Yes, it’s possible. Any system built by people can be destroyed by people.

Now, of course, there would be a reaction. What specifically that would be I can’t say. I’d like to think it would cause serious blowback, but I’m also pretty jaded and don’t really have that much faith in people all the time.

Great example! These little turns of phrases and wordplay that reveal the incredible right-wing bias of our media are all over the place if you learn how to look for them.

Another great example you see all the time is “office involved shooting” whenever someone is shot by police. It’s always something like “John Smith died after an officer involved shooting” or “a gun was discharged in an officer involved shooting that resulted in the death of Jane Smith.” Where it should be “Officer Joe Blow murdered John and Jane Smith.”

Those of us who pay attention know.

However, the media ecosystem is INCREDIBLY conservative and pumps out the rah-rah jingoism whenever it can. Those of who just stick to the mainstream echochambers think the US is a bastion of freedom and peace.

At the Tesla protests, yes. it’s mostly standing there with signs and chanting. At the one I attend, the dealership is on a major road with a TON of traffic. People line the street on either side stretching for about 1/2 a mile. The first protest had a bunch of people at the front door of the dealership, but police came and arrested one person. Since then, there has always been a police presence right at the front door. The cops tend to leave us alone if don’t go up to the door of the dealership. A couple of times every hour a group will organize to try to block the road. They’ll usually hold the space for about 5 minutes before the police come and force everyone back to the sidewalks. The point here is to challenge authority.

On a broader scale (I attend a LOT of protests), it depends on the protest. At those that are planned and coordinated by a larger organization (think the Women’s March, March for Science, etc) there’s usually a stage with a series of speakers “preaching to the choir” to energize the crowd. There’s lost of people chanting in unison various slogans/chants. Usually there’s a single rallying point where the speeches happen, then there will often be a march from that point to somewhere else. Along the route the crowd shuts down the streets, chants, carry signs, etc. The point here to make connections with like-minded people and demonstrate that there is popular support for whatever issue/concern there is.

At less coordinated protests without a central organizing committee (think the 2017 airport protests, the 2020 uprising) there’s not as much of set “schedule of events”. It’s more of a way for a community to express their collective anger/fear/outrage/etc. The specific goal will depend more on the specific event. For example, the 2017 airport protests were against the first version of Trump’s Muslim Ban. People entering the US from the countries he had tried to ban people from were being held in holding rooms at airports. A large number of activists showed up at airports where those people were being held and the sheer numbers and anger we were expressing got the people working at the airports to let the people go. There were also immigration lawyers who showed up to those protests. When the people in holding were released, they had legal representation right there waiting to support them. The 2020 uprising events were about showing that people weren’t afraid of the police and wouldn’t be silenced by police violence.

At every protest I’ve ever been at, there are always people from various organizations walking through the crowd trying to get people to sign up. Sometimes it’s just collecting names/emails/phone numbers for a fundraising list. Sometimes it’s staffers for politicians raising signatures to get on a ballot, or to get a referendum on a ballot. Sometimes it’s activist organizations trying to get people who might be willing to take further actions.

As virtually every protest winds down, there’s usually a group of people, almost always not affiliated with the “official event” who organize to continue taking action, typically less sanctioned, and dubiously legal actions.

Most protests don’t achieve their immediate goal. That’s how it’s always been. The way we tend to talk about it, any given movement or event has 3 sets of goals: short-term/immediate goals, mid-terms goals, and long-term goals. We usually fail at the short-term goals (although not always). But we’re almost always successful at the medium- and long-term goals. These Tesla protests, for example. The short-term/immediate goal is to shut down the specific dealership we’re protesting at. That has only happened where police presence has been light and where protesters are willing to take illegal action and get arrested (which is always a minority of protesters). This goal has largely been unsuccessful. The medium-term goal is to destroy the Tesla brand so much that the stock price plummets. This is already happening. After the election, Tesla stock prices skyrocketed. Since the protests started, the stock price has already dropped back to where it was before the election, wiping out all that value added since the election. Keep this up, and we’ll hopefully force it even farther down. If we’re lucky, they’ll have to start closing dealerships. The long-term goal is to remove Musk and Trump from power. Obviously, that hasn’t happened yet, but that’s why it’s a long-term goal.

Expecting consistency between beliefs and actions from bigots and fascists is a mistake.

There were well over 1000 people at the protest I was at on Saturday…

Next Saturday (April 5) is supposed to be a huge day of protest across the country, notably with a very large demonstration planned for the National Mall in DC. I plan to be at that one.

You can guess what happens next?

He fixed the cable?

Also, dude, Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.

I’m not talking about the guys who built the fucking railroad here.

Communism is just a red herring!

Governments were formed and exist to protect property rights. As much as they can be said to have an underlying purpose, it’s to protect property rights, and those who own more property will always have a greater level of protection.

The thing the liberal revolutions of the 19th century, socialist revolutions of the 20th century, and the development of social democracies in the 20th century taught governments is that there comes a point where wealth inequality gets so extreme that it threatens the stability of government, which poses the largest possible threat to property rights. Governments learned that they need to have some form of wealth redistribution in order to prevent a violent revolution. To the degree that governments do address wealth inequality, it’s focused on doing it just enough to prevent the system from collapsing.

That’s why there’s really nobody focused on complete wealth equality. They don’t want that. They want to maintain status quo property rights.

I’d call it “teasing” or “play” rather than “trolling”. Trolling has a bit of a mean connotation to it where as teasing/play is more, well, playful.

But, yes, after a certain point babies/infants do understand teasing play. That’s essentially what games like peek-a-boo are. Babies don’t have real object permanence until they’re 8-12 months. That is, they don’t fully have the ability to recognize that a thing still exists when it is not within their site/sensory perception until they’re 8-12 months. (It gradually develops, so they’ll gain more and more object permanence as they get older rather than just turning on all of a sudden.) When you play peek-a-boo, you’re using this lack of fully developed object permanence to tease them. They won’t recognize it as teasing at first, but they get it pretty quickly. That’s why they laugh and have fun with it.

I’m not a liberal. Thanks.

OK, buddy. You’re wrong on like every point, but you go on believing whatever you want.

That is, in fact, how the world works. And communists are leftists…

Just throwing this out there, the fascists and reactionaries have 0 qualms with having a bunch of kids. Do you want the generation of people who will be running the world when we’re old to be entirely raised by fascists and reactionaries? Where will future leftists come from if not from present leftists?

This completely contradicts your earlier point:

People that don’t want children usually think of the potential wellbeing of a future human. People that do want children, usually do so for selfish reasons.

Are you choosing to not have kids (which is a perfectly fine and morally defensible decision to make) because you’re thinking of the potential wellbeing of a future human, or for the selfish reason that it would make your socioeconomic situation more difficult?

Again, simply saying “I just don’t want to have kids” is perfectly fine. But you tried to moralize it by saying people who do have kids are selfish and those who don’t are altruistic. Yet the reason you gave for not having kids was selfish.

I am very much a leftist (anarchist, to be specific). I have 2 kids and I absolutely LOVE being a dad. It’s the single most fulfilling and enjoyable thing I’ve done in my entire life.

If you don’t want kids, that’s perfectly fine. Kids need a loving an nurturing home, and if someone is unwilling to provide that, they shouldn’t have kids just to have them. But I also don’t think there’s anything wrong with having kids if you want them.

From an ideologically leftist perspective (which absolutely should NOT be the determining factor in having kids), remember how much focus the fascists put on family and kids. They are having plenty of kids who will be raised with their fascist ideology. Do you really want the generation who will be running the world when we’re old to be entirely raised by fascists?

I didn’t have kids because of my politics, but I’m happy to know that at least 2 future adults will be raised by me with my values.

most don’t seem to want to have children either for the uncertainty of the future or because they are too expensive or because it wouldn’t give them too much time to organize or whatever

I’d just say that every single one of these factors has been in play for virtually all of history and yet people still had kids and were able to do great things. John Brown had like 20 kids, but that didn’t stop him from fighting slavery. Nestor Makhno had a daughter. Our world is nowhere near as dire as the one Makhno lived in, and he built an entire anarchist society. What do you think the birth rate in places like Rojava is?

These aren’t very good reasons to not have kids, they’re just justifications people pull out when they feel like saying “I just don’t want kids” isn’t good enough. It is. if you don’t want kids, that’s fine. Don’t try to make up some reason why others who do shouldn’t.

Summer.

I grew up in a desert and LOVE the heat. Doesn’t matter if it’s humid or dry, so long as it’s hot I’m happy. And I HATE the cold. If I have to wear long pants and/or long sleeves to stay warm, it’s too cold out.

I think the answer is yes to both.