3 ms·

> We think that protesting within the confines of the system will work. It doesn't. We think that protesting in the street will work. It doesn't (Iraq War prote

> We think that protesting within the confines of the system will work. It doesn't. We think that protesting in the street will work. It doesn't (Iraq War protests anyone?). None of those are mutually exclusive (and neither is boycott). It's perfectly fine to do all of them. In fact that's probably the most effective thing to do! (And I'm pretty sure most people who protested the war in Iraq didn't actually believe that their protest would stop the war. Sometimes you want to show the world you care about something because it's the right thing to do)

junto 13y ago
My problem with the democratic system is that it is a false dichotomy. Neither party (in the case of the US) offer a real alternative. The people argue till they are blue in the face as to which one is right or wrong, but the differences between them are negligible. What's funny is that we waste unbelievable amounts of energy and time in making believe that there is a difference. In the case of the US, politics is not too dissimilar to football or any team sport. You side with one or the other. Without both sides the game is boring. The US lowers the risk of dissent and instability by discouraging the possibility of more than two sides. I have come to believe that none of the traditional routes are effective. They are merely a trap. They are simply a big brick wall to shout at.