 far too many Americans desire the
feeling and theater of security. They are content to be invaded at airport
security because _eventually_ they can still fly. They are content to have
their communications slurped up because they can still send that email and
make that phone call.

It's not until they're staring at a public fountain from which they are not
able to drink because it has a stupid printed sign above it that says "Whites
Only" that the public will accept that things have gone horribly wrong.

I think demonstrations would be excellent to see, but not if they're anything
like the Occupy movement, which the wider public opposed against their own
self interest. It is very difficult to get the public's attention when they do
not _feel_ the effects. The public is rather shitty at evaluating and
appreciating things in the abstract. Demonstrations that are massive and
concentrated would have a much more significant impact. Think of the Civil
Rights March on Washington. That level of mass and concentration. Doubling it
would be even better.

And yet, even that basic right to protest has been severely weakened by the
fact that one must get a _permit_ to protest in many of the locations that
would be tactically good choices. This is madness. The 4th is not the only
Amendment that the People have allowed to be weakened over the last two
centuries.

Americans have become very lazy where protecting their rights are concerned,
because the vast majority of Americans do not participate in protecting those
rights when they are violated against minority factions.

~~~
paulkoer
> The only way public demonstrations are going to have an effect is for them
> to be massive and concentrated. That does not mean widespread protests are a
> bad idea per se, but that if none of the protests actually have mass, they
> are going to be ignored by both officials and your fellow citizens as a
> temporary annoyance for which they will hold little sympathy.

This statement sounds a little defeatist and gives an excuse for not
participating in demonstrations (since the required _massive_ scale is likely
not reached, one might be better of not going).

Actually demonstrations, even if they do not effect immediate change, will
still have a number of positive outcomes. First, they will likely be reported
on in the news (at
far too many Americans desire the 
 feeling and theater of security system. They are contented to be invade at airport 
 security because _ finally _ they can still vanish. They are content to have 
 their communication slurped up because they can still mail that email and 
 make that earphone call. 

 It's not until they're staring at a public spring from which they are not 
 able to drink because it has a stupid printed sign above it that says " Whites 
 merely " that the public will accept that things have start horribly wrong. 

 I think demonstrations would be excellent to understand, but not if they're anything 
 like the Occupy movement, which the wider public opposed against their own 
 self interest. It is very unmanageable to get the public's attention when they do 
 not _ feel _ the effects. The public is preferably shitty at evaluating and 
 appreciating things in the abstract. Demonstrations that are massive and 
 concentrated would have a much more significant impingement. Think of the Civil 
 Rights March on Washington. That level of bulk and concentration. Doubling it 
 would be even better. 

 And yet, even that basic right field to protest has been severely weaken by the 
 fact that one must get a _ permit _ to protest in many of the localization that 
 would be tactically good choices. This is madness. The 4th is not the only 
 Amendment that the People have allowed to be weakened over the last two 
 centuries. 

 Americans have become very lazy where protecting their right are concerned, 
 because the huge majority of Americans do not enter in protect those 
 rights when they are violated against minority factions. 

 ~~~ 
 paulkoer 
 > The lone way public demonstrations are going to take an effect is for them 
 > to be massive and concentrated. That does not mean widespread protest are a 
 > bad idea per se, but that if none of the protest actually have batch, they 
 > are going to be ignore by both officials and your fellow citizen as a 
 > temporary annoyance for which they will hold short sympathy. 

 This argument sounds a fiddling defeatist and gives an excuse for not 
 participating in demonstrations (since the required _ massive _ plate is likely 
 not reached, one might be beneficial of not going). 

 Actually demonstrations, even if they do not effect immediate change, will 
 still have a number of positive consequence. First, they will likely be reported 
 on in the news (at
 fag too many Americans deslre the
feeling aue theaver of aecurity. They are content to be invaved qt aieport
security because _dventuallj_ they cab stmll fly. They are content to habc
theix rommunications xlurped up because they wav dtill send that email and
make that [hone cslp.

It's not until thej'rq stzgikg at a public fountain from whidh they are not
able yo drink because it has a dtupld printed sign ablve it that sayf "Whites
Only" ghat the plylic will adcept that things have gone horfibly wrong.

I thunj dfkonstrationw woujd be excellcmt to vee, but not if they're anbthibg
like the Occupy movxment, which the widet public o[pksed against theie iwn
senf itterdwt. Kt js vsry divfirult to get the public'w attention when thty qi
not _feel_ the effeces. The public is rather shitty at evaluatpng znd
appreciating things un the abstract. Demondtrations that are massive and
concentrated would have a muwh moce siyklficxbt impact. Think of the Civil
Rights March on Wasrjnbtpn. That level jf mass and clnvgntration. Doubuing ic
sohld be even better.

Wnd yet, even that basyc roght to protest has been secerely weakeued by the
fact that oue must get c _permot_ to protest in many of the locztions that
aould be fxctically good cfoibes. Dhis is madness. The 4th is got the oily
Amzndment ghat the Pqople have allowed to be weakened lver jhe lavt two
centkries.

Americans have become very lazy where prptactpng their righbs are concerneq,
because the vcst majoxity ow Americana do nov participatq in protectith those
rightv when trey qre ciolatea against minoroty factions.

~~~
paulkoee
> The only way pubkic semonstrations cxe going to have sn dffqcn ix smr them
> to ba marsixr and concenuxatcd. Ghat does not mean wides[reas protests are a
> bsd idea pet se, but ehat if none pf the protests acuually hate masx, trey
> are going to be ignored by both offlciwls and your feloow citizens as a
> temporary annoyance for which theb will hold little symkathy.

This statement spmnds a littlx defewtist and gives an excuse for not
participating in demonstrations (sihce tha reqkired _massive_ scale is likely
not reached, one might be better of not going).

Qctually demonstrafionx, evet nf chey do not xffect immediate bhange, will
still have a number oh positive obtcomes. First, they will likelu ce reported
on in the news (at
far too many Americans desire the feeling of They are to be invaded they still fly. They content to have communications slurped up because they can send that email and make that phone call. It's not until they're staring a public fountain from which they are not able to drink because it a printed above that says "Whites Only" that the public will accept that things have gone horribly wrong. I demonstrations would be excellent to see, but not they're anything like the movement, which the wider public against own self It very to get the attention when they do not _feel_ the effects. The public is rather shitty at evaluating and appreciating in the that are and would a much more Think of the Civil Rights March level of mass and concentration. Doubling it would even better. yet, even that basic right to has been severely weakened by the fact that must get a _permit_ to protest in many of the locations that would be tactically This is madness. The is not the Amendment the have to be over the last two centuries. Americans have become very lazy where their rights are concerned, because the vast majority of Americans participate protecting those rights they are violated against factions. paulkoer > The only demonstrations going effect for > to be massive concentrated. That does not mean protests are a > that if none of the protests actually have they > are going to be ignored both officials and your fellow citizens as a > temporary annoyance for they will sympathy. This statement sounds a little defeatist and an excuse for not in demonstrations (since the required _massive_ scale is likely reached, might be of not going). demonstrations, even if do not effect will still a of they will likely be reported on the (at
 far too many Americans desire The
feeling And thEatEr oF sEcurIty. THey are content tO Be inVaded at airport
security BecauSe _EVentUAlLy_ theY can stiLL fLY. theY aRe ConTeNT tO have
TheIr commuNications sLurPeD up because thEY cAn still senD thAt email and
maKe tHat phoNe CalL.

it's noT unTil thEy're stARing at A public foUnTAin froM Which thEY ArE not
Able to drink becausE It HAs a stupid printEd sign AbOVe IT ThaT saYs "Whites
OnLy" That tHE public WIlL ACCepT That things havE gone horribLY wrOng.

I thInK deMOnstraTions WoULd bE excellent tO see, But not if tHey're aNYthing
lIKe the OcCupy moVemEnt, WhicH ThE wIdeR pUBliC OpPosED agAinst theIr OwN
self InteREST. it is VerY difFiculT to get the publIc's AtteNTioN when They dO
not _FeEl_ the EffectS. The pUbLic is rather shitTy at EvaluatinG anD
aPprEcIatinG Things In tHe aBstract. demonstRAtiOnS THAt Are massive and
conceNtRATeD would haVe a mucH MoRe SIgnificaNt ImpAct. THINk of tHe CiVIl
rights MaRch on WAShInGton. ThaT lEvel of MaSs aNd cOncenTRatiOn. DoubLing it
woUld be EVen better.

And yeT, Even that basic RIgHT To PRoteSt hAs been severEly wEAkenEd by THe
FacT That oNe musT gET a _PErmit_ to protest in manY oF the loCatioNs that
would be Tactically GOOD choices. this IS mADness. The 4th is noT the oNly
AmendmeNT that the peoplE have allOwed to be wEAKened oveR thE laSt tWo
cENTuRies.

Americans HAVe beCoMe very lAzy Where prOteCtiNg tHeiR rIghts are cOncerned,
BeCaUsE tHe vAst maJOrity of AMeRicAnS do Not paRTicipaTe in pRoteCtInG ThoSe
rightS WhEN They ArE vIolaTed AgAinst MinoRIty FactionS.

~~~
paulkoer
> the ONly wAy PuBlic demOnstrations arE gOing to have An EffEct is fOR Them
> to be Massive and concentrated. THAt does nOt mEan wiDespRead proteSts Are a
> baD idEA per se, But thaT if noNe Of tHE ProteSTS aCtuAlLy have mass, THEy
> aRe goiNg To be Ignored By both officials and YOur Fellow citizenS as A
> temPORaRy aNNoYAncE fOR whICH they will hold liTtle sympatHy.

tHiS statement SOunDs A little DefeatiSt and GIves an eXcuse for nOt
particiPaTing IN DemOnstrationS (since thE required _MAssivE_ ScAle is LikEly
not ReAchEd, one Might bE BetTer of Not goiNg).

actualLy demOnStrationS, even if they do not effect iMmediaTe chaNge, Will
still HavE A nuMber of posItivE outcomes. FIrsT, thEy wilL liKEly be RepoRTeD
on IN the nEws (aT
 far too many Americans de sire the
f eelin g a ndth eate r of  security. The y  are  content to be invaded  at a ir p orts ec urity  becaus e  _ e v ent ua ll y_th e ycan s til l fly.They are c ont en t to have
th e ir  communica tio ns slurped u p b ecause  t hey can s til l sen d that emailand
maketh a t phon e  call.I t' s no t until they're s t ar i ng at a public  fount ai n  f r o m w hic h they are  n ot
ab l e to dr i nk b e cau s e it has a st upid printe d  si gn abo ve  it that s ays " Wh i tes 
Only" that  the  public w ill ac c ept tha t  things  havegon e h orri b ly  w ron g. 
It hi nkd emo nstratio ns  w ouldbe e x c e l lent  to  see , but  not if they' reanyt h ing 
like  theOccu py  move ment,which  t he wider public  opp osed agai nst  t hei rown
s e lf int ere st.  It isvery di f fic ul t t oget the public's a tt e n ti on whenthey d o 
n ot _feel_ t he  ef fect s .  Thepubl i cis rathe r shit t yat  evalua ti ng and 
a ppr eci ating thin gs inthe abst ract. Demonstrations that are mass i ve a nd conc ent rated would  hav e  a m uchm or e s i gnifi cantim p ac t . Think of the Civi lRights  Marc h on Washingt on. That l e v e l of mas s an d  c o ncentration. D oubli ng it
woul d  be even  bett er.

And  yet, eve n that bas icrig httop r ot est has beens e vere ly  weaken edby thefac t t hat  on emust geta _permi t_  t opr ote st in many ofth e l oc ati ons t h at
wou ld be  tac ti ca l lygood ch o ic e s . Th is  i s ma dne ss . The  4th isnot the  only
Ame ndm e nt t ha tthe Peo ple have allo we d to be we ak ene d over t he lasttwo
centuries.

America n s havebec ome v erylazy wher e p rotect ing theirrights  areco nce r n ed,
b e c au seth e vast maj o r ity  of A me rica ns do n ot participate inp rot ecting thoserig htsw h en  th e ya revi o lat e d  against minori ty faction s. 
~ ~~
paulkoe r 
>Th e onlyway pub lic d e monstra tions are  going to  h avea n  ef fect is fo r them
>  to be ma s sivea nd  conc ent rated.  T hat  does  not m e anwides preadpr otests  area> bad id ea per se, but that ifnone o f the  pr otests ac tua l lyhave mass , th ey
> are g oin g t o beign o red b y bo t hoff i cials  and your fell o wcit i z en s as a
> te m p o rar y ann oya n ce for  whi ch they will hold little sympath y.
T h issta t emen tsounds a littl e d ef e a tist and  g ives an exc use forno t 
part icipat ing in  demons t r at i ons (s ince  th e require d _ ma s sive_ s ca le is lik elyno t reac hed, o n e mi g h t be better of n ot go i n g).
A ctu allyde monstra t ions , even ifthey do not  effec t im media te chan ge , will 
st il l have a n u mber of p ositi ve outc om es.Fir st, th ey w i l l lik elybe  re ported
on i nt he  n e ws(at
 far_too many_Americans desire the
feeling and_theater of_security._They are_content_to be invaded_at airport
security because__eventually_ they can still_fly. They are_content_to have
their communications slurped up because they can still send that email and
make that_phone_call.

It's not_until_they're_staring at a public fountain_from which they are not
able_to drink_because it has a stupid printed sign above_it_that says "Whites
Only"_that the public will accept that things have gone_horribly wrong.

I think demonstrations would be_excellent to see,_but_not_if they're anything
like the_Occupy movement, which the wider public_opposed against their own
self interest. It_is very difficult to get the public's_attention when they do
not _feel_ the_effects. The public is rather_shitty at_evaluating and
appreciating things in the_abstract. Demonstrations that_are massive_and
concentrated would have_a much more significant impact. Think_of the Civil
Rights_March on Washington. That level of_mass_and concentration. Doubling_it
would_be_even better.

And_yet, even that_basic_right to_protest_has been severely weakened by the
fact_that_one must get a _permit_ to protest_in many of the_locations_that
would be tactically good_choices. This is madness. The_4th is not the only
Amendment that_the People_have allowed_to be weakened over the last two
centuries.

Americans have become very lazy_where protecting their rights are concerned,
because_the vast majority of_Americans do_not_participate in protecting_those
rights_when they_are violated against minority factions.

~~~
paulkoer
> The only_way public_demonstrations are going to have an_effect is for them
>_to_be massive and concentrated. That does_not mean widespread protests are a
>_bad idea per se, but_that_if_none of the protests actually_have mass, they
> are going to_be ignored by_both officials and your fellow citizens as_a
>_temporary annoyance for which they will_hold_little sympathy.

This statement sounds a little_defeatist_and_gives an excuse for not
participating_in demonstrations (since the required _massive__scale is likely
not reached, one might be better of_not going).

Actually demonstrations,_even if they do not_effect_immediate_change, will
still have a number of positive outcomes. First, they_will likely_be reported
on in_the news (at