Have You Ever Formally Protested or Boycotted Anything?

[Magpie]

How? I see nothing in that song that is against the DISNEY board rules????

It's all about context. I suggested the Little Mermaid rooms at Art of Animation could be a very romantic choice for an amorous couple.

Then I quoted the first half of the first chorus.

Actually, I think I deserved those points.

 

[DawnM]

It's all about context. I suggested the Little Mermaid rooms at Art of Animation could be a very romantic choice for an amorous couple.

Then I quoted the first half of the first chorus.

Actually, I think I deserved those points.

Huh, sorry I missed that post.

 

[luvsJack]

It's just a way to twist things. That's what some posters like to do.
Besides the poster you quoted has already made it clear that she (I'm assuming she) didn't find civil rights to be a valid issue. She has clearly stated that any violence immediately invalidates the entire cause.

Excuse me?? Where do you get that from? Civil rights was/is very much a valid issue. I wasn't twisting anything but you sure like to, don't you? The PP sounded like she felt that the violence shown in the Civil Rights protests is what got the point across, which is why I asked about MLK.

:Maybe just kept asking politely to enjoy the same basic human rights like the rest of America, then the government and racist citizens would eventually come around to seeing how wrong it was? Meek and quiet wins the race? Oy."--this was her response to another poster saying that the riots are thought to have set the Civil Rights Movement BACK not forward. She does not seem to be of that thought. So I asked a question.


The problem with violence is that its stops the conversation. It stops anyone from wanting to listen. And when everyone stops listening the issue becomes invalid as no one cares anymore. There isn't one thing that the young man with pepper spray at Berkley could say today that would get sensible people to listen. Same with the ones starting fires. Why should anyone listen to them? They act crazy and are treated as such. Besides the fact that they are forever destroying the property of the very people they are supposedly protesting for. How many BLM riots have ended in the destruction of businesses owned by the very people who they claim they are protecting? On 1/20, a limo was burned in protest of whatever and it was part of a Muslim owned business not some New York fat cat like they hoped.And the list goes on and on and on.

 

[sunshinehighway]

With all due respect, Berkley was not a "protest" it was a riot and when you resort to rioting, your message does become invalidated by your own actions. Same with any other "protest" that becomes a riot.

Excuse me?? Where do you get that from? Civil rights was/is very much a valid issue. I wasn't twisting anything but you sure like to, don't you? The PP sounded like she felt that the violence shown in the Civil Rights protests is what got the point across, which is why I asked about MLK.

:Maybe just kept asking politely to enjoy the same basic human rights like the rest of America, then the government and racist citizens would eventually come around to seeing how wrong it was? Meek and quiet wins the race? Oy."--this was her response to another poster saying that the riots are thought to have set the Civil Rights Movement BACK not forward. She does not seem to be of that thought. So I asked a question.


The problem with violence is that its stops the conversation. It stops anyone from wanting to listen. And when everyone stops listening the issue becomes invalid as no one cares anymore. There isn't one thing that the young man with pepper spray at Berkley could say today that would get sensible people to listen. Same with the ones starting fires. Why should anyone listen to them? They act crazy and are treated as such. Besides the fact that they are forever destroying the property of the very people they are supposedly protesting for. How many BLM riots have ended in the destruction of businesses owned by the very people who they claim they are protecting? On 1/20, a limo was burned in protest of whatever and it was part of a Muslim owned business not some New York fat cat like they hoped.And the list goes on and on and on.

I'm just going by your post. You want to dismiss something you don't agree with by saying it's no longer valid because of rioting. You don't get to pick and choose what issues are invalidated.

 

[Hikergirl]

I'm just going by your post. You want to dismiss something you don't agree with by saying it's no longer valid because of rioting. You don't get to pick and choose what issues are invalidated.

Sure she does, we all do on a personal level. You may have felt that the protesters had valid reasons to protest, there are people who would disagree.
The only thing we should agree on is the right to protest. We do not have to agree on WHY people protest.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post though.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Sure she does, we all do on a personal level. You may have felt that the protesters had valid reasons to protest, there are people who would disagree.
The only thing we should agree on is the right to protest. We do not have to agree on WHY people protest.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post though.

No. She made it clear that, in her opinion, rioting invalides the issue. She didn't comment on the validity of the issue at the start only that once the protest turned into a riot the issue was no longer valid. Here's the post again. She even says her opinion is the same with any other "protest" that becomes a riot. That's a hard-line line to take, which is her right but at least stand by it.

With all due respect, Berkley was not a "protest" it was a riot and when you resort to rioting, your message does become invalidated by your own actions. Same with any other "protest" that becomes a riot.

 

[Hikergirl]

No. She made it clear that, in her opinion, rioting invalides the issue. She didn't comment on the validity of the issue at the start only that once the protest turned into a riot the issue was no longer valid. Here's the post again. She even says her opinion is the same with any other "protest" that becomes a riot. That's a hard-line line to take, which is her right but at least stand by it.

Yes, I did misunderstand, sorry.

I agree with you, the act of violence or rioting alone does not invalidate the message of the protesters. It does make people less likely to listen though, and I'm going to assume that is what that poster meant by her post. Maybe she will clarify.

My god, I am really in a fog today. I better stick to threads about songs and food LOL

 

[perditax]

If you think riots accomplish nothing, you haven't read much history.

I'm not advocating violence. I'm saying many historical incidents described as riots precipitated change, especially when it comes to civil rights.

People may "disapprove" in the moment, especially if they are not personally affected by the changing status quo, but history typically takes a different view.

See: Stonewall

 

[eeyoreandtink]

The problem with violence is that its stops the conversation. It stops anyone from wanting to listen. And when everyone stops listening the issue becomes invalid as no one cares anymore. There isn't one thing that the young man with pepper spray at Berkley could say today that would get sensible people to listen. Same with the ones starting fires. Why should anyone listen to them? They act crazy and are treated as such. Besides the fact that they are forever destroying the property of the very people they are supposedly protesting for. How many BLM riots have ended in the destruction of businesses owned by the very people who they claim they are protecting? On 1/20, a limo was burned in protest of whatever and it was part of a Muslim owned business not some New York fat cat like they hoped.And the list goes on and on and on.

Exactly my point about violence. It immediately stops any rational discourse because its clear those perpetrating it AREN'T rational. Many of them are beyond the point of even knowing WHY they are doing what they are doing at that point. The message is drowned out for a lot of people. They aren't convincing anyone they are right, they are alienating people.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

If you think riots accomplish nothing, you haven't read much history.

I'm not advocating violence. I'm saying many historical incidents described as riots precipitated change, especially when it comes to civil rights.

People may "disapprove" in the moment, especially if they are not personally affected by the changing status quo, but history typically takes a different view.

See: Stonewall

On the same coin is the other side though. As time goes on so do the methods of having your voice heard. What worked in the past may not work now.

One of the biggest things that at least the local media and various faceboook posts were talking about after the women's march was "hey look how many people were together in one place with little or no violence"..the fact that that even has to be mentioned is very telling.

If you asked random strangers on the street today without bias shown if they felt that destroying property, overall violence, blocking highways and streets, etc made them listen up to what the issue at hand was or have sympathy with all honesty I doubt you would find that people say "yes I woke up and saw the light so to speak" because of said destroying of property, overall violence, blocking highways and streets, etc".

This past weekend when the airport protests were going on there was one at my local airport. However, some of the protestors decided to go inside the airport and began anti-police comments and there was a small scuffle. It was the protestors outside of the airport entrance that went in and got those rogue protestors to come back outside because that wasn't what they were there for and it's evident that there are multiple times where people use protests to further their own agenda instead of the common agenda of the actual particular protest. Now what do you think people would have focused on had that small scuffle ended in destroying of airport property or violence?

Now I'll be honest there are multiple goals people have when it comes to protests and riots and marches but if your goal is to gain supports and have your issues legitimately heard it's pretty darn clear that nowadays violence, destroying property, etc is not the method that has been working.

 

[Magpie]

Exactly my point about violence. It immediately stops any rational discourse because its clear those perpetrating it AREN'T rational. Many of them are beyond the point of even knowing WHY they are doing what they are doing at that point. The message is drowned out for a lot of people. They aren't convincing anyone they are right, they are alienating people.

Here's the thing, riots HAVE worked. The US would not exist, if not for people rioting.

Do riots always work? Of course not.

Does non-violence work? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were contemporaries. They even shook hands. One believed in non-violent, peaceful resistance in all circumstances, while the other could not embrace it - he felt violence was best oountered with violence, not pacifism. Yet they both contributed to the advancement of civil rights in their time. Where would we be now, if either of these men had not existed in their time?

Violent protest is sometimes co-opted by greedy, cynical interests. Innocents are hurt. Injustices are committed. No ethical person can support this kind of action.

But too often I suspect the cause of non-violent protest is also co-opted by people who just want to see the issue go away (and no, I'm not saying you're one of these people, I'm addressing this more generally).

I read statements like, "Don't stand in front of me." "Don't inconvenience me." "Keep your voices down." "Don't be offensive." "Don't make me uncomfortable." "If you - or anyone associated with you - resorts to violence you've automatically invalidated your position, and I won't care about it any more." "You don't even know why you're protesting!" "You're not rational and/or well-informed enough to even have an opinion on this." And I wonder... Did we ever support the cause? How civil and polite must protesters be, before we'll hear them? And if we can convince them to drop their voices to a mere whisper... will we then turn around and say, "Clearly it's not such an important issue, after all!"

The thing is, thousands of people do not spontaneously take to the streets for no reason at all. Riots happen in the face of real injustice. They happen when people feel they have no other way to make their voices heard, when they feel desperate. This was true during the American Revolution, and it's still true today.

I don't know the answer, but I refuse to dismiss the message, simply because I disapprove of the messenger.

 

[sunshinehighway]

On the same coin is the other side though. As time goes on so do the methods of having your voice heard. What worked in the past may not work now.

One of the biggest things that at least the local media and various faceboook posts were talking about after the women's march was "hey look how many people were together in one place with little or no violence"..the fact that that even has to be mentioned is very telling.

If you asked random strangers on the street today without bias shown if they felt that destroying property, overall violence, blocking highways and streets, etc made them listen up to what the issue at hand was or have sympathy with all honesty I doubt you would find that people say "yes I woke up and saw the light so to speak" because of said destroying of property, overall violence, blocking highways and streets, etc".

This past weekend when the airport protests were going on there was one at my local airport. However, some of the protestors decided to go inside the airport and began anti-police comments and there was a small scuffle. It was the protestors outside of the airport entrance that went in and got those rogue protestors to come back outside because that wasn't what they were there for and it's evident that there are multiple times where people use protests to further their own agenda instead of the common agenda of the actual particular protest. Now what do you think people would have focused on had that small scuffle ended in destroying of airport property or violence?

Now I'll be honest there are multiple goals people have when it comes to protests and riots and marches but if your goal is to gain supports and have your issues legitimately heard it's pretty darn clear that nowadays violence, destroying property, etc is not the method that has been working.

Of course violence isn't a good way to make yourself heard. Dismissing an entire cause because some people chose to be violent is a bit disingenuous though. If someone is going to use that as an excuse to outright dismiss something then the truth is they weren't interested in listening to begin with. Why not just be honest about it? If you believe one way why not just stand tall in what you believe? It's condescending to flip it and say "well I was going to listen but nope some people behaved in a way I don't like so sorry now I don't think you have a valid argument". If you really believe you are on the right side of something there's no reason to make excuses like that.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Of course violence isn't a good way to make yourself heard. Dismissing an entire cause because some people chose to be violent is a bit disingenuous though. If someone is going to use that as an excuse to outright dismiss something then the truth is they weren't interested in listening to begin with. Why not just be honest about it? If you believe one way why not just stand tall in what you believe? It's condescending to flip it and say "well I was going to listen but nope some people behaved in a way I don't like so sorry now I don't think you have a valid argument". If you really believe you are on the right side of something there's no reason to make excuses like that.

I don't think I made any sort of statement about dismissing an entire cause due to violence soooo I'm not quite certain where you got that from.

 

[Erzengel]

Nothing has ever made me want to take to the streets.

But I have avoided certain products, places of business etc.

 

[eeyoreandtink]

Here's the thing, riots HAVE worked. The US would not exist, if not for people rioting.

Do riots always work? Of course not.

Does non-violence work? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were contemporaries. They even shook hands. One believed in non-violent, peaceful resistance in all circumstances, while the other could not embrace it - he felt violence was best oountered with violence, not pacifism. Yet they both contributed to the advancement of civil rights in their time. Where would we be now, if either of these men had not existed in their time?

Violent protest is sometimes co-opted by greedy, cynical interests. Innocents are hurt. Injustices are committed. No ethical person can support this kind of action.

But too often I suspect the cause of non-violent protest is also co-opted by people who just want to see the issue go away (and no, I'm not saying you're one of these people, I'm addressing this more generally).

I read statements like, "Don't stand in front of me." "Don't inconvenience me." "Keep your voices down." "Don't be offensive." "Don't make me uncomfortable." "If you - or anyone associated with you - resorts to violence you've automatically invalidated your position, and I won't care about it any more." "You don't even know why you're protesting!" "You're not rational and/or well-informed enough to even have an opinion on this." And I wonder... Did we ever support the cause? How civil and polite must protesters be, before we'll hear them? And if we can convince them to drop their voices to a mere whisper... will we then turn around and say, "Clearly it's not such an important issue, after all!"

The thing is, thousands of people do not spontaneously take to the streets for no reason at all. Riots happen in the face of real injustice. They happen when people feel they have no other way to make their voices heard, when they feel desperate. This was true during the American Revolution, and it's still true today.

I don't know the answer, but I refuse to dismiss the message, simply because I disapprove of the messenger.

Riots don't always happen in the face of real injustice. Sometimes they happen because people think they can get away with it, nothing more.

You see all of those statements because the what it means to "protest" has changed. Those who participated in the Boston Tea Party, the Selma March, ect were a different caliber of person all together than today's "protester" who chooses to resort to looting or destruction of property. They were 100% committed to a just cause no matter what the personal consequences. The current protest culture is more like a spoiled child who didn't get their way throwing a tantrum. They aren't really committed to anything outside themselves and their own entitled attitude. They are participating BECAUSE they will get to loot and riot, largely without consequences. It is an opportunity to "Stick it" to someone or a group of people they don't like, not because they truly believe in any cause, or even understand it. Are there exceptions to this where people choose to protest in a responsible manner, yes, but for many of us they are being drowned out by the tantruming brats who don't know why they are throwing a fit, like the crowd at Berkley who trashed their own campus because they weren't willing to hear an opposing viewpoint. Or the BLM protesters who looted stores in their own community, the community they were supposedly trying to protect. There is a way to make your voice heard without destroying someone's livelihood, or ability to obtain an education. There is a mature,civil way to be a force for change. Trashing schools and businesses isn't that way.

 

[Magpie]

Riots don't always happen in the face of real injustice. Sometimes they happen because people think they can get away with it, nothing more.

You see all of those statements because the what it means to "protest" has changed. Those who participated in the Boston Tea Party, the Selma March, ect were a different caliber of person all together than today's "protester" who chooses to resort to looting or destruction of property. They were 100% committed to a just cause no matter what the personal consequences. The current protest culture is more like a spoiled child who didn't get their way throwing a tantrum. They aren't really committed to anything outside themselves and their own entitled attitude. They are participating BECAUSE they will get to loot and riot, largely without consequences. It is an opportunity to "Stick it" to someone or a group of people they don't like, not because they truly believe in any cause, or even understand it. Are there exceptions to this where people choose to protest in a responsible manner, yes, but for many of us they are being drowned out by the tantruming brats who don't know why they are throwing a fit, like the crowd at Berkley who trashed their own campus because they weren't willing to hear an opposing viewpoint. Or the BLM protesters who looted stores in their own community, the community they were supposedly trying to protect. There is a way to make your voice heard without destroying someone's livelihood, or ability to obtain an education. There is a mature,civil way to be a force for change. Trashing schools and businesses isn't that way.

You know, I don't think I can agree with you.

The human race hasn't changed fundamentally over the past generation. Back in the 60's protesters were often dismissed as being just "spoiled" children throwing tantrums to get their way. Black rioters in the 70's were accused of being subhuman types taking glee in random destruction.

As long as I can remember, protesters have been denigrated and portrayed as either mindless thugs or entitled brats, regardless of what they were protesting. I suspect, people being people, this has been true since the beginning of human civilization. Certainly, I know it WAS true during the French Revolution (rioters at the time were accused of being mindless pawns, and also a lower race of human).

But the fact is, when a population is content and feel they live in a fair and just society, they don't riot.

Yes, of course it's terrible to trash schools and businesses. But we mustn't let that distract us from the real problems at hand. Because if we don't deal with the root causes of the civil unrest, our cities will continue to burn.

 

[eeyoreandtink]

You know, I don't think I can agree with you.

The human race hasn't changed fundamentally over the past generation. Back in the 60's protesters were often dismissed as being just "spoiled" children throwing tantrums to get their way. Black rioters in the 70's were accused of being subhuman types taking glee in random destruction.

As long as I can remember, protesters have been denigrated and portrayed as either mindless thugs or entitled brats, regardless of what they were protesting. I suspect, people being people, this has been true since the beginning of human civilization. Certainly, I know it WAS true during the French Revolution (rioters at the time were accused of being mindless pawns, and also a lower race of human).

But the fact is, when a population is content and feel they live in a fair and just society, they don't riot.

Yes, of course it's terrible to trash schools and businesses. But we mustn't let that distract us from the real problems at hand. Because if we don't deal with the root causes of the civil unrest, our cities will continue to burn.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[perditax]

Exactly my point about violence. It immediately stops any rational discourse because its clear those perpetrating it AREN'T rational. Many of them are beyond the point of even knowing WHY they are doing what they are doing at that point. The message is drowned out for a lot of people. They aren't convincing anyone they are right, they are alienating people.

Historically, this just isn't true, and it's disingenuous bordering on insulting to pretend people don't know why they are protesting.

(P.S., if riots happen, it means 'rational discourse' isn't getting anyone anywhere. You can't have rational discourse with someone who isn't listening.)

 

[Gumbo4x4]

If you think riots accomplish nothing, you haven't read much history.

I'm not advocating violence. I'm saying many historical incidents described as riots precipitated change, especially when it comes to civil rights.

People may "disapprove" in the moment, especially if they are not personally affected by the changing status quo, but history typically takes a different view.

See: Stonewall

Sure, riots have accomplished things. So has war, nuclear bombs, assassinations, and any number of other "last resort" options.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Exactly my point about violence. It immediately stops any rational discourse because its clear those perpetrating it AREN'T rational. Many of them are beyond the point of even knowing WHY they are doing what they are doing at that point. The message is drowned out for a lot of people. They aren't convincing anyone they are right, they are alienating people.

Chaos and disruption is their goal...nothing more. IMO