17 ms·

IMO this is part of why why protests started marching down freeways. In LA, if you protest by marching down basically any freeway, you snarl up that freeway (an

IMO this is part of why why protests started marching down freeways. In LA, if you protest by marching down basically any freeway, you snarl up that freeway (and likely more) for tens of miles, at least (AFAIK). (the 101 between hollywood and DTLA is essentially a single thing, the 10 between DTLA and West Side, the 405 from culver city up to over the pass in sherman oaks...) AKA, the "center" isn't geographic, but... transit-based? Arterial?

CydeWeys 6y ago
It also gives a great sense of your own power (which is very important to protest movements) in marching along and shutting down a freeway, which you could never in any other situation just calmly walk down the middle of. Critical Mass is invigorating for the same reasons.
- msla 6y ago
  And people who need to get somewhere to save lives are suitably invigorated, I'm sure.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    Yeah, actually. I saw a huge fucking grin on the face of the guy riding shotgun in the ambulance as the crowd of cyclists parted like magic in front of them and they had a personal escort of two vested corkers. Guy was even filming. They got where they were going faster than if the usual stop and go car traffic had been there. The great thing about people on foot or on bike is that they can easily get out of the way of emergency vehicles, vs cars and trucks which often can't.
    - macintux 6y ago
      If you’ve created a logjam however, how does the ambulance get through the stopped traffic? (I’m not arguing against protesting on the freeway, to be clear, just genuinely curious how often it helps vs hinders emergency vehicles.)
      - Kerrick 6y ago
        I've experienced this outside of protests. My wife and I were driving somewhere near downtown St. Louis, on a part of the interstate where there are tall concrete barriers between the directions of traffic. There was a complete log jam due to an accident ahead, and we heard sirens coming up from behind us to the left. We were in the left of two lanes. The right shoulder was either filled up or too small (can't remember), so people couldn't really pull right more than a foot or two to allow the ambulance through. The ambulance didn't let that deter them. They took the foot or two we and the other left-lane drivers could give by getting REALLY close to the car to our right, and used it to careen down the left shoulder, scraping the side of their vehicle along the concrete barrier much of the way.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        Damn, that's dedication. Kudos to the drivers!
    - msla 6y ago
      I'm not talking about emergency vehicles or people who get escorts. I'm talking about the doctors who have to make their own way in their own vehicles.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        It's okay, the minor negative effects of that are never going to be more important than the ability to protest effectively. Just like nobody blames normal traffic for killing people via doctor delays.
        msla 6y ago
        > It's okay, the minor negative effects of that are never going to be more important than the ability to protest effectively. Are you even theoretically willing to discuss this in good faith? > Just like nobody blames normal traffic for killing people via doctor delays. That's because normal traffic jams aren't intentional.
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        You're accusing me of bad faith. When all I did was disagree with you. What is wrong with your ability to have a discussion? Edit: It's ridiculous to me that someone flagged this but not the person accusing me of bad faith based on absolutely nothing. Whoever did that, I beg you to explain.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        In the future, it's considered bad form to complain if your posts are flagged. That said, I agree that it certainly wasn't bad faith to argue that in some cases the downsides of protests are worth how vital it is, and it was a very cheap shot. FWIW, my city had 35% of its population, over half a million people, entirely fill almost every street downtown, and there were no catastrophic events. Worse comes to worst, alternative routes will need to be planned. I think the most catastrophic thing that happened is that the cellular systems crashed, but for the most part GSM still held out so it was okay, and the stores had landlines that were used when worse came to worst. Same during the Hong Kong protests, I never saw anyone complain about such things, and indeed I don't believe it had catastrophic effects.
- cousin_it 6y ago
  (Deleted: not worth it)
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    What a horrid comparison to make between those crimes and a constitutionally-guaranteed right.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      Would the moral status of rape, or, say, slavery be any greater if it was written into the Constitution? (Note that one of those was, extensively, written into the Constitution.) If not, what is the point of your argument?
      - CydeWeys 6y ago
        You're just continuing the horrid comparison of somehow equating people exercising free speech with heinous crimes. Stop it. It's not a good look nor a valid argument. I'm not even going to waste my time explaining how free speech is different morally from rape, because I guarantee that this is crystal clear to everyone else except for you somehow.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - jariel 6y ago
      "a constitutionally-guaranteed right" You absolutely don't have a right to suppress others with your ideology. 'Freedom of expression' has nothing to do with shutting down highways.
- EarthIsHome 6y ago
  For those curious about power and mass protests, John Berger's piece from 1968[0] provides an excellent overview on mass demonstrations. [0]: https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj/1968/no034/berger.htm https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj/1968/no03...
- austincheney 6y ago
  As a commuter nothing would turn me against the protestors goals faster than clogging a freeway. I have a long and frustrating commute and the idea of that commute becoming a multi hour trapped parking adventure after a long day doing a job that is agonizingly depressing is quite souring. The experience is so decidedly wonderful that if, for example, the protest were a Black Lives Matter movement I would change from a whole hearted support to complete opposition in every objective they promote.
  - conro1108 6y ago
    If interrupting your commute is enough to turn you to "complete opposition in every objective they promote," I have a hard time believing you were ever a whole-hearted supporter.
    - austincheney 6y ago
      That sounds like a problem with empathy.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    Protests aren’t supposed to be convenient for the uninvolved. They’re literally designed to force you to pay attention.
    - austincheney 6y ago
      I read that as designed for angst and animosity not influence, because the intention completely disparages the audience.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        You might disagree with it as a tactic, but I'm not sure how you got to the idea that it's designed for animosity and not influence. Can you read the minds and intentions of the protestors? How would you know?
ashtonkem 6y ago
The transit system in Los Angeles is always so close to the edge, it doesn’t take a huge push for rush hour to turn into total gridlock. Assuming that’s their goal, which seems probable, it’s not clear if that strategy would be reproducible in say, Ohio.
- RangerScience 6y ago
  AFAIK, the goal is "now things are different", and the tactic at play is "be unignorable". The impression I've always gotten is that what you're permitted to do when you're doing a legal protest is to minimize the disruption it has, which is (IMO) within epsilon of "make it as ignorable as possible". Ohio might have a more centralized city center, where LA doesn't, or have other forms of "center" the way the transit system in LA is "central" to the metropolis.

CydeWeys 6y ago

It also gives a great sense of your own power (which is very important to protest movements) in marching along and shutting down a freeway, which you could never in any other situation just calmly walk down the middle of. Critical Mass is invigorating for the same reasons.

msla 6y ago
And people who need to get somewhere to save lives are suitably invigorated, I'm sure.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  Yeah, actually. I saw a huge fucking grin on the face of the guy riding shotgun in the ambulance as the crowd of cyclists parted like magic in front of them and they had a personal escort of two vested corkers. Guy was even filming. They got where they were going faster than if the usual stop and go car traffic had been there. The great thing about people on foot or on bike is that they can easily get out of the way of emergency vehicles, vs cars and trucks which often can't.
  - macintux 6y ago
    If you’ve created a logjam however, how does the ambulance get through the stopped traffic? (I’m not arguing against protesting on the freeway, to be clear, just genuinely curious how often it helps vs hinders emergency vehicles.)
    - Kerrick 6y ago
      I've experienced this outside of protests. My wife and I were driving somewhere near downtown St. Louis, on a part of the interstate where there are tall concrete barriers between the directions of traffic. There was a complete log jam due to an accident ahead, and we heard sirens coming up from behind us to the left. We were in the left of two lanes. The right shoulder was either filled up or too small (can't remember), so people couldn't really pull right more than a foot or two to allow the ambulance through. The ambulance didn't let that deter them. They took the foot or two we and the other left-lane drivers could give by getting REALLY close to the car to our right, and used it to careen down the left shoulder, scraping the side of their vehicle along the concrete barrier much of the way.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Damn, that's dedication. Kudos to the drivers!
  - msla 6y ago
    I'm not talking about emergency vehicles or people who get escorts. I'm talking about the doctors who have to make their own way in their own vehicles.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      It's okay, the minor negative effects of that are never going to be more important than the ability to protest effectively. Just like nobody blames normal traffic for killing people via doctor delays.
      - msla 6y ago
        > It's okay, the minor negative effects of that are never going to be more important than the ability to protest effectively. Are you even theoretically willing to discuss this in good faith? > Just like nobody blames normal traffic for killing people via doctor delays. That's because normal traffic jams aren't intentional.
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        You're accusing me of bad faith. When all I did was disagree with you. What is wrong with your ability to have a discussion? Edit: It's ridiculous to me that someone flagged this but not the person accusing me of bad faith based on absolutely nothing. Whoever did that, I beg you to explain.
        sudosysgen 6y ago
        In the future, it's considered bad form to complain if your posts are flagged. That said, I agree that it certainly wasn't bad faith to argue that in some cases the downsides of protests are worth how vital it is, and it was a very cheap shot. FWIW, my city had 35% of its population, over half a million people, entirely fill almost every street downtown, and there were no catastrophic events. Worse comes to worst, alternative routes will need to be planned. I think the most catastrophic thing that happened is that the cellular systems crashed, but for the most part GSM still held out so it was okay, and the stores had landlines that were used when worse came to worst. Same during the Hong Kong protests, I never saw anyone complain about such things, and indeed I don't believe it had catastrophic effects.
cousin_it 6y ago
(Deleted: not worth it)
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  What a horrid comparison to make between those crimes and a constitutionally-guaranteed right.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    Would the moral status of rape, or, say, slavery be any greater if it was written into the Constitution? (Note that one of those was, extensively, written into the Constitution.) If not, what is the point of your argument?
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      You're just continuing the horrid comparison of somehow equating people exercising free speech with heinous crimes. Stop it. It's not a good look nor a valid argument. I'm not even going to waste my time explaining how free speech is different morally from rape, because I guarantee that this is crystal clear to everyone else except for you somehow.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jariel 6y ago
    "a constitutionally-guaranteed right" You absolutely don't have a right to suppress others with your ideology. 'Freedom of expression' has nothing to do with shutting down highways.
EarthIsHome 6y ago
For those curious about power and mass protests, John Berger's piece from 1968[0] provides an excellent overview on mass demonstrations. [0]: https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj/1968/no034/berger.htm https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/isj/1968/no03...
austincheney 6y ago
As a commuter nothing would turn me against the protestors goals faster than clogging a freeway. I have a long and frustrating commute and the idea of that commute becoming a multi hour trapped parking adventure after a long day doing a job that is agonizingly depressing is quite souring. The experience is so decidedly wonderful that if, for example, the protest were a Black Lives Matter movement I would change from a whole hearted support to complete opposition in every objective they promote.
- conro1108 6y ago
  If interrupting your commute is enough to turn you to "complete opposition in every objective they promote," I have a hard time believing you were ever a whole-hearted supporter.
  - austincheney 6y ago
    That sounds like a problem with empathy.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  Protests aren’t supposed to be convenient for the uninvolved. They’re literally designed to force you to pay attention.
  - austincheney 6y ago
    I read that as designed for angst and animosity not influence, because the intention completely disparages the audience.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      You might disagree with it as a tactic, but I'm not sure how you got to the idea that it's designed for animosity and not influence. Can you read the minds and intentions of the protestors? How would you know?

ashtonkem 6y ago

The transit system in Los Angeles is always so close to the edge, it doesn’t take a huge push for rush hour to turn into total gridlock. Assuming that’s their goal, which seems probable, it’s not clear if that strategy would be reproducible in say, Ohio.

RangerScience 6y ago
AFAIK, the goal is "now things are different", and the tactic at play is "be unignorable". The impression I've always gotten is that what you're permitted to do when you're doing a legal protest is to minimize the disruption it has, which is (IMO) within epsilon of "make it as ignorable as possible". Ohio might have a more centralized city center, where LA doesn't, or have other forms of "center" the way the transit system in LA is "central" to the metropolis.