3 ms·

I read that as designed for angst and animosity not influence, because the intention completely disparages the audience.

ashtonkem 6y ago
You might disagree with it as a tactic, but I'm not sure how you got to the idea that it's designed for animosity and not influence. Can you read the minds and intentions of the protestors? How would you know?
- austincheney 6y ago
  As the delayed driver, the audience, I know absolutely how I would feel. This is the perception.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    Which is completely different. You do understand how what you perceive and what they intend are different things, right? And that jumping from "it is inconvenient for me" to "they only intend to cause me harm" is a serious leap.
    - austincheney 6y ago
      > You do understand how what you perceive and what they intend are different things, right? If the protestors are utterly incapable of bridging that gap it doesn't matter what their intentions are as they are failing to win hearts and minds. That leap you speak to is only a minor baby step. If they really wanted to convince me of the value of their message they could start by not intentionally pissing me off. This isn't rocket science. This complete lack of common sense on behalf of the protestors typically indicates youth. Everybody else has since either developed a few drops of empathy or moved on to anything more self-indulgent.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        > That leap you speak to is only a minor baby step. It absolutely is not a baby step. In fact it is a really big deal to jump from your own experience to assuming the intent of other people. That is actually a really fast way to anger people in my experience, because it requires that you pretend that you understand what is going on in another person's head. Saying "your actions caused X" is pretty straightforward, but "you intended to cause X" or "you intended to cause X and X alone" requires mind reading ability on your part. Again, you can disagree with it as a tactic, I genuinely do not care about that. What bothers me is that you're unilaterally asserting that you personally understand the intention of the protestors, which is quite the assertion, and one that you have only backed up by "this is how I feel about it".
        austincheney 6y ago
        > It absolutely is not a baby step. In fact it is a really big deal to jump from your own experience to assuming the intent of other people. That is actually a really fast way to anger people in my experience, because it requires that you pretend that you understand what is going on in another person's head. That is not correct. If you are blocking a freeway causing hours of traffic delays then I am not making assumptions about what's in somebody else's head. I don't care what their intentions are. They have made me disgruntled and digusted with their protest message completely alienating me from their cause. From that moment forward I would vote against and fund in opposition to everything they advocate. As the audience all that matters is what's in my head, which I don't have to guess at. The inability for people to accept that reality tells me the things they are protesting about aren't important to them.
        CydeWeys 6y ago
        The protests are working. It doesn't matter if you hypothetically would be pissed off about being stuck in traffic because of one, they are demonstrably working. So they absolutely continue despite your objections. See: https://thehill.com/homenews/news/502267-support-for-black-lives-matter-doubles-since-2016-poll https://thehill.com/homenews/news/502267-support-for-black-l... https://news.gallup.com/poll/317321/believe-protest-actions-aid-black-adults.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/317321/believe-protest-actions-... I think you should take a step back and really consider why you're arguing so vociferously over hypothetically being caught in traffic because of a protest when there are much larger issues at play here.
piva00 6y ago
So protests are ok while they don't inconvenience you? I don't understand what is your point here, protests are supposed to be disruptive, disparaging the audience is not by design, if you feel that way then you don't really believe in the value of the protest, no?
- austincheney 6y ago
  Its like yelling at a customer and slashing their tires only to be confused why that customer doesn't wish to continue being your customer. Then blaming the customer for their lack of commitment and being somehow dumbfounded by their change of opinion.
  - potatoz2 6y ago
    That's an extremely poor comparison: you are not a customer, you are a co-equal citizen.
    - austincheney 6y ago
      If that were true we wouldn't need crowds to impose influence. Any one individual would be enough to influence any one other individual on the merits of the argument, but that's not how most people operate. Any attempt to influence is a sell no different than selling a hand bag.

ashtonkem 6y ago

You might disagree with it as a tactic, but I'm not sure how you got to the idea that it's designed for animosity and not influence. Can you read the minds and intentions of the protestors? How would you know?

austincheney 6y ago
As the delayed driver, the audience, I know absolutely how I would feel. This is the perception.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Which is completely different. You do understand how what you perceive and what they intend are different things, right? And that jumping from "it is inconvenient for me" to "they only intend to cause me harm" is a serious leap.
  - austincheney 6y ago
    > You do understand how what you perceive and what they intend are different things, right? If the protestors are utterly incapable of bridging that gap it doesn't matter what their intentions are as they are failing to win hearts and minds. That leap you speak to is only a minor baby step. If they really wanted to convince me of the value of their message they could start by not intentionally pissing me off. This isn't rocket science. This complete lack of common sense on behalf of the protestors typically indicates youth. Everybody else has since either developed a few drops of empathy or moved on to anything more self-indulgent.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      > That leap you speak to is only a minor baby step. It absolutely is not a baby step. In fact it is a really big deal to jump from your own experience to assuming the intent of other people. That is actually a really fast way to anger people in my experience, because it requires that you pretend that you understand what is going on in another person's head. Saying "your actions caused X" is pretty straightforward, but "you intended to cause X" or "you intended to cause X and X alone" requires mind reading ability on your part. Again, you can disagree with it as a tactic, I genuinely do not care about that. What bothers me is that you're unilaterally asserting that you personally understand the intention of the protestors, which is quite the assertion, and one that you have only backed up by "this is how I feel about it".
      - austincheney 6y ago
        > It absolutely is not a baby step. In fact it is a really big deal to jump from your own experience to assuming the intent of other people. That is actually a really fast way to anger people in my experience, because it requires that you pretend that you understand what is going on in another person's head. That is not correct. If you are blocking a freeway causing hours of traffic delays then I am not making assumptions about what's in somebody else's head. I don't care what their intentions are. They have made me disgruntled and digusted with their protest message completely alienating me from their cause. From that moment forward I would vote against and fund in opposition to everything they advocate. As the audience all that matters is what's in my head, which I don't have to guess at. The inability for people to accept that reality tells me the things they are protesting about aren't important to them.
        CydeWeys 6y ago
        The protests are working. It doesn't matter if you hypothetically would be pissed off about being stuck in traffic because of one, they are demonstrably working. So they absolutely continue despite your objections. See: https://thehill.com/homenews/news/502267-support-for-black-lives-matter-doubles-since-2016-poll https://thehill.com/homenews/news/502267-support-for-black-l... https://news.gallup.com/poll/317321/believe-protest-actions-aid-black-adults.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/317321/believe-protest-actions-... I think you should take a step back and really consider why you're arguing so vociferously over hypothetically being caught in traffic because of a protest when there are much larger issues at play here.

piva00 6y ago

So protests are ok while they don't inconvenience you? I don't understand what is your point here, protests are supposed to be disruptive, disparaging the audience is not by design, if you feel that way then you don't really believe in the value of the protest, no?

austincheney 6y ago
Its like yelling at a customer and slashing their tires only to be confused why that customer doesn't wish to continue being your customer. Then blaming the customer for their lack of commitment and being somehow dumbfounded by their change of opinion.
- potatoz2 6y ago
  That's an extremely poor comparison: you are not a customer, you are a co-equal citizen.
  - austincheney 6y ago
    If that were true we wouldn't need crowds to impose influence. Any one individual would be enough to influence any one other individual on the merits of the argument, but that's not how most people operate. Any attempt to influence is a sell no different than selling a hand bag.