Have You Ever Formally Protested or Boycotted Anything?

[luvsJack]

I think the world heard and is hearing much more than the few speakers who went way too far. There were solidarity wonen's marches in many different countries that day, and friends we have abroad understand the frustration many here have. Just as rational people here in the States can see past the blowhards and "protesters" who join in only to disrupt, not spread the message, so too can most people around the world. The message is definitely getting through.

I am glad to know that. I shouldn't have said "world". I should have said the states. There was so much more than what the loud mouths said. It's hard to get a lot of people to see past their own country and that women's rights and oppression is really a huge problem. And that combined with being turned off by the few closed a lot of ears.

I can't say I agreed with everything they stand for but with most. But I felt there was so much that needed to be heard that didn't get any "air" time. Not everyone could attend a march so,imo, it made the need for the actual message to get out past the attendees so very important.

 

[AustinMommyofThree]

Were the people at the March not already in agreement of what they were marching for?

I don't understand your question. Aren't people at a march, rally, protest, etc. generally in agreement with what they're protesting? Unless they're counter-protesters, it doesn't make sense to attend a rally for something you don't support. And for those of us who attend those kinds of events (not just the Women's March but any protest on any issue on any end of the political continuum), many of us are looking for solidarity and to see that we're not alone. If we all dismiss issues because of a few loud-mouths (Madonna or Richard Spencer, for example), we wouldn't have any leadership on any issue whatsoever.

If a protest is only valid if it's inclusive of all opinions, it's not a protest. It's a fellowship meeting. And those have a place, too, but since the constitution of the United States of America gives us all the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, whether some people feel it's pointless really isn't relevant.

 

[leebee]

I take a lot of hits for this, but I believe that civil disobedience has its place. While I don't agree with overt rioting, looting, burning, etc., I think that passive protest (sit-ins, for example) has its role in getting a point across.

Regarding the Women's March, my only regret was that family medical issues meant I couldn't participate. I never heard any of the speeches so many are slamming; I either was on the wrong station or was so impressed by the size of the crowds that I didn't hear the rhetoric. AND... the world WAS listening, witnessed by the solidarity marches across the world- even in Antarctica.

 

[DisneyMomx7]

While I wasn't able to go my DDIL was in the women's March a few weeks ago in DC with her family while my DS marched in Philadelphia with friends. They both were at the airport protest in philly last weekend

 

[luvsJack]

I don't understand your question. Aren't people at a march, rally, protest, etc. generally in agreement with what they're protesting? Unless they're counter-protesters, it doesn't make sense to attend a rally for something you don't support. And for those of us who attend those kinds of events (not just the Women's March but any protest on any issue on any end of the political continuum), many of us are looking for solidarity and to see that we're not alone. If we all dismiss issues because of a few loud-mouths (Madonna or Richard Spencer, for example), we wouldn't have any leadership on any issue whatsoever.

If a protest is only valid if it's inclusive of all opinions, it's not a protest. It's a fellowship meeting. And those have a place, too, but since the constitution of the United States of America gives us all the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, whether some people feel it's pointless really isn't relevant.

I am not debating anyone's right to do anything. Of course everyone has that right. I also am in no way saying that the march was pointless. Again, I agree with much of what it is about.

But is the point to it not to get the powers that be to listen? Is it not just about finding solidarity but to get those who don't understand or know about the issues to understand or at least hear them? If not, why not just have a meeting of all those in agreement? How do you expect to get action just from those already in agreement?

I never meant to insinuate that those that already believe in the issues weren't listening.

Were the protests at the airports not to say "we don't agree with this and here is why" so that others would hear those reasons? If people don't hear about individuals affected and see why anyone disagrees with what is going on, they will never understand.

During the Civil Rights marches, were they not to bring attention to the issues? Were the speeches not to get people that were on the fence or scared to speak out to find their voice and get on board? Were they just to say "look how many agree with us and we don't care if you do or not"? Thank God that wasn't the case.

A group of college kids can march on their disagreement of the unhealthy food served in the cafeteria but if no one but the equally unhappy students are listening-what is the point? If you aren't getting the ptb to hear it, there won't be change.

You can protest, march and even riot until the cows come home, but if your message is not being heard by those that don't know or understand, what have you done exactly?

 

[sunshinehighway]

If I wasn't listening how would I have known what their points were and were not to say they had something that needed to be heard?

You are the one digging in heels here and choosing not to hear anyone but yourself and anyone who agrees with you.

FYI, I agreed with much of what they were marching for. I did not agree with the loud mouths on the mics that were blasted on every news channel and when any discussion of the march has come up irl, it resorts back to what Madonna said and the other person tunes out anything else. If you can't get those that don't understand or necessarily agree to listen, you aren't doing anything.

When they first started reporting that speech, I did wonder "what the heck?" But dd and I chose to research and found the information we were looking for on the march. I am sure others did that too but a very large portion of people tuned it all out with Madonna. Like a pp said, preaching to the choir isn't gaining support.

You posted that no one was listening. You speak in absolutes but then don't stand by what you said.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

That is what the media on the left and the right want you to believe. I believe the majority are in the middle and are willing to support either side of the issue. What people are reacting to is a constant stream of garbage being spewed by both sides. It is really complete nonsense generated by evil media empires designed to increase profits rather than increase understanding of the issues.

It goes beyond that too though. Not trying to get political, but when's the last time the folks in Washington came together on anything? Almost every idea receives 100% support from one side and 0% support from the other. That isn't serving the people. It's not even voting your conscience. It's following orders from the so-called "leadership".

And even those of us in the middle are all too quick to defend "our horse" even when we know they're wrong.

 

[Suger Mag]

I am not debating anyone's right to do anything. Of course everyone has that right. I also am in no way saying that the march was pointless. Again, I agree with much of what it is about.

But is the point to it not to get the powers that be to listen? Is it not just about finding solidarity but to get those who don't understand or know about the issues to understand or at least hear them? If not, why not just have a meeting of all those in agreement? How do you expect to get action just from those already in agreement?

I never meant to insinuate that those that already believe in the issues weren't listening.

Were the protests at the airports not to say "we don't agree with this and here is why" so that others would hear those reasons? If people don't hear about individuals affected and see why anyone disagrees with what is going on, they will never understand.

During the Civil Rights marches, were they not to bring attention to the issues? Were the speeches not to get people that were on the fence or scared to speak out to find their voice and get on board? Were they just to say "look how many agree with us and we don't care if you do or not"? Thank God that wasn't the case.

A group of college kids can march on their disagreement of the unhealthy food served in the cafeteria but if no one but the equally unhappy students are listening-what is the point? If you aren't getting the ptb to hear it, there won't be change.

You can protest, march and even riot until the cows come home, but if your message is not being heard by those that don't know or understand, what have you done exactly?

But you are looking back on historical events that have for the most part been accepted and 'cooled and sanitized' into selected historical clips and bites. Were you there during the Civil Rights movement, did you participate? Have you listened to all of the recorded speeches on file? Did you agree with or "hear' EVERYTHING that was said?

Not intentionally being snarky, just asking, because it was my understanding that in no way was the message or the marchers of the Civil rights marches well received by all people at the time with warm fuzzies... dogs, water cannons, beatings...and worse were usually the response. We look back now and say "of course it was important, duh".... but then there were many ,many people VEHEMENTLY opposed to the message and the movement. So to look back to the Civil Rights marches and be like Wow, those marches THEN were awesome, with EVERY one agreeing and 'hearing' the message, is really not fair or true.

I watched my tiny hometown of Greenfield Ma pull together over 2000 people to stand together in solidarity in their Sister March. Woman, Men, Children. It was amazing. We beat big cities in numbers. When you think about the huge numbers of people everywhere, across America, across the globe... it was one of the most powerful moments in recent history. And MOST amazing was how overwhelmingly peaceful it was... no major violence, no looting, no major arrests, at least that I have heard about... LOL only things I have heard most folks complain about so far were the content of some of the speeches and trash.

It is fine by me if it did not impress you, or the message does not resonate, that is your opinion and you are of course are totally entitled to it. I just know for me and for my daughter all those people coming together was truly inspiring.

 

[luvsJack]

You posted that no one was listening. You speak in absolutes but then don't stand by what you said.

A large number of people. Happy?

People that may have agreed with so much only heard so little.

And I do agree that much of the problem is the media. It's hard to know what to listen to and where to find the truth on any issue. People hear and see what is right in front of them. Very few can research every issue. It would be a full time job and even then you have to be able to discern the real information with the fake.

 

[luvsJack]

But you are looking back on historical events that have for the most part been accepted and 'cooled and sanitized' into selected historical clips and bites. Were you there during the Civil Rights movement, did you participate? Have you listened to all of the recorded speeches on file? Did you agree with or "hear' EVERYTHING that was said?

Not intentionally being snarky, just asking, because it was my understanding that in no way was the message or the marchers of the Civil rights marches well received by all people at the time with warm fuzzies... dogs, water cannons, beatings...and worse were usually the response. We look back now and say "of course it was important, duh".... but then there were many ,many people VEHEMENTLY opposed to the message and the movement. So to look back to the Civil Rights marches and be like Wow, those marches THEN were awesome, with EVERY one agreeing and 'hearing' the message, is really not fair or true.

I watched my tiny hometown of Greenfield Ma pull together over 2000 people to stand together in solidarity in their Sister March. Woman, Men, Children. It was amazing. We beat big cities in numbers. When you think about the huge numbers of people everywhere, across America, across the globe... it was one of the most powerful moments in recent history. And MOST amazing was how overwhelmingly peaceful it was... no major violence, no looting, no major arrests, at least that I have heard about... LOL only things I have heard most folks complain about so far were the content of some of the speeches and trash.

It is fine by me if it did not impress you, or the message does not resonate, that is your opinion and you are of course are totally entitled to it. I just know for me and for my daughter all those people coming together was truly inspiring.

I wasn't there but have read, heard and watched a lot. Again I ask, was there not at any point an intention to be heard and understood? I live in the South, I am well aware there were people that didn't ageee. But somebody did listen and somebody did agree.

Again, I agreed with the March. But have heard again and again and again how it was pointless and just a bunch of unhappy women that are not oppressed. Not because they knew the issues and disagreed but because all they knew of it was one or two speeches. Maybe better speakers? All I am saying is there was/is a message that needs to be heard. Changes that need to be made. But if all anyone knows is what came from Madonna, they may never agree or hear any of that. The more people that agree with an issue, the more likely change will come.

We can debate all day long that it was a great day and a great event and everyone there was in agreement. But at the end of the day, will it bring about change?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

It goes beyond that too though. Not trying to get political, but when's the last time the folks in Washington came together on anything? Almost every idea receives 100% support from one side and 0% support from the other. That isn't serving the people. It's not even voting your conscience. It's following orders from the so-called "leadership".

And even those of us in the middle are all too quick to defend "our horse" even when we know they're wrong.

I agree with that.

I'm not being political here just telling my story:

I was able to go to D.C. a few times last year to visit my husband working in southern MD. The first trip in April that I was up there we went to the Capitol Building for a tour through our State's rep. We were able to go into the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate was actually in session and by session it ended up only being 2 people speaking. Marco Rubio was actually speaking. I don't remember who was speaking before him but when Marco Rubio said he was going to respond to the other guy but after he said what he was there to talk about..the other guy just up and left. Marco Rubio was just speaking to no one in the room except for the President Pro Tempore (who had to you know nod his head every now and then to signify he was at least sorta listening) and the note-takers.

Now I honestly had no clue as to what actually went on in day to day Senate and House of Representatives but it wasn't in my mind just one person walking out of the room like that because he didn't want to listen to the other person and nor was it just one or two people. My assumption is that day the topics being discussed weren't of huge importance..well at least to all the others (schedule conflicts I'm sure happen though).

 

[sunshinehighway]

A large number of people. Happy?

People that may have agreed with so much only heard so little.

And I do agree that much of the problem is the media. It's hard to know what to listen to and where to find the truth on any issue. People hear and see what is right in front of them. Very few can research every issue. It would be a full time job and even then you have to be able to discern the real information with the fake.

Nah. It's a cop out to blame the media. There's a ton of information available to us all. It's not really difficult to read a few sources about an issue and form an opinion.
You mentioned Madonna and the women's march. There's plenty of information available about that march beyond Madonna being her usual crass, obnoxious self. If millions of people protesting all around the world doesn't make someone interested enough to find out what it was all about beyond Madonna being a non dis friendly word, then that's on them, not the media.

 

[Colleen27]

That is what the media on the left and the right want you to believe. I believe the majority are in the middle and are willing to support either side of the issue. What people are reacting to is a constant stream of garbage being spewed by both sides. It is really complete nonsense generated by evil media empires designed to increase profits rather than increase understanding of the issues.

Blaming the media is such a cop out. First, my perception isn't formed based on the media alone - it is also from having conversations IRL that basically devolve into "everyone on the other side is stupid/hates America" (which happens on both sides of the spectrum with breathtaking frequency) or disregard even personally-experienced evidence that contradicts their biases. Increasingly, media isn't leading the conversation but following it, catering to the angles and stories that will connect with the biggest audience rather than those that are most significant, and the outlets that do so the most openly are almost uniformly the most successful and with the largest audience.

And Washington has led the way on that. How many votes don't follow party lines any more? How many elected officials are willing to follow their brain, their conscience, or the will of their constituents if it conflicts with what their leadership tells them to do?

But is the point to it not to get the powers that be to listen? Is it not just about finding solidarity but to get those who don't understand or know about the issues to understand or at least hear them? If not, why not just have a meeting of all those in agreement? How do you expect to get action just from those already in agreement?

I think that can be the goal... but sometimes preaching to the choir, especially when the choir is made up of diverse groups that have never really pooled their efforts before, can be a point in and of itself. That was my takeaway from the Woman's March. Really, swaying the current powers that be on any of the major issues that were catalysts for the march is likely impossible. I think it was meant more as a show of strength, a demonstration of the numbers of people who support a rights-focused agenda, and a movement building exercise rather than a direct attempt to sway any policy or position.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Nah. It's a cop out to blame the media. There's a ton of information available to us all. It's not really difficult to read a few sources about an issue and form an opinion.
You mentioned Madonna and the women's march. There's plenty of information available about that march beyond Madonna being her usual crass, obnoxious self. If millions of people protesting all around the world doesn't make someone interested enough to find out what it was all about beyond Madonna being a non dis friendly word, then that's on them, not the media.

Blaming the media is such a cop out. First, my perception isn't formed based on the media alone - it is also from having conversations IRL that basically devolve into "everyone on the other side is stupid/hates America" (which happens on both sides of the spectrum with breathtaking frequency) or disregard even personally-experienced evidence that contradicts their biases. Increasingly, media isn't leading the conversation but following it, catering to the angles and stories that will connect with the biggest audience rather than those that are most significant, and the outlets that do so the most openly are almost uniformly the most successful and with the largest audience.

And Washington has led the way on that. How many votes don't follow party lines any more? How many elected officials are willing to follow their brain, their conscience, or the will of their constituents if it conflicts with what their leadership tells them to do?

Not saying media is not a cop out but I'm not downplaying it's role either.

Have you been on FB lately or in the past year or two? Most of the people I know...and believe me I find it sad...get most of their information regarding political issues from FB. It's not hard for sure to go and check out the information but it's rarely done at least with was seems to circulate around FB.

When I was watching the debates I would go to the fact checking website but I highly doubt that those around me would do that (I know my husband does he's like me in that sense). In a world where so much of our information is gathered from social media it also takes a person who actively chooses to question what they heard, what they are seeing.

I love to talk politics with my in-laws but it's a bit hard to have an intelligent conversation with my mother-in-law (and my husband completely agrees on this) when she believes every darn word she sees on FB..and guess what? FB learns what kind of news you want to hear. So you click on a link from an extremely questionable website and when you get back to FB your suggested posts are just more and more and more of that stuff that only reaffirms your stance. It's so nice that the election is over because my husband was starting to get tired of being in FB wars (though in a nice way) with his mom because all he was doing was pointing out what she was sharing, what she was soooo outraged about..was completely false or mostly false.

It may not be a lot of people but there are def. some that show up to protests, marches, riots, etc with opinions formed from the media and only the media or by talking with those whose opinions were formed that way.

 

[MillauFr]

And Washington has led the way on that. How many votes don't follow party lines any more? How many elected officials are willing to follow their brain, their conscience, or the will of their constituents if it conflicts with what their leadership tells them to do?

Most of the issues do not follow party lines. Our family does quite a bit of lobbying for special needs issues and we get quite a bit of support from politicians on both sides of the aisle. Also most of the transportation issues are bipartisan.

Less than 50% of the people in Washington State identify with the Democratic or Republican party. Most are independent.

 

[DennyCrane]

I boycott and protest with meme pics. So much easier than getting up and going outside where other people are.

Much less typing too. I good pic says 1,000 words, or so I've been told.

 

[luvsJack]

Nah. It's a cop out to blame the media. There's a ton of information available to us all. It's not really difficult to read a few sources about an issue and form an opinion.
You mentioned Madonna and the women's march. There's plenty of information available about that march beyond Madonna being her usual crass, obnoxious self. If millions of people protesting all around the world doesn't make someone interested enough to find out what it was all about beyond Madonna being a non dis friendly word, then that's on them, not the media.

I agree there is plenty of info out there. For both sides of any issue. But there are many people that don't understand the need, have the ability or the time to research. They believe the news or FB or whatever. We don't seem to have news station that isn't all on side or the other and has no qualms of sticking to that one side of any issue. And as such can be very influential to the people that listen to them.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Not saying media is not a cop out but I'm not downplaying it's role either.

Have you been on FB lately or in the past year or two? Most of the people I know...and believe me I find it sad...get most of their information regarding political issues from FB. It's not hard for sure to go and check out the information but it's rarely done at least with was seems to circulate around FB.

When I was watching the debates I would go to the fact checking website but I highly doubt that those around me would do that (I know my husband does he's like me in that sense). In a world where so much of our information is gathered from social media it also takes a person who actively chooses to question what they heard, what they are seeing.

I love to talk politics with my in-laws but it's a bit hard to have an intelligent conversation with my mother-in-law (and my husband completely agrees on this) when she believes every darn word she sees on FB..and guess what? FB learns what kind of news you want to hear. So you click on a link from an extremely questionable website and when you get back to FB your suggested posts are just more and more and more of that stuff that only reaffirms your stance. It's so nice that the election is over because my husband was starting to get tired of being in FB wars (though in a nice way) with his mom because all he was doing was pointing out what she was sharing, what she was soooo outraged about..was completely false or mostly false.

It may not be a lot of people but there are def. some that show up to protests, marches, riots, etc with opinions formed from the media and only the media or by talking with those whose opinions were formed that way.

Doesn't that come down to the person and not "the media" though? A lot of what I've seen shared on fb isn't even real or its an extremely distorted story. If someone makes a site to share made up or mostly made up stories are they "the media".
It really isn't that time consuming or difficult to get various angles on a story and make a determination on where the truth is. You know that yourself because it sounds like that's what you do. It's time people stop blaming "the media" because the are ill informed or not informed at all.

 

[asta]

Blaming the media is such a cop out. First, my perception isn't formed based on the media alone - it is also from having conversations IRL that basically devolve into "everyone on the other side is stupid/hates America" (which happens on both sides of the spectrum with breathtaking frequency) or disregard even personally-experienced evidence that contradicts their biases. Increasingly, media isn't leading the conversation but following it, catering to the angles and stories that will connect with the biggest audience rather than those that are most significant, and the outlets that do so the most openly are almost uniformly the most successful and with the largest audience.

And Washington has led the way on that. How many votes don't follow party lines any more? How many elected officials are willing to follow their brain, their conscience, or the will of their constituents if it conflicts with what their leadership tells them to do?



I think that can be the goal... but sometimes preaching to the choir, especially when the choir is made up of diverse groups that have never really pooled their efforts before, can be a point in and of itself. That was my takeaway from the Woman's March. Really, swaying the current powers that be on any of the major issues that were catalysts for the march is likely impossible. I think it was meant more as a show of strength, a demonstration of the numbers of people who support a rights-focused agenda, and a movement building exercise rather than a direct attempt to sway any policy or position.

You speak a lot of truth even though I might blame the media a little more than you. I have given any hope of having my representatives in Washington listen to any viewpoint other than their party line. A few years ago I tried to send a very brief, respectful email to my congresswoman. Before I could send the email I had to submit my address and prove that I lived in her district. After waiting for her staff to verify and prove my address, I was allowed to send the email. Four simple sentences to state my issue and ask for her consideration. Neither she or her staff replied or even acknowledged my email. I don't know if all representatives make it that hard to contact them but nothing in that process gave me any confidence that she would consider any input.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Doesn't that come down to the person and not "the media" though? A lot of what I've seen shared on fb isn't even real or its an extremely distorted story. If someone makes a site to share made up or mostly made up stories are they "the media".
It really isn't that time consuming or difficult to get various angles on a story and make a determination on where the truth is. You know that yourself because it sounds like that's what you do. It's time people stop blaming "the media" because the are ill informed or not informed at all.

Perhaps the issue is our differences in the definition of the media.

Dictionary(.com) has the following definition for media: the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, magazines, and the Internet, that reach or influence people widely.

Dictionary(.com) has the following defintion for social media: websites and other online means of communication that are used by large groups of people to share information and to develop social and professional contacts.

Now perhaps you don't view FB, Twitter, Reddit, Instagram, etc as media and that's ok. But they are on the internet and can be used to influence people widely (and I don't think there is a question of at least some sites where that is their main goal). They are also forms of social media where people share all sorts of information and when that information is false or mostly false and shared to hundreds, thousands, millions of people in an instant...