Not that poster, but judging by what the largest protests in the US ever - the George Floyd protests - achieved when it comes to police violence in the US (it’s the same or worse now), in the present age in the US merelly coming out and walking for a bit in your own time while holding a board up doesn’t seem to achieve anything.
Think of it from the point of view of the Political and Money “elites” in the US: they get zero direct negative impact from the riff-raff in their own time doing a big march against the elite’s puppet mango emperor, and there is no single Historical instance in the US were the lower classes rebelled against the upper classes and properly fucked them up, so the masses marching isn’t even a warning of increasing risk for them - they control the entire political system in the US and make sure whomever is in a position to get elected for a position of political power is always in their pocket, and do not fear the desinfranchised population because they never ever moved against them.
The murder of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare by a single person seems to have achieved more in terms of scaring the powerful than even the millions that came out demonstrating against the police killing of George Floyd.
(I bet that in a place like France, still today the masses coming out even if doing nothing but marching and holding some boards, are cause for concern amongst the “elites”)
I actually saw something quite similar in the UK when I lived there: the powerful just didn’t care because even large numbers of people doing some polite marching did not damage the interest of the elites and because they had no reason to be concerned with their personal safety because the plebes had never actually rebelled against the upper classes.
That said this situation in the US is even less concerning for the elites because the crowds are so firmly focused in the puppet and disregarding the puppet masters, that even very indirectly there is zero risk for the true powers.
Maybe as some other poster suggested, a general strike would be more effective.
Protests aren’t about the Political and Money “elites” as you put it because they don’t care no matter what.
You think they’d give a shit if what is happening in LA is happening everywhere? They’re like cockroaches that will skitter into hiding until it’s safe to come out and monopolize on the ruin.
Protests are about galvanizing support and building unity among the populace. The US has been so divided for so long and that division has been manipulated and grown to benefits those “elites”.
I do think a general strike may be effective but it’s unrealistic. A nationwide general strike would require massive financial and material support. Where will that come from?
They work on a smaller, union scale because they’re supported by the union and outside supporters that are not on strike. They work in other countries that have the social programs in place to support the people which is something the US does not have.
I keep seeing this repeated comparison to France but let’s look at that. France is a country a little smaller than the state of Texas with an adult population only slightly more than the total population of California.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say it’s a little easier to coordinate a general strike in a country with 1/6 the population of the US spread across an area 1/15 the size of the US.
Protests in the US are getting bigger and more widespread but it’s like a slow wave, it takes time to build.
Maybe a protest that goes longer than 2 hours, on a weekend, where everyone dispereses and goes back home to watch the game? Maybe one that causes actual resistence and pushback? Not one that amounts to a community day in the park?
What I said would be true of Russia. This is because Russia is an oligarchy and this is how oligarchies operate.
The United States is an oligarchy as well.
Therefore what I said applies to the United States.
The goal of law enforcement is to preserve the existing social structure. American social structure is that of oligarchy. Therefore law enforcement exists to preserve oligarchy.
American law enforcement is immensely well funded. These protests did not all encounter law enforcement opposition. Therefore, law enforcement must have determined that these protests did not represent a threat to oligarchy. Therefore the protests were toothless because they did not represent a threat to the existing social structure
What is good enough for you?
Quiet everyone, Mustakrakish is about to tell us the acceptable number for a protest.
Go ahead, the floor is yours.
Not that poster, but judging by what the largest protests in the US ever - the George Floyd protests - achieved when it comes to police violence in the US (it’s the same or worse now), in the present age in the US merelly coming out and walking for a bit in your own time while holding a board up doesn’t seem to achieve anything.
Think of it from the point of view of the Political and Money “elites” in the US: they get zero direct negative impact from the riff-raff in their own time doing a big march against the elite’s puppet mango emperor, and there is no single Historical instance in the US were the lower classes rebelled against the upper classes and properly fucked them up, so the masses marching isn’t even a warning of increasing risk for them - they control the entire political system in the US and make sure whomever is in a position to get elected for a position of political power is always in their pocket, and do not fear the desinfranchised population because they never ever moved against them.
The murder of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare by a single person seems to have achieved more in terms of scaring the powerful than even the millions that came out demonstrating against the police killing of George Floyd.
(I bet that in a place like France, still today the masses coming out even if doing nothing but marching and holding some boards, are cause for concern amongst the “elites”)
I actually saw something quite similar in the UK when I lived there: the powerful just didn’t care because even large numbers of people doing some polite marching did not damage the interest of the elites and because they had no reason to be concerned with their personal safety because the plebes had never actually rebelled against the upper classes.
That said this situation in the US is even less concerning for the elites because the crowds are so firmly focused in the puppet and disregarding the puppet masters, that even very indirectly there is zero risk for the true powers.
Maybe as some other poster suggested, a general strike would be more effective.
Protests aren’t about the Political and Money “elites” as you put it because they don’t care no matter what.
You think they’d give a shit if what is happening in LA is happening everywhere? They’re like cockroaches that will skitter into hiding until it’s safe to come out and monopolize on the ruin.
Protests are about galvanizing support and building unity among the populace. The US has been so divided for so long and that division has been manipulated and grown to benefits those “elites”.
I do think a general strike may be effective but it’s unrealistic. A nationwide general strike would require massive financial and material support. Where will that come from?
They work on a smaller, union scale because they’re supported by the union and outside supporters that are not on strike. They work in other countries that have the social programs in place to support the people which is something the US does not have.
I keep seeing this repeated comparison to France but let’s look at that. France is a country a little smaller than the state of Texas with an adult population only slightly more than the total population of California.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say it’s a little easier to coordinate a general strike in a country with 1/6 the population of the US spread across an area 1/15 the size of the US.
Protests in the US are getting bigger and more widespread but it’s like a slow wave, it takes time to build.
A general strike?
Funded by?
Looting and mutual aid
looting will not be supported by the majority
Oligarchy is not supported by the majority. Yet it exists nonetheless
Maybe a protest that goes longer than 2 hours, on a weekend, where everyone dispereses and goes back home to watch the game? Maybe one that causes actual resistence and pushback? Not one that amounts to a community day in the park?
Look at the LA protests. More akin to this:
So your mad that protesters in other cities aren’t being attacked by local police and federal agents, got it.
Pass the word everyone, if you’re not getting hit with tear gas and rubber bullets your protest doesn’t matter. Might as well not even try.
Law enforcement will only target protests that are a threat to the oligarchy.
If a planned public protest is not targeted by law enforcement then it has been determined to be a toothless protest
I’m not sure if you forgot a /s or if you’re being serious. If serious this is some ridiculous logic.
What I said would be true of Russia. This is because Russia is an oligarchy and this is how oligarchies operate.
The United States is an oligarchy as well.
Therefore what I said applies to the United States.
The goal of law enforcement is to preserve the existing social structure. American social structure is that of oligarchy. Therefore law enforcement exists to preserve oligarchy.
American law enforcement is immensely well funded. These protests did not all encounter law enforcement opposition. Therefore, law enforcement must have determined that these protests did not represent a threat to oligarchy. Therefore the protests were toothless because they did not represent a threat to the existing social structure
Ah, now I understand your “logic”. I didn’t pay attention to the instance you are from at first.
He’s saying that if the police don’t bother then the protest has no teeth.