6 ms·

So in other words, you change the definition of "protesting" based on if it aligns with your personal political viewpoint. They should add this comment in the

by jb775 6y ago

So in other words, you change the definition of "protesting" based on if it aligns with your personal political viewpoint. They should add this comment in the dictionary under the definition of "cognitive dissonance".

dvt 6y ago
> So in other words, you change the definition of "protesting" based on if it aligns with your personal political viewpoint. Not really. All I'm saying is that in everyday parlance, "protesting" implies that you're not infringing on someone else's rights. The gold standard of protesting is something like MLK's Selma to Montgomery March or Gandhi's hunger strike. Nevertheless, figures like Malcolm X or Che Guevara would vehemently disagree. This definition applies to all spectrums of political discourse. Last summer, a bunch of BLM "protests" weren't protests in this (in my opinion, more correct) sense of the word, either -- people were looting and setting fires.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  > people were looting and setting fires. It's been said[1] that looting and property destruction should be seen through the eyes of an individual who decries society as illegitimate. If an individual feels that they have been violated or destroyed by the social system, what obligation does that individual have to maintain and uphold the social structure that they feel wronged them? A more direct interpretation of _sticking it to the man_, for sure: the argument being that outside of a riot, one's personal outrage at _the man_ would be swiftly, albeit unjustifiably, punished - but in the middle of a riot, one can wreck... hundreds of dollars of damage to major corporate conglomerates: theirs is a modest penalty for perceived violations of the social contract, but a thousand times more satisfying to the perpetrator. ...or something. [1] Yes, I'm aware this is a weasel word.

6 ms·

So in other words, you change the definition of "protesting" based on if it aligns with your personal political viewpoint. They should add this comment in the

by jb775 6y ago

dvt 6y ago
> So in other words, you change the definition of "protesting" based on if it aligns with your personal political viewpoint. Not really. All I'm saying is that in everyday parlance, "protesting" implies that you're not infringing on someone else's rights. The gold standard of protesting is something like MLK's Selma to Montgomery March or Gandhi's hunger strike. Nevertheless, figures like Malcolm X or Che Guevara would vehemently disagree. This definition applies to all spectrums of political discourse. Last summer, a bunch of BLM "protests" weren't protests in this (in my opinion, more correct) sense of the word, either -- people were looting and setting fires.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  > people were looting and setting fires. It's been said[1] that looting and property destruction should be seen through the eyes of an individual who decries society as illegitimate. If an individual feels that they have been violated or destroyed by the social system, what obligation does that individual have to maintain and uphold the social structure that they feel wronged them? A more direct interpretation of _sticking it to the man_, for sure: the argument being that outside of a riot, one's personal outrage at _the man_ would be swiftly, albeit unjustifiably, punished - but in the middle of a riot, one can wreck... hundreds of dollars of damage to major corporate conglomerates: theirs is a modest penalty for perceived violations of the social contract, but a thousand times more satisfying to the perpetrator. ...or something. [1] Yes, I'm aware this is a weasel word.