Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

vivaportugalhabs t1_isb6ckh wrote

The approach needs to be measured. I generally think it's generally bad to officially punish people for protesting in nonviolent, non-disruptive-to-education ways. The campus tents are a blight but even at a private school where the First Amendment doesn't totally apply, the principles of free expression are important. But the ones who ruined convocation for others I have less sympathy for because they were disruptive.

That said, what are they even protesting anymore? Penn doesn't own the UC Townhomes. What are they going to do about it? Also, as much as I agree that we need green energy, we're in the middle of a gas price crisis so "community control not oil and coal" runs into the fact that people will choose low gas prices over pie-in-the-sky undergrad seminar ideas. Penn already does a ton for the environment. Finally, between the "Gentrification Kills" banner (probably misinformation) and the newly erected Palestine flag, it seems to be turning into a radical tent city that has lost sight of any productive aims.

29

AbsentEmpire t1_isbed86 wrote

As per usual with these types of protesters, the participants are unable to focus on the correct parties involved, or stay even focused on the issue they're protesting.

Which is why politically they hold no power. They can't correctly identify the problem, nor stay focused on a particular issue, and will drift along with whatever the issue of the day is.

36

Kyrthis t1_isbvgfu wrote

Oh my god: your latter point is why I stopped attending so many Philly rallies. That, and the end of the Trump administration reduced the need for them.

The number of people who just could not stay on message is why I despair for the Left’s efficacy ever.

22

Little_Noodles t1_isc184t wrote

This has a lot to do with movements on the Left being generally antagonistic toward hierarchy - it’s been a feature since the late 1950s.

It’s helpful in that it allows organizations to be more flexible, allows more grassroots participation, is more democratic, and enables local chapters to adapt to local needs.

But, yes, from a stability, consistency, and messaging standpoint, it’s an absolute nightmare.

IMO, historically, it’s the center left moderates that used hierarchical organization that generally got shit done, but it’s the wild-ass chaos factories of the further left that held them accountable and kept them from compromising more than they already did. Both were and are valuable.

15

AbsentEmpire t1_isc0vup wrote

Same, though I largely stopped during the end of the Bush administration, start of the Obama administration when I became disillusioned with the Occupy movement.

Trying to organize on the left is like trying to herd cats. It's next to impossible, and if you get them into one place they'll just start attacking each other.

9

31November t1_isc5456 wrote

A lot of people don't understand image. I get it: You have the right to say catchy but inaccurate slogans, make broad statements, dye yourself different colors, tattoo your face, and have 7 piercings per ear. I think that's really a cool look, tbh.

But, if you do that, you should not be representing a movement that needs to appeal to people in the center of the political spectrum. The left needs to learn political messaging, and we need to present ourselves like we want to have a seat at the table.

It sucks that we get judged by our looks and not our ideas, but that's the world we live in.

−5

AbsentEmpire t1_iscdv4h wrote

I think the bigger issue is the inability to focus on an issue, correctly identify its components, and stay on message about it.

I've seen some pretty outlandish looking people show up to anti-abortion rallies, and going in the way back machine, tea party rallies. They looked (and were) dumb as hell, but they were absolutely focused on one issue, with focused messaging and overly simplistic sloganeering to go with it.

You just rarely see that level of focused and consistent messaging on the left.

12

colourcodedcandy t1_isdnn45 wrote

Well it’s not really the looks as much as the motivation behind the (far?) left (I’m liberal) wanting everything to be ripped out and transformed from the ground up. Abolish the police, all men are trash, or in the case of these protesters, gentrification kills. It’s not that there is absolutely no merit to any of their arguments - it’s that the extreme stances reduce them to caricatures that most people trying to go about their day (center of the spectrum) couldn’t care for. It’s not like these ideas “look bad”, some of them just lack nuance. There is good evidence from economists on building more and increasing supply even if they are “luxury” units because it reduces neighborhood housing prices. Rent control isn’t a good idea even according to Brookings but you won’t find any dearth of people railing against capitalism calling for rent controlling ALL units on r/nyc. (Before you come at me, I’m a brown liberal but not an American, if i could I would vote blue always.)

6

ThanosSnapsSlimJims t1_ishbsji wrote

Nah, the end of one presidential administration does not, by any means, reduce the need for rallies.

0

Kyrthis t1_ishivii wrote

It really depends on the criminality of the administration. Everyone has a threshold. That’s mine.

1

ThanosSnapsSlimJims t1_ishj1vn wrote

They're all criminals, one and all. Trump's administration is one of many, and every single one has sold us out. The threshold should have been crossed after the first president, and the middle class should remain angry and take action.

−1

Kyrthis t1_ishlbye wrote

You really think there was a middle class during the John Adams administration?

I think you don’t get to speak for me with “we.” I have my reasons to use my voice as I see fit, and that’s okay. I don’t begrudge people their own rubrics, given how little some people know about history and politics.

Edit: to be clear, that’s a metaphorical “we.”

1

ThanosSnapsSlimJims t1_isi6xnv wrote

To a degree I do. I mean, if you don't feel like the government sold you out, that's fine, I guess. That's okay. I begrudge people their own rubrics when they start to affect mine, regardless of what people know.

−1

Kyrthis t1_isi7wji wrote

My issue is that your comments did (and continue to) belie a lack of understanding of history. As for the government selling anyone out, the issue isn’t as unilateral as that, because it implies two things that are not true: 1 - that the “government” was ever “for you” and 2 - that the problems of structural class oppression can be solved by mere electoral action.

I don’t advocate violence, but education. The problem is that the means of education for the masses have been co-opted by the ruling class to become purposefully inadequate, producing useful idiots so that we now live in De Tocqueville’s nightmare.

0

ThanosSnapsSlimJims t1_isi8f1g wrote

My understanding of history is just fine. What you're reading into it which brings you to your determination, along with your right to believe such things, is totally your right.

I do believe that the original intent of the government was for the American people.However, I don't believe that structural class oppression can be solved by any sort of electoral action. There needs to be some sort of change agent that's non-violent.

I don't advocate violence, either. The means of education have been co-opted by the ruling class, and the end-result is as you said. However, I see that as only one of the issues. The ruling class has created an inadequate system. The people within the system do nothing to prevent the ruling class from staying in power, or take any sort of action to fix things, perpetuating the problem, especially in terms of education.

0

tagged2high t1_islj1vt wrote

Didn't you know it's fashionable to protest problems but never put energy into solutions? That's for someone else to do. 🙄

1

Little_Noodles t1_isc0mx2 wrote

This also feels like a missed opportunity to me. The world in general could use more good troublemakers, not fewer.

It’s not at all surprising to me that the students here did kind of a dumbass, ham fisted job of things. Youth led movements make a lot of dumb mistakes and struggle to handle complex issues, even the ones that bring about big changes for the better (see, say, SNCC).

So that doesn’t bother me - it’s not fair to expect activism to be the only activity on earth that doesn’t come with a learning curve.

Penn should be thinking about what it can do to better train up these students, not just to get them to knock it off.

11

dotcom-jillionaire OP t1_isb87oe wrote

in some ways though it's better to have students making that mistake while they're in college and to have penn deal with them and not have police intervening and bring real world consequences into these students lives.

nothing wrong with student pursuing activism and organizing around helping low income residents. the problem is, as you point out, the entities organizing around this issue have no idea what they're doing and are drawing impressionable partners into their orbit, pushing them towards unproductive actions and behavior

4

colourcodedcandy t1_isbw90y wrote

They have like a laundry list of ridiculous demands though. Penn buying the UC townhouses property is going to cost MILLIONS, and they’re definitely not getting that out of their endowment - and it’ll only make it harder for middle class people to afford going to Penn.

5