2010-2020 saw more mass protests around the world than at any other point in human history, but the societal changes that resulted were often the opposite of what protesters demanded. Author Vincent Bevins explains why.
I’m telling you, an army of vuvuzela-players and mimes to follow elected officials around in public, with a shift roster to get 24/7 coverage. No media interviews without the droning hum of a vuvuzela, no photo opportunities without a sneaky mime making an exaggerated lewd pose in the background, no pleasant meals with lobbyists without a distant but audible brrrrrrrrrrrr.
The media chooses not to report on peaceful protests all the time, but they always give coverage to Gaetz, Cruz and Graham talking absolute shit. Make them edit the videos to take out mimes and vuvuzelas.
Police can arrest someone for playing a vuvuzela and being in the background of a photo? Probably, but… what do they charge you with, a noise disturbance? Better than an assault charge. The police are going to defend the rulers no matter how peaceful the protest.
And that’s how you get revenge killings and more death and suffering. Humanity has tried murder a few more times than peaceful protest already to “solve problems” and it hasn’t created a safer world for innocent people or better lives for the poor or sustainable environmental practices.
First you are concerned police won’t let people play vuvuzela, but you’re not concerned that they’ll torture and kill you for murder? Or is it because you are ok with letting others do the dirty work for you?
I’m not playing pacifist, I’m trying to determine the best course of action with the least suffering.
I know they’ll suppress any peaceful revolt, so the only logical step left is active revolt.
Which active revolts would you point to as successes to model your tactics on? What was it about those that made them succeed? Are you sure it was the violence, or was it other contributing factors?
but don’t complain when you get killed
And which target have you chosen to sacrifice your life for? Are you happy to have the hospital your family are in bombed when it’s determined there are “enemy combatants” inside?
Maybe instead of adding fire to fire, we could try to stop selling oil to the people holding lighters and deciding fire extinguishers are useless when plain water doesn’t work like we hoped.
The people who benefit from war are the tank makers and gun sellers. Everyone is aghast when industry is causing climate change and then… turning around to fuel the military industrial complex to solve problems war has also failed to solve. Brilliant. It will surely work this time!
If you want the least suffering, you must end long-term suffering.
The best course of action is for governments to acknowledge the problems caused by our current way of being and bring about abrupt change for the betterment of the people, but they will willfully never choose the best course of action.
Are you happy to see millions suffering and dying every day for easily solvable problems?
Because why add to the unnecessary suffering in the world if we don’t want it for ourselves and we don’t need to create it at all?
For example, I have a chronic pain medical condition. It blows chunks and I wouldn’t wish its effects on anyone - even the people who would kill me for not being as able-bodied as most others. If the people who cause misery experiencing my pain wouldn’t cure me, what would be the purpose? At best they would be more miserable and then inflict that additional misery on others who don’t deserve the extra misery either.
It seems like a futile and painful self-perpetuating cycle.
Ultimately, the ideal (but incredibly unrealistic) solution would be a global, coordinated effort to immediately remove from power everyone who abuses their power along with a dedication to continuing to do so whenever another pops up, regardless of the personal cost. Bringing them down with us is only slightly less unrealistic.
I ultimately have no desire to see them suffer, I simply want them out of power, and I think that for the sake of the future, it’s worth any cost that they might pay.
As John Brown said: “I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done.” And he was right about that. If we cannot achieve a better future with little bloodshed, then we owe it to the future to achieve it with any amount of bloodshed necessary.
No amount of suffering that those in power experience could ever match the amount of suffering that forever failing to remedy the problem will cause to the quadrillions of humans that could exist in the future or even just the billions that exist now. If we humans unable to band together to eliminate threats, even those from within, then we will suffer like this forever. It’s better to try and fail than to passively allow it to continue for the rest of history.
No amount of suffering that those in power experience could ever match the amount of suffering that forever failing to remedy the problem will cause to the quadrillions of humans that could exist in the future or even just the billions that exist now. If we humans unable to band together to eliminate threats, even those from within, then we will suffer like this forever. It’s better to try and fail than to passively allow it to continue for the rest of history.
I think that this argument has merit, and I’m not ruling anything out. I just want to make sure we truly test the theory that less-damaging options are not effective enough before assuming John Brown’s conclusion applies to more than his situation. Especially in a world that has changed a lot in nearly 200 years. We have new tools worth trying.
I’m telling you, an army of vuvuzela-players and mimes to follow elected officials around in public, with a shift roster to get 24/7 coverage. No media interviews without the droning hum of a vuvuzela, no photo opportunities without a sneaky mime making an exaggerated lewd pose in the background, no pleasant meals with lobbyists without a distant but audible brrrrrrrrrrrr.
The media chooses not to report on peaceful protests all the time, but they always give coverage to Gaetz, Cruz and Graham talking absolute shit. Make them edit the videos to take out mimes and vuvuzelas.
Yeah obvs the police would side with and defend the politicians, you’d never be allowed to do that.
Police can arrest someone for playing a vuvuzela and being in the background of a photo? Probably, but… what do they charge you with, a noise disturbance? Better than an assault charge. The police are going to defend the rulers no matter how peaceful the protest.
CW: police violence
Remember when those UC Davis students got pepper-sprayed while sitting? Or “don’t tase me, bro!”?
So instead of lame immature protests, just kill ‘em.
And that’s how you get revenge killings and more death and suffering. Humanity has tried murder a few more times than peaceful protest already to “solve problems” and it hasn’t created a safer world for innocent people or better lives for the poor or sustainable environmental practices.
First you are concerned police won’t let people play vuvuzela, but you’re not concerned that they’ll torture and kill you for murder? Or is it because you are ok with letting others do the dirty work for you?
It’s simple.
I know they’ll suppress any peaceful revolt, so the only logical step left is active revolt.
Also this is a war, you can play pacifist all you want but don’t complain when you get killed.
I’m not playing pacifist, I’m trying to determine the best course of action with the least suffering.
Which active revolts would you point to as successes to model your tactics on? What was it about those that made them succeed? Are you sure it was the violence, or was it other contributing factors?
And which target have you chosen to sacrifice your life for? Are you happy to have the hospital your family are in bombed when it’s determined there are “enemy combatants” inside?
Maybe instead of adding fire to fire, we could try to stop selling oil to the people holding lighters and deciding fire extinguishers are useless when plain water doesn’t work like we hoped.
The people who benefit from war are the tank makers and gun sellers. Everyone is aghast when industry is causing climate change and then… turning around to fuel the military industrial complex to solve problems war has also failed to solve. Brilliant. It will surely work this time!
If you want the least suffering, you must end long-term suffering.
The best course of action is for governments to acknowledge the problems caused by our current way of being and bring about abrupt change for the betterment of the people, but they will willfully never choose the best course of action.
Are you happy to see millions suffering and dying every day for easily solvable problems?
If all there is is suffering for us, then why not ensure that those in power are along for the ride with us?
Because why add to the unnecessary suffering in the world if we don’t want it for ourselves and we don’t need to create it at all?
For example, I have a chronic pain medical condition. It blows chunks and I wouldn’t wish its effects on anyone - even the people who would kill me for not being as able-bodied as most others. If the people who cause misery experiencing my pain wouldn’t cure me, what would be the purpose? At best they would be more miserable and then inflict that additional misery on others who don’t deserve the extra misery either.
It seems like a futile and painful self-perpetuating cycle.
Ultimately, the ideal (but incredibly unrealistic) solution would be a global, coordinated effort to immediately remove from power everyone who abuses their power along with a dedication to continuing to do so whenever another pops up, regardless of the personal cost. Bringing them down with us is only slightly less unrealistic.
I ultimately have no desire to see them suffer, I simply want them out of power, and I think that for the sake of the future, it’s worth any cost that they might pay.
As John Brown said: “I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done.” And he was right about that. If we cannot achieve a better future with little bloodshed, then we owe it to the future to achieve it with any amount of bloodshed necessary.
No amount of suffering that those in power experience could ever match the amount of suffering that forever failing to remedy the problem will cause to the quadrillions of humans that could exist in the future or even just the billions that exist now. If we humans unable to band together to eliminate threats, even those from within, then we will suffer like this forever. It’s better to try and fail than to passively allow it to continue for the rest of history.
I think that this argument has merit, and I’m not ruling anything out. I just want to make sure we truly test the theory that less-damaging options are not effective enough before assuming John Brown’s conclusion applies to more than his situation. Especially in a world that has changed a lot in nearly 200 years. We have new tools worth trying.
Do you want fascism? Because vuvuzelas are how you get fascism.
So that’s why FIFA and the London Olympics banned them? /jk
I just want what the interviewee wants. Media that can’t easily ignore the angrily trumpetting elephant in the room.
They didn’t like the competition …
Sir, this is a taco bell