Have You Ever Formally Protested or Boycotted Anything?

[Magpie]

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

This is also true.

Doing the right thing would be much easier, if evil acts only ever produced evil results. But the real world is far messier and more complex.

This essay on The Ethics of Using Medical Data from Nazi Experiments provides no easy answers, but illustrates quite well how challenging these sorts of moral dilemmas can be: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-ethics-of-using-medical-data-from-nazi-experiments#use

 

[L&Lfan]

I wo

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

I wo

I boycotted them too.

 

[Colleen27]

Violence should never be the response.
To dismiss all the protesters and what they were protesting because some people were out of control is wrong though. See that's exactly what I was talking about in my previous post. Instead of actually looking at all points, you just use the bad apples as an excuse to dismiss the whole thing rather than trying to understand the larger issue.

And that's unfortunately, something that is used as a tactic to disrupt and discredit legitimate protests. Because when it comes right down to it, when masked individuals show up at a peaceful protest and start throwing stones and starting fires there's no way of knowing if they've come in support of the cause or to undermine it. It is a particularly interesting conundrum in the case of the Berkeley protests because the individual they were protesting against is affiliated with groups/publications that recommend that specific tactic as a way of discrediting critics.

It is reasonable, in my opinion, to think that having to ask permission to enter an area that is currently inaccessible due to the formation of a "human chain" could make some people uncomfortable.

If a protest doesn't make anyone uncomfortable, does it have any impact at all? Violence and property damage cross a line, but if we're to demand that protests never inconvenience anyone or make anyone uncomfortable we may as well just ban them altogether. Sometimes the exercise of individual rights is going to make people uncomfortable. That's why certain rights are protected, so that the comfort of the majority can't be used to suppress dissenting voices.

 

[Party.Of.4-NY>>>FL]

And that's unfortunately, something that is used as a tactic to disrupt and discredit legitimate protests. Because when it comes right down to it, when masked individuals show up at a peaceful protest and start throwing stones and starting fires there's no way of knowing if they've come in support of the cause or to undermine it. It is a particularly interesting conundrum in the case of the Berkeley protests because the individual they were protesting against is affiliated with groups/publications that recommend that specific tactic as a way of discrediting critics.

So let me see if I understand your point. If violence erupts at a protest, it is not the protesters faults because:

A)the violent individuals are probably not a part of that protest.

OR

B)in the case of the Berkeley protests, violent individuals were actually planted there by the person/group that was being protested against.

To summarize, any violence that takes place at a protest is most likely not the fault of the protesters themselves?

That's hilarious. LOL.

 

[luvsJack]

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.

Why would you want to listen to anyone who is burning down your city? Why would you think them to have a sensible argument when they do not have sensible actions?

Take Women's March--if you research and read what it was about for most of the people there, they had a good message. They were marching for some good points that need to get across. But, no one is listening. You know why? Because rather than speak on the issues they laid out on their website, they had a few screaming ninnies up there "speaking" and the whole message got turned off. No one was listening. And now its hard to go back and get anyone see that there ere good reasons to march. (I know they were not rioting)

The students had Berkley may have had a perfectly legit reason for protesting. No clue because no one is listening.

BLM has a message. They have something that needs to be heard. But, because of so much rioting, no one is listening.

 

[eeyoreandtink]

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.)

That assumption is faulty. Lots of people DONT know why they are protesting. Many do. It isn't insulting to state the truth. There are people out there , a lot of them, just interested in causing trouble. They never wanted any kind of discourse.

 

[Magpie]

Why would you want to listen to anyone who is burning down your city? Why would you think them to have a sensible argument when they do not have sensible actions?

Take Women's March--if you research and read what it was about for most of the people there, they had a good message. They were marching for some good points that need to get across. But, no one is listening. You know why? Because rather than speak on the issues they laid out on their website, they had a few screaming ninnies up there "speaking" and the whole message got turned off. No one was listening. And now its hard to go back and get anyone see that there ere good reasons to march. (I know they were not rioting)

The students had Berkley may have had a perfectly legit reason for protesting. No clue because no one is listening.

BLM has a message. They have something that needs to be heard. But, because of so much rioting, no one is listening.

Not listening? It's getting ample media coverage. Most of the people I know are listening, and also watching, and forming opinions. Some of these opinions are based on a careful analysis of the situation, others not so much.

If anyone is not listening, it's because they have no interest in hearing about it. Maybe they've already made up their mind.

Now, if you want an actual example of people not listening, just look over at the Native Americans protesting the Dakota Pipeline... They began protesting way back in Oct 2014. But it wasn't until the company resorted to using dogs and pepper spray on the unarmed protesters in 2016 that anyone started "listening".

 

[sunshinehighway]

Why would you want to listen to anyone who is burning down your city? Why would you think them to have a sensible argument when they do not have sensible actions?

Take Women's March--if you research and read what it was about for most of the people there, they had a good message. They were marching for some good points that need to get across. But, no one is listening. You know why? Because rather than speak on the issues they laid out on their website, they had a few screaming ninnies up there "speaking" and the whole message got turned off. No one was listening. And now its hard to go back and get anyone see that there ere good reasons to march. (I know they were not rioting)

The students had Berkley may have had a perfectly legit reason for protesting. No clue because no one is listening.

BLM has a message. They have something that needs to be heard. But, because of so much rioting, no one is listening.

You've already made your view very clear. You don't agree that the American Revolution, the fight to free slaves, women's suffrage, civil rights, gay right.. The list goes on... are valid.

 

[asta]

Why would you want to listen to anyone who is burning down your city? Why would you think them to have a sensible argument when they do not have sensible actions?

Take Women's March--if you research and read what it was about for most of the people there, they had a good message. They were marching for some good points that need to get across. But, no one is listening. You know why? Because rather than speak on the issues they laid out on their website, they had a few screaming ninnies up there "speaking" and the whole message got turned off. No one was listening. And now its hard to go back and get anyone see that there ere good reasons to march. (I know they were not rioting)

The students had Berkley may have had a perfectly legit reason for protesting. No clue because no one is listening.

BLM has a message. They have something that needs to be heard. But, because of so much rioting, no one is listening.

Not true. I and many others are listening.

 

[Colleen27]

So let me see if I understand your point. If violence erupts at a protest, it is not the protesters faults because:

A)the violent individuals are probably not a part of that protest.

OR

B)in the case of the Berkeley protests, violent individuals were actually planted there by the person/group that was being protested against.

To summarize, any violence that takes place at a protest is most likely not the fault of the protesters themselves?

That's hilarious. LOL.

I didn't say which is more likely. That depends on the event. The Jan. 20 D.C. protests? One can be reasonably, maybe even entirely, sure that the violence was instigated by people who were part of the group organizing the protest. There was a strong and vocal anarchist/lawless element evident in the planning and many of those arrested were affiliated with groups that officially joined in the event. But it isn't always that cut-and-dried, especially when no arrests are made so there's no "trail" to follow as to who started the violence or looting. Some people are just attracted to chaos and like to start trouble, without regard to the cause or reason (you see it following big team wins sometimes - people who aren't even known as fans are often the ones starting fires and other trouble, just because the celebration gives them cover and an excuse). Others are willing to instigate trouble to discredit a cause, easier done as a "participant" than as someone critiquing the event from the outside.

And yes, I would consider Berkeley to be a situation where it is reasonable to speculate as to who the instigators were, simply because of the target of the protests and his past history.

 

[AnnaFloridaLover]

Why would you want to listen to anyone who is burning down your city? Why would you think them to have a sensible argument when they do not have sensible actions?

Take Women's March--if you research and read what it was about for most of the people there, they had a good message. They were marching for some good points that need to get across. But, no one is listening. You know why? Because rather than speak on the issues they laid out on their website, they had a few screaming ninnies up there "speaking" and the whole message got turned off. No one was listening. And now its hard to go back and get anyone see that there ere good reasons to march. (I know they were not rioting)

The students had Berkley may have had a perfectly legit reason for protesting. No clue because no one is listening.

BLM has a message. They have something that needs to be heard. But, because of so much rioting, no one is listening.

Wrong that no one listened with regards to the Women's March. I listened along with millions of others .

 

[sunshinehighway]

[

Wrong that no one listened with regards to the Women's March. I listened along with millions of others .

The poster you quoted wasntt listening because she doesn't want to. There's always an excuse but it all comes down to just not wanting to listen. I wonder why people have to make excuses for not wanting to listen... Why isn't the real reason good enough that they have to invent excuses?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Guys as civil as this discussion has been it would be a shame for it to go down the not so nice route where we start picking apart each other's posts in a less than civil way.

You really don't have to listen to my post it's no biggie to me just putting it out there.

 

[Party.Of.4-NY>>>FL]

I didn't say which is more likely. That depends on the event. The Jan. 20 D.C. protests? One can be reasonably, maybe even entirely, sure that the violence was instigated by people who were part of the group organizing the protest. There was a strong and vocal anarchist/lawless element evident in the planning and many of those arrested were affiliated with groups that officially joined in the event. But it isn't always that cut-and-dried, especially when no arrests are made so there's no "trail" to follow as to who started the violence or looting. Some people are just attracted to chaos and like to start trouble, without regard to the cause or reason (you see it following big team wins sometimes - people who aren't even known as fans are often the ones starting fires and other trouble, just because the celebration gives them cover and an excuse). Others are willing to instigate trouble to discredit a cause, easier done as a "participant" than as someone critiquing the event from the outside.

And yes, I would consider Berkeley to be a situation where it is reasonable to speculate as to who the instigators were, simply because of the target of the protests and his past history.

The example of the looting after sporting events really did give me pause and make me reconsider my position. Certainly a good point. My first impression of your previous post was that you were sort of painting with broad strokes and dismissing all that were there in the name of protest were innocent of any wrongdoing. After reading your most recent post I have a better understanding of the point you were making. Thank you.

 

[AnnaFloridaLover]

[

The poster you quoted wasntt listening because she doesn't want to. There's always an excuse but it all comes down to just not wanting to listen. I wonder why people have to make excuses for not wanting to listen... Why isn't the real reason good enough that they have to invent excuses?

I have more respect for people who state their opinion, no matter what it is than someone trying to discredit millions of citizen's voices by hiding behind excuses.

Also wanted to add that many millions of people around the world are listening very intently, not just in the US.

 

[Party.Of.4-NY>>>FL]

Why would you want to listen to anyone who is burning down your city? Why would you think them to have a sensible argument when they do not have sensible actions?

Take Women's March--if you research and read what it was about for most of the people there, they had a good message. They were marching for some good points that need to get across. But, no one is listening. You know why? Because rather than speak on the issues they laid out on their website, they had a few screaming ninnies up there "speaking" and the whole message got turned off. No one was listening. And now its hard to go back and get anyone see that there ere good reasons to march. (I know they were not rioting)

The students had Berkley may have had a perfectly legit reason for protesting. No clue because no one is listening.

BLM has a message. They have something that needs to be heard. But, because of so much rioting, no one is listening.

To the bolded:

I agree the event lost some validity for me due to some (not all, just some) of the people with microphones in their hands.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I have more respect for people who state their opinion, no matter what it is than someone trying to discredit millions of citizen's voices by hiding behind lame excuses.

Also wanted to add that many millions of people around the world are listening very intently, not just in the US.

Yes exactly. Why hide behind lame excuses if what you believe has merit? I see it time and time again, diversionary tactics to take the focus of the real issue. Why do that if your opposition is true and has merit?
Someone can always pick out a reason why they won't listen or why they invalidate something but it's often just a lot of bunk. They weren't going to listen to being with
The fact that they have to make an excuse for it really only shows that they know they are wrong. Otherwise they'd let their points stand on their merits.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I didn't say which is more likely. That depends on the event. The Jan. 20 D.C. protests? One can be reasonably, maybe even entirely, sure that the violence was instigated by people who were part of the group organizing the protest. There was a strong and vocal anarchist/lawless element evident in the planning and many of those arrested were affiliated with groups that officially joined in the event. But it isn't always that cut-and-dried, especially when no arrests are made so there's no "trail" to follow as to who started the violence or looting. Some people are just attracted to chaos and like to start trouble, without regard to the cause or reason (you see it following big team wins sometimes - people who aren't even known as fans are often the ones starting fires and other trouble, just because the celebration gives them cover and an excuse). Others are willing to instigate trouble to discredit a cause, easier done as a "participant" than as someone critiquing the event from the outside.

And yes, I would consider Berkeley to be a situation where it is reasonable to speculate as to who the instigators were, simply because of the target of the protests and his past history.

I'd say given Berkeley's history, it would be just as reasonable to presume the rioters were on the same side as the legitimate protesters, or at the very least "hangers on" looking for an excuse to cause chaos.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Hmmmm who should I believe as to whether anyone listened to the womens march.
Should I believe those predisposed not to listen or believe anyone else did.
Or should I believe my lying eyes?






Looks to me like there were a lot of people listening.