I just returned from a protest in Portsmouth, NH. I'd estimate between 200-300 people attending. Lots of witty and fiery signs, plenty of chanting. Probably about 90% women and 10% men. Organized by one of those groups who have "Occupy" in their name for marketing reasons.
When the crowd was slightly spilling out into the edge of the road, one of the organizers walked around forcefully scolding the protesters to stay confined to the sidewalks - "You have to stay out of the roads, if you go out in the roads the police will come." Because, as we all know, the gains won by previous liberatory movements in America were won by making sure the police don't get mad. After all, who can forget Malcolm X's eternal words: "Make sure to stay off the roads and follow the rules."
Another of the organizers, addressing the crowd through an underpowered megaphone that was audible for less than 1/10th of the protest, told us "All we can do is vote" and gave an uninspiring speech about how the only way to resist this is to get more pro-choice people into Congress. This is in keeping with the insights of Mother Jones, as per her famous quote: "Voting and running for office is the only way to change things."
We're gonna have to do a lot better than this, people. Waving some signs around and chanting is fun or whatever, but unless it is paired with or leads to some form of actual action, it will have no real effect. Civil disobedience can have power, civil obedience not so much. Where is the rage? Evidently not in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
Cars passing by were largely supportive, so that's nice I guess.
How long were they out there? Did you stay till they dispersed?
I was there for about an hour and a half, by which time about half of the crowd had departed and the remainder seemed to be dwindling gradually.
I just returned from a protest in Portsmouth, NH. I'd estimate between 200-300 people attending. Lots of witty and fiery signs, plenty of chanting. Probably about 90% women and 10% men. Organized by one of those groups who have "Occupy" in their name for marketing reasons.
When the crowd was slightly spilling out into the edge of the road, one of the organizers walked around forcefully scolding the protesters to stay confined to the sidewalks - "You have to stay out of the roads, if you go out in the roads the police will come." Because, as we all know, the gains won by previous liberatory movements in America were won by making sure the police don't get mad. After all, who can forget Malcolm X's eternal words: "Make sure to stay off the roads and follow the rules."
Another of the organizers, addressing the crowd through an underpowered megaphone that was audible for less than 1/10th of the protest, told us "All we can do is vote" and gave an uninspiring speech about how the only way to resist this is to get more pro-choice people into Congress. This is in keeping with the insights of Mother Jones, as per her famous quote: "Voting and running for office is the only way to change things."
We're gonna have to do a lot better than this, people. Waving some signs around and chanting is fun or whatever, but unless it is paired with or leads to some form of actual action, it will have no real effect. Civil disobedience can have power, civil obedience not so much. Where is the rage? Evidently not in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
Cars passing by were largely supportive, so that's nice I guess.
How long were they out there? Did you stay till they dispersed?
I was there for about an hour and a half, by which time about half of the crowd had departed and the remainder seemed to be dwindling gradually.
Oh. I would have thought that going mild at least has the benefit of going long
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I just returned from a protest in Portsmouth, NH. I'd estimate between 200-300 people attending. Lots of witty and fiery signs, plenty of chanting. Probably about 90% women and 10% men. Organized by one of those groups who have "Occupy" in their name for marketing reasons.
When the crowd was slightly spilling out into the edge of the road, one of the organizers walked around forcefully scolding the protesters to stay confined to the sidewalks - "You have to stay out of the roads, if you go out in the roads the police will come." Because, as we all know, the gains won by previous liberatory movements in America were won by making sure the police don't get mad. After all, who can forget Malcolm X's eternal words: "Make sure to stay off the roads and follow the rules."
Another of the organizers, addressing the crowd through an underpowered megaphone that was audible for less than 1/10th of the protest, told us "All we can do is vote" and gave an uninspiring speech about how the only way to resist this is to get more pro-choice people into Congress. This is in keeping with the insights of Mother Jones, as per her famous quote: "Voting and running for office is the only way to change things."
We're gonna have to do a lot better than this, people. Waving some signs around and chanting is fun or whatever, but unless it is paired with or leads to some form of actual action, it will have no real effect. Civil disobedience can have power, civil obedience not so much. Where is the rage? Evidently not in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
Cars passing by were largely supportive, so that's nice I guess.
Sounds like less a protest than a trap to ensure people remain as ineffective as possible.
I just returned from a protest in Portsmouth, NH. I'd estimate between 200-300 people attending. Lots of witty and fiery signs, plenty of chanting. Probably about 90% women and 10% men. Organized by one of those groups who have "Occupy" in their name for marketing reasons.
When the crowd was slightly spilling out into the edge of the road, one of the organizers walked around forcefully scolding the protesters to stay confined to the sidewalks - "You have to stay out of the roads, if you go out in the roads the police will come." Because, as we all know, the gains won by previous liberatory movements in America were won by making sure the police don't get mad. After all, who can forget Malcolm X's eternal words: "Make sure to stay off the roads and follow the rules."
Another of the organizers, addressing the crowd through an underpowered megaphone that was audible for less than 1/10th of the protest, told us "All we can do is vote" and gave an uninspiring speech about how the only way to resist this is to get more pro-choice people into Congress. This is in keeping with the insights of Mother Jones, as per her famous quote: "Voting and running for office is the only way to change things."
We're gonna have to do a lot better than this, people. Waving some signs around and chanting is fun or whatever, but unless it is paired with or leads to some form of actual action, it will have no real effect. Civil disobedience can have power, civil obedience not so much. Where is the rage? Evidently not in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
Cars passing by were largely supportive, so that's nice I guess.
How long were they out there? Did you stay till they dispersed?
I was there for about an hour and a half, by which time about half of the crowd had departed and the remainder seemed to be dwindling gradually.
Oh. I would have thought that going mild at least has the benefit of going long
Maybe the half that were still there were going to continue for a while, I dunno. I was very hungry by then you see.
The Occupy Whatever guy sorta gave the "okay our protest is over" signal after an hour, walking around and telling people to join them for protests on "Civil Rights Sundays" or something, for various unrelated causes including "Peace in Ukraine" (I guess he hopes Putin will see us protesting and Russia will withdraw???).
Sounds like a very all or nothing take on a protest.
Sure, there’s room for improvement, but even just showing up is better than what, 95%+ of people do most days?
Table ante is voting to protect rights were possible, or slow declines, or show resistance, or whatever. Donate where people can. Protest and aim to make voices heard, but what would have been acceptable protesting? Does shit need to be on fire for it to count? If there aren’t at least a half dozen new members of the “cops shot me in the face with rubber bullets so I lost an eye” club those people started during the George Floyd protests is it not worth doing?
I’m a little baffled at what I read as shitting on a protest for not being protesty enough.
I guess nobody should’ve bothered showing up if they weren’t ready to risk it all?
Not everyone is read up on spec ops protest tactics and ready to go over dark lines.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Sounds like a very all or nothing take on a protest.
Sure, there’s room for improvement, but even just showing up is better than what, 95%+ of people do most days?
Table ante is voting to protect rights were possible, or slow declines, or show resistance, or whatever. Donate where people can. Protest and aim to make voices heard, but what would have been acceptable protesting? Does shit need to be on fire for it to count? If there aren’t at least a half dozen new members of the “cops shot me in the face with rubber bullets so I lost an eye” club those people started during the George Floyd protests is it not worth doing?
I’m a little baffled at what I read as shitting on a protest for not being protesty enough.
I guess nobody should’ve bothered showing up if they weren’t ready to risk it all?
Not everyone is read up on spec ops protest tactics and ready to go over dark lines.
I mean, kind of, yeah? What is accomplished by this sort of non-disruptive 'protest'? "Raising awareness?" Is Alito going to see some footage and say "damn I was wrong, women do deserve freedom"? If it's a first step that leads to something more effective then it might have merit, but in and of itself such a demonstration does nothing. It can easily be ignored.
Then I guess it’s a moot point then, because the starting point you desire is already beyond the remit of discussion on the PA forums, if I recall several terse mod posts correctly.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Sounds like a very all or nothing take on a protest.
Sure, there’s room for improvement, but even just showing up is better than what, 95%+ of people do most days?
Table ante is voting to protect rights were possible, or slow declines, or show resistance, or whatever. Donate where people can. Protest and aim to make voices heard, but what would have been acceptable protesting? Does shit need to be on fire for it to count? If there aren’t at least a half dozen new members of the “cops shot me in the face with rubber bullets so I lost an eye” club those people started during the George Floyd protests is it not worth doing?
I’m a little baffled at what I read as shitting on a protest for not being protesty enough.
I guess nobody should’ve bothered showing up if they weren’t ready to risk it all?
Not everyone is read up on spec ops protest tactics and ready to go over dark lines.
I mean, kind of, yeah? What is accomplished by this sort of non-disruptive 'protest'? "Raising awareness?" Is Alito going to see some footage and say "damn I was wrong, women do deserve freedom"? If it's a first step that leads to something more effective then it might have merit, but in and of itself such a demonstration does nothing. It can easily be ignored.
I'm not sure a protest that also stands in the road does more.
Then I guess it’s a moot point then, because the starting point you desire is already beyond the remit of discussion on the PA forums, if I recall several terse mod posts correctly.
Well, supporting BLM was plenty allowed here. Like, I'm not calling for armed raids on the state house or something. I do not think the mods here have traditionally interpreted their ruleset to mean "No advocacy for civil disobedience."
Protests that don't organize or disrupt are kinda dumb.
Organize is the other part, yeah. If this protest was being consciously used as a way to gather people and then organize them into a politically effective unit for future actions I would not be nearly as critical, but I saw no sign that that was happening. Aside from the organizer's 'come join us on Civil Rights Sundays, we're here every week' statement at the end, I guess.
Sounds like a very all or nothing take on a protest.
Sure, there’s room for improvement, but even just showing up is better than what, 95%+ of people do most days?
Table ante is voting to protect rights were possible, or slow declines, or show resistance, or whatever. Donate where people can. Protest and aim to make voices heard, but what would have been acceptable protesting? Does shit need to be on fire for it to count? If there aren’t at least a half dozen new members of the “cops shot me in the face with rubber bullets so I lost an eye” club those people started during the George Floyd protests is it not worth doing?
I’m a little baffled at what I read as shitting on a protest for not being protesty enough.
I guess nobody should’ve bothered showing up if they weren’t ready to risk it all?
Not everyone is read up on spec ops protest tactics and ready to go over dark lines.
I mean, kind of, yeah? What is accomplished by this sort of non-disruptive 'protest'? "Raising awareness?" Is Alito going to see some footage and say "damn I was wrong, women do deserve freedom"? If it's a first step that leads to something more effective then it might have merit, but in and of itself such a demonstration does nothing. It can easily be ignored.
I'm not sure a protest that also stands in the road does more.
It causes economic disruption at the very least. It's not enough. But it would be more than what I participated in today.
Again, did the Civil Rights movement succeed (to the extent that it did) by making sure to follow the rules and not disrupting anything? I do not think it did...
Would ~300 people come to a more disruptive protest?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Sounds like a very all or nothing take on a protest.
Sure, there’s room for improvement, but even just showing up is better than what, 95%+ of people do most days?
Table ante is voting to protect rights were possible, or slow declines, or show resistance, or whatever. Donate where people can. Protest and aim to make voices heard, but what would have been acceptable protesting? Does shit need to be on fire for it to count? If there aren’t at least a half dozen new members of the “cops shot me in the face with rubber bullets so I lost an eye” club those people started during the George Floyd protests is it not worth doing?
I’m a little baffled at what I read as shitting on a protest for not being protesty enough.
I guess nobody should’ve bothered showing up if they weren’t ready to risk it all?
Not everyone is read up on spec ops protest tactics and ready to go over dark lines.
I mean, kind of, yeah? What is accomplished by this sort of non-disruptive 'protest'? "Raising awareness?" Is Alito going to see some footage and say "damn I was wrong, women do deserve freedom"? If it's a first step that leads to something more effective then it might have merit, but in and of itself such a demonstration does nothing. It can easily be ignored.
I'm not sure a protest that also stands in the road does more.
It causes economic disruption at the very least. It's not enough. But it would be more than what I participated in today.
Again, did the Civil Rights movement succeed (to the extent that it did) by making sure to follow the rules and not disrupting anything? I do not think it did...
I don't think that was the real difference here is more my point. I don't think you are looking at a meaningful difference there in terms of economic disruption. Mostly you are just gonna annoy some people driving through the area. I agree that not using the opportunity to organize is a real missed opportunity but I'm not sure the disruption part is all that meaningful here.
Even if women chain themselves to the courthouse, Roe V Wade is not being saved. Powerful Republicans are never more than irked by left-wing protest. They think we are pitiful and they despise us. They use any protest that gets slightly spicy to drive their own turnout with images of angry feminists or black people causing their voters to wet their drawers back in their monocultural little towns and suburbs.
Would ~300 people come to a more disruptive protest?
I mean, it depends, but just two years ago there were crowds of thousands engaged in far more disruptive protest.
But in this case the 300 were already there, but the organizer/scold felt the need to walk around snapping at people to stay out of the road. Lady, if you don't wanna get in trouble, fine, you stay out of the road. And the other organizer's speech about how voting is the only way to affect change nearly gave me an aneurysm. Thankfully she bought her megaphone at Walmart, so few heard her thoroughly demoralizing message.
+1
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
Sounds like a very all or nothing take on a protest.
Sure, there’s room for improvement, but even just showing up is better than what, 95%+ of people do most days?
Table ante is voting to protect rights were possible, or slow declines, or show resistance, or whatever. Donate where people can. Protest and aim to make voices heard, but what would have been acceptable protesting? Does shit need to be on fire for it to count? If there aren’t at least a half dozen new members of the “cops shot me in the face with rubber bullets so I lost an eye” club those people started during the George Floyd protests is it not worth doing?
I’m a little baffled at what I read as shitting on a protest for not being protesty enough.
I guess nobody should’ve bothered showing up if they weren’t ready to risk it all?
Not everyone is read up on spec ops protest tactics and ready to go over dark lines.
I mean, kind of, yeah? What is accomplished by this sort of non-disruptive 'protest'? "Raising awareness?" Is Alito going to see some footage and say "damn I was wrong, women do deserve freedom"? If it's a first step that leads to something more effective then it might have merit, but in and of itself such a demonstration does nothing. It can easily be ignored.
I'm not sure a protest that also stands in the road does more.
It causes economic disruption at the very least. It's not enough. But it would be more than what I participated in today.
Again, did the Civil Rights movement succeed (to the extent that it did) by making sure to follow the rules and not disrupting anything? I do not think it did...
Would ~300 people come to a more disruptive protest?
Yes
BLM was the largest mobilization of protests in the history of the US and it’s fair to say they were more disruptive (though still overwhelmingly peaceful)
Would ~300 people come to a more disruptive protest?
Yes
BLM was the largest mobilization of protests in the history of the US and it’s fair to say they were more disruptive (though still overwhelmingly peaceful)
People also had more available time due to the pandemic. I'm not sure we'll ever see a protest of the magnitude again in our lifetime.
The police have effectively terrorized left-wing protesters into compliance. Remember when they nearly killed an old man for peacefully protesting in Buffalo? They also maimed many people by aiming rubber bullets to knock out eyes. Organizers are fearful of that happening again. It's fascist terror tactics.
Also, I think the degree of protest merited depends on what is being protested. Like if this was a "legalize weed in New Hampshire" protest or something, gathering and waving some signs around is fine, I wouldn't be so negative about it.
But we are facing the greatest singular loss in human freedom in this country in my lifetime. Arguably longer than that, the only remotely comparable thing I can think of is the establishment of mass incarceration through the 70s-90s. It really does merit some disruption.
Would ~300 people come to a more disruptive protest?
Yes
BLM was the largest mobilization of protests in the history of the US and it’s fair to say they were more disruptive (though still overwhelmingly peaceful)
People also had more available time due to the pandemic. I'm not sure we'll ever see a protest of the magnitude again in our lifetime.
The first wave of BLM protests was pretty major too. Smaller in scale than the second, but big enough and disruptive enough that no one could ignore it.
Edit - Occupy Wall Street - the actual movement, not the parasitic entities that have stolen its name - is another recent-ish example
Even if women chain themselves to the courthouse, Roe V Wade is not being saved. Powerful Republicans are never more than irked by left-wing protest. They think we are pitiful and they despise us. They use any protest that gets slightly spicy to drive their own turnout with images of angry feminists or black people causing their voters to wet their drawers back in their monocultural little towns and suburbs.
So what, then, just give up and accept theocratic fascism in half of the states? Probably more over time as our social situation degrades further?
Do you believe that civil disobedience and direct action have no power? How was segregation ended? I can't remember who I'm quoting or paraphrasing, but:
The Civil Rights Act was an achievement of the state, but it was an achievement of the state with a gun to its head.
If you want to tell me that more disruptive protests won't be enough, well, you're probably right. But they are a necessary element of the sort of response that is required here. Strikes, boycotts, demonstrations. Forming organizations that actually have teeth and can take action to impose material costs on our ruling class. And sure, vote for people who think women should be free, but this forum's got that aspect covered well enough so I don't really feel the need to harp on about that - and that won't be sufficient in and of itself either.
Back from the DC protest. It was very large. Good mix of ages from grand parents to those just turning 18 and younger. And by large I mean probably 10,000+. Enough to fill constitution more than than a few blocks. It was a gross muggy day but still glad lots of folks were out.
Also lots of cameras and news folks. Though I think Buffalo and the tragedy will be the top story.
Sounds like a very all or nothing take on a protest.
Sure, there’s room for improvement, but even just showing up is better than what, 95%+ of people do most days?
Table ante is voting to protect rights were possible, or slow declines, or show resistance, or whatever. Donate where people can. Protest and aim to make voices heard, but what would have been acceptable protesting? Does shit need to be on fire for it to count? If there aren’t at least a half dozen new members of the “cops shot me in the face with rubber bullets so I lost an eye” club those people started during the George Floyd protests is it not worth doing?
I’m a little baffled at what I read as shitting on a protest for not being protesty enough.
I guess nobody should’ve bothered showing up if they weren’t ready to risk it all?
Not everyone is read up on spec ops protest tactics and ready to go over dark lines.
I don't want to come off as the milquetoast liberal I am, but I will march in the street and vote and canvass for the causes I believe in.
Getting arrested or shot with rubber bullets is a bridge too far for me. I'm two paychecks away from being homeless, much like a lot of people.
Effective protests are either too obnoxious to ignore or credible threats that people won't take your shit lying down
A peaceful protest is only effective if there's sufficient belief that it won't stay peaceful for long if the crowd isn't mollified (and the protestors can effectively endure/undermine police efforts to break them up, which is getting harder all the time)
So, anyway, even here in the distant frozen wastes to the North, while walking the pup yesterday I stumbled across a protest of some sort marching on the street. As it got closer, I was able to make out the signs being anti-abortion, which caused a literal eye roll
Then I saw one that was all about the 'Rights of the unborn' and I was actually angry.
However, there was a counter protest marching alongside them (with a police escort for both sides), shouting slogans, carrying signs of their own, etc, which was heartening to see.
Luckily, since it was a quiet day at work and nothing was pressing, my quick dog walk around the block became 'let's shore up their numbers and join in', because as I said, I was pretty pissed at the 'unborn' shit.
Stuck with them for maybe twenty min or so before it was time to get the pup fed and me back to work, but it was nice to see so many people providing pushback to that particular flavour of bullshit. Off the cuff I think the counterprotest was maybe half the size or so, but the anti-choicers had a setup near the provincial legislature, stage, sound system, speakers, so clearly it was an organized event of some sort.
Side note: I have no idea how much warning was present or what organization was involved. Nor was anything on fire, for whatever that may be worth.
Abortion is also a 'settled matter' here, though that hasn't stopped dipshits in parliament from trying to restart the issue, which always strikes me as just another facet of our right wing taking pages from the US's right wing more than anything.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Protests can also convince people or force them into an issue (this worked okay during segregation, re: patrons and business owners having to do a personal racism) but thrusting people into owning their stance on abortion is almost impossible. They can just sit at home and clinics cant open
0
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Protests can also convince people or force them into an issue (this worked okay during segregation, re: patrons and business owners having to do a personal racism) but thrusting people into owning their stance on abortion is almost impossible. They can just sit at home and clinics cant open
The actually effective version would be a general strike
It’s also very difficult to organize something that large but forcing an economic tax for unpopular minority rule would change the calculus
Effective protests are either too obnoxious to ignore or credible threats that people won't take your shit lying down
A peaceful protest is only effective if there's sufficient belief that it won't stay peaceful for long if the crowd isn't mollified (and the protestors can effectively endure/undermine police efforts to break them up, which is getting harder all the time)
I feel like disruptive protests aren't really credible threats these days either. And basically anything can be waited out.
Effective protests are either too obnoxious to ignore or credible threats that people won't take your shit lying down
A peaceful protest is only effective if there's sufficient belief that it won't stay peaceful for long if the crowd isn't mollified (and the protestors can effectively endure/undermine police efforts to break them up, which is getting harder all the time)
I feel like disruptive protests aren't really credible threats these days either. And basically anything can be waited out.
Tell that to Hosni Mubarak, Ben Ali, Omar al-Bashir, or Abdel-Aziz Bouteflika. None of their governments were brought down by armed insurrection, but each by protests that were, to put it lightly, very disruptive.
That said I don't totally disagree with you; more militant (not in the sense of violence) demonstrations will not in and of themselves be sufficient to save us here, from the overturn of RvW or our myriad other existential crises. But they are a necessary aspect of our response.
Effective protests are either too obnoxious to ignore or credible threats that people won't take your shit lying down
A peaceful protest is only effective if there's sufficient belief that it won't stay peaceful for long if the crowd isn't mollified (and the protestors can effectively endure/undermine police efforts to break them up, which is getting harder all the time)
I feel like disruptive protests aren't really credible threats these days either. And basically anything can be waited out.
Tell that to Hosni Mubarak, Ben Ali, Omar al-Bashir, or Abdel-Aziz Bouteflika. None of their governments were brought down by armed insurrection, but each by protests that were, to put it lightly, very disruptive.
That said I don't totally disagree with you; more militant (not in the sense of violence) demonstrations will not in and of themselves be sufficient to save us here, from the overturn of RvW or our myriad other existential crises. But they are a necessary aspect of our response.
The 2019 Sudanese coup d'état took place on the late afternoon of 11 April 2019, when Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir was overthrown by the Sudanese army after popular protests demanded his departure
Effective protests are either too obnoxious to ignore or credible threats that people won't take your shit lying down
A peaceful protest is only effective if there's sufficient belief that it won't stay peaceful for long if the crowd isn't mollified (and the protestors can effectively endure/undermine police efforts to break them up, which is getting harder all the time)
I feel like disruptive protests aren't really credible threats these days either. And basically anything can be waited out.
Tell that to Hosni Mubarak, Ben Ali, Omar al-Bashir, or Abdel-Aziz Bouteflika. None of their governments were brought down by armed insurrection, but each by protests that were, to put it lightly, very disruptive.
That said I don't totally disagree with you; more militant (not in the sense of violence) demonstrations will not in and of themselves be sufficient to save us here, from the overturn of RvW or our myriad other existential crises. But they are a necessary aspect of our response.
The 2019 Sudanese coup d'état took place on the late afternoon of 11 April 2019, when Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir was overthrown by the Sudanese army after popular protests demanded his departure
Ah yes.
The power of peaceful protest and tanks.
The state was forced to concede to (some of) the demands of the people. The military felt forced to remove these leaders because the country would remain ungovernable until they did so. They could not wait it out, though each tried (well Ben Ali gave up pretty quick actually, but the rest tried).
The Civil Rights Act was passed because the country was ungovernable, not because LBJ and a congressional majority were nice guys. From the donkey's mouth:
"But be practical. We've got to give the goddamned [n-word] something." "Listen," [LBJ] told James Eastland of Mississippi, who was anxious to adjourn for the year, "we might as well face it. We're not gonna be able to get out of here until we've got some kind of [n-word] bill."
LBJ was a piece of shit. His government was forced to concede because the streets would not be calmed unless they did so.
Effective protests are either too obnoxious to ignore or credible threats that people won't take your shit lying down
A peaceful protest is only effective if there's sufficient belief that it won't stay peaceful for long if the crowd isn't mollified (and the protestors can effectively endure/undermine police efforts to break them up, which is getting harder all the time)
I feel like disruptive protests aren't really credible threats these days either. And basically anything can be waited out.
Tell that to Hosni Mubarak, Ben Ali, Omar al-Bashir, or Abdel-Aziz Bouteflika. None of their governments were brought down by armed insurrection, but each by protests that were, to put it lightly, very disruptive.
That said I don't totally disagree with you; more militant (not in the sense of violence) demonstrations will not in and of themselves be sufficient to save us here, from the overturn of RvW or our myriad other existential crises. But they are a necessary aspect of our response.
I don't really think the countries you are talking about here are really analogous to the US and I'm not really sure what you are imaging going on in the US either is the thing.
You can literally listen to LBJ and MLK discuss their partnership strategy for passing the Voting Rights Act if you want.
LBJ was in fact a racist.
But he also ended up genuinely believing in the cause even though he knew it would kill his party politically and fought pretty hard for the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and Fair Housing Act. People are fucking complicated and simple narratives that are convenient for your personal ideological bugaboos are dumb.
Also that quote was about the 1957 Civil Rights Act not the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Because there was more than one.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I thought that that quote and other similar ones were regarding the later bill, my mistake. I don't know that that invalidates my point though? The calculus I'm describing is the same. I'll listen to the MLK/LBJ discussion you posted, which I haven't heard, to see if that alters my perspective.
Effective protests are either too obnoxious to ignore or credible threats that people won't take your shit lying down
A peaceful protest is only effective if there's sufficient belief that it won't stay peaceful for long if the crowd isn't mollified (and the protestors can effectively endure/undermine police efforts to break them up, which is getting harder all the time)
I feel like disruptive protests aren't really credible threats these days either. And basically anything can be waited out.
Tell that to Hosni Mubarak, Ben Ali, Omar al-Bashir, or Abdel-Aziz Bouteflika. None of their governments were brought down by armed insurrection, but each by protests that were, to put it lightly, very disruptive.
That said I don't totally disagree with you; more militant (not in the sense of violence) demonstrations will not in and of themselves be sufficient to save us here, from the overturn of RvW or our myriad other existential crises. But they are a necessary aspect of our response.
I don't really think the countries you are talking about here are really analogous to the US and I'm not really sure what you are imaging going on in the US either is the thing.
Obviously the Arab Spring, Civil Rights movement, and what I advocate for anti-patriarchy resistance aren't 1:1 comparisons, that's not what I'm saying. My point is broad: by making a country ungovernable, the state can be forced to make concessions to the demands of the populace.
I guess the question I have is whether the majority that supports Roe, or any other progressive policy that comes up in this context, actually supports it in a way that makes them more likely to be activated to protest than to vote, or if--as I cynically suspect--it's a majority made up primarily of people who have an opinion but don't actually care much what the law is or who is setting it, not enough to vote and definitely not enough to protest and break shit. The people who will likely have whatever opinion someone in their proximity last shared with them or will make a conversation end faster or with less tension.
edit: Of course, it's not like you need a majority of a society taking a hard stand to force compromise. A minority of aggressive Republicans making everyone scared of civil war has done quite a number on society and how it engages people like that, after all.
Sounds like a very all or nothing take on a protest.
Sure, there’s room for improvement, but even just showing up is better than what, 95%+ of people do most days?
Table ante is voting to protect rights were possible, or slow declines, or show resistance, or whatever. Donate where people can. Protest and aim to make voices heard, but what would have been acceptable protesting? Does shit need to be on fire for it to count? If there aren’t at least a half dozen new members of the “cops shot me in the face with rubber bullets so I lost an eye” club those people started during the George Floyd protests is it not worth doing?
I’m a little baffled at what I read as shitting on a protest for not being protesty enough.
I guess nobody should’ve bothered showing up if they weren’t ready to risk it all?
Not everyone is read up on spec ops protest tactics and ready to go over dark lines.
I don't want to come off as the milquetoast liberal I am, but I will march in the street and vote and canvass for the causes I believe in.
Getting arrested or shot with rubber bullets is a bridge too far for me. I'm two paychecks away from being homeless, much like a lot of people.
At what point would being arrested be a risk worth taking? Whose back has to be against the wall, if "women in red states" doesn't qualify? My economic situation isn't a whole lot better than yours, I've been arrested before, it fucking sucks.
This isn't meant to be as hostile as it sounds, we all have different levels of risk that we're willing to take on and different thresholds for when those risks become acceptable or necessary. But eventually it's necessary or you become complicit.* The "first they came for the communists" quote is in essence about this phenomenon, that is what we are talking about here. Except we're at "then they came for the women" now. At some point we have to stick our necks out.
*We already are complicit, in horrible atrocities too numerous to name, myself included
Edit - also, to EBum, I don't see how I'm using the quote to pursue an "ideological bugaboo" or whatever, unless the bugaboo is oppression of women; that feels uncharitable and dismissive
The first question is what are protests supposed to accomplish. Presumably getting the Senate to pass a bill because I doubt SCOTUS can be moved on this. Second, I would be surprised if you could actually get protests going on the scale of BLM much less the civil rights movement over this.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Sounds like a very all or nothing take on a protest.
Sure, there’s room for improvement, but even just showing up is better than what, 95%+ of people do most days?
Table ante is voting to protect rights were possible, or slow declines, or show resistance, or whatever. Donate where people can. Protest and aim to make voices heard, but what would have been acceptable protesting? Does shit need to be on fire for it to count? If there aren’t at least a half dozen new members of the “cops shot me in the face with rubber bullets so I lost an eye” club those people started during the George Floyd protests is it not worth doing?
I’m a little baffled at what I read as shitting on a protest for not being protesty enough.
I guess nobody should’ve bothered showing up if they weren’t ready to risk it all?
Not everyone is read up on spec ops protest tactics and ready to go over dark lines.
I don't want to come off as the milquetoast liberal I am, but I will march in the street and vote and canvass for the causes I believe in.
Getting arrested or shot with rubber bullets is a bridge too far for me. I'm two paychecks away from being homeless, much like a lot of people.
At what point would being arrested be a risk worth taking? Whose back has to be against the wall, if "women in red states" doesn't qualify? My economic situation isn't a whole lot better than yours, I've been arrested before, it fucking sucks.
I feel this has to be led by women in red states, or else they are just being used as mascots. Right now, they seem to be consenting to the laws. If they don’t oppose them, how can we oppose them for them? Black people lead BLM, it’d be weird if it was led by white people opposed to racism.
Posts
Oh. I would have thought that going mild at least has the benefit of going long
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Sounds like less a protest than a trap to ensure people remain as ineffective as possible.
The Occupy Whatever guy sorta gave the "okay our protest is over" signal after an hour, walking around and telling people to join them for protests on "Civil Rights Sundays" or something, for various unrelated causes including "Peace in Ukraine" (I guess he hopes Putin will see us protesting and Russia will withdraw???).
Sure, there’s room for improvement, but even just showing up is better than what, 95%+ of people do most days?
Table ante is voting to protect rights were possible, or slow declines, or show resistance, or whatever. Donate where people can. Protest and aim to make voices heard, but what would have been acceptable protesting? Does shit need to be on fire for it to count? If there aren’t at least a half dozen new members of the “cops shot me in the face with rubber bullets so I lost an eye” club those people started during the George Floyd protests is it not worth doing?
I’m a little baffled at what I read as shitting on a protest for not being protesty enough.
I guess nobody should’ve bothered showing up if they weren’t ready to risk it all?
Not everyone is read up on spec ops protest tactics and ready to go over dark lines.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm not sure a protest that also stands in the road does more.
Again, did the Civil Rights movement succeed (to the extent that it did) by making sure to follow the rules and not disrupting anything? I do not think it did...
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I don't think that was the real difference here is more my point. I don't think you are looking at a meaningful difference there in terms of economic disruption. Mostly you are just gonna annoy some people driving through the area. I agree that not using the opportunity to organize is a real missed opportunity but I'm not sure the disruption part is all that meaningful here.
But in this case the 300 were already there, but the organizer/scold felt the need to walk around snapping at people to stay out of the road. Lady, if you don't wanna get in trouble, fine, you stay out of the road. And the other organizer's speech about how voting is the only way to affect change nearly gave me an aneurysm. Thankfully she bought her megaphone at Walmart, so few heard her thoroughly demoralizing message.
Someone here already said it but..
If there is no justice, there is no peace.
If there is no justice, there is no profit.
Yes
BLM was the largest mobilization of protests in the history of the US and it’s fair to say they were more disruptive (though still overwhelmingly peaceful)
People also had more available time due to the pandemic. I'm not sure we'll ever see a protest of the magnitude again in our lifetime.
But we are facing the greatest singular loss in human freedom in this country in my lifetime. Arguably longer than that, the only remotely comparable thing I can think of is the establishment of mass incarceration through the 70s-90s. It really does merit some disruption.
The first wave of BLM protests was pretty major too. Smaller in scale than the second, but big enough and disruptive enough that no one could ignore it.
Edit - Occupy Wall Street - the actual movement, not the parasitic entities that have stolen its name - is another recent-ish example
Do you believe that civil disobedience and direct action have no power? How was segregation ended? I can't remember who I'm quoting or paraphrasing, but:
If you want to tell me that more disruptive protests won't be enough, well, you're probably right. But they are a necessary element of the sort of response that is required here. Strikes, boycotts, demonstrations. Forming organizations that actually have teeth and can take action to impose material costs on our ruling class. And sure, vote for people who think women should be free, but this forum's got that aspect covered well enough so I don't really feel the need to harp on about that - and that won't be sufficient in and of itself either.
Also lots of cameras and news folks. Though I think Buffalo and the tragedy will be the top story.
I don't want to come off as the milquetoast liberal I am, but I will march in the street and vote and canvass for the causes I believe in.
Getting arrested or shot with rubber bullets is a bridge too far for me. I'm two paychecks away from being homeless, much like a lot of people.
A peaceful protest is only effective if there's sufficient belief that it won't stay peaceful for long if the crowd isn't mollified (and the protestors can effectively endure/undermine police efforts to break them up, which is getting harder all the time)
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Then I saw one that was all about the 'Rights of the unborn' and I was actually angry.
However, there was a counter protest marching alongside them (with a police escort for both sides), shouting slogans, carrying signs of their own, etc, which was heartening to see.
Luckily, since it was a quiet day at work and nothing was pressing, my quick dog walk around the block became 'let's shore up their numbers and join in', because as I said, I was pretty pissed at the 'unborn' shit.
Stuck with them for maybe twenty min or so before it was time to get the pup fed and me back to work, but it was nice to see so many people providing pushback to that particular flavour of bullshit. Off the cuff I think the counterprotest was maybe half the size or so, but the anti-choicers had a setup near the provincial legislature, stage, sound system, speakers, so clearly it was an organized event of some sort.
Side note: I have no idea how much warning was present or what organization was involved. Nor was anything on fire, for whatever that may be worth.
Abortion is also a 'settled matter' here, though that hasn't stopped dipshits in parliament from trying to restart the issue, which always strikes me as just another facet of our right wing taking pages from the US's right wing more than anything.
The actually effective version would be a general strike
It’s also very difficult to organize something that large but forcing an economic tax for unpopular minority rule would change the calculus
I feel like disruptive protests aren't really credible threats these days either. And basically anything can be waited out.
That said I don't totally disagree with you; more militant (not in the sense of violence) demonstrations will not in and of themselves be sufficient to save us here, from the overturn of RvW or our myriad other existential crises. But they are a necessary aspect of our response.
Ah yes.
The power of peaceful protest and tanks.
The Civil Rights Act was passed because the country was ungovernable, not because LBJ and a congressional majority were nice guys. From the donkey's mouth:
LBJ was a piece of shit. His government was forced to concede because the streets would not be calmed unless they did so.
I don't really think the countries you are talking about here are really analogous to the US and I'm not really sure what you are imaging going on in the US either is the thing.
LBJ was in fact a racist.
But he also ended up genuinely believing in the cause even though he knew it would kill his party politically and fought pretty hard for the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and Fair Housing Act. People are fucking complicated and simple narratives that are convenient for your personal ideological bugaboos are dumb.
Also that quote was about the 1957 Civil Rights Act not the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Because there was more than one.
Obviously the Arab Spring, Civil Rights movement, and what I advocate for anti-patriarchy resistance aren't 1:1 comparisons, that's not what I'm saying. My point is broad: by making a country ungovernable, the state can be forced to make concessions to the demands of the populace.
edit: Of course, it's not like you need a majority of a society taking a hard stand to force compromise. A minority of aggressive Republicans making everyone scared of civil war has done quite a number on society and how it engages people like that, after all.
This isn't meant to be as hostile as it sounds, we all have different levels of risk that we're willing to take on and different thresholds for when those risks become acceptable or necessary. But eventually it's necessary or you become complicit.* The "first they came for the communists" quote is in essence about this phenomenon, that is what we are talking about here. Except we're at "then they came for the women" now. At some point we have to stick our necks out.
*We already are complicit, in horrible atrocities too numerous to name, myself included
Edit - also, to EBum, I don't see how I'm using the quote to pursue an "ideological bugaboo" or whatever, unless the bugaboo is oppression of women; that feels uncharitable and dismissive
I feel this has to be led by women in red states, or else they are just being used as mascots. Right now, they seem to be consenting to the laws. If they don’t oppose them, how can we oppose them for them? Black people lead BLM, it’d be weird if it was led by white people opposed to racism.