Protest is almost always wrong?

[Traitorfish]

You want to protest? Be intelligent, organized and orderly about it. Create minimal disruptions to public life as possible. Let the police do their jobs (ensuring **** doesn't get out of control)

Riots, and their close brother looting, are the language of thieves and criminals who should be shot on sight.

 

[Lexicus]

 

[Ajidica]

Riots, and their close brother looting, are the language of thieves and criminals who should be shot on sight.

I'm trying to remember who else were fond of shooting on sight rioters, thieves, and criminals.

Not having much luck, memory is failing me. You have any ideas?

Are SQWs capable of multi-classing? That's the real determinant of whether a class is useful.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Sounds fascist but ok

Whereas lynching and firebombing people in order to stop them expressing "dangerous" opinions is different? For some reason?

 

[christos200]

Peaceful protests are a perfectly acceptable way of people making their feelings known and pressuring the government. It should be protected as an act of free speech. However, riots should not be tolerated at all and I hate how some 'progressives' try to justify the use of violence and thuggery. In those cases, police should intervene to protect property and stop acts of thuggery.

I do believe that most protests are peaceful however and so I would have to disagree with OP that they all degenerate into violence.

 

[jackelgull]

Peaceful protests are a perfectly acceptable way of people making their feelings known and pressuring the government. It should be protected as an act of free speech. However, riots should not be tolerated at all and I hate how some 'progressives' try to justify the use of violence and thuggery. In those cases, police should intervene to protect property and stop acts of thuggery.

I do believe that most protests are peaceful however and so I would have to disagree with OP that they all degenerate into violence.

But when many people, of different back grounds and personalities gather together, even if the intent is peaceful, there is a potential for violence, or at least a greater potential than if that many people were not to gather together. In that light, protests increase the chances of violence, and the seemingly responsible thing to do would be to shut them down.

In my view that's a limited way to look at the situation - most protests are about injustices that cause greater real harm than the potential for violence a protest generates.

 

[W|M]

Peaceful protests are a perfectly acceptable way of people making their feelings known and pressuring the government. It should be protected as an act of free speech. However, riots should not be tolerated at all and I hate how some 'progressives' try to justify the use of violence and thuggery. In those cases, police should intervene to protect property and stop acts of thuggery.

I do believe that most protests are peaceful however and so I would have to disagree with OP that they all degenerate into violence.

 

[timtofly]

But when many people, of different back grounds and personalities gather together, even if the intent is peaceful, there is a potential for violence, or at least a greater potential than if that many people were not to gather together. In that light, protests increase the chances of violence, and the seemingly responsible thing to do would be to shut them down.

In my view that's a limited way to look at the situation - most protests are about injustices that cause greater real harm than the potential for violence a protest generates.

Not trying to be critical, but the reason why people with different backgrounds and personalities gather together is to show solidarity for social injustice. There is no potential for violence; that is the thinking that they are trying to get past.

 

[Agent327]

Two pretty popularly-held beliefs are the notions that the democratic process is the proper way of effecting change non plus ultra, at least in a functioning democracy, and that violence should be the last resort. A lot of people can accept these two notions without much of a problem, but what they believe are the limits of these may vary, as shown in recent threads.

I'm interested in the implications of a strict adherence to these notions (e.g. that violence is not a solution unless it's already being committed by your opponents).

Other than voting, among legitimate ways of participating in the democratic process, I'd also include benign methods like petitioning elected representatives and such. But I'd contend that peaceful protest is not included if we go with a strict interpretation of the two notions - and this is where I think it gets interesting.

Firstly, one may view protests as an attempt at effecting change outside of the democratic process, since in a functioning democracy they would typically be in opposition to elected representatives (i.e. the charge that they're not respecting democratic choices). Secondly, protests are prone to violence, even if the original intentions were peaceful. If you strongly believe that violence is only permissible when all other options have been exhausted, then it would be irresponsible to carry out an activity that has a high chance of resulting in violence until all other options have been exhausted.

Do you agree? Or what do you think the problem is with this line of reasoning?

Only in the sense that any organized protests attract those interest in riots. There are plenty of examples of peaceful protests that were successful, the most recent one being the case of the Romanian government 'legalizing' corruption below 45,000 euro. After days of protest in front of parliament (and some admonishing messages from the EU and US) the government retracted this unholy peace of legislation. (Interesting side note: several of those legislators in favour of the legislation are actually under investigation for corruption.)

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'm disappointed that none of the adamant "no to violence" posters have appeared.

Its because of you aelf... the folks you have in mind don't want to engage with you... I think if this thread had been posted by someone else they might have engaged.

EDIT: Lols NVM, I hadnt read the second page...fun.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Which posters have advocated the absolutist interpretation in the OP anyway? I haven't posted in OT often, but have I missed posts by people wanting to ban protest entirely? I suppose it's an interesting thought exercise to examine these interpretations, but I can't help but wonder if there are ulterior motives for this thread.

 

[Farm Boy]

Looks like that protest just started doing work, right? Standing(sitting yes, I know) to get pepper sprayed indicates deeper resolve than standing because you really think people need to listen to what you have to say because you're young, actualized, smart, and gaining the education accreditation necessary to be the next crop of winner. Or was that not a college protest?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I can't help but wonder if there are ulterior motives for this thread.

No shiz.

 

[EnglishEdward]

But when many people, of different back grounds and personalities gather together, even if the intent is peaceful, there is a potential for violence, or at least a greater potential than if that many people were not to gather together.

Ah, just like the United Nations.

In that light, protests increase the chances of violence, and the seemingly responsible thing to do would be to shut them down.

But by not letting people have the opportunity to march with placards saying down with ****, unexpressed frustration may result in violence elsewhere.

In my view that's a limited way to look at the situation - most protests are about injustices that cause greater real harm than the potential for violence a protest generates.

Some are, but some are against democratic decisions and free speech.

 

[Traitorfish]

Some are, but some are against democratic decisions and free speech.

I'm going to go out on a wild limb and guess these are generally protests advocating causes you disagree with.

 

[Zkribbler]

But by not letting people have the opportunity to march with placards saying down with ****, unexpressed frustration may result in violence elsewhere.

"Thpse who make peaceful evolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." President John F. Kennedy

 

[Azem.Ocram]

1. I'm interested in the implications of a strict adherence to these notions (e.g. that violence is not a solution unless it's already being committed by your opponents).

2. Other than voting, among legitimate ways of participating in the democratic process, I'd also include benign methods like petitioning elected representatives and such. But I'd contend that peaceful protest is not included if we go with a strict interpretation of the two notions - and this is where I think it gets interesting.

3. Firstly, one may view protests as an attempt at effecting change outside of the democratic process, since in a functioning democracy they would typically be in opposition to elected representatives (i.e. the charge that they're not respecting democratic choices). Secondly, protests are prone to violence, even if the original intentions were peaceful. If you strongly believe that violence is only permissible when all other options have been exhausted, then it would be irresponsible to carry out an activity that has a high chance of resulting in violence until all other options have been exhausted.

Do you agree? Or what do you think the problem is with this line of reasoning?

I staunchly disagree.
1. Violence is already committed by the government, invalidating your point. Violence committed during protests is often a symptom of oppression, with the marginalized trying their hardest to be heard.
2. Petitions can be ignored. Voter initiatives have been overruled (this is anti-democratic but part of life). Peaceful protests enact change when the oppressed are silenced.
3. The democratic process has been compromised. Lobbying, gerrymandering, electoral shenanigans, and voter supression all contributed to a technical victory of an unfit candidate with a minority of votes. We have exhausted all other options. The First Amendment gaurentees our free speech, free press, and free association, including peaceful protests. Those who undermine the First Amendment are on par with authoritarians and despots.

 

[aelf]

Which posters have advocated the absolutist interpretation in the OP anyway? I haven't posted in OT often, but have I missed posts by people wanting to ban protest entirely? I suppose it's an interesting thought exercise to examine these interpretations, but I can't help but wonder if there are ulterior motives for this thread.

You're not following the OP and are jumping to conclusions. It doesn't start with the premise that there are people who want to ban protests, but rather that there are those who adhere very strictly to the two notions stated (i.e. sanctity of the democratic process and non-violence).

The implication of such strict adherence is that protests are generally bad because either they're outside the democratic process or they're in practice likely to result in violence. I want to know what would make it not so. If you consider that an ulterior motive, by all means, don't participate.

 

[Slaughter]

The results of those protests involve freezing increases of spending on education and healthcare for 20 years. Obviously when there's reactionaries on the street, cops will defend them, because cops are reactionary to the core. Also I wouldn't pay attention to anything positive said about Brazilian cops

Actually the result of the protests are the impeaching of President Dilma Rousseff.

Freezing increases on spending implies we will have money for increases. Which we won't. Makes no difference, really.

I don't like Temer but at least there's someone in the helm now. Before him, the country was a plane with a missing pilot. The pilot is bad but at least there's someone on the controls. He's failing because he's a uncharismatic ventrue <snip> with zero strength of will to do what needs to be done.

"reactionaries" lol. Yeah evil reactionaries who want to change brazilian society into something actually better and priven to be workable while a bunch of misguided leftists and the media/politician oligarchs want to keep things as they are or turn the country into a SSR.

These brazilian cops are mean and suck! We don't need them to keep our streets safe at all!
You should go to Espirito Santo, they're copless right now and its great! I heard its such a great party! Go quick before they steal your chance! Would't want to be robbed of the police-less utopia, would't you?

in large part because they kill on average about 9 people per day.

Not enough, they should kill more. We are at war and nobody won a war with a nine-per-day kill rate.
Mercy and peace are for enemies that kneel and surrender, not for people who are shooting. Wake up!

 

[W|M]

The impeachment of Dilma was a direct cause of PEC 55, the Brazilian state is clearly not skint (just look at how much money they throw at repressing popular power), reactionaries hark back to a time when people starving to death in Brazil was very common, I'm suspicious of absolute numbers of murders being thrown around in regard to ES since ES has a very high murder rate anyway and nobody is showing the average amount of murders per day in any other time of the year, and it's been great talking to someone who supports genocide.

Also anyone who says ''****'' unironically is a loser neckbeard who most likely jerks off to fantasies of being the master race while being a disgusting creep

Moderator Action: This is flaming. The word '****' is not welcome here, but neither are personal insults. FP.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889