this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2024
107 points (95.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7211 readers
266 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
lol “if you wanna protest, literally travel across the whole ass country or the world. Nothing local matters.”
You’re either a supporter of Israel or you don’t know history. I can’t think of any other way to get to what you just posted.
So do you support Israel or do you not understand how every expansion of civil rights in the 20th and 21st century were won?
Local very much matters, for local issues. See the protests directly in Ferguson for example.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_unrest
The related protests outside Ferguson accomplished fuck all.
If the issue is an international issue, a local protest means and accomplishes NOTHING other than a mild inconvenience for people completely unrelated to the problem.
You don’t think the nationwide protests and international reaction to the killing of Michael brown had any effect.
Would you say there was any effect when politicians and police in areas outside furgeson had to make statements in response to the protests in their regions?
Do you think catapulting blm to the national level and international recognition had any effect?
Since you said a local protest means nothing if the issue is international do you think that the various anti war protests throughout Americas 20th and 21st centuries have meant anything?
Nope, not really:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/08/omar-tlaib-bush-bowman-primaries-squad-democrats-aipac-israel.html
"Both BLM activists voted into Congress have been pushed out."
Do you think that those politicians had any effect while in office?
Since you said a local protest means nothing if the issue is international do you think that the various anti war protests throughout Americas 20th and 21st centuries have meant anything?
Some protests did, some did not. None of the Iraq war protests in the 90s or 00s had any impact whatsoever.
Worldwide protests before the American invasion of Iraq were the cause of would be coalition members reluctance and the reason Colin Powell had to get up in front of the un and lie.
Worldwide opposition to the global war on terror is the reason the consent manufacturing machine ran so hot and, as a consequence, is the reason no one trusts media anymore.
It was no coincidence that figures like obama and trump rose to prominence in American politics after early criticism of universally decried foreign action came to light.
Even in entertainment, the Israeli “shoot and cry” format was adopted in order to synthesize domestic opposition to the war into more acceptable sympathy for the troops.
If, like Korea, either gwot or shield/storm had been even just domestic propaganda victories we wouldn’t have experienced such huge shifts and would be living in a different world.
Worldwide protests were completely ignored in favor of 23 years worth of war. It ended because we got tired of paying for it, not because anyone protested.
I never suggested that the protests stopped the war. Is that your metric for if an antiwar protest “works”?
It’s important to push back on what you said about completely ignored though.
As I said before, the media environment we have now where no one trusts anything stems directly from the media responses to mass unrest.
An entire genre of American film grew in response to that unrest.
Twelve years of presidents were famously skeptical of the global war on terror and the Iraq invasion and one of those two started the chain of events that would lead to withdra from Afghanistan and the end to that war. I’ll concede that they were both lying snakes who brought with them administrators complicit in what would become 23 years of war, but neither would have the trust from their respective bases early on if it hadn’t been for their in the moment condemnation and skepticism about the war.