#Book Challenge

There is currently no word limit.

The topic: What is appropriate protest?

Competition will end in one week.

Someone will win something likely a showcase of their work on the website for a year.

This will be voted on by those who are writing judges.
Below is an example of a short text.

Appropriate Protest

My name is N. And although I would like to say this is fiction or non fiction I want you

to decide this for yourself. Can any thing that I say matter? That’s the bigger question.

The second question, what is protest? Protest defined as: a concept that is not fully grasped but has importance in which some of the population chooses to act while others

don’t. Perpetuating the subject in question the arrival of full agreeance has different

forms in which resistance of the change and action of those who wish to make the change

interact simultaneously. Safe protest defined as: achieving full agreeance amongst the population in which no form of violence is present along with full consent by others. Now that you know both would you say that other types of protest exist? Yes. This is important to know what other protests exist. I could say nonchalant that you know all of them by simply watching the news. This isn’t true. Protest that is non safe exists in many forms by many different people. In fact, I would not need to write this book if these didn’t exist. What is the definition of a spring? This task is an interactive task you must research this quickly without reading any further. Now that you know what a spring might look like you can say to yourself the intention by all those who attend aren’t the same.

 

Who is responsible for those who do not wish to follow safety rules and regulations by

their respective country? Does this responsibility fall on the people who are hoping for the change? or is this the responsibility of specific individuals. When do you make the differentiation between a violent movement or a scenario in which specific individuals

act violently. Who holds those accountable for acting individually? Are they influenced by

the chatter and ideas that are being circulated. Their choice to lift their hand to possibly obtain a quicker result? We don’t know the answers to theses questions. This book isn’t about these questions. This book is about appropriate protest.

 

 

First say this, I wish to protest something but only using my words which will not reduce an individual intentionally or the possibility with my overarching knowledge. Now proceed to protest. Protest anything for it comes from opinion on how to act. I protest bubble gum. What you may say? Everyone loves bubble gum you won’t ever convince more than non bubble gum lovers that bubble gum shouldn’t be used. Such a preposterous statement. Then I say hmmm you really want to know? They say no! Wow what an incredible thing. Then you ask for consent.

 

Can I proceed to persuade you with my words? They say no. You stop there. Then you say to yourself after many attempts of asking this question no one wants to be persuaded to think differently than they do. You say to yourself I want to accomplish my goal but I want to

do it safely. Surely there must be another way. So then you say how else can I do this to

attract others to listen and change their opinion while still being safe. Others might call this giving knowledge. Asking for knowledge comes in many forms by knowledge seekers.

 

Knowledge seeking is the only viable effort to protest safely. Knowledge seekers are searching for different ways to think and have a reciprocal benefit of exercising ways to think and speak. When knowledge seekers are surrounded by other knowledge seekers an open exchange of ideas are presented. If the idea has substantial ground, then the knowledge seeker might change their form of action. Then you say there must be another safe way to reach those who aren’t knowledge seekers. This is the news. The news covers topics in a randomized way in which those who watch obtain knowledge on different topics and potentially decide based on this to change their opinion. This is called natural absorption in which you don’t intent to listen or receive new information on a particular topic but you do anyways. What about gathering together in a clump holding signs. This is the most common way to make a protest which will then potentially be covered by the news. Let’s get into it. As a safety person who knows safety let’s think of all the ways it could it turn unsafe. Someone could step on your toe. You might be compacted or confined to your appropriate area to protest and get shoved or squished. Then you say surely that can’t be all that bad to obtain coverage on a topic. Remember my earlier discussion on the variety of individuals who feel a specific way. The most important thing to know you cannot control their actions. You also provide a level of shelter from being properly arrested for them to preform these actions. Ask yourself if no one was around and they replicated their action in the early hour, what’s the level of simplicity that they might be arrested? Compared to the level simplicity that they might be arrested in the shelter that you have provided for them to protest. If you cannot see this as a concern after many instances of this being evident I can’t say this is the book for you.

 

Variety of Protestation

So after this was made evident that clumping together in a group to protest after it has surpassed its safe levels we can proceed by outlining safe levels. What are safe levels? Safe levels are a scenario in which a law enforcement officer can reach the person who has decided to act violently in a quick manner. If this has been impeded in any way, then it is deemed unsafe and inappropriate. But then you say I want to be apart of the protest. You still can be apart of the protest by chatting online or a social platform to do so.

 

What are other ways that protest can be damaging or dangerous to others and how can this be made safe. If you are protesting the life of an individual and it is against the law. Chances are you protesting something that has already been protested in the past. This is called an already visited topic. You have not arrived at an appropriate knowledge that is required to know the difference between something that is a right and something that is a wrong. For instance if you are protesting that you believe someone should be stoned chances are you haven’t learned about the reasons why this is a bad idea. You have not carried through the discussions with others in a safe way to make this realization for yourself. This is why already visited topics shouldn’t be protested in a way in which another individual’s safety comes into question. That type of protest should first be thoroughly researched along with viewing opinions of others on the topic in the past.

 

What’s an urgent protest. An urgent protest is when a topic has level of urgency attached to the topic. How do you protest something you feel is urgent to you and or the thing that exists? This is made for people who have the ability to do something monumental in a quick way. Often times this is judges of high order, leaders and their constituents and or people that are very knowledgeable on the topic. This is often presented to them already. You must give this to them for them to make impactful and changed decisions. Making sure this isn’t a slow process helps everyone with mitigating the urgency in which it’s undisputed that this should be changed. The change should be positive and should not impede the rights of others in the process when being decided upon when it’s urgent and should be quickly changed. For instance, making a law to a new problem that has arise that had no prior discussion and happens to need immediate attention. Voicing a variety of opinions and solutions are necessary to help those making the decision simple. Deciding to only speak and remove violent suggestion is also important as you speak publicly. Often times the idea of ‘majority consent’ makes people believe that because many people feel the same way that it must be ok to preform the action. This common misconception stems from the idea of majority vote. Voting something into effect is a long process that involves many people and is not simply a voting aspect in which numbers of the majority are the only deciding factor.

 

What hasn’t been mentioned

Finding a way protest appropriately involves asking a fundamental question? Are everyone involved in the protest present, aware, and desire to listen. Another important question are they incredibly uncomfortable with the process. When someone is incredibly uncomfortable with the process chances are they don’t want to be apart of the process. OR the way in which the process is happening is causing them extreme discomfort. Disabling them from this process of stopping the discomfort is a cautionary action. This can manifest in many forms. Making someone’s living space a place of protest, making them answers questions they don’t want answer, making them decide between two things in which you have framed the scenario, forcing them to decide something quickly or with limited options, along with many other disabling acts. Disabling them from thinking in a broad spectrum and letting them decide for themselves without fear of any kind.

 

That being said when can you talk about uncomfortable topics in a way that provides a safe space for those involved? Trying to not identify or single out individuals in the discussion when they are present. Listening to an opinion and asking if anyone will be offended by specific words. Something called NO words is a process in which all people explain their NO words and they aren’t repeated in the discussion. STOPS are something that needs to be verified and openly stated and will different for individual. Someone may choose to say OMG, while another person may say FUCK YOU, and another person may say WTF. While another person might just leave the room. In the scenario that someone leaves room means that it hasn’t given them a safe space to the point where they need to protect themselves feelings and emotions by leaving the room. Being open and honest how you feel must be a repetitive process by the person delegating the discussion, by asking those involved about their emotional state. This can be called an intermission where everyone states an emotion, this could be sad, angry and or upset. Making the decision to end the discussion and revisit it at a later time can prove beneficial for at least one individual. This one individual is just as important as the larger group as they may be able to talk about it at a later time and believes their participation in the discussion is important to themselves and others.