Protestors should not block streets

BTW, I love the outrage that traffic generates in and people. Mass murder is covered by the Second Amendment. But protesting is simply unacceptable.

No uninvolved party was affected by throwing tea into the harbor. When roads are blocked they are. 

BG9 said:

spontaneous said:

BG9 said:

spontaneous said:

I'm sure I'll regret saying this later, but I agree. Protest is fine, but allow the bigots access to go to their bigot rally as is their right. 

You're saying exactly the same thing the good law abiding people of Germany said when some tried to block the Hitler rallies, when Hitler was starting out. Later, blocking was "not an option."

No, in Germany people said it didn't involve them, so they turned a blind eye.  Protest, but protect the rights of people you don't agree with at the same time.

Actually, many didn't turn a blind eye. Many protested and were finally arrested and labeled as communists, socialists and labor union troublemakers -  political opponents.  The Nazi concentration camps were created told hold those protesters which is when they "learned" that blocking rallies was no longer an option.

"You did not bear the shame

You resisted

You bestowed the eternally vigilant symbol  of change

by sacrificing your impassioned lives for freedom, justice and honor"

Words written on the German Resistance Monument in Berlin

bramzzoinks said:

No uninvolved party was affected by throwing tea into the harbor. When roads are blocked they are. 

Maybe they didn't get their tea for tea time.

As long as the German Resistance Movement doesn't make Zoinks late for dinner...

nohero said:

LOST said:

nohero said:

I've been informed that I was commenting on what was intended as a joking response to a poster who expressed concern about protestors blocking women's health clinics.  I missed that it was a joke.

With BCC banned perhaps it was inevitable that someone else would take the role of having no sense of humor but I never imagined it would be you.

It didn't seem like much of a joke - comparing a protest where the people blocking the road admit what they are doing, and are subject to being arrested by the police, with the Christie Bridge Blockage - where they lied about what they were doing, and used the police to enforce it.

It wasn't much of a joke but I think what I said about BCC and you was funny.

Protestors should block streets, driveways, highways; clog malls, stores, sidewalks, lobbies, scream, yell, chant, sing, rhyme, preach, clap, stomp, run, stand, sit, cry, walk, march and vote if it gets them some freedom.

And if you don't like it- stay home. 

Fascist 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElCPW-NObHQ

spontaneous said:

So basically when anti-choice groups block access to abortion clinics you guys are okay with that since it is something they truly believe in?  

Or is it only okay if YOU believe in the cause?

I'm trying to figure out what the standards are here.  

+10

flimbro said:

Protestors should block streets, driveways, highways; clog malls, stores, sidewalks, lobbies, scream, yell, chant, sing, rhyme, preach, clap, stomp, run, stand, sit, cry, walk, march and vote if it gets them some freedom.

And if you don't like it- stay home. 

The end justifies the means?

flimbro said:

Protestors should block streets, driveways, highways; clog malls, stores, sidewalks, lobbies, scream, yell, chant, sing, rhyme, preach, clap, stomp, run, stand, sit, cry, walk, march and vote if it gets them some freedom.

And if you don't like it- stay home. 

And there you have it. This week, it's people who believe that immigration laws should be enforced. Next week those who won't immediately support $15 minimum wage.

Next week it will be $20 an hour. Then it will be instant citizenship for preferred voting blocs. And the it'll be whatever thugs decide should get a little violence and intimidation to "progress". 

Make no mistake- there are people invoking Nazi Germany here . You're invoking the wrong period. These are brownshirts. They are taking ideas they cannot move forward with words or persuasion and they're threatening people's safety and wellbeing.

They'll block your ambulance. 

They'll surround your kid's school bus.

They'll shut down your business.

They'll disrupt your political meetings.

And if that doesn't work, what's next?

They're telling you. They've shown you. Are you listening? Watching? 

They feel 100% justified. They're zealots and thugs, and you better listen very clearly to the message you're getting.

And the message is above. You better do things our way, or you better hide.

And they will make it so that you have nowhere to hide.

Listen to the words. Listen to what they are saying. 

Believe them when they say it.

Today they support things you are sympathetic to.

Wait for tomorrow.

flimbro said:

Protestors should block streets, driveways, highways; clog malls, stores, sidewalks, lobbies, scream, yell, chant, sing, rhyme, preach, clap, stomp, run, stand, sit, cry, walk, march and vote if it gets them some freedom.

And if you don't like it- stay home. 

Incorrect.

RealityForAll said:

spontaneous said:

So basically when anti-choice groups block access to abortion clinics you guys are okay with that since it is something they truly believe in?  

Or is it only okay if YOU believe in the cause?

I'm trying to figure out what the standards are here.  

+10

Blocking access to abortion clinics is wrong, those guys are *****s. Blocking a major highway that's used by ambulances and fire trucks is also the work of selfish *****s.

It's also not helping the cause, whatever that cause might be.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Difficult to get a substantial number of people assembled without blocking something, especially in a city.

Abortion clinics, by the way, aren't government. 

It has never struck me that the point of protests and strikes is to enlist people in the cause. (That's for op-eds, speeches, social media and TV interviews.) The means may be open to debate, but the goal is to compel action, not to implore it.

RobB said:

flimbro said:

Protestors should block streets, driveways, highways; clog malls, stores, sidewalks, lobbies, scream, yell, chant, sing, rhyme, preach, clap, stomp, run, stand, sit, cry, walk, march and vote if it gets them some freedom.

And if you don't like it- stay home. 

 
Incorrect.

RobB and those who agree with him, Do you believe that those who sat-in at lunch counters to protest racial segregation were wrong?

Author, filmbro and those who agree with them, Do you support the right of those who believe abortion to be infanticide to do whatever they deem necessary to save the lives of babies?

Does anyone agree with the Republican nominee for President who said:
"Extremism in the fence of Liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of Justice is no virtue"?

These are not easy issues.

DaveSchmidt said:

It has never struck me that the point of protests and strikes is to enlist people in the cause. (That's for op-eds, speeches and TV interviews.) The means may be open to debate, but the goal is to compel action, not to implore it.

To compel action, not to implore it.

To compel action.

com·pel
kəmˈpel/
verb
force or oblige (someone) to do something.

What we cannot win through ideas, what we cannot win through appeals to decency, or logic, we will win by force.

How do you win a debate for which you have no winning argument? 

Make sure the debate doesn't happen. 

These aims may be "liberal" but the methods are shockingly illiberal. 

LOST said:

RobB said:

flimbro said:
Protestors should block streets, driveways, highways; clog malls, stores, sidewalks, lobbies, scream, yell, chant, sing, rhyme, preach, clap, stomp, run, stand, sit, cry, walk, march and vote if it gets them some freedom.

And if you don't like it- stay home. 

  Incorrect.

RobB and those who agree with him, Do you believe that those who sat-in at lunch counters to protest racial segregation were wrong?

There's a big difference between stopping me from getting a turkey sandwich and stopping a nurse from getting to her shift at the pediatric burn unit. I literally cannot believe that anybody could think the two situations have anything in common.

tom said:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.




Difficult to get a substantial number of people assembled without blocking something, especially in a city.

Abortion clinics, by the way, aren't government. 

There are always places for large number of people to assemble without disrupting those who just want to get where they are going. It is a crock to pretend otherwise. When people are inconvenienced it is because that is the goal of the protestors.  And that is a horrid goal. 

Jackson_Fusion said:

What we cannot win through ideas, what we cannot win through appeals to decency, or logic, we will win by force.

When force is applied to spite ideas, debate goes only so far to resist it.

spontaneous said:

So basically when anti-choice groups block access to abortion clinics you guys are okay with that since it is something they truly believe in?  

Or is it only okay if YOU believe in the cause?

I'm trying to figure out what the standards are here.  

Do you believe you'd gotten a straight answer to your question or obfuscation?  My sense is the latter.

RobB said:

LOST said:

RobB said:

flimbro said:
Protestors should block streets, driveways, highways; clog malls, stores, sidewalks, lobbies, scream, yell, chant, sing, rhyme, preach, clap, stomp, run, stand, sit, cry, walk, march and vote if it gets them some freedom.

And if you don't like it- stay home. 

  Incorrect.

RobB and those who agree with him, Do you believe that those who sat-in at lunch counters to protest racial segregation were wrong?

There's a big difference between stopping me from getting a turkey sandwich and stopping a nurse from getting to her shift at the pediatric burn unit. I literally cannot believe that anybody could think the two situations have anything in common.

I'd agree that these questions presume that one's ability to judge distinctions takes a backseat to a kind of blind consistency. 

DaveSchmidt said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

What we cannot win through ideas, what we cannot win through appeals to decency, or logic, we will win by force.

When force is applied to spite ideas, debate goes only so far to resist it.

Not sure what you are saying here.

LOST said:

RobB said:

flimbro said:

Protestors should block streets, driveways, highways; clog malls, stores, sidewalks, lobbies, scream, yell, chant, sing, rhyme, preach, clap, stomp, run, stand, sit, cry, walk, march and vote if it gets them some freedom.

And if you don't like it- stay home. 

 
Incorrect.

RobB and those who agree with him, Do you believe that those who sat-in at lunch counters to protest racial segregation were wrong?


Author, filmbro and those who agree with them, Do you support the right of those who believe abortion to be infanticide to do whatever they deem necessary to save the lives of babies?


Does anyone agree with the Republican nominee for President who said:
"Extremism in the fence of Liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of Justice is no virtue"?

These are not easy issues.

You can not make an omelet without breaking a few eggs

All those who protest realize they will be hauled away in a few minutes { been there,   done that}

And frequently face a few days incarceration

That was in the days before the term "activist was in vogue"

Those who make the commitment are not "sunshine patriots"

author said:

LOST said:

RobB said:

flimbro said:

Protestors should block streets, driveways, highways; clog malls, stores, sidewalks, lobbies, scream, yell, chant, sing, rhyme, preach, clap, stomp, run, stand, sit, cry, walk, march and vote if it gets them some freedom.

And if you don't like it- stay home. 

 
Incorrect.

RobB and those who agree with him, Do you believe that those who sat-in at lunch counters to protest racial segregation were wrong?


Author, filmbro and those who agree with them, Do you support the right of those who believe abortion to be infanticide to do whatever they deem necessary to save the lives of babies?


Does anyone agree with the Republican nominee for President who said:
"Extremism in the fence of Liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of Justice is no virtue"?

These are not easy issues.

You can not make an omelet without breaking a few eggs

You may be tempted to think he's doing a parody, folks, but I think he's in earnest.

What if the eggs have families?

Jackson_Fusion said:

DaveSchmidt said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

What we cannot win through ideas, what we cannot win through appeals to decency, or logic, we will win by force.

When force is applied to spite ideas, debate goes only so far to resist it.

Not sure what you are saying here.

I am not sure what he is saying here:

DaveSchmidt said:

RobB and those who agree with him, Do you believe that those who sat-in at lunch counters to protest racial segregation were wrong?

There's a big difference between stopping me from getting a turkey sandwich and stopping a nurse from getting to her shift at the pediatric burn unit. I literally cannot believe that anybody could think the two situations have anything in common.

I'd agree that these questions presume that one's ability to judge distinctions takes a backseat to a kind of blind consistency. 

The OP takes the position that protestors should never prevent people against whom they are not protesting form going about their business. Are Rob and Dave saying that it depends an the activity that is being interfered with?

Zoinks seems to believe that protestors, whatever they are protesting, should not interfere  with a delivery by UPS or FedEx. I did not understand him to make a distinction between the delivery of insulin and the delivery of a cook book.

I was focusing on the cause for which the protestors were protesting as justification for the tactics of the protestors and I get a response based not on that but rather on what activity is being interfered with. 

J_F,

I think Author is in earnest but my question to you is

Do you think a protest which "blocks streets" or similarly interferes with innocent people going about their business is ever justified? And, does it depend on the cause or the activity being interfered with or both?

LOST said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

DaveSchmidt said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

What we cannot win through ideas, what we cannot win through appeals to decency, or logic, we will win by force.

When force is applied to spite ideas, debate goes only so far to resist it.

Not sure what you are saying here.

I am not sure what he is saying here:

DaveSchmidt said:

RobB and those who agree with him, Do you believe that those who sat-in at lunch counters to protest racial segregation were wrong?

There's a big difference between stopping me from getting a turkey sandwich and stopping a nurse from getting to her shift at the pediatric burn unit. I literally cannot believe that anybody could think the two situations have anything in common.

I'd agree that these questions presume that one's ability to judge distinctions takes a backseat to a kind of blind consistency. 

The OP takes the position that protestors should never prevent people against whom they are not protesting form going about their business. Are Rob and Dave saying that it depends an the activity that is being interfered with?

Zoinks seems to believe that protestors, whatever they are protesting, should not interfere  with a delivery by UPS or FedEx. I did not understand him to make a distinction between the delivery of insulin and the delivery of a cook book.

I was focusing on the cause for which the protestors were protesting as justification for the tactics of the protestors and I get a response based not on that but rather on what activity is being interfered with. 

This isn't about making sure people's Amazon deliveries make it within the Prime window (I know you're not saying it is). It's wrong to use physical coercion to keep people from gathering. If you don't like their views, too bad, that's what freedom looks like.

Find a non coersive way to beat them or change their minds. 

Or go to the barricades and line them up for a trip to the national razor. That'll fix their wrongthought. Can't make an omlet and all that.

Except J_F that this is what the creator of this thread wrote:

bramzzoinks said:

One of the reasons I turned against unions is because their pickets too often turn from a legitimate protest to stopping uninvolved parties from going where they want to go. Like when unions have a contract dispute with landlords but stop UPS employees from delivering to tenants in the building. That angered me enough to make me hate all unions. So it is all counterproductive if you make people you are trying to convince hate you.