“Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue,” King wrote. “It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.”
If you genuinely think a dictionary has a better understanding of protests than Martin Luther King Jr, you either don’t know his history or are not being serious
Of course they can. Dictionaries are not the Bible. They exist to describe how words are used, not how they should be used. Words’ meaning changes over time (“gay” meant “happy” in the 20th century, to use the tired example) and new words get added to the dictionary every day (most dictionary websites have little blurbs showing words they’ve recently added). Dictionaries have historically, and continue to, change in response to how people use words, not the other way around. If your entire argument rests on the dictionary definition of the word “protest” not explicitly mentioning that to be considered a protest, something must be disruptive, it’s not a very good argument.
It also fails to consider that methods of convincing people who would rather simply ignore the issue to care about it that are not disruptive are few and far between.
And when exactly did “people turn it into” that? The purpose of a picket line is to be disruptive, and people have been doing those for over a century.
Yes I do think that. Protest tactics change but they seem to gravitate toward noncompliance and, yes, disruption. I honestly can’t think of a successful protest that was all roses and hugs. Could be missing something.
Protesters have blocked hospital entrance ways which is absolutely NOT okay, it can result in people dying and I think the protesters involved should be charged with manslaughter in those cases.
I think I’m fine with disruptive protests as long as it’s not harmfully disruptive. I also think disruptive protests can piss people off and make them angry at you rather than what you are protesting about, and it can end up hurting your cause.
Ahhh… so, say you own a restaurant… and you pay a pianist to perform music while people dine- you’d be fine if he went on rants about civil unrest and war in foreign countries between songs?
I guarantee you’d fire him when you saw how it affected your profits.
Absolutely, because that makes my life more difficult, as a restaurant owner. I don’t feel like that says anything about it tactically or morally though.
I’m speaking from within a fictional situation that was presented. If I were someone else would I fire someone…the answer is probably. My principled take as myself, I wouldn’t for the reasons I’ve been talking about throughout this thread. Everyone has different reasons for what they do. OP put their opinion and I put mine. I don’t know what else to say…
So it’s also okay for cellular companies to interrupt your phone calls with their support for politics issues? What about movies? Cool with a 10 minute long ad about civil unrest in the middle of a movie you paid to see? Can I interrupt your work to explain to you how bad some people have it in places you don’t know existed?
How about if I stopped ambulances from caring for the sick an injured? Because this shit ACTUALLY happened- and it is what happens when a line isn’t drawn between “making your point heard” and violating people’s rights.
Yeah, a phone company is never never never going to alienate customers like that. And the power dynamics in that situation are quite different. If you’re looking to suss out the limits of what I think about this than you’ve done it. I 100% agree people shouldn’t come to physical harm. Again, that’s quite a different situation than the one described in the article though.
You say a phone company won’t do that, but protestors blocked ambulances. Where is the line drawn?
And it’s okay that there’s no end to the interruption to daily lives so long as no one is hurt.
Again, I wonder how you’d like a 20-30 minutes lecture in the middle of a movie you paid for. Or an interruption of a conversation you were having with a friend or loved one.
It’s all in the name of protest you know. So… you HAVE to accept it.
I don’t have to like it, That’s literally my point. Let’s try this, rather than try to find my line, which I’ve already said was somewhere around causing bodily harm to uninvolved people, what do YOU think is an appropriate form of protest? It seems like that’s what you’re trying to get off your chest in a round about way.
Any priest that doesn’t inconvenience anyone as a method of gaining attention is appropriate. Because if you have to get in my way to make me see your point-
You have no point worthy of my attention.
I’m not aware of all the things happening in the world because of assholes that tell and shout at me. I’m aware because I pay attention.
No- just the end of the story for me. Feel free to blather on about how you have the right to pester, annoy, and inconvenience people because you believe, or don’t believe in something being done somewhere-
Feel free to blather on about how you have the right to pester, annoy, and inconvenience people because you believe, or don’t believe in something being done somewhere-
I didn’t find the definition that said “block ambulances”, and I have to say that was effective when the hillbillies did that. I hope even your idea of “annoy people who can’t help” doesn’t include critical services.
I hate the message you started with. But I agree with this. These modern protesters are scum bags who often are a major reason why their own cause never makes much progress.
Ah yes, the massively disruptive tactic of checks notes saying genocide is 1) bad and 2) happening prior to playing a piano piece. You’re right, he’s really crossed the line this time. How can he ever expect to garner support like that?
He’s almost as bad as the people with megaphones and signs marching and repeating chants!
Not this guy, I mean the protestors targeting random people like deflating tires of people going to work, throwing soup at art and standing in traffic. I don’t get how this guy was protesting. It sounds like he was just saying common sense things. I don’t get what the protest is here. Saying you support journalist doesn’t seem like a protest. Just a statement
So if a protest isn’t disruptive, it isn’t effective? I think you need to look up what protest means.
The point of protest is literally exactly that. The point of protest is to make the message impossible to ignore.
I’d urge you to look up the definition of protest and see where it says that it should be disruptive?
See-
I’m talking about REAL definitions. Not what people have turned it into.
MLK is not a dictionary. Try again.
If you genuinely think a dictionary has a better understanding of protests than Martin Luther King Jr, you either don’t know his history or are not being serious
So…. Anyone can rewrite the definition of something whenever they want?
Is that a serious question? Do you seriously think MLK Jr is just ‘anyone’ on the subject of protests?
He doesn’t get to redefine anything any more than anyone else. Protest by definition does not include interference with the flow of other’s lives.
Period.
Of course they can. Dictionaries are not the Bible. They exist to describe how words are used, not how they should be used. Words’ meaning changes over time (“gay” meant “happy” in the 20th century, to use the tired example) and new words get added to the dictionary every day (most dictionary websites have little blurbs showing words they’ve recently added). Dictionaries have historically, and continue to, change in response to how people use words, not the other way around. If your entire argument rests on the dictionary definition of the word “protest” not explicitly mentioning that to be considered a protest, something must be disruptive, it’s not a very good argument.
It also fails to consider that methods of convincing people who would rather simply ignore the issue to care about it that are not disruptive are few and far between.
lol…. Okay. Buddy.
And when exactly did “people turn it into” that? The purpose of a picket line is to be disruptive, and people have been doing those for over a century.
Yes I do think that. Protest tactics change but they seem to gravitate toward noncompliance and, yes, disruption. I honestly can’t think of a successful protest that was all roses and hugs. Could be missing something.
I agree, but I also think it depends.
Protesters have blocked hospital entrance ways which is absolutely NOT okay, it can result in people dying and I think the protesters involved should be charged with manslaughter in those cases.
I think I’m fine with disruptive protests as long as it’s not harmfully disruptive. I also think disruptive protests can piss people off and make them angry at you rather than what you are protesting about, and it can end up hurting your cause.
100% agreed
Ahhh… so, say you own a restaurant… and you pay a pianist to perform music while people dine- you’d be fine if he went on rants about civil unrest and war in foreign countries between songs?
I guarantee you’d fire him when you saw how it affected your profits.
Absolutely, because that makes my life more difficult, as a restaurant owner. I don’t feel like that says anything about it tactically or morally though.
That hair splits very fine.
I’m speaking from within a fictional situation that was presented. If I were someone else would I fire someone…the answer is probably. My principled take as myself, I wouldn’t for the reasons I’ve been talking about throughout this thread. Everyone has different reasons for what they do. OP put their opinion and I put mine. I don’t know what else to say…
So it’s also okay for cellular companies to interrupt your phone calls with their support for politics issues? What about movies? Cool with a 10 minute long ad about civil unrest in the middle of a movie you paid to see? Can I interrupt your work to explain to you how bad some people have it in places you don’t know existed?
How about if I stopped ambulances from caring for the sick an injured? Because this shit ACTUALLY happened- and it is what happens when a line isn’t drawn between “making your point heard” and violating people’s rights.
He interrupted mid song for 10 minutes? Or was it a 2 minute preamble and then a regular performance?
“Oh, you’re fine with this thing? What if it was something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT?!”
Yeah, a phone company is never never never going to alienate customers like that. And the power dynamics in that situation are quite different. If you’re looking to suss out the limits of what I think about this than you’ve done it. I 100% agree people shouldn’t come to physical harm. Again, that’s quite a different situation than the one described in the article though.
You say a phone company won’t do that, but protestors blocked ambulances. Where is the line drawn?
And it’s okay that there’s no end to the interruption to daily lives so long as no one is hurt.
Again, I wonder how you’d like a 20-30 minutes lecture in the middle of a movie you paid for. Or an interruption of a conversation you were having with a friend or loved one.
It’s all in the name of protest you know. So… you HAVE to accept it.
I don’t have to like it, That’s literally my point. Let’s try this, rather than try to find my line, which I’ve already said was somewhere around causing bodily harm to uninvolved people, what do YOU think is an appropriate form of protest? It seems like that’s what you’re trying to get off your chest in a round about way.
Any priest that doesn’t inconvenience anyone as a method of gaining attention is appropriate. Because if you have to get in my way to make me see your point-
You have no point worthy of my attention.
I’m not aware of all the things happening in the world because of assholes that tell and shout at me. I’m aware because I pay attention.
2 minute statement before the performance, 30 minute lecture in the middle of a performance, totally the same thing.
When did they say it had to be disruptive? They just said the point was to not let people forget.
If you consider the statement “x is bad” to be disruptive then I wonder what you think a “non-disruptive protest” actually is. Thoughts and prayers?
You can not let people forget about a thing without injecting it into everthing that exists.
The point is- that venue and event wasn’t there for them to proclaim their stance on politics. This was the right move.
End of story.
Oh, okay then.
HEY EVERYBODY! JIMSAMTANKO SAYS IT’S THE END OF STORY! I guess we all have to stop talking about it now.
No- just the end of the story for me. Feel free to blather on about how you have the right to pester, annoy, and inconvenience people because you believe, or don’t believe in something being done somewhere-
my opinion will remain unchanged regardless.
Oh God the projection…
Neat!
I didn’t find the definition that said “block ambulances”, and I have to say that was effective when the hillbillies did that. I hope even your idea of “annoy people who can’t help” doesn’t include critical services.
I hate the message you started with. But I agree with this. These modern protesters are scum bags who often are a major reason why their own cause never makes much progress.
Ah yes, the massively disruptive tactic of checks notes saying genocide is 1) bad and 2) happening prior to playing a piano piece. You’re right, he’s really crossed the line this time. How can he ever expect to garner support like that?
He’s almost as bad as the people with megaphones and signs marching and repeating chants!
Not this guy, I mean the protestors targeting random people like deflating tires of people going to work, throwing soup at art and standing in traffic. I don’t get how this guy was protesting. It sounds like he was just saying common sense things. I don’t get what the protest is here. Saying you support journalist doesn’t seem like a protest. Just a statement