I have never stuck it to the man
because, frankly, whats the fucking point?

They reckon around 1 million people protested against the war in Iraq, and we went anyway.

1 million people.

Nothing you do has any impact whatsoever, regardless of how much you want it to. Music didn't feed the hungry of Africa. Protesting didn't stop us going to war. Complaining to Ofcom didn't result in Cheryl Cole being fired from the X Factor. So whats the fucking point?

1 million people protested the war in Iraq.

The population of this country is around 61,500,000 people.

That means that 60,500,000 people either wanted to go to war, didn't give a fuck or didn't feel strongly enough about it to leave the house.

Nothing you do will ever make a difference because your opinions (and mine) are insignificant on a massive scale.

And 99.9% of the time the people who make the decisions, i.e, the man, are going to do whatever the fuck they want, because they're the ones making the decisions not you.

Sad but true.
( PMGT -Bacon., Sun 14 Nov 2010, 17:16, 33 replies)

That's exactly what they want you to think.
Fact is protests make headlines if they're significant enough, headlines that are remembered in the following elections.
(brutal stack Raided the beeves of Apollo on, Sun 14 Nov 2010, 19:18, closed)

You say that,
but there have been riots and protests under Tory and Labour governments. And when was the last time the election wasn't a two horse race? Does it really make that much of a difference? That pendulum always swings both ways. Any changes we make voting one party out get undone the minute we vote them back in again...
( PMGT -Bacon., Mon 15 Nov 2010, 1:08, closed)

Well, it was kind-of a three horse race last time
And now we have two horses in charge, though one of them is clearly more in charge than the other.
(sabre-tooth monkey, Mon 15 Nov 2010, 10:24, closed)

In fact
60,500,000 people had already realised that Blair had his lips too firmly wrapped around Bush's cock to give a fuck what his own people thought. The rest is just a damage limitation exercise.
( .Yeti. El amor en los tiempos del cólera, Sun 14 Nov 2010, 20:03, closed)

Protest
Some vague numbers:

Around 10-12m of them were under the age of fourteen and would not have understood. A similar number would be retired and not want to travel to the big city to join a protest/riot.

In London, 2 million people joined on February 15th 2003. Throughout the country another one million people protested.

Out of the "eligible people", 3 in 35 million - around 10% - felt sufficiently angry about it to demonstrate despite the fact that Blair had his lips around Bush's appendage.

Now that is a statement.

Poll Tax Demonstrations (the Riot) that changed the policy attacted 200,000 people.
(jdharding, Sun 14 Nov 2010, 20:22, closed)

There were 250,000 on the Countryside March
and that made no difference either. Even Blair now says the Hunting Bill was a mistake.

100% true fact.
(TheFlyingOnion. looking forward to, Sun 14 Nov 2010, 22:31, closed)

Mass non-payment was more effective at stopping the Poll Tax
just saying, like.
( wotofco pissing in your swimming pool, Sun 14 Nov 2010, 23:53, closed)

Oh please...
The Poll Tax "riot" changed nothing, regardless of how many misty eyed loons tell you otherwise. The tax would have stayed in place until the next election, but for the fact the government replaced the old leader with one who had not nailed their colours firmly to the mast of the charge and how could be open minded about a change without losing face. The acknowledgement that the tax was all wrong was not down to a bunch of unwashed smashing windows near Trafalgar Square, but the realisation that the maths were wrong and that far from addressing the inequities of the old system it had benefited far fewer than had original been believed - mainly because the need to set a new rate from scratch had opened the doors for the local councils to completely rework their entire budgets to dramatically increase the burden on their residents in a manner which nobody could have predicted beforehand.

Hence the change to Council Tax was actually preceded by the 1991 budget which extended government subsidy to local authorities (paid for by a VAT increase) so that everyone got £140 off their annual bill and thus made it a little less painful.
(TalkbackStuck making obscene phonecalls since, Mon 15 Nov 2010, 0:18, closed)

3 in 35 million
by your own logic though, thats still 90% of the eligible who dont give a fuck...
( PMGT -Bacon., Mon 15 Nov 2010, 0:50, closed)

logical fallacy here, and in to some extent in the OP
It is a safe assumption that the people who were protesting did give a fuck, however we can't make the assumption that those that did not protest did not give a fuck. It could be that those not protesting (of the 35 millions) could not attend because they were ill, had to work, were out of the country, could not make it to a place to protest, did not think that protesting would make a difference, had not even thought about the issue, did not know that the protests were happening... etc etc etc etc etc
( Sextant goes to him is emotionally erect, on this day, Mon 15 Nov 2010, 7:48, closed)

True
I have never attended a protest and this usually boils down to:
- I did not know of one until it was pasted on the news.
- Some turn nasty - I do not want my head kicked in by either side or by those in uniform.
- If I travel there, where would I park my car?
- I need to get a day off work.
- The missus would 'protest' at me, refer to point 2.
- Protests, petitions, violence, peace - simply put, anything short of hostile takeover has been shown to be little effective unless near election if your REALLY REALLY lucky.

Basicly, I do give a f***, but those who are protested against seem so give each one of us a f***, day in, day out. It's simply too painful to walk, let alone attend such events.
(FunOnABun Smears lard on you!, Mon 15 Nov 2010, 16:34, closed)

Which also kind of illustrates one of my other points...
We, in this country, do not suffer enough for anyone to fight and/or die for change.

What I mean is, if this was America in the 1950s and you were black (you may already be black, I don't know. I'm not black so lets pretend I am...), and you'd spent the best part of your life being called a nigger, being forced to attend black only schools, being forced to sit at the back of the bus, never getting decent jobs and basically living as a third class citizen, and there was a civil rights protest, would you really give a shit about where to park your car, or getting a day off work?

My point is, I'm sure you do care but maybe you just don't care enough.

Incidentally, I've never been on a protest march either, for exactly the reasons you described.
( PMGT -Bacon., Tue 16 Nov 2010, 3:32, closed)

Thats a very good point
and one I have considered and there are two conclusions I think can be drawn here:

1) A lot of people do give a fuck and therefore protest marches are a really shit way of getting your point across because so many people can't get involved for the reasons you stated above...

or

2) Most people don't give a fuck.

One of those two things is the case.
( PMGT -Bacon., Tue 16 Nov 2010, 3:15, closed)

Do you reckon participation in any form of coordinated activity is pointless?
Not having a go, just wondering.
( wotofco pissing in your swimming pool, Sun 14 Nov 2010, 23:55, closed)

Well,
thats quite a broad way of describing it. I mean, I enjoy things like going for a meal with my friends, which takes a certain degree of co-ordination...

I'm guessing though you meant demonstrative activites, in which case, yes for the most part - and in this country - I do.

You see, I am of the belief that whilst we may be one of the richest and most "comfortable" countries on earth, there is definitely a negative side to that when it comes to us exercising our moral standpoints. Case in point being what I said above about the vast majority of people NOT protesting. We live in a democracy that is (supposedly) ruled by majority opinion. Or lethargy in this case. Whichever way you want to look at it, the (in)actions of the majority reflect the attitude of the nation. Why rock the boat when it's not really going to affect the quality of our lives in a significantly threatening way? This isn't 1939, and we don't have to leave home and fight nazis anymore. Most people would rather just stay at home than get involved. And yes, you can argue that Britain going to war and all the other major decisions that the majority of people just glossed over have indeed had a significant impact on us all, least of all by contributing to the shitty economic situation we now find ourselves in, but ultimately we're still comfortable. I still have a roof over my head. I was made redundant because the company I worked for at the time couldn't afford the number of staff it had, but I got another job. I could still feed myself, and live like a middle class white man living in a first world country. I think what I'm trying to say is what is there to die for when you have everything already? Why bother risking anything to make the lives of people you don't even know, in a country you'll never visit, better? Or even just less shit? That's why 90% of people didn't bother demonstrating against the war. They thought "fuck it, doesn't affect me" and the problem is - in this country - they're pretty much right, as shitty as that is.

And even taking that into account, I don't remember there being a vote as to whether we should go to war. Democracy or not, the people of this nation had no say in that decision so like I said, whats the fucking point? As far as I can see it would have happened whether 1% of the population or 100% of the population went and demonstrated.

All democracy means is that you get a chance to voice your opinion. It doesn't mean that it matters to anyone in charge. We just choose the puppet master, we don't pull the strings.

And the fact that most people lead relatively comfortable lives in this country creates that apathy. Regardless of whatever taxes we get hit with, our lives are never going to be so bad that we have to literally fight for them. Not until Mecha-Hitler comes back from the moon with the blueprints for the Fourth Reich under his arm.

Which brings me rather long-windedly back to my original point. In this country, there is fuck all point in demonstrating and protesting, because the majority of people don't give a fuck about anything. More people vote for the fucking winner of the X Factor than would demonstrate against a war, so what does that tell you? And even if they did give a fuck they don't get to vote on the matter anyway.

In other, chiefly poorer, countries the right to have your voice heard is literally fought for. If those people want change, they grab an AK47, a handful of grenades, go into the street and start fucking shooting anything in a uniform. I'm not saying this is a better way to do things (I'm not one of these sad fucking pseudo-anarchists who doesn't really understand the meaning of the word. Actually, on that point, I remember seeing an "Anarchists bike ride" in Manchester, where whoever was at the front shouted "left!" or "right!" and they went left or right, as they had no pre-set route. Talk about missing the point altogether...Anarchists that follow one person telling them what to do and where to go... If they were real anarchists, they wouldn't have even fucking shown up...) but it is probably the most 'direct' way of making a change. Although it's likely to get you killed, horribly as history has shown time and time again. So again, whats the fucking point?

The Man always gets you in the end...
( PMGT -Bacon., Mon 15 Nov 2010, 1:30, closed)

I
take th opposite view. The reason it is good to protest is that barely anybody gives a fuck about the issues. This means that the voices of those who actually care and bother to do something about it actually make a difference. That's also the reason why politicians disproportionately target small single issue or highly motivated minority groups of people when campaigning for election, they know that a much higher proportion of them will vote.
(Hippo_of_Doom, Wed 17 Nov 2010, 17:03, closed)

Again, another good point,
but you can't deny that the people who care enough about something to actively protest it are in the minority. And the last election showed record voter turnouts.

Where I lived at the time people were actually turned away from voting! So even though you're right, and those motivated minorities are more likely to vote, on large issues such as the election they just get steamrollered by the "ignorant" majority anyway.

On top of which, I would be somewhat suspicious of any politican who was "targeting" me and not just representing my interests.
( PMGT -Bacon., Wed 17 Nov 2010, 19:26, closed)

Hmmmm
I used to go on demos (from CND in the early 80s to the anti-Iraq war one) but I pretty much agree with your viewpoint nowadays. It might just be age; "Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of
want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head" and all that. Of course, if we start having as much civil disobedience as some predict in the next few months, I'll be happy to get involved in a bit of looting for old time's sake.
( wotofco pissing in your swimming pool, Wed 17 Nov 2010, 18:42, closed)

I understand what you're saying here,
but it's really a particularly British standpoint. In other countries people really don't have any problem with acting collectively rather than individually. Why are we so different?
Of course one person won't make a difference, that's why you see large groups protesting rather than individuals.
Yes, the Iraq war still went ahead - but the effect on the reputation of Tony Blair and the Labour Party in general was devastating.
And there are many cases in history where protest has been very effective indeed -
Women's Suffrage
Indian Independence
The Civil Rights Movement
The Velvet Revolution and other non-violent "revolutions" in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s
Even, you could say, the Poll Tax
( Zuowan, Mon 15 Nov 2010, 4:07, closed)

Yeah I had the poll tax in mind when i read the OP
But he still has a point, call it a council tax and we will suck it up like flies on shit.

Still think protesting will be very strong in the next few years due to budget cuts, we have had it too good for the last 10-11 years and now we will see strikes/protests of the likes the country has never seen.
(bROKEN aRROW PUA HVI Master, Mon 15 Nov 2010, 12:30, closed)

I absolutely agree
which is why in my reply to Fowcoot above I talked about the people of this country being a bit too comfortable to really do anything about anything...

When a group of people are actively suffering at the hands of another, they become more demonstrative in their dissatisfaction. When they're not being actively oppressed, I think they get somewhat lethargic...
( PMGT -Bacon., Tue 16 Nov 2010, 3:18, closed)

The 8 people who started the NSDAP in Germany would probably disagree.
(Robotnik, Mon 15 Nov 2010, 8:23, closed)

But again
we're talking about a nation of people suffering one of the most crippling economic depressions in history. Theirs was such an extreme climate that the nations attitude had turned to one of recognising a need for action. The very fact that it was only 8 people who founded the Nazi party and ended up in government just thirteen years later should go some way to illustrating just how fucked up Germany was at that time and how desperate they were to get behind anyone who promised change.

I think in my original post I wasn't particularly explicit in my opinions. Obviously there are times when people rallying together and making a stand works. History has shown that many times. I just think in my lifetime, and in this country, it hasn't. And thats kind of depressing.
( PMGT -Bacon., Tue 16 Nov 2010, 3:25, closed)

I used to think this
But I have seen some protests - or rather, campaigns of protests - actually work. An example is the anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s - when the white government gave in and stepped down, they admitted afterwards that world opinion was a major factor in their decision. The recent release of Aung San Suu Kyi may be another example, thought it's probably too early to be sure.

So, while one protest march probably doesn't make a difference, an on-going campaign might - just might - do something positive.
(moon monkey is busy making memories worth repressing, Mon 15 Nov 2010, 14:03, closed)

Good job too
In the main people are fucking idiots, the last thing we need is governent that bends to every whim of the Great British public.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Mon 15 Nov 2010, 18:51, closed)

Facebook...
Just look at Facebook and BBC HYS. We are totally doomed. Doomed!
( The_Commander_of_Skips wears his sunglasses at night, Mon 15 Nov 2010, 20:02, closed)

Only just noticed this post
and yes, most people in this country are indeed fucking idiots. Sometimes I think it's a shame we live in a democracy.
( PMGT -Bacon., Wed 17 Nov 2010, 19:39, closed)

We don't really live in a democracy though
It's parliamentary representation, so we cede control of our lives to one bunch of people for four or five years and hope they do a good job, rather than all voting on all the issues at hand. This is a very good thing because, as has been said, the Public is thick as pigshit and easily led by emotional argument. To refer to your original argument, I doubt more than a tiny fraction of those who protested the Iraq war actually understood the issues at hand beyond "war is bad" and "it's all about oil man".

While protesting on specific issues may not do much, I believe if enough people protested against a government then that would male their position untenable, forcing them to call a general, or at least a leadership election.
( pixel_fucker is going to need a bigger brush, Thu 18 Nov 2010, 9:12, closed)

That was a side of it
I was deliberately skirting round in my first post for fear of incurring the wrath of the type of self righteous idiots who go on protests to be seen on protests... Glad someone brought it up though. And yes, I agree with you there.

I think the issue is with the last thing you said "If enough people protested..."

That's the problem I think. Going back to what I was saying about how easy we have it in this country really, I can't foresee a situation where enough people would, unless we got to a stage where we were being actively oppressed or discriminated against.
( PMGT -Bacon., Thu 18 Nov 2010, 12:55, closed)

What a depressing worldview you have.
The fact that you think it's all pointless is a shame. Striving for a better world might not be easy, but it's a genuinely uplifting way to live.
(BellaBella, Tue 16 Nov 2010, 14:19, closed)

Can't argue there.
I do have certain misanthropic tendecies and honestly, I don't know where they come from which perhaps makes it even more depressing. I genuinely wish I was one of those people who try to make the world a better place, but I find it hard enough making it any better for just me, let alone the billions of other people I share this planet with.

Honestly if I had it my way, I'd move to a nice warm island somewhere in the middle of nowhere, build a nice house, get some animals and you'd never, ever hear from me again. I fucking hate this place and everything in it.
( PMGT -Bacon., Tue 16 Nov 2010, 20:51, closed)

Jeez, this may sound trite but try taking baby steps - hold doors open for old ladies, smile at strangers, try to do wee random acts of kindness. You might find you like it.
(BellaBella, Wed 17 Nov 2010, 1:28, closed)

I do all those things.
But they won't make the world a better place. Like I said, I do it to make my day to day existance a better place.

And thinking about it, that's probably what led me to the beliefs I hold. I know how little effort it takes to hold a door open for someone, to give up your seat to an old person on the bus and to smile at strangers. That's why I do it. What's the point in being an unpleasant twat for no reason? It's the fact I see so many people NOT doing those things that makes me hate them. And I work in the middle of Manchester, so I see things like that many, many times a day, every day. It sounds small and petty but you just get kind of sick of it after a while. If someone won't even hold a door open for you after they have walked through it, then why would they give a shit about anybody else on a larger scale, when they seem incapable of even the smallest acts of kindness? I just hate the species as a whole to be honest. When we're not too busy patting ourselves on the back for what amounts to an incredibly mediocre or worse existance for about 99% of the population, we're too busy killing each other in a variety of unpleasant ways.

It's like I said, more people voted for the winner of the X Factor than protested the war in Iraq. People just don't fucking care, so I just don't fucking care about people. And that makes me as bad as them I suppose.
( PMGT -Bacon., Wed 17 Nov 2010, 19:13, closed)