Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smeeprocket]

I just want to support Sasha Grey being brought up in any context.

I would post supporting photographic "evidence", but there are rules against it.

Also, one of the hardest things, as in impossible, I found to protest was schools. At least in my state.

[TD1]

Helgo, you reasonable conservative scum ~

Now, why do y'all leave off the reasonable when describing me?

[Sheo]

I just want to support Sasha Grey being brought up in any context.

I would post supporting photographic "evidence", but there are rules against it.

Also, one of the hardest things, as in impossible, I found to protest was schools. At least in my state.

Sasha Grey is my favorite porn star.

Not because of content, but because of how often she's just proud of her profession and tells people that criticize her or her merits to go burn in hell.

[smeeprocket]

hell yea, her and Mandy Morbid, Vivid Vivka, and for sexy cosplay Envy Us, plus sooo many others.

[SalmonGod]

So, question:  What do Helgoland and others believe to be the nature of protest?  Because the way I see it, if protests stayed within expectations of the law and its enforcers in the U.S., it would be completely ineffectual.

I recognize three major categories of activism.

1.  Direct action.  Blatantly illegal stuff like sabotaging and blocking equipment.  Or creative stuff, like developing programs and strategies for establishing what you want to happen, for example Food Not Bombs.  The purpose being to actively prevent or generate the future you do/don't want.

2.  Legal and media work.

3.  Demonstration.  Street protest.  Generally must by its nature fall into grey area of legality in my opinion.  I recognize it as having three purposes in varying proportion: 
                 -To express an opinion to the political establishment because the group feels it is being marginalized by normal channels of political expression
                 -To expose the otherwise unaware to the issue and the existence of the group's position on that issue
                 -To threaten the establishment with the potential for disorder if the group's interests aren't sufficiently recognized
     Any one of these purposes requires some form of disruption in order to be accomplished that will naturally run counter to the interests of the law and frustrate law enforcement.  Sure, protesters should hold themselves to a high standard of behavior, but there still has to be an element of conflict and threat involved or else what the heck is it supposed to be?  Helgoland says that if protests aren't properly respected, that this should be rectified by public outrage... but protest IS public outrage, isn't it?

[Bauglir]

Aye. There's protests against non-government actors, which I could see being sensibly regulated if they were all there were. But if you're protesting against the government, then your protest is legal or illegal at the whims of that very government - it absolutely needs to be prevented from having a say in what's an okay sort of protest or not, because otherwise protest will very quickly find itself boxed into a region of comfortable invisibility. Anything else would be counter to the interests of a rational government (or an irrational, selfish one, for that matter). Surely I don't need to explain why, "You can do whatever you want as long as I like it" isn't actually much of a compromise or favor?

You can enforce things like laws against vandalism and assault against individuals in a mob with the same legal justification as if they were acting singly, but the law really can't be allowed to regulate the assembly in the first place. And as long as that's the case, it'd be an unacceptable scenario for governments to protect private interests even more than public, so I'd expect protests to be equally unregulated against private actors (or even explicitly protected).

[Helgoland]

So, question:  What do Helgoland and others believe to be the nature of protest?

Well, we have  to separate two cases; I'll assume the existence of a 'we' whose members have common interests, since the goals most people around here are substantially similar. (There's a line about Don Camillo and Peppone wanting the same thing, but disagreeing about the way, to provide a pop cultural example.)
1) A state that is in principle desirable, i.e. one we support in general and only criticize in specific ways
It is in our interest that such a state preserves itself, and that only the aspects we dislike are changed. All we want protests to do in such a state is raise public awareness about an issue, so that it can be rectified: All other forms of action against the state, such as sabotage and protests outside what is necessary for the aforementioned pupose, must be repressed. In practice this means ensuring that the black bloc and other true extremists can be persecuted.
2) A state that is undesirable in principle, i.e. one which we do not support at all
Such a state must be abolished; since we oppose the state itself, we do not care about its laws in any other than the practical sense of them being the rules for the persecution of ourselves. Any form of action aligned with our own goals and beliefs is justifiable.

I firmly believe that the current states in the developed world, even in the US, are of type 1); I know you believe at least the American one to be of type 2), SG, so this is the point where our opinions diverge. All the other differences are merely a consequence of that one.

[smeeprocket]

the problem with your statements is america is, for us living here, neither type 1 or 2. We want laws, but a murderous, militarized police force that uses the laws to oppress PoC isn't what we want.

Peaceful protests are oftentimes ignored and forgotten. You have to be disruptive and go outside the little box they set for you.

It's interesting because these protests have been peaceful, and the police have still responded with extreme violence.

Personally, I favor Malcolm X to MLK jr when dealing with a police state.

[Baffler]

So, question:  What do Helgoland and others believe to be the nature of protest?

Well, we have  to separate two cases; I'll assume the existence of a 'we' whose members have common interests, since the goals most people around here are substantially similar. (There's a line about Don Camillo and Peppone wanting the same thing, but disagreeing about the way, to provide a pop cultural example.)
1) A state that is in principle desirable, i.e. one we support in general and only criticize in specific ways
It is in our interest that such a state preserves itself, and that only the aspects we dislike are changed. All we want protests to do in such a state is raise public awareness about an issue, so that it can be rectified: All other forms of action against the state, such as sabotage and protests outside what is necessary for the aforementioned pupose, must be repressed. In practice this means ensuring that the black bloc and other true extremists can be persecuted.
2) A state that is undesirable in principle, i.e. one which we do not support at all
Such a state must be abolished; since we oppose the state itself, we do not care about its laws in any other than the practical sense of them being the rules for the persecution of ourselves. Any form of action aligned with our own goals and beliefs is justifiable.

I firmly believe that the current states in the developed world, even in the US, are of type 1); I know you believe at least the American one to be of type 2), SG, so this is the point where our opinions diverge. All the other differences are merely a consequence of that one.

This is a sensible means of categorizing it. People tend to exaggerate the degree of repression of political expression here, but it does exist. The concern is that this is an early transition state between Type 1 and Type 2, but that isn't a universally accepted notion.

[Bauglir]

I actually don't believe that's a valid dichotomy. A state that is desirable in principle can still be engaged in temporary activities heinous enough to be worth sabotaging in particular. States can also have different degrees of desirability, and that desirability can also be impacted through public behavior, which muddles the waters very significantly.

[SalmonGod]

I also don't believe it's a valid dichotomy.  A state operates on many facets, and some can be so heinous as to overrule anything else that may be positive.

In the case of the U.S., I believe that the nation's stance on the environment is going to doom everyone if it's not challenged.  Its inequality, coupled with criminalization of the poor (which includes a majority of the population) is simply intolerable. 

And the surveillance/police state is overwhelmingly intolerant of anyone having anything to say about those two issues.  I think this is the point on which Baffler claims transition from Type 1 to Type 2, but I don't think we can conclusively claim that Type 2 in this category is not achieved, when the state has done everything necessary to shut down any movement on those two issues.  It's done literally everything imaginable short of disappearing and mass murdering people, but then no movement thus far has had the tenacity to challenge it to that level.

[Phmcw]

I agree with the fish god there, protest aren't simple things. An action that would be blatantly  illegal for a small or medium group (say blocking an airport) is accepted if the group doing it has widespread support.

[Helgoland]

-snip-

So you say that the state is following intolerable goals and preventing peaceful, cooperative change? Sounds like type 2 to me.

I actually don't believe that's a valid dichotomy. A state that is desirable in principle can still be engaged in temporary activities heinous enough to be worth sabotaging in particular. States can also have different degrees of desirability, and that desirability can also be impacted through public behavior, which muddles the waters very significantly.

Well, it's a very rough categorization of course. One could further differentiate the two types into various sub-types, something that Baffler has already started; but the key difference between the two types - the possibility of peaceful change in the first, something that we all (hopefully) include under 'desirable' - indeed dictates our core attitude towards states of either type.

[Antsan]

You forget that a state is rarely monolithic. Parts of a state can be oppressive enough to prevent change when protest isn't done in a way that is able to bypass those parts.

[Phmcw]

Different groups with different power dentisty will push for policies. I like the French-style "the more you are the more you can get away with" and strong armed social dialogue.

If only they could drop part of their hierarchic mentality. In France peoples tend to complain a lot and act collectively, but individually they don't oppose authority openly, leading to a very bureaucratic and centralised structure that is followed to the letter even when it make no sense.