Stop the Traffic
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Saturday, July 3, 2010 16:32
VIEWED: 16282
PAGE 2 of 3
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Well I've insinuated earlier that the word of the protest is going to be out regardless. News channels and Traffic Reports are surely going to have the information, because that's their job. If you don't check the traffic reports for your journey, and get caught in a jam regardless of the cause, isn't that your fault as much as anyone else's?
I disagree. These services are a big help, but it is not their job to do the work of the protesters and properly announce the protest with advance warning and provide detours.
That responsibility, in my opinion, is on the protesters. If people fail to see those offiial announcements and warnings, yes it's their fault. But not if there were none such things.
It's not "regardless of the cause". The intent behind it is the whole point.
Quote:
I.E. if the extra volume of traffic causes delays on the detour: imprisonment. If a car driver didn't avail themselves of the required information, heed whatever signs, and finds themselves in a jam at the blocked road, and unable to escape: again imprisonment. The feeling I get is that although people are saying that a detour is acceptable, it comes with major caveats. I'll also note that if they're really willing to accept a detour, then why didn't they just answer the question I've been asking? Because obviously a detour is the car driver driving elsewhere...
IF it has advance warning a good faith effort has been made, fine. If not, not. A car taking another route if it has luckily been able to notice or take advantage of independent reports that's not a detour provided by the protesters, that's a lucky escape.
I don't apply those caveats you put up here and I don't think Anthony does. If traffic is thicker, it's at least still moving, and the protesters would have done their duty in that case.
It's the lack of consideration that is criticised. No one expects them to be almighty, but they should put in some effort.
Quote:
Since people have been arguing against me, quite voraciously, when I say "either the protesters move, or the car drivers do" I'm really not sure what to think on that score.
A simple solution has been provided yet you pretend that we won't accept it due to those "caveats" you cite. I'm not sure what to think of that.
Quote:
In fact the main point I'm trying to put across is that this isn't simply a matter of "my rights my rights my rights", it's a matter of the rights of two separate groups coming into contention. I further don't accept that just because you can't drive your car somewhere, your right travel has been completely infringed, driving a car is a privilege, not a right.
Except in many cases walking is a completely ludicrous suggestion, which makes the "freedom of travel" a purely fictional excuse, not to mention the danger to the property people have to leave behind (their cars and things too heavy to carry). That's a pretty lazy excuse.
Quote:
I noticed someone mentioned that the protest will stop ambulances, well I work in London and have seen many protests, and been in many traffic jams, and Ambulances have no problem getting through either here.
I do not believe that it doesn't at least delay them noticably to sneak their way through a throng of people or wind around cars stuck in a jam. Ambulance travel time is serious business in my book.
Quote:
We get spontaneous protests all the time too (despite the governments attempt to curb them by enforcing permits, a far more grievous threat to freedom or liberty than anyone getting stuck in any traffic jam for any period, frankly); the Police seem to have no problem responding and redirecting traffic without advance warning.
Well good for them, if the protesters can count on that. It may not be true in all places and to me it does not remove the responsibility of the protesters. It is simply a more costly and slower way to pick up their slack.
For the life of me, I do n
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK, Cit, seeing your post to AR, I think you really don't understand that my posts above do in fact answer your question. Maybe I need to use your words to get my idea across.
Case 1: Road-use rights of cars supersede rights of pedestrians. This happens when pedestrians (including protesters) are able to use the sidewalk and crosswalks. People can use sidewalks, cars can't, and the rules of traffic are designed for this. It's safer.
Case 2: Road-use rights of pedestrians supersede rights of cars. This happens when, for whatever reason, the pedestrians can't keep to the sidewalks. Maybe a large protest, a protest in a location with no sidewalks, whatever. The event is known in advance and traffic flow is diverted to that no one is unduly held up.
Those two I talked about above. The situation I didn't explicitly state because it was implied:
Case 3: Road-use rights of pedestrians supersede rights of cars, no alternate routes. This would be a mob that descends on a busy road or roads with the specific intent of snarling traffic into gridlock.
I have no problem with 1 or 2. One groups right do supersede the other's, but in a way that shows respect for everyone's rights. No fist hitting face. All good.
In case 3, the "protesters" have decided that their plans for the day are more important than anyone else's. I disagree with this. It's annoying, selfish, and disrespectful, and it's also ineffective. This group will only alienate the people it's trying to reach.
For a full out revolution Case 3 may work, but for a regular protest, it's just silly.
(And note that all these concepts were in my former posts Cit, if you made some effort.)
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
depending on the cause
And the target
It's like invading Afghanistan or Iraq to stop the people who attacked un on 9.11. You have to target the people the are responsible AND that you can affect in the right manner.
I add this because I think to some extent the anti globalists are having no affect on the globalists other than to cause them to beef up security, making it harder for us to arrest them if need be... And yeah, I know. But ya get the point.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
OK, Cit, seeing your post to AR, I think you really don't understand that my posts above do in fact answer your question. Maybe I need to use your words to get my idea across.
Oh I never doubted it would be all my fault somehow.
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Case 1: Road-use rights of cars supersede rights of pedestrians. This happens when pedestrians (including protesters) are able to use the sidewalk and crosswalks. People can use sidewalks, cars can't, and the rules of traffic are designed for this. It's safer.
Cars don't have rights, they're lumps of metal. Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege, how does a privilege supersede a right? I somewhat suspect you're confusing rights with laws here.
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Case 2: Road-use rights of pedestrians supersede rights of cars. This happens when, for whatever reason, the pedestrians can't keep to the sidewalks. Maybe a large protest, a protest in a location with no sidewalks, whatever. The event is known in advance and traffic flow is diverted to that no one is unduly held up.
Fair enough.
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
(And note that all these concepts were in my former posts Cit, if you made some effort.)
There I go again, trying to start a fight.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
That responsibility, in my opinion, is on the protesters.
And the responsibility to ensure their route is clear, is on the car driver.
Quote:
A simple solution has been provided yet you pretend that we won't accept it due to those "caveats" you cite. I'm not sure what to think of that.
A simple solution your side pays lip service to, but that you ignore where those on your side undermine it. Think of it what you will.
Quote:
Except in many cases walking is a completely ludicrous suggestion, which makes the "freedom of travel" a purely fictional excuse, not to mention the danger to the property people have to leave behind (their cars and things too heavy to carry). That's a pretty lazy excuse.
Nowhere near as ludicrous as calling driving a car a right, or trying to claim that not being able to exercise your privilege means your rights have been infringed. There is a lazy excuse here...
Quote:
For the life of me, I do not see how the right to free speech is infringed upon if intentional traffic blocking must be anounced in advance - or abstained from.
And I don't see how any one's rights have been the least infringed just because some people haven't got everything their own way. You might have a right to travel, you don't have a right to travel by car. Arguing that people don't want to leave their cars doesn't remove the fact that it's NOT a right to drive.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why do you keep making this about a right to drive?
It's not about a right to drive, it's about taking responsibility for how your choices (to protest and block roads) create consequences for innocent people - and acting accordingly.
No, driving is not a right, but telling people that they can leave their cars when they are stuck in a gridlock because driving is not a right is unfair and shows a complete disregard for the human beings stuck in that gridlock against their will.
Your suggested alternatives (abandon car, walk rest of way) are unrealistic and impracticable. Suggesting them at all is akin to ridicule. It's not "being unable to drive", it's being interrupted in the middle of a path they are usually free to use, unable to leave and then asked to abandon their belongings. That has the least to do with driving and more with, yes, entrapment.
And no, I think it's more serious than "not having everything their way". It's not about diet coke being sold out or whatever. It's about human beings regarding each other's needs and finding a compromise and your downplaying of the other side's needs suggests that you are unwilling find a workable solution that takes both sides into account. I stand by my crowded theater comparison, so the simple formula "rights supercede privileges" does not work for me.
As for the solution "my side" is apparently undermining, I'm still more interested in what you think of it WITHOUT the caveats you cited. Announce protest in advance, suggest/provide workable alternate routes. I don't think there is much lipservice involved in this suggestion of mine.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello Mal, Frem, etc,
I think this isn't going to be resolved. Thank you for your understanding. It's always nice when someone tries to exercise their rights without infringing on other people, or causing them pain. I appreciate that. I've been bullied enough in my life.
It turns out that there will always be bullies. Always someone willing to hurt me, and a large amount of those people are willing to tell me it's my fault. Always there is someone who wants to shrug off control by controlling you. Taking away your choices until you only have the choices left that they want you to have.
Simply admitting this would be admitting to wrongness, and that means losing. If winning is the goal, then losing isn't an option. What's right is what allows them to succeed and get what they want. The only limit is their tolerance for other people's misery and their acceptance of the risk.
This thread has no risk and no misery, except what the participant desires to imagine. It's a simple matter to imagine misery as being small or unimportant in a fictional landscape. It is a landscape that can be re-engineered to suit any argument in the mind of the arguer.
In real life, when you hurt people, there is misery. And where there is misery, there is risk. In real life, bullies sometimes get away with it, and they keep getting away with it. It goes on until someone, somewhere, adopts their philosophy and destroys themselves so that they can win. And then, if that fresh-minted bully doesn't stop themselves, the cycle begins anew.
My position is as simple as it is meaningless.
Don't hurt me.
I retire, and I concede the loss.
--Anthony
Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Concede loss? You communicated something useful and reasonable Anthony. One or two people can't hear you, but that is their loss, not yours.
Peace out.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Still going on, I see. Fascinating. I note that the argument against "imprisonment" in the case of emergencies has been removed by Citizen mentioning British protests. I also note that he mentioned the difficulties in getting permits. That's one of the points I was trying to make. How do people hold a demonstration when TPTB for one reason or another decide it is not worthy of a permit?
And if people resent a demonstration, even when widely publicized and sanctioned, what happens to free speech?
Basically I guess, I view the inconvenience of drivers as less valid than the right of free speech, and that given free speech CAN be curtailed by any aspect of government which decides against allowing it, the need to express that freedom is NOT overriding someone else's "right" to passage, but something we should hold dear and fight for, however it might inconvenience us individually. Because what we've been discussing IS an inconvenience, not "stealing of rights" or "imprisonment" in my view.
To demand that our right to passage be unimpeded for anything, sanctioned or not, seems to me a small argument against a far larger right. I find all the myriad abuses of automobiles that impinges or endangers my right to passage far more egregious than a peaceful demonstration of freedom of speech. I guess that's just how it looks to me.
It concerns me somehow to see the majority of people here who are usually so vociferous about freedom of opposition toss that aside so easily in favor of the freedom to travel, to the point of wanting to stifle freedom of speech or move it "out of the way" where it can't be heard or bother anyone. It seems a dichotomy to me.
I'd still like to figure out what's at the root of this, as it's gone on for three days now. While one side has been reiterating again and again the points, the other side has repeatedly expanded te inconvenience of driving being blocked to dramatic terms and overreaching, to me visceral, arguments, there is something more personal and more emotional on the side which sems to HATE the idea of being impeded. Since I've not figured it out in three days, I give up on not just the debate, but trying to figure out what's behind it. It's definitely not about "right" to drive, and it IS an inconvenience, nothing more. That's how I see it.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki - and I am astounded that you, who are so against the govt impeding people's rights, have no problem with a non govt group impeding people's rights. As in: my freedom is negotiable to you. The govt can't stomp on my rights, but the protesters you identify with can do as they please. That seems to be what you're saying.
But I think you are tending to over-complicate and over-apply this whole deal, such as when you make it all about cars or all about govt permission. You're breaking it down incorrectly.
Two questions:
1. Do you recognize that there is a difference between "inconvenience" and a complete loss of freedom of mobility? (Hint: No one here is saying that an inconvenience, such as a detour, is a problem. Do you see that?)
2. I'm about to run errands. If a group of people do not like the business practices of the grocery store I'm going to, and they set up a protest, do you believe that they are within their rights to block my access to the store? Do you believe that they have a right to set up blocks in the parking lots so that, once I am there, I am completely unable to get out?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki,
note that people haven't really been talking about permits but about 1) warnings and 2)alternative routes.
No one wants to stop protests, people are just arguing for consideration to take place, and respect.
Most protests do this and no one here is complaining about those.
What about giving people a warning do you find so offensive?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Why do you keep making this about a right to drive?
Your side of the debate made it about rights, (scroll up, you'll see it), I'm just not letting you guys shift the goal posts every other post.
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Your suggested alternatives (abandon car, walk rest of way) are unrealistic and impracticable. Suggesting them at all is akin to ridicule.
While going on that not getting to exercise your privilege to drive is an infringement of your rights is ridiculous...
Quote:
I stand by my crowded theater comparison, so the simple formula "rights supercede privileges" does not work for me.
And I stand by my earlier comparison to Ghandi. This is exactly the sort of thing he was involved in organising in the 20's in India, and to hear you go on you'd think his tactics were learnt directly from Mussolini.
Quote:
As for the solution "my side" is apparently undermining, I'm still more interested in what you think of it WITHOUT the caveats you cited. Announce protest in advance, suggest/provide workable alternate routes.
I think it's bizarre to expect protesters to do the job of the police and city authorities because you've arbitrarily decided they should. Especially when you've also seemingly decided that it's not a car drivers responsibility to ensure their route is clear before driving it. Protesters aren't equipped, nor in most cases authorised to arrange detours.
So protesters should in all circumstances declare their protest to the Authorities in advance? Sounds like you wish to put more restrictions on the right to protest, than you think should be on the privilege to drive to me. Sounds like it could constitute a curb on liberty more than equal to getting stuck in a traffic jam, in fact. It really is you downplaying this, while ridiculously overplaying your side. They're experiencing entrapment in the same way as you want to ban all freedom of speech from protesters. The very claim its imprisonment or "entrapment" is preposterous, and holds far less water than the counter-claim that demanding protesters always get permission or make long advanced warnings to exercise their rights is tantamount to totalitarianism.
Frankly this whole idea that an inconvenience of an extended journey is villainous violence that is quantifiable hurtful is self-serving nonsense.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Why do you keep making this about a right to drive?
Because that’s what it IS about, as first proposed (tho' driving isn't a "right" as has been said repeatedly), and I thought that’s what we’ve been debating all along. If the issue were to be about something else, that would be the debate. It’s been taken to a bigger point, but my argument has solely been about cars and demonstrations.
Okay, first off, it’s not I who am against the government impeding people’s rights, you are extrapolating that from what others have said. I’m against the government impeding freedom of speech, however much I might not like what that speech IS. I have never said I’m against the government impeding some rights.
Second, I don’t accept that the issue here is about “complete loss of freedom of mobility; the freedom is not completely lost, tho’ the examples given aren’t perfect (buses, making way for ambulances, walking, etc.). It is MOMENTARY loss of the ability to drive a car, not mobility, not being prohibited from moving, and not imprisonment.
Third, your second example is irrelevant—it’s never happened and wouldn’t be allowed; and it’s blocking of any entrance, not a delay of driving a car.
As to government permission, I think my correlation is perfectly apropos. People here HAVE (with one notable exception) said that if the protest were sanctioned so that they were forewarned, they’d have no problem with it. I didn’t address the earlier suggestion thatQuote:
which is fallacious; to hold a LEGAL demonstration in most places (I believe in all of America), you can’t just TELL the police, you have to get a permit approved. If you tell them, they arrest you and do their best to prevent the demonstration.
An hour or two before the protest they can let the police know: "We expect 1000 picketers who will block the TWO blocks on Main Street in front of city hall. Protesters will not block [ETA: pedestrian] access to businesses, and we suggest the following plan for diverting traffic..."
I find nothing offensive in giving warning. I have never taken part in an unplanned demonstration, nor would I unless the issue were extremely vital...I WOULD have for civil rights, for example, but not many other things. The difference is that if any form of government does not ALLOW a demonstration, it surprises me that people here so emotionally believe it’s not okay.
Beyond that, look at the arguments. Shutting off a power grid? Having a heart attack? Imprisonment? READ the examples that have been given; the vast majority of them are dramatic, emotional examples which have nothing to do with the issue at hand: traffic being held up FOR A TIME because of a demonstration. I find the visceral reactions and attempts at rationalization of a point says a lot more than the issue itself does. In that I, too, am diverting from the original issue, but it’s so prevalent and so dramatic, I can’t help wondering why. Along with that, the insistence on one’s “rights”, when driving isn’t a right and free speech is, also confuses me. A “contract” was brought up earlier, too; I believe the contract inherent in our Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech supercedes any unspoken contract between citizens.
No matter who it inconveniences, I take freedom of speech very seriously and I believe it is far more important than the privilege of driving a car. I don't LIKE an unsanctioned demonstration, but I do not at all see it in the grandiose terms I'm seeing it portrayed here.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ah, I see Citizen has responded to some of the things I did as well. He and I can see the devolution of the argument into extremely dramatic, emotional terms on the other side, while I BELIEVE both of us (and anyone else debating our position--IS there anyone else?) have tried to keep things in perspective.
Citizen, you got any theories on why this is? As I said, I'm totally stumped!
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki,
Are my posts invisible to your computer? Testing, testing? 
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ooops, sorry Cavalier. It's so far back that you last replied, and Citizen and I are all over the place, that I KNEW there was someone else speaking up but couldn't remember who...long thread! (That's my story and I'm sticking to it! )
I'm glad to know we're not alone, and yes, I went back and read your posts. I see you, as well, weren't giving way to drama and emotion, and were remarking on same, so it's not just me (not that I thought it was, it's just weird).
Thank you for speaking up; this thread has been so heavily weighted; again, so weird to me...!
ETA: It's been strange to me also that those I generally agree with are so vociferously against my points, while Citizen, with whom I rarely agree, is in agreement. Nice to know that trend isn't universal, since I admire your eloquence and agree with you more often than not.
ETA further; That is NOT to say Citizen or any of the opposing view are not eloquent, just to avoid any misperception of what I wrote. 
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good lord Niki. If it is a MOMENTARY delay, no one has a problem with it. Why do I have to keep telling you that?
I am speaking English, right?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Press 1 for English.
Press 2 for Spanglish.
Press 3 for Progressive.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I didn't say "momentary", or if I did, I misspoke. I've been held up for a very long time by demonstrations; I've also been held up a very long time for traffic jams and accidents. I view them all pretty much the same. Obviously others do not; this "debates" hasn't gone anywhere from the earliest posts; and I've got to get off this damned computer and go eat, my stomach is rumbling. Enuff, as far as I'm concerned; I've had my say, you and others disagree and cannot see it from our point of view. I agree to disagree, end of story.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
REALLY signing off!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I didn't say "momentary", or if I did, I misspoke. I've been held up for a very long time by demonstrations; I've also been held up a very long time for traffic jams and accidents. I view them all pretty much the same. Obviously others do not; this "debates" hasn't gone anywhere from the earliest posts; and I've got to get off this damned computer and go eat, my stomach is rumbling. Enuff, as far as I'm concerned; I've had my say, you and others disagree and cannot see it from our point of view. I agree to disagree, end of story.
You did say MOMENTARY. In all caps just like that. You didn't just say it, you stressed it, and you must have had a reason. It's kind of central to the debate (there is in fact a debate happening here, even if it's mostly caught up in definitions) so it's a shame that you brush off your own words like this. It clouds your message.
I do understand what you're saying about accidents. I wish you could understand that that is a completely different, not applicable situation. I could give some examples that I think are enlightening, but it doesn't seem of use. You haven't addressed the situations and questions I've already posed, so I won't flood you with more.
So right then. AtD, and no harm done.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mal, Niki's phrasing was "FOR A TIME" not "MOMENTARY" if you're talking about her last post. I read a considerable difference in meaning, a considerable difference in the length of time implied. I wish to all the gods and their angels above that the folks on your side of this disagreement would pay a little bit more attention to what we're writing and, here's an idea: comment on THAT, instead of importing all manner of wackadoo worst-case scenarios, flagrantly hostile inferences, and straight-up non sequiturs and inaccuracies.
I'm also pretty dispiriting that someone I respect highly would straight up tell me, without irony or caveat, that I wish to hurt him, based solely on a philosophical argument. It demonstrates a wont of respect for me.
Back to the topic at hand: interestingly, it would seem street protests are a common occurrence in Niki's, Citizen's and my life--and our acceptance of their nature is reflected in our posts. Whereas, y'all react as if they constitute an act of domestic terrorism (i.e.: shutting down a power grid) and don't seem even to know how they occur (is this an urban/rural disconnect, or urban/suburban disconnect of some kind?). The suggestion, for instance, that we could call up the police department and tell 'em "Gonna have about a thousand folks marching on such-n-such street at fill-in-the-blank time" and they wouldn't be waiting for us with riot gear would be funny if it weren't so frighteningly blinkered. Hey, maybe we could take out some protester's insurance, just to be on the safe side!
(Again, I have to say, the demonstration which inspired Anthony's outrage was a pro-immigrant rally in downtown Seattle in which about 100 folk spontaneously spilled out into the intersection and stopped traffic, singing songs until the cops came and peacefully escorted them out of traffic and, without violence, arrested 22, again, without violence. No fatalities amongst the inconvenienced motorists were reported, nor injury claims made against the protesters.)
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wonder how things would change in this debate if these "protesters" were gun-rights protesters, who all showed up with their guns openly displayed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What's with the scare-quotes around protesters, Mike?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:My feeling is that a lot of it is about agreeing with the protesters. Say folks were held up for hours, out of the blue, by govt officials forcing them to look at govt propaganda that some govt bureaucrat thinks important for brainwashing the masses. Then suddenly the loss of liberty would be a big deal.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I wonder how things would change in this debate if these "protesters" were gun-rights protesters, who all showed up with their guns openly displayed.
Me, I'd prefer to sort out my support or non-support for a cause without having it shoved in my face and interrupting my business. I don't care if it's govt or not. Don't force yourself on me against my will, or you'll lose my support for good.
HK, the irony here is that we agree. Niki says that a "MOMENTARY" delay is no big deal. (She did. Do a search for the word.) I have said several times that a momentary delay is no big deal. Where's the fucking problem?
If no one actually blocks my movement for an extended time (hours), or unreasonably limits my access to my own life (contrary to Cit's theories, I do have a basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), then there is no problem.
You say protests don't do either of these things. All right then, there is no problem.
It's really not more complicated than that. Please quit making it so.
ETA: Niki said: "Second, I don’t accept that the issue here is about “complete loss of freedom of mobility; the freedom is not completely lost, tho’ the examples given aren’t perfect (buses, making way for ambulances, walking, etc.). It is MOMENTARY loss of the ability to drive a car, not mobility, not being prohibited from moving, and not imprisonment."
When she might have noted that I had previously said:
"Do you recognize that there is a difference between "inconvenience" and a complete loss of freedom of mobility? (Hint: No one here is saying that an inconvenience, such as a detour, is a problem. Do you see that?)"
A detour is a momentary loss. Not a big deal. Slow traffic. Not a big deal. See? We're all in agreement. Niki has no problem with that. I have no problem with that.
Difference is, I think that protesters, being just as human and flawed as the rest of us, can get all in a hoo-haw about themselves and their cause and ignore everyone around them, to the detriment of everyone around them. You, perhaps, don't think this is possible? Protesters are always pure in your mind?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Me, I'd prefer to sort out my support or non-support for a cause without having it shoved in my face and interrupting my business. I don't care if it's govt or not. Don't force yourself on me against my will, or you'll lose my support for good.
Bingo. That's where I come down on it as well.
It's been pointed out that Anthony *would not* be "trapped" - he could simply back up and drive around (not possible if he were the first car in line, and there were dozens stacked up behind him), or he could get out and walk, ergo he isn't "trapped", because he can go other places. I'd submit that the protesters rights aren't being trampled if THEY were asked to go somewhere else, either. They have lots and lots of places they can go and protest, without impeding traffic.
But their GOAL is to impede traffic. That's the intent. The "protest" is really just an excuse (hence the quotes, HKC - not "scary quotes", but rather "mocking quotes"), with the aim being to inconvenience people. In fact, they went out of their way to get into peoples' way. And, as Cit pointed out in the freeway analogy, they likely broke several laws as well.
"I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll leave this to the far more eloquent M4P from now on.
Citizen seems to think that I speak for Anthony and keeps bringing up phrases Anthony used and ignoring everything I myself say because of "my group". I find that fruitless.
Niki, I think we have some miscommunication going on, and I think M4P is doing a very good job of trying to clear those up, far better than I could.
I'm kind of sad that this discussion devolved so badly and I'm sure everyone is to blame. I'm tired of participating, though.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Freakin' apples & gorram oranges... You folks really don't get that the people who march in the street generally don't have the resources of the state, nor do they have the power to impose their will on people with no recourse. They don't have the budget to get tv time. The freakin' government has all kinda ways to brainwash people. If the state is against you, you are screwed.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
My feeling is that a lot of it is about agreeing with the protesters. Say folks were held up for hours, out of the blue, by govt officials forcing them to look at govt propaganda that some govt bureaucrat thinks important for brainwashing the masses. Then suddenly the loss of liberty would be a big deal.
The difference in relative power of the two bodies you choose to equate is profound.
That you think it's all one is baffling and extremely disturbing to me at this point. Are y'all so far from the civil rights marches of the 60's that you think, "Oh, society is so ordered and so thoroughly democratic, there are no disenfranchised people anymore! Just go through the proper channels and all will be well!"
Furthermore, in my very first post I mentioned that I would support the crazy "abortion = holocaust" people if they chose to march (peaceably, without guns, Mike). Frem made a whopper of an assumption that I was violating the golden rule in supporting demonstrating in the street, implying that, of course, I would be outraged if I were on the receiving end of such an "attack." But, honestly, I would not resent anyone protesting in the street, because I recognize it as an entirely honorable method of political free speech. I am comforted that I live in a nation where such political protest has done so much to affect positive change.
Quote:This is bizarre. What of Rosa Parks on the bus? She forced herself on those poor white people all for her personal political beliefs, against their will, held them hostage to her illegal presence, and stole a white person's rightful seat to do so! Some poor white person had to wait for another bus because of her selfishness! What a terrorist she was, getting in their faces and interfering with their business!
Me, I'd prefer to sort out my support or non-support for a cause without having it shoved in my face and interrupting my business. I don't care if it's govt or not. Don't force yourself on me against my will, or you'll lose my support for good.
Quote:But it may be an hour, it may be more. I don't think Niki or Citizen would object to an hour or more. I know I wouldn't.
HK, the irony here is that we agree. Niki says that a "MOMENTARY" delay is no big deal. (She did. Do a search for the word.) I have said several times that a momentary delay is no big deal. Where's the fucking problem?
If no one actually blocks my movement for an extended time (hours), or unreasonably limits my access to my own life (contrary to Cit's theories, I do have a basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), then there is no problem.
Seriously, y'all have made me think about these bizarre worst case scenarios for going on 3 days now and if my dear Lady Cavalier were so tragically unfortunate that her appendix burst while we were driving and we got caught in traffic and she, god forbid, died, because we didn't get to the hospital in time to save her, and sometime after, I discovered that there was a political demonstration somewhere up the road, I can't imagine deciding to blame them for my loss. It would be inhuman and fanciful for me to blame her death on their agency.
I don't live in a world where ANYONE has that much control. I don't live in a world that is so ordered and perfected that I can blame my troubles on some "malcontents" interfering with the system. I recognize that the system itself is thoroughly, despairingly flawed. We are seriously fucked folks, if a hundred people walking out into the street is equivalent to a terrorist attack. OBL wasted a lot of time, money and l
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Furthermore, in my very first post I mentioned that I would support the crazy "abortion = holocaust" people if they chose to march (peaceably, without guns, Mike).
So gun owners can't be peaceable? We can't gather and march for OUR rights (ones that actually ARE guaranteed by the Constitution, mind you)?
What I'm trying to get my head around is at what point does your right to protest and peaceably assemble become NOT peaceable? A couple months ago, there was a protest by gun owners near D.C. (because guns are still outlawed in D.C., at least out in the open). They got a permit, did everything legally, and had their little get-together, and all without drama.
Would you have supported them if they'd marched into D.C. and shut down traffic in front of the Capitol, all while carrying their guns?
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is the bestest thread EVARRRRR!!!! 
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Paper or Plastic? Yes!
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I gotta do it, since discussin it elsewhere brought it to mind.
Yanno, when cops do that to protestors, they get pissed off about it and call it Kettling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling
But to quote one of Siggy's maxims, when the protestors do it to the public...
"But that's different!"
Uh huh, yeah, sure - keep tellin yourself that, whatever.
AtD, and out.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wait - the power of anyone "to impose their will on people with no recourse" is a desirable thing, or at least something you're willing to yield? Really? Maybe that's the root of the disagreement here...
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You folks really don't get that the people who march in the street generally don't have the resources of the state, nor do they have the power to impose their will on people with no recourse.
Look, I get that protests are necessary and good. I get it fine and I support it fine. Even done it a bit myself. I just don't need protesters getting in my face when I've done nothing to them. I can get their message better without confrontation.
I also get that bigger issues will involve bigger "inconveniences." I would never be so stupid as to complain about finding good parking in DC during the Tea Party demonstration last spring. Those people gathered to have their say, and they had every right to do it. I will also note that, although there was yelling and even spitting on senators who passed, the senators could pass. I have no problem with any of it (except the spitting - ew!) and even support it, though I don't like the Tea Party at all.
See - we agree again!
So please quit making this a black and white issue where M4P hates ALL protests just just M4P won't bend over for anyone holding a placard and a megaphone. You might find yourself a lot less angry with me if you can allow me to be in a gray area.
Quote:You're disturbing yourself by hearing things I'm not saying. How you keep making this a worship of the automobile thing is puzzling. How you take to it to me wanting to deny Rosa Parks a seat is truly beyond me. I guess next you'll be claiming that I support Hitler, huh?
That you think it's all one is baffling and extremely disturbing to me at this point.
Quote:Eureka - again we agree! I'd support their right as long as they were peaceable. I guess I just define "peaceable" a little differently than you do.
Furthermore, in my very first post I mentioned that I would support the crazy "abortion = holocaust" people if they chose to march (peaceably, without guns, Mike).
Who was it in RWED that used to say that western culture is all based on violence? That even a parking ticket was a violent thing, because if you refuse to pay it eventually you'll be physically dragged off to jail... I don't know who it was, and I don't totally agree, except to say that "peaceful" means more -- to me -- than the absence of hitting.
Quote:And I would. I wouldn't demand arrests or expect the protest to be shut down or moved to an invisible location (another assumptions that has made about my stance in this thread - I never claimed any of this) but I would think this group selfish, impractical, and not very good at politics. I would doubt it's success.
But it may be an hour, it may be more. I don't think Niki or Citizen would object to an hour or more. I know I wouldn't.
Quote:The only one making this kind of extreme analogy is you. Really, calm down.
We are seriously fucked folks, if a hundred people walking out into the street is equivalent to a terrorist attack.
Quote:So, because sitting in a car for hours doesn't bug you, it should bug nobody?
I do not feel violated if I'm stuck in traffic for an hour or more. Sorry, too much meditation, I guess. Too much experience getting stuck in traffic for an hour or more. I bring books with me.
Myself, I don't drive in rush hour so I don't have to deal with the crush. I have chosen houses based on avoiding traffic, because I find it extremely unpleasant. I got around on rollerblades for nearly 5 years, and still would I could. I still walk a lot, in a town where very few people walk.
So I must protest (*snort*) your suggestion that I'm an uptight, un-meditating person because I don't like sitting in a car for hours, and correct your assumption that my need for personal freedom is based solely on automobile addiction and greed.
Quote:
[quo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And now a happier moment - an example of a good protest:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/25/hands-across-the-sand-pro_n_6
26099.html
Wish I could have taken part!
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If American Police are so incompetent that it's inconceivable that they could do the same, Americans should be out protesting the Police force, not casting aspersions on to protesters. I mean civil order is supposed to be their job, not just tasering dangerous bed ridden Grannies.
Hee hee. That's pretty good, actually. Nice one, Citizen. And I'm all for more protest of the police forces.
I've only just started reading this thread this morning. I'm going to say both sides here have good points, and they might not be debating the exactly the same issues and situations.
To sum up what I agree with:
Freedom of Speech is important.
Life and health considerations are also important, which means the ability to move and drive could be important in a given situation.
Protest permits from the government are a crapshoot. It's a good way to signal "Hey jackboots! Come get your jollies here!"
Coordination and communication between two different groups of citizens (NOT necessarily involving police or government) should always be encouraged, should citizens going about their day-to-day or their choices come into conflict with expression, and vice versa, and so forth. A scenario where members of either group can't talk to each other is no good, partially because the protest might not be reaching the target audience they want to educate. It's like if they were both shouting at each other, "Move!" and "Solar Power!" Neither side is listening. Not optimal.
I have no problem with a detour. Though I think it's fair maybe that the protestors ought to consider how to provide notice of detour, not just out of consideration for the drivers and the safety of the drivers, but for THEMSELVES, too. As far as I'm aware, moving cars plus citizens on foot protesting, generally not the best combination. You want to be reasonably safe until the riot gear teams show up and arrest you for the maximum benefit of civil disobedience. :)
And it IS civil disobedience. You can be disobedient plain, but you might not win any hearts or minds that way.
Just my thoughts.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Darn - In a rush, and no time to catch up all the way, but I got THIS far...
Quote:
Look, I get that protests are necessary and good. I get it fine and I support it fine. Even done it a bit myself. I just don't need protesters getting in my face when I've done nothing to them. I can get their message better without confrontation.
... which brought it into sharp focus for me. It's the in-your-face-ness of it, possibly, that rankles me. The pushiness. Here's something about me that I never realized until just recently (but everyone else seems to take for granted - call it one of my blind spots, as Frem points out we all have them): Push me, and I instinctively push back. Get in my face with your cause, and you've lost my support. As I pointed out with Critical Mass earlier, they had to go out and be Critical Mass-holes about it, and I'll never give to them, ride with them, or support them in any way, no matter how much I might support their CAUSE - all because of their shitty methods.
Sure, you've got a right to free speech. And I've got just as much freedom to not listen.
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yep. I tend to dig in my heels as soon I feel I'm being ordered or forced to do anything.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
It's the in-your-face-ness of it, possibly, that rankles me.
But it's not just the in-your-face-ness. The blatant disregard for others really rankles me. One power trip I love about being a teacher: I can break up those little groups of students who decide to clump and converse right in the middle of what needs to be a busy hall. Drives me crazy!
I had a similar problem with tourists on the Esplanade in Boston, walking four abreast on a paved trail that roller bladers are trying to use. Walkers can use grass, skaters can't. The solution should be obvious.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And STILL! Wow! This is gonna take a while; I've been gone since I last posted here.
Okay, I stand corrected; it’s actually a matter of semantics; maybe it’s where I live—and given I saw something that indicated Cav lives where demonstrations are common, and I KNOW Citizen said they were, perhaps all three of us view it differently than others who live where they’re not common; we’re used to them, we respect peoples’ rights to have them, and we accept the times we get stuck. STUCK, not “trapped”, as demonstrations which “trap” people for any length of time, which have not been sanctioned, are few and far between. For me, “momentary” is anything less than an hour or so in the scheme of my life; any demonstration that big (because anything small enough, the police would have broken up before then) is just something I can’t control, any more than I can someone having an accident ahead of me, so I shrug my shoulders, swear some, end of story.
For example, I just sat for half an hour at PetClub, because this big 18-wheeler delivery truck couldn’t make a turn in the parking lot and got stuck. None of us were pleased, all stuck in parking spaces, but—maybe it IS an “area” thing, I dunno—nobody yelled at the guy or the one trying to tell him how to maneuver. Logically, he’s to blame...if he can’t drive the damned thing, he shouldn’t BE driving it. But we all understood it was just what it was.
I’m accustomed to traffic jams, and if you want a corollary you won’t agree with, I’m sure, THOSE are because of the selfishness of people wanting to drive in a single car rather than carpool or take public transportation. They certainly ARE impinging on my rights, trapping me, for their own selfish reasons. When Jim and I worked in the City, we both either rode motorcycles, took the ferry, or parked at the end of the Bridge and bicycled.
I’m sure you’ll dismiss both of those as completely different; to me they’re not.
I wish I knew what was going on in your brain, Anthony. This entire discussion, you haven’t been the Anthony I know and respect, and I’m disheartened by it, too. It seems we’ve finally bumped across an issue that gets to you, and it’s the strangest one we’ve ever discussed that I thought WOULD do so.
Cav, yes, street demonstrations are apparently more frequent here, but not that much. We have Farmers’ Markets on the main streets of every little town once a week (alternating days, because the towns are only a mile or two apart). We live across from Berserkeley, where demonstrations over just about anything are a regular occurrence, but I don’t cross the Bay if I have to...the East Bay and I “don’t get along”. SF has demonstrations occasionally, but the only frequent and regular thing is Critical Mass. People expect that. We’ve had sanctioned, expected demonstrations I didn’t know about and got trapped with other motorists, because there are always some of us who miss the notifications. We have Gay Pride Day, which takes over virtually the entire financial district, wall-to-wall humanity; they close down the Castro for Halloween, we had lots of anti-Arizona (or is that pro-immigration?) demonstrations lately, and more, so I guess I’m more used to “traffic interference” in that way than maybe others are.
A demonstration such as what you described which began all this wouldn’t be blinked at in SF.
Mike, yes, I’d LOVE to hear that. Would anyone answer his question? WOULD any of you feel any differently if it were a gun-rights demonstration? I wouldn’t, and I’d be interested to hear how anyone else would feel...? And yes, what ABOUT those quotes; do you not think they would be legitimate protesters? If you want a fuller answer; I’d cuss, if anyone were in the car with me we’d both cuss and say derogatory things to each other, and I’d be pissed off...but I’d still accept their right to protest and just wait it out. I certainly wouldn’t feel endangered or imprisoned. So no, Mal, for ME it’s not about agreeing with the protesters. I’d feel t
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
By the way, Mal, governments do precisely what you said; haven’t you seen film of tanks rolling through and crowds on the sidewalks? In most cases those are countries where it’s not just holding up traffic, attendance in order to provide photo ops is REQUIRED. Waving flags and cheering is REQUIRED. That’s a basic part of the entire thing for me. We’re not them. We can CHOOSE what we protest or demonstrate about.
Mike, Quote:
Okay, we’ve gone full circle. Back to the “protest in a quarry” question: WHERE exactly would you suggest they protest? Do you not get the concept of demonstration? To hold a protest in some football field or somesuch out of the sight of the public isn’t going to happen...why bother? The idea of a protest is to say “We’re against something we think is wrong, we want to bring it to your attention that there are a large number of people who feel this is wrong; we want you to be aware of it, to think about it”. Doing it “somewhere else” would be just wasting one’s time, preaching to the choir as it were.
go somewhere else, either. They have lots and lots of places they can go and protest, without impeding traffic.
No, the intent is NOT, is NEVER (as far as I’ve ever experienced) an “excuse to inconvenience people”. You apparently don’t understand protest at all. It is the above; it is the desire to bring something people feel very strongly is a wrong to the ATTENTION of the public. It’s not done with the intention of blocking people from driving, that is an ancillary effect; it’s done to use a large area in the view of the public to make a statement. To DEMONSTRATE their disagreement, to PROTEST something’s existence or nonexistence. People often get arrested at protests, so you have to feel pretty strongly about something to go out and stand up or march knowing that might be the outcome. You paint protesters as a bunch of irresponsible assholes out there just to give you difficulty. Maybe that’s what this is about. I have my own question; how many on each side here HAVE actually demonstrated? That may be part of the key I’ve been looking for...if you’ve actually taken part in a demonstration or march, hopefully you understand better. If you have never felt strongly enough to actually take part, maybe it’s that you don’t understand the actual concept of protest, you don’t know what it feels like to march with a lot of others who feel strongly, to get tired, thirsty, have your sign get heavy, hear the taunts from the sidewalks, see the cops on the corners and know you might end up in jail. You have to WANT to go through all that to demonstrate against something, and to be honest, the thought of motorists being inconvenienced doesn’t even come into it. Traffic gets held up by myriad things, and yes, the vast majority of people don’t suffer much, if at all, from it. An UNSOLICITED demonstration gets broken up and people get arrested...and even THEN, if it’s big and will snarl traffic, the police get right out there and put up barricades and stand there waving people around the impediment. Exactly like the demonstration that started all this.
Ooo, another question: How many of you have been stuck for over an hour by an unsolicited demonstration. All but one that I’ve seen so far say they have no problem if they can get around it, if there are signs, etc. So how many have actually BEEN in the situation described, stuck for hours unable to drive? That would be interesting to know too. Because if nobody has, then this is all an exercise in theory with little basis in fact...virtually no unsanctioned demonstration, no matter how large, doesn’t result in arrest, sometimes beating, etc. It’s not condoned by the government unless you go through the proper channels.
I’m amazed, truly amazed, at this point. Protests are, as far as I’ve always believed, one of the very cornerstones of our country; they are the best aspect of freedom of speech, I’m PROUD that we have that right and I accept that periodically it’s going to i
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Agent, I read your posts and I think I addressed them. For example, why do I make it about the right to drive? Because that’s precisely what it’s been about all along, that was the origin of the thread, and I‘ve been trying to figure out why people are so head-up about it and using such dramatic terms. It’s not that dramatic to me so I’ve been trying to find out WHY it is to others.
I covered the fact that the alternatives suggested weren’t workable; ergo, I agreed with you. If I was the one who wrote it was about their not having their way, I actually do feel it’s at least partly that. Many things don’t let us have our way in daily life, but this one really gets to people, just because it’s a protest not letting them do what they want at the speed they want. Seems simple to me, but that’s just the way I view it. As to suggesting an alternate route and the other things you described, we already covered why that’s unworkable; if you don’t get specific permits to do so, all that is worthless—sans permit, you get arrested.
You say nobody wants to stop protests. Well, at least one here does, and others seem to view it as some kind of frivolous act, and the fact that it’s suggested they “go elsewhere” indicates they don’t want to be bothered by it, they want it invisible or out of the way, unless sanctioned. I DID expressly respond to your question as to why I felt giving notice was offensive. It’s not that it’s offensive, sanctioned protests DO give notice—if not sanctioned, not allowed or broken up, and sanctioned protests have been eliminated already as okay. For me it’s not about sanctioning—tho’ as I said, I personally have never participated in an UNsanctioned protest, unless you count Peoples’ Park, and believe me, we paid for Peoples’ Park! I’m all in favor of permitted protests as the best answer, and I’d have to feel VERY strongly to demonstrate in anything else. The debate has been about protests where “giving notice” means no protest, not allowed by the government.
I didn’t accuse you, to my knowledge, of anything that wasn’t IN your post. I respond to each post as individually as I can, and responded specifically to what you wrote, where I felt it was applicable. Several of the issues you brought up had already been gone over, so I try to avoid getting stuck in repetition. Nothing more.
Thank you, Cavalier. I agree with everything you said, and you say it better than I (tho’ not more concisely this time, which is a relief given I know I rattle on) ;o)
Mike:Quote:
Can’t speak for anyone else, but I answered this question when you first posted it. It’s not about support, it’s about tolerance, and yes, I would tolerate them, as long as they were peaceful. I would tolerate ANYONE exercising their freedom of speech, whether I agree with them or not.
Would you have supported them if they'd marched into D.C. and shut down traffic in front of the Capitol, all while carrying their guns?
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Uh, Frem, your comparison is an amazing fallacy. Protesters don’t do “Kettling”, they march or rally in a specific place for a specific length of time. Their aim is NOT to trap people, it is to be heard. It’s fascinating that you choose to use an egregious form of government-sanctioned denial of freedom of speech and equate it to those exercising that very freedom of speech. Wow. Your comparison boggles my mind, given how anti-police you are. To extrapolate; when people peacefully demonstrate and it happens to block traffic, it’s using the exact same method as when police round up those peaceful protesters by deliberately encircling them? This debate has gotten reeeely weird.
No, Mal4, that’s not what he was saying. He was saying that protesters don’t have the ability to get their word out in other ways than to demonstrate sometimes, and sometimes to do so unsanctioned because their protest won’t BE sanctioned. They can’t buy TV time, they can’t use most of the other methods to exercise their freedom of speech, so they take to the streets. The Rosa Parks analogy, like the Ghandi one, IS appropriate. Those were all unsanctioned protests, they inconvenienced people in cars...where is the difference? What you seem to be not getting is that some protest WILL NOT be sanctioned, so people who feel strongly enough about an issue should shut up and go away, hold their protest where nobody is bothered. What we’ve been trying to say is that there are protest which the city government WILL NOT ALLOW, will not give permits for, which the two instances above were, precisely, so there was no alternative but to do it unsanctioned. MANY protests here aren’t sanctioned because the officials in charge don’t like them, and I don’t think it’s right to let the government decide what I can protest and what not. MOST protests ARE sanctioned, and that you seem to have no problem with. That’s what mystifies and saddens me; that freedom of speech, insofar as it blocks traffic, isn’t acceptable to you unless it’s permitted. That there AREN’T times when un-permitted demonstrations are valid.
And no, it’s not been made dramatic, far as I can see, by those of us defending unsanctioned protests. We’ve had examples of shutting down power grids, government forcing people to show up for demonstrations, “imprisonment” and much more emotional terms. It HAS been compared to terrorism, read the thread. That you didn’t get to that point does not mean it hasn’t been said, just not by you. And others HAVE said it should be moved to somewhere invisible, or shut down, just not you. It’s hard to keep track of who said precisely what; the general concept runs through this thread, and it HAS been said.
And he did NOT say nobody should feel inconvenienced because he accepts the inconvenience. He said “I DO NOT FEEL VIOLATED”...stating how he feels, not what anyone else SHOULD feel. “Violated”, “trapped”, “imprisoned” the words emanating from your side of the debate have been noticeably emotional and dramatic; the other side is the one which has been saying so. The comparison to having a heart attack, to shutting down a power grid, and far more, have been exaggerations way beyond, in my opinion, any reality. The word “violated” didn’t come from him, he was referring to what precisely what someone else wrote. None of us have said it didn’t “bug” us, either, we just said we accept it despite it bugging us, because there is a larger principle at work.
Nor did he in any way suggest you were “uptight” or “non-meditating” (rather than “UNmeditating). I got around on skates to and from work, too, when I had a job here in town. He didn’t say your “need for personal freedom is based solely on automobile addiction and greed”, he said it REMINDED him of addiction, and I didn’t see anyone talking about “greed”, tho’ this has gone on so long I might have missed it. Quote:
So, again, you seem to be saying that a few people protesting someth
The bigger the group, the dumber they get
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, I’m caught up. This has gone around and around; the basic concept seems to be that if government allows a demonstration and puts up signs, etc., it’s okay with most of you. If not, it’s entrapment, denying of freedom, imprisonment, virtually an act of terrorism, etc. I find that sad, especially given this group is largely against government control. Self-policing in demonstrations is almost invariably done, we are given instructions as to how to behave, etc. The option to forewarn people is not possible; if it were, I’d bet dollars to donuts those planning a protest would do so. But there IS NO OPTION; if you don’t get a permit approved by the government, and put up signs, you are announcing that you are going to do something the government has not sanctioned, and you are stopped, for the most part.
I don’t know what to say; that this has gone on so long and that the terminology has been so dramatic on one side (because read the thread, it has been), amazes me. “Held hostage”, “trap”, “immobilize”, “imprison”, “mayhem”, “chaos”, “prisoner”, “villany”, “stomping somone’s rights”, “forcing to your will”, “blocking ambulances, fire engines” (which is wrong, those are never blocked), “assholish”, “stealing”, “dangerous attitude”, “bully”, “captive”, “trapped and suffering”, “an act of aggression”, “How bout I cut power to your block”, “malicious intent aforethought”, “violates the non aggression principle”, “keep trying to start a fight”, “rationalizing”, “dehumanization”, “physically barricade”, “degrade”, “escape”, “violating my property rights”m “
“walking into a public park at 1AM, barring all the entrances, and then saying to people in the morning, "All right, all of you. STAY OUT! This is my park now. Just for me! You don't get to use it while I'm here! GO!", “stand out in front of your home at 3am when you're trying to sleep, with a bullhorn shouting their message all night ?”, “It IS violence to trap me. It’s not peaceable. it's violence without the knuckles”, “form gangs and take my freedom”, “Patriot Act considers economic damage to be a form of terrorism”, “surround your house, keeping you from getting inside”, “I think trapping me somewhere = Punching me in the nose.”, “willful lack of imagination to suggest that stopping traffic on a road will harm none”, “It's the difference between getting stuck in an elevator because it broke, or having someone cut the power to purposefully trap me there”, “The only legitimate reason I see to intentionally trap someone is because the alternative is bloodshed”, “Let's say these folks decided to hold their protest on your street. At 3 in the morning. At the end of your driveway. They won't leave, won't let YOU leave”, “you are saying your pain means more than mine. Your life means more than mine”, “Your pain means more than mine. Your life means more than mine", “If I need medicine, money, or access to my family”, “risk causing harm and pain”, “Their intention was to trap me here. The idea is to hurt me”. “This situation may threaten my Life. It positively threatens my Liberty”, “I am left at their tender mercies”, “I consider trapping people to be a form of speech on par with violence”, “I learned that preventing folks from getting around was The Point of the exercise” (which was never stated), It's selfish and it's lazy”, “It's only hurting innocent people in an iminaginative attempt to create noise for the sake of noise”, “bullshit approach and comparing it to Ghandi is highly self-congratulatory and wrong”, “deliberately and intentionally set out to impede me for the sake of forcing me to hear or see your message”, “tryin to pretend you're not steppin on someone, on purpose - cause you are”, “you decide that I shall not pass you and go into the store until I am forced to stand and listen to your spiel for half an hour” (my response to that is that cars blocked by a protest rarely hear the “spiel” beyond the first few cars, that, again, isn’t the core intention), “you have no right to physically restrict my free
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I got as far as Cav’s long post, and have to give up. I’m pooped. My reason for doing this is to show that, on one side, emotional, visceral, DRAMATIC statements have been made; on the other side not so much. Most of those dramatic statements and examples were made by Anthony, which is what puzzles me so much.
People kept repeating that a protest which was announced would be okay, even if not sanctioned by the government. I hope at this point we can get past that, because protests which are not sanctioned ARE STOPPED, almost invariably, with arrests, sometimes beatings—sometimes even arrests and/or beatings happen in those which DO have permits, when the police decide they’ve gotten out of hand. That’s neither here nor there; almost invariably, people protest with the knowledge that they may be arrested or beaten, but don’t intend that to be the result.
Second, people keep saying the intent of a demonstration is to trap people in cars. Again I will reiterate that this is NOT the intention of 99% of protests; the intent is to get a message out WHERE PEOPLE CAN SEE IT. The majority of people seeing and hearing it are at windows along the route or on sidewalks. There is no way to hold a big demonstration without utilizing the street. There is no way to post detours unless the government sanctions the protest. It’s a “rock and a hard place” situation. It’s not intended to trap, harm or do anything to those in cars but inconvenience them, because it’s unavoidable that some won’t SEE signs, if permitted, or not know about it, if not permitted.
Sorry it’s so long, it took longer for me to do than you to read, trust me, but the point is important, I believe. There are strong feelings, VERY strong feelings, on one side; the other side has mostly been trying to bring those emotions down a notch, attempt some perspective, and talk about the actual issue, which in this case happens to be a small, unpermitted demonstration in which the demonstrators were arrested and nobody was held up for long. Yes, it extrapolates to something much larger, but even then, we’ve tried to make clear that a demonstration which is not officially allowed by the government can’t post signs, will get broken up and the people arrested, so it’s a moot point. Aside from Mal4, who wants nobody to have any where he has to detour or be inconvenienced, everyone here seems to agree that if alternate routes are posted, it’s okay. But, again, ALTERNATE ROUTES CAN’T BE POSTED unless the demonstration is sanctioned by the government.
Lastly, once again; protests are in the vast majority NOT held with the specific intent to hold up traffic...they are held to bring something to the attention of the public, and sometimes are big enough to need the use of the street.
Whew. That took forever. I'll shut up now.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Government sanctioned is the only way": not necessarily, Niki, a lot of people own orange cones, you could always assign someone to direct traffic, there's probably SOME way to get ahold of one of those road construction signs, or there's also the hilarious option of the very large Nite-Brite sign with rather long extension cord.
Creative solutions could go a long way for naughty folk like us. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You're not getting it, still, Byte. Any attempt to do as you suggested would alert the cops, the word would pass ultra-quickly, and the demonstration would be broken up and people arrested. Why even try to have a demonstration that you know is going to be broken up almost before it begins?
Now, if you wanted to try a perhaps more effective way, station people along the route, at the nearest intersection, have them TELL people to detour...even then word would get around pretty damned fast, but it would be something. It also wouldn't work very well, because only cops have the authority to move traffic, so a fair number of people would say "fuck you" and roll right through.
But given that the intent of demonstrations is NOT to block people into their cars, but it's recognized that said eventuality will probably happen to a degree, most groups probably wouldn't take the time and effort to try and avoid it.
You could get into a whole mess of discussion about whether the protesters' rights are then taking over the motorists' because they're not showing courtesy in trying to turn people away; whether the idea of an unsanctioned event is civil disobedience anyway, with possible arrest forthcoming, the protesters should bother about traffic; or whether the protesters have the right to use the road and courtesy doesn't come into it, etc., etc. But I think this is contentious enough, so I'll just leave it at "that's pretty unworkable".
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If you're going to have an unsanctioned protest, isn't the point to get arrested? I thought it was supposed to call more attention to the cause. "Hey, look, these people are willing to get arrested for what they believe in, also they were really non-violent, so what they believe in must be really threatening to TPTB" and etc.
But yeah, hopefully you'd manage to protest for a little while before that happened, but I imagine you could pull that off without tipping the authority off before you get started. I guess we disagree on that, but I think it's possible, AND I don't think it has to impede the success of the protest. Being considerate might even enhance your success.
I don't have a problem with protesters being unruly, but there might be ideas that could be used to make such a protest more effective. Public (and not necessarily government) support might be a good way to go, and there might be some benefits for the cause in not annoying people, though feel free to do so.
Technically only cops have the authority to move traffic, but you'd be surprised how susceptible to perceived authority and suggestion people are. This is the principle that the Bavarian Fire Drill operates under IRL. Add a few cones around the traffic director and a safety vest and hat... Well, it's not too hard, and your guy doesn't even have to get slapped down for impersonating a cop.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Aw, crap. I knew there was an ambiguity in my phrasing of that, but I recklessly hoped it would not be misread.
Originally posted by mal4prez:Quote:Wait - the power of anyone "to impose their will on people with no recourse" is a desirable thing, or at least something you're willing to yield? Really? Maybe that's the root of the disagreement here...
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You folks really don't get that the people who march in the street generally don't have the resources of the state, nor do they have the power to impose their will on people with no recourse.
See, your side of this argument, or so it seems, contend that folk like Anthony suffering through the terrible protest have "no recourse," but the few of us over here, with respect, disagree. I was saying if you'll go back and reread my post with a more sympathetic eye that when the government is against you, you have no recourse (except outlawry), whilst if a group of protesting citizens is against you, you do have recourse, a.k.a.: the government! I really hope that's clearer.
Quote:I do appreciate this acknowledgement. But as I said in my first post in this thread: When it comes down to it, philosophically, I don't believe anyone in a democracy is "uninvolved with the protest." Protests go with the territory. To infringe on the rights of people to "take it to the streets" is to say, we don't need protests anymore, the government has this all well in hand, thank you very much, nothing to see here, move along.
Look, I get that protests are necessary and good. I get it fine and I support it fine. Even done it a bit myself. I just don't need protesters getting in my face when I've done nothing to them. I can get their message better without confrontation.
Quote:I appreciate this sentiment as well.
I also get that bigger issues will involve bigger "inconveniences." I would never be so stupid as to complain about finding good parking in DC during the Tea Party demonstration last spring. Those people gathered to have their say, and they had every right to do it. I will also note that, although there was yelling and even spitting on senators who passed, the senators could pass. I have no problem with any of it (except the spitting - ew!) and even support it, though I don't like the Tea Party at all.
See - we agree again!
Quote:
So please quit making this a black and white issue where M4P hates ALL protests just just M4P won't bend over for anyone holding a placard and a megaphone. You might find yourself a lot less angry with me if you can allow me to be in a gray area.
M4P, I'm sorry. I'm dealing with serious thread fatigue here. I'm sorry you're taking my disquieted mood personally. With respect, I do not see that I have made this black & white. I've now written pages on the nuances of my argument which have been wholly ignored in favor of Anthony's bizarre "you're imprisoning meeeee!" meme. What I've had to contend with in this thread, is folk telling me that inconveniencing motorists with spontaneous demonstrations is equivalent to shutting down all electricity to the city. And then having 3 or 4 other people giving their blanket approval. I don't find this polarization at all pleasant, or fun.Quote:Again:Quote:You're disturbing yourself by hearing things I'm not saying. How you keep making this a worship of the automobile thing is puzzling. How you take to it to me wanting to deny Rosa Parks a seat is truly beyond me. I guess next you'll be claiming that I support Hitler, huh?
That you think it's all one is baffling and extremely disturbing to me at this point.
You said:Quote:How is that
My feeling is that a lot of it is about agreeing with the protesters. Say folks were held up for hours, out of the blue, by govt officials forcing them to look at govt propaganda that some govt bureaucrat thinks important for brainwashing the masses. Then suddenly the loss of liberty would be a big deal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thank you for the thoughtful post HK. I think we can get somewhere - and will, when I have a chance to get over my own thread fatigue.
I must point out one thing - statements like "so people would never be forced to stop and so lose their precious freedom of unhindered vehicular mobility" are part of why this thread is going on and on. It may be just your thread fatigue and the imperfect medium of the internet, but you sound quite dismissive and belittling of something that is important to me. And no, I do NOT mean having to use a brake pedal, nor any little detour or delay. In fact, the continual focus on cars and little delays is off the point.
The fact that you keep demeaning my message (and Anthony's - I'm quite certain he never intended to bitch about minor delays) to this petty level is troubling. I can't understand why you expect me to honor something that's important to you when you refuse to respect something that is quite important to me.
You seem offended when I say you're putting my rights below others... well, your statement above is part of the reason why I'm getting that idea.
That said, I appreciate that you were saying many of those things to Anthony. I wasn't in the chat for the first half of the thread. I skimmed those posts and didn't interpret them to mean any of the extreme stuff you're referring to. In fact, I started posting because I felt people where interpreting his posts to be much stronger statements than he intended (a five minute delay is like a NAZI attack - ahhh!) But I may have missed the words that gave you that idea.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ya know, I can't let it be, I just can't, not like this...
Quote:
"Oh come on, don't be ridiculous, it's just a little - you're being stingy, greedy, it's just a few minutes, just a tiny chunk of freedom, you'll never miss it, besides, you're not using it anyway, or not using it correctly and I can show you how to do that, come now, this is important, more important than anything you're doing, why be such a dick over such a teensy, small thing, just one little inch, it's not much, hand it over, don't be rude, everybody does it, here and there, it's the price of civilization isn't it ? - come on, hear me out, just a few minutes of your time, just a few bucks, you can spare that much, have a heart man, cough it up...
And you know, I've heard that song before, I think we all have, and moments when our own internal moral guides fail, we've sung it ourselves, but I know the tune, I know that melody achingly bone deep cause I have seen the horrors that it leads to, stuff so mindbendingly awful I avoid even describing it here, it's the song of the Blind God*, is what it is, the siren song of our own humanitys destruction.
And for the life of me, I never thought I would hear it from you, HKCav.
You *know* better.
Quote:
Come now, it's just one little inch, you'll never miss it, it's for your own good, really...
What I say to that, screw you, that's *MY* inch, and you'll not have it.
And if you wanna TAKE it from me, you'll fight me for every micron of it.
-Frem
* http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Blade_of_Tyshalle#The_Blind_God
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
M4P, I hear ya. I hereby forsware any further use of highly dismissive lampoons of the oposing argument. In my defense, I'd been called a terrorist already, so a little ridicule seemed fair game. I'm sorry.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
No, the intent is NOT, is NEVER (as far as I’ve ever experienced) an “excuse to inconvenience people”. You apparently don’t understand protest at all. It is the above; it is the desire to bring something people feel very strongly is a wrong to the ATTENTION of the public. It’s not done with the intention of blocking people from driving, that is an ancillary effect; it’s done to use a large area in the view of the public to make a statement. To DEMONSTRATE their disagreement, to PROTEST something’s existence or nonexistence.
Okay, let's try another venue for "protesting". Say you're at the movie theater to see the latest blockbuster. You've paid your money, you've taken your seat, you're settled in for the previews - and up comes some of PN's abortion pictures, complete with a screaming soundtrack and a nice lecture about the evils of abortion, and how it's really murder, etc.
The movie theater didn't condone the message - it was snuck in, and they couldn't turn it off. So THEY aren't liable or culpable; it was just some right-to-life group "protesting" your apathy about abortion, and making you pay attention to their message.
They're well within their rights, right? I mean, they HAVE TO get you where you'll pay attention, right? Otherwise you'll just tune them out.
And no, you can't have your money back. You can leave the theater, though, but your money is theirs now.
Nobody is imprisoned, nobody set out to violate your rights, nobody forced you to stay. Do you support this "protest"?
That's what I'm getting at; what are the practical limits for forcing you (or me, or anyone) to pay attention to your cause? At what point does your right to free speech trample my right to be left the fuck alone?
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
M4P, I hear ya. I hereby forsware any further use of highly dismissive lampoons of the oposing argument. In my defense, I'd been called a terrorist already, so a little ridicule seemed fair game. I'm sorry.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
Well, hopefully that wasn't me that called you a terrorist, HKC!
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And ya haven't yet. Jesus, Frem. You've heard nothing I've said here if that's your take-away. I feel like you're data-mining my posts at this point rather than reading them. You catch a couple suspect phrases and say what you wanted to say anyway. You think I'm asking you to drink the koolaid--on whose behalf? I gotta wonder.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And for the life of me, I never thought I would hear it from you, HKCav.
Hyperbole. (Hello, M4P, this is what I was talking about: Frem painting me as some kinda devil in his ear, tempting him to betray all he believes in.)
Frem, you've said nothing about the legitimacy of passive resistance or civil disobedience. The silence from folks on your side of the argument on that issue is deafening. Aside from a couple dismissive cracks about Gandhi having nothing to do with this, no one on your side of the argument has even acknowledged that this is an issue of passive resistance/civil disobedience (if I missed it, forgive me--if it's there it didn't last long). I can only conclude that you think those are some form of "placing the boot" on the necks of TPTB.
And if that's so...
Frem, you may have this self-image as a bad, bad man, as a breaker and a forcer and a violent hypocrite tipping over the edge between saint and assassin--that you're bearing that cross for us all--but what you've shown me is a decent, decent man with some thorough-going anger issues and very legitimate rage, putting that anger and rage to heroic good use. For the most part. I don't know the whole story and sometimes you're mistaken, I'm sure you've taken some terrible risks and fallen short of your goals.
I submit that your darkside is nothing special, nothing that sets you apart. Welcome to the human race. If this is where you see yourself, then you might have to support this tragic self-image by imagining the likes of Gandhi and MLK as violent men, forcing TPTB to their knees, but I think, in that case, you would be dead wrong--about me, about you, about everyone who stands up and says, "No, I will not comply."
I'm defending Bartleby, that is all. "I would prefer not to" is the indivisible atom of human volition. To take that power away from any sentient being, at any moment, even in the middle of a city street during rush hour, denies that person their most fundamental of rights. I don't care what kinda hurry you're in, you can stop. The right to say, "Include me out. Sorry, you'll have to make other plans. I'm not moving" belongs to everyone.
I'm confident that you and I will never come into such conflict. We are both squarely on the same side.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Occurs to me there's maybe another way to make the point.
Forget for a moment whether I might be sympathetic to your cause, that you gotta right to express it, or whether your blockin or not.
You use the internet ?
Course you do, you're here, aren't you ?
You know what your protest is to me, I mean, REALLY is ?
It's a pop-up, it's a drive-by-download, a homepage hijacker.
Dude, it's freakin malware.
The intent is to force my eyes, my attention, to your cause, be it commercial or political or what have you, and trying to justify it by saying it's only an annoyance, isn't "really" harming someone, and so on and so forth is no more valid for you than it is the punks who splatter that malware crap all over the net and degrade it's value to anyone else...
And you know WHY ?
You didn't ask, and I didn't consent.
You know, in certain other human engagement, there's a word for that.
I know, I'm comin off pretty harsh, but I got *reasons* for that, and I'll get right to em.
Quote:
Frem, you've said nothing about the legitimacy of passive resistance or civil disobedience.
Entirely deliberate - you'll notice that at no point did I mention official sanction or bringing the law into it neither, but I've little doubt those accusations will be thrown at me over this discussion months down the road, not by you, mind - but still, annoyin.
For me the question of legitimacy is whether or not you asked ME, personally, which you didn't, you and the civil/political authorities is between you and them, you and me, that's you and me.
And given the nature of these kinds of protests I acknowledge that you cannot ask me in advance, sure, not logistically possible and giving away the game early invites the boys in blue to make it never happen - I grok that, quite thoroughly.
But you gotta obligation to me at that point to make the effort to respect me as you would prefer yourself to be respected - imma tolerant guy, for all my temper, and I'll put up with a lot - hell, I might even be inclined to find somewhere to park and ask about your cause, if you don't happen to be in my way...
(this cause "boycott walgreens!" doesn't exactly tell me WHY you're angry and I gotta big curiousity bump, especially if they're sellin a toxic/dangerous product or something, I wanna know, right ?)
But you block me in traffic deliberately, on a hot summer day with no AC cause mine don't work no more and I don't have nothin but my cripple-sticks to move on cause my leg don't work for driving, imma get sorely, sorely pissed off at you - and I say deliberate, cause if it's apparent this was an unfortunate circumstance, well, shit happens - but if I get out and make a point of it with you, person to person, in that grey space of human interaction and you *refuse* to move, to make a point to me...
Imma make a point to you - and you ain't gonna like it very much.
But thing is, if it's *worth* that to you, go right on ahead - just don't pretend like you got some divine right, don't pretend that once it reaches that level of intent you haven't acted against me on purpose.
That's all I am askin, all I ever have, here, is that you ACKNOWLEDGE that doing such on purpose (and there may well be times you gotta, or causes that's important enough to you for) *IS* an act of aggression no matter how mild it is.
So it's not a question of legitimacy, never was, never will be.
Quote:
I'm defending Bartleby, that is all. "I would prefer not to" is the indivisible atom of human volition. To take that power away from any sentient being, at any moment, even in the middle of a city street during rush hour, denies that person their most fundamental of rights. I don't care what kinda hurry you're in, you can stop. The right to say, "Include me out. Sorry, you'll have to make other plans. I'm not moving" belongs to everyone.
So too does "I would prefer not to be stopped here".
So too does "include me out. Sorry, you'll have to make other plans. I am going that way."
And therein lies the impasse.
I *will* get out and ask you, f
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, Frem, you and I are square. It's all good. Because I would let you through, as an individual asking me (I think I said that before). It's always a little funny when you and I contribute to these sorts of threads. I feel a little like a couple of Jews discussing Catholic doctrine. In a lot of ways, it's not our fight.
For the record, I love the image of you getting out of your car and pushing it, ever so politely, of course, through the line. Genius move. If the activists in front of you don't bow to your anarchist cool, they should go back to watching cartoons in their mom's basements.
My objection is to state force in this matter and all this talk about "freedoms" and "rights" without philosophical underpinnings of any kind being offered, nothing but what amounts to prior claim, has me talking to state power and law and not the individual. Throughout this discussion I have objected to the big guns of coercive state power behind these claims of "freedom" and "right." I'm told to comply with your argument because you have a greater right to the road than I do, because I am attacking a freedom guaranteed by the state. I'm imprisoning people! No prisoner negotiates his own release from a prison. Rights are not a thing somebody merely asks for. Passage through the protest line, I believe, is.
Y'know, and protesters can be wrong. I agree with DT's protest fitting the offense sorta deal. But mine is more an aesthetic than a moral objection. I think it's a matter of appropriateness and wisdom and not a matter of rights and freedom at that point.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How many times in your life have you been held up by a fucking protest in the street? Anthony? How about the rest of you? I've never been. This thread is gay....You might as well be debating about leprechauns... I'm out of here.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Hey, attention everybody, I am about to make a major concession to the driver's rights crowd: how 'bout I say that I fully support any and all street demonstrations on streets that have stop lights, where traffic jams and other lengthy interruptions are commonplace, but support a ban on street demonstrations on freeways where they are not? I cede the freeways of the world to the motorists! Huzzah!
There's a fairly good point in that. Pedestrians intent in using pedestrian crossing is too stop traffic. Their INTENT is to stop motorists! By the arguments thus presented here, pedestrians using pedestrian crossings, intending to stop traffic, are guilty of violence, villainy and an abridgment of car driver rights!
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Great job citizen. Try and derail a discussion with your sarcasm when it was just approaching actual communication.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Great job citizen. Try and derail a discussion with your sarcasm when it was just approaching actual communication.
Here I go again trying to start a fight ^.
Oh I'm far from the expert you are, at least my comment was on topic, and in fact actually had something to say about your argument. But thanks for trying to dismiss points you don't like with off topic trolling while simultaneously blaming me for your behavior.
ETA:
Let me see here, I make an on topic post, and that's derailing the thread, while you post purely and only to hurl attacks and accusations, and that's what? Getting it back on track? Excusable because you're the one doing it?
Is it not intent you said made all the difference? Don't pedestrians using pedestrian crossings intend to stop traffic? I used your arguments, to make a point. If your arguments can derail the thread when I use them, I wonder what you intended to use them for?
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Your dismissive tone is derailing the thread. I was pointing that out.
Claiming that traffic lights are the same as an intentional disruption of traffic to cause a traffic jam is a hyperbole and stretches what is a wrong interpretation of my point to begin with into ridiculous spheres. Traffic lights regulate traffic. They are part of traffic. So stop playing dumb.
And no, I do not think you were responding to what I said. You were responding to what you want to hear. You aren't even TRYING to grant me that I may not be a freedom-hating monster, that I may have a legitimate gripe with being stuck in an intentionally created traffic chaos, that what I said is not identical to what Anthony said... etc. No, you kept talking about what "my side" said, going on about the right to drive without trying to adress the points I made about practicality and compromise.
So no, your comment had nothing to say about my argument. I don't claim to be an expert, but I'm also not trying to outright dimiss every argument you have made without really adressing it the way you have been. So don't pretend that I am the one trolling.
I'm very disappointed. You're usually one of the more interesting, reasonable voices in this forum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Shoot. Meant to catch up and post again this morning, but it's already time to get heading to the airport. And there's a chipmunk loose somewhere in my bedroom. Thanks, gorramned cat.
Thank you for the lampoon takeback, HK. If this thread's still alive and my brain able to get back into it in a week, I'll catch up with this last exchange with Frem. All I caught was "all square." That sounds good!
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
WOW! STILL going on? Wow...we've really hit a sore point...not to mention an impasse
Frem, who wrote what you quoted? I can’t find it, so I’m thinking you put it up to emphasize your point. It’s pretty overblown—one of the reasons this debate goes on and on. It’s minimizing, it’s demeaning and, I’m sorry, but it’s pretty petty when you read it cold. I KNOW freedom is a huge thing to you; I would bet a more emotional thing than it is to many of us (minor freedoms, I mean, not Freedom). With good reason. But that has nothing to do with what we’re discussing, unless you take the issue to the very extreme. Being stuck in traffic does not equate to the slippery slope of losing one’s entire freedom, unless it does to you, in which case we’re debating apples and oranges.
Mike,Quote:
Mike, can we let go of the overblown rhetoric, please?? That’s been half the problem here, and here it comes again, from both of you, first thing I read. That is NOT a comparison to a peaceful protest held in a street. For one, there’s no “screaming soundtrack” (you can roll up your windows, put the radio on, if you don't want to listen), you haven’t paid for the use of that street at that moment, and on and on. I wish you guys could stop this, it doesn’t further the debate one whit and if you want to talk about “demeaning”, what does that say about your comparison to a peaceful protest held in a street?
some of PN's abortion pictures, complete with a screaming soundtrack and a nice lecture about the evils of abortion, and how it's really murder, etc.
And yes, there was a comparison to “terrorism”, I’m not going back up to see who said it, but I know it’s there. It would be among the looong list of pejoratives I did bother to look up.Quote:
I know, Cav, that’s one of the things that has me mystified. I would have thought a number of the people in this thread would have been hollering about freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, but it’s totally ignored. Weird, isn’t it?? Take it even further; there are those here who advocate the OVERTHROW OF GOVERNMENT, by guns even, yet they can’t accept peaceful civil disobedience? It boggles the mind.
nothing about the legitimacy of passive resistance or civil disobedience. The silence from folks on your side of the argument on that issue is deafeningQuote:
Major WOW. So you join (I forget who) in saying that NO demonstration, sanctioned or otherwise, is ever acceptable if it holds up traffic. Double wow. I can’t fathom that.
For me the question of legitimacy is whether or not you asked ME, personally, which you didn't, you and the civil/political authorities is between you and them, you and me, that's you and me.
That from someone who was so moved by wrongs that he deliberately broke the law, from what you post at times violently, to right that wrong. But people standing or sitting around to protest a wrong is unacceptable? Triple wow.
By the way, I don’t think any of the three of us said we wouldn’t be pissed off at the inconvenience. We merely said—-or at least I know I did—-that I would recognize the cause, put freedom of speech ahead of my convenience, and view it as a freeway traffic jam, just something I needed to endure. Actually, I find it a lot MORE valid than a traffic jam. So let’s be clear on that point; it’s not that it wouldn’t piss me off, even moreso if it were gun bunnies protesting with guns strapped on, etc., but I would understand it and accept it nonetheless. And you’d get, what, violent? if they didn’t move out of your way or stop a march to let you throguh? Just astonishing.
To repeat once more to clarify, 99.9% of protests are not intended to do as you said:Quote:
Traffic being stopped is ancillary to the intent, which is to speak up against something wrong, to utilize the freedoms of assembly and free speech.
don't pretend that once it reaches that level of intent you haven't acted against me on purpose.
You know what’s weird? The government often gives permit
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, I missed a couple while I was posting. To be dismissive of either side isn't going to help, agreed. But I WISH we could get past Quote:
I keep saying, and it keeps getting ignored, that the INTENT behind a demonstration is to bring something to the attention of the public, to show a unity in protest of whatever so that the public can see there is more than one person protesting, and to bring the attention to the notice of people walking by, people in buildings, etc. That it holds up traffic is an unavoidable consequence, but it is NOT the intent (the vast majority of the time). It happens, even with the best of planning, but it is NOT an aggressive, deliberate attempt to "imprison" drivers. I think you'd find that if almost every demonstration were able to completely eliminate it causing a traffic jam, most protesters would be tickled pink. Most of us have been stuck at one time or another, and have no desire to inflict that on others. But it IS virtually impossible to avoid ANYONE being stuck, even with the best intentions and efforts...if nothing else, detouring people causes more jams on side streets. It is totally impossible to avoid SOME disruption of traffic.
intentional disruption of traffic to cause a traffic jam
Can we even try to get past the idea that demonstrations are for the sole purpose of imprisoning people in their cars, pretty please? At least repect their right to assemble and speak that much respect, if nothing else?
Of course, I think that would lessen the argument on one side, because I THINK it's the idea of an individual being "stuck" deliberately that is important for the argument...which leads me to ask: IF you cold accept that there was NO intent to hold up traffic or individually "harm" anyone, would your feelings be the same?
Oh, I missed another one: Unsanctioned protests usually bring about arrest, yes, but again, most of the time that is NOT the intent. Unsanctioned protests are USUALLY held because there is no other option; arrest (and possible violence against them) is something that is ACCEPTED as a possibility in an unsanctioned protest, but not the "bottom line" expectation or desire.
Note I am saying "most" at all times; demonstrations are individual, the intent of each one needs to be considered, but ON THE WHOLE, that is the case. Yes, media attention is part of the purpose, but it can be achieved whether traffic is blocked or not most of the time, whether sanctioned or not.
Whew. That's it for me, hopefully until tomorrow and I don't get dragged back in again, as yes, I will respond, but so far it's cost me an awful lot of time. If I didn't think this was an important issue, I wouldn't bother with this thread anymore. But I do.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes. This thread is epic.
After all, having a protest really accomplishes a lot.
Burning cop-cars makes a difference, or doesn't.
I'm all for a gathering of people to show support for a cause. I just wish it wouldn't be so often and so much like the Juggalos.
*sigh
Really, having a fit, and not being intelligent and respectable is accomplishing a lot my ninjas.
Keep on keeping on.
Cus screaming about no blood for oil, meat is murder, DOESNT make you look like clowns. Unless it does, and thats what you are after.
But hey! Being child-like and not really understanding the issues never stopped anyone.
Rock on my ninjas!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Btw. I am for getting together and protesting. I just think its been hijacked by the hippies and the Juggalos.
You want someone to listent to you? Do it in a respectable manner.
Waiting for the snark about the 2A people and how "OMG, they carried guns to their rallies!"
Well, yeah.
I will point out that those rallies were probably the safest and most calm/peaceful/legal protests ANYONE has ever been to. (AND no cops fucked with them. It was stupid to do so, when these folks could easily shoot back.)
But ignore that. Focus on the guns. Ignore that they said their piece, and left. All without one car burned, or anyone in facepaint.
Whatever tho.
Continue.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Your dismissive tone is derailing the thread. I was pointing that out.
No, what was derailing the thread was anyone who disagreed with the guys on your side of the aisle being called liars, or accused of trying to start a fight just because they dared to disagree. I was pointing out that posting only to attack is far more likely to derail the thread than anything I did.
If you think my tone is at fault, you desperately need to read some of the other posters on this thread.
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Claiming that traffic lights are the same as an intentional disruption of traffic to cause a traffic jam is a hyperbole and stretches what is a wrong interpretation of my point to begin with into ridiculous spheres. Traffic lights regulate traffic. They are part of traffic. So stop playing dumb.
Yeah, not sure the people claiming that being stuck in a traffic jam is equivalent to imprisonment, have much right to use the word hyperbole.
You said that if people intend to stop traffic it makes all the difference, people using pedestrian crossings intend to stop traffic. I'm not privy to all the internal assumptions and logical leaps you might have made, doesn't mean I'm playing dumb. The only real difference between the two would seem the length of time that the road is closed to traffic, to me. Perhaps it's not that I'm playing dumb, and I am just plain retarded because I'm not seeing much difference in the intents here.
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
And no, I do not think you were responding to what I said. You were responding to what you want to hear. You aren't even TRYING to grant me that I may not be a freedom-hating monster, that I may have a legitimate gripe with being stuck in an intentionally created traffic chaos, that what I said is not identical to what Anthony said... etc.
Well, if that's true now you know what it's been like for HK, Nikki and myself on this thread. Welcome!
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
No, you kept talking about what "my side" said, going on about the right to drive without trying to adress the points I made about practicality and compromise.
Actually I did that as well, but never mind. But also excuse the hell out of me that when I'm talking about rights with Anthony and you respond to my post, that I might think you're joining in on our conversation.
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So no, your comment had nothing to say about my argument. I don't claim to be an expert, but I'm also not trying to outright dimiss every argument you have made without really adressing it the way you have been. So don't pretend that I am the one trolling.
Actually I can think of at least one example where you did exactly that.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Thanx for that, Citizen. Frustrating, isn't it? It FEELS like no matter how reasonably we try to put things, what comes back is mostly unreasonable diatribe.
Well, if that's true now you know what it's been like for HK, Nikki and myself on this thread. Welcome!
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Go ahead and play victim. Your post was belligerent, but your only recourse is to wave your hand and say "But they did it, too!"
Yet again you equate me with Anthony. We are NOT the same person! What he said is not identical with what I said or support!
Yet again you hide behind something "my side" did, when I'm asking you to respond to MY actual points.
You claim I posted merely to attack when your comparison was nothing but sarcasm and ridicule.
And now you still don't react to the fact that I pointed out that traffic lights are part of traffic - as precisely timed regulating mechanisms. As opposed to a disruption.
Seriously. This should be beneath you, but apparently it's not.
Niki is right. This thread will go nowhere. No doubt you will consider this a win, but I'm out of here. I'd hate to see my opinion of you sink even lower. See you in another thread in the future, hopefully under more pleasant circumstances.
ETA: Apparently you and Niki are going to pat each other on the back now. Well, I guess my lowered opinion will apply to not just you, citizen.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I find it ironic that Citizen gets called out for "starting" a fight when you post something like this.
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Furthermore, in my very first post I mentioned that I would support the crazy "abortion = holocaust" people if they chose to march (peaceably, without guns, Mike).
So gun owners can't be peaceable? We can't gather and march for OUR rights (ones that actually ARE guaranteed by the Constitution, mind you)?
I was merely trying to set a limit on my blanket support for a protest. My reasoned support of protests, I find, is perhaps eccentric and entirely misunderstood when it isn't simply ignored here.
Nowhere did I say you couldn't be peaceable. It's weird, when you direct this beam of spite you have at your disposal at someone else, it's hard to see, but when it's directed at me, the dismissal, the contempt, the raw aggression is at times breathtaking. I imagine you're a decent guy in person, funny, personable, benevolent, but get you behind the keyboard of a computer and you don't care who you're talking to, you pour out your spite as it flows. It's a short coming, Mike, it really is.
That said, guns, I would say, complicate the issue. My blanket support of protesters is specifically based on their lack of technological enhancement, if you will, their rights to be where they are, physically, regardless of what use anyone else seeks to make of that space (public space, of course--trespassing is trespassing). That we have cars over here, and people over here is a convention in my eyes, a safety issue merely, and people have a right to ignore the convention if they have a greater value to promote. Free speech is such a value in my mind. I don't think jaywalking is an abridgement of anyone's rights either.
A gun in your hands makes you arithmetically more dangerous than you were barehanded. It complicates the issue. That is all. I'm warry to give it my full, unqualified support without knowing more.
Imagine a hundred anarchists walking down the street with molotov cocktails in their hands, peaceably. It's a tricky situation, isn't it?
And then there's the little matter of the 2A in this country--specificallyguaranteed to citizens as a curb to government control--i.e.: gun ownership is an explicit threat to civil order (or, depending on your point of view, the last line of defense there of). So, gettin' your gun and marching downtown is like goin' on patrol, you're patrolling your borders, the borders of your rights, waiting for someone to cross, at which point the "peaceable" would kinda be a moot point. Unarmed folk walking in the street cannot compare.
I just gotta ask, in a situation like the mess at the G20 up north, do you think arming the protesters in that situation would have changed things for the better?
Quote:What's the trouble, Mike? My argument's pretty simple. If it's just you and your clothes, maybe a camera phone, it's peaceable until you start throwing punches. If you block the road with your car, not peaceable. You block the road with the threat of deadly force at your disposal, not peaceable.
What I'm trying to get my head around is at what point does your right to protest and peaceably assemble become NOT peaceable?
I guess, I'd say, if you want to peaceably demonstrate with your gun, you'll prolly need to go with the permit option.
Quote:Why are we still talking about this?
A couple months ago, there was a protest by gun owners near D.C. (because guns are still outlawed in D.C., at least out in the open). They got a permit, did everything legally, and had their little get-together, and all without drama.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Go ahead and play victim. Your post was belligerent, but your only recourse is to wave your hand and say "But they did it, too!"
Ok, it's not even difficult when you decide to post only to insult and attack me, while lying about what I said and ignoring the topic entirely.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Imagine a hundred anarchists walking down the street with molotov cocktails in their hands, peaceably. It's a tricky situation, isn't it?
>_> Molotov cocktails will eventually explode, I have to say it's a little different than a gun, which requires a trigger, which can be controlled by a person. I would consider guns and molotov cocktails nonequivalent in terms of immediate danger, despite both being weapons.
I think a protest where people have guns can be peaceful. I think if I can glean anything from your molotov point, it's that anything can be a weapon (like fists), really, so any time protesters could step over the line to violence.
If we respect free speech, I think this is a risk we have to allow, and to try to trust in our fellow citizens to not have nefarious intent on us in their expression. This is perhaps the same with the car stopping thing.
Course, I'd also encourage the protesters to try not to accidentally hurt people, as well, and to be willing to communicate with other citizens, to minimize negative perception of their cause and minimize potential damage to citizens.
Frem pushing his car through the line makes me smile, because it's a nonverbal action that constitutes a promise, by him, that he's not going to try to hurt any of them, at the same time it's allowing him to assert his own interests, just as the protesters are asserting theirs. If I were a protester, I'd laugh and walk over and help him. I can respect that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm sorry, Byte, I'm a bad anarchist--I don't really know exactly what a molotov cocktail consists of. I thought the bit of rag in the bottle needed to be lit on fire for them to pose an imminent threat. I bow to your superior knowledge of incendiaries.
My simple point was the guns scare people, and not, to my mind, without reason.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, whoops, I assumed you were talking about them walking down the street lit, which would be... Well, that's why I had that reaction, that would be either suicidal or very destructive, and probably not peaceful.
I'd have to look into it closer myself, it's mostly petroleum products, so generally I'd agree that you have to have a spark to meet the flashpoint, but some of the chemicals might be shock-sensitive as well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It would make a great music video though! (In that case, o' course, they'd have to be molotov mocktails, but still--the image!)
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Oh, whoops, I assumed you were talking about them walking down the street lit, which would be... Well, that's why I had that reaction, that would be either suicidal or very destructive, and probably not peaceful.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I find it ironic that Citizen gets called out for "starting" a fight when you post something like this.
I was merely trying to set a limit on my blanket support for a protest. My reasoned support of protests, I find, is perhaps eccentric and entirely misunderstood when it isn't simply ignored here.
Nowhere did I say you couldn't be peaceable. It's weird, when you direct this beam of spite you have at your disposal at someone else, it's hard to see, but when it's directed at me, the dismissal, the contempt, the raw aggression is at times breathtaking. I imagine you're a decent guy in person, funny, personable, benevolent, but get you behind the keyboard of a computer and you don't care who you're talking to, you pour out your spite as it flows. It's a short coming, Mike, it really is.
Sorry if you took that as an attack, HKC. It surely wasn't intended as such.
I took issue - a bit, not much - with the post where someone mentioned "peaceably, without guns, Mike", as solidly implying that nobody wearing a gun is capable of behaving in a peaceable manner. Does this low opinion of gun enthusiasts extend to soldiers and police, or is it aimed only at "mere citizens" who believe in exercising their rights?
And your saying your support of protests is "eccentric" is getting more to the point I was trying to raise in every hypothetical I've laid out: At what point do you STOP supporting protesters? I'd hazard a guess that we ALL have our limits, the point at which we say, "Yeah, I respect your right to protest, but I'm outta here; you done lost me on this one."
Some will pull their support when it's a gun-rights protest - and they'd likely withhold that support even if every gun owner carrying a gun that day had a sign or a t-shirt that loudly proclaimed "We came unarmed, THIS TIME!" Even KNOWING that these people were carrying unloaded guns would still put some people off, and make them want those folks to get a permit or be arrested.
I've really tried to NOT attack anyone's viewpoints here, but to probe and ask questions, to find out at what point various people decide that those "universal" rights don't apply to some group or another.
If it came across as attacking or confrontational, I apologize. I really don't have a dog in this fight. I applaud the cause the Seattle protesters are fighting for, but I abhor their methods. I'd dare say that most (if not all) of us have a similar threshold, a point at which our support for - or even RECOGNITION of - those rights would be sharply rescinded or limited.
Sure, we all believe in "free speech", but to what extent, to what limits?
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wulf
Bear in mind that it would be easy for me to send my pocket Nazis, if I had them, to your tea party rally, to shout racist slogans, and attack the NAACP HQ, and then sit back and watch the news tell me that *you* did it.
Now stop and think how much power the people being protested against here, being the gloablists, have. They instigated most of the wars of the last century, including all the ones we are currently in, they are the people to whom most of the worlds debt is owed, including most of americas, and they are responsible for setting up NAFTA, the EU, African Union, ASEAN, MEFTA, CAFTA, the one currency, cap and trade, etc. Etc. Yeah, somehow, I think they can swing making anyone who disagrees with them look bad.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My problem is that I actually agree with the douchebags protesting.
Not for the "Noblood for Oil" hippie types, but because of the illegality of the war based on Constituional doctrine.
Now? Where are these patchulie smelling dirtbags?
Nowhere, cus their boy is in power.
They never really cared about the issue at all. They just wanted to "feel" the "energy" of the crowd.
THey had no more clue about what was going on, or why they SHOULD be protesting than these PETA clowns.
It makes me sick.
You are against the war? Great. But why? Cus some burnt out told you so? That ALL war is bad? Grow up.
Have a real reason for it. Don't jsut jump on some college hippie bandwagon to make yourself feel good.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My problem is that I actually agree with the douchebags protesting.
Not for the "Noblood for Oil" hippie types, but because of the illegality of the war based on Constituional doctrine.
Now? Where are these patchulie smelling dirtbags?
Nowhere, cus their boy is in power.
They never really cared about the issue at all. They just wanted to "feel" the "energy" of the crowd.
THey had no more clue about what was going on, or why they SHOULD be protesting than these PETA clowns.
It makes me sick.
You are against the war? Great. But why? Cus some burnt out told you so? That ALL war is bad? Grow up.
Have a real reason for it. Don't jsut jump on some college hippie bandwagon to make yourself feel good.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki
Yeah, I wrote that, straight outta stream of consciousness cause it's really the same thing I hear from pretty much every cause, religion, political, corporate, even other Anarchists...
"Hey, let's smash the established order without asking the public if they might wanna keep it - let's just smash it for everyone, for their own good!"
Not from y'all, well, not much - but still, I get so sick and tired of hearing, from everyone and anyone, underneath all the rhetoric and excuses and rationalization, that same bloody song, "Hand ME the leash" and no one wanting to cut it.
Soon as you go thinkin your decisions, your rights, privledges or what have you, have more value, are more important, than someone elses, you're tap dancin on the top end of a really greasy slope, and knowing what's at the very bottom of it, I can get a little hardball about pointing that out.
It wasn't meant to be petty, it was meant to be vicious, shocking even, kind of like spilling your mug of beer over a friends head when in an argument with someone he reaches for his weapon, that kinda thing.
And yes, theoretically I do take it to a certain extreme in theory, but the theoretical and the personal are different edges of this, and I don't think you're getting me at all here.
And I *AM* perjorative of something I take as a slight - the idea that what *I* want or believe is less important than your protest, that's a slight, and an intentional one - I've been, for me, downright nice about it, so far.
And Niki, there's a DIFFERENCE between legitimacy, perceived legitimacy, and personal values - for me it's not a question of legitimacy, it never was.
Who am *I* to go tellin YOU what to do ?
Who are YOU, to go tellin ME where I can or can't drive my car ?
That is, to me, a PERSONAL thing, me and you - and we can work it out, me and you - and the State can kiss my ass.
I know you can't ask me in advance for logistical and other reasons, I'm cool with that, but either you ain't read the post or you ain't gettin it - once I have politely ASKED you to move, pointed out this very impasse of personal desire, and perhaps wheedled on your sympathy with my cars lack of AC and me bein on crutches, and *THEN* you refuse to move...
At that point it's quite personal, abundantly so, and abso-fuckin-lutely intentional - and depending on the circumstances, what I will do about it, well shit, that's up to ME, not YOU.
How is this not getting through ?
For the record, I'm not fond of violence as a solution to most things, and can usually figure some way to convince someone, shyster them, mindfuck em, or pull some kinda stunt that doesn't really harm someone - imma big believer in "third-option-thinking" that way, why does it always have to be yes/no, on/off, black/white ?
What you have also, completely missed, and HKCav finally groked onto, was that this isn't a matter of rights, privledges, or any of that official-on-paper rot as simple inter-human relations, mutual respect, and common decency.
You wanna protest, you want me to hear and see your protest, fine, dandy, but if you're blockin the road and I ask ya to move - at that point I have ALREADY seen and heard it, to refuse would be just plain jackassery, and I would take issue with that.
Look, sometimes you gotta break the rules, I am intimately, fully, completely AWARE of that - but when you do it, cop to it, all I am askin, trying to pretend that those rules of human conduct don't apply to you, and DO apply to those who don't agree with you, that's a sham, and I'll not support it.
If it's important enough to you, if it MEANS enough to you, to piss people off, to risk being arrested, to put yourself in physical danger... why should my personal ire be any additional discouragement to you, I just happen to be BEING HONEST and having the good grace to forewarn you that you might face it, so what of it, if you block two hundred cars and piss off maybe half those people, and one of em is me - I rather think that statistically I'd be the least of you
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Re: Molotovs.
You do not wanna carry a lit molotov, eventually the rag "fuse" burns down and the fumes kick off and the whole thing blows up all over you, and that happens pretty quick, like, seconds quick, which is why you might have noticed once it's lit you get RID of that thing in a hurry.
I never did it that way, I used a sealed bottle of homemade napalm with a road flare duct taped to it, hell of a lot safer to carry around, more reliable ignition and substantially more effective...
Uh... in theory, yeah... not that I would like, know, or nothin... 
Oh, and someone toss me a link for whatever filter Anthony is usin cause if I have to look at any more of this hateful, racist, intolerant, bigoted shit from Wulfie here and his fecal firehose of a flappin yap, imma be right tempted to make it a lot more personal than it already is.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/Other-Internet-Related/Naomi-int
ernet-filter.shtml
Or DansGaurdian is Open Source:
http://dansguardian.org/
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
My problem is that I actually agree with the douchebags protesting.
Not for the "Noblood for Oil" hippie types, but because of the illegality of the war based on Constituional doctrine.
Now? Where are these patchulie smelling dirtbags?
Nowhere, cus their boy is in power.
They never really cared about the issue at all. They just wanted to "feel" the "energy" of the crowd.
THey had no more clue about what was going on, or why they SHOULD be protesting than these PETA clowns.
It makes me sick.
You are against the war? Great. But why? Cus some burnt out told you so? That ALL war is bad? Grow up.
Have a real reason for it. Don't jsut jump on some college hippie bandwagon to make yourself feel good.
So where were you during the Bush years, Wulfie? I never, not one time, heard you make any argument against the wars, on ANY grounds. Why was that? Because your boy was in power?
And more to the point, why are you out there NOW? It's not that you care about the issue, or about human life, or that you're against war. You aren't - you LOVE the idea of war; it's your favorite jerk-off fantasy, that idea that you'll FINALLY be given the chance to start murdering people based on nothing more than how they look or how you think they think.
You have no concept of what you're protesting. You claim it's about "the legality" of the war, but you don't know fuck-all about the Constitution, except in the very vaguest of terms. You can't cite citizenship requirements or rights, you claim the document isn't living and breathing (ergo, it must be dead and obsolete). In short, you're just out there yelling and hollering because there's a black man in the White House, and you've got a chance to give voice to those angry voices in your head.
So what's the big difference between you and those you hate? That they wouldn't gladly kill you if given the chance?
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ooo, thank you EVERSO, Citizen, I can really USE that! Will check it out immediately.
Frem, I do think I hear where you're coming from. As to the actual example, I actually think people would let you through, when they recognize your situation. In reality, I just think it's unworkable in some instances. In reality, I think it's a bit beyond the pale to ask a large number of people marching along (if marching) to stop and let you through. If they're sitting or standing, that’s different. In reality, I recognize that most wouldn’t.
I do understand your feelings. In theory, I agree. In theory, at the same time, I think it’s an impasse; given what you’ve said, NEITHER has the right to impinge on the other. In theory, I still do not accept that the intention is to stop you, “imprison” you, “terrorize” you, etc. I think, to quote you-know-who, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the needs of the few”, which came, in part, from Caiaphas, the High Priest mentioned in the Gospel of John, who said “Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." Obviously not a nation, but a “many”, and exercising a very precious right in this country, I, too, believe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Were it actually a matter of imprisonment, I would agree with you completely. But given it is a DELAY, of however long (and no demonstration or protest march holds anyone up for a huge length of time, in my observations), I don’t see it as the beginnings of the “slippery slope” to which you equate it.
In PRINCIPLE, for me those two rights outweigh my “right”, “privilege” or whatever you want to call it, to drive unimpeded immediately. So we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. We have two different PERSONAL principles; I don’t think either is necessarily more relevant than the other, it’s just personal opinion. It’s our personal feelings, and as I said, on the broader scale, you really are at an impasse, if you view it that neither’s rights supersede those of the other. How can you solve that, in principle, not in personal experience?
As for Mr. Hippie-hater: 
You know not of what you speak; most of us knew exactly what we were protesting, and it was both against the illegal intrusion into a sovereign state, and the slaughter of humans simply because of the heads of one government's personal desires.
(with thanx to Frem)
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mike:
Looks like we're coming to agreement on something.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My God, Niki. How do you still see this thread as a "black-black" judgment of all protests? How many times must we explain that if 99.9% of protests do not unduly impinge on people's rights, then 99.9% of protests are A-OK? No one is hating on protests in general. Would you please get over that!
HK: returning to your post way back up the thread - you contend that whatever protesters need to do to get the word out is justified because they are otherwise powerless against the govt. Right.
So the govt takes away something not important to the govt but important to a minority group: they protest. Cool. The protest takes away something not important to the protesters but important to me, and I... do what exactly? What recourse do I have? Several posts on this thread (not just HKs) tell me that I should put up and shut up. Read a book, find an ice cream shop. Chill the hell out.
Wait... except I'm also hearing that if a group makes me powerless, I have a right to find a less powerful entity than me and usurp their rights. So I should turn around and yell at my kid in the back seat? Then he/she should turn around and beat the dog?
My take: Protesters do good and necessary work in calling out the govt when it misbehaves. I think it's the right and even the responsibility of each citizen to do this. But we must also call out protesters when they misbehave. I don't see any difference. Protesters can be protested too. Stopping me from doing so is denying my right for free speech. You become to me what the govt is to the protesters.
As to the traffic delay comparison, and the "oh just put up with it, it's not a big deal" argument, here's a hypothetical situation:
Suppose there'll be a tax hike for funding lots of really important, non specific govt things. It'll be an extra $1000 on everyone's 2011 tax return.
What, Niki, HK - you say you might disagree with paying that tax? Well, what if there was a "accident" caused by high winds and a tree fell on your house? Roof repairs might inconvenience you an identical $1000. You might not like it, but you'd put up with it just fine. So why the problem with the tax? It's exactly the same cost it you. There's no difference at all. Now pay up.
And anyway, it's just a little minor inconvenience, and so much less important than what some group of people who you don't know at all has decided must be done, and decided that it can be done no other way. Everyone else is putting up with the tax, because we're all true lovers of freedom, and willing to make little sacrifices. I'll be paying the tax, without getting all hot and bothered about it. Why can't you just be a reasonable person and support someone else's plan to defend our freedoms - yours too? How can you be so selfish as to complain and not fully support, without question?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
What, Niki, HK - you say you might disagree with paying that tax? Well, what if there was a "accident" caused by high winds and a tree fell on your house? Roof repairs might inconvenience you an identical $1000. You might not like it, but you'd put up with it just fine. So why the problem with the tax? It's exactly the same cost it you. There's no difference at all. Now pay up.
Well, I know you didn't direct this at me presumably because every bit of bad feeling in this thread is directly my fault or whatever, but if you think that a Tax is in anyway equivalent to a protest, then there's a fundamental difference of opinion as to what a protest is, and it's central importance to democracy and freedom in a wider sense.
I'd like to say more, but I'll be accused of starting a fight as it is.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Uh, duhhh. Mal4, at least one person has said quite clearly that they disapprove of ANY protest, and all but three of us have said ANY protest that gets in ANYONE's way is wrong. Protests that get in the way of drivers (just drivers, please note) have been compared to terrorism and violence and more. ANY demonstration that gets in ANYONE's way. I think that comes under the heading of "protests in general".
No one is hating on protests in general.
I'm not sure what you think I'm head up about. I've said clearly that I'm all for demonstrations about things the public needs to be aware of, no matter what the cause, I respect the right to assemble and the right to freedom of speech, even when I disagree with it. As long as it's nonviolent. Violent protests I abhor.Quote:
Where you get that is beyond me. I certainly didn't say you should find a less powerful entity and usurp their rights. You must be talking to someone else?
if a group makes me powerless, I have a right to find a less powerful entity than me and usurp their rights. So I should turn around and yell at my kid in the back seat? Then he/she should turn around and beat the dog?
As far as protesting, except for the Tea Party--who want the government out of the way and no taxes but are quite happy to GO to their protest using every means the government made possible--they are the only ones I've ever seen who demonstrate against taxes. So aside from not relating to the issue at hand, I don't see the relevance of your last comparison. Apples and oranges, IN MY VIEW. It's just a view, it's not telling anyone to shut up (I hope you're not referring to me?) or go away, just expressing my opinion on the issue.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Here I go again trying to start a fight ^.
I have something for Citizen, too. (It was a very long plane ride.) I'm reading 5 Minds for the Future by Howard Gardner, and encountered this:
"Turning to respect... I must try to understand other persons on their own terms, make an imaginative leap when necessary, seek to convey my trust in them, and try so far as possible to make common cause with them and to be worthy of their trust. This stance does not mean that I ignore my own beliefs, nor that I necessarily accept or pardon all that I encounter... But I am obliged to make the effort, and not merely assume that what I had once believed on the basis of scattered impression is necessarily true. Such humility may in turn engender positive responses in others."
If lots of folks accuse you of trying to start fights Cit, there may be a reason...
But this isn't just for Citizen. It's something I hope to improve at myself. Primarily, when I read a post I actively disagree with, I must make a conscious effort to go back and read through it again with the goal of understanding the words exactly as written, and, when possible, find points of agreement.
Seems this thread would have settled some time ago if more posters gave this a try.
(I'm so started a new fight with this, aren't I? It just seemed so applicable, dammit!)
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I haven't seen that. Could you point it out? It's certainly not been a part of the posts I've read.
Originally posted by Niki2:Quote:Uh, duhhh. Mal4, at least one person has said quite clearly that they disapprove of ANY protest,
No one is hating on protests in general.
Quote:Ditto. Could you quote?
all but three of us have said ANY protest that gets in ANYONE's way is wrong.
Quote:Please show. And please look for the possibility that you took a much weaker argument to an extreme that was not intended.
compared to terrorism and violence and more.
Quote:Yes. I specifically addressed that part of my post to HK. I was referring to this:Quote:Where you get that is beyond me. I certainly didn't say you should find a less powerful entity and usurp their rights. You must be talking to someone else?
if a group makes me powerless, I have a right to find a less powerful entity than me and usurp their rights. So I should turn around and yell at my kid in the back seat? Then he/she should turn around and beat the dog?
"when the government is against you, you have no recourse (except outlawry), whilst if a group of protesting citizens is against you, you do have recourse, a.k.a.: the government! I really hope that's clearer."
(This part addressed to HK) It's not clearer HK. If my only method of recourse against a protest is to call the govt to arrest them, then you are forcing me into the black/white world of being fully for or against protesters. I do not want to do either.
Quote:I figured... this is why I quoted "make an imaginative leap when necessary". Please pay me the respect of trying to see that taxes are not the issue, please see the metaphor and not the specifics. Accidents are different than acts purposefully done.
As far as protesting, except for the Tea Party--who want the government out of the way and no taxes but are quite happy to GO to their protest using every means the government made possible--they are the only ones I've ever seen who demonstrate against taxes.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
M4P, why the heck can't we stick to the right of people to stand in the street? I am ONLY talking about people's right to walk out into the street. If you want to protest them walking into the street, then walk into the street and have at.
The moment you bring in "what if there was a tax..." you are not talking to me or anything I've brought up here. At some point there is an indivisible right, a final right of human beings to "be" which trumps anyone else's right to "do." You want to "do" something and I'm "being" in the space you want to "do" it, then you're gonna have to be nice and rational and explain to me why I should move.
I also see that "force" is an active principle: a "doing" and not a "being." An armed guard standing in your way is not moving, but he holds the palpable threat of "force," of doing, of moving a bullet out of his rifle at high speeds into the vicinity of your guts. 100 or so people singing songs do not pose an imminent threat of this kind. Particularly when there are several hundred cars pointed right at them.
That's the sum total of my statement in this thread. I also note that protests are a welcome tradition in my culture, like street fairs and parades (they are not identical, however, as protests tend to be, by necessity, much less organized and spontaneous). And the introduction of the automobile, has not, by my lights, replaced or rendered obsolete the need for individuals to protest in the street.
Nothing about taxes.
Quote:And it is my belief that they take away from you something that wasn't yours to begin with. Your "right"--your ability, merely--to drive down the road is and always has been contingent on a whole raft of things, and to my mind street protests are just one more of them. The fact that such demonstrations lack "authorization," lack "legitimacy" beyond the will of the individuals involved is the only reason you feel you have the "right" to remove them and push them around. People put up with every imaginable indignity in the world, but you can't tolerate a little traditional democracy? You shouldn't have to? Then do as Frem would do, and get down to the protest and talk to some people.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
So the govt takes away something not important to the govt but important to a minority group: they protest. Cool. The protest takes away something not important to the protesters but important to me, and I... do what exactly? What recourse do I have?
Quote:Apples and oranges again. You're not powerless. It's not imprisonment if you can walk away. It's not detention if you can walk away. Your car is not a part of you. Sometimes, a car is a hindrance, even to its owner.
Wait... except I'm also hearing that if a group makes me powerless, I have a right to find a less powerful entity than me and usurp their rights. So I should turn around and yell at my kid in the back seat? Then he/she should turn around and beat the dog?
Quote:No one is disagreeing with this. Now you're negotiating. That's all I could ever ask of my fellow citizens of the world.
My take: Protesters do good and necessary work in calling out the govt when it misbehaves. I think it's the right and even the responsibility of each citizen to do this. But we must also call out protesters when they misbehave. I don't see any difference. Protesters can be protested too. Stopping me from doing so is denying my right for free speech. You become to me what the govt is to the protesters.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki, but before anything else, could you please address this specifically? I'm very curious as whether you agree or disagree:
"Protesters do good and necessary work in calling out the govt when it misbehaves. I think it's the right and even the responsibility of each citizen to do this. But we must also call out protesters when they misbehave. I don't see any difference. Protesters can be protested too. Stopping me from doing so is denying my right for free speech. You become to me what the govt is to the protesters."
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Um...
Quote:
“the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the needs of the few”, which came, in part, from Caiaphas, the High Priest mentioned in the Gospel of John, who said “Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." Obviously not a nation, but a “many”, and exercising a very precious right in this country, I, too, believe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
I think you're going to find a lot of us who disagree with "for the greatest good" ideas on principle. It's very close to "ends justify the means."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:All right. Then there never was any disagreement, because I've said exactly the same many times.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
M4P, why the heck can't we stick to the right of people to stand in the street? I am ONLY talking about people's right to walk out into the street. If you want to protest them walking into the street, then walk into the street and have at.
Quote:Um... I don't understand "do" versus "be". I do understand there is a conflict when two groups want to use the same space, and I've covered simple solutions to that several times. But you must understand: it is not just "me" wanting to steal "your" space. The conflict and need for justification goes both ways.
The moment you bring in "what if there was a tax..." you are not talking to me or anything I've brought up here. At some point there is an indivisible right, a final right of human beings to "be" which trumps anyone else's right to "do." You want to "do" something and I'm "being" in the space you want to "do" it, then you're gonna have to be nice and rational and explain to me why I should move.
And again, loss of rights involves more than active threat. A person not holding a gun is not automatically a dove of peace.
Quote:Ditto. Being awake to the possibility of good and evil in any group, no matter if they're holding flowers or guns, is also part of my culture
I also note that protests are a welcome tradition in my culture, like street fairs and parades
Quote:Quote:And it is my belief that they take away from you something that wasn't yours to begin with.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
So the govt takes away something not important to the govt but important to a minority group: they protest. Cool. The protest takes away something not important to the protesters but important to me, and I... do what exactly? What recourse do I have?
A-ha! I guess here's the fundamental thing where we'll never see eye to eye. I think any individual's fundamental right to liberty is the basis of what those protesters are all about. ETA: meaning, if they lose sight of respect for an individual's liberty because they so focused on a more complicated goal, I think I have a responsibility to point it out.
Quote:Again and again and again - to me, it's not about driving, and it's not about "authorization".
Your "right"--your ability, merely--to drive
Quote:Never said I did, never said I wanted to. However, you are quite clear and unapologetic about wanting to remove me and wanting to push me around.
you feel you have the "right" to remove them and push them around.
Quote:Why must it be traditional democracy as you define it? Why do your definitions trump mine? Are you more a citizen than I am?
People put up with every imaginable indignity in the world, but you can't tolerate a little traditional democracy?
Quote:I am. I am protesting a mentality I disagree with, right here and right now in this thread. Why do you not allow me my own method of protest?
You shouldn't have to? Then do as Frem would do, and get down to the protest and talk to some people.
Quote:You really are fixed on the car thing, huh?
Apples and oranges again. You're not powerless. It's not imprisonment if you can walk away. It's not detention if you can walk away. Your car is not a part of you. Sometimes, a car is a hindrance, even to its owner.
Perhaps it's not clear: I'm talking about something abstract, and each example I use, whether cars or grocery stores or taxes, is merely an illustration of the abstract.
ETA: And rereading this I see with the first part of my post doesn't gel with this statement. Perhaps our inability to meet up over this topic is because we need to settle on concrete vs abstract? I think that in the end we agree in the concrete, as far as common protest situations. It is from the abstract - situations that are rare but not at all unrealistic and not at all unimportant - that I've been approaching a lot of my discu
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
If lots of folks accuse you of trying to start fights Cit, there may be a reason...
Hmm, if it weren't for the fact that the people making the accusation seem to make the exact same accusations against other diverse people in the exact same ways, I might consider myself chastised.
And lots of folks aren't doing that. Two, maybe three are. And from what I've seen it's the same people doing most of the leg work to actually get a fight started that are throwing the accusations around.
Generally I speak to people the way they speak to me. I find most people really don't treat others the way they want to be treated.
The only way in which I'm starting fights here, is by not literally bending over backwards like HK is too accommodate people who insult me and attack me for no reason other than I dared to disagree with them.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, my, this is such a long thread, you ask a lot. But you don’t have to take my word for any of this, they’re all there, usually further up the thread. For you, I’ll look.
I DID respond to your remark about protesting the protesters. “I respect the right to assemble and the right to freedom of speech, even when I disagree with it. As long as it's nonviolent. Violent protests I abhor.” Maybe that wasn’t clear enough. I was trying to say that I would “protest” any demonstration which “misbehaves”, gets violent, etc. I was agreeing with you, in essence. There was no argument that violent protests were okay.
Okay, as to your other questions. Damn. I’ve gone through this thread, and the other one on the G20, several times and I can’t find it. It wasn’t one of us who’s been discussing the issue seriously I think, but I KNOW someone popped in to say they were against any demonstration, whether sanctioned by the government or not. If anyone can find that for me again, I’d be most appreciative.
As for only the three of us, I may have missed someone popping in. But the entire DEBATE has been about protests that block cars—-oops, my terms were too broad, I should have said that “all but three of us have said ANY protest that gets in anyone’s CAR’s way is wrong”. Although I think Wulf said early on that he was in favor of protest—if that can be taken seriously: “Even tho I think their cause is soooo fucking stupid and spoiled, Im ALL for making as big a splash as possible”
I don’t want to take the time to go back and find the specific “terrorism” remark. I DID go through once and list all the verbiage I found on one side, which was culled from all the posts up to that point. Quote:
Are those close enough for you? In the same post, I listed full sentences...just go back to where I made three or four loooong posts in a row (my blue isn’t hard to find!).
“Held hostage”, “trap”, “immobilize”, “imprison”, “mayhem”, “chaos”, “prisoner”, “villany”, “stomping somone’s rights”, “forcing to your will”, “blocking ambulances, fire engines” (which is wrong, those are never blocked), “assholish”, “stealing”, “dangerous attitude”, “bully”, “captive”, “trapped and suffering”, “an act of aggression”, “How bout I cut power to your block”, “malicious intent aforethought”, “violates the non aggression principle”, “keep trying to start a fight”, “rationalizing”, “dehumanization”, “physically barricade”, “degrade”, “escape”, “violating my property rights”
I don't think I took anything in the wrong way, I dealt with the words. It was said over and over that blocking a car's path was essentially the same as being violent, of "attacking" the person in the car.
I’ve ignored Wulfwind’s stupid “Soultion. Run over the protesters. You are no longer imobalized, AND make a point.” as well as good old PN’s “Funny how these Operative "protestors" never protest for rights by CITIZENS.” What exactly he thought of the civil rights protests I don’t know, or the protesting of Arizona's law because it CAN (and has) impinged on the rights of citizens. Just sayin’.
As to your quote of HK and response, I don’t get where the idea you should attack someone/something less powerful comes in. The exchange doesn’t make sense to me.
I agree accident are different than things purposefully done, which is why I didn’t see a comparison between an accident costing one money and taxes doing the same. I’m getting pretty confused, I’m afraid.
Byte, I don’t expect everyone to agree with “the needs of the many”, but I also don’t think it correlates to “ends justify the means”. We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.
“you are quite clear and unapologetic about wanting to remove me and wanting to push me around” I didn’t see that at all, there is no “removing” and “pushing around” in nonviolent protests, merely the side effect of the protest blocking traffic, and I don't think anyone here has told anyone to go away. I could be wrong, but I don't see it.
This is getting very confusing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Have you noted that the ones who are making these claims are the ones you disagree with?
Originally posted by citizen:
Hmm, if it weren't for the fact that the people making the accusation seem to make the exact same accusations against other diverse people in the exact same ways,
Obviously, the ones you agree with, whose arguments you do not -- whether intentionally or not -- misrepresent, and to whom you don't use an antagonistic tone, have no need to tell you you're being confrontational. Because with them you're not.
Citizen, I've always thought of you as a intelligent, insightful poster, even when we disagree. (If not, I'd ignore you like I do several who shall be unnamed.) But it is frustrating when you are combative in accusing me of not answering your question, yet accept my answer after I repeat it--pretty much as is--several times. I don't know what else to think than that you have slotted me an enemy, and so you hurry past my (imperfect) attempts to explain my ideas in favor of "assuming that what you believe on the basis of scattered impressions is necessarily true", to paraphrase Gardner.
All I ask is that you make an effort to understand the real basis of our disagreement. And I will try to improve at this as well.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:Quote:Have you noted that the ones who are making these claims are the ones you disagree with?
Originally posted by citizen:
Hmm, if it weren't for the fact that the people making the accusation seem to make the exact same accusations against other diverse people in the exact same ways,
I've noted that I have received personal attacks and accusations before I've responded, at least on the whole. I also note there's at least one example in this thread where I've been accused of misrepresenting people when I in fact did no such thing. Not least that I think just about everything I've said has been misrepresented or simply ignored.
I'm not actually claiming I'm innocent, I'm claiming I'm not responsible for everything I've been accused of, and that frankly I feel I've been made somewhat of a scapegoat.
For the record though, I don't think you answered my question(s). I gave up on it when it was clear you thought you had. I quoted you and responded because I thought if I didn't I'd be accused of ignoring it.
It works both ways you know. Nikki and HK might not see how much of an Ogre I am because they agree with me, but perhaps you see me as more of an Ogre than I am, because you don't, and don't see what the three of us have had directed at us because it's coming from people you do agree with?
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:Quote:Gah! Jesus! Um...so your car is immobilized--maybe. Get out of the car? Wait? Your right to "freedom" includes all movement--of any kind--by any means you so choose--AT ALL TIMES? What do you do in a traffic jam? Whom do you blame for that egregious infringement of your rights?
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"God forbid anyone should be inconvenienced!"
Hello,
Yes, quite. My skewed Libertarian thinking says that your freedom ought not to infringe on mine.
Hence, if I find myself trapped somewhere, you've done me a disservice. Your right to make a statement does not equate to your right to immobilize me.
By all means, protest, but don't imprison me somewhere in the process. If the point of your protest is to immobilize traffic and rights of way, then the point of it becomes to steal my freedom. At that moment, you're no longer protesting against whatever got you riled up. You are protesting my freedom. Whatever I may feel for the 'cause,' I lose charitable thoughts towards your organization when you target my rights. Ironically, these protests are often about freedom. But if you immobilize me, you really don't care about my freedom. Demonstrably.
How's about ya park your car where you're stuck, lock it and embrace your freedoms on foot? You're saying you have a right to drive your car in any direction on any road at all times--unless, of course, the government signs off on it and sets up a convenient detour? What?
And hey, the protesters aren't "immobilizing" you--they can't do it alone, they're getting a lot of help form the drivers behind you that have hemmed you in and won't back out of the way--what, are y'all crabs in a cage? Get them to move! I'm flabbergasted that you so vehemently hold to this vehicular mobility as personal freedom and think someone blocking a road infringes on your rights?
You need to drive less, obviously! Ride a bike, take a bus--you are way too attached to that machine!
Hey, I don't drive. So, by the logic of your argument, protesters blocking a street cannot infringe upon my mobility rights. How is it that you have more mobility rights than I do, by virtue of owning a car?
Okay, forget about blocking the road, what about blocking a sidewalk? My right to walk down any particular stretch of sidewalk precludes people from peaceably assembling on the sidewalk?
Are you arguing against anyone getting in anyone's way ever? Sounds like you're justifying free speech zones at the very least, Anthony. What, do government employees have fewer mobility rights than you, or are protests that interfere with political appearances also infringing on someone's rights. What is the legal definition of "mobility"--sounds like you're headed for an even worse legal quagmire than trying to define "speech."
No one has a right to comfort. No one has a right to convenience. When you make this a rights issue, rather than a courtesy issue, you end up legislating privilege, don't you?
Caveat: I said I don't drive, so I may be completely ignorant of current "right of way" laws. I don't think anyone stopping someone else's car by standing in front of it is committing a crime--I don't want that person prosecuted. Sure, the cops have an interest in moving such folk out of the way, but if there are a few hundred of 'em, I personally believe that constitutes a necessary quorum of citizens to rezone that stretch of road for the time being.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
This type of rationale makes me say "fuck off, asshole" and tag the person as a blowhard douchebag regardless of their cause.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't see such a consistent response to them as to you, (ignoring the nutjobs that are asses to everyone) and I haven't experienced replies from them like the ones I get from you.
Originally posted by citizen:
It works both ways you know. Nikki and HK might not see how much of an Ogre I am because they agree with me, but perhaps you see me as more of an Ogre than I am, because you don't, and don't see what the three of us have had directed at us because it's coming from people you do agree with?
I aimed the "feisty" accusation to you and not to Niki and HK because they manage to disagree without such a... sorry, but the only word is "petulant" tone. I find that your disagreements seem to beg for one response: escalation toward a fight. It is as if that's what you want. I have to actively work to convince myself that yours is honest misunderstanding, not intentional misrepresentation, and that your confrontational tone is merely the imperfection of the internets. You sometimes make it hard to stick with that.
Niki: I've read your post, but I'm at an impasse as to where to go. I feel like I've already addressed everything you bring up. Copying and pasting what I've already said seems a useless venture. Let's just get back to AtD and stay there this time. (uh... that's agree to disagree)
Although, I'm really not convinced that we disagree in fundamentals, if we could just hear each other clearly. The things you defend are not the things I'm attacking.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You don't understand "do" versus "be?" Color me floored. That actually puts this whole discussion into a new perspective for me. Wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it echoed throughout this thread, but you are, apparently, in the majority on that one.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Um... I don't understand "do" versus "be". I do understand there is a conflict when two groups want to use the same space, and I've covered simple solutions to that several times. But you must understand: it is not just "me" wanting to steal "your" space. The conflict and need for justification goes both ways.
I'm sorry, until you can appreciate the difference between "doing" and "being" I don't know if we can have a meaningful conversation about much of anything that matters, so fundamental to my understanding of reality is this distinction. Is making such a distinction new to you? Seems whole philosophies are based on this distinction.
Without understanding the distinction between "doing" and "being" I can't imagine what you think "force" is.
Two motionless objects in space do not conflict with one another. They are at peace. The origin/source/cause of any conflict between these objects will begin with a motion of one object toward the other. If the moving object does not change its trajectory it will come into conflict with the stationary object. If it does change its trajectory, no conflict will occur.
Put another way, I don't want people who are awake (that is to say, willful, volitional) to be penalized by the people who are asleep (that is, acting out of habit). The driver of a car speeding down the road is not making constant conscious decisions to move from one stationary point in time to another, he's just "going with the flow." In essense, a protest taking place in his path asks him to become conscious, participate willfully in his world and not take things that are not his to begin with for granted. That's why I have no problem with Frem pushing his car through the line. He's participating and negotiating his place in the world. And that's the world I live in.
In political terms, in terms of fundamental rights as I understand such things, the individual actively initiating the conflict is responsible for the conflict. An individual in conflict with a mere convention is not initiating conflict with any person. Conversly, a driver speeding down the road is not in conflict with the conventions of the road, but he may come into conflict with any number of innocent parties if he does not watch where he's going.
The moving individual is initiating force and the stationary individual is the victim of that force. You sanction an injustice, in my eyes, if you make the passive individual somehow to blame for the conflict, just because the other person is used to getting his way.
It puts me in mind of mothers with small children. The child's last line of defense against a parent who wants to violate the child's will is to become "dead weight." The child doesn't want to go to bed, say, and the parent is willing to force the issue, so the child drops to the ground requiring the parent to bodily force the child to bed.
I see this as a fundamental violation of the child's sovereignty and teaches the child a terrible, malignant lesson about rights and power.
Not saying the kid shouldn't go to bed, mind you. Not saying that in principle the parent isn't correct about bed time. I'm saying that when it comes down to you will do as I tell you to do, or I will force you to do as I tell you to do, you violate the individual's most basic rights to exist, to take up space.
No, properly, this conflict between the parent and the child is a negotiation. If you cannot find simple enough language to justify bed time so that even a child can understand it, if you cannnot woo your own child to your way of thinking, then you need to try harder, not resort to force.
I absolutely know I am in the minority on this one, but oh well.
(Be that as it may, I'm not c
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
You sometimes make it hard to stick with that.
And everything you've accused me of I've seen coming from each and every person talking to me. Difference is I'm supposed to somehow be a big monster and to fault for not only my actions, but everyone else's too. I do it, my fault, they do it my fault, you do it, my fault...
And all through when the first personal comment was thrown by people you agree with, the first misrepresentation and just about all the grandiose and hyperbolic language. Yet somehow, retroactively, that's my fault. The way I've been spoken to a treated here, petulant is pretty much relatively polite.
You want a scapegoat fine, just don't expect me to lie down and get your licks in without comment.
--------------------------------------------------
If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME