Protestors should not block streets

LOST said:

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. 

Well, then I'm taking it a step further. Guess I'm an extremist!

Lost, imagine there was a "stop gun violence" rally and 2nd Amendment supporters blocked people from trying to attend the rally from attending with physical obstructions, infiltrated what was left of the rally to shout down speakers, and screamed at everyone who came out afterwords.

Would that be ok because the "protesters" believed that the anti gun people were trying to take away their rights? 

Would it be ok if they succeeded in preventing a discussion they disagreed with from happening?

And if there was a little physical action... Hey, omlet eggs for some folks! As long as the mob outside gets what it wants.

Jackson_Fusion said:

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. 

I can accept that as a very good rule but every rule has exceptions. What if the gathering is for a KKK cross burning or a rally to recruit ISIS fighters?

(Gotta go out. Will come back to this discussion later)

Not that long ago segregation was legal

Miscegenation was legal

Today even some forms of gay rights are buried

I remember Spiro Agnew.......the attack dog for the Nixon administration calling us "rights robbers"

because we blocked the streets.  I also remember him going to jail for malfeasance in office as Governor

of Maryland.  The very Government was corrupt............and Attorney General Mitchell went to jail

and Nixon's advisers  resigned and Nixon waived from the helicopter as he left office

Jackson_Fusion said:

LOST said:
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. 

Well, then I'm taking it a step further. Guess I'm an extremist!

Lost, imagine there was a "stop gun violence" rally and 2nd Amendment supporters blocked people from trying to attend the rally from attending with physical obstructions, infiltrated what was left of the rally to shout down speakers, and screamed at everyone who came out afterwords.



Would that be ok because the "protesters" believed that the anti gun people were trying to take away their rights? 

Would it be ok if they succeeded in preventing a discussion they disagreed with from happening?

And if there was a little physical action... Hey, omlet eggs for some folks! As long as the mob outside gets what it wants.

Or, imagine the president of the United States organized town hall meetings across the country so ordinary citizens could ask questions and provide input on a major policy initiative but crazy old white men in tricorn hats insisted on screaming the place down at every opportunity.

I mean...I can see it both ways.

LOST said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

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. 

I can accept that as a very good rule but every rule has exceptions. What if the gathering is for a KKK cross burning or a rally to recruit ISIS fighters?

(Gotta go out. Will come back to this discussion later)

If an action is illegal it is up to the police to handle.  Not vigilantes. 

bramzzoinks said:

LOST said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

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. 

I can accept that as a very good rule but every rule has exceptions. What if the gathering is for a KKK cross burning or a rally to recruit ISIS fighters?

(Gotta go out. Will come back to this discussion later)

If an action is illegal it is up to the police to handle.  Not vigilantes. 

judge Judy will make it right

Anyone who selects civil disobedience as a tool for change accepts the possibility of arrest, detainment and possible punishment. That's the choice. That's the way this country was designed so get used to it or get over it. 

If you have a voice and that voice is heard, respected and in responded to in a timely fashion- then you have no need to protest. If your voice is ignored and traditional methods of airing grievances are not available or not respected and your condition deteriorates- then you protest. 

If your protest runs afoul of the law and you're not protected by political doctrine then you get dispersed, detained or arrested. If your protest falls in line with the law or provides no immediate challenge to the status quo then you get your day or your days to express your demands without interruption. 

Not everyone lives a life where their basic freedoms are respected. What feels like an inconvenience to you may be a necessity and a last resort to others. I know it's natural to separate yourself from people and ideas you either don't agree with or don't consider important enough to examine much less validate but that doesn't mean those ideas don't deserve to be aired. For you, a passionate Facebook or MOL post may be sufficient.  

I have an acquaintance who is retired military and retired NYPD. He worked his ass off like most of us do (and also risked his life like most of us don't) so his kids would start their lives a couple rungs up the ladder. He didn't do bad. He has three sons. The oldest is a career Marine with some rank and four or five middle eastern tours under his belt so far, the next one is in law school, he wants to be an ADA and the third is a poet, actor, rapper, valedictorian and writes video game code. The father is currently at odds with two of his sons because they've gone to several anti-Trump rallies. He doesn't support Trump, but like most of us, he's opted to watch and wait to see what happens. Although he knows better, he comforts himself by imagining that what he reads in the paper and sees on TV is actually happening in an alternate dimension and not in any of the ones he currently inhabits. He's told me there was no way the country would elect Trump president. I agreed- hesitantly mostly for his sake. 

At the last anti-Trump rally his two younger sons attended the middle son was carrying a sign that specified his religion. He was punched and spat on and told to 'go back to Afghanistan'. They're Muslim, born and bred in NYC. His youngest son sent a video of the soon to be lawyer with mucus and saliva on his face to the older brother and their father.  My acquaintance was pissed and angry that his sons had put themselves in that position and he asked his oldest to talk to them. The Marine son, with at least one tour in Afghanistan, called his law school brother immediately and asked him to let him know when and where the next protest was because he wanted to be there.  The Marine called his Dad back and told him not to worry- he'd be there with his brothers next time they went out and nothing would happen to them. Not exactly the outcome the father intended, but he's raised three sons who stand up for themselves and are relatively fearless, like their father.

My acquaintance's situation is rare, but not as rare as you might think. Protests draw the attention of well- meaning, committed people from all walks of life as well as a liberal smattering of troublemakers. There will always be people who take things too far at any protest and yes- nurses, doctors, cable guys, businessmen and women will be inconvenienced.  But that is not the main reason for most protests and I know most of you realize that and simply choose to look past the real issue and enrage yourselves about the occasional by-product. So be it.

Living a life where one of your primary concerns is in fact whether you will have access to a deli made turkey sandwich as opposed to say... lead-free water is a wonderful life indeed. Yes, I'm oversimplifying there but so are some of you. Assuming that people will suffer silently and in a fashion conducive to your comfort and your schedule is not a privilege enjoyed by all. Never has been.

Intellectually, I think you have to get to the point where you care as much about the reason for the protest as you do about the inconvenience (real or imagined) it may create. If you care more about blocked malls or even burnt Rite Aids than you do about a litany of dead humans, something is broken in your heart. If you don't want to see the former then stop ignoring the environment that produces the latter. If you watch a presidential candidate who elects to lie about and malign a nationality, mock disabled Americans and veterans, express misogynist ideas about women, redistribute racist propaganda about Blacks and latinos, ban a faith from entering your country and yearn for the days when he could beat the protestors who disagree with him- and you decide to look past all of that and whine about the people who have the balls to reject these ideas and physically work against them- you deserve to be inconvenienced.  And hopefully, it will happen often enough that you decide to put your keyboard or your legs and lungs to use and get in the game.  

Occasional by-product: Born at 32 weeks in the backseat of a Nissan instead of a hospital emergency room. 

Fascists alway begat fascists. 

Well said, flimbro. Unfortunately, you won't get an equally thoughtful response from the OP.

flimbro said:

Anyone who selects civil disobedience as a tool for change accepts the possibility of arrest, detainment and possible punishment. That's the choice. That's the way this country was designed so get used to it or get over it. 

If you have a voice and that voice is heard, respected and in responded to in a timely fashion- then you have no need to protest. If your voice is ignored and traditional methods of airing grievances are not available or not respected and your condition deteriorates- then you protest. 

If your protest runs afoul of the law and you're not protected by political doctrine then you get dispersed, detained or arrested. If your protest falls in line with the law or provides no immediate challenge to the status quo then you get your day or your days to express your demands without interruption. 

Not everyone lives a life where their basic freedoms are respected. What feels like an inconvenience to you may be a necessity and a last resort to others. I know it's natural to separate yourself from people and ideas you either don't agree with or don't consider important enough to examine much less validate but that doesn't mean those ideas don't deserve to be aired. For you, a passionate Facebook or MOL post may be sufficient.  

I have an acquaintance who is retired military and retired NYPD. He worked his ass off like most of us do (and also risked his life like most of us don't) so his kids would start their lives a couple rungs up the ladder. He didn't do bad. He has three sons. The oldest is a career Marine with some rank and four or five middle eastern tours under his belt so far, the next one is in law school, he wants to be an ADA and the third is a poet, actor, rapper, valedictorian and writes video game code. The father is currently at odds with two of his sons because they've gone to several anti-Trump rallies. He doesn't support Trump, but like most of us, he's opted to watch and wait to see what happens. Although he knows better, he comforts himself by imagining that what he reads in the paper and sees on TV is actually happening in an alternate dimension and not in any of the ones he currently inhabits. He's told me there was no way the country would elect Trump president. I agreed- hesitantly mostly for his sake. 

At the last anti-Trump rally his two younger sons attended the middle son was carrying a sign that specified his religion. He was punched and spat on and told to 'go back to Afghanistan'. They're Muslim, born and bred in NYC. His youngest son sent a video of the soon to be lawyer with mucus and saliva on his face to the older brother and their father.  My acquaintance was pissed and angry that his sons had put themselves in that position and he asked his oldest to talk to them. The Marine son, with at least one tour in Afghanistan, called his law school brother immediately and asked him to let him know when and where the next protest was because he wanted to be there.  The Marine called his Dad back and told him not to worry- he'd be there with his brothers next time they went out and nothing would happen to them. Not exactly the outcome the father intended, but he's raised three sons who stand up for themselves and are relatively fearless, like their father.

My acquaintance's situation is rare, but not as rare as you might think. Protests draw the attention of well- meaning, committed people from all walks of life as well as a liberal smattering of troublemakers. There will always be people who take things too far at any protest and yes- nurses, doctors, cable guys, businessmen and women will be inconvenienced.  But that is not the main reason for most protests and I know most of you realize that and simply choose to look past the real issue and enrage yourselves about the occasional by-product. So be it.

Living a life where one of your primary concerns is in fact whether you will have access to a deli made turkey sandwich as opposed to say... lead-free water is a wonderful life indeed. Yes, I'm oversimplifying there but so are some of you. Assuming that people will suffer silently and in a fashion conducive to your comfort and your schedule is not a privilege enjoyed by all. Never has been.

Intellectually, I think you have to get to the point where you care as much about the reason for the protest as you do about the inconvenience (real or imagined) it may create. If you care more about blocked malls or even burnt Rite Aids than you do about a litany of dead humans, something is broken in your heart. If you don't want to see the former then stop ignoring the environment that produces the latter. If you watch a presidential candidate who elects to lie about and malign a nationality, mock disabled Americans and veterans, express misogynist ideas about women, redistribute racist propaganda about Blacks and latinos, ban a faith from entering your country and yearn for the days when he could beat the protestors who disagree with him- and you decide to look past all of that and whine about the people who have the balls to reject these ideas and physically work against them- you deserve to be inconvenienced.  And hopefully, it will happen often enough that you decide to put your keyboard or your legs and lungs to use and get in the game.  

A perfect post! 

We can easily slide into the blame the victim mentality but the truth is - protesters have a right to protest. 

Protest yes.  Disrupt, especially the uninvolved,  absolutely not. As I have said before that is essentially terrorism. 

Apparently, delaying a package delivery is terrorism (according to what this guy has written on this thread).

bramzzoinks said:

Protest yes.  Disrupt, especially the uninvolved,  absolutely not. As I have said before that is essentially terrorism. 

It is arrogant and conceited to think your cause is so special that it justifies interfering with people who just want to get where they want to go. People who think that way have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. 

Of all the things to be outraged over. 

Trumpistic projection on a large scale.

bramzzoinks said:

It is arrogant and conceited to think your cause is so special that it justifies interfering with people who just want to get where they want to go. People who think that way have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. 

dave23 said:

Well said, flimbro. Unfortunately, you won't get an equally thoughtful response from the OP.

Thanks dave and @kibbegirl.  Does anyone expect thoughtful responses from the OP?  I don't think that's really why he's here. Who knows if he even read the post before he responded to it? 

I do see now that people who fail to bend to his will and interfere with his movements are arrogant, conceited and stricken with a mental illness.  

This is probably a good time to exit. 

flimbro said:

dave23 said:

Well said, flimbro. Unfortunately, you won't get an equally thoughtful response from the OP.

Thanks dave and @kibbegirl.  Does anyone expect thoughtful responses from the OP?  I don't think that's really why he's here. Who knows if he even read the post before he responded to it? 

I do see now that people who fail to bend to his will and interfere with his movements are arrogant, conceited and stricken with a mental illness.  

This is probably a good time to exit. 

When there is a disruption many many people are disrupted.  But you seems to feel you are jusified in inflicting that on people at you whim. 

bramzzoinks said:

Protest yes.  Disrupt, especially the uninvolved,  absolutely not. As I have said before that is essentially terrorism. 

Aaaaahhhhh...Ignorance is bliss !

bramzzoinks said:

When there is a disruption many many people are disrupted.  But you seems to feel you are jusified in inflicting that on people at you whim. 

Flimbro's post didn't cause any traffic jams.

Drop the wall-of-text straw men.

Nobody is suggesting people can't protest.

Nobody. No one. Stop with the tale of Marines and passionate law students facing evil villains twirling their mustaches. 

Go nuts. Go protest.

DO NOT rush candidates as they're speaking, forcing the secret service to go nuts and put people in danger.... And it is dangerous. 

DO NOT shut political meetings, where others are trying to exercise their rights, down.

DO NOT smash cops in the head.

DO NOT block entry into areas where private citizens are expressing their rights as you are.

DO NOT stand outside of rallies threatening families as they leave.

DO NOT hack people because you don't like their politics.

DO NOT hold people hostage by trapping them in their cars.

That is not protesting. That is thuggery, it is intimidation, it is violence, and it is wrong. 

Of course, for zealots, it's all justified. They don't get it, they'll never get it. In their drama, they are a hero, surrounded by the indifferent and the wrong. And they will make them pay. 

Get it? We all deserve to pay, because we don't agree, or we don't agree enough, or we aren't doing enough to show your commitment to the cause.

Hey if we don't like it we can cower in our houses! That's the words used a few posts earlier, right? 

Eventually, these movements start with the purges and eat their own, as they all try to out- lunatic each other, going out in an blaze of puritanical ideological zeal, but not without causing a hell of a lot of hurt to others first. 

flimbro, even though you know, realistically, that zoinks won't get your points, many of us do, and we thank you for posting them. It wasn't a waste of effort at all. Super points, extremely well expressed.

It was not good points.  It was an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.  A narcissists justification as to why they are allowed to be judge jury and executioner. 

bramzzoinks said:

It was not good points.  It was an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.  A narcissists justification as to why they are allowed to be judge jury and executioner. 

Yes, we know you don't comprehend what he says. We expected that. That's OK. You just keep on being who you are.

Drop the wall of text strawmen, indeed.

Two wrongs do not make a right.  Disrupting those nit the source of you grievance is simply wrong. 

bramzzoinks said:

Two wrongs do not make a right.  Disrupting those nit the source of you grievance is simply wrong. 

Disrupting traffic is not quite as egregious as what Trump is up to, despite what you and JF think.

dave23 said:

bramzzoinks said:

Two wrongs do not make a right.  Disrupting those nit the source of you grievance is simply wrong. 

Disrupting traffic is not quite as egregious as what Trump is up to, despite what you and JF think.

What's Trump up to? Throwing an election and leaving the GOP in tatters? 

Egregious is egregious.  Who is more so is irrelevant.