You identify a problem, you then call the attention of your family, friends and peers and really anyone who will listen to your rantings and ravings. After which if enough people support your claim to give confidence of legitimacy, you voice your concerns to authority. Or governing body or anyone that has been designated for the responsibility of resolving issues that arise within the realm of the aforementioned wrinkle in the rug. Only in the direst of need would would you and your conglomeration of dissatisfied citizenry shout, picket or otherwise raise a ruckus to your needs but life is such that needs be great at times. Go figure.
No, typically your movement starts with a letter campaign, phone calls and emails. If you’re real lucky you might get a tête-à-tête with someone and if you’re doubly lucky, on your way to resolution. It doesn’t go down like that for most causes, most of the time it’s all but ignored. Fear not seekers of change there is a way to avoid a fizzle out, get more people to join. Of course you could jump straight to hard disruption of daily life but letter writing, emails and phone calls are considered good places to start. Needs be great though and ignorance is willful and bliss. About now is a good time for ye ol’ controlled rabble rousing… (it’s a joke) but good intentions don’t account for the actions of others though property damage doesn’t trump a just cause. The bill on justification will come due and I expect to be satisfied. Feelings on rainbows don’t meet my admittedly meager standards on letting your opinion be known, not that anyone asked.
There’s not much recourse for your average person if the effects of your stance did not sway affections, unless that person is a multi-billion dollar corporation (cuz come on guys, corpos are people too) then you just drown the problem in money until it’s buried or washed away to become someone else’s problem. Most people are left with a problem unresolved and a pain in their chest that’s not from the cuts, bruises or contusions that can accompany making your displeasure publicly known.
I would like to take this moment to tell you how stupid anyone is that intends to create change with the destruction of life that is not their own. I make an exception for self-immolation. If you believe in your cause so strongly that your only option is to extinguish your own flame in a dazzling display of sheer will. You get my respect for your force of determination if not your cause. The only 72 things anyone else gets though is in being blasted to 72 different dimensions of pain and shrapnel and good riddance too.
That is all to say that if you can’t pay and you won’t choose violence what other avenue is left to pursue?
Stop the machinations that allow people to remain willfully ignorant of the problem. I am sorry that you might be late to work, I’m sorry that couldn’t get your triple pump whateverthefuck you’re getting in a cup that makes you feel like the emptiness inside isn’t so vast, I’m sorry you were delayed running those errands. I’m sorry for your death during a cardiac episode stuck in traffic. I am sorry. But to the point where your life has to stop in its tracks so you will listen, it’s important. Some person decided to put their own life in danger to warn you that your own and those around you are also in danger. I’m not saying it is not a bitter pill.
Let us not forget that all of this is predicated on the assumption that when the piper cometh those ends were indeed justified by the means. What constitutes a worthy reason is beyond the purview of the arguments I’m laying forth. As for the eggs that are gonna get cracked, I don’t mourn the loss of property only loss of life. In the many words I have used, I am saying that there is a reason the right to free speech and assembly are enshrined in places around the world and I believe in that reason. Whether or not those rights are protected in an equal and fair manner is a whole different can of worms.
tldr; I wrote this for amusement and for the play on words, doesn’t mean I don’t believe it. By default I care more about my own bodily waste than I’m going to care about your reactionary opinion. Exceptions will be made for adding to the conversation, upgrade to better-than-what-I’m-scooping-out-of-the-litter-boxes-at-home levels of interest.
I thank you for joining me in this ramble. Have a wonderful day.
edit: just want to give a couple special shoutouts, I won’t name names but you’ll know if I’m talking about you. First, to my peeps that are taking this personally, offensively or otherwise as an insult; fucking good, you need to face uncomfortable topics more often and I’m glad I could be there for you and share in this together. Second, to my peeps who found themselves vindicated in their original positions; the same to you as the first group. This has absolutely been my pleasure so thank you if you voted or voiced an opinion. Going to sleep for now but if you call me back to this topic with something good I’ll try to catch you in the morning.
The only acceptable way to protest is in designated free speech zones located out of sight so that nobody can hear or see you.
That was exactly what MLK and other civil rights leaders did.I really wonder sometimes what’d happen if modern protestors started staging bus takeovers or restaurant occupations
It depends. Part of the reason for the bus protests and sit-ins was precisely because those were the segregated spaces that they were protesting. So if your protest doesn’t specifically have anything to do with buses or restaurants, you’ll probably end up confusing people.
In the absence of a modern day analog, might be better to just pick larger public spaces to protest in where you’ll attract more attention than random bus routes or restaurants.
It depends on what you are protesting for.
Ending the genocide in Palestine or standing up against police brutality? You are gonna get some police brutality no matter how oeaceful you are.
Protesting against a valid election because tour orange wanna be dictator list? Minimal police resistance compared to any actual social issues.
I wonder what would happen if every anonymous hackerman got all the dirt on all the bank execs and fortune 500 CEOs necessary and created neat little dossiers…
And then all the unemployed folks clogged up every bank branch in every major city to apply for frivolous loans, grinding their ability to conduct business to a halt, just hoping some branch brazenly discriminates against them and denies them the opportunity to present their loan application. Casualty of the cause? Sure, well sue a bank for discrimination.
Then slip the neat little dossiers under some neat little doors/into some neat little mailboxes.
And THEN, then, we take to the streets and protest. Clog up traffic. Dare them to stop “phase 2: cause traffic” when promptly before it came “phase 1: get their testicles under my boot.”
First grab those in power by the balls. Then take to the streets. This is how scientology did it. It can be done for good just as it was for evil.
It would certainly be interesting. But instead, they keep targeting lesser-privileged people and leaking all of their data, ruining lives, etc.
Gotta love it 🤷♂️
I agree in principle, but if you put people in danger or could put people in danger, I consider that crossing the line of the Golden Rule of Liberty. That includes trapping people on highways and bridges.
So while protests can and should be disruptive and inconvenient, they must never endanger the general public.
See the thing is that most protests that adopt these tactics do permit emergency services to cross the picket. We just hear more about the ones who don’t because reasonable behavior doesn’t make for click getting headlines.
Trapping people is harm. It’s kidnapping at best, and putting lives in danger at worst. “Allowing emergency vehicles through” is not good enough. If the protest is structured in a way that the public needs to take a different/longer route, that’s one thing… but if someone is trapped by such a takeover with no way out, that is an unacceptable infringement on the public’s natural rights; particularly the right to not be trapped or imprisoned (in either person or property).
Trapping people is harm
This I agree with. Am I wrong or would it be dead simple to do a protest on a highway where it doesn’t trap folks and causes no harm? Like two steps:
- hold it not on a bridge and just after an exit
- allow any/all emergency vehicles through, coordinating with them as much as possible
Obviously this is still a major inconvenience, which is good per the whole point of protesting. Perhaps I need to read more on protest history and strategy as I know there is a whole body of literature on the subject.
That’s exactly the right idea!
There’s no disputing that it’s harm but if the harm caused is less than the harm that is possible then the actions are worth taking.
I could write a long tirade on the terrifying flaws of this logic, but instead I’ll just share a reminder that barely anyone is the villain of their own story.
Don’t promise me a good time and leave me hanging.
I literally described how they don’t engage in trapping normally and you proceeded to write a paragraph about “WELL I’M STILL MAD ABOUT IT!”
Also where that energy at for police kettling?
You said they allow emergency vehicles through, not that they don’t engage in trapping.
If a protest isn’t trapping people, I don’t have a problem with it… and hence I don’t have a problem with the vast majority of protests (especially “occupy” protests). I’m just saying that there are lines, and I say that because it seems like they are slowly being crossed more often, which tends to erode the power and ethical justifiability of all protests.
Sidenote: I consider kettling deeply unethical in the extreme. ANY state intervention in peaceful protest, actually. As it happens I am capable of caring about multiple problems at once. ❤️
You did not address that, you addressed emergency vehicles
If you’re just a person in your car, the protest has no way to know you may be having an emergency
This is really good.
I speak for no one but myself: violence is never the answer, risk of accidental death is ever present. If my actions, my words creates a loss of life I submit myself to judgement and atone for all that I am liable.
Endanger the general public with wrong ideas
I’m going to just zero in on one tiny aspect of your position, but…
I would like to take this moment to tell you how stupid anyone is that intends to create change with the destruction of life that is not their own.
You acknowledge that causing loss of life is not justified and…
I’m sorry for your death during a cardiac episode stuck in traffic.
You acknowledge that protests blocking streets or bridges can lead to loss of life, so how do you reconcile those two viewpoints?
Look, I’m mostly with you. Shut down places of business, shut down campuses, whatever you need to do. But if someone’s protest is shutting down a busy street and someone dies because of it, I believe that’s at least involuntary manslaughter.
intends
Intent. That’s what matters and a willingness to be remanded for punishment, a sense of justice helps too. I know that a life taken can never be repaid but Jimmy Carter is willing to die trying like he feels guilty for taking many. On the other side of that is baby shitheel Kyle who feels no remorse for the lives he absolutely took.
I’m sorry I didn’t mean to cause you harm let me to my best of my ability make amends is better than choosing violence for the sake of blood. Someone dying because all the consequences of actions that could not be accounted for is worlds apart from showing up looking to shoot a looter.
Protests aren’t supposed to be convenient
But they should be at least vaguely sensible. They should have some meaning or else it can be easily dismissed as a tantrum. If there’s no connection between the disruption and the subject of the protest, you are unlikely to persuade anyone.
both based and unpopular, a rare gem for this sub
edit: i didn’t read close enough and making this edit to say i don’t find the part with “sorry not sorry for your cardiac arrest, we won’t do better next time” based at all. the rest is fine though.
progressives are very in tune with the concept of harm reduction, and it is trivial to apply this to both the inconveniencers and the inconvenienced people of a protest to ensure maximum possible safety. fuck the “oops but it had to happen” attitude that’s cringe as hell.
So glad for your edit, added some interesting points.
Maybe turning this into the trolley problem will shed some light on how I think for ya. I will always sacrifice the few to save the many. Put my parents, my partner, my lovely cats on the line and as long as what I’m sacrificing is less than what stands to be saved then Imma pull that fucking lever and rail the few for the many. But it’s all hypothetical, we can’t for sure know what any of us would do until the shit actually hits the fan. I could always be a coward.
Now you don’t have to like it or even understand the way I feel and view the world but you should know that only arguments equally as convincing as the circumstances that lead me to where I stand could ever begin to sway me away.
i’ll put it this way. if a protest is held and the cops injure or kill protesters for doing the right thing, that’s a poignant sacrifice.
if a protest happens and the only casualties are accidental and preventable, that’s the epitome of bad optics and is tantamount to murder especially if this was a planned event. “sorry” isn’t enough—i need for protest leadership to take the very minor steps necessary to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
tldr, your attitude is just a little flippant. i’m sure you know i’m with you 99% of the way there, i just find your attitude toward death to be weirdly condescending. if you know medical emergencies happen, and refuse to plan for them, that’s intentional harm.
None of the things you’ve said were unreasonable and I freely admit to knowing my attitude towards death can be shockingly cavalier but sometimes you have to be willing to cross the line. I have a sense that old age or natural causes aren’t in the cards for me and I hope that it’s my actions and not my words that do me in, I just will never know for sure until my time is up.
It doesn’t work if there isn’t a deep understanding of personal responsibility. While there are causes that have gained my participation I have yet to find something I’m willing to bleed for much less possibly harm someone else by doing the things I say I believe people have a right to. If I catch an involuntary manslaughter then I caught an involuntary manslaughter and I will be made to pay, either time or cash for the benefit of society. And for my benefit I hope to find or create an opportunity to lessen the burden of death on my hands. That’s all I can do, all we can do and the buck don’t stop at sorry.
Any prevention that can be taken should be taken but what is preventable isn’t always so and what was impossible to account for is sometimes within the plan. You do the best you can at the time and roll with the punches as they come.
I believe that protests should disrupt normal activities for bystanders.
That being said, I will never support those stupid environmental glue protests or any unlawful protest that blocks traffic, not because traffic has some kind of supreme right to keep going, but rather because it is impossible to separate emergency traffic from normal traffic and only let emergency vehicles past when traffic is backed up a long way.
A protest march that has permission (which our police is required to give out unless there is a safety concern) walking down the main road is fine, if an emergency vehicle needs to get somewhere the services already knows where the protest is and where it is headed, so they can plan around it, and since the police are there to keep order around the protest then can pause the march at an intersection if a fire truck needs to cross ahead of the march.
What if protesters aren’t leftists but are on the political right?
For example, should pro-lifers be allowed to block the offices of abortion doctors?
What did you think of the trucker protest in Canada?
These are great questions and these questions are exactly the reason I kept this as vague as possible.
What if protesters aren’t leftists but are on the political right?
Does the right to free speech and assembly apply to them? Yes.
For example, should pro-lifers be allowed to block the offices of abortion doctors?
No. Their need isn’t justified.
What did you think of the trucker protest in Canada?
Hilarious, it brought a decent source of amusement to me. Also better than the alternative of attempting to overthrow a government through violent means.
No. Their need isn’t justified.
Ah, understood, people should feel empowered to risk health and safety, break as much stuff as they feel like, and get in the way of folks trying to live their lives… Unless you don’t agree with their cause.
You made an effort to speak about “protest” in the abstract while ostensibly trying to steer clear of judging the cause of a give protest. However, in real life that’s just not the case, like here where after a very long wall of text declaring protest to be good, you shoot down an example as unjustified.
The abstract concept of a ‘protest’ can be good or bad, and there are bad protests even for causes that would mostly be seen as ‘good’.
Absolutely, having a personal opinion on a matter invalidates my arguments. You cornered me now, you wily rascal you. So everyone knows that you toppled my wall of text, three cheers for you:
HUZZAH! HUZZAH! HUZZAH!
There are cases where this applies, when a significant issue is censored across all media and you can only reach the rest of the people with greater power to resist the oppressors.
In most cases, it doesn’t. We have somehow normalized the assumption that people will listen more to protests. But do you really? Don’t reduce it to issues you already pay attention to. Think from the perspective of the uninformed target people. Think of political ideas you don’t tolerate. Will you listen more to them, if they block your way, ruin your day and may even harm your life instead of having a conversation with you?
The climate crisis, previously the Iraq War now Ukraine and Palestine, trans rights, LGBTQIA+ rights, abortion are not at all “censored” and are still worthy of civil disobedience to course-correct imo.
There are cases where this applies, when a significant issue is censored across all media and you can only reach the rest of the people with greater power to resist the oppressors.
This is the condition upon which I rest my case.
Agreed. It isn’t really a protest unless it inconveniences people into paying attention and, maybe, taking action.
I think it’s a demonstration where you gather to raise awareness but not disrupt.
OP comments like the ketamine is working
Just a little pot nothing any stronger, this is just my normal unhinged self.
I’m 100% ok with places of business or college campuses!
I’m not ok with freeways/highways, though. People having medical emergencies could die while stuck on the highway. I’m a Type 1 Diabetic and have had some really scary incidents needing to get home and get food or soda because my sugar was low. If I was delayed 20 or 30 minutes by an unexpected road shutdown, I would have died.
Agree, never trap people, even for an important protest. Consent and freedom of movement are fundamental
I understand this perspective and persuade you to convince your area to add lanes specifically for care vehicles/bicycles so this will not be an issue in the future.
Edit. Added bicycles and corrected car to care.
So every road should be extended with an extra lane reserved for ambulances? That seems like a hugely expensive waste of space.
Nah just in areas it’s clearly needed. But again. It’s not a perfect solution but it atleast will help.
I feel like it’s easy to agree with some parts of my opinion and disregard or refute the rest. I know it is no consolation to the deceased that the responsible ones for their departure be held accountable but it still wouldn’t deter me from the same course that caused harm or death, hypothetically speaking.
Good post. I completely disagree with this opinion. Stoping traffic and holding up the lives of ordinary people is attacking the wrong target. We’re all out here in traffic, not because we want to be, but because we’re struggling to survive. Not all of us are on a frivolous trip to star bucks mate. Take your grievances to the court house, city hall, or a police station, hold up those people’s lives, shout at them. I have to pick up my kids before the daycare closes. Don’t protest at me, I’m not the one voting on legislation that keeps people in debt, funds foreign wars, and keeps people from having access to healthcare. Those of us stuck in traffic are not willfully ignorant of any of these problems, we’re just fucking helpless to do anything about them because the system is designed to keep us that way. Protesting on highways doesn’t accomplish what I assume is your goal, to educate people and get them to agree with you. It just makes them not like you and not want to support you in your cause.
The difference is that sit in’s were directly related to what they were protesting against.
Shutting down highways to protest oil, shutting down campuses to protest funds going to violence, shutting down businesses that profit from settler colonialism…
…these are all directly related. It’s concerning that you don’t know this.
How does shutting down a highway punish oil companies? It hurts the person just trying to live their day. You want to punish oil companies? Block their trucks, not your average person. Oil companies couldn’t give less of a fuck about a random blocked highway.
same way sit-ins punished racist politicians: it doesn’t.
it’s important to remember: protest is not about punishment, it’s about sending a message. if you’re seeking punishment, direct action might be more appropriate. protest is all about spreading awareness and making a statement. not punishment.
How is blocking highways sending a message! Who is listening?
It’s sending the message that we are going to make a bunch of cars idle and burn even more oil. Oil companies rejoice!
apparently not you :) try harder. enjoy your day.
The thing is there have been protesters that demanded their campus stop funding Israeli research, and some of those campuses weren’t even doing that in the first place, but they still had to contend with protesters. Defacing museum work doesn’t make people think “oh, now I’ll stop burning oil”.
Yes, some of those protests are at least relevant, but there’s quite a few protests that are doing their causes no favors.
if that was even a minorly significant proportion of any movement i would care
i am never going to tone police the larger movement for the sins of a margin when the intentions involved include saving the lives of children and the future of their planet 👍
as soon as you find yourself in the place to bring your concerns to the leadership of a poorly-acting protest community, i highly recommend it. but doing so broadly and with no target is nothing more than concern trolling.
You know the goal is not to educate but to apply pressure sometimes. Everyone feels if an inner city is continually and or randomly brought to a standstill even in part. The point is to hurt, and if things stand still you just sit there in your car while the business and government around you start to lose “productivity” or in other words control. If this is done enough they have to change their behavior because we will keep going and they will continue to lose control. That’s the hope at least. And for climate specifically what good does the childcare do if the world your children grow up in stays on it’s current course on climate. I sorta assume you know all this as well. It’s fine for you to want to live your life and for stuff to be annoying, just don’t disparage those who just want to lash out because lashing out is a perfectly reasonable reaction. Not for you maybe, but for the once that have that reaction right now, know they are fighting for you as well.
What I’m saying is don’t lash out at me. I’m not the problem. Organize in a Walmart parking lot if you want to lower “production”. You don’t think that if you protest and block people from entering a court house that you won’t be on the news? Take your complaints to the people you’re complaining to. As for the climate, I’m an electrical engineer. I push for solar power on every project I’m involved in and get it to happen about 80% of the time. I’m doing what I can to actively work on the problem, so please don’t protest on the highway and let me get to work.
Lashing out is by default at everything, there isn’t target selection really, because if you select specific targets you open yourself up to increased resistance.
There is nothing left other than that this need for change, and that you have some bodily power to fight for it.
You are trying to argue on civility, cooperation, and still raising awareness, the protesters have determined there is no civility, and there is no one listening and acting on it, so why should they care. They specifically are complaining to everyone, maybe they specifically want to hurt, damage, or sabotage everything.
The highway might be the most destructive target depending on where you are, precisely because people like you who cost 100s of dollars per hour, and shipments, and everyone is stuck. Like the defect is diffuse, but you should know that the more you control the more it ultimately hurts if things go wrong (not in the bodily but financial sense).
It’s great that you do what you can and you likely have a lot more power if you can push for things within the structures you are in, but you must realize their ultimate power is in their bodys and in what destruction they can cause with them, because they don’t have those structures, that agency, but of course not the pressure and work that comes with it either.
The Walmart parking lot shuts down 1 Walmart, the courthouse 1 courthouse, the right street shuts down 10s maybe hundreds of places (at least partially), it binds more police and personnel, and it’s hard for the city to prepare for. It’s the right move if your mindset is to cause damage, which I think is just as reasonable as trying to use the power you have inside of the systems that already exist, especially for people that don’t have that much power.
What I’m trying to say is maybe you understand how you percive the world, but there is legitimate ambiguity and differences of circumstance that lead to also completely normal, but different from yours, perceptions of the world, and that maybe instead of trying to defend yourself you just might need to accept that. Like there should be room to have compassion even for people that don’t have compassion for you because they are still human beings.
Haha, ok buddy.
I respect your positioning but to arrive at my conclusions these beliefs had to be abandoned. Obviously that seems irrational and insane but I’ve never had a good claim on reason or sanity. It’s a constant struggle of whether I’m the crazy one or if everyone else are the ones with the cracked marbles. Only experience has forced me away from what is normal and accepted and I wouldn’t wish the strife that molded me on anyone else but it’s not my fault that human nature’s best teacher is misery.
It’s interesting that you end a post about how important it is to make yourself be heard with a note that you don’t care to hear opposing viewpoints unless they are presented in a way you like.
Regardless, the way I see it is at the end of the day, it’s all about how popular your position might be if more people were aware of it. If it’s unpopular, then others will cheer as the disrupting protest is violently cleared from the street. If it’s popular, then the violence used to clear it from the street might instead make the protest bigger when it’s met with outrage.
Though it also depends on what you mean by “right”. I agree that anyone has the physical ability to disrupt daily life and that doing so doesn’t make them a bad person on its own (that judgement IMO is based more on the why than the what, though it also depends on how extreme the disruption is; ie a stronger disruption requires a stronger reason to justify it). I don’t agree with a right that anyone should be able to disrupt things for whatever thing is bugging them without any expectation that the state will just say, “it’s ok, do what you want because you’re unhappy”.
The reason why I think protests should sometimes be stopped is because if you have a movement that supports something and another movement that opposes it, if both decide to disrupt things until they get their way, nothing will happen and there’s a chance it will eventually escalate to violence, either between the groups directly or from others who are neutral but tired of the disruptions.
Also it’s good to be aware that disrupting things itself can generate opposition in those who might otherwise support or be neutral on the issue.
But if you think your issue is a hill worth dying on, then IMO you should fight your fight. Be true to yourself. Just be aware that it might take a martyr for your movement to gain traction, or it might never get off the ground even with a martyr.
It’s interesting that you end a post about how important it is to make yourself be heard with a note that you don’t care to hear opposing viewpoints unless they are presented in a way you like.
That was not my intended meaning. Only that I do not care for reactionary opinions based on the assumption of what I think is a worthy cause to protest in this way and that if they were going to be presented anyway they should at least be interesting.
As for opposing views and arguments, I welcomed them to the best of my ability. There were very few of those, most responses were attacks on the parts of my reasoning that struck a nerve. It’s like trying to cut down a tree by picking off the leaves.
I can’t really argue with any of the other points you made because I had already accounted for them as conditions for my opinion.
The hill I’m choosing to die on is that whether you’re with the Canada Truck Convoy Boys or part of Palestines Pals you have a right to be heard and that we have a right to judge the actions taken to be heard against what you’re saying.
Ah I should have realized the “hill to die on” part was ambiguous. I didn’t mean you in this discussion specifically, but anyone who has an issue they want to protest about. Ie, If someone wants to fight a fight they believe in, they should do whatever they can to push it forward, regardless of who disagrees with them, they should just be aware that they might generate opposition instead of support depending on what methods they use to fight that fight.
I agree with that.
In my opinion, there is no democracy without the public being able to protest. If the powers that be are not making decisions or actions of the people, for the people, how are they to know how upset they are; unless the powers don’t care and send tanks or armed forces to squash disgruntled protesters.
Even if you disagree with the protesters, you should allow them to voice their grievances publicly, otherwise you don’t actually want a democracy, imo. I see so many uncaring takes or indifferent takes, it’s the silent insidious part of humanity, like a cop watching a crime happen but don’t want to get involved.
It’s so contextual on if the person agrees I feel it should be allowed no matter what due to that. I’ll also add I’m high and drunk and read nothing and am reacting instead of reading.
Cheers mate, have another for me.
So it all depends on context for you huh? I can dig it, leave the problem for when it actually comes up.
I’m not sure how else to approach such a topic. Some protest I agree with. Others I don’t. Shit. I’m being fucking selfish. 💀 Hrm.
Okay. I read through your words. I love you. Thank you for espousing your views. Shout them loudly and proudly. We need to hear them.
