These gaffers have probabaly never even been to a protest.
Hey now, they've probably personally signed DOZENS of change.org petitions!
(Image removed from quote.)
You sound just as misinformed as a gaffer.
The steve Bannon appointment petition is currently at 200k signatures, a number you shouldn't scoff at no matter your politician allegiance.
Actually, I just placed a gif for emphasis on the DOZENS part while stufte merely said that each individual signed dozens of petitions. Not entirely relevant or linked, I just like the way he's telling people, helps me picture lots of gaffers. Also 200k signatures in a change.org isn't all that meaningful. Considering how newsworthy that petition is, 200k is smallfry considering people all around the globe can sign it up.
considering the US has around 320 million people and europe has 743 million... if we were to count only a 10% as people with legal age to vote and the comodities to have a computer that would already be 106 million people. Now, I really don't believe 200k signatures (currently at 280k) are that meaningful, specially when not linked to real people who live in the US.
Remember how this whole election was actually a wake-up call as to how what people saw online on their own circle did not match the reality of the country whatsoever?
Your logic makes no sense. Of the people that went to the NPI dinner, only 150 showed up according to that, that should also prove the rule that as well, no? 200k is still a sizable enough number for people - namely legislators and representatives - to look into the appointment. If you're going to argue sheer numbers, Clinton won the popular vote by millions. But you're arguing that people are only getting this from online?
The statement "Remember how this whole election was actually a wake-up call as to how what people saw online on their own circle did not match the reality of the country whatsoever?" and the number of protests since the election doesn't really stand to scrutiny.
Online petitions rarely serve a meaningful purpose outside of making the people signing them feel good about themselves. It panders to slacktivism at it's core, to people who won't go out and protest or do the hard work to seek real change.
Online petitions don't necessarily equate to change, but they do bring attention to a certain issue. I don't see anything wrong with that. You seem to take online petitions literal. Like you think people are signing them will promote change with sheer numbers. It's not the case. It allows for groups of similar values to get together to promote a similar cause. What will people to listen it less about the sheer numbers, but the reason for the petition. If it's a valid reason and people are signing it in droves, it means that may be a hot button issue - especially with 300k signatures. Canada banned microbeads for example, and one of the main manners of garnering attention to the issue - the real goal of a petition - was through online petitions. That's not to say all online petitions are equal, but labeling all online petitions are slackitivism just makes you look like you're throwing stones through glass houses. it's actually a big part of protesting. It's used by the very protesters you idolize as one of many tools. You honestly sound ignorant to the role online petitions play and are using the excuse of slacktivism to feel better than other people.
The link that you're missing is that almost 300k people have signed the Steve Bannon appointment petition and that those 300k people will be going out in their day to day and tell other people about Donald Trump appointing a white nationalist as chief strategist. Let's 300k people tell 5 people. That's 1,500.000 people. Of those 1,500,00 people, those will spread the word as well. That's one of the main goals of a petition: putting attention to a specific issue and making it known. This allows activists to mobilize protesters. How can you protest if you don't know what to protest? I...don't think you understand how this activism thing really works. Please sit down.
