Protestors Being A Public Nuisance Discussion

[Australian rePublic]

So, let's discuss climate protestors who deliberately block the streets, and railway lines, etc.
At this point, I'm sure we all know about the protestors who want more climate change action causing a nuisance by blocking public streets and railways. At the hight of Covid restrictions, we also had anti-lockdown and anti-vax protestors causing a public nuisance, albeit to a lesser extent

We have had instances of piece of shit protestors who would/have refused to let ambulances pass them:
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/climat ... -v6cfe3668

We also had that instance where they glued themselves to the Volkswagen floor, and were upset when VW left them there without heat nor a bowl to use as a toilet:
https://www.news.com.au/technology/envi ... b2d0c7e2b5

These protestors are a bloody nuisance. 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. That's right, you are not the arbiter. And in case you didn't understand the first two times, you are NOT the arbiter of what is and is not a worthwhile cause. And in case you still don't understand, you are NOT the arbiter of what is and isn't a good cause. Not only that, but by making yourself the arbiter, you are extremely anti-democracy. Likewise, if you support anti-vaxxers who are a public nuisance but not climate protestors (a position which applies to many people, but not so much on NS), if you support anti-vaxxers who are a public nuisance but not climate protestors, you are a hypocrite and by making yourself the arbiter of what is and isn't a worthwhile cause, you are anti-democracy (which is ironic, claiming that you stand for freedom)

I wholeheartedly support your right to protest and would fight for to the death to preserve it. Having said that, however, you have no right to be a public nuisance. People have places to go and things to do, people have deadlines to meet and places to go. Further, you have no right to waste police resources on your crap. Also, it's ironic that climate protestors were demanding that VW turn the heat on, considering the environmental impact of centralised building heating. And to those people who block ambulances for their stupid protests, you're a supreme arsehole. But not just your regular, average, everyday supreme arsehole, but a special kind of supreme arsehole.

Why would you block people's paths anyways? Regular Joes on the street don't make climate policy nor Covid restrictions, and by being a public nuisance, you're just turning people further and further away from your cause. And if you ask me, VW took the best approach out of everybody in the world. Let the protestors wallow in the literal and figurative shit that they created for themselves

As I said earlier, I wholeheartedly support your right to protest, irrespective of what I think of your cause, but there are better ways to do so
Anyways NSG, what do you make of all this?


EDIT
I fully agree that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, however, you protest against the organisation/individuals and you need to be somewhat of a nuisance to get your point across. I myself have had the cops called on me when turning customers away from a company who was acting unscrupulously (and the cops said I was in the right), so yes, you have to be a nuisance to a point, there's a point where you become really bad, but go and be a nuisance against those who you oppose, not the general public, and even then, there is a point. For example, a woman was arrested for silently PRAYING alone in front of an abortion clinic in the UK. That's a disgusting abuse of power, but at the same time, you can't glue yourself to stuff

[Zhinmja]

If you want protests without bite you effectively seek to eliminate public meetings as a fundamental agent of change in democracy and sharecropping would still be a pillar of the American agrarian economy if the sharecroppers unions didnt make a nuisance. A result which fundamentally advances democracy.

I specifically oppose anti-vaxxer protests because of their goals not because of their methods.

[Australian rePublic]

If you want protests without bite you effectively seek to eliminate public meetings as a fundamental agent of change in democracy and sharecropping would still be a pillar of the American agrarian economy if the sharecroppers unions didnt make a nuisance. A result which fundamentally advances democracy.

I specifically oppose anti-vaxxer protests because of their goals not because of their methods.

You can protest with bite, I support that, I just don't think that you should be a public nuisance. Plenty of ways to get your message across without being a public nuisance. And yea, fair call on your stance on anti-vaxxers, one of the most rational ones for someone who supports being a public nuisances

[American Legionaries]

So, let's discuss climate protestors who deliberately block the streets, and railway lines, etc.
At this point, I'm sure we all know about the protestors who want more climate change action causing a nuisance by blocking public streets and railways. At the hight of Covid restrictions, we also had anti-lockdown and anti-vax protestors causing a public nuisance, albeit to a lesser extent

We have had instances of piece of shit protestors who would/have refused to let ambulances pass them:
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/climat ... -v6cfe3668

We also had that instance where they glued themselves to the Volkswagen floor, and were upset when VW left them there without heat nor a bowl to use as a toilet:
https://www.news.com.au/technology/envi ... b2d0c7e2b5

These protestors are a bloody nuisance. 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. That's right, you are not the arbiter. And in case you didn't understand the first two times, you are NOT the arbiter of what is and is not a worthwhile cause. And in case you still don't understand, you are NOT the arbiter of what is and isn't a good cause. Not only that, but by making yourself the arbiter, you are extremely anti-democracy. Likewise, if you support anti-vaxxers who are a public nuisance but not climate protestors (a position which applies to many people, but not so much on NS), if you support anti-vaxxers who are a public nuisance but not climate protestors, you are a hypocrite and by making yourself the arbiter of what is and isn't a worthwhile cause, you are anti-democracy (which is ironic, claiming that you stand for freedom)

I wholeheartedly support your right to protest and would fight for to the death to preserve it. Having said that, however, you have no right to be a public nuisance. People have places to go and things to do, people have deadlines to meet and places to go. Further, you have no right to waste police resources on your crap. Also, it's ironic that climate protestors were demanding that VW turn the heat on, considering the environmental impact of centralised building heating. And to those people who block ambulances for their stupid protests, you're a supreme arsehole. But not just your regular, average, everyday supreme arsehole, but a special kind of supreme arsehole.

Why would you block people's paths anyways? Regular Joes on the street don't make climate policy nor Covid restrictions, and by being a public nuisance, you're just turning people further and further away from your cause. And if you ask me, VW took the best approach out of everybody in the world. Let the protestors wallow in the literal and figurative shit that they created for themselves

As I said earlier, I wholeheartedly support your right to protest, irrespective of what I think of your cause, but there are better ways to do so
Anyways NSG, what do you make of all this?

While I think both the groups you've mentioned are assholes, the ends for which a group acts are very strong determining factor in support of their means. You said, repetitively, that I am "not the arbiter of what is or is not a worthwhile cause" but in the instance of my support, that's just plain wrong. I am the arbiter of my own views, and I can support, or not support, anyone's actions based upon my opinion of their end goals.

[Nilokeras]

Protests are supposed to be disruptive. They are, properly formulated, a threat to whatever they are protesting against - a demonstration of organizational and political power that says 'look at how many of us there are and how pissed off we are'. Without that implicit threat of mass political action or even mass violent action, protests are entirely toothless and can be easily ignored. And that's if it's even possible to separate a protest from disruption - sufficiently large protests are, even if they are as scrupulously polite as the OP wants, by their nature disruptive. A peaceful protest planned in advance with the police will still block traffic, after all.

All in all a boring boomer screed better saved for Facebook where it can get lots of likes from angry moms who got delayed 15 mins on the way to little Timmy's soccer practice.

[Zhinmja]

If you want protests without bite you effectively seek to eliminate public meetings as a fundamental agent of change in democracy and sharecropping would still be a pillar of the American agrarian economy if the sharecroppers unions didnt make a nuisance. A result which fundamentally advances democracy.

I specifically oppose anti-vaxxer protests because of their goals not because of their methods.

You can protest with bite, I support that, I just don't think that you should be a public nuisance. Plenty of ways to get your message across without being a public nuisance. And yea, fair call on your stance on anti-vaxxers, one of the most rational ones for someone who supports being a public nuisances

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.

The goal of a protest is not to "get the word out." That specific goal is the point of agitational material and propaganda, that is the point of leaflets and posters, that is the point of talks and meetings, that is the point of a minor party's election campaign. (The George Floyd protests, for example, were so massive BECAUSE these ideas and concerns were ALREADY popular and prevalent!) A protest is a specific action with specific demands. The real problem with these protests is not that their methods are wrong. The principal problem with many of these protests is that they are born of broad frustration and that their demands are often confused. A fact which can lead in equal measure to excess and passivity dependent on the nature of the event.

An interesting counter-example is that of successful protests in Urumqi recently which laid out a clear set of demands to be met by the local government for them to cease their disturbance.

[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.

[Zhinmja]

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.

[Point Blob]

People are already a public nuisance regardless of what they're doing. Protesters are no worse for it.
The only problem with protesters is that they're not generally achieving anything, which is precisely why the protesting is legal.
As I've said countless times, any means of genuinely enacting change in a society is illegal and generally taboo besides. The things we're "allowed" to do are only so to give the impression of freedom where there is none. Bread & Circuses. If protesting could actually achieve anything, it would be unanimously outlawed by the cowards in government. They've had many centuries to become well-practiced at manipulation and subterfuge.

Really though... getting annoyed because protesters are "being a nuisance"? That is just petty.

[Zhinmja]

People are already a public nuisance regardless of what they're doing. Protesters are no worse for it.
The only problem with protesters is that they're not generally achieving anything, which is precisely why the protesting is legal.
As I've said countless times, any means of genuinely enacting change in a society is illegal and generally taboo besides. The things we're "allowed" to do are only so to give the impression of freedom where there is none. Bread & Circuses. If protesting could actually achieve anything, it would be unanimously outlawed by the cowards in government. They've had many centuries to become well-practiced at manipulation and subterfuge.

Really though... getting annoyed because protesters are "being a nuisance"? That is just petty.

This is an incoherent defeatism that only works to advance a misguided pessimism. Protests and demonstrations do achieve results. It is precisely and specifically protests without coherent demands that are little more than marching festivals. The problem is the non-existence of a unifying democratic organization not the act of protesting itself.

Every revolution in human history was preceded by agitation on a mass level which produced reforms that produced a more advanced and advantageous layout for legal struggle.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

Thinking back over the last half century, I can't think of a single time I've been inconvenienced by protestors. I've been inconvenienced by roads and pavements being barricaded off multiple times by sporting events and celebrations, Royalty and senior politicians visiting, a couple of times by racist cunts marching, and once by a really big religious procession.

[The Alma Mater]

Being a nuisance is fine and probably even necessary - a protest in a cornfield in nowhereville is probably not going to get the attention needed to stimulate change.

Endangering others, for instance by blocking ambulances, however is not.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

Thinking back over the last half century, I can't think of a single time I've been inconvenienced by protestors. I've been inconvenienced by roads and pavements being barricaded off multiple times by sporting events and celebrations, Royalty and senior politicians visiting, a couple of times by racist cunts marching, and once by a really big religious procession.

I have been mildly inconvenienced by George Floyd protesters, but all well. It wasn't even within the top 1,000 most inconveniencing things in my life.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

Only thing is that if Climate Protesters need to shit and piss, they should bring their own damn bowl.

[Ifreann]

Protesters that cause a public nuisance are a great rhetorical trap for the right to fall into. They trip over themselves to hard to be outraged at traffic being blocked or whatever they don't even manage to do any climate science denial.

[Haganham]

Nuisance aside. Any organization that attempts to place responsibility for climate change at the feet of commuters taking public transport, instead of "philanthropists" flying private jets, should be viewed with suspicion. The wealthy responsible for unsustainable, environmentally harmful practices have a long history of hijacking environmental movements to place responsibility for the harm they've done at the feet of the ordinary people who had no say in the matter.

This applies more generally as well. It's pretty rare that there is something to protest that ordinary people have a say in, so when a group is making themselves a nuisance to ordinary people, instead of directly attacking the ruling class, that should be seen as a red flag.

[The Two Jerseys]

We also had that instance where they glued themselves to the Volkswagen floor, and were upset when VW left them there without heat nor a bowl to use as a toilet:
https://www.news.com.au/technology/envi ... b2d0c7e2b5

VW: "Now youse can't leave."

[Mountains and Volcanoes]

Nuisance aside. Any organization that attempts to place responsibility for climate change at the feet of commuters taking public transport, instead of "philanthropists" flying private jets, should be viewed with suspicion. The wealthy responsible for unsustainable, environmentally harmful practices have a long history of hijacking environmental movements to place responsibility for the harm they've done at the feet of the ordinary people who had no say in the matter.

Along those same lines...

[Rusozak]

Disruption is the whole point. You know who wants protestors to be entirely non-disruptive? The people being protested. You don't bring attention to an issue by politely letting yourself be ignored. Make it so you CAN'T be ignored. And it outs the enemies of the movement for what really matters to them at the same time. Like the US rail workers strike and certain people saying workers need to get back to work so they can get their packages.

That said, there's a way to do that without being a dick. Don't disrupt emergency services.

[Vassenor]

So we’re going for the “you’re only allowed to protest against the government if the government said it’s OK”?

[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.

[Bombadil]

If it isn't a public nuisance, it's unlikely to make the news. I can think of few rights won that didn't come with some degree of disruption. Disruption is almost necessary to make the news and thus one's cause heard.

The HK protests operated on three levels for example, the frontlines that generated images for global media, the messengers who supplemented those images with the cause and then legal paths wherever possible.

Not that it works, or at least it takes a long long time to do so, if a government wants to ignore people it can.

[Syrvanian Republic]

In my honest opinion, there should be a difference between say, blocking an ambulance to protest gas and blocking a normal car. That ambulance may have to actively save a person. That car may just be coming home from work. While I'd be surely annoyed if I was in that car, I feel as if there should be a line. Now where this line is drawn is the big question. I feel as if where it should be drawn is where someone is in a situation where what's being blocked can save their life, IE Ambulances, Fire Engines, and Police officers. Yes you still have the right to protest AT their offices/stations, but you still let them through if there is an active ongoing emergency/risk to public safety.

Protesting is an act that requires people to be disruptive, and it can do both good and bad. Yet that doesn't mean you can't get pissed when they deface something. You're entitled to your opinion, they're entitled to theirs, you have to respect it, even if you find it stupid, or their methods stupid.

[Kubra]

Look, I'm not going to say activist types don't sometimes choose some really just like nonsensical forms of disruption, but they're got to be distruptive in some fashion and in todays competitive protest market it's hard to actually figure out what varieties are actually gonna go well

[Ifreann]

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?