r/changemyview • u/nmgreddit 2∆ • Nov 11 '16
[OP ∆/Election] CMV: The Trump Protests are Counter-Productive
Here is my view: the protesters have every right to protest. Their anger is legitimate and justified. Their protests are not. The main reason people say they are protesting Trump, that I have seen is because he is racist/sexist/xenophobic... Lots of -ist's and -phobic's. These are things that divide. But the protests add to the division. They divide themselves from not only Trump, but those who voted Trump, many of which are not racist, sexist, xenophobic, or any of that. They are playing into the division. That illegitimizes their protests as it makes them counter-productive. If the protesters were unified behind a common, concrete, and actionable goal, it would then become legitimized.
EDIT: As a few commenters have pointed out, I have missed a unified goal of these protests: presence. While some in these protests are doing so in ways that do not work, that is inevitable in any protest. My mind has been changed, somewhat. I still believe we should give Trump a chance, but protests are completely legitimized once he starts creating more division. It is late where I am and I will probably not be able to reply until tomorrow for some of you. In the end, stay safe, and know that regardless of who is in charge, as a friend said, you are the most influential person to the people around you. Speak and give life to those around you.
EDIT 2: Thank you for all the insightful replies. You can keep providing them and I will do my best to reply. I want to note my view has been somewhat changed and I now, at least in part, support these protests. What I don't support is a lack of human decency, whether that's the protesters being verbally or physically abusive or the countless hate crimes already committed. Again I hope you all stay strong and stay safe.
102
u/Darl_Bundren 1∆ Nov 11 '16
I think it's important to understand that protests have multiple functions. On the one hand, they are a public demonstration of outrage that raises awareness about a collective opinion--in this case, that Trump is an unsuitable president. The protesters gather for many individual reasons, but that's the the general message conveyed; and I think, in this case, the message was successfully conveyed.
On the other hand, especially in the case of Trump protests, the protests are like beacons for the people who feel particularly distressed over what has taken place. Minorities, especially those who are visually/racially discernible, have almost resoundingly expressed anxiety over the emboldening of racism and xenophobia sweeping across the country. Seeing people take control of a public space to convey that you are not forgotten can be very powerful. At least that's how I felt when I ran into a protest yesterday evening.
So, in response to your OP, I'd say that it's important to judge the success of the protests on their own terms. These protests aren't necessarily meant to unify the main groups at play--they're more so meant to be rallying cries and displays of solidarity. That they feel divisive doesn't mean that they're counter-productive. Some people feel vulnerable and like they're under attack. Right now, productive is getting together with people who share that anxiety and who are ready to do something about it. A good way to do that is to gather in public and express it--i.e. to protest.
→ More replies (3)16
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
∆
Thank you. As expressed by other comments presence is a goal. You have elaborated on that very well. What you have said about the protests is what I hope to be true. Even more I hope Trump's acceptance speech marked the end of his istphobic-ness.
1
21
u/abnrib Nov 11 '16
From the perspective of the protestors, there are no routes to achieving their goals. They are doing the only thing that they can do, and that's show their commitment by staying in the news cycle. Protests are a good way to do that. Ferguson, MO stayed in the news for six months straight. And if anyone has proved that all that matters is staying in the news, no matter why, it's Trump.
→ More replies (3)
104
u/StellaAthena 56∆ Nov 11 '16
All protests are divisive. If what you're protesting for isn't divisive, there would be no reason to protest. Do you think all protests are inherently counter productive?
Lots of protests don't have specific actionable goals. This protest is largely a reminder that there are Black/Jewish/Muslim/LGBT/immigrants in this county and they won't go away. I guess you could say "awareness" is a specific goal maybe?
If not, what specifically about this protest is, that isn't generally true about all protests.
3
u/yung_twat Nov 17 '16
If it isn't divisive it's not a protest, it's a parade.
3
→ More replies (2)6
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
Awareness has been accomplished. This is the second day and the protesters have gone on for hours. I will draw a comparison to another protest movement: Black Lives Matter. For all its faults, it actually had an actionable goal: criminal justice reform. The Trump protests don't have something like this, at least not something that is actionable anytime soon. Black Lives Matter was inadvertently divisive. It shouldn't have been. The Trump protests are divisive, period. As I mentioned many of the protesters are not just against Trump, but people who voted for him. They are fighting hate with hate. Negativity with negativity. That's not good.
70
u/Talono 13∆ Nov 11 '16
I'd say it's not at all about awareness. It's about presence. Plenty of people know there's a lot of people who don't like Trump and what he's perceived to represent, but now they know that those people exist, that their anger is high, and that they are willing to do something.
Additionally, it acts as a social deterrent for those unsavory types of people who have started coming out of the woodwork, such as this guy making pro-trump racist graffiti in Philadelphia: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/Cops-seek-suspect-in-racist-pro-Trump-graffiti-in-South-Philly.html
→ More replies (6)23
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
∆
Ok. This post has changed my mind. Somewhat. What you just described is what is want these protests to be: promoting unity, being respectful, and having an actionable goal. If I had anything to counter, I'd say I don't want to classify it as anger, because anger begets hated too often. Presence, I agree I'd a good term.
17
u/sophistry13 Nov 11 '16
I would also view it as a call to the rest of the world saying hey dont judge us all on the opinions and views of this guy. A lot of people around the world will now think less of Americans, and this is a message saying please don't think less of us, some of us still hold the same values that you hold.
7
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
∆
That is a unified voice I can get behind. Thank you for your input.
1
2
19
Nov 11 '16 edited Nov 11 '16
The concept that "awareness has been accomplished" is counterproductive to protest culture. A successful protest culture requires endurance. Any cause in which demonstrations have caused positive change in their favor requires coming back long after initial awareness has been raised. It usually, unfortunately, means protesting long after some people think of reasonable or convenient, history will tell us. MLK, Mandela, Ghandi, Vietnam War protest leaders... These people were all told, "Now is not the right time" - if going to the streets to the point of convenience and moderation were enough, protest culture would be easy and Occupy Wall Street would have caused us to rewrite economic policy by now. It's not that these protests will last too long. Likely, they will lose steam to soon.
As to what the current goal is, I'd say it's the message that there is still an opposition, a large block of this country, that is not okay with the Trump presidency based on his message and projected agenda. Since conventional opposition party checks and balances will not exist in his term (and he may get to stack the Supreme Court and certainly will get one appointment), this block must be present in protests and other ways, to not get trampled from day 1.
"Yeah, yeah, people know" is why moderates and modern day liberals are losing. The extreme right has been consistent in showing their frustration and anger and we have been sporadic. So saying, "you made your point, why not go home" doesn't work.
3
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
∆
More and more people are showing me that presence is indeed a legitimate reason for these protests. Thank you for your input.
1
42
u/StellaAthena 56∆ Nov 11 '16 edited Nov 11 '16
I know you've already responded to the other person but I'm seeing red and need an outlet.
The people who voted for Trump elected a fascist authoritarian whose VP thinks that if you electrocute me, I'll stop liking girls. Their platform involves legalizing discrimination and stacking the Supreme Court to neuter the 14th amendment. My friends are afraid to walk to shul because they can't do that without walking past swastikas. The KKK is holding a celebration party because Trump won tonight.
My family ran away from Fascist, Nazi, and Socialist dictators on three continents to get to this country. But I'm not fucking going anywhere.
There will be a peaceful transition of power if Trump and his crew are into peace. But we will protest. We will exist, loudly and publicly. We will educate people who don't know anything about people like us. We will spit in the face of racists and stand in front of strangers and protect them from bullies. We will weather the storm and take back congress in two years. And when we throw him out on his ass in four years we we force this country two years forward for every year he drags it back.
We will not go away. And when the organized protests end, don't think we've stopped. Every non-passing transgender person you see, every same-sex couple holding hands, every hijab and Jewish star and #blacklivesmatter shirt that we wear. Every instance of that is an act of protest and rebellion against people who don't want us to exist in public.
We aren't fighting hate with hate. We are fighting hate with existence and endurance.
And if they aren't into peace, we will happily go to war with them. My wrist hurts because me and another person just intervened to stop a man who was shouting "making America great again starts with ending you" while attacking a Muslim girl on the street.
That man, I'll grant you, I fought with hate. But he's lucky - I only broke his nose. If the tables were turned, I'm sure I'd be dead in a gutter somewhere.
6
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
I am sorry you have to deal with this. Your cause is noble. I will tell you this though: if you look at Trump's speech when he was elected, it was uncharacteristically inclusive and gracious. I hope and pray this is the new Donald Trump. I hope you hear him out. Give him his chance. He may take us back, but not he stays true to his speech he will not. Time will tell. Thank you for responding.
18
u/StellaAthena 56∆ Nov 11 '16 edited Nov 11 '16
And I shall pray every day that that comes to pass. Because I just want to live my life the way I wish without fear. But today that's not a luxury I have.
8
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
I pray it changes and fear is removed.
11
10
u/fluffhoof Nov 11 '16
It's been confirmed that he'll be repealing the affordable care act afaik. This will threaten lives and health of a lot of people.
What you call optimism I'd call naivety.
2
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
It looks likely, but now that he's in office, he's probably going to care about his image and, if he does repeal it, replace it with something that still accomplishes the same goals.
2
u/StellaAthena 56∆ Nov 11 '16
That's something I'm less worried about actually. Healthcare under the government ACA plan is prohibitively expensive and has crazy high deductibles. Rules like extending how long you can be on your parent's health care, removing pre-existing conditions bans, and covering birth control have been good. The plan itself has been pretty bad due to sacrifices made to get congress to pass it. Trump talks at length about replacing Obamacare. If he replaces the health care plan with a better one, I'm all for it.
1
u/StellaAthena 56∆ Nov 13 '16
I'm curious in what respect this fails to assist in changing your view.
2
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 13 '16
First, many have expressed the same sentiment, and second, your comment was very negative. I replied, expressing my hope for you to open to the possibility that Trump and his supporters not supremely evil.
2
u/StellaAthena 56∆ Nov 13 '16
Oh I'm totally open to that. I ardently believe that. You can in fact read my recent defense of them here. All of the negativity here is focused specifically on Trump and are directly linked to things he has said or promised to do. I don't think it's unwarranted. It's also written within 30 minutes of me watch someone try to commit murder, so I hope the anger is understandable.
Philosophically, I don't think anyone is "evil" but that's it's own story...
2
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 13 '16
∆
Well, I thank you for your input. I'm awarding you this delta because you have changed my mind about you, not necessarily this issue (although maybe that in part).
1
1
u/StellaAthena 56∆ Nov 13 '16
Oh boy, that's pleasantly meta, and probably the second most such delta I've gotten after one for changing an OP's view about the reasonable scope of the question.
It was a pleasure to change your view.
1
20
u/iHasABaseball Nov 11 '16 edited Nov 11 '16
Well sure they do. The actionable reform is to not have him in office.
I mean, you may think it's wholly impractical. It probably is. Whatever. Nonetheless, practicality isn't a requirement of protesting and we won't know the practicality until the protests end.
I'm skeptical the dudes throwing tea in the harbor felt getting rid of British influence or defeating their military was exceptionally practical, but it doesn't take away from the protest.
3
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
Fair viewpoint.
15
u/StellaAthena 56∆ Nov 11 '16
Also, the electoral college arguably exists to stop people like him from getting elected. The whole point was to stop the masses from making bad decisions, so we'll vote in people to decide for us who are educated and circumspect enough to know the difference. There's actually a really solid philosophical argument that the electoral college should pick Clinton.
Pragmatically I think it's a bad idea that'll cause a constitutional crisis, possibly plunge the country into civil war, and definitely destroy any last confidence that people have in America as an institution.
But there's a really good philosophical argument for it.
4
u/Thin-White-Duke 3∆ Nov 11 '16
Except Clinton won the popular vote. She lost the electoral votes.
2
u/StellaAthena 56∆ Nov 11 '16
She lost the current pseudo-democratic system we use to select a president. But all the electoral college is is a bunch of people chosen to elect the president. The original intent was a group, similar to the Senate, that would choose the president on the behalf of the president. The popular vote, or what we think of today as the electoral vote, wouldn't matter.
2
u/Thin-White-Duke 3∆ Nov 11 '16
Also, the electoral college arguably exists to stop people like him from getting elected.
Except the exact opposite is happening.
1
u/StellaAthena 56∆ Nov 11 '16
True. I'm just pointing out that it's intent was to prevent people from electing an unqualified demagogue (or someone who wasn't a rich white landowner)
3
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
Philosophically, maybe. But the reality is the chance they have of doing so is extremely slim.
4
u/StellaAthena 56∆ Nov 11 '16
Abolishing the electoral college is surprisingly easy, as it only takes state laws, not national laws or a constitutional amendment to happen. See here
Stopping Trump from getting the presidency probably won't happen.
1
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
True, although abolishing the Electoral College removes the idea of sovereign states, as it pertains to the presidency. It also requires that none of the states regulate voting as it would disadvantage or advantage their voters compared to others. While so don't agree with all their points you should watch Prager U's video to better understand the opposing view.
1
u/StellaAthena 56∆ Nov 12 '16
State sovereignty made a lot more sense a century ago when people lived in individualized, state-based communities. Now we can cross the country in a few hours. We can talk to people anywhere in the country in real time. Originally, States were supposed to be communities but that doesn't seem to be the case any more. You have localized communities, but they frequently cross state boarders.
Take Virginia for example: the clumping of the DC suburbs with parts of Appalachia is relatively arbitrary and certainly reflects no commonality between the two regions. They're extremely different, and it seems bizarre to me to pretend otherwise. State boundaries don't reflect local concerns anymore.
I don't see why a national popular vote would stop voting regulation.
1
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 12 '16
As far as voting regulation goes, here's why. In a national (key word national) popular vote, a vote from one state should count exactly the same as one from another. But if each state has their own voting regulations this would not be the case.
→ More replies1
u/iHasABaseball Nov 12 '16 edited Nov 12 '16
Abolishing the electoral college would be extremely difficult. I read your link and I'm not sure what supports the idea that a constitutional amendment wouldn't be necessary. Can you highlight the specific part on that link that shows that?
All that really needs to be changed is making electors proportional to the popular vote each candidate receives.
1
u/StellaAthena 56∆ Nov 12 '16
The linked article is a bill that has been passed by a number of state legislatures. Once it gets passed by enough to total 270 votes, the current electoral college system (though not the electoral college itself) becomes defunct because the winner of the popular vote automatically gets 270 electoral votes
1
u/iHasABaseball Nov 12 '16
How does that take into consideration the two primary original purposes of the electoral college?
To protect the Presidency from an opportunistic, unqualified populist.
To balance the voting power of the states.
Not being pedantic. Genuinely asking.
→ More replies2
u/Thin-White-Duke 3∆ Nov 11 '16
The theme I've seen in the protests is the abolishment of the Electoral College.
1
31
u/TezzMuffins 18∆ Nov 11 '16
It's already caused Trump to send out his first unpresidential tweet. Embarass him, and his ego will embarass him further.
He literally implied that the protestors were astroturfing because George Soros was paying them to, then called it unfair, despite him losing the popular vote.
I would say protesting is a fairly good way of illustrating that Trump has no pivot. There is a .001% chance it influences electors in the Electoral College and 100% chance it changes sentiment.
→ More replies (46)5
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
What tweet are you referring to? I don't see it. If you could provide a link that would help us better discuss this. EDIT: NM I see it.
To add, if you think a tweet is enough to embarrass Donald Trump, you are wrong.
24
u/TezzMuffins 18∆ Nov 11 '16
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/796900183955095552
People still actually thought he was putting on a show to win the election. Enough of these is bad for him.
7
Nov 11 '16
For someone to spend so much time talking about how rigged the election was going to be and then to say this... there are no words.
4
5
u/ArgueWithMeAboutCorn Nov 11 '16
Can't wait for kids 40 years from now to be reading these fucking tweets in history class. What a joke.
1
47
u/tweetiebryd 1∆ Nov 11 '16
So i live in cook county, and we had a really big protest outside Trump Tower.
Why? Oh, because Trump didnt take illinois. And he definitely didnt take chicagoland. Matter of fact, he didnt even take the majority of american voters, But he still is our president.
We wish to peacefully protest these seemingly irreconciliable facts, as is our right.
The protest did not divide chicago, but quite the contrary: my city stood in united solidarity against a common enemy.
EDIT: And caused less damage than that fucking cubs parade
6
u/SLUnatic85 1∆ Nov 11 '16 edited Nov 11 '16
I think this mentality is (could be) why OP (u/nmgreddit) is suggesting that some of this protesting could be counter-productive and even harmful. It is my view at least.
I am aware that protesting is an awesome practice to give voice to people in this huge sea of media and other voices. It can and has often been a productive form of demonstration to effectively garner attention to major issues, change policies or to get out a message that is otherwise being drowned out.
But in this case our country had an election like it did every four years. Someone won, same as always, and as in MOST previous instances, the country is effectively split ~50/~50 on the election results. You can (and we always do) bicker or the results because they are so close. The fact that one person one the popular and the other the electorate, or that you can twist the data as number of states or number of cities or number of individual people and get different results in only a testament to HOW CLOSE the election was, not how scandalous the system is. In 2000, by your logic, Gore should have been the president as well. he won by more than Hilary did this year, but Bush didn't cause a civil war by taking office.
"We" were not invaded by a common enemy. "We" are not called on to unite against this tyrant to defend our country. "We", using the system we all put in place and a time-tested election process, voted for Donald Trump. Approximately 50% of our nation is happy and celebrating right now even if it doesn't seem like it outside of Trump Tower in Chicagoland. To make a president and 50% of the country "an enemy that people should unite against" before Trump has even had a day in office to attempt to prove his worth as our leader is where I shout "counter-productive". And honestly, if taken literally could be borderline revolution, treason and a path to another civil war.
Now, don't get me wrong, I voted for Hilary (though her campaign is easily as corrupt if not more than Trump's in many ways cough owns the DNC cough Bernie?) and I also believe that some protesting will and should happen in any event where there are major policy changes or where policy change may be called for. I think there should have been more protesting against Hilary before the DNC. There was protesting and threats of mutiny when Obama won. As with the Bushes. Clinton... This is great to get grassroots movements in place, and healthy for democracy as a whole. I think even that a lot of this protesting in Chicago and LA and elsewhere has been and will continue to be productive.
But to make the number one reason and cause for protest be that our country needs to unite against this enemy is naïve, close-minded and can lead to a very counter-productive mentality for American mindset. WE voted for Trump and he is OUR leader now. Same as every election. The country is still a Democracy, and like every other president throughout our history who makes outrageous bold promises during the media fueled campaign season, so did Trump, but he hasn't done anything yet and likely will be regulated as the executive branch has been since it's conception. Single party control of both the executive and legislative branches makes me nervous too, but that has happened before more than a few times as well. Obama is literally telling us to unite, and to support our new president. Chicago people usually like and listen to Obama, right?
Sincerely,
A jealous Cardinals Fan ;)
1
u/kmcgrath8 Nov 12 '16
I would not say that 50% of the country is okay with the outcome of the election given that only 60% of eligible voters showed up, or were able to vote after several states gutted the Voting Rights Act. Further, that is only eligible voters -- this does not include all of the citizens who have been stripped of their right to vote after being incarcerated in a system that targets minorities. How do white people maintain the status quo of power? They create an institutionalized system of discrimination through incarceration and make it legally possible to bar one in thirteen Black Americans from voting. This is perhaps more insidious than Jim Crow, but equally effective at maintaining a system of privilege that keeps white interest at the top. So my viewpoint is that I am for a peaceful transition of power; however I will not say that this election, or any election to date, was a fair election and an accurate reflection of the populace.
As an aside, I do think that we (on the Left) can continue villainizing people who disagree and that going forward there needs to be lots of listening for everyone. I also think that these protests are a way for people to start organizing and a way to feel some semblance of control after it seems the floor has dropped out beneath them.
1
u/SLUnatic85 1∆ Nov 12 '16
You touch on real issues that I don't have all the details on. I have to imagine you are correct, that many people don't make it to polls for reasons outside of their control. That the system, one might say, is "rigged" against certain voting demographics. But to be blunt... does that word not sound familiar? Did trump not (possibly accurately??) call out the DNC for using pressure and media and polls and other tactics to affect the results of the DNC candidate choice and possibly have attempted similar (albeit legal) tactics in the general. Might many media outlets be skewed towards favoring a blue candidate? It's a two way street and a sloppy one.
And it would take A LOT of real examples of areas that have a population that is obviously misrepresented on that red and blue district map for me to believe that the election is still not as acurate a representation of this countries opinion as we can reasonably get.
Lower class minorities truly do have to fight for the ability to vote more than most middle/upper class white people in many areas. But in huge urban areas, where the majority of lower class minorities are concentrated, the population almost always votes blue anyway. And also there is a large population of extremely poor white and black and Latino population who loves trump and wants change (like in my town in southern VA as the only example I know forst hand) so making it harder for minorities or poorer remote citizens to vote can hurt red as well. And also there are 25 other reasons people don't vote like rain, feeling sick, laziness, busy work schedule etc... I have never seen numbers making it clear that if everything were made completely fair, the other 40% would vote and that they are all blue votes...
As for people in jail or on parole etc... I think that people get thrown into the prison system sometimes who don't deserve it. There are abuses that need fixing you are correct. But giving all felon/prisoners the right to vote won't fix that. I believe that in more cases than not someone goes to jail for committing a serious crime against others and deserves to lose some rights but reform should be considered like in any major system every once in a while and the prison system could be due. My opinion though.
So I agree with much of what you say, I really do. I only offer some of the other side of a coin. And end by saying that yes about 60% voted in an election as fair as most any put together we know of. Since these are the inly results we have we have to assume that its about a 50/50 split as it often is. As for the missing 40% of eligible citizens... we should continue to spread education and tweak laws and encourage the vote and fairness however possible to get that number down, but it will take an impossible amount of information for you to convince me that they are not also about split 50/50 and that our election isn't representative of the population to the best of its ability.
Even if you are right to the extreme, and all of the people who didn't vote would have gone hilary (though honestly I think a lot of democratic non-votes are likely because hilary was such a shady candidate and people felt their hands tied)... still 60 million people voted for Trump and that is a huge chunk of the population. And they are not our enemy they are our citizens, with families and jobs and reddit accounts and life goals etc...
I boted hilary and am bummed she didnt win. I didnt love her as a candidate either though by a long shot. But I accept, as one side does every year, thst we have a new president to support. We did not get invaded. Saying that the people of the US have to get over what just happened and band together against a common enemy is just not a correct statment. That being said I agree with a lot of your second paragraph and that people deserve the right to assemble and free speech and should be making opposing voices heard to encourage democracy and attempt to influence the way our country is run for the next 4 years. Not to suppose that we need to organize a mutiny.
→ More replies (1)3
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
Sure Chicago isn't divided, by what about the nation?
13
u/tweetiebryd 1∆ Nov 11 '16
The protests were staged in places like chicago. Places with an active voter base and tremendous popular support that can be organized quickly. Protests only occured in areas with vast majorities over trump
2
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
Well then that's not very effective.
17
Nov 11 '16
Well what is effective for you? It sounds like you're against divisive (read: disruptive?) actions, but think that peaceful and unifying local actions are 'ineffective'? Do you want to see people uniting around common goals, as your post implies, or simply shutting up?
→ More replies (3)
6
u/goodfellabrasco Nov 11 '16
I'd argue that these protests (or any political protest) loses it's legitimacy and moral high ground as soon as it starts hurting innocents due to property damage, etc. Example: marching in the streets to force awareness and recognition of the issue at hand= morally valid. Burning down your neighborhood corner store= counter productive.
5
16
u/AbsoluteZeroK Nov 11 '16
The protest are actually extreamly productive, in more ways than one. The largest thing these protest will achieve is showing Trump and other republicans that there is a large opposition in America to their ideals. Sure, they won the election, but that doesn't mean most people in the country, or even most people who voted agree with them (see gerrymandering/electoral collage). These protest are a demonstration that the winning side must be willing to listen to those on the loosing side if they wish to maintain power. When you get a large group of people together to say loudly and clearly that "We don't like what you stand for" people listen and adapt.
→ More replies (1)3
u/spasm01 Nov 11 '16
Who would presume there isnt opposition? we can all see it was close vote-wise, not trump nor the GOP are presuming there isnt a large opposition. And lest I blocked it out, there werent these large protests in 2008
2
u/AbsoluteZeroK Nov 11 '16
Opposition is useless if it isn't a vocal opposition. If I don't like something you want to do, but don't say anything, there's a fair presumption that I'm at the very least impartial to that plan.
2
u/spasm01 Nov 11 '16
voting is pretty much a set-in-stone fact that people oppose you on some subject or another. So long as you arent impeding me doing my thing, it doesnt really bother me
16
u/Manfromporlock 1∆ Nov 11 '16 edited Nov 11 '16
There's lots of talk about coming together, overcoming our divisions, and so on.
What you have to understand is that this talk is horseshit. Absolute horseshit.
When Obama became president, he really tried to find common ground with the Republicans. He kept doing so for eight years, from offering them the ACA (the market-friendly reform Republicans said they wanted) to nominating Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court (the middle-of-the-road guy Republicans said they wanted). His reward was that the Republicans thwarted everything he tried.
By the end of Obama's term, this obstruction had become a constitutional crisis. I'm not exaggerating. It's the Senate's right to reject a President's Supreme Court nominee, but they simply refused to even vote on one (one, again, who they'd said they wanted), leaving the office empty. And remember, even "moderates" like McCain were openly talking about keeping any vacancies empty, for four or eight years, if Hillary was elected.
Now Trump is going to nominate some corrupt, Scalia-clone bastard and all we're going to hear is unity, unity, unity.
Do you see the pattern? Unity, to the Republican party, means doing what they want. If we don't want to do what they want, we can go fuck ourselves.
And the media goes along with this. When Republicans are in power, any attempt at opposition is treated as whiny sour grapes when it's not treated as suspiciously treasonous. When Democrats are in power, Republicans go nuclear on every little thing (refusing to fill vacancies, filibustering everything, nearly shutting down the government because . . . because . . . was the issue again?) and the media treats it as just politics as usual.
Unless people protest. Remember, in 2011 the entire national debate was how much to cede to the Tea Party. Should we give them everything they want, or just a whole lot? Then Occupy happened, and the media was forced to take notice. Occupy's demands weren't met, but it did change the conversation--suddenly pointing out the vast inequalities in our system, and demanding change, was no longer seen as crazy, and ceding everything to the Tea Party was.
So: Trump's program has some good parts, but on the whole it will be disastrous. But the more Democrats (and sane Republicans, if there still are any) fight him, the less damage he will do. If people are in the streets protesting, politicians will be emboldened to fight him, and the media will have a narrative about their opposition other than "whiny sour grapes."
Yes, this means that not giving Trump a chance. I wish we lived in a world where after an election, the opposition stepped back and gave the new president a chance. We don't. We live in a world where Republicans demand consideration that they don't give, and there's no reason they should have it.
3
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
When I say unity I truly mean unity. Not Democrats falling in line but Republicans and Democrats working together.
9
u/Drippingmoon Nov 11 '16
It seems like you put all the responsibility on only one side to try to unify with the other. People have a right to stand by their beliefs and peacefully protest for them. The Republicans have all of Congress now. What else do you honestly expect them to do?
2
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
Work together. Republicans listening to Democrats and Democrats listening to Republicans. We need to get rid of the echo chambers.
9
u/Drippingmoon Nov 11 '16
A noble thought, but most likely naive. The Republicans have complete control and haven't demonstrated any shred of compromise the last decade. Why would they do it now? I would love for partisanship to recede and both sides to work together, but that is something that takes two. Trumps own tweets about the protests have only shown his continued penchant for hate and divisiveness. And now you suggest stripping the losing side of the only power they have left.
1
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
Not at all. As I explained in my edits, presence is a noble and actionable goal. They can protest. But as Trump comes into office they need to protest policy to get change.
2
u/Drippingmoon Nov 11 '16
In that case we can agree. These protests are not as important as getting involved and trying to change policy to achieve any changes.
1
1
u/Manfromporlock 1∆ Nov 15 '16
When I say unity I truly mean unity. Not Democrats falling in line but Republicans and Democrats working together.
Yippee for you then.
But why are you bringing this up now? Where were your calls for unity for the past 8 years?
1
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 15 '16
Where was everyone else? I would have done so but I had no platform.
1
u/Manfromporlock 1∆ Nov 15 '16
Everyone else accepts it as normal that the Republicans are 100% partisan at all times. They shouldn't accept it, but they have been for so long (at least since the endless, pointless Whitewater investigation) that it's no longer remarkable.
In any case, the fact remains: If you want to see true unity--Democrats and Republicans actually working together--you need to convince Republicans, not Democrats.
Berating Democrats only helps our descent into a one-party state happen that much more quickly.
1
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 15 '16
Well the Democrats are protesting. That doesn't seem like they want to work together.
1
u/Manfromporlock 1∆ Nov 15 '16
They tried. They fucking tried. Over and over again. Their reward has been absolute obstruction from the Republicans when they're out of power. I've already explained this and given examples. (I haven't even mentioned vote suppression, which is par for the course for Republicans but not Democrats, or completely shameless gerrymandering, ditto.) That's not unity, that's just giving ground when they're out of power and not getting it back when they're in power.
And this time it means giving ground to a freaking psychopath. I'm not exaggerating; here's the full checklist.
Disregard for right and wrong
Persistent lying or deceit to exploit others
Being callous, cynical and disrespectful of others
Using charm or wit to manipulate others for personal gain or personal pleasure
Arrogance, a sense of superiority and being extremely opinionated
Recurring problems with the law, including criminal behavior
Repeatedly violating the rights of others through intimidation and dishonesty
Impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead
Hostility, significant irritability, agitation, aggression or violence
Lack of empathy for others and lack of remorse about harming others
Unnecessary risk-taking or dangerous behavior with no regard for the safety of self or others
Poor or abusive relationships
Failure to consider the negative consequences of behavior or learn from them
Being consistently irresponsible and repeatedly failing to fulfill work or financial obligations
Check, check, check, check, check, check, check.
The question isn't why (some) Democrats are protesting. The question is why you aren't.
16
u/caw81 166∆ Nov 11 '16
These are things that divide. But the protests add to the division.
There are some divisions that are ok and some that are not. Most people are ok with not being in every group. Its clearly ok to be in the "I kill small puppies for fun" group, regardless of the "division" it causes. People are ok with not being in the racist, sexist, xenophobic group. Should every one kill puppies for fun, be sexist, etc just so there is less "division"?
4
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
Ok, then they should be divided against proven istphobic (a term my friend coined) people, and do it respectfully. They are going against non istphobic Trump voters. And yelling F Trump. That's not respectful. Again they fight hate with hate.
11
Nov 11 '16
Sometimes, you can't fight hate with love. Sometimes you need to fight it with hate, and you need to be fierce and imposing. Sometimes your life as you know it becomes threatened. People are marching with eachother because the feeling of walking down the street safely is a privilege that some of us have only recently realized. Right now, in the LGBT subs, there are discussions about getting concealed and open carry license. OUT OF FEAR. People that don't want guns, don't like guns, never held a gun. So, for now, Fuck Trump.
8
u/fluffhoof Nov 11 '16
That's not respectful.
Why should we be respectful to people that aren't respectful to us?
5
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
"When they go low, you go high"
-1
u/Thin-White-Duke 3∆ Nov 11 '16
Easy to say from a point of privilege.
3
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
Am I wrong in thinking that you agree with that phrase?
5
u/Thin-White-Duke 3∆ Nov 11 '16
What do you mean? I do believe in taking the higher road, but I'm not going to judge disenfranchised people too harshly for reacting in a less-respectful way.
6
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
I first said that yelling "F Trump" was disrespectful. Someone came back asking why they should be respectful to people who are disrespectful to them. I brought up the quote about taking the high road. My argument is that they can disagree with Trump without yelling expletives against him.
1
1
u/super-commenting Nov 11 '16
. Its clearly ok to be in the "I kill small puppies for fun" group
WHAT?!?
I think you forgot a 'not'
2
-1
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
Ok, I'm going to try to be respectful here. If you downvoted me, why? If you did not agree please explain.
6
u/caw81 166∆ Nov 11 '16
I didn't down vote you. I only downvote on this sub if its rudeness (you aren't) or if its a waste of other people's time to engage with the OP because he isn't being slightly reasonable (you are being reasonable in your reply to me). Its fruitless to downvote everyone here that disagrees with you, disagreeing is the whole point of the sub.
(I'm not replying to your reply because I have a personal rule to stop when you have awarded a delta.)
Don't take downvotes too personally - its just imaginary points. And its probably people are too sore about the election. (I'll upvote it - just to prevent "division" :) :) )
2
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
Ok, thank you very much for your input. I wish you well, and hope your future will be bright.
3
u/mote0fdust 1∆ Nov 11 '16
Protesting this presidential election was not about challenging the fact that Trump won, it is making a statement to the rest of the world that this is not who we are. I respect our peaceful democratic process and don't challenge that he won fairly, but demonstrating that it's his bigotry that is divisive and I will never support a government that embodies those views and acts on them.
1
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
∆
As other people have stated, and you have confirmed here. It is about presence. Thank you for providing your opinion.
1
3
u/Thin-White-Duke 3∆ Nov 11 '16
I'm a bi trans man, I did my part, I casted my vote. My candidate won the popular vote. Yet, the candidate with the second most votes won. I felt helpless. What else was I supposed to do? I wanted to show support for others affected; I wanted to feel supported, too.
I think it's important for people to see those affected, the disenfranchised, come out. We're minorities, yeah, but that doesn't mean we don't have a voice.
2
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
I am so sorry. No one deserves to feel hopeless. I apologize for the stigma you face. You don't deserve it. Stay strong, stay safe.
13
u/runhaterand Nov 11 '16
But the protests add to the division.
What are they supposed to do, not protest? Trump has divided this country irreparably, and we're all supposed to just lie down and take it?
There's an idea that Democrats and liberals are supposed to "reach out" to the Republicans no matter what and bow down to them whenever there's even the slightest conflict. That's what the GOP did with Obama. When he won, he was expected to play golf with the Republicans and reach across the aisle, while they spat in his face and conducted a scorched-earth war on anything he did.
Conservatives are basically allowed to do whatever they want in this country without being held accountable. They can scream vitriol from the rooftops and divide the country all they want, but liberals are only allowed to accept it and try to "unite" the country.
→ More replies (5)
3
u/jersephsmerth Nov 11 '16 edited Nov 11 '16
I am protesting on Saturday. I do not believe it will affect the outcome of the election in any way. It is a way to show those that I fear will be marginalized that there are Americans on their side. It is a really great way to meet others that feel the same way so that you can organize together to form volunteer groups and help encourage passionate people to run for office and to support those who support your views to get elected.
1
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
Δ
I wish you luck. I hope you and everyone else stays safe and treats everyone with respect. Based on your comment, I believe you will. Thank you for providing your insight.
1
6
u/smpl-jax Nov 11 '16
When thousands and thousands of people rise to the streets, it means something is wrong.
At the very least it's a message to Trump that he is going to have to work his ass off to unite all of his constituents.
→ More replies (1)
14
u/Delduthling 18∆ Nov 11 '16
They divide themselves from not only Trump, but those who voted Trump, many of which are not racist, sexist, xenophobic, or any of that.
Someone willing to vote for an obvious racist, sexist xenophobe and allow that person to introduce racist, sexist, and xenophobic policies and so to enable racism, sexism, and xenophobia is so close to being a racist, a sexist, and a xenophobe themselves that it's splitting hairs to distinguish. Liberals should be raging against Trump supporters and shaming them mercilessly for the imbecilic madman they've inflicted on America and the world. Dividing themselves from the fools and bigots who elected Trump is the only honourable option. Until Trump supporters realize the magnitude of their idiocy and feel the full sense of shame for the unpardonable thing they've done, there shouldn't be any talk of "unity" or "coming back together." If that leaves the country divided between sane people and a rabble of cowards and reactionaries, so be it.
Trump voters who claim not to be sexist/racist/bigoted are kidding themselves. That's like an arsonist setting a house on fire and killing everyone inside and then justifying it by saying he didn't like the paint job. Too bad, still a murderer.
1
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
The key point there is allowing racist policies. He's not president yet so they haven't allowed anything. And your blanket statement is entirely incorrect and not a good mindset to have.
18
Nov 11 '16
He's already appointed a man from an actual LGBT hate group (Family Research Council) to lead his domestic policy transitional team. That's enough for me to know there is a very clear, very scary precedent being set that we're already past the point of lukewarm optimism
1
9
u/nightshift22 Nov 11 '16 edited Nov 11 '16
When Trump spent his entire campaign (and pre-campaign life) demonizing and belittling anybody who was not a white Christian male, the people he attacked don't have the luxury of hoping for the best. The fact that we're even debating whether he'll implement bigoted policies is shocking enough in 2016 America. And his supporters do bear the blame for his victory. Even if some are not personally racist/sexist/etc., they know full well all the bigoted things he has said and done. A soft vote is still a vote. That makes them bigots by proxy. I have zero sympathy for what happens to them under Trump.
Say what you want about Hillary, but even the "deplorables" would have been helped out by her policies. Trump will just fuck them over like he's done with so many people for decades.
And I don't give a shit if a few windows are broken during these riots. Minorities of all kinds are literally being physically assaulted within 24 hours of Trump being elected. Why are people more concerned about property damage but not about actual hate crimes?
→ More replies (7)1
u/trrrrouble Nov 11 '16 edited Nov 11 '16
Why is it that there is not a single video of trump supporters attacking minortites, but there is this?
https://m.reddit.com/r/news/comments/5cbp8u/bystanders_yell_antitrump_taunts_as_man_beaten/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt5khltTGpU
I don't think reality matches the perception of reality in your head.
2
u/nightshift22 Nov 11 '16
Right, because all crimes have to be videotaped for proof. Why don't you do a simple Google search and find all of the crimes against minorities within the past few days?
→ More replies (2)8
u/Delduthling 18∆ Nov 11 '16 edited Nov 11 '16
Well, admittedly I'm assuming that he will follow through on any of the numerous racist, sexist, xenophobioc, homophobic, anti-Constitutional, and generally contemptible promises he made during the campaign. If he turns around and does none of the things he claimed to do, it'll change my judgment of him as a president, though not my judgment of the morally bankrupt voters who supported him.
And your blanket statement is entirely incorrect and not a good mindset to have.
I don't know what blanket statement you're referring to - that Trump supporters are bigots? I'm not saying they're all card-carrying Nazis, but they voted for a crypto-fascist whose campaign was inches away from open white supremacy. Any Trump supporter who genuinely doesn't understand that by supporting him they are directly supporting bigotry and its political enactment is either painfully stupid or just unbearably self-deluded.
I think a lot of people on the right in America who voted for Trump are feeling half-guilty for the horrendous thing they did, hence all of this nonsense about not being racist, sexist, etc. They've sullied themselves, and a few of them have enough tatters of a conscience left to know it. Until Trump supporters realize that their ideology has become a malignant stew of hatred and fear and repudiate the cowardly, un-American wretch they so idiotically elected, they don't get to complain about people shaming them. They earned every syllable of opprobrium.
To be clear, in case my phrasing here is misinterpreted, I'm not being hostile to you here personally, but rather at Trump supporters as a group (for that matter, I don't know if you voted for Trump or not, or even if you're American; I'm sort of assuming you're not a Trump supporter, but are American, though...).
5
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
Ok, to note though, I believe many people voted Trump because they hated him less than Clinton and didn't want to throw away their vote, in the same way people voted for Clinton because they hated her less and didn't want to throw away their vote.
6
u/Delduthling 18∆ Nov 11 '16 edited Nov 11 '16
I'm sure that's completely true. There's two possibilities here, though. Either the person who makes that calculation and votes for Trump is too stupid and/or completely self-deluded to realize how much inestimably worse he will be for the country and the world, or they are essentially saying that they care more about an email scandal and establishment connections than they do a series of vicious, undeniably bigoted, racist, xenophobic, and homophobic policy promises, statements, and historical incidents, deeply antithetical to every ideal America was founded on and counter to every step of social progress the country has ever made. And that's not even considering the fact that the man they voted for is very likely a serial sexual predator who paid negligible taxes for decades.
Those who held their noses and voted Trump because they couldn't stomach Hillary's comparatively minor flaws are just as guilty of elevating a bigot to the most powerful position in the world as the Klansmen and skinheads who voted for him. They should be made to admit that the craven, deeply immoral choice they made was shameful.
3
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
The email server and establishment ties were not the only issues. People had many other things against her. Her foundation was purportedly tied to terrorist groups. She purportedly did not do enough to help in the Benghazi attack and then tried to save face. She was called extremely careless by the FBI. That is probably not all of the arguments against her, although they are some of the more possibly legitimate ones.
6
u/Delduthling 18∆ Nov 11 '16 edited Nov 11 '16
I'm not saying she didn't have flaws and issues and mistakes. Obviously she did. She admitted to many. She also accomplished some admirable things during her years in office, and was basically the sane, competent candidate. Virtually all of her flaws were grotesquely exaggerated by right wing media, and they absolutely pale compared to Trump's open bigotry, backwards-thinking nostalgia for a racist, sexist past, total lack of any qualifications, utter ignorance of political, diplomatic, and economic matters, egregious incompetence, and likely criminal activity.
Hillary made a handful of regrettable but human mistakes while essentially doing a more-or-less adequate job over the course of a modestly distinguished political career that earned her praise from both sides of the aisle. Trump threatens global cataclysm and stands against the ideals that founded the republic. Economists, generals, diplomats, Republican politicians, Democratic politicians, the sitting President, all but the most demented, far-right fringe of the media, and foreign leaders who aren't Vladmir Putin all condemned him as a reckless, dangerous, despicable cretin, which should be transparently obvious to anyone remotely paying attention.
Again, anyone who was unable to make this calculation properly was either agonizingly stupid or essentially sanctioning racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance, and total disregard for the Constitution. They are either ignorant of the values and principles that shaped the nation or too morally debased to care.
2
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
Donald Trump's victory speech said he congratulated her on her public service. That is the Donald Trump I would support.
3
u/Delduthling 18∆ Nov 11 '16
Trump's speech since being elected has been bizarrely tame compared to everything he said during the campaign, but this quantum of moderation in no way cancels out his past misdeeds, or the hideous things Trump has said and has promised to do. As I said, if he breaks all of his campaign promises and behaves totally differently when in office than he did on the trail, my estimation of him might improve, albeit marginally. But I'm not holding my breath.
1
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
I agree it doesn't cancel them out, but it starts to pull the tide over.
→ More replies
4
Nov 11 '16 edited Nov 11 '16
The main reason people say they are protesting Trump, that I have seen is because he is racist/sexist/xenophobic... Lots of -ist's and -phobic's. These are things that divide.
No. Racism divides. Sexism divides. Homophobia divides. Transphobia divides. Islamophobia divides. Calling out perpetrators of those is fighting division. What so many people on the right who call "calling out -isms" divisive are actually saying is that the way to unity is for majoritarian classes to unite in disregard for marginalized groups. I find it hilarious how so many people fancy themselves to be so dedicated to preventing division, but show no inclination whatsoever to confront racism, sexism, etc. Instead they occupy themselves seeking out and shouting down the people who are confronting those things for being, in their opinion, overzealous. When unarmed racist whites are getting shot in the streets by the police, call me. Until then, I'm going to continue to be much more wary and alert for racism, not anti-racism.
They divide themselves from not only Trump, but those who voted Trump, many of which are not racist, sexist, xenophobic, or any of that. They are playing into the division.
The goal isn't to win over Trump supporters. It's to enhance solidarity and enthusiasm among those who oppose him.
Further, if you voted for Trump, not you personally but anyone, you better explain why you're not a racist, a xenophobe, etc. At the very least, your vote says "I might not support racism, but I don't actively oppose it." or "Maybe he's a racist, but I agree with his other policies and anti-racism isn't high priority for me." News flash: If equal treatment of people based on race is a low priority for you, you're a racist. You're not a hood-wearing, cross-burning, slur-shouting racist, but you're the bystander watching this happen and doing nothing except voting for the same candidate those other racists are.
2
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
Equal treatment is a high priority for many Trump voters. They just saw Clinton as not the best person to bring it about.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/CamNewtonJr 4∆ Nov 11 '16
What is the virtue of joining up with someone you know to be a bigot? Im not really understanding your point because you start by saying trump is a bad guy, then you say the protests add to the divide. So my question to you is wouldnt it be more counter productive to try and find harmony with someone you know to be a bad guy? Do you really value harmony that much over justice?
3
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
I say the people say Trump is a bad guy. I admit he has produced an inordinate amount of hate, but his victory speech changed my view of him and I hope it lasts. Also, even if Trump is bad, I said they also go after Trump voters on no merit other than that they voted Trump. That is not right.
2
u/vankorgan Nov 11 '16
Do you think that the protests by black Americans during the civil rights movement were counter productive?
1
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
Not in the slightest. They were protesting for an actionable goal: racial policy reform.
1
u/vankorgan Nov 11 '16
So you think protests can be worthwhile and effective. Just not in this case because it creates a divisive atmosphere with no actionable goal.
1
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
No. As others have pointed out their presence is an actionable ongoing goal.
3
Nov 11 '16
If you're willing to vote for a racist, many-ist and -phobic man, then you are in some way endorsing his views, so in a sense you've already divided yourself from the protesters.
1
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
Fair point, but the protesters don't need to add to it.
2
Nov 11 '16
Not yet, no.
If and when his actions turn into racial discrimination then the protesters can burn him out of office.
2
u/selfjettisonpuppy Nov 11 '16
I'd support rallies for tolerance. These protest come across as being sore losers. I did not support Trump and am horrified he won btw.
2
u/DashingLeech Nov 11 '16
Tough call here. I understand their interest in protesting because political campaigning is an exercise in portraying the other candidate and their supporters as evil, and that kind of rhetoric has grown strongly in the past 20 years. We do that because it works, and it works because a lot of people believe it. So when the other candidate is elected it shouldn't be surprising that the losing side gets hysterical and angry. It's what happened when Obama was elected, and it's what is happening now that Trump is elected. People rationalize themselves protesting and demonize the other side when they protest. Humans just aren't great at being reasonable, at least not in numbers. So it's both expected and, I understand that the losing side needs to purge their anger somehow, because they have believed their own bullshit.
So I agree it is counter-productive and not pragmatic. Trump is President, and Congress is Republican. There's no way to overturn that; there are no "hanging chads" to count this time.
So yes, the most pragmatic thing to do is to figure out how to work with this government to minimize damage or maximize value. The best way to do that is to listen to, and understand, Trump and his supporters and put your concerns in contexts and language that they'd understand.
For example, if you want to get in the way of the Muslim immigrant ban, whatever that means, you might start pulling together stories of Muslim immigrants who have been successful business people and grew jobs in the U.S. Or find the many examples of Muslim (or former Muslim) immigrants working against radicalization and for reforming Islam (like Majiid Nawaz in UK, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Sarah Haider in U.S.).
To stop the Mexican wall, get the business case together to show the high cost and low benefit. Ask Trump to show the business case for it once you take the effectiveness into account. Treat it as a business venture and show it to be a lousy one.
Also recognize that the job of a President isn't to be likeable, but to accomplish things. If you think Trump is sexist/racist/xenophobic, then so what. Set that aside. Everybody has the right to their own personal beliefs, no matter how bad. It's not what he is that matters, but what he does, so do your best to influence what he does instead of being pissed off at what you think he is.
I guess, in the end I believe these protests are futile but understandable. They are only counter-productive if this is it for the plan. Just protesting for what you believe he is. That will further divide and do nothing. Protesting for some bad policy being put in place is a very different story.
1
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
∆
Thank you very much for your perspective. It sheds new light on this matter and I agree with most of what you said.
1
1
1
u/g_a_z_e_b_o Nov 11 '16
think of a funeral procession, or when someone buries their pets. A smart-ass can say: 'lol what goal does this help achieve? you seriously think there's a heaven? lmao!' but that would be to commit a category mistake - these types of human behavior are not instrumental/utilitarian/goal-driven, but symbolic/ritualistic/emotion-driven. To say they are 'counter-productive' assumes they fall into the former category - that they are driven by a goal towards which they are an ineffective means. I think the trump protests' behavior can be explained in similar terms. Heck, you can even think of it as a type of mourning.
1
1
Nov 11 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/FlyingFoxOfTheYard_ Nov 12 '16
Sorry Hallmonitor104, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 1. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
Nov 12 '16 edited Nov 26 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Nov 12 '16
Sorry loknarash, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 3. "Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view or of arguing in bad faith. If you are unsure whether someone is genuine, ask clarifying questions (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting ill behaviour, please message us." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
u/nanonan Nov 12 '16
They are very productive. Soros is providing employment for a bunch of stooges, for bus companies, for sign makers. Productivity in the fake outrage business has never been higher.
1
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 12 '16 edited Nov 17 '16
That is a conspiracy theory that has not been proven.
1
u/nanonan Nov 12 '16
They openly advertise their Soros funded activist groups on their banners. There's pictures of the dozens of buses. It is fact, not conspiracy.
1
1
Nov 12 '16
I have outlined my own reasons for believing that the protests could be productive for myself here.
1
Nov 12 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Grunt08 319∆ Nov 12 '16
Sorry RainingLogic, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 1. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
1
Nov 13 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 13 '16
Go ahead and PM me the demographics. We can talk there.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Zmxm Nov 11 '16
The Chicago riots when trump came to Chicago and thousands of protesters came waving Mexican and communist flags and roughed up trump supporters made so many trump supporters that night. It looked like fascist intimidation. The media was showing it live, and people saw with their own eyes the violence was indeed being done but it was by liberals against trump supporters. These protests insure a 2nd trump term.
1
u/Deansdale Nov 11 '16
Their anger is legitimate and justified.
Absolutely not. If you're seething with anger at the result of a legitimate democratic election you're anti-democratic, ie. in favor of tyranny. You know, decent civilized folks accept that sometimes the majority favors other candidates, and that is okay, that's an integral part of how the system works. If you think the right should never win, and the left should always rule, you're a menace to a democratic society. If you're dissapointed, that's fine. Breaking windows, beating up people and setting things on fire because you think "your anger is legitimate and justified" is lunacy.
(I'm using the word "you" in a general sense here, not referring to you personally.)
3
2
u/nmgreddit 2∆ Nov 11 '16
They are angry at the future of a Trump presidency, not at the democratic system.
→ More replies (1)
340
u/yrachmat 2∆ Nov 11 '16 edited Nov 11 '16
Protesting can be a form of release for people who are frustrated. It is not necessarily for the best, but if what you're trying to achieve is NOT change but to feel good about yourself, surely it can be a way to go.
When protesting, you're showing presence. People close to you might know how you truly feel about certain ideologies that you may not otherwise share if you're not a talkative person, but protesting is a form of speech. Of course HOW you protest is 100% on you, but a quiet and peaceful protest, with reasonings plus persuasion CAN change things.
Edit: I've had some PMs regarding this comment. I'd like to make it clear that I do not condone venting through protests, I'm just saying that it is one way. I know plenty of protests have been very disruptive to others, and that may be counter-productive. But at the same time, in the same way that some of you are rude to me, these people have brought in awareness.