Peace Activist Etiquette
April 28, 2003 11:24 PM Subscribe
Peace Activist Etiquette. Dick Sinnott, World War II veteran, father of two Marine colonel sons and a JAG officer, and father-in-law of a woman in Navy Intelligence, is one of many re-posters of the Internet chain letter that offers advice for how those who support President Bush should deal with war protesters. "Some of these Peaceniks are sincere; some go along to get along; some know not what they do; many are students who think it's 'cool' to participate in civil disobedience; others think it's a game and some are totally evil individuals who hate President Bush and actually hate this country."
Which one are you?
This post was deleted for the following reason: posted previously
They use the usual non-sequitur, of punching a peace activist.
They forget to mention the answer to the riddle. After the first punch you respond by dialling 911 on your cell phone. America isn't Iraq -- we have cellphones and police that care! (*GASP*).
Let them punch you. Each punch is probably worth an extra $5,000 in damages in court anyways.
So, who wants to punch me? I carry a cell phone at all times! And I'd love to see you war mongers in jail and me still outside protesting (and hopefully getting punched by more of you morons!).
Yipee!
posted by shepd at 11:31 PM on April 28, 2003
They forget to mention the answer to the riddle. After the first punch you respond by dialling 911 on your cell phone. America isn't Iraq -- we have cellphones and police that care! (*GASP*).
Let them punch you. Each punch is probably worth an extra $5,000 in damages in court anyways.
So, who wants to punch me? I carry a cell phone at all times! And I'd love to see you war mongers in jail and me still outside protesting (and hopefully getting punched by more of you morons!).
Yipee!
posted by shepd at 11:31 PM on April 28, 2003
I can't decide whether that's anti-protester satire gone wrong, or probably-too-subtle pro-peace satire.
posted by cell at 11:34 PM on April 28, 2003
posted by cell at 11:34 PM on April 28, 2003
In the middle of their remarks--without warning--punch them in the nose.
...let me say this: there is no difference in an individual attacking unsuspecting victims than there is a group of terrorists attacking a nation.
I think he's trying to tell us he's a terrorist.
posted by BloodyWallet at 11:42 PM on April 28, 2003
...let me say this: there is no difference in an individual attacking unsuspecting victims than there is a group of terrorists attacking a nation.
I think he's trying to tell us he's a terrorist.
posted by BloodyWallet at 11:42 PM on April 28, 2003
I think it's a perfect solution to this 'Peaceniks problem'. In fact I will apply it to other areas as well. Whenever someone asks me a difficult question I'll just punch them in the face.
I might even use it as a new negotiating tactic:
Me : 'Can I have a payrise?'
Boss: 'No'
Me :Punch, whack, pow
Boss:'Ow, why did you do that?'
Me :'Come on, what's your answer to that?'
Boss:'You're fired, talk to my lawyer'
posted by sebas at 11:46 PM on April 28, 2003
I might even use it as a new negotiating tactic:
Me : 'Can I have a payrise?'
Boss: 'No'
Me :Punch, whack, pow
Boss:'Ow, why did you do that?'
Me :'Come on, what's your answer to that?'
Boss:'You're fired, talk to my lawyer'
posted by sebas at 11:46 PM on April 28, 2003
I should've thought of that. Let's just sue our attackers.
posted by tbc at 11:51 PM on April 28, 2003
posted by tbc at 11:51 PM on April 28, 2003
This post can go nowhere good.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:57 PM on April 28, 2003
posted by madamjujujive at 11:57 PM on April 28, 2003
There is a seperate etiquette if you were against the war in Iraq but you supported the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban: you get to hit back three times; once for having been hit, once for bin Laden still being free, and once for having been lied to about Saddam having a connection to 9/11.
posted by homunculus at 12:12 AM on April 29, 2003
posted by homunculus at 12:12 AM on April 29, 2003
Lest we forget this category:
Drunken naked man wanders into peace rally. Seems confused at first, but peaceniks around him are not threatened, so he simply stumbles around as usual.
posted by angry modem at 12:12 AM on April 29, 2003
Drunken naked man wanders into peace rally. Seems confused at first, but peaceniks around him are not threatened, so he simply stumbles around as usual.
posted by angry modem at 12:12 AM on April 29, 2003
Hey, you know... after some careful thought:
I think the peace activist should steal a plane and crash it into his house.
Would that fit the analogy?
posted by cell at 12:15 AM on April 29, 2003
I think the peace activist should steal a plane and crash it into his house.
Would that fit the analogy?
posted by cell at 12:15 AM on April 29, 2003
This has been making the rounds for a long, long time. A version of it has even been in-lined on MeFi. Twice. In the same thread.
madamjujujive is right. No good can come of this thread.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 12:50 AM on April 29, 2003
madamjujujive is right. No good can come of this thread.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 12:50 AM on April 29, 2003
Nice call, cell.
The obvious answer of what to do is to laugh and walk away from the sociopath after the first punch, leaving him to self-destruct over time due to his incurable mental illness.
On the other hand, a spell in a sanitorium (preferably in Russia, France or Germany where they specialise in these things) with a course of ECT, hallucinogenic drugs and cognitive therapy might help him see the error of his ways.
posted by cbrody at 12:58 AM on April 29, 2003
The obvious answer of what to do is to laugh and walk away from the sociopath after the first punch, leaving him to self-destruct over time due to his incurable mental illness.
On the other hand, a spell in a sanitorium (preferably in Russia, France or Germany where they specialise in these things) with a course of ECT, hallucinogenic drugs and cognitive therapy might help him see the error of his ways.
posted by cbrody at 12:58 AM on April 29, 2003
Sorry, Slithy_Tove. I searched MeFi for "peace activist etiquette" and "punch him". Neither showed a result. Am I using the search feature incorrectly?
Besides that, I think the more interesting aspect of the link is the commentary that the military patriarch wrote.
posted by tbc at 1:06 AM on April 29, 2003
Besides that, I think the more interesting aspect of the link is the commentary that the military patriarch wrote.
posted by tbc at 1:06 AM on April 29, 2003
I've always loved this one; the idea that attacking someone because they *might* attack you in the future (and maybe with some special scary weapons that they *might* have) to me seems closer to
Monty Python's martial art, Llap Goch.
posted by Pericles at 3:52 AM on April 29, 2003
Monty Python's martial art, Llap Goch.
posted by Pericles at 3:52 AM on April 29, 2003
Better thread than dead...or does it go the other way around?
posted by newlydead at 4:46 AM on April 29, 2003
posted by newlydead at 4:46 AM on April 29, 2003
Or Hans Blick or Jane Fonda.
Okay, Dick, you got Jane's name right, but I have to take off some points for the other one. His name is Hans Blix, you know. With an X.
Hans Blick? Maybe he's the inspector in charge of uncovering drafting pencils and gum erasers.
posted by grabbingsand at 5:28 AM on April 29, 2003
Okay, Dick, you got Jane's name right, but I have to take off some points for the other one. His name is Hans Blix, you know. With an X.
Hans Blick? Maybe he's the inspector in charge of uncovering drafting pencils and gum erasers.
posted by grabbingsand at 5:28 AM on April 29, 2003
tbc:
"I should've thought of that. Let's just sue our attackers."
please remind me, when did Iraq attack the United States? because I was under the impression that Osama did it. there's not that much 9-11/Iraq evidence, the Daily Telegraph notwithstanding, you know?
maybe you're mistaking one former US government disgruntled employee (Osama) for another (Saddam)
you'd better stick to punching people in the nose because your reasoning is not doing much good to your cause
posted by matteo at 5:52 AM on April 29, 2003
"I should've thought of that. Let's just sue our attackers."
please remind me, when did Iraq attack the United States? because I was under the impression that Osama did it. there's not that much 9-11/Iraq evidence, the Daily Telegraph notwithstanding, you know?
maybe you're mistaking one former US government disgruntled employee (Osama) for another (Saddam)
you'd better stick to punching people in the nose because your reasoning is not doing much good to your cause
posted by matteo at 5:52 AM on April 29, 2003
some are totally evil individuals who hate President Bush and actually hate this country
i'm hardly evil, i hate bush, and hate what this country's leaders stand for, but who could hate this country? it is a beautiful place, (except for the uglyness) filled with interesting and unique people (except for the brainless drones) and comes complete with the mesmerizing mythology of the american dream (except the parts about compassion, hard work leading to success, any kid growing up to be president, cops being your friends, and, well, the rest of it). given the fact that success is only guaranteed those who can ruthlessly ruin others, that currency is the supreme being of choice, that someone somewhere is monitoring your purchases (or overcharging you if you refuse to allow it), that the people in power are fixated on crucial world issues like defining the proper usage of your genitalia, it's safe to say i'm a bit disturbed about those things. but hate the country? elephant piss. (the pachydermic equivalent of hogwash).
posted by quonsar at 5:56 AM on April 29, 2003
i'm hardly evil, i hate bush, and hate what this country's leaders stand for, but who could hate this country? it is a beautiful place, (except for the uglyness) filled with interesting and unique people (except for the brainless drones) and comes complete with the mesmerizing mythology of the american dream (except the parts about compassion, hard work leading to success, any kid growing up to be president, cops being your friends, and, well, the rest of it). given the fact that success is only guaranteed those who can ruthlessly ruin others, that currency is the supreme being of choice, that someone somewhere is monitoring your purchases (or overcharging you if you refuse to allow it), that the people in power are fixated on crucial world issues like defining the proper usage of your genitalia, it's safe to say i'm a bit disturbed about those things. but hate the country? elephant piss. (the pachydermic equivalent of hogwash).
posted by quonsar at 5:56 AM on April 29, 2003
I'm sure some people can succeed without ruthlessly ruining others, Quonsar. As for the rest of your post, I wish I could argue with you. Thanks for the depressing post.
posted by Holden at 6:04 AM on April 29, 2003
posted by Holden at 6:04 AM on April 29, 2003
I once stared a hostile drunk square in the eye and said:
"Go ahead. I don't hit back; I press charges."
He backed down.
posted by Cerebus at 6:08 AM on April 29, 2003
"Go ahead. I don't hit back; I press charges."
He backed down.
posted by Cerebus at 6:08 AM on April 29, 2003
I love kitsch philosophy.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:16 AM on April 29, 2003
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:16 AM on April 29, 2003
i once stared a hostile drunk square in the eye and said:
"corn muffin spatulas are advancing on your hirsute nasal passages."
he vomited on my shoes.
posted by quonsar at 6:23 AM on April 29, 2003
"corn muffin spatulas are advancing on your hirsute nasal passages."
he vomited on my shoes.
posted by quonsar at 6:23 AM on April 29, 2003
If someone punches you as a peace protestor in the nose, you should definitely punch back, all props to cerberus. In my experience, people who throw the first punch generally haven't learned sufficiently that punching hurts. It is a lesson they desperately need to be taught - it's not about that they punched you; it's about who will they punch next? Perhaps someone less able to defened themselves than you are.
At the same time, peace protestors would be less likely to engender punching incidents if they did not automatically assume that those who support the war are moronic, uniformed barbarians who sport erections at the sight of blood and watch with glee as bombs rain down on families. There are some of those, just as their are arrogant provocateurs and posers espouse any cause that discomfits Father Dearest amongst the peace supporters, whom war supporters should recognize do not constitute the entire of the peace movement. A pair of prejudices squaring off does not a reasonable situation make.
If we all were to acknowledge that each side has valid and compelling arguments, and that both sides seek to employ those arguments toward the creation of what each sees to be a better, safer, freer world, we might subsequently be able to build towards that goal together.
*crickets*
posted by UncleFes at 7:07 AM on April 29, 2003
At the same time, peace protestors would be less likely to engender punching incidents if they did not automatically assume that those who support the war are moronic, uniformed barbarians who sport erections at the sight of blood and watch with glee as bombs rain down on families. There are some of those, just as their are arrogant provocateurs and posers espouse any cause that discomfits Father Dearest amongst the peace supporters, whom war supporters should recognize do not constitute the entire of the peace movement. A pair of prejudices squaring off does not a reasonable situation make.
If we all were to acknowledge that each side has valid and compelling arguments, and that both sides seek to employ those arguments toward the creation of what each sees to be a better, safer, freer world, we might subsequently be able to build towards that goal together.
*crickets*
posted by UncleFes at 7:07 AM on April 29, 2003
shit, sorry, all props to Cerebus. My Edith Hamilton is showing.
posted by UncleFes at 7:08 AM on April 29, 2003
posted by UncleFes at 7:08 AM on April 29, 2003
Lest we forget this category:
Drunken naked man wanders into peace rally. Seems confused at first, but peaceniks around him are not threatened, so he simply stumbles around as usual.
Yeah, but that's the guy that the local paper will slap on the front page to make all the protesters look crazy.
And quonsar, I'd love to have a drink with you someday. Probably on separate sides of plexiglass, but you know, I still think it could be fun.
posted by Ufez Jones at 7:17 AM on April 29, 2003
Drunken naked man wanders into peace rally. Seems confused at first, but peaceniks around him are not threatened, so he simply stumbles around as usual.
Yeah, but that's the guy that the local paper will slap on the front page to make all the protesters look crazy.
And quonsar, I'd love to have a drink with you someday. Probably on separate sides of plexiglass, but you know, I still think it could be fun.
posted by Ufez Jones at 7:17 AM on April 29, 2003
... Which one are you?
Mu
Here is a theoretical point of view regarding hitting back.
War is a typical example of a Prisoner's Dilemma [scroll down to read the rules] game: everybody would be better off to cooperate, but each player has an incentive to defect. If the game is repeated, there are several possible strategies:
- be nice all the time (but the other player will take advantage of you)
- defect all the time (it will induce the other player to do the same, thus no higher gain is possible)
- defect sometimes, cooperate sometimes: the strategy that does the best in most cases is Tit-For-Tat TFT (I will play this turn what you have played last turn)
This is the theoretical justification for using TFT, also known as 'eye for an eye'. Steven DenBeste makes a very good argument for TFT. The punch story also tries to make the case for TFT.
TFT has a problem. If both players play the same strategy (people tend to imitate successful people / strategies) and there is a communication problem (one side misunderstands the action of the other, reading defect instead of cooperation), we will end up with a perpetual war:
player 1: CDCDC...
player 2: DCDCD...
The solution is not to punish right away, but to wait another turn to confirm the defection is not just noise: Tit-For-Two-Tats (TF2T).
player 1: CCCDCCCDDCCCDDDDCCC...
player 2: CCCCCCCCCDCCCCDDDCC...
For a funny story see dcodea's link (from this thread).
Back to the main story: of course you will have to hit back. The question is how long are you willing to wait before hitting back!
From a philosophical / religious perspective, TFT is 4000 years old, TF2T is 2000 years old ('turn the other cheek') but we just started to analyze these strategies.
posted by MzB at 7:32 AM on April 29, 2003
Mu
Here is a theoretical point of view regarding hitting back.
War is a typical example of a Prisoner's Dilemma [scroll down to read the rules] game: everybody would be better off to cooperate, but each player has an incentive to defect. If the game is repeated, there are several possible strategies:
- be nice all the time (but the other player will take advantage of you)
- defect all the time (it will induce the other player to do the same, thus no higher gain is possible)
- defect sometimes, cooperate sometimes: the strategy that does the best in most cases is Tit-For-Tat TFT (I will play this turn what you have played last turn)
This is the theoretical justification for using TFT, also known as 'eye for an eye'. Steven DenBeste makes a very good argument for TFT. The punch story also tries to make the case for TFT.
TFT has a problem. If both players play the same strategy (people tend to imitate successful people / strategies) and there is a communication problem (one side misunderstands the action of the other, reading defect instead of cooperation), we will end up with a perpetual war:
player 1: CDCDC...
player 2: DCDCD...
The solution is not to punish right away, but to wait another turn to confirm the defection is not just noise: Tit-For-Two-Tats (TF2T).
player 1: CCCDCCCDDCCCDDDDCCC...
player 2: CCCCCCCCCDCCCCDDDCC...
For a funny story see dcodea's link (from this thread).
Back to the main story: of course you will have to hit back. The question is how long are you willing to wait before hitting back!
From a philosophical / religious perspective, TFT is 4000 years old, TF2T is 2000 years old ('turn the other cheek') but we just started to analyze these strategies.
posted by MzB at 7:32 AM on April 29, 2003
I'd be proud to have that drunken naked man in my protest.
okay, so replace "protest" with "21st birthday kegger"
posted by angry modem at 7:32 AM on April 29, 2003
okay, so replace "protest" with "21st birthday kegger"
posted by angry modem at 7:32 AM on April 29, 2003
Speaking of jane fonda, and not to derail, but does anyone know if this is true?
Jane Fonda: Iraq War Will Turn World Against America
But according to the lecture series website: No Jane Fonda in Vancouver. Doesn't seem like she'd be a last minute replacement. Also, no scheduled event on Thursday the 10th (Though Marlo Thomas spoke on the 8th).
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:55 AM on April 29, 2003
Jane Fonda: Iraq War Will Turn World Against America
But according to the lecture series website: No Jane Fonda in Vancouver. Doesn't seem like she'd be a last minute replacement. Also, no scheduled event on Thursday the 10th (Though Marlo Thomas spoke on the 8th).
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:55 AM on April 29, 2003
quonsar, I'd love to have a drink with you someday. Probably on separate sides of plexiglass,
ufez, you going to jail?
posted by quonsar at 8:11 AM on April 29, 2003
ufez, you going to jail?
posted by quonsar at 8:11 AM on April 29, 2003
I think we should put quonsar, clavdivs and thomcatspike in a room, fill it with aerosolized LSD, turn the temperature up to 100, wait ten minutes, then throw ufez in cold sober.
Just to see what would happen, that's why!
posted by UncleFes at 8:16 AM on April 29, 2003
Just to see what would happen, that's why!
posted by UncleFes at 8:16 AM on April 29, 2003
'Twas just a safety precaution.
And Fes! Sober? You heartless mongrel!
posted by Ufez Jones at 8:25 AM on April 29, 2003
And Fes! Sober? You heartless mongrel!
posted by Ufez Jones at 8:25 AM on April 29, 2003
Matteo seems to be the only person to point out so far the problem with this logic:
It is perfectly reasonable to punch back when someone has punched you in the nose; however, it is wrong and unfair to punch someone other than the person who punched you.
If you were standing in a crowd of people and one of them punched you and your response was to punch the person next to the person who punched you because you couldn't reach the person who punched you, that would be wrong. (Wow, gotta love that spaghetti sentence!)
posted by PigAlien at 8:35 AM on April 29, 2003
It is perfectly reasonable to punch back when someone has punched you in the nose; however, it is wrong and unfair to punch someone other than the person who punched you.
If you were standing in a crowd of people and one of them punched you and your response was to punch the person next to the person who punched you because you couldn't reach the person who punched you, that would be wrong. (Wow, gotta love that spaghetti sentence!)
posted by PigAlien at 8:35 AM on April 29, 2003
"Some of these Peaceniks are sincere; some go along to get along; some know not what they do; many are students who think it's 'cool' to participate in civil disobedience; others think it's a game and some are totally evil individuals who hate President Bush and actually hate this country."
The stupid punching scenario aside, that's not too bad an analysis. Of course, you could describe just about any political faction along the same lines, including the pro-war faction.
No Jane Fonda in Vancouver.
...
posted by jonmc at 8:51 AM on April 29, 2003
The stupid punching scenario aside, that's not too bad an analysis. Of course, you could describe just about any political faction along the same lines, including the pro-war faction.
No Jane Fonda in Vancouver.
...
posted by jonmc at 8:51 AM on April 29, 2003
how exactly does one support our troops, anyhow? do you just have to think it or do you have to buy something or do you just have to harass activists or what?
posted by mcsweetie at 8:54 AM on April 29, 2003
posted by mcsweetie at 8:54 AM on April 29, 2003
And Fes! Sober? You heartless mongrel!
It's all in the name of science, my friend.
posted by UncleFes at 8:55 AM on April 29, 2003
It's all in the name of science, my friend.
posted by UncleFes at 8:55 AM on April 29, 2003
how exactly does one support our troops, anyhow?
Well, if you follow the President's example, you cut their benefits in order to make room for your massive tax cuts.
It's all in the name of science, my friend.
Can't you at least arm me with the lid of a trash can and a dead lungfish?
posted by Ufez Jones at 9:04 AM on April 29, 2003
Well, if you follow the President's example, you cut their benefits in order to make room for your massive tax cuts.
It's all in the name of science, my friend.
Can't you at least arm me with the lid of a trash can and a dead lungfish?
posted by Ufez Jones at 9:04 AM on April 29, 2003
*mulls*
How about a frozen perch and a pie plate with a piece of underwear elastic wrapped around it? Best I can do and still maintain experimental integrity.
posted by UncleFes at 9:09 AM on April 29, 2003
How about a frozen perch and a pie plate with a piece of underwear elastic wrapped around it? Best I can do and still maintain experimental integrity.
posted by UncleFes at 9:09 AM on April 29, 2003
NYC Feb 15: Police herded protestors into holding pens like animals, barred many from reaching the demonstration, attacked with pepper spray and horses, arrested hundreds of people.
posted by muckster at 9:16 AM on April 29, 2003
posted by muckster at 9:16 AM on April 29, 2003
Make it a tilapia and we've got a deal. When can I pencil you in?
posted by Ufez Jones at 9:28 AM on April 29, 2003
posted by Ufez Jones at 9:28 AM on April 29, 2003
MzB, I don't get your assertion that "of course you will have to hit back". There's no such rule in real life. OK, most humans with a sense of dignity will hit back eventually if their opponent's strategy is continually to defect, but personally I would probably choose to settle into a pattern of co-operation in the long term, assuming that my opponent's better nature would eventually take over.
But maybe I'm just naturally an altruistic optimist ;-)
posted by cbrody at 9:34 AM on April 29, 2003
But maybe I'm just naturally an altruistic optimist ;-)
posted by cbrody at 9:34 AM on April 29, 2003
assuming that my opponent's better nature would eventually take over
This is the key assumption. In order for your strategy to work you need to prove (not only believe) that the assumption is true.
Another view: let's say that you play only cooperation CCCCCCCCCC. My best response assuming that you will not play anything else is to defect all the time: DDDDDDDDDD, since my payoff would be greater than playing CCCCCCCCCC. Playing C all the time is possible, but we need a method to discourage / punish defectors.
However, nothing in the world prevents you from not hitting back at all, it is your choice. But we need to use general models, where different strategies are used, in order to increase the credibility of the analysis.
posted by MzB at 10:01 AM on April 29, 2003
This is the key assumption. In order for your strategy to work you need to prove (not only believe) that the assumption is true.
Another view: let's say that you play only cooperation CCCCCCCCCC. My best response assuming that you will not play anything else is to defect all the time: DDDDDDDDDD, since my payoff would be greater than playing CCCCCCCCCC. Playing C all the time is possible, but we need a method to discourage / punish defectors.
However, nothing in the world prevents you from not hitting back at all, it is your choice. But we need to use general models, where different strategies are used, in order to increase the credibility of the analysis.
posted by MzB at 10:01 AM on April 29, 2003
« Older NSFNFH (not safe for NewsFilter haters) | We were not lying Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by tbc at 11:27 PM on April 28, 2003