Protestors Being A Public Nuisance Discussion

[Zouayne Shyce]

An additional core point you miss is that for myself and much of the left the right's goals are intrinsically anti-democratic by nature and frustrating them by any means advances democracy.

This is exactly the self-righteous, hypocritical bs on the left the OP wanted to point out, I think.

But please be more specific: Does "any means" include violence?

[Kazak Yeli]

Protestors must never be allowed to cause a public nuisance.

[Zhinmja]

An additional core point you miss is that for myself and much of the left the right's goals are intrinsically anti-democratic by nature and frustrating them by any means advances democracy.

This is exactly the self-righteous, hypocritical bs on the left the OP wanted to point out, I think.

But please be more specific: Does "any means" include violence?

Anti-democratic politics are the core of right-wing politics generally. It is hardly an unknown fact that right-wing parties continuously rely on narrowing the electorate with increasingly restrictive election laws and shady tactics to sustain their political relevance. Especially when leading politicians in these parties state it openly. Whereas left-wing and centrist parties generally benefit from the expansion of the representative base which is why these parties constantly push for people to vote at all and push for voter-registration/education drives completely independent of their policies in their campaign materials before ever discussing any other point.

This is hardly a reasonable point to dispute. Especially in the American context where the GOP has campaigned on America not being a democratic state for decades and British context where the conservatives have dissolved elected governmental bodies for disputing their administrations leaving a city of 9 million people administratively crippled without a unifying government for years.

(also if this "self-righteousness" you claim as inherent to my clarification was the point of contention for OP as you put words in their mouth then they should have directly targeted it instead of making equivalences and accusations of hypocrisy which, from the very perspective they were criticizing, are comical and silly in nature as they are predicated on such faulty assumptions.)

As for the latter point, I have already stated that I do support state action to frustrate demonstrations with anti-democratic, bigoted demands. I want every single potential sedition charge for Jan 6th here in the States to stick. My reason for opposing the right is not their methods, it is explicitly their goals. You can call me a hypocrite if you want but I have been very precise in stating what I hold ambivalence, support, and opposition to.

[Stellar Colonies]

If they block a road I'm driving down or trap me in place, they're more likely to piss me off even if I agree with their point.

Is it important for any of these causes that you think positively about them?

Is that relevant to what I said?

[Uan aa Boa]

If you support these protestors in their efforts to be a public nuisance, then that must also mean that you should support anti-vaxxers who do the same crap. If you support climate protestors but not anti-vaxxers (a position which I know applies to some NSers), then you are a hypocrite as you are not the arbiter of what is and is not a good cause.

This makes no sense. It's like saying that if you agree with someone writing an article about climate change then you should also agree with someone writing an article about vaccines.

[Haganham]

If they block a road I'm driving down or trap me in place, they're more likely to piss me off even if I agree with their point.

Is it important for any of these causes that you think positively about them?

Well if they actually are opposed to whatever they are protesting then they ultimately have two ways to go about that.

1. inconvenience people responsible for the thing they are opposed to
2. sway other people so that they can do 1.

Inconveniencing random members of the public is actually counterproductive, as it is effectively the opposite of 2.
This is why protesters who target the public at large should be viewed with suspicion. They're often backed by the people actually responsible for the problem, trying to change the narrative about the problem they caused.

[Kazak Yeli]

Look what happened in Kazakhstan back in January.

It is now known as "Bloody January". Hundreds were killed by violent rioters.

This is what happens when protests go too far.

[Ifreann]

Protestors must never be allowed to cause a public nuisance.

Riots it is.

---

Is it important for any of these causes that you think positively about them?

Is that relevant to what I said?

Of course it is. You're saying that protesters blocking roads are likely to piss you off. To which I ask, so what? Obviously you won't like that, but does pissing you off interfere with their objectives? Do they need you to like them in order to succeed?

---

Is it important for any of these causes that you think positively about them?

Well if they actually are opposed to whatever they are protesting then they ultimately have two ways to go about that.

1. inconvenience people responsible for the thing they are opposed to
2. sway other people so that they can do 1.

Inconveniencing random members of the public is actually counterproductive, as it is effectively the opposite of 2.

Is it? Seems to me that protesters who cause a nuisance can serve to give a great deal of attention to their cause. If you get people thinking "That lot are going too far", that gives space to someone else to come along and say "Oh yeah, but they have a point about..." whatever it is they're making a point about.

This is why protesters who target the public at large should be viewed with suspicion. They're often backed by the people actually responsible for the problem, trying to change the narrative about the problem they caused.

Often? How often? How many instances are there of this phenomenon?

[Mountains and Volcanoes]

Look what happened in Kazakhstan back in January.

It is now known as "Bloody January". Hundreds were killed by violent rioters.

This is what happens when protests go too far.

Where’s the setting, situation, and setup?

[Kazak Yeli]

Look what happened in Kazakhstan back in January.

It is now known as "Bloody January". Hundreds were killed by violent rioters.

This is what happens when protests go too far.

Where’s the setting, situation, and setup?

What are you even asking?

[Ifreann]

Look what happened in Kazakhstan back in January.

It is now known as "Bloody January". Hundreds were killed by violent rioters.

This is what happens when protests go too far.

When you try to shut down protests, people will riot in response to that repression.

[Kazak Yeli]

Look what happened in Kazakhstan back in January.

It is now known as "Bloody January". Hundreds were killed by violent rioters.

This is what happens when protests go too far.

When you try to shut down protests, people will riot in response to that repression.

Rioters in January rioted without provocation.

Law enforcement only started shooting to disperse violent riots.

[Ifreann]

When you try to shut down protests, people will riot in response to that repression.

Rioters in January rioted without provocation.

Law enforcement only started shooting to disperse violent riots.

I'm betting people had a lot to be mad about.

[Free Algerstonia]

they should be arrested indefinitely to send a message to the cultural marxist socialists occupying our streets and terrorizing our businesses: the founding fathers were brave conservatives and this country will be conservative forever

[El Lazaro]

Look what happened in Kazakhstan back in January.

It is now known as "Bloody January". Hundreds were killed by violent rioters.

This is what happens when protests go too far.

When you try to shut down protests, people will riot in response to that repression.

Even if you don’t prohibit protests, police/military personnel usually do start civil unrest incidents. A couple of opportunists throw rocks/garbage at law enforcement, a nervous rookie responds with disproportionate force, and the situation spirals out of control. “Riot police” in their current form are utterly counterproductive regardless of whether they’re suppressing protests or preventing escalation.

[American Legionaries]

When you try to shut down protests, people will riot in response to that repression.

Even if you don’t prohibit protests, police/military personnel usually do start civil unrest incidents. A couple of opportunists throw rocks/garbage at law enforcement, a nervous rookie responds with disproportionate force, and the situation spirals out of control. “Riot police” in their current form are utterly counterproductive regardless of whether they’re suppressing protests or preventing escalation.

They're pretty effective at putting lumps on the heads of protestors.

[Zouayne Shyce]

This is exactly the self-righteous, hypocritical bs on the left the OP wanted to point out, I think.

But please be more specific: Does "any means" include violence?

Anti-democratic politics are the core of right-wing politics generally. It is hardly an unknown fact that right-wing parties continuously rely on narrowing the electorate with increasingly restrictive election laws and shady tactics to sustain their political relevance. Especially when leading politicians in these parties state it openly. Whereas left-wing and centrist parties generally benefit from the expansion of the representative base which is why these parties constantly push for people to vote at all and push for voter-registration/education drives completely independent of their policies in their campaign materials before ever discussing any other point.

This is hardly a reasonable point to dispute. Especially in the American context where the GOP has campaigned on America not being a democratic state for decades and British context where the conservatives have dissolved elected governmental bodies for disputing their administrations leaving a city of 9 million people administratively crippled without a unifying government for years.

(also if this "self-righteousness" you claim as inherent to my clarification was the point of contention for OP as you put words in their mouth then they should have directly targeted it instead of making equivalences and accusations of hypocrisy which, from the very perspective they were criticizing, are comical and silly in nature as they are predicated on such faulty assumptions.)

As for the latter point, I have already stated that I do support state action to frustrate demonstrations with anti-democratic, bigoted demands. I want every single potential sedition charge for Jan 6th here in the States to stick. My reason for opposing the right is not their methods, it is explicitly their goals. You can call me a hypocrite if you want but I have been very precise in stating what I hold ambivalence, support, and opposition to.

I'm getting your point in general, but you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater when you apply very specific circumstances to right wingers in general. And this is what you seem to be doing:

Anti-democratic politics are the core of right-wing politics generally.

This is simply not the case. There is a rich tradition of a democratic right in many Western countries, while there are just as many examples of left-wingers who harmed, weakened or abolished democracy as there are on the right end of the political spectrum. You can't simply ignore the history of Eastern Europe, China and many other countries in the world just as well as many anti-democratic tendencies in the modern left in the USA and Europe and base a statement about right-wingers "in general" on a very specific thing that happened recently in merely two countries.

[Mountains and Volcanoes]

Anti-democratic politics are the core of right-wing politics generally.

Case in point... (Nazi-ish really)

[Zouayne Shyce]

Anti-democratic politics are the core of right-wing politics generally.

Case in point... (Nazi-ish really)

So what? Are you saying that the GOP has never been democratic? What about the British Tories? The Spanish PP? The German CDU? The Danish Venstre? (I could name many more...)


Btw, the development of the GOP since Tronald Dump took over has also been troubling me for a while. But there might be some corrections happening in the near future, as it seems.

[Mountains and Volcanoes]

Anti-democratic politics are the core of right-wing politics generally.

This is simply not the case. There is a rich tradition of a democratic right in many Western countries, while there are just as many examples of left-wingers who harmed, weakened or abolished democracy as there are on the right end of the political spectrum. You can't simply ignore the history of Eastern Europe, China and many other countries in the world just as well as many anti-democratic tendencies in the modern left in the USA and Europe and base a statement about right-wingers "in general" on a very specific thing that happened recently in merely two countries.

Only “rich” tradition is hierarchy (as ALL scholars agree)!

[Zouayne Shyce]

This is simply not the case. There is a rich tradition of a democratic right in many Western countries, while there are just as many examples of left-wingers who harmed, weakened or abolished democracy as there are on the right end of the political spectrum. You can't simply ignore the history of Eastern Europe, China and many other countries in the world just as well as many anti-democratic tendencies in the modern left in the USA and Europe and base a statement about right-wingers "in general" on a very specific thing that happened recently in merely two countries.

Only “rich” tradition is hierarchy (as ALL scholars agree)!

This is wrong and the very introduction of this article seems quite biased. Hierarchies suck, but I know of no left-wing state, party or other organization that has no hierarchy of some sort. It's about how you think hierarchies should be designed and legitimized that can make a difference between political ideologies. Anyway, the non-extremist right-wing has always been conservative, the definition of conservative changing with times and places.

[Zouayne Shyce]

Anti-democratic politics are the core of right-wing politics generally.

Case in point... (Nazi-ish really)

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/12/11/china-burning-book-censorship-online-outrage/

[American Legionaries]

Case in point... (Nazi-ish really)

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/12/11/china-burning-book-censorship-online-outrage/

Imagine thinking Nazis burned books that they themselves bought and paid for...

[Dumb Ideologies]

It's excusable or noble if people I agree with do it, but otherwise a sign of the moral depravity of the opposition.

Perceptions of justness of the cause distort things a hell of a lot. Seeing disruption for something that you see as trivial or harmful is generally going to result in wanting to have it stopped because it's 'pointless' or 'ridiculous'. Whereas enforcement action against people doing something you agree with will seem as a crackdown on noble defiance and evidence that the constables are blighters.

This would be quite the profound point if the practical real-world content of that "agreement" and "disagreement" did not matter. But as it is this is just a lazy analysis that frees you from thinking about anything in a broader context beyond the individual actions themselves. I do not find blockages proof of some kind of barbarity. But if the demands proposed by these blockages include fundamentally anti-democratic and bigoted demands then I not only support frustration of those demonstrations but do so enthusiastically.

The thread is enquiring on people's positions as to which kinds of protests are acceptable, and whether there may be a degree of inconsistency in people's level of tolerance for different groups protesting. Given the nature of the topic, it seems perverse to consider this kind of response more "lazy" or more ignoring of "the broader context" than your own response.

But since you're enjoying this approach so much, we can perhaps extend it to looking at positionality in relation to the current prevailing ideological system as well as the ideology of the protesters.

1. People will give less allowance for radical action by protesters that they don't agree with (the previously discussed point).
2. In places with a so-called "liberal democratic" system people generally like to present themselves as supporting considerable freedom for protesters as this is a supposed norm of the system, and so when they want to shut a particular group down they will try to create categories of exception to legitimise treating those protesters differently e.g. because their values are of such concern, or because they have potentially sufficient support that the very system of "freedom" itself may be under threat if the people are roused.
3. Those with views substantially outside of the current window of acceptability will generally support extensive protest rights. Should former outsiders find themselves in a position of power, they will often pivot on this in order to try to secure their position.
4. Those who are well within the window of acceptability and feel complacent that no alternative could ever overthrow their position can be very relaxed about protest rights. However, should they feel their values are more under threat they will tend to move towards a more generally restrictive position.

[Haganham]

This is why protesters who target the public at large should be viewed with suspicion. They're often backed by the people actually responsible for the problem, trying to change the narrative about the problem they caused.

Often? How often? How many instances are there of this phenomenon?

Countless. The entire recycling movement for example, was created by the plastic industry, to redirect responsibility for plastic waste from producers to consumers.