Poll
Question:
Are you doing something politcally in response to the Trump presidency?
Option 1: Yes, through donations (to the Democrats, to non-crazy Republicans, the ACLU, the SPLC, etc.)
votes: 4
Option 2: Yes, through active militancy within one of the above.
votes: 1
Option 3: Yes, through participation in local events (demonstrations, townhall meeting) or phone calls
votes: 3
Option 4: Yes, amping up previous political participation.
votes: 1
Option 5: Yes. I support Trump with time and money even though I emphatically did not vote for him
votes: 1
Option 6: No. I kept my active political participation at the same level.
votes: 7
Option 7: No. Things go away by themselves if we wait long enough. Just like cancer.
votes: 5
Option 8: So Sad!
votes: 5
I am curious and worried.
I once described Languish as mildly hostile to political militancy (but certainly not political ideology). I may have been wrong. So, that's for my curiosity.
It seems clear to me that the Democrats - as an institution - are nowhere to be seen, and a few of the party apparatchik seem to comfort themselves in the very same delusion that Hilary entertained: that simply mentioning Trump's mediocrity and vacuity will somehow triumph over him. And while there is a surge in militancy within my close circle of academic friends (duh), who therefore relay successes and challenges of their local organizing, I am sure this misrepresents actual political participation.
For those who give money, or participate, I would like to know who you are donating to.
I post occasional disparaging remarks on Languish, isn't that enough?
My own circles seem to reflect yours. But they tend to also be heavy with academic or at least educated types. Agree that the national Democrats seem to be hopelessly mired, but there are a lot of movements working tirelessly to revitalize the party at the local level. Remains to be seen whether that will be effective. (Or even desirable, I'm not a fan of the party model)
I'm not a joiner. I'm trying to move the pile of public opinion on an individual basis.
The great difficulty with trying to sway a Trump supporter of course is that in order to do so they have to come to the realization that they are stupid.
Well I donate to Planned Parenthood but I had been doing that before Trump was even nominated.
Hillary is a politician running a strategy. I am an individual citizen. I am entitled to exactly one vote in these sorts of matters. The people have spoken and chosen this clown as our leader. At the end of the day I have to respect the process to some extent right? If we do not our entire system loses its legitimacy and it is power by any means necessary. I am not sure the end of our system of government is an acceptable price to pay because of one clown.
I am not sure what more the Democrats can do. They obstruct, they make speeches denouncing the government. I mean you still have to be a somewhat loyal opposition right?
Besides how is me being militant going to convince any Trump supporters? They will just convince themselves I am some kind of traitor or dangerous force they need Trump to protect themselves from.
At the end of the day there will be another election and eventually the Democrats will return to power. If we go out there and cause the government serious problems well then the opposition will just do the same to us.
I participate in electoral politics. I'm a member of both a provincial and federal political party and attend the odd meeting. But it all has nothing to do with Trump.
Quote from: Maximus on May 30, 2017, 02:18:25 PM
(Or even desirable, I'm not a fan of the party model)
Don't worry Max. A radical left wing socialist nutcase will win the nomination eventually. :P
:weep:
I would do something more than merely post on Languish, if I knew what I, a dirty foreigner, could usefully do to influence politics in another country.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2017, 02:27:12 PMAt the end of the day there will be another election and eventually the Democrats will return to power. If we go out there and cause the government serious problems well then the opposition will just do the same to us.
I am sorry Valmy, but I think this is very much part of the problem. I see it often with my students - there is a clear limitation in how they can imagine the United States as being "of the world", that things which affect, and have affected other countries of the world, can, indeed, affect the US in the present, and in the future. Civil wars, dictatorships, coups: these, for some reason exist as possibilities in the minds of Tea Party supporters, but very rarely in those of the vast American center. There is nothing foreordained in the American Republic, in its continuing existence, and in the ways in which the political life of this country unfolds.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2017, 02:30:36 PM
Don't worry Max. A radical left wing socialist nutcase will win the nomination eventually. :P
:weep:
We can't all be conservatives.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2017, 02:41:58 PM
Quote from: Maximus on May 30, 2017, 02:34:16 PM
We can't all be conservatives.
Not true!
To expand on this a little without going into the full rant, there's a lot of energy for political change in this country and if it's not channeled in a positive direction it will be channeled elsewhere. We can't afford to ignore it and hope it will diffuse: there's a reason it built up in the first place.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 30, 2017, 02:34:02 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2017, 02:27:12 PMAt the end of the day there will be another election and eventually the Democrats will return to power. If we go out there and cause the government serious problems well then the opposition will just do the same to us.
I am sorry Valmy, but I think this is very much part of the problem. I see it often with my students - there is a clear limitation in how they can imagine the United States as being "of the world", that things which affect, and have affected other countries of the world, can, indeed, affect the US in the present, and in the future. Civil wars, dictatorships, coups: these, for some reason exist as possibilities in the minds of Tea Party supporters, but very rarely in those of the vast American center. There is nothing foreordained in the American Republic, in its continuing existence, and in the ways in which the political life of this country unfolds.
I am reminded of a kind-of dumb article I was reading from a Trump supporter trying to understand Conservatives who don't support Trump (aka Never-Trumpers):
QuoteI have concluded that there are a few reasons that explain conservatives who were Never-Trumpers during the election, and who remain anti-Trump today. The first and, by far, the greatest reason is this: They do not believe that America is engaged in a civil war, with the survival of America as we know it at stake. While they strongly differ with the Left, they do not regard the left–right battle as an existential battle for preserving our nation. On the other hand, I, and other conservative Trump supporters, do.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448086/never-trump-conservatives-donald-trump-still-opposed
It seems to me you're making the same argument as the NRO article - that Trump is an apocalyptic president who threatens the very survival of the republic.
I don't buy it. While the survival of the USA is not guaranteed, it's institutions are strong. Trump's muslim ban - both of them - has been stalled in the courts. An independent investigation has been launched by the Justice Department, and the Senate Intelligence committee is investigating as well. Trump's administration has been incompetent to be sure, and will surely do damage to the reputation of the GOP and the US, but I hardly see it as threatening the survival of either.
Quote from: Maximus on May 30, 2017, 02:43:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2017, 02:41:58 PM
Quote from: Maximus on May 30, 2017, 02:34:16 PM
We can't all be conservatives.
Not true!
To expand on this a little without going into the full rant, there's a lot of energy for political change in this country and if it's not channeled in a positive direction it will be channeled elsewhere. We can't afford to ignore it and hope it will diffuse: there's a reason it built up in the first place.
[Edmund Burke]Being a conservative doesn't mean you are opposed to change - political or otherwise. You just have to be careful and cautious, because not all change is for the better[/Edmund Burke]
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 30, 2017, 02:34:02 PM
I am sorry Valmy, but I think this is very much part of the problem. I see it often with my students - there is a clear limitation in how they can imagine the United States as being "of the world", that things which affect, and have affected other countries of the world, can, indeed, affect the US in the present, and in the future. Civil wars, dictatorships, coups: these, for some reason exist as possibilities in the minds of Tea Party supporters, but very rarely in those of the vast American center. There is nothing foreordained in the American Republic, in its continuing existence, and in the ways in which the political life of this country unfolds.
I am pretty sure I do imagine those things. I would rather not have them. If the mystic hold the Constitution has over the body politic is broken there is no country. I think I well understand the ramifications of that.
Quote from: Maximus on May 30, 2017, 02:43:46 PM
To expand on this a little without going into the full rant, there's a lot of energy for political change in this country and if it's not channeled in a positive direction it will be channeled elsewhere. We can't afford to ignore it and hope it will diffuse: there's a reason it built up in the first place.
I have already given my position on this multiple times. I have devoted my entire life and career to solving those problems.
Quote from: Barrister on May 30, 2017, 02:45:13 PM
I don't buy it. While the survival of the USA is not guaranteed, it's institutions are strong. Trump's muslim ban - both of them - has been stalled in the courts. An independent investigation has been launched by the Justice Department, and the Senate Intelligence committee is investigating as well. Trump's administration has been incompetent to be sure, and will surely do damage to the reputation of the GOP and the US, but I hardly see it as threatening the survival of either.
Well here is hoping. I just wish I understood clearly what these people think Trump is saving them from. I mean the Democrats have run several states for decades, many of them very functional and successful states, and they have not collapsed or seceded from the Union or become dictatorships. But I think this is more of what Max is talking about. There are huge forces for change in the world and it makes people nervous. They are eager to blame their political opponents for the changes but nobody can turn back the clock.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2017, 02:48:52 PM
I have already given my position on this multiple times. I have devoted my entire life and career to solving those problems.
Do you have a wiki or something? I don't have a detailed catalogue of everyone's opinions in my head.
Quote from: Maximus on May 30, 2017, 03:00:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2017, 02:48:52 PM
I have already given my position on this multiple times. I have devoted my entire life and career to solving those problems.
Do you have a wiki or something? I don't have a detailed catalogue of everyone's opinions in my head.
I just restated it in the following post :P
We are in a period of rapid technological and social change. It is destabilizing. I am working hard to hopefully help those changes come in as positive a package as possible.
I just wish people would be rallying around some vision of the future. Instead people seem to be wringing their hands over restoring the past.
Quote from: Barrister on May 30, 2017, 02:45:13 PM
It seems to me you're making the same argument as the NRO article - that Trump is an ap ocalyptic president who threatens the very survival of the republic.
I don't buy it. While the survival of the USA is not guaranteed, it's institutions are strong. Trump's muslim ban - both of them - has been stalled in the courts. An independent investigation has been launched by the Justice Department, and the Senate Intelligence committee is investigating as well. Trump's administration has been incompetent to be sure, and will surely do damage to the reputation of the GOP and the US, but I hardly see it as threatening the survival of either.
This is not quite what I was aiming for. I do not think Trump is an apocalyptic president. I think he is a disastrous president, granted. More importantly, I do not think he is an
anomalous president. Which is the kind of thinking I see among many Democrats - that normalcy can only return, with boring Democrats and boring Republicans, and the news circus' usual antics. I think it's a comforting self-delusion.
I think the sort of wave that brought Trump to power is a symptoms of a much larger disaffection with a number of democratic values, and a reduction of politics to conflict, in an almost Schmidtian way. Trump's celebration of authority and will is not theorized, and it may not be terribly effective either. But it does empower like-minded people, and erodes the myriads of tacit mutual understandings that form the body politics, and which can never be entirely embodied in texts and laws and constitutions.
In short, my point is simply that waiting for things to return to normal is not an option. Not to me, at least.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2017, 03:02:56 PM
I just wish people would be rallying around some vision of the future. Instead people seem to be wringing their hands over restoring the past.
The future is nowhere now, in political discourse. Or rather, it's almost entirely contained within technological change - and even then, with much less imagination than we once had. The rest seem to be relegated to empty platitudes.
But you said yourself that the technological is political did you not? Our way of life is coming to an end sometime in the next century. I think that is certain one way or another.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2017, 03:02:56 PM
I just restated it in the following post :P
We are in a period of rapid technological and social change. It is destabilizing. I am working hard to hopefully help those changes come in as positive a package as possible.
I just wish people would be rallying around some vision of the future. Instead people seem to be wringing their hands over restoring the past.
You're an incrementalist, aka a conservative. That's fine in most cases, but the pressure for change has been building for a while. It's going to happen, the question is what sort of change? Each oscillation swings farther than the last. Perhaps it's time to bleed some of that off before the whole system goes off the rails.
Quote from: Maximus on May 30, 2017, 03:19:10 PM
You're an incrementalist, aka a conservative. That's fine in most cases, but the pressure for change has been building for a while. It's going to happen, the question is what sort of change? Each oscillation swings farther than the last. Perhaps it's time to bleed some of that off before the whole system goes off the rails.
This seems like something easy to say. What specific actions would you recommend to "bleed off" this pressure for change?
Quote from: Maximus on May 30, 2017, 03:19:10 PM
You're an incrementalist, aka a conservative. That's fine in most cases, but the pressure for change has been building for a while. It's going to happen, the question is what sort of change? Each oscillation swings farther than the last. Perhaps it's time to bleed some of that off before the whole system goes off the rails.
Each oscillation of what? Political rhetoric has been getting more extreme, certainly. There has been relatively little governmental change (at least on the national scale) compared to what is happening in the society/economy for the past 20 years or longer.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2017, 03:18:39 PM
But you said yourself that the technological is political did you not? Our way of life is coming to an end sometime in the next century. I think that is certain one way or another.
Yes. And who carries that message? Who discusses the technological future in political terms? So far, it has been mostly billionaire tech gurus, and their political outlook is not the most appealing.
I have written to several Americans telling them how to vote.
I joined Indivisible. It's like Languish, but I get a cookie in the end.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2017, 04:12:31 PM
I joined Indivisible. It's like Languish, but I get a cookie in the end.
Tell me more about this cookie giving place.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 30, 2017, 03:39:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2017, 03:18:39 PM
But you said yourself that the technological is political did you not? Our way of life is coming to an end sometime in the next century. I think that is certain one way or another.
Yes. And who carries that message? Who discusses the technological future in political terms? So far, it has been mostly billionaire tech gurus, and their political outlook is not the most appealing.
Well when you are the only person discussing something the discussion does tend to go in the direction you favor.
I am, and always shall be, an interested bystander in all political matters, foreign or domestic.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 30, 2017, 02:10:01 PM
I am curious and worried.
I once described Languish as mildly hostile to political militancy (but certainly not political ideology). I may have been wrong. So, that's for my curiosity.
I think you are largely right about that, depending on how one defines militancy. I would agree with what I think Valmy is saying--that a high level of militancy would destroy or at least damage democratic institutions. Valmy, do you think that is a fair way to characterize your position?
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2017, 05:56:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2017, 04:12:31 PM
I joined Indivisible. It's like Languish, but I get a cookie in the end.
Tell me more about this cookie giving place.
It was some ladies living room. Everyone was older than I was, and they griped about Trump. I got a cookie.
Quote from: dps on May 30, 2017, 06:09:40 PM
Valmy, do you think that is a fair way to characterize your position?
Yep. There is already a tendency for both sides to demonize each other as evil with nefarious intentions. Militancy only makes them more fearful of the other. I would rather fight with words and votes rather than action at this point.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2017, 06:11:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2017, 05:56:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 30, 2017, 04:12:31 PM
I joined Indivisible. It's like Languish, but I get a cookie in the end.
Tell me more about this cookie giving place.
It was some ladies living room. Everyone was older than I was, and they griped about Trump. I got a cookie.
:cool:
That's a plus by my book, Raz.
You did well to have to deal with so many olds, we're a funny bunch. :)
I am jealous. Nobody has ever given me a cookie after griping about Trump.
Oh Raz I was proud to back you up on the St. Louis traitor monuments on Facebook. Missouri did not even secede yet somehow shooting other Missourians was done for 'State's Rights'.
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2017, 05:57:23 PM
Well when you are the only person discussing something the discussion does tend to go in the direction you favor.
I don't think Silicon Valley VCs and their fans are the only ones discussing the technological future, but they're the ones whose point of view tend to dominate the public discourse.
Here's a different point of view re: self-driving cars: https://www.treehugger.com/cars/eric-reguly-how-self-driving-cars-will-kill-cities-not-save-them.html
That makes no sense. The only reason people use bikes and walk around in urban centers is because they cannot drive?
Also sprawl happens because of unaffordable housing.
I also do not really understand the panic. Why would safer and cleaner transportation be a disaster for cities? They like road deaths and pollution?
QuoteEven in the centre of big cities like New York, Toronto, London and Paris, you often have to walk 200 or 300 metres to the nearest metro or bus stop. It's easier to have a car come to your doorstep. But that would clog secondary streets. It would also make you fatter—various studies have shown that public transportation promotes better health.
But drunk driving has zero impact on health? And sure it is super fast and easy for a car to navigate the streets of New York to come to your doorstep.
Well that site is called tree hugger...
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2017, 06:12:16 PM
Yep. There is already a tendency for both sides to demonize each other as evil with nefarious intentions. Militancy only makes them more fearful of the other. I would rather fight with words and votes rather than action at this point.
Interesting. This is exactly opposite to my point of view. Or perhaps I have a different definition of militancy. To me, "fighting with words" has little effect when people already only frequent venues, or towns, or counties that are so politically homogeneous. Unless you organize a non-partisan townhall meeting, or an Enlightenment salon, or some other conversation with live poeple - but then, I count that as militancy. On the other hand, people sharing conservative memes on FB, or consuming hours of trash radio while stuck in traffic can make people fanatics, but not militants.
I think overemphasizing vote has led to an impoverishment of the notion of democracy: if one keeps voting, and nothing changes, or none of the things that have been promised, change, why bother? So has the hostility towards direct action: it tends to overvalue convenience to the detriment of the body politic. The meaning of citizenship has also atrophied: notice the prevalence of the vocabulary of "I am a taxpayer" to establish legitimacy of a political position.
One can certainly be a
fanatic
Americans don't like "militancy." Militancy smacks of European radicalism, and Americans don't do strikes, demonstrations, mobs, etc. It's simply not polite and fucks up traffic.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2017, 07:19:40 PM
Americans don't like "militancy." Militancy smacks of European radicalism, and Americans don't do strikes, demonstrations, mobs, etc. It's simply not polite and fucks up traffic.
According to Oex, having a conversation is militancy. :huh:
Quote from: citizen k on May 30, 2017, 07:21:43 PM
According to Oex, having a conversation is militancy. :huh:
Yeah, he's adorable like that. :hug:
Quote from: citizen k on May 30, 2017, 07:21:43 PM
According to Oex, having a conversation is militancy. :huh:
If it's Thanksgiving dinner, it's not.
If it's something you have organized, opened to a public you did not know before hand, with the express purpose of discussing political matters, then yes. I think it warrants the label of "militant".
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 30, 2017, 07:28:12 PM
Quote from: citizen k on May 30, 2017, 07:21:43 PM
According to Oex, having a conversation is militancy. :huh:
If it's Thanksgiving dinner, it's not.
If it's something you have organized, opened to a public you did not know before hand, with the express purpose of discussing political matters, then yes. I think it warrants the label of "militant".
I don't know, the last Thanksgiving diner at my aunt's house with other guests who were Trumpists and Climate Change deniers may have brought out a bit of militancy in me :)
As it should. They're crazy.
I have a very hard time thinking of my time in the College Republicans as militant. Militant binge drinking, maybe. I was very militant about getting laid. But that's about it.
I live in a place where the students get militant at the drop of a hat. They march through campus in planned marches, spontaneous marches, and sometimes just weird gatherings. The night Trump was elected 1500 or so were downtown haranguing anyone who could hear (and this being Santa Cruz after 10pm downtown those who heard were whacked out junkies and crazy homeless types - sometimes both at once).
They have closed entrances to campus twice, marched down the main road a couple of times, occupied the main administration building, and still found time for their 420 celebration. They are Bernie Bros and Girls (and, I hasten to add any other gendered title), anarchists, left wing stoners, people following along just to get laid, and people who just need to make sure their special grievance is heard.
The Chancellor had to send out an email that strikes, road blockages, building occupations, and random gatherings can and do disrupt the main purpose of the campus - which, supposedly, is teaching and research.
Frankly, I may be militanted-out.
I have deep faith in the robustness of America's institutions and political culture. I don't expect significant challenges to democracy in my lifetime. While I deplore his idiocy, I'm not troubled by it in an existential sense.
There's evidence that suggests that many of the ideas that governed the West since WW2 and which had a second coming after 1990 are being seriously debated for the first time in most people's memory. But that in itself doesn't constitute a threat to democracy. Although I will admit what concerns me most would be the wealth gap.
Quote from: PDH on May 30, 2017, 07:48:48 PM
Frankly, I may be militanted-out.
Dude, college. They're supposed to be stupid, that's why they're there. To learn something.
I have erected a "no politics" zone around my property. I also gave to the human fund.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 30, 2017, 08:06:01 PM
I have erected a "no politics" zone around my property. I also gave to the human fund.
Money for people!
I guess I have a different meaning of militant. Show far I see no militancy here.
To me, this is militant
(https://3xa3sn2xtr6117bb6o2m6zwf8ea-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2014/08/cmm-militia-group-photo.jpg)
We had a gun shooting scare a while back. It turned out it was just some students popping balloons.
Not enough Mosin-Nagants in the picture.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 30, 2017, 08:16:51 PM
To me, this is militant
But they all look so happy.
Suit talking wannabes.
Not enough TacticaLOL on those rifles.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs12.postimage.org%2Fi961dx38t%2FThe_Russians_are_Coming_The_Russians_are_Coming.jpg&hash=0584dde37431dd29335a6ef8c87fe01804962c86)
This group, far more dangerous
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalmemo.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F03%2Fl_d1d587df82cdc6dc05a933c9bda18e2d-668x501.jpg&hash=49d4206a5de440c8e8d8b5776b075d22be3b977a)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2017, 08:53:21 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs12.postimage.org%2Fi961dx38t%2FThe_Russians_are_Coming_The_Russians_are_Coming.jpg&hash=0584dde37431dd29335a6ef8c87fe01804962c86)
Right, stand too. You in the back stop you fidgeting. Good lads. :lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on May 30, 2017, 08:16:51 PM
To me, this is militant
Aping military fashion and accessorizing with weaponry while posing for photos?
To me, militancy requires at least two of the following: formal organization, taking direct action, and/ or seeking confrontation.
Quote from: Jacob on May 30, 2017, 09:25:43 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 30, 2017, 08:16:51 PM
To me, this is militant
Aping military fashion and accessorizing with weaponry while posing for photos?
To me, militancy requires at least two of the following: formal organization, taking direct action, and/ or seeking confrontation.
Check, check and check.
IRA
Black Panthers (sorry Seedy)
Small percentage of US Militia/Patriot groups.
Not
College kids protesting
BLM
etc.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 30, 2017, 09:27:57 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 30, 2017, 09:25:43 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 30, 2017, 08:16:51 PM
To me, this is militant
Aping military fashion and accessorizing with weaponry while posing for photos?
To me, militancy requires at least two of the following: formal organization, taking direct action, and/ or seeking confrontation.
Check, check and check.
In that case I agree that they are militants, but there are plenty of chumps in camp gear with guns who are not.
Quote from: Jacob on May 30, 2017, 09:30:24 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 30, 2017, 09:27:57 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 30, 2017, 09:25:43 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 30, 2017, 08:16:51 PM
To me, this is militant
Aping military fashion and accessorizing with weaponry while posing for photos?
To me, militancy requires at least two of the following: formal organization, taking direct action, and/ or seeking confrontation.
Check, check and check.
In that case I agree that they are militants, but there are plenty of chumps in camp gear with guns who are not.
Hence why I posted the second photo. Far more different from the first.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 30, 2017, 09:27:57 PM
Black Panthers (sorry Seedy)
:lol: I think militancy was sorta what they were aiming for.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 30, 2017, 07:28:12 PM
Quote from: citizen k on May 30, 2017, 07:21:43 PM
According to Oex, having a conversation is militancy. :huh:
If it's Thanksgiving dinner, it's not.
If it's something you have organized, opened to a public you did not know before hand, with the express purpose of discussing political matters, then yes. I think it warrants the label of "militant".
By that measure, Languish is "militant". I just can't agree with that assessment.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 30, 2017, 09:33:09 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 30, 2017, 09:27:57 PM
Black Panthers (sorry Seedy)
:lol: I think militancy was sorta what they were aiming for.
Sure, but it could be argued they were right to be militant during that time frame.
Oh forgot ELF.
Quote from: dps on May 30, 2017, 09:36:03 PM
By that measure, Languish is "militant". I just can't agree with that assessment.
Who the fuck are you?
Quote from: 11B4V on May 30, 2017, 09:37:22 PM
Sure, but it could be argued they were right to be militant during that time frame.
Long before camcorders and cellphones, they were listening to scanners for police calls, and showing up at the same time to guarantee against police brutality in Oakland.
QuoteOh forgot ELF.
Too amorphous. Same with ALF.
Quote from: Barrister on May 30, 2017, 02:46:27 PM
Quote from: Maximus on May 30, 2017, 02:43:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 30, 2017, 02:41:58 PM
Quote from: Maximus on May 30, 2017, 02:34:16 PM
We can't all be conservatives.
Not true!
To expand on this a little without going into the full rant, there's a lot of energy for political change in this country and if it's not channeled in a positive direction it will be channeled elsewhere. We can't afford to ignore it and hope it will diffuse: there's a reason it built up in the first place.
[Edmund Burke]Being a conservative doesn't mean you are opposed to change - political or otherwise. You just have to be careful and cautious, because not all change is for the better[/Edmund Burke]
The GOP is for radical change.
The party of the status quo and slow change in America is the Democrats.
Well let me point out it was me being called conservative there which I do not deny.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 30, 2017, 02:10:01 PM
I am curious and worried.
I once described Languish as mildly hostile to political militancy (but certainly not political ideology). I may have been wrong. So, that's for my curiosity.
It seems clear to me that the Democrats - as an institution - are nowhere to be seen, and a few of the party apparatchik seem to comfort themselves in the very same delusion that Hilary entertained: that simply mentioning Trump's mediocrity and vacuity will somehow triumph over him. And while there is a surge in militancy within my close circle of academic friends (duh), who therefore relay successes and challenges of their local organizing, I am sure this misrepresents actual political participation.
If I were American, I don't think I would waste time protesting.
In a democracy, protests do not serve much. It is a way of intimidating the public and the government, especially when it becomes violent, that wich usually happens when organized by the hard left. And I'm not much into bullying. Besides, when you protest for just about anything, it kinda loses value. You got to keep it for real things otherwise, you're not taken seriously until you become violent, and by then it's too late.
I would give money to opposing partie, I would try to convince other people, I would explain where it leads to. I would respond to bullying tactics by the opposing parties. But I would not let myself become a bully or associate with bullies.
Quote from: viper37 on May 31, 2017, 07:58:52 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 30, 2017, 02:10:01 PM
I am curious and worried.
I once described Languish as mildly hostile to political militancy (but certainly not political ideology). I may have been wrong. So, that's for my curiosity.
It seems clear to me that the Democrats - as an institution - are nowhere to be seen, and a few of the party apparatchik seem to comfort themselves in the very same delusion that Hilary entertained: that simply mentioning Trump's mediocrity and vacuity will somehow triumph over him. And while there is a surge in militancy within my close circle of academic friends (duh), who therefore relay successes and challenges of their local organizing, I am sure this misrepresents actual political participation.
If I were American, I don't think I would waste time protesting.
In a democracy, protests do not serve much. It is a way of intimidating the public and the government, especially when it becomes violent, that wich usually happens when organized by the hard left. And I'm not much into bullying. Besides, when you protest for just about anything, it kinda loses value. You got to keep it for real things otherwise, you're not taken seriously until you become violent, and by then it's too late.
I would give money to opposing partie, I would try to convince other people, I would explain where it leads to. I would respond to bullying tactics by the opposing parties. But I would not let myself become a bully or associate with bullies.
The protest I went to in the US wasn't violent and it was about something real. :huh:
Quote from: garbon on May 31, 2017, 08:03:25 AM
Quote from: viper37 on May 31, 2017, 07:58:52 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 30, 2017, 02:10:01 PM
I am curious and worried.
I once described Languish as mildly hostile to political militancy (but certainly not political ideology). I may have been wrong. So, that's for my curiosity.
It seems clear to me that the Democrats - as an institution - are nowhere to be seen, and a few of the party apparatchik seem to comfort themselves in the very same delusion that Hilary entertained: that simply mentioning Trump's mediocrity and vacuity will somehow triumph over him. And while there is a surge in militancy within my close circle of academic friends (duh), who therefore relay successes and challenges of their local organizing, I am sure this misrepresents actual political participation.
If I were American, I don't think I would waste time protesting.
In a democracy, protests do not serve much. It is a way of intimidating the public and the government, especially when it becomes violent, that wich usually happens when organized by the hard left. And I'm not much into bullying. Besides, when you protest for just about anything, it kinda loses value. You got to keep it for real things otherwise, you're not taken seriously until you become violent, and by then it's too late.
I would give money to opposing partie, I would try to convince other people, I would explain where it leads to. I would respond to bullying tactics by the opposing parties. But I would not let myself become a bully or associate with bullies.
The protest I went to in the US wasn't violent and it was about something real. :huh:
Shush now, don't you remember all of the nasty intimidation those protesters did in the Southern USA during the 1960s?
To me, militancy involves violence. Up until that point it's just political action and can only strengthen democratic institutions.
At least that thread got me to realize militancy is a almost a "false friend" between English and French: it does carry much more violent overtones in English than it does in the French "militantisme", which is what I had in mind (which, can perhaps get imperfectly translated by "activism").
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 31, 2017, 12:37:10 PM
At least that thread got me to realize militancy is a almost a "false friend" between English and French: it does carry much more violent overtones in English than it does in the French "militantisme", which is what I had in mind (which, can perhaps get imperfectly translated by "activism").
I don't think that's an English language thing, but rather a political spectrum thing. "Militant" has violent overtones only to those English speakers who are uncomfortable with militancy and wish to dismiss it as being undemocratic or otherwise beyond the pale.
When, for example, we speak of "militant Labour activists" in relation to British politics, the only violent overtones implied are there as a political smear job.
Per Merriam-Webster:
Quote from: Militant2: aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative - militant conservationists - a militant attitude
Quote from: Maximus on May 31, 2017, 09:15:45 AM
To me, militancy involves violence. Up until that point it's just political action and can only strengthen democratic institutions.
What about say 'a militant feminist'?
Quote from: mongers on May 31, 2017, 08:40:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 31, 2017, 08:03:25 AM
Quote from: viper37 on May 31, 2017, 07:58:52 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 30, 2017, 02:10:01 PM
I am curious and worried.
I once described Languish as mildly hostile to political militancy (but certainly not political ideology). I may have been wrong. So, that's for my curiosity.
It seems clear to me that the Democrats - as an institution - are nowhere to be seen, and a few of the party apparatchik seem to comfort themselves in the very same delusion that Hilary entertained: that simply mentioning Trump's mediocrity and vacuity will somehow triumph over him. And while there is a surge in militancy within my close circle of academic friends (duh), who therefore relay successes and challenges of their local organizing, I am sure this misrepresents actual political participation.
If I were American, I don't think I would waste time protesting.
In a democracy, protests do not serve much. It is a way of intimidating the public and the government, especially when it becomes violent, that wich usually happens when organized by the hard left. And I'm not much into bullying. Besides, when you protest for just about anything, it kinda loses value. You got to keep it for real things otherwise, you're not taken seriously until you become violent, and by then it's too late.
I would give money to opposing partie, I would try to convince other people, I would explain where it leads to. I would respond to bullying tactics by the opposing parties. But I would not let myself become a bully or associate with bullies.
The protest I went to in the US wasn't violent and it was about something real. :huh:
Shush now, don't you remember all of the nasty intimidation those protesters did in the Southern USA during the 1960s?
Similarly the protest I went to outside of Downing Street seemed to be about something real, wasn't violent and was also pretty awe inspiring.
Quote from: garbon on May 31, 2017, 08:03:25 AM
Quote from: viper37 on May 31, 2017, 07:58:52 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 30, 2017, 02:10:01 PM
I am curious and worried.
I once described Languish as mildly hostile to political militancy (but certainly not political ideology). I may have been wrong. So, that's for my curiosity.
It seems clear to me that the Democrats - as an institution - are nowhere to be seen, and a few of the party apparatchik seem to comfort themselves in the very same delusion that Hilary entertained: that simply mentioning Trump's mediocrity and vacuity will somehow triumph over him. And while there is a surge in militancy within my close circle of academic friends (duh), who therefore relay successes and challenges of their local organizing, I am sure this misrepresents actual political participation.
If I were American, I don't think I would waste time protesting.
In a democracy, protests do not serve much. It is a way of intimidating the public and the government, especially when it becomes violent, that wich usually happens when organized by the hard left. And I'm not much into bullying. Besides, when you protest for just about anything, it kinda loses value. You got to keep it for real things otherwise, you're not taken seriously until you become violent, and by then it's too late.
I would give money to opposing partie, I would try to convince other people, I would explain where it leads to. I would respond to bullying tactics by the opposing parties. But I would not let myself become a bully or associate with bullies.
The protest I went to in the US wasn't violent and it was about something real. :huh:
One in a million? :)
Quote from: garbon on May 31, 2017, 12:56:35 PM
Quote from: Maximus on May 31, 2017, 09:15:45 AM
To me, militancy involves violence. Up until that point it's just political action and can only strengthen democratic institutions.
What about say 'a militant feminist'?
Lorena Bobbit.
The term "militant" can refer to either violent or non-violent advocacy of a cause.
It usually signifies a more confrontational approach than a non-militant advocacy, but the exact form of that confrontation can vary.
It isn't a contradiction in terms to have a "militant pacifist", presumably employing non-violent confrontation; however, the same term can and is used to describe expressly violent groups ("militant Islamic radicals assassinate cleric").
What is common to all forms of militancy is that the express purpose of a "militant" is to confront those who do not agree with them head-on, without any attempt to forge a common ground. An "advocate" for a cause is more likely to choose persuasion to win the uncommitted; a "militant advocate" is more likely to have the attitude that if you are not with them, you are against them.
Quote from: viper37 on May 31, 2017, 12:58:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 31, 2017, 08:03:25 AM
Quote from: viper37 on May 31, 2017, 07:58:52 AM
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 30, 2017, 02:10:01 PM
I am curious and worried.
I once described Languish as mildly hostile to political militancy (but certainly not political ideology). I may have been wrong. So, that's for my curiosity.
It seems clear to me that the Democrats - as an institution - are nowhere to be seen, and a few of the party apparatchik seem to comfort themselves in the very same delusion that Hilary entertained: that simply mentioning Trump's mediocrity and vacuity will somehow triumph over him. And while there is a surge in militancy within my close circle of academic friends (duh), who therefore relay successes and challenges of their local organizing, I am sure this misrepresents actual political participation.
If I were American, I don't think I would waste time protesting.
In a democracy, protests do not serve much. It is a way of intimidating the public and the government, especially when it becomes violent, that wich usually happens when organized by the hard left. And I'm not much into bullying. Besides, when you protest for just about anything, it kinda loses value. You got to keep it for real things otherwise, you're not taken seriously until you become violent, and by then it's too late.
I would give money to opposing partie, I would try to convince other people, I would explain where it leads to. I would respond to bullying tactics by the opposing parties. But I would not let myself become a bully or associate with bullies.
The protest I went to in the US wasn't violent and it was about something real. :huh:
One in a million? :)
Actually, pretty sure there were hundreds of women's protests that day.
I didn't know you were a joiner, g.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 31, 2017, 04:10:03 PM
I didn't know you were a joiner, g.
I've only intentionally been present at 2 protests in my life. Both of those times were this year. Consciousness raised.
Same level. In the past I've backed candidates in swing districts in NY/NJ/CT but here aren't any national elections of significance until 2018. Have been doing some immigration pro bono but did that in the past as well.
Quote from: Malthus on May 31, 2017, 01:09:10 PM
What is common to all forms of militancy is that the express purpose of a "militant" is to confront those who do not agree with them head-on, without any attempt to forge a common ground.
Yes, and leaving violence out of it, this is why I think militancy is a bad thing--we're already politically polarized enough.
Quote from: viper37 on May 31, 2017, 12:58:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 31, 2017, 08:03:25 AM
The protest I went to in the US wasn't violent and it was about something real. :huh:
One in a million? :)
Heh, most protests aren't violent; (whether or not they're about something real I'll leave up to you) but those don't make the news. A group of people marching and chanting isn't very good television; but BLM protesters burning down a CVS or the police tear-gassing Al Jazeera reporters is quality
entertainment journalism.
Quote from: dps on June 03, 2017, 04:24:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 31, 2017, 01:09:10 PM
What is common to all forms of militancy is that the express purpose of a "militant" is to confront those who do not agree with them head-on, without any attempt to forge a common ground.
Yes, and leaving violence out of it, this is why I think militancy is a bad thing--we're already politically polarized enough.
The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice--although sometimes it needs some help, like a lead pipe or a baseball bat.
I'm the same as Garbon. Donated money, but didn't attend any protests until Trump was elected.