LogFAQs > #976927315

hockeybub89 posted...

And if anyone developed negative opinions on civil rights because a protester might of disrupted society harder than MLK liked was someone too fickle to be considered a true ally.

You're at risk of being exterminated by conservatives and you're worried that activists might block too much traffic and force people to agree that you have no right to exist.

To be frank, the average person does NOT want to go to war with its own government and the only ones who do are conservative gun nuts who think the "gay agenda" is going to make their God unhappy, bringing the apocalypse because of it.

Take me for instance. I don't like confrontation and really don't like messing with people unless I'm trying to pull a joke of some kind. I don't feel comfortable putting myself in the way of speeding vehicles for a cause I don't feel like I'm not properly representing.

FolkenRawr posted...

How would you classify blocking a road if not 'non violent civil disobedience'?

You talk about nuance and then talking to national leaders without any sense of scale or history.

Because blocking roads is not civil disobedience. It's a "I want my cake and eat it too" kind of idiocy.

With a sit-in, the only thing you're occupying is the seat. With a road blockage, you're taking people hostage by forcing them to stop in the middle of the street, sometimes trapping them in a hazardous spot.

Quite frankly, I don't see why people give these protestors the benefit of the doubt since it's for a cause. If was to rob a bank and then donated that money to the Red Cross, it wouldn't justify my actions. Why should theirs?