NationStates

You've got to administer some degree of punishment to those who break the law or the law stops being the law and becomes more a series of gentle suggestions. However, with protestors a light touch is probably generally justified (except where serious public danger is caused) because history has a habit of finding in favour of protestors and to consider the inconveniences they caused relatively trivial.

It is true that in some cases campaigners lose sympathy by poorly choosing their targets, but that operates as its own penalty.

IF you glue yourself to the road, you risk blocking access to ambulances rushing to an unconscious patient, you risk blocking access to police cars rushing to the scene of a violent crime, you risk blocking access to a man driving his pregnant partner to the hospital to give birth, you risk blocking access to someone who has a urinary tract infection and has to go to the toilet, you risk blocking access to a truck carrying explosives, whose truck driver is already tired trying to make a deadline and will be even more delayed and even more tired, when you block the road, you risk blocking access to a hospitality worker who's been standing up for 14 hours in high heels, is dead tired and barely has enough energy to drive home, let alone risk delays. When you block the road, you risk blocking access to a taxi driver who is trying to make a living and is losing business and/or a taxi passenger who has to pay extra on the meter, When you block the road, you risking preventing someone from attending a funeral, or to see someone in their dying hours. There are many, many, many more factors that I could add to the list, but hopefully you get the point. Now, I am just one person who came up with this list. If you're part of an entire committee planning a protest and you failed to consider even some of those factors (or alternate ones) then your committee is even stupider and more dangerous than the average anti-vaxxer committee (a level of stupidity which is genuinely so difficult to achieve that I don't even know if there is a word for that level of idiocy), and you if you did consider those, but chose to block the roads anyway, then you're a supreme arsehole who deserves punishment. (But then again, this is the same organisation who glued themselves to the floor of a company as a form of protest and expected that company to provide them with basic amenities at their own expense, without even considering that they would need a toilet let alone anything else, so we can't rule out supreme idiocy)

Vikanias wrote:

Ifreann wrote: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.

My whole point is that people can't afford to deal with major property damage and have money left over to donate to right wing causes. So if a protester were afraid that doing a little property damage would just benefit causes they're opposed to, a concept my post is addressing, then the obvious thing to do is cause more expensive property damage.

Of course, it probably isn't true that there's a big trend of people getting their windshield cracked and then donating to Kyle Rittenhouse's legal defence fund. Right wingers just like to tell these little stories and don't think them through.

---

Portzania wrote:

Ifreann wrote: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

What part of my post confused you?

---

Australian rePublic wrote:IF you glue yourself to the road, you risk blocking access to ambulances rushing to an unconscious patient, you risk blocking access to police cars rushing to the scene of a violent crime, you risk blocking access to a man driving his pregnant partner to the hospital to give birth, you risk blocking access to someone who has a urinary tract infection and has to go to the toilet, you risk blocking access to a truck carrying explosives, whose truck driver is already tired trying to make a deadline and will be even more delayed and even more tired, when you block the road, you risk blocking access to a hospitality worker who's been standing up for 14 hours in high heels, is dead tired and barely has enough energy to drive home, let alone risk delays. When you block the road, you risk blocking access to a taxi driver who is trying to make a living and is losing business and/or a taxi passenger who has to pay extra on the meter, When you block the road, you risking preventing someone from attending a funeral, or to see someone in their dying hours. There are many, many, many more factors that I could add to the list, but hopefully you get the point. Now, I am just one person who came up with this list. If you're part of an entire committee planning a protest and you failed to consider even some of those factors (or alternate ones) then your committee is even stupider and more dangerous than the average anti-vaxxer committee (a level of stupidity which is genuinely so difficult to achieve that I don't even know if there is a word for that level of idiocy), and you if you did consider those, but chose to block the roads anyway, then you're a supreme arsehole who deserves punishment. (But then again, this is the same organisation who glued themselves to the floor of a company as a form of protest and expected that company to provide them with basic amenities at their own expense, without even considering that they would need a toilet let alone anything else, so we can't rule out supreme idiocy)

Climate change is destroying the world. If we don't start mitigating it now then the damage it will do will be unimaginable. More and more people will die in extreme weather events all over the world, millions and millions will be displaced from their homes, there will be famines and plagues such as we have not seen in centuries, not to mention war.

People who realise this and decide to glue themselves to the road in part of a protest action are not utter buffoons who failed to consider the possibility of delaying a taxi and increasing someone's fare, they just have higher priorities.

Australian rePublic wrote:IF you glue yourself to the road, you risk blocking access to ambulances rushing to an unconscious patient, you risk blocking access to police cars rushing to the scene of a violent crime, you risk blocking access to a man driving his pregnant partner to the hospital to give birth, you risk blocking access to someone who has a urinary tract infection and has to go to the toilet, you risk blocking access to a truck carrying explosives, whose truck driver is already tired trying to make a deadline and will be even more delayed and even more tired, when you block the road, you risk blocking access to a hospitality worker who's been standing up for 14 hours in high heels, is dead tired and barely has enough energy to drive home, let alone risk delays. When you block the road, you risk blocking access to a taxi driver who is trying to make a living and is losing business and/or a taxi passenger who has to pay extra on the meter, When you block the road, you risking preventing someone from attending a funeral, or to see someone in their dying hours. There are many, many, many more factors that I could add to the list, but hopefully you get the point. Now, I am just one person who came up with this list. If you're part of an entire committee planning a protest and you failed to consider even some of those factors (or alternate ones) then your committee is even stupider and more dangerous than the average anti-vaxxer committee (a level of stupidity which is genuinely so difficult to achieve that I don't even know if there is a word for that level of idiocy), and you if you did consider those, but chose to block the roads anyway, then you're a supreme arsehole who deserves punishment. (But then again, this is the same organisation who glued themselves to the floor of a company as a form of protest and expected that company to provide them with basic amenities at their own expense, without even considering that they would need a toilet let alone anything else, so we can't rule out supreme idiocy)

Police block the road all of the time. Why don't you condemn them for the harm they cause to (ambulances, fire services, the pregnant, the ill, hazardous cargo, hospitality workers, taxis, the grieving, etc.)? They are demonstrably either too stupid to serve or too assholish to go unpunished.

Australian rePublic wrote:

Cachard Calia wrote: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.

In that case, a significant percentage of all American politics in history has been terrorism.

Australian rePublic wrote:

Cachard Calia wrote: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.

Not quite. There's a really lively debate on what terrorism is, both within the scholarly community and outside it; nevertheless I don't think anybody save for the likes of Putin, Xi, and Erdoğan consider disruptions to daily life to be "terrorism".

And if you do, well, I'll let you get better acquainted with Kazak Yeli.

Cachard Calia wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote: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.

In that case, a significant percentage of all American politics in history has been terrorism.

"It isn't terrorism when I do it"

Cachard Calia wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote: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.

In that case, a significant percentage of all American politics in history has been terrorism.

War is a very different situation to peace time. Very different. But either case, the USA has been at war for 225 of the 245 years since 1776. That's not exactly a good record.

highways traffic jams, and squares and pavements filled with metal made discards are gross nuisance. quite same of a nuisance as concrete city sprawls

Juansonia wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:IF you glue yourself to the road, you risk blocking access to ambulances rushing to an unconscious patient, you risk blocking access to police cars rushing to the scene of a violent crime, you risk blocking access to a man driving his pregnant partner to the hospital to give birth, you risk blocking access to someone who has a urinary tract infection and has to go to the toilet, you risk blocking access to a truck carrying explosives, whose truck driver is already tired trying to make a deadline and will be even more delayed and even more tired, when you block the road, you risk blocking access to a hospitality worker who's been standing up for 14 hours in high heels, is dead tired and barely has enough energy to drive home, let alone risk delays. When you block the road, you risk blocking access to a taxi driver who is trying to make a living and is losing business and/or a taxi passenger who has to pay extra on the meter, When you block the road, you risking preventing someone from attending a funeral, or to see someone in their dying hours. There are many, many, many more factors that I could add to the list, but hopefully you get the point. Now, I am just one person who came up with this list. If you're part of an entire committee planning a protest and you failed to consider even some of those factors (or alternate ones) then your committee is even stupider and more dangerous than the average anti-vaxxer committee (a level of stupidity which is genuinely so difficult to achieve that I don't even know if there is a word for that level of idiocy), and you if you did consider those, but chose to block the roads anyway, then you're a supreme arsehole who deserves punishment. (But then again, this is the same organisation who glued themselves to the floor of a company as a form of protest and expected that company to provide them with basic amenities at their own expense, without even considering that they would need a toilet let alone anything else, so we can't rule out supreme idiocy)

Police block the road all of the time. Why don't you condemn them for the harm they cause to (ambulances, fire services, the pregnant, the ill, hazardous cargo, hospitality workers, taxis, the grieving, etc.)? They are demonstrably either too stupid to serve or too assholish to go unpunished.

That is an utterly stupid comparison. One is a group of professionals who risk their lives day in and day out to keep the community and are just trying to do their very dangerous job in the manner that best they can in a manner to keep themselves and others safe. The other is a group of yahoos who sit around all day plotting how to be a public nuisance.

There's not really not much that the cops can do about the fact that there is a lot of crime in your neighbourhood, other than try to address the problem, which is exactly what they're doing by blocking the street

Australian rePublic wrote:

Juansonia wrote:Police block the road all of the time. Why don't you condemn them for the harm they cause to (ambulances, fire services, the pregnant, the ill, hazardous cargo, hospitality workers, taxis, the grieving, etc.)? They are demonstrably either too stupid to serve or too assholish to go unpunished.

That is an utterly stupid comparison. One is a group of professionals who risk their lives day in and day out to keep the community and are just trying to do their very dangerous job in the manner that best they can in a manner to keep themselves and others safe. The other is a group of yahoos who sit around all day plotting how to be a public nuisance.

Idk what it's like in Australia but police here in the States legally do not exist to keep people safe. They exist to enforce whatever the state codifies as law, there is a very large difference between those two things.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's what I think.

Protest can be inconvinient, but permitting it is a must for any country that remotely claims to be democratic or free. Only authoritarian regimes supress protests.

Maralago wrote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's what I think.

Protest can be inconvinient, but permitting it is a must for any country that remotely claims to be democratic or free. Only authoritarian regimes supress protests.

Even someone seemingly on the opposite side of the political spectrum agrees with this

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:That is an utterly stupid comparison. One is a group of professionals who risk their lives day in and day out to keep the community and are just trying to do their very dangerous job in the manner that best they can in a manner to keep themselves and others safe. The other is a group of yahoos who sit around all day plotting how to be a public nuisance.

Idk what it's like in Australia but police here in the States legally do not exist to keep people safe. They exist to enforce whatever the state codifies as law, there is a very large difference between those two things.

Incompetent/over-zealous policing is a serious, serious problem but shouldn't be conflated with protestors. I am fortunate that all of my interactions with the police have been competent, and am grateful for that, but incompetent policing shouldn't be conflated with protesting

hironically -let's throw this in irony alone-, untill this day the only very few people that has shown to be "terrorists" in some occasions, are the very same regents repressing dissenter's non-violent iconic postures, and them alone. what a coincidence.

they are the same charriot's leaders shelling minorities or committing out-of-justice sentences. ask yourself how can it be their graces being only one you can count on for truncheons. the cause for your dumbness, it must have nothing to origin with ecologist's nuisance, if ever it may be.

the only occaison I can think of, for a serene country and regent to admittibly beat into the streets, is -it may be, let's concede such hypothesis- a foul mob's ordeal into parliament, or it to abuse citizen ladies in squares. otherwise, it would either not be sane or meant to worsen things.

Australian rePublic wrote:

Juansonia wrote:Police block the road all of the time. Why don't you condemn them for the harm they cause to (ambulances, fire services, the pregnant, the ill, hazardous cargo, hospitality workers, taxis, the grieving, etc.)? They are demonstrably either too stupid to serve or too assholish to go unpunished.

That is an utterly stupid comparison. One is a group of professionals

Without even half a year's training, and without any obligation to know the laws they enforce.

who risk their lives day in and day out to keep the community and are just trying to do their very dangerous job in the manner that best they can in a manner to keep themselves and others safe.

Busting someone for marijuana charges does nothing to protect others.

The other is a group of yahoos who sit around all day plotting how to be a public nuisance.

"The other is a group of people trying to improve their society." FTFY

There's not really not much that the cops can do about the fact that there is a lot of crime in your neighbourhood, other than try to address the problem, which is exactly what they're doing by blocking the street

Even if that was true, I could make the same argument that disruption is necessary to enact change for the better. Why is arresting a methamphetamine user a more noble goal than protecting rights from infringement?

Australian rePublic wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Idk what it's like in Australia but police here in the States legally do not exist to keep people safe. They exist to enforce whatever the state codifies as law, there is a very large difference between those two things.

Incompetent/over-zealous policing is a serious, serious problem but shouldn't be conflated with protestors. I am fortunate that all of my interactions with the police have been competent, and am grateful for that, but incompetent policing shouldn't be conflated with protesting

You're right. Conflating police with protestors would imply that protesting is a bad thing.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:That is an utterly stupid comparison. One is a group of professionals who risk their lives day in and day out to keep the community and are just trying to do their very dangerous job in the manner that best they can in a manner to keep themselves and others safe. The other is a group of yahoos who sit around all day plotting how to be a public nuisance.

Idk what it's like in Australia but police here in the States legally do not exist to keep people safe. They exist to enforce whatever the state codifies as law, there is a very large difference between those two things.

American cops will also just pick and choose what laws they will and will not enforce. There's the cops refusing to enforce gun control laws on one end, but also I saw a story recently about some cops that were going to carry on enforcing a law despite a court ordering them to stop. I think it was about traffic stops over trivial things, because the cops were just harassing people for DWB.

Vistulange wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote: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.

Not quite. There's a really lively debate on what terrorism is, both within the scholarly community and outside it; nevertheless I don't think anybody save for the likes of Putin, Xi, and Erdoğan consider disruptions to daily life to be "terrorism".

And if you do, well, I'll let you get better acquainted with Kazak Yeli.

I never said that disrupting people's lives are terrorism. I said violence is terrorism

Ifreann wrote:

Vikanias wrote:
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.

My whole point is that people can't afford to deal with major property damage and have money left over to donate to right wing causes. So if a protester were afraid that doing a little property damage would just benefit causes they're opposed to, a concept my post is addressing, then the obvious thing to do is cause more expensive property damage.

Of course, it probably isn't true that there's a big trend of people getting their windshield cracked and then donating to Kyle Rittenhouse's legal defence fund. Right wingers just like to tell these little stories and don't think them through.

---

Portzania wrote:
what

What part of my post confused you?

Those I like a freedom fighters, those I don't like are terrorists. **Nods**

While I doubt NSG is to blame for this, apparently UK PM Rishi Sunak is pushing legislation that would allow police to arbitrarily shut down a protest before it begins if they think it’ll be bothersome. Authoritarians really don’t seem to care about protests being mildly inconvenient unless they disagree with the views expressed, it seems.

El Lazaro wrote:While I doubt NSG is to blame for this, apparently UK PM Rishi Sunak is pushing legislation that would allow police to arbitrarily shut down a protest before it begins if they think it’ll be bothersome. Authoritarians really don’t seem to care about protests being mildly inconvenient unless they disagree with the views expressed, it seems.

Authorities don't care about protests unless they support the cause. Yes, this whole thread confirms that

A public nuisance? Just setup freedom zones like they do in the us. They can protest; just not in range of the poor wealthy and powerful types.

Australian rePublic wrote:

Ifreann wrote:My whole point is that people can't afford to deal with major property damage and have money left over to donate to right wing causes. So if a protester were afraid that doing a little property damage would just benefit causes they're opposed to, a concept my post is addressing, then the obvious thing to do is cause more expensive property damage.

Of course, it probably isn't true that there's a big trend of people getting their windshield cracked and then donating to Kyle Rittenhouse's legal defence fund. Right wingers just like to tell these little stories and don't think them through.

---

What part of my post confused you?

Those I like a freedom fighters, those I don't like are terrorists. **Nods**

You're the one calling people terrorists. I didn't say anything about the people who might do such a thing, just that it is a tactic people might logically employ.

https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comm ... _at_mardi/

Well here we have a protestor disrupting a pro-LGBTQI+ parade. Considering how much you seem to love protestors disrupting things and hate parades, I guess this should make you happy

Australian rePublic wrote:https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/11bqq7f/senator_lidia_thorpe_clashes_with_police_at_mardi/

Well here we have a protestor disrupting a pro-LGBTQI+ parade. Considering how much you seem to love protestors disrupting things and hate parades, I guess this should make you happy

What I like here is that just a bit up-thread, you were arguing that it's totally different for police to block streets and be a public nuisance than for protesters to do it. So you already justify some disruptions to public life based on why they're being done. So you would have absolutely no grounds for calling anyone a hypocrite if they thought that trying to disrupt a Mardi Gras parade was stupid. In fact, you would be a hypocrite if you insisted that we must either support all disruptive protesters or none while you do not hold the same absolutist stance about public disruptions.

Ifreann wrote:

Portzania wrote:
what

What part of my post confused you?

Uh.. Alot of it? I never heard of that happening, and even if it is, why would people who suffer property damage just... let it happen? I'd be pretty angry at the (insert political group or specific person) who've desecrated my property, especially farmland or small business.
Do you think everyone who owns property is right wing?