this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
1887 points (94.5% liked)

Memes

45689 readers
1040 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Protests are supposed to raise awareness and motivate people to join their cause. These particular protests are turning away far more people from this cause than they are gaining.

These protests are ideal for promoting stricter laws against jaywalking and unlawful detention, but not so much for reducing the use of fossil fuels.

[–] set_secret@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

anyone who's not already on board the climate change cause is either too stupid or too rich to care. neither of which can be fixed.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

None of that is a justification for obstructing traffic.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Implying you need much of a justification to block traffic

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh, there is no implication about it: you need one hell of a justification to deliberately infringe on freedom of movement. It should be a criminal offense on the same level as "harassment" or "simple assault" to deliberately prevent someone from traveling. Each of these protesters should be charged with a separate count for each and every vehicle so delayed.

And, anyone so impeded should be justified in using any force necessary to end that unlawful impediment.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Bro, you can justify killing little old ladies crossing the street with that argument.

Just admit all you care about is yourself and getting from point A to point B and that right to protest doesn't actually matter to you.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Reasonable person standard applies to all use of force, so no, not really.

The right to protest does not extend to infringing on the rights of another. My right to protest does not supersede your right to leave your home and travel in public. I cannot detain you or deny your free movement.

You do not have a monopoly on the use of public roads, sidewalks, etc. "Taking" the public roads or sidewalks for your private use is not reasonable.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So in other words you really don't care.

Pedestrians always have right of way regardless of why they're on the street, to start...

And the right to protest does protect their right to inconvenience you when on the road. Don't like it, just turn around or go park your car and walk.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They have the right to use the road. They do not have the right to deny use of the road.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They do when they're protesting, or even for festivals, events, trying to cross and getting stuck. That's a fact of life you just have to put up with.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago

No, that's not a fact of life.

It might be a fact of law, but if they have figured out some loophole that allows them to get away with it, the law can and should be changed to eliminate that loophole. And that's the only real effect they will have: convincing the general public to adopt some authoritarian bullshit law that should not need to exist, because nobody should be enough of a cunt to deliberately impede movement.