5 ms·

Would you argue that dumping tea into the harbor is an act of outrage?

cryoshon 9y ago
if only we had so simple and effective of a way to express outrage as dumping tea. the question is, what is the 21st century version of dumping tea into the harbor? we are long overdue.
- jerkstate 9y ago
  One could say that electing an unqualified reality TV star as president was one way of expressing outrage at the status quo. It's all a matter of perspective.
  - api 9y ago
    I spoke to several people during the election who expressed this sentiment. One said they hoped he would do "as much damage as possible." It was definitely a FU vote to many people. Unfortunately the establishment has not gotten the message so I fear it will escalate.
    - krapp 9y ago
      >Unfortunately the establishment has not gotten the message so I fear it will escalate. What message? Impotent rage against "the establishment" isn't a message, it has no goal but catharsis. People who elected Trump because they wanted to see damage to the system are getting it. Trump has humiliated the US, disgraced the office, made himself a laughingstock to the entire world and destroyed the world's confidence in us as a superpower. They get to see him rage at liberals and leftists and judges and the intelligence community and vent his spleen at everything Fox News told him was terrible with the world that particular night. But what else did they expect? They elected a man who was not competent, who didn't necessarily share their beliefs, and who was no less an establishment figure (in being a globalist billionaire rich old white man) than anyone else. Did they think having this bull break some china in the Oval Office would lead to anarchy? Dissolution of the Union? what? And what would they escalate to? A literal ass? Those Trump voters are getting what they wanted... monocles have dropped and pearls have been clutched and lulz have been had. I don't understand why they wouldn't be happy. If they wanted their particular grievances against the system remedied, they would have elected someone capable of doing so. But they only wanted to see an old man piss the rug on the White House, so... fine.
      - api 9y ago
        I don't disagree but many people have the sense that there are no candidates willing to do anything to remedy any of our real problem. The perception is that the whole system is rigged for the benefit of the financial and political classes and no change is possible, so the only option impotent rage. I do think there's some truth in this. The structure of elections in the USA guarantees a two party system. Votes for third parties are just another kind of impotent rage since the two party system makes third party victory nearly impossible. Both major parties are so big and so entrenched that they're resistant to change, bureaucratically inbred, and beholden to massive sources of campaign cash.
        krapp 9y ago
        And yet, if the system were perfectly rigged, Hillary Clinton would have won, and Trump would never have been allowed to make it to the primaries by the oligarchs... or was he just another puppet of the establishment? Either Trump's election was completely futile, or an opportunity wasted on nihilism. It's difficult to have sympathy for people who feel disenfranchised from the political process, and who protest that process by choosing sabotage it to no specific end. Particularly when other groups who have been historically more directly harmed by the government have managed to succeed in creating progressive change, albeit slowly and at personal risk, and from the ground up. If Trump supporters care that little, then they should just stay home next time. After all, nothing they do can possibly matter, can it?
      - jerkstate 9y ago
        >What message? Impotent rage against "the establishment" isn't a message, it has no goal but catharsis. I'm not sure if "What message?" is willful ignorance or disdain for the platform, but it's surely not a useful rhetorical device, if you are unable or unwilling to go look at Trump's campaign promises and try to understand why people might want the things he promised, it's not worthwhile for you to try to engage in a debate about it.
        krapp 9y ago
        The "message" (or lack thereof) being referred to is that of the Trump voters whose purpose for voting was to see chaos out of spite for the status quo. Not Trump's message. You could have easily grasped this if you had bothered to read all the words. Do your best, there weren't many. Together we can make Hacker News great again!
- kelukelugames 9y ago
  Well, there was the tea party. My question was about the original Boston Tea Party. Can we claim our country was founded on outrage?

if only we had so simple and effective of a way to express outrage as dumping tea. the question is, what is the 21st century version of dumping tea into the harbor? we are long overdue.

jerkstate 9y ago
One could say that electing an unqualified reality TV star as president was one way of expressing outrage at the status quo. It's all a matter of perspective.
- api 9y ago
  I spoke to several people during the election who expressed this sentiment. One said they hoped he would do "as much damage as possible." It was definitely a FU vote to many people. Unfortunately the establishment has not gotten the message so I fear it will escalate.
  - krapp 9y ago
    >Unfortunately the establishment has not gotten the message so I fear it will escalate. What message? Impotent rage against "the establishment" isn't a message, it has no goal but catharsis. People who elected Trump because they wanted to see damage to the system are getting it. Trump has humiliated the US, disgraced the office, made himself a laughingstock to the entire world and destroyed the world's confidence in us as a superpower. They get to see him rage at liberals and leftists and judges and the intelligence community and vent his spleen at everything Fox News told him was terrible with the world that particular night. But what else did they expect? They elected a man who was not competent, who didn't necessarily share their beliefs, and who was no less an establishment figure (in being a globalist billionaire rich old white man) than anyone else. Did they think having this bull break some china in the Oval Office would lead to anarchy? Dissolution of the Union? what? And what would they escalate to? A literal ass? Those Trump voters are getting what they wanted... monocles have dropped and pearls have been clutched and lulz have been had. I don't understand why they wouldn't be happy. If they wanted their particular grievances against the system remedied, they would have elected someone capable of doing so. But they only wanted to see an old man piss the rug on the White House, so... fine.
    - api 9y ago
      I don't disagree but many people have the sense that there are no candidates willing to do anything to remedy any of our real problem. The perception is that the whole system is rigged for the benefit of the financial and political classes and no change is possible, so the only option impotent rage. I do think there's some truth in this. The structure of elections in the USA guarantees a two party system. Votes for third parties are just another kind of impotent rage since the two party system makes third party victory nearly impossible. Both major parties are so big and so entrenched that they're resistant to change, bureaucratically inbred, and beholden to massive sources of campaign cash.
      - krapp 9y ago
        And yet, if the system were perfectly rigged, Hillary Clinton would have won, and Trump would never have been allowed to make it to the primaries by the oligarchs... or was he just another puppet of the establishment? Either Trump's election was completely futile, or an opportunity wasted on nihilism. It's difficult to have sympathy for people who feel disenfranchised from the political process, and who protest that process by choosing sabotage it to no specific end. Particularly when other groups who have been historically more directly harmed by the government have managed to succeed in creating progressive change, albeit slowly and at personal risk, and from the ground up. If Trump supporters care that little, then they should just stay home next time. After all, nothing they do can possibly matter, can it?
    - jerkstate 9y ago
      >What message? Impotent rage against "the establishment" isn't a message, it has no goal but catharsis. I'm not sure if "What message?" is willful ignorance or disdain for the platform, but it's surely not a useful rhetorical device, if you are unable or unwilling to go look at Trump's campaign promises and try to understand why people might want the things he promised, it's not worthwhile for you to try to engage in a debate about it.
      - krapp 9y ago
        The "message" (or lack thereof) being referred to is that of the Trump voters whose purpose for voting was to see chaos out of spite for the status quo. Not Trump's message. You could have easily grasped this if you had bothered to read all the words. Do your best, there weren't many. Together we can make Hacker News great again!
kelukelugames 9y ago
Well, there was the tea party. My question was about the original Boston Tea Party. Can we claim our country was founded on outrage?