• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Students protest at NYU

no, no...they were using non-violence and consensus...

Oh please. The only "consensus" they have anything to do with is the consensus among everybody except themselves about them being friggin' idiots.
 
Something like this happened at my old school (University of British Columbia) last March. A protest started about the temporary removal of an artificial mound of dirt in order to build an underground bus loop. The protesters lit a bonfire and blocked the fire department from reaching it, as well as the subsequent police. Some people got literally dragged off by the cops and caused a ridiculous scene, all for a mound of dirt that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place, and was only temporarily going away. The students had to inflate their numbers by recruiting hippies from the neighbouring nude beach.

The students involved were very self-righteous about the whole thing, and I think it backfired on them. In the recent student elections, their sympathetic candidates were unsuccessful.
 
Oh please. The only "consensus" they have anything to do with is the consensus among everybody except themselves about them being friggin' idiots.

Your insults are uncivil and this is civil disobedience. Please put on ear muffs so we can privately and democratically reach consensus.
[SIZE="-2"]
( :rolleyes: for the sarcasm challenged)[/SIZE]
 
You know, if young people wanted change, they could try voting once in a while.
 
Beyond parody.

It even has those poorly structured, half-formed legal declarations ('We need to decide in a democratic consensus manner') that are so common of protestors this awful. It essentially sounds like they just stumbled across notions of democracy, only to make a mockery out of the system when you witness their childish disorder.

They're not exactly the Little Rock Nine.
 
When I was in high school, there were two organized walk-outs. One to protest the Iraq War, which was then in its infancy, and the other I don't remember what for. Perhaps the Iraq War as well. Maybe not.

In the first one, some teachers wouldn't let their students leave class and others actually encouraged it. A lot of kids went to it out of sincere anger, about 30 or 40 percent of the school. A lot of kids didn't care one way or another but skipped school cause they wanted to get out of class. And instead of going to the protest, hung out or went home.

A lot stayed, some probably because they feared punishment from the school or arrest by the cops. Yours truly found the whole thing pointless and a little silly and didn't go because it obviously wouldn't accomplish anything other than losing one day of class. I asked one guy why he stayed and he said "Cause I really don't give a **** about this stuff."

As far as I know, there wasn't anyone who stayed in school because they actually agreed with the war and wanted to make a statement.
 
I'm glad I can count for no one. It instills me with a great feeling of accomplishment and pride that my vote for no one will bring about positive change.
 
Last edited:
It will. If enough people vote for no one, and large portion of those people are younger people, the major parties will adopt more of the views of them. Granted, this effect isn't as strong as if one votes for a third part who has a clear platform, even if you don't want him or her to win. This has traditionally been the role of third parties in the American system.

I know you want to believe that the current system leaves you no options but to radically change it, but it actually does give options. Just because you think it doesn't matter doesn't make it so.
 
I'm glad I can count for no one. It instills me with a great feeling of accomplishment and pride that my vote for no one will bring about positive change.

Then why don't you bring a big sign to a protest that says "I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY!"

I don't get the mentality. You want change, so you vote for no one, which has a 0% chance of change, rather than voting for a third party which has a greater percent chance, albeit small. You have basically rejected voting. So what are you for? Violent resistance?
 
It will. If enough people vote for no one, and large portion of those people are younger people, the major parties will adopt more of the views of them. Granted, this effect isn't as strong as if one votes for a third part who has a clear platform, even if you don't want him or her to win. This has traditionally been the role of third parties in the American system.

I know you want to believe that the current system leaves you no options but to radically change it, but it actually does give options. Just because you think it doesn't matter doesn't make it so.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but it seems like you regard me as some politically ignorant kid. In the past I have been very involved with politics. I've helped campaign for candidates. I've been part of student political orgs. I've argued the same thing you are telling me now to other people.

You should take a look at previous presidential and congressional elections over the last 50 years or so. Aside from this last presidential election, if memory serves, you'd be lucky to get 50% voter turnout. Which means that in most elections over half the population shows either apathy about politics or a lack of confidence in our system. And if people truely thought their vote could change anything I doubt half of the voting population would not vote.

Then why don't you bring a big sign to a protest that says "I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY!"

I don't get the mentality. You want change, so you vote for no one, which has a 0% chance of change, rather than voting for a third party which has a greater percent chance, albeit small. You have basically rejected voting. So what are you for? Violent resistance?

You'll have to explain to me how believing that voting accomplishes nothing is equivilent to "I have nothing to say".
I have voted third party. In fact in the last election I did vote third party. Our campaign laws and restrictions essentially prevent any third party from being able to stand a chance in most elections. I believe there were a couple instances of a third party being elected, but a few in the last several thousand elections doesn't amount to much. Especially since those couple people have no real voting power compared to the number of dems and reps.

Recent political history shows that
-third party candidates don't stand a chance, and if they do the dems/reps establish new laws or rules to make it harder for them to win (ross perot debate anyone?)
-there is a massive lack of confidence in our government and the elections shown by lack of voting.
-candidates repeatedly lie and break campaign promises. It's amazing how many things a candidate will say they support that never seem to make it to the agenda once elected.

These last 300 bites of dirt weren't very good, maybe the next one will be better.
 
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but it seems like you regard me as some politically ignorant kid. In the past I have been very involved with politics. I've helped campaign for candidates. I've been part of student political orgs. I've argued the same thing you are telling me now to other people.

You should take a look at previous presidential and congressional elections over the last 50 years or so. Aside from this last presidential election, if memory serves, you'd be lucky to get 50% voter turnout. Which means that in most elections over half the population shows either apathy about politics or a lack of confidence in our system. And if people truely thought their vote could change anything I doubt half of the voting population would not vote.

And because a lot of people believe something, that makes it true.
 

Back
Top Bottom