Jump to content

US Politics: Swindler's List


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Sorry everyone for just swooping in like this, but I wanted to reply to @Ser Scot A Ellison (see below) and noticed that the old thread is about to close. 

 

Quote

He did start far too late.  Yet would you perfer he hadn’t repented and attempted to attone for the evil he committed?

Scot,

I think the point was that as far as tactics to effect change go, hoping for a late-stage damascene conversion of an insider hitting moral rock bottom is probably not the way to go. Sure, it's nice when it happens, but it is extremely rare. Has there been a Schindler for the civil rights movement? Or Vietnam? Is there likely to be one for the current situation in Gaza? If no, then why would it be better to bank on that instead of protesting?

 

Edited by Ser Reptitious
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Sorry everyone for just swooping in like this, but I wanted to reply to @Ser Scot A Ellison (see below) and noticed that the old thread is about to close. 

 

Scot,

I think the point was that as far as tactics to effect change go, hoping for a late-stage damascene conversion of an insider hitting moral rock bottom is probably not the way to go. Sure, it's nice when it happens, but it is extremely rare. Has there been a Schindler for the civil rights movement? Or Vietnam? Is there likely to be one for the current situation in Gaza? If no, then why would it be better to bank on that instead of protesting?

 

Yes.  That doesn’t change my belief that seeking to win hearts and mind’s through sincere dialogue in parallel with protest movements is not a poor or unworthwhile thing to attempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thank you for the question, and starting the new thread too.

To what your thoughtful comment we can add -- not starting AFTER, but in protest from the start,  are the resignations from Biden's administration due to Israel/bibi/etc. having refused US requests to do all possible to minimize civilian deaths -- which are far over the top in proportion to those Hamas claimed taken out -- and the vast proportion of them women and children.

Thus the question to Scott is, are these administration protests to be looped in with your disgust with protests?

OTOH, perhaps this question to friend Scott (not irony nor snark nor sarcasm) this question might be going to far into the weed of this evil and unjust war and the history that caused it (not irony nor snark nor sarcasm either, as events have already written current history).

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Thus the question to Scott is, are these administration protests to be looped in with your disgust with protests?

 

I don’t believe I’ve ever called protests disgusting.  I don’t care for protests because in my experience and based on my observation they discourage dialogue.  And dialogue, again in my experience, is how minds are changed.

I raise Oskar Schindler because he was man who engaged in and suborned horrendous evil and then saw what he did and attempted to save the lives of those he wronged. Those he saved could have refused his help.  They could have said his indifference to their prior suffering and death meant he couldn’t be trusted and that he should simply have to deal with his conscience without the balm of being allowed to save a few.  I’m glad they didn’t.  I’m glad they survived.

I’m saying people can be convinced.  That, again, in parallel with protests people should work to change minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I raise Oskar Schindler because he was man who engaged in and suborned horrendous evil and then saw what he did and attempted to save the lives of those he wronged.

Yes, my friend, my dear, this was a good thing he did, and we're all glad he turned away from the horror os what he and his cohorts were doing.  But he wasn't protesting.

Protesting in public, making clear what the protest is about, IS, as you know, dialogue, after all.  Right?

We say, collectively and in public, that murdering Palestinians is, well murder, and we want it stopped, and all the enabling of it stopped.

Then, others step in, in public, beat on us, and say, stop saying that.

Dialogue.

In the meantime the murders continue continuously.  But while we keep saying in public these murders are continuing more people notice.  And hopefully join us in objecting to murder in our name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yes.  That doesn’t change my belief that seeking to win hearts and mind’s through sincere dialogue in parallel with protest movements is not a poor or unworthwhile thing to attempt.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but you cannot win hearts and minds at scale. You or I can attempt that with sincerity and maybe affect that change in one or two people. Maybe. 

A protest's job is different. It isn't to have one-on-one dialog, it is a registration of disgust/displeasure in public, en masse

I don't quite see how one can have a preference for one over the other. They work on different scales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, Ann Coulter went full racist in Vivek Ramaswamy's face saying should would never vote for him because he's Indian, on Vivek's own show no less? I guess Coulter being so brazen and Vivek having a piss weak reaction are both unsurprising, but still wow. It goes without saying that Ann is not alone in refusing to vote for someone because of their race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Yes.  That doesn’t change my belief that seeking to win hearts and mind’s through sincere dialogue in parallel with protest movements is not a poor or unworthwhile thing to attempt.

Sure, no argument with that. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this in the other topic too but I feel like the latest TIME cover puts a sword through the argument that protests can't influence the public. Everyone knows a student, people want to know why students are protesting, it's got people engaging with the topic that wouldn't normally engage with something outside of their immediate worries- 

-and now the students are on the cover of the flagbearer of mainstream American political opinion, on a story that's directly engaging with them, and looking cool as hell

 

That last part might seem trivial, but it's not. If we're talking winning hearts and minds, being presented as appealing matters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, DMC said:

Wow Ann Coulter went full racist..thirty years ago.

True, I guess what I meant is this is the first time I've seen her totally mask off. I have not seen or heard anything of her in my media exposure for at least 10 years. I imagine other's have got more regular doses of her vileness over that time.

Ref the campus protests looking cool. There is a reason people spend a butt load on their public image, because it matters in this timeline. If your public image can look cool without having to spend lots of cash that's even better, though there is normally a non-monetary cost to getting that image, which for the students is arrest, assault and an hiatus in their formal education. But they are learning a helluva lot from this experience.

Edited by The Anti-Targ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a comment on the protests either way.  Can’t emphasize that enough.

But, as someone who appreciates data, I do think it’s important to emphasize these protests do not reflect the vast majority of campuses across the country’s colleges and universities.  Axios has a pretty good map based on arrests and encampments that shows most of this is concentrated in the northeast/Ivy Leagues and UC schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

I posted this in the other topic too but I feel like the latest TIME cover puts a sword through the argument that protests can't influence the public. Everyone knows a student, people want to know why students are protesting, it's got people engaging with the topic that wouldn't normally engage with something outside of their immediate worries- 

-and now the students are on the cover of the flagbearer of mainstream American political opinion, on a story that's directly engaging with them, and looking cool as hell

 

That last part might seem trivial, but it's not. If we're talking winning hearts and minds, being presented as appealing matters. 

Disclaimer: I have just seen the cover and not the article itself. I like non-violent protest, think it’s an important and effective tool and regularly take part in them. I haven’t really followed the protests in the USA, since I am neither a student nor do i live there, but as a general feeling I would be more pro-protesters and against police intervention. 
I don’t want to offend anyone, since this seems to be a divisive topic. 
I agree that the protesters look as you said „cool as hell“, but for me and I think I am probably not the only one also somewhat frightening and not in a positive way. I will try to explain why:  generally not a fan of protesters that are somewhat masked ( in a protest you should be open about your opinion and person), what do you have to hide? second in this case the mask is also a religious symbol that imho suppresses women ( if you wear them all the time because that’s your personal belief ok, but to wear them just for a protest it’s different), finally the victory sign combined with the traditional Palestinian headscarf: what exactly would this victory be? I hope it’s an end to the violence, but imho it doesn’t come across as that…

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bironic said:

second in this case the mask is also a religious symbol that imho suppresses women ( if you wear them all the time because that’s your personal belief ok, but to wear them just for a protest it’s different), 

It’s not a niqab, it’s a keffiyeh. It’s not a religious thing so far as I know and it’s not traditionally worn by women apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bironic said:

( in a protest you should be open about your opinion and person),

 

Yeah, no, protesters see reprisals. I'm quite alright them protecting their identities. 

 

8 minutes ago, Bironic said:

second in this case the mask is also a religious symbol that imho suppresses women ( if you wear them all the time because that’s your personal belief ok, but to wear them just for a protest it’s different),


You're either confusing the hijab with the keffiyeh, or saying non-muslim women can't wear a keffiyeh because some muslim women use it as  hijab. Either way, that doesn't seem right. 

 

12 minutes ago, Bironic said:

finally the victory sign combined with the traditional Palestinian headscarf: what exactly would this victory be?

 

It's a peace sign, dude. It's a protest for peace, she's flashing the peace sign.



I'm sorry but every single part of your fear here comes from your own prejudices. It isn't a threatening photo at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Yeah, no, protesters see reprisals. I'm quite alright them protecting their identities.

This is definitely the case in some countries. In those countries I am obviously not against it. In regards to the USA, i really can't tell, they seem to have history of police brutality, etc. so probably a mixed bag. In my country, I am against it, the only ones (I know some of them personally) do it because they're violent...

34 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

You're either confusing the hijab with the keffiyeh, or saying non-muslim women can't wear a keffiyeh because some muslim women use it as  hijab. Either way, that doesn't seem right.

I know that's a palestinian head scarf, have seen enough pictures of Arafat wearing one (Forgot the name though, thanks). Does the general public know that? No. If you wear it a lot of people will associate you with some sort of Islamism, not exactly something that is popular amongst the very people you want to convince to stop supporting Netanyahus brutal government...

41 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

It's a peace sign, dude. It's a protest for peace, she's flashing the peace sign.

Confused them apparently, my bad.

Are they not similar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I'm sorry but every single part of your fear here comes from your own prejudices. It isn't a threatening photo at all. 

Exactly. All the “threats” imagined are a severe reach and a sign of a seriously biased observer. Ugh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Exactly. All the “threats” imagined are a severe reach and a sign of a seriously biased observer. Ugh. 

Never said anything about threats. I don't think the protesters are threatening me in any way. I actually support their cause. I was (and still am) against an Israeli military intervention in Gaza. I am against war crimes and crimes against humanity. I am against Police crackdown of peaceful protests.

Edited by Bironic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Confused them apparently, my bad.

Are they not similar?

 

They're the same sign, it's just that context means there's no reason to believe it's a victory sign (something you throw when, you know, you've won) and lots to believe it's a peace sign (it's a peace protest). Also the article does refer to it as such. 

 

12 minutes ago, Bironic said:

Does the general public know that? No. If you wear it a lot of people will associate you with some sort of Islamism, not exactly something that is popular amongst the very people you want to convince to stop supporting Netanyahus brutal government...

 

But this is prejudice. It's exactly what I'm saying: it's a reaction born of unreasonable and quite frankly wrong perceptions. 
Also making it the headline photo of a story that is explicitly about putting a face and story to the students seems like the best way to convince people that it's not, in fact, a threat. 

 

15 minutes ago, Bironic said:

This is definitely the case in some countries. In those countries I am obviously not against it. In regards to the USA, i really can't tell, they seem to have history of police brutality, etc. so probably a mixed bag. In my country, I am against it, the only ones (I know some of them personally) do it because they're violent...

It's not just police brutality. We live on the internet and people are bastards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...