• Black Lives Matter Protesters shut down Airport Traffic, State Patrol rushing to break it up
    100 replies, posted
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;49377018]Isn't the point of protest to disrupt others so that they're forced to acknowledge your existence? I mean, people sometimes bring up MLK, but sit ins and such that that civil rights movement utilized disrupted people's lives. At least this is slightly better than blocking a highway, where there's a risk of people dying due to an inability to get to the hospital and such.[/QUOTE] You generally first announce the protest to allow authorities a chance to create alternative venues and to inform people that no, you aren't getting trough here today. Blocking streets and similar without an announcement in advance is considered criminal in a lot of countries (despite freedom of assembly) Blocking an airport without advance knowledge and on christmas is a dick move that does nothing but antagonise everyone against you. [quote] The climate movement regularly uses disruptive protests as early as a year or two ago, yet nobody seems to be whining about how disruption is a bad protest tactic in those cases. In 2009, climate activists shut down the coal plant that powers the US Congress building and prevented people from getting to work that day, closing it down. Where's the online outrage there? They stopped people from getting to work! That's selfish and they're just making enemies, right? They need to peacefully protest and not disrupt society!! [/quote] Yeah notice that said climate movement didn't just do a random DA but a targeted one, where the target was clearly something involved. On top of that said disruption isn't terribly severe but still does enough to bring media attention. Compare that to an unannounced BLM (or french farmers really and just as despised) blocking of a highway, of an airport during christmas and other similar shit. The targets aren't involved and instead are selected to maximize the amount of grief to normal people. A lot of new movements make this error, while more established ones make a far better target selection and as such retain media and civilian goodwill.
Will this lead to the group being labeled as a Terrorist Organisation?
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49386096]Ironic that you're criticizing the progressive protesting that led to change from the 50s and 60s. Why was that acceptable then? Why isn't it acceptable now? What has changed to make disruption a bad method of protesting? Why do you think it would be ineffective if it wasn't applied to a related target? You can't just state these things and say "it's different so it's bad now" and not make a single argument to support your reasoning.[/QUOTE] I'm not going to list the many, many ways that society and culture has changed in the past 50-60 years, because not only is it very obvious, but you're just going to hand wave it away anyways because you don't WANT to understand why today's society means that disruptive actions hurt more than they help. But the simple version is that there now is a such thing as bad publicity. [QUOTE]I guarantee you that the people fighting against the civil rights movement made the same complaints - they couldn't go to their favorite restaurants because of those uppity blacks taking up all the spaces! They're so inconsiderate and they're just turning people against their cause! It'll never be effective![/QUOTE] Is there a Godwin's law for the civil rights movement? Because that's all you're doing. I don't give two shits about what people said during the civil rights movement. This is far from a civil rights movement. [QUOTE]Only reasonable complaint is that they're protesting in the wrong locations. That's it. Direct action protest has been incredibly effective and has been adopted by almost every major social movement in the 20th century. The climate movement [i]regularly uses disruptive protests[/i] as early as a year or two ago, yet nobody seems to be whining about how disruption is a bad protest tactic in those cases. In 2009, climate activists shut down the coal plant that powers the US Congress building and prevented people from getting to work that day, closing it down. Where's the online outrage there? They stopped people from getting to work! That's selfish and they're just making enemies, right? They need to peacefully protest and not disrupt society!![/QUOTE] Those climate activists are still idiots as wel, and most likely didn't help their case if it resulted in a lapse of service. And this is the same "where's the outrage at X" argument you criticize people for using when they ask where BLM's outrage is at black on black violence. I like how you keep using the term "peaceful protest", as if it makes everything ok. Just because a protest is peaceful, it doesn't mean people have to like you, support you, or put up with your bullshit.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;49392159]I'm not going to list the many, many ways that society and culture has changed in the past 50-60 years, because not only is it very obvious, but you're just going to hand wave it away anyways because you don't WANT to understand why today's society means that disruptive actions hurt more than they help. But the simple version is that there now is a such thing as bad publicity. Is there a Godwin's law for the civil rights movement? Because that's all you're doing. I don't give two shits about what people said during the civil rights movement. This is far from a civil rights movement. Those climate activists are still idiots as wel, and most likely didn't help their case if it resulted in a lapse of service. And this is the same "where's the outrage at X" argument you criticize people for using when they ask where BLM's outrage is at black on black violence. I like how you keep using the term "peaceful protest", as if it makes everything ok. Just because a protest is peaceful, it doesn't mean people have to like you, support you, or put up with your bullshit.[/QUOTE] Funny - people here are apparently outraged at the tactics. I give an example where those tactics are [i]exactly the same[/i] and you say I'm using the "where's the outrage at" argument. Not to mention that BLM is [i]explicitly defined to be focused on racial police violence[/i] where people in a position of power abuse that power to harm others. The comparison there doesn't work - it's like asking why climate change activists aren't raising money to save Beijing from pollution. Black on black violence is a separate issue that doesn't involve the same abuse of power that police brutality does - and there are literally hundreds of organizations that hold marches and protests and fundraisers against gang violence every year. But that's always ignored in this threads because apparently, because BLM is primarily black, they need to deal with whatever issues [i]you[/i] determine are necessary to solve first, rather than deal with issues that are arguably the [i]cause of[/i] the issue you're complaining about. You're unbelievably dense. Comparing [i]direct action protests in the modern day[/i] to [i]direct action protests in the past[/i] is "Godwin's law of the civil rights movement?" Really? It's the same fucking tactics. I'm comparing the response to two nearly identical social movements, of which police brutality has been a major talking point. It doesn't [i]matter[/i] that you think it's far from a civil rights movement, the tactics are identical (albeit the targets chosen poorly) - that's why I compared it to climate change activists and anti-nuclear activists. Because they use the same tactics. Christ.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49396399]Funny - people here are apparently outraged at the tactics. I give an example where those tactics are [i]exactly the same[/i] and you say I'm using the "where's the outrage at" argument.[/QUOTE] Exactly. You're asking where the outrage was at the tactics before, which is a "where's the outrage" argument. Thank you for making my point. [QUOTE]Not to mention that BLM is [i]explicitly defined to be focused on racial police violence[/i] where people in a position of power abuse that power to harm others. The comparison there doesn't work - it's like asking why climate change activists aren't raising money to save Beijing from pollution. Black on black violence is a separate issue that doesn't involve the same abuse of power that police brutality does - and there are literally hundreds of organizations that hold marches and protests and fundraisers against gang violence every year. But that's always ignored in this threads because apparently, because BLM is primarily black, they need to deal with whatever issues [i]you[/i] determine are necessary to solve first, rather than deal with issues that are arguably the [i]cause of[/i] the issue you're complaining about.[/QUOTE] I wasn't making a parallel between black on black violence and police brutality. I was using the same argument you did to try and show you why your argument is flawed, but apparently it went over your head. [QUOTE]You're unbelievably dense. Comparing [i]direct action protests in the modern day[/i] to [i]direct action protests in the past[/i] is "Godwin's law of the civil rights movement?" Really? It's the same fucking tactics. I'm comparing the response to two nearly identical social movements, of which police brutality has been a major talking point. It doesn't [i]matter[/i] that you think it's far from a civil rights movement, the tactics are identical (albeit the targets chosen poorly) - that's why I compared it to climate change activists and anti-nuclear activists. Because they use the same tactics. Christ.[/QUOTE] No, your comments about "I bet that's what people against the civil rights movement said" is the same appeal to guilt by association as drawing parallels to hitler. You're trying to paint a valid criticism about tactics as a 50s and 60s racist thought instead of facing the fact that the situations and society is completely different nowadays and tactics that worked back then might not produce the same effects today.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49396399]I'm comparing the response to two nearly identical social movements, of which police brutality has been a major talking point. It doesn't [i]matter[/i] that you think it's far from a civil rights movement, the tactics are identical[/QUOTE] Black Lives Matter is hardly comparable to the civil rights movement. Even then, the civil rights movement using a tactic doesn't somehow make it right. The movement had tons of unsavory characters in it such as Malcolm X and black supremacists.
BLM just causes people to go against them due to their actions And once they decide to block a ambulance with someone dying in it, well I don't really know what they would do in that situation but it would probably be unpleasant
nearing Black-Panther-Party level uselessness [editline]27th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Swilly;49382870]I'd like to point out that yes, protests are supposed to disrupt things. However, they hit Mall of America and a fucking airport. If they were an artillery strike, they'd hit an empty field with some already blown up vehicles in it. They should be sitting around, barricading and bothering the fucking police, ya'know, the source of the issue. But they're so unable to handle being arrested that they don't actually do it.[/QUOTE] This is pretty much why I despise BLM. They go after what's easy to annoy innocent bystanders. Not what's useful in the concept of a practical and progressing protest. Police? Nah. Fuck this random mom & pop doughnut shop because #BlackLivesMatter
[QUOTE=Swilly;49382870]I'd like to point out that yes, protests are supposed to disrupt things. However, they hit Mall of America and a fucking airport. If they were an artillery strike, they'd hit an empty field with some already blown up vehicles in it. They should be sitting around, barricading and bothering the fucking police, ya'know, the source of the issue. But they're so unable to handle being arrested that they don't actually do it.[/QUOTE] Police are enforcers, not policy makers. Wana change something protest local government. Until then nothing will change. Want change, change legislation.
[QUOTE=MR-X;49401460]Police are enforcers, not policy makers. Wana change something protest local government. Until then nothing will change. Want change, change legislation.[/QUOTE] But the problem isn't policy. Its the police organizations protecting "a few bad apples" and discriminating.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.