Terpit wrote:^dfd
Dont you think he could have 'protested' in a more mature manner, and perhaps done it in a way that would really show the evil government what was what as opposed to making himself look like a twat and pissing people off?
I don't really care how he "protested". There is no form of protest that will not piss off people who disagree with its political aims. This happens any time there is any demonstration that gets any sort of reaction from people whatsoever: people go, oh, couldn't he have been more polite, couldn't he have been less disruptive, etc etc. Well, if he hadn't disrupted or pissed anyone off, what would have been the point in doing anything whatsoever? Here I think all he's done is mocked the pomp and circumstance surrounding these parades by turning up looking ridiculous, and in the process, disrupting the pretence hanging over the whole thing. Displays of power don't react well to being mocked.
And by people, i mean civilians, who were there to show respect and might not actually have any association with the government.
I don't hold 'private individuals' to higher standards than the government. The parade itself is no less offensive than his form of "protest". If you are a civilian who supports the parade and not the protest, I don't see the logic in your position or why it should take precedent in public discourse
This isn't a matter of the protester actually causing anyone real harm in any direct way (unlike, say, the flasher from the other week). What is really at stake here is who dominates public discourse and decides what kinds of actions are permitted and not. Ultimately the state and other prevailing institutions will always claim the sole right to decide what is a "legitimate" form of political expression, not based on reason or ethics but based on what is a threat to their hegemony. It's *that* that is dangerous and needs to be challenged