Student Walkout - Sept 5th (1 Viewer)

[Azamakumar]

lolz. stupidest protest ever. i would predict that a large percentage of those protesting don't actually know what they're protesting for, further than 'howard and bush are bad!'. They merely want to be part of a protest.

I'd say everyone that hasn't organised it, without trying to be a smartarse.

 

[stazi]

I doubt the people who've organised it do. the posters don't make much sense. 'make howard history' - how will protesting at APEC, a global world leaders conference make him 'history' and stop him from being voted. If anything, people will look at the youth gone wild and vote Howard in to keep the peace in the future, should things like this occur.

Also, why are they protesting about Bush? If Bush sees people protesting, will he suddenly renounce his ways, declared a Jihad upon himself, and face a war crimes tribunal, giving his Presidency over to Ralph Nader?

Finally, why are left wing people protesting against globalisation? I thought there were quite a few correlations between an increase in 'globalisation' and a reduction in poverty in third world nations.

 

[PrinceHarry]

People are generally disgusted with violent protesters and therefore it will only serve as a reminder of the need for a strong law and order enforcement which can only be delivered by John Howard. It's a blessing in disguise

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I doubt the people who've organised it do.

I have it up to here with this God damned cliche...

how will protesting at APEC, a global world leaders conference make him 'history' and stop him from being voted.

Well, one particular example could be that the people of Sydney see what a mess their city is/was in for something they get no benefit from, and choose to punish Howard (and Iemma) for choosing to push ahead with it despite widespread public opposition. Another example could be that with G.W. Bush in the country, awareness of our involvement with the Iraq quagmire increases, and Howard is held accountable for it. Maybe they'll see how eager he is to develop nuclear power and sell it to (what are regarded as) dangerous states such as China or India, and hold him accountable for that too.

There are possibilities.

If anything, people will look at the youth gone wild and vote Howard in to keep the peace in the future, should things like this occur.

Because when something happens under one leader that's directly caused by something that he/she did (allow APEC to go ahead in Sydney, for instance), people will...want to keep them in power? That doesn't make any sense, fool. Don't bring up the terror/national security example either, because it's entirely different.

Also, why are they protesting about Bush?

Iraq, global warming, world poverty, foreign policy etc...

If Bush sees people protesting, will he suddenly renounce his ways, declared a Jihad upon himself, and face a war crimes tribunal, giving his Presidency over to Ralph Nader?

Lolz, right? Seriously though, this is not the point, and once more these horrible cliches are cringeworthy. No one protestor expects that their protest is going to make a DIRECT influence upon the decisions of the world leaders in regards to what they're protesting about. No-one believes that as a direct result of protesting, Hu Jintao will immediately stop prosecuting Falun Gong practioners. No-one believes that as a direct result of protesting, that Vladimir Putin will allow Chechnya to succeed into its own country. No-one believes that as a direct result of protesting that Bush will withdraw from Iraq. THAT'S NOT THE POINT. The point is that protestors generally believe that public opposition needs to be shown against policies of world leaders. Yeah, there are multiple ways of doing so, but protesting is equally (if not more) persuasive then writing a letter into the Sydney Morning Herald is. The basic idea is that continued public opposition will eventually have an effect. Unfortunately, current opposition to major policies such as Iraq are weighed down by public apathy, or policies such as workchoices are weighed down by a leaders refusal to listen to public opinion.

In that case, the protestors (from what I believe anyway) think that a protest will increase public awareness (and it does [consider workchoices]).

Finally, why are left wing people protesting against globalisation? I thought there were quite a few correlations between an increase in 'globalisation' and a reduction in poverty in third world nations.

Yeah....not all of them do. Good try though.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

They protest against Globalisation because it makes rich people richer faster than it makes poor people richer.

Of course there isn't any practical way of making poor people richer that DOESN'T do that, but that won't stop them from advocating more bloody revolutions that end in millions dying of starvation

it's like the kids who didn't learn not to touch the stove again, or hopefully the protester who didn't learn he'd get his skull caved by cops in again

 

[Enteebee]

Nebuchanezzar, do you understand the logic of being against the construction of the wall?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I dun get it

 

[gsfjgnslkjgbsdl]

seriously.... DID ANY OF YOU ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WROTE!!!!!!!!!

"Like think about what you just said for a second there, do you really think some middle aged, middle class people in some marginal seat are going to change their vote because anarchists destroy public property during APEC?" (to lazy 2 use the quote function)

read the post! and since when have militint groups been the majority at these protests unually its about 10-25 people out of thousands

again though its all the media focuses on at protests they dont say "THOUSANDS ATTEND PROTEST AGAINST THE WAR IN IRAQ" they say "RIOTS AT ANTI-WAR PROTEST"(...how contradictory lol) it doesnt matter that there were 5 thousand people there all that matters is that 15 people rioted there thus neutralising all effect the event could have had

IMO and im probably wrong on this that is why the free david hicks campaigns were so successful because people grew to respect the avctivists as there were never any "RIOTS AT FREE HICKS RALLY"

yea i agree violence is not the way to go about protesting atleast not currently in aust becoz shuit is rpetyt fucked up BUT were still better off than alot of the world, in a place like (and yea my yr 11 history coming in2 play here dont giv me shit about it becoz it doesnt make u seem any bigger to point out that a guy witha thousand or so post count points out that im only 16) Russia in the starting years of this century violence was excusable as the tsar had messed tyhings up so bad

that being said its worse for the mdia to focus solely on the rioters bcoz they make up such a minority in the protests instead of the actual message

or the polies to discredit all activists as ferals or compare peace-activists of being liek the rioteres in cronulla

 

[gsfjgnslkjgbsdl]

just read the last few posts

and Nebuchanezzar has put together a realyl good post

i have no idea why you take joy in tearing it apart!

besides most of your arguements are incredibly illogical or just short and have nothing to do with it

its terrible though its liek an 8 on one fight (scrap that 2) WHY ARE THERE SO MANY CONSERVATIVES ON THIS BOARD!

 

[gsfjgnslkjgbsdl]

Learn how to spell and puncuate reasonably and to use the quote feature. Then someone might actually read one of your posts.

o snap your so smart... idiot

like proper grammar and spelling actually take or add any meaning to his message

BTW the point of speach or any form of communication is NOT to sound smart or show of its to communicate a message! therefore as his message has been communicated he has succeeded in that and spelling and grammar are irrellivant

i swear if you use that same arguement on me ill go UPSIDE YOUR HEAD

 

[katie_tully]

Learn how to spell

Zimmerman, you are the last person who should be commenting on the grammar and spelling of other members.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

seriously.... DID ANY OF YOU ACTUALLY READ WHAT I WROTE!!!!!!!!!

"Like think about what you just said for a second there, do you really think some middle aged, middle class people in some marginal seat are going to change their vote because anarchists destroy public property during APEC?" (to lazy 2 use the quote function)

read the post! and since when have militint groups been the majority at these protests unually its about 10-25 people out of thousands

again though its all the media focuses on at protests they dont say "THOUSANDS ATTEND PROTEST AGAINST THE WAR IN IRAQ" they say "RIOTS AT ANTI-WAR PROTEST"(...how contradictory lol) it doesnt matter that there were 5 thousand people there all that matters is that 15 people rioted there thus neutralising all effect the event could have had

IMO and im probably wrong on this that is why the free david hicks campaigns were so successful because people grew to respect the avctivists as there were never any "RIOTS AT FREE HICKS RALLY"

yea i agree violence is not the way to go about protesting atleast not currently in aust becoz shuit is rpetyt fucked up BUT were still better off than alot of the world, in a place like (and yea my yr 11 history coming in2 play here dont giv me shit about it becoz it doesnt make u seem any bigger to point out that a guy witha thousand or so post count points out that im only 16) Russia in the starting years of this century violence was excusable as the tsar had messed tyhings up so bad

that being said its worse for the mdia to focus solely on the rioters bcoz they make up such a minority in the protests instead of the actual message

or the polies to discredit all activists as ferals or compare peace-activists of being liek the rioteres in cronulla

Yeah but my point ultimately had nothing to do with what proporiton of the protesters are violent. The point still stands that no one gives a fuck.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

How does this punish Howard or Iemma? It only punishes the taxpayers of NSW.

a) Public awareness on the topics being protested (which I gave examples of)
b) No-one likes Sydney being shutdown because of protests, and yet most people don't seem to have a problem with protests themselves...Consequently, I don't think it's too outlandish to suggest that people will hold Howard and Iemma accountable for the protests? I thought that might have been assumed and not have to be spelled out for you, but apparently not.
c) Iuno, stress?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebuchanezzar
Another example could be that with G.W. Bush in the country, awareness of our involvement with the Iraq quagmire increases, and Howard is held accountable for it. Maybe they'll see how eager he is to develop nuclear power and sell it to (what are regarded as) dangerous states such as China or India, and hold him accountable for that too.

If apec itself is already increasing awarness of the issue why is a disruptive protest necessary?

Lol, fool. If there weren't any protests then media coverage of APEC would be minimal! Look at smh's website on the matter!

Originally Posted by Nebuchanezzar
Why do people need destructive protests to consider these issues?
Iraq, global warming, world poverty, foreign policy etc...

lol yeh. what about them?

The question was "what are people protesting about in regards to Bush", and I answered the question. Fool.

What evidence can you offer that protesting will be effective in countering this alleged apathy? All evidence I can see from recent protests and media coverage seems to indicate that protesting makes the general public less sympathetic to their cause.

Must I spell it out for you again?! Once again, protests bring attention, attention increases awareness of issues, issues are relevant to federal election, protestors = happy!

You did an outstanding job of "picking apart" (or whatever) my post zimmerman. Outstanding stuff indeed.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I would quite strongly disagree with this concept. Protests and protesting were big thigns and the methods of protesting were new during Vietnam. Protests and protesting hasn't evolved to the same pace of the public's ability to automatically block them out or get automatically pissed off.

I don't see protests as raising awareness because the media covers them flippantly and portrays them in a negative light, one would say hindering the cause. Furthermore, you could say that it's not a matter of size because the protests didn't work at all when it came to BEFORE the Iraq war even though 300,000 people marched in Hyde Park. A RIDICULOUS amount of people, and it had no impact on political policy.

It appears in fact that protests are mostly ineffective. Sure it's good to feel committed and hell it feels great to partake in a protest, but when it comes from an absolutist viewpoint of promoting your cause versus casting it in a negative light in the long term.

Well, consider those workchoices rallies when they were first introduced. Coupled with a whole range of other methods (and I mentioned that in my original post), they increased awareness and showed the government that their policies weren't exactly terribly popular. Continued public opposition, originally created by a snowball effect that included demonstrations, led to the policy being changed, and to a rather negative opinion of those who introduced the laws.

Kinda... seems to have worked. Why not instead of spending countless thousands of dollars on a protest... pool those funds and buy advertising in the traditional way in order to raise awareness.

Directly targeting an audience of 'apathetic individuals' rather than letting the media filter your intentions would seem to achieve the means you want to achieve, to a greater degree and minimise the negative labels that are assigned to the protestors.

Can't protesting evolve?

It probably could, but as I've said, those who have are protesting, with the exception of the Socialist Alternative, engage in a whole bunch of techniques and whatever to achieve what they want. They were involved with the Hicks campaign, with the workchoices campaign, with the Iraq campaign blah blah blah. Aside from that, they constantly campaign and leaflet throughout the year, have meetings, write letters, get on the news and so on. It's not as if they dedicated everything to protesting. So yes, there are other options, and they're widely used.

cbf doing a detailed deconstruction. Schroedinger's post basically addresses the questions I put to you guys, which you seem unable to answer.

'cept the said post actually had some valid content in it.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

you're so cool zimmerman!

 

[Josie]

Wow, this got a lot more interesting since I was last at the computer.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

a) Public awareness on the topics being protested (which I gave examples of)

If someone's not aware of Iraq and Gorebal Warmening by now they'd be dead.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I can't remember the last time Iraq was thought of as a major issue in Australian politics...

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Because we only have 1100 people there so we can't exactly say "okay, war's off"

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Because we only have 1100 people there so we can't exactly say "okay, war's off"

...I think it's fairly obvious I was talking about Australias involvement, gh3y.

That's actually spot on and correct, I am, as you can see, keep jumping back to the negative stereotype of protestors portrayed in the media. I think however you could understand that the Unions have a lot more pull than student protestors and thus would be respected more by media organisations. Also I'm fairly certain if some ratbags tried some nonsense at the workchoices rallies they'd soon get a clip around the ear from a disgruntled union worker.

Keep in mind that student protestors aren't the only ones that will be there. They're expecting about 15,000, aren't they? Surely no more than 5,000 or so could be from the student body.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

People will already feel the stress regarless of the protests. The dont need the protests or media attention generated by them to draw their attention to obvious things like traffic delays which actually concern the average person.

BUT THOSE THINGS ARE MAINLY IN PLACE BECAUSE OF THE PROTEST ACTION, and that action is something which most people seem to agree with! FFS Zimmerman. Even if that weren't true, the attention given to APEC would be a fraction of what it is currently at if there were no protestors. Who are the ones who the protestors are targeting? Who are the politicians that will see the negative effect on their popularity as a result of this?

I see no proof of your claim that people will associate the APEC summit and the protests with the aforementioned issues.

Well uh, I just assumed that most people did associate Bush with Iraq. Do you seriously disagree, or are you being an ass for the sake of being an ass?

Isn't it possible that given many people like Howard and Bush the protests will increase support for them and draw attention to their achievements?

Nope.

You equate a moderately successful workchoices campaign with protesting. Workchoices campaing by the unions involved significant spending on advertising. It is impossible to determine which aspect of the campaign caused the results.

I think that it would somewhat unwise, igorant even to suggest that the success stemmed from one little thing. Even so, the protests at the beggining of the campaign did start the whole snowball against them. I daresay (and I think this is in the realms of pure logic), that should the massive spike in attention caused by protests had not been seen, then the campaign would have been much slower and less effective.

Furthermore if Workchoices is a poor policy, then wouldnt we expect a significant casual factor for the slight policy change was public opinion that would have been formed irrespective of the protests?

I don't understand what it is you're trying to say. Arrange your sentences better.

So why not use those other options rather than wasting time, risking arrest and violence and causing an expense to the taxpayer?

Because these get the job done too.