4 ms·

> fallacious thinking popular among westerners: the idea that peaceful protesting or rule-abiding political opposition is generally effective. Haha, as a weste

> fallacious thinking popular among westerners: the idea that peaceful protesting or rule-abiding political opposition is generally effective. Haha, as a westerner, I believe peaceful protest is invariably futile. Take the 2003 protests against the Iraq war for example - 3 million protested in Rome, 1.5 million in Madrid, 1 million in London, and millions more across the west. What happened? They went to war based on lies anyway. It's always the same.

Dah00n 5y ago
Protests are a legal part of the system as a blow-off valve to let average citizens get rid of their rage. It's there to keep the status quo. It makes no difference without force behind it. As long as the opposing view doesn't feel endangered it is working for them and against the average citizen. As soon as it makes a difference it is no longer protests but a rebellion, which most who will protest doesn't have the stomach for.
- malwarebytess 5y ago
  And barely legal at that. Right to protest is curtailed bit by bit year by year. It isn't a protest if you have to apply for a permit and have to stay in some "free speech zone."
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    In some places in America it’s legal to kill protestors. (Florida IIRC recently passed a law granting immunity to people to run over protestors with their car.)
    - snowflake_ptr 5y ago
      Fact-check: false. The Florida law only applies to rioters, not protestors. "Riot" is defined as: "three or more people acting with common intent resulting in injury to others, damage to property, or the imminent danger of injury or damage." There's a second "Aggravated riot": "25 or more participants cause great bodily harm or more than $5,000 in property damage, uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon, or blocks roadways by force or threat of force." If you're doing any of the above things, you're not protesting. The law was most likely the direct result of a violent mob climbing on top of this guy's car in Florida, one of whom the driver hit in his attempts to get away.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > It makes no difference without force behind it. This is simply a false, anti-democratic trope. Protests interfere with everything from traffic to economies. And much more, they express intent to the leaders: Do something or be voted out of office, because we are motivated. The history of change through protest is very long.
BBC-vs-neolibs 5y ago
As I remember it, the protests were incredibly downplayed or ignored in the media, in ways I think would be impossible now. Cellphone footage of the protests would emerge now. I don't know if this would have changed anything, but I often wonder. I felt alone and only later learned there had been large protests basically everywhere.
- GordonS 5y ago
  I remember it differently. I was there in London to protest, but when I returned home and saw the sweeping overhead shots of the crowds on the BBC news, I was awestruck by just how many people there were. You wouldn't capture the scale of it with cellphone footage.
Gupie 5y ago
However Blair's electability and legacy was fatally damage, and when Cameron next wanted to go to war, to bomb Syria, parliament did not allow it.
- GordonS 5y ago
  I rather doubt Blair cares - other than politically, there were zero meaningful consequences. He has gone one to make a lot of money since, giving highly paid keynotes (£100k!) and such. I don't think bombing Syria was ever a particularly serious notion for the UK. If the US had pushed us to though, we obviously would have.
wolverine876 5y ago
> Take the 2003 protests against the Iraq war for example - 3 million protested in Rome, 1.5 million in Madrid, 1 million in London, and millions more across the west. What happened? They went to war based on lies anyway. It's always the same. The flaw is applying a binary metric: It's not that protestors don't have either absolute power or no power. Protests have influence. Those protests limited the scope of the war and their governments' involvement. Imagine the world if nobody protested, the free hand governments would have had if nobody cared. I can tell you that in my community, the George Floyd protests put political leaders in a position to respond immediately or be swept away by the next vote. The Iraq War was conducted while constantly pushing back against world opinion. The cost in political capital was high; those protests imposed real costs and real limitations on the leaders. That's how democracy works (though not only through protest). Whenever you think protests are futile, imagine the world without them. Then get out there and contribute - the world doesn't need people sitting on the sidelines, criticizing. Each person who shows up demonstrates to many others - people who see them, people who know them - that they too have the power, can act, and have a responsibility to do it.
- GordonS 5y ago
  > Those protests limited the scope of the war and their governments' involvement. Imagine the world if nobody protested, the free hand governments would have had if nobody cared. > The Iraq War was conducted while constantly pushing back against world opinion. The cost in political capital was high; those protests imposed real costs and real limitations on the leaders. That's how democracy works Did they change the scope of the war? I reckon they just did what the wanted regardless. Something like a million dead in Iraq (never mind Afghanistan), many times more wounded or maimed, vile treatment of POWs by US military, absolute evil undertaken by the CIA at Black sites, and of course, the enrichment of many a rich pocket. What real loss in "political capital" was there for fabricating evidence and using it for justification for invading Iraq? What meaningful consequences were there for any of it? > I can tell you that in my community, the George Floyd protests put political leaders in a position to respond immediately or be swept away by the next vote. I admire your optimism, but the impression I get from my US friends and colleagues paints a different picture. The media seldom even covering peaceful protests, hazing of civilian populations with helicopters and patrol cars, and several months of increased police brutality (because how else would they respond to protests about police brutality?!), with insane quantities of tear gas being used, numerous people beaten, tasered and shot with rubber bullets, several people losing eyes etc. Video after video, image after image of police brutality and negligence. Police departments blatantly fabricating evidence. And of course, more killing of black men and women under the most dubious of circumstances. Some of my friends have been involved in protests, and one was badly beaten and hospitised by a violent police officer - the whole thing was caught on film, yet the police charged him! Nothing meaningful has changed as a result of all these protests. It likely won't any time soon unless something more radical happens. > Whenever you think protests are futile, imagine the world without them. Then get out there and contribute - the world doesn't need people sitting on the sidelines, criticizing. I've done my bit, protesting on the street about things I care about. It felt good to feel like I was doing something, but eventually I came to the conclusion that I was deluding myself. None of our actions made any difference - and certainly where foreign policy, the military and war are concerned, the government are going to do whatever the hell they want regardless. I've caved and given in, for sure; emotionally, I have nothing left to give. But I'm not criticising those who do still get out there - if you feel like it makes a difference, or even if it just makes you feel good, then more power to you.
justshowpost 5y ago
> war based on lies That's quite thick agenda for these millions, heh.

Dah00n 5y ago

Protests are a legal part of the system as a blow-off valve to let average citizens get rid of their rage. It's there to keep the status quo. It makes no difference without force behind it. As long as the opposing view doesn't feel endangered it is working for them and against the average citizen. As soon as it makes a difference it is no longer protests but a rebellion, which most who will protest doesn't have the stomach for.

malwarebytess 5y ago
And barely legal at that. Right to protest is curtailed bit by bit year by year. It isn't a protest if you have to apply for a permit and have to stay in some "free speech zone."
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  In some places in America it’s legal to kill protestors. (Florida IIRC recently passed a law granting immunity to people to run over protestors with their car.)
  - snowflake_ptr 5y ago
    Fact-check: false. The Florida law only applies to rioters, not protestors. "Riot" is defined as: "three or more people acting with common intent resulting in injury to others, damage to property, or the imminent danger of injury or damage." There's a second "Aggravated riot": "25 or more participants cause great bodily harm or more than $5,000 in property damage, uses or threatens to use a deadly weapon, or blocks roadways by force or threat of force." If you're doing any of the above things, you're not protesting. The law was most likely the direct result of a violent mob climbing on top of this guy's car in Florida, one of whom the driver hit in his attempts to get away.
wolverine876 5y ago
> It makes no difference without force behind it. This is simply a false, anti-democratic trope. Protests interfere with everything from traffic to economies. And much more, they express intent to the leaders: Do something or be voted out of office, because we are motivated. The history of change through protest is very long.

BBC-vs-neolibs 5y ago

As I remember it, the protests were incredibly downplayed or ignored in the media, in ways I think would be impossible now. Cellphone footage of the protests would emerge now. I don't know if this would have changed anything, but I often wonder. I felt alone and only later learned there had been large protests basically everywhere.

GordonS 5y ago
I remember it differently. I was there in London to protest, but when I returned home and saw the sweeping overhead shots of the crowds on the BBC news, I was awestruck by just how many people there were. You wouldn't capture the scale of it with cellphone footage.

Gupie 5y ago

However Blair's electability and legacy was fatally damage, and when Cameron next wanted to go to war, to bomb Syria, parliament did not allow it.

GordonS 5y ago
I rather doubt Blair cares - other than politically, there were zero meaningful consequences. He has gone one to make a lot of money since, giving highly paid keynotes (£100k!) and such. I don't think bombing Syria was ever a particularly serious notion for the UK. If the US had pushed us to though, we obviously would have.

wolverine876 5y ago

> Take the 2003 protests against the Iraq war for example - 3 million protested in Rome, 1.5 million in Madrid, 1 million in London, and millions more across the west. What happened? They went to war based on lies anyway. It's always the same. The flaw is applying a binary metric: It's not that protestors don't have either absolute power or no power. Protests have influence. Those protests limited the scope of the war and their governments' involvement. Imagine the world if nobody protested, the free hand governments would have had if nobody cared. I can tell you that in my community, the George Floyd protests put political leaders in a position to respond immediately or be swept away by the next vote. The Iraq War was conducted while constantly pushing back against world opinion. The cost in political capital was high; those protests imposed real costs and real limitations on the leaders. That's how democracy works (though not only through protest). Whenever you think protests are futile, imagine the world without them. Then get out there and contribute - the world doesn't need people sitting on the sidelines, criticizing. Each person who shows up demonstrates to many others - people who see them, people who know them - that they too have the power, can act, and have a responsibility to do it.

GordonS 5y ago
> Those protests limited the scope of the war and their governments' involvement. Imagine the world if nobody protested, the free hand governments would have had if nobody cared. > The Iraq War was conducted while constantly pushing back against world opinion. The cost in political capital was high; those protests imposed real costs and real limitations on the leaders. That's how democracy works Did they change the scope of the war? I reckon they just did what the wanted regardless. Something like a million dead in Iraq (never mind Afghanistan), many times more wounded or maimed, vile treatment of POWs by US military, absolute evil undertaken by the CIA at Black sites, and of course, the enrichment of many a rich pocket. What real loss in "political capital" was there for fabricating evidence and using it for justification for invading Iraq? What meaningful consequences were there for any of it? > I can tell you that in my community, the George Floyd protests put political leaders in a position to respond immediately or be swept away by the next vote. I admire your optimism, but the impression I get from my US friends and colleagues paints a different picture. The media seldom even covering peaceful protests, hazing of civilian populations with helicopters and patrol cars, and several months of increased police brutality (because how else would they respond to protests about police brutality?!), with insane quantities of tear gas being used, numerous people beaten, tasered and shot with rubber bullets, several people losing eyes etc. Video after video, image after image of police brutality and negligence. Police departments blatantly fabricating evidence. And of course, more killing of black men and women under the most dubious of circumstances. Some of my friends have been involved in protests, and one was badly beaten and hospitised by a violent police officer - the whole thing was caught on film, yet the police charged him! Nothing meaningful has changed as a result of all these protests. It likely won't any time soon unless something more radical happens. > Whenever you think protests are futile, imagine the world without them. Then get out there and contribute - the world doesn't need people sitting on the sidelines, criticizing. I've done my bit, protesting on the street about things I care about. It felt good to feel like I was doing something, but eventually I came to the conclusion that I was deluding myself. None of our actions made any difference - and certainly where foreign policy, the military and war are concerned, the government are going to do whatever the hell they want regardless. I've caved and given in, for sure; emotionally, I have nothing left to give. But I'm not criticising those who do still get out there - if you feel like it makes a difference, or even if it just makes you feel good, then more power to you.

justshowpost 5y ago

> war based on lies That's quite thick agenda for these millions, heh.