3 ms·

Regarding the broader picture, it’s interesting that despite the ineffectiveness of even major protests over the past decades—Iraq being the prime example—gover

Regarding the broader picture, it’s interesting that despite the ineffectiveness of even major protests over the past decades—Iraq being the prime example—governments are introducing more obstacles to disincentivise them. From the perspective of government, why not simply ignore such events, use existing (extensive) laws which cover them? It’s like states are unconsciously preparing for the large-scale disruption which may yet come to pass.

pbhjpbhj 4mo ago
You think police should ignore situations in which violence and destruction of property are highly likely? Why? How does that benefit society? At what point do you allow intervention? After they've destroyed £x,000 of property? After people are assaulted? How are you proposing police get deployed safely in those circumstances with 10s of thousands of protesters/rioters in the streets? Don't you think maintaining law& order is a necessary activity of the state in a democracy? You can't seriously think we should stand back and give over or streets to whoever can be most violent?
- Caracas288 4mo ago
  No, I didn’t say police should ignore violence, I actually said that existing laws would be sufficient. I was referring to governments ‘ignoring’, i.e. not further restricting rights to protest, not the police ignoring protests. To address it though, I think we are in a bad situation when widespread violence is even a risk; it indicates that civic pride has completely broken down. I don’t know what the answer would be in that situation, and I’m not proposing a solution to it. (I’m not sure we’re there quite yet either) More important than people trusting authority is authority trusting the people. The more trust in a society, the less ‘law and order’ needs to be handled by structures external to the social mass.
nuyarusskii 4mo ago
"Why not ignore such events?" Because then (when mass protests are simply ignored) the "Russian disinformation" about UK not being precisely a "democracy" suddenly starts looking true? If you have no protests, it means that the public is ok with what the government is doing. In a democracy (whatever one understands by it) that is.
- Caracas288 4mo ago
  I’m assuming here the government isn’t inherently altruistic, and that citizens have to fight for their rights rather than simply be handed them. My question is, what is the reason that more restrictions on protest are being brought in now specifically (ever since the Extinction Rebellion protests); is there a deeper motive. If there is, I don’t know what it would be.
- chadgpt3 4mo ago
  A loud minority can look like a majority. (I'm not sure if there's a way to solve this)

pbhjpbhj 4mo ago

You think police should ignore situations in which violence and destruction of property are highly likely? Why? How does that benefit society? At what point do you allow intervention? After they've destroyed £x,000 of property? After people are assaulted? How are you proposing police get deployed safely in those circumstances with 10s of thousands of protesters/rioters in the streets? Don't you think maintaining law& order is a necessary activity of the state in a democracy? You can't seriously think we should stand back and give over or streets to whoever can be most violent?

Caracas288 4mo ago
No, I didn’t say police should ignore violence, I actually said that existing laws would be sufficient. I was referring to governments ‘ignoring’, i.e. not further restricting rights to protest, not the police ignoring protests. To address it though, I think we are in a bad situation when widespread violence is even a risk; it indicates that civic pride has completely broken down. I don’t know what the answer would be in that situation, and I’m not proposing a solution to it. (I’m not sure we’re there quite yet either) More important than people trusting authority is authority trusting the people. The more trust in a society, the less ‘law and order’ needs to be handled by structures external to the social mass.

nuyarusskii 4mo ago

"Why not ignore such events?" Because then (when mass protests are simply ignored) the "Russian disinformation" about UK not being precisely a "democracy" suddenly starts looking true? If you have no protests, it means that the public is ok with what the government is doing. In a democracy (whatever one understands by it) that is.

Caracas288 4mo ago
I’m assuming here the government isn’t inherently altruistic, and that citizens have to fight for their rights rather than simply be handed them. My question is, what is the reason that more restrictions on protest are being brought in now specifically (ever since the Extinction Rebellion protests); is there a deeper motive. If there is, I don’t know what it would be.
chadgpt3 4mo ago
A loud minority can look like a majority. (I'm not sure if there's a way to solve this)