It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Blocking streets at random is not nonviolence

page: 4
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
I don't know about now, but in the sixties, I was there as a teenager. Protests were not meant to be violent in the sense of weapons. It was meant to be disruptive to the establishment and commerce. Right or wrong, it is the way it works and much more effective than bombs and guns. Sometimes, history calls for such times to remind TPTB who butters their bread.




posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Grovit

Yeah because you think it's all about you. oh no you had to drive around the block!

Oh my god!

Oh my god help me!



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Sorry if this is a little direct, but advocating for taking away people's rights kind of sets me off...

1. Please stop calling the shooting a civil rights issue. It's insulting to those who are truly discriminated against.
2. Did you really just compare the US to Nazi Germany?
3. Do you think that the mind of one racist is going to be changed? The protests will merely reinforce stereotypes.
4. What immediate resolution do you propose? We have laws, and good ones, that protect the rights of every citizens. If you are proposing that all police wear body cameras, I'm totally with you. I don't think though that many people believe that police should randomly shoot teenagers based on their race.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

When you block an interstate or major intersection, how are people going to "go around"? You've essentially imprisoned them.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Grovit

Yeah because you think it's all about you. oh no you had to drive around the block!

Oh my god!

Oh my god help me!


yeah, cause people on the shoreway are able to just drive around the block

i just dont think you get it..
youre not the decision maker. you dont get to decide for people what is important and what is not.
you dont get to decide that people are going to be late for work or late picking up their kids cause you have an issue with something.

i really hope the starts cracking down on people that do things like that...im corssing my fingers.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Grovit

I get it.

I support them doing whatever it takes to solve the issue of police brutality and corruption within the judicial system.

Complete and total support.

If takes making a few people have to reschedule their day in order to accomplish that goal then so be it.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: sdubya
a reply to: onequestion

When you block an interstate or major intersection, how are people going to "go around"? You've essentially imprisoned them.


he either does not understand or he does not care.

of course having to drive around a block is no big deal but it was not possible when youre on the shoreway.
youre stuck..nowhere to go because people like him decided they had to be forced to park....
simple as that



apparently his right to protest something he feels is important trumps a persons right to make it on time to pick their kid up or to make it to work on time



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion


I support them doing whatever it takes to solve the issue of police brutality and corruption within the judicial system.

Complete and total support.

If takes making a few people have to reschedule their day in order to accomplish that goal then so be it.


fair enough.
i support you getting hit with a possible felony seeing as you already have a record.
complete and total support



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Grovit

and that's all you've got isn't it?



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Grovit

and that's all you've got isn't it?


its not about what i have. just telling you what i would support, same as you...

from your posts its pretty clear you feel the way you feel about the cops and the law...
thats fine.....

i just dont think its cool to think its fine to force peoples lives to stop because you decide one day you want to block the street because you have an issue with something...



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
What I learned from this thread:
As long as people who want to gain the attention of society, protest in a designated area [far away from anyone who has important business to attend] and in a non-disruptive way [preferably without making any noise at all, so as not to make a nuisance of themselves], then protesting is fine.


I always thought that non violent protests were there to catch the attention of those who normally love to look past other people's problems. What a good idea to sit on a road. I know it works because even those who normally can't be bothered have got so angry about this that they are making comments.
IMO that means mission accomplished [without bloodshed].



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Hecate666

i see it a different way
i see it as selfish

had the people in cleveland held a lawful protest in public square for example, thousands of people an hour would have heard them if only for the amount of people on that area..
imo, way more effective at getting people behind the cause....



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Good comments, and a lively discussion. Have to repeat once again though, because it is a subtle but important point imnho. A protest that ties up a street concerning a major issue (all issues are major for someone) is a protest, and does gain attention. But.....my point.....it is not part of a nonviolent movement. It's fine for what it is, a disruptive and loud tactic, a tactic which could backfire with very unintended results and a lot of people feeling bad about what they've done. Again, if my father, driving himself to the hospital as he was having a heart attack, had been stopped by a crowd protesting the Queen's treatment of her dogs and son, he'd have died. Dead, kaput, "he's dead, Jim". That could happen at any one of these protests, it's the chance they have to take. But it is not a tactic which should be used if you're calling yourself a nonviolent movement, according to folks who've been there done that.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grovit
a reply to: Hecate666

i see it a different way
i see it as selfish

had the people in cleveland held a lawful protest in public square for example, thousands of people an hour would have heard them if only for the amount of people on that area..
imo, way more effective at getting people behind the cause....



That's exactly what I mean. I am glad your forefathers were less ignorant, when some brave ones amongst them fought for freedom. "Oooh, I can't get to work because some people believe it is their right to use guns and shoot others so that society becomes a better place...I'd prefer revolutions to be held by throwing cotton balls at each other, somewhere out of sight, so I can get my carriage through."
Haha, history would be so much less amazing.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Hecate666

this is not about a fight for the freedom of a nation
this is about a select group of people lashing out at something they perceive as wrong..

there is a huge gap between cotton balls and guns...

im sure if you were on the way somewhere for an emergency and some protestors forced you to stop for an hour you would feel differently.

how would you feel if you missed the birth of your child?
how would you feel if you didnt get a chance to say goodbye to your mother or father as they were dying in the hospital cause someone decided for you that you needed to stop your travels so you could hear their message?

would you still be cool with it?



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
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.


Nonsense.


So by your logic then, you agree with anti-abortion protestors that restrain a woman from going into an abortion clinic? That their feelings that children are being killed in there outweigh her right to go into the clinic? I would, by your standard, assume you agree with that.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
a reply to: onequestion

So your saying it's ok to break the law as long as you think it's for a good cause?



the people that threw tea into boston harbor were breaking the law...so, apparently you would have been on the side of the british empire during the formation of the U.S.



posted on Dec, 2 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Protesting is stupid in the modern age, it's disruptive, leads to mob mentality and people often get hurt, it disrupts people and in the end it doesn't communicate anything but the most simple messages...

We have the ability to create and promote words instantly around the globe today, video, audio, forums...

There is no Dialogue in a protest, it's not that useful, people don't learn anything when you piss them off, it's poor message communication when compared to modern tools like the Internet




top topics



 
22
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join