Why don't we riot like mad ejits

To protest, we need a reason beyond disagreeing with how the government run the country. Unfortunately Occupy and co don't like the results of recent elections. I imagine it is indeed disappointing for them to discover that people don't identify with their simplistic world view. It must be even more annoying for them that the apocalypse hasn't come to pass.

Simply put social injustice and economic hardship does not exist on a sufficient scale to create the need for urgent change in government. Thats the litmus test which would have people on the street.

Ireland provides a standard of living and opportunity comfortably within the top 30 countries in the world. It's only a lack of international context or ideologically motivated daydreaming which makes peoples think taking to the streets is necessary.

To all y'all asking me about SF.

They are the only party outside of the technical group who ask what needs to be asked down here.

Yes, Adams is a Problem. He needs to go. Not admitting IRA stuff is a joke.

I like the cut of MLMD and PD. They seem clean.

Maybe I wont join SF, but I will look into what ever Indo's are around to. SF really need to ditch the past, the brother thing etc is sick.

BUT, I have been warming to them lately. Some very good , young, clean (I hope) characters coming up.

I would like to see a united Ireland also, not one more drop of blood for it tho and it is quite low on the list of things Id like to see done.

The problem is a sever lack of credible alternatives.

The point is to get off my backside and off these websites.


Christ you mention SF in Ireland and you get instantly attacked. That tells me that are doing something right.

RE: OP

Riot is the wrong word to use. Mass peaceful demos are whats needed, people power. No violence.

That would actually gain us some respect around the world.

DistanceVector wrote: »

To all y'all asking me about SF.

They are the only party outside of the technical group who ask what needs to be asked down here.

Yes, Adams is a Problem. He needs to go. Not admitting IRA stuff is a joke.

I like the cut of MLMD and PD. They seem clean.

Maybe I wont join SF, but I will look into what ever Indo's are around to. SF really need to ditch the past, the brother thing etc is sick.

BUT, I have been warming to them lately. Some very good , young, clean (I hope) characters coming up.

I would like to see a united Ireland also, not one more drop of blood for it tho and it is quite low on the list of things Id like to see done.

The problem is a sever lack of credible alternatives.

The point is to get off my backside and off these websites.


Christ you mention SF in Ireland and you get instantly attacked. That tells me that are doing something right.

The problem with almost all well established opposition groups, is that they will say all the correct/dreamy/populist things before an election, but once they get into power they pretty much never keep their word, so it really doesn't matter what they say.

I can't see Sinn Fein ever having enough credibility, to be given even the tiniest benefit of the doubt in that regard - they deserve maximum possible cynicism really.

SPS1 wrote: »

Boycotting industries so they lose profit or violent protest, are the only forms of effective protest. Eg salt match, the bus boycott in the south, black panthers, Vietcong guerillas, suffragette marches, stonewall riots.

You don't convince a higher power who is abusing their power, to change by sitting around with placards asking them.

Yes I suppose Martin Luther King never achieved anything, with his dedication to non-violent protest - completely ineffective, right?

You don't put together protest movements in order to make people in power listen - if you're getting to the point of protesting, they already aren't going to listen - you put protest movements together to help educate people and galvanize public opinion, and to develop political alternatives - i.e. new politicians and influencing the influencable current politicians, to build up political pressure.

People who go to protests, in order to turn them violent, are idiots who will only risk discrediting the wider protest in the eyes of the public, driving people away from protesting - if you want to guarantee a tiny protest movement, which drives people away from it, then use violence.


We're absolutely nowhere near the level, where things are so bad, that violence is in any way justifiable - even Mandela in apartheid South Africa held it as a last resort, after all other avenues were exhausted.

Valetta wrote: »

Also known as shooting yourself in the foot.... Biting the hand that feeds you....

Take your pick.

Heh - funny that just as I was reading this, was listening to The Hand That Feeds:


So you think we should have blind deference to authority, if that what's supposed to be 'the hand that feeds', yes?

Potatoeman wrote: »

I know many people didnt protest because of the generic ideas being put forward. Anti-austerity marches organised by the public service were about protecting their pay and would not benefit the average worker and didnt answer where the money we needed came from. Why would someone protest for something that if brought in would mean more taxes on them?

People also seem angry and ill informed. They complain about bankers while ignoring the regulators role in creating the whole mess. There is no point having regulations if you dont enforce them.

The central bank and regulators, are made up of ex-banking/finance industry people, and the banking/finance industry, has so much control over money that they have extreme political influence that they can use to avoid being regulated.

It's not the fault solely of just one of banking/finance/government, it's the fault of the class of people who inhabit all of those industries in powerful positions, to the point that they can put themselves either beyond the law, or rewrite/hold-back laws/reforms, in their favour.

It's a problem that's not limited to any one location, but is a problem consisting of a whole class of (first and most important of all) powerful and corrupt (legally/ethically) people, or powerful people who are happy to remain within and protect an ethically corrupt system (ethically corrupt due to inadequate regulations, enforcement of regulations or reform of regulations - among many other reasons).

Jonny7 wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

There are barely any adequate investigations into fraud,

What fraud, who?

KyussBishop wrote:

reforms of regulations, to prevent a future crisis

What regulations are needed precisely?

What fraud needs to be investigated? If you believe it's happened then you are basing that on facts obviously

provide and log the facts and it can be addressed properly

The admin we see culpable or at least accountable has been voted out

If you were to set up a protest movement, what would be it's aim?

If it's to punish crime/fraud - then protest not needed so much as legal

If it's an increase in financial regulation, which regulation exactly?

I have no prob with protests

However there is a prob with people who label the nation as stupid and lazy but couldnt be bothered to form their own protest movement or even be bothered to collect basic facts, just lazily label gov/banks as "evil/corrupt"

You pretty much deliberately cut up the first sentence you quote from me, to remove the bolded part below that already addresses most of your demands for answers - which shows you have dishonest intent, and that your questions are almost purely for rhetorical effect:

KyussBishop wrote:

There are barely any adequate investigations into fraud, and barely any efforts at implementing necessary reforms of regulations, to prevent a future crisis - and not even proper investigation into fraud that people have tried to blow the whistle about, in the current crisis (like from Jonathan Sugarman - a whistleblower who was implicitly threatened with him being referred to the Gardai by the central-bank/financial-regulators, if he exposed wrongdoing to them).

The argument in your post as well, pretty much reduces down to "If there is no evidence, it didn't happen - nothing to see here" - which is exactly the argument that the post your replying to addresses, meaning you've pretty much willingly ignored my entire post, in order to put forward a rhetorical attack - this kind of rhetorical argument, you see from someone making demanding questions, to setup up a platform where they steadfastly remain 'unconvinced' of everything said - and I'm not here to try and convince people, who both selectively ignore my posts, and display dishonest intent in doing that.

And don't bother complaining about not getting answers, when 1: you already have an answer to most questions in the post you selectively ignored, and 2: when you shouldn't bother expecting anyone to answer you when you display such bad intent.
What that then becomes, is a platform to try and pan a user for not answering questions (even when they have), to try and distract from them pointing out your dishonest methods of argument - which I'll be keeping an eye on and will dissect in detail.