• Women's March: Millions March In Country to Protest Trump
    262 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ChicagoMobster;51710054]Forgive my ignorance but has mass protest ever changed a presidents mind on a decision? Not trying to dismiss the protests, I fully support it, I'm just curious since iirc this is the biggest march in history .[/QUOTE] I'm not so sure about the US, but here it's usually pretty effective at getting stuff done or potential laws scrapped (or even presidents to resign). You can essentially consider it the citizen version of lobbying, except that instead of 'only' addressing all politicians at once, it also aims to raise awareness among voters for the next election. At least in Europe, a [I]well-organised[/I] protest is very powerful. Even if it doesn't directly affect a certain person (Merkel seems to very rarely back-pedal because of a single protest, for example), it still usually has a lasting effect on politics and policies in some way. You could say that most European parliaments' rules of composition make them 'softer' towards this particular kind of influence than the US's system, though.
In the pictures I've seen from various people posting on social media, this is about reproductive rights and such. I have seen certain posters that I do not completely agree with (Somebody was criticizing the stigma on periods when I think it's just as stigmatized as other normal bodily functions), but overall I support the movement and think most of Trump's social (and everything else) policies are pretty trash.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51705668]I hope they push those policy disagreements, then! [B]I just see so many of these modern protests having vague disagreements about massive subjects without any actual, realistic, goal (see occupy wall-street, BLM, etc.).[/B][/QUOTE] That's because you fail to grasp the point, and are making the mistake of seeing thousands or millions of individuals as one individual. Occupy, BLM, all of those movements are targeted against one specific type of injustice, but eventually became vehicles for people to express a general dissatisfaction with the government's inaction to solve the many associated problems. That's because people, believe it or not, are not a hivemind. You know what I think is happening when protests become violent and turn to riots? When storefronts get smashed, cars get torched, and people get hurt? It's a sign that the government isn't doing nearly enough to address the problem. A protest - a peaceful protest especially - is a warning to the government that they serve the people, and that the law only binds people as long as they agree to be bound by it. When they turn violent, it's a sure sign the government's turned a blind eye.
[QUOTE=ChicagoMobster;51710054]Forgive my ignorance but has mass protest ever changed a presidents mind on a decision? Not trying to dismiss the protests, I fully support it, I'm just curious since iirc this is the biggest march in history .[/QUOTE] MLK, Bonus Army
I am just trying to understand what they are protesting about
[QUOTE=vrej;51710579]I am just trying to understand what they are protesting about[/QUOTE] What's so hard to understand? They feel that Trump is going to be a shitty president towards women and minorities.
[QUOTE=vrej;51710579]I am just trying to understand what they are protesting about[/QUOTE] Trump's pledge to defund Planned Parenthood, numerous proposed bills to restrict and effectively ban abortion, the elimination of the current healthcare program that may make getting birth control prohibitively expensive, Trump's bragging about sexually assaulting women, Trump's repeated objectification of women... It's expanded way beyond a "Womens' March" and more into "Fuck Off Trump March." It's more about expressing, visually, how little mandate Trump's government actually has. It's about quantifying exactly how many people will spend a day marching in protest of Trump's presidency. If the Dems can harness this kind of political fury for the midterms and 2020, Trump will get shredded alive. It was the largest nationwide single-day protest in US history. They're protesting TRUMP. It's not that hard to see.
[QUOTE=Pascall;51709379]It's basically a "why are they talking about this when they weren't around talking about THIS EVEN WORSE thing!".[/QUOTE] For those playing along at home, this is known as the "Fallacy of Relative Privation," and it is "dismissing an argument or complaint due to the existence of more important problems in the world, regardless of whether those problems bear relevance to the initial argument". It's a total non-argument that is not worth anybody's time.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;51710653]For those playing along at home, this is known as the "Fallacy of Relative Privation," and it is "dismissing an argument or complaint due to the existence of more important problems in the world, regardless of whether those problems bear relevance to the initial argument". It's a total non-argument that is not worth anybody's time.[/QUOTE] Going to have to bookmark this post. All my life I knew this was some sort of fallacy because it doesn't contribute to the argument, but I couldn't name it. They should really teach fallacies in high school.
Nothing highlights the stupidity of modern political discourse more than than Trump supporters demanding to know why people aren't being more cosmopolitan with their liberal beliefs
[QUOTE=Gamerman12;51708879]Trump's response: Loading Tweet... [URL]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/823150055418920960[/URL] Loading Tweet... [URL]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/823174199036542980[/URL] why do i get the feeling the former is his tweet and the latter is from someone else. can someone dig into the metadata and see if that's true?[/QUOTE] I really hope he keeps the bitter antagonistic attitude going and doesn't ever attempt to mature and reconcile with the opposition, it just makes him look like more of an asshat and gives people fuel to keep up their cause.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51710422]That's because you fail to grasp the point, and are making the mistake of seeing thousands or millions of individuals as one individual. Occupy, BLM, all of those movements are targeted against one specific type of injustice, but eventually became vehicles for people to express a general dissatisfaction with the government's inaction to solve the many associated problems. That's because people, believe it or not, are not a hivemind. You know what I think is happening when protests become violent and turn to riots? When storefronts get smashed, cars get torched, and people get hurt? It's a sign that the government isn't doing nearly enough to address the problem. A protest - a peaceful protest especially - is a warning to the government that they serve the people, and that the law only binds people as long as they agree to be bound by it. When they turn violent, it's a sure sign the government's turned a blind eye.[/QUOTE] The government must agree and acquiesce with the demands from protesters or the protestors have a legitimate right to violently riot, destroying the property of innocent people. OK. I'm sorry, but we disagree on such a fundamental level that I'm not even sure how to express it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51711757]The government must agree and acquiesce with the demands from protesters or the protestors have a legitimate right to violently riot, destroying the property of innocent people. OK. I'm sorry, but we disagree on such a fundamental level that I'm not even sure how to express it.[/QUOTE] Not so sure it's a matter of agreement as much as a matter of understanding.
[QUOTE=sgman91;51711757]The government must agree and acquiesce with the demands from protesters or the protestors have a legitimate right to violently riot, destroying the property of innocent people. OK. I'm sorry, but we disagree on such a fundamental level that I'm not even sure how to express it.[/QUOTE] It's more a case of the government must understand that if they continue to ignore these people and not acquiesce to their demands-- the things they're out there protesting about in the first place-- or at the bare minimum listen to them and what their demands are, then there are [i]going[/i] to be riots, killings, destruction of property, etc. as a natural consequence. You can only piss people off and marginalize them so much before they finally decide that enough is enough and it's time to do something about it. And this is in fact an entirely natural phenomenon, as I said before. If peaceful protest fails, what's the alternative supposed to be? There is none. You can only write so many letters to your congressmen, make so many phone calls, turn in so many petitions, deliver so many speeches, hold so many million man marches, etc. before it becomes clear that this approach isn't working and nobody was even paying attention to you or taking you seriously in the first place. And that's when violence happens. It boils down to: "Look, we tried to be diplomatic and civil about this. We tried expressing our anger and our frustration, we tried to get you to listen to us and to hear out our grievances, we tried to get you to pay attention... but you didn't. We tried going the legal, peaceful route, but it failed. Since we couldn't inconvenience you enough nonviolently to get you to care, perhaps if we start threatening your lives, your property, and the things you actually care about, then you'll start caring and start paying attention to us." It has happened this way again and again throughout human history in societies all across the world. If it continues here in the United States, things will be no different. Go ahead and strip 30 million Americans of their healthcare by repealing the ACA (including something like 4+ million children). Start restricting the civil rights women should have concerning autonomy over their own bodies. Start persecuting Muslims and other religious/ethnic minorities. Keep ignoring the needs and wants of the American people, in other words, while at the same time antagonizing large numbers of them. Go ahead and help create a group of people who feel like they've got almost nothing to lose and who are fed up with the way things are going because the government isn't looking out for them and doesn't care about them. Don't be surprised when some of them get violent over this though.
[media]https://youtu.be/nnERQIhsCFc[/media] Goddamn some people are fucking insane.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51712466][media]https://youtu.be/nnERQIhsCFc[/media] Goddamn some people are fucking insane.[/QUOTE] Wrong protest.
[QUOTE=Plattack;51712470]Wrong protest.[/QUOTE] Wrong! Fake news!
[QUOTE=Govna;51712271]It's more a case of the government must understand that if they continue to ignore these people and not acquiesce to their demands-- the things they're out there protesting about in the first place-- or at the bare minimum listen to them and what their demands are, then there are [I]going[/I] to be riots, killings, destruction of property, etc. as a natural consequence. You can only piss people off and marginalize them so much before they finally decide that enough is enough and it's time to do something about it. And this is in fact an entirely natural phenomenon, as I said before. If peaceful protest fails, what's the alternative supposed to be? There is none. You can only write so many letters to your congressmen, make so many phone calls, turn in so many petitions, deliver so many speeches, hold so many million man marches, etc. before it becomes clear that this approach isn't working and nobody was even paying attention to you or taking you seriously in the first place. And that's when violence happens. It boils down to: "Look, we tried to be diplomatic and civil about this. We tried expressing our anger and our frustration, we tried to get you to listen to us and to hear out our grievances, we tried to get you to pay attention... but you didn't. We tried going the legal, peaceful route, but it failed. Since we couldn't inconvenience you enough nonviolently to get you to care, perhaps if we start threatening your lives, your property, and the things you actually care about, then you'll start caring and start paying attention to us." It has happened this way again and again throughout human history in societies all across the world. If it continues here in the United States, things will be no different. Go ahead and strip 30 million Americans of their healthcare by repealing the ACA (including something like 4+ million children). Start restricting the civil rights women should have concerning autonomy over their own bodies. Start persecuting Muslims and other religious/ethnic minorities. Keep ignoring the needs and wants of the American people, in other words, while at the same time antagonizing large numbers of them. Go ahead and help create a group of people who feel like they've got almost nothing to lose and who are fed up with the way things are going because the government isn't looking out for them and doesn't care about them. Don't be surprised when some of them get violent over this though.[/QUOTE] Your argument rests on two assumptions that I disagree with: 1) That the protestors have legitimate arguments that deserve to be listened to (BLM, for example, had crazy solutions for what they saw as problems. There was no middle ground.) 2) That protestors have a right to their way without going through the democratic process. (You don't. There are LOTS of things I want that aren't happening in the country right now. Having my ideas not be put into effect doesn't mean that my violence is legitimate. It means that I'm currently the minority and need to put more effort into convincing people to join my view.)
[QUOTE=sgman91;51712857]Your argument rests on two assumptions that I disagree with: 1) That the protestors have legitimate arguments that deserve to be listened to (BLM, for example, had crazy solutions for what they saw as problems. There was no middle ground.) 2) That protestors have a right to their way without going through the democratic process. (You don't. There are LOTS of things I want that aren't happening in the country right now. Having my ideas not be put into effect doesn't mean that my violence is legitimate. It means that I'm currently the minority and need to put more effort into convincing people to join my view.)[/QUOTE] He wasn't saying that they have any right or legitimate claim to use violence against the state - he is just saying that they [I]will[/I] use violence against the state. Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. Every state claims a monopoly on legitimate violence - military, police, etc. Whether or not, in this fictional scenario, people have a legitimate right to violence is down to individual opinion - clearly those who agree with the issue at hand will agree that it is legitimate, while those who disagree will not. Whether or not political violence is legitimate depends on whether it succeeded or failed. Was the American Revolution "illegitimate political violence against the state," or was it legitimate? If the revolutionaries had failed, it'd be a bookmark in a history book about violent rebels acting out against the state. Until it becomes history, the question of whether or not political violence is "legitimate" is 100% opinion. It's not legitimate until it is. There's also the problem of whitewashing - the Civil Rights movement was accompanied by mass race riots across the country, and yet it's been washed clean of any association with that and made to seem like it was about MLK just saying good speeches and marching around. Govna is saying that violence, whether you or I view it as legitimate or illegitimate, is historically used when non-violent protest is ignored - and he's totally right. I haven't stated my opinion on the use of political violence, which I almost always dissuade and disagree with, but you're mixing up explanation with acceptance.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;51712945]He wasn't saying that they have any right or legitimate claim to use violence against the state - he is just saying that they [I]will[/I] use violence against the state. Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. Every state claims a monopoly on legitimate violence - military, police, etc. Whether or not, in this fictional scenario, people have a legitimate right to violence is down to individual opinion - clearly those who agree with the issue at hand will agree that it is legitimate, while those who disagree will not. Whether or not political violence is legitimate depends on whether it succeeded or failed. Was the American Revolution "illegitimate political violence against the state," or was it legitimate? If the revolutionaries had failed, it'd be a bookmark in a history book about violent rebels acting out against the state. Until it becomes history, the question of whether or not political violence is "legitimate" is 100% opinion. It's not legitimate until it is. There's also the problem of whitewashing - the Civil Rights movement was accompanied by mass race riots across the country, and yet it's been washed clean of any association with that and made to seem like it was about MLK just saying good speeches and marching around. Govna is saying that violence, whether you or I view it as legitimate or illegitimate, is historically used when non-violent protest is ignored - and he's totally right. I haven't stated my opinion on the use of political violence, which I almost always dissuade and disagree with, but you're mixing up explanation with acceptance.[/QUOTE] The comment he responded to was about the legitimate or non-legitimate nature of the political violence. I assumed that his comment was relevant to that point. Sorry if I was mistaken, but that's the line of discussion that was happening.
[QUOTE=Plattack;51712470]Wrong protest.[/QUOTE] Ah my bad, I should have looked at the dates. Kinda got abit sexist there just seeing more women and thinking it had to be the Women's march. :v:
Ok so [T]https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/738/31606516984_6f29156427_c.jpg[/T] [T]http://www.decaturish.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/08-decatur-ga-contingent-womens-march.jpg[/T] [T]https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/gettyimages-632279784.jpg?w=720[/T] [T]https://puu.sh/twyfy/b44d90ba11.png[/T] Why the hell is the Hijab being used as a symbol of freedom, rebellion and the woman's power.
It's not the hijab in particular, I think it's supposed to represent a Muslim woman as the "We the People" campaign seems to emphasize "[URL="http://time.com/4639618/trump-inauguration-shepard-fairey/"]vulnerable[/URL]" demographics.
Nice to see such solid ground work against corruption and bigotry
Its against the bigotry of Muslims/immigrants/etc.
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;51713440]Ok so [T]https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/738/31606516984_6f29156427_c.jpg[/T] [T]http://www.decaturish.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/08-decatur-ga-contingent-womens-march.jpg[/T] [T]https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/gettyimages-632279784.jpg?w=720[/T] [T]https://puu.sh/twyfy/b44d90ba11.png[/T] Why the hell is the Hijab being used as a symbol of freedom, rebellion and the woman's power.[/QUOTE] because religious freedom is a core tenet of modern democracy??? many people choose to wear the hijab you know
It's not really any worse than American flag underwear
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51713876]It's not really any worse than American flag underwear[/QUOTE] A better example is stereotypical conservative Christian women who obsess over how to dress "decently." If people want to wear long dresses that cover their knees, or they want to wear hijabs, or they want to wear black ties and white shirts, or they want to wear nothing but a loose piece of fabric over a sports bra, who cares, that's their right. Whether baptist, Muslim, Mormon, or anything - that's their religious freedom. I can't stand how many Christians I know who say we should ban the hijab (of all things) but would freak the fuck out if someone said we should ban conservative Christian clothing. Which is idiotic, because both breach religious freedoms. Governmenr should have no say in how people dress. Frustrates me so much when people pretend it's all about women's rights and that all women are forced to. Simultaneously removes women's agency and implies that the solution to domestic violence is having the government ban makeup to expose the bruises instead of tackling the actual root causes.
I will never understand the calls to ban religious headwear. I [i]strongly disagree[/i] with religious traditions of modesty, but I understand that my feelings on it simply don't fucking matter to other people. "I don't like this, it should be banned" is just a mindset I struggle to grasp.
[QUOTE=fulgrim;51715492]I will never understand the calls to ban religious headwear. I [i]strongly disagree[/i] with religious traditions of modesty, but I understand that my feelings on it simply don't fucking matter to other people. "I don't like this, it should be banned" is just a mindset I struggle to grasp.[/QUOTE] Ugh, I'm getting flashbacks to simpler times when Republicans were calling for the ban of religious headwear in school, but allowing religious neckwear.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.