And lots of the replies in this thread also think that hypothetical harm trumps actual murder. Until you have evidence of deaths resulting from this as a result of delayed EMTs, you are only using possibilities as an excuse to dismiss real issues.Raven_Operative said:
How do you feel about "inconvenient" protesting
- Thread starter tippy2k2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I am not dismissing the issue at all. I fully stand behind the people and their rights to protest, but when a protest starts undertaking actions that have the potential to hurt people, I start to lose sympathy. Police brutality and violence is something that should definitly be protested against, but undertaking a dangerous action is unacceptable.Damien Black said:
By agreeing with this, you are saying that you are willing to take accept the possibility of innocent and uninvolved people dying because you think that this method of protesting will give your cause a bit more weight.
...because they believe that people are fundamentally good enough to not need to be persuaded of the validity of peoples' rights to life.Kopikatsu said:
Seriously, most protests aren't about persuading people who don't already agree with them, but in demonstrating (hence the term) that they represent a body politic to large and too angry to be ignored. It's about showing the silent supporters that they can come out from the silence, that together they can be too loud and too threatening to the established "order" to just be shuffled under the rug again.
Maybe you don't like that, but it's what got us to where we are today societally, and only by such tactics - or even more violent ones - that change has ever come.
While I stand more moderately than my posting in this thread might indicate, I don't really think that anyone in a society which is complicit in such abuses can really be considered uninvolved. By choosing to do nothing, they are choosing to side with the status-quo. By choosing to be indignant at such inconveniences, they are taking their support from tacit to vocal praise for an abusive "order" over genuine change.Raven_Operative said:
Do I encourage violence as a result? Not even close... but I strongly believe that hypothetical harm is not more dreadful than ongoing harm on a systemic level.
I'm not one who believes in 'the ends justify the means', even when it's done for a good cause. We should be beyond that by now. People should not have to be afraid of violence or threats of violence by these more violent tactics just so that groups of other people would have their rights recognized and accepted.Damien Black said:
It's a tough call though it's not something I'm necessarily against as long as there is some actual connection between the protest and what's being protested against. Also, and this was largely the case with the various Occupy protests/live-ins or in things like PETA's public displays, by making a big deal about the protest itself any sort of meaning to the protest can be overshadowed or even lost completely. Being a nuisance by taking over a public park does nothing to say how you would like to reform the economic foundation of the country in such a way that the poor are better served and the rich aren't allowed to run everything. Even someone who didn't necessarily disagree with the concept of Occupy was hard pressed to be supportive of the Occupiers in that situation.
So violence should not be responded to strongly? If this thread was about how we felt about violent protests, this would already be a different conversation... but the topic of this is about "inconvenient" protests. Those which are almost by definition nonviolent. Even these draw such disdain from posters here who variously want to "run them over" and "take a bat to them."Rahkshi500 said:
Which, then, is the more even rhetorically violent of the two?
By that logic, looting and rioting are in fact the best ways to express economic dissatisfaction. Saying with actions "we want to tear down the corporate structures" along with an expression of impoverished need or desire for otherwise unattainable luxuries.StriderShinryu said:
I, personally, prefer inconvenient protesting to such actions... but if you want protesting most directly related to the issues involved, then I think the above is what's called for.
I would be against violence in all situations, and no, I do not condone what posters here say about "inconvenient" protestors either. And yes, I know that this topic is about "inconvenient" protest. But when things like the more violent protests have already been brought into this conversation, and have been said about how because of them that society changed for the better, it is bringing up the mindset that the ends justify the means, that you can use violence or threats of violence in order to change society for the better, it does make one sound like that they do condone such actions.Damien Black said:
Yeah, when compared to harm on a systematic level, violent protests are the lesser evil, but they are nonetheless still an evil act that I don't think should be encouraged or endorsed in the name of social progress.
Damien Black covered pretty much all of this, but there are people in the general, plural sense of the word, and then there is one specific person who just said he wants children to starve in order to punish a third party for inconveniencing him by trying to get food to those starving children. That person is one whom I think we have to write off as being impossible to reason with or to persuade, since his velocity on a highway is more important to him than a child's ability to eat food.Kopikatsu said:
Nope, occasional traffic jams are simply an unavoidable byproduct of free movement for large numbers of people being made more efficient and less burdensome on others, while an illegal blockade deliberately prevents free movement from taking place at all, as alternate routes have typically been made illegal, and when available cannot be accessed from the point in which the blockade is taking place.Zachary Amaranth said:
Protests are supposed to inconvenience people, it's how attention is drawn to the cause. I would look at the subject of the protest before deciding if it is inconvenient or not.
Eh, not really. My point is simply that, unless you're already involved in the protest, it's hard to see any sort of connection between what the protesters were doing and what they were actually protesting about. Saying that they should have just rioted and looted is being decidedly extreme. What Occupy did in New York where they located themselves near what is seen as the centre of not only the city but the country's base of economic power makes sense. What they did in other cities where they just picked a random park and set up tents while making no attempts to connect with the public does not. It's the same thing as with PETA where they have attractive people walk around naked. Sure you can draw a loose connection between being naked and not wanting animals to be farmed/hunted/killed for fur, but for the vast majority of people it just comes across as "Ooh, sexy naked people" or "Oh, there's PETA being silly again." There are many connected and intelligent ways for protesters to get their message across without jumping to silly extremes. PETA doesn't have to hunt people and wear their skins as clothing to make their point just as those wanting economic reform don't need to riot and loot to make theirs.Damien Black said:
An unlawful protest is just that unlawful. People blocking a public highway should be arrested and charged. If not, whats next, people protesting the protest blocking roads by blocking other roads in protest and them more people blocking other forms of transportation in protest of that protest's protest.
If your cause requires you be be uncivil and unlawful to get attention sorry, you have already lost. You prove nothing but your willingness to break the law.
If your cause requires you be be uncivil and unlawful to get attention sorry, you have already lost. You prove nothing but your willingness to break the law.
It's not hypothetical if it already happened, atleast twice.Damien Black said:
http://www.universalhub.com/2014/traffic-jam-caused-protests-kept-paramedics
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2014/11/police_arrest_three_protesters_impound_nixon_accountability_truck_in_ferguson.php
"St. Louis County PD wrote that "at one point, the truck and protestors blocked the passage of an ambulance on an emergency run.""
No one is saying they should not protest
They are saying they should not protest where it can cause real harm to people.
OT: keep the fuck off the highways, it's stupid and can get people killed.
Er, I hate to break it to you, but protests breaking the law in an nonviolent manner have been some of the most successful tools to actually make change and quite a few causes have indeed won using these methods. Most notably, the unlawful protests during the civil rights movement, disrupting public business and breaking the law nonviolently were some of the most successful tools of the period.Spearmaster said:
If what you are protesting is what is perceived as an unfair law, then the willingness to break said law on a large scale is often the best method to get that law repealed.
While it doesn't always work, and being inconvenienced by a cause you may see as unimportant is understandably frustrating, history shows that nonviolently breaking the law and making a scene has often worked, and worked well, there's a reason people keep doing it, because it works.
It says in the second one that the marchers did let the emergency vehicle through.direkiller said:
Except you're assuming that the cause is justified and righteous. However we're not just talking about the latest protests, we're talking about the ethics of this concept in general. But people can protest about anything. Would you be saying the same thing if a group of protesters blocked off a highway for anti-abortion issues, or to tell us that "God hates fags"? These people think that they're causes are righteous too.Damien Black said:
Honestly, actual numbers of these "hypothetical situations" are irrelevant. Yeah, they're "might-be's" because they are potential situations- there is a very real chance that they could happen. That's enough reason to act with that in mind. Let's not forget that the protest itself won't fix the issue. A protest's goal is to get support and attention for the cause. It's also only a potential situation- there's no guarantee that it will result in anything changing. Let's say a protest results in someone not getting emergency services in time and no large-scale change occurs: great! Your protest killed someone for nothing. Congratulations!
Understandable, and good that it was nonviolent, but are you sure there aren't other ways to change things without breaking the law?EternallyBored said: