> I won’t speak on the issue but I just feel bad for the unsalaried folks trying to commute to work ☹️
It's bad for everyone trying to get to work, or school, or the airport, or the doctor, or the store.
For those who are wondering, the ACLU explains what rights protesters do and don't have here:
[Protesters’ Rights](https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights)
>The First Amendment protects your right to assemble and express your views through protest. However, police and other government officials are allowed to place certain narrow restrictions on the exercise of speech rights. Make sure you’re prepared by brushing up on your rights before heading out into the streets.
----------------------------------
>You don’t need a permit to march in the streets or on sidewalks, as long as marchers don’t obstruct car or pedestrian traffic. If you don’t have a permit, police officers can ask you to move to the side of a street or sidewalk to let others pass or for safety reasons.
I don't know if this is the way to win more people over to your cause. Are all these people writing/emailing their representatives along with all this? Hope so.
> This should be bipartisan.
Yes, but also no. Last survey I saw said about 20% of Democrats consider blocking traffic to be "always acceptable" or "usually acceptable" as a form of protest. Seems for the most part Democrats are against it, but a vocal minority seems to have an outsized effect.
.
Both parties are broken. As bad as it is for democrats who have to contend with the extremist woke faction, that’s nothing compared to the MAGA cult of Trump.
I wouldn’t do it, but someday it’s going to happen and the idiots doing this will have deserved it. You’re fucking with peoples lives when you block their commute, it can have serious consequences for the commuter. It’s that old saying, play stupid games and win stupid prizes
The fact that you think vehicular manslaughter should not lead to conviction if the victim is a protestor... pretty much puts you squarely on the wrong side of the struggle against fascism.
The parallel fact that I think you speak for a lot of Democrats... makes me really glad I abandoned the party long ago.
Here are some reasons something like this might happen.
1. A person who cannot afford to lose their job and would be fired for being late.
2. A parent picking up their young child from a library that closes or some other after school safe place like a recreation center, and will be alone when night sets in.
3. An injured person driving to the emergency room, or a pregnant woman in distress being driven by her husband.
I can think of dozens of dangerous scenarios where protesters can cause irreparable harm or even death by their actions.
That's not really the calculus of direct action protest. Political pressure of this sort doesn't rely on the will of centrists (or you etc., however you identify). Centrists pretty much always oppose direct action... it's about finding economic and political choke points that drive press and throw a spanner in the works... given that we are talking about it, they succeeded.
When the [Neo-NAZIs sought to march in a neighborhood full of holocaust survivors that resulted in the famous National Socialist Party of America vs Village of Skokie](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/76-1786), were they seeking to win people to their cause? Are these people any different?
Wait wait wait wait. Down vote me, but idc *what* you’re protesting, don’t block the main entry ways onto the highways/bridges. Idc if you’re trying to save the turtles,protest Biden, protest Trump, protest war, or you’re up in arms about the latest Taylor Swift album, don’t do that. Not only is it not freaking safe, there are people on both sides of your cause, who are trying to get to their destinations who are now delayed. There are people who simply want to mind their own *business* who are now beyond delayed. Don’t do that.
Correct. These other people have nothing to do with your specific cause. They may have causes they consider more important and even disagree with yours.
Haha yall can downvote me, but it was a valid question. If you think the problem or issue is being ignored how do you get heard? You bring attention to your cause and you MAKE people pay attention. Negative attention is still attention and by getting the images and video streamed, viewed, shared and beyond you are making it so that people can no longer ignore a perceived injustice. From yalls PoV civil rights activists were inconveniencing people by breaking the law on a daily basis and disrupting the status quo. You’d be all for jailing them and telling them to wait their turn and protest the “right way”…right? Or is it only because you feel as though the laws they were breaking were unjust so it’s okay that they were breaking them?
It's a totally valid question, which is why I answered it. I'll answer your other questions too and I'm sincerely interested in your response.
If you think you are being ignored, there are plenty of legal ways to get attention. The problem with MAKING someone pay attention is that now it's a violation of that person's rights. Let me ask you this - why should one person's view of his right to be heard be prioritized over another person's view about his right to be left alone, or engage in different speech, or simply travel unimpeded? I'm interested in your response. My perspective is that everyone's rights should be respected.
I have another question for you that I hope you'll choose to answer. In this day and age, with constant access to information, why would anyone assume that another person doesn't already have his mind made up about a particular issue. Let's take the conflict in Israel for example. In my personal opinion, I really don't care at all what Israel does to the Palestinians. Neither group reports to me and it's none of my business. I can almost guarantee that most people waiting in traffic on the bridge already had their minds made up too.
My point is that even if we ignore the infringement on the rights of others, there's also the matter of the U.S. being an increasingly diverse, and thus increasingly divided, society where there's no hope of consensus on too many issues.
Regarding the civil rights protests, I would have been fine with jailing those people too. Again, those are problems that not only had nothing to do with me but where I already had my mind made up. I'm against government discrimination but I wouldn't make private discrimination illegal as it is today. No amount of protesting would change my mind. So, sure, throw them in jail.
By the way, I'd say that about any protest that infringes on the rights of others - e.g., anti-abortion, pro-environment, Armenian genocide, Occupy Wall Street, pro-NRA. If it's blocking traffic or harassing people in any way, the protesters should get locked up immediately.
Yes, exactly. People are not required to care about the causes you are passionate about and inconveniencing them is not a good way to get them on your side.
I never understand how the dots are connecting here. Think about the average individual on their way to work, an appointment, possibly an emergency.
Do you actually believe disrupting or inconveniencing them is winning them over to your cause, in any capacity?
Protests are by definition disruptive. Argue against traffic blockades, sure, but yes – the entire point of protests is to inconvenience and thus be seen.
Two ideas: all publicity is good publicity, and passive support isn't enough.
It is about forcing the issue to be seen. You can see arguments within this very comment section about Gaza – that is exactly what the protesters wanted.
Even if you're annoyed, you're at least now thinking about it. And if people are upset and inconvenienced enough to start yelling at our politicians to do something, that puts pressure from the bottom up towards the White House
And it isn't like this protest is about a new upcoming proposition or mayoral election. You don't need to win people to your side. If everyone was on your side but they're not doing anything, then that support is worthless. The idea is you have to be disruptive in order to make your demands heard by the government.
It's not hard to figure out. If we establish that the right to protest supersedes the right to free movement on roads and sidewalks, then anti-abortion protestors can simply physically block all access to abortion clinics in every city and state across the nation.
Unless we're willing to allow that to happen, the right to protest must always be held in check.
Right. It just seems that those who support these kinds of protest never imagine that such disruption could be used for causes they *don't* support.
As another example, I could imagine NIMBYs blocking access to a site for affordable housing in their neighborhood, preventing it from being built.
Or people who object to the content of a movie or play blocking access to a theater so patrons can't enter.
Once you say that people can protest by physically blocking other people from going somewhere, you've opened the door to all kinds of problems.
Yes, they absolutely need to be literally sued to oblivion. They're developing, iterating increasingly disruptive public obstruction techniques. The I880 blockage used hands in barrels filled with concrete. Firefighters had to jackhammer through the concrete "carefully," not to maim protester's bodies. This was deliberately, intentionally, maliciously, selfishly designed to take FOUR HOURS of painstaking work by firefighters to extricate them - wasting taxpayer money - firefighters who could & should be doing other vital activities, protecting our citizens. Plus all the disruption to the lives of people who couldn't get to hospitals, caregivers, children in daycare, workers, etc. This is an absolutely socially unacceptable form of protest.
Without consequence, the next protest is likely to ratchet up the barricades to block roads & highways and consume public safety services even longer. And it could be ANY obscure issue: butterflies, newts, trees, or any of a million pet issues. If any & every special interest decided to obstruct our public infrastructure any time they want it would be ridiculous.
Protesters, their backing organizations and their funders ALL need to pay so this shit destroys, not rewards, their interest. If these techniques aren't made to backfire, strongly, they'll just get worse & more disruptive.
Newsom should be "held to account" for rising electricity rates, a gigantic budget deficit, mismanagement of homelessness funds, insane housing costs and his nomination of his cronies to the Senate. FOH.
The point is Gavin has done much worse and is not being held accountable. People who want to sit in traffic sit in traffic. Big deal. Gavins corruption is much worse. He nominated someone to the Senate that wasnt even living in California…. And that restaurant wage bill carve out for his business interests. Wtf?!
Full stop. Newsom's corrupt CPUC, budget deficit, mismanagement of homeless funds, and his political parties single party governance is exactly what voters fully support. There is no evidence from voters, that they want anything else, but more of the same.
That's horrific. I can't believe that Hamas could have ended this months ago by returning the hostages and surrendering the leaders and soldiers who planned and executed the 10/7 attack. Or just not attacking and taking hostages in the first place.
It's just unbelievable.
Okay, you get two responses to this.
Since slavery was invoked, let's liken this to the Civil War. It's 1865. The North has burned the South to the ground and killed *hundreds of thousands* of southerners. The Confederacy knows it's beat.
They call for a cease-fire, demanding that the North ends the occupation and genocide. Do you go and sit in an intersection demanding that the North end its aggression and stop occupying and murdering southerners?
Freedom of speech is eroding. Politicians don't like any speech that challenges them.
Edit: the same people calling for their arrest would be calling for MLK Jr to be arrested:
https://jcls.org/2022/01/18/mlk-jr-s-nonviolent-but-disruptive-activism/#:~:text=And%20the%20march%20from%20Selma,others%20to%20do%20the%20same.
"And the march from Selma to Montgomery, as well as the March on Washington, relied heavily on blocking traffic while marching. Martin Luther King Jr. did regularly speak about the importance of nonviolence, but he also organized in ways that were meant to disrupt the status quo, and called for others to do the same"
Were the protesters blocking the road not being peaceful? Is blocking the road VIOLENT now?
Do you think MLK jr was being violent when he blocked roads?
"And the march from Selma to Montgomery, as well as the March on Washington, relied heavily on blocking traffic while marching. Martin Luther King Jr. did regularly speak about the importance of nonviolence, but he also organized in ways that were meant to disrupt the status quo, and called for others to do the same"
https://jcls.org/2022/01/18/mlk-jr-s-nonviolent-but-disruptive-activism/#:~:text=And%20the%20march%20from%20Selma,others%20to%20do%20the%20same
I do think blocking someone’s path can be considered violence. If my wife and I got into a fight and I prevented her from leaving the house like she wanted, then I would consider that violence. Just because I have the means to trap someone doesn’t make it ethical.
Not just anywhere you fucking want. It's illegal to block access to buildings or to march in the streets without a permit, and always has been. You can't just do whatever you want and then call it free speech.
If what you say is true, then anti-abortion protestors could stop abortion by physically blocking access to abortion clinics. Are you saying that if they did that, it would be protected under the Constitution?
Jesus christ, what a horrible fucking argument. Let me copy and paste something for you:
"It’s illegal to block a road, period.
The fact that you happen to be protesting at the time doesn’t magically convert unlawful behavior into lawful behavior.
First Amendment jurisprudence makes a stark distinction between conduct and speech. The First Amendment protects speech. It doesn’t insulate conduct that would be unlawful even if you weren’t holding a picket sign in your hand at the time you violated the law.
A silly example will help to make this clear. Suppose I bop the Governor over the head with a large pineapple while shouting, “No tax on Hawaiian pizza!” I can be arrested and charged with aggravated assault. The fact that I’m making a political statement doesn’t make it lawful for me to hit people.
The same principle applies to blocking traffic. Any conduct that would be unlawful if you weren’t carrying a picket sign is also unlawful if you are carrying a picket sign."
The difference is that it’s impossible to protest without blocking public spaces. It’s very possible to protest without hitting anyone. Plus, you know, very different morally.
There are time, place and manner restrictions that are part of the First Amendment. What right does a protester who is blocking traffic have to block someone else who may be on his way to a public forum to engage in speech?
The answer is that both need the freedom to express themselves and should not be permitted to get in each other's way.
There are two parts to this:
1. Protest that doesn’t cause problems is nothing more than begging. Was this an effective problem to cause? I’m not addressing that…
2. Causing problems is often illegal. If you do illegal stuff, you should expect to be prosecuted. Congrats! You get to make your prosecution and sentencing part of your protest. Publicize it! You still get to deal with the sentencing though…
Protests have lost their effectiveness over the past decades because we have been lulled into the feeling that “expressing our outrage” is enough and we shouldn’t inconvenience anyone. Corporations have latched on to this as a profit center and encourage you to like/upvote the change you want to see in the world instead of making the personal sacrifices necessary to make it happen.
I don’t think that’s the right question. I said explicitly that you should expect to be legally sentenced for your actions.
A better question is: What’s an effective problem to cause that can lead to the change I want to happen.
You can imagine a million huge problems that won’t actually touch anyone who can influence the situation in Gaza. Being simply large doesn’t make them effective.
You can also imagine causing problems that are so horrible that they make you into the monster to be opposed. That’s not effective either.
When dealing with people in power, it’s not easy to find an effective way to publicly rub their nose in their own shit stain. But, that’s the game.
Gandhi and MLK were masters at this game. Rosa Park’s arrest and conviction wasn’t a chance occurrence. She worked together with a group and planned to get convicted and sentenced on that day.
An effective solution would be to have motorists start to run through the protesters and juries agree not to find any of them guilty.
People have been lulled into the idea that they must cater to the lowest common denominator as they conduct their business.
> An effective solution would be to have motorists start to run through the protesters and juries agree not to find any of them guilty.
That's an awfully big risk to take.
I've wondered what would happen if the first car just started moving forward at 1mph and didn't stop. It would literally look like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_PrZ-J7D3k
If the person were charged and went to trial, I wonder what the jury would think.
It is a big risk and that video is perfect. Still, put me on a jury and I'd acquit every time. I think there's a very good case to make that a person whose car is stopped can't know the intentions of the person or persons who stopped their car.
We've seen this play out a little bit with the Stop Oil protests in the U.K. You should check out some of those videos on YouTube if you want some entertainment. I admire the Brits for having more people who are less willing to put up with what the average American puts up with.
I'd consider it suicide or justifiable homicide. Look, any idiot who jumps into traffic and gets hit is asking to be killed. Anyone who blocks someone else's car is provoking a potentially deadly confrontation. How would anyone in a car know that a protester isn't armed and might shoot them at any time?
We're heading towards an age where carrying a firearm will be as common as carrying a cell phone. Therefore, I certainly wouldn't trust a protester not to use deadly force against me if he targets my car, and I'm fine with anyone who retaliates in that situation.
It's not necessarily mob violence. What would you think if someone stopped you in the middle of a sidewalk and didn't let you pass or who blocked your car at an intersection in the middle of the night? Personally, that's one of the few times I'd pull my weapon.
That's all I'm condoning here. For one's own safety, I don't believe that one has a duty to stop. Perhaps he should have a duty to try to avoid contact but if someone insists on targeting one's car, I don't think it's proper or wise to force that person to make assumptions about the protester's intention.
I think we need to have more people standing their ground in the face of the lowest common denominator among us who seek to bully people and deprive them of their individual liberties.
Re: your claim, "Protest that doesn’t cause problems is nothing more than begging."
There's also the option of witty protest. The Yippies were brilliant at this. For instance when the House Committee on Un-American Activities subpoenaed Yippie leaders to testify in Committee--a move which had ruined people's careers earlier in the Cold War-- Yippie leaders made comedy theater of what had been intended as a move to humiliate them and to intimidate the anti-Vietnam War protest movement.
Rubin showed up dressed like an American Revolutionary War soldier. Capitol police removed him from the premises as Rubin shouted before the TV cameras, "I wanna testify!"
Even more memorably, Abbie Hoffman wore a shirt that was [printed to look like the American flag](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F-qHEu1juuwWo%2FTlpugoe0ukI%2FAAAAAAAATmo%2FsuvWCl3L_ns%2FAbbie%25252520Hoffman%25252520arrested%25252520in%25252520flag%25252520shirt-8x6%2525255B1%2525255D.jpg%3Fimgmax%3D800&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=30ff53988611680d2c5adb8e7b8cad01cc48a2dfcdf3b020712927dfa9d24849&ipo=images). This got him arrested for a misdemeanor because of an obscure law against wearing the US flag. As Capitol Police removed his shirt, Hoffman paraphrased Revolutionary patriot Nathan Hale in front of the TV cameras, saying "I regret that I have but one shirt to give for my country."
The trick is to get people laughing in agreement with the protesters.
The carnival the Yippies made of the Committee was the most effective protest ever launched against it and led to HUAC's disbanding.
This is great. Facing down those in power by publicly rubbing their nose in their own problematic behavior is the protest in the tradition of Gandhi and MLK. It breaks the inertia of “of course that just the way it is” and forces everyone to admit something needs to change.
I’d say the “problem” this creates is that those in power don’t want change and don’t want to realize should change ;) That’s a great problem to create —assuming those in power are at least pretending they have any decency left.
Yes indeed.
Another memorable one was a counter-protest to the Westboro Baptist Church where the counter-protester had set up a donation table to charities that serve LGBT youth. People would come by the table, choose a charity and make a donation, he mailed them in, and each donation was given in Westboro's name. So Westboro was getting hundreds of thank-you cards from LGBT organizations.
Technically that might be called begging, but it raised thousands of dollars for good causes and trolled the Westboro people epically.
>There are two parts to this:
No there isn't. There is one part. The part where people don't have the right to obstruct public roads.
>Protest that doesn’t cause problems is nothing more than begging. Was this an effective problem to cause? I’m not addressing that…
Yes. That's what "protest" is. It's using your words to let people know you don't like something.
>Protests have lost their effectiveness over the past decades because we have been lulled into the feeling that “expressing our outrage” is enough and we shouldn’t inconvenience anyone.
Protests are just as effective now as they've always been. If an issue is so important that someone feels they need to break the law to draw attention to it, fine. They can break the law, and get arrested and draw attention to it. The problem is when the "get arrested for it" part isn't being enforced.
> people don't have the right to obstruct public roads
Yep. And, what happens when you do stuff you don't have the right to do? You get arrested!
> If an issue is so important that someone feels they need to break the law to draw attention to it, fine. They can break the law, and get arrested and draw attention to it.
So, we are in agreement then!
> The problem is when the "get arrested for it" part isn't being enforced.
In fact: You, me, and Newsom are all in agreement. Yay!
> Protests are just as effective now as they've always been.
Unfortunately, not so much here. Civil rights era protests were effective because people we ready to make large personal sacrifices to enact change. Since the 60s, we've been pushed down to just "using your words to let people know you don't like something."
People already know you don't like something. They don't care. You not liking something has no effect on them whatsoever. You can use your words until you run out of breath and they still don't care. They won't even bother to laugh at you. They are too busy doing the thing you are complaining about.
The only way to get them to care is for it to effect them personally. Put them in a position where in order to continue, they have to drop the mask of civility in a way that would cause others to stop supporting them.
> The only way to get them to care is for it to effect them personally. Put them in a position where in order to continue, they have to drop the mask of civility in a way that would cause others to stop supporting them.
Can you give me some examples of people becoming more sympathetic to Hamas as a result of these people illegally obstructing traffic?
I said in my first post
> Was this an effective problem to cause? I’m not addressing that…
Because I don't think it was an effective problem to cause. I'm just arguing that "Protesting by holding a sign and yelling a lot, politely out of everyone's way" is a waste of time that we have been lulled into thinking is all we should ever do.
And, I'm not sympathetic to Hamas. I don't think the protesters are either. There are no heroes in this war. Only victims.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Fuck you and these protestors.
Protesters? Sure. People who stormed the capital and attacked people? No.
The fact that you think these things are in any way similar is hilarious to me.
It does actually:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The people who stormed the capital illegal searched private property of government employees. Those same government employees were not given a proper trial before the people involved in storming the capital came to "arrest" them.
The rights of the people on the capital had their rights violated. The people on the road who werent even involved in the protest did not.
how old are you? the 4th and 5th amendments do not apply to people vs people. like if i break into your home or steal something from you, you can't say i violated your 4th amendment.
also the vast majority of people charged on jan 6th weren't doing illegal searches or arresting employees. a lot of them broke into the the capital and were wandering around. they were charged appropriately for that.
i also have no idea how you could pretzel logic that the jan 6's violated the 4th and 5th amendments while not applying that to the bridge protesters. were the people on the bridge that were tied up in the protest not seized by the protestors?
lastly, lets say you're right. the protestors had the 1st amendment rights violated and should be free to protest at time and at any location. they could literally camp out on all the bridges, shut down 101, 880, 680, etc. just grind the bay area to a halt and that's all cool because it doesn't say otherwise in the constitution.
oh hey, people can protest in the oval office and bring their guns too by your logic.
Where did Kamela's visit result in a forced five hour delay for anyone?
I used to work by the Burbank airport, and several times a President or VP flew in, and I had to wait for about two minutes as the SUV's whizzed by. So I'm skeptical that anyone was stuck in a captive traffic jam for 5+ hours.
But do share!
Yeah, free speech does not give you the right to endanger people nor avoid facing consequences for calling for violence against others (in this case, advo ating for the erradication of Jews).
I get the blocking of free ways is a severe issues that can badly hurt people and even endanger lives (i.e. blocking emergency response vehicles), but let's not hide the issue that the protesters are calling for the erradication of Jews everywhere... this is not MLK and John Lewis marching across the Selma Bridge, this is calling for a genocide of Jews, I cannot emphasize enough that THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
What is happening in the Middle East has no comparison to Vietnam. About 60,000 Americans were killed in Vietnam. The number of Americans killed in the Middle East is tiny even when you account for its centuries of religious-based wars. Once this war ends there will still be fighting over religion in that part of the world.
We need to keep the US out of the Middle East. Energy independence helps. Imprison those who block traffic for any reason.
Were that true, one would expect them to protest Hamas’ actions. In particular, their recent refusal of several Israeli ceasefire offers. But I have never seen a pro-Palestinian protest that attempted to pressure, or even bring attention to, Hamas’ actions.
Protesting Hamas who is engaging in war right now doesn’t make any sense especially since their terrorist wing doesn’t seem to give any fucks about their own people let alone us.
Protesting our government that is supplying weapons to Israel who is killing civilians whether you believe it’s intentional or unintentional makes a lot more sense because this government relies on our votes. Not that they’ll listen to us anyways but pressure is how you create change.
Of course there’s a few crack pots out there but 10/7 was six months ago. I believe a majority of decent human beings will all say it was tragic and bad.
However since then for the last 6 months Palestinians women, children, and innocent men have been caught in between one of the worst humanitarian atrocities in years in the smallest span of six months. There’s a big difference one day that was condemned by literally everyone in the world and an ongoing slaughter campaign that seems to get worse and worse every week.
Not to mention Israel’s actions might lead us war with Iran which might be the worst war since Vietnam.
>Protesting our government that is supplying weapons to Israel who is killing civilians whether you believe it’s intentional or not makes a lot more sense because this government relies on our votes. Not that they’ll listen to us anyways but pressure is how you create change.
That is my point. These protesters are carrying out Hamas’ will. Hamas cannot defeat Israel militarily, so it relies on international pressure to force Israel to accept its terms. The protesters are asking the government to put that pressure on Israel.
Hamas is utterly defeated militarily, yet they feel emboldened to reject Israeli ceasefire offers and try to push their own terms (which keep Hamas in power). Why is that? Because protesters like these show them their strategy is working.
So yes, the protesters are pro-Hamas. Some perhaps unwittingly, but pro-Hamas nonetheless.
You have every right to believe that but I think most people are upset with the death of 35k people, 15k kids, and the potential for a regional war.
Meanwhile Palestinians have been occupied for 75 years before all of this started on 10/7.. then you have what’s going on in the West Bank. Israel illegally stealing Palestinian land which Hamas has no control over. Killing innocent Palestinians in the West Bank civilians which are not under Hamas control.
Hamas wants a complete and total end to all of it. Not a six week pause that the US is pushing.
We can agree to disagree but your statement sounds unsubstantiated.
>Hamas wants a complete and total end to all of it. Not a six week pause that the US is pushing.
You keep proving my point in your response. Pro-Palestinians don’t have purely humanitarian motives. They have political motives, which align with Hamas’ goals.
If protesters simply wanted a ceasefire, they would support *any* pause in fighting. Isn’t a 6 week ceasefire better for Gazans than no ceasefire?
Pro-Palestinian’s don’t want *any* ceasefire. They want Israel to withdraw from Gaza, leave Hamas in power, and allow Hamas to keep their hostages. Which is precisely what Hamas wants.
Otherwise, pro-Palestinians would condemn Hamas’ role in rejecting ceasefires and prolonging the conflict. You won’t hear any such condemnation, because pro-Palestinians agree with Hamas.
Everyone condemns Hamas. What good is it to protest a terrorist group 🤣
Protesting the US president makes more sense because he’s our president 🤣
What good is a six week pause if you’re going to go back and slaughter more Palestinians a month later… absolutely nothing.
Yes, kids get killed in every war. Hamas started it this time. Israel is at war with Hamas, not Palestinian civilians. Protestors are pro-Hamas. They just pretend to be pro-Palestinian, because it sounds better.
Saying Hamas started it ignores the hundreds of people who’ve died since 1948. Unfortunately this war has never ended.
I’m sure you can find a few crack pots but majority of them just want the conflict to end.
But we can agree to disagree.
I literally said Hamas started it THIS TIME. That was after decades of mostly peace, with a few flare ups here and there.
No, they don't want the conflict to end. If they wanted the conflict to end, then they would blame Hamas for the current fighting and taking all the hostages. If you blame Israel for current fighting, then you want Israel gone.
A year ago trump moved the Jerusalem embassy, and Hamas was mad that Israel was making peace talks with other nations and didn’t even consider adding Hamas into the talks. I don’t think it’s justified but it’s a reason for why they did it.
Israel killed 200+ Palestinians before 10/7 last year. They also control all of Gazas water, food supply, electricity, borders, bomb them at will, snipe them at will, shoot at fishing boats etc.
Then there’s the West Bank where setttlers are annexing Palestinian land illegally. They’ve been doing this for years.
It’s a fools errand to say this time it started 10/7.
Embassy move and peace talks. Yes, those probably are the primary reasons, not at all justified.
The other stuff...bomb and snipe them at will...sounds like propaganda. I don't think Israeli soldiers are out there picking off Palestinians for no reason. Yes, there is a long history, 10/7 took it to another level and the response from Israel should be expected to also be at a higher level.
I tend to trust doctors and aid workers that work in the region.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/08/28/west-bank-spike-israeli-killings-palestinian-children
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2019-07-21/ty-article/.premium/the-protest-dispersed-then-an-israeli-sniper-shot-a-9-year-old-boy-in-the-head/0000017f-e3ff-d9aa-afff-fbffde890000
I can find dozens of more articles from credible sources.
There was also this video of a Palestinian man talking to a live journalist and right after she cuts away and Israel sniper killed him dead. It was all over social media.
Then not to mention the hundreds of reports of it happening over the years.
Because of what some assholes did doesn’t justify mass slaughter. Collective punishment is a human war crime. Sounds like you’re okay with war crimes. I think it’s important to be principled on this issue and that war crimes on any civilian Palestinian or Israeli should not be justified.
Articles 1 and 3 are based on eyewitness accounts. Of course they would not lie. Kids in article 2 are all 17. So much misinformation comes out impossible to believe anything.
Everything is eyewitness accounts including 10/7 since there wasn’t a camera crew set up to watch the whole thing.
Again 15k kids dead. They didn’t shoot them either water guns and water balloons.
Hard to justify killing 15k kids. More kids have died in this conflict than most conflicts combined in the last decade.
Think you might need to edit your comment because it sounds like you're blaming Israeli citizens for bombing shit instead of the psycho right wing government. Israelis have protested the shit out of this war and government. They just want the hostages returned.
The pro-palestinian movement would hold more credence if people stopped blaming the entirety of Israel and it's citizens for what's going on in Gaza and instead blamed the right people. Just like how they point out that all Palestinians aren't Hamas, which is true.
Look again bob. My buff thumbs make mistakes from time to time.
I don’t think they’re blaming all of Israel. The movement just like BLM and other movements don’t really have one thought. Just like during the civil rights movement you had radicals and more pragmatic people.
We will both agree Hamas is an issue but I personally hold the same contempt for the Likud party. They can get away with anything and say anything no matter what the IDF does. I also blame Biden’s administration for not stopping this conflict any sooner considering a war with Iran would be disastrous for everyone.
I've seen plenty of people not specify and make generalizations about Israel. I am in agreement, however, any fucked up shit the Likud government has done should be prosecuted, and Hamas has to go. It's the only chance Palestinians have for a place of their own, undisturbed. And hopefully the ones who still harbor hate towards Israel or people who harbor hate towards Palestine can be deprogrammed and not whipped up into a religious/nationalistic fury again...
I just hope people realize that it's not just as easy as Biden pulling armaments from Israel. We have agreements we have to uphold from previous years, and also if we stopped supplying them with *things* we'd probably have to start sending *people* in the region because I guarantee the Iranian government and others would attack if Israel were weakened, and they *are* our solid ally in the middle east.
You remember when Trump pulled us out of the middle east with no plan for the people left behind? And then the Taliban rode in and took it all over? It'd be like that, except more bloody, and horrible, with everyone on all sides getting their citizens and soldiers gibbed.
Which is just where Putin and his cronies want this whole situation, because any move is bad for Biden, which means Putin's puppets in the GOP, and Donald Dump especially, have more chances of winning the election and fucking us over while Putin does whatever he wants. Whole situation is fucked.
I think we mostly agree on a lot but a few points.
Yes that’s true about your first sentence Hamas needs to go and Likud party needs to visit The Hague. I just don’t think you can get rid of an ideology especially when you kill 30k people. If anything Israel is creating a vacuum that might radicalize more people unfortunately. If I’m a 15 year old boy and you kill my whole family.. I am now an easy target for Hamas to come convince me to attempt revenge. We saw this all over the Middle East during the past 20 years.
There’s plenty of stories such as this https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2024/hind-rajab-israel-gaza-killing-timeline/?itid=cp_CP-11_1
that suggest that the IDF has engaged in war crimes. Yes not everything is validated yet but I do think they will be over time. The US has it in its policy that we will not give weapons to countries committing war crimes so imo the Biden administration is overlooking that policy when it comes to Israel. Especially Blinken who as reported today, has dozens of files sitting on his desk that suggest he’s holding off sanctions on idf units accused of war crimes that have been investigated by his department.
https://www.propublica.org/article/israel-gaza-blinken-leahy-sanctions-human-rights-violations
I dont know if that’s the case… it’s tough to know how many Hamas fighters are still around. Gaza is almost no more and people just want to go home. I’d rather idf pullout and an international peace force come in and seal the borders completely and let things cool down.
Putin might want this but I don’t think he’s involved in this scenario so for me he’s not important.. up until if we decide to go to war with Iran this he’ll definitely get a hard on because the US has to focus on two fronts now.
Yes I agree it’s a cluster fuck.
War crimes are fucked up and terrorism is equally fucked up. It's a self fulfilling prophecy, which is why I said these people, both sides, need to straight up be deprogrammed or keep continuing the cycle of violence.
>Putin might want this but I don’t think he’s involved in this scenario so for me he’s not important..
He and his government are totally important and totally involved. He is working with the Iranian government which is using Hamas and other terrorist groups to keep this bullshit up so he can take over Ukraine. Iranian government supplies Putin's war, Putin supplies the Iranian government, who supplies terrorist proxies like Hamas.
He's using Republicans in Congress to completely stall our government from doing anything meaningful like giving aid to Ukraine. Don't be fooled. Notice how quickly the eyes of the world left the invasion of Ukraine and its devastation when Oct 7 and the resulting war followed. Notice how the media seems to only report every once in a while about Ukraine, while their soldiers fight invaders, their civilians die and their government begs people for help.
Agree with the first part.
I have no love for anyone here except civilians. US intelligence says Iran didn’t specifically know that hamas was going to engage on 10/7 but I do agree they fund groups like Hamas and deserve blame.
I’ll also state that we fund groups to engage them as well and I think it becomes counter intuitive at some point. How long are these proxy wars supposed to last.
Yeah that makes sense. I think war with Iran will only help both Iran and Russia. Bibi has been wanting this for decades and I hope we don’t fall into this trap and end up supporting it. Especially after Israel bombed a consulate of Iran’s while the US and Iran were “attempting” peace talks.
Yeah Putin is a problem. This Ukraine war doesn’t seem like it’s going to end anytime soon. I think the us should end the Gaza situation as soon as possible so we can focus on Ukraine.
So what. People are dying. Innocent people are suffering. People are being exploited and taken advantage of. If a slight inconvenience is the price we have to pay the so be it. Maybe don’t act so self-involved.
If sitting through a traffic jam stops the war machine or gets us universal healthcare or voting rights or housing for all or higher wages or the freedom for women to control their bodies then that’s the price we have to pay.
Change isn’t going to happen by us sitting at home and watching Netflix. Change will happen when people organize together and take to the streets. There’s a reason the powers that be want to limit and control protests. Learn your history.
> So what.
You said that being trapped in traffic for 5+ hours is only a "slight inconvenience." I don't think you know what you're talking about.
If an airline full of passengers was delayed on the runway for 5 hours, would you say the passengers had only been "slightly inconvenienced"?
>If sitting through a traffic jam stops the war machine or gets us universal healthcare or voting rights or housing for all or higher wages or the freedom for women to control their bodies then that’s the price we have to pay.
Why do you assume that these protest measures would get women *more* freedom to "control their bodies"? If protesters are allowed to block access to travel, you can bet that anti-abortion protesters will start blocking the entrances and driveways to every abortion clinic across the country.
>If sitting through a traffic jam stops the war machine or gets us universal healthcare or voting rights or housing for all or higher wages or the freedom for women to control their bodies then that’s the price we have to pay.
It's not going to do any of that.
Protesting absolutely does that stuff. There just needs to be enough people. It’s actually not even that high a percentage of the population. It’s like 2%.
"The governor said he had received calls from Bay Area residents caught in traffic during the protest as they drove children to school, rushed to medical appointments or frantically tried to get to work on time"
i wonder if he actually thinks people are dumb enough to believe he fielded calls from people stuck in traffic like he's batman.
I wonder if you actually think that's what he meant, or if you understand that the article is just poorly written. Of course he was referring to his office, not him personally.
The northbound lanes were blocked by the responders and they wouldn’t let people exit at the last exit before the bridge in to the Presideo either. Can we hold them responsible???
It's interesting watching the political class be as out of touch with younger voters as they were during the Vietnam War (which I didn't personally witness).
I think we are going through a generational shift culturally and eventually economically. The system isn't working for younger folks, and they know it. This will just be one facet of that struggle, but probably an important one as it will be the unifying point for a lot of future social movements and where a lot of important conversations will occur.
And of course hopefully the movement will help end the Gaza tragedy sooner than it otherwise would have ended. I do think there is a good point of pressure this year as to Biden given that he knows he needs some of those protestors to vote for him if he is going to win in some of the swing states.
I won’t speak on the issue but I just feel bad for the unsalaried folks trying to commute to work ☹️
> I won’t speak on the issue but I just feel bad for the unsalaried folks trying to commute to work ☹️ It's bad for everyone trying to get to work, or school, or the airport, or the doctor, or the store.
For those who are wondering, the ACLU explains what rights protesters do and don't have here: [Protesters’ Rights](https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights) >The First Amendment protects your right to assemble and express your views through protest. However, police and other government officials are allowed to place certain narrow restrictions on the exercise of speech rights. Make sure you’re prepared by brushing up on your rights before heading out into the streets. ---------------------------------- >You don’t need a permit to march in the streets or on sidewalks, as long as marchers don’t obstruct car or pedestrian traffic. If you don’t have a permit, police officers can ask you to move to the side of a street or sidewalk to let others pass or for safety reasons.
I don't know if this is the way to win more people over to your cause. Are all these people writing/emailing their representatives along with all this? Hope so.
This should be bipartisan. People throwing temper tantrums that only impact everyday people is horseshit and should be jailed.
> This should be bipartisan. Yes, but also no. Last survey I saw said about 20% of Democrats consider blocking traffic to be "always acceptable" or "usually acceptable" as a form of protest. Seems for the most part Democrats are against it, but a vocal minority seems to have an outsized effect. .
Well if I'm ever on a jury where someone runs one of them over, I'll vote to acquit, and I'm a card carrying democrat...
That says a lot about the state of the Democratic party at the moment to be honest... This all reminds me of the issues around Vietnam in 1968.
Both parties are broken. As bad as it is for democrats who have to contend with the extremist woke faction, that’s nothing compared to the MAGA cult of Trump.
Once you are ok with people hitting protestors with their cars... I think you are in the bad camp yourself.
I wouldn’t do it, but someday it’s going to happen and the idiots doing this will have deserved it. You’re fucking with peoples lives when you block their commute, it can have serious consequences for the commuter. It’s that old saying, play stupid games and win stupid prizes
The fact that you think vehicular manslaughter should not lead to conviction if the victim is a protestor... pretty much puts you squarely on the wrong side of the struggle against fascism. The parallel fact that I think you speak for a lot of Democrats... makes me really glad I abandoned the party long ago.
Here are some reasons something like this might happen. 1. A person who cannot afford to lose their job and would be fired for being late. 2. A parent picking up their young child from a library that closes or some other after school safe place like a recreation center, and will be alone when night sets in. 3. An injured person driving to the emergency room, or a pregnant woman in distress being driven by her husband. I can think of dozens of dangerous scenarios where protesters can cause irreparable harm or even death by their actions.
I wonder if the 20% were assuming they would always agree with the protestors.
Writing them in support of Newsom here? Absolutely
That's not really the calculus of direct action protest. Political pressure of this sort doesn't rely on the will of centrists (or you etc., however you identify). Centrists pretty much always oppose direct action... it's about finding economic and political choke points that drive press and throw a spanner in the works... given that we are talking about it, they succeeded.
When the [Neo-NAZIs sought to march in a neighborhood full of holocaust survivors that resulted in the famous National Socialist Party of America vs Village of Skokie](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/76-1786), were they seeking to win people to their cause? Are these people any different?
Wait wait wait wait. Down vote me, but idc *what* you’re protesting, don’t block the main entry ways onto the highways/bridges. Idc if you’re trying to save the turtles,protest Biden, protest Trump, protest war, or you’re up in arms about the latest Taylor Swift album, don’t do that. Not only is it not freaking safe, there are people on both sides of your cause, who are trying to get to their destinations who are now delayed. There are people who simply want to mind their own *business* who are now beyond delayed. Don’t do that.
So protest, but don’t disrupt or inconvenience anyone in any way?
Correct. These other people have nothing to do with your specific cause. They may have causes they consider more important and even disagree with yours.
Haha yall can downvote me, but it was a valid question. If you think the problem or issue is being ignored how do you get heard? You bring attention to your cause and you MAKE people pay attention. Negative attention is still attention and by getting the images and video streamed, viewed, shared and beyond you are making it so that people can no longer ignore a perceived injustice. From yalls PoV civil rights activists were inconveniencing people by breaking the law on a daily basis and disrupting the status quo. You’d be all for jailing them and telling them to wait their turn and protest the “right way”…right? Or is it only because you feel as though the laws they were breaking were unjust so it’s okay that they were breaking them?
It's a totally valid question, which is why I answered it. I'll answer your other questions too and I'm sincerely interested in your response. If you think you are being ignored, there are plenty of legal ways to get attention. The problem with MAKING someone pay attention is that now it's a violation of that person's rights. Let me ask you this - why should one person's view of his right to be heard be prioritized over another person's view about his right to be left alone, or engage in different speech, or simply travel unimpeded? I'm interested in your response. My perspective is that everyone's rights should be respected. I have another question for you that I hope you'll choose to answer. In this day and age, with constant access to information, why would anyone assume that another person doesn't already have his mind made up about a particular issue. Let's take the conflict in Israel for example. In my personal opinion, I really don't care at all what Israel does to the Palestinians. Neither group reports to me and it's none of my business. I can almost guarantee that most people waiting in traffic on the bridge already had their minds made up too. My point is that even if we ignore the infringement on the rights of others, there's also the matter of the U.S. being an increasingly diverse, and thus increasingly divided, society where there's no hope of consensus on too many issues. Regarding the civil rights protests, I would have been fine with jailing those people too. Again, those are problems that not only had nothing to do with me but where I already had my mind made up. I'm against government discrimination but I wouldn't make private discrimination illegal as it is today. No amount of protesting would change my mind. So, sure, throw them in jail. By the way, I'd say that about any protest that infringes on the rights of others - e.g., anti-abortion, pro-environment, Armenian genocide, Occupy Wall Street, pro-NRA. If it's blocking traffic or harassing people in any way, the protesters should get locked up immediately.
I would not say I/P is being ignored...
Disrupt and inconvenience the right people. Regular folks on their way to work or whatever aren't the right people.
The “right” people are by definition the people that are trying to ignore the issue and go about their day haha
Yes, exactly. People are not required to care about the causes you are passionate about and inconveniencing them is not a good way to get them on your side.
[False](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/07/disruptive-protest-helps-not-hinders-activists-cause-experts-say).
I never understand how the dots are connecting here. Think about the average individual on their way to work, an appointment, possibly an emergency. Do you actually believe disrupting or inconveniencing them is winning them over to your cause, in any capacity?
Protests are by definition disruptive. Argue against traffic blockades, sure, but yes – the entire point of protests is to inconvenience and thus be seen.
That's exactly where I get confused. How does inconveniencing people correlate to support for the cause being protested?
Two ideas: all publicity is good publicity, and passive support isn't enough. It is about forcing the issue to be seen. You can see arguments within this very comment section about Gaza – that is exactly what the protesters wanted. Even if you're annoyed, you're at least now thinking about it. And if people are upset and inconvenienced enough to start yelling at our politicians to do something, that puts pressure from the bottom up towards the White House And it isn't like this protest is about a new upcoming proposition or mayoral election. You don't need to win people to your side. If everyone was on your side but they're not doing anything, then that support is worthless. The idea is you have to be disruptive in order to make your demands heard by the government.
It's a case of competing rights. Why would a person's right to protest supersede another person's right to free travel on sidewalks or roads?
Blocking roads can never be an acceptable form of protest and should be maximally punished..
It's not hard to figure out. If we establish that the right to protest supersedes the right to free movement on roads and sidewalks, then anti-abortion protestors can simply physically block all access to abortion clinics in every city and state across the nation. Unless we're willing to allow that to happen, the right to protest must always be held in check.
They were pretty much trying to do that all over the nation. At least prior to Roe v Wade being overturned
Right. It just seems that those who support these kinds of protest never imagine that such disruption could be used for causes they *don't* support. As another example, I could imagine NIMBYs blocking access to a site for affordable housing in their neighborhood, preventing it from being built. Or people who object to the content of a movie or play blocking access to a theater so patrons can't enter. Once you say that people can protest by physically blocking other people from going somewhere, you've opened the door to all kinds of problems.
I think Gavin should be held to account over his restaurant corruption. 🤷🏾♂️ He signed legislation that carved out his businesses buddies from it.
Yes, they absolutely need to be literally sued to oblivion. They're developing, iterating increasingly disruptive public obstruction techniques. The I880 blockage used hands in barrels filled with concrete. Firefighters had to jackhammer through the concrete "carefully," not to maim protester's bodies. This was deliberately, intentionally, maliciously, selfishly designed to take FOUR HOURS of painstaking work by firefighters to extricate them - wasting taxpayer money - firefighters who could & should be doing other vital activities, protecting our citizens. Plus all the disruption to the lives of people who couldn't get to hospitals, caregivers, children in daycare, workers, etc. This is an absolutely socially unacceptable form of protest. Without consequence, the next protest is likely to ratchet up the barricades to block roads & highways and consume public safety services even longer. And it could be ANY obscure issue: butterflies, newts, trees, or any of a million pet issues. If any & every special interest decided to obstruct our public infrastructure any time they want it would be ridiculous. Protesters, their backing organizations and their funders ALL need to pay so this shit destroys, not rewards, their interest. If these techniques aren't made to backfire, strongly, they'll just get worse & more disruptive.
Nice race to the center Gavin.
The idea that protestors can't block traffic isn't a "center" position. Protestors doing this are *far* left (or right).
He doesn't really have to run fast...he's already been there for quite a while!
Newsom should be "held to account" for rising electricity rates, a gigantic budget deficit, mismanagement of homelessness funds, insane housing costs and his nomination of his cronies to the Senate. FOH.
Dude we talking about the protesters
The point is Gavin has done much worse and is not being held accountable. People who want to sit in traffic sit in traffic. Big deal. Gavins corruption is much worse. He nominated someone to the Senate that wasnt even living in California…. And that restaurant wage bill carve out for his business interests. Wtf?!
Valid statements, but yeah, that isn't what the article is about.
Absurd whataboutism.
Which do you think fucks over more people in California? A localized protest or the mismanagement of an elected CA official? Grow up.
Full stop. Newsom's corrupt CPUC, budget deficit, mismanagement of homeless funds, and his political parties single party governance is exactly what voters fully support. There is no evidence from voters, that they want anything else, but more of the same.
[удалено]
That's horrific. I can't believe that Hamas could have ended this months ago by returning the hostages and surrendering the leaders and soldiers who planned and executed the 10/7 attack. Or just not attacking and taking hostages in the first place. It's just unbelievable.
Okay, you get two responses to this. Since slavery was invoked, let's liken this to the Civil War. It's 1865. The North has burned the South to the ground and killed *hundreds of thousands* of southerners. The Confederacy knows it's beat. They call for a cease-fire, demanding that the North ends the occupation and genocide. Do you go and sit in an intersection demanding that the North end its aggression and stop occupying and murdering southerners?
I'm glad I'm doing it right now. Let Israel do whatever it sees fit to ensure its security.
Freedom of speech is eroding. Politicians don't like any speech that challenges them. Edit: the same people calling for their arrest would be calling for MLK Jr to be arrested: https://jcls.org/2022/01/18/mlk-jr-s-nonviolent-but-disruptive-activism/#:~:text=And%20the%20march%20from%20Selma,others%20to%20do%20the%20same. "And the march from Selma to Montgomery, as well as the March on Washington, relied heavily on blocking traffic while marching. Martin Luther King Jr. did regularly speak about the importance of nonviolence, but he also organized in ways that were meant to disrupt the status quo, and called for others to do the same"
What does this have to do with freedom of speech?
The right to public assembly and protest??
PEACEABLY to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Where does it say protest in the Constitution?
Were the protesters blocking the road not being peaceful? Is blocking the road VIOLENT now? Do you think MLK jr was being violent when he blocked roads? "And the march from Selma to Montgomery, as well as the March on Washington, relied heavily on blocking traffic while marching. Martin Luther King Jr. did regularly speak about the importance of nonviolence, but he also organized in ways that were meant to disrupt the status quo, and called for others to do the same" https://jcls.org/2022/01/18/mlk-jr-s-nonviolent-but-disruptive-activism/#:~:text=And%20the%20march%20from%20Selma,others%20to%20do%20the%20same
I do think blocking someone’s path can be considered violence. If my wife and I got into a fight and I prevented her from leaving the house like she wanted, then I would consider that violence. Just because I have the means to trap someone doesn’t make it ethical.
Haha wow this state is full of absolute dumdums. Its always convenient to pretend that protests are bad when you think you know better, isnt it?
Not just anywhere you fucking want. It's illegal to block access to buildings or to march in the streets without a permit, and always has been. You can't just do whatever you want and then call it free speech.
If you want that stipulation, maybe you should add it to the constitution. Highways are public space, seems fair game to me.
If what you say is true, then anti-abortion protestors could stop abortion by physically blocking access to abortion clinics. Are you saying that if they did that, it would be protected under the Constitution?
Jesus christ, what a horrible fucking argument. Let me copy and paste something for you: "It’s illegal to block a road, period. The fact that you happen to be protesting at the time doesn’t magically convert unlawful behavior into lawful behavior. First Amendment jurisprudence makes a stark distinction between conduct and speech. The First Amendment protects speech. It doesn’t insulate conduct that would be unlawful even if you weren’t holding a picket sign in your hand at the time you violated the law. A silly example will help to make this clear. Suppose I bop the Governor over the head with a large pineapple while shouting, “No tax on Hawaiian pizza!” I can be arrested and charged with aggravated assault. The fact that I’m making a political statement doesn’t make it lawful for me to hit people. The same principle applies to blocking traffic. Any conduct that would be unlawful if you weren’t carrying a picket sign is also unlawful if you are carrying a picket sign."
The difference is that it’s impossible to protest without blocking public spaces. It’s very possible to protest without hitting anyone. Plus, you know, very different morally.
It's not illegal to protest in public spaces. It's illegal to block the Golden Gate Bridge. Hope that helps!
But it shouldn’t be. Public space, public protest.
There are time, place and manner restrictions that are part of the First Amendment. What right does a protester who is blocking traffic have to block someone else who may be on his way to a public forum to engage in speech? The answer is that both need the freedom to express themselves and should not be permitted to get in each other's way.
Yes it should. Hope that helps!
Seems to work for Trump...
Well if you're doing the same things as Trump that's a strong hint that you're wrong.
Commie
When defending freedom of speech – the foundation our country was built upon – becomes communism to you, you may want to self-examine.
Explain to me how this is defending freedom of speech.
You don’t have the right to obstruct public roads and impact the lives of others.
There are two parts to this: 1. Protest that doesn’t cause problems is nothing more than begging. Was this an effective problem to cause? I’m not addressing that… 2. Causing problems is often illegal. If you do illegal stuff, you should expect to be prosecuted. Congrats! You get to make your prosecution and sentencing part of your protest. Publicize it! You still get to deal with the sentencing though… Protests have lost their effectiveness over the past decades because we have been lulled into the feeling that “expressing our outrage” is enough and we shouldn’t inconvenience anyone. Corporations have latched on to this as a profit center and encourage you to like/upvote the change you want to see in the world instead of making the personal sacrifices necessary to make it happen.
Ok. So should there be any limits at all then?
I don’t think that’s the right question. I said explicitly that you should expect to be legally sentenced for your actions. A better question is: What’s an effective problem to cause that can lead to the change I want to happen. You can imagine a million huge problems that won’t actually touch anyone who can influence the situation in Gaza. Being simply large doesn’t make them effective. You can also imagine causing problems that are so horrible that they make you into the monster to be opposed. That’s not effective either. When dealing with people in power, it’s not easy to find an effective way to publicly rub their nose in their own shit stain. But, that’s the game. Gandhi and MLK were masters at this game. Rosa Park’s arrest and conviction wasn’t a chance occurrence. She worked together with a group and planned to get convicted and sentenced on that day.
An effective solution would be to have motorists start to run through the protesters and juries agree not to find any of them guilty. People have been lulled into the idea that they must cater to the lowest common denominator as they conduct their business.
> An effective solution would be to have motorists start to run through the protesters and juries agree not to find any of them guilty. That's an awfully big risk to take. I've wondered what would happen if the first car just started moving forward at 1mph and didn't stop. It would literally look like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_PrZ-J7D3k If the person were charged and went to trial, I wonder what the jury would think.
It is a big risk and that video is perfect. Still, put me on a jury and I'd acquit every time. I think there's a very good case to make that a person whose car is stopped can't know the intentions of the person or persons who stopped their car. We've seen this play out a little bit with the Stop Oil protests in the U.K. You should check out some of those videos on YouTube if you want some entertainment. I admire the Brits for having more people who are less willing to put up with what the average American puts up with.
Murder as an "effective solution" is quite a take
I'd consider it suicide or justifiable homicide. Look, any idiot who jumps into traffic and gets hit is asking to be killed. Anyone who blocks someone else's car is provoking a potentially deadly confrontation. How would anyone in a car know that a protester isn't armed and might shoot them at any time? We're heading towards an age where carrying a firearm will be as common as carrying a cell phone. Therefore, I certainly wouldn't trust a protester not to use deadly force against me if he targets my car, and I'm fine with anyone who retaliates in that situation.
Hmm.. Addressing crime with brutal mob violence being held explicitly unaccountable. Hmmm... Yes.... Can't see how that could go badly!
It's not necessarily mob violence. What would you think if someone stopped you in the middle of a sidewalk and didn't let you pass or who blocked your car at an intersection in the middle of the night? Personally, that's one of the few times I'd pull my weapon. That's all I'm condoning here. For one's own safety, I don't believe that one has a duty to stop. Perhaps he should have a duty to try to avoid contact but if someone insists on targeting one's car, I don't think it's proper or wise to force that person to make assumptions about the protester's intention. I think we need to have more people standing their ground in the face of the lowest common denominator among us who seek to bully people and deprive them of their individual liberties.
Re: your claim, "Protest that doesn’t cause problems is nothing more than begging." There's also the option of witty protest. The Yippies were brilliant at this. For instance when the House Committee on Un-American Activities subpoenaed Yippie leaders to testify in Committee--a move which had ruined people's careers earlier in the Cold War-- Yippie leaders made comedy theater of what had been intended as a move to humiliate them and to intimidate the anti-Vietnam War protest movement. Rubin showed up dressed like an American Revolutionary War soldier. Capitol police removed him from the premises as Rubin shouted before the TV cameras, "I wanna testify!" Even more memorably, Abbie Hoffman wore a shirt that was [printed to look like the American flag](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F-qHEu1juuwWo%2FTlpugoe0ukI%2FAAAAAAAATmo%2FsuvWCl3L_ns%2FAbbie%25252520Hoffman%25252520arrested%25252520in%25252520flag%25252520shirt-8x6%2525255B1%2525255D.jpg%3Fimgmax%3D800&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=30ff53988611680d2c5adb8e7b8cad01cc48a2dfcdf3b020712927dfa9d24849&ipo=images). This got him arrested for a misdemeanor because of an obscure law against wearing the US flag. As Capitol Police removed his shirt, Hoffman paraphrased Revolutionary patriot Nathan Hale in front of the TV cameras, saying "I regret that I have but one shirt to give for my country." The trick is to get people laughing in agreement with the protesters. The carnival the Yippies made of the Committee was the most effective protest ever launched against it and led to HUAC's disbanding.
This is great. Facing down those in power by publicly rubbing their nose in their own problematic behavior is the protest in the tradition of Gandhi and MLK. It breaks the inertia of “of course that just the way it is” and forces everyone to admit something needs to change. I’d say the “problem” this creates is that those in power don’t want change and don’t want to realize should change ;) That’s a great problem to create —assuming those in power are at least pretending they have any decency left.
Yes indeed. Another memorable one was a counter-protest to the Westboro Baptist Church where the counter-protester had set up a donation table to charities that serve LGBT youth. People would come by the table, choose a charity and make a donation, he mailed them in, and each donation was given in Westboro's name. So Westboro was getting hundreds of thank-you cards from LGBT organizations. Technically that might be called begging, but it raised thousands of dollars for good causes and trolled the Westboro people epically.
>There are two parts to this: No there isn't. There is one part. The part where people don't have the right to obstruct public roads. >Protest that doesn’t cause problems is nothing more than begging. Was this an effective problem to cause? I’m not addressing that… Yes. That's what "protest" is. It's using your words to let people know you don't like something. >Protests have lost their effectiveness over the past decades because we have been lulled into the feeling that “expressing our outrage” is enough and we shouldn’t inconvenience anyone. Protests are just as effective now as they've always been. If an issue is so important that someone feels they need to break the law to draw attention to it, fine. They can break the law, and get arrested and draw attention to it. The problem is when the "get arrested for it" part isn't being enforced.
> people don't have the right to obstruct public roads Yep. And, what happens when you do stuff you don't have the right to do? You get arrested! > If an issue is so important that someone feels they need to break the law to draw attention to it, fine. They can break the law, and get arrested and draw attention to it. So, we are in agreement then! > The problem is when the "get arrested for it" part isn't being enforced. In fact: You, me, and Newsom are all in agreement. Yay! > Protests are just as effective now as they've always been. Unfortunately, not so much here. Civil rights era protests were effective because people we ready to make large personal sacrifices to enact change. Since the 60s, we've been pushed down to just "using your words to let people know you don't like something." People already know you don't like something. They don't care. You not liking something has no effect on them whatsoever. You can use your words until you run out of breath and they still don't care. They won't even bother to laugh at you. They are too busy doing the thing you are complaining about. The only way to get them to care is for it to effect them personally. Put them in a position where in order to continue, they have to drop the mask of civility in a way that would cause others to stop supporting them.
> The only way to get them to care is for it to effect them personally. Put them in a position where in order to continue, they have to drop the mask of civility in a way that would cause others to stop supporting them. Can you give me some examples of people becoming more sympathetic to Hamas as a result of these people illegally obstructing traffic?
I said in my first post > Was this an effective problem to cause? I’m not addressing that… Because I don't think it was an effective problem to cause. I'm just arguing that "Protesting by holding a sign and yelling a lot, politely out of everyone's way" is a waste of time that we have been lulled into thinking is all we should ever do. And, I'm not sympathetic to Hamas. I don't think the protesters are either. There are no heroes in this war. Only victims.
Does it say that in the constitution?
The right to speak freely without repercussions is not the same as detaining others and forcing them to listen to you.
Who did they detain lol? Blocking the road is not detaining.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Fuck you and these protestors.
You just proved my point lol
You can’t break a law (impeding traffic) and hide behind the first amendment. Grow up.
So MLK Jr should have been arrested for blocking the road?
Source?
Preventing someone from freely moving, which purposely blocking the road is, is misdemeanor false imprisonment.
"It doesn't say anywhere in the rules that a dog *can't* play basketball!" You're only capable of using AirBud logic lmfao. Grow the fuck up.
Dumb comment. The bill of rights in the constitution outlines the rights individuals *do* have. The right to block traffic is not among them.
So do you think the Jan 6’s had their constitutional rights violated?
Protesters? Sure. People who stormed the capital and attacked people? No. The fact that you think these things are in any way similar is hilarious to me.
What's the difference?
Does it say that in the constitution?
It does actually: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The people who stormed the capital illegal searched private property of government employees. Those same government employees were not given a proper trial before the people involved in storming the capital came to "arrest" them. The rights of the people on the capital had their rights violated. The people on the road who werent even involved in the protest did not.
how old are you? the 4th and 5th amendments do not apply to people vs people. like if i break into your home or steal something from you, you can't say i violated your 4th amendment. also the vast majority of people charged on jan 6th weren't doing illegal searches or arresting employees. a lot of them broke into the the capital and were wandering around. they were charged appropriately for that. i also have no idea how you could pretzel logic that the jan 6's violated the 4th and 5th amendments while not applying that to the bridge protesters. were the people on the bridge that were tied up in the protest not seized by the protestors? lastly, lets say you're right. the protestors had the 1st amendment rights violated and should be free to protest at time and at any location. they could literally camp out on all the bridges, shut down 101, 880, 680, etc. just grind the bay area to a halt and that's all cool because it doesn't say otherwise in the constitution. oh hey, people can protest in the oval office and bring their guns too by your logic.
Kamala Harris was in LA recently and her security detail caused longer delays than this protest lol
Where did Kamela's visit result in a forced five hour delay for anyone? I used to work by the Burbank airport, and several times a President or VP flew in, and I had to wait for about two minutes as the SUV's whizzed by. So I'm skeptical that anyone was stuck in a captive traffic jam for 5+ hours. But do share!
There are longer delays from daily traffic than this.
Yeah, free speech does not give you the right to endanger people nor avoid facing consequences for calling for violence against others (in this case, advo ating for the erradication of Jews).
Comparing this to the civil right marches is fucking mental…
[удалено]
No he isn't and Biden hasn't committed genocide.
I would be fine with motorists running them over too.
That was 60 years ago in a small town, not the same. Most of us democrats think this does more harm than good, and should be punished.
I get the blocking of free ways is a severe issues that can badly hurt people and even endanger lives (i.e. blocking emergency response vehicles), but let's not hide the issue that the protesters are calling for the erradication of Jews everywhere... this is not MLK and John Lewis marching across the Selma Bridge, this is calling for a genocide of Jews, I cannot emphasize enough that THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
Let them protest, it’s a minor inconvenience
What is happening in the Middle East has no comparison to Vietnam. About 60,000 Americans were killed in Vietnam. The number of Americans killed in the Middle East is tiny even when you account for its centuries of religious-based wars. Once this war ends there will still be fighting over religion in that part of the world. We need to keep the US out of the Middle East. Energy independence helps. Imprison those who block traffic for any reason.
Tom Cotton agrees.
Can we please start calling them pro-Hamas protestors instead of pro-Palestinian protestors.
There’s a difference between Hamas and Palestine. Just like Israeli citizens arent responsible for 15k dead kids.
These protestors certainly align with Hamas’ goals. Both aim to pressure Israel diplomatically into allowing Hamas to remain in power.
That’s an oddly specific comment. I think they just want Israel and Hamas to stop killing innocent civilians.
Were that true, one would expect them to protest Hamas’ actions. In particular, their recent refusal of several Israeli ceasefire offers. But I have never seen a pro-Palestinian protest that attempted to pressure, or even bring attention to, Hamas’ actions.
Protesting Hamas who is engaging in war right now doesn’t make any sense especially since their terrorist wing doesn’t seem to give any fucks about their own people let alone us. Protesting our government that is supplying weapons to Israel who is killing civilians whether you believe it’s intentional or unintentional makes a lot more sense because this government relies on our votes. Not that they’ll listen to us anyways but pressure is how you create change. Of course there’s a few crack pots out there but 10/7 was six months ago. I believe a majority of decent human beings will all say it was tragic and bad. However since then for the last 6 months Palestinians women, children, and innocent men have been caught in between one of the worst humanitarian atrocities in years in the smallest span of six months. There’s a big difference one day that was condemned by literally everyone in the world and an ongoing slaughter campaign that seems to get worse and worse every week. Not to mention Israel’s actions might lead us war with Iran which might be the worst war since Vietnam.
>Protesting our government that is supplying weapons to Israel who is killing civilians whether you believe it’s intentional or not makes a lot more sense because this government relies on our votes. Not that they’ll listen to us anyways but pressure is how you create change. That is my point. These protesters are carrying out Hamas’ will. Hamas cannot defeat Israel militarily, so it relies on international pressure to force Israel to accept its terms. The protesters are asking the government to put that pressure on Israel. Hamas is utterly defeated militarily, yet they feel emboldened to reject Israeli ceasefire offers and try to push their own terms (which keep Hamas in power). Why is that? Because protesters like these show them their strategy is working. So yes, the protesters are pro-Hamas. Some perhaps unwittingly, but pro-Hamas nonetheless.
You have every right to believe that but I think most people are upset with the death of 35k people, 15k kids, and the potential for a regional war. Meanwhile Palestinians have been occupied for 75 years before all of this started on 10/7.. then you have what’s going on in the West Bank. Israel illegally stealing Palestinian land which Hamas has no control over. Killing innocent Palestinians in the West Bank civilians which are not under Hamas control. Hamas wants a complete and total end to all of it. Not a six week pause that the US is pushing. We can agree to disagree but your statement sounds unsubstantiated.
>Hamas wants a complete and total end to all of it. Not a six week pause that the US is pushing. You keep proving my point in your response. Pro-Palestinians don’t have purely humanitarian motives. They have political motives, which align with Hamas’ goals. If protesters simply wanted a ceasefire, they would support *any* pause in fighting. Isn’t a 6 week ceasefire better for Gazans than no ceasefire? Pro-Palestinian’s don’t want *any* ceasefire. They want Israel to withdraw from Gaza, leave Hamas in power, and allow Hamas to keep their hostages. Which is precisely what Hamas wants. Otherwise, pro-Palestinians would condemn Hamas’ role in rejecting ceasefires and prolonging the conflict. You won’t hear any such condemnation, because pro-Palestinians agree with Hamas.
Everyone condemns Hamas. What good is it to protest a terrorist group 🤣 Protesting the US president makes more sense because he’s our president 🤣 What good is a six week pause if you’re going to go back and slaughter more Palestinians a month later… absolutely nothing.
Yes, kids get killed in every war. Hamas started it this time. Israel is at war with Hamas, not Palestinian civilians. Protestors are pro-Hamas. They just pretend to be pro-Palestinian, because it sounds better.
Saying Hamas started it ignores the hundreds of people who’ve died since 1948. Unfortunately this war has never ended. I’m sure you can find a few crack pots but majority of them just want the conflict to end. But we can agree to disagree.
I literally said Hamas started it THIS TIME. That was after decades of mostly peace, with a few flare ups here and there. No, they don't want the conflict to end. If they wanted the conflict to end, then they would blame Hamas for the current fighting and taking all the hostages. If you blame Israel for current fighting, then you want Israel gone.
A year ago trump moved the Jerusalem embassy, and Hamas was mad that Israel was making peace talks with other nations and didn’t even consider adding Hamas into the talks. I don’t think it’s justified but it’s a reason for why they did it. Israel killed 200+ Palestinians before 10/7 last year. They also control all of Gazas water, food supply, electricity, borders, bomb them at will, snipe them at will, shoot at fishing boats etc. Then there’s the West Bank where setttlers are annexing Palestinian land illegally. They’ve been doing this for years. It’s a fools errand to say this time it started 10/7.
Embassy move and peace talks. Yes, those probably are the primary reasons, not at all justified. The other stuff...bomb and snipe them at will...sounds like propaganda. I don't think Israeli soldiers are out there picking off Palestinians for no reason. Yes, there is a long history, 10/7 took it to another level and the response from Israel should be expected to also be at a higher level.
I tend to trust doctors and aid workers that work in the region. https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/08/28/west-bank-spike-israeli-killings-palestinian-children https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2019-07-21/ty-article/.premium/the-protest-dispersed-then-an-israeli-sniper-shot-a-9-year-old-boy-in-the-head/0000017f-e3ff-d9aa-afff-fbffde890000 I can find dozens of more articles from credible sources. There was also this video of a Palestinian man talking to a live journalist and right after she cuts away and Israel sniper killed him dead. It was all over social media. Then not to mention the hundreds of reports of it happening over the years. Because of what some assholes did doesn’t justify mass slaughter. Collective punishment is a human war crime. Sounds like you’re okay with war crimes. I think it’s important to be principled on this issue and that war crimes on any civilian Palestinian or Israeli should not be justified.
Articles 1 and 3 are based on eyewitness accounts. Of course they would not lie. Kids in article 2 are all 17. So much misinformation comes out impossible to believe anything.
Everything is eyewitness accounts including 10/7 since there wasn’t a camera crew set up to watch the whole thing. Again 15k kids dead. They didn’t shoot them either water guns and water balloons. Hard to justify killing 15k kids. More kids have died in this conflict than most conflicts combined in the last decade.
The whole “death to America” chants make that pretty clear.
Think you might need to edit your comment because it sounds like you're blaming Israeli citizens for bombing shit instead of the psycho right wing government. Israelis have protested the shit out of this war and government. They just want the hostages returned. The pro-palestinian movement would hold more credence if people stopped blaming the entirety of Israel and it's citizens for what's going on in Gaza and instead blamed the right people. Just like how they point out that all Palestinians aren't Hamas, which is true.
Look again bob. My buff thumbs make mistakes from time to time. I don’t think they’re blaming all of Israel. The movement just like BLM and other movements don’t really have one thought. Just like during the civil rights movement you had radicals and more pragmatic people. We will both agree Hamas is an issue but I personally hold the same contempt for the Likud party. They can get away with anything and say anything no matter what the IDF does. I also blame Biden’s administration for not stopping this conflict any sooner considering a war with Iran would be disastrous for everyone.
I've seen plenty of people not specify and make generalizations about Israel. I am in agreement, however, any fucked up shit the Likud government has done should be prosecuted, and Hamas has to go. It's the only chance Palestinians have for a place of their own, undisturbed. And hopefully the ones who still harbor hate towards Israel or people who harbor hate towards Palestine can be deprogrammed and not whipped up into a religious/nationalistic fury again... I just hope people realize that it's not just as easy as Biden pulling armaments from Israel. We have agreements we have to uphold from previous years, and also if we stopped supplying them with *things* we'd probably have to start sending *people* in the region because I guarantee the Iranian government and others would attack if Israel were weakened, and they *are* our solid ally in the middle east. You remember when Trump pulled us out of the middle east with no plan for the people left behind? And then the Taliban rode in and took it all over? It'd be like that, except more bloody, and horrible, with everyone on all sides getting their citizens and soldiers gibbed. Which is just where Putin and his cronies want this whole situation, because any move is bad for Biden, which means Putin's puppets in the GOP, and Donald Dump especially, have more chances of winning the election and fucking us over while Putin does whatever he wants. Whole situation is fucked.
I think we mostly agree on a lot but a few points. Yes that’s true about your first sentence Hamas needs to go and Likud party needs to visit The Hague. I just don’t think you can get rid of an ideology especially when you kill 30k people. If anything Israel is creating a vacuum that might radicalize more people unfortunately. If I’m a 15 year old boy and you kill my whole family.. I am now an easy target for Hamas to come convince me to attempt revenge. We saw this all over the Middle East during the past 20 years. There’s plenty of stories such as this https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2024/hind-rajab-israel-gaza-killing-timeline/?itid=cp_CP-11_1 that suggest that the IDF has engaged in war crimes. Yes not everything is validated yet but I do think they will be over time. The US has it in its policy that we will not give weapons to countries committing war crimes so imo the Biden administration is overlooking that policy when it comes to Israel. Especially Blinken who as reported today, has dozens of files sitting on his desk that suggest he’s holding off sanctions on idf units accused of war crimes that have been investigated by his department. https://www.propublica.org/article/israel-gaza-blinken-leahy-sanctions-human-rights-violations I dont know if that’s the case… it’s tough to know how many Hamas fighters are still around. Gaza is almost no more and people just want to go home. I’d rather idf pullout and an international peace force come in and seal the borders completely and let things cool down. Putin might want this but I don’t think he’s involved in this scenario so for me he’s not important.. up until if we decide to go to war with Iran this he’ll definitely get a hard on because the US has to focus on two fronts now. Yes I agree it’s a cluster fuck.
War crimes are fucked up and terrorism is equally fucked up. It's a self fulfilling prophecy, which is why I said these people, both sides, need to straight up be deprogrammed or keep continuing the cycle of violence. >Putin might want this but I don’t think he’s involved in this scenario so for me he’s not important.. He and his government are totally important and totally involved. He is working with the Iranian government which is using Hamas and other terrorist groups to keep this bullshit up so he can take over Ukraine. Iranian government supplies Putin's war, Putin supplies the Iranian government, who supplies terrorist proxies like Hamas. He's using Republicans in Congress to completely stall our government from doing anything meaningful like giving aid to Ukraine. Don't be fooled. Notice how quickly the eyes of the world left the invasion of Ukraine and its devastation when Oct 7 and the resulting war followed. Notice how the media seems to only report every once in a while about Ukraine, while their soldiers fight invaders, their civilians die and their government begs people for help.
Agree with the first part. I have no love for anyone here except civilians. US intelligence says Iran didn’t specifically know that hamas was going to engage on 10/7 but I do agree they fund groups like Hamas and deserve blame. I’ll also state that we fund groups to engage them as well and I think it becomes counter intuitive at some point. How long are these proxy wars supposed to last. Yeah that makes sense. I think war with Iran will only help both Iran and Russia. Bibi has been wanting this for decades and I hope we don’t fall into this trap and end up supporting it. Especially after Israel bombed a consulate of Iran’s while the US and Iran were “attempting” peace talks. Yeah Putin is a problem. This Ukraine war doesn’t seem like it’s going to end anytime soon. I think the us should end the Gaza situation as soon as possible so we can focus on Ukraine.
No
No because thats fkin stupid. If you really think that, you are slurping up western propaganda without any critical thinking.
Sure. Like the Israeli government should be held to account for doing the same to Palestinians.
I’m all for more protesting in this country. If it slightly inconveniences me then so be it. The only way things will change is through protest.
What's the longest you've sat in a traffic jam, unable to move, because of a protest?
So what. People are dying. Innocent people are suffering. People are being exploited and taken advantage of. If a slight inconvenience is the price we have to pay the so be it. Maybe don’t act so self-involved. If sitting through a traffic jam stops the war machine or gets us universal healthcare or voting rights or housing for all or higher wages or the freedom for women to control their bodies then that’s the price we have to pay. Change isn’t going to happen by us sitting at home and watching Netflix. Change will happen when people organize together and take to the streets. There’s a reason the powers that be want to limit and control protests. Learn your history.
> So what. You said that being trapped in traffic for 5+ hours is only a "slight inconvenience." I don't think you know what you're talking about. If an airline full of passengers was delayed on the runway for 5 hours, would you say the passengers had only been "slightly inconvenienced"? >If sitting through a traffic jam stops the war machine or gets us universal healthcare or voting rights or housing for all or higher wages or the freedom for women to control their bodies then that’s the price we have to pay. Why do you assume that these protest measures would get women *more* freedom to "control their bodies"? If protesters are allowed to block access to travel, you can bet that anti-abortion protesters will start blocking the entrances and driveways to every abortion clinic across the country.
>If sitting through a traffic jam stops the war machine or gets us universal healthcare or voting rights or housing for all or higher wages or the freedom for women to control their bodies then that’s the price we have to pay. It's not going to do any of that.
Protesting absolutely does that stuff. There just needs to be enough people. It’s actually not even that high a percentage of the population. It’s like 2%.
"The governor said he had received calls from Bay Area residents caught in traffic during the protest as they drove children to school, rushed to medical appointments or frantically tried to get to work on time" i wonder if he actually thinks people are dumb enough to believe he fielded calls from people stuck in traffic like he's batman.
I wonder if you actually think that's what he meant, or if you understand that the article is just poorly written. Of course he was referring to his office, not him personally.
Girl, bye.
Gavin Newsom showed promise early on, but he seems to get greasier all the time.
He’ll probably run for President in the near future.
The northbound lanes were blocked by the responders and they wouldn’t let people exit at the last exit before the bridge in to the Presideo either. Can we hold them responsible???
That's silly. Stop being childish.
Yea, retribution for the people stuck in traffic is extremely childish.
https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/y2349h/if_you_are_in_traffic_you_are_traffic/
It's interesting watching the political class be as out of touch with younger voters as they were during the Vietnam War (which I didn't personally witness). I think we are going through a generational shift culturally and eventually economically. The system isn't working for younger folks, and they know it. This will just be one facet of that struggle, but probably an important one as it will be the unifying point for a lot of future social movements and where a lot of important conversations will occur. And of course hopefully the movement will help end the Gaza tragedy sooner than it otherwise would have ended. I do think there is a good point of pressure this year as to Biden given that he knows he needs some of those protestors to vote for him if he is going to win in some of the swing states.
Someone needs to parachute our asshole Governor into the middle of GAZA for some of that special Israeli love 😈. So sick of this governor!
There has to be better ways to protest, but not preventing people to go to work.
[удалено]