CSNbbs

Full Version: What is a "peaceful" protest?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
It has occurred to me that maybe the left and right here are using different definitions of what is "peaceful".

Is this following a peaceful protest?



It does not seem peaceful to me, but at least in this short video nobody is being beaten and nothing is burning yet. The white guy is begging for his property to be spared, so he is at the least in fear.

To me there are escalations of protesting, and at some point it crosses the line. Is a group of people standing with signs peaceful? yes, IMO.

what if they are standing on a freeway, blocking traffic? Still peaceful?

What if when drivers try to make their way through the crowd, they start pounding on the car and rocking the vehicle? Not peaceful, IMO. But as yet no person has been physically injured and no property destroyed, so some might still call this a PP. If bricks and bats come into play, still peaceful?

I don't think it has to go to arson before it is deemed nonpeaceful. I think serious threats of violence to property and/or people is enough to remove it from the peaceful classification.

I am curious to see what definitions of peaceful are used by our lefty friends.
I guess we will just keep on using individual definitions and talking past each other.
(11-11-2020 12:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I guess we will just keep on using individual definitions and talking past each other.

It's all a matter of perspective..."the way you see something."

The question is, "What if I choose not to look...to turn a blind eye?"

Is that really a perspective?

Can you engage in a moral discussion with someone who professes to be amoral?
(11-11-2020 06:19 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 12:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I guess we will just keep on using individual definitions and talking past each other.

It's all a matter of perspective..."the way you see something."

The question is, "What if I choose not to look...to turn a blind eye?"

Is that really a perspective?

Can you engage in a moral discussion with someone who professes to be amoral?

The problem we have here is trying to engage in a moral discussion with someone who thinks they are morally superior.
But back to "peaceful" protests. I see an unruly crowd, and I don't think peaceful. Others here apparently do. That's why I want their definition of peaceful.
(11-11-2020 08:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 06:19 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 12:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I guess we will just keep on using individual definitions and talking past each other.

It's all a matter of perspective..."the way you see something."

The question is, "What if I choose not to look...to turn a blind eye?"

Is that really a perspective?

Can you engage in a moral discussion with someone who professes to be amoral?

The problem we have here is trying to engage in a moral discussion with someone who thinks they are morally superior.

Huh? In this scenario who do you believe thinks that they are "morally superior"?
I can't comment on the picture because I can't see what's being presented.

I speak every day to people who behave in a way that makes it clear that they feel they are morally superior... They are so convinced that they are correct to the point of calling me names, yelling at me, demeaning me etc etc etc because I don't accept their opinions as facts and/or don't blindly accept their solutions.

The difference between peaceful and not comes in the lengths to which someone is willing to go 'because' they feel they are correct.... just like on here. You state your side, I state mine. Either of us may feel very strongly about our positions... and may act like our opinions are facts. That's still peaceful. Mild insults like... yeah, that's just crazy or whatever... no big deal. At some point, 'fighting words' may come out... and at that point it has become something less than peaceful.... and if words become actions, even if it is just screaming in someone's face, it has become 'physical' and is now by definition, an assault.

Walking in the street with a bull horn? No Problem
Using a bull horn to reach someone a distance away? No Problem
Using a bull horn on someone 10 feet away from you? Not Peaceful.
Hitting someone with a bull horn or damaging property (other than an accident)? A crime.
(11-11-2020 10:12 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 08:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 06:19 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 12:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I guess we will just keep on using individual definitions and talking past each other.

It's all a matter of perspective..."the way you see something."

The question is, "What if I choose not to look...to turn a blind eye?"

Is that really a perspective?

Can you engage in a moral discussion with someone who professes to be amoral?

The problem we have here is trying to engage in a moral discussion with someone who thinks they are morally superior.

Huh? In this scenario who do you believe thinks that they are "morally superior"?

Well, according to many on your side, we either are, or defend, racists, racism, putting kids in cages, letting people starve, taking a way medical coverage from people, the list goes on and on.

For example, I support voter ID, which your gang decries as racist, a position you hold. Do you not think nonracists are morally superior to racists?

I support a strong immigration policy, which your side characterizes as racist.

I support limiting immigration from certain countries, which your side says is racist.

All I heard from the Barrett fight was how this would take away medical coverage from people.

All I hear (even from supposedly intelligent people) is how we who oppose the $15 MW are against, people feeding their families.
(11-11-2020 12:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 10:12 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 08:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 06:19 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 12:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I guess we will just keep on using individual definitions and talking past each other.

It's all a matter of perspective..."the way you see something."

The question is, "What if I choose not to look...to turn a blind eye?"

Is that really a perspective?

Can you engage in a moral discussion with someone who professes to be amoral?

The problem we have here is trying to engage in a moral discussion with someone who thinks they are morally superior.

Huh? In this scenario who do you believe thinks that they are "morally superior"?

Well, according to many on your side, we either are, or defend, racists, racism, putting kids in cages, letting people starve, taking a way medical coverage from people, the list goes on and on.

For example, I support voter ID, which your gang decries as racist, a position you hold. Do you not think nonracists are morally superior to racists?

I support a strong immigration policy, which your side characterizes as racist.

I support limiting immigration from certain countries, which your side says is racist.

All I heard from the Barrett fight was how this would take away medical coverage from people.

All I hear (even from supposedly intelligent people) is how we who oppose the $15 MW are against, people feeding their families.

Well, you directed me to this thread presumably hoping for a response. It seems, though, that you are looking to interact with some nameless/faceless far-leftist who believes all of these things. Your list doesn't represent me so clearly I'm not the right person with whom to have this discussion.
(11-11-2020 11:13 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]I can't comment on the picture because I can't see what's being presented.

I speak every day to people who behave in a way that makes it clear that they feel they are morally superior... They are so convinced that they are correct to the point of calling me names, yelling at me, demeaning me etc etc etc because I don't accept their opinions as facts and/or don't blindly accept their solutions.

The difference between peaceful and not comes in the lengths to which someone is willing to go 'because' they feel they are correct.... just like on here. You state your side, I state mine. Either of us may feel very strongly about our positions... and may act like our opinions are facts. That's still peaceful. Mild insults like... yeah, that's just crazy or whatever... no big deal. At some point, 'fighting words' may come out... and at that point it has become something less than peaceful.... and if words become actions, even if it is just screaming in someone's face, it has become 'physical' and is now by definition, an assault.

Walking in the street with a bull horn? No Problem
Using a bull horn to reach someone a distance away? No Problem
Using a bull horn on someone 10 feet away from you? Not Peaceful.
Hitting someone with a bull horn or damaging property (other than an accident)? A crime.

agree
(11-11-2020 01:40 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 12:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 10:12 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 08:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 06:19 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote: [ -> ]It's all a matter of perspective..."the way you see something."

The question is, "What if I choose not to look...to turn a blind eye?"

Is that really a perspective?

Can you engage in a moral discussion with someone who professes to be amoral?

The problem we have here is trying to engage in a moral discussion with someone who thinks they are morally superior.

Huh? In this scenario who do you believe thinks that they are "morally superior"?

Well, according to many on your side, we either are, or defend, racists, racism, putting kids in cages, letting people starve, taking a way medical coverage from people, the list goes on and on.

For example, I support voter ID, which your gang decries as racist, a position you hold. Do you not think nonracists are morally superior to racists?

I support a strong immigration policy, which your side characterizes as racist.

I support limiting immigration from certain countries, which your side says is racist.

All I heard from the Barrett fight was how this would take away medical coverage from people.

All I hear (even from supposedly intelligent people) is how we who oppose the $15 MW are against, people feeding their families.

Well, you directed me to this thread presumably hoping for a response. It seems, though, that you are looking to interact with some nameless/faceless far-leftist who believes all of these things. Your list doesn't represent me so clearly I'm not the right person with whom to have this discussion.

But you are the person I want to hear define "peaceful protest" because you are the one who keeps mentioning it.

For example, the tweet I posted showing the white man begging the protesters to leave his house alone - was that a peaceful protest in your opinion?

We can discuss moral superiority in another thread.
(11-11-2020 02:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 01:40 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 12:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 10:12 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 08:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]The problem we have here is trying to engage in a moral discussion with someone who thinks they are morally superior.

Huh? In this scenario who do you believe thinks that they are "morally superior"?

Well, according to many on your side, we either are, or defend, racists, racism, putting kids in cages, letting people starve, taking a way medical coverage from people, the list goes on and on.

For example, I support voter ID, which your gang decries as racist, a position you hold. Do you not think nonracists are morally superior to racists?

I support a strong immigration policy, which your side characterizes as racist.

I support limiting immigration from certain countries, which your side says is racist.

All I heard from the Barrett fight was how this would take away medical coverage from people.

All I hear (even from supposedly intelligent people) is how we who oppose the $15 MW are against, people feeding their families.

Well, you directed me to this thread presumably hoping for a response. It seems, though, that you are looking to interact with some nameless/faceless far-leftist who believes all of these things. Your list doesn't represent me so clearly I'm not the right person with whom to have this discussion.

But you are the person I want to hear define "peaceful protest" because you are the one who keeps mentioning it.

For example, the tweet I posted showing the white man begging the protesters to leave his house alone - was that a peaceful protest in your opinion?

We can discuss moral superiority in another thread.

I have no idea what was going on in that video at the man's house. It didn't look peaceful to me but I don't understand the context in that clip. I am getting old so seeing young activists shouting down old people rather than engaging in an actual dialogue does not look great to me.

I think a "peaceful protest" is one where no person is threatened, where no violence occurs and no property is damaged. The protests that I have attended in Houston (3-4 over the past 4 years) have all been peaceful, IMO.

Sometimes you have a "peaceful protest" and then one idiot gets stupid and chucks a rock, breaks a window or something similar. If that is one person out of 10,000 is that protest no longer a "peaceful protest"? Maybe not. It gets a bit grey at that point.
(11-11-2020 03:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 02:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 01:40 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 12:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 10:12 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Huh? In this scenario who do you believe thinks that they are "morally superior"?

Well, according to many on your side, we either are, or defend, racists, racism, putting kids in cages, letting people starve, taking a way medical coverage from people, the list goes on and on.

For example, I support voter ID, which your gang decries as racist, a position you hold. Do you not think nonracists are morally superior to racists?

I support a strong immigration policy, which your side characterizes as racist.

I support limiting immigration from certain countries, which your side says is racist.

All I heard from the Barrett fight was how this would take away medical coverage from people.

All I hear (even from supposedly intelligent people) is how we who oppose the $15 MW are against, people feeding their families.

Well, you directed me to this thread presumably hoping for a response. It seems, though, that you are looking to interact with some nameless/faceless far-leftist who believes all of these things. Your list doesn't represent me so clearly I'm not the right person with whom to have this discussion.

But you are the person I want to hear define "peaceful protest" because you are the one who keeps mentioning it.

For example, the tweet I posted showing the white man begging the protesters to leave his house alone - was that a peaceful protest in your opinion?

We can discuss moral superiority in another thread.

I have no idea what was going on in that video at the man's house. It didn't look peaceful to me but I don't understand the context in that clip. I am getting old so seeing young activists shouting down old people rather than engaging in an actual dialogue does not look great to me.

I think a "peaceful protest" is one where no person is threatened, where no violence occurs and no property is damaged. The protests that I have attended in Houston (3-4 over the past 4 years) have all been peaceful, IMO.

Sometimes you have a "peaceful protest" and then one idiot gets stupid and chucks a rock, breaks a window or something similar. If that is one person out of 10,000 is that protest no longer a "peaceful protest"? Maybe not. It gets a bit grey at that point.

I agree, as far as this goes. One of the grey areas for me is when the protest is blocking a freeway, or when people are harassed as they enter or leave a building or even just pass, or when they are harassed just because they do not join (SAY HIS NAME!!! Silence is compliance!) the protest, as we have seen in numerous videos of restaurant patrons being harassed.

I think it clear the man in this video felt threatened. No need to beg if you feel secure.

Certainly many truly peaceful protests never make the news, so what we see on TV may not be the whole truth. But what we saw in Portland, Seattle, St Louis, Chicago, Baltimore, Minneapolis, and dozens of other places were definitely not peaceful.

I also wonder about what happens when counter-protesters clash with an otherwise peaceful protest. In particular, I am thinking of Charlottesville, although it could just as easily be any of hundreds of other protests. In Charlottesville, if the torch carriers had just been allowed to march and chant with no interference, no audience, the whole thing would have been forgotten in a day. The reason we are still talking about it is the clashes.
(11-11-2020 03:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 03:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 02:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 01:40 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 12:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Well, according to many on your side, we either are, or defend, racists, racism, putting kids in cages, letting people starve, taking a way medical coverage from people, the list goes on and on.

For example, I support voter ID, which your gang decries as racist, a position you hold. Do you not think nonracists are morally superior to racists?

I support a strong immigration policy, which your side characterizes as racist.

I support limiting immigration from certain countries, which your side says is racist.

All I heard from the Barrett fight was how this would take away medical coverage from people.

All I hear (even from supposedly intelligent people) is how we who oppose the $15 MW are against, people feeding their families.

Well, you directed me to this thread presumably hoping for a response. It seems, though, that you are looking to interact with some nameless/faceless far-leftist who believes all of these things. Your list doesn't represent me so clearly I'm not the right person with whom to have this discussion.

But you are the person I want to hear define "peaceful protest" because you are the one who keeps mentioning it.

For example, the tweet I posted showing the white man begging the protesters to leave his house alone - was that a peaceful protest in your opinion?

We can discuss moral superiority in another thread.

I have no idea what was going on in that video at the man's house. It didn't look peaceful to me but I don't understand the context in that clip. I am getting old so seeing young activists shouting down old people rather than engaging in an actual dialogue does not look great to me.

I think a "peaceful protest" is one where no person is threatened, where no violence occurs and no property is damaged. The protests that I have attended in Houston (3-4 over the past 4 years) have all been peaceful, IMO.

Sometimes you have a "peaceful protest" and then one idiot gets stupid and chucks a rock, breaks a window or something similar. If that is one person out of 10,000 is that protest no longer a "peaceful protest"? Maybe not. It gets a bit grey at that point.

I agree, as far as this goes. One of the grey areas for me is when the protest is blocking a freeway, or when people are harassed as they enter or leave a building or even just pass, or when they are harassed just because they do not join (SAY HIS NAME!!! Silence is compliance!) the protest, as we have seen in numerous videos of restaurant patrons being harassed.

I think it clear the man in this video felt threatened. No need to beg if you feel secure.

Certainly many truly peaceful protests never make the news, so what we see on TV may not be the whole truth. But what we saw in Portland, Seattle, St Louis, Chicago, Baltimore, Minneapolis, and dozens of other places were definitely not peaceful.

I also wonder about what happens when counter-protesters clash with an otherwise peaceful protest. In particular, I am thinking of Charlottesville, although it could just as easily be any of hundreds of other protests. In Charlottesville, if the torch carriers had just been allowed to march and chant with no interference, no audience, the whole thing would have been forgotten in a day. The reason we are still talking about it is the clashes.

Agree.

I don't know why we give so much oxygen sometimes to the lunatic fringe on both sides (I guess it generates clicks) when otherwise their "events" would be a big nothing.
(11-11-2020 03:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 03:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 03:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 02:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 01:40 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, you directed me to this thread presumably hoping for a response. It seems, though, that you are looking to interact with some nameless/faceless far-leftist who believes all of these things. Your list doesn't represent me so clearly I'm not the right person with whom to have this discussion.

But you are the person I want to hear define "peaceful protest" because you are the one who keeps mentioning it.

For example, the tweet I posted showing the white man begging the protesters to leave his house alone - was that a peaceful protest in your opinion?

We can discuss moral superiority in another thread.

I have no idea what was going on in that video at the man's house. It didn't look peaceful to me but I don't understand the context in that clip. I am getting old so seeing young activists shouting down old people rather than engaging in an actual dialogue does not look great to me.

I think a "peaceful protest" is one where no person is threatened, where no violence occurs and no property is damaged. The protests that I have attended in Houston (3-4 over the past 4 years) have all been peaceful, IMO.

Sometimes you have a "peaceful protest" and then one idiot gets stupid and chucks a rock, breaks a window or something similar. If that is one person out of 10,000 is that protest no longer a "peaceful protest"? Maybe not. It gets a bit grey at that point.

I agree, as far as this goes. One of the grey areas for me is when the protest is blocking a freeway, or when people are harassed as they enter or leave a building or even just pass, or when they are harassed just because they do not join (SAY HIS NAME!!! Silence is compliance!) the protest, as we have seen in numerous videos of restaurant patrons being harassed.

I think it clear the man in this video felt threatened. No need to beg if you feel secure.

Certainly many truly peaceful protests never make the news, so what we see on TV may not be the whole truth. But what we saw in Portland, Seattle, St Louis, Chicago, Baltimore, Minneapolis, and dozens of other places were definitely not peaceful.

I also wonder about what happens when counter-protesters clash with an otherwise peaceful protest. In particular, I am thinking of Charlottesville, although it could just as easily be any of hundreds of other protests. In Charlottesville, if the torch carriers had just been allowed to march and chant with no interference, no audience, the whole thing would have been forgotten in a day. The reason we are still talking about it is the clashes.

Agree.

I don't know why we give so much oxygen sometimes to the lunatic fringe on both sides (I guess it generates clicks) when otherwise their "events" would be a big nothing.

It sure generates news coverage.
(11-11-2020 01:40 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]agree

Please know, I felt certain that you and perhaps everyone on here would.

(11-11-2020 03:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know why we give so much oxygen sometimes to the lunatic fringe on both sides (I guess it generates clicks) when otherwise their "events" would be a big nothing.

THIS is why I worry about the modern iteration of 'press'. First, some of it isn't press at all. It's bloggers or some other version of that... but legitimate press has to compete with those people for clicks and ad revenue. I mean, Walmart.com doesn't care if you were watching Jeopardy or Springer youtube videos.... because of this, we get a whole lot more of the 'are your children safe' sort of reporting... and I saw a TON of that with Trump (and his style gave them plenty of ammunition)... but to leave out key words like 'illegal' when speaking of immigrants is a factual misrepresentation... and even if he didn't say illegal immigrants, but he's talking about illegal immigrants and says 'they', you are still leaving out a key descriptor, SOLELY to drive clicks and CREATE discord. That's not what news should do. They get way too much access and protection from prosecution to be treated like 'bloggers'.
(11-11-2020 03:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I think a "peaceful protest" is one where no person is threatened, where no violence occurs and no property is damaged.
While yours is certainly a logical (one could almost say textualist) interpretation of the phrase, it would rule out a great many of the so-called "peaceful" protests this year.
(11-11-2020 07:03 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-11-2020 03:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I think a "peaceful protest" is one where no person is threatened, where no violence occurs and no property is damaged.
While yours is certainly a logical (one could almost say textualist) interpretation of the phrase, it would rule out a great many of the so-called "peaceful" protests this year.

Agree on both points, George and 93. That is a reasonable definition, and that would not include many of the so-called "peaceful" protests this year.

Maybe what should happen when issuing protest permits is that the permit-holder be held liable for any damage that occurs. That would give somebody a strong incentive to stifle people.
93 (I think) quoted some source that said xy% of the protests were peaceful. I wonder how they define peaceful. No fatalities? No damage over $100? Less than 10 arrests? One or less cars burned? I think a lot of the videos we have seen, such as the ones where they invade a restaurant and scream at people and knock over their drinks, would qualify under those definitions. They do not qualify on the OO definition, though.

I notice that the BLM protests either quieted down or disappeared in the last two weeks of the campaign. does this mean the racist police stopped murdering black people?
(11-11-2020 11:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]93 (I think) quoted some source that said xy% of the protests were peaceful. I wonder how they define peaceful. No fatalities? No damage over $100? Less than 10 arrests? One or less cars burned? I think a lot of the videos we have seen, such as the ones where they invade a restaurant and scream at people and knock over their drinks, would qualify under those definitions. They do not qualify on the OO definition, though.

I notice that the BLM protests either quieted down or disappeared in the last two weeks of the campaign. does this mean the racist police stopped murdering black people?

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't me.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Reference URL's