7 ms·

If people want to make a point, they can vote, they can petition their government and representatives, they can run for office, and they can speak. Resorting t

If people want to make a point, they can vote, they can petition their government and representatives, they can run for office, and they can speak. Resorting to kinetic means throws all of that out the window. You want to make a point, and be heard? Stop committing crimes and taking other people's rights away.

woodruffw 3y ago
You don't have a right to drive a car. It's a privilege, as indicated by your drivers' license. You're entitled to be upset when someone blocks your car. But framing it as a civil rights issue rather than a practical one (and calling someone blocking your car "kinetic") makes you come across as un-serious.
- varjag 3y ago
  If you're on a bus you're just as much stuck in the traffic as if you're driving, what kind of outlandish argument is that.
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    Being stuck in traffic isn't a violation of your civil liberties.
    - varjag 3y ago
      Freedom of movement is a civil liberty, but maybe not where you live.
      - woodruffw 3y ago
        This is a profound misunderstanding of civil liberties. Being inconvenienced by another person doesn't violate anything. If the government were to install roadblocks and check your identity card before letting you leave your town, that would violate your freedom of movement. If a local private militia did the same thing, it would be as well. But being slightly delayed by a bunch of environmentalists blocking a specific form of transit doesn't meaningfully violate anything. The counterstatement here would be "the state has the right to forcefully remove anybody who slightly inconveniences me"; it should be obvious why this would be a gross violation of civil liberties.
        varjag 3y ago
        This is a useless distinction when the distances dictate pretty much this only mode of transportation: nobody's going to march 40km on foot unless their lives depend on it. The counterstatement here would be "the state has the right to forcefully remove anybody who slightly inconveniences me"; it should be obvious why this would be a gross violation of civil liberties. There is a whole slew of laws and regulations dealing with people who inconvenience others on purpose.
        munk-a 3y ago
        > nobody's going to march 40km on foot unless their lives depend on it. Freedom of movement specifically exists for when "your lives depend on it" - it is a vital right to preserve and the freedom to make that 40 km walk has saved countless lives over the centuries.
- c4mpute 3y ago
  Freedom of movement is a fundamental right in Germany. Your freedom to move the car everywhere, and without qualification is of course limited for the safety of everyone. But driving places is part of your personal freedom, which has to be weighed against somebody else's freedom to protest.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
kelnos 3y ago
If people who wanted change always avoided breaking laws during their protests, there would be a lot less positive change int he world. You might want to read up on the history of protest, and, specifically, civil disobedience.
crooked-v 3y ago
You're unironically repeating the same kind of rhetoric used against Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi when their protests happened to mildly inconvenience people in power.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
reso 3y ago
How would this theory have worked in e.g. the 1960s civil rights movement.
OGWhales 3y ago
While voting should be done, it is not always effective/possible. An obvious example to bring up is the suffragist, since they were not allowed to vote. The point of protesting in a manner that is truly disruptive is to force the problem to be dealt with. This concept seems to allude many, to them the only acceptable form of protest is one that is entirely ignorable. I’m not sure we would have many of the important freedoms we have today without people choosing to be disruptive in this manner you find unacceptable.
- c1sc0 3y ago
  Good reading on this is “How to blow up a pipeline by Andreas Malm” … the disruptions we see right now are pretty mild & maybe this preventive detention is an attempt to reel in the more extreme activists before they do something truly disruptive?
- rob74 3y ago
  "Voting is not always effective" is true especially in Bavaria, where the CSU has perfected populism to the point that they have managed to stay in power basically since the current Federal Republic of Germany exists (with a brief interruption from 1954 to 1957) - if they don't get more than 50% of the Landtag seats, they can pick and choose their coalition partner, and they have already excluded a coalition with the Green party, because other parties (FDP, Freie Wähler) are more pliant.
tppiotrowski 3y ago
Some would argue that a car highway prevents right of movement for pedestrians and cyclists. I get what you're saying but you're very narrowly trying to define right of movement to make your argument and without your narrow definition it falls apart.

woodruffw 3y ago

You don't have a right to drive a car. It's a privilege, as indicated by your drivers' license. You're entitled to be upset when someone blocks your car. But framing it as a civil rights issue rather than a practical one (and calling someone blocking your car "kinetic") makes you come across as un-serious.

varjag 3y ago
If you're on a bus you're just as much stuck in the traffic as if you're driving, what kind of outlandish argument is that.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  Being stuck in traffic isn't a violation of your civil liberties.
  - varjag 3y ago
    Freedom of movement is a civil liberty, but maybe not where you live.
    - woodruffw 3y ago
      This is a profound misunderstanding of civil liberties. Being inconvenienced by another person doesn't violate anything. If the government were to install roadblocks and check your identity card before letting you leave your town, that would violate your freedom of movement. If a local private militia did the same thing, it would be as well. But being slightly delayed by a bunch of environmentalists blocking a specific form of transit doesn't meaningfully violate anything. The counterstatement here would be "the state has the right to forcefully remove anybody who slightly inconveniences me"; it should be obvious why this would be a gross violation of civil liberties.
      - varjag 3y ago
        This is a useless distinction when the distances dictate pretty much this only mode of transportation: nobody's going to march 40km on foot unless their lives depend on it. The counterstatement here would be "the state has the right to forcefully remove anybody who slightly inconveniences me"; it should be obvious why this would be a gross violation of civil liberties. There is a whole slew of laws and regulations dealing with people who inconvenience others on purpose.
        munk-a 3y ago
        > nobody's going to march 40km on foot unless their lives depend on it. Freedom of movement specifically exists for when "your lives depend on it" - it is a vital right to preserve and the freedom to make that 40 km walk has saved countless lives over the centuries.
c4mpute 3y ago
Freedom of movement is a fundamental right in Germany. Your freedom to move the car everywhere, and without qualification is of course limited for the safety of everyone. But driving places is part of your personal freedom, which has to be weighed against somebody else's freedom to protest.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

kelnos 3y ago

If people who wanted change always avoided breaking laws during their protests, there would be a lot less positive change int he world. You might want to read up on the history of protest, and, specifically, civil disobedience.

crooked-v 3y ago

You're unironically repeating the same kind of rhetoric used against Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi when their protests happened to mildly inconvenience people in power.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

reso 3y ago

How would this theory have worked in e.g. the 1960s civil rights movement.

OGWhales 3y ago

While voting should be done, it is not always effective/possible. An obvious example to bring up is the suffragist, since they were not allowed to vote. The point of protesting in a manner that is truly disruptive is to force the problem to be dealt with. This concept seems to allude many, to them the only acceptable form of protest is one that is entirely ignorable. I’m not sure we would have many of the important freedoms we have today without people choosing to be disruptive in this manner you find unacceptable.

c1sc0 3y ago
Good reading on this is “How to blow up a pipeline by Andreas Malm” … the disruptions we see right now are pretty mild & maybe this preventive detention is an attempt to reel in the more extreme activists before they do something truly disruptive?
rob74 3y ago
"Voting is not always effective" is true especially in Bavaria, where the CSU has perfected populism to the point that they have managed to stay in power basically since the current Federal Republic of Germany exists (with a brief interruption from 1954 to 1957) - if they don't get more than 50% of the Landtag seats, they can pick and choose their coalition partner, and they have already excluded a coalition with the Green party, because other parties (FDP, Freie Wähler) are more pliant.

tppiotrowski 3y ago

Some would argue that a car highway prevents right of movement for pedestrians and cyclists. I get what you're saying but you're very narrowly trying to define right of movement to make your argument and without your narrow definition it falls apart.