Can't Even Enjoy A Movie...

Ok, heres something very complicated to understand. How is this government promoting or paying protesters? Please explain the benefit this government has from this. My good sense says that protests are AGAINST the government and instead of getting a benefit they get peoples bad mood, social chaos, disconformity in general, all playing against the government.

Please provide both a reasonable explanation. (And ajo, I dont admit a "you cant get reasonable with peronism" as an answer).
 
I think the protests are right.

The last protest I got stuck in, was a group 30-40 drunken oil workers from Ushuaia, who formed a human barricade around a replacement bus service. We had all been on a flight to Salta, which was diverted to Tucuman. There weren't many buses available as it was Christmas, and the first bus to leave was reserved for the elderly, families with babies and young children, and people with special needs.

The drunken oil workers decided that they were most in need of the first bus, and that if they weren't leaving first, nobody was going to leave. The police wouldn't come, obviously they didn't want to interfere with people exercising their democratic right. Airport security couldn't do anything either. So we all sat in a boiling bus, with no food or water for several hours, trying to stop our children from crying. All because a bunch of drunken bullies were used to getting their own way.

Sorry Matias, there are lots of legitimate protest groups, but there are lots of groups who just abuse their power to push their agenda, and it's not always a worthy cause.
 
Dontmindme it was I who got the refund. I knew of a particularly paranoid guy from Eastern Europe who changed the locks himself every time he rented an apartment because he didn't trust locksmiths. I find the attitude less paranoid now.

I checked the site of SUTERH and found out that if you're a member you can win a trip to Punta del Este! I'm sure the winner will need at least some spending cash but I'm also sure that the good people of that union will help acquire uruguayan pesos at the official rate. Why not Mar del Plata, or Pinamar if they want to make a point about "incliusiveness"? That would be the National-Popular Workers Party attitude.

I don't like protesters and a good lot of them deserve a punch in the face, but thankfully I don't have to deal with them much. It's just one of those things I chalk up to 'living in Argentina' and having to put up with.... like when my water goes out in the middle of washing my hair.

The government has taken the stance of allowing protests in order to appear sympathetic, or not getting in the way of 'democracy.' After the military dictatorship, I can sort of understand where they're coming from, but enough is enough. Protesters shouldn't be allowed to hold the city or certain streets hostage. Instead of democracy is more like democrazy.

Yes the Right Wing Fascists of the 70s have been so disgustingly inhumane to the point that they gave the Left Wing Fascists of today carte blanche to disrupt the fabric of civil society through extortion, widespread police-aided-crime, and "demonstrations", all in the name of "human rights" (but not Julio Lopez's rights).

I think the protests are right. When you have a lot of social problems, for example, a lot of people getting poor, and loosing their all life jobs, and all in a short time, like it happened in the 90s when these protests began, and more importantly, when you have the entire society giving their back to these problems, ignoring your situation with individualism as its best, not worrying of the country, of the social problems (but then protesting only when this reality hits them with insecurity, again, individualism) then its ok to make some noise, to make people aware, to spread reality to people that dont give a shit of your problems or anyone problems and pretend that nothing happens and continue his day to day life.
If it was more organised and controlled by the police, it didnt have the effect of making people aware.

Not everyone has this "I would kill them" attitude

Right or wrong, do you think people are better off economically in the mid or long run through public demonstrations?
The protests began in the 90s? I thought the anarchists and socialists of the 1910s and 20s were some of the first protestors in Argentina and they demanded sensible things like universal suffrage and to be paid overtime. It was a certain Colonel (who called himself General and belonged to a subversive paramilitary group for which he should have been hanged for high treason) who hijacked Socialist ideas for his own Populist schemes. It was that person who first organised the masses and through protest engendered a new kind of thug power that would act on his behalf whenever he wanted. It was this movement that consolidated the power of the Unions and their "right" (power) to incorporate every single aspect of Argentine Economy which in turn causes people to lose their jobs (or rather causes job creators to flee the country or lower their expectations) and depress the economy in general.
Why do you think you are so much smarter, or that this administration is wiser than either the "Right wing" Chileans or the "Communist" Uruguayans? or even Brazilians....?


So, no I would not kill "them", but I have some grounds to suspect that under Argentine law the Colonel should have been executed, as I said, a punishment reserved only for the highest levels of treason, which he and the people in his officers club committed.
 
Ok, heres something very complicated to understand. How is this government promoting or paying protesters? Please explain the benefit this government has from this. My good sense says that protests are AGAINST the government and instead of getting a benefit they get peoples bad mood, social chaos, disconformity in general, all playing against the government.

Please provide both a reasonable explanation. (And ajo, I dont admit a "you cant get reasonable with peronism" as an answer).


What do you mean how is the government paying and promoting protesters? You do live in BsAs, don't you? It's too much effort to explain if you're not already aware of what's going on.
 
Protest, like crime in this city is a matter of when, not if it will happen. This is the tiresome, unoriginal , predictable and utterly futile gesture by people who show up after-the-fact. Here's a thought... being proactive would probably make these social occurrences less likely. The general attitude is to wait for someone else to act then jump on the bandwagon once it shows up on facebook.
People here are professional victims; they revel in their misfortune, then complain until the next fracaso... then the cycle begins again. In 11 years I have not seen ANY changes brought on by ANY protest.
It's business as usual.
 
Pepper Spray from a floor above and the movie starts on time.

Did you just get here?

Actually, that's a rhetorical question, because you already mentioned that you were (A) Going to a movie at the Village (without specifying "Recoleta Village") and (B ) Went to eat dinner at The Hard Rock Cafe.

Spray the Mo'Fo's and go see your movie.

Yeah, I know you understood, but just for clarity's sake, I've been here for 8 years, quite immersed in two different parts of society, and partly immersed in a third. This is just the first time I have been actually blocked from getting to something I've paid for by protestors who occupied the lobby of a building owned by private interests, as opposed to blocking public streets. I mean these guys were actually inside the lobby...

And yeah, I don't think Mattias understands the counter-productivity that we are talking about related to this kind of demonstration. They will get zero sympathy from me, because I am not causing them any problems, but they sure caused me problems. I would be a lot more likely to help them, for example, if they were out in Plaza San Martin in numbers, with banners, booths set up with information leaflets and people available to discuss the issue. I would even listen to a communist, a political philosophy that I think is quite naive, in such a situation. I will never listen to or sympathize with a group who thinks it's great to interrupt commerce because they have a grievance - that's selfishness and very short-sighted thinking, something this country certainly doesn't need any more of at this point.

Blocking people from getting to where they need to go when they are either in the middle of their days, conducting their business, or spending money in an economy that could use some movement is doing nothing more than alienating anyone who might feel like listening to their cause and helping out.

I don't care if it's a custom or not, or a right, what-have-you, it is counterproductive and does nothing more than contribute to the chaos that the government is already quite fond of creating in one way or another.
 
Dontmindme it was I who got the refund. I knew of a particularly paranoid guy from Eastern Europe who changed the locks himself every time he rented an apartment because he didn't trust locksmiths. I find the attitude less paranoid now.

I checked the site of SUTERH and found out that if you're a member you can win a trip to Punta del Este! I'm sure the winner will need at least some spending cash but I'm also sure that the good people of that union will help acquire uruguayan pesos at the official rate. Why not Mar del Plata, or Pinamar if they want to make a point about "incliusiveness"? That would be the National-Popular Workers Party attitude.



Yes the Right Wing Fascists of the 70s have been so disgustingly inhumane to the point that they gave the Left Wing Fascists of today carte blanche to disrupt the fabric of civil society through extortion, widespread police-aided-crime, and "demonstrations", all in the name of "human rights" (but not Julio Lopez's rights).



Right or wrong, do you think people are better off economically in the mid or long run through public demonstrations?
The protests began in the 90s? I thought the anarchists and socialists of the 1910s and 20s were some of the first protestors in Argentina and they demanded sensible things like universal suffrage and to be paid overtime. It was a certain Colonel (who called himself General and belonged to a subversive paramilitary group for which he should have been hanged for high treason) who hijacked Socialist ideas for his own Populist schemes. It was that person who first organised the masses and through protest engendered a new kind of thug power that would act on his behalf whenever he wanted. It was this movement that consolidated the power of the Unions and their "right" (power) to incorporate every single aspect of Argentine Economy which in turn causes people to lose their jobs (or rather causes job creators to flee the country or lower their expectations) and depress the economy in general.
Why do you think you are so much smarter, or that this administration is wiser than either the "Right wing" Chileans or the "Communist" Uruguayans? or even Brazilians....?


So, no I would not kill "them", but I have some grounds to suspect that under Argentine law the Colonel should have been executed, as I said, a punishment reserved only for the highest levels of treason, which he and the people in his officers club committed.

peronism linked to jobs lost? to depressed economy? dude, I dont know which authors did you study to reach these conclusions but certainly they are far away from reality. Peronism is the political representation of argentine jobs, of pymes, of full employment level, of NATIONAL INDUSTRY, of course is not heavy industry, of course is Pymes, but they are jobs, power to the unions, expand the internal market, create demand, create consumption. Peronism is argentine version of Keynesianism, of a powerful state intervining economy, regulating, etc.
On the other hand, the militars represent the right, the repression, the political persecution, the prohibition of peronism for 20 years, control of democratical governmentss like Illia and Frondizi, represent "ajuste", transfer to the banks, to the agrarian upper classes, represent the cooling the economy, slowing ot down, social exclusion, etc.

Thats the history of Peronism.

And about the rigin of protests, of course I didnt mean to say they were alll originated in the 90s, Argentina has a huge history of riots, sindicalism, etc, wht I tried to say is that these protests like piquetes that prevail today, were originated in the 90s, and theres a premise that have given them results, that is, go and cry to mother state. The State is the same state that is involved in negotiation with multiple powers, that has agreements wwith corporations, etc, so the State (and not the market), this amazing social construction that involves every sector of society, must provide jobs and social benefits for all. So thaats why they go and cry to this government, because this particular government has given lots of things to them, like social plans, which they are not jobs, but it is indeed a help considering where we come from.
 
What do you mean how is the government paying and promoting protesters? You do live in BsAs, don't you? It's too much effort to explain if you're not already aware of what's going on.

You mean that the government pays the protests to then give them social plans? Wouldnt be easier to just give them the plans and avoid the protests? what beneffit the government could have from a sociaal protest?
 
Fucking idiots. 3pm you'll sell me a movie ticket. 430pm, 20 minutes before it's about to start you're suddenly on strike.

IMAGE_59.jpg


In the end I guess I ended up watching planet of the apes anyways.
 
Back
Top