7 ms·

If it's futile now, just wait until they grow even stronger. It's now or never.

by Kenji 10y ago

andy_ppp 10y ago
And do what exactly? Go to a protest? It doesn't work and never has; most people are content just by reading The Daily Hate. They already won.
- justinjlynn 10y ago
  Mate, the battle may have been lost but the war never ends.
  - easytiger 10y ago
    This level of discourse is very embarrassing for HN.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      I actually find this comment very embarrassing.
    - justinjlynn 10y ago
      Yes, your comments are. Clearly we needed reminding and the point needed to be underscored.
      - easytiger 10y ago
        Eugh. Such a shame
    - orf 10y ago
      Not as embarrassing as your comment I'm afraid. I'd refrain from commenting like that in the future.
- alexbeloi 10y ago
  The only time people in power make concessions is when there is a credible threat to them maintaining that power.
  - andy_ppp 10y ago
    If you can suggest one?
    - coldtea 10y ago
      History is filled with suggestions.
    - snovv_crash 10y ago
      Look at the peaceful transition in South Africa. Do you think that would have happened if the old government thought they could keep hanging on?
      - 24gttghh 10y ago
        The campaign of the ANC* was peaceful? *edit: I don't know what I thought ANG was...
        snovv_crash 10y ago
        No, but the transition was peaceful. FW de Klerk freely gave the power across instead of being murdered in his bed or trying to set fire to "the homelands". Since then, despite the high crime rate, there hasn't been any ethnic cleansing or large scale retribution. Beyond generic Africa-standard corruption, the country has mostly taken the high road.
      - candiodari 10y ago
        People have a funny way to look at how violent a transition and especially leaders are or aren't depending on whether they agree with the outcome. The ANC ... well ... in the words of the Apartheid museum [1] (ie. The South African government's own words): "Demonstrations against the killings followed in many parts of the country and led to the banning of the main African opposition organisations, the African national Congress (ANC) and the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). Both went underground, and formed armed wings, Umkhonto we Sizwe (ANC) and Poqo (PAC)." Yes, Nelson Mandela ... founded a revolutionary army. Yes, I agree with the outcome too, and the process was almost bafflingly well executed. Bombings, placing landmines on public roads, kidnapping and torture were some of the tactics used. Again, bonus points for the outcome, and for successfully keeping control of this army after it was no longer needed, but peaceful ? Please. Also, I would further argue that South Africa did not exactly become a haven of peaceful coexistence under Nelson Mandela. India, and Gandhi is another example of this. So is Che Guevara. Looking how peaceful what happened with them at the helm of organisations is, you really, really, really wonder why these people are considered nonviolent. Yes, Gandhi thought (and taught) that violence was beneath him, but he certainly had the option to act and prevent the people he led from using violence. What happened ... he sent out his forces and the opposing side sent out it's forces, and at least 10 million died. Granted, not during the revolution he was famous for, but he was in command during the partition wars. Doing India's independence he was not peaceful either. He commanded forces that, time and time again, attacked others. And Che Guevara. He was not a violent man, you see, he simply saw the bourgeoisie as constantly committing violence upon everyone and he was just using the minimum amount of force to prevent them from continuing that. That minimum amount of force, of course, included things like shooting any medical doctors on sight, several massacres, and having his followers do worse than even that. Plenty more along these lines, Kemal Ataturk, the French revolutionaries, the Communists (granted, not so much in the USA, but even in the USA the "real socialists" are peaceful), muhammad, the muslim prophet, ... But men of peace ! Men of the people ! In reality, living with some of these men was like living as a Jew under Hitler. Ironically, Adolf Hitler is also a Nobel Peace prize laureate. [1] https://www.apartheidmuseum.org/turn-violence https://www.apartheidmuseum.org/turn-violence
- coldtea 10y ago
  >It doesn't work and never has; You'd be surprised. Maybe read some history. Except if you mean: it doesn't work to guarantee an utopia or even that the things/rights/etc won by protesters are secured for eternity. Then again, nothing does.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - ue_ 10y ago
    Protesting only works to persuade those who have a conscience, it does little against a faceless government or the class of property owners. A look at how protesting has worked in the past decades, with a few notable exceptions, will show you that protesting does little to alter the status quo.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      >Protesting only works to persuade those who have a conscience, it does little against a faceless government or the class of property owners. Protesting is not just standing around with some banners. Demonstrations, strikes, occupations, etc. are all part of it, and have brought down many a government. It's not about "conscience" -- except if we mean some tame gatherings where people stand quietly and hold some picket signs for a few hours and then go home.
  - GordonS 10y ago
    It certainly has worked in the past, but in more recent times in a western 'democracy'? On February the 15th 2003, millions of people marched against the Iraq war across around 800 cities - with possibly as many as 1 million in London alone. This made it into the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally. What happened? We went to war.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      That happens all the time in history too. There are thousands of failed demonstrations, protests, etc. Demonstrations are not some guaranteed method that will always bend those in power: it's just one of the few methods that affect change and have in the past. If demonstrations were all that it took every time, then the French wouldn't have to behead their king, and the Americans wouldn't have to fight a revolution. It's also about how seriously those people mean it. Marching for a day is useless if you don't also change how you act politically, inform people, change your buying habits (e.g. boycott some company), vote differently, go on strike, etc. Else, who cares if they protested? They just had their fun for a day and went back to watching their favorite TV series. They didn't even mean it that much themselves.
- sametmax 10y ago
  It works; it's just that the people fighting will be the one paying the worst price and getting the least benefits. Benefits will then go to the people than not only did nothing, but actively made things harder to fight. Life is unfair that way.
- Shinchy 10y ago
  I'll agree on that, maybe the solution is to keep one step ahead at all times.
  - noir_lord 10y ago
    The problem there is that as techies we can keep one step ahead of what the average citizen could do (whether that is one step ahead of the authorities is another matter) but any popular movement that could emerge wouldn't be full of just techies. That's one of the reasons why the concept of the 'cell' has emerged in multiple places in multiple movements, the only way to keep the organisation as a whole going under massive scrutiny from the authorities is to internally partition it so that compromise of one cell doesn't compromise the others, this only works for a longer period of time if the cell contacts up the tree are beyond the reach of the authorities for either political reasons (Sinn Fein in Ireland) or judicial reasons (they are outside the country in a place they can't be extradited from). There is a fascinating history of the ANC in South Africa using a digital technology and long distance lines to London as a clearing house for information to avoid the security services in South Africa during apartheid.
- ionised 10y ago
  > Go to a protest? It doesn't work and never has; The civil rights movements of the last century are proof that it does in fact work when enough people engage.
  - inetknght 10y ago
    The same civil rights movements that got a bunch of laws put on books barring discrimination? The same laws which have been proven to be ignored time and again by law enforcement?
    - ionised 10y ago
      > The same civil rights movements that got a bunch of laws put on books barring discrimination? The same laws which have been proven to be ignored time and again by law enforcement? You say that like the current situation is no better than what came before the civil rights movement.
      - inetknght 10y ago
        You say that like the current situation doesn't still garner a lot of attention.
        ionised 10y ago
        What?
- eru 10y ago
  You can still vote with your feet.

If it's futile now, just wait until they grow even stronger. It's now or never.

by Kenji 10y ago

If it's futile now, just wait until they grow even stronger. It's now or never.

And do what exactly? Go to a protest? It doesn't work and never has; most people are content just by reading The Daily Hate. They already won.

justinjlynn 10y ago
Mate, the battle may have been lost but the war never ends.
- easytiger 10y ago
  This level of discourse is very embarrassing for HN.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    I actually find this comment very embarrassing.
  - justinjlynn 10y ago
    Yes, your comments are. Clearly we needed reminding and the point needed to be underscored.
    - easytiger 10y ago
      Eugh. Such a shame
  - orf 10y ago
    Not as embarrassing as your comment I'm afraid. I'd refrain from commenting like that in the future.
alexbeloi 10y ago
The only time people in power make concessions is when there is a credible threat to them maintaining that power.
- andy_ppp 10y ago
  If you can suggest one?
  - coldtea 10y ago
    History is filled with suggestions.
  - snovv_crash 10y ago
    Look at the peaceful transition in South Africa. Do you think that would have happened if the old government thought they could keep hanging on?
    - 24gttghh 10y ago
      The campaign of the ANC* was peaceful? *edit: I don't know what I thought ANG was...
      - snovv_crash 10y ago
        No, but the transition was peaceful. FW de Klerk freely gave the power across instead of being murdered in his bed or trying to set fire to "the homelands". Since then, despite the high crime rate, there hasn't been any ethnic cleansing or large scale retribution. Beyond generic Africa-standard corruption, the country has mostly taken the high road.
    - candiodari 10y ago
      People have a funny way to look at how violent a transition and especially leaders are or aren't depending on whether they agree with the outcome. The ANC ... well ... in the words of the Apartheid museum [1] (ie. The South African government's own words): "Demonstrations against the killings followed in many parts of the country and led to the banning of the main African opposition organisations, the African national Congress (ANC) and the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC). Both went underground, and formed armed wings, Umkhonto we Sizwe (ANC) and Poqo (PAC)." Yes, Nelson Mandela ... founded a revolutionary army. Yes, I agree with the outcome too, and the process was almost bafflingly well executed. Bombings, placing landmines on public roads, kidnapping and torture were some of the tactics used. Again, bonus points for the outcome, and for successfully keeping control of this army after it was no longer needed, but peaceful ? Please. Also, I would further argue that South Africa did not exactly become a haven of peaceful coexistence under Nelson Mandela. India, and Gandhi is another example of this. So is Che Guevara. Looking how peaceful what happened with them at the helm of organisations is, you really, really, really wonder why these people are considered nonviolent. Yes, Gandhi thought (and taught) that violence was beneath him, but he certainly had the option to act and prevent the people he led from using violence. What happened ... he sent out his forces and the opposing side sent out it's forces, and at least 10 million died. Granted, not during the revolution he was famous for, but he was in command during the partition wars. Doing India's independence he was not peaceful either. He commanded forces that, time and time again, attacked others. And Che Guevara. He was not a violent man, you see, he simply saw the bourgeoisie as constantly committing violence upon everyone and he was just using the minimum amount of force to prevent them from continuing that. That minimum amount of force, of course, included things like shooting any medical doctors on sight, several massacres, and having his followers do worse than even that. Plenty more along these lines, Kemal Ataturk, the French revolutionaries, the Communists (granted, not so much in the USA, but even in the USA the "real socialists" are peaceful), muhammad, the muslim prophet, ... But men of peace ! Men of the people ! In reality, living with some of these men was like living as a Jew under Hitler. Ironically, Adolf Hitler is also a Nobel Peace prize laureate. [1] https://www.apartheidmuseum.org/turn-violence https://www.apartheidmuseum.org/turn-violence
coldtea 10y ago
>It doesn't work and never has; You'd be surprised. Maybe read some history. Except if you mean: it doesn't work to guarantee an utopia or even that the things/rights/etc won by protesters are secured for eternity. Then again, nothing does.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ue_ 10y ago
  Protesting only works to persuade those who have a conscience, it does little against a faceless government or the class of property owners. A look at how protesting has worked in the past decades, with a few notable exceptions, will show you that protesting does little to alter the status quo.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >Protesting only works to persuade those who have a conscience, it does little against a faceless government or the class of property owners. Protesting is not just standing around with some banners. Demonstrations, strikes, occupations, etc. are all part of it, and have brought down many a government. It's not about "conscience" -- except if we mean some tame gatherings where people stand quietly and hold some picket signs for a few hours and then go home.
- GordonS 10y ago
  It certainly has worked in the past, but in more recent times in a western 'democracy'? On February the 15th 2003, millions of people marched against the Iraq war across around 800 cities - with possibly as many as 1 million in London alone. This made it into the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally. What happened? We went to war.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    That happens all the time in history too. There are thousands of failed demonstrations, protests, etc. Demonstrations are not some guaranteed method that will always bend those in power: it's just one of the few methods that affect change and have in the past. If demonstrations were all that it took every time, then the French wouldn't have to behead their king, and the Americans wouldn't have to fight a revolution. It's also about how seriously those people mean it. Marching for a day is useless if you don't also change how you act politically, inform people, change your buying habits (e.g. boycott some company), vote differently, go on strike, etc. Else, who cares if they protested? They just had their fun for a day and went back to watching their favorite TV series. They didn't even mean it that much themselves.
sametmax 10y ago
It works; it's just that the people fighting will be the one paying the worst price and getting the least benefits. Benefits will then go to the people than not only did nothing, but actively made things harder to fight. Life is unfair that way.
Shinchy 10y ago
I'll agree on that, maybe the solution is to keep one step ahead at all times.
- noir_lord 10y ago
  The problem there is that as techies we can keep one step ahead of what the average citizen could do (whether that is one step ahead of the authorities is another matter) but any popular movement that could emerge wouldn't be full of just techies. That's one of the reasons why the concept of the 'cell' has emerged in multiple places in multiple movements, the only way to keep the organisation as a whole going under massive scrutiny from the authorities is to internally partition it so that compromise of one cell doesn't compromise the others, this only works for a longer period of time if the cell contacts up the tree are beyond the reach of the authorities for either political reasons (Sinn Fein in Ireland) or judicial reasons (they are outside the country in a place they can't be extradited from). There is a fascinating history of the ANC in South Africa using a digital technology and long distance lines to London as a clearing house for information to avoid the security services in South Africa during apartheid.
ionised 10y ago
> Go to a protest? It doesn't work and never has; The civil rights movements of the last century are proof that it does in fact work when enough people engage.
- inetknght 10y ago
  The same civil rights movements that got a bunch of laws put on books barring discrimination? The same laws which have been proven to be ignored time and again by law enforcement?
  - ionised 10y ago
    > The same civil rights movements that got a bunch of laws put on books barring discrimination? The same laws which have been proven to be ignored time and again by law enforcement? You say that like the current situation is no better than what came before the civil rights movement.
    - inetknght 10y ago
      You say that like the current situation doesn't still garner a lot of attention.
      - ionised 10y ago
        What?
eru 10y ago
You can still vote with your feet.