Support NeoGAF

[TheLaughingStock]

Itself with centrists and conservatives like the Clintons and Obama. There's a reason why people are so fucking mad. The people who promise change never deliver it.

I'm not mad and oh they deliver change to my bank account for sure. I always lol when I look at the gains coming out of recession in America and policy bias for things like retirement. Leftists and centrists are total dummies. That's why I like the right because the people there get decent results. Look at all the laws passed on abortion for example recently at local level. These people seem dumb and yeah suicide/drug use is out of control, but they do pretty good for themselves all things considered. Whereas, minorities and low-income, are just lol. Perfect example of folks who will let someone smile in their face while they shit in their hand. Gullible.

 

[Link]

I'm not mad and oh they deliver change to my bank account for sure. I always lol when I look at the gains coming out of recession in America and policy bias for things like retirement. Leftists and centrists are total dummies. That's why I like the right because the people there get decent results. Look at all the laws passed on abortion for example recently at local level. These people seem dumb and yeah suicide/drug use is out of control, but they do pretty good for themselves all things considered. Whereas, minorities and low-income, are just lol. Perfect example of folks who will let someone smile in their face while they shit in their hand. Gullible.

You're either doing a great Trump impression or your username is perfectly apt.

 

[Keri]

Protests need to disruptive to be effective, people who claim anger to protests likely never supported the causes to begin with.

Aren't those exactly the people you want to reach, though? I mean, if you're just trying to appeal to people who already agree with you, what's the point? Isn't the point of protesting suppose to be to reach people who don't know about your message and convince them that something needs to change?

 

[Kinyou]

I mean ultimately though who cares. It's 15 people burning a flag.

I'm amazed we have giant therads dedicated to telling oppressed people to lighten up and not take offense to racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic jokes told about them which frequently dehunanize them and we call it SJWs and outrage culture but a few guys burn a flag and all of a sudden it's defcon 5.


It's an inanimate object with no feelings.

Who is turning it into defcon 5? I'm just wondering what they hope to achieve by doing it.

 

[Aaronology]

I wonder how you would have managed during civil rights movement or the stonewall riots

Are you implying the civil rights movement was effective due to violence against white people by the African American community?

 

[gutter_trash]

I wonder how you would have managed during civil rights movement or the stonewall riots

Apples And Oranges.

Register to vote and vote.

This is nothing like the late 50s or 1960s

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Can't wait to see what you folks will be saying after May Day.

Read your history. We wouldn't even have the standard 8 hour work day now if it weren't for protests and riots.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Who is turning it into defcon 5? I'm just wondering what they hope to achieve by doing it.

Sorry I used your post as a launching point, but look back, a few people are acting as if burning a flag is tantamount to spitting in the face of soldiers.

edit: Nevermind it was only two, don't know why it felt like more my mistake,

 

[Captin Quacker]

Are you implying the civil rights movement was effective due to violence against white people by the African American community?

No but violence played a huge part in the movement and don't think there weren't optunistic people back then that took advantage of the chaos

Apples And Oranges.

Register to vote and vote.

This is nothing like the late 50s or 1960s

For alot minorities it ain't that different

 

[Crosseyes]

Are you implying the civil rights movement was effective due to violence against white people by the African American community?

The threat of it if society did not accommodate and change if the civil rights movement was denied did play a very important and effective part. Casual racist and traditional thinkers who didn't really want to give the black community their civil rights were only going to be convinced that it wasn't worth having their cities shut down and violence erupting by standing firm to their beliefs.

And the black community would've been morally in their rights to rebel and do so if it had gone that way.

 

[Jmanunknown]

Apples And Oranges.

Register to vote and vote.

This is nothing like the late 50s or 1960s

This is bs do not act like this country makes it easy for everyone to vote. One party in this country has said loudly, proudly, and openly that they want to suppress voting because it helps them win elections. Also considering that important parts of the Voting rights act of 1965 were just voided by the supreme court you might want to rethink your stance on its nothing like the 50's or the 1960's.

 

[PopeReal]

Thank God we have people to tell us that throwing rocks is wrong. I don't think any of us would have figured that out otherwise.

And if you ignore the the gains made throughout our history by violent protest, than you would then be correct that it does no good. But that denial kind of looks silly considering... well history.

I would respect people more if they would admit that are fine with the status quo. The tired "convince me to be on your side" bullshit is usually disingenuous. I have seen plenty of peaceful Klan rallies. So they convinced you, right? I mean that is what you want. It isn't if the message is right or wrong. You want them to behave.

 

[SimpleDesign]

Openly advocating violence now. Great.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Openly advocating violence now. Great.

You literally wouldn't have a guaranteed 8 hour work day now without violence.

If you're reducing everything to simply "is it violent" in order to judge it, you're denying the thousands of violent events in history that gave you the lifestyle and country you have right now. What's more important is knowing if you're for what's right for the country.

I don't agree with the basic rock throwing and bullshit from some people in this story, since I don't see it achieving or meaning anything, but I consider threats of deportation, building a wall between neighboring countries, and suggesting protestors at events be attacked as the much worse violence against people.

 

[PopeReal]

I am not sure how pointing out that a large group of Americans have reacted the same to both peaceful and non-peaceful protests lately when it comes to how much they care about minorities in this country is advocating violence. They are apathetic but take the time to lecture how to protest now and then.

 

[Christopher]

You literally wouldn't have a guaranteed 8 hour work day now without violence.

If you're reducing everything to simply "is it violent" in order to judge it, you're denying the thousands of violent events in history that gave you the lifestyle and country you have right now. What's more important is knowing if you're for what's right for the country.

I don't agree with the basic rock throwing and bullshit from some people in this story, since I don't see it achieving or meaning anything, but I consider threats of deportation, building a wall between neighboring countries, and suggesting protestors at events be attacked as the much worse violence against people.

What did this protest accomplish?

 

[notworksafe]

Who is turning it into defcon 5? I'm just wondering what they hope to achieve by doing it.

Well Defcon 5 is the lowest level of alert so that seems like an appropriate description

 

[MHWilliams]

Aren't those exactly the people you want to reach, though? I mean, if you're just trying to appeal to people who already agree with you, what's the point? Isn't the point of protesting suppose to be to reach people who don't know about your message and convince them that something needs to change?

This speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of protest.

Protest is collective, disruptive action to highlight the issues people have with a specific status quo. There are two aims: to tell those in power that your group and grievances are large enough that they need to be addressed and to show others who may have the same grievances that they are not alone. That's it.

Any other additional knock on effects are a bonus.

Protest, has and will always be, a poor method of attempting to sway hearts and minds for two reasons. The first is that a protest's message is muddled to an outside observer: you don't have time or the ability to bring the nuance needed to change minds. The second is that most people enjoy the status quo, so even the most non-violent protests will actually add to the people who will turn against you.

Like this:

Malcolm X stares down the NYPD in Harlem. Completely non-violent. People hated him for it.

BLM die-ins are similar.

Your question is akin to asking, why are they using "that hammer to put in that screw?" It's not a screw. It's a nail. The screwdriver in this situation is direct outreach or media action, whether through interviews, articles, or documentaries. That what changes minds, not protest. That's not what protest is about.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

What did this protest accomplish?

We'll find out, right? We've had a race for president with constant protests and threats of violence. It'll keep happening. This will ultimately go somewhere, like everything else in history.

 

[Christopher]

We'll find out, right? We've had a race for president with constant protests and threats of violence. It'll keep happening. This will ultimately go somewhere, like everything else in history.

Answer the question - what did THIS protest accomplish?

 

[MHWilliams]

Answer the question - what did THIS protest accomplish?

See above.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Answer the question - what did THIS protest accomplish?

Why are you asking me this? I wasn't there, and you have the resources at your hands to find out for yourself.

One thing it did accomplish is let America know there are a whole lot of Mexicans with a lot of feelings toward this particular nominee.

 

[PopeReal]

Answer the question - what did THIS protest accomplish?

What does it mean to you? We can't answer that question for you.

Did a protest that was peaceful a few weeks ago that you never even heard about accomplish something? Does it count?

What is their message? Why are they angry? Do you care?

Why do others have to tell you what you know yourself?

 

[Lo_Fi]

People like rioters even less than they do Clinton/Trump/police/etc. All they do is look bad for everyone involved.

I agree, sports fans should really quit rioting when their favorite sports team wins/loses.

 

[Bubbavelli]

One of the more depressing posts I've seen on this forum.
This kind of disrespect for the country that has given us so much is painful to see.

It isn't "just a flag"; not in the US and not in many other countries where that flag represents all the hardships, victories, and brave citizens who lost their lives defending it.

But go ahead, burn it and stomp on it if it helps you feel better that some people have opposing political views...

...smh
As somebody who has lost family while they were defending this country: fuck flag burners.

A flag that represents a country built around slavery and oppression. A flag that represents colonialism in the very countries it tries to save. A flag that represents inherent American values and rights that were in no way intended for the very same people who protest/burn it

Im sorry for your loss

 

[Keri]

Protest is collective, disruptive action to highlight the issues people have with a specific status quo. There are two aims: to tell those in power that your group and grievances are large enough that they need to be addressed and to show others who may have the same grievances that they are not alone. That's it.

Thanks for your perspective. I suppose this protest would have been successful, in letting other anti-Trump individuals know they are not alone, but it certainly didn't achieve the first goal. It seems the amount of Trump supporters always far outnumbers the amount of counter protestors. Also, in this case, there is no one in power, to communicate to. The Republican Party would be that group, I think, but they already don't like Trump. It's mostly up to the American voters now and, because of that, methods which garner public support are going to be the most crucial in stopping Trump. (And methods which gain negative attention, the most dangerous).

Also, when it comes to using violence to achieve goals, I think there are really only two options: (1) Incite violence against you, to garner sympathy and highlight the monstrosity of the other side; or (2) Have sufficient resources to use enough violence, to terrorize the other side into submission. Neither of these options work for anti-Trump activists. They don't have the resources (and hopefully not the inclination) for the second option and, if anything, they're doing the opposite of option number 1.

 

[LosDaddie]

For alot minorities it ain't that different

And for a lot of minorities, like myself, today is different than the pre-Civil Rights era

 

[Vice]

What makes for an "effective" protest?

Gathering attention basically. Attention give an opportunity for change by placing oressure on politicians in a way they can't ignore. Look at the Montgomery Bus Boycotts, only readon people cared was because the city was losing money and that got politicians attention.
Same for all the other large protest movements. They get so much attention they can't be contained without at least listening to protestors. Often that means ruining the day/mildly annoying a lot of innocent people because then they'll complain to.

 

[MHWilliams]

Thanks for your perspective. I suppose this protest would have been successful, in letting other anti-Trump individuals know they are not alone, but it certainly didn't achieve the first goal. It seems the amount of Trump supporters always far outnumbers the amount of counter protestors. Also, in this case, there is no one in power, to communicate to. The Republican Party would be that group, I think, but they already don't like Trump. It's mostly up to the American voters now and, because of that, methods which garner public support are going to be the most crucial in stopping Trump. (And methods which gain negative attention, the most dangerous).

Also, when it comes to using violence to achieve goals, I think there are really only two options: (1) Incite violence against you, to garner sympathy and highlight the monstrosity of the other side; or (2) Have sufficient resources to use enough violence, to terrorize the other side into submission. Neither of these options work for anti-Trump activists. They don't have the resources (and hopefully not the inclination) for the second option and, if anything, they're doing the opposite of option number 1.

It likely was aimed at the Republican Party, offering the sentiment of "this might be much worse in the general election than you realized". Not liking Trump and actually doing something about the situation is a wide gulf.

But again, showing solidarity is probably the reason many are protesting.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/29/politics/donald-trump-protests-republican-convention-california/

"I came out here to support my people and my father," Adrian Olivares, a 23-year-old college student who was draped in a Mexican flag, told CNN. He said his goal in protesting Trump's appearance was to display his country's flag "as loud as I can."

"He's very successful," Olivares said. "And for Trump to come out and say we're just a bunch of rapists, f--- him."

Frank Lara, 30, a fourth-grade teacher in San Francisco, brought a Trump pinata with him. He said he was most concerned about Trump's comments on immigration.

"We're upset at the hate speech and division that this man, Donald Trump, is saying in a time of crisis," Lara said. "We're out here to make sure that he does not feel comfortable just saying what he is saying."

Nancy Mancias, a Code Pink protester, was kicked out of the convention after yelling into a bullhorn that the Republicans should "dump Trump," causing a stir inside the already energized state convention.

As others have said, if you're willing to overlook Trump's own statements and actions to vote for him, then you were already far more sympathetic to his cause. And as I've said before, even the lightest protest will cause the opposite of your option number 1. That's not what protest is for.

You can decry violent actions, while understanding what leads to them and overall discontent being expressed.

 

[Keri]

It likely was aimed at the Republican Party, offering the sentiment of "this might be much worse in the general election than you realized".

The Republican Party is literally doing all they can to stop Trump. I mean, they have Cruz and Kasich aligned to try to vie for a contested convention. If the Republican Party was the focus, they are preaching to the choir. The only way these protests are useful, is if they encourage people to vote against Trump and I'm just not sure they are doing that.

And as I've said before, even the lightest protest will cause the opposite of your option number 1. That's not what protest is for.

There is going to be a difference in negative reactions, between peaceful protests and violent ones. Violence isn't meaningless. It will affect the extent of the response to the protest.

 

[DragonSworne]

The Republican Party is literally doing all they can to stop Trump. I mean, they have Cruz and Kasich aligned to try to vie for a contested convention. If the Republican Party was the focus, they are preaching to the choir. The only way these protests are useful, is if they encourage people to vote against Trump and I'm just not sure they are doing that.



There is going to be a difference in negative reactions, between peaceful protests and violent ones. Violence isn't meaningless. It will affect the extent of the response to the protest.

They are doing everything? Not even close. If the Republican Party didn't want Trump to win, they could support Hillary or disband.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

The Republican Party is literally doing all they can to stop Trump.

Not at all. They could completely distance themselves from him. They could just kill the party and start a new one.

You're thinking with the mindset that US politics will forever exist exactly as it is now. We've had huge, YUGE sweeping changes in our political past based on moments and people like Trump. I'm feeling like we're going to see another one this year, or we'll get through this fine with Trump being a footnote in our past, like many horrible presidential candidates in our history that were huge deals in the year they ran, but no one even talks about them anymore.

 

[Keri]

They are doing everything? Not even close. If the Republican Party didn't want Trump to win, they could support Hillary or disband.

Even if the Republican party did do either of those things, it's unlikely to stop Trumps campaign. He has endless resources and does not need the Republican Party's support, to continue his campaign. In that scenario, we'd all still be in the same position: Trump v. Clinton. And it will still come down to American voters. Because the Republican Party likely knows that, there's no benefit to them in disbanding or supporting Clinton. That just ruins their future prospects more. I mean, I guess you're right that they're not doing everything, but I don't think those options would actually help.

 

[dapperbandit]

The acrobatics being performed to deflect criticism here are impressive.

First of all, let's just take all these posts conflating this protest with the civil rights movement and throw them in the trash where they belong.

The following are neither civil nor universal human rights:

a) the right to wealth
b) the right to violate immigration laws
c) the right to freedom from the views and opinions of political opponents
d) the right to commit vandalism or assault because you are angry

Protests and social causes are not equal. There is a difference between Suffragettes breaking windows in pursuit of voting rights and modern leftists breaking things because, despite none of their civil or human rights being disputed, an opponent said nasty things about Mexican immigration.

Let's also discuss some realities. Protest movements have not, in a shocking exclusive reveal, uncovered Trump's unsavoury opinions, policies or positions. He has said those things himself, and the media has amplified that to the whole country. Does that mean more sympathizers have heard his message? Yes. Does it mean vastly more critics have heard it too? Also yes. There is no scoop here, nothing people haven't known for months. Millions of people tuned into the debates and tens if not hundreds of thousands have watched his rallies, or at least, the bits where he said the bad stuff. All of that is being broadcast by an excitable media for so long now that it has, and still is to an extent, dominating the national news. It even started bleeding over into this forum when for some time there were anywhere between 2-4 Trump topics on the front page.

Did violent protest initiate, amplify or encourage national discussion? Did it fuck. And it won't now or in the future.The discussion was already happening long ago. Which leads me to the next point.

The odds of Trump winning the General Election are slim. Even if he did win the general, the American political system has this wonderous, marvelous new invention called the Separation of Powers, which would make it even more unlikely that Trump could implement any of his policies, in the unlikely event that he won the general. He would be blocked every step of the way and it's not outside of the realm of possibility that he could be impeached just because people hate him that much. (Again, he did that, not the people throwing rocks).

I'm not going to comment on the perceptions of how people might have perceived the protest. I think it's enough to point out that one is not disqualified from an opinion because one did not participate in the protest.

Please pay no heed to armchair revolutionaries who tell you your vote does not matter. Again, this is a conflation of revolutionary politics and the actual context of the 2016 General Election. It will be easy for you to defeat Trump nationwide and put his campaign to bed because the majority of the electorate is opposed to him.

Lastly, the implication that it is racist to suggest leftists not commit violence or property damage is a worthless smokescreen intended to shield themselves from any wrong doing by using the R-word to strong arm the argument away from the inconvenient interjections from moderates who live in real life.

 

[TomWaitsForNoMan]

.

 

[johnny956]

Apples And Oranges.

Register to vote and vote.

This is nothing like the late 50s or 1960s

If only registering to vote wasn't getting harder and harder especially for miniorities

 

[O.v.e.rlord]

.

I like where you are going with this. Maybe expand this a little and lets see what it turns into

 

[Chie Satonaka]

I was originally done with this thread when I left work on Friday, but I decided to come back to respond because why not. I'll address each of these three points in order.

Sure, and that's why you're here trying to convince people not to look down on the rioters. If the opinion of others didn't truly matter, why does it bother you so much that we're not all singing their praises? Maybe it's because narratives do matter?

Nope. You're just projecting. I've posted plenty about what a POS Trump is and how damaging his campaign is. In fact, I've even taken issue with all the people here that have been cheering him on to win the nomination just because they want to see the GOP implode. Just because I also happen to take issue with the handwaving of violence and dumb reasoning doesn't mean I'm not sympathetic to the issues that are being protested. We all agree Trump sucks, why do you also want it to be an echo-chamber with regards to how we believe displeasure toward his campaign should be expressed?

What are you even trying to say with this shit? That we're all on the same side of the bigots and anti-progressive crowd but are just pussyfooting around the issue?

Nope. I'm not telling people not to look down on these people. I never said that once. What I've been saying here is there's a very particular reason "riots" happen when dealing with political causes, especially ones that are involved with racist, sexist demagogues. I don't care if you think they're the scum of the earth, quite frankly. If someone who can't find a job and has no prospects went to rob a store because he had literally no other way to feed his family, I would be critical of his actions while understanding why it happened. For whatever reason, that's not what happens with protesters, especially when there's the possibility that normal people can be inconvenienced and property might be destroyed. If that's not you, fine. But it's always curious that I see so many people in threads like this furious behind the actions of a few when they don't seem to be nearly as upset about the injustice that minorities face on the day to day, as I stated previously. The hypocrisy burns me to my core, because it doesn't have to be that way.

I'll end this by saying I'm not a coward. If I feel someone's a racist, I have no problem coming out and saying that. My statement still stands. The same handwaving I see here and other places in issues such as this one for the actual problem and not the result of it would probably be very similar to what people faced in the civil rights movement, sans slurs. You don't have to be a card carrying racist to be comfortable in a system that disenfranchises minorities. It's kinda why social change and social justice are such hot button issues; people who aren't dyed in the wool bigots don't have any problem with this country as a whole, so they fight to protect it without understanding that things aren't so awesome for people of color. And when you attempt to unpack that, they're met with hostility and anger. Again, if that's not you, whatever.

Anyway, I'm done here. Other people have articulated the same thing I have in multiple posts, and it's the weekend, so I'm gonna go do something fun.

 

[Captin Quacker]

Anyway, I'm done here. Other people have articulated the same thing I have in multiple posts, and it's the weekend, so I'm gonna go do something fun.

Good idea

Gotta save some for the next protest thread when these same arguments pop up again

 

[smokeandmirrors]

One of the more depressing posts I've seen on this forum.
This kind of disrespect for the country that has given us so much is painful to see.

It isn't "just a flag"; not in the US and not in many other countries where that flag represents all the hardships, victories, and brave citizens who lost their lives defending it.

But go ahead, burn it and stomp on it if it helps you feel better that some people have opposing political views...

...smh
As somebody who has lost family while they were defending this country: fuck flag burners.

And it represents all the bad too. It's protected speech. Deal with it.

 

[Hexa]

And it represents all the bad too. It's protected speech. Deal with it.

So is calling everyone that burns flags dumbfuck assholes. Deal with it.
It's not like he called for flag burning to be banned. It very clearly and absolutely does fall under free speech and no one should ever face punishment for doing so. But if one wants to look down on flag burners as despicable human beings, that's perfectly acceptable stance to take, and if they wish to convey that opinion, they absolutely have the right to do so.

 

[Pepboy]

The acrobatics being performed to deflect criticism here are impressive.

[...]

Lastly, the implication that it is racist to suggest leftists not commit violence or property damage is a worthless smokescreen intended to shield themselves from any wrong doing by using the R-word to strong arm the argument away from the inconvenient interjections from moderates who live in real life.

Excellent post. I can understand why protestors might want to protest, and I think they should be allowed to in a way that does not incite violence. You do not have to be located close to a politician's rally if you wish to protest it. In the same way freedom of speech does not give one the right to incite panic by shouting fire in a theater.

Or another way to put it, you have a right to say what you wish, but no right to force others to listen. Rally goers have a right to attend a public meeting unmolested, even if we don't approve of that rally.

Sure we can all understand what might lead to this sort of violent protest. But that does not mean it is the least bit more acceptable. There were posters on the last page claiming that we have all benefited from the violent protests in the past. This is historical self-justification in its finest -- we don't know what North America would be like had British rule continued, we don't know what society would be like if millions of Native Americans had not been slaughtered. Just because things could be worse does not justify violence.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

So is calling everyone that burns flags dumbfuck assholes. Deal with it.
It's not like he called for flag burning to be banned. It very clearly and absolutely does fall under free speech and no one should ever face punishment for doing so. But if one wants to look down on flag burners as despicable human beings, that's perfectly acceptable stance to take, and if they wish to convey that opinion, they absolutely have the right to do so.

Yeah but the appeal to emotion with the sob story is ridiculous and unnecessary.

 

[Hexa]

Yeah but the appeal to emotion with the sob story is ridiculous and unnecessary.

If you're referring to "As somebody who has lost family while they were defending this country" then I disagree with you completely. It describes succinctly and clearly where he's coming from and why he holds the opinion that he does.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

If you're referring to "As somebody who has lost family while they were defending this country" then I disagree with you completely. It describes succinctly and clearly where he's coming from and why he holds the opinion that he does.

I've had family members lost to "defending the flag" too. I still support flag burning. It's just fabric. its silly to get upset over.

If you have to get upset over something get upset over people treating protests and the right to protest as a bad thing or not worthwhile or how people are completely okay with fascists coming to power after we lost people to preventing the spread of fascism in Europe...

 

[Pepboy]

Yeah but the appeal to emotion with the sob story is ridiculous and unnecessary.

Yes, because why introduce an appeal to emotion when protesting something? Reminding others that many people have sacrificed their lives for the ideals and safety we are privileged with is not irrelevant. I'm guessing you also disagree with the BLM "die-in" protests as well, if appeals to emotions should play no role in protesting?

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Yes, because why introduce an appeal to emotion when protesting something? Reminding others that many people have sacrificed their lives for the ideals and safety we are privileged with is not irrelevant. I'm guessing you also disagree with the BLM "die-in" protests as well, if appeals to emotions should play no role in protesting?

On the contrary. I completely agree with their protests. I take issue with the appeals to emotion against why flag burners are terrible people.

Systemic issues of racism >>>> issues of burning fabric

 

[Pepboy]

On the contrary. I completely agree with their protests. I take issue with the appeals to emotion against why flag burners are terrible people.

Systemic issues of racism >>>> issues of burning fabric

Sorry I misunderstood, I didn't realize you chose your principles of protest based on whether you agree with the underlying issue or not. Hopefully we can all just agree with your view of the world and use appeals to emotion only when it's something you feel strongly about.

 

[Hexa]

I've had family members lost to "defending the flag" too. I still support flag burning. It's just fabric. its silly to get upset over.

If you have to get upset over something get upset over people treating protests and the right to protest as a bad thing or not worthwhile or how people are completely okay with fascists coming to power after we lost people to preventing the spread of fascism in Europe...

Symbols have meaning beyond their physical construction, and the emotional value they hold is not something trivial or to just be put down. If I went after someone waving around the confederate flag and they responded with "It's just fabric. Its silly to get upset over" I'd consider them a fucking twat. If that's something someone wants to get upset over and convey the reasons that they're so upset, then more power to them. Everyone has things that resonate with them. To say they should be focusing on something else instead of what matters to them in response to a specific instance is just a lighter form of relative privation.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Sorry I misunderstood, I didn't realize you chose your principles of protest based on whether you agree with the underlying issue or not. Hopefully we can all just agree with your view of the world and use appeals to emotion only when it's something you feel strongly about.

only people who get so emotional over fabric made in china.

also we should. then we wouldn't have to worry about donald trump ever getting anywhere or any other fascists for that matter

Symbols have meaning beyond their physical construction, and the emotional value they hold is not something trivial or to just be put down. If I went after someone waving around the confederate flag and they responded with "It's just fabric. Its silly to get upset over" I'd consider them a fucking twat. If that's something someone wants to get upset over and convey the reasons that they're so upset, then more power to them. Everyone has things that resonate with them. To say they should be focusing on something else instead of what matters to them in response to a specific instance is just a lighter form of relative privation.

alright them im a fucking twat

good day