a big fan of public protest as it can be an exceedingly difficult task to significantly change public policy, especially when a large industry stands to lose money or when a large arm of bureaucracy is threatened. The media is constantly manipulated by those in power, protest is simply a way for those with an alternative agenda to attempt the same. Either a movement creates a groundswell and gathers enough support to facilitate more rapid change, or it doesn't - democracy in action.

I certainly don't think that any government is prone to giving in to the minority demands of protesters, indeed even when an issue has broad majority support it is common for a government to pay lip service only and continue on with the status quo. Governments are large, slow moving entities with a lot of momentum, it takes a huge effort to change the trajectory of a state and I have yet to see a government over reacting or taking too drastic action on anything in the public interest. Indeed where it comes to policy making I'm in favour of the Richard Dawkins style reaction where in order to allow people to find the just middle ground, one must match the exaggerated position of the opposition. Lives are literally at stake in many of these issues, and we live in an age where people are too busy being outraged to notice a moderate and sensibly stated case, regardless of relative importance, relevance or risk.


Hmm...gave me something to think about there. It makes sense that the subject of the protest, be it a politician's policy, industrial practices, offending superstore, or whatever, needs to have some other incentive to listen to the protesters.

In the example of the gigantic waste-of-time FREEE TIBET protests, chinese gov't had zero incentive to change, zero desire to change and no consequences for not changing, so they gave a colossal "fuck you" to everybody involved and even sent the army to beat the shit out of a few tibetans just to shut the lot of them up. The dictatorial-ish regime in China ensured silence among intelligent protesters (ie the upper-class doctors/lawyers that might have jumped onboard) and the stranglehold they have on worldwide manufacturing ensured that no important nation could sanction them. This combined with their belief in their right to govern and control Tibet meant that they could literally do whatever they wanted.

In the example of the tea-party rallies, They have a strong, vocal minority (though some might argue "majority") literally spreading half-truths and exaggerating out-of-context, fabricated interpretations of the bill (death panels) in a convincing manner. Nobody could stop them (due to free speech laws), they had a sympathetic mass-media platform (Fox news), the government in power stood to lose some of that power if they didn't give in and so they were extremely successful.

Do you think that the message itself is a crucual factor in protests? In my first example, we (as in western society) have no experience with tibet or any real evidence of severe oppression by the chinese gov't of the tibetan people. So, invariably the RJs and hippies of the world jumped onboard without much support from the masses since nobody could really relate. In my second example, we have extremely loud-talking minority, backed by the republican base (for the most part) all with a vested interest in seeing the president fail at something. The message was easy to spread, easy to vocalize and everybody could relate on some level.

Or with the proper spin+media support, could any protest at all be taken to tea-party levels of success?

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 16 June 2010 - 05:14 PM

........oOOOOOo
......//| | |oO
.....|| | | | O....
BEERS!

......
\\| | | |

........'-----'

0

#18 User is offline   Cold Iron 

  • I'll have some lasagna
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 2,026
  • Joined: 18-January 06

Posted 17 June 2010 - 12:29 AM

View Postcerveza_fiesta, on 16 June 2010 - 05:14 PM, said:

Or with the proper spin+media support, could any protest at all be taken to tea-party levels of success?

Money.
0

#19 User is offline   cerveza_fiesta 

  • Outdoor Tractivities !
  • Group: Malazan Artist
  • Posts: 5,341
  • Joined: 28-August 07
  • Location:Fredericton, NB, Canada
  • Interests:beer, party.

Posted 28 June 2010 - 07:20 PM

Turns out this G20 protest was about as effective as all the rest.

I would say the random jerkoffs were out in full force on this one...except they were organized.

4 cop cars burned and millions in damage to downtown Toronto. Fuck.

On sunday the cops just started indiscriminately arresting / beating the fuck out of people.
........oOOOOOo
......//| | |oO
.....|| | | | O....
BEERS!

......
\\| | | |

........'-----'

0

#20 User is offline   worry 

  • Master of the Deck
  • Group: Malaz Regular
  • Posts: 14,860
  • Joined: 24-February 10
  • Location:the buried west

Posted 28 June 2010 - 07:37 PM

Keep in mind, though, those are Canadian dollars.
They came with white hands and left with red hands.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users