AceTKen

I didn't mention it in my post, but you mentioned it. I'm not quite settled on the violence aspect. For the most part, no, violence isn't needed.

But... what else do you do when the government won't stop putting your future in danger? I truly don't know how else to affect environmental policy because right now they're backsliding on their goals and promises. I dunno. I'm definitely okay with any group who mass-sabotages big polluters.

I've done some some protesting in high school, but it was mostly dumb school decisions and most of the seniors joined in. It's easy to protest when that basically means a ditch day. Hell, people that didn't care at all joined in just to bail on class, so I don't really think it counts.

Other than that, I've just done some for local politics which are often more effective than business or federal protests because the local people need to live near you and pissing off your neighbours is a lot more stupid than pissing off a nebulous "them" located elsewhere.

That being said, I feel most modern protesting is done poorly and doesn't do much currently beyond being a 30-second blip on the 24 / 7 media machine.

I've spoken about it before, but the currently popular street- or bridge-blocking protests I feel are among some of the most misguided - mostly because they don't target. Please note that I'm not talking about things like French protests where they happen to organize and there's so many people present that they have to block off streets in front of government buildings. Not at all. Those people know how to fucking protest.

For example, if you're protesting a war (like several recent ones), why wouldn’t you, say, protest the factories where the weapons are made or buildings where executives meet? I don't mean they should just hold up some signs outside, but blockade those businesses in. Stop the parkades from functioning.

Maybe find out who their major shareholders are and publicly shame them. Dig up dirt on them. Harangue them online. Hacktivism. Do anything you can to stop them. Hell, find the neighbourhoods that those shareholders live in and blockade those. If it's a war protest, protest at the schools that their children go to letting them know their rich parents are murdering people overseas.

You have to stay pissed off, and not let them wear you out because protesting like this is fucking hard and isn't just a fun afternoon outside with friends like some of these other ones.

And, again, the targets are wrong because there is no target.

A street- or bridge-blocking protest is like protesting the food in a prison cafeteria by beating the shit out of your cellmate, and then calling them complicit because they ate food yesterday. What the hell are they supposed to do about it? And do you think a recently beaten cellmate will be more or less receptive to your cause after?

Bridge / street blocks are not creative, don't get people present on your side (quite literally the opposite), presents safety risks, may delay emergency vehicles, wastes natural resources, and don't change minds of those who hear about it on the news. Same with the stupid "pour soup / oil on a piece of art" shit I saw repeatedly. A throw-away headline seems to be the goal, but it accomplishes next to nothing.

... which just means you have to get creative. Target. Those. In. Power. Make life fucking hard for them.

Protest threads on Lemmy often reek of this attitude I see frequently of "It's a deeply stupid and astoundingly flawed thing to do, but I'll defend it to the death because it agrees with my politics!" Great. You support them. In some cases, I do too.

But how about we actually do something?

What is the ideal work / life balance?

I agree with you that one size doesn't fit all, but I feel there has to be some kind of baseline standard. When I was looking around, I was unable to find when the current standard in North America changed from 9-5 to 8-5, but that shit needs to stop. A large amount of work is now decentralized due to computer and data storage, so there's no reason hours have to be (with in-person requirement exceptions like restaurants and stores). Given the productivity increases of the last 50 years, we could work one day a week and still be more productive than equivalent work week 50 years past.

Greedy CEOs

I strongly believe that income ratios would be one of the most impactful things we could do. No person working full-time at a company deserves more than, say, 5 times more than any other full-time employee and should factor in "perks" like dividends and such. This kind of thing should be legally mandated.

UBI

I adore the idea of UBI, but we have to make sure the implementation is solid. I love some of the ideas I've seen from economists for them (and no, economists are not interested in growing bottom lines, they're interested in how economic systems function). I also feel the economy has to be made more cyclical which would assist in this.

Unions

I like the resurgence as well, but I'm wary of power and sway over things not related to the unions. The leaders of these unions need to be kept honest just like corporate leaders should be because the ability to abuse the power is also possible (see many union leaders in the 1970s). Open books to members of the union should be the minimum required.

Street protests generally carried out in front of royal palaces or civic structures where those in power worked had an impact, yes. NOT protests at a random road in town.

I am factually correct here.

I have never stated that protests aren't effective when carried out well. I've stated that these road blocking protests aren't effective because they do not target.

But come now, certainly you must recognize that that's not even close to causation. Just because it's done often doesn't even come close to meaning that there's any proof that it functions as you state.

If I carry a "rock of tiger repellent" and tell you that I've never been attacked by a tiger, therefore it must work, it's the same logic.

Countries that do not (or rarely) have highway blockades have more civil rights or had them earlier than the US did. They also have stronger protections and aren't helping bomb Gaza. Using the logic stated by you, that may actually mean that highway protests make things worse.

Again, just because it agrees with you politically, doesn't mean it's a good idea. There's no study or data indicating that it functions, and scads of loose polls and information saying it doesn't (which are only slightly better than no evidence at all). I'd encourage an actual study, but judging by every thread I've ever seen on the issue, the only people claiming to be even minutely swayed by these demonstrations were people already on the side of the protesters.

In this one instance they might do that. In the area where I live where it was done, there was no space for the emergency vehicles to go in the other direction. Just because there are ways they could do it in this one case doesn't make it universal.

Also, are you able to provide the polling you referenced showing that highway blockades change minds? I was unable to find anything other than web and call-in polls, both of which overwhelmingly showed the exact opposite (but those are hardly scientific so I wouldn't trust them).

Also, I'm not the one downvoting you. I do not do that.

... which just means you have to get creative.

Freeway blocking is not creative, doesn't get people present on your side (quite literally the opposite), presents safety risks, may delay emergency vehicles, wastes natural resources, and doesn't change minds of readers. Same with the stupid "throw soup / oil at a piece of art" shit I saw repeatedly. A throw-away headline seems to be the goal, but it accomplishes next to nothing.

Target. Those. In. Power. Make life fucking hard for them.

This thread (not you explicitly) reeks of this attitude I see frequently on Lemmy of "It's a deeply stupid and astoundingly flawed thing to do, but I'll defend it to the death because it agrees with my politics!"

I had to go look them up, but it seems that some have protested manufacturing plants, though not in a terribly effective way. The protests seem to be short-term, and none of the other things I mentioned have been done anywhere I was able to find.

I've seen plenty of stories involving protests uselessly blocking main thoroughfares however.

But there definitely are though. Why wouldn't you, say, protest the factories where these things are made? Not just hold up some signs outside, but blockade those businesses in.

Maybe find out who their major shareholders are and publicly shame them. Dig up dirt on them. Do anything you can to stop them.

Maybe find the neighbourhoods that those shareholders live in and blockade those.

Protest at the schools that their children go to letting them know their parents are murdering people overseas.

It took me like 3 minutes to think of those and those are far more effective than what is going on in this news story. Are protesters in America really that short-sighted but they can't think of anything better than annoying other normal people and making enemies?

This is like protesting the food in a prison cafeteria by beating the shit out of your cellmate, and then calling him complicit because he ate food yesterday.

They're not targeting the right people, they're simply turning normal people off of their message.

I have always felt that the arguments are always rather skewed on this every time they're trucked out.

The North-American Right-wing will say "Keep politics out of my (games / movies / music / hardcore porn)..."

The unspoken end part is "that I don't like."

The Left will often say "Everything is political..."

While the unspoken part is "but only if looked at through an astoundingly specific and personal lens. Oh, and also a large majority of the media is on my side and therefore producing content for me."

And both arguments are goofy and hand-wave each other away with the same amount of shitty dismissiveness.

Yes, politics could theoretically be in everything... to you. You can interpret anything any way you like. But also no, your interpretation does not make neutral media "political" to the large majority of people all of a sudden. Your interpretation is not law, it is opinion and the intent of the creator trumps your interpretation.

Yes, politically-charged media can be done VERY well. But also no, it doesn't need to be ONLY directly speaking about / parables of current events. This is lazy, hacky writing.

Yes, sometimes things need to be said in a piece if that's what the art is about. But also no, do we need ten thousand pieces on the exact same thing, all saying the same message, and bringing nothing new to the table.

You can set up interesting "What If" scenarios where one side isn't generically stupid, evil warmongers and the other side isn't all noble, selfless underdog do-gooders bravely fighting The Man.

Bad guys can do good. Good guys can do bad. The world is a lot greyer than people want to have to face up to, and I wish our media was smarter and more challenging.

I fear that people don't want that, however. They want their media to cater to them as much as their online social media. That fucking terrifies me.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria

If the image is true at all, the year mentioned is about 200 years prior to Assyria even being formed. This closely coincides with one of the pre-Assyrian collapse (or massive shift) periods where the society changed a great deal.

Hence "as we know it."

The writing on this tablet being from a time when his civilization was collapsing. The only change to make his words 100% correct would be "as we know it."