6 ms·

I live in France as well, and personally do not feel the same negativity as you. What I don't appreciate at all is our share of idiots that think that blocking

by pif 3y ago

I live in France as well, and personally do not feel the same negativity as you. What I don't appreciate at all is our share of idiots that think that blocking the country is a proper way of protesting (see "gilets jaunes"). That is not democratic, when a minority imposes their will to the silent majority.

Qiu_Zhanxuan 3y ago
I'm always appalled by comments like these that justify their sympathy for authoritarian practices simply because they align with their interests. I'm in Paris, France, and police brutality has been increasing hand in hand with the corrupt nature of our government over the last decade, and it's horrifying. The apple is completely rotten; the way our election system works and all the dirty tricks you can do when you're in power mean people are not left with any other choice but to revolt. This does not bode well for our country.
- pif 3y ago
  > sympathy for authoritarian practices simply because they align with their interests Nothing personal, I'm talking about the interests of all the voters who freely elected the current president and parliament. If you are not happy, it's our duty as a society to provide you a way to express your point. But the right to express your point does not involve the violence to get our attention. Most people just want to go on with their daily life, and putting obstacles to them will not gather any sympathy around you.
beremaki 3y ago
What gilets jaunes or blocking whatever have anything to do with violating parliamentary rights ? Or making protests of disappointment (edit: disapproval) illegal everywhere the president go ? What can anyone do about a president that abuses its power ? This is a basic democratic issue and I am pessimistic because a lot of people like you just don't seem to get it, so we won't address that and when it is going to be too late it will be too late. You might like or trust the current government but what about the next one ?
- pif 3y ago
  > making protests of disappointment illegal everywhere the president go France is big enough. Having to avoid a few square kilometres around the president will leave you plenty of space to organize your protest.
  - soco 3y ago
    Next law: protest as much as you want but out of sight. In your own cellar maybe? Ok that was sarcasm, but the very point of a protest is to be visible. Same with all Last Generation or such protests: if they had simply marched on some side street, nobody would talk about them today.
    - pif 3y ago
      > the very point of a protest is to be visible. And that's why the public space must be made available for protesters, it's part of the life of a sane democracy. Public space and free press are sufficient if you have a point that matters to other people. But if you feel the need to hijack another event in order to get people's attention, maybe you don't have a valid point to start with?
      - wholinator2 3y ago
        I would argue the conclusion to that isn't that they don't have a valid point, but that the people cannot be sufficiently motivated, or that they are unsure how to protest effectively, or that they are unaware that disrupting often leaves people feeling disrupted, that feeling disrupted is not a positive feeling, and that associating Negativity with a movement too many times can really hurt it in the long run. Just look at the cultures idea of PETA in the USA.
        soco 3y ago
        I argue that PETA succeeded to bring into the official discussion other, more moderate organizations, thus effectively moving "the cause" forward at the expense of their own organization. Probably that was not their goal, but from a 10.000 feet it looks like achieving that. I think the same goes with the "eco terrorists", they may get slaughtered in the process but ecology gets on everybody's tongues. Again not sure they are planning it like this or it's just a side effect.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
skitout 3y ago
Polls showed that a large majority of French supported the Gilets Jaunes or supported the recent strikes. Foolowing your reasonning, the minority imposing their will to the silent majority is the government. Furthermore, independently to our opinion about the Gilets Jaunes, the way this government use the police on the protest can be questioning for a democracy. Even the journalist of the right Figaro newspaper protested several times against police brutality against journalists. Furthermore, independently to our opinion about the recent strikes (supported by 100% of the democratically elected trade unions), the fact that the government twisted the constitution to avoid a democratic vote of the democratically elected parliament on the legislative text is "puzzling"
- barrkel 3y ago
  https://www.statista.com/statistics/945415/gilets-jaunes-approval-ratings-france/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/945415/gilets-jaunes-app... Those in favour went from 70 to 50% over the course of 5 months, opposition tripled, strong support went from 50% to 20%.
  - skitout 3y ago
    Few months after the start of the Gilet Jaune, they were not "blocking the country" anymore (I was answering a comment about this)... And while not supporting the Gilet Jaune mode of action anymore, people still strongly supported and support the main ideas they pushed, like Citizens' initiative referendum, or the Solidarity tax on wealth
    - pif 3y ago
      > while not supporting the Gilet Jaune mode of action anymore, people still strongly supported and support the main ideas they pushed Imagine how successful they could have been if they had behaved as civilised people from the beginning! I personally like some of those ideas, but I'll never trust people who think that violence is justifiable.
      - 3y ago
throwaway290 3y ago
When they came for the protesters you did not speak out because you was not a protester... Beware when they come for you there will be no one left to speak out. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_)
- pif 3y ago
  When they came for violent people preventing other pacific people to move on with their life, nobody needed to speak because their actions were against the law.
  - hbt 3y ago
    Will you be celebrating the 14th of July buddy? Or will you be condemning the act of 633 angry French citizens "storming the Bastille in Paris, capturing its munitions, releasing its seven prisoners, lynching the governor and demolishing the fortress". After all, they broke the law and since it's the law then clearly the government had full legitimacy... right? Next, you should be defending the "Code Noir" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Noir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Noir That was also the law at some point and only affecting a minitority of the population. The suffering of anyone in society shouldn't interrupt your daily life as any act of revolt is illegal and therefore illegitimate. Are you even French? "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" unless it inconveniences my day-to-day.
    - throwaway290 3y ago
      Or defending the flattening of protesters who were occupying Tiananmen square...
    - pif 3y ago
      Your examples do not involve people living in a democracy with universal right to vote.
      - hbt 3y ago
        And your definition of democracy is nothing more than electing a master to rule over you for 5 years. As long as his actions are legal, you consider them legitimate despite being highly unpopular and imposed on people through police violence. There is more to democracy than a vote every 5 years. Consent of the governed: "Government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is justified and lawful only when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised." The founders of the United States believed that the government of Great Britain should rest on the principle that government depended on the consent of the governed and that any government not based on that consent could be justifiably overthrown and replaced. Pretty sure revolutionary France abides by the same principles.

by pif 3y ago

Qiu_Zhanxuan 3y ago

I'm always appalled by comments like these that justify their sympathy for authoritarian practices simply because they align with their interests. I'm in Paris, France, and police brutality has been increasing hand in hand with the corrupt nature of our government over the last decade, and it's horrifying. The apple is completely rotten; the way our election system works and all the dirty tricks you can do when you're in power mean people are not left with any other choice but to revolt. This does not bode well for our country.

pif 3y ago
> sympathy for authoritarian practices simply because they align with their interests Nothing personal, I'm talking about the interests of all the voters who freely elected the current president and parliament. If you are not happy, it's our duty as a society to provide you a way to express your point. But the right to express your point does not involve the violence to get our attention. Most people just want to go on with their daily life, and putting obstacles to them will not gather any sympathy around you.

beremaki 3y ago

What gilets jaunes or blocking whatever have anything to do with violating parliamentary rights ? Or making protests of disappointment (edit: disapproval) illegal everywhere the president go ? What can anyone do about a president that abuses its power ? This is a basic democratic issue and I am pessimistic because a lot of people like you just don't seem to get it, so we won't address that and when it is going to be too late it will be too late. You might like or trust the current government but what about the next one ?

pif 3y ago
> making protests of disappointment illegal everywhere the president go France is big enough. Having to avoid a few square kilometres around the president will leave you plenty of space to organize your protest.
- soco 3y ago
  Next law: protest as much as you want but out of sight. In your own cellar maybe? Ok that was sarcasm, but the very point of a protest is to be visible. Same with all Last Generation or such protests: if they had simply marched on some side street, nobody would talk about them today.
  - pif 3y ago
    > the very point of a protest is to be visible. And that's why the public space must be made available for protesters, it's part of the life of a sane democracy. Public space and free press are sufficient if you have a point that matters to other people. But if you feel the need to hijack another event in order to get people's attention, maybe you don't have a valid point to start with?
    - wholinator2 3y ago
      I would argue the conclusion to that isn't that they don't have a valid point, but that the people cannot be sufficiently motivated, or that they are unsure how to protest effectively, or that they are unaware that disrupting often leaves people feeling disrupted, that feeling disrupted is not a positive feeling, and that associating Negativity with a movement too many times can really hurt it in the long run. Just look at the cultures idea of PETA in the USA.
      - soco 3y ago
        I argue that PETA succeeded to bring into the official discussion other, more moderate organizations, thus effectively moving "the cause" forward at the expense of their own organization. Probably that was not their goal, but from a 10.000 feet it looks like achieving that. I think the same goes with the "eco terrorists", they may get slaughtered in the process but ecology gets on everybody's tongues. Again not sure they are planning it like this or it's just a side effect.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

skitout 3y ago

Polls showed that a large majority of French supported the Gilets Jaunes or supported the recent strikes. Foolowing your reasonning, the minority imposing their will to the silent majority is the government. Furthermore, independently to our opinion about the Gilets Jaunes, the way this government use the police on the protest can be questioning for a democracy. Even the journalist of the right Figaro newspaper protested several times against police brutality against journalists. Furthermore, independently to our opinion about the recent strikes (supported by 100% of the democratically elected trade unions), the fact that the government twisted the constitution to avoid a democratic vote of the democratically elected parliament on the legislative text is "puzzling"

barrkel 3y ago
https://www.statista.com/statistics/945415/gilets-jaunes-approval-ratings-france/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/945415/gilets-jaunes-app... Those in favour went from 70 to 50% over the course of 5 months, opposition tripled, strong support went from 50% to 20%.
- skitout 3y ago
  Few months after the start of the Gilet Jaune, they were not "blocking the country" anymore (I was answering a comment about this)... And while not supporting the Gilet Jaune mode of action anymore, people still strongly supported and support the main ideas they pushed, like Citizens' initiative referendum, or the Solidarity tax on wealth
  - pif 3y ago
    > while not supporting the Gilet Jaune mode of action anymore, people still strongly supported and support the main ideas they pushed Imagine how successful they could have been if they had behaved as civilised people from the beginning! I personally like some of those ideas, but I'll never trust people who think that violence is justifiable.
    - 3y ago

throwaway290 3y ago

When they came for the protesters you did not speak out because you was not a protester... Beware when they come for you there will be no one left to speak out. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_)

pif 3y ago
When they came for violent people preventing other pacific people to move on with their life, nobody needed to speak because their actions were against the law.
- hbt 3y ago
  Will you be celebrating the 14th of July buddy? Or will you be condemning the act of 633 angry French citizens "storming the Bastille in Paris, capturing its munitions, releasing its seven prisoners, lynching the governor and demolishing the fortress". After all, they broke the law and since it's the law then clearly the government had full legitimacy... right? Next, you should be defending the "Code Noir" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Noir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Noir That was also the law at some point and only affecting a minitority of the population. The suffering of anyone in society shouldn't interrupt your daily life as any act of revolt is illegal and therefore illegitimate. Are you even French? "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" unless it inconveniences my day-to-day.
  - throwaway290 3y ago
    Or defending the flattening of protesters who were occupying Tiananmen square...
  - pif 3y ago
    Your examples do not involve people living in a democracy with universal right to vote.
    - hbt 3y ago
      And your definition of democracy is nothing more than electing a master to rule over you for 5 years. As long as his actions are legal, you consider them legitimate despite being highly unpopular and imposed on people through police violence. There is more to democracy than a vote every 5 years. Consent of the governed: "Government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is justified and lawful only when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised." The founders of the United States believed that the government of Great Britain should rest on the principle that government depended on the consent of the governed and that any government not based on that consent could be justifiably overthrown and replaced. Pretty sure revolutionary France abides by the same principles.