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

[probinson]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "largest impact". Because, in fact, ALL of the violence that the left did through BLM really didn't accomplish/have ANY impact in the end.

Sure it did. It severely undermined any legitimacy of the protests. You are correct that it didn't accomplish anything meaningful toward their desired goals, but it was HIGHLY effective in unifying people against their cause.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Sure it did. It severely undermined any legitimacy of the protests. You are correct that it didn't accomplish anything meaningful toward their desired goals, but it was HIGHLY effective in unifying people against their cause.

I think that's kind of a misuse of the Pareto Principle though, as the negative impact of violence at protests is not organic. It's only effective in unifying people against the cause because opponents of the cause seize on any instances of violence and magnify them to pretend that they are representative of the entire movement - and people are so accustomed to being spoon-fed information that they accept those claims uncritically.

If we assume that any level of violence destroys the legitimacy of a protest, then protest becomes pointless because opponents of the cause will always be able to find some violence associated with a protest if they look hard enough.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Could you provide some examples of right wing protests from the last, say 10 years that were specifically targetting a CAUSE or a SPECIFIC? Not like a "Proud Boys Cheerleading" event but a cause?

How big does it need to be?

"March for Life" seems like it would fit that mold.


Also, there have been pockets of other protests by pro-life folks out in the streets in front of clinics.

Interestingly enough, some of the folks who use the "oh poor baby, you had to get stuck in traffic, well tough, because we think our message is important, if it causes you inconvenience, well...so be it!" with regards to people obstructing movement for the stuff mentioned in this thread --

-- were all too happy to see pro-life people arrested in Boston and Buffalo because their presence out in front of a clinic was considered "harassing" or "quasi blocking access" based on the reasoning "These women shouldn't be forced to hear people shouting mean things or have to walk around a group of protestors and pick different path, a women's abortion access should be unincumbered by anything that would make them uncomfortable"


Now, a devious person (who's also a woman) may be able to make a crafty legal challenge against these protestors who are out there now, that would ultimately put some democrats on the hot seat.

In that one video, instead of that woman saying "I'm trying to get to work and you're blocking me" (to which, she received a snarky response from the dude with the man-bun), she should've said "I'm trying to get to that reproductive health clinic that's 3 blocks away to make an appointment, and you're blocking me and making me feel uncomfortable", and then have charges pressed against them under the "Freedom of Access to Clinics" laws some of these states have on the books.


Then, that situation from the video would be "White progressive male protesting against ICE and for Palestine - blocks woman of color from accessing reproductive healthcare", and then watch the progressive state legislatures squirm trying to decide who's side they should be taking in that exchange.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That does not sound "illegal" to me if THEY remove legal status. Or at least that sounds manipulative and dishonest and anti legal immigration too.

Legal status can be removed either via final removal orders (resulting from criminal activity) or absentia removal orders --meaning, they had their shot at due process, and chose to skip it.

There are laws and procedures on the books that can nullify a person's authorized status.

 

[durangodawood]

I would posit a third option: ignore it completely.

True. No one here is doing that tho. Everyone's chiming in with one opinion or another.

 

[partinobodycular]

Because one is here legally and the other is not.

Technically speaking, those people are here illegally.

Because one is, in fact, breaking the law.

How does that pertain to my right to inconvenience you?

One group of like minded people have chosen to inconvenience a particular group of people.
Another group of like minded people have chosen to inconvenience a completely different group of people.
Each of these groups are doing exactly the same thing, inconveniencing people, they're just using different criteria to justify it.

I stand by my reasoning, any right that you claim to have, I also have.

 

[durangodawood]

How does that pertain to my right to inconvenience you?

One group of like minded people have chosen to inconvenience a particular group of people.
Another group of like minded people have chosen to inconvenience a completely different group of people.
Each of these groups are doing exactly the same thing, inconveniencing people, they're just using different criteria to justify it.

I stand by my reasoning, any right that you claim to have, I also have.

But people do not have a right be here undocumented. At least not legally.

Perhaps youre asserting a sort of universal human right to exist anywhere, which would be interesting to me, but not really part of the current framework of legal rights.

 

[partinobodycular]

Perhaps youre asserting a sort of universal human right to exist anywhere, which would be interesting to me, but not really part of the current framework of legal rights.

Indeed, I am referring to a set of universal human rights, underpinned by the simple maxim to love thy neighbor as thyself. As for what's 'legal', I really don't care.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Indeed, I am referring to a set of universal human rights, underpinned by the simple maxim to love thy neighbor as thyself. As for what's 'legal', I really don't care.

...I presume if someone decided to, say, protest in front of the door of a planned parenthood location -- thereby preventing people from getting in, you would care what's legal then in that instance, correct? -- or would you be of the mindset of "FACE Act be damned, I don't really care what's legal, those protestors have a right to inconvenience those women by forcing them to drive to another clinic in another town"

Or, say for instance, someone decided "I don't care what's legal, I'm going to start carrying my firearm in these places that prohibit it"?

 

[RDKirk]

Indeed, I am referring to a set of universal human rights, underpinned by the simple maxim to love thy neighbor as thyself. As for what's 'legal', I really don't care.

ICE has a legal right, no, a legal responsibility to arrest people who are in the US illegally, and if that's an "inconvenience," it's directed at people who are directly involved.

It is illegal to block the streets. Those people so inconvenienced are uninvolved bystanders.

The fact that one "inconvenience" is legal and the other "inconvenience" is illegal is the difference.

 

[partinobodycular]

...I presume if someone decided to, say, protest in front of the door of a planned parenthood location -- thereby preventing people from getting in, you would care what's legal then in that instance, correct? -- or would you be of the mindset of "FACE Act be damned, I don't really care what's legal, those protestors have a right to inconvenience those women by forcing them to drive to another clinic in another town"

You missed the point. I'm simply asserting that any right that you claim to have, I must also have.

So if you're going to claim for yourself the right to protest in one instance, then you tacitly approve of my right to do so in another.

 

[partinobodycular]

The fact that one "inconvenience" is legal and the other "inconvenience" is illegal is the difference.

Well that's convenient. Simply proclaim your right to act in a certain manner to be legal, while the other person's isn't. Unfortunately a whole lot of persecution gets justified that way.

 

[durangodawood]

You missed the point. I'm simply asserting that any right that you claim to have, I must also have.

So if you're going to claim for yourself the right to protest in one instance, then you tacitly approve of my right to do so in another.

Thats fair.

But I dont think anyone asserts they have the right to protest in any way they please, no matter what the cause.

 

[partinobodycular]

But I dont think anyone asserts you have the right to protest in any way you please, no matter what the cause.

And I totally agree. None-the-less, as much as it pains me to acquiesce to civil disobedience, I would assert that people have the right to protest against perceived injustices. To rob them of that right under the guise of inconvenience or legality is often to strip them of the only effective voice that they may have. The answer isn't to silence the voices... the answer is to address the needs that gave rise to them.

 

[RDKirk]

Well that's convenient. Simply proclaim your right to act in a certain manner to be legal, while the other person's isn't. Unfortunately a whole lot of persecution gets justified that way.

What an odd statement. That's not a simple proclamation, that's law.

That's not persecution, that's prosecution.

 

[durangodawood]

And I totally agree. None-the-less, as much as it pains me to acquiesce to civil disobedience, I would assert that people have the right to protest against perceived injustices. To rob them of that right under the guise of inconvenience or legality is often to strip them of the only effective voice that they may have. The answer isn't to silence the voices... the answer is to address the needs that gave rise to them.

Basically, some injustices are imposed by the collective will, and when bad enough protest need to be directed at the collective of people generally - and not just at whatever little arm of govt is carrying out the orders. This will inevitably be awkward for some folks.

Of course it often still needs to be illegal. We cant permit all manner of nuisance whenever people feel like it. But thats the essence of civil disobedience. Things have gotten dire enough that you break the law non violently and take the consequences for all to see.

I think of the famous E Pettus Bridge march. That must have been illegal, as it should, to basically shut down traffic on a bridge. But the collective needed to see the degree of rightful resentment that had accumulated. (Thats my impression of the event anyway. Im not any kind of expert on it.)

 

[RDKirk]

Basically, some injustices are imposed by the collective will, and when bad enough protest need to be directed at the collective of people generally - and not just at whatever little arm of govt is carrying out the orders. This will inevitably be awkward for some folks.

Of course it often still needs to be illegal. We cant permit all manner of nuisance whenever people feel like it. But thats the essence of civil disobedience. Things have gotten dire enough that you break the law non violently and take the consequences for all to see.

I think of the famous E Pettus Bridge march. That must have been illegal, as it should, to basically shut down traffic on a bridge. But the collective needed to see the degree of rightful resentment that had accumulated. (Thats my impression of the event anyway. Im not any kind of expert on it.)

There wasn't a permit for the E Pettus Bridge march. First, because no official would ever have approved one, and the 54-mile march would have required half a dozen approvals as they marched through different counties and municipalities.

But the only reason traffic was blocked at the bridge was because the peaceful marchers (who had been walking on the pedestrian path and not blocking traffic at all...you can Google images for evidence) were attacked on the bridge by police. It was the melee that blocked traffic.

The police could certainly have arrested them instead, but making arrests wasn't the intention.

 

[durangodawood]

There wasn't a permit for the E Pettus Bridge march. First, because no official would ever have approved one, and the 54-mile march would have required half a dozen approvals as they marched through different counties and municipalities.

But the only reason traffic was blocked at the bridge was because the peaceful marchers (who had been walking on the pedestrian path and not blocking traffic at all...you can Google images for evidence) were attacked on the bridge by police. It was the melee that blocked traffic.

The police could certainly have arrested them instead, but making arrests wasn't the intention.

Thanks for the interesting correction. Thats what I get for drawing on an example I dont know well enough.

I still do think Im correct about the principles I outlined tho.

 

[RDKirk]

Thanks for the interesting correction. Thats what I get for drawing on an example I dont know well enough.

I still do think Im correct about the principles I outlined tho.

You did say:

Of course it often still needs to be illegal. We cant permit all manner of nuisance whenever people feel like it. But thats the essence of civil disobedience. Things have gotten dire enough that you break the law non violently and take the consequences for all to see.

And I've pointed out in this thread or some other current thread that the core principle of Civil Rights Era civil disobedience was to break--very narrowly and very specifically--the particular law at issue, be charged for it, and force that law to be proven in court.

 

[BPPLEE]

There wasn't a permit for the E Pettus Bridge march. First, because no official would ever have approved one, and the 54-mile march would have required half a dozen approvals as they marched through different counties and municipalities.

But the only reason traffic was blocked at the bridge was because the peaceful marchers (who had been walking on the pedestrian path and not blocking traffic at all...you can Google images for evidence) were attacked on the bridge by police. It was the melee that blocked traffic.

The police could certainly have arrested them instead, but making arrests wasn't the intention.

From what I've been told and from a movie that I was an extra in, the State Troopers attacked them when they crossed the bridge and the local police were on the other side of the bridge and the marchers had nowhere to go