But let's not turn a blind eye to the influence of special interests and social movements. Much of what makes rich, western countries so attractive came out of the struggle of numerous social movements over the centuries:
- anti-slavery movement - anti-racist movements (e.g., the anti-Apartheid movement where the Sullivan Code had a huge impact) - feminist movements - the union movement - farmer cooperative movements and cooperative movements in general - various peace and disarmament movements - the environmental and ecological movements
Protest can be very effective. Non-violent civil disobedience requires a lot of thought and discipline and can be very effective.
Violent protest can lead to change but is risky. It can provoke backlash. It can taint the narrative so the cause may ultimately be delayed by years if not decades. Invariably there are innocent victims and surprise, surprise, the same arguments often used to justify American terrorism abroad do not work in a civil setting. Well it worked for decades for those who to drink alcohol, drive and kill people. But not so much these days.
Don't disagree with any of that and yet you still have not addressed my point either. If it is important enough to risk exposure to covid by gathering by the thousands in the streets for protest and riots, but you are willing to risk putting your vote in the mail, arriving at said location (even after seeing all of the videos of postal workers dumping ballots in garbage) and being processed correctly as opposed to showing up in person, pushing the buttons in real time and getting a verification print out of the vote you just submitted then your priorities are clearly displayed by actions and not words. However given the extreme perversion of our election process due to the complete hijacking by the Republican and Democrat parties, perhaps protest and looting is more effective than voting after all.
But let's not turn a blind eye to the influence of special interests and social movements. Much of what makes rich, western countries so attractive came out of the struggle of numerous social movements over the centuries:
- anti-slavery movement - anti-racist movements (e.g., the anti-Apartheid movement where the Sullivan Code had a huge impact) - feminist movements - the union movement - farmer cooperative movements and cooperative movements in general - various peace and disarmament movements - the environmental and ecological movements
Protest can be very effective. Non-violent civil disobedience requires a lot of thought and discipline and can be very effective.
Violent protest can lead to change but is risky. It can provoke backlash. It can taint the narrative so the cause may ultimately be delayed by years if not decades. Invariably there are innocent victims and surprise, surprise, the same arguments often used to justify American terrorism abroad do not work in a civil setting. Well it worked for decades for those who liked to drink alcohol, drive and kill people. But not so much these days.
A general sentiment that has been bugging me for awhile. If voting is the most important act of protest that you can do then it seems to me that you would want to insure your vote is counted by voting in person. If one can protest, loot and pillage in person because it means that much to them then maybe one should show up in person for the ultimate protest, no?
But Covid made vote-by-mail much more desirable. And the whole thing obfuscates the worry about actual vote tampering via rigged ballot-counting schemes. If we can get people to accept that an in-person vote is un-fuckupable, then any wild anomalies will be accepted without question.
Obfuscate sounds like an appropriate word for this response.
A general sentiment that has been bugging me for awhile. If voting is the most important act of protest that you can do then it seems to me that you would want to insure your vote is counted by voting in person. If one can protest, loot and pillage in person because it means that much to them then maybe one should show up in person for the ultimate protest, no?
But Covid made vote-by-mail much more desirable. And the whole thing obfuscates the worry about actual vote tampering via rigged ballot-counting schemes. If we can get people to accept that an in-person vote is un-fuckupable, then any wild anomalies will be accepted without question.
A general sentiment that has been bugging me for awhile. If voting is the most important act of protest that you can do then it seems to me that you would want to insure your vote is counted by voting in person. If one can protest, loot and pillage in person because it means that much to them then maybe one should show up in person for the ultimate protest, no?
