Protests

[fast]

There has always been something about protests that doesn’t quite sit right with me. I’ve always had a negative impression, but there’s something else that I could never fully grasp well enough for words that kept striking me. I have no qualms, no qualms whatsoever, with the exercising of free speech, well, in many circumstances, that is, but not even what might be considered over the top is frowned upon. There’s something else, and it’s going to take a keen eye to focus in on just what turns me off.

BEFORE I jump straight to it, I want to briefly cover an unrelated insight. As those in the legal profession might say, we are multi-taskers; hence, even if you think you’ve only done one thing, be sure that when push comes to shove, you can be characterized as having done more than just what you think you have. For example, a person walking is doing what? Walking! That’s was easy, but what if the person was trespassing? It would be the case that the person is both walking and trespassing, yet there are those that will claim they are being harrassed for walking even though they’re cited for trespassing.

Again, that’s just an example. Another example, though more controversial would be the fellow that took a knee. The point is not to rehash that; that’s for sure; I just want to make the over arching point that while one may be doing something, it can also be the case that one is doing more than just that one thing.

To me, (and off the top of my head), to protest is to exercise one’s communicative right to convey a viewpoint of opposition. It’s simple. It’s a speech act. Wanna get wild and crazy, fine, but what I see from protestors far far exceeds what I might characterize as merely being a protest.

I can speak out and legally voice my opinion, and if others do it in protest, then to me, that’s a protest, but what many protestors are doing is something else: they aren’t merely trying to communicate; they’re trying to exact change. Exact change, I say. (And I’m okay with even that) See, it’s not good enough that you increase your audience numbers; that’s what you are doing (and that’s fine,) but when 300 million people have heard your message repeatedly and you continue to tell your tale, you are doing more than merely protesting.

See, we can all get together and protest (send tens of thousands of letters, newsprint, television, internet marketing) and call it a day and feel that we’ve accomplished our goal of communicating our concern without fear of legal reprisal, but when the goal transcends mere communication and also entails bringing about change, then just like we’re no longer doing one thing when we think we’re merely doing one thing, we’re protesting but also have a goal that exceeds its communicative scope.

In a way, people use protesting as a tool to bring about change, but don’t confuse the goal with the means for accomplishing it. For instance, people without the goal of exacting change are still protesting when they express their opposition in protest, and while those that have more lofty goals in mind while protesting are also protestors, don’t think that’s ALL they’re doing is protesting.

I don’t have an issue with bringing about change per say, but describing a group of people as merely being protestors (even if non-disruptive) is so problematic that it stirs the pot for some to ridicule others as being against free speech.

 

[Angry Floof]

No, it only stirs the insecurities of right wing authoritarian followers.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Take it up with the first amendment.

 

[Elixir]

To me, (and off the top of my head), to protest is to exercise one’s communicative right to convey a viewpoint of opposition. It’s simple. It’s a speech act. Wanna get wild and crazy, fine, but what I see from protestors far far exceeds what I might characterize as merely being a protest.

Are you the arbiter of what is "wild and crazy", or are you content to leave that to the courts? Sounds like you have some reticence about accepting what they deem legal.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

"There has always been something about protests that doesn’t quite sit right with me" is the equivalent of saying "There has always been something about freedom of speech that doesn’t quite sit right with me". So, what's your problem with freedom of speech? Is it that your ideas can be challenged?

 

[Opoponax]

I thought the OP was gonna talk about the effectiveness of modern day protests in America, and how they seem to just not matter to those in power, unlike back during Vietnam, when they had an effect.

But nope.

It was just "I don't like protests" and "Once you've said something once, you really should just shut up after that."

 

[Sarpedon]

The point of a protest is to be inconvenient and annoying, so it can't be ignored.

Another word to call a protest is a 'demonstration.' It is meant to 'demonstrate' that there are a lot of people willing to go out and do something for a particular cause. The implication being that they could do something else besides protesting, if necessary. If protests are ignored, they can go on to do more disruptive forms of protest, such as blocking traffic or access to various institutions or businesses, vote en-mass, go on strike, or even violence. Implicit in any protest is the threat of more serious action, which is why I imagine some people are uncomfortable with them. They are 'demonstrations' of the power that the people have, which makes some people uncomfortable indeed.

I've pointed out the amount of annoyance and inconvenience caused by protests is usually insignificant compared to the hardship the people doing the protest suffered to motivate them to protest. If only we lived in a society where the grievances of the people could be addressed with strongly worded letters! I've learned that most people in power are demented, and care nothing for their fellow human beings. They believe in nothing but their own wealth and power, and only respect others with power. It is imperative that the people be allowed to 'demonstrate' their power, lest these people forget.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

FWIW I never liked the word "Protestors." Sounds negative. Need another word. Free Speech demonstrators is okay. Anti-war demonstrators is okay. Freedom demonstrators is okay. Etc.

 

[skepticalbip]

The only problem that I have with disruptive protests is that a well organized 5% of the population can convince government to enact policies that 95% of the population disagree with by disrupting the lives of those who disagree with them. Ten million people marching on Washington is enough to scare the hell out of politicians causing them to yield to their demands even though it may piss off three hundred million that aren't organized enough to march on Washington.

 

[Derec]

BEFORE I jump straight to it, I want to briefly cover an unrelated insight. As those in the legal profession might say, we are multi-taskers; hence, even if you think you’ve only done one thing, be sure that when push comes to shove, you can be characterized as having done more than just what you think you have. For example, a person walking is doing what? Walking! That’s was easy, but what if the person was trespassing? It would be the case that the person is both walking and trespassing, yet there are those that will claim they are being harrassed for walking even though they’re cited for trespassing.

Yes. That is not just used to claim "protesting" is being suppressed when the protesters are actually engaging in crimes while protesting, but also to dishonestly reframe the issue being protested.
For example this list:

Found here.

Most of those are widely inaccurate, most egregious probably being the line where they claim Michael Brown was killed because he was "going to the store". It's like that George Costanza's girlfriend "I went to the store and, yada yada, that cop shot me".

My problem with protests, even when peaceful, is that they are usually a loud (and, yes, often violent) minority trying to impose their will on a silent minority who has better things to do (like jobs and a life) than to march around all day.

 

[Derec]

The point of a protest is to be inconvenient and annoying, so it can't be ignored.

Which is why they often commit crimes to be as inconvenient, annoying and disruptive as possible. Things like blocking traffic (especially on Interstate Highways) or train stations, and going all the way to full blown rioting, looting, arson and assaults is not an activity protected by "right of people peaceably to assemble".

There is nothing positive about bullshit like this:

 

[thebeave]

In theory, I think protesting is a fine thing, but in practice...not so much. I live in an area of the country (Northern California, Bay Area) that seems to have more than its fair share of whackadoodles. The protests that I've seen/heard about here in recent years have mostly focused on, well, nonsense....or even harmful ideas. Their position is often very anti-science. Like anti-GMO rallys. Anti-cell phone towers (due to the "cancer threat" from all that scary radiation stuff ). Anti-nuclear power. Anti fracking. Vector control spraying. Anti tree harvesting. Even anti-vaccine (I'm looking at you Marin County ). I wouldn't be surprised to see an anti-DHMO rally before too long. I think for a lot of protesters, they are just in it for the virtue signaling, the fellowship, "sticking it to the Man" or for relieving boredom since apparently many don't have jobs or real hobbies. And unfortunately, many bring along their kids and brainwash them in the process. And politicians often buy into their scare tactics. I would be curious to see data to indicate whether societal changes that have come about via protesting have had a net positive or negative effect over the last few years. I'm not convinced it would be positive.

 

[Angry Floof]

Wow, that's a lot of knee-jerk prejudice crammed into one post. Impressive!

 

[RVonse]

There is nothing positive about bullshit like this:

At first thought, I do see your point...at least until I start thinking about France.

The protesting in France would never happen here in the US because most of us here are pussies and cowards. What the mass protesting seen in France has produced, is that their government respects and is fearful of the people. Where as in the US, our people are fearful of the government. We love to lose our freedoms and in the US fully swallow more government in all its forms (TSA, NSA, homeland security, ,etc.)

Clearly France has it right and the US has it wrong. Because freedom and liberty simply does not come easy. It never has and it probably never will. Nor is liberty convenient or clutter free.

But I would not trade liberty for anything else.

 

[SimpleDon]

There has always been something about protests that doesn’t quite sit right with me. I’ve always had a negative impression, but there’s something else that I could never fully grasp well enough for words that kept striking me. I have no qualms, no qualms whatsoever, with the exercising of free speech, well, in many circumstances, that is, but not even what might be considered over the top is frowned upon. There’s something else, and it’s going to take a keen eye to focus in on just what turns me off.

BEFORE I jump straight to it, I want to briefly cover an unrelated insight. As those in the legal profession might say, we are multi-taskers; hence, even if you think you’ve only done one thing, be sure that when push comes to shove, you can be characterized as having done more than just what you think you have. For example, a person walking is doing what? Walking! That’s was easy, but what if the person was trespassing? It would be the case that the person is both walking and trespassing, yet there are those that will claim they are being harrassed for walking even though they’re cited for trespassing.

Again, that’s just an example. Another example, though more controversial would be the fellow that took a knee. The point is not to rehash that; that’s for sure; I just want to make the over arching point that while one may be doing something, it can also be the case that one is doing more than just that one thing.

To me, (and off the top of my head), to protest is to exercise one’s communicative right to convey a viewpoint of opposition. It’s simple. It’s a speech act. Wanna get wild and crazy, fine, but what I see from protestors far far exceeds what I might characterize as merely being a protest.

I can speak out and legally voice my opinion, and if others do it in protest, then to me, that’s a protest, but what many protestors are doing is something else: they aren’t merely trying to communicate; they’re trying to exact change. Exact change, I say. (And I’m okay with even that) See, it’s not good enough that you increase your audience numbers; that’s what you are doing (and that’s fine,) but when 300 million people have heard your message repeatedly and you continue to tell your tale, you are doing more than merely protesting.

See, we can all get together and protest (send tens of thousands of letters, newsprint, television, internet marketing) and call it a day and feel that we’ve accomplished our goal of communicating our concern without fear of legal reprisal, but when the goal transcends mere communication and also entails bringing about change, then just like we’re no longer doing one thing when we think we’re merely doing one thing, we’re protesting but also have a goal that exceeds its communicative scope.

In a way, people use protesting as a tool to bring about change, but don’t confuse the goal with the means for accomplishing it. For instance, people without the goal of exacting change are still protesting when they express their opposition in protest, and while those that have more lofty goals in mind while protesting are also protestors, don’t think that’s ALL they’re doing is protesting.

I don’t have an issue with bringing about change per say, but describing a group of people as merely being protestors (even if non-disruptive) is so problematic that it stirs the pot for some to ridicule others as being against free speech.

It would be helpful if you could provide some more examples. For instance the Republicans in Congress voted to repeal ObamaCare like 71 times to protest against it even though they knew that it wouldn't pass the Senate.

They should have only tried once in your opinion?

They voted to repeal the law to affect a change to cheaper and better medical care. But when they had control of the government it turned out that they had no alternative to ObamaCare that would provide cheaper and better medical care. They had been lying before.

Do you think that this is an example of a protest that you would condemn?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I don't really get it. You're allowed to be annoyed when others protest (it's kind of the point). If you think that people should not protest because it annoys you, then maybe America isn't for you.

aa

 

[laughing dog]

From what I can tell, the OP is based on faulty logic. According to the OP, it is ok for one person to voice disagreement, and maybe even more than one person. But at some unstated point, when too many people simultaneously voice disagreement, there is something wrong, because when too many people simultaneously voice disagreement, they are not simply voicing disagreement but pushing for change. That argument fails to recognize that even one person voicing disagreement (i.e. protesting) is also pushing for change - otherwise, why bother?

 

[laughing dog]

Which is why they often commit crimes to be as inconvenient, annoying and disruptive as possible. Things like blocking traffic (especially on Interstate Highways) or train stations,

OMG, the absolute horrors.

and going all the way to full blown rioting, looting, arson and assaults is not an activity protected by "right of people peaceably to assemble".

I agree with that application.

BTW, crimes that are committed during a protest are not always committed by actual protesters.

 

[Toni]

There is nothing positive about bullshit like this:

At first thought, I do see your point...at least until I start thinking about France.

The protesting in France would never happen here in the US because most of us here are pussies and cowards. What the mass protesting seen in France has produced, is that their government respects and is fearful of the people. Where as in the US, our people are fearful of the government. We love to lose our freedoms and in the US fully swallow more government in all its forms (TSA, NSA, homeland security, ,etc.)

Clearly France has it right and the US has it wrong. Because freedom and liberty simply does not come easy. It never has and it probably never will. Nor is liberty convenient or clutter free.

But I would not trade liberty for anything else.

People in the US are fearful of the government?

You gotta quit hanging with libertardorepugnicans.

 

[thebeave]

Here's a little thought experiment. Let's say you're in the store buying groceries, and you come out to the parking lot, load your groceries and small child in the back seat and then hop in the front seat to start the car. Immediately, a couple of protesters came out of nowhere and move their car behind yours, effectively blocking you from leaving the lot and going about your day. Now they're waving their signs, chanting their clever, catchy slogans and parading in circles around your car. This goes on for two hours, the police come and finally they leave and you can drive away with your hysterical toddler and two gallons of melted ice cream in the back. Is this an acceptable way of protesting? If not, why not? Because it seems that many people are OK when this exact thing happens to a hundred or a thousand people trapped in their cars by protesters while on a freeway or bridge. But doesn't it seem wrong, if not criminal, when the protest is limited to one person? Does it make sense that such protesting is OK when it affects a thousand people at once, but its not OK if its just a single person affected? Would love to hear some rational reasons why.