4 ms·

Seems there is a conflict brewing. TFA says: > As such, if a peaceful protest were to take place during the talk in question, we will not take action, provide

by teddyh 2y ago

Seems there is a conflict brewing. TFA says: > As such, if a peaceful protest were to take place during the talk in question, we will not take action, provided the protest is indeed peaceful and does not disrupt the proceedings. However, the link you gave explicitly states: “Our purpose is to peacefully disrupt Dorsey’s talk”. I think I side with the FOSDEM organizers here; I am not OK with disrupting anyone’s talk. Protests are fine, actual disruptions are not.

elpocko 2y ago
Right. Because protests (however stupid they are) should be silent and easy to ignore, they should not disrupt anything or inconvenience anyone.
- apopapo 2y ago
  Protesting should be about raising awareness of disagreement on a topic. It does not have to be disruptive to reach that objective.
  - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
    Sometimes it does, but that's when protest turns into civil disobedience. Martin Luther King was arrested 29 times and then he was shot.
- jdietrich 2y ago
  Protesters do not have an untrammelled right to be disruptive; others in society do not have an obligation to facilitate or tolerate that disruption. If you want to stand outside the venue and shout, that's your prerogative. If you want to come inside the venue and cause disruption, then the organisers have the right to throw you out. Strictly speaking, what we're discussing is direct action rather than protest. The aim of these protesters is not merely to make a public display of their disapproval, but to take active steps to prevent something from happening, i.e. to prevent a talk from taking place by "occupying" the stage. The participants in that action may feel morally justified and may indeed be morally justified, but that doesn't negate the consequences of their actions. Giving anyone impunity to break whatever rule they like if they feel it's justified is a very short path to anarchy.
  - elpocko 2y ago
    >Protesters do not have an untrammelled right to be disruptive; others in society do not have an obligation to facilitate or tolerate that disruption Go on then, polite member of society who doesn't understand the point of protests. I'm looking forward to your counter-protest that will not disrupt anything, will largely go unnoticed, be super polite but still be a huge success and change the status quo.
    - jdietrich 2y ago
      I'm not saying that protesters shouldn't be disruptive, I'm saying that they don't have a right to be disruptive. If you believe that your cause is just, then you have to accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions. Disrupting a conference may well be a more effective way to highlight your grievance, but you don't get to play the victim if the organisers throw you out or refuse you entry. You have a right to protest, but that right does not supersede the rights of other people to go about their lawful business. The alternative to that balancing of rights is nothing more than mob rule.
      - gunian 2y ago
        [flagged]
        FollowingTheDao 2y ago
        You're missing the distinction. No society grants the right to unlimited protest. The First Amendment protects your right to assemble and express your views through protest. However, police and other government officials are allowed to place certain narrow restrictions on the exercise of speech rights. For example, I cannot walk into your house and protest what you're eating for dinner. Now I can stand outside on the street with a sign and protest it but if I enter your house I'll be arrested. But I can enter your house and risk being arrested, and that's called civil disobedience, which is a step above protest.
        2y ago
- teddyh 2y ago
  Allowing protests to escalate to disruptions is equivalent to allowing protests to censor anyone they don’t like.
- derektank 2y ago
  Civil disobedience is not synonymous with protesting and you can do the latter without the former. There are tradeoffs with everything and protests conducted with the tacit approval of the event organizers might be more convincing or more impactful than a disruptive protest that gets the protesters kicked out of the event.
- rscho 2y ago
  Guaranteeing freedom of speech and preventing a talk from happening seems contradictory.
aredox 2y ago
Funny how tech thought leaders always praise disruption, and suddenly it is not fine when they are the ones disrupted. Bypassing labor laws, banking regulations, copyright? All right! Making a fuss when they are talking? Uncivil, not OK, who do you think you are!
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > Bypassing labor laws, banking regulations, copyright? All right! Making a fuss when they are talking? Uncivil, not OK, who do you think you are! Many "tech thought leaders" are, for lack of a better word, clinically relevant narcissists. In their view, the world revolves around them and their ideas, everyone else has to stand aside for their grand plans, and god forbid you try and shine a spotlight on their bullshit - then you are the enemy. That also explains the hard shift towards the (far-)right observed over the last weeks, with pledges of allegiance made in Florida. It's not just about the 47th threatening revenge against anyone not supporting him, it's more about the simple fact that the progressive/left doesn't provide the positive feedback that these "leaders" crave like nothing else.
  - gunian 2y ago
    Tangential but I can't wait until some startup starts working on mind reading AI so the brain becomes nothing more than an organ
- teddyh 2y ago
  Your rhetoric hinges on a wilful conflation of the two meanings of the word “disruption”. Also, who says I approve of bypassing labor laws, banking regulations, or copyright?

by teddyh 2y ago

elpocko 2y ago

Right. Because protests (however stupid they are) should be silent and easy to ignore, they should not disrupt anything or inconvenience anyone.

apopapo 2y ago
Protesting should be about raising awareness of disagreement on a topic. It does not have to be disruptive to reach that objective.
- FollowingTheDao 2y ago
  Sometimes it does, but that's when protest turns into civil disobedience. Martin Luther King was arrested 29 times and then he was shot.
jdietrich 2y ago
Protesters do not have an untrammelled right to be disruptive; others in society do not have an obligation to facilitate or tolerate that disruption. If you want to stand outside the venue and shout, that's your prerogative. If you want to come inside the venue and cause disruption, then the organisers have the right to throw you out. Strictly speaking, what we're discussing is direct action rather than protest. The aim of these protesters is not merely to make a public display of their disapproval, but to take active steps to prevent something from happening, i.e. to prevent a talk from taking place by "occupying" the stage. The participants in that action may feel morally justified and may indeed be morally justified, but that doesn't negate the consequences of their actions. Giving anyone impunity to break whatever rule they like if they feel it's justified is a very short path to anarchy.
- elpocko 2y ago
  >Protesters do not have an untrammelled right to be disruptive; others in society do not have an obligation to facilitate or tolerate that disruption Go on then, polite member of society who doesn't understand the point of protests. I'm looking forward to your counter-protest that will not disrupt anything, will largely go unnoticed, be super polite but still be a huge success and change the status quo.
  - jdietrich 2y ago
    I'm not saying that protesters shouldn't be disruptive, I'm saying that they don't have a right to be disruptive. If you believe that your cause is just, then you have to accept responsibility for the consequences of your actions. Disrupting a conference may well be a more effective way to highlight your grievance, but you don't get to play the victim if the organisers throw you out or refuse you entry. You have a right to protest, but that right does not supersede the rights of other people to go about their lawful business. The alternative to that balancing of rights is nothing more than mob rule.
    - gunian 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
        You're missing the distinction. No society grants the right to unlimited protest. The First Amendment protects your right to assemble and express your views through protest. However, police and other government officials are allowed to place certain narrow restrictions on the exercise of speech rights. For example, I cannot walk into your house and protest what you're eating for dinner. Now I can stand outside on the street with a sign and protest it but if I enter your house I'll be arrested. But I can enter your house and risk being arrested, and that's called civil disobedience, which is a step above protest.
        2y ago
teddyh 2y ago
Allowing protests to escalate to disruptions is equivalent to allowing protests to censor anyone they don’t like.
derektank 2y ago
Civil disobedience is not synonymous with protesting and you can do the latter without the former. There are tradeoffs with everything and protests conducted with the tacit approval of the event organizers might be more convincing or more impactful than a disruptive protest that gets the protesters kicked out of the event.
rscho 2y ago
Guaranteeing freedom of speech and preventing a talk from happening seems contradictory.

aredox 2y ago

Funny how tech thought leaders always praise disruption, and suddenly it is not fine when they are the ones disrupted. Bypassing labor laws, banking regulations, copyright? All right! Making a fuss when they are talking? Uncivil, not OK, who do you think you are!

mschuster91 2y ago
> Bypassing labor laws, banking regulations, copyright? All right! Making a fuss when they are talking? Uncivil, not OK, who do you think you are! Many "tech thought leaders" are, for lack of a better word, clinically relevant narcissists. In their view, the world revolves around them and their ideas, everyone else has to stand aside for their grand plans, and god forbid you try and shine a spotlight on their bullshit - then you are the enemy. That also explains the hard shift towards the (far-)right observed over the last weeks, with pledges of allegiance made in Florida. It's not just about the 47th threatening revenge against anyone not supporting him, it's more about the simple fact that the progressive/left doesn't provide the positive feedback that these "leaders" crave like nothing else.
- gunian 2y ago
  Tangential but I can't wait until some startup starts working on mind reading AI so the brain becomes nothing more than an organ
teddyh 2y ago
Your rhetoric hinges on a wilful conflation of the two meanings of the word “disruption”. Also, who says I approve of bypassing labor laws, banking regulations, or copyright?