The sentences are believed to be the longest in the UK’s history for non-violent protest and were delivered under two new controversial laws that supercharged policing powers.
Quite a bridge there, to compare governments and companies ruining our habitat to women’s suffrage. Holy hell.
9 to 5 Joe is’t making the decisions and won’t be able to affect the situation apart from voting and activism, and these protests I talked about are only annoying the people the activists should be trying to win over, to be able to make a change.
Suffrage wasn’t about profit driven business, it was people being shit to people, the poor and the rich all together, if we simplify it to the root.
Maybe I missed it but it seems the average Joe voted for people that are responsible for what’s going on right now instead of trying to change direction drastically right?
That’s pretty much it. Now should we hold the politicians responsible, or should we piss on the Joes? I’d personally see the protesters inconveniencing the politicians, and not the Apple Store employee trying to get to his work shift.
Good example in Finland is gay rights, we got those by pressuring politicians, not by chaining ourselves to roads. It’s been proven to work, and the opposite has been seen to just get people fed up.
I think protesting against the vote of the average Joe in a way that affects the average Joe is quite valid. The politicians got voted for their policies, they wouldn’t be doing their jobs if they just shifted their whole position because of a protests that are expressing quite old ideas. The average Joe has to stand up and vote for people that actually want the change we need.
The pressure regarding queer rights was successful because it became a less and less favourable position to be against those same rights in the public view. Being conservative regarding fighting the climate change is still a pretty favourable position so not enough pressure can be built by protests against politicians alone.
And, one aspect that is overlooked in the discussion, at least in my opinion: People are allowed to be angry at the state of the world and the popular opinions, and express that anger publicly and in the face of the general public. This is a valid thing to do.
Quite a bridge there, to compare governments and companies ruining our habitat to women’s suffrage. Holy hell.
9 to 5 Joe is’t making the decisions and won’t be able to affect the situation apart from voting and activism, and these protests I talked about are only annoying the people the activists should be trying to win over, to be able to make a change.
Suffrage wasn’t about profit driven business, it was people being shit to people, the poor and the rich all together, if we simplify it to the root.
Maybe I missed it but it seems the average Joe voted for people that are responsible for what’s going on right now instead of trying to change direction drastically right?
That’s pretty much it. Now should we hold the politicians responsible, or should we piss on the Joes? I’d personally see the protesters inconveniencing the politicians, and not the Apple Store employee trying to get to his work shift.
Good example in Finland is gay rights, we got those by pressuring politicians, not by chaining ourselves to roads. It’s been proven to work, and the opposite has been seen to just get people fed up.
I think protesting against the vote of the average Joe in a way that affects the average Joe is quite valid. The politicians got voted for their policies, they wouldn’t be doing their jobs if they just shifted their whole position because of a protests that are expressing quite old ideas. The average Joe has to stand up and vote for people that actually want the change we need.
The pressure regarding queer rights was successful because it became a less and less favourable position to be against those same rights in the public view. Being conservative regarding fighting the climate change is still a pretty favourable position so not enough pressure can be built by protests against politicians alone.
And, one aspect that is overlooked in the discussion, at least in my opinion: People are allowed to be angry at the state of the world and the popular opinions, and express that anger publicly and in the face of the general public. This is a valid thing to do.