People need to drop the angry protestor act

I don't take protestors who disobey the police seriously. They look like hooligans who are angry at the loss of their job and are blaming someone else for their problems.

They're the kind of people you call the cops on, not people genuine in their concern about the country.

We have a perfectly good system already in place for this sort of thing: Congress. Instead of going all protestor, use all those people and create a political party. If enough people agree with your goal, then hopefully you'll become a force strong enough to be reckoned with.

If you really want change, if you really want to save America, do it in the least controversial way possible. Fighting like union strikes and peaceful protests are only really useful when you have a very specific goal in mind.

If you want general political change, introduce someone new to the mix. The system we have now is perfect for this situation, the problem is there aren't enough people willing to group together and actually organize a party big enough.

It can be done, but people need to put their heads together and do it. The next Andrew Jackson could be anyone, but it doesn't matter if they don't make it to power.

Oh, and please stay on topic.

edited 7th Oct '11 9:10:13 PM by TheProffesor

No, having protest is the first act to change the system. Tea Party organizing and have meeting for months before the 2010 election. arguing Congress first is wrong, you need to show anger, to show there are a lot of people agree with you, then you can influence election.

Andrew Jackson was... not such a great person, considering he force marched thousands of people out of their homes.

Anyway, if this is inspired by OWS, those people don't seem to be particularly "angry". Frustrated more than anything by the system that's put them out of work and bad business policies. Also, you haven't provided any examples of protests not doing what the police want them to. Really, the evidence seem geared towards a few cases where the police acted questionably. And some comments from other police that indicates they agree with the protestors. Protests are part of the system; free speech and all that. It's as legitimate a way to express yourself as voting is. And a way to bring issues out into the public consciousness so that politicians have to pay atttention.

If protests were completely organized and with set demands, theyd be painted even more by the media as "crazy anarchists out to destroy america"

And this is bad because?

I know civil protestors are un-American and all but I had no idea congress was a perfect system. Yowza!

Do you want my argument for how to eliminate protestors (or at least, reduce protests to weirdos who need not be taken seriously)?

Kill poverty in a proper manner. Poor people are (rather rightly) not happen about the fact that they are, in actuality, poor, and thus they have incentive to protest the current order, which is unwilling, unable, or some combination of the two, to help them become not-poor.

So, if nobody is poor, the chances of there being protest of any kind rapidly shifts towards zero on the 0-1 probability scale...

Protesting is to government what vomiting and heavy coughing is to one's body - it's a sign that something is wrong.

Proffesor, have you ever been desperate?

I'm going to say he hasn't. I haven't been either, but I can understand how people can get that way. So long as they're not violent I have no problem with protestors; they're excercising their rights and trying to work towards a better world.

I'm sorry- "act"? Do you think that these people aren't really angry? I do think these people have specific goals in mind.

edited 7th Oct '11 11:08:48 PM by Gault

To change the course of politics, you first need to change public opinion. To change public opinion, you first need to get the public's attention. Protests seem to do that quite well.

How naive do you have to be to not see that our system is broken? Lobbying is dictated by money, not mass support from the population. Did civil rights leaders get anywhere by making donations to their congressmen? No, they did it by marching in the fucking streets and telling the government that shit needed to change.

*sniff* *sniff*

Sure is privileged in here.

edited 8th Oct '11 4:26:25 AM by Iaculus

@OP: How about no?

edited 8th Oct '11 4:54:10 AM by SavageHeathen

Kitsune responded pretty much as I would have (though I would have been a bit gentler :) ). Sometimes you work within the system, sometimes you can't because it's broken or made to work against you.

Or are you just against the protesters who look like hooligans? Frankly that's understandable, protesters who act polite but firm and avoid looking like mobs by dressing smartly (eg. the Civil Rights movement), wearing traditional clothing or other good symbolic stuff can be way more effective.

Getting the congress to listen to you takes money and influence. And those who have money and influence have no need to protest.

As we all know, Congress - and, yes, America itself - only exists because of a strongly worded letter to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Related and worth reading (and clicking the blue links, too) - tone argument.

On 'dressing like hooligans' - as a rule, that means you're dressing like you're poor. As mentioned above, poor and marginalised people tend to have more reason to protest. Besides, some people just don't like going out in their Sunday best if they know there are good odds on said Sunday best (with them inside) getting scraped across the tarmac by a water cannon.

Most popular movements (yes, even the Velvet Revolution) are doomed to failure because all they do is shout and break things. That's not to say that the Velvet revolution had many options — but without outside support from people who matter, i.e. money, they're not going to get anywhere. And we're under the same constraints at home. Few successful revolutions ever came from the bottom.

The best option is to stop participating in the channels of power that are clearly toxic, not opting out entirely.

edited 8th Oct '11 8:38:57 AM by johnnyfog

The best option is to erode and chip away at the legitimacy of the government, and foster and foment seething, boiling hatred against them. Once the hatred achieves critical mass, all bets are off.

Protestors do show that something is wrong- but that's about it. If you want actual political change, you must become Congress. If all the people in the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street would levy their supplies together, they could potentially take on the two party system and shake things up a bit.

You CAN work inside the system and win. People just have to work together to do it. If enough people can band together to become the Tea party, or enough desperate people can band together to form Occupy Wall Street, then surely enough people can band together and take Congress back.

Protests inevitably end with pepper spray and handcuffs. These people need help, and this is not the way to do it.

As for the Andrew Jackson thing, he put the common man before everything else. Someone like him could be useful as president. But that's another topic.

And then you have anarchy, which is not good.

edited 8th Oct '11 8:49:41 AM by TheProffesor

Becoming the enemy is not the only option.

Protests end with pepper spray and handcuffs, until the day when the handcuffers are finally overrun and crushed, their puppetmasters are taken captive by the angry population and justice is served.

The victory of the authorities is not always guaranteed: Sufficiently powerful protests have overthrown governments. Sometimes peacefully, but that's a misnomer: It's a war all right, except one side (the government) declines to fight it because it's been crushed already, and they fast-forward to the surrender. (See Tunisia)

edited 12th Oct '11 2:57:36 PM by SavageHeathen

Civil Rights leaders had the advantage of the Constitution. If they can get the Supreme Court to rule said civil rights violation unconstitutional, then they've pretty much won.

Not so with economics.

I wish you would cease with the notion that the police are acting properly and in good faith (there's substantial evidence to the contrary), that the protesters are being violent or otherwise disturbing the peace (moreso than simply protesting), and that the system is not beyond redemption.

I suppose that you despise MLK Jr. and what he stood for as well, since these protests are being conducted in the same manner of peaceful protest and civil disobedience that he advocated and practiced throughout the Civil Rights Era.

edited 8th Oct '11 8:54:22 AM by DarkConfidant

Savage@You frighten me sometimes.

Proffesor@I think you should not dismiss the protestors' greviances because they do have a point about corruption.I don't agree with everything they say but they do have a good legitimate point to protest about.

Don't put words into his mouth.

edited 8th Oct '11 8:56:54 AM by joyflower