Protestors Being A Public Nuisance Discussion

[Cachard Calia]

We all are our own arbiters of what is or is not a just cause. (mic drop)

[Australian rePublic]

If people who suffer minor property damage run off to donate to right wing causes then the rational course of action for protesters is to cause much more than minor damage.

Or, here's an idea, don't cause damage in the first place. What if the roles were reversed and right wingers were causing minor damage and people were therefore fleeing to support left winged causes? What would you say then? How would you like if you were the victim of "minor" violence? What would you do if a moderately right winged group (or even left winged group) smashed your windscreen? What if if was your property that was damaged? Being a public nuisance is one thing, being a violent piece of shit is a completely different matter. If you turn you violent, then you deserve to be punished under the full extent of the law. Being a public nuisance is one thing, and you could argue about whether or not it should be allowed, but violence is not excusable. If a few cops go around being dicks to black people, yet you somehow think that that justifies you smashing the windscreen of someone who had nothing to do with it, then you are part of the problem whether or not you want to admit it, you are part of the problem. And I'll repeat it again, you are the problem. Gluing yourself to the street is one thing, but turning violent and smashing things is an other thing all together. I sincerely hope that someone protesting for a cause that you oppose/are indifferent to does NOT smash your property, but if it were to happen, then you complaining about it, let alone being turned away from their cause, would make you a supreme hypocrite

[Ifreann]

If people who suffer minor property damage run off to donate to right wing causes then the rational course of action for protesters is to cause much more than minor damage.

Or, here's an idea, don't cause damage in the first place.

Or do cause damage. Fuck some shit up.

What if the roles were reversed and right wingers were causing minor damage and people were therefore fleeing to support left winged causes? What would you say then?

I would say "Welcome, comrades".

How would you like if you were the victim of "minor" violence? What would you do if a moderately right winged group (or even left winged group) smashed your windscreen? What if if was your property that was damaged?

Guess I'll need some new property.

Being a public nuisance is one thing, being a violent piece of shit is a completely different matter. If you turn you violent, then you deserve to be punished under the full extent of the law. Being a public nuisance is one thing, and you could argue about whether or not it should be allowed, but violence is not excusable

Explain how I would be punished to the full extent of the law without being subject to any violence.

[Australian rePublic]

Or, here's an idea, don't cause damage in the first place.

Or do cause damage. Fuck some shit up.

I'll keep that in mind next time I visit your home city and find a protest for a cause that you oppose. I'll also to make sure I find out where you live, and once I get to your place of residence, samshy smashy. In fact, I might not even do any smashing till I get to your place of residence. Do you not understand how sociopathic that is? I'm really pissed off about something, so I'm gonna just smash the property of some random who has absolutely nothing to do with it and can't do anything in the slightest about what I'm pissed off about, I'm sorry, but that's sociopathic. Again, blocking the road is one thing, smashing the property of innocent bystanders is a different kettle of fish, and sociopathic. No body deserves to have their property damaged just because they happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. I sincerely hope you see your way and stop supporting sociopathic causes

What if the roles were reversed and right wingers were causing minor damage and people were therefore fleeing to support left winged causes? What would you say then?

I would say "Welcome, comrades".

I find that hard to believe

How would you like if you were the victim of "minor" violence? What would you do if a moderately right winged group (or even left winged group) smashed your windscreen? What if if was your property that was damaged?

Guess I'll need some new property.

Assuming that you can afford to replace everything that someone has broken great, Imma find out where you live, show this post to your insurance agency to ensure that they won't cover you, and start a protest in support of a cause that you oppose. Once I get to your place of residence, being fully aware that your insurance won't cover you, smashy smashy. Or, you know, maybe I won't do that, because I am not going to support sociopathic causes the way that you do

Being a public nuisance is one thing, being a violent piece of shit is a completely different matter. If you turn you violent, then you deserve to be punished under the full extent of the law. Being a public nuisance is one thing, and you could argue about whether or not it should be allowed, but violence is not excusable

Explain how I would be punished to the full extent of the law without being subject to any violence.

[/quote]
Non-violent punishments, prison, etc.

[Ifreann]

Or do cause damage. Fuck some shit up.

I'll keep that in mind next time I visit your home city and find a protest for a cause that you oppose. I'll also to make sure I find out where you live, and once I get to your place of residence, samshy smashy. In fact, I might not even do any smashing till I get to your place of residence. Do you not understand how sociopathic that is? I'm really pissed off about something, so I'm gonna just smash the property of some random who has absolutely nothing to do with it and can't do anything in the slightest about what I'm pissed off about, I'm sorry, but that's sociopathic. Again, blocking the road is one thing, smashing the property of innocent bystanders is a different kettle of fish, and sociopathic. No body deserves to have their property damaged just because they happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. I sincerely hope you see your way and stop supporting sociopathic causes

I would say "Welcome, comrades".

I find that hard to believe

Guess I'll need some new property.

Assuming that you can afford to replace everything that someone has broken great, Imma find out where you live, show this post to your insurance agency to ensure that they won't cover you, and start a protest in support of a cause that you oppose. Once I get to your place of residence, being fully aware that your insurance won't cover you, smashy smashy. Or, you know, maybe I won't do that, because I am not going to support sociopathic causes the way that you do

Explain how I would be punished to the full extent of the law without being subject to any violence.

Non-violent punishments, prison, etc.[/quote]
You're literally threatening to come and attack my house. This is a crime, my man. You're breaking the law.

[Australian rePublic]

I'll keep that in mind next time I visit your home city and find a protest for a cause that you oppose. I'll also to make sure I find out where you live, and once I get to your place of residence, samshy smashy. In fact, I might not even do any smashing till I get to your place of residence. Do you not understand how sociopathic that is?

You're literally threatening to come and attack my house. This is a crime, my man. You're breaking the law.

Yea, well, exactly, you see my point. It's wrong to smash people's property just because you're protesting. Also, I very clearly said that I shall NOT be doing that because I do not support sociopathic causes. Context should be able to tell you that was not being sincere. I would ask you to not kindly not intentionally take my post of context, but considering that you seem to be a hypocrite sociopath apologist, I'm not gonna piss you off any further, but just to be clear, I have no intention of destroying your property nor the property of any one else. Nor do I have the intention to stalk you and track down your place of residence. I'm not going to do that. That would be idiotic and sociopathic. I was merely trying to illustrate your hypocrisy, but by intentionally taking my post out of context, you've done a better job illustrating your hypocrisy than I could have. I do NOT, repeat NOT intend to intentionally damage anybody's property, nor do I intend to stalk you to find out where you live. I am NOT going to damage anybody's property, not yours not anybody's, NOR am I going to stalk you to find out where you live

[Perikuresu]

Yea, well, exactly, you see my point. It's wrong to smash people's property just because you're protesting. Also, I very clearly said that I shall NOT be doing that because I do not support sociopathic causes.

You didn't say, you repeated yourself like three times to the point where I was like "jesus christ man, either this was intentional repetition to hammer in the point (which doesn't even work nowadays) or you didn't proof read your work"

Context should be able to tell you that was not being sincere. I would ask you to not kindly not intentionally take my post of context, but considering that you seem to be a hypocrite sociopath apologist, I'm not gonna piss you off any further...

To be honest, I almost replied to said comment because the first impressions it gave off was straight up creepy. First Impressions matter man, nobody's gonna bother reading the rest of the comment if you incentivise them not to.

[Australian rePublic]

Yea, well, exactly, you see my point. It's wrong to smash people's property just because you're protesting. Also, I very clearly said that I shall NOT be doing that because I do not support sociopathic causes.

You didn't say, you repeated yourself like three times to the point where I was like "jesus christ man, either this was intentional repetition to hammer in the point (which doesn't even work nowadays) or you didn't proof read your work"

Context should be able to tell you that was not being sincere. I would ask you to not kindly not intentionally take my post of context, but considering that you seem to be a hypocrite sociopath apologist, I'm not gonna piss you off any further...

To be honest, I almost replied to said comment because the first impressions it gave off was straight up creepy. First Impressions matter man, nobody's gonna bother reading the rest of the comment if you incentivise them not to.

I may have worded myself poorly, but I'm still NOT going to smash people's property

[Ifreann]

You're literally threatening to come and attack my house. This is a crime, my man. You're breaking the law.

Yea, well, exactly, you see my point. It's wrong to smash people's property just because you're protesting. Also, I very clearly said that I shall NOT be doing that because I do not support sociopathic causes. Context should be able to tell you that was not being sincere. I would ask you to not kindly not intentionally take my post of context, but considering that you seem to be a hypocrite sociopath apologist, I'm not gonna piss you off any further...

"Maybe I won't come and track you down and commit insurance fraud and attack your house" isn't much of a defence.

[Vallermoore]

I think, don't be violent, and don't drag the innocent/uninvolved into things, and that goes for strikes as well as protests.

[Perikuresu]

I may have worded myself poorly, but I'm still NOT going to smash people's property

Overall you really need to proof read your (political) posts (in NS) in general because half the time you come off as some boomer who got off a high of constantly watching Sky News and vomiting whatever new fax he learned today in addition to getting angered by some "new woke thing" Peta Credlin showed you.

Idk man, sounding like you've a cooler head would probably lead to a more productive discussion than whatever the hell you just posted.

Oh yeah and also repetition could come off as "tell, not show" which itself sorta feels patronising since you're basically saying "hey, I'm telling you that this is ___ because I don't trust that you've the intuition to get the tone of what I wrote." You could still use it, just use it sparingly, maybe like twice in a comment with one at the beginning and once at the end rather than what felt like once every 2 sentences.

[Australian rePublic]

Yea, well, exactly, you see my point. It's wrong to smash people's property just because you're protesting. Also, I very clearly said that I shall NOT be doing that because I do not support sociopathic causes. Context should be able to tell you that was not being sincere. I would ask you to not kindly not intentionally take my post of context, but considering that you seem to be a hypocrite sociopath apologist, I'm not gonna piss you off any further...

"Maybe I won't come and track you down and commit insurance fraud and attack your house" isn't much of a defence.

I was trying to point out how sociopathic doing so is, I obviously had no intention of doing so. My point is that doing so is sociopathic, not that I had any intention of doing it. I am NOT going to stalk you, I am NOT going to damage your property, NOR am I going to commit insurance fraud. Repeat, I am NOT going to commit insurance fraud. I was trying to illustrate sociopathy, NOT Commit several violent crimes, and that's rich coming from you, stating that you actually support violent crime. Unlike you, I do NOT support violent crime. My ability to list violent crimes=/= my intention to commit them. Just because you support violent criminals doesn't mean that I do. I do NOT support violent crime, NOR will I commit any. Again, please don't take my post out of context. Providing an example of how I can be a sociopath does not mean that I intend to be a sociopath. It's called fiction. I was writing fiction, which I thought would be clear from the context, but clearly wasn't

[Perikuresu]

Unlike you, I do NOT violent crime.

Also it's probably a good idea not to accuse others (and also not repeating incessantly about you not doing something comes off as desperate)

[Australian rePublic]

--EDITED-OUT--

[Australian rePublic]

We all are our own arbiters of what is or is not a just cause. (mic drop)

Exactly my point. Some people think that being a nuisance is justified as long as their cause is being supported and oppose being a nuisance when they oppose the cause. That line of reasoning is wrong

[Australian rePublic]

Unlike you, I do NOT violent crime.

Also it's probably a good idea not to accuse others (and also not repeating incessantly about you not doing something comes off as desperate)

But he literally said that he would support violent protestors who smash other people's property, and I could be wrong, but based on context, he seemed sincere. His words not mine. That's what sparked this whole circular conversation in the first place. Not only that, but when arguing against me, he never once tried to claim that he wasn't being sincere, leading me to believe that he is sincere. Of coarse, I can be wrong, but if he wasn't being sincere, I'm sure he would have said something by now. And of coarse I have to repeat myself, he's still trying to make the same stupid arguments about me wanting to commit violent crimes despite clearly stating that I won't. What am I supposed to do? I wish I could end this whole argument, but I keep getting dragged into it. But you know what, I don't care. Let him report me to the authorities, let the authorities search my internet history and let them determine for themselves that I am not committing violent crimes. I don't care any more, if that's what going to help him sleep at night, then let him report me to the authorities. I'm gonna lose any sleep about the authorities investigating me to see if I am going to commit crimes. Let the authorities investigate me, I don't care. I know that everything I do is legal and if the authorities want to examine that for themselves, let them at it

[Vikanias]

If people who suffer minor property damage run off to donate to right wing causes then the rational course of action for protesters is to cause much more than minor damage.

Say that to the people who get robbed and their stores burned down, not everyone can afford to rebuild or rebuy thing like you can, many small business’s that get targeted can’t afford that and have to shut down what may have taken them years to get in the first place, insurance also acts like a massive dick sometimes and refuses to help. Stop acting like everyone can just afford to rebuild things and stand idly by while their shit gets destroyed.

[Portzania]

If people who suffer minor property damage run off to donate to right wing causes then the rational course of action for protesters is to cause much more than minor damage.

what

[Cachard Calia]

We all are our own arbiters of what is or is not a just cause. (mic drop)

Exactly my point. Some people think that being a nuisance is justified as long as their cause is being supported and oppose being a nuisance when they oppose the cause. That line of reasoning is wrong

I mean we all are the judges of what is right or wrong, including whether or not someone's protest is wrong. Sometimes there will be conflicts between ideologies, in which case you should follow your moral compass, not just automatically become Switzerland. I disagree with the idea that it is always justified if it is ever justified, to put it simply, but I do agree that violent protest is rarely justified.

[Cachard Calia]

If people who suffer minor property damage run off to donate to right wing causes then the rational course of action for protesters is to cause much more than minor damage.

Say that to the people who get robbed and their stores burned down, not everyone can afford to rebuild or rebuy thing like you can, many small business’s that get targeted can’t afford that and have to shut down what may have taken them years to get in the first place, insurance also acts like a massive dick sometimes and refuses to help. Stop acting like everyone can just afford to rebuild things and stand idly by while their shit gets destroyed.

It's kinda the point that they can't. It says, "Hey, help us get (x) or we'll keep fucking up your life."

[Tillania]

We all are our own arbiters of what is or is not a just cause. (mic drop)

Exactly my point. Some people think that being a nuisance is justified as long as their cause is being supported and oppose being a nuisance when they oppose the cause. That line of reasoning is wrong

"When deciding whether to support a movement you must under no circumstances take its actual goals into account. Form is more important than content."
Do you also buy books for the colour of their cover?
Is this Ode to Shallowness your actual stance or are you looking for an excuse to dismiss certain causes?

[Australian rePublic]

Say that to the people who get robbed and their stores burned down, not everyone can afford to rebuild or rebuy thing like you can, many small business’s that get targeted can’t afford that and have to shut down what may have taken them years to get in the first place, insurance also acts like a massive dick sometimes and refuses to help. Stop acting like everyone can just afford to rebuild things and stand idly by while their shit gets destroyed.

It's kinda the point that they can't. It says, "Hey, help us get (x) or we'll keep fucking up your life."

Dude, you've just described terrorism. "Hey, you, join my political cause or suffer violence". That's terrorism. That's the literal terrorism, albeit, soft core terrorism, but terrorism nonetheless. Terrorism is defined as "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." and protests which turn violent for the purposes of coercing the general public to join them definitely meet that definition.

[Australian rePublic]

Exactly my point. Some people think that being a nuisance is justified as long as their cause is being supported and oppose being a nuisance when they oppose the cause. That line of reasoning is wrong

"When deciding whether to support a movement you must under no circumstances take its actual goals into account. Form is more important than content."
Do you also buy books for the colour of their cover?
Is this Ode to Shallowness your actual stance or are you looking for an excuse to dismiss certain causes?

No, it's called democracy. Realising that just because someone disagrees with me, they should have the right to protest, but not to any degree more than my right to protest against something they're indifferent about without causing them inconvenience. Just as I wouldn't significantly inconvenience you when I protest against a cause you're indifferent to, I wouldn't want you to inconvenience me when protesting against something that I am indifferent to. Even though I disagree with what you're saying, I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it. Part of living in a free society is the right to protest, and that same right applies whether or not I support the cause of the protestors. That's literally how freedom and democracy work. Taking away the right to protest of those whose cause you oppose is akin to taking away your opponent's right to vote. Democracy means giving a voice to those whose opinions you oppose, and if those whose opinions you oppose aren't worthy of a voice, then what makes you worthy of a voice? What makes your opinion more valid than anyone else's? And if you don't think that your opponents should have a voice, then why do you deserve one? Considering that silencing opponents is one of the most crutial fundamentals of dictatorship. I very much support the BLM movement's cause, and I very much oppose the anti-vaxxer cause. I am disgusted by the fact that the Aboriginal people in Australia are significantly more likely to end up in prison than the rest of the population, and I don't think that NSW's vaccine mandates lasted long enough. However, (when there isn't a deadly pandemic spreading), I understand that both sides have the equal right to protest, irrespective of the fact that I agree with one cause and oppose the other. Both sides have equal right to protest, irrespective of my views on your protest. Giving free speech to my opponents doesn't mean that I don't passionately believe in any cause, quite the contrary, I am so passionate about some causes that I have actively donated significant amounts of money to them and have spent many, many man-hours advocating for them. Hell, my sig contains a link to a petition which I started and have tirelessly promoted in terms of money and man-hours. However, I acknowledge that people have the right to disagree with me and fight for their causes. That's how democracy works. That's how freedom applies at a societal level. However, when those protests start impacting the general public, that's when I start taking issue, and when those protests turn violent, then, depending on context, that's borderline terrorism.

In theory, for example, I don't oppose the fact that protestors glued themselves to the floor of VW showroom, (they took it way too far, and them not planning for their toilet situation was utter idiocy, extreme idiocy, but I don't oppose to them doing that in theory). I myself had an issue with a small business and I had done something but less extreme and less disruptive (but it still turned away customers). But gluing yourself to the middle of the road, preventing people from going to work, or school, or funerals, or catching their flights, or rushing loved ones to the hospital, or whatever, that's when I start taking issue, even if I wholeheartedly support the cause.

(Now there are exceptions of course, for example, if your end goal is hatred or fear, or division or injustice, or oppression, (neo-NAZIs for example, can go fuck themselves), but for the most part, my stance is as previously stated)

[Tillania]

"When deciding whether to support a movement you must under no circumstances take its actual goals into account. Form is more important than content."
Do you also buy books for the colour of their cover?
Is this Ode to Shallowness your actual stance or are you looking for an excuse to dismiss certain causes?

No, it's called democracy. Realising that just because someone disagrees with me, they should have the right to protest, but not to any degree more than my right to protest against something they're indifferent about without causing them inconvenience. Just as I wouldn't significantly inconvenience you when I protest against a cause you're indifferent to, I wouldn't want you to inconvenience me when protesting against something that I am indifferent to. Even though I disagree with what you're saying, I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it. Part of living in a free society is the right to protest, and that same right applies whether or not I support the cause of the protestors. That's literally how freedom and democracy work. Taking away the right to protest of those whose cause you oppose is akin to taking away your opponent's right to vote. Democracy means giving a voice to those whose opinions you oppose, and if those whose opinions you oppose aren't worthy of a voice, then what makes you worthy of a voice? What makes your opinion more valid than anyone else's? And if you don't think that your opponents should have a voice, then why do you deserve one? Considering that silencing opponents is one of the most crutial fundamentals of dictatorship. I very much support the BLM movement's cause, and I very much oppose the anti-vaxxer cause. I am disgusted by the fact that the Aboriginal people in Australia are significantly more likely to end up in prison than the rest of the population, and I don't think that NSW's vaccine mandates lasted long enough. However, (when there isn't a deadly pandemic spreading), I understand that both sides have the equal right to protest, irrespective of the fact that I agree with one cause and oppose the other. Both sides have equal right to protest, irrespective of my views on your protest. Giving free speech to my opponents doesn't mean that I don't passionately believe in any cause, quite the contrary, I am so passionate about some causes that I have actively donated significant amounts of money to them and have spent many, many man-hours advocating for them. Hell, my sig contains a link to a petition which I started and have tirelessly promoted in terms of money and man-hours. However, I acknowledge that people have the right to disagree with me and fight for their causes. That's how democracy works. That's how freedom applies at a societal level. However, when those protests start impacting the general public, that's when I start taking issue, and when those protests turn violent, then, depending on context, that's borderline terrorism. (Now there are exceptions of course, for example, if your end goal is hatred or fear, or division or injustice, or oppression, (neo-NAZIs for example, can go fuck themselves), but for the most part, my stance is as previously stated)

I'm not a constitution or a government, I'm actually allowed to have an opinion, I am not obligated to be blind to what someone is trying to achieve.
Something that I consider dangerous for even a constitution to be.

[Australian rePublic]

No, it's called democracy. Realising that just because someone disagrees with me, they should have the right to protest, but not to any degree more than my right to protest against something they're indifferent about without causing them inconvenience. Just as I wouldn't significantly inconvenience you when I protest against a cause you're indifferent to, I wouldn't want you to inconvenience me when protesting against something that I am indifferent to. Even though I disagree with what you're saying, I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it. Part of living in a free society is the right to protest, and that same right applies whether or not I support the cause of the protestors. That's literally how freedom and democracy work. Taking away the right to protest of those whose cause you oppose is akin to taking away your opponent's right to vote. Democracy means giving a voice to those whose opinions you oppose, and if those whose opinions you oppose aren't worthy of a voice, then what makes you worthy of a voice? What makes your opinion more valid than anyone else's? And if you don't think that your opponents should have a voice, then why do you deserve one? Considering that silencing opponents is one of the most crutial fundamentals of dictatorship. I very much support the BLM movement's cause, and I very much oppose the anti-vaxxer cause. I am disgusted by the fact that the Aboriginal people in Australia are significantly more likely to end up in prison than the rest of the population, and I don't think that NSW's vaccine mandates lasted long enough. However, (when there isn't a deadly pandemic spreading), I understand that both sides have the equal right to protest, irrespective of the fact that I agree with one cause and oppose the other. Both sides have equal right to protest, irrespective of my views on your protest. Giving free speech to my opponents doesn't mean that I don't passionately believe in any cause, quite the contrary, I am so passionate about some causes that I have actively donated significant amounts of money to them and have spent many, many man-hours advocating for them. Hell, my sig contains a link to a petition which I started and have tirelessly promoted in terms of money and man-hours. However, I acknowledge that people have the right to disagree with me and fight for their causes. That's how democracy works. That's how freedom applies at a societal level. However, when those protests start impacting the general public, that's when I start taking issue, and when those protests turn violent, then, depending on context, that's borderline terrorism. (Now there are exceptions of course, for example, if your end goal is hatred or fear, or division or injustice, or oppression, (neo-NAZIs for example, can go fuck themselves), but for the most part, my stance is as previously stated)

I'm not a constitution or a government, I'm actually allowed to have an opinion, I am not obligated to be blind to what someone is trying to achieve.
Something that I consider dangerous for even a constitution to be.

Well then that would make you anti-democracy. You can't take away someone's right to assembly just because you disagree with them