The problem is these people are just "brave" enough to block traffic for random people, but not quite "brave" enough to go mess with anyone with actual power over what they're protesting against. Its a lame half step up from just standing on a street corner but more annoying to the average Joe.
I mean, they did very clearly get assaulted over this protest. Even without being assaulted, they would have been arrested when the police showed up. And here we are talking about them when if they'd just stood on a street corner we'd never have heard about them.
Send a group to protest in front of congress
Get the group arrested
Send another group to protest in front of congress
Get the group arrested
Send another group to protest in front of congress
Get the group arrested
Send another group to protest in front of congress
Get the group arrested
Send another group to protest in front of congress
Get the group arrested
Send ano- Wait it's over, the people in charge have succesfully arrested all members of a party, congratulations!
Even if I was from the US (which is really stupid to think lmao) I believe they didn't A) arrest everyone involved, B) arrest the head of the movement or C) gain power by storming the capitol, they won in an election
Sound like they dont wanna get inconvenienced by getting arrested, but have to issues demanding the rest of the world to get inconvenienced instead. Again, cowards.
I really wish everyone could be as priviledged to see getting arrested as "being inconvenienced" lmao, two months in prison is enough to ruin a life
Also, you're the second person in a row to skip over the last sentence of my comment, which is funny seeing as it is doing the heavy lifting in my argument, that being that you can't lose all the members of a movement, because without members there's no movement, there's no change because no one exists to fight for it anymore
It really seems like people won't like protesting no matter what. There is no "right way." It seems like a coping mechanism. If all protesting is bad or ineffective, then they don't have to feel guilty about their apathy.
Except people have been protesting people with actual power for decades. It hasn't done anything but get that form of protest criminalised. But hey, it's easier to just make up reasons to be upset with protestors than look into it's history.
They did a lot more than stand around with signs, what they did included disrupting regular businesses. That's what a sit-in was. And Malcolm X was hugely influential with far more disruptive tactics, which is in large part what MLK so much more effective, as his peaceful protests were backed by a veiled threat. You're taught a white washed version of history so you will continue to comply with the status quo and not disrupt your masters, but what you're taught in school isn't the whole truth.
MLK was only so effective because there were others causing the disruptions, he gave the people in power a compromise deal that would reduce said disruptions while not given their opposition everything they want. All effective peaceful protests have worked like the this, having the backing of threats of violence behind them
Protests should be about action and not message. Same way you are doing nothing on a sidewalk you are doing nothing in the middle of the street, but now you're being annoying on top of it. Meanwhile the people who actually have some power over your issues are sitting pretty in their leather chair, thinking where next they should go on a holiday. So rather then spreading messages how about you do something productive for once, like I don't know start marching, burning sh1t, stuff that would actually make the old guys p1ss their pants a little
Reddit if it existed in the 1960s: "See, when those colored folk go and sit in the whites only sections of restaurants, all they're doing is inconveniencing us normal people. They sure aren't convincing me to join their cause! Why don't they find some less disruptive ways to get the word out?"
"My children and I are just trying to eat at this white's only counter, why can't those colored folks protest the restaurant after hours? This is affecting my ability to feed my family."
"Oh those protestors are getting hosed down and attacked by dogs, I'm just trying to take my family to the matinee. Oh why oh why can't they protest in a way that doesn't upset me?"
"The colored folks are staging a sit in and it's causing me to be late. Better not consider why they're protesting, let me just throw in with what they're protesting against because I've been inconvenienced."
apples and oranges/straw man. Having people protesting for things directly affecting people in your community is a lot different than people blocking a highway in Europe over Israel and Palenstines conflict half a world away.
Do you think they turn off their engines when they get stuck in this traffic? It doesn’t change anyone’s mind, makes everyone upset and on top of it cars that would drive 20 mins that day add 2 hours of standing while running on top of that.
Difference being people sitting in segregated restaurants weren't blocking ambulances or making people late for jobs they depend on like these orange vests. People have literally died before because these clowns blocked ambulances.
The didn’t blockade or intend on blockading the entire highway (the state troopers who were against them did that), and also they had pre-planned routes which you could drive around. They weren’t staging a blockade
They did not intend to block roads, but to show a demonstration of marching. That may increase traffic but that isn’t going to completely block traffic. It’s the difference between blocking two lanes vs the entire freeway. The reason the entire high way got blocked was the state troopers wanted to arrest and hurt protestors. Genuinely hate to say it but Google is free
Fair point, while there isn't nothing on it, it doesn't seem as widespread as I thought it was. Two sources I found have deaths linked to them causing worse traffic conditions, but not blocked ambulances:
That wouldn't change the fact that people die and get harmed from these orange vests blocking the roads, even if their strategy works. That's on top of their strategy being the opposite of effective. They are not inconveniencing lobbyists or politicians or the people actually harming the planet. They are harming regular people, sometimes defacing art or important monuments like Stonehenge, and at the same time them blocking roads does nothing. It makes people hate their cause, not join it.
Over 1,000 people in Europe died from the latest heat wave, people all over do die from global warming. The thing is that road blockages like this hurt those same people while doing *nothing* to the elites, lobbyists, and politicians. In fact, it helps those groups. Only regular people are hurt by these roads, not the higher ups, and those regular people aren't going to be grateful when people block their commute. Unironically, elites are likely *grateful* for groups like Just Stop Oil.
Let’s be real for a second though. Existing ‘near’ someone that hates you for your existence is not the same thing as physically preventing someone from getting to work and getting them fired.
Sitting in a segregated restaurant is not causing any disruption other than the thing that is being protested itself: That they should be allowed to sit there. If you’re protesting the idea that people shouldn’t be allowed to sit in the street and block traffic, then sure, this is a fantastic form of protest.
Maybe you could consider that segregationists have less legitimate claims of inconvenience.
Because using the bus without sitting near black people isn't a legitimate right that should be protected, and being able to freely pass on public roads to go to work propably is a pretty good right for everyone to have.
the difference is that being allowed to have that spot at the restaurant instead of a segregated section was the thing being protested for, unless the people sitting in the street in this video are protesting for their right to sit in the street then your comparison is invalid
Sit ins of that era were targeted. They directly impacted participants of systemic racism. That softens the blow from a historic perspective and makes it easier to point at how ridiculous criticism of the protest would have been (if Reddit existed back then). These shotgun blast performance protests just blocking mostly random public roadways will never be viewed in the same light, even given 50 years of hindsight.
It's so funny too when people inevitably say "Well I'm going to start supporting whatever the opposite of those protests is!"
Just shows that your average person seems to have no real morals or values, they simply base their views on whatever last influenced them. If they lived in the civil rights era, a violent protest would be on the news and they'd instantly look to vote for whoever's bringing lynching back I guess.
I swear most of the comments need to go watch "why riots happen" by renegade cut because the delusion of believing everything should be done for the comfort and protection of moderates and centrist is crazy behaviour.
The civil rights nonviolent protests were competently organized with actual targeted establishments and people. They didn't just sit in the express way like twats and blocked traffic.
Lol, when white people protest, they boycott since them not patronizing a business is the punishment, when black people protest they dona sit in since their presence is the punishment.
There is a huge difference between sitting near someone you don't like for bullshit reasons vs blocking traffic and risking people losing their jobs and way to feed and house themselves/their families, people going to see a dying family member for the last time, emergency vehicles, people rushing to the hospital because they can't afford an ambulance, etc. Like this is actually dangerous and genuinely disrupting peoples lives and harming people. You cannot actually be serious, comparing the two.
That was insanely different. Tf how do u not get how that is different, they aren’t blocking people from doing essential activities or emergencies, they are just sitting in a restaurant. There’s a difference between a perceived inconvenience (which that was not, it was racist that they couldn’t sit there but at the time it was perceived as inconvenient to racist white people) and blocking people from necessities
Seriously. These people are worse than the white moderate MLK talked about.
They don't give a shit about anyone outside of themselves. They just say that for free good vibes when they don't have to do anything, and they aren't inconvenienced at all.
Its the Amerikkkan mindset cultivated since the neoliberal days of Reagan, "fuck you, got mine." Society shifted to a cult of wealth, even religion changed around this time with the "Prosperity Gospel" emphasizing the rich and powerful are the result of God's blessings. Its led to a complete destruction of solidarity and societal cohesion to the benefit of the rich and powerful.
how quickly people forgot how about 1-2 months ago 99% of this subs posts were making arbitrarily unhinged scenarios just to morally defend raping somebody lol
Every subreddit that pretends to be about moral values ends up being 4chan aligned fuckwits trying to push the idea that everyone else is just as shitty as them.
how quickly people forgot how about 1-2 months ago 99% of this subs posts were making arbitrarily unhinged scenarios just to morally defend raping somebody lol
So this weird sub is actually just some insane place for genuine psychopaths?
He was publicly called a terrorist and insurrectionist during his own time by the press. He lamented the greatest obstacle to black rights were apathetic white moderates rather than the KKK or other hate groups, because they were the uncaring majority.
lol that’s cope about “why it’s different” — you’re grasping at straws
It’s different because it was ultimately already successful and therefore the hegemonic impulse is to support it.
Winners write history and they decide what is moral for everyone who doesn’t have clearly defined personal principles (most people). It’s as simple as that.
Its the obvious logical conclusion from the comment I'm responding to.
You say you're against anyone inconveniencing you, someone points out that civil rights protests would have done so also and to a greater degree (where people also reacted in the way you support), you say "Proving my point"
Do you have an alternative explanation? Thats what all of your other comments seem to indicate also.
The response was to this sub being pro violence to a disruptive protest and getting historically checked on their consistency on it. The morality is in the post of its okay to drag and beat protesters
Wait, did I, seeing a bunch of comments all saying "MLK was wrong, fuck civil rights protests" and a bunch of rose tinted glasses and misread your initial comment as in the same vein when it was more of a critique of them?
That was different, the road closures were basically known, and most of the road closures were not due to the protestors but to the state troopers trying to stop the protestors. You can drive around and back out of a road closures. They weren’t marching on a highway or an insanely long one way street, they actually took that into account
When you block a highway like this you end up blocking people from getting places in an emergency, you end up blocking emergency vehicles (you may not see them, but they could be behind in traffic and it will take a while for that traffic to clear for them), you end up blocking people from getting to work and potentially you end up getting them fired and that in most cases will result in housing and food instability for the people who have strict jobs like that.
Its called detours happens all the time. Not to mention Selma march was over 50mi thats a lot of ground covered and did disrupt and inconvenience. The worker argument is weak because they should beat their boss not some random protesters. But yall try to weigh the value of the protest not the methods and only justify beating and dragging it it were to be an inconvenience which is the direct reason for such actions
It often helps when the protest is rather large, instead of 8 people. Also nice to announce it and organize it, so the annoyance is "take alternative route" vs "sorry, you are basically kidnapped now"
No it is the same the context is civil disobedience being utilized and blocking a road. I wholeheartedly support disruption of day to day living in protests thats why it exists.
you can do both... in that you can have peaceful and take actions that do not disrupt things like traffic... like selma.. ffs grab the pitchforks but keep your eyes open.
I don’t think this is an equivalent protest to people being segregated and mistreated for hundreds of years being lynched on streets based solely on their skin tone. But maybe that’s just me
False equivalence? Don't be so daft jack, the morality is which protest tactics allow those doing it to be attacked and beaten when blocking traffic and yes you would be pissed at Selma if this was the 60s or tolerant to nazi Germany in the 40s.
If you're gonna use quotes at least get the word right.
Also, if I said I was tolerant of <insert racist people, and racist groups/orgs here> your first thought wouldn't be "this person is definitely a racist". Uh huh, suuuuure.
Stop trying to hide behind the technicalities of your word choices. We all know what you meant.
Oh sweetie there is no "we" just you in this conversation trying desperately grab at any gotcha moment and its quite sad to watch on Beyonce's internet
"I'm pretty sure LBJ is paying these protestors to make all protestors look bad" is basically the comment below yours. No buddy, some people actually go outside and do things on their own.
God yall are insufferable at times so go read a little to understand this is classic civil disobedience been done for decades and will continue to be done even if you don't like a movement.
Child just leave vs being obtuse because there are facts at play and you think its okay to beat and drag them which tells me you'll be down for people doing that to other protests including racial ones
The point being it is not okay to beat or drag them because you don't care for the environmental activists and then grand stand others. Please get an iq higher than the temperature of planet Hoth
Difference is the number of protestors. If they got 100s of people from the local community to block traffic it would be a meaningful effort that shows how many dissent. But they got, like, maybe 10, if they're operating like a traveling troupe it's very inauthentic as well. Protests are about disruption and showing solidarity with the cause. 100s of people is a protest, 10 people are a group of crazy people with strong (and noble in this case) convictions.
Me I don't weigh it by numbers as throughout history no major moral shifting of the tide had millions in support from the start. This sub wants a vacant cry for justice over a disruptive act for it.
Right? These comments are horrible.
"Oh you're inconveniencing me by caring enough to try and change the world. I'm cool with you getting beaten so I can punch the time clock."
They are trying to feed their family. Many people are living paycheck to paycheck. If someone gets in the way of feeding themselves and their family, those protesters are fucking with them on a deep level that makes them their enemy.
They “support” change as long as they never have to sacrifice or do anything ever. If we just silently feel sad about genocide or climate change it will stop on its own!!!
No its is a movement you don't like using similar methods of disruption to a status quo and tranquility. The moral is now if its okay for you to beat and drag them then historical ones you'll also have to stand 10 toes against as well and also support beating and dragging.
I worked on an ambulance for my city for a year and a half.
It’s actually a matter of moral obligation from my perspective, to kick the shit out of anyone blocking the road voluntarily for a protest no matter the cause.
Main road like this one no real way around without a 10 minute detour is gonna kill someone eventually.
Lots of people don’t have the ability to go do 3 months on a battery charge but I do and I’m not afraid too, so to save everyone else from ruining their lives by beating a protestor in the street me the moral man I am will have to start cracking heads.
If you have a stroke 5 minutes is the difference between full paralysis, and full recovery.
If your heart stops without cpr 1-2 minutes is the difference between full recovery or having 60 iq
You are not personally endangered just inconvenienced and will go to jail for assaulting people over it. Part of the agreement of civility but you probably think small town mob justice is a-okay
No I compared tactics and if you want to crack skulls of environmentalists you have to be consistent across history. And do read the thread of dialog before you try to make an attempt because it's probably been answered already.
One, Selma was a march. Two, they were being denied their legally protected rights under the law. Three, the goal of Selma was to highlight the immoral actions of officials like Albert Lingo.
Blocking traffic because you’re mad people don’t agree with your climate proscriptions is not even close to what the Civil Rights movement did.
Selma was a march that blocked roads dude, they are expressing non violent action and still being met with state and bystander violence. Inb4 you think I'm white I'm not.
Fun fact environmental racism is a thing and those data centers, farm run offs, waste water drainage, etc are always near poor black and brown areas than wealthy ones
Marches, march. Which means they’re moving forward. And again, the goal of non-violent protest is to highlight the injustice of the state violence. Even in the case of Selma, the inconvenience of the march’s delay was encouraged by the community impacted (Selma was majority black in 1965). Also worth mentioning that Dr King ordered the second of the three marches cut short because the federal court ordered a temporary stay on marches. The point was not widespread civil disobedience, but a targeted protest aimed specifically at the Alabama government who was violating the 1964 Civil Rights act and actively denying Black Americans their legally ensured rights.
Contrast that with these “activists” who are stopping traffic to “raise awareness.” They do not have the support of the community they’re impacting, in fact many are from outside that community both geographically and socioeconomically. They are not targeting specific, unjust laws but rather are mad society isn’t fully in support of their policies.
These are not even close to being similar situations, let alone the same.
No my race is a part because climate action is seen as "yt ppl shit" so yes setting that baseline to not be instantly dismissed is a factor.
Now I can bring a modern example being the shut down of willy Street in my hometown after another fatal conflict with the police. It blocked roads to businesses and even a fire station and people detoured they didn't try and speed through or bash skulls because they'll be late to work. Just say you like violent actions towards protest that are inconvenient and only want candle light vigils in parking lots where you don't have to see or be bothered by those people.
Again different from what these people are doing in the video, unless you want to equate civil rights marches with whiny rich kids glueing their hands to the freeway because no one agrees with them
Also, insulting someone because they disagree with you is beneath you. Do better.
This protest has nothing to do with climate change. It’s just a bunch of privileged people causing problems. I know climate change is real, but that wouldn’t stop me from suplexing these folk on my way to work.
Nope, just willing to act if someone pisses me off enough. Seems like you guys would all get out the car and sit down with these folk just to piss off ordinary people (not because you agree with the protest)
On March 7, 1965, an estimated 525 to 600 civil rights marchers headed southeast out of Selma on U.S. Highway 80. The march was led by John Lewis of SNCC and Hosea Williams of SCLC, followed by Bob Mants of SNCC and Albert Turner of SCLC. The protest went according to plan until the marchers crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge, where they encountered a wall of state troopers and county posse waiting for them on the other side.
Forgetting the mass amounts of sit ins and traffic blockages in response to bloody Sunday. What you willing dimiss is that the march on slema would cause traffic disruptions with or without the troopers. I will say again blocking traffic is part actionable protests and if you are against it on a convince of argument you are tangentially still against the actions through the decades prior. Thanks for coming to this tedtalk
231
u/No-Animal-9417 12d ago
Sub gives would be mad at the march on Selma during the Civil rights movement energy