Saying No (From Refuge)

ORIGINAL THREAD HERE: http://silverpond.eu/refuge/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=10


Saying No



by Kate P on Fri Mar 07, 2008 9:45 pm


It strikes me lately that we need a new way to say "No. Enough. Stop."

We are powerless to oust Bertie.
Despite the fact that the majority of people in the country don't want to see the M3 going through the Skryne Valley, the dump trucks and JCBs are doozering away.
There were anti-war protests across the globe - but the Americans are still in Iraq.
Palestinians in Gaza knocked part of the Egyptian border in a desperate protest - but now they're back behind the lines where Israel wants them.
Buddhist monks and nuns on peaceful protest with upturned begging bowls are hounded violently from the streets of Rangoon.
And those who oppose Lisbon are alternatively loonies, loo-lahs, the laughing stock and morally wrong.

In fact, naysayers get short shrift pretty much everywhere and most of the time - regardless of how indefensible the regime or actions against which they stand (life wasn't easy for Rosa Parks, Suffragettes...)

What does a body have to do in this 21st century to register effectively its protest against what it considers to be wrong, unjust, unfair?

Is the fault with the protestors, those against whom protests are aimed or with the huge apathetic mass that cannot be budged to follow any path but the one of least resistance?






Re: Saying No



by evm0197 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:00 pm


Good post Kate.

My 2 items for that list are the second M50 bridge (unnecessary) and evoting machines(unnecessary). But there are hundreds more. And I suppose we all have lists of stuff we want to stop, yet can't, in spite of voting accordingly.

I think it is usually futile to say no to stuff going on, whatever it may be, because there is a layer of separation between us and the vested interest that is responsible for the stuff going on.

Unfortunately, in the case of Ireland, I think our own Government is providing the layer of separation in a lot of cases.




Re: Saying No



by Kate P on Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:07 pm

evm0197 wrote:Good post Kate.

My 2 items for that list are the second M50 bridge (unnecessary) and evoting machines(unnecessary). But there are hundreds more. And I suppose we all have lists of stuff we want to stop, yet can't, in spite of voting accordingly.

I think it is usually futile to say no to stuff going on, whatever it may be, because there is a layer of separation between us and the vested interest that is responsible for the stuff going on.

Unfortunately, in the case of Ireland, I think our own Government is providing the layer of separation in a lot of cases.

Doesn't it just become futile, evm, when people don't say no to stuff going on?

Incrementally we've arrived at the stage - imho - where we will tolerate almost anything. The public inaction in the face of the cancer scandal in Portlaoise was awesome - we deserve whatever we get next because we didn't do enough to show solidarity to those women. And when the next awful scandal hits, we'll all sit at home and watch Eastenders rather than go to a public meeting.






Re: Saying No


by SeathrúnCeitinn on Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:17 pm


What does a body have to do in this 21st century to register effectively its protest against what it considers to be wrong, unjust, unfair?

Yeah its very disheartening afloat in a sea of conservatism. Disillusioned on the political front a while now. Too many people too busy. pull the bell, conductor, i'm on mindset too prevalent these days





Re: Saying No


by evm0197 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:54 pm

Kate P wrote:
Doesn't it just become futile, evm, when people don't say no to stuff going on?

Incrementally we've arrived at the stage - imho - where we will tolerate almost anything. The public inaction in the face of the cancer scandal in Portlaoise was awesome - we deserve whatever we get next because we didn't do enough to show solidarity to those women. And when the next awful scandal hits, we'll all sit at home and watch Eastenders rather than go to a public meeting.

I thought I might have written that badly. I meant objection usually comes to no avail, not that I don't object.

As a society we seem to take more crap than ever. I don't know how that happened. It wasn't because of the ballot box.





Re: Saying No




by Auditor #9 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:27 pm

evm0197 wrote:

Kate P wrote:
Doesn't it just become futile, evm, when people don't say no to stuff going on?

Incrementally we've arrived at the stage - imho - where we will tolerate almost anything. The public inaction in the face of the cancer scandal in Portlaoise was awesome - we deserve whatever we get next because we didn't do enough to show solidarity to those women. And when the next awful scandal hits, we'll all sit at home and watch Eastenders rather than go to a public meeting.

I thought I might have written that badly. I meant objection usually comes to no avail, not that I don't object.

As a society we seem to take more crap than ever. I don't know how that happened. It wasn't because of the ballot box.

Yes we have developed a high tolerance for abuse here alright. Or collective memory loss that you could justifiably suspect is somehow administered. Maybe we are just comfortably numb now.

We used to have revolutions to ward off the english and rallies to stir up unions and they all worked in some way at the time and now I think we could be facing something rotten up ahead globally but I doubt if anyone has the will to band together and commit more revolutions or insurrections or anything socially upheaving like that. It would take a disaster of major proportions to befall us and even then we'd end up eating each other.

Either that or I've watched too much Mad Max this week again. (said only half in jest with reference to oil)




Re: Saying No



by lostexpectation on Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:19 am


the answer seems to be to build a tunnel until they publically admit theyre wrong.

Re: Saying No


by Kate P on Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:55 am


I
find it infuriating that so many decisions are made by the large
majority who can't be bothered to even consider the issues, never mind
exercise an opinion.

Thousands will go out and vote in the
Lisbon referendum and have not a single iota what it's about. That has
to be an abuse of democracy...





Re: Saying No

by SeathrúnCeitinn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:22 am


Did Willie Whitelaw not accuse the wilson government in England of going around stirring up apathy?

If people come on the media proclaiming lack of interest, you can
usually assume they're tryin to achieve that end for their own
motivations.






Re: Saying No

by Auditor #9 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:35 am


'Stirring up apathy' - I like that.

Ag
spochadh, as I was joking over there means 'castrated' in Irish? Maybe
it means 'impotent'. This is kind of what we are with the type of
democracy we have, I believe, but I'm open to persuasion. We can
perform a little as voters but there's no real substance behind it.
There's politics and policy - we erect the politicians but they just
don't deliver the goods on policies.

I reckon that people need
to be able to influence policy directly in some ways in some cases and
this should be built into democracy somehow. Vague I know but it is
generally participative or direct democratic theory. On that, I would
like to get posters johnfás and Pauli (the swiss Irish nemesis) here if
possible.






Re: Saying No


by Kate P on Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:40 am


Respvblica also has strong views on democracy as I remember from the monarchy thread.

Is democracy wasted on the masses to the detriment of everyone concerned?






Re: Saying No


by SeathrúnCeitinn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:52 am


I
woulnt say wasted, more a case of taken for granted. Also democracy
very open to subversion from those most opposed to what they would term
'subverives'
mar shampla Fox news





Re: Saying No

by Auditor #9 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:04 pm

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:I
woulnt say wasted, more a case of taken for granted. Also democracy
very open to subversion from those most opposed to what they would term
'subverives'
mar shampla Fox news

Is there a
body of notable theory with concrete examples on how it can be ... and
then Noam Chomsky comes to mind. What's the solution for ye? Kate do
you think Democracy should be replaced by a style of monarchy? Or by a
Platonic 'Philosopher Kings' -style set up where society is run by a
professional elite rather than from the mouthy rabble? (I don't know
why I'm thinking of Michael Martin now)

Because I do feel
education and the spread of democracy using technology (like us here !)
is the true way. A place like this is geat for policy but not much good
for politics... or maybe I'm wrong.






Re: Saying No

by Kate P on Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:13 pm


Democracy: we make participation compulsory
Education:
we make everyone do a test of their knowledge of the subject well in
advance of any vote (like the current driving theory test) - and
they're fined the price of a small car (Audi, not Fiat) if they can't
pass in time for the election/referendum.

" title="Twisted Evil" />





Re: Saying No


by JC Skinner on Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:35 pm


Late
at night, I recall my youth in Troubles-era North Belfast, and ponder
how successful a guerilla war against Fianna Fail might be. I need to
eat less cheese late at night, clearly.
Early in the morning, I just want to murder the cabinet myself, of course. Then I have my valium and coffee.






Re: Saying No

by rockyracoon on Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:58 pm


If
we say no to No campaigns, are we really saying yes to Yes campaigns?
or are most people just apathetic? Anyway, No campaigns are by nature
negative á la Paisleyite no campaigns while Yes campaigns are
affirmative and pro-active in that something is going to be achieved
even if the achievement(s) have negative consequences. I hope this is
clear. Now back to indymedia for a few larffs or maybe boards for a few
tears.

Re: Saying No

by helium three on Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:44 am


Fair questions Kate.

Here is a link to a story about someone saying No to extortion. In Palermo. Not easy.

The best Nos have to contain the seeds of a Yes to something better.









Re: Saying No

by Kate P on Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:58 am


I think that's the central point - that the best Nos contain the seeds of a yes to something better.

The work being done in Palermo is really admirable - in that it's entirely positive in its action.

Is that where we fall down here? Because there's too much negative footstamping or, in the case of re-electing FF, the lack of a viable alternative? Or both?

In terms of Lisbon (although you wrote a great post on p.ie about what the consequences are of voting no) I think it's a considerable disadvantage that the No side can't offer a definitive alternative to those who think that voting yes is the only really viable option - even if it's not ideal, at least we know what it is would seem to be a prevalent attitude.








Re: Saying No

by Pidge on Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:00 pm


I'd blame the apathetic masses, for the most part. There are plenty of people desperately trying to motivate them, and they're largely ignored. (This is especially visible in student-related events.)

I put a huge amount of it down to commuting, personally.







Re: Saying No

by on the one road on Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:24 pm


people are to loyal to other people. All of us. we have loyalty for political parties, FF, FG, LAB, SF, Greens, PD's as a body and individuals tied up in them rather than the idea's they where found to represent. This allows the above parties to knowingly take loyalty for granted which they confuse with aform of obidience and they move away from there ideals without fear of looseing support in an attempt to attract a demograph thay can fuse with there own that they think will propel them into power. all the parties try this a few succeed. It bastardise's politics, in pours different forms of political taught in to one pot making a hybred concenus, it's not representitive, it creates a situation where the presence of conflicting idea's is the exception rather than the norm. this is the rut were in, no as a concept becomes irrelivent because theres no follow up on it. the people have to beat there political parties in to line to make no an understandable concept again. political parties need to be made to understand that loyalty is a two way street and that the major onus is on them as they place themselves in the postition of service of the people.







Re: Saying No

by Kate P on Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:24 pm


Pidge wrote

I put a huge amount of it down to commuting, personally

A lot of people I've spoken to about this lately would agree with you.

one for the road wrote

This allows the above parties to knowingly take loyalty for granted which they confuse with aform of obidience and they move away from there ideals without fear of looseing support in an attempt to attract a demograph thay can fuse with there own that they think will propel them into power. all the parties try this a few succeed. It bastardise's politics, in pours different forms of political taught in to one pot making a hybred concenus, it's not representitive, it creates a situation where the presence of conflicting idea's is the exception rather than the norm. this is the rut were in, no as a concept becomes irrelivent because theres no follow up on it. the people have to beat there political parties in to line to make no an understandable concept again.

That makes a lot of sense - and if you create a situation where the electorate are either permanently exhausted (commuting, for example) or permanently trying to pay bills (even if it is for far more than they need) then you create a vicious circle where there is no physical, emotional or mental energy left to question anything. And so maybe the no voices that should be heard are not loud enough.

I don't know how we make it louder though, or more effective or empowering.







Re: Saying No

by D.Harry on Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:55 pm


Saying No generally means opposing the will of the State.
The State has considerably upped the ante in terms of sophistication and resources. It now employs journalists, media, corporate influence, state institutions, exchequer funds, law enforcement, church and courts in support of 'Yes'.
And if the State doesn't like your answer it will ask again.
In the face of such opposition it is very difficult for ordinary people to feel that they can make any difference
and who can blame them.







Re: Saying No


by ibis on Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:21 pm

Kate P wrote:Pidge wrote

I put a huge amount of it down to commuting, personally

A lot of people I've spoken to about this lately would agree with you.

one for the road wrote

This allows the above parties to knowingly take loyalty for granted which they confuse with aform of obidience and they move away from there ideals without fear of looseing support in an attempt to attract a demograph thay can fuse with there own that they think will propel them into power. all the parties try this a few succeed. It bastardise's politics, in pours different forms of political taught in to one pot making a hybred concenus, it's not representitive, it creates a situation where the presence of conflicting idea's is the exception rather than the norm. this is the rut were in, no as a concept becomes irrelivent because theres no follow up on it. the people have to beat there political parties in to line to make no an understandable concept again.

That makes a lot of sense - and if you create a situation where the electorate are either permanently exhausted (commuting, for example) or permanently trying to pay bills (even if it is for far more than they need) then you create a vicious circle where there is no physical, emotional or mental energy left to question anything. And so maybe the no voices that should be heard are not loud enough.

I don't know how we make it louder though, or more effective or empowering.

I would add that there's also 'outrage fatigue'. Multiple news channels, and competing outrage groups, gives us umpteen things to be outraged about every single day. You'd have to work very hard on prioritising your outrage and not being distracted - while trying to motivate others who are being distracted...and that begins to sound like monomania.







Re: Saying No

by Pidge on Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:27 pm


Putnam (I think) claimed that for every ten minutes spent commuting, 10% of social capital is lost.








Re: Saying No

by eoinmn on Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:47 pm

Kate P wrote:Pidge wrote

I put a huge amount of it down to commuting, personally

A lot of people I've spoken to about this lately would agree with you.

Kate P wrote:That makes a lot of sense - and if you create a situation where the electorate are either permanently exhausted (commuting, for example) or permanently trying to pay bills (even if it is for far more than they need) then you create a vicious circle where there is no physical, emotional or mental energy left to question anything. And so maybe the no voices that should be heard are not loud enough. .

I guess in the western world we have turned into nations of consumers. We commute and we work so we can consume. And anyone who dares to not consume, or consume less is a subversive.
Right now I think a lot people I know would be embarrassed to admit support of any particular political party or ideology.




Re: Saying No

by eoinmn on Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:50 pm


Before the election I was canvassing for John Gormley and someone I work with asked, was I related to him or how did I know him. When I said I didn't know the guy I just wanted to support the GP because I like their policies this work colleague thought I was nuts.
:sigh:
Perhaps it has been always like that, but I venture it was not.






Re: Saying No

by lostexpectation on Mon Mar 10, 2008 2:53 pm


how about saying, not this one







Re: Saying No


by Victor Meldrew on Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:54 pm

Pidge wrote:I'd blame the apathetic masses, for the most part. There are plenty of people desperately trying to motivate them, and they're largely ignored. (This is especially visible in student-related events.)

I put a huge amount of it down to commuting, personally.

Time is the big issue, people are too busy just paying the mortgage and they have no real roots where they live (no community) to really take issues on. Or they just feel that it'll make no difference

If people feel something keenly enough, they make a move. Strong feelings plus any small amount of leadership can provide conditions for change. Protests that ask leaders to change their minds or their behaviour rarely succeed. There has to be a preparedness to displace and replace political leaders who act without a mandate.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

My 2 items for that list are the second M50 bridge (unnecessary) and evoting machines(unnecessary)

The second M50 bridge is the one completed 3 or 4 years ago is it? Wasn't it a bottleneck that had to be removed? What's unnecessary is the toll gate in my view. (and NTR but not the toll. Toll people but put it in the public purse)

Kate P wrote:

What does a body have to do in this 21st century to register effectively its protest against what it considers to be wrong, unjust, unfair?

Violence, I fear (e.g. Harney + shotgun cartridges)