"Where Is Our Radical Youth?" Washington Post Op Ed

[Plow]

What should we be doing?

Not what is the proper approach to Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, etc.


What should we, as a people, be doing to bring about the changes we desire?


If kicking out the entire federal government and replacing them with people we think will do it right isn't enough, what is?

Standing in the streets with signs?

[Kuya]

You want to argue the same thing we just argued? AND you want to confirm my statement that today's population is apathetic? I showed you my thoughts, and i showed you my sources, yet you either still don't understand what i'm saying or you don't want to understand. I don't know what else to do with you nor do i understand why you want to argue the same thing again.

[Plow]

You want to argue the same thing we just argued? AND you want to confirm my statement that today's population is apathetic? I showed you my thoughts, and i showed you my sources, yet you either still don't understand what i'm saying or you don't want to understand. I don't know what else to do with you nor do i understand why you want to argue the same thing again.

Nope, a page full of democracy now spam about what the problems are has absolutely nothing to do with it.

You've given absolutely no suggestion in any way, shape, or form as to what the youth should be doing.

Obviously you have no idea, and more than likely realize you're just plain wrong here, else you wouldn't have spent all that time saying absolutely nothing about the actual discussion.

[Kuya]

You apparently don't think that protesting (you haven't said why) or spreading information by funding independent media or joining or forming a lobbying group, which is argued by political scientists to be more important for the American political process in terms of actually affecting decisions in government, works, but instead think that voting is enough (which more than half of Americans don't even do).

So all of these things are things most Americans don't even do, especially the young, including voting. Now this would be the part where you tell me none of that is good enough and you demand something more specific and operational.

Nope, a page full of democracy now spam about what the problems are has absolutely nothing to do with it.

It has nothing to do with the MIC which is the problem, it has nothing to do with the repercussions that transmit into real world consequences for doing nothing, it has nothing to do with refuting the erroneous statements that you've made. Has nothing to do with any of that.

You've given absolutely no suggestion in any way, shape, or form as to what the youth should be doing.

I've mentioned spreading information in an ambiguous manner, you've never said why any of that was wrong with anything more than a flippant remark.

Obviously you have no idea, and more than likely realize you're just plain wrong here, else you wouldn't have spent all that time saying absolutely nothing about the actual discussion.

What do i tell you? That you're the one who doesn't want to come off as more ignorant and wrong? That you're the one who's trolling? Which would make sense since your entire point is to say WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING. That you were refuted with sources yet seemingly ignored that, and took it out of context. With that i mean, replies that were specifically aimed at things that you said, that were wrong, and then you took said replies and equated them to my entire point, when in reality they were specific replies to your specific statements.

Do you want me instead to say that your entire presence here has been nothing more than dishonest debate, from attacking the messenger by calling me a troll, to demanding of me concrete solutions to problems that not even the professionals have figured out? Tell me, what is the best way to describe your behaviour?

Your essential point from the very beginning was to say that there was no sufficiently pressing issue that motivates the youth, and i refuted by saying that millions dying due to out of control government institutions, that due to their follies advance a threat of terrorist attacks in the US as retaliations, to which you replied that that was what voting for Democrats and Obama is for, to which i further replied that they can't do anything serious about that, for as as every president since the very creation of the MIC has used it(consider that Obama is no more liberal than any other Democratic candidate that has ever existed and used the MIC), and for as i've said earlier, the essential purpose of government is to conserve and provide stability, not change. Then you called me a troll for saying that, and then you said that i was referring to separating the government from companies and the military...

[Plow]

You apparently don't think that protesting (you haven't said why) or spreading information by funding independent media or joining or forming a lobbying group, which is argued by political scientists to be more important for the American political process in terms of actually affecting decisions in government, works, but instead think that voting is enough (which more than half of Americans don't even do).

I don't think protests have much effect these days. I do, however, see them fairly regularly still.

People *do* support independent media. Democracy now gets ~35k unique viewers a day, sure, that's not an insane amount or anything, but there are an awful lot of us that take the time to generate revenue for places like that every single day by simply loading up the page, increasing their advertising sales.

Sometimes we even actually click on ads we have no intention of doing anything with. Sure, that sounds like nothing, but it's more than a typical American even had the resources to offer 30 years ago.

I'm not saying clicking some ads every day is "enough," or anything. You just have to realize and appreciate even the little things that tons of us are doing every single day to help.

So all of these things are things most Americans don't even do, especially the young, including voting. Now this would be the part where you tell me none of that is good enough and you demand something more specific and operational.

Not that it's not "good enough," just... it's so... duh. Plus, we are doing it. Pretty sure the percentage of young people voting in the last election was among the highest it's ever been.

It has nothing to do with the MIC which is the problem, it has nothing to do with the repercussions that transmit into real world consequences for doing nothing, it has nothing to do with refuting the erroneous statements that you've made. Has nothing to do with any of that.

Again, it all goes back to what we are doing.

The massive shift in the government is a hell of a lot more than "just voting," honestly if you don't realize what went into that I question your respect for the complexity of the system, and just how much it takes to accomplish what we just did.

I've mentioned spreading information in an ambiguous manner, you've never said why any of that was wrong with anything more than a flippant remark.
What do i tell you? That you're the one who doesn't want to come off as more ignorant and wrong? That you're the one who's trolling? Which would make sense since your entire point is to say WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING. That you were refuted with sources yet seemingly ignored that, and took it out of context. With that i mean, replies that were specifically aimed at things that you said, that were wrong, and then you took said replies and equated them to my entire point, when in reality they were specific replies to your specific statements.

And, as I've said all along: we do. Your massive walls of text? Guess where those came from? People out to spread information, raise awareness, and promote activity. All you gave was evidence of problems that exist in the world, numerous sources to readily available information and people actively making the efforts you're asking for, all while claiming people aren't doing, well, what you just did.

Do you want me instead to say that your entire presence here has been nothing more than dishonest debate, from attacking the messenger by calling me a troll, to demanding of me concrete solutions to problems that not even the professionals have figured out? Tell me, what is the best way to describe your behaviour?

I'm doing my damnedest not to fall into the trap of writing longass posts about things nobody disagrees about and everyone already knows in response to someone whose only goal is to get people to write longass posts about things nobody disagrees about and everyone already knows.

Your essential point from the very beginning was to say that there was no sufficiently pressing issue that motivates the youth, and i refuted by saying that millions dying due to out of control government institutions, that due to their follies advance a threat of terrorist attacks in the US as retaliations, to which you replied that that was what voting for Democrats and Obama is for, to which i further replied that they can't do anything serious about that, for as as every president since the very creation of the MIC has used it(consider that Obama is no more liberal than any other Democratic candidate that has ever existed and used the MIC), and for as i've said earlier, the essential purpose of government is to conserve and provide stability, not change. Then you called me a troll for saying that, and then you said that i was referring to separating the government from companies and the military...

My point with the lack of a cause is apparently misunderstood.

There is not an issue with the grandeur and bravado, or extensive reach, of segregation, women's lib, etc. The war is not affecting people in the numbers and direct results way the stretch of WW2, Korea, and Vietnam did.

There are reasons to be active, and there will always be reasons to be active in the political system. You simply cannot ask for more than the mobilization of millions of youths driving up voters, building the funding, and actually showing up to change the entire government when things are going wrong. It's honestly more than anyone ever accomplished outside of the most major issues the world has ever faced.

And done peacefully, and democratically, by free people... how can you not see and appreciate this and try to act as though nobody's doing anything?

[Kuya]

Would you care to point out where i knowingly stated that nobody is doing anything? You've consistently said this, but i don't see it. I would have thought it to be obvious that SOME people are doing something, though nowhere near half of the population is doing anything.

And as for you saying that everyone already knows that the US was specifically involved in the Iran coup d'état and supported terrorists in Afghanistan to get rid of the Russians... i pray that you're exaggerating.

Can i get a summarized conclusion from you? What i got was that SOME people are doing something, and ... yea.

edit: i honestly can't tell who's the pessimist, or why you are even arguing with me. I seem to be saying that there is a justified reason to be mobilized, but like you and Chalmers have said, the populace remains seemingly unaware of the full extent of what the government does outside the US, and that i think more should be done, because not enough is done right now. And you seem to be being optimistic in the sense that you're saying that at least some people are doing something, but a pessimist when you insist that nothing more can be done.

[Plow]

Electing a democratic Congress was supposed to end the military industrial complex? No lol.

edit: that's nowhere near their agenda. Not even Obama's. And Iran and N. Korea, oh boy, don't even get me started.

That's the point, right there.

If not replacing the entire fucking government, then what?

Demonstrating in the streets will do more?

Everything you've listed that we should be doing, that we supposedly aren't doing enough of, was just done to nearly the greatest extent in the history of America.


And to you it was nothing because Obama has chosen to take the time and put together the organization necessary to actually do it, rather than waving a magic wand.

[Kuya]

I wasn't aware that the entire government was composed of the executive and legislative branch, and that the highest contributors to the campaigns of most of these politicians weren't corporations.

edit: you could put pressure on them by threatening their reelection, but as i've said, your point seems to be: IT'S HOPELESS.

was just done to nearly the greatest extent in the history of America.

I'm pretty sure one of the moments of greatest protest was the 70s, not 2008.

And to you it was nothing because Obama has chosen to take the time and put together the organization necessary to actually do it, rather than waving a magic wand.

At this point, i think you and me are done. You are just being flippant and not making any points at all besides saying that protests are useless for some reason that is no more than some baseless opinion. Simple enough, voting for a new president and Congress isn't enough, these people also have obligations to their campaign contributors, furthermore, not all of Congress is replaced and the issue of a revolving door still exists(another issue is that even after the politicians are elected, people don't keep pressure on them, at least not with the same force that they voted him in with, it also doesn't help that the president doesn't really have a mandate). I've even already told you that government is meant for stability and conservation, not change, which should be obvious enough considering that any appreciable change through history was first even made an issue with massive civil unrest.

[Antithesis]

Kuya a question if I may (Apologies if it is a bit off-topic.) This is just what I personally think but is society as a whole afraid of change? Granted humans naturally fear what they do not know but, why do people seem to fear it so much is what I do not understand. Why is it we stick to the same methods of doing things? Nothing can remain the same. It goes against the laws of nature. Things have to change because everything has to evolve. If no evolution takes place than doom is laid out on a silver platter for you. The best example I can think of is Religion but let us not get into that for it is just a point.

I personally feel Religion is nothing more than Soup for the spirit. If it helps your daily life that is fine. But people should not base their lives around archaic story's and myths.

[Kuya]

This is not a religion thread, but change can lead to uncertainty and anxiety. Don't know if that's what you wanted to hear or if you wanted something more deep...

[Antithesis]

Yes I understand it is not a religion thread I was just using it as an example. And that is sorta what I wanted to hear, if you could go a little more deep that would be nice. I like your little discussions.

[Nystul]

argue all you want but protests have VERY RARELY changed government policy. Go live by DC sometime. Every weekend from march until november has protests. Anti abortion, pro abortion, anti war, pro war, noticing a trend? Every "issue" is controversial and therefore has it's own fringe side out there protesting as well.

Protests are and always have been exercises for the benefit of the protesters themselves. It is an "I need to get this off my chest" moment. I think it's culturally important, but it does not result in change unless by accident.

If you really want to make change and shift the center, stop fucking around making cheeky signs and paper mache models of Bush with satan horns and get involved in the process. Rent a bus and on election day haul loads of people to the voting booths.

[Kuya]

You're right that they happen rarely, and those rare moments that it has an appreciable effect is usually when such protests are massive. They have two functions however, one being to let the rest of the population and the world know that there are problems large enough to cause protests, and second, in the case where the unrest is severe enough, protests can paralyze the government enough to force a response.

However, just as easily as you can critique protests, you can also critique the electoral process. Which, you can ask any political scientist, in the US, is relatively ineffective. It has been found instead that lobbying is the strongest method to manipulate the electoral and decision making process, however, the fault that has been raised about this issue is the fact that the strongest factor is money, so those who have more money have a larger influence. To be more specific, voting is largely held as a cost ineffective process, that promotes the least forms of political activity. I will post a more detailed explanation and an answer to Anti later.

[Elvis]

argue all you want but protests have VERY RARELY changed government policy. Go live by DC sometime. Every weekend from march until november has protests. Anti abortion, pro abortion, anti war, pro war, noticing a trend? Every "issue" is controversial and therefore has it's own fringe side out there protesting as well.

Protests are and always have been exercises for the benefit of the protesters themselves. It is an "I need to get this off my chest" moment. I think it's culturally important, but it does not result in change unless by accident.

If you really want to make change and shift the center, stop fucking around making cheeky signs and paper mache models of Bush with satan horns and get involved in the process. Rent a bus and on election day haul loads of people to the voting booths.

protests are part of a process - a movement. you're basically saying that the opposite is what creates change - voting every 4 years for president.

what of the abolitionist movement? the civil rights movement? did they contribute anything or were they just incidental to some higher power - in this case, the government - feeling generous?

maybe i misunderstood you.

protests on their own may not be powerful enough, but they play a big role in all forms of activism. in fact, they are the signature act... of protest.

[Brill Weave]

I was going to say it's just apathy, but I don't care enough to do so.

[deivi]

ITT: liberals are never happy

[GeneJackit]

protests are part of a process - a movement. you're basically saying that the opposite is what creates change - voting every 4 years for president.

what of the abolitionist movement? the civil rights movement? did they contribute anything or were they just incidental to some higher power - in this case, the government - feeling generous?

maybe i misunderstood you.

protests on their own may not be powerful enough, but they play a big role in all forms of activism. in fact, they are the signature act... of protest.

But those movements were gigantic compared to the protests we have today: gay marriage, minimum wage, universal healthcare, etc

I think people have come to realize that their powers have diminshed to the point where our protests really mean nothing at all...the gov't is so large and consolidated in its power structure that it really doesnt matter...

example: lifetime politicians, gov't having there hand in all aspects of our life, and the sheer size (monetarily speaking) of the gov't...

[Elvis]

We can judge these things in retrospect only. Couldn't we also say that people 'back then' felt intimidated by the task of taking on 'the government'?

I'm sure if you were Black in the US back then, you would have felt like you were taking on the whole world.

I don't deny that we don't have symbolic domestic issues like abolishing slavery and blah blah anymore. But I don't think that mechanism for dissent is gone. It's just marginalized.

I mean, why would 'the establishment' censor the abolitionist movement. Or other past victories for equality/freedom/etc.?

It would make more sense for 'the establishment' to not show you things it didn't approve of in the 'here and now'.

And of course, my example isn't perfect. I don't believe we have a free and open debate on many issues. A lot of things are treated as dogma.

That doesn't mean contrary opinions are ALWAYS dismissed, rather they are - like I said - marginalized.

So I don't put too much credence (pun intended...) in our own retrospect. A lot of it is indoctrinated into us without knowing it.

I know I sound like a liberal hippie whiner *BUT* I do believe that basic spirit of resistance is never gone and we'll find new things to complain about.

[Nystul]

in order for protests to work you must have people writing the laws and signing the laws and enforcing the laws already in place that either agree with or are willing to listen to the protesters. Its like...have you ever called a radio station to make a request? They don't actually TAKE requests. They have a list of what they are going to play and they wait for or convince ("that song? Hey, what about this one. why don't you request this song!") you to pick the one they were already going to play. Protests are the same.

[Elvis]

Right, but that's what I'm getting at - protests are part of a movement that compels leadership to change policy.

It's easier to do this when it comes to domestic issues because the leadership is closer in proximity to the agitators. The issue is literally close-to-home.

EDIT:

And of course, there is more oversight at home, relatively speaking. As opposed to in destroyed countries half-way around the world.