Have You Ever Formally Protested or Boycotted Anything?

[robinb]

I'm a surfer, so various sources. I will say, actions speak louder than words.

I don't understand what that means in regards to your assertion that "...this has become an all too familiar scene, over the last few years. No one seems to denounce this violent behavior.". Are you saying that the actions of a few are "louder" than the denunciation of many?

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I am so sorry to see that so many people are unable to have a meaningful but respectful debate with other people who have a different point of view. The problem at UC Berkeley is a prime example. People preach that they want everyone to be tolerant of so many things but in reality they want you to be tolerant of their views but they are not interested in reciprocating. Too many people also protest or boycott without really understanding the issue or knowing what they would do to resolve it. Problems and disagreements never get resolved when people with opposing views refuse to listen to each other.

You know what I found actually amusing was this past weekend when people were protesting at the airports they interviewed some of the protestors and some of them had absolutely no idea what they were actually protesting. They were point blanked asked what about the President's policies did they not agree with and they had this deer in the headlights look or they said things that were about the President as a person rather than his policies. And believe me you don't have to like a person but if you are there to protest a person's policies then please protest their policies unless of course your protest is called "hey I don't like this person and here's the reasons why" but that protest would then be about their actual character.

To me that's part of the problem. You have people who are there to just be there without a clear understanding of the issue nor of their own personal knowledge of the subject, you have people who are there to create havoc and you have people who are there to you know have their voices heard (those are the people who often get ignored because of the other types of people).

Wouldn't you politely say "Excuse me, can I get by?" if anyone was in your path? For any reason?

I assume you don't expect the sidewalks to clear, any time you want to walk down them. Especially if you know head of time that there's going to be a crowd.

Well I would be polite about it as well no need for me to get all pushing and shoving but I do know for example, and not really trying to be political about it, but people were being blocked by other people, without a way through the block, for the inauguration. I know for example a group of people were trying to get through, were blocked, but were able to go around to another entrance but I don't think that everyone was able to do that. Not everyone there was in support of the President but rather wanting to be a part of a historic day such as the inauguration but at least some of the protestors didn't either want to acknowledge that or they didn't care.

I have no problem with people protesting outside of a given place provided they are not blocking my way into it. That's why I don't personally side with people blocking highways, aside from the dangerous overall you can mess up a person's life (such as costing them a job if they were late to work for example), or blocking an entrance to an event or building. That is not you wanting to get your opinion heard that is you trying to physically stop people and in the end becomes a "you need to have the same opinion as me and because you don't well I'm just going to block you".

 

[Shelton123]

I disagree that violence and destruction invalidates any message. The Boston Tea Party is often seen as one of the most important rebellions in United States history, and that involved the destruction of LOTS of property. Any good progress that has been made in the U.S., whether it be women's suffrage, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964, violent riots have been a part of them and have led to a message being heard and laws being implemented. Whether this violence was absolutely necessary for laws to be implemented, that's up for debate but there are definitely some cases in U.S. history in which violence has led to politicians & leaders paying attention to an issue quickly. Not saying this to be inflammatory, and I'm not saying it's a GOOD thing to be violent, because it's not, but to say that violence undermines someone's cause is ignorant of U.S. history of riots and destruction of property being a very effective way of getting a message across.

Also, it's important to remember that on any issue, both sides of the issue (and those in between) are capable of displaying violent actions, and it is silly to reduce only one side to violent actions as I often see in the media. Most of the time one side says the other one is the TRULY violent one, and vice versa, when in reality violence is an issue from any perspective.

 

[Magpie]

Let's pretend for a minute and say that the world got so crazy that women weren't allowed to vote anymore. I imagine almost all women here would freak out and probably protest. If a few of the protests have a scattering of violence take place does that invalidate the entire issue?

 

[Shelton123]

You know what I found actually amusing was this past weekend when people were protesting at the airports they interviewed some of the protestors and some of them had absolutely no idea what they were actually protesting. They were point blanked asked what about the President's policies did they not agree with and they had this deer in the headlights look or they said things that were about the President as a person rather than his policies. And believe me you don't have to like a person but if you are there to protest a person's policies then please protest their policies unless of course your protest is called "hey I don't like this person and here's the reasons why" but that protest would then be about their actual character.

To me that's part of the problem. You have people who are there to just be there without a clear understanding of the issue nor of their own personal knowledge of the subject, you have people who are there to create havoc and you have people who are there to you know have their voices heard (those are the people who often get ignored because of the other types of people).

Well I would be polite about it as well no need for me to get all pushing and shoving but I do know for example, and not really trying to be political about it, but people were being blocked by other people, without a way through the block, for the inauguration. I know for example a group of people were trying to get through, were blocked, but were able to go around to another entrance but I don't think that everyone was able to do that. Not everyone there was in support of the President but rather wanting to be a part of a historic day such as the inauguration but at least some of the protestors didn't either want to acknowledge that or they didn't care.

I have no problem with people protesting outside of a given place provided they are not blocking my way into it. That's why I don't personally side with people blocking highways, aside from the dangerous overall you can mess up a person's life (such as costing them a job if they were late to work for example), or blocking an entrance to an event or building. That is not you wanting to get your opinion heard that is you trying to physically stop people and in the end becomes a "you need to have the same opinion as me and because you don't well I'm just going to block you".

But that's the issue with saying things such as "as long as they don't block my way," the whole POINT of a protest is to make those not protesting feel uncomfortable and to inconvenience them so they have no choice but to pay attention to the issue.

Martin Luther King Jr.'s march from Selma to Montgomery blocked a highway for three whole days in a row and it was one of the most effective protests in U.S. history.

 

[Magpie]

You know what I found actually amusing was this past weekend when people were protesting at the airports they interviewed some of the protestors and some of them had absolutely no idea what they were actually protesting. They were point blanked asked what about the President's policies did they not agree with and they had this deer in the headlights look or they said things that were about the President as a person rather than his policies. And believe me you don't have to like a person but if you are there to protest a person's policies then please protest their policies unless of course your protest is called "hey I don't like this person and here's the reasons why" but that protest would then be about their actual character.

To me that's part of the problem. You have people who are there to just be there without a clear understanding of the issue nor of their own personal knowledge of the subject, you have people who are there to create havoc and you have people who are there to you know have their voices heard (those are the people who often get ignored because of the other types of people).

Well I would be polite about it as well no need for me to get all pushing and shoving but I do know for example, and not really trying to be political about it, but people were being blocked by other people, without a way through the block, for the inauguration. I know for example a group of people were trying to get through, were blocked, but were able to go around to another entrance but I don't think that everyone was able to do that. Not everyone there was in support of the President but rather wanting to be a part of a historic day such as the inauguration but at least some of the protestors didn't either want to acknowledge that or they didn't care.

I have no problem with people protesting outside of a given place provided they are not blocking my way into it. That's why I don't personally side with people blocking highways, aside from the dangerous overall you can mess up a person's life (such as costing them a job if they were late to work for example), or blocking an entrance to an event or building. That is not you wanting to get your opinion heard that is you trying to physically stop people and in the end becomes a "you need to have the same opinion as me and because you don't well I'm just going to block you".

Yes, that's a different sort of thing. And exactly why I gave this as an example of a well-run and well-organized protest, versus some others I've heard about.

Also, you can find uninformed people anywhere you go. Though, I must say, watching live as the CBC reporter went up and down the line asking people why they had turned out, most folks were able to explain themselves quite adequately. "I'm here because my best friend is..." "I'm here because I believe..." "I'm here to show my children that we need to stand up against injustice..." Etc. They were quite able to state which policies they objected to, for all that some were more articulate than others. (I imagine it's never easy to be eloquent when you have a microphone in your face.)

The one time I was ever on TV, I sounded like a complete airhead.

 

[tvguy]

I disagree that violence and destruction invalidates any message. The Boston Tea Party is often seen as one of the most important rebellions in United States history, and that involved the destruction of LOTS of property. Any good progress that has been made in the U.S., whether it be women's suffrage, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964, violent riots have been a part of them and have led to a message being heard and laws being implemented. Whether this violence was absolutely necessary for laws to be implemented, that's up for debate but there are definitely some cases in U.S. history in which violence has led to politicians & leaders paying attention to an issue quickly. Not saying this to be inflammatory, and I'm not saying it's a GOOD thing to be violent, because it's not, but to say that violence undermines someone's cause is ignorant of U.S. history of riots and destruction of property being a very effective way of getting a message across.

Also, it's important to remember that on any issue, both sides of the issue (and those in between) are capable of displaying violent actions, and it is silly to reduce only one side to violent actions as I often see in the media. Most of the time one side says the other one is the TRULY violent one, and vice versa, when in reality violence is an issue from any perspective.

We could drink a lot of beer while discussing this. There are some civil rights scholars today who are of the opinion that the resentment created by the violence of the 1960's Civil Rights movement set it back many years. People were ready for progress until it got violent. I was only 8 when the Watts Riots happened, but I remember a lot of discussions about how destroying some people's lives and property was not a good route to improving the lives of others.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

But that's the issue with saying things such as "as long as they don't block my way," the whole POINT of a protest is to make those not protesting feel uncomfortable and to inconvenience them so they have no choice but to pay attention to the issue.

Martin Luther King Jr.'s march from Selma to Montgomery blocked a highway for three whole days in a row and it was one of the most effective protests in U.S. history.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Being made to be aware of an issue is one thing. But actually blocking a person is quite another thing. Effective in your example you gave is one-sided. There were two sides right? Those blocking and those in the cars on the highway.

For example my college had in your face extremely large displays of abortion. They wanted you to feel uncomfortable they wanted you to see things. They however did not block your entrance into school buildings. They set up their displays where you would have to see them when walking to class. Which do you think I'm more apt to pay attention to the issue at hand? Being blocked from an entrance to a building or seeing a large display while walking to class? If I'm being blocked from an entrance I'm going to be more concerned with that than with what you want me to be aware of.

I don't think you'll find many people in the vehicles on the highways for example who said "yeah you know being blocked in traffic, missing/being late to work, missing/being late to whatever, etc it just opened my eyes and I'm in total agreement to what is being protested"

And as far as the Selma thing..well at least the 3rd march they had protection from the National Guard under Federal Command along with FBI agents and Federal Marshalls. I would consider at least that part of the march similar to how parades block routes. That is different than one day decided "hey let's go block Highway X or Street Y because we want to" which is not sanctioned by the government (state or federal) and is usually if not all the time illegal. Now if you had a permit...that is also like parades blocking routes and would be treated differently.

 

[AnnaFloridaLover]

We could drink a lot of beer while discussing this. There are some civil rights scholars today who are of the opinion that the resentment created by the violence of the 1960's Civil Rights movement set it back many years. People were ready for progress until it got violent. I was only 8 when the Watts Riots happened, but I remember a lot of discussions about how destroying some people's lives and property was not a good route to improving the lives of others.

Maybe just kept asking politely to enjoy the same basic human rights like the rest of America, then the government and racist citizens would eventually come around to seeing how wrong it was? Meek and quiet wins the race? Oy.

 

[tvguy]

Maybe just kept asking politely to enjoy the same basic human rights like the rest of America, then the government and racist citizens would eventually come around to seeing how wrong it was? Meek and quiet wins the race? Oy.

You're welcome to join us for a beer and discussion.

 

[Magpie]

Maybe just kept asking politely to enjoy the same basic human rights like the rest of America, then the government and racist citizens would eventually come around to seeing how wrong it was? Meek and quiet wins the race? Oy.

Realistically, I sometimes fear it may take all kinds.

Idealistically, however...

I will cling to my ideals.

 

[AnnaFloridaLover]

You're welcome to join us for a beer and discussion.

If I want to beat my head against a wall, I'll do it in the comfort of my own home with a glass of wine but thanks for the invite.

 

[AnnaFloridaLover]

Realistically, I sometimes fear it may take all kinds.

Idealistically, however...

I will cling to my ideals.

Trust me, no one is more against violent protests than me having had my near and dear hurt during these events just trying to keep the peace. There have been some fights for rights in history that needed to happen the way they did, I believe.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

But that's the issue with saying things such as "as long as they don't block my way," the whole POINT of a protest is to make those not protesting feel uncomfortable and to inconvenience them so they have no choice but to pay attention to the issue.

Martin Luther King Jr.'s march from Selma to Montgomery blocked a highway for three whole days in a row and it was one of the most effective protests in U.S. history.

It's a big gamble to pull on anything but the biggest issue. You very much run the risk of turning people OFF your message quicker than you turn them on to it.

 

[luvsJack]

Let's pretend for a minute and say that the world got so crazy that women weren't allowed to vote anymore. I imagine almost all women here would freak out and probably protest. If a few of the protests have a scattering of violence take place does that invalidate the entire issue?

It would make us all look like a bunch of nuts and not taken seriously. You cannot get action by resorting to violence. Violence doesn't make the issue completely disappear but it lessens everyone's want to listen to it. I have no idea what the mess at Berkley was about for instance. But I do know that spraying a young girl in the face should have landed one young man in jail and I do know that it makes me not care one whit what his "issue" is.

 

[luvsJack]

Maybe just kept asking politely to enjoy the same basic human rights like the rest of America, then the government and racist citizens would eventually come around to seeing how wrong it was? Meek and quiet wins the race? Oy.

So you did not agree with MLK's ways? He never resorted to violence. Was he not effective?

 

[Hikergirl]

Unfortunately its always the most extreme that stand out.
It is really a no win situation. They should know that when they resort to violence it will invalidate the message for many watching. On the other hand people who only see those extreme and judge all protesters by the actions of the few should know better. No winning for anyone.

 

[AnnaFloridaLover]

So you did not agree with MLK's ways? He never resorted to violence. Was he not effective?

Where did I say I didn't agree with MLK? You are putting false words into my mouth. Please stick to what I said, not make up things.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Where did I say I didn't agree with MLK? You are putting false words into my mouth. Please stick to what I said, not make up things.

It's just a way to twist things. That's what some posters like to do.
Besides the poster you quoted has already made it clear that she (I'm assuming she) didn't find civil rights to be a valid issue. She has clearly stated that any violence immediately invalidates the entire cause.

 

[DawnM]

I once got points for quoting lyrics from "Under the Sea"...

How? I see nothing in that song that is against the DISNEY board rules????