3 ms·

There has to be some reason behind protesting or we end up wasting resources arresting everyone and trying to fight over who gets to protest in prime space at p

There has to be some reason behind protesting or we end up wasting resources arresting everyone and trying to fight over who gets to protest in prime space at prime time. It’s better for everyone if we’re civilized about it.

bheadmaster 4y ago
> There has to be some reason behind protesting or we end up wasting resources arresting everyone and trying to fight over who gets to protest in prime space at prime time. The fact that there are people out there wasting their own time and their own resources standing on the street for days and protesting is proof enough that there is something wrong. Why would anyone protest if there wasn't something (that they thought was) seriously wrong going on? > It’s better for everyone if we’re civilized about it. It's certainly better for the status quo, because "civilized" protest actually requires the other side to want to change things. In reality, it often does not, and "civilized" protests end up being exercises in futility. That's why protests happen - it's a form of pressure.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ls15 4y ago
So the French should have refrained from storming the Bastille in 1789 and later executing the king, and instead should have brought the issues with liberty, equality and fraternity to Louis XVI's and the clergy's attention in a non-aggressive tone?
- Lio 4y ago
  Where do you stand on French farmers blocking ports by burning truck loads of sheep and cattle alive to stop rival imports? It’s pretty cruel and brutal to me but it gets them what they want I guess. The real question is, in a modern society, where freedom of speech exists, how disruptive should protests be allowed to be? I don’t know the answer myself but I think some limits may be required.
  - ls15 4y ago
    > Where do you stand on French farmers blocking ports by burning truck loads of sheep and cattle alive to stop rival imports? Sure, that's cruel. Unlike Louis XVI, the sheep and cows were not the ones who were accountable for a deeply unfair status quo. > The real question is, in a modern society, where freedom of speech exists, how disruptive should protests be allowed to be? Freedom of speech alone does not guarantee fairness. > I don’t know the answer myself but I think some limits may be required. What are the guarantees that legislative or executive power over such limits does not get abused for profit or ideology?

bheadmaster 4y ago

> There has to be some reason behind protesting or we end up wasting resources arresting everyone and trying to fight over who gets to protest in prime space at prime time. The fact that there are people out there wasting their own time and their own resources standing on the street for days and protesting is proof enough that there is something wrong. Why would anyone protest if there wasn't something (that they thought was) seriously wrong going on? > It’s better for everyone if we’re civilized about it. It's certainly better for the status quo, because "civilized" protest actually requires the other side to want to change things. In reality, it often does not, and "civilized" protests end up being exercises in futility. That's why protests happen - it's a form of pressure.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ls15 4y ago

So the French should have refrained from storming the Bastille in 1789 and later executing the king, and instead should have brought the issues with liberty, equality and fraternity to Louis XVI's and the clergy's attention in a non-aggressive tone?

Lio 4y ago
Where do you stand on French farmers blocking ports by burning truck loads of sheep and cattle alive to stop rival imports? It’s pretty cruel and brutal to me but it gets them what they want I guess. The real question is, in a modern society, where freedom of speech exists, how disruptive should protests be allowed to be? I don’t know the answer myself but I think some limits may be required.
- ls15 4y ago
  > Where do you stand on French farmers blocking ports by burning truck loads of sheep and cattle alive to stop rival imports? Sure, that's cruel. Unlike Louis XVI, the sheep and cows were not the ones who were accountable for a deeply unfair status quo. > The real question is, in a modern society, where freedom of speech exists, how disruptive should protests be allowed to be? Freedom of speech alone does not guarantee fairness. > I don’t know the answer myself but I think some limits may be required. What are the guarantees that legislative or executive power over such limits does not get abused for profit or ideology?