Comment by enraged_camel | Hacker News Reader

Comment by enraged_camel | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Unfortunately, Americans today are weak. Everyone is way too self-obsessed with their own pitiful, pathetic lives (family, jobs, house, creature comforts, etc.) to actually take to the streets and protest like their parents and grandparents did during the 60s to fight for their rights and those of others.

The Internet, despite its tremendous potential, has proven to be a massive liability, as it gives people the illusion that they have done something useful and constructive after they post angry comments on message boards such as this one. At the end of the day though the truth is this: political representatives will only really represent the populace if they are constantly worried about real backlash, such as if hundreds of people are gathered outside their office blocking access to vehicles, buildings, and so on.

On December 17th, 2010, Mohamed Bouazizi famously set himself on fire, which precipitated the Tunisian Revolution and the wider Arab Spring. At this rate, America is going to need equally brave and selfless individuals to make a stand and spark similar movements.

I'd argue that taking to the street and protesting is also just giving people the illusion that they're doing something useful.

The Iraq War protests were some of the largest in history, and they accomplished exactly nothing (and to your example, look up Malachi Ritscher). Occupy Wall Street was a massive movement and accomplished nothing. The protests against Obamacare repeal were massive and widespread, and seem to have only succeeded in delaying the destruction of Obamacare to the current tax bill. Black Lives Matter is a massive movement that has accomplished meaningful change in a few jurisdictions and nationwide has managed to at least generate conversation, but that conversation has already been largely derailed to the question of whether or not football players need to stand for the national anthem.

Office holders are not beholden to people yelling in the streets but to the people who get them elected. This means the people who show up to vote and, increasingly, the people who finance their campaigns.

> Office holders are not beholden to people yelling in the streets but to the people who get them elected

That's completely incorrect, the easiest thing in politics is to get people to vote for you, especially in a two-party system that effectively prevents challengers to the status quo in an election. All in all, the only power that people effectively have is the power to revolt. Democracy is a peaceful system of government but it can only be maintained through the threat of revolution. When that threat doesn't exist, politicians will do whatever they want.

Or, alternatively, having more than two parties is also an option. Because then you have a real choice. I have that choice. If I don't like the currently ruling party I can vote for any of the numerous parties that I feel represent me better. And unlike a 2-party-system people actually do that in mass to protest what the government is doing.

I absolutely agree with you--there is no threat of anything resembling revolution in the US today. The issue is not the self-obsession or lack of engagement the ancestor comment describes, but that e.g. Occupy Wall Street was never going to result in the actual occupation of Wall Street.

While civil disobedience etc. are useful forms of protest, we haven't exhausted other avenues, like actually showing up to vote. And the parent post is talking about violence, not just civil disobedience.

The act you describe at the end of your post happened in a dictatorship where the people truly had no voice. While we may live in a flawed democracy[1] we're not in the same situation -- we do still have nonviolent ways we can turn things around.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Yes, which is why I said "at this rate, America is going to need equally brave and selfless individuals to make a stand and spark similar movements."

Things haven't reached that point, but will soon.

Ah yes, the Arab Spring, that beacon of hope and light for the world.

For that part of the world, it certainly was. Not sure what your point is.

Yes, ultimately it failed, but it is difficult to dispute that it was a noble attempt. More will come in time.

It wasn’t purely noble attempt. Arab Spring was actually driven largely by rising food prices and high unemployment. And it lead to some dangerous people getting in power. E.g. Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Unrest in this part of the world will continue as the population is still rising fast, average age is very low so you get young unemployed population with no jobs and no money and basics such as food are rising in price. That is a recipe for more revolutions.

But revolutions and overthrowing of local governments won’t solve the underlying issues of these countries not being able to provide some reasonable standard of living to their population due to economic reasons.

It would be much safer to do incremental change and try to slowly build up local economies to create jobs for millions of young people. Violent revolutions will only further damage economic conditions and make situation worse in many cases.

I hope so, it was so sad to see this region fall to power plays by various large and medium sized nations. Fending that off while a revolution is occurring is a challenge though!

It was a noble attempt by some, less so by others. The people who were involved in it all had very different goals - it's not like it was an ideologically monolithic movement even within country boundaries. The only unifying force was the opposition to the existing regimes. Which are/were bad, but what some people wanted to replace them was even worse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com