The whole purpose of protest is to make others inconvieninet enough that they may think a solution needs to be found. Without that portests are useless. And since we live in democracy, the larger group it inconvieniences the faster it can get noticed.
How do you feel about "inconvenient" protesting
- Thread starter tippy2k2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
On one hand I hate when my moving through my city is obstructed by people in places masses of people have no business of being. On the other hand, it's basically the only way for some groups to cause inconvenience that would force someone in power to deal with the problem.
But, even if i do hate such inconveniences in general i still do support them since many are about issues that are important and everyone ignores them.
What I find unforgivable is that my city gets under siege when foreign diplomats come. That's something I find no excuses for (of, more truthfully said, i refuse them).
But civil protests, no matter how inconvenient, are a tool of plebs fight back at the powers that be, and are, therefor, here to stay for without them we would be one big step closer to cattle.
But, even if i do hate such inconveniences in general i still do support them since many are about issues that are important and everyone ignores them.
What I find unforgivable is that my city gets under siege when foreign diplomats come. That's something I find no excuses for (of, more truthfully said, i refuse them).
But civil protests, no matter how inconvenient, are a tool of plebs fight back at the powers that be, and are, therefor, here to stay for without them we would be one big step closer to cattle.
I've never had my opinion about a political issue changed by a group of jack offs deciding to block a major highway. I don't believe there is anyone so weak minded that they had their mind changed not by a good argument, but by the completely irrelevant act of standing in the middle of a major road to obstruct traffic. All that kind of protesting creates is a resentment against the protesters, rightfully, and a resentment against their cause, unfortunately.
Protest all you like, hand out pamphlets to passerby's, yell at me for what I'm doing, I don't care, but don't stop me from going where I need to be. I'd rather not be fired from my job because of a protest.
It's effective because if it shuts something down the government needs to do something about it, quickly. Which will usually either end in violence, or a lot of arresting.
It's effective because if it shuts something down the government needs to do something about it, quickly. Which will usually either end in violence, or a lot of arresting.
This.Elfgore said:
But not this.
" shut down for hours as police arrest 10,000 peaceful protesters" is a good headline to show support for your cause and maybe even get some traction with city government, just from the financial costs of arresting and charging that many people, plus all the bad press. It's certainly far more effective than waving signs no one will read or committing other crimes (looting, vandalism) that will just hurt the face of your cause.
Just tell them ahead of time, "Hey, we're shutting down this place, we expect you'll have to arrest X numbers of us, and we will happily let through any ambulance or fire vehicles."
I understand the reasoning behind the question but by it's definition (or execution) all protests are in convenient 
.
I guess as long as they aren't talking to me i'm fine with it.
.I guess as long as they aren't talking to me i'm fine with it.
My wife almost died because protestors were blocking off the only road that leads to the hospital and she was going into labour, so frankly I think the so-called inconvenient protestors all deserve to be run over and die gasping on the side of the road. And the dumb part was that I did 9and do) actually agree with that protest's goals, but I wanted anyone involved with those methods to be killed as slowly and painfully as possible for what they did.
When I was forced a few months ago to picket as part of the BC teachers strike (which I voted against but hey, why let the wants and needs of the students get in the way of giving me a marginally higher salary?) I saw several of my colleagues go out of their way to block traffic and inconvenience people (which was illegal and also violated not only union policy but also the deal signed with the city hall about how the protests would be done)and it just infuriated me. Maybe that slight 10-15 minute delay just cost that person their job, or miss an important appointment, or be late to getting a check-up, or leave their small children in a dangerous position, or anything else.
Okay obviously sometimes you need to inconvenience some people in some places, I get that. But there are lines that should not be crossed. Your employer is oppressing you (whether really or just perceived) then by all means create a picket line or what have you around the entrance to your store or factory or school, that makes sense. But don't attack people who cross your line (a fellow, now thankfully retired, teacher once threw a brick at a parent's head for trying to walk across the line and pick up his daughter's textbooks. She was not punished in any way for this). And don't block off major lines of transport and communication, you never know who your going to be killing as a result. Also, since a whole bunch of people are trying to equate any protest to Ghandi and Martin Luther King by saying that since THEY did it to great effect then anyone else doing it is equally valid, why not bring up the fact that a lot of historical bad guys did it too? Fascists, Communists, Anarchists, Cultists, Religious Extremists, the list goes on. C'mon people, you're better than being so intellectually dishonest as to try and use Ghandi as a human shield.
When I was forced a few months ago to picket as part of the BC teachers strike (which I voted against but hey, why let the wants and needs of the students get in the way of giving me a marginally higher salary?) I saw several of my colleagues go out of their way to block traffic and inconvenience people (which was illegal and also violated not only union policy but also the deal signed with the city hall about how the protests would be done)and it just infuriated me. Maybe that slight 10-15 minute delay just cost that person their job, or miss an important appointment, or be late to getting a check-up, or leave their small children in a dangerous position, or anything else.
Okay obviously sometimes you need to inconvenience some people in some places, I get that. But there are lines that should not be crossed. Your employer is oppressing you (whether really or just perceived) then by all means create a picket line or what have you around the entrance to your store or factory or school, that makes sense. But don't attack people who cross your line (a fellow, now thankfully retired, teacher once threw a brick at a parent's head for trying to walk across the line and pick up his daughter's textbooks. She was not punished in any way for this). And don't block off major lines of transport and communication, you never know who your going to be killing as a result. Also, since a whole bunch of people are trying to equate any protest to Ghandi and Martin Luther King by saying that since THEY did it to great effect then anyone else doing it is equally valid, why not bring up the fact that a lot of historical bad guys did it too? Fascists, Communists, Anarchists, Cultists, Religious Extremists, the list goes on. C'mon people, you're better than being so intellectually dishonest as to try and use Ghandi as a human shield.
I would broadly agree with this although I do understand the perspective that a protest that doesn't inconvenience anyone is likely to have less impact.VanQ said:
Overall I think it is a matter of sensible degrees. If fast food workers want to go on strike so the restraunt closes and then protest outside? Fine, I'll go and get my hamburger someonwhere else or will just not bother, depending on just how much I wanted one anyway. If people block a highway stopping people getting to work and potentially endagering lives (preventing emergency services responding to incidents etc.) then that is 100% not OK and shouldn't be permitted.
Also, something I just want to throw in here, a riot is not a protest, it's a riot. Torching cars and smashing windows is not a legitimate expression of unhappiness, its vandalism and wanton destruction. Criminal behaviour is not absolved because you were trying to make a point, regardless of how valid you think your point is.