Thread "Collateral damage of tribalist pseudo political activism " in forum "Comic Talk and General Discussion *"

Posted at 10:06AM, Jun. 12, 2019

Crowds give courage to cowards.

I think that, if you want to lawfully demonstrate, you should need to get a sponsor. And the sponsor is liable for any damage caused by the demonstrators, including broken faces and tort suits for assault and battery. That might at least encourage some self policing.

And the individual offenders wouldn't get off scott free, as the sponsors can always pursue them to recoup any fees incurred on their behalf.

Posted at 7:06AM, Jun. 14, 2019

El Cid wrote:
Crowds give courage to cowards.

I think that, if you want to lawfully demonstrate, you should need to get a sponsor. And the sponsor is liable for any damage caused by the demonstrators, including broken faces and tort suits for assault and battery. That might at least encourage some self policing.

And the individual offenders wouldn't get off scott free, as the sponsors can always pursue them to recoup any fees incurred on their behalf.

…but then you're heading for rights restrictions. Its a dodgy area. Maybe not in the USA, where unionism, etc. was crushed severely way back, but most countries got their current levels of freedom, such as they are, via broken windows and broken ribs and the odd casualty in demonstrations, strike and riots. Fewer U.K. people were shot than in the U.S. (although Churchill was responsible for some in Wales early last century) A people get pushed just that extra 'straw' and the 'camel' collapses - hence week, what 26 ?, of the Gilets Jaune riots en France. A crowd operates at its lowest common denominator, unfortunately though, plus there are often 'state agents' in the crowd to "lower the tone" and discredit the whole (happened in Britain, when I lived there).
Personally, I wouldn't exactly class myself as an empath, but I always had a bad vibe in big crowds, always scanning for the exits, etc. Even going to the rugby, when it was standing only and 'cosily' pressed together. My Dad was looking taller than usual on the way out one time. He'd got separated from me and I saw him over shoulders. He had been picked up by the sheer crush and carried through the gates. I saw him visibly 'plop' down, as the crowd thinned outside . I found that scary . Never went again for years, until seating became standard .
I don't have a lot of faith in humanity as a whole. I only like them as individuals, or in small groups !

Posted at 8:06AM, Jun. 14, 2019

I only like them as individuals, or in small groups !

I agree. Mobs of people, hashtags…everything has to be some kind of movement and the most 'revolutionary' become the flag bearers of any given movement…but the same people are usually fairly rational when they're by themselves

Posted at 10:06AM, Jun. 14, 2019

Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds was written in the early 19th century.

The crowd madness versus individual rationality has been known about a long time.

Any casual glance at the peasant rebellions of the Middle Ages or the French Revolution makes that plain.

And America got its freedom through an eight year war. A very costly war that even pitted neighbor against neighbor. Or at least in New Jersey and the Carolinas.

And then again a four year long civil war eighty years later. The US has a bloodless revolution every four years. That's what the founders intended and wrote about at the time.

But Paris has always had its bloody mobs. Nothing has changed except the clothing and what they burn.

People who preach Revolution often end up the victims of the very crowds they inspired. Just ask the Jacobins.

Posted at 7:06AM, Jun. 15, 2019

bravo1102 wrote:

Any casual glance at the peasant rebellions of the Middle Ages or the French Revolution makes that plain.

And America got its freedom through an eight year war. A very costly war that even pitted neighbor against neighbor.

But Paris has always had its bloody mobs. Nothing has changed except the clothing and what they burn.

People who preach Revolution often end up the victims of the very crowds they inspired. Just ask the Jacobins.

Yes, all this is true, but doesn't negate the necessity of them, when the alternative is simply perpetual endurance of tyranny. It's SO much nicer when you can remove it via the ballot box, but history teaches us that that's a bit of a luxury. There's also the paradox of ballot-box-created governments creating tyranny elsewhere, as we're seeing over the past 5 decades or so of the USA's little "regime-change hobby'

As far as the American Revolution is concerned, I could never understand why the USA couldn't understand how a poorly equipped 'shoeless' bunch of farmers in Vietnam could defeat the then strongest army on the planet, when in its history there was an example of… how a poorly equipped 'shoeless' bunch of farmers in America could defeat the then strongest army on the planet

B-)

Posted at 1:06PM, Jun. 15, 2019

They did a study of all the violent upheavals throughout history. With a few notable exceptions they all led to greater tyranny.

Especially look at the history of Republican Rome.

And after Tet'68, the "shoeless" farmers had been conclusively defeated and the war became an invasion of the South by the People's Army of Viet Nam. The Viet Cong were a mere shadow used for propaganda.

And after the entry of France into the AWI in 1778, the British had to downsize their commitment to the 13 colonies to fight in other parts of their empire. Edmund Burke was ready to vote the Americans independence in Parliament so Britain could fight France, but the king wouldn't hear of it.

It's really a false analogy. There's the nice mythology and there's what really happened and why.