By Cory Doctorow at 2:29 am Sat, Oct 30, 2010
(Thanks, Fipi Lele!)
It looks like it was based off of these bumper stickers: http://www.topatoco.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TO&Product_Code=WON-METASTICKER&Category_Code=WON#pic
… so any form of protest where people shant slogans or have signs should be changed to one where you… what… have large tracts handed out to passers by and try to engage everyone to come to a lengthy lecture on the varying issues?
That would make any form of grassroots movement empty of people.
My suggestion is that you write up a catchy core argument and ask people to visit a website or listen to a debate or anything and then maybe they do that or maybe they don’t. Only thats not a suggestion really since thats what we’re doing already.
(also “Nuanced views” with humans is like saying “a blue kind of yellow” – you could just as well say “green” or “fence sitting apathy”)
Yeah! People have no attention span, so any worthwhile argument should be boiled down to a level a toddler can understand. Let’s coddle stupidity!
Time to dust off my old “Death To Extremists!” sign.
Credit where credit’s due: http://wondermark.com/175/
Also available in his store as a bumper sticker, though I think it might provoke tailgating while they tried to read it.
“Ignorance is a privilege, not a right!”
“I want to Indict War Criminals, not Vote for Them.”
“The rich can only have most of the money, not all of it.”
I disagree. I think the issues this time are pretty basic.
It’s Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity and Colbert’s March to Restore Fear.
What are moderates doing to oppose war, torture, and the ever-expanding prison system?
It was mostly radicals to the left who spoke out against the war, while moderates and centrists supported it. In this case, the radical left was correct, and still is.
It is mostly radicals of various stripes who call torture “torture,” and demand an end to impunity, while moderates and centrists call it “enhanced interrogation” per the latest Newspeak dictionary, and prevent accountability.
And so on.
We need more radicalism, not less.
“What are moderates doing to oppose war, torture, and the ever-expanding prison system?”
As a self proclaimed moderate (though some might disagree), I wrote my representatives in government, educated myself on the issues and possible alternative means achieving our goals without the necessity of the first 2 (war and torture), and supported and aligned myself with groups who had cohesive plans to enact positive and sustainable change in those areas. In addition, when the subject comes up in conversation I try to engage those who disagree in a kind, respectful manner using logic and facts to bolster the conclusions I’ve reached. The prison issue has only recently landed on my radar, but I will be doing some research on it when I have a chance.
“It was mostly radicals to the left who spoke out against the war, while moderates and centrists supported it. In this case, the radical left was correct, and still is.”
It is mostly radicals of various stripes who call torture “torture,” and demand an end to impunity, while moderates and centrists call it “enhanced interrogation” per the latest Newspeak dictionary, and prevent accountability.”
It was mostly radicals on the right that first suggested the idea that war and torture were necessary in the first place, so you’ll excuse me if I kindly disagree that the answer to over emotional, ill-thought-out, knee jerk reactions is more over emotional, ill-thought-out, knee jerk reactions.
“you’ll excuse me if I kindly disagree that the answer to over emotional, ill-thought-out, knee jerk reactions is more over emotional, ill-thought-out, knee jerk reactions.”
Actually, before the Iraq war, I took the time to look over the evidence that people were presenting in the media for the various claims. After the Powell speech, it was apparent that the interpretations in the report didn’t match the evidence in the report. I said as much, and people called me a crackpot for it. That’s what research gets you.
We’ve gotten to the point that people who either lied or believed the lies are considered serious, while people who questioned the lies are considered unserious. That means that discourse has already broken down. Left-wingers get ignored, so we get right-wingers debating right-wingers, and the center gets redefined between the various right-wingers.
I’d be happy if protesters would stop the “hey hey, ho ho” chant and all forms of drumming.
I can’t tell if this is trying to be serious or not.
Hey, doesn’t this person know that ALL CAPS is equivalent to screaming?
BTW, the adjective “pithy” to me has good connotations. Why make it an unidicted co-conspirator?
And who can argue with the pithiness and effectiveness of “When Clinton lied, nobody died”?
Following the Quebec City g20 protests I went to a party where we all made up pretend protest signs and took them down the street to another party.
My favorite was: Placards kill trees!
Usually one writes the manifesto before the protest and publishes it in several ways, rather than trying to reproduce it on signs. The argument on that sign is simply anti-protest: We should all stay home quietly. And the Vietnam war could still be raging, Jim Crow could still be in place, gay people could be without rights, etc.
An anti-protesting viewpoint is a privileged, comfortable desire to maintain inequality. The “restoring sanity” march is entirely conservative, in the old sense of the word. It’s really distressing that it’s now vaguely left in the US.
Protesting is an essential part of how democracy works. The problem with Tea Baggers is not that that they’re having rallies, it’s what viewpoints that they advocate at these rallies. If the left avoids this very useful means of getting their message out, the right will win.
When I see “Stop Obama’s Socialism” signs/bumper stickers all I can think is, “There’s another guy with the mind-virus.” I would think the same with anti-Bush rhetoric that was baseless and extreme. For exactly these reasons.
Too “pithy”? Sometimes, an issue really can be boiled down into a slogan. Or at least, the essential beliefs of a movement can.
America today is split between reactionaries who are not above lying and obstructionism to get their way, and progressives who want a reasoned bipartisan consensus before they go ahead. Let’s see how it plays out.
… sitting here in a country of quiet moderates let me tell you its dangerous as hell. Those with a smidgen of power can do what they want because anyone who complains is automaticly seen as an idiot or dangerous.
The US has allot of problems but you guys should realise that even though it sometimes get to be to much, those high pitched voiced are needed. Centrists are just not doing anything.
the reasonable discussion debate happening here?
this just brings us back to the star wars if the rebellion was peaceful protesters.
OP here. Umm… yes, idea obviously lifted from wondermark, thanks. More generally… the point is that hyper-partisian sloganeering rarely advances anything.
Also, it’s a snarky sign. Not trying to illuminate any deeper insights or advance a serious agenda. Lighten up.
I’ve only ever sold a few of these, but back about 6 years ago I put these up on CafePress.
Bumper sticker says “Discuss Complex Issues Through Bumper Stickers”
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Submit a tip
The rules you agree to by using this website.
Who will be eaten first?
Jason Weisberger, Publisher
Ken Snider, Sysadmin