What types of externalities invalidate the claim of "peaceful" in the context of method of protest?

[ThatRobGuy]

I raise this question, because obviously there's a lot of debate about the current protests happening right now.

While the predictable battle lines have been drawn, and there are clear-cut cases of "peaceful" and "non-peaceful" that everyone can point to...


I'm more concerned with the grey area. The methods of protest that don't actually involve hitting someone in the face or throwing a brick, but that carry certain externalities that harm people in other ways.


I'm referring to things like this:

Entitled anti-ICE protesters block NYC woman from getting to work

A mother is seen begging a pair of anti-ICE demonstrators to move, desperately saying how she needs to get to work so she can provide for her child.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Or people deliberately blocking traffic, thus preventing hundreds (or potentially thousands) of people from getting to work, and potentially blocking emergency services.


By the standards some people are using, the exchange in the video (or the act of blocking a bunch of people from getting to where they need to be) would get labelled as "peaceful" because no punches were thrown. But is it really "peaceful" considering the definition of the word is "freedom from disturbance; tranquility"?


We've seen it before, people blocking the roads for hundreds of people, and when one person has finally had enough, and gets out of the car and engages them, the person engaging them catches the blame for making things "unpeaceful" or "escalating". When, in fact, I'd say that the entitled action of "I get to make 1,000 other people miss a day's pay because me and my friends want to stand in the highway and make a political point" is, itself, the initial escalation.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I raise this question, because obviously there's a lot of debate about the current protests happening right now.

While the predictable battle lines have been drawn, and there are clear-cut cases of "peaceful" and "non-peaceful" that everyone can point to...


I'm more concerned with the grey area. The methods of protest that don't actually involve hitting someone in the face or throwing a brick, but that carry certain externalities that harm people in other ways.


I'm referring to things like this:

Entitled anti-ICE protesters block NYC woman from getting to work

A mother is seen begging a pair of anti-ICE demonstrators to move, desperately saying how she needs to get to work so she can provide for her child.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Or people deliberately blocking traffic, thus preventing hundreds (or potentially thousands) of people from getting to work, and potentially blocking emergency services.


By the standards some people are using, the exchange in the video (or the act of blocking a bunch of people from getting to where they need to be) would get labelled as "peaceful" because no punches were thrown. But is it really "peaceful" considering the definition of the word is "freedom from disturbance; tranquility"?


We've seen it before, people blocking the roads for hundreds of people, and when one person has finally had enough, and gets out of the car and engages them, the person engaging them catches the blame for making things "unpeaceful" or "escalating". When, in fact, I'd say that the entitled action of "I get to make 1,000 other people miss a day's pay because me and my friends want to stand in the highway and make a political point" is, itself, the initial escalation.

When was the last time conservatives did a nation wide protest on anything that involved cities burning and store being looted? I know, "what about January 6th!" That was one incident that lasted 8 hours an only one person was killed. Now compare that to BLM, ANTIFA summer of love, CHAZ/CHOP, LA, ect..., what do you have?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

I raise this question, because obviously there's a lot of debate about the current protests happening right now.

While the predictable battle lines have been drawn, and there are clear-cut cases of "peaceful" and "non-peaceful" that everyone can point to...


I'm more concerned with the grey area. The methods of protest that don't actually involve hitting someone in the face or throwing a brick, but that carry certain externalities that harm people in other ways.


I'm referring to things like this:

Entitled anti-ICE protesters block NYC woman from getting to work

A mother is seen begging a pair of anti-ICE demonstrators to move, desperately saying how she needs to get to work so she can provide for her child.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Or people deliberately blocking traffic, thus preventing hundreds (or potentially thousands) of people from getting to work, and potentially blocking emergency services.


By the standards some people are using, the exchange in the video (or the act of blocking a bunch of people from getting to where they need to be) would get labelled as "peaceful" because no punches were thrown. But is it really "peaceful" considering the definition of the word is "freedom from disturbance; tranquility"?


We've seen it before, people blocking the roads for hundreds of people, and when one person has finally had enough, and gets out of the car and engages them, the person engaging them catches the blame for making things "unpeaceful" or "escalating". When, in fact, I'd say that the entitled action of "I get to make 1,000 other people miss a day's pay because me and my friends want to stand in the highway and make a political point" is, itself, the initial escalation.

This would be a big problem if there was only one single road in a city. Go a different route. That’s what I do when the streets backed up with traffic. Why would it be any different if the streets are backed up by protesters?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Trying desperately to defend your ilk for their methods of protest? Gee tell me the last time conservatives did a nation wide protest on anything that involved cities burning and store being looted? I know, "what about January 6th!" That was one incident that lasted 8 hours an only one person was killed. Now compare that to BLM, ANTIFA summer of love, CHAZ/CHOP, LA, ect..., what do you have?

I think there's a chance you're misreading my post...

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This would be a big problem if there was only one single road in a city. Go a different route. That’s what I do when the streets backed up with traffic. Why would it be any different if the streets are backed up by protesters?

What happens if you're like the person in the video...were already well into the route, and then get blocked, and have a line of cars behind you and can't move?

And note, the term peaceful means "free from disturbance", having to get stuck there and miss a day's work because of an entitled "man-bun" dude like the one in the video who dismissively says "pfft, oh, work!" (in a condescending tone) wouldn't be "peaceful" by the the true definition.

 

[public hermit]

I raise this question, because obviously there's a lot of debate about the current protests happening right now.

While the predictable battle lines have been drawn, and there are clear-cut cases of "peaceful" and "non-peaceful" that everyone can point to...


I'm more concerned with the grey area. The methods of protest that don't actually involve hitting someone in the face or throwing a brick, but that carry certain externalities that harm people in other ways.


I'm referring to things like this:

Entitled anti-ICE protesters block NYC woman from getting to work

A mother is seen begging a pair of anti-ICE demonstrators to move, desperately saying how she needs to get to work so she can provide for her child.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Or people deliberately blocking traffic, thus preventing hundreds (or potentially thousands) of people from getting to work, and potentially blocking emergency services.


By the standards some people are using, the exchange in the video (or the act of blocking a bunch of people from getting to where they need to be) would get labelled as "peaceful" because no punches were thrown. But is it really "peaceful" considering the definition of the word is "freedom from disturbance; tranquility"?


We've seen it before, people blocking the roads for hundreds of people, and when one person has finally had enough, and gets out of the car and engages them, the person engaging them catches the blame for making things "unpeaceful" or "escalating". When, in fact, I'd say that the entitled action of "I get to make 1,000 other people miss a day's pay because me and my friends want to stand in the highway and make a political point" is, itself, the initial escalation.

Maybe it helps to make a distinction in protests between coercive tactics and persuasive tactics. Coercive tactics try to impose some cost on the opposition or on those who are in a position to make a relevant change, e.g. changing public opinion/getting the public's attention through some cost to the general public-causing traffic to stop. Persuasive protests, by contrast, try to draw the opposition or bystanders into a discussion and consideration of a different view w/out trying to impose a cost on them.

Coercion can be defined as “any interference by an agent, A, in the choices of another agent, B, with the aim of compelling B to behave in a way that they would not otherwise do” (Aitchison 2018a, 668; see also entry on coercion). Persuasion, by contrast, requires initiating a dialogue with an interlocutor and aiming to elicit a change of position or even their moral conversion.

Civil Disobedience (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I'm not a fan of blocking traffic as a protest because the potential for causing more harm seems greater than the probability of causing change by that method. It's not going to make drivers embrace cause x; it's just going to create resentment. I think any coercive form of protest is going beyond peaceful protest or "civil disobedience." But there are very specific contexts in which peaceful protests make sense, specifically, when those in power recognize, at least on some fundamental level, the rights and agency of the protestors (and the legitimacy of their claims). What happened during the 60s civil rights era would have never worked for Jews under Hitler, I don't think. There are some contexts when civil disobedience seems naive and other measures probably need to be considered.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Maybe it helps to make a distinction in protests between coercive tactics and persuasive tactics. Coercive tactics try to impose some cost on the opposition or on those who are in a position to make a relevant change, e.g. changing public opinion/getting the public's attention through some cost to the general public-causing traffic to stop. Persuasive protests, by contrast, try to draw the opposition or bystanders into a discussion and consideration of a different view w/out trying to impose a cost on them.

That's a good distinction...I like it

 

[Fantine]

When was the last time conservatives did a nation wide protest on anything that involved cities burning and store being looted? I know, "what about January 6th!" That was one incident that lasted 8 hours an only one person was killed. Now compare that to BLM, ANTIFA summer of love, CHAZ/CHOP, LA, ect..., what do you have?

Hmmm...you have a bunch of dishonesty and lies by Republicans and right wing media. The protests were 90% peaceful with a few agitators and who knows whether the agitators were on the side of the protesters or whether they were hired by the right to start a commotion? As to the original question we have historic parameters on peaceful protests established by people like Martin Luther King and Gandhi. And peaceful protest worked, not quickly, but it worked. Personally I think the reason why they worked was that the real bad guys grew impatient and became so aggressive and vicious that the countries saw them in all of their moral ugliness.

 

[probinson]

It's interesting to see the same people have different viewpoints on nearly identical situations. For example, when truckers blocked roadways in Canada over COVID vaccine mandates, there were those here who called them "terrorists". Now those same people are back to the "mostly peaceful" moniker concerning the current blockades in protests. I guess one's ideology has an awful lot to do with whether one regards a protest as "terrorism" or "mostly peaceful".

 

[probinson]

That was one incident that lasted 8 hours an only one person was killed.

No one was "killed" on January 6, 2021. A police officer shot Ashli Babbit, who was trying to breach the Capitol. An investigation "revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber."

I guess you could call that a killing, but no one was killed as a result of the rioters.

How Many Died as a Result of Capitol Riot? - FactCheck.org

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol resulted in "almost 10 dead." Four people died that day, and five others -- all law enforcement officers -- died days, weeks and even months later. Here we lay out what is publicly known about the circumstances surrounding those...

www.factcheck.org

 

[Fantine]

It's interesting to see the same people have different viewpoints on nearly identical situations. For example, when truckers blocked roadways in Canada over COVID vaccine mandates, there were those here who called them "terrorists". Now those same people are back to the "mostly peaceful" moniker concerning the current blockades in protests. I guess one's ideology has an awful lot to do with whether one regards a protest as "terrorism" or "mostly peaceful".

The truckers were blocking an international border and costing businesses millions of dollars a day. That up the ante quite a bit on their allegedly peaceful demonstration. I also found them to be the most unsympathetic group imaginable. Truckers try to pretend they're tough guys but they were demonstrating because they didn't want to get a vaccination to protect other people and prevent a pandemic from spreading. I don't consider lack of consideration for others as a valid reason for demonstrating.

 

[probinson]

The truckers were blocking an international border and costing businesses millions of dollars a day. That up the ante quite a bit on their allegedly peaceful demonstration. I also found them to be the most unsympathetic group imaginable. Truckers try to pretend they're tough guys but they were demonstrating because they didn't want to get a vaccination to protect other people and prevent a pandemic from spreading. I don't consider lack of consideration for others as a valid reason for demonstrating.

Whether or not you agree with someone's position has nothing to do with whether or not they have the right to peaceful protest. But thank you for providing a textbook example of the blatant hypocrisy concerning how people view protests.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The truckers were blocking an international border and costing businesses millions of dollars a day. That up the ante quite a bit on their allegedly peaceful demonstration. I also found them to be the most unsympathetic group imaginable. Truckers try to pretend they're tough guys but they were demonstrating because they didn't want to get a vaccination to protect other people and prevent a pandemic from spreading. I don't consider lack of consideration for others as a valid reason for demonstrating.

...but doesn't that undermine the talking point just a bit?

To put a dollar amount on it really just favors the rich if we're being honest.

To say "It's okay for a group of people to make 1,000 other people miss work and lose wages because they have a political point to make"...but then say "The Canadian convoy is crossing a line because now we're talking about millions worth of international commerce" is a bit hollow wouldn't you say?

Either it's okay to "hit a random entity in the pocketbook to get their attention and hope they'll join my side" or it's not.

 

[Fantine]

Whether or not you agree with someone's position has nothing to do with whether or not they have the right to peaceful protest. But thank you for providing a textbook example of the blatant hypocrisy concerning how people view protests.

You are equating disturbing International Commerce and costing businesses millions of dollars a day with a group of Los Angeles protesters causing a traffic jam. There is a substantial difference, and it's not only the justice of the Los Angelenos' cause and the ridiculousness of shot-fearful vaccine phobic truckers that's the difference.

 

[public hermit]

Whether or not you agree with someone's position has nothing to do with whether or not they have the right to peaceful protest. But thank you for providing a textbook example of the blatant hypocrisy concerning how people view protests.

If the truckers were causing the cost of business, it wasn't a peaceful protest. It was coercive, and it's a question as to whether that is also a legitimate form of protest. Whatever the case, that kind of protest leads to violence, which has often occurred (think Harland County War). People stopping traffic or preventing scabs from crossing a picket line are a different form of protest than those holding signs, communicating ideas, and accepting the arrest and charge for unlawful gathering or whatever.

 

[RDKirk]

You are equating disturbing International Commerce and costing businesses millions of dollars a day with a group of Los Angeles protesters causing a traffic jam. There is a substantial difference, and it's not only the justice of the Los Angelenos' cause and the ridiculousness of shot-fearful vaccine phobic truckers that's the difference.

It's not a big difference to someone who has to get to work on time or lose their job. Neither had a permit to block traffic. Both protests were illegal.

 

[RDKirk]

If the truckers were causing the cost of business, it wasn't a peaceful protest. It was coercive, and it's a question as to whether that is also a legitimate form of protest. Whatever the case, that kind of protest leads to violence, which has often occurred (think Harland County War). People stopping traffic or preventing scabs from crossing a picket line are a different form of protest than those holding signs, communicating ideas, and accepting the arrest and charge for unlawful gathering or whatever.

That "different form of protest" is called "illegal."

 

[public hermit]

That "different form of protest" is called "illegal."

And, perhaps, there are times when the law is not just and "illegal" things have to be done. I'm wary of that step, just because it undercuts everything, but if it has to be done, don't be squeamish.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You are equating disturbing International Commerce and costing businesses millions of dollars a day with a group of Los Angeles protesters causing a traffic jam. There is a substantial difference, and it's not only the justice of the Los Angelenos' cause and the ridiculousness of shot-fearful vaccine phobic truckers that's the difference.

To the mother shown in the video, her missing a day's wages is more impactful to her than a multi-billion dollar business losing a few million bucks.

I think we need to acknowledge how "lens-specific" this topic is.

We hear a lot of talk about "privileged" in the US.

There's not a more "privileged" position I can think of than "everyone else's lives should be disrupted because I want to make a political point, and if they try to interfere, or forcibly remove my disruption, they should be seen as the bad guy"

 

[RDKirk]

And, perhaps, there are times when the law is not just and "illegal" things have to be done. I'm wary of that step, just because it undercuts everything, but if it has to be done, don't be squeamish.

But you also said:

, and accepting the arrest and charge for unlawful gathering

And that is correct.