|
Jastiger posted:Nearly every major change in history has been due to a threat of violence. Union strikes, riots, boycotts, actual war. All violence. It doesnt mean i want to be violent im just recognizing that a silent sit in doesnt do poo poo. Threatening to burn down the building would. To be fair the real issue with modern popular movements like Occupy Wall Street or whatever else you're thinking of (anti-Trump stuff maybe?) is that these weren't calculated, deliberate moves, they were/are shoddy simulacrums constructed through the mindless aping of comparable situations from recent history without any hint of strategy, adaptation or long term planning beyond protests = profit. Defining union strikes and other ultimately peaceful actions as literal violence imho misses the point of even using those methods instead in the first place. You can think of an effective protest working a bit like a healthcare worker who's dealing with a potentially violent patient. You clearly define to the agitated person what they are doing wrong, what behavioral modifications they need to commit to fix the situation, what the consequences will be if they don't change and how you will co-operate if they do change. There's also the extra wrinkles of understanding your exact relationship with one another and also establishing the rhetoric of your cause so more people can be swayed to your side. There's other things too like understanding your legal standing but let's run with the coles notes version for now. Union strikes worked back in the day because employees, through the way their relationship was laid out with their employers, could pressure the owners by withdrawing their labor to directly affect consequences in exchange for settlement. There's clearly defined goals (say higher wages, better conditions, etc) and consequences for not meeting them, there's the fat that this pressure can work through the exact relationship between the two parties and there's rhetoric that can bring more strikers to your cause (and rhetoric that the owners can also understand and respond to). In a more exact historical anecdote the threat of a popular protest, also joined with possible work strikes, by all-black workers was enough to sway Roosevelt to sign the Fair Employment Act in the 40s to end racial discrimination in the war industry through the FEPC because the America just couldn't handle a reduction in war production from the loss of black workers (and their the general support) especially during a world war. Again people were using the leverage of an exact relationship to ask for change with the help of compelling rhetoric to generate mass support. In a similar situation but from a different angle, organizing flash mobs of black people in officially segregated areas to provoke a police (and therefore official) responses elegantly achieved a number of these factors despite dealing with a more abstract opponent in the form of institutionalized racism. Provoking a police response forces an official body to act as the face of racism, making it bear the responsibilities of directly enforcing it, it brings to light an exact relation, a people and its representatives, and the exact source of friction, the Jim Crow laws. There are consequences in the form of ongoing and very embarrassing civil disobedience, or possible elective support of an alternate representative who would abolish those laws, or the general economic disruption of flash mobs hindering activities, etc. There's also good rhetoric here arguing for change, in this case either on the grounds of a promised constitutional equality or on the grounds of a universal equality between man as defined by the Bible. In another historical anecdote and on a much bigger scale Ghandi could essentially evict the British peacefully through an understanding of the exact relationship between India and the British Empire, in short a local population versus a distant colonizer, and realizing how the ongoing co-operation of India was actually necessary to maintain that status quo in light of a weakening British mandate for continued presence. Just peacefully not doing what they tell you to anymore was nearly enough for liberation Now let's look at something like occupy wall street, something that had a tremendous amount of support and a surprising longevity in some areas. What's the issue and what's the strategy? 1. Peaceful protests in front of important financial districts 2. Popularize rising economic disparity 3. ?????? 4. ?????? 5. ?????? 6. Have CEOs and the like feel so bad for your poo poo movement that they pay for takeout to your dwindling tent-towns 7. ?????? like hahahaha how did you come up with this, how hard did squint at your history book
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
btw y'all should be wary of electoral college chat and the like that's what got the last thread gassed since that stuff belongs in dnd/cspam technically
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
No i am not a fan of straight pop vote, i just recognize that the weight of the ec favors small states far over others with its tally and is dumb
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:Californians loving up their poo poo rear end state and coming to mine are starting to drive up property values and piss off everyone who lives here and then they stand there with hurt looks on their dumb faces and wonder why everyone tells them to go to hell. Colorado?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:Californians loving up their poo poo rear end state and coming to mine are starting to drive up property values and piss off everyone who lives here and then they stand there with hurt looks on their dumb faces and wonder why everyone tells them to go to hell. So secede what's the problem?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
Not an unpopular opinion except maybe in the US: having a union the size of half a continent is a really loving stupid idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:I'd say having sex with a real person is better than having sex with a pretend person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:it should be california and new york deciding the elections you say? California, New York and Texas and Florida. And maybe Pennsylvania and Ohio.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 11:50
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:it should be california and new york deciding the elections you say? I never really understood this. Why does it matter where the people live? Do individual people from large/dense areas have beliefs that matter less?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
Disproportionate representation of rural areas is already dealt with through the Senate (and to a lesser degree the House), so I don't quite buy the "but rural places won't have a voice anymore!" argument. edit: Oh, potenrially unpopular opinion of mine is that people who use the phrase "fourth estate" to refer to the media are almost always insufferable and trying to make some "profound" statement about the importance of journalism and how it has been corrupted or something. It's not so much that they're even wrong (a lot of the time they aren't), but just an association with the use of the term with an obnoxious and pithy sort of tone. Ytlaya has a new favorite as of 12:24 on Jan 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:What if you masturbate while questioning your own existence? I'm no masterbation expert, but that sounds like more work than just thinking about getting a blowjob from that pretty girl at work/school/the coffee shop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Disproportionate representation of rural areas is already dealt with through the Senate (and to a lesser degree the House), so I don't quite buy the "but rural places won't have a voice anymore!" argument. I've never heard that particular term but I feel similarly about other superfluous descriptive phrases that seem to be designed to make people ask "what is that?" and they get to talk down to you about it and show off how knowledgeable they are. Like you said, it doesn't matter if the term is accurate and it usually is, but it's just annoying. Basically know your audience. It makes you look like a smug rear end in a top hat if you keep using obscure esoteric terms when you're talking to people who you know have probably never even heard of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:it should be california and new york deciding the elections you say? Right now it's the five or six swing states that decide the presidential election every loving four years, like that's any better. The candidates will spend six months straight running around Bumfuck Ohio and Gnat's rear end in a top hat, Pennsylvania while ignoring the largest states by population -and- commerce. Plus, if you really think about it, there are plenty of hillbillies in central/far northern Ca and upstate New York if you're biased against city folk. Basically, every way of deciding anything pisses off the losers 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:I've never heard that particular term but I feel similarly about other superfluous descriptive phrases that seem to be designed to make people ask "what is that?" and they get to talk down to you about it and show off how knowledgeable they are. Like you said, it doesn't matter if the term is accurate and it usually is, but it's just annoying. There was a movie about Julian Assange called 5th Estate starring Benedict Cumberbatch. I don't think most people understood the reference, implying that wikileaks is the new journalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Disproportionate representation of rural areas is already dealt with through the Senate (and to a lesser degree the House), so I don't quite buy the "but rural places won't have a voice anymore!" argument. Yeah in the other direction. 2 seats per state in the Senate means Rhode Island has as much say as loving California in decisions. I dont know if i have a better solution, but it clearly is a huge balance favoring small states. Als the house of reps has had its number capped while state populations can vastly change, giving more rural states more say there too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:California, New York and Texas and Florida. Looks good to me. Those are the only 4 states the rest of the world cares about, let them pick the guy the rest of the world has to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Why would anyone care about Ohio? I guess I want to try some cincinnati chili but it's probably disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
I said 4!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Those four states also have the most lunatics per capita
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Ohio is the New Jersey of the Midwest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Texas aside, the most powerful states in the EC almost always vote blue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:So secede what's the problem? I don't consider this as a viable solution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:Colorado? Texas
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
oldpainless posted:Texas Montana, Oregon and Washington feel likewise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
I'm from California and I wish people would stop coming here. How about you guys do that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
More people have left California than gone to California for 22 of the last 25 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Why can't i find parking then. gently caress. I actually see way more people now than a decade ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
spit on my clit posted:it should be california and new york deciding the elections you say? Individuals would decide. Where they live is irrelevant. If the state of California is split fifty-fifty when the last voter casts his vote that vote won't drag the entire state's electoral power along with him, it would just be his one vote. spit on my clit posted:no you see they dont matter because they don't live in a high density democrat area Perhaps they don't matter any more or less than anybody else's and ought to carry just as much weight as everybody else's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
AKA Pseudonym posted:Perhaps they don't matter any more or less than anybody else's and ought to carry just as much weight as everybody else's. spit on my clit posted:no you see they dont matter because they don't live in a low density republican area
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:I've never heard that particular term but I feel similarly about other superfluous descriptive phrases that seem to be designed to make people ask "what is that?" and they get to talk down to you about it and show off how knowledgeable they are. Like you said, it doesn't matter if the term is accurate and it usually is, but it's just annoying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate Basically it's a legitimate term, but people often use it when trying to make some profound statement about the state of society/journalism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
maybe they just got done watching deadwood
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
IMUO the weirdest thing about this whole chat (and electoral college reform discussion elsewhere) is how the default democratic position -isn't- we should broaden our rhetoric to appeal to poor rural voters who are obviously swayed by economic overtures, recalling that President Obama basically did so 8 years ago and secured 2 terms and at least one landslide victory and that Trump only barely eked out a win with a similar strategy instead of the much crazier the system now needs radical alteration because we're giving -slightly- too much elective power to otherwise marginalized areas  It may not be fashionable in the current political climate to regard a cohort that's largely, but not -exclusively-, white as marginalized but there's still the very real situation of economic/social disparity that needs addressing and ultimately I thought speaking up for the little guy was the dem's bread and butter; you can easily have a multi-faceted platform that reaches anyone it can. Create a beautiful liberal utopia if you desire, just make sure to address other issues as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
The Electoral College should at the very least be reformed to make it impossible for an elector to vote against the decision of their state.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
We could fix a bunch of problems by just nuking Florida. Save a bunch of social security money too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Younger me would fight you about this back in the day but the older I've gotten the more I've realised I prefer dark chocolate over milk chocolate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
hard counter posted:IMUO the weirdest thing about this whole chat (and electoral college reform discussion elsewhere) is how the default democratic position -isn't- we should broaden our rhetoric to appeal to poor rural voters who are obviously swayed by economic overtures, recalling that President Obama basically did so 8 years ago and secured 2 terms and at least one landslide victory and that Trump only barely eked out a win with a similar strategy instead of the much crazier the system now needs radical alteration because we're giving -slightly- too much elective power to otherwise marginalized areas I believe it was implied in the other thread that it's okay to support the little guy as long as he's supporting you, but when he acts against your direction he's to be treated as a rabid dog that doesn't know better. Seriously, if I'm recalling that correctly I'm not exaggerating. "Rabid dog." Also peanut butter fudge is better than regular fudge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Ramagamma posted:Younger me would fight you about this back in the day but the older I've gotten the more I've realised I prefer dark chocolate over milk chocolate. the darkest chocolates are the only good chocolates imuo, save for certain whites
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Counter opinion: if you think all milk chocolate is bad, you have never had quality chocolate. Or you just have terrible taste, either one. Too many people think the best it gets is hersheys or the whitmans sampler from walgreens but its really not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:Why would anyone care about Ohio? Let me save you some time, yes it sucks. Badly. That goes for Ohio and that bullshit they call chilli.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
Das Boo posted:Also peanut butter fudge is better than regular fudge. Peanut brittle is better than any fudge. And I'm a huge chocolate fan so that should speak volumes for how good peanut brittle is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 22:41
|
|