The_Animus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,590
Ignore this....
Last edited:
Making documentary films, organizing people with similar views and goals, creating PACs, having talks/lectures, etc.
It is my understanding that this has been going on for a very long time and hasn't accomplished much of anything. Corruption, greed, wage inequality, environmental disregard are still rampant.
For every documentary, PAC, or lecture, there is a newcast, online article, PAC, etc. providing opposite support. Those with power have a much greater media presence than those without and media is the controller of public opinion. In fact we are bombarded by so much information, opinions, and calls for action that most of the time all we ever do is talk. How many times is a phenomenal book written addressing the injustices, engaging the reader and making them yearn for change only for the people who read it to simply go back to work, forget about it, and continue with life as if none of what they just read was true.
We live in a culture of mass apathy. Trying to bring about change through the encouraged methods leads to very little.
I understand what you mean and in all honesty I'm a little torn on the issue of what is and isn't needed when it comes to protest/rebellion.
A good example comes from the Republican National Convention. A protest or rally, especially for something like that requires going through proper administrative channels far far in advance and even then many groups who wanted to be allowed to protest were denied that ability. When you have to schedule and get permission from the very orchestration you are protesting doesn't it indicate a problem? And then at that point what do you do? People poured into the twin cities and protested anyway.
Now you can say that them blocking traffic, even if it was peaceful, hurt their cause because then the media portrayed them as instigators and problem causers. But what alternative is there? Just don't protest? Or protest in a small caged area? At what point does it stop being a protest or stop being possible to have a real protest?
Where exactly and could you specify how the entry was illegal?The police by the way broke numerous constitution rights.
-Illegal entry.
Where exactly did they search? What did they seize? Present evidence for this claim and why it was illegal.-Illegal search and seizure
Disturbing the peace is grounds for arrest. If the arrests were illegal, please cite the law that states so.-Illegal arrests
Non existent. You must not know much about law enforcement. They were outnumbered 10-1 and had to control an unruly crowd. In that situation you ask people to get back. If they do not comply, force may be used.-Repeated police brutality
Evidence?I mean jesus the police were even arresting medics and shutting down the medic stations that had been set up.
Not sure what you are talking about here.And what was done about any of that?
And we payed $50 million for these 'security measures'.
Like wildcat said, maybe they should have protested by not paying the tuition. Seems pretty simple to me. To be honest The animus, your post is overall pretty ignorant and it seems you are not too familiar with the law or how to lawfully protest. You probably would have been right out there with those idiots trying to push past police officers and then crying when force it used.I think it gets to a point where you have to do what you have to do because otherwise all your efforts amount to is angry muttering but ultimately accepting the wrong and continuing to go about life as if there were no problem at all.
aid to the Islamic University in Gaza -- because a political protest just isn't a political protest without being REALLY REALLY angry about "Zionism",
Why was their first demand full amnesty for themselves?Quad4_72:
You ask for evidence and then call me ignorant and insult me before I can even have a chance to respond. I use these forums for an exchange of ideas not as a court in which to prove a case.
I don't know about you but my time is precious to me and I have little incentive to spend it in the service of someone looking to stroke their intellectual ego.
Perhaps if you change your attitude and I feel you have a genuine interest I will oblige you. Otherwise I have no interest in discussing anything with someone just looking to argue as a means of feeling good about themself.
I can't speak for the lenders, but I worked in financial aid at a public university until about three years ago, and I can tell you defaulted loans are certainly not in the school's best interest. The feds, surprisingly enough, actually keep track of the percentage of students from a given institution who go into default. If that percentage gets too high, the school is cut off from federal financial aid funds. That means fewer students, which in turn means even less money coming in (from tuition, obviously, but state funding is mostly a factor of enrollment, as well).I don't know hte rest of it, but I was going to start another thread on this topic and
student loans. This guy was on NPR this afternoon and it was interesting to note that
virtually every protection for the borrower has been removed off student loans and it is in the interest of both the school and the lender that you default on your loan.
http://www.studentloanjustice.org/
I think the fact that they all brought their Macs really is telling about the state of modern social activism. If they really want the protesters to give up just kill the wireless network for a couple of hours.
Quad4_72:
You ask for evidence and then call me ignorant and insult me before I can even have a chance to respond. I use these forums for an exchange of ideas not as a court in which to prove a case.
I don't know about you but my time is precious to me and I have little incentive to spend it in the service of someone looking to stroke their intellectual ego.
Perhaps if you change your attitude and I feel you have a genuine interest I will oblige you. Otherwise I have no interest in discussing anything with someone just looking to argue as a means of feeling good about themself.
To be honest The animus, your post is overall pretty ignorant and it seems you are not too familiar with the law or how to lawfully protest. You probably would have been right out there with those idiots trying to push past police officers and then crying when force it used.
It also helped that the civil rights movement had one clear, easily-understood goal - equal rights and equal justice for black people.It's amazing what MLK and others accomplished in the 60s, for civil rights. One thing that probably helped, is the fact that although there were many people in power trying to keep black people down, there was quite a substantial critical mass--many oppressed blacks as well as sympathizers--who were furious and ready to put themselves on the line.
Actually, the administration, in an act of cruel, heartless torture, cut off their internet. Speeded up the surrender, I suppose.
It also helped that the civil rights movement had one clear, easily-understood goal - equal rights and equal justice for black people.
As opposed to:<snip>
And it also helped that Martin Luther King didn't come off as a self-important little twit.
Quad4_72:
You ask for evidence and then call me ignorant and insult me before I can even have a chance to respond. I use these forums for an exchange of ideas not as a court in which to prove a case.
I don't know about you but my time is precious to me and I have little incentive to spend it in the service of someone looking to stroke their intellectual ego.
Perhaps if you change your attitude and I feel you have a genuine interest I will oblige you. Otherwise I have no interest in discussing anything with someone just looking to argue as a means of feeling good about themself.