4 ms·

Blocking a highway is not an act of violence, it is a form of peaceful protest. Like a diner sit-in. You are free to correct your post to explain all the acts

by RajT88 2y ago

Blocking a highway is not an act of violence, it is a form of peaceful protest. Like a diner sit-in. You are free to correct your post to explain all the acts of violence you saw which justify the term "riot".

WaitWaitWha 2y ago
There are multiple documented cases where emergency vehicles are blocked by "blocking a highway" as a "peaceful protest" that resulted in deaths. e.g., London (2022) - Mark Heap and Lisa Webber.
- RajT88 2y ago
  That does not a riot make. It is still a peaceful protest, whether you like it or not, contingent on the definition of "peaceful" being the absence of violence. You do not have to like the outcome of a protest, but if it is not a violent one, you are expected here to describe it in accurate language. You are not doing that. To illustrate my point: your logic dictates that not pulling over for an emergency vehicle is tantamount to assault. It is not, and should never be in any rational society. Agree? Disagree?
  - WaitWaitWha 2y ago
    I was responding to your note that it is peaceful, not that is or is not a riot. A gathering where someone dies because of the gathering it is no longer undisturbed by strife, turmoil, calm, and tranquil. It is no longer peaceful. > ... contingent on the definition of "peaceful" being the absence of violence. The breaking of peaceful to me is not absence of violence. It is no longer peaceful because force was used to stop the emergency vehicles. Force is one way to be no longer peaceful. In this context, when force is used it implies resistance from someone that was forced to do something they did not want to do (emergency vehicle did not want to stop). It is no longer peaceful; yet no direct "violence" was used.[1] I can fathom where your response comes and grasp your interpretation, but I disagree. [1] https://help.unhcr.org/iran/en/more-information/what-is-violence/ https://help.unhcr.org/iran/en/more-information/what-is-viol...
    - RajT88 2y ago
      > The breaking of peaceful to me is not absence of violence Thank you for acknowledging the use of your own definition instead of the common one.
    - anigbrowl 2y ago
      This is not a credible definition. By this standard a traffic jam is a human rights violation.
- bongodongobob 2y ago
  That's what makes it effective. That's the point. A protest that doesn't affect anyone is just performative. Protests aren't to spread the word. It's to jam up the gears, aka, sabotage, to make leaders act. "You're just making us late to work, it's not causing us to join your side!" Jamming up commerce and the functions of a city is how you get people to act. Not by filling out a permit to have a block party in a park. That's a rally, not a protest.
  - dns_snek 2y ago
    Unfortunately our leaders have successfully convinced the masses that it's only acceptable to protest as long as they do it at a scheduled time and place, without disrupting or offending anyone, and without any implicit threats of escalation and violence if the protestors' grievances aren't heard and rectified. That way people can vent to temporarily release frustration but we're powerless to effect any meaningful change, by design.
    - bongodongobob 2y ago
      Yep and our country doesn't have a history of beheading or tossing leaders out of windows like Europe does which gives us a faux sense of being more civilized, or above it. Violence isn't always the answer, but sometimes it's the only answer.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
A physical action (like occupying infrastructure) that limits other people’s freedom to move, or brings harm to them or their property, is a violent act to most people. The only people that would claim otherwise are those who want to downplay illegal acts that align with their own politics. Here’s a definition for ‘violence’, so you’re clear on how blocking highways is violence: > violence: an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws Here’s a definition for riot, so you’re clear on how a violent takeover of public infrastructure constitutes a riot: > riot: “public violence, tumult, or disorder“
- RajT88 2y ago
  Being in the way is neither force, nor power. But, y'know. For some people, up is down, black is white and war is peace. To be clear you're suggesting standing in the street constitutes: > a violent takeover of public infrastructure I suppose sitting in a diner which people didn't want you sitting in would also constitute, "A violent takeover of a private establishment".

by RajT88 2y ago

WaitWaitWha 2y ago

There are multiple documented cases where emergency vehicles are blocked by "blocking a highway" as a "peaceful protest" that resulted in deaths. e.g., London (2022) - Mark Heap and Lisa Webber.

RajT88 2y ago
That does not a riot make. It is still a peaceful protest, whether you like it or not, contingent on the definition of "peaceful" being the absence of violence. You do not have to like the outcome of a protest, but if it is not a violent one, you are expected here to describe it in accurate language. You are not doing that. To illustrate my point: your logic dictates that not pulling over for an emergency vehicle is tantamount to assault. It is not, and should never be in any rational society. Agree? Disagree?
- WaitWaitWha 2y ago
  I was responding to your note that it is peaceful, not that is or is not a riot. A gathering where someone dies because of the gathering it is no longer undisturbed by strife, turmoil, calm, and tranquil. It is no longer peaceful. > ... contingent on the definition of "peaceful" being the absence of violence. The breaking of peaceful to me is not absence of violence. It is no longer peaceful because force was used to stop the emergency vehicles. Force is one way to be no longer peaceful. In this context, when force is used it implies resistance from someone that was forced to do something they did not want to do (emergency vehicle did not want to stop). It is no longer peaceful; yet no direct "violence" was used.[1] I can fathom where your response comes and grasp your interpretation, but I disagree. [1] https://help.unhcr.org/iran/en/more-information/what-is-violence/ https://help.unhcr.org/iran/en/more-information/what-is-viol...
  - RajT88 2y ago
    > The breaking of peaceful to me is not absence of violence Thank you for acknowledging the use of your own definition instead of the common one.
  - anigbrowl 2y ago
    This is not a credible definition. By this standard a traffic jam is a human rights violation.
bongodongobob 2y ago
That's what makes it effective. That's the point. A protest that doesn't affect anyone is just performative. Protests aren't to spread the word. It's to jam up the gears, aka, sabotage, to make leaders act. "You're just making us late to work, it's not causing us to join your side!" Jamming up commerce and the functions of a city is how you get people to act. Not by filling out a permit to have a block party in a park. That's a rally, not a protest.
- dns_snek 2y ago
  Unfortunately our leaders have successfully convinced the masses that it's only acceptable to protest as long as they do it at a scheduled time and place, without disrupting or offending anyone, and without any implicit threats of escalation and violence if the protestors' grievances aren't heard and rectified. That way people can vent to temporarily release frustration but we're powerless to effect any meaningful change, by design.
  - bongodongobob 2y ago
    Yep and our country doesn't have a history of beheading or tossing leaders out of windows like Europe does which gives us a faux sense of being more civilized, or above it. Violence isn't always the answer, but sometimes it's the only answer.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

A physical action (like occupying infrastructure) that limits other people’s freedom to move, or brings harm to them or their property, is a violent act to most people. The only people that would claim otherwise are those who want to downplay illegal acts that align with their own politics. Here’s a definition for ‘violence’, so you’re clear on how blocking highways is violence: > violence: an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws Here’s a definition for riot, so you’re clear on how a violent takeover of public infrastructure constitutes a riot: > riot: “public violence, tumult, or disorder“

RajT88 2y ago
Being in the way is neither force, nor power. But, y'know. For some people, up is down, black is white and war is peace. To be clear you're suggesting standing in the street constitutes: > a violent takeover of public infrastructure I suppose sitting in a diner which people didn't want you sitting in would also constitute, "A violent takeover of a private establishment".