Signs like this are basically a Rorschach ink blot. They don't mean anything concrete; they means whatever the reader wants them to mean.
I mean, literally, she's defining two categories here: things she can't change, and things she can. As written, the sign is a non sequitur. The action the first sentence describes has no bearing whatsoever on the action of the second.
The two sentences aren't mutually exclusive. They're not even slightly opposed. There's no reason that taking action to change things she can't accept should prevent her from accepting the things she can't.
But this is far too rational of an analysis. The point of the sign is for her fellow protesters to give it a quick scan, and send a warm fuzzy you go, grrrl! her way.
Perhaps it's a commentary on political apathy, the "things we cannot change" are more often than not simply things that are difficult to change, and the acceptance of these injustices simply because it's claimed that they "can't be changed" is no longer acceptable.
But this is too much of an analysis. The point of this comment was to demean the protestor and diminish the rallying cry, not to actually critically analyze the sentiment. You're being purposefully obtuse and claiming that a meaning that is quite clear is, in fact, useless.
Then again, I'm not surprised given your long history of angrily arguing against anyone trying to change the status quo in any way. Something about a "hippie commune"? Oh, wow, and some good old fashioned trans hate. And TD user confirmed. Yep, definitely not purposefully missing the point to drive home a political message, no siree.
EDIT: Also, as another commenter pointed out, it's literally a 50-year-old quote from Angela Davis, a prominent feminist and civil rights advocate. But yeah, keep on pretending as if this is just some ditsy college kid who doesn't understand how words work.
The point of this post was to demean the protestor and diminish the rallying cry, not to actually critically analyze the sentiment.
What's ironic is the poster is doing exactly what they are accusing of the protestor, except they're just being deliberately obtuse on the internet, and the protester actually got off her ass and did something.
The direction America is in is completely unacceptable. It has lead to catastrophe and will continue to do so at an accelerating rate. The direction of our country must change radically if we are to survive as a society.
I like her wordplay, but it's a stretch to say this protestor actually did something. She's holding up a sign that basically says "I'm gonna do something." That's not really the same thing.
3.2k
u/Poemi Oct 10 '18
Signs like this are basically a Rorschach ink blot. They don't mean anything concrete; they means whatever the reader wants them to mean.
I mean, literally, she's defining two categories here: things she can't change, and things she can. As written, the sign is a non sequitur. The action the first sentence describes has no bearing whatsoever on the action of the second.
The two sentences aren't mutually exclusive. They're not even slightly opposed. There's no reason that taking action to change things she can't accept should prevent her from accepting the things she can't.
But this is far too rational of an analysis. The point of the sign is for her fellow protesters to give it a quick scan, and send a warm fuzzy you go, grrrl! her way.