Thread: Understanding Activist/extremists

People like to deal in black and whites. Soon as the water becomes muddied, your support falls apart. It's easier if everyone gets on the bandwagon.

Think about the reaction of the membership if the NRA came out and said:

Trigger locks are required.
No maximum magazine size.
Hollow points are illegal.
Fully automatic is ok.

You'd have a lot of people arguing, wouldn't you? (And you'll have to excuse me. I know nothing about firearms, though I support your right to have them&#33

Instead, they make the blanket statement to protect your right to bear arms. Similarly, the ACLU has to defend civil rights no matter how much they hate they're defending the KKK's right to a parade.

ZOMG you guys read this up:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...av=rss_politics
it's the psychology of partisan thought. verrrrrrry interesting!

Originally Posted by Dangeruss

ZOMG you guys read this up:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...av=rss_politics
it's the psychology of partisan thought. verrrrrrry interesting!
[/b]

Yes. I am not surprised that our own physiological behavior is behind most things. This really puts emphasis on trying to be open mined. It is tough for all of us.

Instead, they make the blanket statement to protect your right to bear arms. Similarly, the ACLU has to defend civil rights no matter how much they hate they're defending the KKK's right to a parade.[/b]

The ACLU is a great example of my point. They will stick up for their own ethnic group even if they are the provocateurs. It sucks.
Similar to policeman. They will stand behind crooked policemen because the simple fact that they are one of their own.
Being aware of these things are the beginning to understanding them.
Fixing them...uuuh well, that is for another day.

Great link, Dangeruss!

Howetzer: I'm not sure I understand what you mean by sticking up for your own ethnic group when referring to the ACLU.

I think I know where you were going, though.

Yeah I may be jumoing to conclusions but ti appears you're exemplifying a classic conservative opinion of the ACLU, they, in fact, only stand for rights and freedom, and for the government to stay out of such rights, they have defended anyone, whether religious or not, to practice their beliefs in their expression and their dress, not just the secular ones, but the onky coverage you get of the ACLU is when they're defending people trying to express their secular beliefs, rather than people trying to express their religious beliefs. The ACLU has even defend the KKKs right to parade, as was mentioned above.

Bujt aside from that I agree, as a heavy activist myself I often find that people in my organizations dislike the way I handle things because I mud the water, sort of speak, I try to see what actually works even if it means, to some, I'm giving in to the opposition's demans. I don't see it that way, and I've strugg;ed very hard not to. it's taken me a while, but slowly I've stripped away this idea that I'm on the left and the enemy is on the right. I have beliefs and opinions but in the end I don't believe in the beatles, I just believe in me. It's something we have to work towards, I think, if we want to get anything done.

And what's worse, in this two army (rather than party) system, everyone ends up fixated on worthless issues. Abortion... for instance. You can disagree with it, but why is there more fuss over it than the fact that all the jobs are getting sucked away because the people in other countries are being taken advantage of? Why are our priorities over the rights of an unborn child moreso than the rights of the ill-treated human beings all over the world? If a President said something like, "I will call for a trade embargo on all companies that don't pay their employees living wages" (which would cut down outsourcing a lot) and then also said, "I will allow gays to adopt children," people would be up in arms that he's allowing gays to raise kids, but not give two shits that he's actually going to try and do something about outsourcing and sweatshops. It pisses me off, I hate extremism. I am a... moderate acitivst. I believe what I believe very storngly, but I'm beyond right and left.

It is hard for any of us to say what vice one person has over the next. So abortion may be to one person far more important than trade embargoes.
As far as the ACLU or better yet the NAACP, are extremists and their exploitation is a result of their overzealousness and biased conclusions.
And just because I belong to the NRA I am pointing out that they are no different. They are scrutinized for bad publicity as well. Each association's enemy is just waiting to exploit their mistakes and weaknesses.
It is the system. And it really doesn't work too effectively either way.

Howie, you are absolutely right. the NAACP and the ACLU are both extremist organizations that simply do not look out for the people they are supposed to be looking out for. I would go so far as to say that they hurt the black population more than help. They manipulate the image of the black man in order to further their extremist agenda, hiding behind a righteous pretense while doing their best not to confront any of the real problems in our society. The NRA has the same problem. It's supposed to be about protecting your right to own a gun, but the decisions they make and the rabble they rouse are both unwise and unproductive. I don't even see what the point of being a pro-gun extremist is in the first place, because disarming america would literally be one hell of a battle and gun owners really don't have much to worry about yet. I mean let's get the first amendment reinstated before freaking out about the second amendment, which is itself not going anywhere.

It's the same reason I hate michael moore. He uses a liberal pretense and blatant propaganda to further his own self righteous goals, meanwhile making the rest of us look bad and probably prolonging the problem.

Oh GOSH Dangeruss.. Why did you have to bring up Michael Moore.
Just when I gave an effort to understanding them I am now back to the beginning.

The man who takes things out of context to fulfill exactly what we are bitching about.

don't worry howie, he's hated by anyone capable of critical thought. Michael Moore, if you're reading this, then take my advice: if you're going to try to convince people of something without legitimate evidence then at least learn to play guitar. No one wants to see you on screen for 90 minutes preaching misguided politics unless you're shredding some nasty guitar licks at the same time and screaming at the top of your lungs.

Originally Posted by Dangeruss

don't worry howie, he's hated by anyone capable of critical thought. Michael Moore, if you're reading this, then take my advice: if you're going to try to convince people of something without legitimate evidence then at least learn to play guitar. No one wants to see you on screen for 90 minutes preaching misguided politics unless you're shredding some nasty guitar licks at the same time and screaming at the top of your lungs.
[/b]

That is what scares me!

Well I love Michael Moore, his documentaries like Roger and Me were very well thought out and well researched. Bowling for Columbine had the thing with a speech with Charleton Heston where he was wearing two different suits because of Michael Moore's editting, and in Fahrenheight 9/11 he was misleading in saying no congressman had a child serving in Iraq, and always said "in Iraq" when in fact there were plenty of Congressmen who had children who were serving, just none in Iraq.

But if you guys don't like a film-maker who argue an opinion that disagrees with you, then that's your choice, doesn't mean you can exaggerate what he's doing, or you're sinking to his level, and in fact that's what he's doing, sinking to the elvel of the people he opposes, taking things out of context, painting things a certain way, looking at facts in a filtering way so he doesn't give the entire picture. I know most people with politics very close to your side, Howetzer, who loved Michael Moore back when he was focusing on bipartisan issues like in Roger and Me, and even in Bowling for Columbine he attacked the NRAs reaction to Columbine, but with his thing on Canada in that movie he even showed he didn't think it was the countries stance on gun control, with his entire argument on Canada he talked about how gun control really isn't the problem, proportionately the Canadians own far more guns than the US.

Yeah, and these friends of mine didn't really hate Michael Moore until he did something that disagreed with them, attacked Bush. This goes back to the very heart of this discussion, extremism. i still like Michael moore because so far he hasn't attacked an issue I disagree with. I support the second amendement but guess what, so does he! Maybe once he attacks something I agree with, I'll be in the same bed with the rest of you, all angry and pissed off saying it's propaganda and yadda-yadda-yadda.

But anyway, moving on, I think the best example of Extremism are unions. I hate lobbyism, I hate lobbyists, and the reason is because they're only interested in what helps their company/union, at the expense of everyone else. For instance, the Prison Guard union is the msot powerful union in California, their lobbyists mean business, and keep bribing officials to build more prisons, not better ones that actually serve as rehabilitational facilities, but in fact, Criminal Colleges. They might as well hand out degrees in how to be a criminal at these prisons, and if these union lobbyists and company lobbyists, and their superiors could gain some perspective they'd see they're tearing the country apart.

Good grief man. If you do know both sides of the story it is soo utterly obvious that he exploits what he wants people to see. Do you think he was knocking on anyone;s door that WAS locked to ask them if they need to lock their doors in Canada. Do you think that the excerpts taken from his commentaries are not excluding the "other side" of the story?
The point of the entire topic is agree or disagree, all sides do it. But Mr. Moore is a sad man and a disgrace to society.
Why does he not live in Canada? Money making fat peace of shit!!!!!!!!!& #33;!!!!!

On a lighter note.......... Yes Unions are bad. Or most of them.
There problem is they push and push until things are unbalanced. Greed. The similarities are all there.

Originally Posted by Howetzer

Good grief man. If you do know both sides of the story it is soo utterly obvious that he exploits what he wants people to see. Do you think he was knocking on anyone;s door that WAS locked to ask them if they need to lock their doors in Canada. Do you think that the excerpts taken from his commentaries are not excluding the "other side" of the story?
The point of the entire topic is agree or disagree, all sides do it. But Mr. Moore is a sad man and a disgrace to society.
Why does he not live in Canada? Money making fat peace of shit!!!!!!!!!& #33;!!!!!

On a lighter note.......... Yes Unions are bad. Or most of them.
There problem is they push and push until things are unbalanced. Greed. The similarities are all there.

[/b]

Just like to thank you for reading my post very carefully and noting that i mentioned I know Michael Moore doesn't take both sides of the story, I mentioned I know that very clearly, but that because he's an extremist he gets ragged on for doing the same stuff the people you agree with do.

I like unions, by the way, I loooooove unions. We need unions, I just hate lobbyism.

idk id just like to add that I live in canada, i dont lock my door...noone I know locks their doors...(i dont mean we don't lock them when we go away for a long time...but my doors are almost always open...) but you;re right he's not gonna show the locked doors.

but with his thing on Canada in that movie he even showed he didn't think it was the countries stance on gun control, with his entire argument on Canada he talked about how gun control really isn't the problem, proportionately the Canadians own far more guns than the US.[/b]

huh?

haha I wounldn't think a man as great at making money as Micheal Moore would be considered as a disgrace to american society.




i hope this wasn't too offtopic..just adding that canadian thing.

I think the saddest thing about most activism is that they take an otherwise worthy cause - campaigning for the better treatment of animals, for example - and abuse it by various methods of extreme protest. Take PETA for example: an orginisation that campaigns essentially for animal rights, yet seems more concerned in the 'act' of protesting and 'boycotting' than actually putting in an effort to change things for the better. This was certainly the case in their recent campaign against the Australian Wool industry, whereby they were more than happy to milk publicity and cause trouble yet when it came to negotiating a positive outcome, PETA became uncooperative and withdrew from talks.

I think that activism, certainly in the form that PETA takes is actually a dangerous thing. Yes, minority views should always be heard and promoted, but when those that are promoting these views are imposing them on others then a line is crossed. Imposing a belief has nothing to do with protest and does the 'cause' no good at all.

Very true Roller. This is where it takes the turn. But to try and understand their point they most likely feel that this is the only action that will get recognized...no?

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

Just like to thank you for reading my post very carefully and noting that i mentioned I know Michael Moore doesn't take both sides of the story, I mentioned I know that very clearly, but that because he's an extremist he gets ragged on for doing the same stuff the people you agree with do.

I like unions, by the way, I loooooove unions. We need unions, I just hate lobbyism.
[/b]

Wooo. Who is the extremist? Maybe it is me. I apologize for getting worked up.
It was noted that he and others take things out of context, that has been going on. But I feel he has taken his views and warped them so much that it is at a disproportionate level of extremest.
Maybe it is just because he is good at what he does. Maybe he should run for a government office.
In either case it is up to you, me or any individual to not believe everything they here. But sadly enough, with all the acclaim he has received, it is evident that most people do not.

But anyway, moving on, I think the best example of Extremism are unions. I hate lobbyism, I hate lobbyists, and the reason is because they're only interested in what helps their company/union, at the expense of everyone else. For instance, the Prison Guard union is the msot powerful union in California, their lobbyists mean business, and keep bribing officials to build more prisons, not better ones that actually serve as rehabilitational facilities, but in fact, Criminal Colleges. They might as well hand out degrees in how to be a criminal at these prisons, and if these union lobbyists and company lobbyists, and their superiors could gain some perspective they'd see they're tearing the country apart.[/b]

The concept of a union is a good one. To protect the workers. But the lobbyist you despise are backed by the very union that you like?
The unions themselves are the ones who need to step up and draw the line derived from the greed of the union members.
What are your thoughts?

Originally Posted by Howetzer

Wooo. Who is the extremist? Maybe it is me. I oppologize for getting worked up.
It was noted that he and others take things out of context, that has been going on. But I feel he has taken his views and warped them so much that it is at a disproportionate level of extremest.
Maybe it is just because he is good at what he does. Maybe he should run for a government office.
In either case it is up to you, me or any indivdual to not beleive everything they here. But sadly enough, with all the acclaim he has recieved, it is eveident that most people do not.

The concept of a union is a good one. To protect the workers. But the lobbyist you dispise are backed by the very union that you like?
The unions themselves are the ones who need to step up and draw the line for the greed of the union.
members.
What are your thoughts?
[/b]

Nowadays the Labor Movement is used to block Political Socialism.

Instead of mobilizing Workers politically to legistlate decent wage structures, Health Care and benefits on a Universal Setting, the Labor Unions, with the blessing of the Fat Cat Establishment, insist that evey tiny local must negotiate subsistence living every two or three years.

The French have REAL Unions, that are national. There is no such thing as a local strike. In France, the entire country goes out and every fat cat is ruined unless they fold and beg on their knees that the Workers come back on any condition.

But in America, the Courts no longer respect the power if the STrike, and Bosses are allowed to ship in scabs. Really, American Labor should teach the Bosses why the Strike was originally accepted as a Compromise Settlement. The Workers should go back to wrecking entire factories. No contract then burn the whole fucking place down. THEN maybe they will begin to honor the Strike again.

But anyway, NOW the Union Movement is in the Hands of the Grey Suit Mafia. The Unions are there to keep the Workers from becoming Socialist, and, OH NO, Communist.

But instead of the anxiety of negotiating contracts every two or three years, and the worries of striking and job insecurity and unemployment, WOULDN'T Socialism be better. A Political Decision to pay every worker well and give every worker Benefits and Health Care.

Screw Unions. The fuckers wear ties now. Just like the PIG.

unions are a prime example of why american labor is such shit. look at the big dig. look at the price of any american-made product. look at how long an american-made product will actually last. it all reeks of corruption. Unions are notoriously corrupt, and I know a few shop owners who have told me that some of them operate similarly to the mob. Here's my experience: when I got a job at stop & shop, I was automatically entered into the union. I was paid less than the non-union shaws employees right down the street. I also received fewer benefits. I also had to ask for my raises, which I never did because I assumed that the union, (which took $7 out of my paycheck every week) would LOOK OUT FOR ME because that's their fucking job. Because of the stop&shop union I worked in worse conditions than in a non-union shop and received fewer benefits, and I had to shell out money that went to some fat, lazy, sonofabitch teamster rather than me, the honest worker.

It seems that it all begins with greed.
If employers would treat their employees with dignity, respect and fairness the union would never have been an issue.
So Union are installed and because of greed it is just one step removed from the same issue. just taken in a different route.

As goes for the actual topic. Although I have made an effort in Understanding Activist/extremists, I have begun to realize this too is greed.
Sure, maybe some people are sincere. If these people were to take a deep look at their selves and the root of their goals, you can see that it is oriented around what they want.

Also all too often you see young impressionable youth being grasped by these concepts. The natural longing to belong to something would super seeds their parties agenda. Often leaving the person feeling lost at some point in their lives.

Boring stuff;

Good points about the labor guys!
My father was a manager for the general Electric Co. He had to work with these Unions. Sometimes on a daily basis. No matter what the employer did the union would fight it. (This goes back to one of the earlier points about sticking up for a group no matter what- blind) I.E. Caught stealing things out of peoples back yards - Get this one * sitting IN a bar while on the clock. As the time sheets were fudged. My father before becoming a manager was a tree trimmer. So he new every street they were to trim like the back of his hand. The sheet said they had trimmed 27 trees. my father, knowing there was only seven or so trees to even trim took a witness and busted them. The union fought that. WTF. That is where your $7.00 went Dangeruss.

I could go on about a few of my wife's activists extremest issues but I think the point is made.

**Actually like in all discussions it is nice to here from an apposing view rather than all toot our own horn.
Are there any activist to shed some light on some of these issues?

activism is simply taking direct action to affect change.

that action can be extreme (e.g. chaining oneself to a 1500 year old tree for 16 months, or getting arrested for refusing to cease non-violent protest at a WTO meeting, or starving oneself on the steps of parliment to draw national attention to poverty)

to me "extremism" is funneling that action solely into fully concrete channels of method and belief, which have become more important than the original spontaneous desire for change.

----
i have attended anti-war, and anti-poverty marches. i am well aware that their impact is usually nominal. however, it is better than doing nothing.

(and yes, during one it was pissing rain howie )

to be truthful, i doubt many people changed their minds on any issue as a result of that particular form of activism.

but it is always nice to be with others who share your same general viewpoint, and see how many of them there are.

and who knows.. maybe one, or a dozen, or a thousand people not tangibly showing their cooperation will say "hey, why are so many people walking in the rain when i'm sitting here watching tv in my little bubble of comfort, oblivious to the extent of poverty in the world?" or "why am i blindly accepting the inevitability of the war in iraq when so many seemingly do not?"

maybe some people will start taking DIRECT action to remedy an injustice, using their everyday actions.
----------
any activist who genuinely seeks positive change in the world (and does so with much more than hypocritical, "showy" actions) is alright in my mind.

---
i'm curious...does anyone here actually dislike activist organizations like Amnesty International?

Unions in the 1890s saved this country. They are not what they used to be, at least in the US, but they're still very necessary on this planet.

It's just they're too focused on what helps them verses they greater good.

And I think Michael Moore is the core of this issue of extremism in the U.S., because he is the ONLY real left wing pundit, besides some bloggers out there and off-key radiohosts (1 left wing pundit for 10 right wing ones on the radio, that's truthy, not facty by the way). So... all this hatred against Michael Moore in singling him out, because he's only person on the left willing to sink to the same level as the rest of the pundits, and take things out of context, only present one side of an issue, manipulate language, etc...

But look at the language in the United States in general... language has been hijacked. The conservative movement uses the same tactics he does, in fact all the ahtred against Michael Moore should be a mirror on the general conservative movement in this country. I mean, since when was liberal a bad word? moderate is the new liberal, liberal is the new radical, and radical is the new terrorist. Everything has shifted right in our lnaguage, and that, to me, is a problem, I think despite how Michaerl Moore edits things to look a certain way, he's necessary and more people like him are to get some balance in this country. We need more of him.

And that is the key to the issue, that's the way everyone feels, the people we look up to, every one of us, tells us, convinces us we're the strong minority in any conflict, that the other side is evil and that we have to do whatever is necessary.

Originally Posted by Dangeruss

unions are a prime example of why american labor is such shit. look at the big dig. look at the price of any american-made product. look at how long an american-made product will actually last. it all reeks of corruption. Unions are notoriously corrupt, and I know a few shop owners who have told me that some of them operate similarly to the mob. Here's my experience: when I got a job at stop & shop, I was automatically entered into the union. I was paid less than the non-union shaws employees right down the street. I also received fewer benefits. I also had to ask for my raises, which I never did because I assumed that the union, (which took $7 out of my paycheck every week) would LOOK OUT FOR ME because that's their fucking job. Because of the stop&shop union I worked in worse conditions than in a non-union shop and received fewer benefits, and I had to shell out money that went to some fat, lazy, sonofabitch teamster rather than me, the honest worker.
[/b]

You're right. Somehow, somewhere, Unions in America were co-opted by the Fat Cat Establishment in order to obstruct the Workers gravitating to Political Socialism and the Legistlation of Fair Wages and Working Conditions and Benefits.

And regarding prices and competition. Any Economy is free to make any other economy PAY for the privelege of participating in its Trade. Why is it exactly that China can enjoy all of the benefits of the American Market while paying absolutely NO TAXES into the American System. Why shouldn't America protect a high living wage?

Look at the History of Protected Economies. What Modern Advanced Economy did not start out with tariffs and Protections to shield its Economy from predatory underpricing? Indeed, nothing is healthier for an economy then to be isolated. When an Economy must supply all aspects of its own infrastructure, it establishes strength and breadth. Yes, the Capitalist Cartels do everything to strangle Credit and ruin any independent Nation, but these isolated Nations do relatively well when they learn how to develop their own capital and currencies.

Free Trade was a strategy America had for conquering the World, but it was a gamble. America thought it would win the competition. Duh. But the Chinese are willing to work twice as long for half as much. Do Americans want to compete for the honor of being the most miserable slaves on earth, or do they want to say enough is enough, and again assert political and economic policies that would Protect Prosperity.

Originally Posted by Dangeruss

It seems that it all begins with greed.
If employers would treat their employees with dignity, respect and fairness the union would never have been an issue.
So Union are installed and because of greed it is just one step removed from the same issue. just taken in a different route.

As goes for the actual topic. Although I have made an effort in Understanding Activist/extremists, I have begun to realize this too is greed.
Sure, maybe some people are sincere. If these people were to take a deep look at their selves and the root of their goals, you can see that it is oriented around what they want.

Also all too often you see young impressionable youth being grasped by these concepts. The natural longing to belong to something would super seeds their parties agenda. Often leaving the person feeling lost at some point in their lives.

Boring stuff;

Good points about the labor guys!
My father was a manager for the general Electric Co. He had to work with these Unions. Sometimes on a daily basis. No matter what the employer did the union would fight it. (This goes back to one of the earlier points about sticking up for a group no matter what- blind) I.E. Caught stealing things out of peoples back yards - Get this one * sitting IN a bar while on the clock. As the time sheets were fudged. My father before becoming a manager was a tree trimmer. So he new every street they were to trim like the back of his hand. The sheet said they had trimmed 27 trees. my father, knowing there was only seven or so trees to even trim took a witness and busted them. The union fought that. WTF. That is where your $7.00 went Dangeruss.

I could go on about a few of my wife's activists extremest issues but I think the point is made.

**Actually like in all discussions it is nice to here from an apposing view rather than all toot our own horn.
Are there any activist to shed some light on some of these issues?
[/b]

Yeah, Howetzer, we got to keep whipping those slaves, don't we?

but do you really think that the inequity in Distribution of Wealth is so very fair. It would not be so bad if some people made 5 times, or even 10 times more than other people. But now the Bosses make 100 or 1000 times more than the Workers underneath them.

And you would flog them for padding hours, or finding some break time, that is the slightest incremental subtraction from what they are being Exploited for.

So screw you and your Capitalist Bullwhips and the bowlegged horses you rode in on...

Originally Posted by Leo

You're right. Somehow, somewhere, Unions in America were co-opted by the Fat Cat Establishment in order to obstruct the Workers gravitating to Political Socialism and the Legistlation of Fair Wages and Working Conditions and Benefits.

And regarding prices and competition. Any Economy is free to make any other economy PAY for the privelege of participating in its Trade. Why is it exactly that China can enjoy all of the benefits of the American Market while paying absolutely NO TAXES into the American System. Why shouldn't America protect a high living wage?

Look at the History of Protected Economies. What Modern Advanced Economy did not start out with tariffs and Protections to shield its Economy from predatory underpricing? Indeed, nothing is healthier for an economy then to be isolated. When an Economy must supply all aspects of its own infrastructure, it establishes strength and breadth. Yes, the Capitalist Cartels do everything to strangle Credit and ruin any independent Nation, but these isolated Nations do relatively well when they learn how to develop their own capital and currencies.

Free Trade was a strategy America had for conquering the World, but it was a gamble. America thought it would win the competition. Duh. But the Chinese are willing to work twice as long for half as much. Do Americans want to compete for the honor of being the most miserable slaves on earth, or do they want to say enough is enough, and again assert political and economic policies that would Protect Prosperity.
Yeah, Howetzer, we got to keep whipping those slaves, don't we?

but do you really think that the inequity in Distribution of Wealth is so very fair. It would not be so bad if some people made 5 times, or even 10 times more than other people. But now the Bosses make 100 or 1000 times more than the Workers underneath them.

And you would flog them for padding hours, or finding some break time, that is the slightest incremental subtraction from what they are being Exploited for.

So screw you and your Capitalist Bullwhips and the bowlegged horses you rode in on...
[/b]

You go Leo.
That is the way to solve problems. Do something else wrong too.
Two wrongs don't make a right you single minded fool!
Through all your posts I have began to realize the book smarts of your kind. You can think one way > Your way! The way you teach yourself. Obtuse, linear and quite honestly....sad.
Why don't you just talk to yourself? You are the only one you are hearing. And quite honestly you have ostracized your self in this Forum to the point you are the only one listening to yourself as well.