5 ms·

Quoting a Youtube comment from the video you posted: "Finally some justice for these ass holes who illegally protest and then claim police brutality all the ti

Quoting a Youtube comment from the video you posted: "Finally some justice for these ass holes who illegally protest and then claim police brutality all the time. I hope she rots in jail." Is it come kind of totalitarian sect behind this video? Anyway, don't ever want to have anything with you.

rayiner 12y ago
Broad swaths of society hate protestors, because they threaten order, and order is something that everyone benefits from. I imagine you have this idea of protestors and revolutionaries leading society to higher states of justice, but more often they just indulge in chaos and violence (e.g. "pro democracy" protests in the middle east turning into support of islamic extremists; pro-republican protests in revolutionary France turning into the Reign of Terror).
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  That's a bit strong, of the protests I've seen 90%+ just wave their placards and chant for a few hours , then go home.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Edited slightly to clarify my point: the vast majority of protests are ineffective; the ones that are effective lead to violent injustice more often than they lead to justice.
    - guard-of-terra 12y ago
      Doesn't make sense to interfere with ineffective protests. As you can see in comments below, this leads some protesters to become badass revolutionaries and then dictators. And you only helped them while discouraging good citizens from spreading their point of view.
      - rayiner 12y ago
        I'm not saying it makes sense to interfere with ineffective protests (and I don't support doing so). I'm explaining why many, ordinary, people hate protestors.
        guard-of-terra 12y ago
        By doing so they further tear apart the fabric of society which, when it rips apart, will destroy the Order they love so much. To be precise, by demanding to narrow the feedback of the society and radicalize the protesters. This isn't going to end well if that sentiment you describe is widespread.
    - jiggy2011 12y ago
      I'm struggling to think of a violent protest, at least in the western world that caused a change in government policy, beyond causing police departments to invest in watercannons. Of course it's difficult to measure the effectiveness of a peaceful protest, but it wouldn't surprise me if vocal opposition to say the Iraq war had an impact on foreign policy for Syria for example.
      - smtddr 12y ago
        Completely disagree. I assume you're imply protests around slavery/discrimination. I think those protests had to reach a boiling point before real change could occur. If it just stayed super-peaceful and nobody ever showed pure rage I doubt anything would have changed. In fact, when I think about history, I believe most major changes happened only after protests reached a boiling point because the people in power who benefit from the broken system won't be convinced with words alone. That doesn't mean I support wild violence, but I think that's just the unfortunate fact of society that a bad social structure can't be changed without it reaching extreme stress.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        > I'm struggling to think of a violent protest, at least in the western world that caused a change in government policy IRA is the [edit] obvious example.
        jiggy2011 12y ago
        It's a stretch to call the IRA "protesters".
        DanBC 12y ago
        What's meant by violent protest then? Perhaps we can use animal rights protests in the UK. These started off by increasing welfare for farm animals; reducing use of animal testing in cosmetics; reducing the amount of fur sold in department stores. But then other changes included tighter controls on what demonstrations could do and now UK government is hardline on supporting vivisection and denying rights to (even peacefully) protest such.
- JonathanJones 12y ago
  Dude, as a law person you are pretty fucked.
- mrow84 12y ago
  How are you defining effectiveness? Many campaigns for justice take years if not decades, and can produce numerous protests during that time. Those protests are only 'ineffective' if you imagine that conducting a single protest march or camp might change the established order overnight. That is not the point of protests, which are instead designed to register contesting views with those in power, and promote those views to other potential supporters. In that way many protests are, in fact, highly effective, and non-violent to boot. The view point which you are espousing, whether you believe it or not, is a time-worn tactic of disinterested or opposed parties who aim to curtail freedom of expression by claiming offences to public order. There are plenty of laws for dealing with violence against people and property, but also laws protecting people who are engaging in free speech, and the fact that someone happens to be promoting social change shouldn't be taken as an excuse to ignore the latter, or misapply the former.
crdoconnor 12y ago
>Is it come kind of totalitarian sect behind this video? It seems to be a lone Republican who is rather bitter about Obama getting elected.
- guard-of-terra 12y ago
  Why? Obama is not very keen on protesters, and anyway next President would be Republican likely. What's the problem? Compare that to countries where unrest is squashed and the same bad guy sits in the office for decades, and then bloody coup. You should be happy you still get protests.

rayiner 12y ago

Broad swaths of society hate protestors, because they threaten order, and order is something that everyone benefits from. I imagine you have this idea of protestors and revolutionaries leading society to higher states of justice, but more often they just indulge in chaos and violence (e.g. "pro democracy" protests in the middle east turning into support of islamic extremists; pro-republican protests in revolutionary France turning into the Reign of Terror).

jiggy2011 12y ago
That's a bit strong, of the protests I've seen 90%+ just wave their placards and chant for a few hours , then go home.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Edited slightly to clarify my point: the vast majority of protests are ineffective; the ones that are effective lead to violent injustice more often than they lead to justice.
  - guard-of-terra 12y ago
    Doesn't make sense to interfere with ineffective protests. As you can see in comments below, this leads some protesters to become badass revolutionaries and then dictators. And you only helped them while discouraging good citizens from spreading their point of view.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      I'm not saying it makes sense to interfere with ineffective protests (and I don't support doing so). I'm explaining why many, ordinary, people hate protestors.
      - guard-of-terra 12y ago
        By doing so they further tear apart the fabric of society which, when it rips apart, will destroy the Order they love so much. To be precise, by demanding to narrow the feedback of the society and radicalize the protesters. This isn't going to end well if that sentiment you describe is widespread.
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    I'm struggling to think of a violent protest, at least in the western world that caused a change in government policy, beyond causing police departments to invest in watercannons. Of course it's difficult to measure the effectiveness of a peaceful protest, but it wouldn't surprise me if vocal opposition to say the Iraq war had an impact on foreign policy for Syria for example.
    - smtddr 12y ago
      Completely disagree. I assume you're imply protests around slavery/discrimination. I think those protests had to reach a boiling point before real change could occur. If it just stayed super-peaceful and nobody ever showed pure rage I doubt anything would have changed. In fact, when I think about history, I believe most major changes happened only after protests reached a boiling point because the people in power who benefit from the broken system won't be convinced with words alone. That doesn't mean I support wild violence, but I think that's just the unfortunate fact of society that a bad social structure can't be changed without it reaching extreme stress.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      > I'm struggling to think of a violent protest, at least in the western world that caused a change in government policy IRA is the [edit] obvious example.
      - jiggy2011 12y ago
        It's a stretch to call the IRA "protesters".
        DanBC 12y ago
        What's meant by violent protest then? Perhaps we can use animal rights protests in the UK. These started off by increasing welfare for farm animals; reducing use of animal testing in cosmetics; reducing the amount of fur sold in department stores. But then other changes included tighter controls on what demonstrations could do and now UK government is hardline on supporting vivisection and denying rights to (even peacefully) protest such.
JonathanJones 12y ago
Dude, as a law person you are pretty fucked.
mrow84 12y ago
How are you defining effectiveness? Many campaigns for justice take years if not decades, and can produce numerous protests during that time. Those protests are only 'ineffective' if you imagine that conducting a single protest march or camp might change the established order overnight. That is not the point of protests, which are instead designed to register contesting views with those in power, and promote those views to other potential supporters. In that way many protests are, in fact, highly effective, and non-violent to boot. The view point which you are espousing, whether you believe it or not, is a time-worn tactic of disinterested or opposed parties who aim to curtail freedom of expression by claiming offences to public order. There are plenty of laws for dealing with violence against people and property, but also laws protecting people who are engaging in free speech, and the fact that someone happens to be promoting social change shouldn't be taken as an excuse to ignore the latter, or misapply the former.

crdoconnor 12y ago

>Is it come kind of totalitarian sect behind this video? It seems to be a lone Republican who is rather bitter about Obama getting elected.

guard-of-terra 12y ago
Why? Obama is not very keen on protesters, and anyway next President would be Republican likely. What's the problem? Compare that to countries where unrest is squashed and the same bad guy sits in the office for decades, and then bloody coup. You should be happy you still get protests.