Debate that ain't

[muckefuck]

For a while now, I've been meaning to mention what happen to the anti-abortion ad on the el platform that I wrote about a month ago. Someone has defaced it, neatly excising the word "abortion".

Seeing that made me madder than the original billboard. Vandalism isn't an appropriate response to a viewpoint you don't agree with--at least, that kind isn't. I have a real affection for clever retorts. (Like the classic e. keeps: A car ad saying If this were a woman, it would get its bottom pinched supplemented with If this woman were a car, she'd run you down.) But if you feel that strongly, what you should really do is what they did: Put money where your mind is and sponsor your own damn ad.

I wanted to give vent to these feelings by scribbling them on the rectangle of exposed cardboard, but I couldn't think of a pithy way to express them in the space allotted. That's the trouble with meaningful exchanges of ideas: They don't fit on a sign. It's one reason why I find street protests frustrating. How do you tell what people's actual motives are for chanting "DROP BUSH NOT BOMBS" or wear a shirt saying "WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER"?

Comments

[rollick.livejournal.com]

It's one reason why I find street protests frustrating. How do you tell what people's actual motives are for chanting "DROP BUSH NOT BOMBS" or wear a shirt saying "WAR IS NOT THE ANSWER"?

How important are the actual motives when people come together for a specific action like that? I mean, it's sad that some of them are doing it out of faith in God and a belief that killing is wrong, but some are doing it because they're bored, or hyper, or drunk, or want to be on TV, or whatever. But public protesting is not a format for complex idea exchange. It's a format for raising consciousness and being visible, letting people know that your point of view exists. Regardless of the precise reasoning behind your ideas, or how you came to them, you can still get together with other people who agree with the ends, if not the motives, and attempt to make those ends possible. The same way clerics from a variety of religions can get together to pressure the President for more social services, or CEOs from various companies can get together to bribe Congress into passing ludicrious and ill-advised tax cuts. If you agree about the action, then the reasoning behind it becomes less important when the time for the actual action has come.

Shit. I think I'm starting a philosophical argument with you when we both should be working.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

It makes a great deal of difference in how I, personally, react to the challenges of the protesters. I already know that there are a lot of people opposed to the war--this isn't the Land of the Opinion Survey for nothing. What I don't know is why they oppose the war and what alternatives they propose. If it's just that they think Shrub is a fuckhead--and plenty of banners suggest that's a powerful sentiment--well, I can't agree with that. You can dislike a person and still support some of his ideas. The actions he takes should be judged on their own merits (which is why I've gone around asking people where the protest marches were when Clinton ordered the bombing of Serbia). A lot of the coalitions of the type you refer to don't have any philosophical basis, they're entirely partisan. And I tire of those quickly. They're not constructive, they're simply reactive, and they spread bad feeling instead of bringing a consensus closer.

Similar with anti-abortion protests or whatever. If I had some suggestion that they had really thought through the consequences of a ban on abortion for poor and uneducated women or otherwise cared as much about the mother as the foetus, then I might be more sympathetic to their viewpoint. Instead, I see most of them seeking to bolster their supposedly moral arguments with gross-out photo enlargements and throwing around the word "murder". Like I said, this doesn't exactly lay the groundwork for a reasonable discussion later.

[lhn.livejournal.com]

The actions he takes should be judged on their own merits (which is why I've gone around asking people where the protest marches were when Clinton ordered the bombing of Serbia).

Or, for that matter, when he ordered the bombing of Iraq (combined with a call for regime change, delivered by Madeline Albright).

Of course, this isn't entirely fair-- there were, according to a quick news database search, six hundred protestors of the Iraq bombing in New York on one occasion, and two dozen in LA on another. There was also one that attracted 400 in Glasgow. If the protests ever broke a thousand in the US or Europe, I can't find the story. (So there were people who were just as fired up by Clinton's attack on Iraq as by Bush's. Just not terribly many of them.)

[mollpeartree.livejournal.com]

I guess it depends on what you think the point of having a protest is. I don't think it's really a format that lends itself to furthering a debate; it's more a method of drawing attention to a cause. And I think these days the point is not to convert passers-by, but to get an article into the newspaper, with perhaps some quotes from organizers to explain the cause better. At the same time, which slogans you put on your posters will probably have a much bigger impact than what your organizers say to a journalist, especially if there are pictures in print or on tv.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

The fact that street protests increase polarisation without doing anything to raise the tenor or amount of debate is exactly what I have against them. Worse than not convincing passers-by, I think they more often actively alienate them.

Posters or sound bites, either way you're limited from expressing any sort of complex thought. Exchange of ideas and infotainment are basically incompatible. This fuels my prejudice that most protesters aren't looking for any meaningful exchange of ideas in the first place.

[mollpeartree.livejournal.com]

This fuels my prejudice that most protesters aren't looking for any meaningful exchange of ideas in the first place.

Well, true enough in many instances. Like yesterday the silent streetcorner Iraq war protesters were still out demanding an end to the war (which it looks like they will soon get, but not how they mean). I noticed one had a sandwich board thing going on, and the back said "Not In My Name!" Which, really, is the only point at this point. Logged and noted and everything, long-suffering protester.

But at the same time, I think demonstrations do have a purpose in bringing issues that aren't being discussed to death some attention in the news. The media are very passive about bringing up issues on their own because of the objectivity thing; the issue has to be keyed to some sort of news event for them to report on it. So, if your Congressmonkey isn't interested in your issue, one way to get it out there is to have a demonstration, which requires the media to explain what the issue is, and what you want anyone to do about it. Granted abortion- and war-related protests don't really fit into this category, but lots of labor disputes, for example, get news coverage this way.

About debates

[madresal.livejournal.com]

Don't you think that you are a lot better at arguing your beliefs and complex thoughts with words than other people? I often will feel strongly about something but not feel comfortable having a discussion about it. Arguing is a talent like anything else that people can hone and others get tongue-tied. But going and participating in peaceful protest is a way a person can DO SOMETHING. I think without demonstrations people would lose all hope, and would just assume their opinion is in the minority.

I do think demonstrations are better at encouraging those that already agree, rather than trying to change people's minds.

Re: About debates

[lhn.livejournal.com]

Don't you think that you are a lot better at arguing your beliefs and complex thoughts with words than other people? I often will feel strongly about something but not feel comfortable having a discussion about it. Arguing is a talent like anything else that people can hone and others get tongue-tied. But going and participating in peaceful protest is a way a person can DO SOMETHING.

Part of the question muckefuck seems to be raising is whether it actually constitutes doing something productive, isn't it? (If demonstrating either reduces support or has no effect, then does it really allow a person to "do something"?) (Of course, the same is true for most political arguments. If I convinced everyone who's ever read one of my net posts to agree with whatever point I was nattering on about that week, the net effect on the body politic won't be detectable using a scanning electron microscope. Aren't the walls of my glass house pretty?)

I think without demonstrations people would lose all hope, and would just assume their opinion is in the minority.

Welcome to my world. :-) Even where my opinions align with the majority of the country, they're generally in a clear minority where I live and work. And in some cases they're in the minority full stop. But I'm not sure that demonstrating would give me more hope.

(More likely, it would remind me that even the people I'm aligned with include a lot of people coming at it from alien viewpoints. Allying with them may still be useful from a practical matter, but do I really want passersby confusing me with the Christian Right because I favor smaller government or the wacky Left because I favor drug legalization? Or with the "we don't have to care about practical politics or the realities of international affairs because we'll never get elected" Libertarian Party, for that matter?)

If demonstrations promote hope among the believers, there's some question whether false hope is good for them to have. If you march around in a crowd of thousands who want X, and find out in the next day's paper that 70+% of the population prefers Y, are you better off in some way for having gotten on TV or blocked traffic or whatever with your fellow Xs, or have you raised false expectations in yourself and your fellow marchers? One thing about smaller-scale political arguments-- they never raise the false hope that most people will come to agree with you. (Or at least that's my experience. :-) )

I can't dismiss the utility of demonstrations completely out of hand. There are historical events in which they appear to have influenced public policy (for better and for worse). On the other hand, there have been many, many more in which they've done nothing whatsoever. My immediate reaction to seeing one is pretty invariably negative. (Of course, that probably correlates with the fact that pretty much nobody ever demonstrates in favor of anything I agree with-- and when they do, it's in such a way that I want to be disassociated from them if at all possible. :-) )

As a supporter of the First Amendment I think they should certainly be permitted (though the extent of their activities should be limited on the "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" principle-- blocking major thoroughfares during rush hour should be a crime no matter what you're trying to communicate with the action, IMHO.) But I've never felt the temptation to go to one myself, and when I see one it generally pegs my needle somewhere between "pointless" and "annoying"-- mostly depending on whether they're blocking my way. :-)

Re: About debates

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

You have a point. I'm more comfortable with intellectual discussion than direct action. Some of this is just personality and some of this stems from an intellectual appreciation of just how effective direction action, such as street protests, usually is.

But I have to ask you: Do you think emotional reactions are a good basis for public policy? Because that's how I perceive public demonstrations: As attempts by protesters to influence policy. I don't discount emotions, but I mistrust them. After all, there are many, many people out there who feel strongly that my civil rights should be restricted in various ways solely because of who I choose to boink and they're not shy about taking to the streets to show it. Is this reason enough to listen to them?

[alfaboy.livejournal.com]

"A car ad saying If this were a woman, it would get its bottom pinched "

Is that a real ad? Sheesh! Talk about *asking* for trouble. If car companies had a clue how to really appeal to testosterone, they'd photograph every car with the hood up.

The most sexist ad i ever wrote was for the Trek Y-bike. The ad ran in Men's Journal and my headline was: "Y chromosome. Got one?"

When the client saw it, he asked the nearest woman what she thought. "Are we really gonna run that?" she asked. "It's awesome!"

And that was the end of the controversy.

[bunj.livejournal.com]

It was a european ad for Fiat, and a few years old (80's or so). One guesses they were trying to emphasize the car's daintiness. Ah, the days before political correctness.

Re:

[alfaboy.livejournal.com]

It probably played better in Italy...;)