4 ms·

It seems reasonable at time when "protesting" means shutting down infrastructure.

fweespeech 10y ago
> It seems reasonable at time when "protesting" means shutting down infrastructure. --- > It seems reasonable at time when "legislating" means shutting down infrastructure. I'm curious why you complain about one and not the other? The latter is being used to take away people's access to things like voting, etc. by shutting down polling locations, changing times, etc. to reduce access to people who vote for the "wrong" party.
crazypyro 10y ago
There is a long history of blocking crucial infrastructure during civil unrest and protesting. Its used as a tactic because its effective. Nothing about it is new or specific to today's society. How does that justify potentially infringing upon the protected rights of the protestors?
- mason240 10y ago
  > Its used as a tactic because its effective. So are armed mobs that murder political opponents. Might does not equal right. People have a right to protest. They don't have a right to destroy property that doesn't belong them. They don't have the right to circumvent democracy and infringing upon the rights of everyone else by shutting down infrastructure that belongs to the all people.
  - vkou 10y ago
    De-facto, might almost certainly means right. Most protests happen because the government uses physical force, or the threat of physical force to infringe upon the rights of its constituents.
  - CoryG89 10y ago
    I agree that protestors have no right to destroy property that doesn't belong to them. I don't agree that the police should be expected to confront protestors just because they shut down an interstate. You have no basic human right to not be inconvenienced at all by non-violent protestors. Non-violent protests that happen to shut down an interstate at some point should not be met with riot shields and swat teams.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      We're going to disagree on that because the alternative is a breakdown in the rule of law. If you're going to block a major thoroughfare, you should expect police response (it's illegal for a good reason), and that response to escalate if you don't cooperate. You don't get an exception to law to harass hundreds, possibly thousands of innocent people just because you feel put upon.
      - vkou 10y ago
        The United States was founded on the principle that yes, you can harass hundreds, possibly thousands of innocent people just because you feel put upon. I think that even has been called the American revolution (With a little helping of the Civil War.) Not to mention that almost every form of social progress came at the cost of inconveniencing all those poor, poor people who want nothing to do with the struggle for civil rights, universal suffrage, etc... When you put convenience and order over basic human and constitutional rights, yes, you bloody well should be inconvenienced. The status quo 'inconveniences' these people every day - far worse then a blocked freeway. Perhaps you should channel your inconvenience at the oppressor, rather then the victim.
        Karunamon 10y ago
        So at what point does a cause become "serious" enough that you have special dispensation to ignore laws in its pursuit, and who decides that? What if I disagree? What if you disagree? What if a whole lot of people disagree? You're not going to like the result, because you've already excluded the rule of law from this equation.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- weberc2 10y ago
  > There is a long history of blocking crucial infrastructure during civil unrest and protesting. Its used as a tactic because its effective. Nothing about it is new or specific to today's society. What does this have to do with anything? Is this supposed to justify the tactics? > How does that justify potentially infringing upon the protected rights of the protestors? Why do you think police need justification to enforce the law without infringing on the rights of protesters?
  - crazypyro 10y ago
    >What does this have to do with anything? Is this supposed to justify the tactics? Original commenter specifically mentioned "at time..." which I took as an implication that there was something special about today's society. >Why do you think police need justification to enforce the law without infringing on the rights of protesters? Because you don't lose your rights when you protest, even if you break the law? The police don't have ultimate power to enforce the law. There are purposeful limits to the power of the police. That's the point of having certain rights enshrined into the legal system. Do you disagree?
    - weberc2 10y ago
      You misread my statement. To be clear, the police don't need extra justification to enforce the law so long as they are respecting the rights of the protesters.
qntty 10y ago
protesting doesn't work very well unless there's some threat to the normal order of things
vkou 10y ago
If a protest doesn't inconvenience anyone, why would the powers that be pay attention to it? "Shut up, go home, you live in a democracy, so complain at the ballot box" isn't a civilized response to a protest issue. When it's used to justify tyranny of the majority, it is borderline fascism.
- weberc2 10y ago
  I'll take the "borderline fascism" of protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens over the actual anarchy of allowing protesters to infringe upon those rights with impunity. Democracy isn't perfect, but anarchy is worse. Further, would your tune change if the protesters were right-wing? Would you support their right to block critical infrastructure (not to mention the violence that characterizes so many of these "protests") in defense of what they perceive as their rights?
  - vkou 10y ago
    An abolitionist stealing a slave impedes on the rights of a law-abiding citizen to own another human being as chattel. Is this really the hill you want to die on? People turn to protest, violent, or otherwise, when other forms of petition have failed.
    - weberc2 10y ago
      Are you really comparing "going to work without being held hostage", "not having your property looted or burned", and "not being assaulted/murdered" to slavery? Is this really the hill you want to die on?
  - hx87 10y ago
    A protest is an organized expression of dissatisfaction, not anarchy--they're obeying the law as much as everyone else. If I'm inconvenienced, that's fine--there are ways to get around it, and it's a cost I'd gladly pay for the freedom of association and protest. > Further, would your tune change if the protesters were right-wing? Absolutely. Conservatives, reactionaries, and fascists have exactly the same rights that I do. > Would you support their right to block critical infrastructure (not to mention the violence that characterizes so many of these "protests") in defense of what they perceive as their rights? Critical infrastructure almost always has redundancies, and in case there isn't one (e.g. a protest in front of a hospital), the police should just clear a route with minimum force and no legal actions afterwards. Violence is another issue entirely--if people are being violent in a protest, then stop and arrest them for being violent, not for merely protesting, and leave the other protesters alone.
moefogs 10y ago
Good news everybody. I found the one racist white guy on this site who doesn't give a single fuck about other people. j/k: Paul Graham supports Peter Thiel's vendetta against women and minorities because Paul Graham is a GUTLESS COWARD who cares more about a cozy relationship with a billionaire than about any sort of morality. WORSE: Paul Graham is a FUCKING LIAR who claims that it would be MCCARTHYISM just to clearly state that he and YC disagree with Thiel's bigotry. Yes. Paul Graham is such dog shit that he feels FREE to accuse people who are pro-equality of being McCarthists, but he is UNWILLING to assert that Peter Thiel is a bigot. So good news... you found your people. This site is chock full of utterly worthless fat old rich white men who are fucking full of themselves and actively work to make the world far worse and evil... but have their heads so far up their asses that they pretend it's good instead. What I'm saying is PAUL GRAHAM IS A FUCKING COWARD and PAUL GRAHAM is respected SOLELY because of his connections and money. HE IS A WORTHLESS FAT FUCK WITH A SHIT STARTUP WHO GOT LUCKY. HE IS GARBAGE.

> It seems reasonable at time when "protesting" means shutting down infrastructure. --- > It seems reasonable at time when "legislating" means shutting down infrastructure. I'm curious why you complain about one and not the other? The latter is being used to take away people's access to things like voting, etc. by shutting down polling locations, changing times, etc. to reduce access to people who vote for the "wrong" party.

crazypyro 10y ago

There is a long history of blocking crucial infrastructure during civil unrest and protesting. Its used as a tactic because its effective. Nothing about it is new or specific to today's society. How does that justify potentially infringing upon the protected rights of the protestors?

mason240 10y ago
> Its used as a tactic because its effective. So are armed mobs that murder political opponents. Might does not equal right. People have a right to protest. They don't have a right to destroy property that doesn't belong them. They don't have the right to circumvent democracy and infringing upon the rights of everyone else by shutting down infrastructure that belongs to the all people.
- vkou 10y ago
  De-facto, might almost certainly means right. Most protests happen because the government uses physical force, or the threat of physical force to infringe upon the rights of its constituents.
- CoryG89 10y ago
  I agree that protestors have no right to destroy property that doesn't belong to them. I don't agree that the police should be expected to confront protestors just because they shut down an interstate. You have no basic human right to not be inconvenienced at all by non-violent protestors. Non-violent protests that happen to shut down an interstate at some point should not be met with riot shields and swat teams.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    We're going to disagree on that because the alternative is a breakdown in the rule of law. If you're going to block a major thoroughfare, you should expect police response (it's illegal for a good reason), and that response to escalate if you don't cooperate. You don't get an exception to law to harass hundreds, possibly thousands of innocent people just because you feel put upon.
    - vkou 10y ago
      The United States was founded on the principle that yes, you can harass hundreds, possibly thousands of innocent people just because you feel put upon. I think that even has been called the American revolution (With a little helping of the Civil War.) Not to mention that almost every form of social progress came at the cost of inconveniencing all those poor, poor people who want nothing to do with the struggle for civil rights, universal suffrage, etc... When you put convenience and order over basic human and constitutional rights, yes, you bloody well should be inconvenienced. The status quo 'inconveniences' these people every day - far worse then a blocked freeway. Perhaps you should channel your inconvenience at the oppressor, rather then the victim.
      - Karunamon 10y ago
        So at what point does a cause become "serious" enough that you have special dispensation to ignore laws in its pursuit, and who decides that? What if I disagree? What if you disagree? What if a whole lot of people disagree? You're not going to like the result, because you've already excluded the rule of law from this equation.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
weberc2 10y ago
> There is a long history of blocking crucial infrastructure during civil unrest and protesting. Its used as a tactic because its effective. Nothing about it is new or specific to today's society. What does this have to do with anything? Is this supposed to justify the tactics? > How does that justify potentially infringing upon the protected rights of the protestors? Why do you think police need justification to enforce the law without infringing on the rights of protesters?
- crazypyro 10y ago
  >What does this have to do with anything? Is this supposed to justify the tactics? Original commenter specifically mentioned "at time..." which I took as an implication that there was something special about today's society. >Why do you think police need justification to enforce the law without infringing on the rights of protesters? Because you don't lose your rights when you protest, even if you break the law? The police don't have ultimate power to enforce the law. There are purposeful limits to the power of the police. That's the point of having certain rights enshrined into the legal system. Do you disagree?
  - weberc2 10y ago
    You misread my statement. To be clear, the police don't need extra justification to enforce the law so long as they are respecting the rights of the protesters.

qntty 10y ago

protesting doesn't work very well unless there's some threat to the normal order of things

vkou 10y ago

If a protest doesn't inconvenience anyone, why would the powers that be pay attention to it? "Shut up, go home, you live in a democracy, so complain at the ballot box" isn't a civilized response to a protest issue. When it's used to justify tyranny of the majority, it is borderline fascism.

weberc2 10y ago
I'll take the "borderline fascism" of protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens over the actual anarchy of allowing protesters to infringe upon those rights with impunity. Democracy isn't perfect, but anarchy is worse. Further, would your tune change if the protesters were right-wing? Would you support their right to block critical infrastructure (not to mention the violence that characterizes so many of these "protests") in defense of what they perceive as their rights?
- vkou 10y ago
  An abolitionist stealing a slave impedes on the rights of a law-abiding citizen to own another human being as chattel. Is this really the hill you want to die on? People turn to protest, violent, or otherwise, when other forms of petition have failed.
  - weberc2 10y ago
    Are you really comparing "going to work without being held hostage", "not having your property looted or burned", and "not being assaulted/murdered" to slavery? Is this really the hill you want to die on?
- hx87 10y ago
  A protest is an organized expression of dissatisfaction, not anarchy--they're obeying the law as much as everyone else. If I'm inconvenienced, that's fine--there are ways to get around it, and it's a cost I'd gladly pay for the freedom of association and protest. > Further, would your tune change if the protesters were right-wing? Absolutely. Conservatives, reactionaries, and fascists have exactly the same rights that I do. > Would you support their right to block critical infrastructure (not to mention the violence that characterizes so many of these "protests") in defense of what they perceive as their rights? Critical infrastructure almost always has redundancies, and in case there isn't one (e.g. a protest in front of a hospital), the police should just clear a route with minimum force and no legal actions afterwards. Violence is another issue entirely--if people are being violent in a protest, then stop and arrest them for being violent, not for merely protesting, and leave the other protesters alone.

moefogs 10y ago

Good news everybody. I found the one racist white guy on this site who doesn't give a single fuck about other people. j/k: Paul Graham supports Peter Thiel's vendetta against women and minorities because Paul Graham is a GUTLESS COWARD who cares more about a cozy relationship with a billionaire than about any sort of morality. WORSE: Paul Graham is a FUCKING LIAR who claims that it would be MCCARTHYISM just to clearly state that he and YC disagree with Thiel's bigotry. Yes. Paul Graham is such dog shit that he feels FREE to accuse people who are pro-equality of being McCarthists, but he is UNWILLING to assert that Peter Thiel is a bigot. So good news... you found your people. This site is chock full of utterly worthless fat old rich white men who are fucking full of themselves and actively work to make the world far worse and evil... but have their heads so far up their asses that they pretend it's good instead. What I'm saying is PAUL GRAHAM IS A FUCKING COWARD and PAUL GRAHAM is respected SOLELY because of his connections and money. HE IS A WORTHLESS FAT FUCK WITH A SHIT STARTUP WHO GOT LUCKY. HE IS GARBAGE.