Should celebrities avoid talking politics to fans ?
Comments
-
Shit is harder than you think!Smellyman said:0 -
mrussel1 said:
0 -
okay, that was kind of mean. But it made me laughCM189191 said:
Have you considered having your 7 year old proofread your comments before posting?mrussel1 said: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.
Or drinking less? 0 -
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!mace1229 said:
okay, that was kind of mean. But it made me laughCM189191 said:
Have you considered having your 7 year old proofread your comments before posting?mrussel1 said: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.
Or drinking less?0 -
The obvious difference I see with your example is those people were protesting the actual laws themselves.PJ_Soul said: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.
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.0 -
Yes because suddenly out of the blue, after a few thousand posts, I am unable to use proper English..CM189191 said:
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!mace1229 said:
okay, that was kind of mean. But it made me laughCM189191 said:
Have you considered having your 7 year old proofread your comments before posting?mrussel1 said: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.
Or drinking less?0 -
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.0 -
To clarify: If people break the law (i.e. blocking a freeway) they should be punished according to the letter of the law. It's when the powers that be use the law to pile on additional charges for protesters. Standing in the middle of the highway is already a crime, there shouldn't be additional penalties for exercising your First Amendment Rights whilst standing in the middle of the highway. That is chilling.mrussel1 said: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.
Ultimately, it's up to the protester(s) and the weight of the message they want to get across. That's the cost-benefit analysis they are going to have to take.
For example:
Why should I pay for a street parking meter, when I already pay taxes for the road I'm parking on? I'm not going to sit in the middle of the highway to protest. But I might stick some chewing gum in the credit card slot as protest.
When a couple hundred (thousand?) people have to stand in the middle of the expressway just to get their voices heard, maybe it's time to stop, collaborate and listen.
If the Bundy Clan were serious about their protests, they'd be back occupying the bird sanctuary. Besides, as self-declared sovereign citizens, they're not entitled to the same Constitutional protections everyone else is. They should have been convicted like the domestic terrorists they are.0 -
First..which additional first amendment penalties were levied on these protesters? The max penalty for impeding the free movement of others in Virginia is one year in jail. I think the day in jail is pretty lenient and hardly...chilling...CM189191 said:
To clarify: If people break the law (i.e. blocking a freeway) they should be punished according to the letter of the law. It's when the powers that be use the law to pile on additional charges for protesters. Standing in the middle of the highway is already a crime, there shouldn't be additional penalties for exercising your First Amendment Rights whilst standing in the middle of the highway. That is chilling.mrussel1 said: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.
Ultimately, it's up to the protester(s) and the weight of the message they want to get across. That's the cost-benefit analysis they are going to have to take.
For example:
Why should I pay for a street parking meter, when I already pay taxes for the road I'm parking on? I'm not going to sit in the middle of the highway to protest. But I might stick some chewing gum in the credit card slot as protest.
When a couple hundred (thousand?) people have to stand in the middle of the expressway just to get their voices heard, maybe it's time to stop, collaborate and listen.
If the Bundy Clan were serious about their protests, they'd be back occupying the bird sanctuary. Besides, as self-declared sovereign citizens, they're not entitled to the same Constitutional protections everyone else is. They should have been convicted like the domestic terrorists they are.
For the Bundy clan, perhaps they weren't serious... I mean only one of them dies in the conflict so probably a big hoot to them.
How about the Richmond BLM protesters? I'm pretty sure they are back in class. Were they serious about their positions? Doesn't appear so... Haven't heard about those cats making any new stands around here. Maybe they just found something else to occupy their time.
Seems like you might just have a different standard based on whether you agree with the issue. For me, I'll condem the BLM, WeatherUnderground, Westoboro Baptist, Bundy Clan or the Anti abortion activists, or anyone else breaking a law to get a point across. Do you support all of them? I hope so.0 -
I think the conversations & debates going on around the country are fucking awesome, and ultimately good for the country and all of us.rustneversleeps said:
they talk about the same shit over and over for months on end. its lunatic behavior. they think they know everything.Smellyman said:Checking in...still talking about protesting......out
0 -
i think people that argue every day on the internet are lunatics. Keyboard Heroes.my2hands said:
I think the conversations & debates going on around the country are fucking awesome, and ultimately good for the country and all of us.rustneversleeps said:
they talk about the same shit over and over for months on end. its lunatic behavior. they think they know everything.Smellyman said:Checking in...still talking about protesting......out
Post edited by rustneversleeps on0 -
No, those would be people who argue at the full moon on the internet.rustneversleeps said:
i think people that argue every day on the internet are lunatics.my2hands said:
I think the conversations & debates going on around the country are fucking awesome, and ultimately good for the country and all of us.rustneversleeps said:
they talk about the same shit over and over for months on end. its lunatic behavior. they think they know everything.Smellyman said:Checking in...still talking about protesting......out
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
i like those people.oftenreading said:
No, those would be people who argue at the full moon on the internet.rustneversleeps said:
i think people that argue every day on the internet are lunatics.my2hands said:
I think the conversations & debates going on around the country are fucking awesome, and ultimately good for the country and all of us.rustneversleeps said:
they talk about the same shit over and over for months on end. its lunatic behavior. they think they know everything.Smellyman said:Checking in...still talking about protesting......out
0 -
Yes, every impactful protest where the laws were being broken is an extreme example I guess. Never mind that extreme examples happen every single day on this planet, and pretty often throughout American history, right up to today. I feel like you are dismissing every single valid example of useful civil disobedience by calling them "Jim Crow-like", as though all those civil rights protests in the USA are irrelevant, even though they are actually some of the most impactful events in American history, and there were tons of them, and their impact are strongly felt today and every day. Well, just how many examples do you need where illegal protests had value, as someone who is fixated on highways being blocked by protestors even though that is actually a rare occurrence?mrussel1 said:
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.PJ_Soul said:
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!mrussel1 said:
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.PJ_Soul said: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 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. ~ Desiderata0 -
Again, this pointless fixation on protests on highways. Big red herring, as someone else already said eloquently. Certain creepy politicians are so happy you have gone along with their anti-protest plan! I'm sure they are patting themselves on the back.mace1229 said:
The obvious difference I see with your example is those people were protesting the actual laws themselves.PJ_Soul said: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.
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.Post edited by PJ_Soul onWith all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata0 -
I'm fixated on it because that was the point I made and some people took umbrage to THAT specifically. I'm against any laws that seek to pile on penalties because it was done as a protest rather than the normal course of law breaking. In other words, if the normal misdemeanor is "Impeding the freedom of others" which is perfectly legitimate and technically carries a 1 year, 10k misdemeanor max.. if a lawmaker wants to now make it a felony to impede the freedom of others while engaging in a political protest, punishable by 5 years and 50k.. then yes. I would agree that first amendment rights are being specifically targeted and I would certainly stand against it. And I would imagine that it would get challenged as unconstitutional.PJ_Soul said:
Again, this pointless fixation on protests on highways. Big red herring, as someone else already said eloquently. Certain creepy politicians are so happy you have gone along with their anti-protest plan! I'm sure they are patting themselves on the back.mace1229 said:
The obvious difference I see with your example is those people were protesting the actual laws themselves.PJ_Soul said: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.
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.
The bottom line point I was making was... someone's right to protest (and in this case breaking a law) does not supersede or otherwise give them to the right to negatively affect another individual's personal freedoms or rights.0 -
This has been mentioned several times. This freeway thing was not brought up by the "anti-protesters." And if my memory serves correct, it was you who brought it up. If not you, someone with the same argument, but pretty sure you.PJ_Soul said:
Again, this pointless fixation on protests on highways. Big red herring, as someone else already said eloquently. Certain creepy politicians are so happy you have gone along with their anti-protest plan! I'm sure they are patting themselves on the back.mace1229 said:
The obvious difference I see with your example is those people were protesting the actual laws themselves.PJ_Soul said: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.
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 don't see how it is fair to bring up this topic, then say it is a red herring and we are falling into the republican trap for discussing it. If it shouldn't be discussed, then don't bring it up. I still haven't seen a second example of someone's rights being denied.
That would be like me going to the gun thread, making a ridiculous claim about gun safety that is untrue, then faulting you for responding.
I still don't know where the idea that republicans are anti-protest comes from. I have not heard of examples where anyone is denied the right to protest. The only example given was people were ticketed for blocking a freeway, thus why this whole debate started.
Back to my previous comment. I would agree there are circumstances where breaking the law to protest is appropriate. The only occasions are when the law itself is being protested, like segregation laws and your examples. But breaking a random law, unrelated to what is being protested, and then being held accountable for the broken law is not taking away anyone's right to protest.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help