Okay, Zinegata, you see, your posts are vomit. Straight-up puke on the screen. That is what they are. If you really want honest debates or communication (hahahaha no you don't, and you never did), then you probably shouldn't post godawful shit. But I'll do my best to respond to this without turning this post into "Opus 31: Variations on a Middle Finger, Standing Alone". However, I am going to break this down into a point-by-point, because I can.
Bakustra is not advocating actions that are not merely "not state-sanctioned". He is advocating means that are clearly illegal
You're also wrong with point b), and indeed I wasn't lying at all- you are still treating protest as inferior to voting by assuming that the end-stage is a vote. Votes are part of democracy, but there are so many reasons that you might vote for someone that you can't translate your opinions into anything particularly concrete unless you're an actual single-issue voter. Protest, on the other hand, allows you to articulate positions and communicate them to the power-holders. They are equally important as a means of seizing the reins of power and trying to direct the state.
You know that part where Bakustra says that voting is not the end stage? Take a look at the word "revolution", because that's where it's gonna head.
This is why I made a post that consisted of nothing but yelling at you. You're so fucking far from "reasonable" that I fail to see how I can frame things beyond saying "You're wrong" only with more swears and feeble jokes. Your tone is not the problem. What is the problem is that you're either absolutely fucking insane, or you're deliberately playing dumb in order to call me vaguely nasty names. And since you could be calling me a fucking Nazi pedophile coprophiliac and making as much sense at this point, I could only conclude insanity.
Bakustra is saying that protests allow people to articulate positions and communicate them to the power-holders, and hence allowing you to seize the reins of powers... but you do not seize the reins of power by "debating" the other side into submission by protests. That's a bullshit idea and you know it. Protests that "seize the reins of power" without voting as the end state are ultimately revolutions - which in some cases can end peacefully (EDSA, Velvet, etc), in many cases violently (i.e. French Revolution).
What the fuck? What the fuck? You think that power is all hard power. This is exactly what you are fucking saying here- that the only way to direct power (which is what "seizing the reins" means, as a figure of speech, have you never read a book with horse-riding in?) is through control, aka hard power. You can also make use of soft power. Mass letter-writing campaigns, protests, and so on are all means of using soft power, aka influence, to convince politicians to do what you want. So are campaign contributions. E.g., in daily life, you can either threaten people, or ask them nicely. Threatening is hard power, asking them nicely is soft power. So are other non-coercive attempts to convince people. Revolutions are exertions of hard power. There are some clear differences between the two.
By the way, you have an odd fixation with the French Revolution. Why in God's name would you use it, and not the Russian Revolution? That's another reason why I conclude you to be insane- your choice of insults (e.g. Jacobin) are largely bizarre and strange. Why go for comparing people with Robespierre when you can compare them with Stalin or Mao and have it seem equally reasonable to the outside observer?
In a working democratic state, protests have largely been pushed further and further to the foreground in importance largely because of the power of accurate polling. It is silly to think that you need protests to "articulate" a position - when polls already do so regularly. The protests in Winsconsin did jack squat to stop the anti-union laws from being signed, but the widespread anger against the laws (which showed up in the polls even before the protests) is triggering a more effective backlash - in the form of recall elections which could cost Walker his job.
So again, protests are as important or even more importan than voting in a working democratic system? That's bullshit. Bluntly, lobbyists have been more effective at playing these influence and articulation games, and they don't need to organize protests.
Protests are largely useless in a working democratic state. Protests that attempt to "seize the reins of power" ultimately lead to revolution (which is again the apparent hope of some OWS members, which is what is discreditting the movement) unless the organizers get half a brain and realize they should have formed a political party and gain votes from the get-go instead. Denying that voting is the end state is to deny yourself any chance of victory, or an admission that you're advocating revolution.
Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The disparity between what Americans want, on average, (a social-democratic welfare state which does its best to ensure a good future for all its children), and what American politicians will give them, on average (a dysfunctional semi-corporatist state with token welfare which fucks most of its children over out of sheer stupidity) shows that polls are not an effective replacement for political action.
But what you're seeing is that once a politician showed himself to be uncaring about what his constituents thought or wanted, they proceeded to try and use hard power to force him out of office. Now, I know you're feeling the slightest tinge of smugness right about now (if you think that I'm "putting words in your mouth" at this point you're the world's most sophisticated spambot), but I never said that voting was bad. I said that it wasn't enough and indeed it isn't. Without those protests, we wouldn't have as much information with which to determine that the recall efforts are a response to Walker's attempt to kill unions that didn't vote for him. And neither would the other politicians looking to try and offer up the unions as a sacrifice to the god of the market. So this sends a clear warning to them.
Now then, a warning to the dull: the previous paragraphs made use of literary devices such as hyperbole, metaphors, and other kinds of figurative language. Following paragraphs will continue to do so. I apologize to my erudite readers for this, but I felt that it may be necessary.
The goal of a number of the protesters and of the Tea Party is to counter the influence of lobbyists, because they feel that giving the rich and powerful sole control over the- okay, that's a little too advanced. Let's fucking break this down. Okay- what you are advocating is that the average person does nothing but vote and the lobbyists are the only ones that influence politicians. Guess what, shithead? This renders the government anti-democratic and based on rule by the elites! Because the lobbyists are the ones who finance each campaign and inform each candidate, rule is based on how much money you can afford to give and the average citizen is only able to choose between whichever candidates the lobbyists decide are cool. If they attempt to form their own political party designed to counter this influence, they receive no money and are not allowed to try and inform people without becoming "anarchists". Looks like you're doing a pretty good job of tying your own noose there, but I felt I had to warn you before you finished it.
Every revolutionary eventually wants laws and governments so that they can run the country the way they want to. That's the point of a revolution. Topple the old system and replace it with a new that conforms with what you want
The purpose of voting is to give people an opportunity to elect - and if necessary remove - candidates so that they can get the laws and kind of government they want to.
No. Anarchists wish to be rid of laws, governments, and formalized hierarchies because they find these things to be inherently immoral. That is the definition of what an anarchist is. You can define "anarchist" as something different, but it's only a reminder that you're a madman and I don't see why I should have to turn and turn concepts and ideas to force those square pegs into the round holes of your mind.
Because again, if you do not ultimately aim for changing the results in the ballot box, you are not accomplishing anything.
If you want to affect change ANYWAY without going through the ballot box,
You're the people who keep panicking things like Gitmo will result in a "slippery slope" to a police state. It's my turn to say this is a slippery slope towards anarchy, and a pointless one at that unless they actually start changing votes!
Prove it. Prove that the only way protests have ever changed anything is through the ballot box. You are making a definite assertion here, so you should be proving it. If you want the right for people to take you seriously when you complain about "ad hominem", then you've got to hold yourself to a higher standard than just babbling mad.
Now, if disobedience to the law is a slippery slope towards anarchy (which apparently you don't really believe + you're a horrible shithead), then everyone I know who's driven a car, bar my saintly mother and one of great-grandmothers, may she rest in peace, is driving society towards anarchy by speeding. That is something which logically follows from "disobey law=anarchy!!", and if you don't like it, I suppose you'd have to prove that protest is anarchism, which would be hilarious if you were sane enough to realize the difficulty of it. As it is, you're tiresome and I feel like I'm on the verge of yelling again.
Would you prefer I tell him he can choose between being stupid or an anarchist the next time, and still have the same result of a steaming pile of bullshit ad-hominems?
Because I will note that he totally disregarded everything else I posted in favor of cherry-picking; because he's not interested to debate. He's just interested in mud-slinging.
Why should I debate with someone who is honest-to-god insane? Would you try and convince a paranoid schizophrenic that he was wrong about, say, his feelings of persecution? Well, you
might, (ohhh nooo an ass homynem) but most people realize that it's pointless to try and argue, and instead you should try and get them help in the form of medicine and psychiatric aid. But you, however, do not have any such medical condition to evoke sympathy for your plight. You have simply stepped off of reality and gone, to be technical, cuckoo for cocoa puffs. So I don't see why I should be forced to attempt to engage in debate with someone who believes that civil disobedience is anarchy. Unless you wish to come out as an authoritarian, in which case you're actively contemptible.
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
- The Handle, from the TVTropes Forums