Glitter Bombing
February 6, 2012
A gay rights activist threw a cup of glitter on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney as he walked to the stage at the start of a campaign rally in Eagan Feb. 1, 2012. Some say that glitter-bombing activists risk being mistaken for an assassin as they are reaching and throwing within close range of candidates. Other say that the glittering represents a form of bullying because candidates are made to look foolish in public. Read more here. Others would argue that you sometimes have to take risks and make people uncomfortable for causes that are important. What is the best way to draw attention to diversity issues?
10 Comments
leave one →
CJS-360 Diversity Issues 
I find this glitter bombing to be very dangerous. The individuals are not thinking about the possibility that they may be severly injured while doing this. What happend to using the Freedom of Speech to say how you feel in a positive way. No one deserves to humiliated and targeted in such a way.
Carol LaFleur
The glittering shower might be dangerous and people should be careful while glittering so that they don’t hurt someone.
Nduka,
I understand that some might find it amusing to make light of this situation. Yet, there is some severity if security sees someone going to throw something and shoots the individual. Then whos fault would that be? It would be the person throwing the glitter.
Carol LaFleur
I understand that the activist are upset but what they did was wrong. Do those activist really believe that by throwing glitters at a candidate that it will magically cause the candidate or viewers to suddenly change their beliefs\thoughts\ideas? If they don’t like that particular candidate just don’t vote for him/her. It’s as easy as that (MAYBE). Is it because they know that that person has a good chance at becoming the president that they act out they way they do? Is it because they feel hopeless and don’t want that person becoming the president that they are acting out? As for the article, I do agree with the article. It is a security issue and it accomplishes nothing. Security should of tackled that person before he/she even threw it. The security seems lacking; Those activist were able to get that close and do that without being noticed until it happened already. Just imagine if someone was there to cause violence.
The glitter bomb strategy is lacking and immature. No one is going to take the activist seriously if they continue doing what they’re doing. If they want to draw attention to diversity issues there are “professional” means of doing it. Politicians are not going to put up with threats, intimidation, or stunts such as this one. What should be done is find ONE good person who values civil rights and back them as a candidate. If not as a candidate then as a figure to voice their causes in rallies, gatherings, meetings, and so on.
180 days before the election the major canidates get Secret Service protection, It has been reported that Romney has it now, and I have worked with some of the guys on the Personal Protection Detail, they take their jobs very seriously and are extremely professional.
I find this type of behavior to be very dangerous and childish. I understand that this is for a cause that someone strongly believes in, but like Chales Vang said: is it really going to suddenly change their opinion or belief on the issue after looking foolish with a bunch of glitter? No.
They should bring their concerns to their government in more appropriate and adult ways. Protesting certain bills or laws, writing their congressman or getting involved in politics would all be ways they could make their voice heard without resorting to this childish display of anger.
I agree completely. Dangerous and childish are the correct ways of describing such actions. We, society (myself included), constantly complain that our government cannot get anything done. We disapprove of their sometimes childish antics, and then incidents like this are happening?
Like Josh said below – “find the right arena”.
I think that when these people do this it is just to get attention and it really doesn’t serve any real purpose, its immature because they result to something like this, If they want to speak out against someone candidate’s use a more legitimate arena like social media, look what happened, with SOPA.
I think that there are some pro’s and con’s to the whole glitter bombing campaign. On the pro side I think that it is sometimes necessary to use “crazy” antics to get peoples attention, to get them thinking about the issues and how they are being handled. The issue of gay-rights is always one that is debated in politics. Isn’t it maybe “crazy” that such an issue as a person’s choice in regards to their sexual orientation is being debated and decided by our government? The “glitter bombing” antics may be “crazy” but so is the issue of sexual orientation rights being debated and decided by the government. On the Con side I think that maybe this type of demonstration can be a security risk like the article discusses. It also may be something that causes the activists not to be taken seriously. There may be better ways to express your opinions and have your voice heard.
There is a huge risk for the person throwing the glitter bomb. it could be mistaken for something lethal. I do think this is a form of bulling and the person is made to look foolish with all this glitter on them. I believe that the GLBT activist should find a more appropriate way to show they don’t agree with the persons believes.