Maus revised for present times

[mahagonny]

'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.

[jimbogumbo]

'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.

[Parasaurolophus]

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

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.)

[Parasaurolophus]

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.

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?

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.

[mahagonny]

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?

[Parasaurolophus]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

[jimbogumbo]

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

[smallcleanrat]

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."

[...] 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?

[Parasaurolophus]

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.

[mahagonny]

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.

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

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.

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?

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!!!!!!!!

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.

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.

[Parasaurolophus]

"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.

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.

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.

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.

[marshwiggle]

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?