Literally politicians at every protest
this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
781 points (98.4% liked)
Political Memes
8676 readers
2994 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 33 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Before I read your comment, I thought the protestors were saying the line to the king. So that he would be like politicians today acting like our say matters.
There were a lot of Pro-Palestinian protests last November in my city. One of them blocked a small bridge, and this was a conversation I had 3 times that day:
Some Chud: "This is really dangerous! What if an ambulance needs to get by!"
Me: "They're letting emergency vehicles pass, and police are on the scene to make sure nothing unsafe happens."
S.C.: "Well, they're certainly not winning anyone over with tactics like this!"
Me: "They're not trying to win you over, their stated goal is to force [X] politician to respond."
S.C.: "Well then they should go protest at [X] politicians house!"
Me: "They protested at [X]'s office last week, but it wasn't very disruptive, so you didn't hear about it."
There's been non-stop protests in politician homes in Texas. You don't hear about them because they're peaceful.
So maybe blocking roads is the way.
I mean, any protest that isn't disruptive or making people uncomfortable isn't effective. That being said, there were some BLM protesters who chained themselves to some cement filled barrels a few years ago. They completely blocked a highway, causing delays for several ambulances that had to be rerouted. That's just stupid and dangerous. But if your goal is to force politicians to acknowledge the issue and take an official position on it, blocking a street or disrupting a public event is an effective tactic, as long as it's done safely.
Isn't the modern form of this essentially a mob of people telling you the king sucks while they hold you up on a very time sensitive quest to take your wheat to a different town with Holo?
Then the pitchfork wielders wonder why all the people doing trade gets a bad impression of them rathee than the oligarchy?
Never gets old, seeing idiots admit that hundreds or thousands of years can pass but the only way they can get what they want done is violence.
We live in a world where even war isn't profitable anymore, where you can overthrow leaders with a social media post, but you morons still choose dumb ape brain impulse.
Uhhhhhh what? The difference between us and those in power is the fact that those in power are willing to do violence to get what they want. The problem is you have a very limited definition of what violence is. When a train CEO cuts safety SOPs that results in a train derailing and poisoning a whole town, that's a form of passive violence against working people. When politicians pass laws restricting the rights of a specific demographic, that's a form of passive political violence. But the moment working people take the path only available to them, they are called apes and uncivilized? Nah fam, before every popular revolution, the people warned those in charge that equity and inclusion is needed to keep society going, leaders rebuff those plees. So no, stop blaming those with little to nothing for becoming fed up.
Oh really? So the protests of smashing in other people's businesses was necessary for changing the power structure? Did it work? Why not? How many protests have happened at actual seats of power? None? So this is all just bullshit posturing by dipshits that changes nothing except to keep working class people like those protesting on their knees?
I don't give a fuck if you're fed up, learn how your actions influence the world around you or stay inside and pout about it. Your violent revolution being focused into creating nothing but civil unrest and vandalism is short-sighted, hypocritical, and is completely absent of the virtues you claim to have. You are not an enlightened rebel, you're an overactive Karen trying to solve their problems with a tantrum instead of any direct plan. You get mad and break shit. That's your protest. How is that unlike an overgrown toddler?
I work retail, I have the most to gain from an actual shift in power structure but watching morons throw rocks into local businesses to protest a CEO getting a pay raise is the most retarded shit I can imagine besides you defending it.
You might see ape brain violence, but guess what the people in power are apes too. When all else fails, and I think we can agree it has, there’s only one option left. I’m sure you’re referring to the George Floyd protests. How long do we have to ask nicely for people to not get murdered by cops? How many different ways should we say it? Do you actually think it can ever work?
The Floyd protests were probably the most prominent example of a protest doing nothing but ruining a city and throwing a tantrum. Nothing productive happened from those protests beyond give news agencies headlines and idiots on social media a black square. CHAZ, that 'demilitarized cop zone' a bunch of LARPers tried to assemble also failed beyond miserably. The area they held turned into pure anarchy where even the 'not police' force they made to keep order ended up killing civilians. People lost their lives for that 'anti-cop' experiment.
I want you to, instead of smashing in windows of your local bakery, come up with a plan that actually changes what's being complained about. If protests worked, they would have by now. If not having cops around at all worked, it would have in CHAZ.
There are many examples of how protests can lead to change:
# The '3.5% rule': How a small minority can change the world.
The article cites non violent protests directed squarely at the source of the issues. The frustration is with misdirected protests. There are certain people who declare "there's no wrong way to protest", but there definitely are wrong ways to protest. A good protest will raise awareness but do so in a way where other people on the fence might actually be swayed that you have a point. If your protest makes you a "villain" to the people who should be agreeing with you, it's not a good protest.
How many protests have happened at actual seats of power?
Like a lot? You can find loads of articles of activists staging demonstrations in and around Parliament buildings all the fucking time. You may not have heard about them since the status quo will actively try to silence any dissent (like how the UK literally cuts the live proceedings video feed as soon as any citizen vocally protest anything in parliament).
Just please don't go on believing that disruptions only inconvenience the public. Like nobody in activism likes to make people's lives harder, the only reason they're done in public is because doing so in government buildings hasn't gotten any recognition.
Like I'd love nothing more than for anyone to be able to calmly express their concerns and potential solutions, be heard and reasoned with and have meaningful action be taken.
And like what do you propose people do instead? When they have ideas on how to solve the problems we face but nobody in power listens because its not in their best interest, how do you suggest they go about having their voices heard?
Your ignorance is staggering. Please read a book, any book.
I can sympathize, a good protest is both high profile and relevant to the subject matter of the protest.
Too many folks protest in a way that has nothing to do with their cause, and the only attention they attract is negative.
So blocking tanker trucks to protest fossil fuels? Seems apt and it's high profile. Throwing food on unrelated art exhibitions? I don't think that's doing your cause any favors.
Tucker Carlson is that you?! Lol you didn't address any of my points and just spouted out GOP talking points that are within the ballpark.
Just because their are some people that take advantage of protests as an opportunity to loot and vandalize doesn't devalue the protests. Since you have all the answers on how people should live their lives, how exactly should people influence society? I'm willing to bet you've just been ignoring those movements because you just don't agree with equity and inclusion.
One last question, when a corporation or political group does violence on society, what should the punishment be? (shouldn't it be the same punishment as if a individual does it?)
Lol make a point and I'll respond to it. What's crazy is the retards calling every point that doesn't agree with theirs "GOP". When everything to the right of your extreme bullshit is "GOP" you're going to find yourself real alone real fast.
Productive violence is not the same as protests. Protests are tantrums for attention that, in this SoCiEtY, is fast fleeting if not capitalized on quickly. What did the BLM riots achieve? Not a God damn thing. If anything it gave the actual GOP great footage of what the left does when they get angwy.
And no, a group is never a single entity, even corporations or political groups. Holding every member responsible for a murder that one person did isn't justice unless every single person knew and planned that act. Their participation and knowledge would be key factors in determining punishment and each member would be weighed differently irrespective of their group status.
I made several points. You just don't want to address them because you don't have a counter. You just don't want to think critically about protests so you just call them tantrums and riots. Once again their were no BLM riots. Not a thing. There were BLM protests, that were take advantage of by rioters. But BLM as an organization and as a movement never organized nor sanctioned/endorsed any riots. And I'm pretty sure the BLM/George Floyd protests changed policing for the better. Police in America are now all wearing body cameras and many areas set up independent boards who review cases of police misconduct. Just a bandaid to our broken justice system but better than what we had before.
So you believe corporations should be allowed to kill, injure, and destroy simply because they aren't individuals? Interesting. Just proves you may not like the label of GOP puppet but that's what you are. Sorry but you are that and everyone knows it. Don't worry, people with actual empathy compassion and knowledge of other people different than them are fighting for your emancipation as well. Have a good life. Goodbye forever.
Nearly every single meaningful change in the balance of power or step towards greater freedom involved either the use or the threat of violence against authority. This ranges from getting weekends through to the civil rights movement as well as the suffragettes and everything in between. It turns out that its actually pretty easy to just ignore placards, social media posts and strongly worded letters.
I mean, if you're going to act like other people are stupid, you should know about the things you're talking about.
The cherry on the irony cake being your lashing out at something you didn't like while claiming to be above such things. Well done you!
Think there's a mismatch. He didn't say threat or violence against authority is pointless, he is stating that undirected or misdirected violence, vandalism, and such. Like this comic is not related, because they are facing authority, but the protests he would object to would be ones that are done way away from anyone or anything that can even possibly be relevant. Torches and pitchforks toward the leadership or whatever direct or proximal cause of stuff that you didn't like, but don't expect to win hearts and minds if you instead randomly vandalize or interfere with unrelated stuff.
Civil rights protests that were remebered as part of driving change were directly facing the issues, rather than just blind screwing around.
I think you're being far too lenient on them. To me, their "ape brain" comment covers all violence or threat of violence that they dont like.
Specifically when he mentions that it isn't at the seat of power, and cites random vandalism of local businesses when protesting something that would be unrelated. It could be that he fails to appreciate the nuance, but I'd like to use the opportunity to extract a more nuanced view. Protests that have moved things forward have been relatable, relevant to the problem, sometimes violent but often non-violent. I don't think undirected rioting or some of these unrelated "performance art" have any precedent for working to change things for the better.
I mean, they did seem to backtrack pretty hard when called out but I still think you're interpreting too much into what they're saying. They simply don't like it and seem to have bought to revisionist stories of political change.
I wouldn't call hunger strikes from prison or throwing yourself under the kings horse remotely relatable or directly relevant to women's suffrage. Yet they worked better than anything else to raise the issue to the nation.
The protests that made things change have always either been violent or it was made very clear that the only alternative was violence. Like in the way the above beleives, its just that these things are re-written years later by groups who don't want people to change things for the better.
The UK only death with Gandhi because they knew all the other leaders wanted blood. The American civil rights movement involved riots and mass civil disobedience. They were ignored until then. Same with the working week and women's right to vote. Things only changed when the powers that be knew the only alternative to giving into what they wanted was violence, directed or not. You have to try and reconcile what you think to historical facts and, as much as I'd like you to be right, its only ever been one way. They've never given it to us or allowed us to vote for it.
If we want it, we have to take it.
On the UK suffrage:
Although non-historians often assumed the WSPU was primarily responsible for obtaining women's suffrage, historians are much more skeptical about its contribution. It is generally agreed that the WSPU revitalized the suffrage campaign initially, but that its escalation of militancy after 1912 impeded reform. Recent studies have shifted from claiming that the WSPU was responsible for women's suffrage to portraying it as an early form of radical feminism that sought to liberate women from a male-centered gender system.
Supported by the fact that those activities largely subsided as WWI took hold, and the conclusion of WWI seemed to be the first signs of suffrage, but not equal suffrage until ten years later, long after those activities had time to fade. You also cited self-harm activities, which also wouldn't be relevant to complaints about undirected vandalism, though they certainly engaged in that.
We see it all the time, an unsympathetic violent act incites resentment. Look at January 6th, is the general response "oh we need to give these people what they want" or is it "screw those guys". That was even as they targeted the seat of power directly relevant to the change that they wanted (to make Trump unelected dictator, of all things). For a protest to inspire change, it needs a critical mass of people to take their side. There has to be a story to tell that can garner support, and the fewer distractions and the less a protest alienates people on the fence, or reinforces the opposition, the better. This can be violent, but violence is a risk that may undermine your goals. It has to be loud and it has to be a lot of people and they have to convey a story that others can understand.
I would really love an example for a war that didn't happen because it wasn't profitable, or a relevant leader toppled by social media. We live in a world where there aren't any politicians we can vote for to actually lead to any change, and wars are closer to many of us than they have been in a long time, both physically and through the visibility of social media and globalisation. If there's a peaceful way to stop this that you're aware of, please do enlighten us
I would really love an example for a war that didn’t happen because it wasn’t profitable
Holy shit. You think we made money in Vietnam? Made money in the Korean war? Think there's enough oil in the Middle East to justify a 20 year occupation? I bet the shoes of the Jewish people really gave us kickbacks in World War II.
War is almost never profitable and the only people who think it is are trying to drum up any excuse as to be violent little rebels. Can war lead to change? Absolutely. The dickless protests of ruining local shops are nothing more than annoying to the people who aren't affected by it and devastating to the people who are. Stop trying to be fucking virtuous rebels and stand with groups and organizations that are pushing for change without a fucking brick in their hand. Unreal I have to even explain this.
We live in a world where there aren’t any politicians we can vote for to actually lead to any change
What a double dose of retardation that is. I've heard nothing but "Trump is going to destroy democracy if he gets elected!" but now I have you saying "Nah they're bullshitting, it doesn't matter, never will." None of the politicians running are running on issues you want them to, that's your problem. Maybe instead of dressing in all black and vandalizing property you get with that same group and push someone into office. Imagine how effective that could be on jumpstarting a progressive candidate.
The only violence I'm okay with is the kind that makes less billionaires. Go Johnny Silverhand Trump Tower then get back to me.
That's exactly what I mean, though. All these wars happen even though they aren't profitable, so I don't see how that's relevant.
Not saying politics can't change for the worse, just that I haven't seen voting, etc. change it for the better in a long time. It used to and I think peaceful protests and activism could help, just saying it's not very visible as helpful right now.
I don't even see how you ended up getting into a tirade about vandalising from this post, especially if you agree that attacking billionaires directly has a chance of helping - isn't that exactly what the cartoon shows?
I agree with you that riots and vandalising aren't currently helping - but I also don't see them as a prevailing problem. Where is this currently going on? Most of what I see are peaceful protests with limited coverage and even more limited consequences