The protests are fucking valid and I don't care how they're "perceived."
If we can't at least protest and look ugly doing so, then fuck this country and fuck the comrades that turn against us because of "optics."
Protestors have been fighting the police and making things hell for the Zionists and inconvenient too.
Protests are also a gateway to more radical action, like road blockages, armed protest, and stopping arms shipments, not to mention good for recruitment.
OK, if protests weren't perceived they would be ineffective. I do not see how this could possibly be controversial. And a way to get perceived is by blocking roads, ports, taking up space in (in this case) Zionist institutions.
Being perceived and trying to be doesn't necessarily mean leaning into liberal politeness politics. It can mean shitting on a confederate statue.
But it is still Aesthetics and making choices about it.
The vast majority of protesters were people who saw the initial protests on Facebook or tik tok or whatever.
Again, I literally do not understand how any of this could be argued.
I guess definitionally if it was about the actual material effects being wrought it would be direct action not merely protest. but I feel like theres overlap
tbf the size and amount of coverage arent always even related. the nearest campus encampment to me got like a couple articles before it was even established that were pretty shitty and fatalistic, once it started to to take off and repelled police threats for the better part of a week it was radio silence like they were hoping it would fail if they didnt cover it. I think its getting some again now though finally
Yeah, I think it can work, but if the protests get big enough that people who watch news question why a protest doesn't get covered it doesn't work.
I've been to protests of like... 40 people before and it does work and kill energy.
In my city, if you have more than a thousand people going for weeks in a row, it's harder to ignore, but we don't get multi-day protests where people camp out at all. Also, you have to register your protest with the cops, and they can reject it and plan your marching route. Dogshit.
Yes, you seem to think I think that the protests are bad, I'm saying they're irrelevant, that they're wrong headed for pursuing x tactic. No, I'm just saying that perception is an important part of protests and part of the reason they're done, arguing against autism dragons sarcastic claim that protests are not about aesthetics.
That doesn't mean not blocking traffic or becoming polite and ignorable. Indeed, more people will pay attention to you if you do block traffic or fart in a politicians face or blitz a police station.
Obviously, establishment media has a lot of power in this, but less now than it used to.
Comparatively, more people (today compared to the 90s) get their perception of Israel from social media than traditional news like fox or cnn, as well as local protests, and are thus more likely to be supportive of or attend such a protest.
Literally had a post recently on hexbearabout how cable news viewers are the most Zionist, but cable news viewing is decreasing since the 90s.
I suppose, when I said institutional media I thought of Murdoch press and newspapers. Things like Facebook fall outside of that (think Arab spring, currently reading bevins book).
Including those changes things up, but compared to Vietnam or Iraq, I feel like seeing pro-palestine stuff is way more likely than pro-iraq stuff or pro-vietnam stuff at the outset of those two wars
In the book, he claims that Arab spring was started by earnest people with legitimate grievances, but was rapidly coopted by the west as a useful tool for regime change.
But I could also believe that the Ned funds any antiCPC movements in China if it could be a little anti-government, even if it's 30 trots and a reading group
Yeah, the author asks valid questions, but I feel that the examples aren't that good, I feel. Just my thoughts. His previous book also had some liberal talking-points. But, like, I like him. He's a great author in spite of being a WaPo news reporter, I think.
It does, so far, focus on his personal relationship with the events that were happening around him. I think in the pod sphere it's sold as a polemic against structurelessness and decentralisation in a space where those are very popular concepts (western left).
Honestly, I just feel like I'm burning out and not having enough time/energy to read, let alone critically. Hopefully in a few weeks I'll be a little more free to engage with everything
"Honestly, I just feel like I'm burning out and not having enough time/energy to read, let alone critically. Hopefully in a few weeks I'll be a little more free to engage with everything"
Yeah, I feel that way. Same here. I read his previous book. And I see som of his other points repeated here. Definitely agree with the "structurelessness and decentralization" point.
Haha I felt like it was clear what both I or autism dragons was saying, but looking back it wasn't really. I read the first part of the OP image, went back up to the title to see what it was about, got annoyed and posted. Bouncing between a lot of tasks really.
No. Stop.
The protests are fucking valid and I don't care how they're "perceived."
If we can't at least protest and look ugly doing so, then fuck this country and fuck the comrades that turn against us because of "optics."
Protestors have been fighting the police and making things hell for the Zionists and inconvenient too.
Protests are also a gateway to more radical action, like road blockages, armed protest, and stopping arms shipments, not to mention good for recruitment.
OK, if protests weren't perceived they would be ineffective. I do not see how this could possibly be controversial. And a way to get perceived is by blocking roads, ports, taking up space in (in this case) Zionist institutions.
Being perceived and trying to be doesn't necessarily mean leaning into liberal politeness politics. It can mean shitting on a confederate statue.
But it is still Aesthetics and making choices about it.
The vast majority of protesters were people who saw the initial protests on Facebook or tik tok or whatever.
Again, I literally do not understand how any of this could be argued.
Don't blame them, blame the media.
That's how it could be argued.
I'm not, I'm just saying protests areabout being seen. An invisible protest is pointless.
What do you think I'm arguing?
I guess definitionally if it was about the actual material effects being wrought it would be direct action not merely protest. but I feel like theres overlap
Yeah, big grey areas, but I still think a big reason you do protests is to be seen to recruit others to your cause, influence change etc.
I do not think a total indifference to whether action is seen at all is the way forward
yeah. it kinda has to be both
Our protests are pretty small here and have stopped getting much coverage :( We stop the zim ship from docking once every couple of weeks though
tbf the size and amount of coverage arent always even related. the nearest campus encampment to me got like a couple articles before it was even established that were pretty shitty and fatalistic, once it started to to take off and repelled police threats for the better part of a week it was radio silence like they were hoping it would fail if they didnt cover it. I think its getting some again now though finally
Yeah, I think it can work, but if the protests get big enough that people who watch news question why a protest doesn't get covered it doesn't work.
I've been to protests of like... 40 people before and it does work and kill energy.
In my city, if you have more than a thousand people going for weeks in a row, it's harder to ignore, but we don't get multi-day protests where people camp out at all. Also, you have to register your protest with the cops, and they can reject it and plan your marching route. Dogshit.
It will still affect the surrounding area.
It's not just about media portrayal.
It's not completely irrelevant either, as per op
Again, I still, think you're wrong.
About..?
Hmmmmm
Did you see my other comment?
Yes, you seem to think I think that the protests are bad, I'm saying they're irrelevant, that they're wrong headed for pursuing x tactic. No, I'm just saying that perception is an important part of protests and part of the reason they're done, arguing against autism dragons sarcastic claim that protests are not about aesthetics.
That doesn't mean not blocking traffic or becoming polite and ignorable. Indeed, more people will pay attention to you if you do block traffic or fart in a politicians face or blitz a police station.
Obviously, establishment media has a lot of power in this, but less now than it used to.
It was the specifics of no aesthetics at all.
"Obviously, establishment media has a lot of power in this, but less now than it used to."
I disagree.
Comparatively, more people (today compared to the 90s) get their perception of Israel from social media than traditional news like fox or cnn, as well as local protests, and are thus more likely to be supportive of or attend such a protest.
Literally had a post recently on hexbearabout how cable news viewers are the most Zionist, but cable news viewing is decreasing since the 90s.
I see what you're saying, but again, I disagree, per my previous comment.
I'm not discounting what you're saying but it's not as clear-cut as that.
I disagree.
Previously, there were more alternative media outlets.
And alternative bookstores.
Now?
Not so much.
Also, especially conservative news outlets have been capitalizing on social media a lot (and arguably winning).
I suppose, when I said institutional media I thought of Murdoch press and newspapers. Things like Facebook fall outside of that (think Arab spring, currently reading bevins book).
Including those changes things up, but compared to Vietnam or Iraq, I feel like seeing pro-palestine stuff is way more likely than pro-iraq stuff or pro-vietnam stuff at the outset of those two wars
Err, the Arab Spring was done by the West, wasn't it?
It was literally fomented by the Obama administration.
Bevin's book is incorrect and has some shoddy conclusions too.
Fair enough, should I stop reading it?
In the book, he claims that Arab spring was started by earnest people with legitimate grievances, but was rapidly coopted by the west as a useful tool for regime change.
But I could also believe that the Ned funds any antiCPC movements in China if it could be a little anti-government, even if it's 30 trots and a reading group
Yeah, the author asks valid questions, but I feel that the examples aren't that good, I feel. Just my thoughts. His previous book also had some liberal talking-points. But, like, I like him. He's a great author in spite of being a WaPo news reporter, I think.
It does, so far, focus on his personal relationship with the events that were happening around him. I think in the pod sphere it's sold as a polemic against structurelessness and decentralisation in a space where those are very popular concepts (western left).
Honestly, I just feel like I'm burning out and not having enough time/energy to read, let alone critically. Hopefully in a few weeks I'll be a little more free to engage with everything
"Honestly, I just feel like I'm burning out and not having enough time/energy to read, let alone critically. Hopefully in a few weeks I'll be a little more free to engage with everything"
Yeah, I feel that way. Same here. I read his previous book. And I see som of his other points repeated here. Definitely agree with the "structurelessness and decentralization" point.
No offense or anything.
But thanks for clarifying.
Sorry, it's early and for some reason my brain decided on pain
I'm very sorry for the bother.
Haha I felt like it was clear what both I or autism dragons was saying, but looking back it wasn't really. I read the first part of the OP image, went back up to the title to see what it was about, got annoyed and posted. Bouncing between a lot of tasks really.
:/
Yeah, multi-tasking scrambles your brain. Sorry that I got too heated there!
I forget what posts are about while halfway through them >.<