Protests

[GenesisNemesis]

Anyone who's against protests is against freedom of speech, simple as that. There's no middle ground.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Ain't it funny how the anti-PC crowd tend to be the ones who are against the idea of protesting?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

You can have a revolutionary war against a tyrant and form your own nation, sure. But don't protest! That inconveniences people!

 

[fast]

Apparently, I have an old narrow view of what a protest is, so when others look and only see a protest, I look and see a protest plus more—some of which is fine and some of which isn’t.

Let’s revisit an example:

Jerome is walking along eating a hotdog but happens to be trespassing. I have neither a problem with the walking nor the eating.

Felicia is protesting, trying to exact change, and throwing rocks through a window. I have neither a problem with the protesting nor the trying to exact change.

When others look at Jerome, they see nothing but the walking.

When others look at Felicia, they see nothing but the protesting.

What I’m saying is that walking and eating are two separate activities, not one.

What I’m saying is that protesting and exactly change are two separate activities, not one.

Yet, people here in this thread are lumping them together.

 

[laughing dog]

What I’m saying is that protesting and exactly change are two separate activities, not one.

In your view, what is the point of protesting?

 

[fast]

What I’m saying is that protesting and exactly change are two separate activities, not one.

In your view, what is the point of protesting?

To express an opposing viewpoint without fear of legal retaliation.

 

[Sarpedon]

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.

You call it a 'thought experiment.' I call it making up a story for fearmongering. Did you hear the 'thought experiment' about that pizza joint with the child sex trafficking going on in the basement?

Why don't you give an example from real life? You can make up a story to incite fear and hate about anything.

Yeah, everyone says unicorns are nice, but they could use those horns of theirs to stab people! And babies...why don't they ever answer any of our questions? What are they hiding?

 

[laughing dog]

What I’m saying is that protesting and exactly change are two separate activities, not one.

In your view, what is the point of protesting?

To express an opposing viewpoint without fear of legal retaliation.

Why bother expressing an opposing viewpoint?

 

[fast]

To express an opposing viewpoint without fear of legal retaliation.

Why bother expressing an opposing viewpoint?

To express disagreement. Being opposed to something doesn’t necessitate battling for change. I can let my dissenting opinion be known (thanks to free speech) and do nothing more, or I can let my dissenting opinion be known (thanks to free speech) and do MORE.

When I do more, right or wrong, it’s above and beyond simply exercising free speech, so any attack one may have towards what else beyond what’s encapsulated in acts of free speech is something else.

 

[fast]

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.

Maybe my tone gave off a mirror image that was suggestive of that, but no. I am not the arbiter of wild and crazy. If I choose to protest using a normal or a slightly raised voice, that’s not wild and crazy, but if one inflates a gigantic air filled balloon that when fully inflated is depictive of a pile of what would otherwise resemble dogshit—with written verbiage that signifies some kind of opposition to some one, thing, office, policy, whatever, then that’s closer to what I might label off the cuff as being wild and crazy; however, my thoughts on that aspect doesn’t in any way, shape, or form necessarily parallel any other thoughts I might have on different aspects of the surrounding subject;hence, I might neither like the message nor the delivery of it, but I wouldn’t (would not) protest against it. I don’t always let my feelings on an issue trample, in marching fashion, my intellectual position.

 

[ZiprHead]

Truck owners are blocking Tesla Superchargers in 'ICE-ing' protests

 

[Angry Floof]

Truck owners are blocking Tesla Superchargers in 'ICE-ing' protests

Pfffth. That's not protesting. That's just harassment for no good reason.

 

[laughing dog]

To express an opposing viewpoint without fear of legal retaliation.

Why bother expressing an opposing viewpoint?

To express disagreement. Being opposed to something doesn’t necessitate battling for change. I can let my dissenting opinion be known (thanks to free speech) and do nothing more, or I can let my dissenting opinion be known (thanks to free speech) and do MORE.

But why expend the effort to express disagreement just for the sake of expression? It seems to me that you are claiming that expressing disagreement is a cathartic exercise and nothing more.

I think i when one expresses disagreement, it is reasonable to conclude that one is also expressing a wish for a different outcome (i.e. change).

When I do more, right or wrong, it’s above and beyond simply exercising free speech, so any attack one may have towards what else beyond what’s encapsulated in acts of free speech is something else.

So, if I stand in protest, I am not engaging in free speech? When I burn the US flag, I am not engaging in free speech? Too bad the SCOTUS disagrees with your position.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

When the right of people like Richard Spencer to speak at universities is defended without question, but you hate the idea of protesting, we know whose side you're on.

 

[fast]

So, if I stand in protest, I am not engaging in free speech? When I burn the US flag, I am not engaging in free speech? Too bad the SCOTUS disagrees with your position.

If you stand in protest, you are most certainly engaging in free speech. If there is another additional aspect to what you’re doing and I object to it, it would be inaccurate to say that I am against free speech if the aspect extends beyond the scope of what a mere protest entails. For instance, if you engage in free speech by standing in protest but decide that the middle of the road is the place to stand, it would be inaccurate to say that I am against others exercising their free speech in protest, for it isn’t the exercising of free speech aspect of protesting that I disagree with but rather the place aspect.

If a student walks into a classroom and starts protesting, people that have a problem with it don’t truly have an objection to students that protest, so ridiculing them as being against free speech is absurd.

A football player gets the ball during a play and goes for a touch down shooting everyone with a gun that gets in his way to protest some cause. Me, I’m like, that was wrong and so I disagree with how he’s protesting. Don’t say, therefore, I’m against free speech. If he chooses a more tame method and decides to block traffic instead, then characterize that minimally all anyone wants as mere inconvenience, but that’s still not mere protesting on part of the protestors and goes BEYOND the free speech issue, so here too: don’t ridicule those of us that object as being against free speech when the free speech aspect of the protest isn’t what’s being objected to.

 

[Derec]

Pfffth. That's not protesting. That's just harassment for no good reason.

I agree.
But how is that different than blocking an interstate highway or a bridge for no good reason?

- - - Updated - - -

When the right of people like Richard Spencer to speak at universities is defended without question, but you hate the idea of protesting, we know whose side you're on.

How is having an invited speaker the same as blocking a highway?

 

[Derec]

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

France is another example where those "protesting" went way beyond legitimate/peaceful protest and engaged in violence.

The protesting in France would never happen here in the US because most of us here are pussies and cowards.

We have plenty of destructive protests of our own. I do not want to see more car-burning "protests".

What the mass protesting seen in France has produced, is that their government respects and is fearful of the people.

What it has produced is that an important and meaningful action (raise fuel taxes esp. on diesel fuel) was scuttled because of violence and threats of violence. That's extortion. There is nothing positive about that sort of behavior.

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.)

In the US people protest about many things (for example, for black thugs who were shot by police) but not so much about TSA or NSA. It's not so much that people in the US are pussies, it's that the violent "protesters" do not care about the same things you seem to.

Clearly France has it right and the US has it wrong.

How is that "clear"?

Because freedom and liberty simply does not come easy. It never has and it probably never will. Nor is liberty convenient or clutter free.

Freedom does not mean freedom to violate somebody else's rights just because you dislike a fuel tax hike.
People who torch cars are not protesters, they are arsonists and should be locked up. At least in prison, they have nowhere to drive their diesel and thus will not be bothered by the fuel tax.

But I would not trade liberty for anything else.

Would you give up your freedom of movement or your freedom to own property because some people are angry and want to take those freedoms away from you to express how angry they are?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

If you think your freedom should include infringing the freedoms of others just because you are angry, then maybe America isn't for you. Maybe you should move to France.

 

[Derec]

OMG, the absolute horrors.

Why do you dismiss it? Do people not have the right to go about their business without being detained by extremists?

I agree with that application.

What do you mean?

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

No, fairy fucking godmother did it!

 

[fast]

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

Kind of the point

If you are trying to bring about change and can’t do it the right way, there is the tactic of annoying people until you get your way. Fine, but say that. At least with that, there is honesty. Don’t say that all you’re doing is exercising your right to free speech. Yes, you are exercising your right to free speech, but no, it’s not the case that’s all you’re doing. Hell, if you could get your way without exercising your rights, this wouldn’t even be an issue. Talking about free speech is a distraction from what you’re doing (annoying people for a political reason) to what allows you to do it (free speech).

 

[laughing dog]

don’t ridicule those of us that object as being against free speech when the free speech aspect of the protest isn’t what’s being objected to.

You have not yet explained the point of expressing disagreement. After all, it requires thought and effort, and does expose one to possible repercussions.

If expressing disagreement is solely cathartic, one can achieve that by muttering under one's breath.