Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Can we have peaceful, national protests yet?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
MilanPan!c wrote: »I did address them. You've just ignored that I guess...?
I don't see where you addressed the points, I just see a generalisation and you labeling my post as delusionalNote that no one but you is claiming that marching forced anyone to do anything.
Those are your colourful words, certainly not mine.
Pendantic personal definitions are hindering the debate I think
I'll clarify your position - marching alone, without any other forms of protest, does not result in a tangible visible change
Well then Iraq isn't a good example, because while it mainly featured street protests, there were other forms of protest involved - violence, human shields, etc.
Likewise Tunisia, which you discard, the main feature was mass street protests, however there were other forms of protest.
My argument is that marching, in the general definition (not yours), such as mass street protests can have effects, even if the desired "aim", e.g. Ban the Bomb isn't met. Examples I've given, you have discarded because they don't meet your requirements of the process of "marching alone" - which is getting pretty surreal really, I've never come across this kind of nitpicky view on politics before, which is really saying something
For example, a "march" against corruption - of course there can be effects - whether they are merely to highlight and raise conciousness, public feeling on the issue, or to raise the pressure on the government to act, or to strongly effect the next election result or even to effect genuine change, regulations, laws and policy
I presume, you're going to be there saying it didn't end corruption, therefore it had no effect0 -
-
Advertisement
-
I don't see where you addressed the points, I just see a generalisation and you labeling my post as delusional
Those are your colourful words, certainly not mine.
Pendantic personal definitions are hindering the debate I think
I'll clarify your position - marching alone, without any other forms of protest, does not result in a tangible visible change
Well then Iraq isn't a good example, because while it mainly featured street protests, there were other forms of protest involved - violence, human shields, etc.
Likewise Tunisia, which you discard, the main feature was mass street protests, however there were other forms of protest.
My argument is that marching, in the general definition (not yours), such as mass street protests can have effects, even if the desired "aim", e.g. Ban the Bomb isn't met. Examples I've given, you have discarded because they don't meet your requirements of the process of "marching alone" - which is getting pretty surreal really, I've never come across this kind of nitpicky view on politics before, which is really saying something
For example, a "march" against corruption - of course there can be effects - whether they are merely to highlight and raise conciousness, public feeling on the issue, or to raise the pressure on the government to act, or to strongly effect the next election result or even to effect genuine change, regulations, laws and policy
I presume, you're going to be there saying it didn't end corruption, therefore it had no effect
Lots of points, I'll try not to miss any.
First re: Iraq. You're correct. I responded to someone else about Iraq. They claimed the Iraq protests ended Labour and Blair. I said:Finally, you claim the Iraq war protests were a victory, because one government in one country lost one election afterwards.
Of course the marches were held in hundreds of cities worldwide, they didn't achieve their goals and Labour would've lost without the march, considering the unpopularity of the war and Labour in general at that point.
Unless you're claiming labour would've won again if that one march hadn't occurred. Certainly you're not claiming that.
To answer your claims - well, I can't believe you're honestly saying that people wouldn't have changed their opinions about power, intelligence, etc., without that one march?? Certainly you can't believe that.
I disregarded Tunisia, yes, for all the reasons I should. It wasn't just marching around. It involved strikes, violent clashes with police, public suicides and other civil disobedience.
That not a march. Obviously. Comparing it to a "march" in the same way you compared the year long bus boycott in Montgomery to a "march" is extremely absurd.
If you'd like to discuss the range of non-violent protest, then certainly, like I've said, much of it can be effective.
It'd be quicker if you read what I said and didn't try and make me argue positions I don't hold.
One last point:
Redefining marching, to include all street protest isn't really reasonable. Marching around with signs - ie all that happens in Ireland - is a thing into itself. All forms of protest have labels. Let's not conflate them.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Advertisement