Friendliest country I’ve ever been to was Cuba. Everyone was incredibly nice and helpful with anything we could want. Malaysia was a close second.
Least friendliest was Belgium, but I went as part of a school exchange trip, so I was pretty much always in a large group of mostly teenage Americans with a few teachers. Understandable why people might not have been as friendly.
Yes, it’s possible. Any system built by people can be destroyed by people.
Now, of course, there would be a reaction. What specifically that would be I can’t say. I’d like to think it would cause serious blowback, but I’m also pretty jaded and don’t really have that much faith in people all the time.
Great example! These little turns of phrases and wordplay that reveal the incredible right-wing bias of our media are all over the place if you learn how to look for them.
Another great example you see all the time is “office involved shooting” whenever someone is shot by police. It’s always something like “John Smith died after an officer involved shooting” or “a gun was discharged in an officer involved shooting that resulted in the death of Jane Smith.” Where it should be “Officer Joe Blow murdered John and Jane Smith.”
Those of us who pay attention know.
However, the media ecosystem is INCREDIBLY conservative and pumps out the rah-rah jingoism whenever it can. Those of who just stick to the mainstream echochambers think the US is a bastion of freedom and peace.
At the Tesla protests, yes. it’s mostly standing there with signs and chanting. At the one I attend, the dealership is on a major road with a TON of traffic. People line the street on either side stretching for about 1/2 a mile. The first protest had a bunch of people at the front door of the dealership, but police came and arrested one person. Since then, there has always been a police presence right at the front door. The cops tend to leave us alone if don’t go up to the door of the dealership. A couple of times every hour a group will organize to try to block the road. They’ll usually hold the space for about 5 minutes before the police come and force everyone back to the sidewalks. The point here is to challenge authority.
On a broader scale (I attend a LOT of protests), it depends on the protest. At those that are planned and coordinated by a larger organization (think the Women’s March, March for Science, etc) there’s usually a stage with a series of speakers “preaching to the choir” to energize the crowd. There’s lost of people chanting in unison various slogans/chants. Usually there’s a single rallying point where the speeches happen, then there will often be a march from that point to somewhere else. Along the route the crowd shuts down the streets, chants, carry signs, etc. The point here to make connections with like-minded people and demonstrate that there is popular support for whatever issue/concern there is.
At less coordinated protests without a central organizing committee (think the 2017 airport protests, the 2020 uprising) there’s not as much of set “schedule of events”. It’s more of a way for a community to express their collective anger/fear/outrage/etc. The specific goal will depend more on the specific event. For example, the 2017 airport protests were against the first version of Trump’s Muslim Ban. People entering the US from the countries he had tried to ban people from were being held in holding rooms at airports. A large number of activists showed up at airports where those people were being held and the sheer numbers and anger we were expressing got the people working at the airports to let the people go. There were also immigration lawyers who showed up to those protests. When the people in holding were released, they had legal representation right there waiting to support them. The 2020 uprising events were about showing that people weren’t afraid of the police and wouldn’t be silenced by police violence.
At every protest I’ve ever been at, there are always people from various organizations walking through the crowd trying to get people to sign up. Sometimes it’s just collecting names/emails/phone numbers for a fundraising list. Sometimes it’s staffers for politicians raising signatures to get on a ballot, or to get a referendum on a ballot. Sometimes it’s activist organizations trying to get people who might be willing to take further actions.
As virtually every protest winds down, there’s usually a group of people, almost always not affiliated with the “official event” who organize to continue taking action, typically less sanctioned, and dubiously legal actions.
Most protests don’t achieve their immediate goal. That’s how it’s always been. The way we tend to talk about it, any given movement or event has 3 sets of goals: short-term/immediate goals, mid-terms goals, and long-term goals. We usually fail at the short-term goals (although not always). But we’re almost always successful at the medium- and long-term goals. These Tesla protests, for example. The short-term/immediate goal is to shut down the specific dealership we’re protesting at. That has only happened where police presence has been light and where protesters are willing to take illegal action and get arrested (which is always a minority of protesters). This goal has largely been unsuccessful. The medium-term goal is to destroy the Tesla brand so much that the stock price plummets. This is already happening. After the election, Tesla stock prices skyrocketed. Since the protests started, the stock price has already dropped back to where it was before the election, wiping out all that value added since the election. Keep this up, and we’ll hopefully force it even farther down. If we’re lucky, they’ll have to start closing dealerships. The long-term goal is to remove Musk and Trump from power. Obviously, that hasn’t happened yet, but that’s why it’s a long-term goal.
If you say yes, your 17 year old son will be fucking his girlfriend in your house with your implied consent.
If you’re fine with that, go ahead and say yes.
If it helps mollify you any, I think it’s pretty likely they’ve already fucked.
Expecting consistency between beliefs and actions from bigots and fascists is a mistake.
There were well over 1000 people at the protest I was at on Saturday…
Next Saturday (April 5) is supposed to be a huge day of protest across the country, notably with a very large demonstration planned for the National Mall in DC. I plan to be at that one.
Or just say you want the comfy pillow.
It’s marketed as being a product for new parents. There’s no law that says is must be used that way.
a) No, nobody will judge you
b) If they do, fuck 'em
You can guess what happens next?
He fixed the cable?
My thought is no. I have kids, but mine are much younger (3 & 5). Right now, I’d prefer to wait as long as possible before I get them smartphones. My niece and nephew didn’t get one until they were 15, and I feel like that’s too young, too.
My big concern is social media. If I could ensure they weren’t on social media at all, I wouldn’t have as much of a problem. But I don’t think it’s safe or healthy for kids to be on social media that young. Hell, I’m almost 40 and I don’t think it’s safe or healthy for me to be on social media (yet here I am…).
Also, dude, Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.
I’m not talking about the guys who built the fucking railroad here.
Communism is just a red herring!
One could argue that many modern right wing libertarians are closer to anarchism than some of their left wing equivalents.
Only if you don’t understand what right-wing libertarianism is. It is 100% reliant on the state monopoly on violence and coercive authoritarianism.
historically, “libertarian” is MUCH closer to the modern libertarian than the modern socialist
This is factually incorrect.
I’m not arguing anything about the modern meaning. I’m providing historical context as to where the word comes from, and correcting the previous commenter who was asserting ‘libertarian’ had no connection to socialist political theory.
My argument here is that when the term ‘libertarian’ was created it was specifically used by leftists to describe a leftist political ideology and the only reason it is not still associated with leftist politics is because right-wing conservatives very specifically and intentionally “stole” the term in the middle of the 20th century.
Further, in the right-wing context, 'libertarianism" is synonymous with classical liberalism and conservatism. The idea that right-wing libertarians embrace the ideology of personal liberty is just plain horseshit. They embrace personal liberty for one person and one person only: themself. They want 0 personal liberty for anyone other than themself, and if you tell them they are not allowed to restrict the liberties of others, they take that as an attack on their personal liberty. Modern right-wing libertarian political “philosophy” is no more developed than the political ideology of a toddler.
I don’t have any personal attachment or desire for myself or other leftists to use the term libertarian. The petulant children can have it.
You’re just factually wrong. The word ‘libertarian’ was first used to describe a political ideology in 1857 by the French Anarcho-Communist philosopher Joseph Déjacque specifically to differentiate his ideology from the mutualist anarchism of Proudhon.
The term ‘libertarian’ took off in popularity in France in the 1880s when the French government began to suppress anarchist newspapers. They just switched to using the word “libertarian” rather than “anarchist” to get around the censor. This is exemplified in the weekly newspaper founded in 1895 called The Libertarian (Le Libertaire in French).
The anarchists in the Russian Revolution and in the Spanish Civil War called themselves interchangeably ‘anarchists’, ‘libertarians’, and ‘libertarian socialists’.
The term didn’t come to be associated with classical liberalism and right-wing ideologies as it is today until the middle of the 20th century. It was a specific attempt by right-wing American political philosophers who held an allegiance to Locke-style 18th century classical liberalism, but felt that the term “liberal” had become too associated with left-wing (within the American context) politics.
Here’s a quote from 1955 from the libertarian writer Dean Russell:
Many of us call ourselves “liberals.” And it is true that the word “liberal” once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkward and subject to misunderstanding. Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word “libertarian.”
Here’s a quote from the libertarian writer and philosopher Murray Rothbard from the early 1970s:
One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy. ‘Libertarians’ had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over.
Here’s a quote from Ronald fucking Reagan in 1975:
believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism
Modern libertarianism in the context of American politics is synonymous with classical liberalism and conservatism (up until the MAGA movement co-opted conservatism and just made it synonymous with fascism). But in the US prior to the middle of the 20th century, and outside of the US until much more recently, libertarianism was synonymous with anarchism and was very much a leftist ideology.
It makes me feel like they’re trying to minimize or discount my own feelings (of disappointment, anger, betrayal etc) to present themself as a victim. To me, an apology doesn’t really mean much. It’s just words. If you apologize, then continue to do the same thing that elicited the need for the apology in the first place, then you’re not really sorry. You’re just apologizing to get me to stop being upset/confrontational/etc.
Say ‘sorry’ once, but demonstrate you’re actually sorry by changing your behavior. Otherwise, you’re just repeating false platitudes in order to dismiss my own feelings.