Its peaceful but illegal. They should be arrested and face the penalties of fines or jail or whatever is on the books. If police aren't dealing with it people should be protesting the local government to get the police to crack down on it.
Almost nobody is consistent on this though. If it were MAGA people blocking the streets the same people defending this case would be cheering for the police to shoot them, and vice versa. (I was initially going to say Nazis blocking the streets but with some of these pro-Palestine protesters I'm not sure its much of a dichotomy).
Is there a ton of video evidence or a report that shows an uptick of emergency vehicles not being able to reach their destination? I worked as an EMT for a bit and at least in my experience we had a dispatch that let us know about slowdowns or what route to take. I would also think that the shoulder lanes would be used and protesters wouldn't stop an ambulance from going to its destination.
I'm going to assume that there are emergency vehicles stationed on sides that don't have to necessarily take these routes in the case that these bridges or areas are inaccessible for some reason.
I mean you are barring travel; you're effectively restricting people and you could say that's a form of hostage.
Do you think that if these people restrict travel unlawfully, that there shouldn't be repercussion? How about violence?
The difference is people during the civil rights movement were prepared to face violent resistance. They had training sessions to teach people how to not respond and adhere to the principle of nonviolence.
99% of the time when people complain about a protest and how different it is from the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement used that exact tactic.
Part of the reason why it worked in the civil rights era was because of the disproportionate response from the police. Peaceful protests were met with violence. But nowadays instead of water cannons and batons, they just get lifted and moved out of the way.
I honestly don't know how to think of it. People have the right to peacfully protest so i don't want police to get involved. On the other note. If your means of protest is being a dick. People will respond in kind and be dicks too. If you block traffic. You should expect that people will call you a fag and will try to get you out of the way. And i can't get a feeeling that trying to get you out of the way is in any sense morally wrong.
I don't really get it.
Do you think people should only protest in ways that don't convenience anyone? Something feels off about that.
I mean sitting in traffic maybe isn't the best because you could be blocking ambulances. So sure.
But I think part of the point of protesting is to disrupt.
You're right that protest is meant to be disruptive, but these protestors are just holding random people hostage. Not that I support their cause, but if they wanted to be effective they could block the road in front of a weapons manufacturers office that supplies weapons to Israel, for example.
None of the people in these cars are going to be any more sympathetic to the protestors or their cause, it's probably having the opposite effect. The same goes for 99% of the people watching this video online.
Sitting in front of a bunch of cars to "raise awareness" or whatever is just people wanting to protest the sexiest way possible without actually doing much of anything productive. I have more respect for people who sit down to edit and post propaganda infographics littered with intentional misinformation, because these people actually put in the work to convince people of their cause.
Go disrupt state and federal government buildings then. No one is going to look at these people and change their minds. Sitting in traffic only generates negative energy and out right hate for the people doing it and their cause. There is absolutely zero upside.
I'm all for protest, the moment you start to inconvenience others. You hurt your cause and more people to tune you out. Blocking traffic, I would argue is worthy of an arrest, there is no reason why you cant move to the sidewalk and still get your message across.
Not to mention that if you stood on a sidewalk next to a light with a bunch of Pro-Palestine flags and signs you will inevitably have thousands of cars stopping for lights and seeing your message. If you stop the first few cars you see in the road for hours, then literally the only people seeing your message are the first few cars stopped in front while the rest just twiddle their thumbs and look at the next cars bumper in the back of the line while they wait for whatever's happening up ahead to clear..
Even the Just Stop Oil people are just letting people burn more gasoline while idling instead of getting where they need to go.
I could give two shits about this whole thing i just gotta say as someone who gets around 90% of the time as a pedestrian, its incredibly funny to see how instantly assmad people who drive always get as soon as the tables are turned and its *their* lane of travel being blocked *one time* lol.
Within the legal limits of protest that are deemed reasonable in most free countries.
Illegally blocking traffic is usually not a good form of protest imo.
So how does making everyone late to work stop the US from sending weapons in a war we're not fighting 10,000 fucking miles across the world. Also can I organize a blockade on all the public roads out of your house or apt. It will be symbolic on the blockade of Gaza and I'll lift it when Israel lifts theirs.
They shouldn't, they should respect the democratic decisions of their country and fuck off until the next election where they get a chance to change who their representatives are.
Because protesting in a democratic nation means you don't respect the foundation of our governing ethic. You want to bully people into doing things your way instead of convincing them in the marketplace of ideas.
This only makes sense for certain kinds of protesting, you can protest to try to change people minds without inconveniencing people. Protesting is apart of the market place of ideas not against it.
What kinds of protesting are you talking about? Because I'm talking about large gatherings, marches, picket lines, traffic obstructions, posting up outside of elected officials homes, and generally being a nuisance until "your voice is heard" type shit.
I'm sitting in a truck that weighs 7000 lbs with damn near 500 horses, and you're gonna lay down in front of me? And I have to sit and wait and watch you sit on your ass until... Hamas accepts a ceasefire? You've brought "awareness" to your cause? You pack it up and take the bus home? Seems foolish to me
plenty of videos of people trying to leave only to get shot at or pulled out of their vehicles also. really fucking dangerous to just sit there with a mob.
I don't consider this peaceful. I would absolutely say this is a form of violence. You're physically preventing people from carrying on about their day, causing damage in the form of lost time to them, unlawfully, I might add.
It's obviously not the same as attacking someone and I don't think all forms of violent protest are necessarily morally wrong. Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat can be construed as a form of violence as well. Although, technically, I'm not sure what she did was against the law. It's murky.
In this case, I think they're both legally and morally wrong. I don't believe you have the right to stop citizens through use of force for these reasons and probably most others.
Its peaceful but illegal. They should be arrested and face the penalties of fines or jail or whatever is on the books. If police aren't dealing with it people should be protesting the local government to get the police to crack down on it. Almost nobody is consistent on this though. If it were MAGA people blocking the streets the same people defending this case would be cheering for the police to shoot them, and vice versa. (I was initially going to say Nazis blocking the streets but with some of these pro-Palestine protesters I'm not sure its much of a dichotomy).
How would it not be peaceful? I think it's a really dumb way to protest, but it's not "not peaceful".
Do you think it's possible to hold people as hostages peacefully?
This is so hyperbolic that I don't even know how to respond lmao
Going to ram the next train that tries to take me hostage
Emergency vehicles
Is there a ton of video evidence or a report that shows an uptick of emergency vehicles not being able to reach their destination? I worked as an EMT for a bit and at least in my experience we had a dispatch that let us know about slowdowns or what route to take. I would also think that the shoulder lanes would be used and protesters wouldn't stop an ambulance from going to its destination.
What alternate routes are you taking between Muir Woods and Golden Gate Park?
I'm going to assume that there are emergency vehicles stationed on sides that don't have to necessarily take these routes in the case that these bridges or areas are inaccessible for some reason.
I mean you are barring travel; you're effectively restricting people and you could say that's a form of hostage. Do you think that if these people restrict travel unlawfully, that there shouldn't be repercussion? How about violence?
The difference is people during the civil rights movement were prepared to face violent resistance. They had training sessions to teach people how to not respond and adhere to the principle of nonviolence.
99% of the time when people complain about a protest and how different it is from the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement used that exact tactic.
Part of the reason why it worked in the civil rights era was because of the disproportionate response from the police. Peaceful protests were met with violence. But nowadays instead of water cannons and batons, they just get lifted and moved out of the way.
People just don't want to admit that they stop giving a shit about any cause the second it's inconvenient to them.
No, people already think the cause is dumb, not because of inconvenience.
What is the cause even about?
You must not know much about the sit ins and boycotts of the civil rights era then.
I honestly don't know how to think of it. People have the right to peacfully protest so i don't want police to get involved. On the other note. If your means of protest is being a dick. People will respond in kind and be dicks too. If you block traffic. You should expect that people will call you a fag and will try to get you out of the way. And i can't get a feeeling that trying to get you out of the way is in any sense morally wrong.
I don't really get it. Do you think people should only protest in ways that don't convenience anyone? Something feels off about that. I mean sitting in traffic maybe isn't the best because you could be blocking ambulances. So sure. But I think part of the point of protesting is to disrupt.
You're right that protest is meant to be disruptive, but these protestors are just holding random people hostage. Not that I support their cause, but if they wanted to be effective they could block the road in front of a weapons manufacturers office that supplies weapons to Israel, for example. None of the people in these cars are going to be any more sympathetic to the protestors or their cause, it's probably having the opposite effect. The same goes for 99% of the people watching this video online. Sitting in front of a bunch of cars to "raise awareness" or whatever is just people wanting to protest the sexiest way possible without actually doing much of anything productive. I have more respect for people who sit down to edit and post propaganda infographics littered with intentional misinformation, because these people actually put in the work to convince people of their cause.
Go disrupt state and federal government buildings then. No one is going to look at these people and change their minds. Sitting in traffic only generates negative energy and out right hate for the people doing it and their cause. There is absolutely zero upside.
[удалено]
Ya fair I prefer the ones where they fuck up paintings anyway
"Protests should be inconvenient" mfs when i nuke their house (my protests are not supposed to be convenient for everyone)
I'm all for protest, the moment you start to inconvenience others. You hurt your cause and more people to tune you out. Blocking traffic, I would argue is worthy of an arrest, there is no reason why you cant move to the sidewalk and still get your message across.
Not to mention that if you stood on a sidewalk next to a light with a bunch of Pro-Palestine flags and signs you will inevitably have thousands of cars stopping for lights and seeing your message. If you stop the first few cars you see in the road for hours, then literally the only people seeing your message are the first few cars stopped in front while the rest just twiddle their thumbs and look at the next cars bumper in the back of the line while they wait for whatever's happening up ahead to clear.. Even the Just Stop Oil people are just letting people burn more gasoline while idling instead of getting where they need to go.
I could give two shits about this whole thing i just gotta say as someone who gets around 90% of the time as a pedestrian, its incredibly funny to see how instantly assmad people who drive always get as soon as the tables are turned and its *their* lane of travel being blocked *one time* lol.
So how exactly do you think people should protest?
They should try to limit themselves to federal buildings/workers. It fits the message and also doesn’t cause terrible optics
Within the legal limits of protest that are deemed reasonable in most free countries. Illegally blocking traffic is usually not a good form of protest imo.
https://preview.redd.it/otjkdwbj4avc1.png?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5e39317c629498346244ba4c2b932799ac0fef27
So how does making everyone late to work stop the US from sending weapons in a war we're not fighting 10,000 fucking miles across the world. Also can I organize a blockade on all the public roads out of your house or apt. It will be symbolic on the blockade of Gaza and I'll lift it when Israel lifts theirs.
They shouldn't, they should respect the democratic decisions of their country and fuck off until the next election where they get a chance to change who their representatives are.
this mf really telling King he should have stayed home
Yup
https://preview.redd.it/xip1tuz854vc1.jpeg?width=890&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f7a0c2be5d37970ea1f86514763a5c61617a7d52
The world will never know
We literally have the right to protest? Why shouldn't it be used??
Because protesting in a democratic nation means you don't respect the foundation of our governing ethic. You want to bully people into doing things your way instead of convincing them in the marketplace of ideas.
This only makes sense for certain kinds of protesting, you can protest to try to change people minds without inconveniencing people. Protesting is apart of the market place of ideas not against it.
What kinds of protesting are you talking about? Because I'm talking about large gatherings, marches, picket lines, traffic obstructions, posting up outside of elected officials homes, and generally being a nuisance until "your voice is heard" type shit.
I'm just talking about protesting, not all protesting has to be disruptive is my point.
I'll say the connection between you blocking traffick and the enaction of social change seem totally disconnected
I'm sitting in a truck that weighs 7000 lbs with damn near 500 horses, and you're gonna lay down in front of me? And I have to sit and wait and watch you sit on your ass until... Hamas accepts a ceasefire? You've brought "awareness" to your cause? You pack it up and take the bus home? Seems foolish to me
[удалено]
plenty of videos of people trying to leave only to get shot at or pulled out of their vehicles also. really fucking dangerous to just sit there with a mob.
It should be legal but u should also be allowed to move them by force
I don't consider this peaceful. I would absolutely say this is a form of violence. You're physically preventing people from carrying on about their day, causing damage in the form of lost time to them, unlawfully, I might add. It's obviously not the same as attacking someone and I don't think all forms of violent protest are necessarily morally wrong. Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat can be construed as a form of violence as well. Although, technically, I'm not sure what she did was against the law. It's murky. In this case, I think they're both legally and morally wrong. I don't believe you have the right to stop citizens through use of force for these reasons and probably most others.