|
I have often been rather skeptical of Twitter. The need to update people about how you're doing any remedial task seemed rather over the top for me.
However, I've found myself constantly amused by Day[9]'s "tweets" and I decided to join the world of Twitter myself. I'm also hoping it will keep me more updated about events occurring around the world.
You can follow me at: http://twitter.com/#!/RikuKat
Now, speaking of events around the world, there seems to be an increasing number of revolutions, riots and generally expressions of discontent. For as long as I can recall understanding politics, my dad has been claiming a revolution will soon come. It's fairly easy to scoff off the idea, it just doesn't seem applicable in today's modern society... right?
I fear that may not be the case. While watching the news last night, I was listening to reports about the riots in London. The reporter on the scene was going on about how random they seemed, as if people were using a cop shooting and killing someone as an excuse to loot and burn. When the other reporter questioned if the rioting might be fueled by the recent government actions, she was met with solid disagreement.
I wish people would open their eyes and see that these riots did not occur simply due to a man being shot and killed by a police officer. While the damage to London is sad and unnecessary, it was caused by people who feel betrayed by their government. This anger will not be quelled by increasing police presence, because it is caused by the growing gap between the rich and the poor and by cuts in public services. This is how revolutions start and anyone who thinks such a thing cannot occur in a first world country is sadly mistaken.
Now it seems the US government may be in a similar position. With the politicians playing political chicken with the economy and pointing fingers at each other, I fear the credit downgrade won't be the first we will receive. How long will the people sit silent while the people they voted into officer heed more to party and big business wishes?
I doubt a full blown revolution could occur, but I do think we will see protests begin to happen. In fact, I hope we see protests. I'm sick of sitting around, watching the values I believe I voted into office being tossed away for big business wishes and party disagreements. Protests will happen if this continues, even if I have to lead them myself. I hope the people protesting will be of all levels of income, from every neighborhood, perhaps they can stand together peacefully while making their opposition known.
I know after so many blogs, my first mention of politics might be startling, especially considering I am so passionate about it. I wish I had been older than 9 years old when the WTO Riots occurred in Seattle, because I would have stood there proudly. While I frown upon the rioting in London, I think protests like the WTO ones (strong, with well defined meaning and relatively non-violent) are necessary once again for the media and government to give proper consideration to how we the people feel. Then again, I'm just some whacky woman who plays too many video games and still sleeps with a stuffed animal... but I hope that I don't stand alone.
Notes for clarification:
-I do not support the actions of the London rioters
-I do not think the London rioters were trying to make a political statement (after the initial protest to the shooting)
-I do believe the rioters were fueled by discontent with the economy and government (i.e. if they weren't discontent, there wouldn't have been riots, especially to such a degree)
-I believe protests are necessary to get the current US government on track
 
|
Fight the power! But in all seriousness I think you're right. Government has stayed the same way for far too long and has become complacent. This, coupled with the ease of modern communication means that stuff will spread faster. Maybe it will be the 1970s all over again?
Personally, I'm quite disillusioned with our (USA) government. I don't even care which party Is "responsible" for the mess, I'm just disgusted that these politicians were willing to put their reelection and paychecks above the wellbeing of our nation. We had a knife to our throats and it was no time to stubbornly resist coming to an agreement.
|
The United States' two-party system is idiotic.
Until there's an alternative to the Demublicans and the Republocrats your country will continue to be dictated to by the special interests that control them.
|
On August 11 2011 01:27 bonifaceviii wrote:
The United States' two-party system is idiotic.
Until there's an alternative to the Demublicans and the Republocrats your country will continue to be dictated to by the special interests that control them.
But here's the thing, not only has the two-party system worked great for 200+ years, everything was actually worse when we had MORE than two parties (think pre civil war 1850s). I know youre Canadian so you don't know much about The stuff leading up to our civil war, but it was even more factional and bad.
|
The party system works when it's the people who have the greatest influence at getting people into office, not big business contributions. When you need millions of dollars to get all of the travel and advertisements necessary to get your name out there enough to become a senator (let a lone a president), it becomes the corporations and people with money that set who is in political power, not the voters.
:/
I mean, we can all sit back and hope the majority of the population will be aware enough to look at the big picture, but it is highly unlikely. That's why politicians who use big business support and fear tactics do so well. They get the money for advertising and campaigning and scare the people uneducated and unaware enough to know better into voting for them.
|
Your giving the rioters far too much credit. The fact is, the police in England currently don't have the power to do anything, and as they are trying not to use force at all (remember all the fuss about unnecessary force during the student protests?) they're basically in a situation, where they can't control the people who are openly admitting on record they are doing it because they can. and others are joining in because... hey if they can do all this, get away free and get some nice free stolen stuff... so can I.
and until the government starts allowing the police to actually force it stop, it probably won't.
|
Exactly what kind of credit am I giving them? I did not give the London rioters credit for anything. In fact, I said I disagreed with their actions.
The only protesters I mentioned supporting were the WTO protesters and I can assure, I only support the peaceful ones, not the anarchists who took advantage of the situations.
|
The American CIvil War had nothing to do with radicasl, democrats or republicans, it would've still ocurred if only democrats and republicans existed since 1) democrats wanted slavery in the new states and republicans did not, and 2) the South claimed its independence even though Lincoln was a moderate politician and seeked a compromise, dealing the first preemptive blow in Fort Sumter if I recall correctly.
While I agree with Riku that the riots are the symptom of a broken social ladder, revolts seem unlikely.
First because the western world has gained way too much comfort to partake in any important movement: in short, rich people are lazy. This is particularly true in this community where a simple internet access is already a big guarantee of happiness.
Second, this is aways exploited by the ruling powers to estinguish new fires, simply by accusing the protesting crowd of ruining the peaceful lives of other citizens, and by throwing other humble men, policemen, et them, letting hate and crowd movements degrade the original ideals.
The third world directly benefits from the sweat and tears of poor countries, importing valuable ressources at low prices and obtaining a cheap working force while keeping the voters happy. Revolution will not ocurr as it would imply that people in the west are no longer egocentrical and no longer want to be part of a happy bubble of peace and wealth.
Add to this that the situation is not that bad and is getting worse step by step, and you will see that most people probably don't realize the links between politics, the financial and the commercial world, and the way everything is headed.
After all, I'm sure a good bunch of the people in this forum would lay low if given a good computer, WoW and SC2.
|
On August 11 2011 01:40 Riku wrote:
Exactly what kind of credit am I giving them? I did not give the London rioters credit for anything. In fact, I said I disagreed with their actions.
The only protesters I mentioned supporting were the WTO protesters and I can assure, I only support the peaceful ones, not the anarchists who took advantage of the situations.
I was reffering to this
On August 11 2011 01:40 Riku wrote:While the damage to London is sad and unnecessary, it was caused by people who feel betrayed by their government"
I didn't mean you were supporting them, I meant you were saying they had reason for their actions. By feeling betrayed by their own government is one thing... setting fire to your own community is going to prove this how... by hurting your own community and by extension yourself. "Cutting off ones nose to spite your face." It's stupid thuggery by people who are saying anything to the media for the attention. One person even told the bbc that kids shouldn't be out looting because it was wrong, but then stumbled over his words and couldn't justify then why it was right for him to. There is no noble cause. Those looking for one, will be left wanting.
|
I think it all depends on how things are handled.
For example, while this may be an unlikely progression, something like this could start a huge uproar:
1) A few groups protest
2) Others take advantage of these protests and they turn into violence and looting
3) The initial protesting groups continue protesting, even against rules/bans (much like in the WTO riots)
4) More people join the protests due to media attention
5) More people join the rioting due to opportunity
6) The government tries to control the situation
7) They cannot gain control peacefully, and some peaceful protesters are injured
8) More protests start due to the injuries and abuse of peaceful protesters
9) Government, in an attempt to regain control as peacefully as possible, limits communication
10) The internet zombies come of their dens due to restrictions or loss of communication
11) Zombie apocalypse (okay, okay, not really, but you get the point)
Certainly, I think protests are most likely, riots are somewhat likely and a revolution has a snowball's chance in hell, but that doesn't mean it is completely impossible.
|
On August 11 2011 01:30 redoxx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 01:27 bonifaceviii wrote:
The United States' two-party system is idiotic.
Until there's an alternative to the Demublicans and the Republocrats your country will continue to be dictated to by the special interests that control them. But here's the thing, not only has the two-party system worked great for 200+ years, everything was actually worse when we had MORE than two parties (think pre civil war 1850s). I know youre Canadian so you don't know much about The stuff leading up to our civil war, but it was even more factional and bad.
That was still two parties with some sprinkling of other parties cropping up. It was Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists faded into Whigs and the Whigs into Republicans. Also, the Democratic Party became prominent in the 1830s and dominated the political scene from the 1830s toe the 1850s. The Republican Party then gained dominance during the 1860s until 1932.
The factional divides leading up to the Civil War was literally two sides as well. North/Free/Abolitionist and South/Slave/Anti Abolitionist. These are all different names for the same "faction". The problem leading up to the Civil War was that everything was SO deadlocked between these two factions that laws were made so that it would stay deadlocked(Kansas-Nebraska Act, Missouri Compromise, etc).
If you were going to make a case for things being worse with more than two parties it would be the cases where one party splintered (Democrats were like this for a long period of time, with Southern Democrats and Northern Democrats having much different priorities and therefore not unifying around a single leader, while a famous example for Republicans would be Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party, which divided the Republican party and lost them an election.)
So I wouldn't claim that the Two Party system worked great for 200+ years. We got along with it, but it has often stalled progress by causing deadlocks, sectional tensions and even drove the country apart. I'm not sure to what time you were referring to with multiple parties causing more problems, if you could name the time and the parties it would help a lot in understanding what you mean.
I have to agree with some of the warnings George Washington gave about political parties in his farewell address(in spoilers below). particularly "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism." Eerily familiar isn't it?
+ Show Spoiler +
20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
My opinion, get rid of political parties. Let people elect their representatives based solely on their merits and views and not based on what party they belong to. Not likely to happen but it would be nice.
|
Ironic this comes from someone not in England. This government came to power just over a year ago it isn't like a 12 year run without any oposition. These looters and rioters are just looters and rioters they have no political cause and are just doing it because they think they can get away with it.
The English police have not used force on rioters or protesters for over 120 years and that probably isnt going to change now.
My final point is that these people are not all poor or socialy deprived for a start the benefit system in the U.K. is probably the most rewarding in the world also many of these people have good jobs e.g. one graphics designer was looting and rioting. Plus most of this has been organised through BBM and if im not mistaken Blackberries are pretty expensive.
|
On August 11 2011 01:51 Gingerninja wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 01:40 Riku wrote:
Exactly what kind of credit am I giving them? I did not give the London rioters credit for anything. In fact, I said I disagreed with their actions.
The only protesters I mentioned supporting were the WTO protesters and I can assure, I only support the peaceful ones, not the anarchists who took advantage of the situations. I was reffering to this Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 01:40 Riku wrote:While the damage to London is sad and unnecessary, it was caused by people who feel betrayed by their government" I didn't mean you were supporting them, I meant you were saying they had reason for their actions. By feeling betrayed by their own government is one thing... setting fire to your own community is going to prove this how... by hurting your own community and by extension yourself. "Cutting off ones nose to spite your face." It's stupid thuggery by people who are saying anything to the media for the attention. One person even told the bbc that kids shouldn't be out looting because it was wrong, but then stumbled over his words and couldn't justify then why it was right for him to. There is no noble cause. Those looking for one, will be left wanting.
Excuse me for quoting something I wrote in another medium, but I don't want to retype it:
"I did not say the riot was started with a greater purpose nor that any of the rioters necessarily had one, but that doesn't change the fact that it was almost undoubtedly fueled by poverty, discontentment and disagreement." I can almost without a doubt say that this would not have occurred without the recent political and economic issues.
I don't think they have "reason," but they have "fuel." I guess you could say that the fuel I am talking about is reason of sorts, but not in the way you interpreted it. In the statement you quoted, I was merely saying that many of the rioters are people who feel betrayed by their government. Afterall, if the government was taking good care of them, they'd be much less likely to run around torching police cars, no? To restate: While many people's main motivations in the London riots were greed and thrill, that does not mean they were not pushed to the point of actually burning and looting by the recent economic turmoil and the government's failure to handle it in a way that does not harm the lower class citizens. No matter how greedy they are, I don't think happy people riot. :/
|
True fact: I've caught 4/5ths of my girlfriends sleeping with a stuffed animal. It's not that weird. Or maybe I date weird people, I don't know.
I hope there are protests in the future. I hope more that they don't involve the words Tea, Party or the sentiment that we should be lynching people.
I actually wrote a 350ish word brief commentary on the current political and civil discord environments then erased (Well, copied it for later) it because I'm just too tired to say status quo nothing changes every day you'll realize it more.
So with that edited out I'm kinda left with nothing to say.
|
On August 11 2011 01:57 Zaros wrote:
Ironic this comes from someone not in England. This government came to power just over a year ago it isn't like a 12 year run without any oposition. These looters and rioters are just looters and rioters they have no political cause and are just doing it because they think they can get away with it.
The English police have not used force on rioters or protesters for over 120 years and that probably isnt going to change now.
My final point is that these people are not all poor or socialy deprived for a start the benefit system in the U.K. is probably the most rewarding in the world also many of these people have good jobs e.g. one graphics designer was looting and rioting. Plus most of this has been organised through BBM and if im not mistaken Blackberries are pretty expensive.
Please read this article, written by someone who has lived in Tottenham for the past 13 years, then tell me if you still believe I'm speaking as a misinformed foreigner making unbased claims:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2011/aug/09/tottenham-young-people-riot-future
|
The looting doesn't surprise me: it's entertainment, something to keep young people busy.
Riku are you fucking serious?
That article or your posts aren't anything new. All I see is taking blanket issues and saying a random ass riot in a random ass place and saying it was because of that. There has been discontent within the young community for like two generations now. That article was rubbish.
|
the Dagon Knight4010 Posts
I had a really weird dream last night in which I was watching the BBC News. They had a social scientist (anthropologist or sociologist) in to talk about the rioting/civil upheaval. I got that dream-feeling I knew him or had read his work, but I couldn't quite place him. Regardless, his advice will stick with me for the rest of my life.
The newscaster woman asked him what to do, he stared right into the camera, the shot closed in tight on his bearded, bespectacled face and he said,
Remember; a riot is just a party waiting for music.
|
On August 11 2011 02:03 Riku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 01:57 Zaros wrote:
Ironic this comes from someone not in England. This government came to power just over a year ago it isn't like a 12 year run without any oposition. These looters and rioters are just looters and rioters they have no political cause and are just doing it because they think they can get away with it.
The English police have not used force on rioters or protesters for over 120 years and that probably isnt going to change now.
My final point is that these people are not all poor or socialy deprived for a start the benefit system in the U.K. is probably the most rewarding in the world also many of these people have good jobs e.g. one graphics designer was looting and rioting. Plus most of this has been organised through BBM and if im not mistaken Blackberries are pretty expensive. Please read this article, written by someone who has lived in Tottenham for the past 13 years, then tell me if you still believe I'm speaking as a misinformed foreigner making unbased claims: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2011/aug/09/tottenham-young-people-riot-future
the article is clearly written by someone who doesn't agree with the governments policy and thus is putting that bias into the article.
So far i believe there has only been one poltician to claim that it is because of the current government and that is the London mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone and you wont believe there is an election coming up soon.
|
Twitter and Facebook are the vanguard of the revolution.
|
Ugh. I'm thoroughly in contention with both the idea the riot represents something more (No matter how end around you say it) or that "Twitter and Facebook" are the vanguard of the revolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4Ou33.jpg)
