Friday, November 09, 2007
So I was perusing Facebook at work and I came across a note someone who is one of my facebook friends (I specify facebook friend for a reason) posted. The note explains the hunger strike going on at Columbia University. Now I am entirely supportive of a person's right to demonstrate against something he thinks is unfair. I don't, however, see the point in a hunger strike.
Let me explain where I'm coming from. Firstly, I don't really see how not eating accomplishes anything. Yes, I understand it's used to get attention; but no, I don't think it should receive the attention it gets. Just think about it: what you have is a person who says is saying "Give us A or else! And we wont eat a thing until you give us A!" Well, this is stupid. I, for one, could care less if you're not eating because you're not getting what you want. In fact, even if I am supportive of your cause, your means of obtaining attention makes me hate you. Hate you to the extent that I would MUCH RATHER see you die or be hospitalized than see you get your way and start eating again.
And this brings me to my second point. If I were the person at the root of the hunger strike, I would simply wait the short while it will take for every single protestor to give in to hunger and declare my victory. In fact, I would mop the floor with you after you ate, proclaiming that OBVIOUSLY you don't even support your cause enough to make it through the strike. I'd like to see anyone purposefully starve himself to death. In fact, I don't think it's possible.
So, for this, I genuinely hope the hunger strikers at Columbia don't get what they want. Not because I don't feel they deserve what they're asking for, but because I feel that their means are inane. Does anyone disagree with me? I'd love to hear other opinions!
(Spark Notes Version: hunger strikes are dumb; you can never win if you hunger strike and you don't deserve to)
NB: The reasons listed on the website for the tactic include "A hunger strike is also a physical symbol of our intellectual and spiritual starvation under the university administration's current policies". Well, jackass, if this is the case then I suppose that means that when you give in to your hunger and eat, you're admitting that your intellectual and spiritual starvation is being sated. Jerk. I hope you're happy.
Let me explain where I'm coming from. Firstly, I don't really see how not eating accomplishes anything. Yes, I understand it's used to get attention; but no, I don't think it should receive the attention it gets. Just think about it: what you have is a person who says is saying "Give us A or else! And we wont eat a thing until you give us A!" Well, this is stupid. I, for one, could care less if you're not eating because you're not getting what you want. In fact, even if I am supportive of your cause, your means of obtaining attention makes me hate you. Hate you to the extent that I would MUCH RATHER see you die or be hospitalized than see you get your way and start eating again.
And this brings me to my second point. If I were the person at the root of the hunger strike, I would simply wait the short while it will take for every single protestor to give in to hunger and declare my victory. In fact, I would mop the floor with you after you ate, proclaiming that OBVIOUSLY you don't even support your cause enough to make it through the strike. I'd like to see anyone purposefully starve himself to death. In fact, I don't think it's possible.
So, for this, I genuinely hope the hunger strikers at Columbia don't get what they want. Not because I don't feel they deserve what they're asking for, but because I feel that their means are inane. Does anyone disagree with me? I'd love to hear other opinions!
(Spark Notes Version: hunger strikes are dumb; you can never win if you hunger strike and you don't deserve to)
NB: The reasons listed on the website for the tactic include "A hunger strike is also a physical symbol of our intellectual and spiritual starvation under the university administration's current policies". Well, jackass, if this is the case then I suppose that means that when you give in to your hunger and eat, you're admitting that your intellectual and spiritual starvation is being sated. Jerk. I hope you're happy.
Comments:
Post a Comment
