the "make a noise" protest

I've already answered your last paragraph, perhaps our posts crossed but:

Kate P said

Quote :

I hope those crazy demonstrators who carry cans of petrol are far away from us.

What the ????

Quote :

The hysteria is all one one side - and it's not mine.

Sure of that?

cactus flower wrote:

I've already answered your last paragraph, perhaps our posts crossed but:

Our posts didn't cross and you haven't answered the questions I asked. Reframing them doesn't answer them.

Quote :

Kate P said

Quote :

I hope those crazy demonstrators who carry cans of petrol are far away from us.

What the ????

You said posts made by ibis, tonys and I were straw men.
There was a protestor during the week who carried a can of petrol and threatened to set himself alight before he was disarmed by a Garda Inspector at considerable risk to himself.

Quote :

Quote :

The hysteria is all one one side - and it's not mine.

Sure of that?

Absolutely positive. Where's the hysteria in asking that people reflect and give reasons for their proposed actions?

(not sure why some of this is in bold, not my intention and there doesn't seem to be a mechanism to undo it, )

ibis wrote:

A general election will change nothing but the faces - it won't change the way politics is done in this country, and that's the problem. FF will be back at the next election, or the one after.

And even if Fine Gael win an overall majority, they will still have to implement broadly the same policies that Fianna Fáil will over the next few years. The reality of our budget deficits has rendered our political process hamstrung. Nothing can really be done until our budget deficits are brought to between 1-2% or to surplus. Brian Lenihan will continue to raise taxes and cut spending over the next few years because he has to. Richard Bruton would have to do the exact same. A general election would actually solve nothing at the moment and would in fact be worse than no election at all. This is because the Government would have an excuse to suspend all activity for the four-week electoral window before the ballot. If things are changing so fast then surely we would want uninterrupted continuity in the executive rather than a damaging month-long interregnum?

I believe people are more likely to accept harsh measures if they are applied fairly across the board. The current government has proven itself to be in thrall to the interests of the builder and banker kleptocratic class. Any cuts implemented by the two Brians will be resisted tooth and nail. Richard Bruton might end up doing the exact same thing, but his credibility and moral authority to do so is not (yet) in tatters.

Kate P wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I've already answered your last paragraph, perhaps our posts crossed but:

Our posts didn't cross and you haven't answered the questions I asked. Reframing them doesn't answer them.

Quote :

Kate P said

Quote :

I hope those crazy demonstrators who carry cans of petrol are far away from us.

What the ????

You said posts made by ibis, tonys and I were straw men.
There was a protestor during the week who carried a can of petrol and threatened to set himself alight before he was disarmed by a Garda Inspector at considerable risk to himself.

Quote :

Quote :

The hysteria is all one one side - and it's not mine.

Sure of that?

Absolutely positive. Where's the hysteria in asking that people reflect and give reasons for their proposed actions?

(not sure why some of this is in bold, not my intention and there doesn't seem to be a mechanism to undo it, )

Some kind of demonstration, Kate?

Yes, it is hysteria to put up an individual who has for some reason snapped as though that was representative of people who have protested/will protest against government.
Yes, the posts were full of straw dogs as they put up all kinds of supposed arguments that had in fact not been made by anyone.

Kate P wrote:

Straw people, cactus and I hope those crazy demonstrators who carry cans of petrol are far away from us.

Yeah, Phew who can get over crazy demonstrator, fire-starters, 80 year old Murty and Bridget at that OAP-Medical-Card-Church protest last year, eh?

I blame the parish priest meself.

Pax wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Straw people, cactus and I hope those crazy demonstrators who carry cans of petrol are far away from us.

Yeah, Phew who can get over crazy demonstrator, fire-starters, 80 year old Murty and Bridget at that OAP-Medical-Card-Church protest last year, eh?

I blame the parish priest meself.

Ah, though, you probably didn't have to wade through them - they was mad.

Seriously, though, all I'm calling for is some thought about what's wanted out of the protests - otherwise all we'll get is more of the same with a different label. I'm nor sure why people are so opposed to that. Protesting is not an end in itself.

ibis wrote:

Pax wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Straw people, cactus and I hope those crazy demonstrators who carry cans of petrol are far away from us.

Yeah, Phew who can get over crazy demonstrator, fire-starters, 80 year old Murty and Bridget at that OAP-Medical-Card-Church protest last year, eh?

I blame the parish priest meself.

Ah, though, you probably didn't have to wade through them - they was mad.

Seriously, though, all I'm calling for is some thought about what's wanted out of the protests - otherwise all we'll get is more of the same with a different label. I'm nor sure why people are so opposed to that. Protesting is not an end in itself.

Straw man alert !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ibis wrote:

Ah, though, you probably didn't have to wade through them - they was mad.

Seriously, though, all I'm calling for is some thought about what's wanted out of the protests - otherwise all we'll get is more of the same with a different label. I'm nor sure why people are so opposed to that. Protesting is not an end in itself.

True but protest is an outlet even if it is addled. Apathy could be more dangerous when powerful elites introduce what they'd like (shock doctrine style say) within a crisis.
And protesters and groups within can form bonds and contacts which would be hard outside of it.

Looking back at the thread I don't think there's opposition to your futile-change-of-the-guards point here (maybe p.ie was more, heated.....) .

So I'd agree that there should ideally be a unified end-goal and that it should not be more of the same.* To achieve this, I point towards simple policy proposal goals I mentioned earlier (introduced like in Latin America under the local MSM and within protests etc) which would have to be implemented no matter who is in power. Maybe a new constitution?



*(However in the practice can come goals and policies which we could never imagine (or should not?) prior to the event. But this is probably best left parked in this thread.)

Pax wrote:

ibis wrote:

Ah, though, you probably didn't have to wade through them - they was mad.

Seriously, though, all I'm calling for is some thought about what's wanted out of the protests - otherwise all we'll get is more of the same with a different label. I'm nor sure why people are so opposed to that. Protesting is not an end in itself.

True but protest is an outlet even if it is addled. Apathy could be more dangerous when powerful elites introduce what they'd like (shock doctrine style say) within a crisis.

Which is why I'm not opposed to the protesting itself - I have to say it again, I like the noise protest, and I'm a big fan of the idea of throwing shoes onto Leinster Lawns carpark. However, I put more faith in the quiet anger of chattering classes than the protests - in the absence of guns, that's what topples governments.

Pax wrote:

And protesters and groups within can form bonds and contacts which would be hard outside of it.

The same is true of bowling, though.

Pax wrote:

Looking back at the thread I don't think there's opposition to your futile-change-of-the-guards point here (maybe p.ie was more, heated.....) .

Well, cactus keeps calling it a straw man - admittedly, I'm not quite sure what she means, but she's presumably objecting to something.

Pax wrote:

So I'd agree that there should ideally be a unified end-goal and that it should not be more of the same.* To achieve this, I point towards simple policy proposal goals I mentioned earlier (introduced like in Latin America under the local MSM and within protests etc) which would have to be implemented no matter who is in power. Maybe a new constitution?

That's the kind of thing I mean - my personal preference would be for more oversight accompanied by routine transparency, but I suppose that too is pointless if people are simply going to "get it out of their system" by protesting and go back to sleep.

Aragon wrote:

Kate P wrote

Quote :

Most people who turn out to protest are not well informed. They know a lot about their particular situations but have very little grasp of anything bigger than themselves.

And you know all about everything there is to know where ALL of these people are concerned. Your prejudcies are not self-evident universal truths. Outrageous arrogance, ignorance and insulting condescension. Kate P in her imaginary state of pole position, as ever. Exactly the mindset that we all know is informing what is going on now - the ignorant, stupid mob - all needing a dose of what she/they 'know' is good for them better than they do themselves. I thought this sort of shite went out with the advent of universal suffrage and democracy for all. I dare you, Kate P, to go into your public market place and speechify to that effect. Not even the Gardai would be there to protect you from the anger you would create:

[url=http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gardai-gear-up-for-only-their-secondever-public-protest-1640576.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gardai-gear-up-for-only-their-secondever-public-protest-1640576.html[/quote[/url]]

Aragon, you have neither integrity nor credibility and I don't intend to engage any further with you on this or any thread. You are persistently insulting, you refuse to countenance any perspective other than your own. You repeatedly draw personal inferences (which are wrong) from my posts and those of others and you never, never debate the issue. You are in fact the embodiment of the protestor who shrieks ignorantly and refuses to accept that there is a world outside of your narrow personal frame of reference.

Quote :

Yes, it is hysteria to put up an individual who has for some reason snapped as though that was representative of people who have protested/will protest against government.

My comment had been intended as an ironic response to your introduction of straw men - or straw people, cactus. It didn't work, clearly and it's beside the point which you refuse to engage with.

Quote :

Yes, the posts were full of straw dogs as they put up all kinds of supposed arguments that had in fact not been made by anyone.

cactus, you are an intelligent person and I have huge respect for you as a poster but this is ridiculous.

You are supporting a thesis. I haven't put forward any much argument, just questioned the basis for yours. I have asked - as ibis has, on a number of occasions that you justify, explain and clarify the precepts on which that thesis is based. And you call this request a strawman? And you say that I'm being hysterical?

ibis wrote:

Pax wrote:

ibis wrote:

Ah, though, you probably didn't have to wade through them - they was mad.

Seriously, though, all I'm calling for is some thought about what's wanted out of the protests - otherwise all we'll get is more of the same with a different label. I'm nor sure why people are so opposed to that. Protesting is not an end in itself.

True but protest is an outlet even if it is addled. Apathy could be more dangerous when powerful elites introduce what they'd like (shock doctrine style say) within a crisis.

Which is why I'm not opposed to the protesting itself - I have to say it again, I like the noise protest, and I'm a big fan of the idea of throwing shoes onto Leinster Lawns carpark. However, I put more faith in the quiet anger of chattering classes than the protests - in the absence of guns, that's what topples governments.

Can we not chatter and protest?

ibis wrote:

Pax wrote:

And protesters and groups within can form bonds and contacts which would be hard outside of it.

The same is true of bowling, though.

Usually not the same demographic and mindset tho'

ibis wrote:

Pax wrote:

Looking back at the thread I don't think there's opposition to your futile-change-of-the-guards point here (maybe p.ie was more, heated.....) .

Well, cactus keeps calling it a straw man - admittedly, I'm not quite sure what she means, but she's presumably objecting to something.

"Protesting is not an end in itself." I believe nobody is arguing that this is the case in this thread yet variants of it are being brought up a number of times. Is that not building the man o'straw to knock him down in vainglorious 'victory'?

ibis wrote:

Pax wrote:

So I'd agree that there should ideally be a unified end-goal and that it should not be more of the same.* To achieve this, I point towards simple policy proposal goals I mentioned earlier (introduced like in Latin America under the local MSM and within protests etc) which would have to be implemented no matter who is in power. Maybe a new constitution?

That's the kind of thing I mean - my personal preference would be for more oversight accompanied by routine transparency, but I suppose that too is pointless if people are simply going to "get it out of their system" by protesting and go back to sleep.

Given the system and the media we have, that they are protesting at all is a great sign. I don't think the protest-and-sleep sector will be as large in such a crisis as this. The middle class (or those that think they are not workers when, they are) can shift and agree to things they never would have outside of it. Even a set of policies, or a plan, which would hopefully be implemented.
Yes we can! .....maybe.

Protesting: a great way to dispel energy that could otherwise be used up usefully for doing something effective

Kate P wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Kate P wrote

Quote :

Most people who turn out to protest are not well informed. They know a lot about their particular situations but have very little grasp of anything bigger than themselves.

And you know all about everything there is to know where ALL of these people are concerned. Your prejudcies are not self-evident universal truths. Outrageous arrogance, ignorance and insulting condescension. Kate P in her imaginary state of pole position, as ever. Exactly the mindset that we all know is informing what is going on now - the ignorant, stupid mob - all needing a dose of what she/they 'know' is good for them better than they do themselves. I thought this sort of shite went out with the advent of universal suffrage and democracy for all. I dare you, Kate P, to go into your public market place and speechify to that effect. Not even the Gardai would be there to protect you from the anger you would create:

[url=http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gardai-gear-up-for-only-their-secondever-public-protest-1640576.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gardai-gear-up-for-only-their-secondever-public-protest-1640576.html[/quote[/url]]

Aragon, you have neither integrity nor credibility and I don't intend to engage any further with you on this or any thread. You are persistently insulting, you refuse to countenance any perspective other than your own. You repeatedly draw personal inferences (which are wrong) from my posts and those of others and you never, never debate the issue. You are in fact the embodiment of the protestor who shrieks ignorantly and refuses to accept that there is a world outside of your narrow personal frame of reference.

Quote :

Yes, it is hysteria to put up an individual who has for some reason snapped as though that was representative of people who have protested/will protest against government.

My comment had been intended as an ironic response to your introduction of straw men - or straw people, cactus. It didn't work, clearly and it's beside the point which you refuse to engage with.

Quote :

Yes, the posts were full of straw dogs as they put up all kinds of supposed arguments that had in fact not been made by anyone.

cactus, you are an intelligent person and I have huge respect for you as a poster but this is ridiculous.

You are supporting a thesis. I haven't put forward any much argument, just questioned the basis for yours. I have asked - as ibis has, on a number of occasions that you justify, explain and clarify the precepts on which that thesis is based. And you call this request a strawman? And you say that I'm being hysterical?

It would help if you would say what you think my thesis is.

Pax wrote:

ibis wrote:

Pax wrote:

ibis wrote:

Ah, though, you probably didn't have to wade through them - they was mad.

Seriously, though, all I'm calling for is some thought about what's wanted out of the protests - otherwise all we'll get is more of the same with a different label. I'm nor sure why people are so opposed to that. Protesting is not an end in itself.

True but protest is an outlet even if it is addled. Apathy could be more dangerous when powerful elites introduce what they'd like (shock doctrine style say) within a crisis.

Which is why I'm not opposed to the protesting itself - I have to say it again, I like the noise protest, and I'm a big fan of the idea of throwing shoes onto Leinster Lawns carpark. However, I put more faith in the quiet anger of chattering classes than the protests - in the absence of guns, that's what topples governments.

Can we not chatter and protest?

Let me borrow your own response: Usually not the same demographic and mindset tho'.

Pax wrote:

ibis wrote:

Pax wrote:

And protesters and groups within can form bonds and contacts which would be hard outside of it.

The same is true of bowling, though.

Usually not the same demographic and mindset tho'

Protest bowling?

Pax wrote:

ibis wrote:

Pax wrote:

Looking back at the thread I don't think there's opposition to your futile-change-of-the-guards point here (maybe p.ie was more, heated.....) .

Well, cactus keeps calling it a straw man - admittedly, I'm not quite sure what she means, but she's presumably objecting to something.

"Protesting is not an end in itself." I believe nobody is arguing that this is the case in this thread yet variants of it are being brought up a number of times. Is that not building the man o'straw to knock him down in vainglorious 'victory'?

In that case, I'm not sure exactly what cactus is objecting to, if she's not objecting to that, because I haven't really made any other points.

Pax wrote:

ibis wrote:

Pax wrote:

So I'd agree that there should ideally be a unified end-goal and that it should not be more of the same.* To achieve this, I point towards simple policy proposal goals I mentioned earlier (introduced like in Latin America under the local MSM and within protests etc) which would have to be implemented no matter who is in power. Maybe a new constitution?

That's the kind of thing I mean - my personal preference would be for more oversight accompanied by routine transparency, but I suppose that too is pointless if people are simply going to "get it out of their system" by protesting and go back to sleep.

Given the system and the media we have, that they are protesting at all is a great sign. I don't think the protest-and-sleep sector will be as large in such a crisis as this. The middle class (or those that think they are not workers when, they are) can shift and agree to things they never would have outside of it. Even a set of policies, or a plan, which would hopefully be implemented.
Yes we can! .....maybe.

If I see the middle-aged middle classes out for anything other than narrow sectoral interests, then maybe.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Protesting: a great way to dispel energy that could otherwise be used up usefully for doing something effective

Very much so...I would like to see a couple of thousand independents standing at the local elections. The country's political classes cannot be dislodged except by vote or force - and I would prefer not to go down the latter route.

yehbut_nobut proposed this from p.ie

Quote :

"Please share this.
Are you ANGRY? Are you pissed off at the government and how they've led
us into this mess? Have you had a wage cut, lost your job, or had
access to state services like health and education for you and your
family cut back or denied? Do you want to let the government know how
you feel?
Join the MAKE A NOISE protest. At 5pm on Thurs 26th Feb, on your own or
with friends, go outside and MAKE NOISE. Beep a horn, bang a saucepan,
slam a door, rattle the railings, blow a whistle, scream and shout.
Listen to the answering noise all around you from everyone, young and
old, who is just as angry as you are, growing louder and louder as it
spreads up and down the country until those in power have no choice but
to listen and learn - it's time to depart - THE PEOPLE ARE ANGRY!!!
Please pass this message on to everyone you know via phone, text, email
and word of mouth- please share with the media, newspapers, TV, radio
stations etc. If you're angry, MAKE A NOISE! 5pm Thursday 26th
February."

Did anyone get an email like this? Wasn't sure at first but the more I think of it, it might be worth joining in... won't do any harm (to me) anyway.

cactus, you said that other issues need to be looked at. No disagreement there. But then you added, indicating that you'll be supporting this protest...

Quote :

I'll be listening for your dustbin lid, be sure that you will hear mine.

I questioned why and what it is supposed to achieve, suggested that protesting may not be the best way to make a difference and that those who engage in protesting sometimes don't see anything outside of their own reality and you responded...

Quote :

This all sounds pretty patronising to me. Most people likely to turn out to protest against government are well informed about what is happening. Their IQs are not necessarily any lower than yours nor are they evil, self serving people. They are at least bothering to get out of their chairs and do something to express their views of the situation.

There is a responsibility there for everyone to get stuck in in this situation in the way they see fit. Public demonstration is also a democratic right.

Disciplined and peaceful demonstrations are not a mob.

I disagreed, because protesting is not an end in itself, the symbolism of getting out of armchairs is meaningless unless it has a stated aim and defined objective and I want to know why, since you're supporting it, you think it's worthwhile.

Quote :

Better a mob on the street where you can see it than a cabal of billion euro robbers behind closed doors.

I didn't respond to this earlier but it's a non argument. The two are incomparable.

I also suggested there's no vision of what should come after these great protests and you responded..

Quote :

What it means is that there is the utmost urgency in developing answers to that question. The battlements are crumbling with or without demonstrations. The question now is exactly "what then" - what change is needed? I agree with Pax that this requires both practical engagement and serious study of alternative systems. I also agree that sometimes events don't give a lot of time for developing solutions and that has to be done on the hoof. The events that are taking place now are not happening because of anyone's ideas, good or bad, they are happening because there is an objective break down in the finanancial system. When the response to that is injurious to the mass of peoples' well-being, you will get mass demonstrations, as we already saw last Autumn and will see again. There is absolutely no point in blaming them taking part in all kinds of demonstrations, occupations and symbolic protests.

....which just reframes the question and doesn't answer it except to say, essentially, 'in favour of protest good, not in favour of protest bad.' I'm perfectly at home with the notion that people are entitled to protest and that it is their default mode at times like these. But that is not the issue.

You're supporting the idea of a protest as put forward by the OP. You've also made other points, which I'm not questioning but which are beside this one. The questions I'm asking are - again, why? to what end? what difference is it going to make? how will it justify itself?

I have left out other points that you've made because they're separate to your support for a mass protest.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Protesting: a great way to dispel energy that could otherwise be used up usefully for doing something effective

So protest is never effective? I have to disagree. Without it we'd probably still be living in a monarchy.

But there are people who'd like to ban peaceful protest, that's for sure.


http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/12/23/the-paranoia-squad/

Kate P wrote:

Aragon, you have neither integrity nor credibility and I don't intend to engage any further with you on this or any thread. You are persistently insulting, you refuse to countenance any perspective other than your own. You repeatedly draw personal inferences (which are wrong) from my posts and those of others and you never, never debate the issue. You are in fact the embodiment of the protestor who shrieks ignorantly and refuses to accept that there is a world outside of your narrow personal frame of reference.

In fairness Kate P, you insulted everyone who has protested, and who has ever protested when you posted,

Kate P wrote:

Most people who turn out to protest are not well informed. They know a lot about their particular situations but have very little grasp of anything bigger than themselves.

It's more than a little arrogant to suggest most protesters are not well informed. Well informed in reference to what? Your average Sindo reader? FF voter who has never protested in her life?

It's unsurprising that it would get the back up of Aragon, and I find your point "you have neither integrity nor credibility" rather childish, not to mind bitchy.

Pax

I think ibis says it for me anyhow. Like yourself I think too we need to protest and think. It would be more powerful if a protesting group were to have some unanimity on what they were protesting about. Something that can be granted that can be effected. The publishing of all information of a public nature in a publicly accessible spot is one thing plus some accountability procedures stuck in.

ibis wrote:

Quote :

The question is, when will we know the time for "thought" has concluded, and the time to put those thoughts into action has begun? Are we supposed to sit tight, mind our manners and wait for the ballot box? Cause Government parties say (with an air of smugness) that it wont be till 2012.

I want to save my country before then

No, I support the protesting in general - and the noise protest in particular - but what do we actually want out of it?

Me, I want to see more transparency. I want to see more citizen oversight, more electoral responsibility. I want better corruption legislation, and an end to the culture of small-scale corruption. I want to see us taking responsibility for our electoral choices. I want us not to go back to sleep.

Kate P, leaving aside the other issues in your and my posts, I'll just clarify the main reasons why people take part in protest demonstrations.

1. It allows them to demonstrate their serious disagreement with a Government at a mid term stage when there is no possibility of doing so through the ballot box.
2. It allows people to come together in solidarity and to see whether they are on their own, with one man and a dog, or part of a wide movement.
5. Demonstrations normally involve a political meeting with speeches which can communicate ideas for dealing with the problem at hand.

Protest demonstrations are usually, but not always, of limited effect, but freedom to hold peaceful demonstrations is acknowledged world wide as a litmus test for democratic rights.
Footage of demonstrators in China being arrested is, for example, widely used as an indication that the country lacks basic democratic rights.

Pax wrote:

In fairness Kate P, you insulted everyone who has protested, and who has ever protested when you posted,

Kate P wrote:

Most people who turn out to protest are not well informed. They know a lot about their particular situations but have very little grasp of anything bigger than themselves.

In fairness Pax, I'd have to say I've yet to see a protester explain themselves and have as a first thought occur to me "there's a big picture person if ever I saw one" they do tend to have a somewhat narrow focus, maybe I've just been unlucky.

cactus flower wrote:

Kate P, leaving aside the other issues in your and my posts, I'll just clarify the main reasons why people take part in protest demonstrations.

1. It allows them to demonstrate their serious disagreement with a Government at a mid term stage when there is no possibility of doing so through the ballot box.
2. It allows people to come together in solidarity and to see whether they are on their own, with one man and a dog, or part of a wide movement.
5. Demonstrations normally involve a political meeting with speeches which can communicate ideas for dealing with the problem at hand.

Protest demonstrations are usually, but not always, of limited effect, but freedom to hold peaceful demonstrations is acknowledged world wide as a litmus test for democratic rights.
Footage of demonstrators in China being arrested is, for example, widely used as an indication that the country lacks basic democratic rights.

I think the above slightly reads an emphasis into Kate P's comments which I do not see as existing. There is a vast difference between not recognising the right to protest and not supporting or criticising the appropriateness of certain forms of protest in any given situation.

johnfás wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Kate P, leaving aside the other issues in your and my posts, I'll just clarify the main reasons why people take part in protest demonstrations.

1. It allows them to demonstrate their serious disagreement with a Government at a mid term stage when there is no possibility of doing so through the ballot box.
2. It allows people to come together in solidarity and to see whether they are on their own, with one man and a dog, or part of a wide movement.
5. Demonstrations normally involve a political meeting with speeches which can communicate ideas for dealing with the problem at hand.

Protest demonstrations are usually, but not always, of limited effect, but freedom to hold peaceful demonstrations is acknowledged world wide as a litmus test for democratic rights.
Footage of demonstrators in China being arrested is, for example, widely used as an indication that the country lacks basic democratic rights.

I think the above slightly reads an emphasis into Kate P's comments which I do not see as existing. There is a vast difference between not recognising the right to protest and not supporting or criticising the appropriateness of certain forms of protest in any given situation.

Of which form of protest, in which situation, did Kate P criticise the appropriateness?