• San Francisco Bay Bridge Blocked in MLK Day Protest
    92 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;49563432]King would be disappointed[/QUOTE] I don't think you knew King enough to say this tbh.
[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49560850]Yeah but that would make sense (also they might not even much attention this way). This protest is really dumb though, in the 60s protests were much less disruptive to daily life, they could take a few lessons from history.[/QUOTE] They were also a fuck ton bigger, nowadays protests are lucky to get more than a thousand people (US Protests that is). As much as I wish they wouldn't disrupt the daily rush, I don't think they will be able to get the same message across as massive groups of people.
Great way to gain supporters, right there. [editline]19th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Lonestriper;49560821]Wow it's almost like they're protesting or something[/QUOTE] My boss hasn't given me a raise in the last 6 months - hope you don't mind if I go and sit in your front door all day, shouting on a megaphone and chaining myself to your fence, yes? 'Cause someone told me that I should protest in my office, but it makes too much sense, so I'll prefer to do the [I]right thing[/I] and just protest in front of your house, that way *you* get to [I]acknowledge[/I] my hardships.
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;49563432]King would be disappointed[/QUOTE] "I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; [B]who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'[/B]; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a 'more convenient season.' Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." - MLK Jr, Letter from Birmingham Jail Lot of folks in this thread don't know the first thing about MLK or his tactics. Blocking public roads was [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches"]part and parcel[/URL] of his methods, and people making hypotheticals about ambulances or saying that annoying people doesn't help you are making the [I]exact same arguments[/I] used against MLK's civil disobedience in the 60s. You're arguing essentially that MLK's leadership worked against the goals of the civil rights movement and it's clear to see that that wasn't the case.
[QUOTE=Supacasey;49560602]"Piss them off! That'll make them empathize with us!"[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Smug Bastard;49560605]Ugh.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=OmniConsUme;49560643]Protest on city Hall, not on the Bridge. Guess what... you are doing what #BlackLivesMatters does and they have become a joke.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=BeardyDuck;49560849]what does protesting on a bridge with people who have nothing to do with your cause do?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Darth Ninja;49560850]in the 60s protests were much less disruptive to daily life, they could take a few lessons from history.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Fapplejack;49561332]Their behavior doesn't make me want to support their cause, it makes me want to support long term sentences of people who block off major roadways, potentially putting people in danger.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;49562726]Stupidity however does not.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Michael haxz;49563432]King would be disappointed[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Pretiacruento;49563655]Great way to gain supporters, right there.[/QUOTE] [t]http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/3728d438df2cf055b57623562e89dbeaceee7d32/c=0-283-2990-2531&r=x1767&c=2352x1764/local/-/media/2015/01/17/USATODAY/USATODAY/635570947894577326-AP-Travel-Trip-Civil-Rights.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2474678/images/o-EDMUND-PETTUS-BRIDGE-facebook.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/03/07/26644C0F00000578-2984327-image-m-104_1425758662511.jpg[/t] [t]http://umc-gbcs.org/content/articles/bloodysunday1965.jpg[/t] 1965. 51 Years Ago. [editline]19th January 2016[/editline] The fact that so many of you are willing to dismiss this protest because it doesn't meet with your fabric of "whiney facebook posts and letters of petition to state hall" style of protesting is fucking disgusting. Why do you think these protests were successful? Because they got in people's minds that something was wrong.
Yeah, the only real difference is number. If it's "annoying" and all of these protests are following suit, the best thing to do would be to deal with it before it gets violent or otherwise worse. A lot of people have this conclusion that it's simply a matter of ego, but this falls back to not taking them seriously and contributes to the cycle of protest. Gotta break some eggs to make an omelet.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49563992]Yeah, the only real difference is number. If it's "annoying" and all of these protests are following suit, the best thing to do would be to deal with it [B]before it gets violent or otherwise worse.[/B][/QUOTE] But we don't negotiate with terrorists.
lol @ the "mlk wouldn't approve" posts. [QUOTE="FP in the 1960s"]Wow did they really think it be ok to just march down the road from Selma to Montgomery and cause that kind of disruption? I'm glad those hero state police stopped them at the Edmund Pettus bridge with overwhelming force. Now I hear that trouble maker MLK is coming down to the support the march, these people really aren't looking to make friends. #alllivesmater[/QUOTE]
These past few posts put it so well. Haven't seen such a concise shut down in FP history.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49564306]These past few posts put it so well. Haven't seen such a concise shut down in FP history.[/QUOTE] Honestly, they are just non-arguments trying to paint people as racists because they think that this type of protest, while effective at one time, is no longer effective and does nothing but hurt the image of the people doing it. It's like trying to shut down an argument by invoking Godwin's Law. It's a gigantic logical fallacy.
I'm not trying to paint anyone as a racist. I'm trying to suggest that simply calling it "stupid" and brushing it off is not a solution, and to argue that they're simply being "annoying" is failing to process why they do so. I argued that similar responses could have been made to MLK not to accuse but to draw a parallel, suggesting that it should be thought of differently.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49564520]Honestly, they are just non-arguments trying to paint people as racists because they think that this type of protest, while effective at one time, is no longer effective and does nothing but hurt the image of the people doing it. It's like trying to shut down an argument by invoking Godwin's Law. It's a gigantic logical fallacy.[/QUOTE] I don't really understand the point you are making. I think your first sentence is messed up somehow as you seem to be making one point but for both sides?
I wouldn't mind BLM if their movement had any legitimacy. But it's a bunch of idiots who are """protesting""" because they want time off work/school. They'll flail around in public until the [I]evil white man[/I] and his [I]military police[/I] ask them to go home. At best, they're mostly stupid self-loathing white upper/upper-middle class college students who think they're the next Civil Rights movement when really they're the Occupy movement's embarrassing little brother.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49564567]I'm not trying to paint anyone as a racist. I'm trying to suggest that simply calling it "stupid" and brushing it off is not a solution, and to argue that they're simply being "annoying" is failing to process why they do so. I argued that similar responses could have been made to MLK not to accuse but to draw a parallel, suggesting that it should be thought of differently.[/QUOTE] We aren't in the 50s and 60s. Much has changed. People operate and think differently. The same tactics that worked back then will not have the same effect nowadays. You can't compare the two, because the only thing that's the same is the tactics and the skin color. It's different in every other way. [QUOTE=Take_Opal;49564611]I don't really understand the point you are making. I think your first sentence is messed up somehow as you seem to be making one point but for both sides?[/QUOTE] People keep trying to use MLK and the civil rights movement as a parallel, meaning that criticism of the tactics used would be the same as a racist criticizing the civil rights movement back in the 50s and 60s, which is not only a non-argument, but it's like a godwin's law of sorts. Saying a protest tactic is stupid, ineffective, and counterproductive doesn't automatically mean you're against the people using it, nor does it make you racist, as some drawing the parallels here would like to say.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49564735]We aren't in the 50s and 60s. Much has changed. People operate and think differently. The same tactics that worked back then will not have the same effect nowadays. You can't compare the two, because the only thing that's the same is the tactics and the skin color. It's different in every other way. People keep trying to use MLK and the civil rights movement as a parallel, meaning that criticism of the tactics used would be the same as a racist criticizing the civil rights movement back in the 50s and 60s, which is not only a non-argument, but it's like a godwin's law of sorts. Saying a protest tactic is stupid, ineffective, and counterproductive doesn't automatically mean you're against the people using it, nor does it make you racist, as some drawing the parallels here would like to say.[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone's called anyone other than white moderates in this thread, which barring knowledge of skin color, people are acting like. And just cause you say it's stupid doesn't mean it's correct or really any sort of interesting or fruitful criticism. Certainly the suggestions of protesting in the designated protest areas has been accurately mocked.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49564758]I don't think anyone's called anyone other than white moderates in this thread, which barring knowledge of skin color, people are acting like. And just cause you say it's stupid doesn't mean it's correct or really any sort of interesting or fruitful criticism. Certainly the suggestions of protesting in the designated protest areas has been accurately mocked.[/QUOTE] It's not about the stupid designated protest areas either. It's about an effective protest aimed at those with whom you have a grievance. A sit in/lock in at the mayor's office, police headquarters, city hall, etc. are all excellent ways to directly protest the ones they have a grievance with. I could see blocking a highway if you're blocking in the governor or mayor in order to be heard by them. But blocking normal people on a highway or bridge is just counterproductive, because you're pissing off the citizens you need to help your organization grow and reach farther.
There's protesting, and then there's intelligent protesting. It's understandable that these people feel the need for change, but their tactic here is simply ineffective (perhaps even damaging to their cause...). MLK knew how to identify the issues at hand and oppose them directly. He would find ways to demonstrate the issue via the protest. I'd go as far to say protesting is an art, and these people on the Bay Bridge are not artists. In Selma, they marched across that bridge because crossing county lines was illegal for the protest, even though it was peaceful. Eventually, they made their change and we're able to march on. Halting traffic on a major commuting bridge in a major city is NOT what MLK would have done. To make the connection to MLK's actions in that way is missing the whole point, in my opinion.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49564795]It's not about the stupid designated protest areas either. It's about an effective protest aimed at those with whom you have a grievance. A sit in/lock in at the mayor's office, police headquarters, city hall, etc. are all excellent ways to directly protest the ones they have a grievance with. I could see blocking a highway if you're blocking in the governor or mayor in order to be heard by them. But blocking normal people on a highway or bridge is just counterproductive, because you're pissing off the citizens you need to help your organization grow and reach farther.[/QUOTE] I don't think you've given this that much thought, nor delved into the atmosphere that political activists live in and develop these protests within. I don't think you can criticize their methods by saying "a lock in at the mayor's office" would be better while being on the outside of the movement or not being apart of either target or victim of the activism. I really doubt a lock-in would do all that much to be honest; it's not interesting nor something that would get any attention when that's literally the most contrived form of dramatic activism these days. Nor do I think it's right to say that it's counterproductive cause you get people who are the "victim" of the issues you are protesting angry. If you're attacking the institution, or trying to, you're not going to have many people excluded from the demonstration just because they themselves are apart of said institution in one way or another.
Makes me have the fantasy of a forklift showing up and casually throwing the cars off the bridge
[QUOTE=Octavius;49561582]Hey sorry, I know this may be hard for you to understand, but these sorts of events do have logic and planning put into them. Want to know the logic? Getting your message out there means getting noticed. Believe it or not, you won't get noticed if you have some obscure rally in whatever place the city allows you to. Now, what will get you noticed is either A) Mass Action or B) Disruptive Action. Nobody is saying you don't like it because you are the one being protested. These are not protests against white people. These are not protests against white liberals. These are protests against systemic racism. Now unless you'r the embodiment of systemic racism, I don't think they are targeting you. This action is obviously created to get attention. Now whether or not this group will make good use of their attention, I couldn't say. And no, they are not trying to get attention from you. They are not trying to get attention from liberals. They are trying to get attention from, mainly, those affected by what it is they are protesting and those who they are protesting. And yeah, this does work. Getting an organization out there like this is effective, and this is something organizations use. Effectively used, this would lead to growing the organization and having other demonstrations (marches or whatever). That is how change is made. Not by sitting back and protesting in the little marked protest area where nobody gives a shit and nobody feels like anything is achieved. Again, I can't say whether or no this group specifically is utilizing this tactic effectively, but groups do.[/QUOTE] The issue herein is, that these disruptive actions only work if there is significant cross population support. If you lack that, you need to disrupt/protest at places which are intrinsically connected to the thing you are trying to bring attention to. When it's 10-20 people who completely block a bridge, the only thing you engender is more hate. If you have 5 thousand on the bridge, it's a different thing. It's a solidarity march, it shows a large grievance of a population. But what was done is the very opposite. Likewise generally speaking you have a duty to announce similar protests ahead. In a lot of places, completely blocking a road like that, without prior announcement is enough to land you in jail. Roads are an incredibly important public resource. Blocking this bridge can cause pretty large financial losses (imagine perishables in trucks), endanger civil service (ambulances, police or firefighters might not be able to get trough) and do a truckload of other damage. That's why you have a duty to announce it. So that those that absolutely have to get trough can plan for it. Likewise it gets a government a chance to dismiss a lot of suits for that exact financial loss. If the protest was announced and the government warned travelers about it, they can't sue it for the loss, or their neglect in removing the protesters. Likewise it's disingenuous to compare this protest to stuff like MLKs. As those were generally targeted at something specific. Black people aren't allowed to walk here - let's walk here in force. Compared to that, this is - WE FEEL THIS MUST CHANGE...SO WE ARE BLOCKING THIS TOTALLY UNCONNECTED BRIDGE!
[QUOTE=wraithcat;49564878] Likewise generally speaking you have a duty to announce similar protests ahead. In a lot of places, completely blocking a road like that, without prior anouncement is enough to land you in jail. Roads are an incredibly important public resource. Blocking this bridge can cause pretty large financial losses (imagine perishables in trucks), endanger civil service (ambulances, police or firefighters might not be able to get trough) and do a truckload of other damage. That's why you have a duty to announce it. So that those that absolutely have to get trough can plan for it.[/QUOTE] Plus it's super dangerous! I'd be intimidated by getting ran over while setting up the blockade, and also worried about being shot or something for being mistaken as a developing act of terrorism.
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;49564848]I don't think you've given this that much thought, nor delved into the atmosphere that political activists live in and develop these protests within. I don't think you can criticize their methods by saying "a lock in at the mayor's office" would be better while being on the outside of the movement or not being apart of either target or victim of the activism. I really doubt a lock-in would do all that much to be honest; it's not interesting nor something that would get any attention when that's literally the most contrived form of dramatic activism these days. Nor do I think it's right to say that it's counterproductive cause you get people who are the "victim" of the issues you are protesting angry. If you're attacking the institution, or trying to, you're not going to have many people excluded from the demonstration just because they themselves are apart of said institution in one way or another.[/QUOTE] "I doubt a lock in would do that much" *reads about the guys hold up in a federal building protesting the BLM and the news coverage everywhere* You're right. Things like lock-ins don't do much.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49564902]"I doubt a lock in would do that much" *reads about the guys hold up in a federal building protesting the BLM and the news coverage everywhere* You're right. Things like lock-ins don't do much.[/QUOTE] Lock ins generally are fairly effective, you still have to take some precautions. For instance completely blocking the garages of a police station is idiotic, though some people would be willing to do so.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49564902]"I doubt a lock in would do that much" *reads about the guys hold up in a federal building protesting the BLM and the news coverage everywhere* You're right. Things like lock-ins don't do much.[/QUOTE] lol, if they did it again people would just roll their eyes and wait for the events to play out the same way they did last year.
The single biggest problem with BLM is that they don't have a clear message. They're basically protesting against unbalanced statistics, but without real policy or idea how to fix it. They would get a ton more sympathy if they protested against something specific like the drug war in the inner cities.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49564735]We aren't in the 50s and 60s. Much has changed. People operate and think differently.[/QUOTE] (citation needed) Also I hope you realize you're directly contradicting the people who say 'MLK wouldn't approve of this', which is clearly implying that these tactics are different from the ones MLK used. You're saying the tactics are the same and it's the context that's changed. Bit of a difference there.
This is the fault of decentralized, leaderless protesting. Protesting just doesn't work here since there isn't a major figure who knows what he/she is doing to plan and guide the protests, you end up with whatever this protest is supposed to be.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49564735]We aren't in the 50s and 60s. Much has changed. People operate and think differently. The same tactics that worked back then will not have the same effect nowadays. You can't compare the two, because the only thing that's the same is the tactics and the skin color. It's different in every other way. [/QUOTE] This is like the "It's current year" argument in reverse. You are gonna have to explain what has changed and why those tactics can't work. [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49564735]People keep trying to use MLK and the civil rights movement as a parallel, meaning that criticism of the tactics used would be the same as a racist criticizing the civil rights movement back in the 50s and 60s, which is not only a non-argument, but it's like a godwin's law of sorts. Saying a protest tactic is stupid, ineffective, and counterproductive doesn't automatically mean you're against the people using it, nor does it make you racist, as some drawing the parallels here would like to say.[/QUOTE] No one has called anyone racist, they just quoted MLK criticizing the "white moderate" and their "paternalizing attitudes". Attitudes like [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49564795]It's not about the stupid designated protest areas either. It's about an effective protest aimed at those with whom you have a grievance. A sit in/lock in at the mayor's office, police headquarters, city hall, etc. are all excellent ways to directly protest the ones they have a grievance with. I could see blocking a highway if you're blocking in the governor or mayor in order to be heard by them. But blocking normal people on a highway or bridge is just counterproductive, because you're pissing off the citizens you need to help your organization grow and reach farther.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49565146]This is like the "It's current year" argument in reverse. You are gonna have to explain what has changed and why those tactics can't work. No one has called anyone racist, they just quoted MLK criticizing the "white moderate" and their "paternalizing attitudes". Attitudes like[/QUOTE] How do you know that those kinds of protests worked the first time? They did a whole lot of protests, and it's likely that not all of them were useful. I'm not sure why you seem to think that we should start with the assumption that if they did it back then, then it must have been a good idea.
What I'm afraid of is the fact that people say others shouldn't protest in a specific fashion, but provide no alternatives. That honestly scares me, because it effectively becomes a complete disregard for protesting without meaning to do that. I would argue that protest has to create some inconvenience because otherwise people are going to gloss over other people's suffering to focus on their own problems and luxuries. It sucks that the bridge was halted, but we're in the position where if they did nothing, their problems wouldn't have been addressed, but if they cause a ruckus in that manner, their problems aren't addressed and they're called assholes. I'm afraid that we're hitting a point where these people cannot be represented, and their attempts to be heard are blocked out by the specificity of their actions. I picture it in my head as someone standing in my way, and me screaming, "Fuck off, dude. I don't want to hear about your problems." I can say that this mentality has taken over this thread, as it seems no one has given any thought to the point of their protest. That saddens me deeply, and I don't know the solution. I don't know an alternative protest that would be more "up to date", as I guess you guys might say. That's not meant to be antagonistic, I really honestly just don't know what to do. [editline]19th January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;49565214]How do you know that those kinds of protests worked the first time? They did a whole lot of protests, and it's likely that not all of them were useful. I'm not sure why you seem to think that we should start with the assumption that if they did it back then, then it must have been a good idea.[/QUOTE] There were many protests that lead to the eventually successful protests. The initial protests created a fire that was hard to put out, and attracted people to the cause. There were successful protests before Rosa Parks that gave inspiration to her own famous (and coordinated) protest. That gave rise to more protests until eventually the country was enveloped by MLK's famous marches. I would like for the country to become enveloped in this metaphorical fire once again, so I see protests like these and hope for the best.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.