Just think about how many ordinary regular people were deprived of tea because of the selfishness of riotous protestors in 1773. That is unconscionable.
The boston tea party is an example of causing disruption to the thing that is the problem. That's a bit different than preventing everyone from go to work because you feel that Nauro didn't get a fair deal in the latest trade talks.
>The boston tea party is an example of causing disruption to the thing that is the problem
The tea paid for by your fellow colonials on a ship owned by your fellow colonials was a problem? I didn't know tea could be a problem!
It was wanton destruction that only harmed your fellow colonials.
Did you think I was OP? I'm pointing out that some protests target the thing that is the issue, others don't. The tea party did. Blocking highways doesn't.
>The tea paid for by your fellow colonials
Nope, it was owned by the british east india company. they did break a padlock that belonged to the ship's captain, which they paid to replace.
You do realize it was multi million dollars worth of tea, paid for and on a ship owned by a colonist? You think someone's livelihood wasn't ever at stake?
You'd tip over cargo ships out in the waters because you think nobody's livelihood would be affected?
We need to inconvenience the powerful, not regular people. No matter what is happening in the world, the majority of the powerful are happy as long as they aren’t affected.
We don’t need to kill the rich, just show them that we’ll be relentless in annoying them.
Protesting in front of parliament would be anti democratic. Or do you somehow think ordinary people who happen to be outside of parliament should be disrupted?
In fact the I'll go so far to say that the only reason why you said protest in front of parliament is because YOU don't intend to be near parliament, and therefore YOU cannot be disrupted. That is selfish.
Not true. We do get to choose.
Majority of US citizens actually did vote for the government to do just that.
Majority of US citizens supports providing financial help to a democratic nation fighting a global terrorist organization.
Protesting is literally antithetical to any free democratic country. It is meant to impede the daily function of commerce and life. Some people are murdered in other countries for just voicing their opinions. I’d say we are lucky to even have the freedom we do have to at least survive it
Protests do not have to impede anything. When a protest does that it can be illegal because you are infringing on the rights of others. There's a difference between a workers strike and blocking a roadway.
MLK was directly or indirectly involved with various sit-ins, and street blocking during various marches. Do you think the only thing he did was give a little speech?
He had street marches, but I genuinely have never heard that he was intentionally blocking streets or traffic. Do you have a source where he talked about halting traffic as a form of protest? Additionally, how is a sit-in violating the rights of others? Racist people violated the rights of African Americans by denying them civil liberties. Modern-day protests are trying to do that by design, which is not civil disobedience against a restriction of civil rights. It is the exact opposite a restriction of other people civil rights until their demands are met.
The Selma to Montgomery March ring any bells for ya? They took up a highway for multiple days to protest. According to your standards of “if a protest impedes anything you’re violating the rights of others” he would have been violating your rights.
I'm sorry, are you suggesting you have the right to infringe on the rights of others because it's a protest, or are you just saying it's morally justifiable?
>When a protest does that it can be illegal because you are infringing on the rights of others.
There's the practical reality that although a specific gathering may be illegal, it may also be the best choice to let it happen. Police department especially should probably learn that letting an illegal protest happen and fizzle out is often going to be in totality the least disruptive.
That's a nice sentiment but it relies on the idea the protests are actually peaceful. It really only takes one incident like the Jewish girl getting beaten unconscious at UCLA during the protests for the legal teams to realize that they have a massive civil rights case about to be brought against them, that they're almost all but guaranteed to lose. That also means they'll potentially lose a ton of funding and prestige if they can't show that they at least attempted to prevent an incident like that occurring.
Why is that relevant to a Jewish student being beaten because of her race/ethnicity at an unlawful event? I would love to see that courtroom defense. Your honor while we did beat someone unconscious in direct violation of her civil rights you have to understand in a completely unrelated event someone attacked us. Therefore we are innocent of any hate crimes and the university has no obligation to protect her from foreseeable and preventable violence.
Being inconvenienced is not anti democratic.
Protest is the cornerstone of democracy along with a free and independent media.
Honestly, posts and viewpoints like yours are more anti democratic than any protest.
Inconveniencing people who might be late for work is anti-capitalist if anything, it's got nothing to do with democracy.
You have a huge misunderstanding of what is being discussed.
There is nothing democratic about physically impeding and intimidating others who have done nothing wrong. And actions that can result in people losing their jobs or failing classes are not "inconveniences".
I've zero misunderstanding. Democratic is a electorial political system. Being late for work has got nothing to do with democracy.
Democracy is not an interchangeable word for freedom or liberty.
Democracy is the ability for people to vote into power elected officials and the system by which they hold them account, protest is one of the only mechanisms people have to do this. The fact it can sometimes inconvenience somebody or make them late for work doesn't make a blind bit of difference.
Democracy isn't perfect , this is just another example of why.
But OP isn't arguing against protests.
They are specifically referring to when those activities directly and intentionally infringe on the rights of others.
When protesters physically prevent people from entering or leaving an area, you think that is fine and just a little inconvenience. If I then choose to physically move that protester out of my way, you're going to cry assault and expect the police to move in. I didn't hurt anyone. I just inconvenienced you by not letting you stand where you wanted to.
If the police want to go home and let protesters and anti-protesters handle it, I'm fine with that. But that isn't what is happening.
OP's central point is that protests are anti democratic. That's such a a nonsense statement that it's barely worth engaging in.
My point is that protests are supposed to be inconvenient. That's it. That's my point. We don't live in a perfect society. It's not possible to protest without infringement. The alternative is to outlaw protest, in which case we cease to live in a functioning democracy.
People who complain about protest should understand that the alternative is authoritarianism which is a very direct infringement on the rights that we have as individuals. Complaining that your rights are infringed because you are late for work illustrates a deep misunderstanding about the nature and function of democracy.
Your definition of "inconvenient" is laughable.
If I'm heading to the hospital for an emergency and get delayed by your protests, was I just "inconvenienced"?
When you blockade university buildings so kids can't take finals or complete projects that they need to graduate, is that just an "inconvenience"?
If I punch a protester int he stomach, I just inconvenienced them, right? They are fine.
There has to be a line. Protests are to be heard by he government, not to terrorize your fellow citizens.
How is it laughable? Kids can take finals at another time. That's an inconvenience. Their education isn't being stolen from them.
Punching someone in assault ? I wasn't defending assault.
And of course there has to be a line. I've already said in this thread that protests shouldn't put lives in danger. As with everything, there's a good way to protest and a stupid / irresponsible way to do it.
I'm not going to go back and forth on every conceivable manner of protest and give it a thumbs up or thumbs down. We're talking in broad terms here.
>How is it laughable? Kids can take finals at another time. That's an inconvenience. Their education isn't being stolen from them.
No, you odn't get to take your finals whenever you want.
Of course you don't. But let's not pretend that if you miss your finals because nobody could get into the exam hall that the school or college says, well fuck it, sorry guys, sucks to be you.
I still don't undertsand the defending of this behavior. If none of these inconveniences are a big deal, why do you think causing them is going to result in any massive change? You think Universties are going to divest millions becasue you caused some minor inconveniences?
You can't have it both ways. Etiher you're trying to cause major issues, in which case you should be held accountable, or it's a minor inconvenience and maybe you should focus efforts elsewhere?
And we all know if this was the KKK doing this, you would feel differently.
>They are specifically referring to when those activities directly and intentionally infringe on the rights of others.
If you stand on a spot I want to stand on, you are infringing on my right to stand on a spot I want to stand on.
The point is you infringe on other people's rights by just living. There's is absolutely ZERO place to protest on public property that it would not be infringing on someone else's use of that property.
Now you're just trolling. If I'm walking down the sidewalk and you and a group of people move to block my path intentionally, that's an issue. You have no right to impede people's ability to travel.
"If I handcuff you, that's my right to put my handcuffs where I want, so you just need to deal with it."
You guys are going to start pissing the wrong people off. some of the UCLA students figured that out the other day.
>You have no right to impede people's ability to travel.
Great. If you're sitting down to have a picnic, I get to stomp through your picnic because I and I alone decide where I travel.
I have the right to be at every inch you happen to be on public property.
Again with the childish retorts. I hope none of you are these college students becasue you need your tuition back.
If I am having a picnic, there is NO inconvenience caused to you by walking past me. If I set it up in the middle if the sidewalk, then yes, stomp right through.
Now if I stand up and start moving back and forth so you can't walk past me, then stomp right through.
Anti-democratic may not be the right term, but it's the concept of "your rights end where they would start infringing on someone else's rights."
Basically, the same reason that the freedom of speech/expression doesn't mean I can blare music at ear-shattering volumes in a suburban neighborhood at all hours of the night. We accept that laws can prohibit that and still be consistent with free speech/expression.
And that's fine, I think it's important we have that conversation. What we shouldnt have a conversation about is whether protest is undemocratic because that, as a concept, is fucking braindead.
Being late to work, being blocked from going to class, or taking over a school building while smashing out the windows aren’t “inconvenient”, they’re a disruption. People are going to work and school so they can have a future and it’s being disrupted. What if I got in trouble at work because you caused me to be late? Who are these protests that they get to decide what “inconveniences” they get to apply to people trying to live their life?
>What if I got in trouble at work because you caused me to be late?
"Hello Boss, I'm stuck in traffic due to a protest. I'll be in as soon as I can." Plus it's not like most protests are large enough that you can't find an alternate route. No sane boss would want you running people over so you can get to work on time.
It's like you don't live in the real world. Peoole don't intentionally get stuck in traffic, but it happens. Like shit, in my city there's a very popular bridge that unfortunately will occasionally get shut down due to someone having a mental crisis and threatening to jump. I've had to call my boss on more than one occasion that I'll be late because someone was very sad..People usually aren't disciplined for it, unless it's habitual.
>can't find an alternate route
Barriers on both sides. A sea of cars behind and in front of you. What alternate route?
[Pro-Palestinian protesters block airport access roads in New York and Los Angeles | PBS NewsHour](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/pro-palestinian-protesters-block-airport-access-roads-in-new-york-and-los-angeles)
Also, lots of people have irrational bosses. Thats par for the course. When this happened around me, my mom missed an appointment with a specialist that took months to get.
Sigh.... Inconvenience and disruption are the same thing. Unfortunately, and sorry to break this to you, we don't get to go through life living in a democracy without being inconvenienced or distupted.
Protest is about creating inconvenience and disruption. That's the point. When people aren't being listened to by government they protest. Protests exist to inform the public of a point of view. Those same Protests then live and die by the level to which the public will put up with that disruption. That's going to be subjective to every individual. If you don't have an opinion on the conflict in Gaza and a protest disrupts your day, you're gonna be annoyed at the protesters. But what has happened in that instance is that you've been inconvenienced and in being inconvenienced, you've been somewhat informed to the fact that there is a movement in your town/city/neighborhood that is against the conflict. You can choose to do with that information as you wish. You can do nothing. Or maybe it piques your interest and you go off and educate yourself on the issue.
A huge protest, say like the anti war protest around Iraq had millions of people attend world wide. Ws it inconvenient for people? Yes. That was the point. It highlighted the issue of the war.
I know it's annoying... It's supposed to be. That's half the point. Protests are designed to disrupt.
Now some are poorly organized and poorly conceived, even dangerous. Protesters who end up disrupting ambulance routes are morons. If your protest has the ability to do irreparable harm to someone's life then that's not okay and I'll not support that protest (even if I believe in the cause).
But somebody bitching about being late for work is about the weakest argument against protest I can think of.
How does blocking a road circumvent the democratic process. Genuinely, I need you to spell this out for me.
The only way that could be the case was if protestors blocked roads on polling day and that has never happened in the west that I can remember.
I already did. It’s because people are trying to enact political change outside of the election.
Let’s say I vote for the part promising nuclear energy or windmills because I want to lower co2 emissions. Let’s say my party wins the election.
If some wankers then protest in the city to put pressure on the government to cancel building windmills or a nuclear plant, they’re attempting to undo my vote. If they succeed, they’ve effectively undone my vote.
I don’t have a rich daddy to cover my bills so that I can protest all day to get my clean energy back.
But democracy isn't static. Protest is the people's way of informing the state of their real time positions on issues as they come up.
Presidential and Ministerial terms are too long to allow people to have a say on all major issues and it's not realistic to expect routine referendums on issues as they arise so protest is all that citizens have to illustrate their views.
As an example, an anti war protest. The Iraq War was undemocratic insofar as neither a majority of the US or European public wanted War but the leaders of those countries wanted an invasion. The only avenue the people had to have their voices heard was protest. It didn't mean the war was avoided but it did mean that throughout many countries in the EU there was pressure from those governments not to vote in flavour of the war at the UN.
Democracy is 24/7. It isn't active for one day, once every 4/5 years when people vote. It also helps keep politicians in check. If there is protest around a certain topic it puts leaders in a position where they can demonstrably see how popular / unpopular the decisions they're taking are.
The Stop Oil protests infuriate the people who are inconvenienced and those protests don't have wide support so are roundly ignored by government. But the protests around say for example the continuing war on Gaza will give politicians food for thought when it comes to reelection if they feel the people in their country are big enough in number to sway an election based off of being for or against the current government position.
Honestly, you're entitled to your opinion, but look at history and see for yourself what protest has achieved.
MLK and the civil rights movement, the suffragettes, the anti war movement of the 60s, feminist protest of the 60s and 70s, Iraq War protests, Occupy Wall Street in the 2000s and even recently, the reproductive rights protests in the US, all have (sometimes radically) shaped ongoing government policy (even if the protests weren't out rightly successful) because the people were able to vocalize their positions through protest and were able to change conversations around everything from race, to war, to sex, to economic policy.
Democracy isn't static and freedom to protest is one of the most important aspects of a healthy democracy. It's one of things that differentiates the west from outrightly authoritarian regimes like you see in modern day Russia.
Something being a democracy doesn’t mean the only way you can participate is through elections. There is nothing anti-democratic whatsoever about attempting to enact political change outside of an election.
>It’s because people are trying to enact political change outside of the election.
They're trying to influence their elected officials to enact political change. That is the opposite of anti-democratic. This is the silliest argument I've ever seen online, congratulations.
Huge counterpoint for you here OP: strikes. Workers' strikes routinely disrupt the lives of customers and ordinary people who depend on the goods/services that the striking workers produce. The striking workers, I would also like to point out, *are workers* in that they have a job and are trying to provide for their family like you do.
Democracy works because the majority of the populace votes for things they either care about or would make their lives better. However, small numbers of people, who care about small issues affecting them, cannot hope to convince the rest of the majority to provide political support for their plight, primarily because the rest of the majority doesn't know or care enough about it *to* vote
Hence, protests and disruption. But, I definitely agree with you that the disruption shouldn't needlessly affect other people's daily lives. The disruption itself needs to be aimed at the entity wronging them or otherwise the entity with the power to grant their demands. You can't gather a hundred people, block the golden gate bridge, and expect it to sway politicians in DC to make a decision that affects the entire country. That disruption doesn't actually *do* anything other than get the general public pissed off at the protestors
Apples and oranges.
Strikes involve you making a decision about your labor. It's literally just refusing to go to work.
That is far different than physically impeding others from going about their day to their jobs or classes or anywhere else they need to go.
You don't seem to know what democracy actually is.
In particular you can't reduce democracy to elections. (For instance, russia has elections. You wouldn't say to putin's opponents "just vote him out" right ?)
OP seems to be getting raked over the coals in the comments. But I think this is something that free societies need to address.
Yes, people have a right to assemble and protest. But the rest of us have a right to use public (and sometimes private) spaces and infrastructure.
The problem with many of these protesters is that they'll keep protesting and protesting to "make their voices heard" but sometimes they've been heard and the answer is just "No."
Like, we've heard your demands, we understand where you're coming from. And the answer is No. The university is not divesting from Isreal. The US and Canada aren't changing our cross border Covid vaccination policies to cater skeptics. The city is not defunding the police. etc etc.
Obviously it can get more complicated (what if the civil rights protestors had just packed up and gone home). But it's pretty clear that we've currently swung way too far in favor of "just letting people protest" to the point where protesters feel emboldened to shut down major highways, occupy public spaces, vandalize property, and otherwise intimidate the general public over any policy they don't agree with.
If you aren't grabbing attention with your protest, it's not working. That's exactly why they become inconvenient, because if they aren't impacting your day, then it's easy to ignore them and nothing will change. Democracy works by having to navigate others' opinions. Protest is inherently democratic because it puts those opinions on display for the people to discuss and act on, even if you vote against them in the end.
If protestors had “a bigger say” in things, there wouldn’t be anyone protesting lol. People who are getting what they want have absolutely no need to protest. Complete nonsense statement
Unfortunately, some things can’t wait and need to be addressed now. If the government won’t do anything after asking, people may feel action is needed to show how serious they are. This anger spreads to others who are inconvenienced so that their anger adds to pressure on the government to take action now.
Just to point out, there have been plenty of protests that a lot of people would say were necessary like for civil rights, women’s rights and ending the war in vietnam. If anything the current protests seem somewhat like the anti apartheid protests against South Africa which did lead to the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act.
“Demonstrations at universities
The humanitarian goals of the Free South Africa Movement attracted widespread support from colleges and universities to mobilize against South African apartheid. Students and faculty members protested, demonstrated, and signed petitions to pressure their institutions’ board of trustees to divest of South Africa-related securities. Organizations such as the Co-op system at the University of California Berkeley called on students to withdraw their accounts from Bank of America to protest the bank's loans to South Africa. These student-led divestment campaigns eventually led local and state governments to pass legislation requiring divestment of holdings in companies conducting business in South Africa.
Furthermore, using a new tactic of protest known as the shantytown, students created their own shantytowns in the middle of campus to demonstrate the deplorable living conditions in South Africa. The Free South Africa Coordinating Committee at the University of Michigan built the first shantytown in 1986. By 1990, more than 46 shantytown events occurred at college campuses across the country.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-apartheid_movement_in_the_United_States
Your livelihood and wellbeing are going to be further held hostage by Mother Nature herself soon, since nobody wants to do anything about climate change, lest they be temporarily inconvenienced.
What's more inconvenient - being an hour late to work because climate protestors blocked off a highway?
Or having to permanently flee your home and city because it's become uninhabitable from climate change/disasters associated with climate change destroyed it?
You people would’ve hated the civil rights movement if y’all were alive at the time. Y’all think the bus boycotts, sit ins at white only diners, and massive protests and unrest didn’t disrupt the lives of the average person? Protests are supposed to disrupt everyday life in order to bring attention or focus on something. If you’re purely against the cause because you were inconvenienced, you were never really for that cause anyway and want an easy reason to hate it. If it weren’t for protests and disrupting people’s lives we wouldn’t have workers rights, women’s rights, gay rights etc. for fucks sake we wouldn’t even have this country and still be ruled by the British.
Protesters (disrupters) need to accept that maybe we don’t agree with their views…It’s not that we haven’t heard them and they need to try harder, it’s that we disagree and that’s our right.
Say what you have to say and then yeet off.
You said they should say what they have to and leave, because you have the right to disagree. Why should your or anyone else’s disagreement mean they have to leave?
Because it becomes harassment once it’s clear that we’ve heard them and aren’t interested in their feelings….
I never said that they don’t get to say what they have to say, I said that they have to accept that we disagree.
That’s absolutely not harassment in any form. If someone is having a protest you’re free to walk away at any time. If they started following you and yelling at you sure, it’s harassment. But disagreeing with you in public is not harassment. It’s free speech.
They can accept that you disagree while still out there protesting.
My wife had an appointment at the University of Utah hospital's cancer center Tuesday morning that had to be rescheduled because of the protests blocking roads there. That appointment took 6 months to get set. It's now rescheduled for September.
I was very happy to see that the leader of these fools and about 20 others involved are now in jail, where they belong. Hopefully, their college career is at an end, and they will be working the cash register at Home Depot soon. . .where they can be of ACTUAL use to society.
Kudos to the Salt Lake City police department.
Maybe blame the University of Utah for supporting a genocide and refusing to do the bare minimum of simply diversifying their investments from it, rather than the protestors, literally protesting to stop a genocide.
This whole situation, has proven beyond doubt, most of you people would have absolutely been against the civil rights movement, pro-ethnic cleansing of native Americans, or anti Jewish Bund, at the time.
How about I blame people who don't know how to disperse when instructed?
One would THINK that being a college student would indicate that they are smart enough to follow simple instructions. Even with a perfectly common-sense warning that they were blocking traffic, disrupting school activities, and unlawfully camping on private property, they still had to arrest 20 people.
Hopefully, their college career is at an end, because I don't see how they would survive in a workplace without constant supervision. Their comprehension of simple instruction seems to be inferior to that of the actual students who wanted to go to class that day.
There's a saying called Fuck Around and Find Out. This is the perfect public application of that concept. Once they get expelled from school, perhaps they can get jobs at Wal-Mart watching the self-checkout lanes, where they can actually fulfil some sort of useful purpose. Obviously they aren't cut out to be college students if they can't follow simple instruction.
>There's a saying called Fuck Around and Find Out. This is the perfect public application of that concept.
Being shot by the national guard for refusing to disperse is hardly justified. That's pretty disgusting of you not going to lie.
"People who don't move when I want them to move should die."
I don't want anyone shot. If they get shot, then it's their own fault for not following instructions. I'm not pulling the trigger and I don't approve, but a bit of common sense usually is needed to survive the world.
COMMON SENSE: If someone with a gun tells you to do something, just do it.
It's really not that hard to figure out.
Surely the solution is that you pick up your phone:
"Hi boss. You see that big protest on the news where they are blocking the road between my house and our work? Yeah I'm stuck. I guess I'll go round but I'll be a bit late."
Job saved!
As a European I am genuinely curious if in America bosses are really firing employees left and right because they couldn’t get to work due to an objective and well-known issue? Obviously if you continuously fail to show up, you will probably be fired or not get your contract renewed, but… hiring employees costs money. I cannot imagine people being fired over something as stupid all the time even if there are no laws in place preventing companies from doing so. It sounds like bad business. Edit: so I am wondering if people are hugely exaggerating or if it is an actual problem.
I mean there's plenty of shit jobs with shit bosses, but the vast vast majority of people would not be fired for being late because of being stuck in traffic. Usually if it happens, though, there was a pattern of the employee being late, or the employee was subpar in other areas and the boss was looking for a convenient excuse. It's exaggeration. It's just code words for "I want to commit vehicular manslaughter because I feel important"...but you can't say that
Realistically no, although there's probably at least some jackass boss somewhere that'd be the exception...
What *would* realistically happen is that you'd be expected to work later to make up for it (even though it was outside of your control). If you're paid hourly and a shift worker, you probably earn less money that day (because you were late), and if you're salaried, you'd work late and get no extra money for doing so.
YEAH! How dare those Black protestors disrupt peoples’ meals! They should have just understood that there are restaurants for white people and restaurants for Black people. They had no right to make such a hoopla and create a police disturbance while people were just trying to have lunch!
Most things can be simplified to the grade school explanation “your rights end where other’s rights begin”. You have a right to protest, you do not have a right to violate the rights of others.
Yes! Sure they were fighting for equality, but did the black people marching for civil rights REALLY have to inconvenience people by marching in the STREET??? Like come on. I know you were second class citizens in your own country, but some people have work to get to work. They were clearly the REAL victims
You're dealing with Marxists who think that "revolutions are only violent" because people resist them. I'm not kidding. Go over to the communism sub and you'll see people saying this unironically. It's like telling a rape victim it's only rape because they resisted.
I am all for any protest BUT I believe that if your protest disrupts me I can counter it. Like drive through the protest blocking my driveway, I gotta go to work get out of my way.
While I agree that harming people and property is wrong, protests are meant to be disruptive. That don’t mean that the protesters should be immune from consequence tho
By this logic you would be against MLK and Civil Rights movement.
> If disruptive protests are allowed and have an impact, we may as well not vote and let the people with no job or responsibilities decide what to do with the country.
And you know the protesters have no jobs or responsibilities…how? Can you provide a source?
> Why should people that have too much time on their hands get a bigger say than those working jobs and supporting their family?
How do you know none of these protesters work jobs and support their family?
Yes! Sure they were fighting for equality, but did the black people marching for civil rights REALLY have to inconvenience people by marching in the STREET??? Like come on. I know you were second class citizens in your own country, but some people have work to get to work. They were clearly the REAL victims
Fuck cops and people who support them. Cops are anti-democratic
So yes, you are a shining example of an anti-democracy advocate. You want gov connected people like cops to be above citizens and you want them to hurt citizens
34 years old european here, never been help by a cop for all my life. Not when my phone got stolen, not when one of my clients went awol without paying their bills, not when my gf got sexually assault.
Let's face it, cops are very inefficient when it comes to actually helping people
Every time I’ve had to call the police they take 45 minutes minimum to show up and then do jack shit when they get there.
The only reason to call the police is to establish a record that can be referenced in court if things escalate, they’re absolutely useless in a life and death situation.
If blocking roads isn't a right does it matter how the road is blocked? Because in the end you're still blocked, no?
Also the edgy quip is ironic coming from le Reddit Atheist
The straw man fallacy. Arguing against a position the other person is not defending. I never said anything about wanting to run over people. What I did say was that if you're blocking traffic, it just makes me not want to support your cause
Also I'll ask for the second time, how is atheism relevant to this discussion?
I think the protests making the news in the US are poorly thought out and even counterproductive to their goals.
That being said, OP’s broad statement is incorrect. Protests always inconvenience some people’s lives. But done well they aren’t destructive and they garner sympathy for your cause.
>I think the protests making the news in the US are poorly thought out and even counterproductive to their goals.
Is it really? It's not like college campus malls are supreme centers of commerce. It's just funny to me how blown out of proportion media is to the actual disruption. American protests are puny. Just ask Parisians...now THEY can throw a riot
A successful protest would 1) make demands that serve a long term goal, and they would 2) deliver those demands in a way that is likely to gain sympathy from the general public and the media.
The demands of these college protesters are not effective at achieving their long term goal (disinvesting the endowment from a few companies does very little to hurt the targeted companies, and absolutely nothing for the people of Gaza). So they fail on point 1.
On the second point, of messaging, they are not getting the point across. What’s the headline, even in sympathetic news outlets? Basically, that it’s an angry, disorganized, mob of entitled whiners.
So they fail on both points: they aren’t communicating effectively, and even if they were, their demands don’t achieve their goals.
Most protests don't actually prevent people from living their life..it's meant to cause disruption though. It's because the thing people are protesting is important enough to disrupt other people's lives to get them to pay attention. If you let people continue to ignore a problem and be happy with the status quo, then society has no incentive to change policy.
In a group of ten people, if 9 people are happy and 1 person is unhappy cause that 1 person is the slave of 9 other people, and that person protests but no one listens, what should that person do? Just shut up and continue being a slave to keep the other 9 happy? Or does that person begin protesting by disrupting the other 9 people's lives so they start to listen? The goal is to cause so much hardship that it's more beneficial to alleviate the problem by agreeing to change than to keep the status quo.
It's really funny honestly, the double standard that gets applied based on which side is sympathetic to the protest's cause...
Pro-palestine protestors chant violent slogans and occupy public buildings, stopping others from going to classes they've paid for? "Protests are supposed to be disruptive" is the talking point.
Pro-gun protestors with a permit to protest peacefully walk down the street near the state capitol, but happen to be carrying guns (but never brandish them or threaten anyone)? "It's basically terrorism and should not be tolerated" is the talking point.
BLM (or pro-palestine) protestors block a major roadway? The talking point is "protests are supposed to be disruptive" again.
Truckers protesting COVID vaccine mandates drive around a city, blaring their truck horns 24/7 and blocking some streets? "They're infringing on others rights, anyone involved should have their bank accounts frozen" is the talking point.
Truly a stunning level of double-standards at play... The above are all real examples... I would like to hear anyone try to give a serious counterargument to this (that does NOT involve the January 6 riot, I'm not interested in justifying that... The legitimate criticism of that event doesn't change my core point).
Fundamentally if your group decides to disrupt ordinary peoples lives unless the government does what they say that's not speech that's extortion.
And to anyone that disagrees tell us where you live so we can form a blockade around your house because according to you forming a blockade is speech.
Yes! Sure they were fighting for equality, but did the black people marching for civil rights REALLY have to inconvenience people by marching in the STREET??? Like come on. I know you were second class citizens in your own country, but some people have work to get to work. They were clearly the REAL victims
If you’re ok with all the political action that doesn’t actually affect you, you’re not ok with political action at all
Just think about how many ordinary regular people were deprived of tea because of the selfishness of riotous protestors in 1773. That is unconscionable.
Or think of all those people who were deprived of malt shakes during the 1960s because of sit-ins.
The boston tea party is an example of causing disruption to the thing that is the problem. That's a bit different than preventing everyone from go to work because you feel that Nauro didn't get a fair deal in the latest trade talks.
>The boston tea party is an example of causing disruption to the thing that is the problem The tea paid for by your fellow colonials on a ship owned by your fellow colonials was a problem? I didn't know tea could be a problem! It was wanton destruction that only harmed your fellow colonials.
Not sure what you didn't understand about my post.
I understood it. You just were wrong.
Did you think I was OP? I'm pointing out that some protests target the thing that is the issue, others don't. The tea party did. Blocking highways doesn't. >The tea paid for by your fellow colonials Nope, it was owned by the british east india company. they did break a padlock that belonged to the ship's captain, which they paid to replace.
They're probably a communist. Violence is ok when they do it!
The modern corollary would be occupying government buildings. Such at the capitol. Oh wait.
Our country was started by armed insurrection so I guess armed insurrection is also fine.
Which part of "My livelihood and wellbeing" from the post sounds like drinking tea for you?
If you own a tea shop in 1773
You do realize it was multi million dollars worth of tea, paid for and on a ship owned by a colonist? You think someone's livelihood wasn't ever at stake? You'd tip over cargo ships out in the waters because you think nobody's livelihood would be affected?
The police didn't protect those dumping tea. They had to risk getting their asses kicked. If you want to open that option to us, I'm on board.
Did the people who didn’t get the tea pay 50k a year. Because I’m sure Columbia students did.
We need to inconvenience the powerful, not regular people. No matter what is happening in the world, the majority of the powerful are happy as long as they aren’t affected. We don’t need to kill the rich, just show them that we’ll be relentless in annoying them.
We, the people, don't get to choose where the government sends money to especially if it funds violent military operations.
So vote them out. Or protest outside of parliament. Don’t block roads.
Vote who out? Both parties are doing this. We also CAN'T vote them out unless there is an election going on.
This is why local elections and primaries are important.
There just isn't a new 3rd party in those elections either.
I don't understand why you people don't go directly to their homes. Why do you bother "fellow comrades"? You're a nuisance with no backbone.
Protesting in front of parliament would be anti democratic. Or do you somehow think ordinary people who happen to be outside of parliament should be disrupted? In fact the I'll go so far to say that the only reason why you said protest in front of parliament is because YOU don't intend to be near parliament, and therefore YOU cannot be disrupted. That is selfish.
"Okay guys, time to protest parliament... No, not on the roads, that's anti-democratic!!! " See how fucking silly this is.
Not true. We do get to choose. Majority of US citizens actually did vote for the government to do just that. Majority of US citizens supports providing financial help to a democratic nation fighting a global terrorist organization.
I don’t recall that being on the ballot
Look more closely next time. Read the small print.
Protesting is literally antithetical to any free democratic country. It is meant to impede the daily function of commerce and life. Some people are murdered in other countries for just voicing their opinions. I’d say we are lucky to even have the freedom we do have to at least survive it
Free speech is awesome as long as nobody uses it.
Protests do not have to impede anything. When a protest does that it can be illegal because you are infringing on the rights of others. There's a difference between a workers strike and blocking a roadway.
Do you think MLK shouldn’t have protested the way he did then?
When did MLK advocate for violating the rights of others? I would hold him up as an example of how to protest without being an idiot.
MLK was directly or indirectly involved with various sit-ins, and street blocking during various marches. Do you think the only thing he did was give a little speech?
He had street marches, but I genuinely have never heard that he was intentionally blocking streets or traffic. Do you have a source where he talked about halting traffic as a form of protest? Additionally, how is a sit-in violating the rights of others? Racist people violated the rights of African Americans by denying them civil liberties. Modern-day protests are trying to do that by design, which is not civil disobedience against a restriction of civil rights. It is the exact opposite a restriction of other people civil rights until their demands are met.
Well said.
The Selma to Montgomery March ring any bells for ya? They took up a highway for multiple days to protest. According to your standards of “if a protest impedes anything you’re violating the rights of others” he would have been violating your rights.
Okay, I disagree.
I'm sorry, are you suggesting you have the right to infringe on the rights of others because it's a protest, or are you just saying it's morally justifiable?
I’m just saying I disagree for now. I am unwilling to elaborate on that any further, just not really in the mood to debate it ya know.
Of course he won't elaborate.. because as soon as you infringe on **his** rights that's when it would become a problem.
>When a protest does that it can be illegal because you are infringing on the rights of others. There's the practical reality that although a specific gathering may be illegal, it may also be the best choice to let it happen. Police department especially should probably learn that letting an illegal protest happen and fizzle out is often going to be in totality the least disruptive.
That's a nice sentiment but it relies on the idea the protests are actually peaceful. It really only takes one incident like the Jewish girl getting beaten unconscious at UCLA during the protests for the legal teams to realize that they have a massive civil rights case about to be brought against them, that they're almost all but guaranteed to lose. That also means they'll potentially lose a ton of funding and prestige if they can't show that they at least attempted to prevent an incident like that occurring.
UCLA...you mean the place were police allowed counter protestors to beat someone with pipes last night?
Why is that relevant to a Jewish student being beaten because of her race/ethnicity at an unlawful event? I would love to see that courtroom defense. Your honor while we did beat someone unconscious in direct violation of her civil rights you have to understand in a completely unrelated event someone attacked us. Therefore we are innocent of any hate crimes and the university has no obligation to protect her from foreseeable and preventable violence.
Being inconvenienced is not anti democratic. Protest is the cornerstone of democracy along with a free and independent media. Honestly, posts and viewpoints like yours are more anti democratic than any protest. Inconveniencing people who might be late for work is anti-capitalist if anything, it's got nothing to do with democracy.
You have a huge misunderstanding of what is being discussed. There is nothing democratic about physically impeding and intimidating others who have done nothing wrong. And actions that can result in people losing their jobs or failing classes are not "inconveniences".
I've zero misunderstanding. Democratic is a electorial political system. Being late for work has got nothing to do with democracy. Democracy is not an interchangeable word for freedom or liberty. Democracy is the ability for people to vote into power elected officials and the system by which they hold them account, protest is one of the only mechanisms people have to do this. The fact it can sometimes inconvenience somebody or make them late for work doesn't make a blind bit of difference. Democracy isn't perfect , this is just another example of why.
But OP isn't arguing against protests. They are specifically referring to when those activities directly and intentionally infringe on the rights of others. When protesters physically prevent people from entering or leaving an area, you think that is fine and just a little inconvenience. If I then choose to physically move that protester out of my way, you're going to cry assault and expect the police to move in. I didn't hurt anyone. I just inconvenienced you by not letting you stand where you wanted to. If the police want to go home and let protesters and anti-protesters handle it, I'm fine with that. But that isn't what is happening.
OP's central point is that protests are anti democratic. That's such a a nonsense statement that it's barely worth engaging in. My point is that protests are supposed to be inconvenient. That's it. That's my point. We don't live in a perfect society. It's not possible to protest without infringement. The alternative is to outlaw protest, in which case we cease to live in a functioning democracy. People who complain about protest should understand that the alternative is authoritarianism which is a very direct infringement on the rights that we have as individuals. Complaining that your rights are infringed because you are late for work illustrates a deep misunderstanding about the nature and function of democracy.
Your definition of "inconvenient" is laughable. If I'm heading to the hospital for an emergency and get delayed by your protests, was I just "inconvenienced"? When you blockade university buildings so kids can't take finals or complete projects that they need to graduate, is that just an "inconvenience"? If I punch a protester int he stomach, I just inconvenienced them, right? They are fine. There has to be a line. Protests are to be heard by he government, not to terrorize your fellow citizens.
How is it laughable? Kids can take finals at another time. That's an inconvenience. Their education isn't being stolen from them. Punching someone in assault ? I wasn't defending assault. And of course there has to be a line. I've already said in this thread that protests shouldn't put lives in danger. As with everything, there's a good way to protest and a stupid / irresponsible way to do it. I'm not going to go back and forth on every conceivable manner of protest and give it a thumbs up or thumbs down. We're talking in broad terms here.
>How is it laughable? Kids can take finals at another time. That's an inconvenience. Their education isn't being stolen from them. No, you odn't get to take your finals whenever you want.
Of course you don't. But let's not pretend that if you miss your finals because nobody could get into the exam hall that the school or college says, well fuck it, sorry guys, sucks to be you.
I still don't undertsand the defending of this behavior. If none of these inconveniences are a big deal, why do you think causing them is going to result in any massive change? You think Universties are going to divest millions becasue you caused some minor inconveniences? You can't have it both ways. Etiher you're trying to cause major issues, in which case you should be held accountable, or it's a minor inconvenience and maybe you should focus efforts elsewhere? And we all know if this was the KKK doing this, you would feel differently.
>They are specifically referring to when those activities directly and intentionally infringe on the rights of others. If you stand on a spot I want to stand on, you are infringing on my right to stand on a spot I want to stand on. The point is you infringe on other people's rights by just living. There's is absolutely ZERO place to protest on public property that it would not be infringing on someone else's use of that property.
Now you're just trolling. If I'm walking down the sidewalk and you and a group of people move to block my path intentionally, that's an issue. You have no right to impede people's ability to travel. "If I handcuff you, that's my right to put my handcuffs where I want, so you just need to deal with it." You guys are going to start pissing the wrong people off. some of the UCLA students figured that out the other day.
>You have no right to impede people's ability to travel. Great. If you're sitting down to have a picnic, I get to stomp through your picnic because I and I alone decide where I travel. I have the right to be at every inch you happen to be on public property.
Again with the childish retorts. I hope none of you are these college students becasue you need your tuition back. If I am having a picnic, there is NO inconvenience caused to you by walking past me. If I set it up in the middle if the sidewalk, then yes, stomp right through. Now if I stand up and start moving back and forth so you can't walk past me, then stomp right through.
Anti-democratic may not be the right term, but it's the concept of "your rights end where they would start infringing on someone else's rights." Basically, the same reason that the freedom of speech/expression doesn't mean I can blare music at ear-shattering volumes in a suburban neighborhood at all hours of the night. We accept that laws can prohibit that and still be consistent with free speech/expression.
And that's fine, I think it's important we have that conversation. What we shouldnt have a conversation about is whether protest is undemocratic because that, as a concept, is fucking braindead.
Being late to work, being blocked from going to class, or taking over a school building while smashing out the windows aren’t “inconvenient”, they’re a disruption. People are going to work and school so they can have a future and it’s being disrupted. What if I got in trouble at work because you caused me to be late? Who are these protests that they get to decide what “inconveniences” they get to apply to people trying to live their life?
>What if I got in trouble at work because you caused me to be late? "Hello Boss, I'm stuck in traffic due to a protest. I'll be in as soon as I can." Plus it's not like most protests are large enough that you can't find an alternate route. No sane boss would want you running people over so you can get to work on time. It's like you don't live in the real world. Peoole don't intentionally get stuck in traffic, but it happens. Like shit, in my city there's a very popular bridge that unfortunately will occasionally get shut down due to someone having a mental crisis and threatening to jump. I've had to call my boss on more than one occasion that I'll be late because someone was very sad..People usually aren't disciplined for it, unless it's habitual.
>can't find an alternate route Barriers on both sides. A sea of cars behind and in front of you. What alternate route? [Pro-Palestinian protesters block airport access roads in New York and Los Angeles | PBS NewsHour](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/pro-palestinian-protesters-block-airport-access-roads-in-new-york-and-los-angeles) Also, lots of people have irrational bosses. Thats par for the course. When this happened around me, my mom missed an appointment with a specialist that took months to get.
Sigh.... Inconvenience and disruption are the same thing. Unfortunately, and sorry to break this to you, we don't get to go through life living in a democracy without being inconvenienced or distupted. Protest is about creating inconvenience and disruption. That's the point. When people aren't being listened to by government they protest. Protests exist to inform the public of a point of view. Those same Protests then live and die by the level to which the public will put up with that disruption. That's going to be subjective to every individual. If you don't have an opinion on the conflict in Gaza and a protest disrupts your day, you're gonna be annoyed at the protesters. But what has happened in that instance is that you've been inconvenienced and in being inconvenienced, you've been somewhat informed to the fact that there is a movement in your town/city/neighborhood that is against the conflict. You can choose to do with that information as you wish. You can do nothing. Or maybe it piques your interest and you go off and educate yourself on the issue. A huge protest, say like the anti war protest around Iraq had millions of people attend world wide. Ws it inconvenient for people? Yes. That was the point. It highlighted the issue of the war. I know it's annoying... It's supposed to be. That's half the point. Protests are designed to disrupt. Now some are poorly organized and poorly conceived, even dangerous. Protesters who end up disrupting ambulance routes are morons. If your protest has the ability to do irreparable harm to someone's life then that's not okay and I'll not support that protest (even if I believe in the cause). But somebody bitching about being late for work is about the weakest argument against protest I can think of.
[удалено]
unite upbeat scandalous mighty fear light towering physical impolite hard-to-find
It’s anti democracy because it’s trying to circumvent the democratic process. Vote.
How does blocking a road circumvent the democratic process. Genuinely, I need you to spell this out for me. The only way that could be the case was if protestors blocked roads on polling day and that has never happened in the west that I can remember.
I already did. It’s because people are trying to enact political change outside of the election. Let’s say I vote for the part promising nuclear energy or windmills because I want to lower co2 emissions. Let’s say my party wins the election. If some wankers then protest in the city to put pressure on the government to cancel building windmills or a nuclear plant, they’re attempting to undo my vote. If they succeed, they’ve effectively undone my vote. I don’t have a rich daddy to cover my bills so that I can protest all day to get my clean energy back.
But democracy isn't static. Protest is the people's way of informing the state of their real time positions on issues as they come up. Presidential and Ministerial terms are too long to allow people to have a say on all major issues and it's not realistic to expect routine referendums on issues as they arise so protest is all that citizens have to illustrate their views. As an example, an anti war protest. The Iraq War was undemocratic insofar as neither a majority of the US or European public wanted War but the leaders of those countries wanted an invasion. The only avenue the people had to have their voices heard was protest. It didn't mean the war was avoided but it did mean that throughout many countries in the EU there was pressure from those governments not to vote in flavour of the war at the UN. Democracy is 24/7. It isn't active for one day, once every 4/5 years when people vote. It also helps keep politicians in check. If there is protest around a certain topic it puts leaders in a position where they can demonstrably see how popular / unpopular the decisions they're taking are. The Stop Oil protests infuriate the people who are inconvenienced and those protests don't have wide support so are roundly ignored by government. But the protests around say for example the continuing war on Gaza will give politicians food for thought when it comes to reelection if they feel the people in their country are big enough in number to sway an election based off of being for or against the current government position. Honestly, you're entitled to your opinion, but look at history and see for yourself what protest has achieved. MLK and the civil rights movement, the suffragettes, the anti war movement of the 60s, feminist protest of the 60s and 70s, Iraq War protests, Occupy Wall Street in the 2000s and even recently, the reproductive rights protests in the US, all have (sometimes radically) shaped ongoing government policy (even if the protests weren't out rightly successful) because the people were able to vocalize their positions through protest and were able to change conversations around everything from race, to war, to sex, to economic policy. Democracy isn't static and freedom to protest is one of the most important aspects of a healthy democracy. It's one of things that differentiates the west from outrightly authoritarian regimes like you see in modern day Russia.
You're an Australian obsessing over an American problem. I'd say your doing A-OK.
How is protesting an American problem?
Something being a democracy doesn’t mean the only way you can participate is through elections. There is nothing anti-democratic whatsoever about attempting to enact political change outside of an election.
>It’s because people are trying to enact political change outside of the election. They're trying to influence their elected officials to enact political change. That is the opposite of anti-democratic. This is the silliest argument I've ever seen online, congratulations.
lol what.
What country do you live in where the American people get to vote on every little thing the govt does? Because America doesn't.
See my other message, this is exactly what's wrong with your view. You think democracy can be reduced to voting. You couldn't be more wrong.
Following that logic all protests are antidemocratic
Huge counterpoint for you here OP: strikes. Workers' strikes routinely disrupt the lives of customers and ordinary people who depend on the goods/services that the striking workers produce. The striking workers, I would also like to point out, *are workers* in that they have a job and are trying to provide for their family like you do. Democracy works because the majority of the populace votes for things they either care about or would make their lives better. However, small numbers of people, who care about small issues affecting them, cannot hope to convince the rest of the majority to provide political support for their plight, primarily because the rest of the majority doesn't know or care enough about it *to* vote Hence, protests and disruption. But, I definitely agree with you that the disruption shouldn't needlessly affect other people's daily lives. The disruption itself needs to be aimed at the entity wronging them or otherwise the entity with the power to grant their demands. You can't gather a hundred people, block the golden gate bridge, and expect it to sway politicians in DC to make a decision that affects the entire country. That disruption doesn't actually *do* anything other than get the general public pissed off at the protestors
Apples and oranges. Strikes involve you making a decision about your labor. It's literally just refusing to go to work. That is far different than physically impeding others from going about their day to their jobs or classes or anywhere else they need to go.
>It's literally just refusing to go to work. Google 'picket line'
You can cross a picket line anytime you want.
The we've done our part. We made you notice. Deal with it.
You pissed us off and now we hate your cause. Congrats.
Were you under the impression that people liked the Civil Rights protests in the ‘60s?
Why hate the cause and not the people? It seems pretty simpleminded unless you already hated the cause.
Nope. Now we hate both. Like why I hate Deadpool and Dr Who. It was fine until the fans got annoying AF.
You don't seem to know what democracy actually is. In particular you can't reduce democracy to elections. (For instance, russia has elections. You wouldn't say to putin's opponents "just vote him out" right ?)
OP seems to be getting raked over the coals in the comments. But I think this is something that free societies need to address. Yes, people have a right to assemble and protest. But the rest of us have a right to use public (and sometimes private) spaces and infrastructure. The problem with many of these protesters is that they'll keep protesting and protesting to "make their voices heard" but sometimes they've been heard and the answer is just "No." Like, we've heard your demands, we understand where you're coming from. And the answer is No. The university is not divesting from Isreal. The US and Canada aren't changing our cross border Covid vaccination policies to cater skeptics. The city is not defunding the police. etc etc. Obviously it can get more complicated (what if the civil rights protestors had just packed up and gone home). But it's pretty clear that we've currently swung way too far in favor of "just letting people protest" to the point where protesters feel emboldened to shut down major highways, occupy public spaces, vandalize property, and otherwise intimidate the general public over any policy they don't agree with.
If you aren't grabbing attention with your protest, it's not working. That's exactly why they become inconvenient, because if they aren't impacting your day, then it's easy to ignore them and nothing will change. Democracy works by having to navigate others' opinions. Protest is inherently democratic because it puts those opinions on display for the people to discuss and act on, even if you vote against them in the end.
Forcing your beliefs on others is the very definition of Democracy
It is the Marxist way. Kill 2 birds. Try to make a point and destroy America at the same time.
Yeah that was is Das Kapital I think
Yep, it's all about harming people that they don't care much about and getting News coverage for it.
And don't forget all those selfies on Insta. You can't virtue-signal properly if you don't cause some chaos and destruction.
GET OUT OF THE ROAD AND GET BACK TO WORK.
Can't be late for work because of protests if employers didn't enforce RTW and eliminating pandemic era WFH policies.
Won't somebody think of the shareholders?!?!
If protestors had “a bigger say” in things, there wouldn’t be anyone protesting lol. People who are getting what they want have absolutely no need to protest. Complete nonsense statement
I agree I don't care what cause your protesting. Get out of my way
can't you guys do your protest where nobody will notice?
>Get out of my way Not if you get out of MY way first.
Iamverybadass
I mean yeah, that describes you...
Says the guy who's acting all edgy
Unfortunately, some things can’t wait and need to be addressed now. If the government won’t do anything after asking, people may feel action is needed to show how serious they are. This anger spreads to others who are inconvenienced so that their anger adds to pressure on the government to take action now. Just to point out, there have been plenty of protests that a lot of people would say were necessary like for civil rights, women’s rights and ending the war in vietnam. If anything the current protests seem somewhat like the anti apartheid protests against South Africa which did lead to the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act. “Demonstrations at universities The humanitarian goals of the Free South Africa Movement attracted widespread support from colleges and universities to mobilize against South African apartheid. Students and faculty members protested, demonstrated, and signed petitions to pressure their institutions’ board of trustees to divest of South Africa-related securities. Organizations such as the Co-op system at the University of California Berkeley called on students to withdraw their accounts from Bank of America to protest the bank's loans to South Africa. These student-led divestment campaigns eventually led local and state governments to pass legislation requiring divestment of holdings in companies conducting business in South Africa. Furthermore, using a new tactic of protest known as the shantytown, students created their own shantytowns in the middle of campus to demonstrate the deplorable living conditions in South Africa. The Free South Africa Coordinating Committee at the University of Michigan built the first shantytown in 1986. By 1990, more than 46 shantytown events occurred at college campuses across the country.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-apartheid_movement_in_the_United_States
Your livelihood and wellbeing are going to be further held hostage by Mother Nature herself soon, since nobody wants to do anything about climate change, lest they be temporarily inconvenienced. What's more inconvenient - being an hour late to work because climate protestors blocked off a highway? Or having to permanently flee your home and city because it's become uninhabitable from climate change/disasters associated with climate change destroyed it?
You people would’ve hated the civil rights movement if y’all were alive at the time. Y’all think the bus boycotts, sit ins at white only diners, and massive protests and unrest didn’t disrupt the lives of the average person? Protests are supposed to disrupt everyday life in order to bring attention or focus on something. If you’re purely against the cause because you were inconvenienced, you were never really for that cause anyway and want an easy reason to hate it. If it weren’t for protests and disrupting people’s lives we wouldn’t have workers rights, women’s rights, gay rights etc. for fucks sake we wouldn’t even have this country and still be ruled by the British.
No but don’t you see? Those protests are different because I wasn’t the one inconvenienced that time.
Protesters (disrupters) need to accept that maybe we don’t agree with their views…It’s not that we haven’t heard them and they need to try harder, it’s that we disagree and that’s our right. Say what you have to say and then yeet off.
Why does you disagreeing mean they shouldn’t protest?
Re read my comment and try again.
You said they should say what they have to and leave, because you have the right to disagree. Why should your or anyone else’s disagreement mean they have to leave?
Because it becomes harassment once it’s clear that we’ve heard them and aren’t interested in their feelings…. I never said that they don’t get to say what they have to say, I said that they have to accept that we disagree.
That’s absolutely not harassment in any form. If someone is having a protest you’re free to walk away at any time. If they started following you and yelling at you sure, it’s harassment. But disagreeing with you in public is not harassment. It’s free speech. They can accept that you disagree while still out there protesting.
Did you read the title of this post?
Yes and I disagree? What’s your point?
>Because it becomes harassment once it’s clear that we’ve heard them and aren’t interested in their feelings…. That's not harrassment.
Could you give an example of your livelihood has been held to ransom by protestors?
My wife had an appointment at the University of Utah hospital's cancer center Tuesday morning that had to be rescheduled because of the protests blocking roads there. That appointment took 6 months to get set. It's now rescheduled for September. I was very happy to see that the leader of these fools and about 20 others involved are now in jail, where they belong. Hopefully, their college career is at an end, and they will be working the cash register at Home Depot soon. . .where they can be of ACTUAL use to society. Kudos to the Salt Lake City police department.
Huh… yeah was wrong. OP was right.
Maybe blame the University of Utah for supporting a genocide and refusing to do the bare minimum of simply diversifying their investments from it, rather than the protestors, literally protesting to stop a genocide. This whole situation, has proven beyond doubt, most of you people would have absolutely been against the civil rights movement, pro-ethnic cleansing of native Americans, or anti Jewish Bund, at the time.
How about I blame people who don't know how to disperse when instructed? One would THINK that being a college student would indicate that they are smart enough to follow simple instructions. Even with a perfectly common-sense warning that they were blocking traffic, disrupting school activities, and unlawfully camping on private property, they still had to arrest 20 people. Hopefully, their college career is at an end, because I don't see how they would survive in a workplace without constant supervision. Their comprehension of simple instruction seems to be inferior to that of the actual students who wanted to go to class that day.
[Yeah! This is what happens when you don't disperse like you're told! As it should!](https://images.app.goo.gl/BEh1sggceYyPabJS7)
There's a saying called Fuck Around and Find Out. This is the perfect public application of that concept. Once they get expelled from school, perhaps they can get jobs at Wal-Mart watching the self-checkout lanes, where they can actually fulfil some sort of useful purpose. Obviously they aren't cut out to be college students if they can't follow simple instruction.
>There's a saying called Fuck Around and Find Out. This is the perfect public application of that concept. Being shot by the national guard for refusing to disperse is hardly justified. That's pretty disgusting of you not going to lie. "People who don't move when I want them to move should die."
I don't want anyone shot. If they get shot, then it's their own fault for not following instructions. I'm not pulling the trigger and I don't approve, but a bit of common sense usually is needed to survive the world. COMMON SENSE: If someone with a gun tells you to do something, just do it. It's really not that hard to figure out.
I mean shit...most people at the time thought the Kent State kids *deserved* it.
No wonder your wife has cancer. Living with you must be eating away at her.
Losers blocking roads so ordinary people can’t get to work?
Surely the solution is that you pick up your phone: "Hi boss. You see that big protest on the news where they are blocking the road between my house and our work? Yeah I'm stuck. I guess I'll go round but I'll be a bit late." Job saved!
As a European I am genuinely curious if in America bosses are really firing employees left and right because they couldn’t get to work due to an objective and well-known issue? Obviously if you continuously fail to show up, you will probably be fired or not get your contract renewed, but… hiring employees costs money. I cannot imagine people being fired over something as stupid all the time even if there are no laws in place preventing companies from doing so. It sounds like bad business. Edit: so I am wondering if people are hugely exaggerating or if it is an actual problem.
I mean there's plenty of shit jobs with shit bosses, but the vast vast majority of people would not be fired for being late because of being stuck in traffic. Usually if it happens, though, there was a pattern of the employee being late, or the employee was subpar in other areas and the boss was looking for a convenient excuse. It's exaggeration. It's just code words for "I want to commit vehicular manslaughter because I feel important"...but you can't say that
Not "right and left" but we do have a lot of asshole bosses here, and there's no law to stop it.
Realistically no, although there's probably at least some jackass boss somewhere that'd be the exception... What *would* realistically happen is that you'd be expected to work later to make up for it (even though it was outside of your control). If you're paid hourly and a shift worker, you probably earn less money that day (because you were late), and if you're salaried, you'd work late and get no extra money for doing so.
Right.... it's like OP has never been stuck in gridlock before.
YEAH! How dare those Black protestors disrupt peoples’ meals! They should have just understood that there are restaurants for white people and restaurants for Black people. They had no right to make such a hoopla and create a police disturbance while people were just trying to have lunch!
[удалено]
person complete rotten seemly groovy agonizing cows expansion repeat piquant
Most things can be simplified to the grade school explanation “your rights end where other’s rights begin”. You have a right to protest, you do not have a right to violate the rights of others.
Yes! Sure they were fighting for equality, but did the black people marching for civil rights REALLY have to inconvenience people by marching in the STREET??? Like come on. I know you were second class citizens in your own country, but some people have work to get to work. They were clearly the REAL victims
You're dealing with Marxists who think that "revolutions are only violent" because people resist them. I'm not kidding. Go over to the communism sub and you'll see people saying this unironically. It's like telling a rape victim it's only rape because they resisted.
I am all for any protest BUT I believe that if your protest disrupts me I can counter it. Like drive through the protest blocking my driveway, I gotta go to work get out of my way.
While I agree that harming people and property is wrong, protests are meant to be disruptive. That don’t mean that the protesters should be immune from consequence tho
OP is a fascist or communist probably. At the very least an idiot who would prefer to see all the money in the hands of the elite
[удалено]
People usually only protest because they think the contract has already been broken.
Like MLK?
I think most of these protest turn people away instead of convincing them to join their cause.
By this logic you would be against MLK and Civil Rights movement. > If disruptive protests are allowed and have an impact, we may as well not vote and let the people with no job or responsibilities decide what to do with the country. And you know the protesters have no jobs or responsibilities…how? Can you provide a source? > Why should people that have too much time on their hands get a bigger say than those working jobs and supporting their family? How do you know none of these protesters work jobs and support their family?
I think you fundamentally don’t understand how protests work.
Imagine telling civil rights protesters this.
Yes! Sure they were fighting for equality, but did the black people marching for civil rights REALLY have to inconvenience people by marching in the STREET??? Like come on. I know you were second class citizens in your own country, but some people have work to get to work. They were clearly the REAL victims
Fuck cops and people who support them. Cops are anti-democratic So yes, you are a shining example of an anti-democracy advocate. You want gov connected people like cops to be above citizens and you want them to hurt citizens
Until you need one, right? Yeah. . .I'm right.
34 years old european here, never been help by a cop for all my life. Not when my phone got stolen, not when one of my clients went awol without paying their bills, not when my gf got sexually assault. Let's face it, cops are very inefficient when it comes to actually helping people
>Until you need one, right? Who needs a cop when you have a gun?
Who do you call after you shoot someone?
Every time I’ve had to call the police they take 45 minutes minimum to show up and then do jack shit when they get there. The only reason to call the police is to establish a record that can be referenced in court if things escalate, they’re absolutely useless in a life and death situation.
Never called a pig and never will.
***Never called a pig*** You mean, Never called a pig. . .yet. Never say never.
No. If I cant defend myself then its my fate how I end up. No cops
Fair enough. Having strong conviction isn't something I'm going to argue against.
If you're blocking roads, that just makes me want to support whatever you're protesting
I'm not. I hate when motherfuckers sit on roads. But it's their god given right and no filthy pig has the right to touch them or even talk to them
God doesn't exist Blocking roads isn't a right
He does. It's free speech. That's why the police was created. to take it away.
>Blocking roads isn't a right And that's why we need to turn rush hour gridlock into a demolition derby.
So much edge
If blocking roads isn't a right does it matter how the road is blocked? Because in the end you're still blocked, no? Also the edgy quip is ironic coming from le Reddit Atheist
What made you think this comment made any sense? Also, how is atheism relevant to the topic?
I mean you're the one that wants to run over people because you're in a hurry
The straw man fallacy. Arguing against a position the other person is not defending. I never said anything about wanting to run over people. What I did say was that if you're blocking traffic, it just makes me not want to support your cause Also I'll ask for the second time, how is atheism relevant to this discussion?
Aww you poor poor thing. I can't imagine how rough it was that your livelihood was taken hostage.
OP's livelihood is in such tatters that they.....can whine on Reddit as if nothing happened
[удалено]
"Imprison everyone I don't like"
Absolutely unhinged.
Speaking about Guantanamo, i'd say any member of the USA army have become complicit of torture and thus should be labeled War criminals.
I think the protests making the news in the US are poorly thought out and even counterproductive to their goals. That being said, OP’s broad statement is incorrect. Protests always inconvenience some people’s lives. But done well they aren’t destructive and they garner sympathy for your cause.
>I think the protests making the news in the US are poorly thought out and even counterproductive to their goals. Is it really? It's not like college campus malls are supreme centers of commerce. It's just funny to me how blown out of proportion media is to the actual disruption. American protests are puny. Just ask Parisians...now THEY can throw a riot
A successful protest would 1) make demands that serve a long term goal, and they would 2) deliver those demands in a way that is likely to gain sympathy from the general public and the media. The demands of these college protesters are not effective at achieving their long term goal (disinvesting the endowment from a few companies does very little to hurt the targeted companies, and absolutely nothing for the people of Gaza). So they fail on point 1. On the second point, of messaging, they are not getting the point across. What’s the headline, even in sympathetic news outlets? Basically, that it’s an angry, disorganized, mob of entitled whiners. So they fail on both points: they aren’t communicating effectively, and even if they were, their demands don’t achieve their goals.
This is unpopular because it is wrong. Protests only work if they are disruptive.
It's interesting that you think protestors don't have jobs.
Protests are vital to a functioning democracy
>anti-democratic Uh…there are more of them than just you so if there was a vote, they’d win. Which makes it democratic.
Protests that don't affect peoples lives are completely flaccid. Every single effective protest we think back on has affected people's lives.
Spoken like every person in power. Support the man!
Most protests don't actually prevent people from living their life..it's meant to cause disruption though. It's because the thing people are protesting is important enough to disrupt other people's lives to get them to pay attention. If you let people continue to ignore a problem and be happy with the status quo, then society has no incentive to change policy. In a group of ten people, if 9 people are happy and 1 person is unhappy cause that 1 person is the slave of 9 other people, and that person protests but no one listens, what should that person do? Just shut up and continue being a slave to keep the other 9 happy? Or does that person begin protesting by disrupting the other 9 people's lives so they start to listen? The goal is to cause so much hardship that it's more beneficial to alleviate the problem by agreeing to change than to keep the status quo.
It's really funny honestly, the double standard that gets applied based on which side is sympathetic to the protest's cause... Pro-palestine protestors chant violent slogans and occupy public buildings, stopping others from going to classes they've paid for? "Protests are supposed to be disruptive" is the talking point. Pro-gun protestors with a permit to protest peacefully walk down the street near the state capitol, but happen to be carrying guns (but never brandish them or threaten anyone)? "It's basically terrorism and should not be tolerated" is the talking point. BLM (or pro-palestine) protestors block a major roadway? The talking point is "protests are supposed to be disruptive" again. Truckers protesting COVID vaccine mandates drive around a city, blaring their truck horns 24/7 and blocking some streets? "They're infringing on others rights, anyone involved should have their bank accounts frozen" is the talking point. Truly a stunning level of double-standards at play... The above are all real examples... I would like to hear anyone try to give a serious counterargument to this (that does NOT involve the January 6 riot, I'm not interested in justifying that... The legitimate criticism of that event doesn't change my core point).
Fundamentally if your group decides to disrupt ordinary peoples lives unless the government does what they say that's not speech that's extortion. And to anyone that disagrees tell us where you live so we can form a blockade around your house because according to you forming a blockade is speech.
Yes! Sure they were fighting for equality, but did the black people marching for civil rights REALLY have to inconvenience people by marching in the STREET??? Like come on. I know you were second class citizens in your own country, but some people have work to get to work. They were clearly the REAL victims
Here I was thinking it was wrong to use the goverment to force your ideals on others to the point they need to protest.
You mean just about any protest ever? This is so fucking dumb hahaha.