4 ms·

You have a vote. Use it. You also have a voice. Use it. You have no right to undemocratically wield power over others by physical force. You have no right to

You have a vote. Use it. You also have a voice. Use it. You have no right to undemocratically wield power over others by physical force. You have no right to force others to suffer to compel them to your will which they did not choose.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Limiting the political engagement of your citizens to only voting in a two party system is madness. When people stop being engaged, and stop voting, and your country turns to shit, I can say that I warned you. No, seriously, this is insane. You want to, functionally, ban protests. There is absolutely no way you can have a functional country if you can't even have peaceful demonstrations.
- jariel 6y ago
  "You want to, functionally, ban protests." You have a misunderstanding of what is legal, what is not, and what a peaceful protest is. Blocking traffic is already banned. That's 100% illegal in all cases. 'Protests' which infringe on the rights of others are just another form of fascism. 'My Fascism is Worthwhile' is not a civic or moral argument. You can protest peacefully, vote, engage in other forms of civic obedience, but you can't do it at the expense of others, full stop. As soon as someone starts trampling on your rights for a cause you don't agree with you'll scream 'victim' and then maybe have a different perspective.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Walking in the street is not fascism. This is seriously ridiculous. Are you going to claim that the Hong Kong protests, or the Climate Protests are fascists because people were walking in the streets?
- jlawson 6y ago
  Funny, I never said "only voting". I also said you have a voice, use it. You seem to have completely ignored that paragraph. Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at actually responding to what I wrote. It is absolutely possible to protest without hurting innocent bystanders.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    If your standard for "hurting innocent bystanders" is to mildly inconvenience some people by causing them to seek an alternative route, then no, it's not possible to have an effective protest under that standard. The right to protest is generally accepted to mean that people are allowed to walk in the street in an effort to be heard. I responded to what you wrote, and your arguments fall flat. Even during massive protests with millions of people ambulances get where they need to get and doctors go where they need to go.
    - jlawson 6y ago
      When you're blocked on the highway, you cannot leave. You're confined. No matter how sick you are, how hungry the baby is, how hot the car is getting, how low on gas or how late you are for work. Stop being disingenous about what you're advocating. You're advocating confining people to their cars on the highway. Including old people, little kids, sick people. To force them to listen to you.
    - msla 6y ago
      > If your standard for "hurting innocent bystanders" is to mildly inconvenience some people No, the standard is potentially killing people.

sudosysgen 6y ago

Limiting the political engagement of your citizens to only voting in a two party system is madness. When people stop being engaged, and stop voting, and your country turns to shit, I can say that I warned you. No, seriously, this is insane. You want to, functionally, ban protests. There is absolutely no way you can have a functional country if you can't even have peaceful demonstrations.

jariel 6y ago
"You want to, functionally, ban protests." You have a misunderstanding of what is legal, what is not, and what a peaceful protest is. Blocking traffic is already banned. That's 100% illegal in all cases. 'Protests' which infringe on the rights of others are just another form of fascism. 'My Fascism is Worthwhile' is not a civic or moral argument. You can protest peacefully, vote, engage in other forms of civic obedience, but you can't do it at the expense of others, full stop. As soon as someone starts trampling on your rights for a cause you don't agree with you'll scream 'victim' and then maybe have a different perspective.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Walking in the street is not fascism. This is seriously ridiculous. Are you going to claim that the Hong Kong protests, or the Climate Protests are fascists because people were walking in the streets?
jlawson 6y ago
Funny, I never said "only voting". I also said you have a voice, use it. You seem to have completely ignored that paragraph. Perhaps you'd like to take a shot at actually responding to what I wrote. It is absolutely possible to protest without hurting innocent bystanders.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  If your standard for "hurting innocent bystanders" is to mildly inconvenience some people by causing them to seek an alternative route, then no, it's not possible to have an effective protest under that standard. The right to protest is generally accepted to mean that people are allowed to walk in the street in an effort to be heard. I responded to what you wrote, and your arguments fall flat. Even during massive protests with millions of people ambulances get where they need to get and doctors go where they need to go.
  - jlawson 6y ago
    When you're blocked on the highway, you cannot leave. You're confined. No matter how sick you are, how hungry the baby is, how hot the car is getting, how low on gas or how late you are for work. Stop being disingenous about what you're advocating. You're advocating confining people to their cars on the highway. Including old people, little kids, sick people. To force them to listen to you.
  - msla 6y ago
    > If your standard for "hurting innocent bystanders" is to mildly inconvenience some people No, the standard is potentially killing people.