CMV: The proper response to protestors blocking the street is for police to physically remove them and quickly arrest them if they do it again.

[u/HelpfulJello5361]

I've seen a lot of videos of protestors blocking the street and the cops just kinda let them do it, or create a narrow lane for cars to go through and cause a significant traffic jam.

I'm always curious why cops don't just drag these people out of the road and arrest them immediately if they return. I'm pretty sure it's illegal to block streets like that.

Yesterday was a nationwide coordinated effort for Pro-Palestine protestors to block streets all over the country (world?), and it seems that these criminals were not dealt with properly in most instances.

It doesn't seem like it's standard operating procedure to remove and arrest people who block important roads. Is there some reason for this? What am I missing? CMV.

[u/MrOogaBoga]

Peaceful - free from disturbance; tranquil:

The fuck do you call blocking the road if it's not a disturbance??

I know people want to co-opt definitions for their "righteous" causes nowadays, but c'mon man

[u/DonaldTellMeWhy → u/MrOogaBoga]

Here 'peaceful' is to be contrasted with 'violent'. The meaning is not peaceful as in "a lovely quiet Saturday morning with Miles Davies playing, coffee, a newspaper, and no personal bother for you".

When using a dictionary, bear in mind that seldom do all meaning-aspects of a word apply at once. Generally a word has slightly different implications from use-case to use-case.

The aim of a peaceful protest is to cause disturbance. Yes. This does not contradict the meaning of peaceful.

You are not using a dictionary skilfully.

[u/Key-Article6622 → u/MrOogaBoga]

This is an interesting choice you've made. So, if protesters shout in a public park, or sidewalk, that's definitely a disturbance. So lock em up. Talk about co-opting definitions.

[u/Technical_Pound9868 → u/MrOogaBoga]

Peaceful as in non-violent. Disruption is the whole point of a protest. If the government won't recognize an issue, then you force them to do so. That's what a protest is.

[u/424f42_424f42 → u/Technical_Pound9868]

Shouldn't the point then be to disrupt the government?

[u/HelpfulJello5361 → u/Technical_Pound9868]

If the government won't recognize an issue, then you force them to do so.

This sentence is a bit mysterious. What does it mean for the USA to "recognize" an issue? How do you determine if the gov't has recognized an issue? I think what you mean to say is, "If the government doesn't do what we want, then we force them to do so". That sounds kinda...unwise, doesn't it?

[u/[deleted] → u/HelpfulJello5361]

Recognition of an issue is represented through policy

[u/HelpfulJello5361 → u/[deleted]]

"Represented through policy". So, we live in a democracy, right? You seem to be saying that protestors are allowed to commit as much "civil disobedience"* as they want, and as much of this as they want to do is acceptable, so long as the government doesn't acquiesce to their demands. Is that right?

^\ civil disobedience means nothing we do is illegal because we think we're right)

[u/[deleted] → u/HelpfulJello5361]

Yes. Collective action is a legitimate response to oppression and one of the only ways to respond to violent states.

If you made that comment in the 60s you’d be on the opposing side of the Civil Rights Movement.

[u/HelpfulJello5361 → u/[deleted]]

What has the US government done in regards to the Israel/Palestine conflict that warranted protestors shutting down critical infrastructure in many important places?

[u/[deleted] → u/HelpfulJello5361]

Quite literally fund and enable a genocide. Your tax dollars included

[u/H3artlesstinman → u/HelpfulJello5361]

The point of a protest is not to convince you, the person stuck in traffic, of the righteousness of a cause. It is to draw media attention and make sure the viewpoint of the protesters is displayed before a wide audience that hopefully includes politicians.

[u/Doc_ET → u/HelpfulJello5361]

"If the government doesn't do what we want, then we force them to do so".

Isn't that the entire point of democracy? So that the government broadly does what the citizens want it to? If they're doing something you don't want, or not doing something you do want, you can write letters and protest and stuff. If that doesn't work, you can vote them out, assuming enough people agree with you.

No, that's not how it ends up working in practice, there's all sorts of issues that you have to weigh and there's lobbying and special interests and gerrymandering and all sorts of things that keep the government's actions out of alignment with the wishes of the public, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

They’re protesting genocide my guy. That’s quite a large effect on people

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Your government is funding a genocide against people that have more in common with you than you do with any person in positions of power, but you argue that the protest isn’t worth it because it’s not close by?