4 ms·
Vandalism can be a form of protest. Again, every protest ever has had people saying that the disruption to them is over the line. It draws attention and covera
by Latty 5y ago
Vandalism can be a form of protest. Again, every protest ever has had people saying that the disruption to them is over the line.
It draws attention and coverage to the issue. It forces people to listen. Protest has to be disruptive to the norm to achieve that, and there will always be people who don't like that. That's the point.
As I say, I don't think this one is effective or proportional given the lack of control someone in Russia has over the situation, but just saying "nothing should ever be damaged in protest" is, I think, naïve at best.
If Russia were a state with a reasonable guarantee of a fair legal process, I would argue a moral obligation to disruptive protest to end the war. If the UK (where I am) were to invade another country like this, I would hope for a general strike, and civil disobedience of all kinds, including vandalism. The fact that Russia has such a hard line against dissidence makes this obviously more morally difficult, although I greatly respect those that still choose to protest, I can't expect it of anyone.
People will disagree about how effective a thing is, and how justified it is. What the Russian state is doing is monstrous, and that increases the level of justified disruption to me. That doesn't mean this was justified—I feel it wasn't—but pretending that all "vandalism" is inherently never reasonable as protest is, in my view, wrong.
- FredPret 5y ago“Crime X can be a form of protest” “Every protest ever has had people saying that the disruption to them is over the line” So which crimes would not be acceptable in a protest? And if people will always complain about the line being crossed, does this mean there can be no line at all?
- BaronVonSteuben 5y agoIndeed, by this logic, the Unabomber was a pretty effective "protester."
- krapp 5y agoGiven how influential Ted Kaczynski's manifesto has been within the tech community, and how many people agree with his views (particularly regarding leftism,) if not his methods, I think that's objectively true.
- vkou 5y agoWhy not pick, say, the Boston Tea Party (And the war that followed) as a better example of an effective protest? Highly illegal and immoral, destructive and violent, killed some five-digit number of press-ganged soldiers and civilians, met all of its political goals...
- BaronVonSteuben 5y agoOh absolutely. The reason the Boston Tea Party is celebrated is because their side won the war. Had the British won, it would have been one of the many wicked/evil "rebellions" against the King that got crushed. But I'm not really seeing the connection here or why it invalidates the Unabomber example.
- vkou 5y agoUnabomber is a worse example because while the ideas of his manifesto have taken root, he can't solely be credited for them, and his acolytes (both people pushing back on tech, and pundits screeching about woke politics ruining society) tend to condemn him (Again, because he wasn't the only person raising these ideas.) The long and short of it is - just about any destructive, devious, and murderous form of protest is considered acceptable, as long as you can convince a large enough segment of society that it's end justifies the means. It's circular logic, of course, but that's all there is to it. There are no involatile, unbreakable taboos when it comes to seeking political ends - you just have a harder time convincing some people that your cause is worthwhile, when you are using more extreme ones. And even if you win, you might still be condemned by history for your methods. On the scale of extremes of methods, this thread's subject is notable, novel, interesting, but is more on the 'misdemeanour hooliganism' side of that spectrum.
- Latty 5y agoI don't think there is a clear-cut line, no. Context matters, and people will disagree about what is proportional or justified. Clearly that doesn't mean all protest methods are always justified, and I even said I think that this is over the line given this particular set of circumstances, but I reject the premise that it would always be over the line.