Current Events > Screw protests/protesters who block freeways and streets with their bs

(+) Yeah! (+)

DnDer posted...

Simple-minded people who don't follow politics will probably encounter a protest, even if it's one blocking the road, and hear of a new thing they weren't paying attention to before, coming to new awareness of an issue.

Just an example I can think of that would be easy to garner sympathy for.

"Why are these people blocking the road? The f*** is going on? [...] Romney did what to his dog? That mother-f***er!"

If they are sitting in some blockade on the highway after a long ass day at work, or need to get to work, you are very optimistic to think those people would be begging to understand and dig deep into why these people who decided to block the road are ruining their day instead of doing something that would ruin the day of the people they are protesting.

Your example wouldn't garner people to have sympathy and interest. The people it's targeting have nothing to with your example and just aims to inconvenience people who have nothing to do with what you're protesting. In fact, that example would piss a lot of people off. "You caused me to lose a day of work because of what some guy did to a dog? Why the fuck didn't you go inconvenience him? Are you going to pay me for the salary missed, are you going to make up appointments missed? What Romney allegedly did is messed up, but that has nothing to do with you fucking up my life over it."

It's great you can casually miss a day of work or not get to places on time with no lasting harm, but for some people that seriously harms them.

This doesn't mean "people shouldn't protest" like some twist it to with examples that directly involve people protesting and inconveniences to the very people they are protesting.

Centrists getting absolutely shook in this topic that protesters aren't actually trying to impress them lol

"People are simple and don't know shit about anything, but they definitely will develop a vendetta against any cause that includes people who have annoyed them!"

DementedDurian posted...

So Wikipedia isn't reliable in this regard? Who am I supposed to believe - a group of video gamers on GameFAQs or an encylopedia that many people look up answers on things?

It's accurate insofar as it reports facts about MLK's non-violence. But, like many encyclopedias or other reference materials, it lacks the nuance and cultural context around those non-violent approaches and how militant he got about it.

I'm saying, "You're right, but..." and trying to help you upgrade to the usual kind of quality posts I am used to seeing from you.

It's great you can casually miss a day of work or not get to places on time with no lasting harm, but for some people that seriously harms them.

i guess people should take protests seriously then. also:

Your example wouldn't garner people to have sympathy and interest.

you're assuming the worst of everyone involved solely you can continue to argue in bad faith. it's transparent. like, you have nothing and people shouldn't even be humoring you.

RyukSan posted...

The people it's targeting have nothing to with your example and just aims to inconvenience people who have nothing to do with what you're protesting.

In my example, he was running for president. Everyone needs to be aware that a potential candidate for office abuses animals, and should lead you to worry what he would do to people under his administration. Learning the guy who could run your country and life for 4 years has zero care or empathy for living creatures he directly says he loves should impact and motivate you to vote against him.

And even if you're stuck in traffic for 10 extra minutes, you learned something valuable about the potential future of your country through it. Hopefully that crisis helps overcome your mild annoyance at being inconvenienced.

That's what these protestors want to accomplish.

But you seem to think that the overriding danger of <thing that's being protested> will only garner opposition to the protesters because of an inconvenience. If that were true, though, MLK would never have gotten traction, and Gandhi would have never been successful, to name to two most famous examples.

Don't some cities have laws saying they can be legally be run over in some situations??

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

gamefaqs.gamespot.fantom.com

DnDer posted...

In my example, he was running for president. Everyone needs to be aware that a potential candidate for office abuses animals, and should lead you to worry what he would do to people under his administration. Learning the guy who could run your country and life for 4 years has zero care or empathy for living creatures he directly says he loves should impact and motivate you to vote against him.

And even if you're stuck in traffic for 10 extra minutes, you learned something valuable about the potential future of your country through it. Hopefully that crisis helps overcome your mild annoyance at being inconvenienced.

That's what these protestors want to accomplish.

But you seem to think that the overriding danger of <thing that's being protested> will only garner opposition to the protesters because of an inconvenience. If that were true, though, MLK would never have gotten traction, and Gandhi would have never been successful, to name to two most famous examples.

You aren't forcing anyone to care having them miss work or appointments. Your message can easily be conveyed without literally harming the people who did nothing wrong. Causing people to even miss a half a day of work can cause some serious harm to people who already struggle to pay bills. Your protest isn't attacking innocent people isn't going to force people to focus on your protest over their personal struggles that can have a serious impact on their lives.

Also again, using examples like MLK are bad examples. Their protests targeted the very people who were causing them harm or at the very least people who championed the problem.

Once again, "dont harm innocent people" doesn't mean "people shouldn't protest" like you keep turning it to with examples that directly involve people protesting and inconveniences to the very people they are protesting.

another topic of why the usual suspects have no takes worth reading#203568020

As if we don't have the technology to mitigate traffic jams and reroute emergency vehicles lol.

RyukSan posted...

You aren't forcing anyone to care having them miss work or appointments. Your message can easily be conveyed without literally harming the people who did nothing wrong. Causing people to even miss a half a day of work can cause some serious harm to people who already struggle to pay bills. Your protest isn't attacking innocent people isn't going to force people to focus on your protest over their personal struggles that can have a serious impact on their lives.

Also again, using examples like MLK are bad examples. Their protests targeted the very people who were causing them harm or at the very least people who championed the problem.

Once again, "dont harm innocent people" doesn't mean "people shouldn't protest" like you keep turning it to with examples that directly involve people protesting and inconveniences to the very people they are protesting.

So what's the right way to protest? Specifically? Kneeling at a fucking football game caused the biggest uproar of all time and that neither hurt nor impacted anyone's life in literally anyway.

Solid_Snake07 posted...

Its not about someone already being an ally its about swaying opinions of people who are undecided or maybe never even considered the problem at all. Presenting your side as the assholes who block people from going to/from work or fucking hospitals isnt exactly a good look

And joining the side that is literally restricting the freedoms of others based off of skin color is because of a minor inconvenience is.... what, exactly? Is THAT a good look?

If a protest doesn't at the very least inconvenience people, its not a protest

Heineken14 posted...

And joining the side that is literally restricting the freedoms of others based off of skin color is because of a minor inconvenience is.... what, exactly? Is THAT a good look?

No, but according to him blocking traffic in some way makes them somehow related to terrorists.

'you know the ones'

Heavy_D_Forever posted...

Then more protesters will be run over by cars. Common sense would dictate that you shouldn't be in the path of large objects moving at a high rate of speed.

Common sense would also dictate that you purposely don't run people over in your large object, you know, because that's murder.

Gwynevere posted...

People claiming disruptive protests impede the progress of a cause have a very...loose grasp of the history of civil and workers rights movements.

Or they know and they're sad that those movements made ground. A coin flip on which one sometimes

Curious how they view France's style of protesting. They've historically had a... ahem.... VERY disruptive end to theirs. lol

Umbreon posted...

People complaining about protesters standing in the street seem to forget that historically protesters have done far more unpleasant things to obtain progress.

Just look at the French Revolution. I bet you the people being dragged out their homes would beg for merely blocked roads.

Damn, beat me to the punch.

FolkenRawr posted...

So what's the right way to protest? Specifically? Kneeling at a fucking football game caused the biggest uproar of all time and that neither hurt nor impacted anyone's life in literally anyway.

None of my posts implied or claimed that was a bad protest. Innocent peoples livelihood isn't hurt by looking at kneeling at a football game. So we both agree the people who cry over that are babies.

I also already answered your first question several times and in the post you quoted.

Heineken14 posted...

Curious how they view France's style of protesting. They've historically had a... ahem.... VERY disruptive end to theirs. lol

Damn, beat me to the punch.

I wonder how 18th century French peasantry would react if they had billion dollar corporations telling them were making record profits, and by the way, also raising prices and laying people off.

Maybe the 21st century American peasantry should be asking itself that same question.

Dark_Arbron posted...

I wonder how 18th century French peasantry would react if they had billion dollar corporations telling them were making record profits, and by the way, also raising prices and laying people off.

Maybe someday the 21st century American peasantry will ask themselves that question.

Well those peasants are stupid and dumb. Us peasants over here are really smart and handsome and one day WE will be the billionaires making the money, so we can't do anything bad to them!

Heineken14 posted...

Well those peasants are stupid and dumb. Us peasants over here are really smart and handsome and one day WE will be the billionaires making the money, so we can't do anything bad to them!

Damn, I didnt consider that!

ugh, those so called "street protestors" are the worst. Imagine holding all those drivers hostage and thinking you can win them over.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

https://youtu.be/noJjFNfdcqQ

RISEofCHRISTIAN posted...

ugh, those so called "street protestors" are the worst. Imagine holding all those drivers hostage and thinking you can win them over.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

https://youtu.be/noJjFNfdcqQ

Imagine thinking you can overturn a free and fair election by force.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

RISEofCHRISTIAN posted...

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Did they play stupid games like when you made a bet to give people money when Donnie won re-election and then you chickened out and didn't pay people the stupid prizes you lost?

hockeybub89 posted...

Why would them inconveniencing you affect your views on whatever cause it is?

Because, I don't know if you noticed, but that's how humans tend to work. People tend not to care about things until it starts affecting their lives directly, and whether or not they're on the side of those things greatly depends on whether those things affect them in either a positive or negative way. This is pretty basic stuff.

RISEofCHRISTIAN posted...

ugh, those so called "street protestors" are the worst. Imagine holding all those drivers hostage and thinking you can win them over.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

https://youtu.be/noJjFNfdcqQ

Would you prefer they just erect a gallows and beat police to death like Trumpers did on 1/6?

Heineken14 posted...

Did they play stupid games like when you made a bet to give people money when Donnie won re-election and then you chickened out and didn't pay people the stupid prizes you lost?

Holy shit, I didn't notice who posted that video. Was I suppose to watch that and feel anything other than pissed at the cops?

Philip027 posted...

Because, I don't know if you noticed, but that's how humans tend to work. People tend not to care about things until it starts affecting their lives directly, and whether or not they're on the side of those things greatly depends on whether those things affect them in either a positive or negative way. This is pretty basic stuff.

But if that was the case, then there wouldn't be a single elected Republican in the country and the rich would be thoroughly eaten.

This also means the average person should be constantly changing their entire worldview based on whoever most recently annoyed them.

Its a childish way to get your message across.

People who take part in protests like that which involve and disrupt people who have nothing to do with issue come off as huge narcissists. They seem to care more about doing it for their own self-satisfaction that they did something good than they actually care about having a positive impact on their cause. Disruption and awareness is like a bottom of the barrel consolation prize because no matter how much of an utter failure they were at doing something positive they put themselves in a win-win situation in which they can cling to that to convince themselves they actually did something good instead of feeling like, you know, losers.

hockeybub89 posted...

This also means the average person should be constantly changing their entire worldview based on whoever most recently annoyed them.

Uhh. Yeah. That happens quite a lot.

gamer167 posted...

Its a childish way to get your message across.

People who take part in protests like that which involve and disrupt people who have nothing to do with issue come off as huge narcissists. They seem to care more about doing it for their own self-satisfaction that they did something good than they actually care about having a positive impact on their cause. Disruption and awareness is like a bottom of the barrel consolation prize because no matter how much of an utter failure they were at doing something positive they put themselves in a win-win situation in which they can cling to that to convince themselves they actually did something good instead of feeling like, you know, losers.

Translation: "People who protest are narcissistic losers who don't actually care about the cause they are pretending to fight for"

Why can't you guys just say "I don't like free speech and people are pretty stupid for thinking they can change anything about the world. It all sucks and will always suck and trying to do anything is pointless."

Philip027 posted...

Uhh. Yeah. That happens quite a lot.

So everyone is incredibly stupid and barely sentient? Why haven't Republicans considered widespread fake protests? They could easily get 98-99% support for anything they want, before something new comes along and flips the entire country against them.

You say this, but no one is actually completely abandoning their worldview just because someone who agrees with them inconvenienced their daily life. People would barely have personalities if they actually operated like this, like they're 14 year olds swearing that it's totally not a phase, mom. They'd be a different person with different values every other Tuesday.

RISEofCHRISTIAN posted...

ugh, those so called "street protestors" are the worst. Imagine holding all those drivers hostage and thinking you can win them over.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

https://youtu.be/noJjFNfdcqQ

Next you'd be advocating for protesters to be shot for inconveniencing you.

gamer167 posted...

Its a childish way to get your message across.

People who take part in protests like that which involve and disrupt people who have nothing to do with issue come off as huge narcissists. They seem to care more about doing it for their own self-satisfaction that they did something good than they actually care about having a positive impact on their cause. Disruption and awareness is like a bottom of the barrel consolation prize because no matter how much of an utter failure they were at doing something positive they put themselves in a win-win situation in which they can cling to that to convince themselves they actually did something good instead of feeling like, you know, losers.

How did you think the civil rights protesters protested? If you were there you'd probably be complaining that they're annoying you because they're taking your segregated diner seats.

Fenriswolf posted...

How did you think the civil rights protesters protested? If you were there you'd probably be complaining that they're annoying you because they're taking your segregated diner seats.

"Some people are just trying to get a well earned meal and narcissistic jackasses are taking over the restaurant to prove some dumb political point! How is this going to get people on their side? They should be sitting on the lawns of lawmakers, invading their kitchens. All they're going to do here is turn common folk against them!"

Telling how many of the chuds are "REEEEEEing" about how protests hurt their fee-fees. Some of these sooks would have run over MLK had he been doing a march to Selma now.

Heineken14 posted...

Curious how they view France's style of protesting. They've historically had a... ahem.... VERY disruptive end to theirs. lol

Hell, they should be glad that the only thing that's happening is a slight little delay in traffic. Our grandfathers literally took up arms and died at Blair Mountain fighting against coal mining company towns, and many other clashes on the road to the workers rights we have today.

You either pay attention to the voices behind the slightly inconvenient protests now, or roll the dice on shit getting bad enough for people to riot later. The problems aren't just going away.

ChainsawFerret posted...

Telling how many of the chuds are "REEEEEEing" about how protests hurt their fee-fees. Some of these sooks would have run over MLK had he been doing a march to Selma now.

"B-b-but MLK would have never blocked a road! Ok, he did block a road but that was different because reasons! "

Why don't protesters now protest the old fashioned way?

Alchemist_Emil posted...

Why don't protesters now protest the old fashioned way?

Like the French Revolution?

ooger posted...

Like the French Revolution?

Yes, as there's quite a few gloating posts about it lol

Alchemist_Emil posted...

Why don't protesters now protest the old fashioned way?

What was the old fashioned way?

Still dont get why people think pissing off the masses helps their cause. They should instead be blocking politician's homes, government buildings, etc. People who actually have to do something about it.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

It's funny when people make all the same arguments that the majority of people made against the Civil Rights Movement that they love to cite as an example of proper protest.

LightHawKnight posted...

Still dont get why people think pissing off the masses helps their cause. They should instead be blocking politician's homes, government buildings, etc. People who actually have to do something about it.

I still don't get how so many users can come into this topic saying the same thing you just did when it's been corrected literally dozens of times, but here we are.

LightHawKnight posted...

Still dont get why people think pissing off the masses helps their cause. They should instead be blocking politician's homes, government buildings, etc. People who actually have to do something about it.

Oh look! Exhibit A!

TheOtherMike posted...

I still don't get how so many users can come into this topic saying the same thing you just did when it's been corrected literally dozens of times, but here we are.

Getting people pissed at you isnt helping your cause.

LightHawKnight posted...

Getting people pissed at you isnt helping your cause.

Sure, Jan

LightHawKnight posted...

Getting people pissed at you isnt helping your cause.

The majority of the American public did not support the civil rights movement while it was happening. In May 1961, in a Gallup survey, only 22 percent of Americans approved of what the Freedom Riders were doing, and 57 percent of Americans said that the sit-ins at lunch counters, freedom buses and other demonstrations by Negroes were hurting the Negros chances of being integrated in the South.
Lest we see this as Southerners skewing the national sample, in 1964, a year before the passage of the Voting Rights Act, in a poll conducted by the New York Times, a majority of white people in New York City said the civil rights movement had gone too far: While denying any deepseated prejudice, a large number of those questioned used the same terms to express their feelings. They spoke of Negroes receiving everything on a silver platter and of reverse discrimination against whites. Nearly half said that picketing and demonstrations hurt black peoples cause. In 1966, a year after Selma and the passage of the Voting Rights Act, 85 percent of white people and 30 percent of black people nationally believed that demonstrations by black people on civil rights hurt the advancement of civil rights.

https://www.theroot.com/mlk-would-never-shut-down-a-freeway-and-6-other-myths-1790856033