Old School protesting vs. the Internet: Which is the better catalyst for change? (708 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 1.5 on 26 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Just another bourgeois, honky American (View user info) at 2008-03-19 13:04:34 EDT
My best friend, Cat, is a pugnacious, Pinko, Leftist, liberal individual who loves scrapping with just about anyone or anything she perceives as 'The Man.' I love her anyway. She's a riot. Most of the time though she's very easy going, friendly, and benevolent, until....
Now, when she gets wound up about something...well, you know how a lionesses will clamp down on the neck of her prey and not let go until the beast stops kicking? That's what she does in a figurative sense. She thoroughly researches whatever it is, especially 'The Man's' side of it. Then, she clamps down. Most times she contents herself with a furious letter writing, e-mailing, and message board posting campaign. Sometimes though, she hits the streets armed with leaflets and whatnot. Usually she's run off by worried shopkeepers, but a few times she's gotten in confrontations with the police. I'm amazed that I haven't had to bail her out of jail yet.
Here is an example. Cathy has always had a problem with churches using the church itself to host political voting centers. So have I for that matter. She feels this is a direct violation of Church and State Separatism. "Voting centers should be located at city and state funded buildings." she says. They are, but still many centers are located in churches. At least here they are. So before the primaries and caucuses even began, she wrote Christopher Bond, Claire McCaskill, Matt Blunt, Victor Callahan, and Emanuel Cleaver about the issue. She received mostly form letters/e-mails back. She spouted off a few times on message boards but in general quieted down about it.
Or so I thought.
When a mutual friend told us how his pastor not only uses the church as a voting center, but also bolds the text of his choice of candidates, Cathy shit a brick. So when Missouri held its Primary at the beginning of February, Cathy picketed our friend's pastor's church. She said that all the votes that come out of that church's polling station should be thrown out since they were, technically, unconstitutional. As you can imagine, she was quickly run off. She's quick to tell you that she picketed on the public street and never set foot on the church's property. She'll also tell you about how the pastor was so angry and so red faced, that members of his congregation feared he was about to have a stroke. "Godless" was what he called her. She liked that.
Recently, the U.S. District Court decided that the use of churches as voting centers does not violate Church and State Separation!
http://www.humanistlegalcenter.org/cases/cp/cppressrelease.html
*coughcoughBULLSHITcough*
Of course being how this is an election year, she's having the time of her life. The poor woman has been miserable for the last 8 years. Most of us have been as well, sure, but she had convinced herself that Marshall Law was about to be declared, Bush would declare himself Emperor, wipe his ass with the Constitution (many say he's done that already), and then we would be totally, officially, and undeniably, fucked. I tell her that won't happen and to hang in there because he's almost out. Just keep breathing.
But politics is not what this post is about. The point of the post is Cathy's and her protesting habits. She does love a good protest. Well, good for her! She wonders why I rarely join her. It isn't that I don't care about the issues, or that I'm apathetic, it's because I don't think Old School Protesting works all that well. Sure, I'm up for it on my hot button issues, but in my opinion, dissent and protest has taken a new form nowadays.
Cathy seems to think that more of us should get out there and protest. Walk the streets. Create spectacles to attract attention. I call this the Abbie Hoffman School of protest and dissent. This isn't the 60's though, far from it. Besides, only a few people will see the street protest and maybe you'll have a 15 second clip on the evening news. It seems that the best way to express dissent would be to reach the maximum number of people possible. I told her, in my opinion, that using the internet is the new form of protest and dissent. After all, she herself uses it.
Her opinion seems to be that the internet just doesn't have the power to cause social or political change because of the intangibleness of its nature. You can easily click off a disturbing website that challenges your assumptions and beliefs but it's much more difficult to ignore a person speaking directly to you and handing you a tangible leaflet. Besides, when an entire society uses an entity (in this case the internet) it will eventually sink to the lowest common denominator. "Look at the mass media." she says. "Celebrity TV Tabloids and fucking 'Dancing with the Stars.'"
She has a point really. Andrew Keen would definitely agree with her http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19196474/ but also probably say she is part of the problem as well considering that she uses internet message boards to argue her various stances. Political commentary, says Keen, should not be left to amateurs. He frets that "user generated" content is rapidly replacing established, time honored, and more accurate (according to him) information. While several of Keen's points are valid and worth careful consideration, I worry about the slippery slope that they suggest. It seems that Keen takes the elitist stance that only intellectuals and professionals should be the ones putting information out for us proletariats. Should they be considered "authorities?" Absolutely! Should they be considered as the ultimate authority? No! To me, restricting who is allowed to create content, whether it be print, media, or internet, goes hand in hand with restriction and limitation of not only knowledge, but who may access knowledge as well.
And that scares me. Knowledge should be available and free to all who want it. You can control someone easier by keeping them ignorant. It is much harder to control someone who has access to knowledge and has educated themselves. If you want an example, Pol Pot, leader of the Khmer Rouge, hated and feared the intellectuals (college educated people) and targeted them for execution. Now, I'm not saying that all user generated content is sound, quite the opposite. There's a lot of bullshit out there, but at the same time, there's a lot of good stuff too. People slam Wikipedia. No, you shouldn't use it as a reputable source, but it is useful as a starting point. From there you research the credible and reputable sources.
But back to Cathy and I's debate. She wants a return to Old School protesting and that it would make a better catalyst for change. "You can't ignore a large group of really pissed off people." she says. I believe that it is appropriate in some situations but by and large, we're too busy trying to survive and make ends meet to take to the streets. Most Americans simply don't have the time to devote to marching and protesting with signs and leaflets. Most are too busy raising their families, earning a wage that keeps dwindling from inflation, and trying to find some enjoyment out of life. I say that protest and dissent isn't dead but rather has taken a new form.
Incidentally, when Cathy questioned the effectiveness of the internet, I sent her links to this whole fiasco.
First, http://www.ubersite.com/m/83750
Then, http://www.ubersite.com/m/92461
She thought that was hysterical.
So, have any of you come across information on the internet that was so profound it caused you to change your mind about something? What about a belief you had? Attitudes and beliefs are two separate things and it is harder to change someone's beliefs than it is their attitudes.
And most importantly, do you think a sign waving, leafleting protestor has the power to influence change more effectively than internet protest?
Take that, Mr. Keen.
User Reviews
Submitted by Brdn_Nkd (user info) at 2008-04-04 08:30:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2008-03-20 09:34:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's a sad, fucked up day when I agree with indoninja.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-03-20 01:42:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Recently, the U.S. District Court decided that the use of churches as voting centers does not violate Church and State Separation!
http://www.humanistlegalcenter.org/cases/cp/cppressrelease.html
*coughcoughBULLSHITcough*
-------------
In churches where they aren't bolding the preachers choices I have no problem with this.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2008-03-20 01:39:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Public protests only matter if they have the force of the majority behind them.
Most protests I see now involve stupid wanna be hippies who think it is cool to stick it to the man, throw shit at cops, or just want media attention. I have yett o see any in my life where people were actually looking for a dialogue or wanted to educate people.
The internet is only as good as the people looking at your message. People stupid enough to believe things like loose change are too stupid to matter. People who think that hitler got a bad rap (jews overestimate everything) and that bush is far worse aren't going to be convinced over the internet.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2008-03-20 01:21:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
If self-professed liberals had more common sense than some kind of twisted brain that was better left in the realm of make-believe... I'd like them a whole lot better.
On this issue, I'd be inclined to agree with your pinko friend. It just seems wrong. Especially when public schools are everywhere and it is easy to set something up there or city administration buildings. But then again, schools are unionized as well. Those suckers are heavily in favor of democrats. (I laugh about it in my state as the union has got no real power). What about a city administration that is heavily republican? Voting there would also be biased? I wouldn't want to hit the "R" lever with thug-in-charge Kwame Kilpatrick standing over my shoulder in D-town either.
An empty white building made especially for voting? Oh now I've pissed off the blacks.
You can never win.
(Self Disclosure: I hate religious nutters)
Submitted by Danger_Ranger (user info) at 2008-03-20 00:46:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Americans are the suxors
Submitted by lungfish (user info) at 2008-03-20 00:27:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
When Bush was elected the first time, I had some friends freakin' out the way your Cathy did. Two of them even moved to Canada like so many other people immoderately and disingenuously threatened to do. I told them to "just sit back and watch; this is going to be hilarious." It was, in a way, except for all the dead people and stuff. Really exceeded even my high expectations. Good times.
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2008-03-19 20:46:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by MyTeeOne (user info) at 2008-03-19 17:45:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Excellent post.
Both sides have pros and cons.
The big pro to posting on the net is that you can reach everyone. The con is that if I'm not looking for your message, I may never see it.
The big con to protesting in the streets is that you can't reach everyone. The big pro is that if you're in front of my building, I'm going to see it.
I think both are necessary.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2008-03-19 17:03:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i believe tossing home made bombs, which you took from the internet, is a great combination of the two
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2008-03-19 16:21:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2008-03-19 15:57:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Now, we must all fear evil men.
But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.
--
Whatwever.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2008-03-19 15:57:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Now, we must all fear evil men.
But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.
Submitted by Jack_McCallum (user info) at 2008-03-19 15:46:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I find the San Francisco war protestors a pain in the ass, but when they finally do get out of bed and hit the streets at least you can see them and ask their opinions.
You can't trust internet content without having some fucking solid confirmation that the sources of news or commentary are legitimate and not some kid at home using some arcane technological METHOD to generate multiple identities. Christ, look at all the 'people' who sign online petitions to keep shitty TV shows on the air.
Jesus! http://www.petitiononline.com/dogontv/petition.html
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2008-03-19 15:26:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"his pastor not only uses the church as a voting center, but also bolds the text of his choice of candidates,"
-----
Sounds like a clear violation of election law to me. Defacing the ballots.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2008-03-19 14:56:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2008-03-19 14:18:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I HATE LEAFLETS. I hate them with all the pure squishy red goo of my heart. Litter. Pollution.
The internet is a very, VERY useful tool. People should be able to shout from the rooftops, err... servers. Knowledge and discourse should never be left to one group, no matter how well educated the group may be. "Knowledge is the common property of all mankind" said Thomas Jefferson.
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2008-03-19 14:43:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
jack?
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2008-03-19 14:20:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
*full
though "fool" was probably some sort of Freudian do-bop.
Submitted by shadow (user info) at 2008-03-19 14:18:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I like protesters, getting the word out by taking the streets. I've done it, I've even held a sign.
I HATE LEAFLETS. I hate them with all the pure squishy red goo of my heart. Litter. Pollution. And it forces physical contact with a person who may not want you to touch them.
The internet is a very, VERY useful tool. People should be able to shout from the rooftops, err... servers. Knowledge and discourse should never be left to one group, no matter how well educated the group may be. "Knowledge is the common property of all mankind" said Thomas Jefferson. I agree. Media Carta.
The internet is fool of misguided toolbags. Approach with caution.
eh, 50/50.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2008-03-19 14:15:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Political commentary, says Keen, should not be left to amateurs.
---
What this world needs is far more participation in the political process. As it stands the vast majority of our population is lead (ie: manipulated) by a small group of interested people who are desperate to maintain that control.
The reality is, gatherings of like minded people require time, energy and massive coordination. I think they are still effective when done right, but typically they are limited in scope and the individuals that tend to participate regularly in such events are easily marginalized and regarded as 'extreme'. (right or left)
The internet provides a vehicle for millions of people to gather in a highly convenient manner to discuss, share, and educate themselves on a wide variety of issues. More needs to be done to harvest this potential, sure - but there is a collective consciousness growing...and with the advent of social networking and the vast strides of streaming media and 'edutainment' - we are not far off from harvesting that potential.
Excellent post.
Submitted by rorrim (user info) at 2008-03-19 14:14:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
But revolution is necessary. Give us ph4 back!
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2008-03-19 14:06:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Both methods are innefective and a total waste of time and effort.
Armed revolution is the only way to change things, so gather your AKs and nines, your grenades and molotovs and lets kill us some godless pig-dogs!
VIVA LA REVALUCION!
Submitted by forensicgirl3 (user info) at 2008-03-19 13:58:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Don't worry, I still believe in The Afro.
In honor of Cathy though, I put "bourgeois, honky American" because she calls me that sometimes.
She's white.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2008-03-19 13:55:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
BTW - you no longer believe in Don Henley's afro? For shame.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2008-03-19 13:51:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
God I wish ETS was around to say something about this thread.
However, unlike most of us, he's actually out there running for office and DOING something about it.
Submitted by Doodles (user info) at 2008-03-19 13:34:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The problem we now face is that the average American is too lazy to protest, not too busy. The internet while a useful tool for sending people information, generally will only reach like-minded indivduals as different people tend to congregate to different message boards based on their opinions.
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2008-03-19 13:14:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I bet I would would get along realllllly well with your friend. I'm pretty sure my family would describe me this way for the most part, though I don't always have the discipline to follow through on all my interests and I don't live protest much. I am definitely the squeaky wheel, though.
Research I've done on various things on the web have educated me to a degree I don't know how to quantify. I don't believe that live protesting is more effective than online, because there is a greater chance to instantly access a wider variety of opinions and such on the net, as opposed to speaking one on one with someone about their cause- but I definitely think there is a place for live protest.