I’ve been told that if your protest isn’t disruptive, it’s not really a protest, so I’m sure everyone here will be fully understanding and supportive of this guy for standing up for his beliefs /s
The point is that people on lemmy (and reddit, and other left leaning forums) tend to dump on people who object to protestors disrupting shit, like closing roads (without a permit), etc.
And then get hypocritical when a protestor does the same thing to counter protest a popular (in this forum) cause.
Don’t get me wrong, I think this was a shitty move. But I also think fucking over completely unrelated people’s days by blocking traffic is also a shit way to conduct a protest.
I think the difference between these two situations is the disruption of commerce.
Capitalists do not give a shit about protests until the protests start affecting their bottom line. That’s why blocking freeways is such a big deal–it speaks to them in a language that they understand. It’s effective not because John Q Taxpayer can’t get to work on time, but because Corporation Q Capital-owner can’t exploit John’s labor without his butt in his seat and without trucks full of resources coming in regularly. Corporations lose much, much more than regular people do when commerce is disrupted.
Grabbing the microphone like is disruptive, but it does not disrupt commerce. If anything, it shows that his goal is to deplatform someone (someone whose platform is the very reason he is there tonight, by his own admission) or to elevate his own platform.
Whoever told you that, stop listening to them. An effective protest is one that expresses your views, and ideally changes people’s minds and builds support for your cause. Disrupting people’s lives is typically counterproductive to actually gaining support.
The only way to be heard is to burn down your neighbor’s businesses and rob Target! And if you do anything to protect your livelihood you’re just a right wing nut job!
There are genuinely people who think like that. To be fair, the George Floyd protests/riots changed things in a way that peaceful protest had so far failed to do.
Some minor progress was made because of the millions of people who turned out to peacefully protest. Those who rioted and destroyed shit only contributed ammunition to the opposition.
I disagree, I think having an entire block burnt down made a lot of people decide they don’t want to see this happen again, in a way a regular protest wouldn’t have.
Really? You think people had their businesses burned down and their town destroyed and thought to themselves “boy I hope these people get what they wanted!” or do you think they thought “These people are human garbage and I hope they rot in prison”? Which one of these thought processes makes more sense to you?
Correct. English sufferage was only gained after a group of women took on learning jujitsu, wearing badass capes and paper body armor and went out burning government buildings and breaking all the windows in anti sufferagette buildings/homes and when police showed up they’d kick the shit out of them with jujitsu and then they’d make a speech the police couldn’t break up because their faces were meeting their asses for the first time and in a most uncomfortable way.
Ed: because it’s interesting and I’m sure people won’t take my word.
The protests started because the police murdered a man in full view of a group of witnesses, a lot of people had a vested interest in making sure that didn’t happen again, in a way that non violent protest would not have achieved.
I’ve been told that if your protest isn’t disruptive, it’s not really a protest, so I’m sure everyone here will be fully understanding and supportive of this guy for standing up for his beliefs /s
Not all beliefs are created equal. You can respect people without respecting their beliefs.
The point is that people on lemmy (and reddit, and other left leaning forums) tend to dump on people who object to protestors disrupting shit, like closing roads (without a permit), etc.
And then get hypocritical when a protestor does the same thing to counter protest a popular (in this forum) cause.
Don’t get me wrong, I think this was a shitty move. But I also think fucking over completely unrelated people’s days by blocking traffic is also a shit way to conduct a protest.
I think the difference between these two situations is the disruption of commerce.
Capitalists do not give a shit about protests until the protests start affecting their bottom line. That’s why blocking freeways is such a big deal–it speaks to them in a language that they understand. It’s effective not because John Q Taxpayer can’t get to work on time, but because Corporation Q Capital-owner can’t exploit John’s labor without his butt in his seat and without trucks full of resources coming in regularly. Corporations lose much, much more than regular people do when commerce is disrupted.
Grabbing the microphone like is disruptive, but it does not disrupt commerce. If anything, it shows that his goal is to deplatform someone (someone whose platform is the very reason he is there tonight, by his own admission) or to elevate his own platform.
Whoever told you that, stop listening to them. An effective protest is one that expresses your views, and ideally changes people’s minds and builds support for your cause. Disrupting people’s lives is typically counterproductive to actually gaining support.
There are genuinely people who think like that. To be fair, the George Floyd protests/riots changed things in a way that peaceful protest had so far failed to do.
Some minor progress was made because of the millions of people who turned out to peacefully protest. Those who rioted and destroyed shit only contributed ammunition to the opposition.
I disagree, I think having an entire block burnt down made a lot of people decide they don’t want to see this happen again, in a way a regular protest wouldn’t have.
Really? You think people had their businesses burned down and their town destroyed and thought to themselves “boy I hope these people get what they wanted!” or do you think they thought “These people are human garbage and I hope they rot in prison”? Which one of these thought processes makes more sense to you?
Correct. English sufferage was only gained after a group of women took on learning jujitsu, wearing badass capes and paper body armor and went out burning government buildings and breaking all the windows in anti sufferagette buildings/homes and when police showed up they’d kick the shit out of them with jujitsu and then they’d make a speech the police couldn’t break up because their faces were meeting their asses for the first time and in a most uncomfortable way.
Ed: because it’s interesting and I’m sure people won’t take my word.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrajitsu
There’s no way I would have believed you without the link.
That is fucking wild! How was I never aware of this? Thanks for sharing it.
The protests started because the police murdered a man in full view of a group of witnesses, a lot of people had a vested interest in making sure that didn’t happen again, in a way that non violent protest would not have achieved.
Quite the opposite. A non-violent protest would have achieved much more. The rioters and looters only obstructed the cause.