4 ms·

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.
        gunian 2y ago
        All valid this isn't a trick question I'm truly curious if it was up to you how would civil rights leaders have gone about protesting? Or a group of people that just experienced genocide? Because in your framework they would be disruptors so what is the right way to do things? I was raised by a cult may be dead soon I dont't have any sense of agency anything I do feels wrong so I'm truly curious
        2y ago
- jon-wood 2y ago
  FOSDEM is a conference for open source software, possibly one of the most functional demonstrations of anarchy working in the modern world. Seems only fitting to me.
  - teddyh 2y ago
    Anarchy does not mean mob rule. Allowing protests to censor anyone from talking opens up a huge security hole: anyone can then organize a “protest” to censor anyone.
- lrvick 2y ago
  Anarchist here. Anarchy is the practice of establishing social order without central authority, coercion, or intimidation. This is clearly an attempt by the minority of attendees to use coercion to limit the free speech of someone they dislike. If a minority of people reject broad consensus and to prevent any person from peacefully speaking in an assigned time slot, they are not participating in anarchy. They are simply being dicks. Adults respect the right of their enemies to speak peacefully. Quietly hold up signs, wear T-shirts, but respect peaceful free speech. Next year submit your own talk with an alternative prespective to try to form consensus on why billionaires and or companies with higher-than-x carbon emissions should be unwelcome, or propose an alternative method to gain broader community consensus on approving talks
  - slowmovintarget 2y ago
    Finally an articulation of the difference between anarchy and chaos. (Not being ironic.) Thank you. I don't agree with the position, but I appreciate the distinction.
    - teddyh 2y ago
      IIUC, the word “anarchy”, when being used as a synonym for “chaos”, is a simple political slur; like calling some country a “Socialist Regime” in the context of state overreach. It implies a negative but does not state it, in hope of creating an associative link between the two concepts. The word “anarchy” is merely one such (very old) slur which really took hold, and most people now believe the word “anarchy” actually means chaos.
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.

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.
      - gunian 2y ago
        All valid this isn't a trick question I'm truly curious if it was up to you how would civil rights leaders have gone about protesting? Or a group of people that just experienced genocide? Because in your framework they would be disruptors so what is the right way to do things? I was raised by a cult may be dead soon I dont't have any sense of agency anything I do feels wrong so I'm truly curious
        2y ago
jon-wood 2y ago
FOSDEM is a conference for open source software, possibly one of the most functional demonstrations of anarchy working in the modern world. Seems only fitting to me.
- teddyh 2y ago
  Anarchy does not mean mob rule. Allowing protests to censor anyone from talking opens up a huge security hole: anyone can then organize a “protest” to censor anyone.
lrvick 2y ago
Anarchist here. Anarchy is the practice of establishing social order without central authority, coercion, or intimidation. This is clearly an attempt by the minority of attendees to use coercion to limit the free speech of someone they dislike. If a minority of people reject broad consensus and to prevent any person from peacefully speaking in an assigned time slot, they are not participating in anarchy. They are simply being dicks. Adults respect the right of their enemies to speak peacefully. Quietly hold up signs, wear T-shirts, but respect peaceful free speech. Next year submit your own talk with an alternative prespective to try to form consensus on why billionaires and or companies with higher-than-x carbon emissions should be unwelcome, or propose an alternative method to gain broader community consensus on approving talks
- slowmovintarget 2y ago
  Finally an articulation of the difference between anarchy and chaos. (Not being ironic.) Thank you. I don't agree with the position, but I appreciate the distinction.
  - teddyh 2y ago
    IIUC, the word “anarchy”, when being used as a synonym for “chaos”, is a simple political slur; like calling some country a “Socialist Regime” in the context of state overreach. It implies a negative but does not state it, in hope of creating an associative link between the two concepts. The word “anarchy” is merely one such (very old) slur which really took hold, and most people now believe the word “anarchy” actually means chaos.

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.