Excellent points, however, protests or demonstrations, in and of themselves, aren't necessarily bad. It comes down to the intention and the way a protest is carried out. A) As a statement, to raise awareness = good. B) As intimidation, threat, preventing speech = not good.
-
-
-
That's not a however. That's my point too.
-
Thought so -was looking to clarify. Also, your point re: people going underground is one I've tried to explain to people, that bad ideas are best countered by better ideas. Let the nutters speak, a) so we know who they are and b) so they don't get to claim victim-martyr status.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think scale of what is being disrupted is a sneaky consideration. Shutting down a talk on a campus full of other departments speaking directly in oppo of a single event is a show of disruption not by anyone marginalized. And it has the opposite intended effect outside campus
-
Its a winding convo but my point was campus protesters are 1 ineffective 2 misguided. More importantly have cast bad light on protesting in a disruptive way in general. I think we need to be very careful before we vilify disruptive protests wholly and find the acceptable line.
-
Intuitively, I'd say disruptive protest is for people calling for actual harassment and subjugation of real people, especially if they have the power to follow through. Again we run into trouble with specificity. In general, erring on the side of free expression allows more input
-
*free expression and freedom to listen I ran out of characters
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Helen, a lot of these USA lefties think protests are great because they were quite effective in the civil rights/vietnam war era.
-
Don't tell them about European history tho and how they are quite a bit more like the violent political factions of 19th and 20th century Europe than civil rights protestors (coz they are arguing for their ideology rather than against an obvious moral travesty).
-
They don't like that
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There should be some space given to protest. But when has disruption ever achieved anything? I actually want an example. The protests that achieved most weren't disrupting speakers, but instead massive public demonstrations a la The Women's March.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don't think protests play a big role in functioning society. They seemed pretty effective in the 60's, but not so much recently. They seem most useful vs authoritarian regimes. If enough people come to protest the regime can be toppled.
-
Completely agree. We had literal riots across the country which led to the Kerner Commission. Now 50/60 years later we see very little progress and the same resurgence. Maybe I'm too empathetic to protesters in general but I don't see the efficacy of a march.
-
Well, I think our society is functioning better, except MAYBE not since Trump got elected. It is useful versus a real dictator/authoritarian regime, which I don't believe Trump is. Here's this, worth some thought, for sure:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I don't see the point of a disruptive protest to prevent free speech. Maybe that is why I'm stuck in this weird position. Infringement of ideas is through intimidation, not disruption. I'm for exchanging ideas, obviously, but I see some nuance here. Maybe, I am going nuts!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.