Stop the Traffic by AnthonyT

OK, Cit, seeing your post to AR, I think you really don't understand that my posts above do in fact answer your question. Maybe I need to use your words to get my idea across.

Case 1: Road-use rights of cars supersede rights of pedestrians. This happens when pedestrians (including protesters) are able to use the sidewalk and crosswalks. People can use sidewalks, cars can't, and the rules of traffic are designed for this. It's safer.

Case 2: Road-use rights of pedestrians supersede rights of cars. This happens when, for whatever reason, the pedestrians can't keep to the sidewalks. Maybe a large protest, a protest in a location with no sidewalks, whatever. The event is known in advance and traffic flow is diverted to that no one is unduly held up.

Those two I talked about above. The situation I didn't explicitly state because it was implied:

Case 3: Road-use rights of pedestrians supersede rights of cars, no alternate routes. This would be a mob that descends on a busy road or roads with the specific intent of snarling traffic into gridlock.

I have no problem with 1 or 2. One groups right do supersede the other's, but in a way that shows respect for everyone's rights. No fist hitting face. All good.

In case 3, the "protesters" have decided that their plans for the day are more important than anyone else's. I disagree with this. It's annoying, selfish, and disrespectful, and it's also ineffective. This group will only alienate the people it's trying to reach.

For a full out revolution Case 3 may work, but for a regular protest, it's just silly.

(And note that all these concepts were in my former posts Cit, if you made some effort.)

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

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 4:29 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
depending on the cause

And the target

It's like invading Afghanistan or Iraq to stop the people who attacked un on 9.11. You have to target the people the are responsible AND that you can affect in the right manner.

I add this because I think to some extent the anti globalists are having no affect on the globalists other than to cause them to beef up security, making it harder for us to arrest them if need be... And yeah, I know. But ya get the point.

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 5:37 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
OK, Cit, seeing your post to AR, I think you really don't understand that my posts above do in fact answer your question. Maybe I need to use your words to get my idea across.

Oh I never doubted it would be all my fault somehow.

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Case 1: Road-use rights of cars supersede rights of pedestrians. This happens when pedestrians (including protesters) are able to use the sidewalk and crosswalks. People can use sidewalks, cars can't, and the rules of traffic are designed for this. It's safer.

Cars don't have rights, they're lumps of metal. Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege, how does a privilege supersede a right? I somewhat suspect you're confusing rights with laws here.

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Case 2: Road-use rights of pedestrians supersede rights of cars. This happens when, for whatever reason, the pedestrians can't keep to the sidewalks. Maybe a large protest, a protest in a location with no sidewalks, whatever. The event is known in advance and traffic flow is diverted to that no one is unduly held up.

Fair enough.

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
(And note that all these concepts were in my former posts Cit, if you made some effort.)

There I go again, trying to start a fight.

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

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 5:49 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
That responsibility, in my opinion, is on the protesters.

And the responsibility to ensure their route is clear, is on the car driver.

Quote:

A simple solution has been provided yet you pretend that we won't accept it due to those "caveats" you cite. I'm not sure what to think of that.

A simple solution your side pays lip service to, but that you ignore where those on your side undermine it. Think of it what you will.

Quote:
Except in many cases walking is a completely ludicrous suggestion, which makes the "freedom of travel" a purely fictional excuse, not to mention the danger to the property people have to leave behind (their cars and things too heavy to carry). That's a pretty lazy excuse.

Nowhere near as ludicrous as calling driving a car a right, or trying to claim that not being able to exercise your privilege means your rights have been infringed. There is a lazy excuse here...

Quote:

For the life of me, I do not see how the right to free speech is infringed upon if intentional traffic blocking must be anounced in advance - or abstained from.

And I don't see how any one's rights have been the least infringed just because some people haven't got everything their own way. You might have a right to travel, you don't have a right to travel by car. Arguing that people don't want to leave their cars doesn't remove the fact that it's NOT a right to drive.

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

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 6:12 AM

AGENTROUKA

Why do you keep making this about a right to drive?

It's not about a right to drive, it's about taking responsibility for how your choices (to protest and block roads) create consequences for innocent people - and acting accordingly.

No, driving is not a right, but telling people that they can leave their cars when they are stuck in a gridlock because driving is not a right is unfair and shows a complete disregard for the human beings stuck in that gridlock against their will.

Your suggested alternatives (abandon car, walk rest of way) are unrealistic and impracticable. Suggesting them at all is akin to ridicule. It's not "being unable to drive", it's being interrupted in the middle of a path they are usually free to use, unable to leave and then asked to abandon their belongings. That has the least to do with driving and more with, yes, entrapment.

And no, I think it's more serious than "not having everything their way". It's not about diet coke being sold out or whatever. It's about human beings regarding each other's needs and finding a compromise and your downplaying of the other side's needs suggests that you are unwilling find a workable solution that takes both sides into account. I stand by my crowded theater comparison, so the simple formula "rights supercede privileges" does not work for me.

As for the solution "my side" is apparently undermining, I'm still more interested in what you think of it WITHOUT the caveats you cited. Announce protest in advance, suggest/provide workable alternate routes. I don't think there is much lipservice involved in this suggestion of mine.

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 6:27 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Mal, Frem, etc,

I think this isn't going to be resolved. Thank you for your understanding. It's always nice when someone tries to exercise their rights without infringing on other people, or causing them pain. I appreciate that. I've been bullied enough in my life.

It turns out that there will always be bullies. Always someone willing to hurt me, and a large amount of those people are willing to tell me it's my fault. Always there is someone who wants to shrug off control by controlling you. Taking away your choices until you only have the choices left that they want you to have.

Simply admitting this would be admitting to wrongness, and that means losing. If winning is the goal, then losing isn't an option. What's right is what allows them to succeed and get what they want. The only limit is their tolerance for other people's misery and their acceptance of the risk.

This thread has no risk and no misery, except what the participant desires to imagine. It's a simple matter to imagine misery as being small or unimportant in a fictional landscape. It is a landscape that can be re-engineered to suit any argument in the mind of the arguer.

In real life, when you hurt people, there is misery. And where there is misery, there is risk. In real life, bullies sometimes get away with it, and they keep getting away with it. It goes on until someone, somewhere, adopts their philosophy and destroys themselves so that they can win. And then, if that fresh-minted bully doesn't stop themselves, the cycle begins anew.

My position is as simple as it is meaningless.

Don't hurt me.

I retire, and I concede the loss.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 6:32 AM

Concede loss? You communicated something useful and reasonable Anthony. One or two people can't hear you, but that is their loss, not yours.

Peace out.

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

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 7:19 AM

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

Still going on, I see. Fascinating. I note that the argument against "imprisonment" in the case of emergencies has been removed by Citizen mentioning British protests. I also note that he mentioned the difficulties in getting permits. That's one of the points I was trying to make. How do people hold a demonstration when TPTB for one reason or another decide it is not worthy of a permit?

And if people resent a demonstration, even when widely publicized and sanctioned, what happens to free speech?

Basically I guess, I view the inconvenience of drivers as less valid than the right of free speech, and that given free speech CAN be curtailed by any aspect of government which decides against allowing it, the need to express that freedom is NOT overriding someone else's "right" to passage, but something we should hold dear and fight for, however it might inconvenience us individually. Because what we've been discussing IS an inconvenience, not "stealing of rights" or "imprisonment" in my view.

To demand that our right to passage be unimpeded for anything, sanctioned or not, seems to me a small argument against a far larger right. I find all the myriad abuses of automobiles that impinges or endangers my right to passage far more egregious than a peaceful demonstration of freedom of speech. I guess that's just how it looks to me.

It concerns me somehow to see the majority of people here who are usually so vociferous about freedom of opposition toss that aside so easily in favor of the freedom to travel, to the point of wanting to stifle freedom of speech or move it "out of the way" where it can't be heard or bother anyone. It seems a dichotomy to me.

I'd still like to figure out what's at the root of this, as it's gone on for three days now. While one side has been reiterating again and again the points, the other side has repeatedly expanded te inconvenience of driving being blocked to dramatic terms and overreaching, to me visceral, arguments, there is something more personal and more emotional on the side which sems to HATE the idea of being impeded. Since I've not figured it out in three days, I give up on not just the debate, but trying to figure out what's behind it. It's definitely not about "right" to drive, and it IS an inconvenience, nothing more. That's how I see it.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 7:29 AM

Niki - and I am astounded that you, who are so against the govt impeding people's rights, have no problem with a non govt group impeding people's rights. As in: my freedom is negotiable to you. The govt can't stomp on my rights, but the protesters you identify with can do as they please. That seems to be what you're saying.

But I think you are tending to over-complicate and over-apply this whole deal, such as when you make it all about cars or all about govt permission. You're breaking it down incorrectly.

Two questions:

1. Do you recognize that there is a difference between "inconvenience" and a complete loss of freedom of mobility? (Hint: No one here is saying that an inconvenience, such as a detour, is a problem. Do you see that?)

2. I'm about to run errands. If a group of people do not like the business practices of the grocery store I'm going to, and they set up a protest, do you believe that they are within their rights to block my access to the store? Do you believe that they have a right to set up blocks in the parking lots so that, once I am there, I am completely unable to get out?

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

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 8:30 AM

AGENTROUKA

Niki,

note that people haven't really been talking about permits but about 1) warnings and 2)alternative routes.

No one wants to stop protests, people are just arguing for consideration to take place, and respect.

Most protests do this and no one here is complaining about those.

What about giving people a warning do you find so offensive?

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 8:57 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Why do you keep making this about a right to drive?

Your side of the debate made it about rights, (scroll up, you'll see it), I'm just not letting you guys shift the goal posts every other post.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Your suggested alternatives (abandon car, walk rest of way) are unrealistic and impracticable. Suggesting them at all is akin to ridicule.

While going on that not getting to exercise your privilege to drive is an infringement of your rights is ridiculous...

Quote:
I stand by my crowded theater comparison, so the simple formula "rights supercede privileges" does not work for me.

And I stand by my earlier comparison to Ghandi. This is exactly the sort of thing he was involved in organising in the 20's in India, and to hear you go on you'd think his tactics were learnt directly from Mussolini.

Quote:
As for the solution "my side" is apparently undermining, I'm still more interested in what you think of it WITHOUT the caveats you cited. Announce protest in advance, suggest/provide workable alternate routes.

I think it's bizarre to expect protesters to do the job of the police and city authorities because you've arbitrarily decided they should. Especially when you've also seemingly decided that it's not a car drivers responsibility to ensure their route is clear before driving it. Protesters aren't equipped, nor in most cases authorised to arrange detours.

So protesters should in all circumstances declare their protest to the Authorities in advance? Sounds like you wish to put more restrictions on the right to protest, than you think should be on the privilege to drive to me. Sounds like it could constitute a curb on liberty more than equal to getting stuck in a traffic jam, in fact. It really is you downplaying this, while ridiculously overplaying your side. They're experiencing entrapment in the same way as you want to ban all freedom of speech from protesters. The very claim its imprisonment or "entrapment" is preposterous, and holds far less water than the counter-claim that demanding protesters always get permission or make long advanced warnings to exercise their rights is tantamount to totalitarianism.

Frankly this whole idea that an inconvenience of an extended journey is villainous violence that is quantifiable hurtful is self-serving nonsense.

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

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 9:03 AM

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

Quote:

Why do you keep making this about a right to drive?

Because that’s what it IS about, as first proposed (tho' driving isn't a "right" as has been said repeatedly), and I thought that’s what we’ve been debating all along. If the issue were to be about something else, that would be the debate. It’s been taken to a bigger point, but my argument has solely been about cars and demonstrations.

Okay, first off, it’s not I who am against the government impeding people’s rights, you are extrapolating that from what others have said. I’m against the government impeding freedom of speech, however much I might not like what that speech IS. I have never said I’m against the government impeding some rights.

Second, I don’t accept that the issue here is about “complete loss of freedom of mobility; the freedom is not completely lost, tho’ the examples given aren’t perfect (buses, making way for ambulances, walking, etc.). It is MOMENTARY loss of the ability to drive a car, not mobility, not being prohibited from moving, and not imprisonment.

Third, your second example is irrelevant—it’s never happened and wouldn’t be allowed; and it’s blocking of any entrance, not a delay of driving a car.

As to government permission, I think my correlation is perfectly apropos. People here HAVE (with one notable exception) said that if the protest were sanctioned so that they were forewarned, they’d have no problem with it. I didn’t address the earlier suggestion that

Quote:
An hour or two before the protest they can let the police know: "We expect 1000 picketers who will block the TWO blocks on Main Street in front of city hall. Protesters will not block [ETA: pedestrian] access to businesses, and we suggest the following plan for diverting traffic..."

which is fallacious; to hold a LEGAL demonstration in most places (I believe in all of America), you can’t just TELL the police, you have to get a permit approved. If you tell them, they arrest you and do their best to prevent the demonstration.

I find nothing offensive in giving warning. I have never taken part in an unplanned demonstration, nor would I unless the issue were extremely vital...I WOULD have for civil rights, for example, but not many other things. The difference is that if any form of government does not ALLOW a demonstration, it surprises me that people here so emotionally believe it’s not okay.

Beyond that, look at the arguments. Shutting off a power grid? Having a heart attack? Imprisonment? READ the examples that have been given; the vast majority of them are dramatic, emotional examples which have nothing to do with the issue at hand: traffic being held up FOR A TIME because of a demonstration. I find the visceral reactions and attempts at rationalization of a point says a lot more than the issue itself does. In that I, too, am diverting from the original issue, but it’s so prevalent and so dramatic, I can’t help wondering why. Along with that, the insistence on one’s “rights”, when driving isn’t a right and free speech is, also confuses me. A “contract” was brought up earlier, too; I believe the contract inherent in our Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech supercedes any unspoken contract between citizens.

No matter who it inconveniences, I take freedom of speech very seriously and I believe it is far more important than the privilege of driving a car. I don't LIKE an unsanctioned demonstration, but I do not at all see it in the grandiose terms I'm seeing it portrayed here.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 9:07 AM

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

Ah, I see Citizen has responded to some of the things I did as well. He and I can see the devolution of the argument into extremely dramatic, emotional terms on the other side, while I BELIEVE both of us (and anyone else debating our position--IS there anyone else?) have tried to keep things in perspective.

Citizen, you got any theories on why this is? As I said, I'm totally stumped!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 10:18 AM

Niki,

Are my posts invisible to your computer? Testing, testing?

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 10:30 AM

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

Ooops, sorry Cavalier. It's so far back that you last replied, and Citizen and I are all over the place, that I KNEW there was someone else speaking up but couldn't remember who...long thread! (That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

)

I'm glad to know we're not alone, and yes, I went back and read your posts. I see you, as well, weren't giving way to drama and emotion, and were remarking on same, so it's not just me (not that I thought it was, it's just weird).

Thank you for speaking up; this thread has been so heavily weighted; again, so weird to me...!

ETA: It's been strange to me also that those I generally agree with are so vociferously against my points, while Citizen, with whom I rarely agree, is in agreement. Nice to know that trend isn't universal, since I admire your eloquence and agree with you more often than not.

ETA further; That is NOT to say Citizen or any of the opposing view are not eloquent, just to avoid any misperception of what I wrote.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 10:35 AM

Good lord Niki. If it is a MOMENTARY delay, no one has a problem with it. Why do I have to keep telling you that?

I am speaking English, right?

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

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 10:37 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Press 1 for English.

Press 2 for Spanglish.

Press 3 for Progressive.

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 10:43 AM

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

I didn't say "momentary", or if I did, I misspoke. I've been held up for a very long time by demonstrations; I've also been held up a very long time for traffic jams and accidents. I view them all pretty much the same. Obviously others do not; this "debates" hasn't gone anywhere from the earliest posts; and I've got to get off this damned computer and go eat, my stomach is rumbling. Enuff, as far as I'm concerned; I've had my say, you and others disagree and cannot see it from our point of view. I agree to disagree, end of story.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
REALLY signing off!

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 10:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I didn't say "momentary", or if I did, I misspoke. I've been held up for a very long time by demonstrations; I've also been held up a very long time for traffic jams and accidents. I view them all pretty much the same. Obviously others do not; this "debates" hasn't gone anywhere from the earliest posts; and I've got to get off this damned computer and go eat, my stomach is rumbling. Enuff, as far as I'm concerned; I've had my say, you and others disagree and cannot see it from our point of view. I agree to disagree, end of story.

You did say MOMENTARY. In all caps just like that. You didn't just say it, you stressed it, and you must have had a reason. It's kind of central to the debate (there is in fact a debate happening here, even if it's mostly caught up in definitions) so it's a shame that you brush off your own words like this. It clouds your message.

I do understand what you're saying about accidents. I wish you could understand that that is a completely different, not applicable situation. I could give some examples that I think are enlightening, but it doesn't seem of use. You haven't addressed the situations and questions I've already posed, so I won't flood you with more.

So right then. AtD, and no harm done.

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

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 12:56 PM

Mal, Niki's phrasing was "FOR A TIME" not "MOMENTARY" if you're talking about her last post. I read a considerable difference in meaning, a considerable difference in the length of time implied. I wish to all the gods and their angels above that the folks on your side of this disagreement would pay a little bit more attention to what we're writing and, here's an idea: comment on THAT, instead of importing all manner of wackadoo worst-case scenarios, flagrantly hostile inferences, and straight-up non sequiturs and inaccuracies.

I'm also pretty dispiriting that someone I respect highly would straight up tell me, without irony or caveat, that I wish to hurt him, based solely on a philosophical argument. It demonstrates a wont of respect for me.

Back to the topic at hand: interestingly, it would seem street protests are a common occurrence in Niki's, Citizen's and my life--and our acceptance of their nature is reflected in our posts. Whereas, y'all react as if they constitute an act of domestic terrorism (i.e.: shutting down a power grid) and don't seem even to know how they occur (is this an urban/rural disconnect, or urban/suburban disconnect of some kind?). The suggestion, for instance, that we could call up the police department and tell 'em "Gonna have about a thousand folks marching on such-n-such street at fill-in-the-blank time" and they wouldn't be waiting for us with riot gear would be funny if it weren't so frighteningly blinkered. Hey, maybe we could take out some protester's insurance, just to be on the safe side!

(Again, I have to say, the demonstration which inspired Anthony's outrage was a pro-immigrant rally in downtown Seattle in which about 100 folk spontaneously spilled out into the intersection and stopped traffic, singing songs until the cops came and peacefully escorted them out of traffic and, without violence, arrested 22, again, without violence. No fatalities amongst the inconvenienced motorists were reported, nor injury claims made against the protesters.)

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 1:18 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

I wonder how things would change in this debate if these "protesters" were gun-rights protesters, who all showed up with their guns openly displayed.

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 2:14 PM

What's with the scare-quotes around protesters, Mike?

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 2:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I wonder how things would change in this debate if these "protesters" were gun-rights protesters, who all showed up with their guns openly displayed.

My feeling is that a lot of it is about agreeing with the protesters. Say folks were held up for hours, out of the blue, by govt officials forcing them to look at govt propaganda that some govt bureaucrat thinks important for brainwashing the masses. Then suddenly the loss of liberty would be a big deal.

Me, I'd prefer to sort out my support or non-support for a cause without having it shoved in my face and interrupting my business. I don't care if it's govt or not. Don't force yourself on me against my will, or you'll lose my support for good.

HK, the irony here is that we agree. Niki says that a "MOMENTARY" delay is no big deal. (She did. Do a search for the word.) I have said several times that a momentary delay is no big deal. Where's the fucking problem?

If no one actually blocks my movement for an extended time (hours), or unreasonably limits my access to my own life (contrary to Cit's theories, I do have a basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), then there is no problem.

You say protests don't do either of these things. All right then, there is no problem.

It's really not more complicated than that. Please quit making it so.

ETA: Niki said: "Second, I don’t accept that the issue here is about “complete loss of freedom of mobility; the freedom is not completely lost, tho’ the examples given aren’t perfect (buses, making way for ambulances, walking, etc.). It is MOMENTARY loss of the ability to drive a car, not mobility, not being prohibited from moving, and not imprisonment."

When she might have noted that I had previously said:

"Do you recognize that there is a difference between "inconvenience" and a complete loss of freedom of mobility? (Hint: No one here is saying that an inconvenience, such as a detour, is a problem. Do you see that?)"

A detour is a momentary loss. Not a big deal. Slow traffic. Not a big deal. See? We're all in agreement. Niki has no problem with that. I have no problem with that.

Difference is, I think that protesters, being just as human and flawed as the rest of us, can get all in a hoo-haw about themselves and their cause and ignore everyone around them, to the detriment of everyone around them. You, perhaps, don't think this is possible? Protesters are always pure in your mind?

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

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 3:48 PM

Quote:
Me, I'd prefer to sort out my support or non-support for a cause without having it shoved in my face and interrupting my business. I don't care if it's govt or not. Don't force yourself on me against my will, or you'll lose my support for good.

Bingo. That's where I come down on it as well.

It's been pointed out that Anthony *would not* be "trapped" - he could simply back up and drive around (not possible if he were the first car in line, and there were dozens stacked up behind him), or he could get out and walk, ergo he isn't "trapped", because he can go other places. I'd submit that the protesters rights aren't being trampled if THEY were asked to go somewhere else, either. They have lots and lots of places they can go and protest, without impeding traffic.

But their GOAL is to impede traffic. That's the intent. The "protest" is really just an excuse (hence the quotes, HKC - not "scary quotes", but rather "mocking quotes"), with the aim being to inconvenience people. In fact, they went out of their way to get into peoples' way. And, as Cit pointed out in the freeway analogy, they likely broke several laws as well.

"I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."

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. --Auraptor

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 9:09 PM

AGENTROUKA

I'll leave this to the far more eloquent M4P from now on.

Citizen seems to think that I speak for Anthony and keeps bringing up phrases Anthony used and ignoring everything I myself say because of "my group". I find that fruitless.

Niki, I think we have some miscommunication going on, and I think M4P is doing a very good job of trying to clear those up, far better than I could.

I'm kind of sad that this discussion devolved so badly and I'm sure everyone is to blame. I'm tired of participating, though.

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 11:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
My feeling is that a lot of it is about agreeing with the protesters. Say folks were held up for hours, out of the blue, by govt officials forcing them to look at govt propaganda that some govt bureaucrat thinks important for brainwashing the masses. Then suddenly the loss of liberty would be a big deal.

Freakin' apples & gorram oranges... You folks really don't get that the people who march in the street generally don't have the resources of the state, nor do they have the power to impose their will on people with no recourse. They don't have the budget to get tv time. The freakin' government has all kinda ways to brainwash people. If the state is against you, you are screwed.

The difference in relative power of the two bodies you choose to equate is profound.

That you think it's all one is baffling and extremely disturbing to me at this point. Are y'all so far from the civil rights marches of the 60's that you think, "Oh, society is so ordered and so thoroughly democratic, there are no disenfranchised people anymore! Just go through the proper channels and all will be well!"

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). Frem made a whopper of an assumption that I was violating the golden rule in supporting demonstrating in the street, implying that, of course, I would be outraged if I were on the receiving end of such an "attack." But, honestly, I would not resent anyone protesting in the street, because I recognize it as an entirely honorable method of political free speech. I am comforted that I live in a nation where such political protest has done so much to affect positive change.

Quote:
Me, I'd prefer to sort out my support or non-support for a cause without having it shoved in my face and interrupting my business. I don't care if it's govt or not. Don't force yourself on me against my will, or you'll lose my support for good.

This is bizarre. What of Rosa Parks on the bus? She forced herself on those poor white people all for her personal political beliefs, against their will, held them hostage to her illegal presence, and stole a white person's rightful seat to do so! Some poor white person had to wait for another bus because of her selfishness! What a terrorist she was, getting in their faces and interfering with their business!

Quote:
HK, the irony here is that we agree. Niki says that a "MOMENTARY" delay is no big deal. (She did. Do a search for the word.) I have said several times that a momentary delay is no big deal. Where's the fucking problem?

If no one actually blocks my movement for an extended time (hours), or unreasonably limits my access to my own life (contrary to Cit's theories, I do have a basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), then there is no problem.

But it may be an hour, it may be more. I don't think Niki or Citizen would object to an hour or more. I know I wouldn't.

Seriously, y'all have made me think about these bizarre worst case scenarios for going on 3 days now and if my dear Lady Cavalier were so tragically unfortunate that her appendix burst while we were driving and we got caught in traffic and she, god forbid, died, because we didn't get to the hospital in time to save her, and sometime after, I discovered that there was a political demonstration somewhere up the road, I can't imagine deciding to blame them for my loss. It would be inhuman and fanciful for me to blame her death on their agency.

I don't live in a world where ANYONE has that much control. I don't live in a world that is so ordered and perfected that I can blame my troubles on some "malcontents" interfering with the system. I recognize that the system itself is thoroughly, despairingly flawed. We are seriously fucked folks, if a hundred people walking out into the street is equivalent to a terrorist attack. OBL wasted a lot of time, money and lives if all he hadda do was stop traffic in Times Square.

I see a culture so addicted to the automobile that we see a traffic jam as equivalent to an act of terrorism. Forgive me, but I'm reminded of an alcoholic's rage at being denied his booze by a spouse who pours all the liquor in the house down the drain. What a violation of his sovereign rights! And it's not that a sober person might not object, but instead of "How dare you step on my freedoms, you sadist!" the sober objection would be, "Jeez, some of that booze was pretty expensive. Oh well, I guess I'll have to buy some more--you got any cash on ya?"

Quote:
You say protests don't do either of these things. All right then, there is no problem.

It's really not more complicated than that. Please quit making it so.

Bizarre. No, they do both of those things. I do not feel violated if I'm stuck in traffic for an hour or more. Sorry, too much meditation, I guess. Too much experience getting stuck in traffic for an hour or more. I bring books with me. And as I said before, if you can walk away, it's not detention. Cars are an enormously convenient thing to have--except when they're not. Again, if I were stuck in that hell-like traffic jam with some bird-brained hippie bleating at me through her bullhorn, I would actually consider getting out of the car and stepping into the Gelato shop on the corner and wait it out. Like the proud American that I am!

"But time is money, Mr. Cavalier! Time is money!"

Oh well. Money's a wonderful thing--except when it's not.

Quote:
Difference is, I think that protesters, being just as human and flawed as the rest of us, can get all in a hoo-haw about themselves and their cause and ignore everyone around them, to the detriment of everyone around them. You, perhaps, don't think this is possible? Protesters are always pure in your mind?

Why'd you have to add that last bit? Do I sound that credulous to you? After all this discussion, all you've gotten out of my contribution is that protesters are all li'l angels? This stuff is beyond insulting at this point--it's like you're not even trying to grasp what's being said.

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

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 1:47 AM

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)?

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

Would you have supported them if they'd marched into D.C. and shut down traffic in front of the Capitol, all while carrying their guns?

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

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 2:32 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

This is the bestest thread EVARRRRR!!!!

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 3:30 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Paper or Plastic? Yes!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

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

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 4:33 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I gotta do it, since discussin it elsewhere brought it to mind.

Yanno, when cops do that to protestors, they get pissed off about it and call it Kettling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling

But to quote one of Siggy's maxims, when the protestors do it to the public...
"But that's different!"

Uh huh, yeah, sure - keep tellin yourself that, whatever.

AtD, and out.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 4:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You folks really don't get that the people who march in the street generally don't have the resources of the state, nor do they have the power to impose their will on people with no recourse.

Wait - the power of anyone "to impose their will on people with no recourse" is a desirable thing, or at least something you're willing to yield? Really? Maybe that's the root of the disagreement here...

Look, I get that protests are necessary and good. I get it fine and I support it fine. Even done it a bit myself. I just don't need protesters getting in my face when I've done nothing to them. I can get their message better without confrontation.

I also get that bigger issues will involve bigger "inconveniences." I would never be so stupid as to complain about finding good parking in DC during the Tea Party demonstration last spring. Those people gathered to have their say, and they had every right to do it. I will also note that, although there was yelling and even spitting on senators who passed, the senators could pass. I have no problem with any of it (except the spitting - ew!) and even support it, though I don't like the Tea Party at all.

See - we agree again!

So please quit making this a black and white issue where M4P hates ALL protests just just M4P won't bend over for anyone holding a placard and a megaphone. You might find yourself a lot less angry with me if you can allow me to be in a gray area.

Quote:
That you think it's all one is baffling and extremely disturbing to me at this point.

You're disturbing yourself by hearing things I'm not saying. How you keep making this a worship of the automobile thing is puzzling. How you take to it to me wanting to deny Rosa Parks a seat is truly beyond me. I guess next you'll be claiming that I support Hitler, huh?

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).

Eureka - again we agree! I'd support their right as long as they were peaceable. I guess I just define "peaceable" a little differently than you do.

Who was it in RWED that used to say that western culture is all based on violence? That even a parking ticket was a violent thing, because if you refuse to pay it eventually you'll be physically dragged off to jail... I don't know who it was, and I don't totally agree, except to say that "peaceful" means more -- to me -- than the absence of hitting.

Quote:
But it may be an hour, it may be more. I don't think Niki or Citizen would object to an hour or more. I know I wouldn't.

And I would. I wouldn't demand arrests or expect the protest to be shut down or moved to an invisible location (another assumptions that has made about my stance in this thread - I never claimed any of this) but I would think this group selfish, impractical, and not very good at politics. I would doubt it's success.

Quote:
We are seriously fucked folks, if a hundred people walking out into the street is equivalent to a terrorist attack.

The only one making this kind of extreme analogy is you. Really, calm down.

Quote:
I do not feel violated if I'm stuck in traffic for an hour or more. Sorry, too much meditation, I guess. Too much experience getting stuck in traffic for an hour or more. I bring books with me.

So, because sitting in a car for hours doesn't bug you, it should bug nobody?

Myself, I don't drive in rush hour so I don't have to deal with the crush. I have chosen houses based on avoiding traffic, because I find it extremely unpleasant. I got around on rollerblades for nearly 5 years, and still would I could. I still walk a lot, in a town where very few people walk.

So I must protest (*snort*) your suggestion that I'm an uptight, un-meditating person because I don't like sitting in a car for hours, and correct your assumption that my need for personal freedom is based solely on automobile addiction and greed.

Quote:
Quote:
Difference is, I think that protesters, being just as human and flawed as the rest of us, can get all in a hoo-haw about themselves and their cause and ignore everyone around them, to the detriment of everyone around them. You, perhaps, don't think this is possible? Protesters are always pure in your mind?
Why'd you have to add that last bit? Do I sound that credulous to you?

Perhaps. You're pretty much telling me that protesters have free rein to take away my personal freedoms, simply because they have less power than the govt. I don't - and will never - willingly give free rein of power over me to *anyone*. Especially not a group of people. The bigger the group, the dumber they get.

And HK - keep in mind that I don't really know you. What I do know is what I've seen in protests. There are ugly things there as much as in govt groups and corporate groups and what have you. Stupid, selfish people are everywhere. (I don't think you're either.) None of them have a special right to rob me of my freedom.

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

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

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 5:01 AM

And now a happier moment - an example of a good protest:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/25/hands-across-the-sand-pro_n_6
26099.html

Wish I could have taken part!

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

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

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 5:40 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
If American Police are so incompetent that it's inconceivable that they could do the same, Americans should be out protesting the Police force, not casting aspersions on to protesters. I mean civil order is supposed to be their job, not just tasering dangerous bed ridden Grannies.

Hee hee. That's pretty good, actually. Nice one, Citizen. And I'm all for more protest of the police forces.

I've only just started reading this thread this morning. I'm going to say both sides here have good points, and they might not be debating the exactly the same issues and situations.

To sum up what I agree with:

Freedom of Speech is important.

Life and health considerations are also important, which means the ability to move and drive could be important in a given situation.

Protest permits from the government are a crapshoot. It's a good way to signal "Hey jackboots! Come get your jollies here!"

Coordination and communication between two different groups of citizens (NOT necessarily involving police or government) should always be encouraged, should citizens going about their day-to-day or their choices come into conflict with expression, and vice versa, and so forth. A scenario where members of either group can't talk to each other is no good, partially because the protest might not be reaching the target audience they want to educate. It's like if they were both shouting at each other, "Move!" and "Solar Power!" Neither side is listening. Not optimal.

I have no problem with a detour. Though I think it's fair maybe that the protestors ought to consider how to provide notice of detour, not just out of consideration for the drivers and the safety of the drivers, but for THEMSELVES, too. As far as I'm aware, moving cars plus citizens on foot protesting, generally not the best combination. You want to be reasonably safe until the riot gear teams show up and arrest you for the maximum benefit of civil disobedience. :)

And it IS civil disobedience. You can be disobedient plain, but you might not win any hearts or minds that way.

Just my thoughts.

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

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 6:17 AM

Darn - In a rush, and no time to catch up all the way, but I got THIS far...

Quote:
Look, I get that protests are necessary and good. I get it fine and I support it fine. Even done it a bit myself. I just don't need protesters getting in my face when I've done nothing to them. I can get their message better without confrontation.

... which brought it into sharp focus for me. It's the in-your-face-ness of it, possibly, that rankles me. The pushiness. Here's something about me that I never realized until just recently (but everyone else seems to take for granted - call it one of my blind spots, as Frem points out we all have them): Push me, and I instinctively push back. Get in my face with your cause, and you've lost my support. As I pointed out with Critical Mass earlier, they had to go out and be Critical Mass-holes about it, and I'll never give to them, ride with them, or support them in any way, no matter how much I might support their CAUSE - all because of their shitty methods.

Sure, you've got a right to free speech. And I've got just as much freedom to not listen.

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

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 7:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
It's the in-your-face-ness of it, possibly, that rankles me.

Yep. I tend to dig in my heels as soon I feel I'm being ordered or forced to do anything.

But it's not just the in-your-face-ness. The blatant disregard for others really rankles me. One power trip I love about being a teacher: I can break up those little groups of students who decide to clump and converse right in the middle of what needs to be a busy hall. Drives me crazy!

I had a similar problem with tourists on the Esplanade in Boston, walking four abreast on a paved trail that roller bladers are trying to use. Walkers can use grass, skaters can't. The solution should be obvious.

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

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

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 9:16 AM

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

And STILL! Wow! This is gonna take a while; I've been gone since I last posted here.

Okay, I stand corrected; it’s actually a matter of semantics; maybe it’s where I live—and given I saw something that indicated Cav lives where demonstrations are common, and I KNOW Citizen said they were, perhaps all three of us view it differently than others who live where they’re not common; we’re used to them, we respect peoples’ rights to have them, and we accept the times we get stuck. STUCK, not “trapped”, as demonstrations which “trap” people for any length of time, which have not been sanctioned, are few and far between. For me, “momentary” is anything less than an hour or so in the scheme of my life; any demonstration that big (because anything small enough, the police would have broken up before then) is just something I can’t control, any more than I can someone having an accident ahead of me, so I shrug my shoulders, swear some, end of story.

For example, I just sat for half an hour at PetClub, because this big 18-wheeler delivery truck couldn’t make a turn in the parking lot and got stuck. None of us were pleased, all stuck in parking spaces, but—maybe it IS an “area” thing, I dunno—nobody yelled at the guy or the one trying to tell him how to maneuver. Logically, he’s to blame...if he can’t drive the damned thing, he shouldn’t BE driving it. But we all understood it was just what it was.

I’m accustomed to traffic jams, and if you want a corollary you won’t agree with, I’m sure, THOSE are because of the selfishness of people wanting to drive in a single car rather than carpool or take public transportation. They certainly ARE impinging on my rights, trapping me, for their own selfish reasons. When Jim and I worked in the City, we both either rode motorcycles, took the ferry, or parked at the end of the Bridge and bicycled.

I’m sure you’ll dismiss both of those as completely different; to me they’re not.

I wish I knew what was going on in your brain, Anthony. This entire discussion, you haven’t been the Anthony I know and respect, and I’m disheartened by it, too. It seems we’ve finally bumped across an issue that gets to you, and it’s the strangest one we’ve ever discussed that I thought WOULD do so.

Cav, yes, street demonstrations are apparently more frequent here, but not that much. We have Farmers’ Markets on the main streets of every little town once a week (alternating days, because the towns are only a mile or two apart). We live across from Berserkeley, where demonstrations over just about anything are a regular occurrence, but I don’t cross the Bay if I have to...the East Bay and I “don’t get along”. SF has demonstrations occasionally, but the only frequent and regular thing is Critical Mass. People expect that. We’ve had sanctioned, expected demonstrations I didn’t know about and got trapped with other motorists, because there are always some of us who miss the notifications. We have Gay Pride Day, which takes over virtually the entire financial district, wall-to-wall humanity; they close down the Castro for Halloween, we had lots of anti-Arizona (or is that pro-immigration?) demonstrations lately, and more, so I guess I’m more used to “traffic interference” in that way than maybe others are.

A demonstration such as what you described which began all this wouldn’t be blinked at in SF.

Mike, yes, I’d LOVE to hear that. Would anyone answer his question? WOULD any of you feel any differently if it were a gun-rights demonstration? I wouldn’t, and I’d be interested to hear how anyone else would feel...? And yes, what ABOUT those quotes; do you not think they would be legitimate protesters? If you want a fuller answer; I’d cuss, if anyone were in the car with me we’d both cuss and say derogatory things to each other, and I’d be pissed off...but I’d still accept their right to protest and just wait it out. I certainly wouldn’t feel endangered or imprisoned. So no, Mal, for ME it’s not about agreeing with the protesters. I’d feel the same if it were the KKK protesting—I’d be reeeeeeely pissed, but I wouldn’t feel imprisoned.

Anyway, I don’t think protesters are always pure, that’s a ___ statement (fill in with your favorite GENTLE pejorative). But I’ve also never seen or heard of a protest that was totally bogus, for some silly reason; people only demonstrate when they believe strongly in something. You’d think people went out and stood in the hot sun (and RAIN, mind you, and snow) for the fun of stopping traffic. Maybe there are a few who do, but I’ve BEEN in numerous protests, they were things we believed of vital importance, important enough to bring the attention of the public and inconvenience ourselves in doing so.

Oh, wait, I can think of ONE example. Those assholes who protest at soldiers’ funerals. THEY don’t think it’s frivolous, but I hate that they do it. If they wanted to go block traffic with their protest, I’d have no problem with that even, but to do it AT the funeral, that pisses me off and I do think that’s wrong. That’s the only one I can think of offhand.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

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

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 9:16 AM

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

By the way, Mal, governments do precisely what you said; haven’t you seen film of tanks rolling through and crowds on the sidewalks? In most cases those are countries where it’s not just holding up traffic, attendance in order to provide photo ops is REQUIRED. Waving flags and cheering is REQUIRED. That’s a basic part of the entire thing for me. We’re not them. We can CHOOSE what we protest or demonstrate about.

Mike,

Quote:
go somewhere else, either. They have lots and lots of places they can go and protest, without impeding traffic.

Okay, we’ve gone full circle. Back to the “protest in a quarry” question: WHERE exactly would you suggest they protest? Do you not get the concept of demonstration? To hold a protest in some football field or somesuch out of the sight of the public isn’t going to happen...why bother? The idea of a protest is to say “We’re against something we think is wrong, we want to bring it to your attention that there are a large number of people who feel this is wrong; we want you to be aware of it, to think about it”. Doing it “somewhere else” would be just wasting one’s time, preaching to the choir as it were.

No, the intent is NOT, is NEVER (as far as I’ve ever experienced) an “excuse to inconvenience people”. You apparently don’t understand protest at all. It is the above; it is the desire to bring something people feel very strongly is a wrong to the ATTENTION of the public. It’s not done with the intention of blocking people from driving, that is an ancillary effect; it’s done to use a large area in the view of the public to make a statement. To DEMONSTRATE their disagreement, to PROTEST something’s existence or nonexistence. People often get arrested at protests, so you have to feel pretty strongly about something to go out and stand up or march knowing that might be the outcome. You paint protesters as a bunch of irresponsible assholes out there just to give you difficulty. Maybe that’s what this is about. I have my own question; how many on each side here HAVE actually demonstrated? That may be part of the key I’ve been looking for...if you’ve actually taken part in a demonstration or march, hopefully you understand better. If you have never felt strongly enough to actually take part, maybe it’s that you don’t understand the actual concept of protest, you don’t know what it feels like to march with a lot of others who feel strongly, to get tired, thirsty, have your sign get heavy, hear the taunts from the sidewalks, see the cops on the corners and know you might end up in jail. You have to WANT to go through all that to demonstrate against something, and to be honest, the thought of motorists being inconvenienced doesn’t even come into it. Traffic gets held up by myriad things, and yes, the vast majority of people don’t suffer much, if at all, from it. An UNSOLICITED demonstration gets broken up and people get arrested...and even THEN, if it’s big and will snarl traffic, the police get right out there and put up barricades and stand there waving people around the impediment. Exactly like the demonstration that started all this.

Ooo, another question: How many of you have been stuck for over an hour by an unsolicited demonstration. All but one that I’ve seen so far say they have no problem if they can get around it, if there are signs, etc. So how many have actually BEEN in the situation described, stuck for hours unable to drive? That would be interesting to know too. Because if nobody has, then this is all an exercise in theory with little basis in fact...virtually no unsanctioned demonstration, no matter how large, doesn’t result in arrest, sometimes beating, etc. It’s not condoned by the government unless you go through the proper channels.

I’m amazed, truly amazed, at this point. Protests are, as far as I’ve always believed, one of the very cornerstones of our country; they are the best aspect of freedom of speech, I’m PROUD that we have that right and I accept that periodically it’s going to inconvenience me. The inconvenience is an incredibly tiny thing, put up against our right to do so. MOST of the demonstrations in the South during the civil rights era were unsanctioned

I’d like to know partly because, as far as I’m concerned, people who bother to demonstrate almost invariably do so for something important. I haven’t seen or heard of a demonstration on a flighty subject...maybe if someone could suggest one—one they KNOW OF, not a hypothetical. Even the union demonstrations, teachers, students (who recently demonstrated against the cut in education budgets, walked out of school and protested)—I can’t think of a demonstration that would make me feel they didn’t have the right to demonstrate. Maybe that’s because I live in California? Because I think it’s pretty much the same down South, tho’ I can’t say.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

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

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 9:18 AM

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

Agent, I read your posts and I think I addressed them. For example, why do I make it about the right to drive? Because that’s precisely what it’s been about all along, that was the origin of the thread, and I‘ve been trying to figure out why people are so head-up about it and using such dramatic terms. It’s not that dramatic to me so I’ve been trying to find out WHY it is to others.

I covered the fact that the alternatives suggested weren’t workable; ergo, I agreed with you. If I was the one who wrote it was about their not having their way, I actually do feel it’s at least partly that. Many things don’t let us have our way in daily life, but this one really gets to people, just because it’s a protest not letting them do what they want at the speed they want. Seems simple to me, but that’s just the way I view it. As to suggesting an alternate route and the other things you described, we already covered why that’s unworkable; if you don’t get specific permits to do so, all that is worthless—sans permit, you get arrested.

You say nobody wants to stop protests. Well, at least one here does, and others seem to view it as some kind of frivolous act, and the fact that it’s suggested they “go elsewhere” indicates they don’t want to be bothered by it, they want it invisible or out of the way, unless sanctioned. I DID expressly respond to your question as to why I felt giving notice was offensive. It’s not that it’s offensive, sanctioned protests DO give notice—if not sanctioned, not allowed or broken up, and sanctioned protests have been eliminated already as okay. For me it’s not about sanctioning—tho’ as I said, I personally have never participated in an UNsanctioned protest, unless you count Peoples’ Park, and believe me, we paid for Peoples’ Park! I’m all in favor of permitted protests as the best answer, and I’d have to feel VERY strongly to demonstrate in anything else. The debate has been about protests where “giving notice” means no protest, not allowed by the government.

I didn’t accuse you, to my knowledge, of anything that wasn’t IN your post. I respond to each post as individually as I can, and responded specifically to what you wrote, where I felt it was applicable. Several of the issues you brought up had already been gone over, so I try to avoid getting stuck in repetition. Nothing more.

Thank you, Cavalier. I agree with everything you said, and you say it better than I (tho’ not more concisely this time, which is a relief given I know I rattle on) ;o)

Mike:

Quote:
Would you have supported them if they'd marched into D.C. and shut down traffic in front of the Capitol, all while carrying their guns?

Can’t speak for anyone else, but I answered this question when you first posted it. It’s not about support, it’s about tolerance, and yes, I would tolerate them, as long as they were peaceful. I would tolerate ANYONE exercising their freedom of speech, whether I agree with them or not.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

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

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 9:19 AM

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

Uh, Frem, your comparison is an amazing fallacy. Protesters don’t do “Kettling”, they march or rally in a specific place for a specific length of time. Their aim is NOT to trap people, it is to be heard. It’s fascinating that you choose to use an egregious form of government-sanctioned denial of freedom of speech and equate it to those exercising that very freedom of speech. Wow. Your comparison boggles my mind, given how anti-police you are. To extrapolate; when people peacefully demonstrate and it happens to block traffic, it’s using the exact same method as when police round up those peaceful protesters by deliberately encircling them? This debate has gotten reeeely weird.

No, Mal4, that’s not what he was saying. He was saying that protesters don’t have the ability to get their word out in other ways than to demonstrate sometimes, and sometimes to do so unsanctioned because their protest won’t BE sanctioned. They can’t buy TV time, they can’t use most of the other methods to exercise their freedom of speech, so they take to the streets. The Rosa Parks analogy, like the Ghandi one, IS appropriate. Those were all unsanctioned protests, they inconvenienced people in cars...where is the difference? What you seem to be not getting is that some protest WILL NOT be sanctioned, so people who feel strongly enough about an issue should shut up and go away, hold their protest where nobody is bothered. What we’ve been trying to say is that there are protest which the city government WILL NOT ALLOW, will not give permits for, which the two instances above were, precisely, so there was no alternative but to do it unsanctioned. MANY protests here aren’t sanctioned because the officials in charge don’t like them, and I don’t think it’s right to let the government decide what I can protest and what not. MOST protests ARE sanctioned, and that you seem to have no problem with. That’s what mystifies and saddens me; that freedom of speech, insofar as it blocks traffic, isn’t acceptable to you unless it’s permitted. That there AREN’T times when un-permitted demonstrations are valid.

And no, it’s not been made dramatic, far as I can see, by those of us defending unsanctioned protests. We’ve had examples of shutting down power grids, government forcing people to show up for demonstrations, “imprisonment” and much more emotional terms. It HAS been compared to terrorism, read the thread. That you didn’t get to that point does not mean it hasn’t been said, just not by you. And others HAVE said it should be moved to somewhere invisible, or shut down, just not you. It’s hard to keep track of who said precisely what; the general concept runs through this thread, and it HAS been said.

And he did NOT say nobody should feel inconvenienced because he accepts the inconvenience. He said “I DO NOT FEEL VIOLATED”...stating how he feels, not what anyone else SHOULD feel. “Violated”, “trapped”, “imprisoned” the words emanating from your side of the debate have been noticeably emotional and dramatic; the other side is the one which has been saying so. The comparison to having a heart attack, to shutting down a power grid, and far more, have been exaggerations way beyond, in my opinion, any reality. The word “violated” didn’t come from him, he was referring to what precisely what someone else wrote. None of us have said it didn’t “bug” us, either, we just said we accept it despite it bugging us, because there is a larger principle at work.

Nor did he in any way suggest you were “uptight” or “non-meditating” (rather than “UNmeditating). I got around on skates to and from work, too, when I had a job here in town. He didn’t say your “need for personal freedom is based solely on automobile addiction and greed”, he said it REMINDED him of addiction, and I didn’t see anyone talking about “greed”, tho’ this has gone on so long I might have missed it.

Quote:
The bigger the group, the dumber they get

So, again, you seem to be saying that a few people protesting something, if their numbers grow in further protests, become “dumb” because there are more of them. Wow; civil rights, anti-war, etc. protesters must be really dumb. THAT was a flat statement, you made it. You seem to be saying that because you’ve seen stupid, selfish peole in protests, protests are filled with stupid, selfish people. I’ve not seen that, I’ve seen police come in and get violent and behave stupidly to break UP a demonstration, but given the debate has been about spontaneous or unsanctioned demonstrations, your words seem to say something about how you feel about demonstrators in general.

Byte, protesters canNOT “consider how to provide notice of detour” unless they’re sanctioned, can we get past that one? If they do so, they give notice they’re going to demonstrate, government knows they’re going to, they get arrested and the demonstration gets broken up, sometimes by force. If the protest is not acceptable to the government, it stops it if possible. If only protests is acceptable to government, freedom of speech is determined by the government.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

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

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 9:20 AM

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

Okay, I’m caught up. This has gone around and around; the basic concept seems to be that if government allows a demonstration and puts up signs, etc., it’s okay with most of you. If not, it’s entrapment, denying of freedom, imprisonment, virtually an act of terrorism, etc. I find that sad, especially given this group is largely against government control. Self-policing in demonstrations is almost invariably done, we are given instructions as to how to behave, etc. The option to forewarn people is not possible; if it were, I’d bet dollars to donuts those planning a protest would do so. But there IS NO OPTION; if you don’t get a permit approved by the government, and put up signs, you are announcing that you are going to do something the government has not sanctioned, and you are stopped, for the most part.

I don’t know what to say; that this has gone on so long and that the terminology has been so dramatic on one side (because read the thread, it has been), amazes me. “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”m “

“walking into a public park at 1AM, barring all the entrances, and then saying to people in the morning, "All right, all of you. STAY OUT! This is my park now. Just for me! You don't get to use it while I'm here! GO!", “stand out in front of your home at 3am when you're trying to sleep, with a bullhorn shouting their message all night ?”, “It IS violence to trap me. It’s not peaceable. it's violence without the knuckles”, “form gangs and take my freedom”, “Patriot Act considers economic damage to be a form of terrorism”, “surround your house, keeping you from getting inside”, “I think trapping me somewhere = Punching me in the nose.”, “willful lack of imagination to suggest that stopping traffic on a road will harm none”, “It's the difference between getting stuck in an elevator because it broke, or having someone cut the power to purposefully trap me there”, “The only legitimate reason I see to intentionally trap someone is because the alternative is bloodshed”, “Let's say these folks decided to hold their protest on your street. At 3 in the morning. At the end of your driveway. They won't leave, won't let YOU leave”, “you are saying your pain means more than mine. Your life means more than mine”, “Your pain means more than mine. Your life means more than mine", “If I need medicine, money, or access to my family”, “risk causing harm and pain”, “Their intention was to trap me here. The idea is to hurt me”. “This situation may threaten my Life. It positively threatens my Liberty”, “I am left at their tender mercies”, “I consider trapping people to be a form of speech on par with violence”, “I learned that preventing folks from getting around was The Point of the exercise” (which was never stated), It's selfish and it's lazy”, “It's only hurting innocent people in an iminaginative attempt to create noise for the sake of noise”, “bullshit approach and comparing it to Ghandi is highly self-congratulatory and wrong”, “deliberately and intentionally set out to impede me for the sake of forcing me to hear or see your message”, “tryin to pretend you're not steppin on someone, on purpose - cause you are”, “you decide that I shall not pass you and go into the store until I am forced to stand and listen to your spiel for half an hour” (my response to that is that cars blocked by a protest rarely hear the “spiel” beyond the first few cars, that, again, isn’t the core intention), “you have no right to physically restrict my freedom to shop where I choose” (the corollary is false, nobody’s allowed to shut off access to a store, it’s not the same), “not talking about something as extreme as Tienanmen Square or the Rodney King riots, just your average run-of-the-mill Sunday afternoon political action” (but they ARE the same principle; people protest what they think is wrong), “That's not a peaceable anything”, “*Anyone* constricts my freedom, I'm annoyed” (with regard to sanctioned protests; in other words, Mal4 wants NO protests that block anything”, “purposely go out of their way to make a conflict”, “imposing their interests over someone else's freedoms”, “if you're out for a fight, you certainly can find one. Seems like you're doing your best get on one going Cit”, “specifically planning a 'protest' in such a way as to take my rights to my property”, “It is rather the intentional infliction of pain on me to get your way”,

“Angry”, “piss off”, “trouble”, “egregious infringement” (which was written sarcastically I think to indicate that’s not how a traffic jam is viewed by Cav), “vicious violation of your rights” admittedly over the top, but again, indicating how it’s being described), “rude”, “inconsiderate”, “inconvenience”, “obstruction”, “forgo you calling me a liar, a fascist” (okay, that didn’t happen), “shaky ground”, “civil disobedience”, “passive resistance”, “desire”, “relinquish”, “scapegoating”,

“You're arguing like a flippin' right-to-lifer here: "the fetus was gonna become a human baby, so you're murdering a human baby and it's a holocaust!" likewise, you were gonna occupy the space where I'm standing, so if I don't move I'm stealing from you and, Anthony will hasten to add, imprisoning you”, “come into conflict with the desires of others, hopefully without violence”, “they can have their freedom of speech, just elsewhere. Perhaps in an abandoned quarry, where there's no one to be inconvenienced? You get to drive down the road, they get to voice their grievances to some rocks” (again, sarcastically intended, I believe), “Where should they move too?”, “desperate to shift your sides lack of desire”,

My gawd, I just noticed Wulf said “Even tho I think their cause is soooo fucking stupid and spoiled, Im ALL for making as big a splash as possible.” I missed that in the last couple of days. Wulf, are you saying you think it’s okay for an unsanctioned protest to hold people up? If so, wow, I’m amazed—why? Do you feel it’s a matter of free speech, or were you just being contrary? I’d actually like to know.

As to the immigration group you mentioned, Mike; odds are they would NOT have been given a permit, in Arizona, given the state of things now. If they’d tried and been refused, they’d also have been stopped. Your remark “police came out in full riot gear and opened fire with tear gas on this unruly mob” might well have happened. It didn’t, thank gawd, but it has in the past around other demonstrations that weren’t permitted.
Okay, I’m caught up. This has gone around and around; the basic concept seems to be that if government allows a demonstration and puts up signs, etc., it’s okay with most of you. If not, it’s entrapment, denying of freedom, imprisonment, virtually an act of terrorism, etc. I find that sad, especially given this group is largely against government control. Self-policing in demonstrations is almost invariably done, we are given instructions as to how to behave, etc. The option to forewarn people is not possible; if it were, I’d bet dollars to donuts those planning a protest would do so. But there IS NO OPTION; if you don’t get a permit approved by the government, and put up signs, you are announcing that you are going to do something the government has not sanctioned, and you are stopped, for the most part.

I don’t know what to say; that this has gone on so long and that the terminology has been so dramatic on one side (because read the thread, it has been), amazes me. “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”m “

“walking into a public park at 1AM, barring all the entrances, and then saying to people in the morning, "All right, all of you. STAY OUT! This is my park now. Just for me! You don't get to use it while I'm here! GO!", “stand out in front of your home at 3am when you're trying to sleep, with a bullhorn shouting their message all night ?”, “It IS violence to trap me. It’s not peaceable. it's violence without the knuckles”, “form gangs and take my freedom”, “Patriot Act considers economic damage to be a form of terrorism”, “surround your house, keeping you from getting inside”, “I think trapping me somewhere = Punching me in the nose.”, “willful lack of imagination to suggest that stopping traffic on a road will harm none”, “It's the difference between getting stuck in an elevator because it broke, or having someone cut the power to purposefully trap me there”, “The only legitimate reason I see to intentionally trap someone is because the alternative is bloodshed”, “Let's say these folks decided to hold their protest on your street. At 3 in the morning. At the end of your driveway. They won't leave, won't let YOU leave”, “you are saying your pain means more than mine. Your life means more than mine”, “Your pain means more than mine. Your life means more than mine", “If I need medicine, money, or access to my family”, “risk causing harm and pain”, “Their intention was to trap me here. The idea is to hurt me”. “This situation may threaten my Life. It positively threatens my Liberty”, “I am left at their tender mercies”, “I consider trapping people to be a form of speech on par with violence”, “I learned that preventing folks from getting around was The Point of the exercise” (which was never stated), It's selfish and it's lazy”, “It's only hurting innocent people in an iminaginative attempt to create noise for the sake of noise”, “bullshit approach and comparing it to Ghandi is highly self-congratulatory and wrong”, “deliberately and intentionally set out to impede me for the sake of forcing me to hear or see your message”, “tryin to pretend you're not steppin on someone, on purpose - cause you are”, “you decide that I shall not pass you and go into the store until I am forced to stand and listen to your spiel for half an hour” (my response to that is that cars blocked by a protest rarely hear the “spiel” beyond the first few cars, that, again, isn’t the core intention), “you have no right to physically restrict my freedom to shop where I choose” (the corollary is false, nobody’s allowed to shut off access to a store, it’s not the same), “not talking about something as extreme as Tienanmen Square or the Rodney King riots, just your average run-of-the-mill Sunday afternoon political action” (but they ARE the same principle; people protest what they think is wrong), “That's not a peaceable anything”, “*Anyone* constricts my freedom, I'm annoyed” (with regard to sanctioned protests; in other words, Mal4 wants NO protests that block anything”, “purposely go out of their way to make a conflict”, “imposing their interests over someone else's freedoms”, “if you're out for a fight, you certainly can find one. Seems like you're doing your best get on one going Cit”, “specifically planning a 'protest' in such a way as to take my rights to my property”, “It is rather the intentional infliction of pain on me to get your way”,

“Angry”, “piss off”, “trouble”, “egregious infringement” (which was written sarcastically I think to indicate that’s not how a traffic jam is viewed by Cav), “vicious violation of your rights” admittedly over the top, but again, indicating how it’s being described), “rude”, “inconsiderate”, “inconvenience”, “obstruction”, “forgo you calling me a liar, a fascist” (okay, that didn’t happen), “shaky ground”, “civil disobedience”, “passive resistance”, “desire”, “relinquish”, “scapegoating”,

“You're arguing like a flippin' right-to-lifer here: "the fetus was gonna become a human baby, so you're murdering a human baby and it's a holocaust!" likewise, you were gonna occupy the space where I'm standing, so if I don't move I'm stealing from you and, Anthony will hasten to add, imprisoning you”, “come into conflict with the desires of others, hopefully without violence”, “they can have their freedom of speech, just elsewhere. Perhaps in an abandoned quarry, where there's no one to be inconvenienced? You get to drive down the road, they get to voice their grievances to some rocks” (again, sarcastically intended, I believe), “Where should they move too?”, “desperate to shift your sides lack of desire”,

My gawd, I just noticed Wulf said “Even tho I think their cause is soooo fucking stupid and spoiled, Im ALL for making as big a splash as possible.” I missed that in the last couple of days. Wulf, are you saying you think it’s okay for an unsanctioned protest to hold people up? If so, wow, I’m amazed—why? Do you feel it’s a matter of free speech, or were you just being contrary? I’d actually like to know.

As to the immigration group you mentioned, Mike; odds are they would NOT have been given a permit, in Arizona, given the state of things now. If they’d tried and been refused, they’d also have been stopped. Your remark “police came out in full riot gear and opened fire with tear gas on this unruly mob” might well have happened. It didn’t, thank gawd, but it has in the past around other demonstrations that weren’t permitted.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

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

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 9:21 AM

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

I got as far as Cav’s long post, and have to give up. I’m pooped. My reason for doing this is to show that, on one side, emotional, visceral, DRAMATIC statements have been made; on the other side not so much. Most of those dramatic statements and examples were made by Anthony, which is what puzzles me so much.

People kept repeating that a protest which was announced would be okay, even if not sanctioned by the government. I hope at this point we can get past that, because protests which are not sanctioned ARE STOPPED, almost invariably, with arrests, sometimes beatings—sometimes even arrests and/or beatings happen in those which DO have permits, when the police decide they’ve gotten out of hand. That’s neither here nor there; almost invariably, people protest with the knowledge that they may be arrested or beaten, but don’t intend that to be the result.

Second, people keep saying the intent of a demonstration is to trap people in cars. Again I will reiterate that this is NOT the intention of 99% of protests; the intent is to get a message out WHERE PEOPLE CAN SEE IT. The majority of people seeing and hearing it are at windows along the route or on sidewalks. There is no way to hold a big demonstration without utilizing the street. There is no way to post detours unless the government sanctions the protest. It’s a “rock and a hard place” situation. It’s not intended to trap, harm or do anything to those in cars but inconvenience them, because it’s unavoidable that some won’t SEE signs, if permitted, or not know about it, if not permitted.

Sorry it’s so long, it took longer for me to do than you to read, trust me, but the point is important, I believe. There are strong feelings, VERY strong feelings, on one side; the other side has mostly been trying to bring those emotions down a notch, attempt some perspective, and talk about the actual issue, which in this case happens to be a small, unpermitted demonstration in which the demonstrators were arrested and nobody was held up for long. Yes, it extrapolates to something much larger, but even then, we’ve tried to make clear that a demonstration which is not officially allowed by the government can’t post signs, will get broken up and the people arrested, so it’s a moot point. Aside from Mal4, who wants nobody to have any where he has to detour or be inconvenienced, everyone here seems to agree that if alternate routes are posted, it’s okay. But, again, ALTERNATE ROUTES CAN’T BE POSTED unless the demonstration is sanctioned by the government.

Lastly, once again; protests are in the vast majority NOT held with the specific intent to hold up traffic...they are held to bring something to the attention of the public, and sometimes are big enough to need the use of the street.

Whew. That took forever. I'll shut up now.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

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

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 10:25 AM

BYTEMITE

"Government sanctioned is the only way": not necessarily, Niki, a lot of people own orange cones, you could always assign someone to direct traffic, there's probably SOME way to get ahold of one of those road construction signs, or there's also the hilarious option of the very large Nite-Brite sign with rather long extension cord.

Creative solutions could go a long way for naughty folk like us. :)

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

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 10:44 AM

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

You're not getting it, still, Byte. Any attempt to do as you suggested would alert the cops, the word would pass ultra-quickly, and the demonstration would be broken up and people arrested. Why even try to have a demonstration that you know is going to be broken up almost before it begins?

Now, if you wanted to try a perhaps more effective way, station people along the route, at the nearest intersection, have them TELL people to detour...even then word would get around pretty damned fast, but it would be something. It also wouldn't work very well, because only cops have the authority to move traffic, so a fair number of people would say "fuck you" and roll right through.

But given that the intent of demonstrations is NOT to block people into their cars, but it's recognized that said eventuality will probably happen to a degree, most groups probably wouldn't take the time and effort to try and avoid it.

You could get into a whole mess of discussion about whether the protesters' rights are then taking over the motorists' because they're not showing courtesy in trying to turn people away; whether the idea of an unsanctioned event is civil disobedience anyway, with possible arrest forthcoming, the protesters should bother about traffic; or whether the protesters have the right to use the road and courtesy doesn't come into it, etc., etc. But I think this is contentious enough, so I'll just leave it at "that's pretty unworkable".

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

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

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 10:59 AM

BYTEMITE

If you're going to have an unsanctioned protest, isn't the point to get arrested? I thought it was supposed to call more attention to the cause. "Hey, look, these people are willing to get arrested for what they believe in, also they were really non-violent, so what they believe in must be really threatening to TPTB" and etc.

But yeah, hopefully you'd manage to protest for a little while before that happened, but I imagine you could pull that off without tipping the authority off before you get started. I guess we disagree on that, but I think it's possible, AND I don't think it has to impede the success of the protest. Being considerate might even enhance your success.

I don't have a problem with protesters being unruly, but there might be ideas that could be used to make such a protest more effective. Public (and not necessarily government) support might be a good way to go, and there might be some benefits for the cause in not annoying people, though feel free to do so.

Technically only cops have the authority to move traffic, but you'd be surprised how susceptible to perceived authority and suggestion people are. This is the principle that the Bavarian Fire Drill operates under IRL. Add a few cones around the traffic director and a safety vest and hat... Well, it's not too hard, and your guy doesn't even have to get slapped down for impersonating a cop.

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

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 11:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
You folks really don't get that the people who march in the street generally don't have the resources of the state, nor do they have the power to impose their will on people with no recourse.
Wait - the power of anyone "to impose their will on people with no recourse" is a desirable thing, or at least something you're willing to yield? Really? Maybe that's the root of the disagreement here...

Aw, crap. I knew there was an ambiguity in my phrasing of that, but I recklessly hoped it would not be misread.

See, your side of this argument, or so it seems, contend that folk like Anthony suffering through the terrible protest have "no recourse," but the few of us over here, with respect, disagree. I was saying if you'll go back and reread my post with a more sympathetic eye that 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.

Quote:
Look, I get that protests are necessary and good. I get it fine and I support it fine. Even done it a bit myself. I just don't need protesters getting in my face when I've done nothing to them. I can get their message better without confrontation.

I do appreciate this acknowledgement. But as I said in my first post in this thread: When it comes down to it, philosophically, I don't believe anyone in a democracy is "uninvolved with the protest." Protests go with the territory. To infringe on the rights of people to "take it to the streets" is to say, we don't need protests anymore, the government has this all well in hand, thank you very much, nothing to see here, move along.

Quote:
I also get that bigger issues will involve bigger "inconveniences." I would never be so stupid as to complain about finding good parking in DC during the Tea Party demonstration last spring. Those people gathered to have their say, and they had every right to do it. I will also note that, although there was yelling and even spitting on senators who passed, the senators could pass. I have no problem with any of it (except the spitting - ew!) and even support it, though I don't like the Tea Party at all.

See - we agree again!

I appreciate this sentiment as well.

Quote:
So please quit making this a black and white issue where M4P hates ALL protests just just M4P won't bend over for anyone holding a placard and a megaphone. You might find yourself a lot less angry with me if you can allow me to be in a gray area.

M4P, I'm sorry. I'm dealing with serious thread fatigue here. I'm sorry you're taking my disquieted mood personally. With respect, I do not see that I have made this black & white. I've now written pages on the nuances of my argument which have been wholly ignored in favor of Anthony's bizarre "you're imprisoning meeeee!" meme. What I've had to contend with in this thread, is folk telling me that inconveniencing motorists with spontaneous demonstrations is equivalent to shutting down all electricity to the city. And then having 3 or 4 other people giving their blanket approval. I don't find this polarization at all pleasant, or fun.

Quote:
Quote:
That you think it's all one is baffling and extremely disturbing to me at this point.
You're disturbing yourself by hearing things I'm not saying. How you keep making this a worship of the automobile thing is puzzling. How you take to it to me wanting to deny Rosa Parks a seat is truly beyond me. I guess next you'll be claiming that I support Hitler, huh?

Again:

You said:

Quote:
My feeling is that a lot of it is about agreeing with the protesters. Say folks were held up for hours, out of the blue, by govt officials forcing them to look at govt propaganda that some govt bureaucrat thinks important for brainwashing the masses. Then suddenly the loss of liberty would be a big deal.

How is that not equating the power of private citizens and the power of the government? There is a difference between an unarmed child shouting "shut up" and a 6'5'' guy with a gun shouting...anything. The power differential dictates a different response to each.

How I get to Rosa Parks is specifically from your objection to protesters "getting in your face" and "interrupting your business." If Ms. Parks and a few of her friends had discretely stood off to the side somewhere with placards reading, "Please let black people sit where ever we want on the bus. You're hurting us!" how well do you think that would have gone over? So, you're saying that for the "big" causes, you'll accept the face getting into thing and the business interruption? Who gets to decide what is a "big" cause?

Quote:
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).
Eureka - again we agree! I'd support their right as long as they were peaceable. I guess I just define "peaceable" a little differently than you do.

Um, yeah? That's pretty much the core of the disagreement since Anthony asserted his "right" to never have his car stranded.

Quote:
Who was it in RWED that used to say that western culture is all based on violence? That even a parking ticket was a violent thing, because if you refuse to pay it eventually you'll be physically dragged off to jail... I don't know who it was, and I don't totally agree, except to say that "peaceful" means more -- to me -- than the absence of hitting.

First of all, that was Frem, but it is a standard minarchist line. That is an argument made specifically in reference to laws and state power: that as soon as something is put into law, the ultimate reaction for noncompliance is deadly force. It goes like this: you get a parking ticket, you don't pay it and drive away. You're summoned to court for that, you don't go. You do it again and again and they come to your door. You refuse to go with them. There's simply an inevitable point where they pull out a gun and instruct you to come "peaceably," because there is no mechanism in government to say, "hey, we've bothered this guy over his parking tickets enough--he obviously REALLY doesn't wanna pay 'em--so, stand down fellas."

That is: all laws have the implicit backing of force. That's what a law is. So, buncha yahoos standing in the street simply don't have that kinda umph. Any force on their side will be explicit or, I contend, it ain't there. Squatting is not force, it is noncompliance and lack of consent.

Quote:
Quote:
But it may be an hour, it may be more. I don't think Niki or Citizen would object to an hour or more. I know I wouldn't.
And I would. I wouldn't demand arrests or expect the protest to be shut down or moved to an invisible location (another assumptions that has made about my stance in this thread - I never claimed any of this) but I would think this group selfish, impractical, and not very good at politics. I would doubt it's success.

And that is an entirely reasonable position. Just as you never said any of that and so feel aggrieved to be painted with that brush, so I, who have never said such things of you, feel aggrieved at being cast as someone who did!

For the record, folks: protesters are entirely capable of being selfish, impractical, and not very good at politics--and all too often are all that and more. But it goes with the territory in a free society.

Quote:
Quote:
We are seriously fucked folks, if a hundred people walking out into the street is equivalent to a terrorist attack.
The only one making this kind of extreme analogy is you. Really, calm down.

Awww, M4P, please do me the kindness of reading up-thread. I personally have been accused by Anthony of justifying terrorist acts (cf. shutting down all electricity to a city). Protesters are de facto kidnappers, putting their boots "gently" on the necks of innocents, commandeering emergency vehicles, etc. I'm sorry, but the extreme analogies have been comin' hot & heavy from the beginning, and coming at me, not from me. I'm just doin' damage control.

Quote:
Quote:
I do not feel violated if I'm stuck in traffic for an hour or more. Sorry, too much meditation, I guess. Too much experience getting stuck in traffic for an hour or more. I bring books with me.
So, because sitting in a car for hours doesn't bug you, it should bug nobody?

Never said that, M. Getting bugged is natural. Proclaiming, "MY RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED AND YOU ARE A SADIST!" is a little more than gettin' bugged. I have acknowledged that distinction time and again in this thread. Why, oh why haven't people noticed? Latest example, in my very last post:

Forgive me, but I'm reminded of an alcoholic's rage at being denied his booze by a spouse who pours all the liquor in the house down the drain. What a violation of his sovereign rights! And it's not that a sober person might not object, but instead of "How dare you step on my freedoms, you sadist!" the sober objection would be, "Jeez, some of that booze was pretty expensive. Oh well, I guess I'll have to buy some more--you got any cash on ya?"

I'm all for sober objections, but I've seen precious little of that in this thread. When minarchists (libertarians and anarchists and real communists) get afeuding it's always about "force"--what does and does not constitute force. It's not always obvious to other folks that that is at the heart of these discussions. So I've been accused of initiating force or at least endorsing/sanctioning force against all and sundry by Anthony and Frem in particular. When folks put in their blanket "I'm with Anthony's" they may not always see the force issue at the core and so don't quite grok the extremity of the discussion we're having here. Does that help?

Little thing about force. It is properly counterbalanced by consent. "Government with the consent of the governed" means that the governed accept a certain amount of limits on their freedoms, we consent to traffic laws and such like. When a quorum of people within a community relinquish that consent, then there is conflict with the government and its laws. Conflict, not necessarily violence. That's the thing that's hard to grasp: force with consent is not experienced as violation and may even go entirely unnoticed. No one calls a cop if a doctor cuts into them with a knife, unless it's on the doctor's off hours.

There is enormous, very literal force in driving a car around. Cars, historically, quite literally, drove people from the streets, took 'em over and people were relegated to the margins and laws were made to keep 'em there. For their own good, y'unnerstand. And who's gonna argue with 2 tons of metal hurtling down the road? It is the height of irony that folk hereabouts see people squatting in the road as the initiators of force in this equation. And that's why I make this about cars. If folks were still getting about on horseback there would be no such thing as a traffic jam, unless someone were herding their cattle through the middle of town.

Quote:
Myself, I don't drive in rush hour so I don't have to deal with the crush. I have chosen houses based on avoiding traffic, because I find it extremely unpleasant. I got around on rollerblades for nearly 5 years, and still would I could. I still walk a lot, in a town where very few people walk.

So I must protest (*snort*) your suggestion that I'm an uptight, un-meditating person because I don't like sitting in a car for hours, and correct your assumption that my need for personal freedom is based solely on automobile addiction and greed.

If the shoe fits, put it on and god bless. If it don't, it don't. Just because I hit "reply" to your post, doesn't mean my every word is directed specifically at you. You are simply the latest person I've tried to engage with in this thread. Finally, I feel like there is some small movement toward reaching an understanding and I thank you for that.

Quote:
You're pretty much telling me that protesters have free rein to take away my personal freedoms, simply because they have less power than the govt. I don't - and will never - willingly give free rein of power over me to *anyone*. Especially not a group of people. The bigger the group, the dumber they get.

Did I just say we were making progress?

I'm saying that protesters in a free society have a preeminent right to squat in the street and make themselves heard. That we have constructed a society that makes such demonstrations dangerous or even life threatening by the simple action of taking to the streets, is not their fault. The protesters are not the problem in that specific instance. That is all.

Quote:
And HK - keep in mind that I don't really know you. What I do know is what I've seen in protests. There are ugly things there as much as in govt groups and corporate groups and what have you. Stupid, selfish people are everywhere. (I don't think you're either.) None of them have a special right to rob me of my freedom.

And we're back to square one.

M4P, when we discuss political philosophy certain words take on some pretty powerful connotations. If I say, "I have more freedom of movement in shorts than in slacks" I'm not talking about a protected freedom. I'm not endorsing a ban on long pants as destructive to freedom and an abridgement of leg rights. I see the freedom to drive unhindered as a shorts/slacks freedom and not a protected freedom. There are a thousand commonplace conditions where such a "mere" freedom will be abridged. If I thought of the freedom to drive unhindered as a protected freedom, I would be rallying to have all stop light intersections abolished and replaced with under/overpasses so people would never be forced to stop and so lose their precious freedom of unhindered vehicular mobility.

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!

"Freedom? That is Yang worship-word!"

Thanks for reading.

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 12:13 PM

Thank you for the thoughtful post HK. I think we can get somewhere - and will, when I have a chance to get over my own thread fatigue.

I must point out one thing - statements like "so people would never be forced to stop and so lose their precious freedom of unhindered vehicular mobility" are part of why this thread is going on and on. It may be just your thread fatigue and the imperfect medium of the internet, but you sound quite dismissive and belittling of something that is important to me. And no, I do NOT mean having to use a brake pedal, nor any little detour or delay. In fact, the continual focus on cars and little delays is off the point.

The fact that you keep demeaning my message (and Anthony's - I'm quite certain he never intended to bitch about minor delays) to this petty level is troubling. I can't understand why you expect me to honor something that's important to you when you refuse to respect something that is quite important to me.

You seem offended when I say you're putting my rights below others... well, your statement above is part of the reason why I'm getting that idea.

That said, I appreciate that you were saying many of those things to Anthony. I wasn't in the chat for the first half of the thread. I skimmed those posts and didn't interpret them to mean any of the extreme stuff you're referring to. In fact, I started posting because I felt people where interpreting his posts to be much stronger statements than he intended (a five minute delay is like a NAZI attack - ahhh!) But I may have missed the words that gave you that idea.

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

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

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 12:29 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Ya know, I can't let it be, I just can't, not like this...

Quote:
"Oh come on, don't be ridiculous, it's just a little - you're being stingy, greedy, it's just a few minutes, just a tiny chunk of freedom, you'll never miss it, besides, you're not using it anyway, or not using it correctly and I can show you how to do that, come now, this is important, more important than anything you're doing, why be such a dick over such a teensy, small thing, just one little inch, it's not much, hand it over, don't be rude, everybody does it, here and there, it's the price of civilization isn't it ? - come on, hear me out, just a few minutes of your time, just a few bucks, you can spare that much, have a heart man, cough it up...

And you know, I've heard that song before, I think we all have, and moments when our own internal moral guides fail, we've sung it ourselves, but I know the tune, I know that melody achingly bone deep cause I have seen the horrors that it leads to, stuff so mindbendingly awful I avoid even describing it here, it's the song of the Blind God*, is what it is, the siren song of our own humanitys destruction.

And for the life of me, I never thought I would hear it from you, HKCav.
You *know* better.

Quote:
Come now, it's just one little inch, you'll never miss it, it's for your own good, really...

What I say to that, screw you, that's *MY* inch, and you'll not have it.
And if you wanna TAKE it from me, you'll fight me for every micron of it.

-Frem
* http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Blade_of_Tyshalle#The_Blind_God
I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 1:06 PM

M4P, I hear ya. I hereby forsware any further use of highly dismissive lampoons of the oposing argument. In my defense, I'd been called a terrorist already, so a little ridicule seemed fair game. I'm sorry.

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 1:18 PM