Really good analysis on the culture of protesting and activism, for those interested

newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/is-there-any-point-to-protesting

Other urls found in this thread:

pastebin.com/EZp3mfzW
youtu.be/2cMYfxOFBBM
youtube.com/watch?v=TmNyzvH7H3c
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

paste the article contents you absolute fag

Its quite a long read. Just read it.

Open a discussion or fuck off.
I hate when idiots make reading assignment threads. What are you the fucking professor of /lit/?
>here is an article for all of you to read!
Great fucking thread dickhead.

Post-Leftists have been saying since before '68, its cute that American journalism has finally caught up

>Just read it.

fuck you stupid

>Post-Leftists.

What is a post-leftist?

Can anyone else feel some sort of conclusion to identity politics approaching? Everything is blooming into an endless explosion of second thoughts, wake-up calls, and absurdities. I think incidents like Charlottesville, Evergreen State College, the Trump administration, you name, are finally showing the logical conclusions of identity politics and I've noticed many friends and mutual acquaintances of mine either buckling down and kicking their beliefs into full retard mode, or experiencing revelations and seeing flaws in their outlooks on the world

Maybe I'm just being hopeful

I hope so or I'm ready to kill you all.

Please leave my body in good condition

Basically Leftists that call other Leftists LARPers

It hasn't even begun, republicans don't even care if their own get shot at because the democrats have lost the plot so they know they can't lose.

Moldbug was right(again).

Same thing happens every time Americans get a Republican into office. I'm not that old, but this is not a new reaction. In fact, this reaction is itself a product of mass stupidity, specifically where lack of rationality meets against a lack of historic and civic awareness. You'd be wrong to imply after reading this that the era of protest has ended with the identity politics of the woman's march - but you'd also be assuming America really is the bubble that Americans live within. Have fun in your cage.

What do you think? Has multiculturalism ever worked anywhere? The end result is racial separation.

>the democrats have lost the plot so they know they can't lose.

Vote Bernie in 2020 and push Hillary in front of a moving car.

Running Bernie would be the stupidest move ever for the DNC, he underperforms massively with minorities which the democrats need to win.

>Has multiculturalism ever worked anywhere?
no and it never will. america's imperialism will ultimately destroy it just like any other imperialist country throughout history. the ethnic divide will result in the balkanization of north america, borders drawn by ethnic lines

this is a natural conclusion that will prevail if current legislation in the US (the hart-cellar act for example, or anchor baby sympathy in the leftist consciousness) is left unchecked as it has been for decades now

>vote for an ancient senator who only has big ideas and likely won't have traction in Congress
It's going to be Booker/Franken 2020 la

pastebin.com/EZp3mfzW

Pastebin version.

Repubs have a chance to really crush the Dems right now and I hope they take it.

I haven't read it, but I agree, protests have always been useless. They're just designated places where street skirmishes take place now. Come join the protest so you can beat up the "nazis". Literally who in power would turn on the TV, see a protest and think OH NO! WE BETTER DO SOMETHING CHAIM! Never. Ever.

The modern day Republicans are perhaps the most incompetent fuckers in human history. They are giant fucking pussies. Fuck the Republicans, they can't do shit. The definition of cucks before it became over used.

read it

...

What happens when the protesters operating under this belief are the ones who are truly acting without conscience, and they're blinded by that fact?

Political violence is a door I get really uncomfortable and skeptical about opening, no matter how justified it seems

if you, a minority, had to choose between trump and bernie TODAY, where would you go?

May I add a third option, which is back to their country of origin?

>GOP are the most incompetent people alive
>DNC still exists
Pick one. The Dems lost Congress and the presidency due to their own hubris

They're actually more competent than the Dems.

Bernie. He might actually bring socialism to america. Somebody has to stop silicon valley pursuit of automation at the expense of everyone in the country. Niggers aren't going to take your jobs, robots are.

You're not stopping shit senpai

We wuz Capital n'shiet

Kinda like the last century of the Roman Republic in the unrest aspect. Spooky.

...

>You're not stopping shit famalam

Better build that bunker then. (Or locate the bunkers of the billionaire tech guys and make sure they don't get in when the shit hits the fan.)

That's hilariously misguided.

Mike Duncan's new book is about this parallel. But that sort of doomsaying has been made for about every period of civil unrest since the end of the Republic.

*hasn't achieved a single noteworthy non-symbolic victory in decades* h-haha you don't know what you're t-talking about

>can't even into Sup Forums

>newfags can't greentext

They're incompetent at governing, but they're quite adept at getting themselves elected.
I always thought that nonviolence was the only way for the severely outnumbered.I imagine those without a conscience would not have a problem eliminating violent opposition.

>š¯…³abusing the quoting function

It's time for you to leave.

>inflames racism, stokes fears of nonwhites, opposes any legislation that would bring a more just society
>"I guess the only possible solution is racial segregation!"
and the same shit would occur in the paradise white ethnostates except it would be stuff like "hurr durr catholics!" and "have you noticed how many of their last names end in vowels?" because you're nuts.

Where is that quote from?

the last psychiatrist

you have a point but you're not exactly defending multiculturalism

What a long, unhelpful article.

The biggest issue is that modern protests are lazy. Marches and street protests are useful for one thing, visibility. The gays made good use of them to inspire more people to come out of the closet and reassure them that there would be others out there to offer support. But if you want to actually effect change, they're pointless.

The best forms of protest expose hypocrisy or cruelty, or show that the neglected group is more vital than they're given credit. Our most memorable examples, the various bus protests in the south, sit-ins, boycotss, all share the fact that they brought attention to a distinct policy that could be changed. Modern protests yell slogans related to a pet issue, and do a miserable job of marketing their policy solutions. BLM is a great example of this. At its core, it's a group devoted to pushing back against the Police's abuse of power, but they've done such a poor job of branding themselves that way, that no one actually knows what they want. Most people I talk with think they're just a new kind of black power outfit.

Protest can work, but activists have lost sight of how to make it happen.

>you have a point but you're not exactly defending multiculturalism
there's nothing to defend, it would be like someone asking me to defend eating or shitting or dying of natural causes

>BLM is a great example of this.
You're absolutely right, they should try to get themselves killed by police to bring light on this issue nobody gives a fuck about.
Are you seeing the problem with your brilliant idea? When they did sit-ins or refused to go to the back of the bus they got arrested not shot in the back 6 times.

tl;dr
>modern day protests don't change shit because they offer nothing
>they offer nothing because they are purely reactionary in motivation (police killing of something) and in organisation (someone makes a hashtag to launch a march)
>they are purely reactionary in organisation because they value individual actions instead of collective might
>since everyone participates because of his/her personal reaction to a stimuli there is no common idea
>no common idea thus no representative
>digital era makes it worse because technology creates links between individuals, not common ground
>pre-70s succesful movements such as Civil Rights were effective because they were planned, organised and executed by actual people instead of relying on collective intelligence
>ironically, these protests against current structures worked because they were structures of their own

tl;dr of the tl;dr
>individualism was a mistake

You only think this because you don't actually know any of BLM's stated policy goals. Because they're shit at marketing themselves.

I think the whole intersectional discourse comes off as far more hostile to whites than it actually is. That's probably the reason why people you know see them as a "black power outfit".

Yes, yes. The atomization continues.

I actually don't see how you could look at intersectionality and not see it as hostile to whites. It's pretty rabid.

If you read, it doesn't look that way.

I think the most rabid proponents of it took it in a direction that was unintended. The whole thing collapsed into the oppression Olympics it was supposed to prevent, and a number of people on the internet used it to channel their personal resentment.

Theory never matters as much as application, and its followers are very clear in how they feel.

Oh no, BLM most assuredly has, or had before one of their members shot 14 cops, the best marketers their jewish donors could afford. That's why everyone knew about them.

Doesn't matter if no one knows what kind of change you want to make happen.

This is taking me to places I'm not sure I want to go to

Maybe I'm stupid but I didn't understand that quote.

We're all fucked basically.

It's supposed to be borderline gibberish. Not a real quote but a parody of Land's overall mood and writing style.

you're really impressionable

We know what kind of change they wanted. Gibs, gibs, gibs, and fewer white people.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Good, go ride your horse to your textile weaving job my dude

Could be, but that doesn't make me wrong.

It kinda does, actually.

This is old news, but youtu.be/2cMYfxOFBBM

I graduated from Evergreen just this past year. I don't think I'd describe the atmosphere as 'hostile', generally--O never felt physically threatened by anyone, at least--but comments about how horrible 'white people' are would go unremarked upon in certain classrooms. For certain faculty and students, the authority of 'whites' in all the crimes against minorities and 'others' was a forgone conclusion, or even an axiom of their total structure of belief. Dissent from this perspective was forbidden, reinforced by social ostracization and defamation.

>>pre-70s succesful movements such as Civil Rights were effective because they were planned, organised and executed by actual people instead of relying on collective intelligence
The powers that be were already sympathetic to the black victim complex before blacks even started burning down cities. Organizers like MLK didn't actually change any elite minds, he simply led and justified to the public the cultural shock troops of an already entrenched progressive ideology. The political influence of his protests and riots was negligible

yeah, like I'm drifting closer and loser to the FULL COMMUNISM NOW meme every day but this whole thing is nuts
like take microaggressions for instance
it's a thing that exists, absolutely, but it's also so minute that talking about it in anything other than a dry academic environment in which it is a phenomenon to be studied looks like (and IS, if we're being honest) what the poltards call virtue signaling
fuck's sake, these morons are writing screeds on how you position your legs in a train/subway/bus, pages long articles about one guy talking over a woman in an episode of games of thrones and shit like that

how are we supposed to bulld beautiful gulags with these people
and it's not like I'm anti-idpol like the hard left, it's more like these people have mixed retarded randian individualism with the oppressor-oppressed dynamic and come up with the worst kind of mix - a belief that their own personal identity (otherkin genderfluid whatever) must be integrated into any and all policies that are produced, even if it's a fucking building code, which is just unmanageable for any kind of movement that's supposed to be broad-based because it's so fragmenting

Wow, I didn't know we'd made ad hom a viable form of argumentation. Thanks for updating me on the New Best Practices.

the pepsi advert was absolutely fucking genuis in its depiction of protests as vapid, feel-good parades that people go to to hook up/have fun

people dismissed the advert as "tone deaf" but they never take the time to be introspective and ask themselves what sort of impression they're leaving on people when they depict you like that. your limp dick protests have been so inane that a soda company so it and was like "hey we should use this to sell our stuff"

Why are you trying to pretend that BLM was ever anything other than a black power movement funded by jews to tear up American cities and intimidate white people? They wanted whatever their jewish donors told them to demand. Black people can't organize on their own, and the NAACP was the same way, there wasn't a non-jew in charge of it until decades after it'd begun.

>it's a thing that exists, absolutely
Stopped reading there

I've come to despise any sort of street protesting. It's obnoxious, it's repetitive, it doesn't accomplish anything, and it only creates more problems.

You should consider saving the Jew bit for when you've already hooked people into your stupid argument. It's an immediate signal that your mind is impossible to change because you've already bought into an unprovable theory, so there's no point in giving you serious responses.

that's just bullshit, the company didn't say "hey this is INANE, let's make an ad about it!", they said "this protesty shit seems to be popular with the kids, let's make an ad about it!"
it's what they always do, you're just inserting your own opinions into the mouth of a faceless ad man to make it seem more truhful

Being close-minded is a precursor to actively going out and protesting because once a person gets to that point their mind is wholly made up on whatever they're protesting. They're incapable to receiving information that might contradict their previously held notions and the repetitive chanting found at protests only reinforce this close-mindedness. If you find yourself ready to go and start protesting anything you really should check yourself.

>Stopped reading there
good, pearls before swine and all that jazz

I think that's his point, though. The protests don't come off as a political movement put together by activists who are desperate to effect real change in the world, they come off as a popular thing for the young people to do.

good thing they're minorities, then, unlike the white men and women who got trump into office

I agree with the Landposter. People have become increasingly commoditized, and so protests are now exotic experiences you don't have to pay for(yet). Meanwhile human connections are slowly and insidiously being destroyed.

violence against the non-violent rustles a lot of people's jimmies, and a lot of people can get laws passed and vote officials out of office
whereas violence against the violent is a matter of course

>good,
Stopped reading there

>and so protests are now exotic experiences you don't have to pay for(yet)

When Crowder went undercover at a communist protest they made him pay to attend

youtube.com/watch?v=TmNyzvH7H3c

...

Improvable theory? Look up who funded BLM. It was George Soros and another hedge fund jew. Don't blame me for your own ignorance regarding the organization you're promoting here. I was just giving you the facts.

So, you're OK with machines taking over good paying jobs that didn't need a degree?

I mean, they're making self-driving vehicles, that's a fuckload of jobs gone.

Can you name a time in history when technological progress decreased the total number of jobs available?

It may not decrease the number of net jobs but technology pulls the rug from under different industries and shrinks those industries faster than the new ones can grow.

The thing about anti-identity politics is that, even if you personally opt for making individual and thoughtful political decisions that have nothing to do with vague tribal affiliations, in a democracy that means you will constantly be at the mercy of tribes who refuse to make that choice

You are simply more likely to enact your will on society if you cautiously align yourself with a tribe that shares some of your interests than going it alone

>and shrinks those industries faster than the new ones can grow.
If that were true, then the net number of jobs would decrease. Technology has always created more jobs than it took away. Maybe it'll be different this time, but I've seen no compelling evidence to believe that.

I've studied automation as it's related to my field and the position you're taking is futile and mostly senseless anyway. Automation doesn't just take away jobs, it also creates new jobs. People will have to adapt, sure. But the most unsettling part is how western governments are still in the face of that coming reality trying bring in as many low IQ brown people into our countries as they can. That is the most disastrous part, having an expanding bottom-feeder welfare class of non whites on universal basic incomes provided by a dwindling class of white tax slaves. That's the issue here.

What jobs does mass automation create? Genuinely curious

Technicians. But I don't agree with the guy that technology creates more jobs than it takes away.

Not exactly. Any attempt to put intersectionality into practice has been a stunning failure. No matter what its merits are, it's hard to hold a political concept in high esteem if it isn't effective.

Yes, both the historical oppression of 3rd world countries and the modern influx of non-native low skill workers are motivated by the need for low cost through lowest wages possible

The most hated aspects of globalization on both the social left and right (slavery, dilution of native populace, [and even for apolitical individuals; the realities of back breaking low skill jobs], etc.) are within reach - and Luddites hope to maintain the status quo, against all market forces, because they want to hold onto their shackles

Fully automated luxury space communism is the dream I hope to live to see

And I assume those technician jobs aren't easily available to former truck drivers

It lowers the cost of the goods/services being automated, creating more opportunity for goods/services that use those things. For example, the mass automation of textiles created a huge number of jobs, from designing of outfits to the creation of new products that were previously unfeasible without the amount of cloth needed. It's hard to predict exactly what reducing the cost of shipping freight across the country will do, but I have no doubt that it will open up opportunities that someone will spot and take advantage of.

I don't know why you'd disagree with a statement that has been true for all of history.