[DegoLocc]

You can peacefully and legally "disrupt".

I'm not of the opinion that interfering with government agents is the route to go with that though.

[Vedderman]

Originally Posted by DegoLocc ↗

You can peacefully and legally "disrupt".

.

You can, yes. But his point in enumerating the protests that remained both non-violent and illegally 'disruptive' was to emphasize that they were and are considered to have been two of the most successful non-violent movements in history that actually ACCOMPLISHED most of their goals. Both of them used multiple illegal tactics of obstruction. Often.

There are hundreds of thousands of protest movements throughout history, in this country and many others.

There's a reason that most of them are long forgotten. Because they were relevant at their moment in time but not thereafter. Their aspirations were too short or their means were too small.

Most people with at least a 12th grade education have heard of MLK and of Ghandi.

Because their protests worked. They mattered on a generational level.

He was not comparing Good to MLK. He was specifically rebutting your broad claims that only weak, cowardly, and toothless protests should be acceptable.

Your implication in your post was that you took issue with any protest that did not follow the rule of law. That dissenters should protest only within the confines of the law and if they did not, they deserved to be arrested and punished.

And when the law is bent, unfair, corrupt, co-opted, bought out, dishonorable, oppressive and untrustworthy? When the highest court in the land is stacked and judges are bought by the oppressors with favors and money?

Remember, MLK was arrested 29 times for actions relating to his leadership in the Civil Rights Movement. Would you like to take a guess what sort of people were on the sidelines cheering?


If Ghandi and MLK had hamstrung themselves and their movements by ONLY protesting within the letter of the law, India would likely still be under colonial rule and the South would still have Jim Crow.

Yes, those battles eventually landed in a court room or a legislative hall to be finalized, but the road to get them there was not lawful. It was non-violent, but broke many laws and rules to get to the final stage.

You're conflating "illegal" with "violent."

They are not always mutually exclusive, no, but they are in this case.

Obstructing traffic or physically blocking what you believe to be unethical police action without actually doing anything other than sitting there may be illegal, but it is also qualified as peaceful and non-violent.

goghingwilde did a pretty good job of providing specifics where illegal, physical obstruction tactics were employed in both movements, which you seemed to address and just summarily disagree with anyway.

Fortunately for you, you are extremely privileged and have never been part of a racial, social, or cultural group that had to form actual protest movements just to enforce your basic rights as a human. You'll get there in the next few years, I think, if you can manage to keep from donning a red hat.

But so long as you believe that a deeply corrupt and unfair system can only be overturned by using its own corrupt, unfair machinery...you may as well just buy the hat, dude.

Because once they take it from you, you usually have to put up an actual fight to get it back.

[DegoLocc]

So I know what he was getting at, that he was comparing protestvstyles not the person. I don't see deporting undocumented immigrants being compared to 1960s civil rights.

I mainly took issue with him misquoting me making something up I didn't say.

Originally Posted by Vedderman ↗

Fortunately for you, you are extremely privileged and have never been part of a racial, social, or cultural group that had to form actual protest movements just to enforce your basic rights as a human. You'll get there in the next few years, I think, if you can manage to keep from donning a red hat...

That's not really fair of you to say, you don't know me personally.

[Goofy]

I don’t know. I hate politics because I agree with some centrist points from both parties and usually that’s where I am politically. In this case, being in Law Enforcement myself, the third video makes it hard for me to say absolutely that the agent was in the wrong. The metric for deadly force is your life or others lives in danger at the moment of discharging your firearm. When he was rammed by her attempting to flee, he might have been in fear of getting struck and dragged by the car, but obviously he was safe and not injured. So my question is, aside from 20/20 hindsight, in the moment of discharging his firearm, did he truly fear or was it an excuse to shoot? I don’t like that this happened and I hate that politicians on both sides are stirring the pot.

[Vedderman]

Originally Posted by DegoLocc ↗

So I know what he was getting at, that he was comparing protestvstyles not the person. I don't see deporting undocumented immigrants being compared to 1960s civil rights.

Ahhh, so you admit then that's it's a specific value bias then? It's not actually the illegality or the obstruction you take umbrage with, it's that you don't think the civil rights of undocumented immigrants matter enough to warrant the risk?

Fair enough. It's an explanation, at least. Though tbh I sort of inferred more of a broad application in his intention and tone. Like maybe he was referring to more than just the rights of undocumented immigrants, but of all Americans. In the spirit of the millions of people who have turned out for the No Kings protests this year, for example. Or is that one also only warranted if properly permitted and kept to the appointed, designated area?

Originally Posted by DegoLocc ↗

That's not really fair of you to say, you don't know me personally.

And yet I know you have never marched, been arrested, or been beaten in order to obtain or maintain your basic human rights.

I'm not saying you're a bad person. I'm a gainfully employed 56 year old white guy. I never had to risk my life or my freedom in order to make my government believe I was worthy of being treated like a human being.

But I know and am close (or was, as most are deceased now) to several people who have. And they'd have each and every one just shaken their heads and smiled wistfully to read your thoughts about what sort of protest is 'acceptable.'

No one who ever had to risk chains or blood in pursuit of their basic civil rights would say such a thing.

[DegoLocc]

Originally Posted by Vedderman ↗

Ahhh, so you admit then that's it's a specific value bias then? It's not actually the illegality or the obstruction you take umbrage with, it's that you don't think the civil rights of undocumented immigrants matter enough to warrant the risk?

Fair enough. It's an explanation, at least. Though tbh I sort of inferred more of a broad application in his intention and tone. Like maybe he was referring to more than just the rights of undocumented immigrants, but of all Americans. In the spirit of the millions of people who have turned out for the No Kings protests this year, for example. Or is that one also only warranted if properly permitted and kept to the appointed, designated area?






And yet I know you have never marched, been arrested, or been beaten in order to obtain or maintain your basic human rights.

I'm not saying you're a bad person. I'm a gainfully employed 56 year old white guy. I never had to risk my life or my freedom in order to make my government believe I was worthy of being treated like a human being.

But I know and am close (or was, as most are deceased now) to several people who have. And they'd have each and every one just shaken their heads and smiled wistfully to read your thoughts about what sort of protest is 'acceptable.'

No one who ever had to risk chains or blood in pursuit of their basic civil rights would say such a thing.

So it's more me thinking that deporting someone who is here illegally, taking up the court time, resources from some poor potential immigrant who's been patiently waiting for years to get in, doesn't have the same societal weight, as the atrocities of pre 1960s America, let alone calling it civil rights issue. It's kind of insulting to anyone who had to live through that honestly.

So I'm in my mid 40s, and I grew up, (and still live) in a very poor area. I'm a minority in that regard myself. I went to school in a majority black public school system that even had more Latino kids than white kids. I never experienced much prejudice among my peers because I literally grew up with them. But some of thier family's were different, I wasn't allowed in a couple of their houses to play. No biggie.

But my point is, like you I also have a lot of lifelong minority friends. And some of them would shake their heads and laugh at some of your opinions just like your friends would scoff at mine. Hell, 2 of my black buddies are hard-core MAGA and the rest of us make fun of them all the time. "Turkeys supporting Thanksgiving"

Black ppl aren't a monolith as I'm sure you know. Like everyone else they have varied opinions about everything too.

That's why I keep bringing up the false dichotomy. Life is full of so many nuances.

The mainstream media complex, donors, politicians and lobbyist love to keep us all all divided and at each other's throats.

That's what I'm fighting for. Common ground, and unity.

I don't think every lefty is a socialists commie, and I don't think every conservative is a fascist. Some ppl are one issue voters, and it's as simple as that.

Regardless, I enjoy our back and forths much more when you're being civil, your points land a lot better, with me at least.

[Bunnyman1962]

Observation from Down Under ….

Do any of you concede that this horrific event that’s occurred is partly to blame on the state of Minnesota?

Last time I looked one of the prime responsibilities my Federal Govt in OZ like your Federal Govt in the USA is immigration.

What this shit of “sanctuary city”?. So if you are an illegal you can just waddle through the border illegally because your passports stamped “citizen of Minnesota”

Is it because Minnesota is a shithole and they cannot get staff to flip burgers? Minnesota last time I looked is part of the USA. Ice it appears went in there because it has a high proportion of illegals.

So what if Minnesota wants the illegals. Do their adjoining states? What’s stopping the illegals arriving in Minneapolis and then moving on to another state……Nothing!

They are illegal. They have broken your law. If you are not willing to stand up to your values you might as well shut the joint down,

If someone knocks on your front door do you always let them in ? In this case these illegals didn’t give you the courtesy because they jumped over your back fence!


Yeah I get the blue state red state shit. God it’s pathetic!. You’re supposed to be under one flag!

All I see is State Political clowns from Minnesota fanning the flames of left wing do gooders encouraging them to protest against federal Immigration law enforcement.

Thus in my opinion Ice , state pollies and left wing protesting fools all have blood on their hands.

[quetza]

this thread has devolved into some phd-level dissertation replies. this is some good stuff.

[Vulgarus]

Yep that was a murder...plain and simple...

Ironic it was 4 blocks from the George Floyd murder

[DegoLocc]

Originally Posted by quetza ↗

this thread has devolved into some phd-level dissertation replies. this is some good stuff.

You spoke too soon.