5 ms·

> I’d love to be wrong about this though. You're right, and there's good reason for it. Negative rights are generally non-interventionist, which tends to be mo

by dvt 6y ago

> I’d love to be wrong about this though. You're right, and there's good reason for it. Negative rights are generally non-interventionist, which tends to be more in line with classical liberalism. However, the fact that the stadium had to shut down, indicates that the protestors were actually infringing on the rights of those that wanted to get vaccinated. So calling this "protesting" is a bit of a misnomer. They were not protesting, just how the folks that breached the Capitol on Jan 6th weren't protesting. This can be complicated, because the Boston Tea Party (for example) is often called a protest in history books, but it was pretty clearly an act of vandalism. Not that the two are mutually exclusive (after all, we can certainly have violent protests), but we mostly think of protests in terms of what the Constitution defines as the "freedom of assembly."

jb775 6y ago
So in other words, you change the definition of "protesting" based on if it aligns with your personal political viewpoint. They should add this comment in the dictionary under the definition of "cognitive dissonance".
- dvt 6y ago
  > So in other words, you change the definition of "protesting" based on if it aligns with your personal political viewpoint. Not really. All I'm saying is that in everyday parlance, "protesting" implies that you're not infringing on someone else's rights. The gold standard of protesting is something like MLK's Selma to Montgomery March or Gandhi's hunger strike. Nevertheless, figures like Malcolm X or Che Guevara would vehemently disagree. This definition applies to all spectrums of political discourse. Last summer, a bunch of BLM "protests" weren't protests in this (in my opinion, more correct) sense of the word, either -- people were looting and setting fires.
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    > people were looting and setting fires. It's been said[1] that looting and property destruction should be seen through the eyes of an individual who decries society as illegitimate. If an individual feels that they have been violated or destroyed by the social system, what obligation does that individual have to maintain and uphold the social structure that they feel wronged them? A more direct interpretation of _sticking it to the man_, for sure: the argument being that outside of a riot, one's personal outrage at _the man_ would be swiftly, albeit unjustifiably, punished - but in the middle of a riot, one can wreck... hundreds of dollars of damage to major corporate conglomerates: theirs is a modest penalty for perceived violations of the social contract, but a thousand times more satisfying to the perpetrator. ...or something. [1] Yes, I'm aware this is a weasel word.
masonic 6y ago
They were not protesting Clearly, you didn't look at the actual video (link embedded in the article). Protesters were clear over on the sidewalk and never impede traffic. Most verbal interactions are strictly among competing protesters. Nobody missed getting their vaccine. The Times' summary fundamentally misrepresented the actual event.

by dvt 6y ago

jb775 6y ago

So in other words, you change the definition of "protesting" based on if it aligns with your personal political viewpoint. They should add this comment in the dictionary under the definition of "cognitive dissonance".

dvt 6y ago
> So in other words, you change the definition of "protesting" based on if it aligns with your personal political viewpoint. Not really. All I'm saying is that in everyday parlance, "protesting" implies that you're not infringing on someone else's rights. The gold standard of protesting is something like MLK's Selma to Montgomery March or Gandhi's hunger strike. Nevertheless, figures like Malcolm X or Che Guevara would vehemently disagree. This definition applies to all spectrums of political discourse. Last summer, a bunch of BLM "protests" weren't protests in this (in my opinion, more correct) sense of the word, either -- people were looting and setting fires.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  > people were looting and setting fires. It's been said[1] that looting and property destruction should be seen through the eyes of an individual who decries society as illegitimate. If an individual feels that they have been violated or destroyed by the social system, what obligation does that individual have to maintain and uphold the social structure that they feel wronged them? A more direct interpretation of _sticking it to the man_, for sure: the argument being that outside of a riot, one's personal outrage at _the man_ would be swiftly, albeit unjustifiably, punished - but in the middle of a riot, one can wreck... hundreds of dollars of damage to major corporate conglomerates: theirs is a modest penalty for perceived violations of the social contract, but a thousand times more satisfying to the perpetrator. ...or something. [1] Yes, I'm aware this is a weasel word.

masonic 6y ago

They were not protesting Clearly, you didn't look at the actual video (link embedded in the article). Protesters were clear over on the sidewalk and never impede traffic. Most verbal interactions are strictly among competing protesters. Nobody missed getting their vaccine. The Times' summary fundamentally misrepresented the actual event.