There have been 104 terrorist attacks against protesters since George Floyd protests began - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15123981
Oxymoron wrote:Ok Goebelles, blaming victims for assault by the Rioters.

On November 9, 1938, in an event that would foreshadow the Holocaust, German Nazis launch a campaign of terror against Jewish people and their homes and businesses in Germany and Austria. The violence, which continued through November 10 and was later dubbed “Kristallnacht,” or “Night of Broken Glass,” after the countless smashed windows of Jewish-owned establishments,

The Nazis used the murder of a low-level German diplomat in Paris by a 17-year-old Polish Jew as an excuse to carry out the Kristallnacht attacks.


Are you saying that mist if the violence is coming from the protesters? Are you saying “the Rioters” are the protesters?

Because right now it seems like you are saying that the protesters and rioters are the same people, and that any violence against both of these groups is justified out of self defense.

So you can kill protesters because of the threat to your property posed by rioters, according to yo.
#15124033
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think people get fired or punished for protesting peacefully, like Kaepernick, or the racers who wore Breonna Taylor shirts on the podium. There is no “right” way to protest.

Yes they do. People on the right also get fired all the time for speech their employers don't like.

Everyone has free speech and a right to peacefully protest, but that doesn't mean there aren't personal consequences when you have opinions some may find controversial.
#15124035
Unthinking Majority wrote:Yes they do. People on the right also get fired all the time for speech their employers don't like.

Everyone has free speech and a right to peacefully protest, but that doesn't mean there aren't personal consequences when you have opinions some may find controversial.


But they shouldn't have been, in both cases.
#15124037
Americans solve many of their problems with violence. They're addicted to violence. They assassinated Lincoln, JFK, MLK, RFK, Malcolm X, shot Reagan, and fought 2 massive civil wars (if you count the American Revolution).

Meanwhile Canada gained independence from the British Empire by just telling them and then signing some papers, and have never had a Prime Minister who has been shot or murdered.
#15124075
Pants-of-dog wrote:So, is there a “right” way to protest?

I'd say it's ethical to do it in the least socially destructive way possible.

So in order of least to most socially destructive:

Protest/free speech > non-violent civil disobedience (disobeying laws/policy you feel are unjust, ie: Rosa Parks) > Extortion (illegal non-violent action that uses coercion to try to force change, ie: blocking traffic) > destruction of property, looting > injuring/killing people.
#15124079
Unthinking Majority wrote:I'd say it's ethical to do it in the least socially destructive way possible.

So in order of least to most socially destructive:

Protest/free speech > non-violent civil disobedience (disobeying laws/policy you feel are unjust, ie: Rosa Parks) > Extortion (illegal non-violent action that uses coercion to try to force change, ie: blocking traffic) > destruction of property, looting > injuring/killing people.


Well, society disagrees with you since they do not allow a lot of this. For example, where I live, all of this is illegal.

Now, there are two important facts about protests that block traffic:

1. They are more effective than protests that do not block traffic.
2. They do not justify car attacks against protesters.
#15124088
Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, society disagrees with you since they do not allow a lot of this. For example, where I live, all of this is illegal.

I included the tactics that were illegal and not illegal. The only legal form of protest is speech or lawful non-violent actions. But as in my little chart, blocking traffic is less ethical than speech, but more ethical than looting, which in turn is more ethical than shooting someone etc.

Now, there are two important facts about protests that block traffic:

1. They are more effective than protests that do not block traffic.

Yes of course they are, because they involve coercion (use of force) and extortion via blocking some other person's right to freedom of movement. "You're not going to work until our demands are met". It's not very ethical to protest for your rights by taking away someone else's rights.

2. They do not justify car attacks against protesters.

I agree. Car attacks are much worse than blocking traffic.

But if it's a case of not only blocking traffic but protestors are jumping or banging/smashing your car while surrounding and intimidating you and you have a legit fear for your safety, it may be ethical & even legal to drive through the mob to escape in self-defense, but i'm no lawyer.

I think the bad cases are the people who specifically target protestors in order to hurt them, like that car in Charlottesville.
#15124093
Unthinking Majority wrote:I included the tactics that were illegal and not illegal. The only legal form of protest is speech or lawful non-violent actions. But as in my little chart, blocking traffic is less ethical than speech, but more ethical than looting, which in turn is more ethical than shooting someone etc.


I was not discussing your personal ranking.

I was, instead, pointing out that people often end up doing things like blocking traffic because they are not allowed to protest in any other effective way.

Yes of course they are, because they involve coercion (use of force) and extortion via blocking some other person's right to freedom of movement. "You're not going to work until our demands are met". It's not very ethical to protest for your rights by taking away someone else's rights.


It is not ethical to ignore the rights of (for example) black people not wanting to be shot by police because (again, as an example) you have to drive around a protest.

I agree. Car attacks are much worse than blocking traffic.


You should tell your fellow conservatives that. Even cops have been caught spreading the now infamous memes celebrating and condoning these attacks.
#15124111
It's interesting that those on the right are willing to support Hong Kongers who shut down roads, railways and airports whilst attacking police and vandalising businesses but throw a fit when an American athlete kneels quietly out of the way of everyone else. That level of cognitive dissonance is impressive.
#15124133
Pants-of-dog wrote:I was, instead, pointing out that people often end up doing things like blocking traffic because they are not allowed to protest in any other effective way.

They're allowed to voice their opinion peacefully in any way they choose. Hundreds of thousands have peacefully taken to the streets and politicians have listened re: police abuse.

You don't need to block traffic to get your opinions heard. Greta Thunberg is not blocking traffic. If you need to block traffic (or burn buildings) to try to force people to do what you want, that's a form of coercion and extortion. Protestors are able to make that choice if that's the tactic they choose, but must also be prepared to suffer the consequences of their actions, like being arrested or fined. If they care that much about an issue to risk and suffer that, then hey respect & hats off to them. Gandhi, MLK, Nelson Mandela were fined, arrested, jailed etc in their struggles for justice and I greatly respect them for their courage.

What I don't agree with in places like Portland is the city won't enforce the law or lay charges on rioters doing illegal acts that violate the rights of others, often innocent people. Again, If you destroy property as a means of protest that's your choice, you have free will, but you should also have to suffer the consequences of your actions, otherwise everyone can destroy and loot whatever they want, and chaos/anarchy ensues...as we've seen in Portland.

Even cops have been caught spreading the now infamous memes celebrating and condoning these attacks.
[/quote]
These cops should be fired.

Best way to defund the police is to fire any cop that abuses their power and/or does disgustingly unprofessional things, because there won't be many cops left after that! That's a lot of money saved in payroll.
#15124137
Unthinking Majority wrote:They're allowed to voice their opinion peacefully in any way they choose. Hundreds of thousands have peacefully taken to the streets and politicians have listened re: police abuse.


No, not always. As AFAIK and I have already pointed out, some people have already been fired for doing so. Other places have made protesting illegal, or have made it so there is no choice.

You don't need to block traffic to get your opinions heard. Greta Thunberg is not blocking traffic. If you need to block traffic (or burn buildings) to try to force people to do what you want, that's a form of coercion and extortion. Protestors are able to make that choice if that's the tactic they choose, but must also be prepared to suffer the consequences of their actions, like being arrested or fined. If they care that much about an issue to risk and suffer that, then hey respect & hats off to them. Gandhi, MLK, Nelson Mandela were fined, arrested, jailed etc in their struggles for justice and I greatly respect them for their courage.


Blocking traffic is not that big a deal. Jaywalkers do it but we do not run them over or arrest them. So do people who are double parked.

What I don't agree with in places like Portland is the city won't enforce the law or lay charges on rioters doing illegal acts that violate the rights of others, often innocent people. Again, If you destroy property as a means of protest that's your choice, you have free will, but you should also have to suffer the consequences of your actions, otherwise everyone can destroy and loot whatever they want, and chaos/anarchy ensues...as we've seen in Portland.


Off topic. You really heed to start a thread where you can write down all,of your thoughts on “rioters”.

These cops should be fired.

Best way to defund the police is to fire any cop that abuses their power and/or does disgustingly unprofessional things, because there won't be many cops left after that! That's a lot of money saved in payroll.


They will not be fired. Nor will anyone be punished for spreading the idea that protesters should be attacked with cars.
#15124169
Unthinking Majority wrote:I'd say it's ethical to do it in the least socially destructive way possible.

So in order of least to most socially destructive:

Protest/free speech > non-violent civil disobedience (disobeying laws/policy you feel are unjust, ie: Rosa Parks) > Extortion (illegal non-violent action that uses coercion to try to force change, ie: blocking traffic) > destruction of property, looting > injuring/killing people.


If PoFo were around in the 1960s and 1970s you would have been here posting about how you support MLK but believe that him being thrown in jail was justified because he inconvenienced people by marching on streets.
#15124245
Oxymoron wrote:You are the one pretending they are peaceful.


It's an indisputable fact that peaceful protests have been attacked in these vehicle attacks.

It's one thing to just have rhetoric to get a rise out of people, but it's another to be just wrong. What you're doing is making false claims, and then using it to justify murder. Just trolling.

Finfinder sounds like a bitch. A real spineless w[…]

Election 2020

And the latest Rasmussen White House Watch is out,[…]

"Macron is one of the few leaders who worshi[…]

You indirectly support imperialism by claiming th[…]