Current Events > Screw protests/protesters who block freeways and streets with their bs

(+) Yeah! (+)

LightHawKnight posted...

Getting people pissed at you isnt helping your cause.

History disagrees with you.

Alchemist_Emil posted...

Why don't protesters now protest the old fashioned way?

That would actually work but people are braindead now. Old style disruptive protesting would absolutely work.

Problem is, now, people think it's screaming on Twitter, destroying things that are usually wholly unrelated to what they're protesting, and being as large a public nuisance as possible.

Last one is okay, it's categorically a solid way to get noticed, but the first two usually come first which is an amazing way to cheapen your cause.

R_Jackal posted...

That would actually work but people are braindead now. Old style disruptive protesting would absolutely work.

Problem is, now, people think it's screaming on Twitter, destroying things that are usually wholly unrelated to what they're protesting, and being as large a public nuisance as possible.

Last one is okay, it's categorically a solid way to get noticed, but the first two usually come first which is an amazing way to cheapen your cause.

The lack of self awareness sure is something

Many of you are so utterly unaware of history, it's sickening. You seem to assume you'd be on the right side if people just presented the info to you the right way. "Like MLK did, all nice and polite and only bothering elected officials and no one else."

That's straight up false. Like another poster said, he was hated during his time. Anyone who ever did anything worthwhile was hated by most regular people during their time. And they all did things people hated, things that bothered, inconvenienced, and even may have hurt regular people mildly. They deliberately hurt small businesses and their employees. They shut down roads. They engaged in industrial sabotage and work stoppages in essential industries. They engaged in trespassing and taking over public and private property.

Tl:dr, you are doing the exact same thing people who opposed the civil rights movement did. Convincing yourself you're just opposed to the methods rather than the message, when the reality is it's both.

Using MLK and the French revolution as a gotcha isn't the gotcha some think it is.

Those protests involved either mostly the people they were protesting against or the clear supporters of the thing they were protesting against.

MLK wasn't for example going around to protesting to specifically inconvenience black people in the name of getting black people more rights. The Civil Rights movement protested to inconvenience establishments that literally denied us many rights.

This seems to be the massive disconnect in some here making a generic and broad conclusion that "if you don't support blocking roads of completely innocent people, you are must be against all forms of protesting."

We also have the other disconnect that some have a nasty habit making binary generalizations. All protests are not created equally, and there's exceptions to almost every rule. So I'm sure we can come up with real examples of blocking roads to protest something that is directed at people who are causing the problem they are protesting. Yes, blocking a road can be acceptable under certain scenarios as certain protest could definitely involve inconvenience to the people you are protesting against.

But like I said earlier, it shouldn't be a standard approach like some are happily promoting to Amy and all protests. That says blocking roads is a great form of protest even when said protest is inconveniencing innocent people who have nothing to do with what you are protesting and the people you are harming aren't even supporting the thing you're against.

This should be a nuanced discussion, not a binary discussion.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I was most certainly not taught the un-whitewashed history of Civil Rights in second grade, or anywhere in public education for that matter.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I think there's some of that and some miseducation too. There's been a long history of right wingers, centrists, and moderates trying to claim MLK Jr., striking coal miners, suffragettes etc. They do it by claiming to accept the status quo of what those people won through radicalism, whitewashing the radicalism, then criticizing anyone who uses those same tactics today for a new cause.

People are genuinely taught that MLK Jr. was a moderate who asked nicely in fine Sunday clothes and never wanted race considered in anything, and ended racism that way. It's not in the interest of the people who fund or write school curriculums to teach that radicalism works, and it's damn near the only thing that works when those in power deny fundamental principles like the equality of people, or the importance of the future over profit.

RyukSan posted...

MLK wasn't for example going around to protesting to specifically inconvenience black people in the name of getting black people more rights. The Civil Rights movement protested to inconvenience establishments that literally denied us many rights.

This seems to be the massive disconnect in some here making a generic and broad conclusion that "if you don't support blocking roads of completely innocent people, you are must be against all forms of protesting."

The average person was against the Civil Rights Movement and its methods of grinding public life to a halt. "But the movement was justified and everyone they inconvenienced was racist!" is just a way to sugarcoat things to keep it as some idealized relic of the past. Like the cause was so uniquely moral that everyone agreed and understood that public institutions must be temporarily impeded to effect change. That's not reality. The white moderate of that time was making the same "disrupting the public is a good way to turn people against you! Target those who are actually responsible for your problems!" arguments we see about every protest today.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/0/0/AAasTxAAEcU4.jpg

hockeybub89 posted...

The average person was against the Civil Rights Movement and its methods of grinding public life to a halt. "But the movement was justified and everyone they inconvenienced was racist!" is just a way to sugarcoat things to keep it as some idealized relic of the past. Like the cause was so uniquely moral that everyone agreed and understood that public institutions must be temporarily impeded to effect change. That's not reality. The white moderate of that time was making the same "disrupting the public is a good way to turn people against you! Target those who are actually responsible for your problems!" arguments we see about every protest today.

You are twisting into a pretzel to warp what I said.

hockeybub89 posted...

The average person was against the Civil Rights Movement and its methods of grinding public life to a halt. "But the movement was justified and everyone they inconvenienced was racist!" is just a way to sugarcoat things to keep it as some idealized relic of the past. Like the cause was so uniquely moral that everyone agreed and understood that public institutions must be temporarily impeded to effect change. That's not reality. The white moderate of that time was making the same "disrupting the public is a good way to turn people against you! Target those who are actually responsible for your problems!" arguments we see about every protest today.

That's class warfare for you. Class warfare engineered by the owner class. It's an unwinnable scenario for one party or another.

And yes, it's a fucked up scenario.

hockeybub89 posted...

The average person was against the Civil Rights Movement and its methods of grinding public life to a halt. "But the movement was justified and everyone they inconvenienced was racist!" is just a way to sugarcoat things to keep it as some idealized relic of the past. Like the cause was so uniquely moral that everyone agreed and understood that public institutions must be temporarily impeded to effect change. That's not reality. The white moderate of that time was making the same "disrupting the public is a good way to turn people against you! Target those who are actually responsible for your problems!" arguments we see about every protest today.

You are twisting into a pretzel to warp what I said. What people said back then is irrelevant to all protests are not created equally regardless, and it's not a sound argument to just compare one protest to another as if all protests are the same even if two groups use the same protest. Blocking the road for one thing is not by default fine for all protests because it was fine for a specific cause.

No where did I say absolutely everyone they inconvenienced was racist, and your post is arguing something my post isnt even arguing.

I said the civil rights movement was fighting for basic rights. Basic rights that included simply existing in public settings. As institutions they disrupted/inconvenienced literally had policies and legislation in place that took away basic rights to even use basic things. Such as sending black people to the back of the bus for existing, brutality for being seen in an "whites only" place, etc. So its not a gotcha to point out the Civil Rights movement protesting in public settings.... to simply exist in public settings on equal footing. The protest itself is directly targeting the thing they are protesting. It wasn't arbitrarily to inconvenience people most of the time. A protest I can easily get behind.

This also goes back to the part of my post you left out.

"There seems to be a massive disconnect in some here making a generic and broad conclusion that "if you don't support blocking roads of completely innocent people, you are must be against all forms of protesting."

We also have the other disconnect that some have a nasty habit making binary generalizations on things you feel passionate about. All protests are not created equally, and there's exceptions to almost every rule. So yes, we can agree that there are some examples of blocking roads would be reasonable forms of protest. Assuming its something that is directed at people who are causing the problem they are protesting or directly correlates to the thing they are protesting.

But like I said earlier, it shouldn't be a standard approach like some are happily promoting to any and all protests. That says blocking roads is a great (or acceptable) form of protest even when said protest is inconveniencing innocent people who have nothing to do with what you are protesting, the people you are harming aren't even supporting the thing you're against, and the thing you are doing doesn't even have anything to do with the thing you are protesting.

This should be a nuanced discussion, not a binary discussion." The Civil Rights movement isn't a gotcha as most of those protests were not arbitrary acts just to inconvenience people. Most of the protests had correlations to the things they were protesting and inconveniences caused mostly had correlation to the why they were protesting.

hockeybub89 posted...

Then you have no principles

The irony of that coming from somebody supporting blocking roads.

Umbreon posted...

People complaining about protesters standing in the street seem to forget that historically protesters have done far more unpleasant things to obtain progress.

Just look at the French Revolution. I bet you the people being dragged out their homes would beg for merely blocked roads.

They didn't have alarm systems back then and only had muskets.

DnDer posted...

Simple-minded people who don't follow politics will probably encounter a protest, even if it's one blocking the road, and hear of a new thing they weren't paying attention to before, coming to new awareness of an issue.

Just an example I can think of that would be easy to garner sympathy for.

"Why are these people blocking the road? The fuck is going on? [...] Romney did what to his dog? That mother-fucker!"

I mean, that's an easier sell than climate change, but those simple, unaware people may never otherwise be made aware of something that they may actually care about. The opportunity to learn about it just has to be present. Sometimes, this is the only instance it would ever be present.

To default assume it's going to backlash against the cause is... naive is not the right word. Too strong. Misguided. Thinking that making someone aware of something for the first time through means of protest will instantly cause someone to be anti- whatever the protest is, is a misguided view. I'd give it at least 50/50 odds, and that's better odds than a simple person who doesn't follow politics and never knew anything before not hearing about the thing ever.

It's more like "Romney did what to his dog? That mother-fucker!" "Now get the fuck out of the road".

hockeybub89 posted...

Translation: "People who protest are narcissistic losers who don't actually care about the cause they are pretending to fight for"

Why can't you guys just say "I don't like free speech and people are pretty stupid for thinking they can change anything about the world. It all sucks and will always suck and trying to do anything is pointless."

Free speech has nothing to do with the right to protest. They're separate things from the same amendment.

Conflict posted...

Why are you sugarcoating it by saying "they're unaware of history"? They're straight up uneducated and don't understand what was literally taught in the second grade.

What weirdo teacher did you have that thinks 7 year olds are smart enough to understand the civil rights movement and protests?

So what effect does inconveniencing people who already believe in your cause have?

I already believe in the cause being protested, so what exactly is the point of keeping me from getting to work?

HighOnSolar posted...

So what effect does inconveniencing people who already believe in your cause have?

None, if they're intelligent and reasonable people who's moral compass can't be broken by a minor inconvenience.

RyukSan posted...

You are twisting into a pretzel to warp what I said. What people said back then is irrelevant to all protests are not created equally regardless, and it's not a sound argument to just compare one protest to another as if all protests are the same even if two groups use the same protest. Blocking the road for one thing is not by default fine for all protests because it was fine for a specific cause.

No where did I say absolutely everyone they inconvenienced was racist, and your post is arguing something my post isnt even arguing.

I said the civil rights movement was fighting for basic rights. Basic rights that included simply existing in public settings. As institutions they disrupted/inconvenienced literally had policies and legislation in place that took away basic rights to even use basic things. Such as sending black people to the back of the bus for existing, brutality for being seen in an "whites only" place, etc. So its not a gotcha to point out the Civil Rights movement protesting in public settings.... to simply exist in public settings on equal footing. The protest itself is directly targeting the thing they are protesting. It wasn't arbitrarily to inconvenience people most of the time. A protest I can easily get behind.

This also goes back to the part of my post you left out.

"There seems to be a massive disconnect in some here making a generic and broad conclusion that "if you don't support blocking roads of completely innocent people, you are must be against all forms of protesting."

We also have the other disconnect that some have a nasty habit making binary generalizations on things you feel passionate about. All protests are not created equally, and there's exceptions to almost every rule. So yes, we can agree that there are some examples of blocking roads would be reasonable forms of protest. Assuming its something that is directed at people who are causing the problem they are protesting or directly correlates to the thing they are protesting.

But like I said earlier, it shouldn't be a standard approach like some are happily promoting to any and all protests. That says blocking roads is a great (or acceptable) form of protest even when said protest is inconveniencing innocent people who have nothing to do with what you are protesting, the people you are harming aren't even supporting the thing you're against, and the thing you are doing doesn't even have anything to do with the thing you are protesting.

This should be a nuanced discussion, not a binary discussion." The Civil Rights movement isn't a gotcha as most of those protests were not arbitrary acts just to inconvenience people. Most of the protests had correlations to the things they were protesting and inconveniences caused mostly had correlation to the why they were protesting.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with inconveniencing innocent people in the course of protest and there is a lot of outrage by people who don't want to value modern causes as equal to the Civil Rights Movement. The roads from Selma to Montgomery weren't institutionally racist, yet the protests blocked them.

It has to be binary. Either a form of protest is valid or it isn't. Trying to develop a hierarchy of "important" causes that are "allowed" to do certain things just confuses things. Again, the majority of people disagreed with a cause that you and I view as basic human rights and unquestionably just. And now those same people who would have been against the CRM prop it up as an important cause that everyone supported while shitting on any movement these days as rather unimportant and not the public's concern, even when they are just as important as the CRM

HighOnSolar posted...

So what effect does inconveniencing people who already believe in your cause have?

I already believe in the cause being protested, so what exactly is the point of keeping me from getting to work?

So do you think work stoppages are bad because some people that already agree with the workers will be inconvenienced? When you disrupt society, you sort of disrupt everyone in it.

No, thats not what Im saying. Did I say that? No. Youre putting words in my mouth.

You didnt answer the question.