4 ms·
What's happened historically is that people will go up to the person, in person, and yell at them. Ideally, this chases them out of where they are. For example
by kick 7y ago
What's happened historically is that people will go up to the person, in person, and yell at them. Ideally, this chases them out of where they are.
For example: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/ted-cruz-wife-chased-out-d-c-restaurant-anti-kavanaugh-n912821 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/ted-cruz-wife...
This is a much better approach than going online and screaming vulgarity, because this prevents them from enjoying their actual life. If your opponent is genuinely doing something wrong, you want to make them miserable. You don't want to Be Mad Online at them.
- ratsmack 7y agoWhat you show there is what's referred to as harassment. It is generally against the law.
- kick 7y agoSpeech is speech, and in America, it's constitutionally-protected. If they touched him, sure, but they didn't.
- big_chungus 7y agoEnough people yelling persistently at someone could be perceived as threatening. Might you not feel threatened by people surrounding you, yelling at you, and refusing to leave? Getting that close crosses from protesting to intimidating. Notice that Sen. and Mrs. Cruz were having difficulty getting through the protesters to leave.
- kick 7y agoWhat something is perceived as by the recipient doesn't matter (unless the person who perceives yelling as a threat reacts violently, in which case they'll probably lose office/have their business boycotted, anyway, on top of being faced with whether the judge perceives the "threat" to be credible or not) when it comes to speech. It's still speech. Edit: The above poster edited this after I had replied, and everything after the first question mark my comment isn't responding to.
- downerending 7y agoNo good can come of this approach.
- kick 7y agoIt worked well for France: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution If it starts earlier, the violence can be avoided.
- big_chungus 7y agoReally? How did the French Revolution go? The French Revolution is a famous disaster. Reign of terror, oppressive government, many people killed, tons of bad stuff.
- kick 7y agoBrought representative democracy to France, made life far better for your average person, directly can be tied to Code Napoléon being enacted across France, sparked democratic revolutions globally that had lasting impacts that can still be felt today...I'd say pretty well. Definitely no worse than the American Revolution. The deaths of the ruling class were unfortunate, but didn't necessarily outweigh the benefits. A modern version of the French Revolution is far more desirable than allowing the planet to be made uninhabitable by the actions of the ruling class, for example.
- big_chungus 7y agoIn the French Revolution, three hundred thousand people were killed. In the American revolution, thirty thousand died. Killing ten times as many people means the French revolution was worse than the American revolution. The French revolution resulted in years of oppression before things shook out for the better. The Articles of Confederation were imperfect but were not an oppressive government. Citation for an improved standard of living due to napoleon's code is needed. It has been widely-argued that the American Revolution was an influence on the French: https://www.history.com/news/how-did-the-american-revolution-influence-the-french-revolution https://www.history.com/news/how-did-the-american-revolution... Finally, I doubt the planet will be uninhabitable. Perhaps harsher or more difficult, but definitely not uninhabitable. Humans are profoundly-adaptable creatures.