how come all you anti-protest republicans didn't have a problem with a republican governor closing down a bridge? I wonder how many emergency vehicles were slowed or diverted because of that?
I'm not Republican or anti-protest.. and I brought up the NJ bridge several times.. But I still think you should follow the laws when protesting. The goal of a protests should be to garner support for your cause. Anything that turns an ordinary citizen without a dog in the fight, against you, is an unsuccessful protest.
According to half the people on this board alone, making someone 10 minutes late to pick their kid up from ballet class will turn them against protestors, no matter what they are protesting. Perhaps immediate local public sentiment isn't actually the end all and be all of how successful a protest is.
That was me.. and it wasn't 10 minutes. It was at least 90 minutes, maybe closer to 2 hours. And it was during rush hour. Maybe you don't have kids so you don't think of things this way, but when you're late, you can only imagine (the worst imagination) what is happening with your 7 year old daughter standing? waiting? sitting? outside waiting for you. The worst thoughts go through your mind.
Right? Think of all the terrible things that could happen to your child, when all they want to do is go home?
But what do I know? Maybe your kid's the 'right' color and doesn't have anything to worry about.
I don't get your point. My daughter isn't a 15 year old roaming the streets.. she was a 7 year old little girl. This wasn't a race issue for me.
You mentioned being worried about your daughter because it took 2 hours to get through traffic.
How long do you think Marcus Abrams' mom/gf/roommate waited for him to come home from work that day?
So because something horrible happened to one child, I don't have the right to be worried about my child? Is worry binary? Can I only care for one child and if it's not someone that I don't know, I'm a bad person?
No offense, but I have no idea what the hell that situation has to do with mine.
Point being: you were worried about your child for 2 hours. Because they were what? Sitting safely at daycare waiting for you?
There is an entire demographic that has to explain to their 7 year old children that they have a disproportionate chance of being arrested, shot or killed. They worry every minute of everyday their children will be unfairly discriminated against simply because of the color of their skin. Your 2 hours of inconvenience is but a fraction of what others experience.
You're right to be worried about your own child's safety. But if sitting in traffic for 2 hours of protesting doesn't make you stop, think and empathize with what other people and their children are experiencing; then yes, that makes you a bad and selfish person. You appear to be more concerned about punishing those who have already been slighted; rather than understanding why they need to stand in the middle of the expressway in order to make their voices heard.
I was following this conversation and I have to say I was equally confused. I have no idea what Marcus Abrams has to do with this topic. From what was said, his daughter wasn't at daycare, but at dance (or gymnastics or something) practice. Many of these places don't require adult supervision until kids are picked up, when the class ends, the place closes. I would definitely be worried about a 7 year old. Even if there is another class and she has to wait around for 2 hours, I'd be worried she'd get scared and wonder off looking for her ride home. I dont know a single 7 year old with a phone, so I'm not sure how modern technology is going to make it easy to communicate. Fearing for a 7 year old alone for 2 hours is a legitimate concern, I'm not clear why it is being minimized.
Neither am I. This conversation went sideways, and CM really lost touch with reality. Clearly not a parent (or shouldn't be) if he doesn't understand why having one's child standing outside alone for a couple of hours wouldn't be of concern to the father. Christ. I understand that there can be disagreements regarding the efficacy and impact of blocking freeways, but to disregard real concern over safety of a loved one and spin it as selfish shows a massive disconnect from reality.
You're right to be worried about your own child's safety. .
When you run into a protest with hundreds of people blocking the highway, and your initial reaction is: "What an inconvenience, I hope all these people get arrested." instead of "Gee, these people seem to have a really important message they need to get across." that is a massive disconnect from reality.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
how come all you anti-protest republicans didn't have a problem with a republican governor closing down a bridge? I wonder how many emergency vehicles were slowed or diverted because of that?
I'm not Republican or anti-protest.. and I brought up the NJ bridge several times.. But I still think you should follow the laws when protesting. The goal of a protests should be to garner support for your cause. Anything that turns an ordinary citizen without a dog in the fight, against you, is an unsuccessful protest.
According to half the people on this board alone, making someone 10 minutes late to pick their kid up from ballet class will turn them against protestors, no matter what they are protesting. Perhaps immediate local public sentiment isn't actually the end all and be all of how successful a protest is.
That was me.. and it wasn't 10 minutes. It was at least 90 minutes, maybe closer to 2 hours. And it was during rush hour. Maybe you don't have kids so you don't think of things this way, but when you're late, you can only imagine (the worst imagination) what is happening with your 7 year old daughter standing? waiting? sitting? outside waiting for you. The worst thoughts go through your mind.
Right? Think of all the terrible things that could happen to your child, when all they want to do is go home?
But what do I know? Maybe your kid's the 'right' color and doesn't have anything to worry about.
I don't get your point. My daughter isn't a 15 year old roaming the streets.. she was a 7 year old little girl. This wasn't a race issue for me.
You mentioned being worried about your daughter because it took 2 hours to get through traffic.
How long do you think Marcus Abrams' mom/gf/roommate waited for him to come home from work that day?
So because something horrible happened to one child, I don't have the right to be worried about my child? Is worry binary? Can I only care for one child and if it's not someone that I don't know, I'm a bad person?
No offense, but I have no idea what the hell that situation has to do with mine.
Point being: you were worried about your child for 2 hours. Because they were what? Sitting safely at daycare waiting for you?
There is an entire demographic that has to explain to their 7 year old children that they have a disproportionate chance of being arrested, shot or killed. They worry every minute of everyday their children will be unfairly discriminated against simply because of the color of their skin. Your 2 hours of inconvenience is but a fraction of what others experience.
You're right to be worried about your own child's safety. But if sitting in traffic for 2 hours of protesting doesn't make you stop, think and empathize with what other people and their children are experiencing; then yes, that makes you a bad and selfish person. You appear to be more concerned about punishing those who have already been slighted; rather than understanding why they need to stand in the middle of the expressway in order to make their voices heard.
I was following this conversation and I have to say I was equally confused. I have no idea what Marcus Abrams has to do with this topic. From what was said, his daughter wasn't at daycare, but at dance (or gymnastics or something) practice. Many of these places don't require adult supervision until kids are picked up, when the class ends, the place closes. I would definitely be worried about a 7 year old. Even if there is another class and she has to wait around for 2 hours, I'd be worried she'd get scared and wonder off looking for her ride home. I dont know a single 7 year old with a phone, so I'm not sure how modern technology is going to make it easy to communicate. Fearing for a 7 year old alone for 2 hours is a legitimate concern, I'm not clear why it is being minimized.
Neither am I. This conversation went sideways, and CM really lost touch with reality. Clearly not a parent (or shouldn't be) if he doesn't understand why having one's child standing outside alone for a couple of hours wouldn't be of concern to the father. Christ. I understand that there can be disagreements regarding the efficacy and impact of blocking freeways, but to disregard real concern over safety of a loved one and spin it as selfish shows a massive disconnect from reality.
You're right to be worried about your own child's safety. .
When you run into a protest with hundreds of people blocking the highway, and your initial reaction is: "What an inconvenience, I hope all these people get arrested." instead of "Gee, these people seem to have a really important message they need to get across." that is a massive disconnect from reality.
30 people... 15 of them arrested.. 15 of them smart enough to move out of the way when the cops told them. Many of the arrested were white college students from VCU and UVA (see the picture). Fuck them. Let me say that unequivocally. It's the height of selfish behavior to think your cause is so important that everyone else can fuck off. So they can fuck off. I'm a democrat, a liberal and have been to my share of protests. But we never broke laws, damaged property or otherwise acted like selfish assholes.
Everyone thinks they are a martyr. Well they aren't.
Property damage isn't a part of this discussion man. But as for never breaking the law... well, it was illegal for black people to ride at the front of the bus and eat at the diner counter until some people decided to disobey those laws. It wasn't legal for all those people to gather in Clayoquot Sound and block logging trucks, one of the last old growth rainforests in the region would have been clear-cut. And there are literally tens of thousands of other examples where not obeying the law during protest brought real and important change or defended the defenseless. To say that laws shouldn't be broken and being unwilling to budge on that point is exactly the problem I'm worried about here. Once we go black and white in the context of legal vs illegal protests, we're in big trouble.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Property damage isn't a part of this discussion man. But as for never breaking the law... well, it was illegal for black people to ride at the front of the bus and eat at the diner counter until some people decided to disobey those laws. It wasn't legal for all those people to gather in Clayoquot Sound and block logging trucks, one of the last old growth rainforests in the region would have been clear-cut. And there are literally tens of thousands of other examples where not obeying the law during protest brought real and important change or defended the defenseless. To say that laws shouldn't be broken and being unwilling to budge on that point is exactly the problem I'm worried about here. Once we go black and white in the context of legal vs illegal protests, we're in big trouble.
There is no moral equivalency between the Jim Crow laws and commonsense public safety laws about the interstate. It's not like only black people are prohibited from the highway.
how come all you anti-protest republicans didn't have a problem with a republican governor closing down a bridge? I wonder how many emergency vehicles were slowed or diverted because of that?
I'm not Republican or anti-protest.. and I brought up the NJ bridge several times.. But I still think you should follow the laws when protesting. The goal of a protests should be to garner support for your cause. Anything that turns an ordinary citizen without a dog in the fight, against you, is an unsuccessful protest.
According to half the people on this board alone, making someone 10 minutes late to pick their kid up from ballet class will turn them against protestors, no matter what they are protesting. Perhaps immediate local public sentiment isn't actually the end all and be all of how successful a protest is.
That was me.. and it wasn't 10 minutes. It was at least 90 minutes, maybe closer to 2 hours. And it was during rush hour. Maybe you don't have kids so you don't think of things this way, but when you're late, you can only imagine (the worst imagination) what is happening with your 7 year old daughter standing? waiting? sitting? outside waiting for you. The worst thoughts go through your mind.
Right? Think of all the terrible things that could happen to your child, when all they want to do is go home?
But what do I know? Maybe your kid's the 'right' color and doesn't have anything to worry about.
I don't get your point. My daughter isn't a 15 year old roaming the streets.. she was a 7 year old little girl. This wasn't a race issue for me.
You mentioned being worried about your daughter because it took 2 hours to get through traffic.
How long do you think Marcus Abrams' mom/gf/roommate waited for him to come home from work that day?
So because something horrible happened to one child, I don't have the right to be worried about my child? Is worry binary? Can I only care for one child and if it's not someone that I don't know, I'm a bad person?
No offense, but I have no idea what the hell that situation has to do with mine.
Point being: you were worried about your child for 2 hours. Because they were what? Sitting safely at daycare waiting for you?
There is an entire demographic that has to explain to their 7 year old children that they have a disproportionate chance of being arrested, shot or killed. They worry every minute of everyday their children will be unfairly discriminated against simply because of the color of their skin. Your 2 hours of inconvenience is but a fraction of what others experience.
You're right to be worried about your own child's safety. But if sitting in traffic for 2 hours of protesting doesn't make you stop, think and empathize with what other people and their children are experiencing; then yes, that makes you a bad and selfish person. You appear to be more concerned about punishing those who have already been slighted; rather than understanding why they need to stand in the middle of the expressway in order to make their voices heard.
I was following this conversation and I have to say I was equally confused. I have no idea what Marcus Abrams has to do with this topic. From what was said, his daughter wasn't at daycare, but at dance (or gymnastics or something) practice. Many of these places don't require adult supervision until kids are picked up, when the class ends, the place closes. I would definitely be worried about a 7 year old. Even if there is another class and she has to wait around for 2 hours, I'd be worried she'd get scared and wonder off looking for her ride home. I dont know a single 7 year old with a phone, so I'm not sure how modern technology is going to make it easy to communicate. Fearing for a 7 year old alone for 2 hours is a legitimate concern, I'm not clear why it is being minimized.
Neither am I. This conversation went sideways, and CM really lost touch with reality. Clearly not a parent (or shouldn't be) if he doesn't understand why having one's child standing outside alone for a couple of hours wouldn't be of concern to the father. Christ. I understand that there can be disagreements regarding the efficacy and impact of blocking freeways, but to disregard real concern over safety of a loved one and spin it as selfish shows a massive disconnect from reality.
You're right to be worried about your own child's safety. .
When you run into a protest with hundreds of people blocking the highway, and your initial reaction is: "What an inconvenience, I hope all these people get arrested." instead of "Gee, these people seem to have a really important message they need to get across." that is a massive disconnect from reality.
30 people... 15 of them arrested.. 15 of them smart enough to move out of the way when the cops told them. Many of the arrested were white college students from VCU and UVA (see the picture). Fuck them. Let me say that unequivocally. It's the height of selfish behavior to think your cause is so important that everyone else can fuck off. So they can fuck off. I'm a democrat, a liberal and have been to my share of protests. But we never broke laws, damaged property or otherwise acted like selfish assholes.
Everyone thinks they are a martyr. Well they aren't.
College educated students of the white majority willing to get arrested to stand up for oppressed minorities. Wow, that's your definition of selfish? I'd like to know what your definition of selfless is?
I'm so sick of this "appropriate way to protest" argument. This isn't difficult to figure out. 1. Demonize protesters as 'rioters' who are only interested in breaking laws and damaging property 2. Pass laws to define the "appropriate way to protest" 3. Chill free speech
Also, these guys broke laws and damaged personal property to make their point. I'm pretty sure the message got across.
Hope your kid made it home safe.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Of course they have the right to. For me it isn't about the topic, I wouldn't care what side they are one, its about wanting to see them perform. If I drop $200 to see Pearl Jam, I'd be pissed if Ed spent 20 minutes talking about politics in the middle of the show. After I moved out of LA I have to drive over an hour for almost any major concert, often on a weeknight and pay for a babysitter. The whole time my thoughts would be how I'll be getting home at 12:30 or 1:00 after spending 30 minutes to just exit the parking structure, wake up at 5:45 to go to work, and spend an extra $5 on the babysitter for this speech where everyone knows his views anyway. But keep it to a brief comment here and there I wouldn't have a complaint. But if you're going to blame it on "butthurt conservatives" you must think no one would care if some other artist spent 20 minutes talking about being pro-life in a show? Yeah, right.
Your'e taking an egregious example of something that didn't necessarily happen. I'd be annoyed if Ed spent 20 minutes talking about ANYTHING in a show, not just politics.
he brought out a doc who talked about EB for about 17 or so minutes at St Paul in the middle of the show. Show killer. Almost.
I know.. I edited that show and that part killed me. It was interesting for a few minutes but after he started introducing the band like they were in a living room... it went far too far. By contrast, his very moving speech in Hartford just before Life Wasted was an excellent use of 2 minutes. It was painful but so very necessary.
Wow. 17min? I didn't know that. That is approaching preachy stage.
Property damage isn't a part of this discussion man. But as for never breaking the law... well, it was illegal for black people to ride at the front of the bus and eat at the diner counter until some people decided to disobey those laws. It wasn't legal for all those people to gather in Clayoquot Sound and block logging trucks, one of the last old growth rainforests in the region would have been clear-cut. And there are literally tens of thousands of other examples where not obeying the law during protest brought real and important change or defended the defenseless. To say that laws shouldn't be broken and being unwilling to budge on that point is exactly the problem I'm worried about here. Once we go black and white in the context of legal vs illegal protests, we're in big trouble.
There is no moral equivalency between the Jim Crow laws and commonsense public safety laws about the interstate. It's not like only black people are prohibited from the highway.
I wasn't making a moral equivalency.... I was saying that the black and white attitude about law and protest that you have been expressing and that certain politicians are actually purposefully using to suppress protest in a more sinister context is a big problem and shouldn't be touted as the end all and be all when it comes to any protest. Jim Crow is only one obvious example. There are TONS of other examples.... yes, even some where people were blocking traffic! I mean, look at this goof ball, standing right in the middle of the damn street! GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY YOU HIPPY!
The fact of the matter is, a lot of the time, protests don't work unless they do cause at least some degree of chaos or inconvenience and disruption. That is a fact of life. I know it doesn't fit into our modern sense that we have an absolute right to convenience and to do what we want when we want, and how dare anyone stand in our way of everything going smoothly and as planned. But for me, that sense doesn't override the value of passionate protest. Within reason and without violence, that is.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Property damage isn't a part of this discussion man. But as for never breaking the law... well, it was illegal for black people to ride at the front of the bus and eat at the diner counter until some people decided to disobey those laws. It wasn't legal for all those people to gather in Clayoquot Sound and block logging trucks, one of the last old growth rainforests in the region would have been clear-cut. And there are literally tens of thousands of other examples where not obeying the law during protest brought real and important change or defended the defenseless. To say that laws shouldn't be broken and being unwilling to budge on that point is exactly the problem I'm worried about here. Once we go black and white in the context of legal vs illegal protests, we're in big trouble.
There is no moral equivalency between the Jim Crow laws and commonsense public safety laws about the interstate. It's not like only black people are prohibited from the highway.
I wasn't making a moral equivalency.... I was saying that the black and white attitude about law and protest that you have been expressing and that certain politicians are actually purposefully using to suppress protest in a more sinister context is a big problem and shouldn't be touted as the end all and be all when it comes to any protest. Jim Crow is only one obvious example. There are TONS of other examples.... yes, even some where people were blocking traffic! I mean, look at this goof ball, standing right in the middle of the damn street! GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY YOU HIPPY!
The fact of the matter is, a lot of the time, protests don't work unless they do cause at least some degree of chaos or inconvenience and disruption. That is a fact of life. I know it doesn't fit into our modern sense that we have an absolute right to convenience and to do what we want when we want, and how dare anyone stand in our way of everything going smoothly and as planned. But for me, that sense doesn't override the value of passionate protest. Within reason and without violence, that is.
The big difference to me is that you've got Tienneman Square there.. for obvious reasons that's an extreme example as is Jim Crow. I don't agree with every law on the books (let's start with the death penalty, schedule I drugs, etc.) but our laws are fundamentally equal today. That wasn't the case 50 years ago in the United States. The laws that are being broken are not unfair laws. They aren't Crow, poll taxes, etc. They are public safety laws. I'm not sure I can understand what message is being sent by breaking them. The Woman's March in DC sent a powerful message and it was completely legal, safe, organized, etc. It can be achieved without breaking a law, in the United States.. today.
how come all you anti-protest republicans didn't have a problem with a republican governor closing down a bridge? I wonder how many emergency vehicles were slowed or diverted because of that?
I'm not Republican or anti-protest.. and I brought up the NJ bridge several times.. But I still think you should follow the laws when protesting. The goal of a protests should be to garner support for your cause. Anything that turns an ordinary citizen without a dog in the fight, against you, is an unsuccessful protest.
According to half the people on this board alone, making someone 10 minutes late to pick their kid up from ballet class will turn them against protestors, no matter what they are protesting. Perhaps immediate local public sentiment isn't actually the end all and be all of how successful a protest is.
That was me.. and it wasn't 10 minutes. It was at least 90 minutes, maybe closer to 2 hours. And it was during rush hour. Maybe you don't have kids so you don't think of things this way, but when you're late, you can only imagine (the worst imagination) what is happening with your 7 year old daughter standing? waiting? sitting? outside waiting for you. The worst thoughts go through your mind.
Right? Think of all the terrible things that could happen to your child, when all they want to do is go home?
But what do I know? Maybe your kid's the 'right' color and doesn't have anything to worry about.
I don't get your point. My daughter isn't a 15 year old roaming the streets.. she was a 7 year old little girl. This wasn't a race issue for me.
You mentioned being worried about your daughter because it took 2 hours to get through traffic.
How long do you think Marcus Abrams' mom/gf/roommate waited for him to come home from work that day?
So because something horrible happened to one child, I don't have the right to be worried about my child? Is worry binary? Can I only care for one child and if it's not someone that I don't know, I'm a bad person?
No offense, but I have no idea what the hell that situation has to do with mine.
Point being: you were worried about your child for 2 hours. Because they were what? Sitting safely at daycare waiting for you?
There is an entire demographic that has to explain to their 7 year old children that they have a disproportionate chance of being arrested, shot or killed. They worry every minute of everyday their children will be unfairly discriminated against simply because of the color of their skin. Your 2 hours of inconvenience is but a fraction of what others experience.
You're right to be worried about your own child's safety. But if sitting in traffic for 2 hours of protesting doesn't make you stop, think and empathize with what other people and their children are experiencing; then yes, that makes you a bad and selfish person. You appear to be more concerned about punishing those who have already been slighted; rather than understanding why they need to stand in the middle of the expressway in order to make their voices heard.
I was following this conversation and I have to say I was equally confused. I have no idea what Marcus Abrams has to do with this topic. From what was said, his daughter wasn't at daycare, but at dance (or gymnastics or something) practice. Many of these places don't require adult supervision until kids are picked up, when the class ends, the place closes. I would definitely be worried about a 7 year old. Even if there is another class and she has to wait around for 2 hours, I'd be worried she'd get scared and wonder off looking for her ride home. I dont know a single 7 year old with a phone, so I'm not sure how modern technology is going to make it easy to communicate. Fearing for a 7 year old alone for 2 hours is a legitimate concern, I'm not clear why it is being minimized.
Neither am I. This conversation went sideways, and CM really lost touch with reality. Clearly not a parent (or shouldn't be) if he doesn't understand why having one's child standing outside alone for a couple of hours wouldn't be of concern to the father. Christ. I understand that there can be disagreements regarding the efficacy and impact of blocking freeways, but to disregard real concern over safety of a loved one and spin it as selfish shows a massive disconnect from reality.
You're right to be worried about your own child's safety. .
When you run into a protest with hundreds of people blocking the highway, and your initial reaction is: "What an inconvenience, I hope all these people get arrested." instead of "Gee, these people seem to have a really important message they need to get across." that is a massive disconnect from reality.
30 people... 15 of them arrested.. 15 of them smart enough to move out of the way when the cops told them. Many of the arrested were white college students from VCU and UVA (see the picture). Fuck them. Let me say that unequivocally. It's the height of selfish behavior to think your cause is so important that everyone else can fuck off. So they can fuck off. I'm a democrat, a liberal and have been to my share of protests. But we never broke laws, damaged property or otherwise acted like selfish assholes.
Everyone thinks they are a martyr. Well they aren't.
College educated students of the white majority willing to get arrested to stand up for oppressed minorities. Wow, that's your definition of selfish? I'd like to know what your definition of selfless is?
I'm so sick of this "appropriate way to protest" argument. This isn't difficult to figure out. 1. Demonize protesters as 'rioters' who are only interested in breaking laws and damaging property 2. Pass laws to define the "appropriate way to protest" 3. Chill free speech
Also, these guys broke laws and damaged personal property to make their point. I'm pretty sure the message got across.
Hope your kid made it home safe.
Thanks.. no reason to continue the argument. I think we have all said our peace.
how come all you anti-protest republicans didn't have a problem with a republican governor closing down a bridge? I wonder how many emergency vehicles were slowed or diverted because of that?
I'm not Republican or anti-protest.. and I brought up the NJ bridge several times.. But I still think you should follow the laws when protesting. The goal of a protests should be to garner support for your cause. Anything that turns an ordinary citizen without a dog in the fight, against you, is an unsuccessful protest.
According to half the people on this board alone, making someone 10 minutes late to pick their kid up from ballet class will turn them against protestors, no matter what they are protesting. Perhaps immediate local public sentiment isn't actually the end all and be all of how successful a protest is.
That was me.. and it wasn't 10 minutes. It was at least 90 minutes, maybe closer to 2 hours. And it was during rush hour. Maybe you don't have kids so you don't think of things this way, but when you're late, you can only imagine (the worst imagination) what is happening with your 7 year old daughter standing? waiting? sitting? outside waiting for you. The worst thoughts go through your mind.
Right? Think of all the terrible things that could happen to your child, when all they want to do is go home?
But what do I know? Maybe your kid's the 'right' color and doesn't have anything to worry about.
I don't get your point. My daughter isn't a 15 year old roaming the streets.. she was a 7 year old little girl. This wasn't a race issue for me.
You mentioned being worried about your daughter because it took 2 hours to get through traffic.
How long do you think Marcus Abrams' mom/gf/roommate waited for him to come home from work that day?
So because something horrible happened to one child, I don't have the right to be worried about my child? Is worry binary? Can I only care for one child and if it's not someone that I don't know, I'm a bad person?
No offense, but I have no idea what the hell that situation has to do with mine.
Point being: you were worried about your child for 2 hours. Because they were what? Sitting safely at daycare waiting for you?
There is an entire demographic that has to explain to their 7 year old children that they have a disproportionate chance of being arrested, shot or killed. They worry every minute of everyday their children will be unfairly discriminated against simply because of the color of their skin. Your 2 hours of inconvenience is but a fraction of what others experience.
You're right to be worried about your own child's safety. But if sitting in traffic for 2 hours of protesting doesn't make you stop, think and empathize with what other people and their children are experiencing; then yes, that makes you a bad and selfish person. You appear to be more concerned about punishing those who have already been slighted; rather than understanding why they need to stand in the middle of the expressway in order to make their voices heard.
I was following this conversation and I have to say I was equally confused. I have no idea what Marcus Abrams has to do with this topic. From what was said, his daughter wasn't at daycare, but at dance (or gymnastics or something) practice. Many of these places don't require adult supervision until kids are picked up, when the class ends, the place closes. I would definitely be worried about a 7 year old. Even if there is another class and she has to wait around for 2 hours, I'd be worried she'd get scared and wonder off looking for her ride home. I dont know a single 7 year old with a phone, so I'm not sure how modern technology is going to make it easy to communicate. Fearing for a 7 year old alone for 2 hours is a legitimate concern, I'm not clear why it is being minimized.
Neither am I. This conversation went sideways, and CM really lost touch with reality. Clearly not a parent (or shouldn't be) if he doesn't understand why having one's child standing outside alone for a couple of hours wouldn't be of concern to the father. Christ. I understand that there can be disagreements regarding the efficacy and impact of blocking freeways, but to disregard real concern over safety of a loved one and spin it as selfish shows a massive disconnect from reality.
You're right to be worried about your own child's safety. .
When you run into a protest with hundreds of people blocking the highway, and your initial reaction is: "What an inconvenience, I hope all these people get arrested." instead of "Gee, these people seem to have a really important message they need to get across." that is a massive disconnect from reality.
30 people... 15 of them arrested.. 15 of them smart enough to move out of the way when the cops told them. Many of the arrested were white college students from VCU and UVA (see the picture). Fuck them. Let me say that unequivocally. It's the height of selfish behavior to think your cause is so important that everyone else can fuck off. So they can fuck off. I'm a democrat, a liberal and have been to my share of protests. But we never broke laws, damaged property or otherwise acted like selfish assholes.
Everyone thinks they are a martyr. Well they aren't.
College educated students of the white majority willing to get arrested to stand up for oppressed minorities. Wow, that's your definition of selfish? I'd like to know what your definition of selfless is?
I'm so sick of this "appropriate way to protest" argument. This isn't difficult to figure out. 1. Demonize protesters as 'rioters' who are only interested in breaking laws and damaging property 2. Pass laws to define the "appropriate way to protest" 3. Chill free speech
Also, these guys broke laws and damaged personal property to make their point. I'm pretty sure the message got across.
Hope your kid made it home safe.
Thanks.. no reason to continue the argument. I think we have all said our peace.
*piece
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
how come all you anti-protest republicans didn't have a problem with a republican governor closing down a bridge? I wonder how many emergency vehicles were slowed or diverted because of that?
I'm not Republican or anti-protest.. and I brought up the NJ bridge several times.. But I still think you should follow the laws when protesting. The goal of a protests should be to garner support for your cause. Anything that turns an ordinary citizen without a dog in the fight, against you, is an unsuccessful protest.
According to half the people on this board alone, making someone 10 minutes late to pick their kid up from ballet class will turn them against protestors, no matter what they are protesting. Perhaps immediate local public sentiment isn't actually the end all and be all of how successful a protest is.
That was me.. and it wasn't 10 minutes. It was at least 90 minutes, maybe closer to 2 hours. And it was during rush hour. Maybe you don't have kids so you don't think of things this way, but when you're late, you can only imagine (the worst imagination) what is happening with your 7 year old daughter standing? waiting? sitting? outside waiting for you. The worst thoughts go through your mind.
Right? Think of all the terrible things that could happen to your child, when all they want to do is go home?
But what do I know? Maybe your kid's the 'right' color and doesn't have anything to worry about.
I don't get your point. My daughter isn't a 15 year old roaming the streets.. she was a 7 year old little girl. This wasn't a race issue for me.
You mentioned being worried about your daughter because it took 2 hours to get through traffic.
How long do you think Marcus Abrams' mom/gf/roommate waited for him to come home from work that day?
So because something horrible happened to one child, I don't have the right to be worried about my child? Is worry binary? Can I only care for one child and if it's not someone that I don't know, I'm a bad person?
No offense, but I have no idea what the hell that situation has to do with mine.
Point being: you were worried about your child for 2 hours. Because they were what? Sitting safely at daycare waiting for you?
There is an entire demographic that has to explain to their 7 year old children that they have a disproportionate chance of being arrested, shot or killed. They worry every minute of everyday their children will be unfairly discriminated against simply because of the color of their skin. Your 2 hours of inconvenience is but a fraction of what others experience.
You're right to be worried about your own child's safety. But if sitting in traffic for 2 hours of protesting doesn't make you stop, think and empathize with what other people and their children are experiencing; then yes, that makes you a bad and selfish person. You appear to be more concerned about punishing those who have already been slighted; rather than understanding why they need to stand in the middle of the expressway in order to make their voices heard.
I was following this conversation and I have to say I was equally confused. I have no idea what Marcus Abrams has to do with this topic. From what was said, his daughter wasn't at daycare, but at dance (or gymnastics or something) practice. Many of these places don't require adult supervision until kids are picked up, when the class ends, the place closes. I would definitely be worried about a 7 year old. Even if there is another class and she has to wait around for 2 hours, I'd be worried she'd get scared and wonder off looking for her ride home. I dont know a single 7 year old with a phone, so I'm not sure how modern technology is going to make it easy to communicate. Fearing for a 7 year old alone for 2 hours is a legitimate concern, I'm not clear why it is being minimized.
Neither am I. This conversation went sideways, and CM really lost touch with reality. Clearly not a parent (or shouldn't be) if he doesn't understand why having one's child standing outside alone for a couple of hours wouldn't be of concern to the father. Christ. I understand that there can be disagreements regarding the efficacy and impact of blocking freeways, but to disregard real concern over safety of a loved one and spin it as selfish shows a massive disconnect from reality.
You're right to be worried about your own child's safety. .
When you run into a protest with hundreds of people blocking the highway, and your initial reaction is: "What an inconvenience, I hope all these people get arrested." instead of "Gee, these people seem to have a really important message they need to get across." that is a massive disconnect from reality.
30 people... 15 of them arrested.. 15 of them smart enough to move out of the way when the cops told them. Many of the arrested were white college students from VCU and UVA (see the picture). Fuck them. Let me say that unequivocally. It's the height of selfish behavior to think your cause is so important that everyone else can fuck off. So they can fuck off. I'm a democrat, a liberal and have been to my share of protests. But we never broke laws, damaged property or otherwise acted like selfish assholes.
Everyone thinks they are a martyr. Well they aren't.
College educated students of the white majority willing to get arrested to stand up for oppressed minorities. Wow, that's your definition of selfish? I'd like to know what your definition of selfless is?
I'm so sick of this "appropriate way to protest" argument. This isn't difficult to figure out. 1. Demonize protesters as 'rioters' who are only interested in breaking laws and damaging property 2. Pass laws to define the "appropriate way to protest" 3. Chill free speech
Also, these guys broke laws and damaged personal property to make their point. I'm pretty sure the message got across.
Hope your kid made it home safe.
Thanks.. no reason to continue the argument. I think we have all said our peace.
*piece
They are both correct, depending on your intent. Mine is in reference to pax vobiscum... speaking until you have achieved all that you want to say. Piece is more common, but I've always thought of it as...not saying your 'part' (piece) but speaking until you are done speaking (achieving your peace).
how come all you anti-protest republicans didn't have a problem with a republican governor closing down a bridge? I wonder how many emergency vehicles were slowed or diverted because of that?
I'm not Republican or anti-protest.. and I brought up the NJ bridge several times.. But I still think you should follow the laws when protesting. The goal of a protests should be to garner support for your cause. Anything that turns an ordinary citizen without a dog in the fight, against you, is an unsuccessful protest.
According to half the people on this board alone, making someone 10 minutes late to pick their kid up from ballet class will turn them against protestors, no matter what they are protesting. Perhaps immediate local public sentiment isn't actually the end all and be all of how successful a protest is.
That was me.. and it wasn't 10 minutes. It was at least 90 minutes, maybe closer to 2 hours. And it was during rush hour. Maybe you don't have kids so you don't think of things this way, but when you're late, you can only imagine (the worst imagination) what is happening with your 7 year old daughter standing? waiting? sitting? outside waiting for you. The worst thoughts go through your mind.
Right? Think of all the terrible things that could happen to your child, when all they want to do is go home?
But what do I know? Maybe your kid's the 'right' color and doesn't have anything to worry about.
I don't get your point. My daughter isn't a 15 year old roaming the streets.. she was a 7 year old little girl. This wasn't a race issue for me.
You mentioned being worried about your daughter because it took 2 hours to get through traffic.
How long do you think Marcus Abrams' mom/gf/roommate waited for him to come home from work that day?
So because something horrible happened to one child, I don't have the right to be worried about my child? Is worry binary? Can I only care for one child and if it's not someone that I don't know, I'm a bad person?
No offense, but I have no idea what the hell that situation has to do with mine.
Point being: you were worried about your child for 2 hours. Because they were what? Sitting safely at daycare waiting for you?
There is an entire demographic that has to explain to their 7 year old children that they have a disproportionate chance of being arrested, shot or killed. They worry every minute of everyday their children will be unfairly discriminated against simply because of the color of their skin. Your 2 hours of inconvenience is but a fraction of what others experience.
You're right to be worried about your own child's safety. But if sitting in traffic for 2 hours of protesting doesn't make you stop, think and empathize with what other people and their children are experiencing; then yes, that makes you a bad and selfish person. You appear to be more concerned about punishing those who have already been slighted; rather than understanding why they need to stand in the middle of the expressway in order to make their voices heard.
I was following this conversation and I have to say I was equally confused. I have no idea what Marcus Abrams has to do with this topic. From what was said, his daughter wasn't at daycare, but at dance (or gymnastics or something) practice. Many of these places don't require adult supervision until kids are picked up, when the class ends, the place closes. I would definitely be worried about a 7 year old. Even if there is another class and she has to wait around for 2 hours, I'd be worried she'd get scared and wonder off looking for her ride home. I dont know a single 7 year old with a phone, so I'm not sure how modern technology is going to make it easy to communicate. Fearing for a 7 year old alone for 2 hours is a legitimate concern, I'm not clear why it is being minimized.
Neither am I. This conversation went sideways, and CM really lost touch with reality. Clearly not a parent (or shouldn't be) if he doesn't understand why having one's child standing outside alone for a couple of hours wouldn't be of concern to the father. Christ. I understand that there can be disagreements regarding the efficacy and impact of blocking freeways, but to disregard real concern over safety of a loved one and spin it as selfish shows a massive disconnect from reality.
You're right to be worried about your own child's safety. .
When you run into a protest with hundreds of people blocking the highway, and your initial reaction is: "What an inconvenience, I hope all these people get arrested." instead of "Gee, these people seem to have a really important message they need to get across." that is a massive disconnect from reality.
30 people... 15 of them arrested.. 15 of them smart enough to move out of the way when the cops told them. Many of the arrested were white college students from VCU and UVA (see the picture). Fuck them. Let me say that unequivocally. It's the height of selfish behavior to think your cause is so important that everyone else can fuck off. So they can fuck off. I'm a democrat, a liberal and have been to my share of protests. But we never broke laws, damaged property or otherwise acted like selfish assholes.
Everyone thinks they are a martyr. Well they aren't.
College educated students of the white majority willing to get arrested to stand up for oppressed minorities. Wow, that's your definition of selfish? I'd like to know what your definition of selfless is?
I'm so sick of this "appropriate way to protest" argument. This isn't difficult to figure out. 1. Demonize protesters as 'rioters' who are only interested in breaking laws and damaging property 2. Pass laws to define the "appropriate way to protest" 3. Chill free speech
Also, these guys broke laws and damaged personal property to make their point. I'm pretty sure the message got across.
Hope your kid made it home safe.
Thanks.. no reason to continue the argument. I think we have all said our peace.
*piece
They are both correct, depending on your intent. Mine is in reference to pax vobiscum... speaking until you have achieved all that you want to say. Piece is more common, but I've always thought of it as...not saying your 'part' (piece) but speaking until you are done speaking (achieving your peace).
ALTERNATIVE FACTS!!!
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
If their is won grate thing about English its that you can right some thing too or three different ways and still bee in the same place. Piece out.
Have you considered having your 7 year old proofread your comments before posting?
Or drinking less?
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
If their is won grate thing about English its that you can right some thing too or three different ways and still bee in the same place. Piece out.
Have you considered having your 7 year old proofread your comments before posting?
Or drinking less?
okay, that was kind of mean. But it made me laugh
I was aiming for the former. Or is it the latter? I forget which is which. At any rate, it was a joke. Kind of. Cheers!
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Property damage isn't a part of this discussion man. But as for never breaking the law... well, it was illegal for black people to ride at the front of the bus and eat at the diner counter until some people decided to disobey those laws. It wasn't legal for all those people to gather in Clayoquot Sound and block logging trucks, one of the last old growth rainforests in the region would have been clear-cut. And there are literally tens of thousands of other examples where not obeying the law during protest brought real and important change or defended the defenseless. To say that laws shouldn't be broken and being unwilling to budge on that point is exactly the problem I'm worried about here. Once we go black and white in the context of legal vs illegal protests, we're in big trouble.
The obvious difference I see with your example is those people were protesting the actual laws themselves. If you want to protest for the right to march on the freeway and you believe that to be your constitutional right to do so and you believe anti-pedestrian laws on the freeway discriminate against those not in a car, then by all means march on the freeway.
BTW - do you have a list of laws, that in your moral opinion, are okay to break to get your point across? Is there a committee that defined it or are you subscribing to the Ayn Rand Objectivism Philosophy for Anarchists? In other words... you get to choose which laws or okay to break.. I'd love to get that list.
I wouldn't want the man to chill your freedoms by making you follow the law. I think the Bundy Clan made a similar argument.
Comments
"What an inconvenience, I hope all these people get arrested."
instead of
"Gee, these people seem to have a really important message they need to get across."
that is a massive disconnect from reality.
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
Everyone thinks they are a martyr. Well they aren't.
But as for never breaking the law... well, it was illegal for black people to ride at the front of the bus and eat at the diner counter until some people decided to disobey those laws. It wasn't legal for all those people to gather in Clayoquot Sound and block logging trucks, one of the last old growth rainforests in the region would have been clear-cut. And there are literally tens of thousands of other examples where not obeying the law during protest brought real and important change or defended the defenseless. To say that laws shouldn't be broken and being unwilling to budge on that point is exactly the problem I'm worried about here. Once we go black and white in the context of legal vs illegal protests, we're in big trouble.
Wow, that's your definition of selfish? I'd like to know what your definition of selfless is?
I'm so sick of this "appropriate way to protest" argument. This isn't difficult to figure out.
1. Demonize protesters as 'rioters' who are only interested in breaking laws and damaging property
2. Pass laws to define the "appropriate way to protest"
3. Chill free speech
Also, these guys broke laws and damaged personal property to make their point. I'm pretty sure the message got across.
Hope your kid made it home safe.
That is approaching preachy stage.
The fact of the matter is, a lot of the time, protests don't work unless they do cause at least some degree of chaos or inconvenience and disruption. That is a fact of life. I know it doesn't fit into our modern sense that we have an absolute right to convenience and to do what we want when we want, and how dare anyone stand in our way of everything going smoothly and as planned. But for me, that sense doesn't override the value of passionate protest. Within reason and without violence, that is.
Or drinking less?
If you want to protest for the right to march on the freeway and you believe that to be your constitutional right to do so and you believe anti-pedestrian laws on the freeway discriminate against those not in a car, then by all means march on the freeway.
I wouldn't want the man to chill your freedoms by making you follow the law. I think the Bundy Clan made a similar argument.