Stop the Traffic by AnthonyT

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And for the life of me, I never thought I would hear it from you, HKCav.

And ya haven't yet. Jesus, Frem. You've heard nothing I've said here if that's your take-away. I feel like you're data-mining my posts at this point rather than reading them. You catch a couple suspect phrases and say what you wanted to say anyway. You think I'm asking you to drink the koolaid--on whose behalf? I gotta wonder.

Hyperbole. (Hello, M4P, this is what I was talking about: Frem painting me as some kinda devil in his ear, tempting him to betray all he believes in.)

Frem, you've said nothing about the legitimacy of passive resistance or civil disobedience. The silence from folks on your side of the argument on that issue is deafening. Aside from a couple dismissive cracks about Gandhi having nothing to do with this, no one on your side of the argument has even acknowledged that this is an issue of passive resistance/civil disobedience (if I missed it, forgive me--if it's there it didn't last long). I can only conclude that you think those are some form of "placing the boot" on the necks of TPTB.

And if that's so...

Frem, you may have this self-image as a bad, bad man, as a breaker and a forcer and a violent hypocrite tipping over the edge between saint and assassin--that you're bearing that cross for us all--but what you've shown me is a decent, decent man with some thorough-going anger issues and very legitimate rage, putting that anger and rage to heroic good use. For the most part. I don't know the whole story and sometimes you're mistaken, I'm sure you've taken some terrible risks and fallen short of your goals.

I submit that your darkside is nothing special, nothing that sets you apart. Welcome to the human race. If this is where you see yourself, then you might have to support this tragic self-image by imagining the likes of Gandhi and MLK as violent men, forcing TPTB to their knees, but I think, in that case, you would be dead wrong--about me, about you, about everyone who stands up and says, "No, I will not comply."

I'm defending Bartleby, that is all. "I would prefer not to" is the indivisible atom of human volition. To take that power away from any sentient being, at any moment, even in the middle of a city street during rush hour, denies that person their most fundamental of rights. I don't care what kinda hurry you're in, you can stop. The right to say, "Include me out. Sorry, you'll have to make other plans. I'm not moving" belongs to everyone.

I'm confident that you and I will never come into such conflict. We are both squarely on the same side.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 3:51 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Occurs to me there's maybe another way to make the point.

Forget for a moment whether I might be sympathetic to your cause, that you gotta right to express it, or whether your blockin or not.

You use the internet ?
Course you do, you're here, aren't you ?
You know what your protest is to me, I mean, REALLY is ?

It's a pop-up, it's a drive-by-download, a homepage hijacker.
Dude, it's freakin malware.

The intent is to force my eyes, my attention, to your cause, be it commercial or political or what have you, and trying to justify it by saying it's only an annoyance, isn't "really" harming someone, and so on and so forth is no more valid for you than it is the punks who splatter that malware crap all over the net and degrade it's value to anyone else...
And you know WHY ?

You didn't ask, and I didn't consent.
You know, in certain other human engagement, there's a word for that.

I know, I'm comin off pretty harsh, but I got *reasons* for that, and I'll get right to em.

Quote:
Frem, you've said nothing about the legitimacy of passive resistance or civil disobedience.

Entirely deliberate - you'll notice that at no point did I mention official sanction or bringing the law into it neither, but I've little doubt those accusations will be thrown at me over this discussion months down the road, not by you, mind - but still, annoyin.

For me the question of legitimacy is whether or not you asked ME, personally, which you didn't, you and the civil/political authorities is between you and them, you and me, that's you and me.

And given the nature of these kinds of protests I acknowledge that you cannot ask me in advance, sure, not logistically possible and giving away the game early invites the boys in blue to make it never happen - I grok that, quite thoroughly.

But you gotta obligation to me at that point to make the effort to respect me as you would prefer yourself to be respected - imma tolerant guy, for all my temper, and I'll put up with a lot - hell, I might even be inclined to find somewhere to park and ask about your cause, if you don't happen to be in my way...
(this cause "boycott walgreens!" doesn't exactly tell me WHY you're angry and I gotta big curiousity bump, especially if they're sellin a toxic/dangerous product or something, I wanna know, right ?)
But you block me in traffic deliberately, on a hot summer day with no AC cause mine don't work no more and I don't have nothin but my cripple-sticks to move on cause my leg don't work for driving, imma get sorely, sorely pissed off at you - and I say deliberate, cause if it's apparent this was an unfortunate circumstance, well, shit happens - but if I get out and make a point of it with you, person to person, in that grey space of human interaction and you *refuse* to move, to make a point to me...

Imma make a point to you - and you ain't gonna like it very much.
But thing is, if it's *worth* that to you, go right on ahead - just don't pretend like you got some divine right, don't pretend that once it reaches that level of intent you haven't acted against me on purpose.

That's all I am askin, all I ever have, here, is that you ACKNOWLEDGE that doing such on purpose (and there may well be times you gotta, or causes that's important enough to you for) *IS* an act of aggression no matter how mild it is.

So it's not a question of legitimacy, never was, never will be.

Quote:
I'm defending Bartleby, that is all. "I would prefer not to" is the indivisible atom of human volition. To take that power away from any sentient being, at any moment, even in the middle of a city street during rush hour, denies that person their most fundamental of rights. I don't care what kinda hurry you're in, you can stop. The right to say, "Include me out. Sorry, you'll have to make other plans. I'm not moving" belongs to everyone.

So too does "I would prefer not to be stopped here".
So too does "include me out. Sorry, you'll have to make other plans. I am going that way."

And therein lies the impasse.
I *will* get out and ask you, first - will give you that chance to negotiate with me, even if it was not offered to me, again, that grey space of human interaction.
Can you not respect this ?

And if I decide, of mine own, that negotiation has failed, then I will decide whether or not it's important enough to *ME* to act against you.

And if I do, I refuse to pretend any justification or divine right to do it, if imma be an asshole about it, imma be an asshole about it, and the self-awareness to ADMIT that is the critical difference here.

Does it finally, now, make sense ?

You didn't ask.
I did not consent.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 5:08 PM

Okay, Frem, you and I are square. It's all good. Because I would let you through, as an individual asking me (I think I said that before). It's always a little funny when you and I contribute to these sorts of threads. I feel a little like a couple of Jews discussing Catholic doctrine. In a lot of ways, it's not our fight.

For the record, I love the image of you getting out of your car and pushing it, ever so politely, of course, through the line. Genius move. If the activists in front of you don't bow to your anarchist cool, they should go back to watching cartoons in their mom's basements.

My objection is to state force in this matter and all this talk about "freedoms" and "rights" without philosophical underpinnings of any kind being offered, nothing but what amounts to prior claim, has me talking to state power and law and not the individual. Throughout this discussion I have objected to the big guns of coercive state power behind these claims of "freedom" and "right." I'm told to comply with your argument because you have a greater right to the road than I do, because I am attacking a freedom guaranteed by the state. I'm imprisoning people! No prisoner negotiates his own release from a prison. Rights are not a thing somebody merely asks for. Passage through the protest line, I believe, is.

Y'know, and protesters can be wrong. I agree with DT's protest fitting the offense sorta deal. But mine is more an aesthetic than a moral objection. I think it's a matter of appropriateness and wisdom and not a matter of rights and freedom at that point.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 11:06 PM

KANEMAN

How many times in your life have you been held up by a fucking protest in the street? Anthony? How about the rest of you? I've never been. This thread is gay....You might as well be debating about leprechauns... I'm out of here.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 5:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Hey, attention everybody, I am about to make a major concession to the driver's rights crowd: how 'bout I say that I fully support any and all street demonstrations on streets that have stop lights, where traffic jams and other lengthy interruptions are commonplace, but support a ban on street demonstrations on freeways where they are not? I cede the freeways of the world to the motorists! Huzzah!

There's a fairly good point in that. Pedestrians intent in using pedestrian crossing is too stop traffic. Their INTENT is to stop motorists! By the arguments thus presented here, pedestrians using pedestrian crossings, intending to stop traffic, are guilty of violence, villainy and an abridgment of car driver rights!

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 5:27 AM

AGENTROUKA

Great job citizen. Try and derail a discussion with your sarcasm when it was just approaching actual communication.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 5:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Great job citizen. Try and derail a discussion with your sarcasm when it was just approaching actual communication.

Here I go again trying to start a fight ^.

Oh I'm far from the expert you are, at least my comment was on topic, and in fact actually had something to say about your argument. But thanks for trying to dismiss points you don't like with off topic trolling while simultaneously blaming me for your behavior.

ETA:
Let me see here, I make an on topic post, and that's derailing the thread, while you post purely and only to hurl attacks and accusations, and that's what? Getting it back on track? Excusable because you're the one doing it?

Is it not intent you said made all the difference? Don't pedestrians using pedestrian crossings intend to stop traffic? I used your arguments, to make a point. If your arguments can derail the thread when I use them, I wonder what you intended to use them for?

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 6:26 AM

AGENTROUKA

Your dismissive tone is derailing the thread. I was pointing that out.

Claiming that traffic lights are the same as an intentional disruption of traffic to cause a traffic jam is a hyperbole and stretches what is a wrong interpretation of my point to begin with into ridiculous spheres. Traffic lights regulate traffic. They are part of traffic. So stop playing dumb.

And no, I do not think you were responding to what I said. You were responding to what you want to hear. You aren't even TRYING to grant me that I may not be a freedom-hating monster, that I may have a legitimate gripe with being stuck in an intentionally created traffic chaos, that what I said is not identical to what Anthony said... etc. No, you kept talking about what "my side" said, going on about the right to drive without trying to adress the points I made about practicality and compromise.

So no, your comment had nothing to say about my argument. I don't claim to be an expert, but I'm also not trying to outright dimiss every argument you have made without really adressing it the way you have been. So don't pretend that I am the one trolling.

I'm very disappointed. You're usually one of the more interesting, reasonable voices in this forum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 6:50 AM

Shoot. Meant to catch up and post again this morning, but it's already time to get heading to the airport. And there's a chipmunk loose somewhere in my bedroom. Thanks, gorramned cat.

Thank you for the lampoon takeback, HK. If this thread's still alive and my brain able to get back into it in a week, I'll catch up with this last exchange with Frem. All I caught was "all square." That sounds good!

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 6:54 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

WOW! STILL going on? Wow...we've really hit a sore point...not to mention an impasse

Frem, who wrote what you quoted? I can’t find it, so I’m thinking you put it up to emphasize your point. It’s pretty overblown—one of the reasons this debate goes on and on. It’s minimizing, it’s demeaning and, I’m sorry, but it’s pretty petty when you read it cold. I KNOW freedom is a huge thing to you; I would bet a more emotional thing than it is to many of us (minor freedoms, I mean, not Freedom). With good reason. But that has nothing to do with what we’re discussing, unless you take the issue to the very extreme. Being stuck in traffic does not equate to the slippery slope of losing one’s entire freedom, unless it does to you, in which case we’re debating apples and oranges.

Mike,

Quote:
some of PN's abortion pictures, complete with a screaming soundtrack and a nice lecture about the evils of abortion, and how it's really murder, etc.

Mike, can we let go of the overblown rhetoric, please?? That’s been half the problem here, and here it comes again, from both of you, first thing I read. That is NOT a comparison to a peaceful protest held in a street. For one, there’s no “screaming soundtrack” (you can roll up your windows, put the radio on, if you don't want to listen), you haven’t paid for the use of that street at that moment, and on and on. I wish you guys could stop this, it doesn’t further the debate one whit and if you want to talk about “demeaning”, what does that say about your comparison to a peaceful protest held in a street?

And yes, there was a comparison to “terrorism”, I’m not going back up to see who said it, but I know it’s there. It would be among the looong list of pejoratives I did bother to look up.

Quote:
nothing about the legitimacy of passive resistance or civil disobedience. The silence from folks on your side of the argument on that issue is deafening

I know, Cav, that’s one of the things that has me mystified. I would have thought a number of the people in this thread would have been hollering about freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, but it’s totally ignored. Weird, isn’t it?? Take it even further; there are those here who advocate the OVERTHROW OF GOVERNMENT, by guns even, yet they can’t accept peaceful civil disobedience? It boggles the mind.

Quote:
For me the question of legitimacy is whether or not you asked ME, personally, which you didn't, you and the civil/political authorities is between you and them, you and me, that's you and me.

Major WOW. So you join (I forget who) in saying that NO demonstration, sanctioned or otherwise, is ever acceptable if it holds up traffic. Double wow. I can’t fathom that.

That from someone who was so moved by wrongs that he deliberately broke the law, from what you post at times violently, to right that wrong. But people standing or sitting around to protest a wrong is unacceptable? Triple wow.

By the way, I don’t think any of the three of us said we wouldn’t be pissed off at the inconvenience. We merely said—-or at least I know I did—-that I would recognize the cause, put freedom of speech ahead of my convenience, and view it as a freeway traffic jam, just something I needed to endure. Actually, I find it a lot MORE valid than a traffic jam. So let’s be clear on that point; it’s not that it wouldn’t piss me off, even moreso if it were gun bunnies protesting with guns strapped on, etc., but I would understand it and accept it nonetheless. And you’d get, what, violent? if they didn’t move out of your way or stop a march to let you throguh? Just astonishing.

To repeat once more to clarify, 99.9% of protests are not intended to do as you said:

Quote:
don't pretend that once it reaches that level of intent you haven't acted against me on purpose.

Traffic being stopped is ancillary to the intent, which is to speak up against something wrong, to utilize the freedoms of assembly and free speech.

You know what’s weird? The government often gives permits to protests that THEY don’t believe in or like, but I believe because (in most cases) they recognize the freedom of speech/assembly as a right of their citizens, they permit it. So the government might not like it any more than you, but THEY are willing to honor freedom of speech/assembly, and you aren't.

To clarify yet another; nobody thinks they have a “divine right” to hold a protest, they think they have the right to congregate and exercise free speech, which I believe our laws give them. There’s nothing “divine” about it.

It’s not an act of aggression—-that you view it that way is telling—-it’s exercising their right to free speech/asembly PEACEFULLY. Why does this all keep getting down to it somehow being a violent attack? I don’t get it.

As to respecting your getting out and asking them to move (and pushing a car doesn't come into it, as the concept would be to DRIVE through the demonstration), that’s irrelevant, since you’ve already intimated that if you ask and they refuse, you’ll get violent about it. It’s obviously impossible to ask everyone individually if they mind the protest getting in their way; it’s a pretty obvious impossibility, yet it’s one you demand, with violence as the outcome if it’s not done.

Agent, I don’t think the debate was reaching any kind of communication, actually, and I think he can be forgiven some sarcasm, given the black-black way demonstrations have been portrayed here. Nonetheless, it’s not necessary, and is a dramatization, which lessens the complaint about over-dramatizing the other side. Pedestrians using crosswalks is completely different; I see the comparison, but it doesn’t work.

There will be no meeting of the minds on this one. One side is absolutely, positively set on the idea that no protest is “right” unless it doesn’t get in the way of anyone’s ability to pass, and sees lack of same as “imprisonment” and personal violence against them. The other side recognizes the inconvenience but is willing to give way to what we view as a rightful exercise of free speech/assembly, be it legally sanctioned or not. I don’t AGREE with unsanctioned demonstrations, I will say again, but I would tolerate them.

And Kane, I’ve been held up by demonstrations, as have others here. I think it’s mostly a matter of the principles at work, not whether or how many times we’ve been personally held up. I know it’s an incredibly long discussion, but if you went back through, you’d see specific references to that effect from several of us.

I’m amazed people are sticking to it; if you come in like I do only once in the morning, you can see the roundabout, repetitive arguments on both sides, the more-intense emotional stance about the personal right to pass, and that it’s going nowhere. Most see ANY protest which is unable to give people the full option of detour or passing right through as a personal attack and denial of individual freedom, a few of us see the right of peaceable assembly and freedom of speech as something which we don’t take offense at and are willing to accept, even when it affects us personally. I think it’s as simple as that, and it’s not going to be solved.

To make it any bigger than the above is to take it out of context, get head up about “rights” on either side, whose rights supersede whose, and it can go nowhere. Because nobody thinks anyone else’s rights (or any group’s rights) supersede others’ rights. Whether it’s “my right to drive this street unimpeded” or “my right to protest peacefully”, you’ll never get agreement on which is more valid.

Taking all the drama, exaggeration and personal attacks out of it, isn't that pretty much what it boils down to?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 7:16 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Okay, I missed a couple while I was posting. To be dismissive of either side isn't going to help, agreed. But I WISH we could get past

Quote:
intentional disruption of traffic to cause a traffic jam

I keep saying, and it keeps getting ignored, that the INTENT behind a demonstration is to bring something to the attention of the public, to show a unity in protest of whatever so that the public can see there is more than one person protesting, and to bring the attention to the notice of people walking by, people in buildings, etc. That it holds up traffic is an unavoidable consequence, but it is NOT the intent (the vast majority of the time). It happens, even with the best of planning, but it is NOT an aggressive, deliberate attempt to "imprison" drivers. I think you'd find that if almost every demonstration were able to completely eliminate it causing a traffic jam, most protesters would be tickled pink. Most of us have been stuck at one time or another, and have no desire to inflict that on others. But it IS virtually impossible to avoid ANYONE being stuck, even with the best intentions and efforts...if nothing else, detouring people causes more jams on side streets. It is totally impossible to avoid SOME disruption of traffic.

Can we even try to get past the idea that demonstrations are for the sole purpose of imprisoning people in their cars, pretty please? At least repect their right to assemble and speak that much respect, if nothing else?

Of course, I think that would lessen the argument on one side, because I THINK it's the idea of an individual being "stuck" deliberately that is important for the argument...which leads me to ask: IF you cold accept that there was NO intent to hold up traffic or individually "harm" anyone, would your feelings be the same?

Oh, I missed another one: Unsanctioned protests usually bring about arrest, yes, but again, most of the time that is NOT the intent. Unsanctioned protests are USUALLY held because there is no other option; arrest (and possible violence against them) is something that is ACCEPTED as a possibility in an unsanctioned protest, but not the "bottom line" expectation or desire.

Note I am saying "most" at all times; demonstrations are individual, the intent of each one needs to be considered, but ON THE WHOLE, that is the case. Yes, media attention is part of the purpose, but it can be achieved whether traffic is blocked or not most of the time, whether sanctioned or not.

Whew. That's it for me, hopefully until tomorrow and I don't get dragged back in again, as yes, I will respond, but so far it's cost me an awful lot of time. If I didn't think this was an important issue, I wouldn't bother with this thread anymore. But I do.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 7:22 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Yes. This thread is epic.

After all, having a protest really accomplishes a lot.

Burning cop-cars makes a difference, or doesn't.

I'm all for a gathering of people to show support for a cause. I just wish it wouldn't be so often and so much like the Juggalos.

*sigh

Really, having a fit, and not being intelligent and respectable is accomplishing a lot my ninjas.

Keep on keeping on.

Cus screaming about no blood for oil, meat is murder, DOESNT make you look like clowns. Unless it does, and thats what you are after.

But hey! Being child-like and not really understanding the issues never stopped anyone.

Rock on my ninjas!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 7:36 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Btw. I am for getting together and protesting. I just think its been hijacked by the hippies and the Juggalos.

You want someone to listent to you? Do it in a respectable manner.

Waiting for the snark about the 2A people and how "OMG, they carried guns to their rallies!"

Well, yeah.

I will point out that those rallies were probably the safest and most calm/peaceful/legal protests ANYONE has ever been to. (AND no cops fucked with them. It was stupid to do so, when these folks could easily shoot back.)

But ignore that. Focus on the guns. Ignore that they said their piece, and left. All without one car burned, or anyone in facepaint.

Whatever tho.

Continue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 8:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Your dismissive tone is derailing the thread. I was pointing that out.

No, what was derailing the thread was anyone who disagreed with the guys on your side of the aisle being called liars, or accused of trying to start a fight just because they dared to disagree. I was pointing out that posting only to attack is far more likely to derail the thread than anything I did.

If you think my tone is at fault, you desperately need to read some of the other posters on this thread.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Claiming that traffic lights are the same as an intentional disruption of traffic to cause a traffic jam is a hyperbole and stretches what is a wrong interpretation of my point to begin with into ridiculous spheres. Traffic lights regulate traffic. They are part of traffic. So stop playing dumb.

Yeah, not sure the people claiming that being stuck in a traffic jam is equivalent to imprisonment, have much right to use the word hyperbole.

You said that if people intend to stop traffic it makes all the difference, people using pedestrian crossings intend to stop traffic. I'm not privy to all the internal assumptions and logical leaps you might have made, doesn't mean I'm playing dumb. The only real difference between the two would seem the length of time that the road is closed to traffic, to me. Perhaps it's not that I'm playing dumb, and I am just plain retarded because I'm not seeing much difference in the intents here.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
And no, I do not think you were responding to what I said. You were responding to what you want to hear. You aren't even TRYING to grant me that I may not be a freedom-hating monster, that I may have a legitimate gripe with being stuck in an intentionally created traffic chaos, that what I said is not identical to what Anthony said... etc.

Well, if that's true now you know what it's been like for HK, Nikki and myself on this thread. Welcome!

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
No, you kept talking about what "my side" said, going on about the right to drive without trying to adress the points I made about practicality and compromise.

Actually I did that as well, but never mind. But also excuse the hell out of me that when I'm talking about rights with Anthony and you respond to my post, that I might think you're joining in on our conversation.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So no, your comment had nothing to say about my argument. I don't claim to be an expert, but I'm also not trying to outright dimiss every argument you have made without really adressing it the way you have been. So don't pretend that I am the one trolling.

Actually I can think of at least one example where you did exactly that.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 8:38 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
Well, if that's true now you know what it's been like for HK, Nikki and myself on this thread. Welcome!

Thanx for that, Citizen. Frustrating, isn't it? It FEELS like no matter how reasonably we try to put things, what comes back is mostly unreasonable diatribe.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 8:42 AM

AGENTROUKA

Go ahead and play victim. Your post was belligerent, but your only recourse is to wave your hand and say "But they did it, too!"

Yet again you equate me with Anthony. We are NOT the same person! What he said is not identical with what I said or support!

Yet again you hide behind something "my side" did, when I'm asking you to respond to MY actual points.

You claim I posted merely to attack when your comparison was nothing but sarcasm and ridicule.

And now you still don't react to the fact that I pointed out that traffic lights are part of traffic - as precisely timed regulating mechanisms. As opposed to a disruption.

Seriously. This should be beneath you, but apparently it's not.

Niki is right. This thread will go nowhere. No doubt you will consider this a win, but I'm out of here. I'd hate to see my opinion of you sink even lower. See you in another thread in the future, hopefully under more pleasant circumstances.

ETA: Apparently you and Niki are going to pat each other on the back now. Well, I guess my lowered opinion will apply to not just you, citizen.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 8:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Furthermore, in my very first post I mentioned that I would support the crazy "abortion = holocaust" people if they chose to march (peaceably, without guns, Mike).

So gun owners can't be peaceable? We can't gather and march for OUR rights (ones that actually ARE guaranteed by the Constitution, mind you)?

I find it ironic that Citizen gets called out for "starting" a fight when you post something like this.

I was merely trying to set a limit on my blanket support for a protest. My reasoned support of protests, I find, is perhaps eccentric and entirely misunderstood when it isn't simply ignored here.

Nowhere did I say you couldn't be peaceable. It's weird, when you direct this beam of spite you have at your disposal at someone else, it's hard to see, but when it's directed at me, the dismissal, the contempt, the raw aggression is at times breathtaking. I imagine you're a decent guy in person, funny, personable, benevolent, but get you behind the keyboard of a computer and you don't care who you're talking to, you pour out your spite as it flows. It's a short coming, Mike, it really is.

That said, guns, I would say, complicate the issue. My blanket support of protesters is specifically based on their lack of technological enhancement, if you will, their rights to be where they are, physically, regardless of what use anyone else seeks to make of that space (public space, of course--trespassing is trespassing). That we have cars over here, and people over here is a convention in my eyes, a safety issue merely, and people have a right to ignore the convention if they have a greater value to promote. Free speech is such a value in my mind. I don't think jaywalking is an abridgement of anyone's rights either.

A gun in your hands makes you arithmetically more dangerous than you were barehanded. It complicates the issue. That is all. I'm warry to give it my full, unqualified support without knowing more.

Imagine a hundred anarchists walking down the street with molotov cocktails in their hands, peaceably. It's a tricky situation, isn't it?

And then there's the little matter of the 2A in this country--specificallyguaranteed to citizens as a curb to government control--i.e.: gun ownership is an explicit threat to civil order (or, depending on your point of view, the last line of defense there of). So, gettin' your gun and marching downtown is like goin' on patrol, you're patrolling your borders, the borders of your rights, waiting for someone to cross, at which point the "peaceable" would kinda be a moot point. Unarmed folk walking in the street cannot compare.

I just gotta ask, in a situation like the mess at the G20 up north, do you think arming the protesters in that situation would have changed things for the better?

Quote:
What I'm trying to get my head around is at what point does your right to protest and peaceably assemble become NOT peaceable?

What's the trouble, Mike? My argument's pretty simple. If it's just you and your clothes, maybe a camera phone, it's peaceable until you start throwing punches. If you block the road with your car, not peaceable. You block the road with the threat of deadly force at your disposal, not peaceable.

I guess, I'd say, if you want to peaceably demonstrate with your gun, you'll prolly need to go with the permit option.

Quote:
A couple months ago, there was a protest by gun owners near D.C. (because guns are still outlawed in D.C., at least out in the open). They got a permit, did everything legally, and had their little get-together, and all without drama.

Why are we still talking about this?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 8:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Go ahead and play victim. Your post was belligerent, but your only recourse is to wave your hand and say "But they did it, too!"

Ok, it's not even difficult when you decide to post only to insult and attack me, while lying about what I said and ignoring the topic entirely.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 9:10 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Imagine a hundred anarchists walking down the street with molotov cocktails in their hands, peaceably. It's a tricky situation, isn't it?

>_> Molotov cocktails will eventually explode, I have to say it's a little different than a gun, which requires a trigger, which can be controlled by a person. I would consider guns and molotov cocktails nonequivalent in terms of immediate danger, despite both being weapons.

I think a protest where people have guns can be peaceful. I think if I can glean anything from your molotov point, it's that anything can be a weapon (like fists), really, so any time protesters could step over the line to violence.

If we respect free speech, I think this is a risk we have to allow, and to try to trust in our fellow citizens to not have nefarious intent on us in their expression. This is perhaps the same with the car stopping thing.

Course, I'd also encourage the protesters to try not to accidentally hurt people, as well, and to be willing to communicate with other citizens, to minimize negative perception of their cause and minimize potential damage to citizens.

Frem pushing his car through the line makes me smile, because it's a nonverbal action that constitutes a promise, by him, that he's not going to try to hurt any of them, at the same time it's allowing him to assert his own interests, just as the protesters are asserting theirs. If I were a protester, I'd laugh and walk over and help him. I can respect that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 9:17 AM

I'm sorry, Byte, I'm a bad anarchist--I don't really know exactly what a molotov cocktail consists of. I thought the bit of rag in the bottle needed to be lit on fire for them to pose an imminent threat. I bow to your superior knowledge of incendiaries.

My simple point was the guns scare people, and not, to my mind, without reason.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 9:26 AM

BYTEMITE

Oh, whoops, I assumed you were talking about them walking down the street lit, which would be... Well, that's why I had that reaction, that would be either suicidal or very destructive, and probably not peaceful.

I'd have to look into it closer myself, it's mostly petroleum products, so generally I'd agree that you have to have a spark to meet the flashpoint, but some of the chemicals might be shock-sensitive as well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 9:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Oh, whoops, I assumed you were talking about them walking down the street lit, which would be... Well, that's why I had that reaction, that would be either suicidal or very destructive, and probably not peaceful.

It would make a great music video though! (In that case, o' course, they'd have to be molotov mocktails, but still--the image!)

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 10:56 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
I find it ironic that Citizen gets called out for "starting" a fight when you post something like this.

I was merely trying to set a limit on my blanket support for a protest. My reasoned support of protests, I find, is perhaps eccentric and entirely misunderstood when it isn't simply ignored here.

Nowhere did I say you couldn't be peaceable. It's weird, when you direct this beam of spite you have at your disposal at someone else, it's hard to see, but when it's directed at me, the dismissal, the contempt, the raw aggression is at times breathtaking. I imagine you're a decent guy in person, funny, personable, benevolent, but get you behind the keyboard of a computer and you don't care who you're talking to, you pour out your spite as it flows. It's a short coming, Mike, it really is.

Sorry if you took that as an attack, HKC. It surely wasn't intended as such.

I took issue - a bit, not much - with the post where someone mentioned "peaceably, without guns, Mike", as solidly implying that nobody wearing a gun is capable of behaving in a peaceable manner. Does this low opinion of gun enthusiasts extend to soldiers and police, or is it aimed only at "mere citizens" who believe in exercising their rights?

And your saying your support of protests is "eccentric" is getting more to the point I was trying to raise in every hypothetical I've laid out: At what point do you STOP supporting protesters? I'd hazard a guess that we ALL have our limits, the point at which we say, "Yeah, I respect your right to protest, but I'm outta here; you done lost me on this one."

Some will pull their support when it's a gun-rights protest - and they'd likely withhold that support even if every gun owner carrying a gun that day had a sign or a t-shirt that loudly proclaimed "We came unarmed, THIS TIME!" Even KNOWING that these people were carrying unloaded guns would still put some people off, and make them want those folks to get a permit or be arrested.

I've really tried to NOT attack anyone's viewpoints here, but to probe and ask questions, to find out at what point various people decide that those "universal" rights don't apply to some group or another.

If it came across as attacking or confrontational, I apologize. I really don't have a dog in this fight. I applaud the cause the Seattle protesters are fighting for, but I abhor their methods. I'd dare say that most (if not all) of us have a similar threshold, a point at which our support for - or even RECOGNITION of - those rights would be sharply rescinded or limited.

Sure, we all believe in "free speech", but to what extent, to what limits?

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 12:10 PM

DREAMTROVE

Wulf

Bear in mind that it would be easy for me to send my pocket Nazis, if I had them, to your tea party rally, to shout racist slogans, and attack the NAACP HQ, and then sit back and watch the news tell me that *you* did it.

Now stop and think how much power the people being protested against here, being the gloablists, have. They instigated most of the wars of the last century, including all the ones we are currently in, they are the people to whom most of the worlds debt is owed, including most of americas, and they are responsible for setting up NAFTA, the EU, African Union, ASEAN, MEFTA, CAFTA, the one currency, cap and trade, etc. Etc. Yeah, somehow, I think they can swing making anyone who disagrees with them look bad.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 12:27 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

My problem is that I actually agree with the douchebags protesting.

Not for the "Noblood for Oil" hippie types, but because of the illegality of the war based on Constituional doctrine.

Now? Where are these patchulie smelling dirtbags?

Nowhere, cus their boy is in power.

They never really cared about the issue at all. They just wanted to "feel" the "energy" of the crowd.

THey had no more clue about what was going on, or why they SHOULD be protesting than these PETA clowns.

It makes me sick.

You are against the war? Great. But why? Cus some burnt out told you so? That ALL war is bad? Grow up.

Have a real reason for it. Don't jsut jump on some college hippie bandwagon to make yourself feel good.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 12:27 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 3:23 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Niki
Yeah, I wrote that, straight outta stream of consciousness cause it's really the same thing I hear from pretty much every cause, religion, political, corporate, even other Anarchists...
"Hey, let's smash the established order without asking the public if they might wanna keep it - let's just smash it for everyone, for their own good!"

Not from y'all, well, not much - but still, I get so sick and tired of hearing, from everyone and anyone, underneath all the rhetoric and excuses and rationalization, that same bloody song, "Hand ME the leash" and no one wanting to cut it.

Soon as you go thinkin your decisions, your rights, privledges or what have you, have more value, are more important, than someone elses, you're tap dancin on the top end of a really greasy slope, and knowing what's at the very bottom of it, I can get a little hardball about pointing that out.

It wasn't meant to be petty, it was meant to be vicious, shocking even, kind of like spilling your mug of beer over a friends head when in an argument with someone he reaches for his weapon, that kinda thing.

And yes, theoretically I do take it to a certain extreme in theory, but the theoretical and the personal are different edges of this, and I don't think you're getting me at all here.

And I *AM* perjorative of something I take as a slight - the idea that what *I* want or believe is less important than your protest, that's a slight, and an intentional one - I've been, for me, downright nice about it, so far.

And Niki, there's a DIFFERENCE between legitimacy, perceived legitimacy, and personal values - for me it's not a question of legitimacy, it never was.

Who am *I* to go tellin YOU what to do ?
Who are YOU, to go tellin ME where I can or can't drive my car ?

That is, to me, a PERSONAL thing, me and you - and we can work it out, me and you - and the State can kiss my ass.

I know you can't ask me in advance for logistical and other reasons, I'm cool with that, but either you ain't read the post or you ain't gettin it - once I have politely ASKED you to move, pointed out this very impasse of personal desire, and perhaps wheedled on your sympathy with my cars lack of AC and me bein on crutches, and *THEN* you refuse to move...

At that point it's quite personal, abundantly so, and abso-fuckin-lutely intentional - and depending on the circumstances, what I will do about it, well shit, that's up to ME, not YOU.

How is this not getting through ?

For the record, I'm not fond of violence as a solution to most things, and can usually figure some way to convince someone, shyster them, mindfuck em, or pull some kinda stunt that doesn't really harm someone - imma big believer in "third-option-thinking" that way, why does it always have to be yes/no, on/off, black/white ?

What you have also, completely missed, and HKCav finally groked onto, was that this isn't a matter of rights, privledges, or any of that official-on-paper rot as simple inter-human relations, mutual respect, and common decency.

You wanna protest, you want me to hear and see your protest, fine, dandy, but if you're blockin the road and I ask ya to move - at that point I have ALREADY seen and heard it, to refuse would be just plain jackassery, and I would take issue with that.

Look, sometimes you gotta break the rules, I am intimately, fully, completely AWARE of that - but when you do it, cop to it, all I am askin, trying to pretend that those rules of human conduct don't apply to you, and DO apply to those who don't agree with you, that's a sham, and I'll not support it.

If it's important enough to you, if it MEANS enough to you, to piss people off, to risk being arrested, to put yourself in physical danger... why should my personal ire be any additional discouragement to you, I just happen to be BEING HONEST and having the good grace to forewarn you that you might face it, so what of it, if you block two hundred cars and piss off maybe half those people, and one of em is me - I rather think that statistically I'd be the least of your problems cause I ain't gonna be likely to call in the SWAT boys, cause it ain't my way of dealin with things....

Oh hell, I sound like I am repeatin myself, umm ?
Yo, HKCav ?

Since you can often translate what I am tryin to say about ten times better than I can ever seem to, would you try and explain to Niki, and others, exactly where and how this goes ?
Cause I think i'm doin a damn piss poor job of it here, and I could use...
A Third Option.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 30, 2010 3:28 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Re: Molotovs.

You do not wanna carry a lit molotov, eventually the rag "fuse" burns down and the fumes kick off and the whole thing blows up all over you, and that happens pretty quick, like, seconds quick, which is why you might have noticed once it's lit you get RID of that thing in a hurry.

I never did it that way, I used a sealed bottle of homemade napalm with a road flare duct taped to it, hell of a lot safer to carry around, more reliable ignition and substantially more effective...
Uh... in theory, yeah... not that I would like, know, or nothin...

Oh, and someone toss me a link for whatever filter Anthony is usin cause if I have to look at any more of this hateful, racist, intolerant, bigoted shit from Wulfie here and his fecal firehose of a flappin yap, imma be right tempted to make it a lot more personal than it already is.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 5:44 AM

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/Other-Internet-Related/Naomi-int
ernet-filter.shtml

Or DansGaurdian is Open Source:
http://dansguardian.org/

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 7:39 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
My problem is that I actually agree with the douchebags protesting.

Not for the "Noblood for Oil" hippie types, but because of the illegality of the war based on Constituional doctrine.

Now? Where are these patchulie smelling dirtbags?

Nowhere, cus their boy is in power.

They never really cared about the issue at all. They just wanted to "feel" the "energy" of the crowd.

THey had no more clue about what was going on, or why they SHOULD be protesting than these PETA clowns.

It makes me sick.

You are against the war? Great. But why? Cus some burnt out told you so? That ALL war is bad? Grow up.

Have a real reason for it. Don't jsut jump on some college hippie bandwagon to make yourself feel good.

So where were you during the Bush years, Wulfie? I never, not one time, heard you make any argument against the wars, on ANY grounds. Why was that? Because your boy was in power?

And more to the point, why are you out there NOW? It's not that you care about the issue, or about human life, or that you're against war. You aren't - you LOVE the idea of war; it's your favorite jerk-off fantasy, that idea that you'll FINALLY be given the chance to start murdering people based on nothing more than how they look or how you think they think.

You have no concept of what you're protesting. You claim it's about "the legality" of the war, but you don't know fuck-all about the Constitution, except in the very vaguest of terms. You can't cite citizenship requirements or rights, you claim the document isn't living and breathing (ergo, it must be dead and obsolete). In short, you're just out there yelling and hollering because there's a black man in the White House, and you've got a chance to give voice to those angry voices in your head.

So what's the big difference between you and those you hate? That they wouldn't gladly kill you if given the chance?

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 7:40 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Ooo, thank you EVERSO, Citizen, I can really USE that! Will check it out immediately.

Frem, I do think I hear where you're coming from. As to the actual example, I actually think people would let you through, when they recognize your situation. In reality, I just think it's unworkable in some instances. In reality, I think it's a bit beyond the pale to ask a large number of people marching along (if marching) to stop and let you through. If they're sitting or standing, that’s different. In reality, I recognize that most wouldn’t.

I do understand your feelings. In theory, I agree. In theory, at the same time, I think it’s an impasse; given what you’ve said, NEITHER has the right to impinge on the other. In theory, I still do not accept that the intention is to stop you, “imprison” you, “terrorize” you, etc. I think, to quote you-know-who, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the needs of the few”, which came, in part, from Caiaphas, the High Priest mentioned in the Gospel of John, who said “Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." Obviously not a nation, but a “many”, and exercising a very precious right in this country, I, too, believe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Were it actually a matter of imprisonment, I would agree with you completely. But given it is a DELAY, of however long (and no demonstration or protest march holds anyone up for a huge length of time, in my observations), I don’t see it as the beginnings of the “slippery slope” to which you equate it.

In PRINCIPLE, for me those two rights outweigh my “right”, “privilege” or whatever you want to call it, to drive unimpeded immediately. So we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. We have two different PERSONAL principles; I don’t think either is necessarily more relevant than the other, it’s just personal opinion. It’s our personal feelings, and as I said, on the broader scale, you really are at an impasse, if you view it that neither’s rights supersede those of the other. How can you solve that, in principle, not in personal experience?

As for Mr. Hippie-hater:

You know not of what you speak; most of us knew exactly what we were protesting, and it was both against the illegal intrusion into a sovereign state, and the slaughter of humans simply because of the heads of one government's personal desires.

(with thanx to Frem)

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 8:32 AM

Mike:

Looks like we're coming to agreement on something.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 8:46 AM

My God, Niki. How do you still see this thread as a "black-black" judgment of all protests? How many times must we explain that if 99.9% of protests do not unduly impinge on people's rights, then 99.9% of protests are A-OK? No one is hating on protests in general. Would you please get over that!

HK: returning to your post way back up the thread - you contend that whatever protesters need to do to get the word out is justified because they are otherwise powerless against the govt. Right.

So the govt takes away something not important to the govt but important to a minority group: they protest. Cool. The protest takes away something not important to the protesters but important to me, and I... do what exactly? What recourse do I have? Several posts on this thread (not just HKs) tell me that I should put up and shut up. Read a book, find an ice cream shop. Chill the hell out.

Wait... except I'm also hearing that if a group makes me powerless, I have a right to find a less powerful entity than me and usurp their rights. So I should turn around and yell at my kid in the back seat? Then he/she should turn around and beat the dog?

My take: Protesters do good and necessary work in calling out the govt when it misbehaves. I think it's the right and even the responsibility of each citizen to do this. But we must also call out protesters when they misbehave. I don't see any difference. Protesters can be protested too. Stopping me from doing so is denying my right for free speech. You become to me what the govt is to the protesters.

As to the traffic delay comparison, and the "oh just put up with it, it's not a big deal" argument, here's a hypothetical situation:

Suppose there'll be a tax hike for funding lots of really important, non specific govt things. It'll be an extra $1000 on everyone's 2011 tax return.

What, Niki, HK - you say you might disagree with paying that tax? Well, what if there was a "accident" caused by high winds and a tree fell on your house? Roof repairs might inconvenience you an identical $1000. You might not like it, but you'd put up with it just fine. So why the problem with the tax? It's exactly the same cost it you. There's no difference at all. Now pay up.

And anyway, it's just a little minor inconvenience, and so much less important than what some group of people who you don't know at all has decided must be done, and decided that it can be done no other way. Everyone else is putting up with the tax, because we're all true lovers of freedom, and willing to make little sacrifices. I'll be paying the tax, without getting all hot and bothered about it. Why can't you just be a reasonable person and support someone else's plan to defend our freedoms - yours too? How can you be so selfish as to complain and not fully support, without question?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 8:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
What, Niki, HK - you say you might disagree with paying that tax? Well, what if there was a "accident" caused by high winds and a tree fell on your house? Roof repairs might inconvenience you an identical $1000. You might not like it, but you'd put up with it just fine. So why the problem with the tax? It's exactly the same cost it you. There's no difference at all. Now pay up.

Well, I know you didn't direct this at me presumably because every bit of bad feeling in this thread is directly my fault or whatever, but if you think that a Tax is in anyway equivalent to a protest, then there's a fundamental difference of opinion as to what a protest is, and it's central importance to democracy and freedom in a wider sense.

I'd like to say more, but I'll be accused of starting a fight as it is.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 9:00 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
No one is hating on protests in general.

Uh, duhhh. Mal4, at least one person has said quite clearly that they disapprove of ANY protest, and all but three of us have said ANY protest that gets in ANYONE's way is wrong. Protests that get in the way of drivers (just drivers, please note) have been compared to terrorism and violence and more. ANY demonstration that gets in ANYONE's way. I think that comes under the heading of "protests in general".

I'm not sure what you think I'm head up about. I've said clearly that I'm all for demonstrations about things the public needs to be aware of, no matter what the cause, I respect the right to assemble and the right to freedom of speech, even when I disagree with it. As long as it's nonviolent. Violent protests I abhor.

Quote:
if a group makes me powerless, I have a right to find a less powerful entity than me and usurp their rights. So I should turn around and yell at my kid in the back seat? Then he/she should turn around and beat the dog?

Where you get that is beyond me. I certainly didn't say you should find a less powerful entity and usurp their rights. You must be talking to someone else?

As far as protesting, except for the Tea Party--who want the government out of the way and no taxes but are quite happy to GO to their protest using every means the government made possible--they are the only ones I've ever seen who demonstrate against taxes. So aside from not relating to the issue at hand, I don't see the relevance of your last comparison. Apples and oranges, IN MY VIEW. It's just a view, it's not telling anyone to shut up (I hope you're not referring to me?) or go away, just expressing my opinion on the issue.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 9:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Here I go again trying to start a fight ^.

I have something for Citizen, too. (It was a very long plane ride.) I'm reading 5 Minds for the Future by Howard Gardner, and encountered this:

"Turning to respect... I must try to understand other persons on their own terms, make an imaginative leap when necessary, seek to convey my trust in them, and try so far as possible to make common cause with them and to be worthy of their trust. This stance does not mean that I ignore my own beliefs, nor that I necessarily accept or pardon all that I encounter... But I am obliged to make the effort, and not merely assume that what I had once believed on the basis of scattered impression is necessarily true. Such humility may in turn engender positive responses in others."

If lots of folks accuse you of trying to start fights Cit, there may be a reason...

But this isn't just for Citizen. It's something I hope to improve at myself. Primarily, when I read a post I actively disagree with, I must make a conscious effort to go back and read through it again with the goal of understanding the words exactly as written, and, when possible, find points of agreement.

Seems this thread would have settled some time ago if more posters gave this a try.

(I'm so started a new fight with this, aren't I? It just seemed so applicable, dammit!)

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 9:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
No one is hating on protests in general.
Uh, duhhh. Mal4, at least one person has said quite clearly that they disapprove of ANY protest,

I haven't seen that. Could you point it out? It's certainly not been a part of the posts I've read.

Quote:
all but three of us have said ANY protest that gets in ANYONE's way is wrong.

Ditto. Could you quote?

Quote:
compared to terrorism and violence and more.

Please show. And please look for the possibility that you took a much weaker argument to an extreme that was not intended.

Quote:
Quote:
if a group makes me powerless, I have a right to find a less powerful entity than me and usurp their rights. So I should turn around and yell at my kid in the back seat? Then he/she should turn around and beat the dog?
Where you get that is beyond me. I certainly didn't say you should find a less powerful entity and usurp their rights. You must be talking to someone else?

Yes. I specifically addressed that part of my post to HK. I was referring to this:

"when the government is against you, you have no recourse (except outlawry), whilst if a group of protesting citizens is against you, you do have recourse, a.k.a.: the government! I really hope that's clearer."

(This part addressed to HK) It's not clearer HK. If my only method of recourse against a protest is to call the govt to arrest them, then you are forcing me into the black/white world of being fully for or against protesters. I do not want to do either.

Quote:
As far as protesting, except for the Tea Party--who want the government out of the way and no taxes but are quite happy to GO to their protest using every means the government made possible--they are the only ones I've ever seen who demonstrate against taxes.

I figured... this is why I quoted "make an imaginative leap when necessary". Please pay me the respect of trying to see that taxes are not the issue, please see the metaphor and not the specifics. Accidents are different than acts purposefully done.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 9:21 AM

M4P, why the heck can't we stick to the right of people to stand in the street? I am ONLY talking about people's right to walk out into the street. If you want to protest them walking into the street, then walk into the street and have at.

The moment you bring in "what if there was a tax..." you are not talking to me or anything I've brought up here. At some point there is an indivisible right, a final right of human beings to "be" which trumps anyone else's right to "do." You want to "do" something and I'm "being" in the space you want to "do" it, then you're gonna have to be nice and rational and explain to me why I should move.

I also see that "force" is an active principle: a "doing" and not a "being." An armed guard standing in your way is not moving, but he holds the palpable threat of "force," of doing, of moving a bullet out of his rifle at high speeds into the vicinity of your guts. 100 or so people singing songs do not pose an imminent threat of this kind. Particularly when there are several hundred cars pointed right at them.

That's the sum total of my statement in this thread. I also note that protests are a welcome tradition in my culture, like street fairs and parades (they are not identical, however, as protests tend to be, by necessity, much less organized and spontaneous). And the introduction of the automobile, has not, by my lights, replaced or rendered obsolete the need for individuals to protest in the street.

Nothing about taxes.

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
So the govt takes away something not important to the govt but important to a minority group: they protest. Cool. The protest takes away something not important to the protesters but important to me, and I... do what exactly? What recourse do I have?

And it is my belief that they take away from you something that wasn't yours to begin with. Your "right"--your ability, merely--to drive down the road is and always has been contingent on a whole raft of things, and to my mind street protests are just one more of them. The fact that such demonstrations lack "authorization," lack "legitimacy" beyond the will of the individuals involved is the only reason you feel you have the "right" to remove them and push them around. People put up with every imaginable indignity in the world, but you can't tolerate a little traditional democracy? You shouldn't have to? Then do as Frem would do, and get down to the protest and talk to some people.

Quote:
Wait... except I'm also hearing that if a group makes me powerless, I have a right to find a less powerful entity than me and usurp their rights. So I should turn around and yell at my kid in the back seat? Then he/she should turn around and beat the dog?

Apples and oranges again. You're not powerless. It's not imprisonment if you can walk away. It's not detention if you can walk away. Your car is not a part of you. Sometimes, a car is a hindrance, even to its owner.

Quote:
My take: Protesters do good and necessary work in calling out the govt when it misbehaves. I think it's the right and even the responsibility of each citizen to do this. But we must also call out protesters when they misbehave. I don't see any difference. Protesters can be protested too. Stopping me from doing so is denying my right for free speech. You become to me what the govt is to the protesters.

No one is disagreeing with this. Now you're negotiating. That's all I could ever ask of my fellow citizens of the world.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 9:23 AM

Niki, but before anything else, could you please address this specifically? I'm very curious as whether you agree or disagree:

"Protesters do good and necessary work in calling out the govt when it misbehaves. I think it's the right and even the responsibility of each citizen to do this. But we must also call out protesters when they misbehave. I don't see any difference. Protesters can be protested too. Stopping me from doing so is denying my right for free speech. You become to me what the govt is to the protesters."

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 9:35 AM

BYTEMITE

Um...

Quote:
“the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the needs of the few”, which came, in part, from Caiaphas, the High Priest mentioned in the Gospel of John, who said “Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." Obviously not a nation, but a “many”, and exercising a very precious right in this country, I, too, believe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I think you're going to find a lot of us who disagree with "for the greatest good" ideas on principle. It's very close to "ends justify the means."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 9:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
M4P, why the heck can't we stick to the right of people to stand in the street? I am ONLY talking about people's right to walk out into the street. If you want to protest them walking into the street, then walk into the street and have at.

All right. Then there never was any disagreement, because I've said exactly the same many times.

Quote:
The moment you bring in "what if there was a tax..." you are not talking to me or anything I've brought up here. At some point there is an indivisible right, a final right of human beings to "be" which trumps anyone else's right to "do." You want to "do" something and I'm "being" in the space you want to "do" it, then you're gonna have to be nice and rational and explain to me why I should move.

Um... I don't understand "do" versus "be". I do understand there is a conflict when two groups want to use the same space, and I've covered simple solutions to that several times. But you must understand: it is not just "me" wanting to steal "your" space. The conflict and need for justification goes both ways.

And again, loss of rights involves more than active threat. A person not holding a gun is not automatically a dove of peace.

Quote:
I also note that protests are a welcome tradition in my culture, like street fairs and parades

Ditto. Being awake to the possibility of good and evil in any group, no matter if they're holding flowers or guns, is also part of my culture

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
So the govt takes away something not important to the govt but important to a minority group: they protest. Cool. The protest takes away something not important to the protesters but important to me, and I... do what exactly? What recourse do I have?
And it is my belief that they take away from you something that wasn't yours to begin with.

A-ha! I guess here's the fundamental thing where we'll never see eye to eye. I think any individual's fundamental right to liberty is the basis of what those protesters are all about. ETA: meaning, if they lose sight of respect for an individual's liberty because they so focused on a more complicated goal, I think I have a responsibility to point it out.

Quote:
Your "right"--your ability, merely--to drive

Again and again and again - to me, it's not about driving, and it's not about "authorization".

Quote:
you feel you have the "right" to remove them and push them around.

Never said I did, never said I wanted to. However, you are quite clear and unapologetic about wanting to remove me and wanting to push me around.

Quote:
People put up with every imaginable indignity in the world, but you can't tolerate a little traditional democracy?

Why must it be traditional democracy as you define it? Why do your definitions trump mine? Are you more a citizen than I am?

Quote:
You shouldn't have to? Then do as Frem would do, and get down to the protest and talk to some people.

I am. I am protesting a mentality I disagree with, right here and right now in this thread. Why do you not allow me my own method of protest?

Quote:
Apples and oranges again. You're not powerless. It's not imprisonment if you can walk away. It's not detention if you can walk away. Your car is not a part of you. Sometimes, a car is a hindrance, even to its owner.

You really are fixed on the car thing, huh?

Perhaps it's not clear: I'm talking about something abstract, and each example I use, whether cars or grocery stores or taxes, is merely an illustration of the abstract.

ETA: And rereading this I see with the first part of my post doesn't gel with this statement. Perhaps our inability to meet up over this topic is because we need to settle on concrete vs abstract? I think that in the end we agree in the concrete, as far as common protest situations. It is from the abstract - situations that are rare but not at all unrealistic and not at all unimportant - that I've been approaching a lot of my discussions. Does that help?

Quote:
Quote:
My take: Protesters do good and necessary work in calling out the govt when it misbehaves. I think it's the right and even the responsibility of each citizen to do this. But we must also call out protesters when they misbehave. I don't see any difference. Protesters can be protested too. Stopping me from doing so is denying my right for free speech. You become to me what the govt is to the protesters.
No one is disagreeing with this. Now you're negotiating. That's all I could ever ask of my fellow citizens of the world.

Yay! Now all I can hope is for you to see that every argument I'd made in this thread, whether it's in terms that make sense to you or not, has been with the goal of expressing what's in this quoted paragraph.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 9:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
If lots of folks accuse you of trying to start fights Cit, there may be a reason...

Hmm, if it weren't for the fact that the people making the accusation seem to make the exact same accusations against other diverse people in the exact same ways, I might consider myself chastised.

And lots of folks aren't doing that. Two, maybe three are. And from what I've seen it's the same people doing most of the leg work to actually get a fight started that are throwing the accusations around.

Generally I speak to people the way they speak to me. I find most people really don't treat others the way they want to be treated.

The only way in which I'm starting fights here, is by not literally bending over backwards like HK is too accommodate people who insult me and attack me for no reason other than I dared to disagree with them.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 10:30 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oh, my, this is such a long thread, you ask a lot. But you don’t have to take my word for any of this, they’re all there, usually further up the thread. For you, I’ll look.

I DID respond to your remark about protesting the protesters. “I respect the right to assemble and the right to freedom of speech, even when I disagree with it. As long as it's nonviolent. Violent protests I abhor.” Maybe that wasn’t clear enough. I was trying to say that I would “protest” any demonstration which “misbehaves”, gets violent, etc. I was agreeing with you, in essence. There was no argument that violent protests were okay.

Okay, as to your other questions. Damn. I’ve gone through this thread, and the other one on the G20, several times and I can’t find it. It wasn’t one of us who’s been discussing the issue seriously I think, but I KNOW someone popped in to say they were against any demonstration, whether sanctioned by the government or not. If anyone can find that for me again, I’d be most appreciative.

As for only the three of us, I may have missed someone popping in. But the entire DEBATE has been about protests that block cars—-oops, my terms were too broad, I should have said that “all but three of us have said ANY protest that gets in anyone’s CAR’s way is wrong”. Although I think Wulf said early on that he was in favor of protest—if that can be taken seriously: “Even tho I think their cause is soooo fucking stupid and spoiled, Im ALL for making as big a splash as possible”

I don’t want to take the time to go back and find the specific “terrorism” remark. I DID go through once and list all the verbiage I found on one side, which was culled from all the posts up to that point.

Quote:
“Held hostage”, “trap”, “immobilize”, “imprison”, “mayhem”, “chaos”, “prisoner”, “villany”, “stomping somone’s rights”, “forcing to your will”, “blocking ambulances, fire engines” (which is wrong, those are never blocked), “assholish”, “stealing”, “dangerous attitude”, “bully”, “captive”, “trapped and suffering”, “an act of aggression”, “How bout I cut power to your block”, “malicious intent aforethought”, “violates the non aggression principle”, “keep trying to start a fight”, “rationalizing”, “dehumanization”, “physically barricade”, “degrade”, “escape”, “violating my property rights”

Are those close enough for you? In the same post, I listed full sentences...just go back to where I made three or four loooong posts in a row (my blue isn’t hard to find!).

I don't think I took anything in the wrong way, I dealt with the words. It was said over and over that blocking a car's path was essentially the same as being violent, of "attacking" the person in the car.

I’ve ignored Wulfwind’s stupid “Soultion. Run over the protesters. You are no longer imobalized, AND make a point.” as well as good old PN’s “Funny how these Operative "protestors" never protest for rights by CITIZENS.” What exactly he thought of the civil rights protests I don’t know, or the protesting of Arizona's law because it CAN (and has) impinged on the rights of citizens. Just sayin’.

As to your quote of HK and response, I don’t get where the idea you should attack someone/something less powerful comes in. The exchange doesn’t make sense to me.

I agree accident are different than things purposefully done, which is why I didn’t see a comparison between an accident costing one money and taxes doing the same. I’m getting pretty confused, I’m afraid.

Byte, I don’t expect everyone to agree with “the needs of the many”, but I also don’t think it correlates to “ends justify the means”. We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

“you are quite clear and unapologetic about wanting to remove me and wanting to push me around” I didn’t see that at all, there is no “removing” and “pushing around” in nonviolent protests, merely the side effect of the protest blocking traffic, and I don't think anyone here has told anyone to go away. I could be wrong, but I don't see it.

This is getting very confusing. You said “Stopping me from doing so is denying my right for free speech”. Nobody has said one can’t speak up against protests if one wants to, we have been debating whether protesters have the right to demonstrate, with the side effect that it blocks some traffic. Anyone is free to disagree with them, and many do, setting up counter-protests right in their faces. I don’t think that’s what we’ve been discussing.

Again, it all comes down to one simple thing, as far as I can see. One person’s right to drive on a street and another person’s right to utilize of assembly and free speech on that same street. The rights are in conflict, and since Frem and others have said the demonstrators’ rights don’t trump the individuals, nor do individuals’ rights trump demonstrators’, then both have equal rights and it’s an impasse.

Unless the argument is that the driver has more rights than the demonstrator...in which case, there can be no agreement, since that is putting one person’s rights over the other. It’s a no-win situation.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 10:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Hmm, if it weren't for the fact that the people making the accusation seem to make the exact same accusations against other diverse people in the exact same ways,

Have you noted that the ones who are making these claims are the ones you disagree with?

Obviously, the ones you agree with, whose arguments you do not -- whether intentionally or not -- misrepresent, and to whom you don't use an antagonistic tone, have no need to tell you you're being confrontational. Because with them you're not.

Citizen, I've always thought of you as a intelligent, insightful poster, even when we disagree. (If not, I'd ignore you like I do several who shall be unnamed.) But it is frustrating when you are combative in accusing me of not answering your question, yet accept my answer after I repeat it--pretty much as is--several times. I don't know what else to think than that you have slotted me an enemy, and so you hurry past my (imperfect) attempts to explain my ideas in favor of "assuming that what you believe on the basis of scattered impressions is necessarily true", to paraphrase Gardner.

All I ask is that you make an effort to understand the real basis of our disagreement. And I will try to improve at this as well.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 10:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Hmm, if it weren't for the fact that the people making the accusation seem to make the exact same accusations against other diverse people in the exact same ways,
Have you noted that the ones who are making these claims are the ones you disagree with?

I've noted that I have received personal attacks and accusations before I've responded, at least on the whole. I also note there's at least one example in this thread where I've been accused of misrepresenting people when I in fact did no such thing. Not least that I think just about everything I've said has been misrepresented or simply ignored.

I'm not actually claiming I'm innocent, I'm claiming I'm not responsible for everything I've been accused of, and that frankly I feel I've been made somewhat of a scapegoat.

For the record though, I don't think you answered my question(s). I gave up on it when it was clear you thought you had. I quoted you and responded because I thought if I didn't I'd be accused of ignoring it.

It works both ways you know. Nikki and HK might not see how much of an Ogre I am because they agree with me, but perhaps you see me as more of an Ogre than I am, because you don't, and don't see what the three of us have had directed at us because it's coming from people you do agree with?

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 10:59 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"God forbid anyone should be inconvenienced!"

Hello,

Yes, quite. My skewed Libertarian thinking says that your freedom ought not to infringe on mine.

Hence, if I find myself trapped somewhere, you've done me a disservice. Your right to make a statement does not equate to your right to immobilize me.

By all means, protest, but don't imprison me somewhere in the process. If the point of your protest is to immobilize traffic and rights of way, then the point of it becomes to steal my freedom. At that moment, you're no longer protesting against whatever got you riled up. You are protesting my freedom. Whatever I may feel for the 'cause,' I lose charitable thoughts towards your organization when you target my rights. Ironically, these protests are often about freedom. But if you immobilize me, you really don't care about my freedom. Demonstrably.
Gah! Jesus! Um...so your car is immobilized--maybe. Get out of the car? Wait? Your right to "freedom" includes all movement--of any kind--by any means you so choose--AT ALL TIMES? What do you do in a traffic jam? Whom do you blame for that egregious infringement of your rights?

How's about ya park your car where you're stuck, lock it and embrace your freedoms on foot? You're saying you have a right to drive your car in any direction on any road at all times--unless, of course, the government signs off on it and sets up a convenient detour? What?

And hey, the protesters aren't "immobilizing" you--they can't do it alone, they're getting a lot of help form the drivers behind you that have hemmed you in and won't back out of the way--what, are y'all crabs in a cage? Get them to move! I'm flabbergasted that you so vehemently hold to this vehicular mobility as personal freedom and think someone blocking a road infringes on your rights?

You need to drive less, obviously! Ride a bike, take a bus--you are way too attached to that machine!

Hey, I don't drive. So, by the logic of your argument, protesters blocking a street cannot infringe upon my mobility rights. How is it that you have more mobility rights than I do, by virtue of owning a car?

Okay, forget about blocking the road, what about blocking a sidewalk? My right to walk down any particular stretch of sidewalk precludes people from peaceably assembling on the sidewalk?

Are you arguing against anyone getting in anyone's way ever? Sounds like you're justifying free speech zones at the very least, Anthony. What, do government employees have fewer mobility rights than you, or are protests that interfere with political appearances also infringing on someone's rights. What is the legal definition of "mobility"--sounds like you're headed for an even worse legal quagmire than trying to define "speech."

No one has a right to comfort. No one has a right to convenience. When you make this a rights issue, rather than a courtesy issue, you end up legislating privilege, don't you?

Caveat: I said I don't drive, so I may be completely ignorant of current "right of way" laws. I don't think anyone stopping someone else's car by standing in front of it is committing a crime--I don't want that person prosecuted. Sure, the cops have an interest in moving such folk out of the way, but if there are a few hundred of 'em, I personally believe that constitutes a necessary quorum of citizens to rezone that stretch of road for the time being.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

This type of rationale makes me say "fuck off, asshole" and tag the person as a blowhard douchebag regardless of their cause.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 12:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It works both ways you know. Nikki and HK might not see how much of an Ogre I am because they agree with me, but perhaps you see me as more of an Ogre than I am, because you don't, and don't see what the three of us have had directed at us because it's coming from people you do agree with?

I don't see such a consistent response to them as to you, (ignoring the nutjobs that are asses to everyone) and I haven't experienced replies from them like the ones I get from you.

I aimed the "feisty" accusation to you and not to Niki and HK because they manage to disagree without such a... sorry, but the only word is "petulant" tone. I find that your disagreements seem to beg for one response: escalation toward a fight. It is as if that's what you want. I have to actively work to convince myself that yours is honest misunderstanding, not intentional misrepresentation, and that your confrontational tone is merely the imperfection of the internets. You sometimes make it hard to stick with that.

Niki: I've read your post, but I'm at an impasse as to where to go. I feel like I've already addressed everything you bring up. Copying and pasting what I've already said seems a useless venture. Let's just get back to AtD and stay there this time. (uh... that's agree to disagree)

Although, I'm really not convinced that we disagree in fundamentals, if we could just hear each other clearly. The things you defend are not the things I'm attacking.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 12:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Um... I don't understand "do" versus "be". I do understand there is a conflict when two groups want to use the same space, and I've covered simple solutions to that several times. But you must understand: it is not just "me" wanting to steal "your" space. The conflict and need for justification goes both ways.

You don't understand "do" versus "be?" Color me floored. That actually puts this whole discussion into a new perspective for me. Wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it echoed throughout this thread, but you are, apparently, in the majority on that one.

I'm sorry, until you can appreciate the difference between "doing" and "being" I don't know if we can have a meaningful conversation about much of anything that matters, so fundamental to my understanding of reality is this distinction. Is making such a distinction new to you? Seems whole philosophies are based on this distinction.

Without understanding the distinction between "doing" and "being" I can't imagine what you think "force" is.

Two motionless objects in space do not conflict with one another. They are at peace. The origin/source/cause of any conflict between these objects will begin with a motion of one object toward the other. If the moving object does not change its trajectory it will come into conflict with the stationary object. If it does change its trajectory, no conflict will occur.

Put another way, I don't want people who are awake (that is to say, willful, volitional) to be penalized by the people who are asleep (that is, acting out of habit). The driver of a car speeding down the road is not making constant conscious decisions to move from one stationary point in time to another, he's just "going with the flow." In essense, a protest taking place in his path asks him to become conscious, participate willfully in his world and not take things that are not his to begin with for granted. That's why I have no problem with Frem pushing his car through the line. He's participating and negotiating his place in the world. And that's the world I live in.

In political terms, in terms of fundamental rights as I understand such things, the individual actively initiating the conflict is responsible for the conflict. An individual in conflict with a mere convention is not initiating conflict with any person. Conversly, a driver speeding down the road is not in conflict with the conventions of the road, but he may come into conflict with any number of innocent parties if he does not watch where he's going.

The moving individual is initiating force and the stationary individual is the victim of that force. You sanction an injustice, in my eyes, if you make the passive individual somehow to blame for the conflict, just because the other person is used to getting his way.

It puts me in mind of mothers with small children. The child's last line of defense against a parent who wants to violate the child's will is to become "dead weight." The child doesn't want to go to bed, say, and the parent is willing to force the issue, so the child drops to the ground requiring the parent to bodily force the child to bed.

I see this as a fundamental violation of the child's sovereignty and teaches the child a terrible, malignant lesson about rights and power.

Not saying the kid shouldn't go to bed, mind you. Not saying that in principle the parent isn't correct about bed time. I'm saying that when it comes down to you will do as I tell you to do, or I will force you to do as I tell you to do, you violate the individual's most basic rights to exist, to take up space.

No, properly, this conflict between the parent and the child is a negotiation. If you cannot find simple enough language to justify bed time so that even a child can understand it, if you cannnot woo your own child to your way of thinking, then you need to try harder, not resort to force.

I absolutely know I am in the minority on this one, but oh well.

(Be that as it may, I'm not condemning parents who lose their tempers now and again. We're only human. But all too often this kind of violation of children's boundaries becomes customary and parents grow to see violating their children in this fashion as a right. Hijinks ensue. For all of us.)

If a group of protesters tried to force drivers from their cars, from the road, well, I don't think it would work out too well for 'em. No, protesters walk out into an empty stretch of road and say, "we ain't movin'." And I think that is their right. I know the laws of the land are not in agreement with me on this point, necessarily. I just don't see any injustice perpetrated by the fact of walking into the street.

Quote:
And again, loss of rights involves more than active threat. A person not holding a gun is not automatically a dove of peace.

You can't in one sentence agree with me that this is not an issue of driver's rights and then say that the "rights" of the driver are in conflict with the protesters. From my perspective there simply are no loss of rights in the case of people standing a a street.

Quote:
Being awake to the possibility of good and evil in any group, no matter if they're holding flowers or guns, is also part of my culture.

The possibility of evil and the actuality of evil are still not the same thing. Just as you cannot arrest a person for a crime they have yet to commit, you cannot accuse a person of evil intent without cause. The simple act of walking out into the street is morally neutral. Trying to force a person to move through threat, either physical or legal, is not morally neutral. It's bad.

Quote:
Never said I did, never said I wanted to. However, you are quite clear and unapologetic about wanting to remove me and wanting to push me around.

Now you're pullin' an Anthony on me. "I want to hurt you."

Being and doing. I'm just sticking up for people being. You are ABSOLUTELY free to do as you please as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else being. And for the eleventy-millionth time, you are free to go down to the protest and talk to people.

Quote:
Why must it be traditional democracy as you define it? Why do your definitions trump mine? Are you more a citizen than I am?

This seems needlessly combative. Are you saying street demonstrations are NOT a traditional form of political expression consistent with democratic principles?

Quote:
Quote:
You shouldn't have to? Then do as Frem would do, and get down to the protest and talk to some people.
I am. I am protesting a mentality I disagree with, right here and right now in this thread. Why do you not allow me my own method of protest?

And this? This? Totally out of bounds! I have disallowed you NOTHING. At no point have I told you to STFU or get out of this debate. This is a groundless and really insulting accusation.

So my disagreeing with you, my unapologetic defense of my point of view somehow doesn't "allow" you your "own method of protest?" I'm sorry, this isn't reasoning that you're giving me here. But it is entirely consistent with the argument against street protests I've seen in this thread. I'm taking nothing from you, merely taking up space here in this thread. You are welcome to ignore me.

Quote:
Quote:
Apples and oranges again. You're not powerless. It's not imprisonment if you can walk away. It's not detention if you can walk away. Your car is not a part of you. Sometimes, a car is a hindrance, even to its owner.
You really are fixed on the car thing, huh?

Perhaps it's not clear: I'm talking about something abstract, and each example I use, whether cars or grocery stores or taxes, is merely an illustration of the abstract.

And I am trying--fruitlessly, god knows--to keep the conversation at least conversant with the concrete reality of a street protest.

Quote:
Perhaps our inability to meet up over this topic is because we need to settle on concrete vs abstract? I think that in the end we agree in the concrete, as far as common protest situations. It is from the abstract - situations that are rare but not at all unrealistic and not at all unimportant - that I've been approaching a lot of my discussions. Does that help?

In terms of trying to inject "situations that are rare but not at all unrealistic" I call foul. It's using a worst case scenario to determine what's right for your opponent, but not for yourself. God knows, cars are terrifically lethal and dangerous things--if you were to use "situations that are rare but not at all unrealistic" to determine where you drive your car, would you EVER get behind the wheel?

Furthermore, such arguments based on the terrible things that MIGHT happen, deny us our courage, deny us the right to take a risk. Someone says a street protest presents a threat to other people, and I say the threat is overwhelmingly to the protesters taking their lives in their hands when they walk out into traffic.

I've been making the abstract argument for my position since the start of this thread and it has been continually ignored. It's made me cranky. I have also tried to speak to the concrete situation as well. It is extremely telling that you only see the concrete argument I'm making.

Carry on.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 1, 2010 10:07 PM