Has any country ever gained a real net benefit from these sorts of games, like the Olympics? I think the whole point of them is to get some organizers brilliantly rich sucking on the 3-6 billion dollar teat while the taxpayers end up getting nothing for it except traffic jams.
Yes, while not a guarrentee many countries do well out of hosting events. There’s some funding as you say, plus large boosts to the local economy if a given city is able to support the huge influx of tourists. London 2012 for example was heralded as a huge success for the UK. Beyond any sense of ‘profit’, it’s also an investment in your own country. Former Olympic cities are generally left with great sports infrastructure (and transport), and it’s good for international relations, which is hard to put a monitary value on.
People protesting and then certain groups “joining” them and burning cars and breaking windows requires a police presence.
Stop burning shit.
And yeah it won’t stop the protest from happening just because the French authorities banned the protest. Probably a few people will get arrested though.
Yes I have and that was basically the point of my comment.
It isn’t the protestors burning shit it’s other bad actors. But whether it’s the protestors burning stuff or the other bad actors is really irrelevant. Either way stuff is getting damaged so there needs to be a police presence.
It’s such a common maneuver when you want to undermine a person or a movement’s legitimacy that we even gave it a name.
In the United States MLK talked about this in so many words. He described perfectly how many people will say that they agree with your goals but not with your methods. And if you were to ask what their methods are, it would involve waiting. The problem with that is that waiting doesn’t fix anything.
Oh, that’s an easy one. You framed the problem wrong. When you decided to talk about the problem in terms of the protests, you decided that the actual problem was not important. So that was basically irresponsible.
And the outcome of your framing decision is anti-democratic. If the only thing we look at is the protest, then it’s easy for people to say and believe that a fringe element of looters or rioters is unavoidable, and therefore either the police should have more power to deal with protesters or protests themselves ought to be canceled.
It’s certainly possible to discuss protests and avoid the above pitfalls, but it definitely requires careful consideration.
It is entirely possible to talk about who is burning shit and care about the protests and care about the protestors and care about the businesses that are being destroyed. Just because I didn’t mention every single one of those things in a comment doesn’t mean I don’t care about them.
Please do try to mention them anyway, because not doing so comes across as callousness, regardless of how you actually feel about it.
Your argument is a valid viewpoint - you want positive change for the people protesting, but you want it without any of the wanton violence or burning that goes along with rioting; correct?
However, it is also true that you were: (1) placing the onus of non-violence on the people who were wronged, and protesting here. (2) assuming there was some way for the people protesting, to seperate themselves from the bad actors who engage in these riots with the sole purpose of destroying and looting shit. (3) assuming that there are other easily available methods were the masses could change the system they’re in without any of the rioting. (4) assuming that the powers that be (legislative bodies/lawmakers/policy builders) willingly engage in these methods in good faith, for which history already has plenty of counter-examples.
Lmao this is such a clown show. As a infosec professional I would have been fired so long ago in the private sector for allowing stupidity to get this far with regards to critical data leakage. As another user pointed out, we have had the technology for decades to prevent this kind of thing, but apparently the geriatrics at the DOD haven’t figured it out yet. Bunch of clowns with their CEH looking at each other for instruction.
It’s another microblogging site backed by Jack Dorsey (former Twitter CEO) and other venture capital. They made a lot of claims and now they are failing to follow-up. I think they are still invite-only so that’s likely why you haven’t heard about it.
A Post investigation — based on government documents and interviews with public officials, ranchers in the valley, farmworkers, and townspeople who live near the alfalfa fields — found that Arizona’s lax regulatory environment and sophisticated lobbying by the Saudi-owned company allowed a scarce American resource to flow unchecked to a foreign corporation. To advance its interests before the state, Fondomonte hired an influential Republican lawyer as well as a former member of Congress. And it sought to win over its rural neighbors, providing a high school with donations that included Fondomonte-sponsored sports bags and face masks emblazoned with the company logo to protect students from covid.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.