• Black Lives Matter Protesters shut down Airport Traffic, State Patrol rushing to break it up
    100 replies, posted
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49377904]Something needs to be made abundantly clear: [B]the point of protesting is to disrupt.[/B] People in this thread saying "you won't get support if you disrupt stuff!" lack the capacity to think critically. I don't agree with this protest, since it seems reactionary and unrelated to the actual issue at hand, but the idea online that protests [i]should not disrupt anything at all[/i] is absurd. The [i]point[/i] of direct action during the civil rights era was [i]the disruption of commerce[/i]. Montgomery Bus Boycotts? Disrupted the bus lines and lost them so much money that they had to change their policies. Sit-ins? Disrupted restaurants that discriminated and lost them a ton of money by preventing people from dining there. Disruption is the [i]purpose[/i] of protest. Arguing that "you can't disrupt stuff! go to designated free speech protest zone 3 if you want to complain about injustices!" is fucking idiotic and it's so widespread on the internet I don't even know how to respond. Disruption is [i]necessarily part of protesting[/i]. [editline]23rd December 2015[/editline] What is not peaceful about blocking off the airports? We have different definitions of peaceful. In my mind, I think [i]not being violent[/i]. In your mind, you think that it means [i]literally not doing anything but standing on sidewalks holding signs[/i]. Protests are inherently disruptive. This is a peaceful protest - they're not marching on the airports with pitchforks and machine guns. [editline]23rd December 2015[/editline] Are you fucking serious? Murder people because they're inconveniencing you and you don't agree with their message? Really? I suppose we should just gun down jaywalkers for inconveniencing us, right? Fuck out of here. Literally no different than someone during the 60's saying "beat the shit out of them and throw them out of the restaurant" when they were doing sit-ins. They're preventing you from getting your flight/meal! They deserve it! What assholes! Kill them all, fuckers![/QUOTE] The point of protesting is to disrupt [b]relevant service to make a point[/b]. If BLM sat their worthless asses down someplace that has nothing to do with their cause, now or ever, then why would I support them when running them down would probably free my life of at least one related problem and [I]absolutely[/I] make me feel better.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;49377998]Do you[I] really [/I]understand the difference between sit-ins / the bus boycott movement and fucking shit up at an airport? It's that the airlines have fuck all to do with their shitty fucking movement. They disrupted the bus lines because of the bus line's practices, they disrupted restaurants because of the restaurant's practices. There was a set goal and they accomplished it. The sit-ins and the bus boycotts were 100% legitimate protests and should be hailed as the proper way to fight inequality. This protest is absolutely bullshit. And statistically speaking, the entire BLM movement is bullshit.[/QUOTE] [quote=.Isak.] Something needs to be made abundantly clear: the point of protesting is to disrupt. People in this thread saying "you won't get support if you disrupt stuff!" lack the capacity to think critically. [B]I don't agree with this protest, since it seems reactionary and unrelated to the actual issue at hand[/B], but the idea online that protests should not disrupt anything at all is absurd. The point of direct action during the civil rights era was the disruption of commerce. Montgomery Bus Boycotts? Disrupted the bus lines and lost them so much money that they had to change their policies. Sit-ins? Disrupted restaurants that discriminated and lost them a ton of money by preventing people from dining there. Disruption is the purpose of protest. Arguing that "you can't disrupt stuff! go to designated free speech protest zone 3 if you want to complain about injustices!" is fucking idiotic and it's so widespread on the internet I don't even know how to respond. Disruption is necessarily part of protesting. [/quote] Not to mention the fact that Isak was talking about something completely different than whether this protest was right or wrong...
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49377904]are you fucking serious? Murder people because they're inconveniencing you and you don't agree with their message? Really? I suppose we should just gun down jaywalkers for inconveniencing us, right? Fuck out of here. Literally no different than someone during the 60's saying "beat the shit out of them and throw them out of the restaurant" when they were doing sit-ins. They're preventing you from getting your flight/meal! They deserve it! What assholes! Kill them all, fuckers![/QUOTE] You just compared a peaceful sit-in at a diner during the civil rights movement to protesters blocking an international airport. Two things on opposite ends of the spectrum.
[QUOTE=Apache249;49377948]Yeah... I'm fairly certain he wasn't serious[/QUOTE] I wouldn't be surprised if- [QUOTE=Pilotguy97;49378010]when running them down would probably free my life of at least one related problem and [I]absolutely[/I] make me feel better.[/QUOTE] oh.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;49377998]Do you[I] really [/I]understand the difference between sit-ins / the bus boycott movement and fucking shit up at an airport? It's that the airlines have fuck all to do with their shitty fucking movement. They disrupted the bus lines because of the bus line's practices, they disrupted restaurants because of the restaurant's practices. There was a set goal and they accomplished it. The sit-ins and the bus boycotts were 100% legitimate protests and should be hailed as the proper way to fight inequality. This protest is absolutely bullshit. And statistically speaking, the entire BLM movement is bullshit.[/QUOTE] If you had actually read my comment, you would be aware that I think this protest is misguided and unfocused. I'm not arguing that - I'm saying that the common online sentiment that protests [i]shouldn't disrupt anything[/i] is patently wrong. The vast majority of effective protests in history involve disruption in some form.
[QUOTE]the point of protesting is to disrupt.[/QUOTE] Occupy Wallstreet didn't occupy poor communities. Black Lives Matter harassing Airports makes no sense.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;49378147]You just compared a peaceful sit-in at a diner during the civil rights movement to protesters blocking an international airport. Two things on opposite ends of the spectrum.[/QUOTE] How so? They both disrupt commerce. One prevents people from flying, one prevents them from dining. I think that the airport is unrelated and misguided and a dumb target, but they're the same shit. BLM has used the same type of direct action that SNCC and the SCLC used - the only reasonable complaint is that it's unfocused and targeting unrelated places. Not that it's "not peaceful." This is a peaceful protest. Call me when someone blows up an airplane at MSP - it's a peaceful disruptive march by definition. [editline]23rd December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Rangergxi;49378162]Occupy Wallstreet didn't occupy poor communities. Black Lives Matter harassing Airports makes no sense.[/QUOTE] I literally said that in the comment you're quoting and in the comment [i]directly above yours[/i]. It's a misguided target, no doubt, but [i]the disruptive nature of it[/i] doesn't make it a bad protest like people were claiming above.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49377904]Are you fucking serious? Murder people because they're inconveniencing you and you don't agree with their message? Really? I suppose we should just gun down jaywalkers for inconveniencing us, right? Fuck out of here. Literally no different than someone during the 60's saying "beat the shit out of them and throw them out of the restaurant" when they were doing sit-ins. They're preventing you from getting your flight/meal! They deserve it! What assholes! Kill them all, fuckers![/QUOTE] Have you ever heard of the concept of false imprisonment? You're someone in a car, and these protesters don't want to move. You have cars lining up behind you, so no way in hell you're just backing out of there and doing a U-turn. What are you supposed to do? Sure, you could earrape them with your horn which would arguably cause more damage. But you're not there only to do that on your own time, you have to be somewhere soon. Blocking major highways [I]completely[/I] without even leaving a single lane open is the equivalent of domestic terrorism. Jaywalking on the other hand, nobody's committing any false imprisonment since mister jaywalker is only going to go across when the road is clear.
[QUOTE=Pilotguy97;49378010]The point of protesting is to disrupt [b]relevant service to make a point[/b]. If BLM sat their worthless asses down someplace that has nothing to do with their cause, now or ever, then why would I support them when running them down would probably free my life of at least one related problem and [I]absolutely[/I] make me feel better.[/QUOTE] Again, like TornadoAP pointed out [b]by actually reading my comment[/b], I was arguing that protests being "disruptive" is to be expected. I'm tired of people seeing highway blockages as "a bad form of protesting" - disruptive direct action protests that [i]inconvenienced people[/i] has been used with huge effectiveness. This is the same concept - the only reasonable complaint is that the target is misguided. The cause is reasonable, the method of action is reasonable, the target is not. That's it. People are arguing that the method was unreasonable - claiming that is the same as claiming that disrupting restaurants and inconveniencing diners was unreasonable. The only difference is that there was a relevant target.
I really wish they were smarter about their protests. Eventually this is probably going to end rather poorly for them. Blocking highways, malls, airports, protesting in places that have no relation to their cause. It's stupid and it hinders their cause.
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;49378179]Have you ever heard of the concept of false imprisonment? You're someone in a car, and these protesters don't want to move. You have cars lining up behind you, so no way in hell you're just backing out of there and doing a U-turn. What are you supposed to do? Sure, you could earrape them with your horn which would arguably cause more damage. But you're not there only to do that on your own time, you have to be somewhere soon. Blocking major highways [I]completely[/I] without even leaving a single lane open is the equivalent of domestic terrorism. Jaywalking on the other hand, nobody's committing any false imprisonment since mister jaywalker is only going to go across when the road is clear.[/QUOTE] Apparently the DOT is falsely imprisoning me and committing domestic terrorism by trapping me in a 5-mile stretch of highway on my drive home for almost 2 hours today due to construction. They should be prosecuted, right?
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49378187]Apparently the DOT is falsely imprisoning me and committing domestic terrorism by trapping me in a 5-mile stretch of highway on my drive home for almost 2 hours today due to construction. They should be prosecuted, right?[/QUOTE] You're still getting through in that case. These protesters don't want ANYONE through, ever.
[QUOTE=Pilotguy97;49378010]The point of protesting is to disrupt [b]relevant service to make a point[/b]. If BLM sat their worthless asses down someplace that has nothing to do with their cause, now or ever, then why would I support them [B]when running them down would probably free my life of at least one related problem and [I]absolutely[/I] make me feel better.[/B][/QUOTE] Can I just go over this again? This is really fucked up. You are seriously saying that you'd gain pleasure from killing people because they blocked a single terminal? I just-I can't.. What the fuck?
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49378187]Apparently the DOT is falsely imprisoning me and committing domestic terrorism by trapping me in a 5-mile stretch of highway on my drive home for almost 2 hours today due to construction. They should be prosecuted, right?[/QUOTE] BLM didn't exactly let emergency services through during that protest.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49377904]Something needs to be made abundantly clear: [B]the point of protesting is to disrupt.[/B][/QUOTE] Why do you always feel the need to go defend harassers
[QUOTE=Tetsmega;49378223]Why do you always feel the need to go defend harassers[/QUOTE] Because a protest is now apparently harassment?
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49378239]Because a protest is now apparently harassment?[/QUOTE] When you're blocking major arteries and effectively killing someone if an ambulance has to go by, it is.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49377904]Something needs to be made abundantly clear: [B]the point of protesting is to disrupt.[/B] People in this thread saying "you won't get support if you disrupt stuff!" lack the capacity to think critically. I don't agree with this protest, since it seems reactionary and unrelated to the actual issue at hand, but the idea online that protests [i]should not disrupt anything at all[/i] is absurd. The [i]point[/i] of direct action during the civil rights era was [i]the disruption of commerce[/i]. Montgomery Bus Boycotts? Disrupted the bus lines and lost them so much money that they had to change their policies. Sit-ins? Disrupted restaurants that discriminated and lost them a ton of money by preventing people from dining there. Disruption is the [i]purpose[/i] of protest. Arguing that "you can't disrupt stuff! go to designated free speech protest zone 3 if you want to complain about injustices!" is fucking idiotic and it's so widespread on the internet I don't even know how to respond. Disruption is [i]necessarily part of protesting[/i]. [editline]23rd December 2015[/editline] What is not peaceful about blocking off the airports? We have different definitions of peaceful. In my mind, I think [i]not being violent[/i]. In your mind, you think that it means [i]literally not doing anything but standing on sidewalks holding signs[/i]. Protests are inherently disruptive. This is a peaceful protest - they're not marching on the airports with pitchforks and machine guns. [editline]23rd December 2015[/editline] Are you fucking serious? Murder people because they're inconveniencing you and you don't agree with their message? Really? I suppose we should just gun down jaywalkers for inconveniencing us, right? Fuck out of here. Literally no different than someone during the 60's saying "beat the shit out of them and throw them out of the restaurant" when they were doing sit-ins. They're preventing you from getting your flight/meal! They deserve it! What assholes! Kill them all, fuckers![/QUOTE] Your examples fall flat, Most if not all of the Civil Rights era protests were against companies that were actively discriminating against blacks, Montgomery Bus Boycotts were because they were making blacks sit at the back of the bus, and arrested blacks that sat at the front, and white people felt guilty about it, making it garner even more support, same with pretty much every sit-in. Tell me, what has Minneapolis International done in the past year thats racist enough to warrant a protest that will make them lose millions of dollars? And what can Minneapolis International do about police brutality? Would you find it appropriate / effective for people to sit in at a sushi shop because they don't like how the government is spending all there money on military? edit: while I agree that disruption is an integral part of protest, again, theres nothing an airport can do about racist cops, this protest literally does nothing but make people lose money, and make less people support their cause.
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;49378252]When you're blocking major arteries and effectively killing someone if an ambulance has to go by, it is.[/QUOTE] Okay? I was talking about protests in general but nice strawman.
Man I was gonna hop a plane to green bay real quick to deliver a puppie using airline benefits, I'm glad I just chose to drive instead.
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;49378195]You're still getting through in that case. These protesters don't want ANYONE through, ever.[/QUOTE] you honestly believe that protesters intended to indefinitely stop road access for all of future human history? really? It's temporary by nature
Why can't they just protest in a way that allows me to continue to ignore their plight?
[QUOTE=Saxon;49378360]Man I was gonna hop a plane to green bay real quick to deliver a puppie using airline benefits, I'm glad I just chose to drive instead.[/QUOTE] I mean you still might have been able to. The protest only blocked one terminal, it's not like the entire airport was on lockdown.
[QUOTE=Toro;49378257]Your examples fall flat, Most if not all of the Civil Rights era protests were against companies that were actively discriminating against blacks, Montgomery Bus Boycotts were because they were making blacks sit at the back of the bus, and arrested blacks that sat at the front, and white people felt guilty about it, making it garner even more support, same with pretty much every sit-in. Tell me, what has Minneapolis International done in the past year thats racist enough to warrant a protest that will make them lose millions of dollars? And what can Minneapolis International do about police brutality? Would you find it appropriate / effective for people to sit in at a sushi shop because they don't like how the government is spending all there money on military? edit: while I agree that disruption is an integral part of protest, again, theres nothing an airport can do about racist cops, this protest literally does nothing but make people lose money, and make less people support their cause.[/QUOTE] I addressed this - I totally agree with most people in this thread that it was misguided and misdirected. I'll restate again: I was commenting on the idea that protests can't be disruptive and using the civil rights era sit-ins and boycotts as examples of how those disrupted and inconvenienced people. This follows the style of peaceful direct action exactly like the civil rights era ones. The target was chosen poorly, same with MOA and the highway blockage. But the method is the same as the civil rights movement - claiming it's not peaceful or that disruptive protest is bad is criticizing the civil rights movement simultaneously. [editline]23rd December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Rangergxi;49378204]BLM didn't exactly let emergency services through during that protest.[/QUOTE] I'd love a source on this - I've seen you claim that they blocked emergency services, but I've never read a source indicating that they blocked an ambulance. You've repeated the potentiality of blocking ambulances as a fact - if this did happen, it's shameful, but I've never seen a source indicating that ambulances were actually blocked.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49378364]you honestly believe that protesters intended to indefinitely stop road access for all of future human history? really? It's temporary by nature[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=TornadoAP;49378317]Okay? I was talking about protests in general but nice strawman.[/QUOTE] Kinda goes without saying. K However, during that time emergency services can't pass through. First nations communities in Canada do this as well and in some cases alert the government before doing s.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;49378381]I mean you still might have been able to. The protest only blocked one terminal, it's not like the entire airport was on lockdown.[/QUOTE] Theirs only two terminals and the one they blocked is the one that I would have to use, plus flying on benefits requires that no one misses their connections and that sort of B.S to get on a plane. So I dodged a bullet Also one terminal is really huge while the other one is tiny :v:
BLM should be focusing on police stations and media outlets. Not harassing people like Bernie Sanders (that support them) and shutting down parts of airports. [QUOTE=.Isak.;49378384] I'd love a source on this - I've seen you claim that they blocked emergency services, but I've never read a source indicating that they blocked an ambulance. You've repeated the potentiality of blocking ambulances as a fact - if this did happen, it's shameful, but I've never seen a source indicating that ambulances were actually blocked.[/QUOTE] Pictures clearly indicate that the roads were clogged with no passageway for emergency services. Same situation with all highway blockings done by BLM.
These people were blocking emergency traffic from getting through and not following the rules of lawful protest, whether or not you personally feel that they were justified in performing an unlawful protest of this nature, you're wrong and the police are wholly justified in breaking them up. Being a part of a leaderless movement doesn't give you permission to be an idiot, nor does it give you permission to break the law.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49377904]Something needs to be made abundantly clear: [B]the point of protesting is to disrupt.[/B] People in this thread saying "you won't get support if you disrupt stuff!" lack the capacity to think critically. I don't agree with this protest, since it seems reactionary and unrelated to the actual issue at hand, but the idea online that protests [i]should not disrupt anything at all[/i] is absurd. The [i]point[/i] of direct action during the civil rights era was [i]the disruption of commerce[/i]. Montgomery Bus Boycotts? Disrupted the bus lines and lost them so much money that they had to change their policies. Sit-ins? Disrupted restaurants that discriminated and lost them a ton of money by preventing people from dining there. Disruption is the [i]purpose[/i] of protest. Arguing that "you can't disrupt stuff! go to designated free speech protest zone 3 if you want to complain about injustices!" is fucking idiotic and it's so widespread on the internet I don't even know how to respond. Disruption is [i]necessarily part of protesting[/i].[/QUOTE] Are airlines and their customers the cause of racial tensions? I though the black lives matter movement was about police brutality and racism on campuses. Both of the situations you mentioned are examples of bringing the protest to the source of the discrimination. I would gladly concede if you could find some evidence that airlines and airports are related to BLM's specific grievances with police brutality etc.
[QUOTE=Saxon;49378422]Theirs only two terminals and the one they blocked is the one that I would have to use, plus flying on benefits requires that no one misses their connections and that sort of B.S to get on a plane. So I dodged a bullet Also one terminal is really huge while the other one is tiny :v:[/QUOTE] Ah well that explains it then.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.