this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
16 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10176 readers
101 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Disruption is an important tool, and often a morally justified one, but who and what you're disrupting matters. Slave revolts are disruption, certainly. Germans who sabotaged rail infrastructure during WW2 were causing disruption. Taking disruptive, or even violent, action off the table entirely means you are taking the position that all of the actions of a given government and society are moral beyond the point where force is justifiable. And I don't even get the impression you were talking about the same level as these, you seem like you're just talking about people blocking traffic for a bit and whatnot. The threshold for that is obviously much lower.
Putting movements in front of people's eyes is education. Just like we don't let children choose not to go to school, protest actions are sometimes about not allowing people to look away, by getting in their way. As the article is discussing, sometimes people react well to that education, and sometimes they don't.
Good point about slave revolts actually. That didn't cross my mind. Voting wouldn't have helped much on that front.
As for the morally justified angle, that is highly subjective. Your ideals may not align with mine. Does that mean I need to counter-obstruct obstructism I disagree with? That sounds like rapid escalation.
I did read that article, reflecting on recent perspectives, and as it is written for modern times, it raised concern; to have a outline/playbook to organize obstructionists in this climate is woefully tactless when masses are so easily enraged.
That said, there are many ways to get your message out. Websites, pamphlets, signs, heck we are Ad ridden everywhere. There is no excuse. Changing laws isn't glamorous, isn't fast, and isn't easy. But the right way has no shortcuts.
Second, (in the USA) your rights end when they infrige on anothers'. To impose my needs selfishly at the expense of yours is not only infringing your rights, but possibly accruing damages.
This is not victimless behavior regardless of cause. It absolutely should not be encouraged.
Activism is, intrinsically, against the status quo. If you are for the status quo, you can counter-protest, but the police are the ones whose "job" it is to employ pro-staus-quo force. If you are for a different change, it very much depends on what the movement you're opposing is trying to do. It may well be necessary to obstruct it.
We are living in an age of capital consolidation unlike any time before. Our wealth disparity (and therefore, power disparity) is greater than even in the days of the Robber Barons. I think the masses need to be enraged. If you actually mean, "taking their rage out on the wrong people", I'd agree, but that's far more likely to happen due to political actors and news media (e.g. Jan 6th) than it is by local protests.
The entire Civil Rights Era was riddled with forceful activism, and wouldn't have been able to make the changes it did otherwise. The threat of, "if you ignore us this will go badly, so work with us" was a critical component of the movement. MLK wouldn't have been given a seat at the table if Malcolm X hadn't been in the background (and just look at what happened to them to see how the status quo protects itself).
And protests too!
And all the ones you listed either require money to do, or require the complicity of the (big money) platform owners. If you have little or no money, and e.g. Facebook takes down your posts, your list leaves no other routes.
If someone is illegally detaining you or injuring you, that is certainly an infringement on your rights. But you don't have a right to go to a specific place, or drive on a specific road. You don't own any bridges, so their use can't be stolen from you anyways. Don't conjure up false rights in the name of your own convenience.
Absolutely stellar breakdown.
We're in an era where money is power, and it affords you the time, energy, and other resources to mostly ignore anything you want, even laws. While the working class comparatively has little to no control over their few resources, those that organize are doing so because they feel they have no other choice, and it's literally about survival. I'm sure most folks involved in protests have important things to do in their daily lives and they wouldn't be demonstrating en masse unless it was deemed important.
Strength in numbers is all we have, and to understand the scope of an issue, we must organize, educate, and then disrupt and demonstrate if we ever hope to reform or dismantle systems that continue to exploit every single thing with value in this world. We're seeing the consequences of inaction in real time, and guess what? Climate and ecosystem collapse + severe economic inequality is what we get when we do nothing to course correct.