Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/7/05 03:34 PM, Imperator wrote: Hey Flash:

Yeah?

Thanks for your opinions!

You're welcome!

As far as the "drain" part, I meant that in specific to the group I witnessed, the more extemist style protesters, but I didn't really write it that way, my bad.

Oh.

You do raise some interesting points though, especially the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' kind of attitude the general populace has towards protesters.

I also understand that while you may not have all the answers, at least you do have some answers. The people I witnessed had NO answers, hence I've labeled them as "extreme".

Fair enough.

I just have a problem with the multitude of people who don't seem to think ahead when they debate political aspects, clearly you are not one of these people though (thank god there's someone else here with some friggin common sense and intellect).

Amen to that. I see too many people on both sides using no common sense and intellect.

I'm sure we will agree we all see people constantly suggesting we do an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but don't think ahead.

Yeah, I don't like it, but we're kind of stuck.

I admire the fact that you DID think ahead, but admit you don't have all the answers. This leads me to my next question:

Clearly true protesters have the general good will in mind, but is protesting the best way to accomplish a change in government policies? Are there alternatives to protesting, ie, massive sums of letters to Senators with different solutions to the problem, or other forms of protest?

It just seems to be that only in cases of epidemic/monumental protests (ie, lots and lots of people, million man march, etc), do protests truly accomplish something, and often times these types of protests are more at risk of becoming violent.

I say this because although debating and protesting helped end the Vietnam War, there were also a helluvah lot of riots and anarchy as a result. In this way, yes, the protests helped save the lives of soldiers, but it also caused a lot anguish to those who died/ lost irreplacables during the riots. And correct me if I'm wrong, but there haven't been many (if any) smaller protest groups that have dynamically changed government policy, either in this country or others in history....

You do have a point. It is all too often that protests become riots. Or that a few of the protestors are a bit too extreme and ruin the protest by becoming violent. There is a good example here:
http://progressive.org/mag_mc_pepper

It was a peaceful protest, having both the elderly and children in it. It seems (although the article is a little biased) that a very small part of the group became violent, causing the entire protest to be dispresed with pepper balls (like paint balls but filled with pepper sprey). I like to think more along the lines of the protests of MLK et al.

As for if there is a better way. I'm not sure. While letter writing has power, it doesn't particularly effect the general public like a protest does. It may give those in power a better idea of what people want, but it will not be shown to much of anyone else. Part of the protest is to convince other people that this is an issue that needs to be adressed. As for other forms of protest, I can think of any number of things that would get the point across to those in power that we are not allowed to do. I think of one fairly famous protest where the KKK set up a march, and due to free speech laws it couldn't be stopped. So those who were offended by the KKK lined the roadway they were going to walk and mooned them as the went down the road. That is the kind of protest I'd like. Not just peaceful, but not so caught up in dignity that it can't laugh at itself.

Also, protest is being contained now. "Free speech Zones" have been set up outside political events so that no one will be offended by the sight of protestors. People trying to enter political events to protest are often banned, or even recieve some distrubing threats.

http://progressive.org/mag_mc081905
http://progressive.org/mag_mc063005
http://progressive.org/node/9
http://progressive.org/node/2353
http://progressive.org/node/2354

Not directly related to protest but in the same vein:
http://progressive.org/mag_mcarson

And probably the thing that would keep most anyone out of a political event:
http://progressive.org/node/2361

The last story, in case you don't click on it, is about a man entering a Bush event to protest who was told by a worker there that "Know if you protest that it won't be me taking you out. It will be a sniper."

Kinda puts a damper on the whole protest thing.

Well, having got a bit off topic, I think it is time to end.

At 11/7/05 11:01 PM, Nomader wrote: This is by far one of the best topics I've read in awhile - sorry if my reply's a bit off topic, but I have a few things I want to mention.

I live in Washington D.C, and frankly, find protesters some of the most annoying things. I walk out of the Friendship Heights metro station, only to be greeted by PETA protesters outside of Neiman Marcus, who hand me a phamplet about animal cruelty. I've always wondered what would happen, if I asked them "Who Cares?" or "Why do you do this?", but I'm always afraid they'll act like the crazies they are, and snap back at me.

Well, you must remember that the PETA are, simply put, insane. You are, after all, talking about the people who put bright orange vests on deer so hunters wouldn't shoot them. But I really tend to lump people like this in the same catagory as people who stand of street corners tring to convert others. Pro-lifers go around handing out phamplets and any college fair I went to was plagued by those trying to convert me to one faith or another (although that was actually kind of funny), and more. These aren't really protests to me.

And, I don't see much point in protesters protesting in the first place. I agree with Imperator here - what are they going to do afterwards?

Find another cause? Celebrate because they made a difference, however small? Go on to larger protests?

From the sound of those protesters, it almost sounded like they were communists. They want to give control to the people - precisly what Communism is all about.

I would think that is going a bit far. They state things in our own consititution, not saying anything about communism.

At 11/7/05 02:49 PM, Flash007 wrote: Like "Pro-life means anti-war, right?

Erm... no.

And that's the problems with nice labels. Like the "Patriot Act". How could someone be against that? Because the name has virtuall nothing do to with the actual stance. While in that case it has a connection, the name implies much more than is actually ment. No more misleading titles! Everything literal!

I myself am a staunt supporter of both the war in Iraq, and Pro-Life. I go to church every Sunday even. But just because I don't support the death of unborn babies, doesn't mean I can't support a war.

Apologies, but I had to respond to this part.

No apology needed. I would just like you to take a look at this:
http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

It's a nice little flash animation on what effects we are having on unborn babies (and born babies) in Iraq. If you don't feel like looking, and I'll warn you that it is as graphic as anything in a pro life phamphlet, tell me and I'll sumerize the points.

At 11/8/05 12:54 AM, Imperator wrote:

It's these groups that I find are irrelevant, since while their intentions may be the best for everyone, they often go unnoticed, the government responds much more to a large mob than a few pesky flies.

And I would come back and say that even a few pesky flies can cause a reaction. Even one person in certain situations can cause major reactions. Why, flies have been bothering governments since ancient Athens, when Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth and inventing false gods. In his arguments against the court he said that he was like a gadfly (horsefly) stinging the lazy steed of Athens into action, even if that action was to swat him. He was sentenced to death.

*side note: We are not discussing the select few individuals who manage to fundamentally change government policies, as there are always exceptions to the rules. Only person i can think of now is Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Add Bayard Rustin (Not sure the first name is spelled right) and Gandi (even though it wasn't in this country. Rustin was an advisor to King during the bus boycott, and later lead a massive march on Washington. He is often seen in the background of pictures of King. Most people don't know about him, however, because he had the bad taste to be openly gay. If you're interested, check out "Brother Outsider", a documentery on his life. It's pretty good.

At 11/8/05 02:43 PM, stilanas wrote:

Admittedly few elected officials, even, in the Democratic party showed up and that's a damned shame. That party sold out the left a long time ago and its leaders are for the most part puppets of the same assclowns who pull the strings in the Republican party. That said, it is undeniable evidence that the opposition is there, waiting to be tapped.

Yeah, I realized that when I saw people from Florida coming in to the Senate to try and get their votes counted and couldn't get a single senator to sign...Well, I can't remember exactly what it was, but something they needed a senator to sign. And I suppose it really started for me with the death of Paul Wellstone. He was the Minnesota senator, and didn't really fallow any party lines. While he was liberal, he did vote conservative when he felt it was right. Thing that pissed be off most about his death was the televised "rembrence" that was turned into a campeign rally for the next election. That wasn't something he would have wanted. It is something most of us didn't want.

But, it's not like I'm bitter...or something like that...

It's true, political protesting is a lost art. I remember back when the war in Iraq first started in 2003 and some rather hippie-like friends of mine decided to have a "die-in" where they pretended to be dead in the middle of a busy Toronto intersection.

I couldn't help but think... what exactly does that accomplish. You're pissing people off and drawing attention to something that people know already.

Sometimes I miss the '60s.

This thread's not just for bitching!

If you think Protesting is a lost art, use your awesome rhetorical powers and help solve the problem. Don't be pullin a "die-in" on the forums!!

That was my goal for this thread, and that's what I'm tryin to push for.
Who knows, we might just come up with some good administrative reforms right here....

Stranger things have happened......

Protesting is just something that the peace group at my university does. No plans. No logic. They hang pretty signs around campus reading "Wage PEACE" and "Say no to War!," but no substance at all. I can't pin down what they stand for exactly, and believe me, I have tried.

I have a theory that they perceive that a lot of Americans think war is a solution to many problems. They deem this an unhealthy attitude, so, in their minds, they just want to open up young minds about other possibilities, new ways of thinking. But this is all speculation.

At 11/9/05 12:29 AM, Imperator wrote: This thread's not just for bitching!

If you think Protesting is a lost art, use your awesome rhetorical powers and help solve the problem. Don't be pullin a "die-in" on the forums!!

That was my goal for this thread, and that's what I'm tryin to push for.
Who knows, we might just come up with some good administrative reforms right here....

Stranger things have happened......

Okay, try pushing your local, provincial or federal representatives to present your case before Parliament. Do your best to educate people on the situation with flyers, pamplets, the power of the Internet. Try to fight apathy wherever it lies. If there is a government auditor or ombudsman for a particular issue, then contact them with your concerns. That's their job.

Can't think of anything else one can do without calling for drastic changes to the structure of the government.

Just spitballing here, but you asked for solutions that exist beyond waving placards or pissing people off.

hmmm, some intersting views indeed....

I'll leave y'all with this for the night:

Throughout history, it is during times of war when we accomplish the most technological growth. In 100 years (1900's ) we experienced two World Wars, and went from muskets to computer guided Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles.

Some things origionally intended for use in war have been adapted for public use and other more notable and worthy causes.

Some really important ones:

Social Wars: Rome 1st c BCE....Marius reforms the army, turning the mass legions into smaller untis, cohorts and centuries. he also professionalized the army by having the state provide food and equipment, rather than have citizens provide their own (as was the case before him). Modern armies now have smaller army units to make them more mobile and efficient. Cohorts, tent parties and Centuries have become regiments, companies, and platoons.

WWI:
Use of aircraft in war-led to commercialization of aircraft
Invention of submarines- deep sea explorations

WWII:
Radar-where to begin?
Sonar-improvements in shipping in general
research of Penicillin- more research was done to speed up it's production and available usage to Allied soldiers.
http://inventors.abo..ors/blpenicillin.htm

Jet engine- commercial jets today
A-bomb- Atomic energy as an alternative to coal and research of the atom continues today (hydrogen fuels/cars).

So while any person will say war is bad, we can still salvage tech advances from them.
This is why I think, at least on an unconcious level, that human being cannot ever stop fighting wars.
I mean hey, Luke WAS able to turn his father from the dark side, wasn't he???

G' night and happy debating.
I expect to be reading many more pages by tomorrow!!

As far as the lack of telemarketing during dinner hours, etc.
There exists, in the U.S., a list to which you may have your number added in order to never be contacted by telemarketers. A similar idea is still in the committee phase in Canadian Parliament.

At 11/8/05 03:09 PM, Just_Think wrote:

What WILL work?

In our form of government, voting.

For example, if, lets say, you are opposed to President Bush's current agenda. During mid-term elections, vote Democrat (as long as the platform the Democratic candidate is running on is sound, of course). If it is noticed that a majority of Americans voted Democrat as opposed to Republican, the Republican party will have to review their agenda and most likely need to change it if they wish to win the next presidential election.

If voting alone ever changed anything they would have made it illegal. If more people voted democratic it wouldn't make that much of a difference in legislative elections given that districts are gerrymandered to the point of no return. The only time congresspeople ever have turn over is on those rare occasions when they get caught in bed with a woman who winds up dead.

There needs to be more than single individuals voting and never having some kind of grassroots strategy that exposes the corruption and lies.

At 11/10/05 02:51 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: As far as the lack of telemarketing during dinner hours, etc.
There exists, in the U.S., a list to which you may have your number added in order to never be contacted by telemarketers. A similar idea is still in the committee phase in Canadian Parliament.

That's the "do not call" list. No, I'm already on that. I'm talking about an actual law permitting businesses from calling during the dinner hours, like from 5-7 or something along those lines....

Problem with voting:
The turnout.

2000 Census states population in America was 281,421,906.

2000 election results:
Popular votes:

Gore: 50,996,116 (48.4% of total votes)

Bush: 50,456,169 (47.9% of total votes)

Nader: roughly 3 mill
Buchanan: roughly 1/2 mill

Add em up, we get a little over 100 million votes, less than 50% of U.S. population.

If less than 50% of the people voted, and Bush and Gore got rougly 1/2 of the total votes, then that means Bush was elected by 25% of the people.

Voting DOES work, it worked great in Athens, but here in a Republic it seems to not work all that well.

If you check back, even landslide presidential elections are only technically elected by half or a quarter of the country.

Kinda scary when you think about it.....

At 11/11/05 02:38 AM, Imperator wrote:

Gore: 50,996,116 (48.4% of total votes)
Bush: 50,456,169 (47.9% of total votes)

Nader: roughly 3 mill
Buchanan: roughly 1/2 mill

Add em up, we get a little over 100 million votes, less than 50% of U.S. population.

you have to take into account al those under 18 tho who cant vote though

fuck politics... and most of all... fuck bush!!!

At 11/8/05 02:43 PM, stilanas wrote:
I think your characterization of us as a bunch of unemployed people is very unfair. I've been to some of the bigger protests. A great majority of these protestors are not only employed or in college but are also successful. People from many walks of life who feel disenfranchised are represented. We have lawyers, doctors, academics, artists, poets, writers, environmentalists, straight people, gay people, christians, jews, muslims, pagans, white people, black people, red people, yellow people, brown people, pot smokers, straight edgers, punks, hippies, yuppies, professionals, white collars, blue collars, Vietnam veterans, Gulf War veterans, young people, old people, freaks, geeks, and every combination of the above. I myself am a college student and our teachers are with us all the way. The anti-war student organization of which I am a member is composed of active students with good grades.

But all of you have one thing in common: whatever your goals in life were, you have failed or are failing in them! These protests just serve to fill in the void of your being, thinking that people actually care what you have to day. You congregate in public to gain attention to the cause you support and chant, hold meetings on campus, pass out publications, etc...; but it's all in vain. And of course your teachers support you: the majority of them are leftovers from the 1960s-70s that hold on to the same delusions you have now. Trust me: acadamia is an institution that has, up until the last decade, been secluded from the real world.

I know this because I was once a part of that crowd. I used to think that if I made enough noise and made a big enough scene, people will care about what I do. I soon realized that all that happend was that the public got jaded and ignored me. It's quite counter-productive...

The purpose of these protests is to rally enough concerned citizenstogether, and there are a great many of us, hundreds of thousands who come to these protests, to get media attention to the large an diverse body of people who say no to Bush. Admittedly few elected officials, even, in the Democratic party showed up and that's a damned shame. That party sold out the left a long time ago and its leaders are for the most part puppets of the same assclowns who pull the strings in the Republican party. That said, it is undeniable evidence that the opposition is there, waiting to be tapped.

You just admitted your own deat here! If the policy makers don't care, then all your efforts to rally for (or against) a certain action came to nothing: Bush got elected anyway, the war in Iraq continues, and further foreign exploits are on the horizon. Hell, even your own party doesn't give you much thought! They don't care about you because paople lik you don't represent the average voter (who they are seeking at the ballot box). You failed... all you must do is admit it.

Defeat- spelling error

you know thats a good example no one that hates bush has a solution to the problems

alot of people just wantr bush out of office

not too long ago there wqas a poll that people only voted for kerry because they didnt want bush people that voted for kerry only 16 percent actually voted FOR him the rest voted AGAINST bush

the thing that is bringing down the country is freedom of speech the most powerful right of all

At 11/11/05 10:28 AM, punisher19848 wrote:

But all of you have one thing in common: whatever your goals in life were, you have failed or are failing in them! These protests just serve to fill in the void of your being, thinking that people actually care what you have to day. You congregate in public to gain attention to the cause you support and chant, hold meetings on campus, pass out publications, etc...; but it's all in vain. And of course your teachers support you: the majority of them are leftovers from the 1960s-70s that hold on to the same delusions you have now. Trust me: acadamia is an institution that has, up until the last decade, been secluded from the real world.

Ok, this went from a wildly annoying generalization to a direct attack on everyone who is protesting. Saying that we are protesting simply to "fill in the void of your being" because "whatever your goals in life were, you have failed or are failing in them"? You went from a smaller, slightly more based in fact error to a larger, less based in fact one. I do not protest because I'm unemployed, or because I am failing in life, or to fill some "void" in me. I protest because I hope to change something. I protest because I feel that war, in general, is wrong. I protest because I dislike the Bush administration and where it is taking and has taken America.

I know this because I was once a part of that crowd. I used to think that if I made enough noise and made a big enough scene, people will care about what I do. I soon realized that all that happend was that the public got jaded and ignored me. It's quite counter-productive...

So what do you suggest instead? Sit around writing angsty poetry about the void in yourself?

You just admitted your own deat here! If the policy makers don't care, then all your efforts to rally for (or against) a certain action came to nothing: Bush got elected anyway, the war in Iraq continues, and further foreign exploits are on the horizon. Hell, even your own party doesn't give you much thought! They don't care about you because paople lik you don't represent the average voter (who they are seeking at the ballot box). You failed... all you must do is admit it.

And if we admit we failed, then what? We go on with daily life, saying, "Everythings fine! We don't represent enough people so we have no right to complian! Big Brother forever!"? We become mindless drones, giving up our own ideas simply because they are not shared by enough people? Or maybe we become you, sitting online and badmouthing protestors and protests, saying that they do nothing, and trying to convince others of the same.

I'd rather have some life in me. Rather be a face in the crowd than someone who has given up on trying. I'd rather keep trying to convince those who don't agree than to try and lead them into apathy.

Now, you haven't really said any of your own political opinions, aside from the fact that you don't think that protesting works, and you used the phrase "your own party" in reference to the democratic party. Even with that last comment, I'm not going to assume anything. I will say you sound a lot like the former liberals I've heard, who sound like they have given up on liberalism for ill defined and nebulus reasons.

On the other hand, you practically sound like a goth with the whole "void in your being" thing. Whatever.

There have been protests that have made large impressions, that are not motivated by some "void" or failing. They are motivated by the want, or even the need to make things better than they are. Think of the protests that have been done outside of Phillip-Morris against smoking.
http://www.thetruth...index.cfm?seek=truth

You can't simply say that we are dong this because we have nothing better to do. Can't say that we just need to get jobs and our outlook will change. Can't say that we are doing this because we are failures. That may have been true for you, but it isn't true for me, and I doubt much of anyone else who has protested would agree with you.

At 11/12/05 05:50 PM, Flash007 wrote:
Ok, this went from a wildly annoying generalization to a direct attack on everyone who is protesting. Saying that we are protesting simply to "fill in the void of your being" because "whatever your goals in life were, you have failed or are failing in them"? You went from a smaller, slightly more based in fact error to a larger, less based in fact one. I do not protest because I'm unemployed, or because I am failing in life, or to fill some "void" in me. I protest because I hope to change something. I protest because I feel that war, in general, is wrong. I protest because I dislike the Bush administration and where it is taking and has taken America.

This isn't an attack on you or the other protesters, this comes from my own experience from the protest crowds (both left-wing and right-wing). The overwhelming majority of protesters protest because they seek meaning in life (whether or not they admit it), so they congregate in large crowds to shout their opinions hoping someone will listen. Employment status itself means little here; what matters is that they don't have the power to make their goals in life a reality, so they just participate in these wastes of time.

So what do you suggest instead? Sit around writing angsty poetry about the void in yourself?

I suggest accpting reality, then maniplulating things to benefit you any way can (lie, cheat, steal, whatever woks...).

And if we admit we failed, then what? We go on with daily life, saying, "Everythings fine! We don't represent enough people so we have no right to complian! Big Brother forever!"? We become mindless drones, giving up our own ideas simply because they are not shared by enough people? Or maybe we become you, sitting online and badmouthing protestors and protests, saying that they do nothing, and trying to convince others of the same.

Well, if you truley think about it, "Big Brother" has already won: the war shall continue, Bush will stay in office, and a conservative Supreme Court is already under way. All the protests and demonstrations in the world can't alter the course we are set on now (you had a chance to stop this last November, but you failed in getting out your vote)! I suggest that you stop protesting agaist the establishment and start making plans to take advantage of the establishment.

I'd rather have some life in me. Rather be a face in the crowd than someone who has given up on trying. I'd rather keep trying to convince those who don't agree than to try and lead them into apathy.

Then you condemn yourself to a futile struggle. But that is the fate of most idealist like yourself: they don't know when they lose.

Now, you haven't really said any of your own political opinions, aside from the fact that you don't think that protesting works, and you used the phrase "your own party" in reference to the democratic party. Even with that last comment, I'm not going to assume anything. I will say you sound a lot like the former liberals I've heard, who sound like they have given up on liberalism for ill defined and nebulus reasons.

I gave up on liberalism 12 years ago because I realixed the futility of trying to establish an egalitarian society. I realized that, no matter how hard we try, society will always be corrupt and self-serveing. Finally, I realized that it is better to profit from the suffering of others than to waste time and resources trying to aliviate them. In short, I found the truth of the dark side of human nature.

That part of me is dead! I now seek to inform other misguided moralists of the same truth that I found; put down the the manifestos of Marx and Ingles and look the writtings of Nietzche and Machiavelli instead.

On the other hand, you practically sound like a goth with the whole "void in your being" thing. Whatever.

I'm not a goth, but I did have a brief affiliation with them. And it was quite a learning experience!

There have been protests that have made large impressions, that are not motivated by some "void" or failing. They are motivated by the want, or even the need to make things better than they are. Think of the protests that have been done outside of Phillip-Morris against smoking.
http://www.thetruth...index.cfm?seek=truth

Oh yes, those protestors and their hollow court battle against big tobacco... Look, even though Philip-Morris pays for anti-smoking ads now, their profits are barely even scrached: they are still pumping out billions! And, furthermore, people are continuing to smoke! People already know that smoking will kill them (it says so on the box for christ's sake), but they choose to do it anyway because they no longer care about their own health.

You can't simply say that we are dong this because we have nothing better to do. Can't say that we just need to get jobs and our outlook will change. Can't say that we are doing this because we are failures. That may have been true for you, but it isn't true for me, and I doubt much of anyone else who has protested would agree with you.

They might not come out and admit these things, but I'm willing to bet that they know it in their subconscious. And getting a job in and of itself won't change your outlook, but purging your mind of a conscience will (I'm already well underway to doing this).

At 11/12/05 06:18 PM, punisher19848 wrote: Many very cynical things. LIke, Nicolò Machiavelli style cynical.

Flash007: eep...

...

...

OK, so I'm an idealist because I don't think it's particularly right to, say, lie, cheat and steal, while you are a perfectly normal person who thinks those things are OK...hmmm...actually, I think I said all I wanted to say in my summary. Machiavellian style thought. Frankly, I don't think that your personal experiences will reflect much of what any other protester feels. Simply because Machiavelli was a nut case, and those who think along the same lines today are very, very scary.

protesters got pwned
lol jk

At 11/12/05 06:57 PM, jack-the_ripper wrote: protesters got pwned
lol jk

My God, what a brilliant and revelent statement. I stand in awe of your mighty genious. But perhaps, in your time spent in the high reaches of thought you missed that we were trying to have this thread be somewhere over the level of the general forum.

On what works? Money and representation in PAC's, which also requires money.

Id say America is becmong very much more elitist that it was decades ago. Our leaders are steadily getting more out of touch with mainstream America. Id say we need a grassroots campaign.

We need the Bull Mooses again :P Either that or everyone vote Libertarian. Thats what Im gonna do unless McCain or some other moderate runs, which I know is unlikely. Only the hateful ideologues make it through the primaries.

At 11/11/05 02:38 AM, Imperator wrote: Voting DOES work, it worked great in Athens, but here in a Republic it seems to not work all that well.

Voting worked well in Athens? Thats a new one.

They had to basically force the people to vote. They closed down the stores, pulled everyone in off the street with the slave police officers from Thrace I believe it was, and had to pay people to vote. And never drew a majority of the city to vote.

And then they voted on BAD things because of good rhetoriticians (I mean, this is classical Greece we are talking about, probably some of the best rhetoriticians in history). And they invaribly got invaded like crazy because everyone feared democracy. And they were MUCH smaller than the USA. On a scale of thousands.

Id say Athens experiment in democracy was filled with struggle. Did survive for a damn long time though.

If you check back, even landslide presidential elections are only technically elected by half or a quarter of the country.

Kinda scary when you think about it.....

Not really. If they are to stupid to vote, chances are they are to stupid to revolt or do anything like that.