2 ms·
I think you (and, judging by the moderation, other people on HN) mistakenly believe I don't support the right to protest, I very much do, and have a habit of su
by nailer 4y ago
I think you (and, judging by the moderation, other people on HN) mistakenly believe I don't support the right to protest, I very much do, and have a habit of supporting (both financially and otherwise) various civil liberties organizations.
However I do like to see logical, robust arguments.
> "Our tolerance for any disruption, whether through protest or otherwise, will be low."
> "We will deal robustly with anyone intent on undermining this celebration."
(and then later)
> And yet... people were arrested for having signs along the route.
Be clear in what it is you object to. It seems like you want to attack the hypocrisy of arresting non-disruptive protests.
Quoting the police saying disruption will not be be allowed, when instead you are concerned about non-disruptive protesters being arrested, weakens and distracts from your argument.
- swores 4y agoI personally am against both the newly passed legislation, and against police arresting people for not even breaking the ridiculous new laws. I'll complain about both :)
- nailer 4y agoSure. Here's an example of a more robust response, written from you to me, borrowing some of Silas' points: > Personally I support disruptive action (insert rationale here). > Furthermore, the talk of disruptive action is frequently used to mask action against non-disruptive protest. People were arrested for having signs along the route. Others they were arrested and held for 16 hours on the basis of 'being equipped for locking on' which were actually cargo ties to hold their placards during transit - of no practical use for locking on." By responding to the current topic, before bringing up the other, it strengthens your points on both.