Blocking streets at random is not nonviolence

a reply to: Aleister

But isnt your whole point that people were inconvenienced?

people were inconvenienced all over the world by sitins and all kinds of protest.

inconvenienced being the key word here.

a reply to: onequestion

No, that's not my point. People could die. Nonviolence creates situations where people are asked to look at an issue and discuss it, but should not force them to look, force them to discuss it. Those tactics work to a certain degree, but all I'm saying is that it is inaccurate to call them part of a nonviolent movement.

a reply to: onequestion


I see the point your making, that some issues are important and require people to do things to right them. But at the same time, if I'm driving and come upon your group, and you will not let me pass, then does that not basically amount to a type of false imprisonment? Perhaps the simple act of blocking the road isn't violence, but how many videos have you seen where it devolves into people hitting the vehicle? Thats a type of violence right, so these things can get violent.

Also from your first post with the definition of violence:

"3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws "

It is my right to freely travel, and they would be using their "force or power" to go against my right. So...

There are right ways and wrong ways to gain attention for a cause, I fail to see how someone breaking the law and preventing me from exercising my rights is supposed to sway me.

As far as the kids in the stadium comment, I'm not sure if you meant they were about to be killed or already were. If they were about to be killed, that sounds to me like the commission of a felony. In which case I would fully expect you and the protesters to get the heck out of the road and join me in exercising our 2nd amendment rights to prevent that felony. If they are already dead, I fail to see how blocking a road does any good. There would be better, more effective ways

a reply to: onequestion

Simple answer never the rights of one group don't supercede the rights of another. People have a right to protest they don't have the right to stop others from performing there rights such as using public roads.

And by the way this is a form of violence. They are using force to disrupt people's lives thinking this somehow garners support.Terrorists don't threaten the government they threaten to disrupt the people lives hoping that the people will change policy. If be bomb or disruption of business the results are intended to be the same.

a reply to: Aleister

I am not sure what the protests were about from your OP . The problem is with these unannounced types of protests no matter how peaceful they are in intention it is the unknown ,the unforeseeable . Imagine people peacefully protesting the shooting of Michael Brown . ( Please don't shoot me down here it is hypothetical and maybe this is what the op was alluding to . ) Officer Wilson drives around the corner right into the protest . I can see things going downhill very quickly . Police respond as they tend to do and before you know it , well lets not go there . IMO opinion these type of protests even though seen as peaceful always have the potential to turn very nasty .

a reply to: hutch622

I put up the thread after seeing a long collage of videos of people blocking streets on the Maddow show (yes, I often put her show on, for the first long segment at least, throw pies here), a segment on the spreading protests inspired by the Ferguson incidents. But the OP could apply to any unannounced sit-in that blocks a street, and the reason why that tactic is not part of a nonviolent movement (a specific type of long-term action).

Good luck with your non violent protest people.

What's the point, head back in sand.

Because they work.

No, unlike you I want to see a real change and I'm not worried about inconveniencing a few people for a little while over a civil rights issue.

a reply to: onequestion

And what if road blocking protesters in town 'a' kept you from being able to drive to and join road blocking protesters in town 'b'?

See how that works, friend? Inconvenience is an arbitrary thing.

a reply to: Maverick1


What's your point?

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Aleister


Pick which version of violence it is.

I would say it's not technically violence but it IS false imprisonment, which is a serious crime.

If you were walking down the road, and me and my four buddies tied you up (very gently) and let you sit there for an hour before untying you and letting you go on your way, don't you think I should be arrested?

Double post, whoops

a reply to: onequestion

My point is the same as others above made : That the importance and validity of road-blocking antics is relative. Reaching that next sit-in may be important to you or me, but not to the next guy.

As a protest tactic, this one seems risky and ill thought out. It will ultimately likely prove to have an alienating rather than unifying effect.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Grovit

No i think the issue at hand is the determining factor here.

For instance. What if they were protesting the killing 100,000 children at once in a stadium?

Then would you be ok with them stopping traffic and getting everyones attention?

When would you consider it ok to get everyones attention and disturb everyones perfect little days, how big of an issue does it have to be for you to be ok with it?

WE NEED TO LISTEN, LISTEN, TO PEOPLE NOT REACT thats the real solution.

If 10,000 children were killed in a stadium, a "protest" wouldn't do much.

One's right to protest does not invalidate the rights of another citizen to peaceable go about their business.

I know that the protestors may think that their cause is the most important in the world and that they are bringing great change by blocking their fellow citizens use of their streets, but they would be wrong.

a reply to: NavyDoc

No I think there are times when it's right to shut down everyone's life to pay attention to an issue that needs immediate resolution like a civil rights issue.

It's kind of like war.

Very inconvenient for a lot of people but sometimes you have to do it.

Like the nazis for example. Really inconvenient for Americans to have to go save the day but we really needed to step in and stop them.

No I'm absolutely grounded in my logic and stand firm.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: NavyDoc

No I think there are times when it's right to shut down everyone's life to pay attention to an issue that needs immediate resolution like a civil rights issue.

It's kind of like war.

Very inconvenient for a lot of people but sometimes you have to do it.

Like the nazis for example. Really inconvenient for Americans to have to go save the day but we really needed to step in and stop them.

No I'm absolutely grounded in my logic and stand firm.

No, you are grounded in your own ideals. Like I said, everyone of those protestors probably "believes" that their cause is just and that they are doing what they "must" do to "bring awareness." Just because they "feel" this way does not make it true.

Your premise is not based on logic, but "feelings."

a reply to: NavyDoc

No it's not.

If something is happening that needs immediate public attention then I'm all for it.

Your issue is the purpose of the protest.

I bet you 100$ that there's an issue out there you'd be willing to stop traffic for a few hours for.


Stop lieing.

originally posted by: onequestion

No I think there are times when it's right to shut down everyone's life to pay attention to an issue that needs immediate resolution like a civil rights issue.


Like the nazis for example. Really inconvenient for Americans to have to go save the day but we really needed to step in and stop them.

No I'm absolutely grounded in my logic and stand firm.

i dont get your thought process at all.
just because there is a issue that warrants disrupting peoples lives does not make it the case...
thats what you dont seem to understand...something that is important to you may not mean # to me

and youre nazi example...well, that example just sucks...
lets compare stopping people in traffic and a protest to sending people to die in a war...

originally posted by: onequestion


If something is happening that needs immediate public attention then I'm all for it.

the problem is youre deciding for everyone what needs attention
understand?

a reply to: Grovit

Sure buddy.

Wait until you have a reason to protest and no one is there to hear you.

I look forward to it.

originally posted by: onequestion


Wait until you have a reason to protest and no one is there to hear you.

I look forward to it.

of course you look forward to it

youre gonna be waiting a long time.
protesting is not something i do