Maddy wrote: ↑
Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:56 pm
moda0306 wrote: ↑
Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:17 am
pugchief wrote: ↑
Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:38 pm
You LOL now, but when the idiot leftist protesters here start destroying our cities, it won't be nearly as amusing. The stupidest thing Macron could have done was give in to the protesters, and that's exactly what he did. What happened to never negotiate with terrorists? Now the mobs here will be emboldened by the results there. This can't end well.
People give into terrorists all the time. Neoliberal state capitalism is essentially that on an economic level. They do it cuz Profits. If you're going to do that for Profits with foreign elites & governments but have a hard-nosed approach towards your own populations, it's clear what your agenda is...
By "your" I don't mean you, but governments and elites in-general.
But there is no marginal benefit to ones-self by joining a protest. People do it as an irrational response towards a supposed problem. Responding with a police state to change already emotionally charged incentives isn't the correct one, IMO.
The modern phenomenon of "protesting" shouldn't be viewed as a negotiation strategy, the latter of which assumes some degree of power or influence and the intelligence to put it to good use. To the contrary, your typical protest represents the primal scream of a self-disenfranchised segment of the population that's been so coddled and catered to that they're incapable of functioning in a truly diverse world where their wants and needs are in conflict with those of the next guy. (Again I'm reminded of Harry Browne's "How I Found Freedom," and his rebuke of the self-defeating habit of wasting energy thrashing about in angst over how others are limiting you rather than finding ways of getting what you want out of life despite the things you can't change.) Anybody who's spent any time with a badly socialized two-year-old can immediately relate; the strategy is one of maximum annoyance, not some kind of bargained-for exchange. At least the two-year-old wields some power by virtue of the fact that the weary parents have no choice but to deal with him. The protester, whom the rest of the world would just as soon see run over, is laughably devoid of even that bargaining chip.
That's a pretty broad generalization. Does that include Tea Party Protesters? Does that include folks in Iceland who peacefully protested when their government was going to engage in a massive banking bail out?
What about other forms of gathering in the streets? Is a parade or fair more desirable because a local government wants to do it and a certain segment of the population doesn't mind streets being shut down for that purpose rather than some form of holding the powerful accountable?
Of course it's not a negotiation strategy. It's far-too decentralized for that. But it sends messages about the degree to which masses of people are willing to behave irrationally to their best interests for a given principle (same with voting). It either lends or removes legitimacy to power structures.
For someone who constantly berates a segment of political power as being so disgusting as to not even be legitimate in holding that power, you seem to have a very passive attitude towards more active forms of civic participation.
While on an individualist basis I agree with HB on protesting, the same could be said for voting. If we want to talk about entitled folks, let's look no further than the baby boomers that vote in droves to keep the massive amounts of public benefits flowing towards them, issuing nary a peep when a massive theft of the American people occurs (bank bailout), and then lecture protesters about how entitled and short sighted they are.
When a crowd drags Tim Geithner, Dick Cheney or Scott Pruitt to the bottom of a guillotine, maybe then they'd have a point. Until then, keep em coming. Fewer parades. More protests.