4 ms·

Would you say the same for an anti-abortion protest or something similar? Many people want their protests to be very disruptive but forget they’re not the only

Would you say the same for an anti-abortion protest or something similar? Many people want their protests to be very disruptive but forget they’re not the only ones with grievances. They’re a lot of people willing to grind society to a halt over any perceived slight, across all ideologies…let us just unleash the craze then.

keybored 2y ago
> Would you say the same for an anti-abortion protest or something similar? Is your point that since I presumably am pro-choice (correct) since this is a more liberal forum I will disagree with this point? Well I don’t. The same principles apply. Those who want to illegalize abortion or whatever have to follow the same principles.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
In most areas, causes from the right aren’t treated similarly. And it also seems odd that the number of participants matters at all - if you take over some place as an individual, you’ll be arrested. But if there’s 50 of you, that may not happen. The ability to selectively enforce the law based on viewpoint or situation is a hole in our system.
eli 2y ago
I don't agree with them and I don't think it's very nice, but anti-abortion protestors can and do scream at people walking into clinics or imply they're working with the clinic and hand out misleading brochures and "gifts." That's their right. Sometimes they break the law by blocking doors or shoving people (or worse) and get arrested. That's their right too. Sometimes they break the law and don't get arrested because local law enforcement is sympathetic to their cause. That is a problem. Otherwise, sure, they can protest in ways that inconvenience people.
- itsdrewmiller 2y ago
  I think you mean they have the agency to break the law, not the right to do it.
  - eli 2y ago
    Not really interested in semantics. Intentionally breaking the law (and accepting the consequences) is often called civil disobedience and I don't fundamentally have a problem with it.
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      It’s just breaking the law, and is criminal. “Civil disobedience” is just a false way to minimize the fact that they’re acting unlawfully. They have ways to make change legally. If that doesn’t work they need to accept it, not decide to destroy society.
      - lanstin 2y ago
        You wish civil rights hadn’t succeeded as much as it did? You think increased investment in the war in Vietnam would have been useful? Regret women getting the vote? Since long before Thoreau, people have used civil disobedience to rouse the common sense of right and wrong to have laws changed. Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law.
      - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
        "The Law" isn't some fundamental property like the speed of light. And its not handed down from all powerful all knowing deities. It's an agreement between members of a society about how things should work and it evolves and changes along with the people. When the written law no longer matches what the population wants, its not really "the law" anymore - its a shackle that to be freed from.
    - itsdrewmiller 2y ago
      Me neither! But it's a meaningful thing to do explicitly because you don't have the "right" to do it.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  > Otherwise, sure, they can protest in ways that inconvenience people. It’s not just an inconvenience and I dislike this type of minimization. Breaking the law isn’t okay - we have laws as a society for reason. There are legal ways to protest and argue for change. Standing on a sidewalk and speaking (within noise limitations) is okay in most jurisdictions, provided you aren’t blocking others from passing through. But taking over shared infrastructure like roads or airports or universities is not okay. No one is entitled to abuse society just because they’re unhappy that their views aren’t heard. At least in the US, there are many other ways to convince others peacefully.
  - tharmas 2y ago
    You have to be careful you are not sliding into Intolerance for views etc that you don't agree with. Its a very contagious disease these days. People are losing the ability to negotiate and compromise.
- swat535 2y ago
  > local law enforcement is sympathetic to their cause. That is a problem. Regardless of your political views, I would say that yes indeed it is, local law enforcement is too sympathetic to many popular causes. We have witnessed it with BLM burning and looting stores, Pro Palestinian encampments harassing Jews and Churches being burned down. No one would be complaining if the law was equally enforced, unfortunately it isn't and it very much depends on the local politics. People get upset when they feel like certain groups are granted privileges for breaking the law whilst dissenting voices not so much.
hluska 2y ago
This is called freedom. If you have difficulty with others expressing their freedom, you don’t believe in it. And I say that as someone who thinks that anti abortion protesters are among the stupidest fucking people in North America.
- morkalork 2y ago
  Freedom to deprive others of their own freedoms? Everyone has freedom of movement... until some bloody idiot decides to blockade a bridge over their pet cause.
  - alan-hn 2y ago
    Those freedoms are freedoms from the government not your civilian peers. The laws enshrining freedoms do so to prevent government overreach, which is part of the reason we have corporations running the show
maxglute 2y ago
>They’re a lot of people willing to grind society to a halt over any perceived slight, across all ideologies…let us just unleash the craze then. That's how society works. Except law enforcement filters out the craze below certain thresholds. Past that threshold, disruptive protests becomes referendums on changing norms. A cause with sufficient support to sustain disruptive protest in face of maximum state power corners power into political change to establish new normal where discontentment/disruption is again below threshold of law enforcement. When multple crazes compete, the more disruptive/sustaining one wins out according to local conditions, that's why tribes/interests/policies break down by geography - when some faction of crazies win the disruption game and carve out their own little bubbles. While it's nice to settle things with debate/voting/process, but such system is easily rigged, and ultimately it's the 2nd derivative expression of violence, the source of power. At some point people will chose to fight power with power.

keybored 2y ago

> Would you say the same for an anti-abortion protest or something similar? Is your point that since I presumably am pro-choice (correct) since this is a more liberal forum I will disagree with this point? Well I don’t. The same principles apply. Those who want to illegalize abortion or whatever have to follow the same principles.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

In most areas, causes from the right aren’t treated similarly. And it also seems odd that the number of participants matters at all - if you take over some place as an individual, you’ll be arrested. But if there’s 50 of you, that may not happen. The ability to selectively enforce the law based on viewpoint or situation is a hole in our system.

eli 2y ago

I don't agree with them and I don't think it's very nice, but anti-abortion protestors can and do scream at people walking into clinics or imply they're working with the clinic and hand out misleading brochures and "gifts." That's their right. Sometimes they break the law by blocking doors or shoving people (or worse) and get arrested. That's their right too. Sometimes they break the law and don't get arrested because local law enforcement is sympathetic to their cause. That is a problem. Otherwise, sure, they can protest in ways that inconvenience people.

itsdrewmiller 2y ago
I think you mean they have the agency to break the law, not the right to do it.
- eli 2y ago
  Not really interested in semantics. Intentionally breaking the law (and accepting the consequences) is often called civil disobedience and I don't fundamentally have a problem with it.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    It’s just breaking the law, and is criminal. “Civil disobedience” is just a false way to minimize the fact that they’re acting unlawfully. They have ways to make change legally. If that doesn’t work they need to accept it, not decide to destroy society.
    - lanstin 2y ago
      You wish civil rights hadn’t succeeded as much as it did? You think increased investment in the war in Vietnam would have been useful? Regret women getting the vote? Since long before Thoreau, people have used civil disobedience to rouse the common sense of right and wrong to have laws changed. Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law.
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
      "The Law" isn't some fundamental property like the speed of light. And its not handed down from all powerful all knowing deities. It's an agreement between members of a society about how things should work and it evolves and changes along with the people. When the written law no longer matches what the population wants, its not really "the law" anymore - its a shackle that to be freed from.
  - itsdrewmiller 2y ago
    Me neither! But it's a meaningful thing to do explicitly because you don't have the "right" to do it.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
> Otherwise, sure, they can protest in ways that inconvenience people. It’s not just an inconvenience and I dislike this type of minimization. Breaking the law isn’t okay - we have laws as a society for reason. There are legal ways to protest and argue for change. Standing on a sidewalk and speaking (within noise limitations) is okay in most jurisdictions, provided you aren’t blocking others from passing through. But taking over shared infrastructure like roads or airports or universities is not okay. No one is entitled to abuse society just because they’re unhappy that their views aren’t heard. At least in the US, there are many other ways to convince others peacefully.
- tharmas 2y ago
  You have to be careful you are not sliding into Intolerance for views etc that you don't agree with. Its a very contagious disease these days. People are losing the ability to negotiate and compromise.
swat535 2y ago
> local law enforcement is sympathetic to their cause. That is a problem. Regardless of your political views, I would say that yes indeed it is, local law enforcement is too sympathetic to many popular causes. We have witnessed it with BLM burning and looting stores, Pro Palestinian encampments harassing Jews and Churches being burned down. No one would be complaining if the law was equally enforced, unfortunately it isn't and it very much depends on the local politics. People get upset when they feel like certain groups are granted privileges for breaking the law whilst dissenting voices not so much.

hluska 2y ago

This is called freedom. If you have difficulty with others expressing their freedom, you don’t believe in it. And I say that as someone who thinks that anti abortion protesters are among the stupidest fucking people in North America.

morkalork 2y ago
Freedom to deprive others of their own freedoms? Everyone has freedom of movement... until some bloody idiot decides to blockade a bridge over their pet cause.
- alan-hn 2y ago
  Those freedoms are freedoms from the government not your civilian peers. The laws enshrining freedoms do so to prevent government overreach, which is part of the reason we have corporations running the show

maxglute 2y ago

>They’re a lot of people willing to grind society to a halt over any perceived slight, across all ideologies…let us just unleash the craze then. That's how society works. Except law enforcement filters out the craze below certain thresholds. Past that threshold, disruptive protests becomes referendums on changing norms. A cause with sufficient support to sustain disruptive protest in face of maximum state power corners power into political change to establish new normal where discontentment/disruption is again below threshold of law enforcement. When multple crazes compete, the more disruptive/sustaining one wins out according to local conditions, that's why tribes/interests/policies break down by geography - when some faction of crazies win the disruption game and carve out their own little bubbles. While it's nice to settle things with debate/voting/process, but such system is easily rigged, and ultimately it's the 2nd derivative expression of violence, the source of power. At some point people will chose to fight power with power.