https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/comics/strips/?name=tom-the-dancing-bug&itid=sf_entertainment-comics
Tragically accurate
Quote from: jimbogumbo on February 04, 2022, 06:36:24 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/comics/strips/?name=tom-the-dancing-bug&itid=sf_entertainment-comics
It illustrates Whoopi's point nicely.
I haven't had COVID yet. I've had three vaccinations. And everyone on my vicinity is always wearing a mask. Still I've been sick with upper respiratory infection three times since September. But I'll continue doing what is asked/required. The cost is minimal.
Oh yeah, the cartoon. Funny! Next time someone complains that they're tired of wearing the mask, I'll remind them that they've never been sent to a gas chamber. Great conversation.
Quote from: mahagonny on February 04, 2022, 07:27:28 AM
I haven't had COVID yet. I've had three vaccinations. And everyone on my vicinity is always wearing a mask. Still I've been sick with upper respiratory infection three times since September. But I'll continue doing what is asked/required. The cost is minimal.
Oh yeah, the cartoon. Funny! Next time someone complains that they're tired of wearing the mask, I'll remind them that they've never been sent to a gas chamber. Great conversation.
It's obviously not poking at people simply saying they are tired of masks.
Have you not heard people comparing mask mandates to people in Nazi Germany being forced to wear gold stars that identified them as Jews?
Quote from: smallcleanrat on February 04, 2022, 08:02:19 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 04, 2022, 07:27:28 AM
I haven't had COVID yet. I've had three vaccinations. And everyone on my vicinity is always wearing a mask. Still I've been sick with upper respiratory infection three times since September. But I'll continue doing what is asked/required. The cost is minimal.
Oh yeah, the cartoon. Funny! Next time someone complains that they're tired of wearing the mask, I'll remind them that they've never been sent to a gas chamber. Great conversation.
It's obviously not poking at people simply saying they are tired of masks.
Have you not heard people comparing mask mandates to people in Nazi Germany being forced to wear gold stars that identified them as Jews?
Very seldom. What I hear much more than that is someone wanting to discuss the pros and cons of rules that designed in hopes of eradicating COVID. This drives certain others crazy, because they think that there is one acceptable way to discuss the situation and any other way is announcing that you are never going to be one of the enlightened, beautiful people, and probably hope black people will soon be going away.
I will admit that anytime I see a link to the Washington Post I expect to read something I hate. That may be an extreme reaction.
I'm reading this now; thought you might like to know about it https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/denmark-covid-restrictions/621482/
I'll tell you what: I've been to a fair few protests in my day, including several of the largest in Canada's history. I would venture that the issues we were protesting were pretty important, actually. But not once did MPs pose for photos with us, as the Tories are with the "truckers" on Parliament Hill. And while a few windows were occasionally broken--it's hard to control crowds of hundreds of thousands--there was not a single instance threatening soup kitchen staff and taking their food.
We were, however, beaten and gassed and kettled and arrested (but never charged). The tolerance and restraint being shown towards these dickheaded bozos is both entirely appropriate and, in light of my previous experiences and what I've witnessed, telling. Fuck 'em. (But don't send in the army, obviously. That would be wrong.)
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 04, 2022, 10:36:25 AM
I'll tell you what: I've been to a fair few protests in my day, including several of the largest in Canada's history. I would venture that the issues we were protesting were pretty important, actually. But not once did MPs pose for photos with us, as the Tories are with the "truckers" on Parliament Hill. And while a few windows were occasionally broken--it's hard to control crowds of hundreds of thousands--there was not a single instance threatening soup kitchen staff and taking their food.
We were, however, beaten and gassed and kettled and arrested (but never charged). The tolerance and restraint being shown towards these dickheaded bozos is both entirely appropriate and, in light of my previous experiences and what I've witnessed, telling. Fuck 'em. (But don't send in the army, obviously. That would be wrong.)
I feel the same way about them as about people blockading railway lines and roads. Arrest them all and charge them. Trying to hold people, businesses, or governments hostage (i.e. "We're going to continue until we get what we want") is antithetical to the democratic process.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 04, 2022, 11:01:40 AM
I feel the same way about them as about people blockading railway lines and roads. Arrest them all and charge them. Trying to hold people, businesses, or governments hostage (i.e. "We're going to continue until we get what we want") is antithetical to the democratic process.
I guess I'm just more tolerant of free speech than you are. Protests are not convenient, and that's the point. If they were, there'd be no point to them. You'd be left with people in a field far away holding "down with this sort of thing" signs. Protests are disruptive. I'm OK with that, including when they're for causes that I know to be utterly moronic. Criminalizing dissent is very, very bad for the democratic process, as is responding to it with state-sanctioned violence.
None of that stops these bozos from being utterly stupid, however. Not least because they're conflating federal and provincial jurisdictions. And the fact that they're treated with kid gloves when the rest of us aren't is worrying to me.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 04, 2022, 11:13:48 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 04, 2022, 11:01:40 AM
I feel the same way about them as about people blockading railway lines and roads. Arrest them all and charge them. Trying to hold people, businesses, or governments hostage (i.e. "We're going to continue until we get what we want") is antithetical to the democratic process.
I guess I'm just more tolerant of free speech than you are. Protests are not convenient, and that's the point. If they were, there'd be no point to them. You'd be left with people in a field far away holding "down with this sort of thing" signs. Protests are disruptive. I'm OK with that, including when they're for causes that I know to be utterly moronic. Criminalizing dissent is very, very bad for the democratic process, as is responding to it with state-sanctioned violence.
None of that stops these bozos from being utterly stupid, however. Not least because they're conflating federal and provincial jurisdictions. And the fact that they're treated with kid gloves when the rest of us aren't is worrying to me.
Blockades and things of that nature have been tolerated for quite a while before law enforcement was actually allowed to remove and arrest people. The difference between you and me is that I don't care where on the political spectrum they come from. The tactics they use,
whatever their cause, are what matter to me.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 04, 2022, 11:24:48 AM
Blockades and things of that nature have been tolerated for quite a while before law enforcement was actually allowed to remove and arrest people.
Sometimes, and sometimes (more often) not. I think the differences are pretty stark, frankly.
QuoteThe difference between you and me is that I don't care where on the political spectrum they come from. The tactics they use, whatever their cause, are what matter to me.
That's not an accurate summary, since I explicitly said that even though these fuckers are utter idiots (in other words, from the wrong end of our political spectrum), the restraint that's been shown towards them is entirely appropriate, and should have been shown to other protesters as well. In fact, I'm prepared to agree with you that we should be concerned about the tactics, whatever the cause--where we diverge is that I'm happy with pretty much anything short of organized violence, and you generally seem happy with absolutely nothing that inconveniences anyone (although I'm happy to revise that analysis with however you'd prefer to characterize it). I accept that non-violent protest is--and has to be--disruptive. If it isn't, it won't work. Part and parcel of accepting that is also accepting that sometimes doofuses will be disruptive to try to get the utterly inane things they want, sometimes at the expense of the rest of society. I hope we don't cave in to their idiocy, but they have every right to organize themselves to demand that we do.
As far as I'm concerned, that's fine. That's free speech and the right to protest. I support both, and that means accepting the inconvenience even when it's utterly misguided.
Either here or on the old forum (probably the latter) I described one of several French train station demonstrations...I think I was in Gare de Lyons...
You know how high and resonant those ceilings are?
Try being an information station worker stuck in a train station for six hours with demonstrators pounding a very loud kettle drum over and over and over.
When they stop pounding, they start shouting....then they pound, then they shout.....all day.
All because (in that case), I think there was a bill up for a vote to make the mandatory retirement age six months' later than its previous terms...
Which was considered heinous enough to submit the entire public (most of whom do use the trains) to such torture.
M.
In regard to the lifting of restrictions in Denmark, I have a family member in Denmark right now. He says one reason they can lift the restrictions are that so many people are voluntarily cautious. Everyone is wearing masks in public. 81% of the population has at least two doses of the vaccine.
He recently left our rural midwestern town (vaccination rate 51%), where we are the only people for miles who wear masks in any situation. Even at the hospital they were wearing them under their noses. (The National Guard was brought in to help run the hospital because it is so overwhelmed, so it's not as if the hospital hasn't seen the price of taking few precautions.) Around here there are crowded supermarkets full of unmasked people, restaurants bursting at the seams, etc. Family members says that Denmark with no rules is still a lot safer than the American Midwest with no rules.
Incidentally, my Midwestern state is about the same population as Denmark. The total COVID death rate to date here is ~25,000. In Denmark it is 3828.
Since Canada is not exactly as fond of 'freedom of speech' as the US is, what exactly is historic Canadian legal practice wrt protests like this one? I do not ever recall hearing, here South of the border, of another such protest up there?
Quote from: mahagonny on February 04, 2022, 09:31:34 AM
Quote from: smallcleanrat on February 04, 2022, 08:02:19 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 04, 2022, 07:27:28 AM
I haven't had COVID yet. I've had three vaccinations. And everyone on my vicinity is always wearing a mask. Still I've been sick with upper respiratory infection three times since September. But I'll continue doing what is asked/required. The cost is minimal.
Oh yeah, the cartoon. Funny! Next time someone complains that they're tired of wearing the mask, I'll remind them that they've never been sent to a gas chamber. Great conversation.
It's obviously not poking at people simply saying they are tired of masks.
Have you not heard people comparing mask mandates to people in Nazi Germany being forced to wear gold stars that identified them as Jews?
Very seldom. What I hear much more than that is someone wanting to discuss the pros and cons of rules that designed in hopes of eradicating COVID. This drives certain others crazy, because they think that there is one acceptable way to discuss the situation and any other way is announcing that you are never going to be one of the enlightened, beautiful people, and probably hope black people will soon be going away.
I will admit that anytime I see a link to the Washington Post I expect to read something I hate. That may be an extreme reaction.
I'm reading this now; thought you might like to know about it https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/denmark-covid-restrictions/621482/
The Nazi reference that ant-vaxxers and anti-maskers make is extremely common. How you can claim not to have heard it is only if you take the word "heard" completely literally.
'Anti-vaxxers' and 'anti-maskers' are not one group of persons with one point of view, but the left wants you to think they are.
Quote from: mahagonny on February 05, 2022, 07:43:47 AM
'Anti-vaxxers' and 'anti-maskers' are not one group of persons with one point of view, but the left wants you to think they are.
I don't think they are one group. That has noting to do with what I posted.
Quote from: kaysixteen on February 04, 2022, 10:38:52 PM
Since Canada is not exactly as fond of 'freedom of speech' as the US is, what exactly is historic Canadian legal practice wrt protests like this one? I do not ever recall hearing, here South of the border, of another such protest up there?
What do you mean by 'like this one'?
We've had any number of larger protests. I myself have been in one protest of several hundred thousand people (in a single location), and several smaller five-to-six-figure protests. In 2010 a few tens of thousands of people across the country (myself included) protested the prorogation of Parliament to avoid a vote of no confidence, which was a transparently undemocratic move. Around 3000 people showed up to Parliament Hill for it. We've also had bridge and railway blockades, most recently in 2019-20 for Indigenous rights over unceded land. The army was called in to halt a similar Indigenous protest and blockade in 1990, which saw two people die and one child stabbed in the chest by a soldier's bayonet (she survived).
There's not much that's novel about this one, except for (1) its idiocy, and (2) the harassment and threats of violence they're subjecting Ottawa residents to (including rape threats and taking food from soup kitchens), and (3) the Conservartive Party's clear endorsement of the protesters. Oh, and the fact that the cops haven't tried clubbing them down and gassing them yet, which would have happened long ago if it weren't these special snowflakes.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 04, 2022, 11:37:19 AM
That's not an accurate summary, since I explicitly said that even though these fuckers are utter idiots (in other words, from the wrong end of our political spectrum), the restraint that's been shown towards them is entirely appropriate, and should have been shown to other protesters as well. In fact, I'm prepared to agree with you that we should be concerned about the tactics, whatever the cause--where we diverge is that I'm happy with pretty much anything short of organized violence, and you generally seem happy with absolutely nothing that inconveniences anyone (although I'm happy to revise that analysis with however you'd prefer to characterize it).
Destroying peoples' livelihoods by preventing them from working is more then "inconveneience". Doxxing people so that protesters target their homes and their kids schools is moire than "inconvenience.
Quote
I accept that non-violent protest is--and has to be--disruptive. If it isn't, it won't work.
THIS is where we differ. By making the standard "what
works", the win goes to whoever can amass the biggest, most obnoxious, loudest gang to harass and intimidate in order to get their way. (Which, of course, just inspires their opponents to get a BIGGER, more obnoxious, etc. gang.)
That's basically what happens in a failed state with warlords, with the only limit in this case being anything short of direct physical violence. Biggest militia wins.
Not the kind of society I want to live in. (I'm guessing most people would agree.)
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 05, 2022, 09:05:16 AM
Destroying peoples' livelihoods by preventing them from working is more then "inconveneience".
If that's the standard, then activists cannot stand in front of bulldozers or block logging roads, cannot block access to pipeline construction sites, protesters cannot plan a march through a city's streets, etc., since that would prevent someone from working for a time. Likewise, unions could not walk out for better working conditions, TAs could not stop grading assignments, etc. If you think that non-white people or women could have gotten the vote or won de-segregation and the right to marry outside their race without significantly disrupting day-to-day life, then you're deluded.
It is indeed bad when a region's economic activity has to stop or work around a protest. But you have to understand that that's how protests
get noticed. The whole point is to show that you matter, and that enough of you are of one mind that you matter. And that's a perfectly fine tradeoff in my opinion. That doesn't stop it being annoying, but that's a price we have collectively decided is worth paying for freedom of speech.
Quote
Doxxing people so that protesters target their homes and their kids schools is moire than "inconvenience.
Absolutely. You'll find no argument from me there.
But this isn't a common protest tactic. (It
is, however, a common right-wing intimidation tactic.) I thought we were talking about protest in general. Are you talking about some specific event instead?
Quote
THIS is where we differ. By making the standard "what works", the win goes to whoever can amass the biggest, most obnoxious, loudest gang to harass and intimidate in order to get their way. (Which, of course, just inspires their opponents to get a BIGGER, more obnoxious, etc. gang.)
That's basically what happens in a failed state with warlords, with the only limit in this case being anything short of direct physical violence. Biggest militia wins.
Not the kind of society I want to live in. (I'm guessing most people would agree.)
What do you think the right to free speech is, exactly?
The Millian "battle of ideas"--which, if I recall correctly,
you support--is all about the best ideas winning by convincing the most people and drowning out the competition. The critique of the Millian battle of ideas--which, incidentally, I have
often advanced here--is that the quality of the ideas in question has nothing to do with it, and it's too easy for obnoxiously loud minorities to hijack the conversation. If you want to come over to my side on free speech issues, then you're welcome to do so. You'll also recall, however, that I am
not at all an advocate of the idea that the ends justify the means.
But you seem dead-set on characterizing all protest as harassment and intimidation. From what you've written, something as minor as disrupting someone's workday is a grievous offence in your eyes, and calls for violent intervention and criminal prosecution. That sounds like a nightmarish police state to me.
If, instead, what you're trying to say is that these particular protestors have been harassing locals and are becoming increasingly violent--something which the news reports increasingly seem to support--then I agree. I even agree that sixteen hours a day of very loud noise in residential areas is a bad thing, and must be stopped--I'd go so far as to say it shades into extortion. And that's bad and should be stopped.
But not by calling in the army or shooting them with rubber bullets.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 05, 2022, 09:52:34 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 05, 2022, 09:05:16 AM
Destroying peoples' livelihoods by preventing them from working is more then "inconveneience".
If that's the standard, then activists cannot stand in front of bulldozers or block logging roads, cannot block access to pipeline construction sites, protesters cannot plan a march through a city's streets, etc., since that would prevent someone from working for a time. Likewise, unions could not walk out for better working conditions, TAs could not stop grading assignments, etc. If you think that non-white people or women could have gotten the vote or won de-segregation and the right to marry outside their race without significantly disrupting day-to-day life, then you're deluded.
It is indeed bad when a region's economic activity has to stop or work around a protest. But you have to understand that that's how protests get noticed. The whole point is to show that you matter, and that enough of you are of one mind that you matter. And that's a perfectly fine tradeoff in my opinion. That doesn't stop it being annoying, but that's a price we have collectively decided is worth paying for freedom of speech.
So what level of disruption would you consider acceptable coming from a sizable group parents who are opposed to a new type of public school teaching, with basically the same grievance?
I would accept the same from tem as I do anyone else. Please do notice that I am very much against this crop of protesters and their pro-covid stance.
I support the right to protest, not just my side's right to protest.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 05, 2022, 10:58:02 AM
I would accept the same from tem as I do anyone else. Please do notice that I am very much against this crop of protesters and their pro-covid stance.
I support the right to protest, not just my side's right to protest.
How about expressing that you hope Ibram X. Kendi's cancer comes back? I did that on this forum and someone thought it was objectionable. Although I was not given a warning by the mods. And I don't think it was you. Nevertheless,
not one forumite defended my right to my sentiments. I found this odd, considering that I didn't promote violence against said individual, didn't indicate that I would even contemplate violence myself, and...I'm not a witch doctor. I can't wish people into bad health. So it
wasn't even disruption.If you believe, as I do, that Kendi is a dangerous fascist who has, for some reason, acquired star power and impressive fund raising chops, then you have no choice but to desperately hope that somehow he goes out of business. Since he has tenure at Boston University and is only, like 40-something, he could turn out being a menace for another 30 years. And he's a prime force behind the new 'education.' Deified by the left to the extent that his assertions are exempt from the standard requirement for evidence.
He may not be intelligent enough to understand that he is promoting totalitarian oppression, but then again, just because you don't know what a catamaran in doesn't mean you haven't built one.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on February 05, 2022, 07:17:58 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 04, 2022, 09:31:34 AM
Quote from: smallcleanrat on February 04, 2022, 08:02:19 AM
Quote from: mahagonny on February 04, 2022, 07:27:28 AM
I haven't had COVID yet. I've had three vaccinations. And everyone on my vicinity is always wearing a mask. Still I've been sick with upper respiratory infection three times since September. But I'll continue doing what is asked/required. The cost is minimal.
Oh yeah, the cartoon. Funny! Next time someone complains that they're tired of wearing the mask, I'll remind them that they've never been sent to a gas chamber. Great conversation.
It's obviously not poking at people simply saying they are tired of masks.
Have you not heard people comparing mask mandates to people in Nazi Germany being forced to wear gold stars that identified them as Jews?
Very seldom. What I hear much more than that is someone wanting to discuss the pros and cons of rules that designed in hopes of eradicating COVID. This drives certain others crazy, because they think that there is one acceptable way to discuss the situation and any other way is announcing that you are never going to be one of the enlightened, beautiful people, and probably hope black people will soon be going away.
I will admit that anytime I see a link to the Washington Post I expect to read something I hate. That may be an extreme reaction.
I'm reading this now; thought you might like to know about it https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/02/denmark-covid-restrictions/621482/
The Nazi reference that ant-vaxxers and anti-maskers make is extremely common. How you can claim not to have heard it is only if you take the word "heard" completely literally.
I always like to help and be helped. Just the first page of a search:https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=anti-vaxxer+holocaust+references&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Quote from: mahagonny on February 05, 2022, 11:09:32 AM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 05, 2022, 10:58:02 AM
I would accept the same from tem as I do anyone else. Please do notice that I am very much against this crop of protesters and their pro-covid stance.
I support the right to protest, not just my side's right to protest.
How about expressing that you hope Ibram X. Kendi's cancer comes back? I did that on this forum and someone thought it was objectionable. Although I was not given a warning by the mods. And I don't think it was you. Nevertheless, not one forumite defended my right to my sentiments. [...]
I searched for this thread, and the closest thing I could find was a poster on the Cancelling Dr. Seuss thread making a passing reference to your cancer comment in response to another post of yours in which you refer to their "liberal wisdom...written by a handful of puny academic (and other) minds."
Quote[...] But given your recent rants about rap music and garbage culture, and wishing cancer upon a controversial influential academic, I will say you've got a pair of brass ones to lecture me about what snake-oil salesman I choose to buy from, if indeed the term "snake-oil salesman" applies.
Is
this the exchange you think should have prompted people to rush to your defense?
Posters on these fora frequently characterize things written by other posters on these fora as objectionable. Calling a post 'objectionable' isn't at all the same as challenging anyone's 'right' to anything.
Did anyone call for you to be banned for your cancer comment? I think if they had you would have said so. And you got no warning from mods, so... Why did you especially need some kind of champion in this instance?
Yeah, I don't understand the reductio. You were able to say what you wanted to say, were you not?
If it were up to me, this would not be the sort of place where such things could be said (as I've often said, I'd prefer a broadly "family-friendly" forum). But it isn't, so it is.
If anyone would like me to apply stricter standards of moderation to their own posts, however, then I'm happy to oblige.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 05, 2022, 12:42:26 PM
Yeah, I don't understand the reductio. You were able to say what you wanted to say, were you not?
OK, fair enough. I was. Just making conversation. I didn't know what you'd say, and now I know.
Quote
If it were up to me, this would not be the sort of place where such things could be said (as I've often said, I'd prefer a broadly "family-friendly" forum). But it isn't, so it is.
Which would favor the status quo, left of center politics.
ETA: See, it is an unpleasant thing to confront. The fact that you would prefer someone die than that they go on living. But to the reader it conveys the depth of your fear of that person's influence and potential. It's more vivid than saying 'his ideas are dangerous.'
BTW, For a little perspective, back when Osama bin Laden was in his prime, if you didn't hate him and wish him dead, you were odd man out. So it's not as if we live in a society that hates hate.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 05, 2022, 09:52:34 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 05, 2022, 09:05:16 AM
Destroying peoples' livelihoods by preventing them from working is more then "inconveneience".
If that's the standard, then activists cannot stand in front of bulldozers or block logging roads, cannot block access to pipeline construction sites, protesters cannot plan a march through a city's streets, etc., since that would prevent someone from working for a time. Likewise, unions could not walk out for better working conditions, TAs could not stop grading assignments, etc. If you think that non-white people or women could have gotten the vote or won de-segregation and the right to marry outside their race without significantly disrupting day-to-day life, then you're deluded.
One thing I have noted in many of those protests. People enjoy the publicity and like to be seen breaking the law, but when they get arrested and convicted, they are shocked at their treatment. They think it's all just Facebook fodder.
If someone chooses to break the law in protesting, if they aren't prepared to suffer the legal consequences then they are just poseurs.
Don't break the law, or don't complain about the consequences.
Quote
It is indeed bad when a region's economic activity has to stop or work around a protest. But you have to understand that that's how protests get noticed. The whole point is to show that you matter, and that enough of you are of one mind that you matter. And that's a perfectly fine tradeoff in my opinion. That doesn't stop it being annoying, but that's a price we have collectively decided is worth paying for freedom of speech.
Quote
Doxxing people so that protesters target their homes and their kids schools is moire than "inconvenience.
Absolutely. You'll find no argument from me there.
But this isn't a common protest tactic. (It is, however, a common right-wing intimidation tactic.) I thought we were talking about protest in general. Are you talking about some specific event instead?
Quote
THIS is where we differ. By making the standard "what works", the win goes to whoever can amass the biggest, most obnoxious, loudest gang to harass and intimidate in order to get their way. (Which, of course, just inspires their opponents to get a BIGGER, more obnoxious, etc. gang.)
That's basically what happens in a failed state with warlords, with the only limit in this case being anything short of direct physical violence. Biggest militia wins.
Not the kind of society I want to live in. (I'm guessing most people would agree.)
What do you think the right to free speech is, exactly?
The Millian "battle of ideas"--which, if I recall correctly, you support--is all about the best ideas winning by convincing the most people and drowning out the competition.
"Convincing the most people"; GREAT IDEA! I fully support that.
"Drowning out the competition"; TERRIBLE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC IDEA! I heartily oppose that.
I haven't heard any research showing that the person with the loudest voice is more accurate than anyone else. Or that using a megaphone bends the fabric of reality in line with your words.
LOUD DOES NOT MEAN RIGHT!!!!!!!!
Quote
The critique of the Millian battle of ideas--which, incidentally, I have often advanced here--is that the quality of the ideas in question has nothing to do with it, and it's too easy for obnoxiously loud minorities to hijack the conversation. If you want to come over to my side on free speech issues, then you're welcome to do so. You'll also recall, however, that I am not at all an advocate of the idea that the ends justify the means.
But you seem dead-set on characterizing all protest as harassment and intimidation. From what you've written, something as minor as disrupting someone's workday is a grievous offence in your eyes, and calls for violent intervention and criminal prosecution. That sounds like a nightmarish police state to me.
Anything that follows the "we're going to make it impossible for people to do X until they give us what we want" script is basically extortion. When the ONLY way to stop it without giving in is to employ physical force, that is not good for democracy.
It's why even the Supreme Court has at times refused to rule in advance on certain things; the democratic process is the way decisions should be made by duly elected officials; not just caving to whoever can be the most disruptive.
Quote
If, instead, what you're trying to say is that these particular protestors have been harassing locals and are becoming increasingly violent--something which the news reports increasingly seem to support--then I agree. I even agree that sixteen hours a day of very loud noise in residential areas is a bad thing, and must be stopped--I'd go so far as to say it shades into extortion. And that's bad and should be stopped.
But not by calling in the army or shooting them with rubber bullets.
What about the 2020 riots in places like Portland and Seattle with looting and *burning? Is that as bad as what the truckers are doing? Should the same measures apply?
*And declaring part of the city off-limits to police for several WEEKS.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 05, 2022, 01:14:29 PM
"Convincing the most people"; GREAT IDEA! I fully support that.
"Drowning out the competition"; TERRIBLE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC IDEA! I heartily oppose that.
I haven't heard any research showing that the person with the loudest voice is more accurate than anyone else. Or that using a megaphone bends the fabric of reality in line with your words.
LOUD DOES NOT MEAN RIGHT!!!!!!!!
Who said it did? If anything, posters' experience on this here forum should confirm pretty quickly that the loudest voices are not the most accurate.
Quote
Anything that follows the "we're going to make it impossible for people to do X until they give us what we want" script is basically extortion. When the ONLY way to stop it without giving in is to employ physical force, that is not good for democracy.
You can characterize that as the standard script if you want, but that doesn't make it true. It seems like an accurate characterization of this particular protest, but it doesn't jibe with my memory or experiences of others.
As for state-sanctioned violence being the
only way to end it--the bar for determining that should be pretty high. My memory and experience suggests that violent suppression is typically used quite early in the process, long before it's been determined that nothing else will work. Again, I find it very concerning that that's the usual response, but that it's been suspended here. That's not because I think violent suppression is appropriate at this point in this case, but rather because it suggests a very ugly double-standard.
Quote
It's why even the Supreme Court has at times refused to rule in advance on certain things; the democratic process is the way decisions should be made by duly elected officials; not just caving to whoever can be the most disruptive.
Legislating under majority governments is not a particularly democratic process, especially given how many votes are whipped. Party leaders in our system have an awful lot of power, and individual MPs have very little. As for caving to disruption, I'd respectfully like to suggest that that's
exactly how fundraising impacts the system.
Quote
What about the 2020 riots in places like Portland and Seattle with looting and *burning? Is that as bad as what the truckers are doing? Should the same measures apply?
*And declaring part of the city off-limits to police for several WEEKS.
Quite apart from your characterization being erroneous, you're shifting to talking about another country with a different approach, a different history, a different set of free speech standards, and a different set of issues. You're also talking about a set of protests where police deliberately escalated. None of that is what we have here.
I don't know
exactly how bad what these "truckers" are doing is. I don't know, because I've learned to take media coverage of protests with a dose of salt. But when I hear that they're blasting air horns in residential neighbourhoods for 16 hours a day, forcing their way into soup kitchens to take food, flying Nazi and Confederate flags, singing songs about joining the USA, setting up encampments with wood and propane fires in the middle of the city, and threatening passersby with rape, however, I have to say that I don't recognize
any of that behaviour from the protests I've participated in, and I've participated in a fair few, including
very large ones. I find all that
extremely concerning, and I think it's intolerable. Once again, I don't think the appropriate response is to beat them with batons and gas them. But, again, I'm also worried about the fact that they haven't been yet, because
we were in some of the protests I've participated in, and we didn't do anything even
close to that bad (however bad we want to say all that is).
Indeed, somebody tried to fly a Nazi or Confederate flag (I don't remember which) at one very large (six-figure) protest I participated in. The crowd took his flag away, yelled at him, and booted him out. That's the kind of behaviour I recognize and expect from my protests.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 06, 2022, 08:26:04 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 05, 2022, 01:14:29 PM
What about the 2020 riots in places like Portland and Seattle with looting and *burning? Is that as bad as what the truckers are doing? Should the same measures apply?
*And declaring part of the city off-limits to police for several WEEKS.
Quite apart from your characterization being erroneous, you're shifting to talking about another country with a different approach, a different history, a different set of free speech standards, and a different set of issues. You're also talking about a set of protests where police deliberately escalated.
What specific police escalation justified torching and looting buildings? What are the rules for when that kind of response (i.e. destruction of property) is acceptable?
Has any clarity been established about the nationality of the truckers, by the way?
In other words, are they Americans just there to make trouble, or is it actual Canadians with specific greivances?
Or a blend of the two?
The national complexion of the group would seem to be pertinent, both to how the issue is handled, and who is actually allowed to be in the country.
M.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 06, 2022, 09:44:09 AM
What specific police escalation justified torching and looting buildings?
When a peaceful protest against police brutality is met with police brutality, it's not surprising when violence follows in kind. It may not be justified, but it's not surprising--and, crucially, the police response itself was unjustified.
But that's entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand, isn't it?
Quote
What are the rules for when that kind of response (i.e. destruction of property) is acceptable?
The rules are codified as real numbers somewhere between 0 and 1. But I would say that the destruction of property in a protest--especially insured property--is
always preferable to maiming or killing a person.
But, again, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Quote from: mamselle on February 06, 2022, 10:20:35 AM
Has any clarity been established about the nationality of the truckers, by the way?
In other words, are they Americans just there to make trouble, or is it actual Canadians with specific greivances?
Or a blend of the two?
The national complexion of the group would seem to be pertinent, both to how the issue is handled, and who is actually allowed to be in the country.
M.
As far as I'm aware, they're Canadian (whether they're actually truckers is another matter). Although judging from what some are saying, it seems like many wish they were American. As far as anyone can tell, however, a significant portion of their funding is not (I would assume the non-Canadian portion is mostly American).
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 06, 2022, 08:26:04 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 05, 2022, 01:14:29 PM
"Convincing the most people"; GREAT IDEA! I fully support that.
"Drowning out the competition"; TERRIBLE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC IDEA! I heartily oppose that.
I haven't heard any research showing that the person with the loudest voice is more accurate than anyone else. Or that using a megaphone bends the fabric of reality in line with your words.
LOUD DOES NOT MEAN RIGHT!!!!!!!!
Who said it did? If anything, posters' experience on this here forum should confirm pretty quickly that the loudest voices are not the most accurate.
I don't know how you define 'loudest voice' but if you use my definition I agree. The loudest voice here is the new liberal orthodoxy, because it has the greatest number of proponents. One opera singer even with a strong (and more musical) voice does not compete with the decibels of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
The forum self selects for that type too. Writingprof is gone having clearly let us know he left for that reason; Economizer is rarely heard from. Marshwiggle was getting called a right wing troll six months ago but lately has struck a more conciliatory tone.
Does volume make you right? The jury is still out.
QuoteQuote from: marshwiggle on Today at 09:44:09 AM
What specific police escalation justified torching and looting buildings?
When a peaceful protest against police brutality is met with police brutality, it's not surprising when violence follows in kind. It may not be justified, but it's not surprising--and, crucially, the police response itself was unjustified.
I'm entitled to police who do their job perfectly, dammit! What do you think I pay taxes for?
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 06, 2022, 10:37:11 AM
Quote
What are the rules for when that kind of response (i.e. destruction of property) is acceptable?
The rules are codified as real numbers somewhere between 0 and 1. But I would say that the destruction of property in a protest--especially insured property--is always preferable to maiming or killing a person.
In an ideal world where everyone could know with absolute certainty that some "insured property" doesn't actually
contain any person, then you may have a point. If a property owner refuses to leave their property, and rioters are going to torch the property with them inside, is it acceptable to stop the rioters with force, even by potentially killing them, since the property owner has the
choice of leaving? (If, so then why can't the same logic dictate that the
rioters have the choice to stand down, and if they do so will not be subject to deadly force?)
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 07, 2022, 07:42:26 AM
In an ideal world where everyone could know with absolute certainty that some "insured property" doesn't actually contain any person, then you may have a point. If a property owner refuses to leave their property, and rioters are going to torch the property with them inside, is it acceptable to stop the rioters with force, even by potentially killing them, since the property owner has the choice of leaving? (If, so then why can't the same logic dictate that the rioters have the choice to stand down, and if they do so will not be subject to deadly force?)
Oh please, we're talking about shop windows getting broken, not
kristallnacht.
Besides which, when there
is rioting and looting (which is rare), it's seldom the actual rioters and looters who are fired upon by police. It's the rest of the crowd. In which case, applying your standard consistently would have us conclude that the chances of maiming or killing someone with a gas canister or rubber bullets are much higher than the chances that someone inside the building will be hurt, and since it's the crowd, the chances are even higher that the person in question is innocent. Thus, the cops should stand down.
What I'm getting from you is that protests should (1) be unobtrusive, (2) be conducted somewhere out-of-the-way, (3) should not disrupt anyone else's workday or daily activities, (4) should feature exceptional self-policing otherwise they're riots, and (5) can express dissatisfaction but should make no demands, because otherwise that's the extortionate rule of a minority over the democratic majority. Is that about right?
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 07, 2022, 09:46:28 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 07, 2022, 07:42:26 AM
In an ideal world where everyone could know with absolute certainty that some "insured property" doesn't actually contain any person, then you may have a point. If a property owner refuses to leave their property, and rioters are going to torch the property with them inside, is it acceptable to stop the rioters with force, even by potentially killing them, since the property owner has the choice of leaving? (If, so then why can't the same logic dictate that the rioters have the choice to stand down, and if they do so will not be subject to deadly force?)
Oh please, we're talking about shop windows getting broken, not kristallnacht.
Besides which, when there is rioting and looting (which is rare), it's seldom the actual rioters and looters who are fired upon by police. It's the rest of the crowd. In which case, applying your standard consistently would have us conclude that the chances of maiming or killing someone with a gas canister or rubber bullets are much higher than the chances that someone inside the building will be hurt, and since it's the crowd, the chances are even higher that the person in question is innocent. Thus, the cops should stand down.
What I'm getting from you is that protests should (1) be unobtrusive, (2) be conducted somewhere out-of-the-way, (3) should not disrupt anyone else's workday or daily activities, (4) should feature exceptional self-policing otherwise they're riots, and (5) can express dissatisfaction but should make no demands, because otherwise that's the extortionate rule of a minority over the democratic majority. Is that about right?
(1) and (20): No. protests, such as
marching down a street, are reasonable.
(3) depends on for how long, and what counts as "workday" or "daily" activities. for EMS and hospital workers, their "workday" activities save lives. If protests mean someone dies because they can't get lifesaving treatment, then the protesters have blood on their hands.
Also, the protest is to prevent peoples' "daily" activities
as long as it takes until they cave in, then it's just extortion.
(4) If organizers really intend their protests to be peaceful, then they should be glad to provide evidence (names, video, etc.) to police of anyone using their peaceful protest as a cover for illegal activity. Shrugging and saying "not our problem" just encourages every violent nutjob to use the protest as cover for criminal activity and destruction.
(5)* "demands"? No, if that means (as in (3) that disruption will continue until they are met.
Proposals, such as how they think laws should be changed, absolutely.
*Consider the "freedom convoy" demands. 90% of Canadians, including 90% of truckers, are fully vaccinated and have been in favour of mask and vaccine mandates, etc. Caving to these "demands" or removing all covid restrictions undermines the will of the people and the actions of their democratically elected governments. Their actions are extortion.
Quote from: mahagonny on February 05, 2022, 01:02:58 PM
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 05, 2022, 12:42:26 PM
Yeah, I don't understand the reductio. You were able to say what you wanted to say, were you not?
OK, fair enough. I was. Just making conversation. I didn't know what you'd say, and now I know.
Quote
If it were up to me, this would not be the sort of place where such things could be said (as I've often said, I'd prefer a broadly "family-friendly" forum). But it isn't, so it is.
I guess by virtue of being quoted, I am now a part of the... well, one of the most "interesting" threads I've seen in 13-odd years. At any rate, smallcleanrat has used wisdom, patience, and logic much better than I could, so I guess that's that. I will say that I get the impulse to wish unpleasant things, including death, on people--I remember when the last president got COVID, I had a few thoughts along the lines of, "Wouldn't it be cool right now if..." As smallcleanrat already made clear, though, it's probably not the best way to make a point.
Which would favor the status quo, left of center politics.
ETA: See, it is an unpleasant thing to confront. The fact that you would prefer someone die than that they go on living. But to the reader it conveys the depth of your fear of that person's influence and potential. It's more vivid than saying 'his ideas are dangerous.'
BTW, For a little perspective, back when Osama bin Laden was in his prime, if you didn't hate him and wish him dead, you were odd man out. So it's not as if we live in a society that hates hate.
I take the point about the need for disruption. We are guaranteed the right to express ourselves but that does not automatically include the chance to require anyone to listen. Certain positive changes have happened through the 'ultimatum' of disruption that Marshwiggle finds unacceptable.
Still, it is interesting though, to me anyway, to note that the power of the parents-against-the-new-way-of-teaching-about-race-and-history, etc. (notice I deftly avoid the 'CRT' mousetrap) derives primarily not from their power to disrupt, but from their sheer number. The power to disrupt may be less necessary when your ideas get momentum from people liking them. As long as we're still in a relatively free society, that is. Recall the favorite son Terry McAuliffe, now reading the help wanted ads.
Some of the school boards tried to make a fuss about 'threats to their safety' with Merrick Garland jumping in like a trained seal, but the story quickly fizzled, as it should have. You can't easily invite parents to have a relationship and then complain when they turn out to be actual persons who think. Look for the left to assert their right to disrupt as more and more people run from their platform in dismay.
What would the Canadian government do with any Americans who were found in the midst of these protest convoys serving as agitators?
Quote from: kaysixteen on February 08, 2022, 09:51:07 PM
What would the Canadian government do with any Americans who were found in the midst of these protest convoys serving as agitators?
What they
should do (in this and any other protest that gets ugly) is deport them and forbid them ever entering the country again.
Confederate and Trump flags are the stupidest things in this context because they have
absolutely nothing to do with Canada.
Trigger warning: WaPo article. Do not read if you get conniptions.
An analysis of the BLM 2020 protests, and "Antifa's" involvement. More accurately, as I claimed at the time, very geographically limited.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/08/antifa-blm-extremism-violence/
Quote from: jimbogumbo on February 09, 2022, 12:26:01 PM
Trigger warning: WaPo article. Do not read if you get conniptions.
An analysis of the BLM 2020 protests, and "Antifa's" involvement. More accurately, as I claimed at the time, very geographically limited.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/08/antifa-blm-extremism-violence/
Quote
Antifa's presence contributed significantly to protest violence
When antifa did attend protests, the incidence of violence was extremely high compared to the level at protests it did not attend. Of the 37 racial justice protests where antifa appeared, 11 — or 30 percent — involved injuries to the crowd; when antifa did not appear, only 2 percent of the protests involved crowd injuries. With antifa present, 14 percent of protests involved injuries to police; without antifa, only 2 percent did. When antifa showed up, 27 percent of protests involved property damage; without antifa, only 4 percent did. And when antifa appeared, 30 percent of protests involved arrests, while only 7 percent of the antifa-free protests did.
In other words, antifa appearances at racial justice protests greatly increased the risk of violence.
Nice to have it spelled out.
Even better:
Quote
But antifa shows up primarily when it wants to counter a right-wing group's appearance. So, were right-wing groups the real source of the violence? That's not what our research found. We saw no difference between events in which antifa was facing off with a group such as the Proud Boys or the Three Percenters and when they were protesting unopposed.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 09, 2022, 12:31:22 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on February 09, 2022, 12:26:01 PM
Trigger warning: WaPo article. Do not read if you get conniptions.
An analysis of the BLM 2020 protests, and "Antifa's" involvement. More accurately, as I claimed at the time, very geographically limited.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/08/antifa-blm-extremism-violence/
Quote
Antifa's presence contributed significantly to protest violence
When antifa did attend protests, the incidence of violence was extremely high compared to the level at protests it did not attend. Of the 37 racial justice protests where antifa appeared, 11 — or 30 percent — involved injuries to the crowd; when antifa did not appear, only 2 percent of the protests involved crowd injuries. With antifa present, 14 percent of protests involved injuries to police; without antifa, only 2 percent did. When antifa showed up, 27 percent of protests involved property damage; without antifa, only 4 percent did. And when antifa appeared, 30 percent of protests involved arrests, while only 7 percent of the antifa-free protests did.
In other words, antifa appearances at racial justice protests greatly increased the risk of violence.
Nice to have it spelled out.
Even better:
Quote
But antifa shows up primarily when it wants to counter a right-wing group's appearance. So, were right-wing groups the real source of the violence? That's not what our research found. We saw no difference between events in which antifa was facing off with a group such as the Proud Boys or the Three Percenters and when they were protesting unopposed.
Yeppers. I am fair and balanced. All I ever claimed was that they were limited geographically.
I agree with you that they should do that-- do you think they would?