Those are good things, sure, but what exactly is the strategy for how this group hopes to achieve them? Making demands that you have no power to back up is pointless idealism.
The BLM marches were at least willing to use force to make their point, this event is just "Hey pls stop your massively profitable war because we're asking nicely
Yeah dude, protesting against police murder is definitely the same thing as the going to a rally with Tulsi Gabbard, Jimmy Dore and the Libertarian party.
Yeah dude, protesting against imperialism and world war 3 is definitely the same thing as the going to a rally with Kamala Harris, Joe Biden and the Democratic Party
A nationwide movement with aims like "stop killing black people" or "spend less money on cops" is being a lot more realistic than a handful of cranks saying "disband NATO."
Looks like a pretty clear message of ending the war, not a whole bunch of other stuff that's obviously never going to happen. Also doesn't look to be run by chud grifters lol.
The difference is that the people involved are actually reputable (afaik). If they got concessions, it wouldn't be chud grifters negotiating what those concessions look like. Personally, I don't like the tendency for protests to have broad, general demands with no plan for achieving them, but I can put up with it if it's people on my side saying it, because if they ever need to negotiate their actual demands I can trust them to do so.
These are all good and even MORE “unrealistic” (according to you), I would say “broad”, than the other anti-war rally. That makes it better not worse, you must’ve never gotten off your ass and protested anything.
Ah, the classic, "If you're not on board with this specific protest with extremely sus leadership you're completely worthless," tact. That kind of thing just tells me that you're opposed to the idea of vetting movements altogether, which confirms to me that I can safely disregard your perspective.
Those are good things, sure, but what exactly is the strategy for how this group hopes to achieve them? Making demands that you have no power to back up is pointless idealism.
deleted by creator
The BLM marches were at least willing to use force to make their point, this event is just "Hey pls stop your massively profitable war because we're asking nicely
deleted by creator
Yeah dude, protesting against police murder is definitely the same thing as the going to a rally with Tulsi Gabbard, Jimmy Dore and the Libertarian party.
Yeah dude, protesting against imperialism and world war 3 is definitely the same thing as the going to a rally with Kamala Harris, Joe Biden and the Democratic Party
deleted by creator
A nationwide movement with aims like "stop killing black people" or "spend less money on cops" is being a lot more realistic than a handful of cranks saying "disband NATO."
deleted by creator
Looks like a pretty clear message of ending the war, not a whole bunch of other stuff that's obviously never going to happen. Also doesn't look to be run by chud grifters lol.
deleted by creator
The difference is that the people involved are actually reputable (afaik). If they got concessions, it wouldn't be chud grifters negotiating what those concessions look like. Personally, I don't like the tendency for protests to have broad, general demands with no plan for achieving them, but I can put up with it if it's people on my side saying it, because if they ever need to negotiate their actual demands I can trust them to do so.
Ah, the classic, "If you're not on board with this specific protest with extremely sus leadership you're completely worthless," tact. That kind of thing just tells me that you're opposed to the idea of vetting movements altogether, which confirms to me that I can safely disregard your perspective.
deleted by creator