Protesting Protestors?

April 4, 2003 6:51 AM

"Fighting the Left - Doing it Right" - protestwarrior.com is founded on the basis of letting the "pro-government" people who might be the "silent majority" protest in their own way. so while it's not just a pro-troops rally cry, in essence it's protesting for the war... or any war, for that manner. kind of a novel idea.. looks like they're viewing this as a starting point for people to have a retort against other protestors.
posted by djspicerack (27 comments total)

Not so novel. First Amendment applies to everyone.
posted by UncleFes at 6:55 AM on April 4, 2003

i meant novel in that they're seemingly trying to intrigue those who would not say anything to do something about it by setting an example. that's all...
posted by djspicerack at 7:01 AM on April 4, 2003

It's not a novel idea persay, but the gallery captions are hilarious.
posted by angry modem at 7:16 AM on April 4, 2003

looks like they're viewing this as a starting point for people to have a retort against other protestors...

By 'crashing' peace rallies, apparently. So they're planning to go around breaking up and disrupting other people's rights to free assembly? Reading though their site, they appear to be a pair of loonies that hate 'lefties' and either wants to silence them or 'save their souls'. (I especially enjoyed reading how 'leftists' are evil and "should be cordoned off from decent society".) Judging by their hateful comments, I certainly hope they don't 'do something about it by setting an example', djspicerack.
posted by SenshiNeko at 7:25 AM on April 4, 2003

"War has never solved anything.
Except spreading slavery, nazism, fascism & communism."

I am so sorry. I just could not resist it.
posted by spazzm at 7:26 AM on April 4, 2003

Those photos, IIRC, are from Portland. There was only one confrontation because the rest of us just thought he was addlebrained. I mean, you look at the sign with what is, in that context, a mixed message, and just shrug. There were plenty of stupid signs. He still added his body to the peace march, and few knew differently.

Pretty ineffective, unless all you want is your private little victory (while aiding those you oppose).
posted by frykitty at 7:26 AM on April 4, 2003

Eep, sorry, it says they're from SF. There was a guy with one of those signs in Portland, though.
posted by frykitty at 7:30 AM on April 4, 2003

...who might be the "silent majority"...

no, no, they're the "liberty-loving silent majority", you forgot the liberty-loving part. see, they love liberty. and stuff.

[pulls out dictionary]

waittaminnt!
posted by dorian at 7:40 AM on April 4, 2003

These people sent me an email asking me to post on their behalf about a week ago. I find this odd considering that while yes, I do goof on the more vapid of the anti-war crowd, I have stated publicly that I'm against the war. I guess they just spammed anyone who they thought was vaguely sympathetic. Is that how you heard about it, djspicerack?
posted by jonmc at 7:44 AM on April 4, 2003

Their mission, protest: the protest, has me confused...

Best war/anti-war protest seen. Both sides chanted U S A at each other.
Now remembering, nothing nice to say, don't say it.
posted by thomcatspike at 7:58 AM on April 4, 2003

actually, no, jonmc. i just thought it was amusing, and am not sympathetic to the ideals they've put forth. a friend of mine saw it posted on a message board somewhere last night and forwarded it to me for kicks, so i thought it was worth showing. though now it's a little upsetting to me that i posted it after they were obviously just looking for some free "publicity".

senshineko - i don't have any opinions towards their cause, especially not one that i'm posting here on this site. putting "feel" into a post is what you're not supposed to be doing, from what i understand of being on here a few months and reading a lot of posts by others and metatalk. tis all objective.
posted by djspicerack at 8:02 AM on April 4, 2003

Except for ending slavery, fascism, Nazism, and communism, war has never solved anything.

Ummm.... we went to war because the Southern States attacked Ft. Sumter as the opening of their military campaign to, among other things, defend their right to own slaves. The United States ignored Nazism until The Japanese attacked us, and allowed Fascism to sweep across Europe for two years before doing anything about it. And last time I checked, the fear of Communism placed the United States on the verge of nuclear war for, what, fifty years?

Not to mention, of course, WWII and the Cuban Missile Crisis... what party was in the White House then? Certainly wasn't the Bush family, who were, you know, business partners with Hitler at the time.

Say what you want about these guys, but they definitely need better signs.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:02 AM on April 4, 2003

angry modem:"persay"? tsk tsk. [/nitpick]
posted by signal at 8:07 AM on April 4, 2003

I like the concept.

They don't seem to be advocating "silencing" anyone, or preventing free assembly. They are just a little island of protest in a mass see of protest.

Will it stop the protest? Nope.

Will they maybe be "counted" among the protestors? Maybe.

Will their message get a nice chunk of thoughtspace because it makes for a disproportionately amusing news image? Yes

They are effectively piggybacking on the media attention to get their message out in a peaceful manner. Sounds perfect to me.

Now if they were puking up fake blood or preventing people from getting to work or disrupting the functioning of cities then ... oh wait, that's the peace protesters.

It's funny, as soon as I saw it I knew someone would make some claim that these guys were being "disruptive" and claim that that is a problem while allowing the peace protests the ability to disrupt the lives of millions by deliberately blocking streets and so on.

Always amusing :)
posted by soulhuntre at 8:39 AM on April 4, 2003

Am I the only one mystified by the assumption that people protesting this war don't care about or support the troops? This fiction makes counter-antiwar protesters (I can't bring myself to call them "pro-war") look unjustifiably smug and self-satisfied to people not sold on this clash. EVERYONE with a few neurons to rub together for warmth supports the individuals out there in harm's way and wishes for their safety. Hearing somebody assume otherwise does nothing but make it seem they are imagining or creating a distinction that does not exist for the purpose of making themselves sound superior.
posted by NortonDC at 8:56 AM on April 4, 2003

"We must turn up OUR megaphones" ... damn, and I like a nice nap in the afternoon.

Most leftist anti-war protesters and pundits ... state that this use of force is always unnecessary — that war, ANY war, is never good.

Not logical. Saying that war is never good is not to say that war is never necessary. I go to the dentist. That's not good, I start flashing back to Little Shop of Horrors and break into a cold sweat. But I need to. In this case, a lot people from the left and right are simply saying that this war is simply unnecessary, given the public justification Bush has provided us: to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.

To them, the derivation of the 'good' is based on a simple, yet peculiar standard: the powerful and competent are wicked, while the feeble and impotent are innocent — regardless of the context. That is why they defend Iraq instead of America, and the Palestinian "resistance" instead of Israel.

If Iraq is feeble and incompetent, why is it such a menace to humanity? And since when is being competent equivalent to being good? Being a good [competent] serial killer probably makes me a bad, bad man, ethically speaking. Guy needs to bone up on his Hume.

I like the citation of John Stuart Mill in the mission statement. — a reliable writer when you need to get to sleep right quick, but a true champion of free speech nevertheless, and a champion of the "feeble and incompetent" minority as well:

Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice. But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it. If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

posted by hairyeyeball at 9:01 AM on April 4, 2003

Now if they were puking up fake blood or preventing people from getting to work or disrupting the functioning of cities then ... oh wait, that's the peace protesters.

It's funny, as soon as I saw it I knew someone would make some claim that these guys were being "disruptive" and claim that that is a problem while allowing the peace protests the ability to disrupt the lives of millions by deliberately blocking streets and so on.

Now if they were spilling real blood or preventing people from getting to work by blowing off their legs with depleted uranium or disrupting the functioning of cities of millions with a huge population of children (like Baghdad) then....oh wait, that's the United States. With the tacit approval of pro-war toadies who sit at home all comfy, watching "the troops" do their cowardly dirty work on TeeVee, and whining after their morning commute was 10 minutes late because some people dared to actually give a damn about injustice and a criminal war.

It's funny, as soon as I saw it I knew someone would discount the "disruption" and death the United States was causing in the lives of millions, and claim that difficulty navigating their SUVs through protests is the ever so much more important world problem.

Drop that coconut on your little island of protest in a mass "see" of protest.

~wink~
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 9:07 AM on April 4, 2003

Well, I found that site to be a disappointment. I sincerely hope that the right-wingers can find better writers, and more interesting position statements than are offered by this website. These guys are just a bunch of hateful crackpots that should be taken about as seriously as the American Nazi Party or the Earth Liberation Front.

These guys aren't protesting protestors, they're just right-wing protestors.
posted by mosch at 9:49 AM on April 4, 2003

These guys definitely need a better font for their site.

I notice, too, that they're pretty young - twentysomethings. Amazing, isn't it, how so many young guys are in favor of this war, but during Vietnam, the percentage was significatly lower. You don't think that had anything to do with the fact that during Vietnam they might have been drafted, do you?

And, do they come off to you as the types who might have marched off to war in order to "end slavery?"
posted by kgasmart at 9:50 AM on April 4, 2003

I thought some of the signs were amusing, but mostly they're just wiseasses. Howard Stern listeners.

Of course, there are some media outlets that have reported on what were clearly "Protest Warrior" signs as though they were serious.

I kid you not.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:22 AM on April 4, 2003

"War has never solved anything.
Except spreading slavery, nazism, fascism & communism."

aren't all those still around though?
posted by mcsweetie at 10:27 AM on April 4, 2003

er oops! that should be ending, not spreading. jesus, I said I was sorry!
posted by mcsweetie at 10:32 AM on April 4, 2003

After a while I began to notice that, although we were holding our huge signs up high, passing hundreds of spectators per minute, no one else offered a challenge. I ask Amil "Do you think they don't get it?"

No, dude, we just don't care.

I have no problem with this guy expressing his opinion, although I'm not sure what his message is. The very clean, nicely templated web-site along with professionally printed signs make me question his source of funding, as well as his motives, though.
posted by zekinskia at 10:55 AM on April 4, 2003

These guys aren't protesting protestors, they're just right-wing protestors.

Funny. I always figured that a good portion of the anti-war protesters aren't protesting the war, but are just being left-wing protesters.

These guys are just a bunch of hateful crackpots that should be taken about as seriously as the American Nazi Party or the Earth Liberation Front.

THREAD OFFICIALLY DECLARED DEAD. Time of death: 9:49 AM PST.
posted by mkn at 12:25 PM on April 4, 2003

I was at the 2/16 protest in S.F. and saw these guys up close. There were, I kid you not, 15, maybe 20 of them maxium. There were more cops surrounding these idiots than there were actual pro-war counterprotestors.

So much for a "successful crashing" of anti-war protests by the "liberty-loving Silent Majority."
posted by echolalia67 at 3:09 PM on April 4, 2003

How the fuck does anyone know what the "silent majority" thinks on any issue?
posted by inpHilltr8r at 4:40 PM on April 4, 2003

Protesters should love these guys. They're people who support the war and also consider the protesters more than just a traffic nuisance... they actually pay them the courtesy of responding. I'm not surprised there were less than 20 of them... that's more than I'd imagined there would be.
posted by David Dark at 4:58 PM on April 4, 2003