Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | psunavy03's comments login

> We’ve got this warped idea that a proper protest is when some people gather in some designated area that the authorities allow them to, and they don’t inconvenience anyone. That’s absurd when you consider what a protest is about.

OK, fine, but you also don't get to decide how other people interpret your actions. You can fuss and bother about how trivial it is to you that someone's commute got delayed by 10 minutes, but if you're pissing off the person you're trying to get your message to, you're still shooting yourself in the foot.

Persuasion is contextual; you don't get to dictate someone else's feelings and you don't get to force them to see things your way.


That you can’t will other people into feeling a certain way seems quite besides the point.

There’s first of all the point that the sibling comment made (bongodongobob). There’s also the second point of solidarity. Now for those who are too politically liberal to understand that word: it’s about standing together with your fellow person based on some commonality, knowing/trusting that they will also have your back in other contexts. Which could translate to bearing some discomfort because you sympathize with their cause or think that their cause is proximal to your own (see: first they came for X but I didn’t do anything because I’m not X).

This can be seen even in my social democratic country when there is some large strike. Say airport workers. Then the media will immediately be on the prowl, asking leading questions to would-be vacationers about how horrible this strike must be. The more solidaristic ones may choose to bear that burden because they feel that they share a common cause.


Someone who can't be convinced to endure minor inconvenience for a cause is not someone worth persuading.

>yon't get to dictate someone else's feelings and you don't get to force them to see things your way

No, but you can certainly try to inconvenience them until they take action, whether that means pressuring government to capitulate or crackdown. Disruptive protests tend to already assumes it swayed enough minds to go disruptive, the ultimate goal is not to persuade fence sitters but persuade power.


> if you're pissing off the person you're trying to get your message to, you're still shooting yourself in the foot.

"Squeaky Wheels Get the Grease" And if they're inconveniencing you, suddenly the thing you care about is making them go away. And what's the best way to make them go away? To make your local politicians do something about them. Often times the demands are easier to capitulate to than to continue suffering the inconveniences that make your constituents upset that people are angry.


Nope, that's the point. Protests aren't intended to gain allies. It's to put pressure on those in charge. Pissing people off and interrupting commerce is literally the point.


The protest itself may not be about gaining allies, but protests depend on being able to gain allies if those in charge meet them with enough force to stop them.

If protests go too far, to the point where the general public will cheer for anyone putting the protesters in jail for a decade, the protest is going to be ineffective.


There's something profoundly insulting about protesters treating the general public as a simple means to an end, instead of potential allies to connect with. The way I see it, if I believe my cause is righteous, then I'd be doing it a deep disservice by presenting it in the most alienating way possible. I should want to bring people over to my side. Otherwise, it shows I'm not serious---that the cause itself is secondary to my conviction, that I'd rather be seen fighting than go home a victor.


Ok well go protest in a place that isn't visible and doesn't cause any problems. Let me know how it works when no one can see or care. Protesting isn't holding signs. It's disrupting things. Look at the French and German protests right now. That's how you get change.


The heck with bread and circuses. Fish sauce for all my friends!


If it's the Ukranian military doing the launching and the targets are KGB/FSB or otherwise aiding the Russian government, that's not a war crime. It's hitting a legitimate military target.

But please feel free to snark on the US military; I know that's cheap karma around here.


Or seeing WiFi for the first time. It was Internet . . . with no cables!


This goes with a lot of "ZOMG UR GONNA DIE" type topics that the media loves to use to scare people with. Statistically, we're almost all a bunch of future cancer and heart disease patients meaninglessly stressing out about being shot by some rando or eaten by a shark or the like, even though the likelihood of these things happening is extremely rare. Most people flat-out suck at estimating risk.


Your tolerance naturally changes as you get older and the hangovers last longer.


Its cyclical. The tolerance for hangovers and the recovery period went down (god do I hate it) therefore I drink less, thus I have a lower tolerance for alcohol.


> Google - a gov funded research project to organise and index information

> Tesla - people dependent on the electrical grid are far easier to control than those dependent on gasoline.

I'm sorry, your tinfoil hat is slipping.


https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...

That's Google.

I live in Quebec where the gov electricity monopoly (Hydro Quebec) now insist that new homes have smart meters in, where they can remotely control your thermostat, while simultaneously campaigning to make all alternatives illegal. Curiously we're also a big Tesla market because of the cheap electricity, which is also the reason for the thermostats: they want to turn the heating down in Quebec so they can sell the same electricity for more south of the border.


That speaks volumes about how they value their devs as opposed to their users, and frankly doesn't surprise me. They don't have any interest in hacking the brains of their employees . . . or perhaps they do, but in a different direction.


Speaking what might be obvious, but I would love a social media experience optimized in a similar way to this: Least amount of time & attention spent on the platform while facilitating the most in-human contact.


So far, no one has figured out a business model for that that works, unfortunately.


They optimize for their customer base.

Which are advertisers.


It's equally possible that it's just Musk being Musk and making snap decisions he has to walk back.


The whole "cut deep and then replace 10 percent of what you cut" philosophy works great for parts. Kind of toxic to do to human beings.


“Kind of”?


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: