Elizabeth Barrette (ysabetwordsmith) wrote,
Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith
  • Mood: busy

Effective Counter-Protest at Comic-Con

Prior to Comic-Con, a group of Baptists announced their intention to protest.  Okay, it's America, free expression is a right.  What exactly were they protesting?  Oh ... idolatry.  *ponder*  They actually had a point in terms of pouring energy into an image to give it power, although most comic readers would not use the terms "idol" or "worship" in reference to comics.  As we shall see shortly, however, the power and the images may have actually played an active role in this event.

So the Baptist protesters showed up to find ... a fannish counter-protest.  A horde of fans, mostly in costumes and waving magnificently creative signs, demonstrated in favor of diversity and whimsy and good plain fun.  The Baptists quickly left.  There was no violence -- the fans simply weirded them away.  Highly conservative people evidently are not comfortable with brightly colored spandex and signs that say "God Loves Gay Robin."


One of the guest speakers also posted an account of the convention, with a mention of the protest and counter-protest.

Two interesting things occur to me here: 

1) On a practical level, this counter-protest worked.  It is therefore worth remembering in case other groups need to stage a counter-protest later.

2) According to Huna, or Hawaiian shamanism, "Energy flows where attention goes."  Comics are popular; lots of people read them.  Many of the characters are based on archetypes.  A few are even based on deities.  (Note the Thor  sign reading "Odin Is God.")  A prevailing theme in comics is justice: the idea of fighting to make the world a better place.  Suppose we consider for a moment that there might be something to the idol-worship concept.  We have a bunch of people pouring their attention into symbols of justice, valor, and good; those symbols can sometimes take on a life of their own and deliver a boost when invoked.  When challenged, those comic fans dressed up like their heroes and stood up for what they believe in.  So in other words ... they did something heroic.  And it worked.  And nobody got hurt.  That is made of 100% gold-plated WIN.
Tags: activism, fantasy, magic, networking, news, spirituality
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    switch
    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
    Help
  • 42 comments
xiphias

xiphias

July 23 2010, 19:37:35 UTC 10 years ago

Westboro Baptist is an odd beast. Their goal is to protest anything that people care about: they are simply trying to piss people off. They are trolls, pure and simple.

Professional trolls. Their primary source of income is suing people who lose control and take a swing at them. Therefore, their goal is to annoy people to violence.

Everything else is secondary.

Therefore, having fun with them is the only sane response.
ysabetwordsmith

Hmm...

ysabetwordsmith

July 23 2010, 20:21:21 UTC 10 years ago

>>Professional trolls. Their primary source of income is suing people who lose control and take a swing at them. Therefore, their goal is to annoy people to violence.<<

Now that part ought to be illegal. One has a right to express one's opinion; one does not have a right to torment other people. *ponder* But I'm not sure there's a way to frame that so as to penalize professional trolling without also having a chilling effect on free expression.
xiphias

Re: Hmm...

xiphias

July 23 2010, 20:31:10 UTC 10 years ago

Honestly? I think that there's a sense in which that provides a service to the society. It trains people to NOT take a swing at people they disagree with. Therefore, I disagree that it should be illegal.

If someone takes a swing at a WBC member, well, I don't feel bad about that member getting hit. And then that person gets sued. And, while I DO feel a little bad for the person who got sued, they shouldn't have taken a swing at the person in the first place, and this will train them, and all their friends, not to take a swing at the NEXT person who they disagree with, who will probably have an HONEST disagreement with them.

On the whole, I see them as a way to train the rest of us how to properly deal with dissenting views, even of the most obnoxious form.

Mockery.
ysabetwordsmith

Re: Hmm...

ysabetwordsmith

July 24 2010, 00:14:59 UTC 10 years ago

>> I think that there's a sense in which that provides a service to the society. It trains people to NOT take a swing at people they disagree with. Therefore, I disagree that it should be illegal. <<

I see your point. I don't agree with it; I think there are other methods of teaching people not to hit each other that would be cheaper, more effective, and less destructive. But it's a fair argument, so thank you for sharing.
xiphias

Re: Hmm...

xiphias

July 24 2010, 00:22:18 UTC 10 years ago

Oh, I certainly want all those other methods in play, too -- such as having school systems that include the kinds of ethics that you need to participate in a free democracy, and having policies that support the ability of parents and guardians to spend time with their charges.

But trying to make it illegal to use offensive and controversial speech to goad people into attacking you? That seems difficult. I don't like when laws include figuring out intent in order to figure out whether a crime has been committed (which is why I'm not 100% comfortable with "hate crime" laws -- but, since I DO think those laws serve a purpose, and I DON'T have a better idea of how to serve that purpose, I don't speak out against them).

I do think that considering "intent" is a fair thing to do when a judge is passing a sentence -- I'm comfortable having "intent" be part of figuring out how severe a punishment should be. But I don't like it when "intent" is part of figuring out whether something punishable happened in the first place.
ysabetwordsmith

Re: Hmm...

ysabetwordsmith

July 24 2010, 01:33:28 UTC 10 years ago

>> But trying to make it illegal to use offensive and controversial speech to goad people into attacking you? <<

For me, it's not the offensive speech that makes this a problem -- that's actually what I'd prefer to protect. The problem is goading people into attacking you. There are two things wrong with this: 1) it causes people to break the law, a type of instigation which is morally wrong (and I think already illegal, one way or another) and 2) it sets someone up to be harmed, which is entrapment, which is also morally wrong (and illegal for officers to do, although I'm not sure it's illegal for an ordinary citizen to do).
siege

Re: Hmm...

siege

July 24 2010, 04:26:52 UTC 10 years ago

"Incitement to riot" is a criminal charge which applies here.