I would suggest that testicles got you into this mess, growing your education would probably be more effective....howler_27 wrote:
It's time to grow a pair America. We didn't get where we are by being powder puffs. We got here from gritty, hard work, and dedication to the cause.
Here's one, May 1968.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Give me one then.oug wrote:
Omg you need a history lesson man...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because protesting is a useless activity for rich college students with too much time on their hands. It doesn't get anything done.
And your attempt to make us all feel guilty for having a degree and a pc is just wrong. Many things have changed from the concentrated efforts of the middle classes. You don't have to be hungry to go out and protest what you think is wrong.
Guilty? Not at all. Only pointing out that the only people who have the luxury of protest are the ones with various other luxuries.
I got the feeling from what you said that we should not protest because we enjoy certain luxuries. If you don't want to call it "guilty", let's call it "unqualified"? That somehow our protest is not valid?
Look man, I know that the US has little to no history in such matters (with the exception of MLK as Turq pointed out). I know where you're coming from on this. But if you want to discover the truth about what the people can and should do, you'll have to look beyond the boarders of your country. Make no mistake, what one does as an individual is very important, but it is vital for a community or nation if you will to act as one unit. However attractive, the "lone cowboy" mentality doesn't work. It never did.
ƒ³
because in today's world of convenience, it's easier to sit at home and bitch online in forums and blogs.
funny thing about it is that they actually think they're making a difference.
/thread.
funny thing about it is that they actually think they're making a difference.
/thread.
Oh really?... Well, if they already had those rights, then how come they didn't get to take advantage of them until after the Civil Rights Movement?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
A notable exception as far as effectiveness. Honestly though, they were fighting for rights they already legally had. Not exactly the same as protesting current policies.Turquoise wrote:
All those damn rich college kids and their protests....
they had the rights, but they were human rights and they had to prove that black people were, in fact, human.
What good is a right you can't use? I guess what I'm saying is that, for all practical purposes, they didn't have those rights UNTIL they protested enough to get the government's attention.dimascurtu wrote:
they had the rights, but they were human rights and they had to prove that black people were, in fact, human.
In short, the Civil Rights Movement is proof that protests can work. It worked for women gaining the right to vote as well.
Protests don't work. Ten thousand or even a million is a tiny fraction of 300,000,000.
Now that's dedication. It almost puts the guys dying in Iraq to shame.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
...you got a penny increase per pound for Taco Bell's tomatoes...congratulations.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
if i remember correctly, hundreds of thousands of americans protested before the iraq war. didnt do much...
A lot of the reason for that was the lack of media coverage. Most protests got very little coverage in the buildup to the war.steelie34 wrote:
if i remember correctly, hundreds of thousands of americans protested before the iraq war. didnt do much...
This is a good point though, because it demonstrates that media coverage must accompany protests for them to be truly effective.
Reading from Wikipedia, that was a strike not a protest. Having leverage in your protest helps immensely.oug wrote:
Here's one, May 1968.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Give me one then.oug wrote:
Omg you need a history lesson man...
And your attempt to make us all feel guilty for having a degree and a pc is just wrong. Many things have changed from the concentrated efforts of the middle classes. You don't have to be hungry to go out and protest what you think is wrong.
Guilty? Not at all. Only pointing out that the only people who have the luxury of protest are the ones with various other luxuries.
I got the feeling from what you said that we should not protest because we enjoy certain luxuries. If you don't want to call it "guilty", let's call it "unqualified"? That somehow our protest is not valid?
Look man, I know that the US has little to no history in such matters (with the exception of MLK as Turq pointed out). I know where you're coming from on this. But if you want to discover the truth about what the people can and should do, you'll have to look beyond the boarders of your country. Make no mistake, what one does as an individual is very important, but it is vital for a community or nation if you will to act as one unit. However attractive, the "lone cowboy" mentality doesn't work. It never did.
I have no notions of the "lone cowboy" being effective on his/her own, but standing in the street with signs gets nothing done. There are more effective ways of getting things done, you just have to get creative.
...that's what I'm saying. Yes it allowed them to have their rights in actuality, but it helped that there was already a piece of paper saying they legally had those rights. If they protested to enact the 13th, 14th, and 16th amendment, then I would say protests are effective.Turquoise wrote:
Oh really?... Well, if they already had those rights, then how come they didn't get to take advantage of them until after the Civil Rights Movement?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
A notable exception as far as effectiveness. Honestly though, they were fighting for rights they already legally had. Not exactly the same as protesting current policies.Turquoise wrote:
All those damn rich college kids and their protests....
I am rich in life and emotion, not wealthy by any means...especially in South Orange County. I paid a good amount of my college tuition - and my parents paid exactly $0. "A very luxurious computer..." hahaha. My computer is almost 4 years old. So far you are 0-3.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Yeah, you are rich. You have a college degree (most likely mostly paid for by your parents, but not necessarily) and you're spending your time on an internet forum based around a game that requires a very luxurious computer and internet connection to play. Not something that poor people have the opportunity to do.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Let's see...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because protesting is a useless activity for rich college students with too much time on their hands. It doesn't get anything done.
Rich? Nope
White? Yep
College? Degree, yep.
Too much time on my hands? No, just passion for a cause.
Doesn't get anything done? Hmm, protesting for the Immokalee Workers as well as a boycott seemed to work out.That was a protest I proudly was a part of. Not as a rich white college kid with too much time on my hands - as a human being concerned about the human rights and treatment of fellow humans.In 2001, the CIW launched a boycott of Taco Bell, asking the company to take responsibility for the working conditions and wages of the farmworkers that supply the company's tomatoes. During the campaign, called "Boot the Bell," the CIW worked closely with religious and community groups and a student network, the Student/Farmworker Alliance, to pressure Taco Bell from different social angles. On March 8, 2005, Yum! Brands, Inc., which owns Taco Bell, agreed to all of the organization's demands, including the CIW’s requests that the company pay a penny more per pound of tomatoes to increase workers' wages. Yum! will also work with the CIW to enforce a code of conduct to monitor worker complaints and avoid abuses in the fields.
I could easily list 10 to 20 other instances of protests fomenting positive change.
...you got a penny increase per pound for Taco Bell's tomatoes...congratulations.
Among other concessions, Yum! Brands agreed to pay $,01 more per pound for tomatoes picked. Doesn't sound like much (as your obviously snide remark suggests), but to workers who pick around a ton of tomatoes a day, that can be the difference between indentured servitude and prosperous workers. Not to mention the agreements reached as far as worker conditions and industry-wide reform.
See the thing is, you have no idea what you are talking about, and I do.
For more success stories of protests, see:
Gandhi Salt March, 1930
Montgomery Bus Boycott
SCLC March on Washington (or really any action by SCLC or SNCC in the '60s)
The Boston Tea Party
Susan B Anthony
Various labor disputes in the 19th Century (which effectively resulted in various protective labor laws, including child labor and 40 hour work-weeks).
Nonviolent protests by large populations of Denmark and Norway during WW2.
Much of what you take for granted in the United States is a direct result of PROTEST. Not all people have the cynical view that you have regarding the effectiveness of protests. Fortunately for you, these people will be fighting on your behalf for social justice.
wut?Kmarion wrote:
Now that's dedication. It almost puts the guys dying in Iraq to shame.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
...you got a penny increase per pound for Taco Bell's tomatoes...congratulations.
Ask virtually anyone still alive that was a part of SCLC, SNCC, or much of the "Civil Rights" movement and they will tell you that while at it's inception it was based around desegregation and racial equality, it morphed into a larger social justice campaignFlaming_Maniac wrote:
A notable exception as far as effectiveness. Honestly though, they were fighting for rights they already legally had. Not exactly the same as protesting current policies.Turquoise wrote:
All those damn rich college kids and their protests....
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2008-06-09 18:39:12)
I said your parents did not necessarily pay for your college education. The fact that you don't even see that you can't even see your material wealth however confirms my point. Even if you don't own the leetest computer parts from two months ago, any computer and an internet connection is a luxury. If you were actually struggling to survive below the poverty line, I hardly think you would have been standing outside of a Taco Bell.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I am rich in life and emotion, not wealthy by any means...especially in South Orange County. I paid a good amount of my college tuition - and my parents paid exactly $0. "A very luxurious computer..." hahaha. My computer is almost 4 years old. So far you are 0-3.
Among other concessions, Yum! Brands agreed to pay $,01 more per pound for tomatoes picked. Doesn't sound like much (as your obviously snide remark suggests), but to workers who pick around a ton of tomatoes a day, that can be the difference between indentured servitude and prosperous workers. Not to mention the agreements reached as far as worker conditions and industry-wide reform.
See the thing is, you have no idea what you are talking about, and I do.
For more success stories of protests, see:
Gandhi Salt March, 1930
Montgomery Bus Boycott
SCLC March on Washington (or really any action by SCLC or SNCC in the '60s)
The Boston Tea Party
Susan B Anthony
Various labor disputes in the 19th Century (which effectively resulted in various protective labor laws, including child labor and 40 hour work-weeks).
Nonviolent protests by large populations of Denmark and Norway during WW2.
Much of what you take for granted in the United States is a direct result of PROTEST. Not all people have the cynical view that you have regarding the effectiveness of protests. Fortunately for you, these people will be fighting on your behalf for social justice.wut?Kmarion wrote:
Now that's dedication. It almost puts the guys dying in Iraq to shame.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
...you got a penny increase per pound for Taco Bell's tomatoes...congratulations.
Do you know what your protest actually got the workers? I can't find any proof on the workers actually getting a raise. The closest thing I found was:
but then when I checked the source, the only thing it said was:Wikipedia wrote:
Pickers were paid about 45 cents for every 32-pound (14.5 kg) bucket of fruit they pick, which will now be raised to 77 cents.
Which was said by the protestors, not the company. I bet your penny a pound went to line the tomato company's pockets, not to any wage increase. I bet that warms the heart doesn't it?http://www.reuters.com/article/consumerproducts-SP/idUSN0933192520070409?pageNumber=1 wrote:
The coalition has said that a penny more for each bucket would raise the pay rate to 77 cents, handing the workers a hefty 71-percent increase in wages.
No one in America has that sort of dedication or cause. (basically fighting for the right to live against a foreign power)Ghandi's March wrote:
The non-violent satyagrahis did not defend themselves against the clubs of policemen, and many were killed instantly.
Civil Rights demonstrations have been addressed. They had legal rights they were not socially being allowed to. Once they can get a court case without a racist judge, they're home free as far as the law goes. Socially they're still unequal.
The Boston Tea Party failed hard. They forced the passing of the Intolerable Acts, and nothing was resolved until there was an outright revolt. Protest is forcing change in the current system, not breaking off or revolutionizing the current system. This is a perfect example of a protest gone wrong.
Women's rights movement fits neatly in with the Civil Rights movement. They were fighting for political rights they already arguably had, and are still socially unequal. (Hillary still going on about the glass ceiling.)
As I said, strikes are when a protest actually have some leverage, so of course they can be effective. They're only still called protests when one side wants to appear victimized.
Many protective labor laws came into being because disasters and deaths in factories, not because of protest. Along these lines a good example of effective change would be The Jungle written by Upton Sinclair, forcing change in the meat packing industry without a single picket sign.
In Norway and Denmark, protests of an occupying country? That's really applicable? Besides, how effective really was it? Their country was still occupied, and the only thing they were doing was helping the German war machine less.
Fortunately for you, not everyone has a candy-sweet view on the effectiveness of standing outside with a sign and the rest of us work to fix problems at the source rather than whining about them.
That could be considered strikingly unsuccessful.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Ask virtually anyone still alive that was a part of SCLC, SNCC, or much of the "Civil Rights" movement and they will tell you that while at it's inception it was based around desegregation and racial equality, it morphed into a larger social justice campaignFlaming_Maniac wrote:
A notable exception as far as effectiveness. Honestly though, they were fighting for rights they already legally had. Not exactly the same as protesting current policies.Turquoise wrote:
All those damn rich college kids and their protests....
It was mostly a protest, but that's besides the point. It was a mere example of what can be achieved.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Reading from Wikipedia, that was a strike not a protest. Having leverage in your protest helps immensely.
I have no notions of the "lone cowboy" being effective on his/her own, but standing in the street with signs gets nothing done. There are more effective ways of getting things done, you just have to get creative.
As far as the cowboy thing, what I mean is that the American way is more about the person and less about the community. Getting things done on your own is nice, but it will never beat coordinated action.
ƒ³
Tbh FM is a bit of a moron if he thinks you should abandon your career and prospects to get a degree in politics which far from guarantees anything and more than likely will get you in no position to change anything.Buckles wrote:
Where on earth did anyone say that? Read again fucktard.JahManRed wrote:
So if you got a computer that can run bf2, you should have no right to protest against anything your country does or says........gotcha.
What FM says, and i pretty much agree, is that people would rather protest and "stand up and be counted", instead of actually being original, innovative and influential and actually making a difference as an individual.
I suspect the situation would be different if you had a draft which affected a similar proportion of the population as it did with Vietnam.
Fucktard? Very mature, if your going to try and insult me, at least do it in proper English, Not, "I don't get out often have started to talk like I type to my spotty friends on MSN" talk.Buckles wrote:
Where on earth did anyone say that? Read again fucktard.JahManRed wrote:
So if you got a computer that can run bf2, you should have no right to protest against anything your country does or says........gotcha.
Come back when you have formulated an opinion of your own instead of kissing MOD ass.Buckles wrote:
What FM says, and i pretty much agree, is that people would rather protest and "stand up and be counted", instead of actually being original, innovative and influential and actually making a difference as an individual.
Individuals are what make change and start protest and inspire other to do the same. It is a citizens duty to keep their government honest. Its human nature for men to aspire to dominate and control his fellow man. Politicians need to be kept in check and be reminded of public opinion. Opinion they don't often get to see/hear when surrounded by lobbyist, hawks and money men, all with their own agenda, which often has nothing to do with the good of the people.
Back then ppl were discussing right, liberty, justice, the meaning of life.
Today we watch Idol and struggle to pay off Our dept. And we absolutely DON'T discuss right, liberty, justice, the meaning of life.
And we accept the flawed elections, phony war reasons, odd explosions, lack of democracy, political global warming science, military UFO coverups
, fake newage medicin, brainwashing religion etc.
Nothing affects us.
Today we watch Idol and struggle to pay off Our dept. And we absolutely DON'T discuss right, liberty, justice, the meaning of life.
And we accept the flawed elections, phony war reasons, odd explosions, lack of democracy, political global warming science, military UFO coverups
, fake newage medicin, brainwashing religion etc.
Nothing affects us.
The fatass shouldn't have let the cops drag him like a car with a flat tire.JahManRed wrote:
Maybe because this happens?Didn't see any rich college students in that vid.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because protesting is a useless activity for rich college students with too much time on their hands. It doesn't get anything done.
because instead we can join a facebook group!
Yeah!
Activism rocks!
Yeah!
Activism rocks!
Why aren't they protesting?
Vietnam: Millions of troops there at any given time, conscription.
Iraq: ~150,000 troops there at any given time, no conscription.
Theres your answer.
Shamefully, our vietnam vets only got an apology/recognition about a month ago. Its sad that its taken nearly 40 years, but at least its happened. I talked to one of them about a year ago, had a sixpack with me and when I found out he was an ANZAC vet I gave him half and listened to what he wanted to say. Most...honest talk from a war vet I've ever heard.
Vietnam: Millions of troops there at any given time, conscription.
Iraq: ~150,000 troops there at any given time, no conscription.
Theres your answer.
Shamefully, our vietnam vets only got an apology/recognition about a month ago. Its sad that its taken nearly 40 years, but at least its happened. I talked to one of them about a year ago, had a sixpack with me and when I found out he was an ANZAC vet I gave him half and listened to what he wanted to say. Most...honest talk from a war vet I've ever heard.
Whats worse are those "you ACTUALLY SAVE A TREE by playing" appsdjphetal wrote:
because instead we can join a facebook group!
Yeah!
Activism rocks!
The mass demonstrations against the Vietnam war have resulted in nothing even approaching the scale of that war ever being carried out again by the US.