LIVE: Thousands Of New Yorkers Heading To Block Holland Tunnel in NYC - Polidicks

Nobody cares until it's a problem for them. Someone tell me the names of any of the >100 US toddlers who've killed other people by getting their hands on loaded weapons and accidentally discharging them in 2014. Unless you live near one of these cases or someone was family somewhere in the case, you probably can't. They were news, but they passed. This can't simply pass, these protesters have decided. And here we are, talking about it and not forgetting. That is the unfortunate inconvenience of raising hell.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;46641156]You can have a mass protest without blocking a tunnel and inconveniencing other people. Protests that do things to inconvenience normal every-day people (like blocking major highways/interstates/tunnels) honestly just look like a bunch of kids throwing a temper tantrum than adults protesting an injustice. You want to welcome people into the protest and get them angry at what you're angry at, not piss them off and have them angry at you instead....[/QUOTE] So do you not understand how protesting works or something? A protest that doesn't inconvenience somebody does nothing. Just ask the guys who camp outside of the Houses of Parliament over here, there's been numerous groups over the years who've taken up that spot, and basically nothing they've protested has really gone their way. If people [B]have[/B] to interact with the protest in their day to day lives, it puts the idea in their head, you can ignore people standing to one side with boards (unless they start personally attacking you, because that's just being a supreme dick), having to work around a bigger protest? Even if you don't like the protesters, the topic is now likely in your thoughts.

[QUOTE=NixNax123;46641249]I concede this point, but they need to make people mad to get the higher-ups to notice them; the people they want to notice them. Government will realize a civil disturbance is happening and they will HAVE to do something about it, as opposed to non-intrusive protests.[/QUOTE] But these protests have been going on. Everyone knows about these protests. There is a PLETHORA of news coverage and even the president knows about them. There is no reason at this point to be obtrusive and inconvenience normal people, because they already know what the protests are about. There is no logical reason for it this late in the protest.....

Not surprised CubeManv2 of all people posted this. Still interesting. I do however hope the Protesting remains for the most part peaceful.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;46641267]So do you not understand how protesting works or something? A protest that doesn't inconvenience somebody does nothing. Just ask the guys who camp outside of the Houses of Parliament over here, there's been numerous groups over the years who've taken up that spot, and basically nothing they've protested has really gone their way. If people [B]have[/B] to interact with the protest in their day to day lives, it puts the idea in their head, you can ignore people standing to one side with boards (unless they start personally attacking you, because that's just being a supreme dick), having to work around a bigger protest? Even if you don't like the protesters, the topic is now likely in your thoughts.[/QUOTE] I'm not really talking about smaller protests. It's understandable why those need to inconvenience people. They aren't large enough and most people probably don't know why they are protesting. But a protest this large, at this stage, doesn't benefit from this. People already know what they are about and people are talking about it. At this point in this instance, it would do more harm than good.

Blocking traffic to make a point is a dick move. Why don't they go and try blocking a river.

A nonviolent protest? This is unamerican!

Shut down everything, right on!

I really feel like you're missing the point of civil disobedience if you think "inconveniencing people" is a problem. When i studied the civil rights movement in school we looked a lot of material and rhetoric that was used counter to it. Maybe you guys never did that or are from other countries so let me explain. "They're getting in the way and shouldn't be allowed to protest on our streets, let them protest inside their homes or something" was a pretty common theme (usually with more racial slurs but whatver). It's called civil disobedience for a reason. Civil disobedience is not intended to be a form of reasoned discussion either, you're not trying to have a debate while marching through the streets, if you think thats what it's trying to do thats just silly. Maybe your trying to force a reasoned debate to start because it's not happening, but the point is that it wouldnt be happening otherwise. It's essentially the recourse once the system fails and people dont think it will be solved through normal means. Which is fine, because quite frankly society isnt at that point yet. Guy in the video just aptly put it "all they wanted was a trial". This isn't a protest to throw the dude in jail, this is a protest because they're refusing to even have a trial.

mmm popcorn. Hope this ends soon, its probably gonna. [editline]5th December 2014[/editline] oh snap the cops are here

[QUOTE=paul simon;46641317]Blocking traffic to make a point is a dick move. Why don't they go and try blocking a river.[/QUOTE] Don't think they give a dam

heading down now.

Police are on megaphones demanding they leave the area. This is about to get messy [editline]4th December 2014[/editline] They're threatening arrest

I'm leaving now, Be there hopefully in 15-20 mins pending i don't hit a mini protest. Going to park at a garage a few blocks from the square and try and get a stream up. Will try with glass (hurhur go with the jokes) but i don't have a livestream account. I'll try with my phone.

load of cops with handcuffs just arived

[QUOTE=kidwithsword;46641046]I will never understand how people think that blocking traffic accomplishes anything. The people they are protesting against are not going to care about a bunch of people standing in a road somewhere, and the people they are inconvenciencing are people completely unrelated to the issues they are protesting against. What kind of systematic change, the kind of change that they claim to want, could they possibly hope to effect by doing stuff like this?[/QUOTE] I understand and agree with your point, but this is really one of the best ways to make the government respond to protests. They're making large inconveniences like this and refusing to stop until change is made. It kind of angers me how short-sighted the government always is with this stuff. Rather than acknowledging these protesters they just send police to try to quell them. Don't they realize that only gives them more reason to protest?

Liberal "stay in the fenced-in protesting area!" style resistance wont do anything. I'm glad that these guys have the right idea.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;46641391]I really feel like you're missing the point of civil disobedience if you think "inconveniencing people" is a problem. When i studied the civil rights movement in school we looked a lot of material and rhetoric that was used counter to it. Maybe you guys never did that or are from other countries so let me explain. "They're getting in the way and shouldn't be allowed to protest on our streets, let them protest inside their homes or something" was a pretty common theme (usually with more racial slurs but whatver). It's called civil disobedience for a reason. Civil disobedience is not intended to be a form of reasoned discussion either, you're not trying to have a debate while marching through the streets, if you think thats what it's trying to do thats just silly. Maybe your trying to force a reasoned debate to start because it's not happening, but the point is that it wouldnt be happening otherwise. It's essentially the recourse once the system fails and people dont think it will be solved through normal means. Which is fine, because quite frankly society isnt at that point yet. Guy in the video just aptly put it "all they wanted was a trial". This isn't a protest to throw the dude in jail, this is a protest because they're refusing to even have a trial.[/QUOTE] How is preventing a single parent from getting home from their second job to help their child with homework before bed helping anything? How is making an ambulance take a longer route to the hospital helping? With a protest this size and this well covered, it doesn't help anything. All it does is build resentment towards the protest and it's cause.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;46641612]How is preventing a single parent from getting home from their second job to help their child with homework before bed helping anything? How is making an ambulance take a longer route to the hospital helping? With a protest this size and this well covered, it doesn't help anything. All it does is build resentment towards the protest and it's cause.[/QUOTE] It forces people to at least acknowledge their cause, rather than trying to forget about it and letting it die out. They see injustice in the system and they refuse to stop talking about it until they get an answer. They're like a clingy lover, they know someone's home so they keep calling, even if it keeps the whole house awake. They'll keep calling until they get an answer.

So what are these protests trying to accomplish? Did the original Grand Jury lie or something? Wouldn't another trial with another Grand Jury be double jeopardy? What if the second Grand Jury chose not to indict the officer? Would it keep going until public opinion won out over actual legal proceedings?

[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;46641656]It forces people to at least acknowledge their cause, rather than trying to forget about it and letting it die out. They see injustice in the system and they refuse to stop talking about it until they get an answer. They're like a clingy lover, they know someone's home so they keep calling, even if it keeps the whole house awake. They'll keep calling until they get an answer.[/QUOTE] Except new yorkers will probably go "these fucking assholes are blocking traffic and i just want to get home/work" you must be really really optimistic if people actually driving give a shit if they are blocking the road.

It's completely un-American to complain about a protest. [editline]4th December 2014[/editline] And what is the purpose of a protest when you have to have a permit to do it?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46641676]And when the answer is: Fuck off, i'm tired and I want to go home, the protesters shouldn't be shocked. And when the response to getting in the way is the police showing up and quelling the protests, then the protesters can't sit and bitch about the police shutting down their protest. They don't have a permit, they don't have permission from the city, if they had a permit there wouldn't be an issue at all.[/QUOTE] UHhh, yeah. That's the point of civil disobedience. Of course you don't have permission or permits for civil disobedience, then it wouldn't be civil disobedience!

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;46641612]How is preventing a single parent from getting home from their second job to help their child with homework before bed helping anything? How is making an ambulance take a longer route to the hospital helping? With a protest this size and this well covered, it doesn't help anything. All it does is build resentment towards the protest and it's cause.[/QUOTE] The entire point is to cause a disruption. The same argument was used against the original civil rights protests in the US, and it proved invalid. The people protesting believe the disruption is worth the goal they want to acheive. Im not saying everyone should, but the idea is that these people beleive that stopping police brutality and injustice is worth the traffic jam, and that's up to them. It strikes me how incredibly lazy an argument like this is, though. Not lazy in formulation, but lazy in implementation. Just imagine if someone told you that it was inconvenient for them to go to the dentist as a reason for why they weren't, what would you think of them. If someone resents the protests because they are individually inconvenienced by it, there are a few courses of action to take. They could attempt to shout down the protestors regardless of whether or not the protest is valid, or they could attempt to contribute to the discussion somehow to negate the need for the protest in the first place. Like, the strategy of "being annoyed with the protest" is extremely stupid. The error is with anyone who resents the protestors for it, not with the protestors. [QUOTE=CubeManv2;46641570]I'm leaving now, Be there hopefully in 15-20 mins pending i don't hit a mini protest. Going to park at a garage a few blocks from the square and try and get a stream up. Will try with glass (hurhur go with the jokes) but i don't have a livestream account. I'll try with my phone.[/QUOTE] Damn, now i'm tempted to show up myself just to get a chance to meet the famed cubemanv2.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;46641667]Except new yorkers will probably go "these fucking assholes are blocking traffic and i just want to get home/work" you must be really really optimistic if people actually driving give a shit if they are blocking the road.[/QUOTE] What matters is that they're causing a large enough disturbance to force attention onto them. New Yorkers are mostly cynical pricks, believe me, I know, but that means they'll complain about the protests to the government. And then the government has to do something about it since they clearly won't just submit to the police.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46641712]UHhh, yeah. That's the point of civil disobedience. Of course you don't have permission or permits for civil disobedience, then it wouldn't be civil disobedience![/QUOTE] Blocking roadways stops tired and haggard workers from returning home, some of them who are waiting to get home to their families. Other commuters have somewhere important to be, such as a meeting or a late flight. Getting in their way stops them from achieving those things, and instead makes their lives more difficult. That's not the way to get people on your side. It's the exact opposite way to get people on your side.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;46641715]And they'll go for the easiest solution: The police. [/QUOTE] And who do they turn to when the police can't solve the problem? The police [I]can't[/I] solve this problem, they might stop a protest, but that'll just make more happen. It's a vicious cycle that needs to be interrupted by the people the protesters are reaching out to.

[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;46641741]And who do they turn to when the police can't solve the problem?[/QUOTE] They blame the protesters for ruining their time, and will support the police in future actions against the protests.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;46641734]Blocking roadways stops tired and haggard workers from returning home, some of them who are waiting to get home to their families. Other commuters have somewhere important to be, such as a meeting or a late flight. Getting in their way stops them from achieving those things, and instead makes their lives more difficult. That's not the way to get people on your side. It's the exact opposite way to get people on your side.[/QUOTE] By stopping people from getting to and from work, you disrupt the economy. Disrupt the economy enough, and people [I]will[/I] listen.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;46641734]Blocking roadways stops tired and haggard workers from returning home, some of them who are waiting to get home to their families. Other commuters have somewhere important to be, such as a meeting or a late flight. Getting in their way stops them from achieving those things, and instead makes their lives more difficult. That's not the way to get people on your side. It's the exact opposite way to get people on your side.[/QUOTE] They don't want support. They want attention. They don't want to be ignored. The government is trying to make this whole thing die out, but the protests are here specifically to force the conversation to happen. And it's working, people are talking about it all over the news.