Support NeoGAF

[Crimson_Gold]

Block restaurants, libraries, malls, movie theaters, etc.
Important things of general leisure.


Don't eff with traffic imo. People have things to do. You don't know what you're impeding.

How do you determine which locations? People likely have things to do there. We could be impeding the purchase of an essential meal, an engagement ring purchase, or a child seeing Star Wars for the first time. What type of monsters are you trying to create here?

What if its a young black kid who was just shot across town by a corrupt cop and the protest is in between the ambulance and the nearest hospital?

WHAT YOU GONNA DO THEN!?

This is amazing. You've created a scenario that is pure bait. Like there's nothing about this scenario that doesn't scream, "got you!!!!"

 

[MHWilliams]

I actually don't know, we don't have subways where I'm from. I would assume an emergency surgeon not to take public transport to their work?

Depends on the person and city. The assumption that this hypothetical emergency surgeon can always get to his or her destination is always in contention. Construction, simply traffic, delayed train or metro line, etc.

I don't know the laws of that state/county, but I have to assume there is some law against willfully blocking traffic. I don't know what exactly they'd be charged with and I think we'd both have to admit we're not lawyers and it is above our heads. I think it is at least clear that there would be a case against them that would likely go to court, which is unfortnately stacked against black people as well.

Many are charged with disorderly conduct and failure to obey an officer, thought they could probably try to get people on worse.

 

[Captin Quacker]

oh come on gordon you really should be used to it after all the other protest threads

 

[besada]

Block restaurants, libraries, malls, movie theaters, etc.
Important things of general leisure.

Generally illegal, since those all exist on private property. Which means they'd have to block the street leading in, which means...blocking traffic. Private locations aren't required to allow you to protest, only public ones. Which means any legal effective protest generally involves blocking access to public services at some level or another.

 

[excelsiorlef]

What makes you say that the blockade of traffic was only minutes? Is that a part of the report? That could be the case, but I don't think it is something that is obviously true. And if we assume to isolate the point that traffic was halted for a significant time, let's say an 2 hours, and the patient died in traffic, that there are many treatable injuries that have enough empirical evidence to be deemed treatable. I don't think it is a valid defense to say "Well, the person COULD have still died if he wasn't impeded to the hospital."

Let's use this as an example to further isolate the situation. I am at a park with a friend. We decide to walk up a hike and end up fairly isolated. My friend and I are attacked by a thief and my friend ends up getting stabbed. The thief runs away with my friend's phone. He needs immediate help. I am the only one that can call for help. Too bad for him, I am currently fixated on arguing in a thread on Neogaf. I put my need to argue on Neogaf over his well-being and refuse to find help or even call with my phone. After arguing for 2 hours, I call for help and my friend died from internal bleeding. The autopsy and doctor who called the time of death both rule that it is likely that my friend had a high chance of surviving if he had been treated more quickly. Should I be legally responsible for anything? Surely, the thief who stabbed him should be put to trial and pay for his crime, but what about me? Do I get to hide behind the fact that I didn't stab him or that there was still a chance that he could still die regardless?






Yes, I know this example is kind of goofy, but that doesn't change the point. My point is that one who plays a conscious role in preventing somebody from medical attention should have some level of accountability.

Yeah but I hear your friend was no angel so....

 

[Ozium]

Generally illegal, since those all exist on private property. Which means they'd have to block the street leading in, which means...blocking traffic. Private locations aren't required to allow you to protest, only public ones. Which means any legal effective protest generally involves blocking access to public services at some level or another.

sidewalks are not private property

 

[PeregrinSe7en]

In before...

Wait, no. We already got the "I agree with the message, but..." posts.

Whatever, keep it up protesters.

just out of curiosity, lets say for example you have a son who is in dire need of medical attention and your driving him on that same bridge, but with traffic blocked like that your outta luck. how would you feel about the protest then?

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Every time someone types "people have things to do," I wonder why they aren't thinking about the protesters. Like they want to be out there in the cold pissing off everyone and getting arrested. Like this is what they wanted to be doing with their life. They don't have a choice. They see exactly what's going on with black lives in America.

 

[MGrant]

At the risk of drawing vitriol, and with a full disclaimer that I want accountability for racist cops as well as a total elimination of the horrible, absolutely unjustified killings of black men and women in the US throughout its history, I have a few reservations about this protest. Putting aside the edge-case scenarios of ambulances and surgeons and type-1 diabetic grandmas who need their insulin and heart pills and to pick up their grandkids from soccer practice, I just think it is ineffective at targeting anyone but commuters whose impact on the cause is minimal.

The protests during the Civil Rights movement of the 60s were effective because they targeted and disrupted the critical systems of society at the time, but do you really think over the course of fifty-odd years, the system hasn't evolved to protect those interested in maintaining systemic racism from this kind of protest? I worked for four years helping historically exploited people fight against poverty, racism, and exploitation, primarily black and hispanic families. Let me tell you what you're up against today:

1. The biggest privatized prison and "nonprofit" public assistance complex the world has ever seen, all participants of which have a vested interest in making deals with the racist establishment.

2. The most militarized and politicized law enforcement agencies in US history.

3. State Attorneys General who have the backs of the privatized industry and the law enforcement agencies, who criminalize disruption of their operation and obfuscate the inner-workings of these establishments to prevent public knowledge of how they work.

4. Bought-and-paid-for politicians on the right AND left who cannot and will not buck the trend unless they are threatened to be ousted by someone with a bigger bankroll in their gerrymandered districts.

The sad truth is that this style of protest in this day and age is child's play. You think any of the above groups gives a shit about a momentarily blocked bridge? You think the annoyed common folk driving to or from work or doing errands can have any impact on the above groups? Of course not.

You want change, you gotta have money, charismatic leadership, and money. That's what annoys me about this whole thing. There's all this infighting between us lower-rung liberals about who is truly dedicated to the cause, the protest being the highest symbol of commitment to this idea of equality. But the protest is dead as a tool of change. BLM will go the same route as Occupy unless they understand this and get some serious money and power within the establishment, and this isn't the way to do that.

 

[Merc_]

What if its a young black kid who was just shot across town by a corrupt cop and the protest is in between the ambulance and the nearest hospital?

WHAT YOU GONNA DO THEN!?

Well, the protesters are well known for their lenient stance on crime, but suppose for a second that your house was ransacked by thugs, your family was tied up in the basement with socks in their mouths, you try to open the door but there's too much blood on the knob...

 

[besada]

sidewalks are not private property

Right, sidewalk protesting is just easy to ignore, which defeats the point of the protest.

 

[Mory Dunz]

Generally illegal, since those all exist on private property. Which means they'd have to block the street leading in, which means...blocking traffic. Private locations aren't required to allow you to protest, only public ones. Which means any legal effective protest generally involves blocking access to public services at some level or another.

Public library then. City halls, and other stuff


Wait blocking traffic is legal?

 

[Claude Augario]

Block restaurants, libraries, malls, movie theaters, etc.
Important things of general leisure.


Don't eff with traffic imo. People have things to do. You don't know what you're impeding.

Wasn't there a looney with a picture of himself with a gun making death threats on twitter/facebook when they blocked a café or restaurant?

It's pretty obvious to me that the rage isn't really coming from how the protests happen but rather who's protesting.

 

[TheOctodad]

Generally illegal, since those all exist on private property. Which means they'd have to block the street leading in, which means...blocking traffic. Private locations aren't required to allow you to protest, only public ones. Which means any legal effective protest generally involves blocking access to public services at some level or another.

Correct, which is why previous protest at locations like the Mall of America got BLM protestors arrested. Again, I understand both sides here. The owners of the Mall of America have a right to not allow protest on their private property. But BLM is probably going to have to just accept that they can and will get arrested for many of their protests. Not saying it's "right" but I think that's just the nature of many protests.

 

[MHWilliams]

just out of curiosity, lets say for example you have a son who is in dire need of medical attention and your driving him on that same bridge, but with traffic blocked like that your outta luck. how would you feel about the protest then?

Suppose the protest changes a law, causing for an overhaul on police procedure that prevents the potential death of your child?

How do you feel about the blocking of traffic then?

Correct, which is why previous protest at locations like the Mall of America got BLM protestors arrested. Again, I understand both sides here. The owners of the Mall of America have a right to not allow protest on their private property. But BLM is probably going to have to just accept that they can and will get arrested for many of their protests. Not saying it's "right" but I think that's just the nature of many protests.

They were arrested for this one today. I'm certain that was actually a known outcome for all involved.

You may run into some edge case situations, but most of the hypotheticals remain hypothetical most of the time. You block a bus, a man doesn't get to work, he gets fired. That's a potential outcome. You block the sidewalk in protest, someone trips stepping off the curb and breaks an ankle. Another outcome. In the end, protest is disruption. Full stop. Those involved have a situation that is not getting resolved and they want society's attention.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

oh come on gordon you really should be used to it after all the other protest threads

You're not wrong. My faith in folks is what's wrong. Happy MLK day..!

 

[His Majesty]

just out of curiosity, lets say for example you have a son who is in dire need of medical attention and your driving him on that same bridge, but with traffic blocked like that your outta luck. how would you feel about the protest then?

Happened here in Belgium three months ago. Unions went on strike, surgeon couldn't reach the hospital and two patients died. Caused quite an uproar.

 

[Coffee Dog]

Correct, which is why previous protest at locations like the Mall of America got BLM protestors arrested. Again, I understand both sides here. The owners of the Mall of America have a right to not allow protest on their private property. But BLM is probably going to have to just accept that they can and will get arrested for many of their protests. Not saying it's "right" but I think that's just the nature of many protests.

so you'd rather good people get arrested because that's just "what happens"?

Besides, people likely got arrested here too. This way just gets more attention.

 

[Mory Dunz]

Every time someone types "people have things to do," I wonder why they aren't thinking about the protesters. Like they want to be out there in the cold pissing off everyone and getting arrested. Like this is what they wanted to be doing with their life. They don't have a choice. They see exactly what's going on with black lives in America.

If thats for me, I didn't say no protesting. Said I didn't like traffic.

Wasn't there a looney with a picture of himself with a gun making death threats on twitter/facebook when they blocked a café or restaurant?

It's pretty obvious to me that the rage isn't really coming from how the protests happen but rather who's protesting.

Wow probably so.

Stuff is effed up.

 

[freeofgreed]

At the risk of drawing vitriol, and with a full disclaimer that I want accountability for racist cops as well as a total elimination of the horrible, absolutely unjustified killings of black men and women in the US throughout its history, I have a few reservations about this protest. Putting aside the edge-case scenarios of ambulances and surgeons and type-1 diabetic grandmas who need their insulin and heart pills and to pick up their grandkids from soccer practice, I just think it is ineffective at targeting anyone but commuters whose impact on the cause is minimal.

The protests during the Civil Rights movement of the 60s were effective because they targeted and disrupted the critical systems of society at the time, but do you really think over the course of fifty-odd years, the system hasn't evolved to protect those interested in maintaining systemic racism from this kind of protest? I worked for four years helping historically exploited people fight against poverty, racism, and exploitation, primarily black and hispanic families. Let me tell you what you're up against today:

1. The biggest privatized prison and "nonprofit" public assistance complex the world has ever seen, all participants of which have a vested interest in making deals with the racist establishment.

2. The most militarized and politicized law enforcement agencies in US history.

3. State Attorneys General who have the backs of the privatized industry and the law enforcement agencies, who criminalize disruption of their operation and obfuscate the inner-workings of these establishments to prevent public knowledge of how they work.

4. Bought-and-paid-for politicians on the right AND left who cannot and will not buck the trend unless they are threatened to be ousted by someone with a bigger bankroll in their gerrymandered districts.

The sad truth is that this style of protest in this day and age is child's play. You think any of the above groups gives a shit about a momentarily blocked bridge? You think the annoyed common folk driving to or from work or doing errands can have any impact on the above groups? Of course not.

You want change, you gotta have money, charismatic leadership, and money. That's what annoys me about this whole thing. There's all this infighting between us lower-rung liberals about who is truly dedicated to the cause, the protest being the highest symbol of commitment to this idea of equality. But the protest is dead as a tool of change. BLM will go the same route as Occupy unless they understand this and get some serious money and power within the establishment, and this isn't the way to do that.

I agree with most of your post in that protests are becoming increasingly irrelevent as a tool for change. However that's why these more radical methods are being used, and they are working. Slowly but surely. Body cams are becoming more prevalent, Presidential nominees are talking about it, and indictments against police are actually happening more often (not enough though). All of these are recent advancements which can be directly attributed to the rise of these kinds of protests.

 

[besada]

Correct, which is why previous protest at locations like the Mall of America got BLM protestors arrested. Again, I understand both sides here. The owners of the Mall of America have a right to not allow protest on their private property. But BLM is probably going to have to just accept that they can and will get arrested for many of their protests. Not saying it's "right" but I think that's just the nature of many protests.

There's getting arrested and released, the most common outcome of public property protesting, and there's getting charged with criminal trespass, which is very on the table at a mall or other private venue. The government is more constrained than the private sector regarding what they can do with protestors, which is why protestors like public lands.

 

[TheOctodad]

They were arrested for this one today. I'm certain that was actually a known outcome for all involved.

Absolutely. I think that's, unfortunately, just going to have the be the accepted outcome of many of these protests. Part of the protests itself is forcing the police to become repeatedly unpopular in the public eye to the point where there arrests start to becoming more overwhelmingly scrutinized. Not a fun position to put yourself in though.

 

[Metrotab]

Suppose the protest changes a law, causing for an overhaul on police procedure that prevents the potential death of your child?

How do you feel about the blocking of traffic then?

That protest could have had a different form that didn't block that child from gaining emergency medical attention.

 

[TheOctodad]

so you'd rather good people get arrested because that's just "what happens"?

Besides, people likely got arrested here too. This way just gets more attention.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

I never said that. You're aiming at the wrong person here.

I've been in protest before. Part of the accepted outcome for me was that I very well might be arrested. Part of the point is to force the police and authorities to a decision - it forces them to reflect on their position and action. Yes, it's glacially slow and unlikely in many cases, but this is part of the way protests work.

 

[freeofgreed]

That protest could have had a different form that didn't block that child from gaining emergency medical attention.

But what if in that situation, the protest didn't work because it wasn't as disruptive 0.o

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

At the risk of drawing vitriol, and with a full disclaimer that I want accountability for racist cops as well as a total elimination of the horrible, absolutely unjustified killings of black men and women in the US throughout its history, I have a few reservations about this protest. Putting aside the edge-case scenarios of ambulances and surgeons and type-1 diabetic grandmas who need their insulin and heart pills and to pick up their grandkids from soccer practice, I just think it is ineffective at targeting anyone but commuters whose impact on the cause is minimal.

The protests during the Civil Rights movement of the 60s were effective because they targeted and disrupted the critical systems of society at the time, but do you really think over the course of fifty-odd years, the system hasn't evolved to protect those interested in maintaining systemic racism from this kind of protest? I worked for four years helping historically exploited people fight against poverty, racism, and exploitation, primarily black and hispanic families. Let me tell you what you're up against today:

1. The biggest privatized prison and "nonprofit" public assistance complex the world has ever seen, all participants of which have a vested interest in making deals with the racist establishment.

2. The most militarized and politicized law enforcement agencies in US history.

3. State Attorneys General who have the backs of the privatized industry and the law enforcement agencies, who criminalize disruption of their operation and obfuscate the inner-workings of these establishments to prevent public knowledge of how they work.

4. Bought-and-paid-for politicians on the right AND left who cannot and will not buck the trend unless they are threatened to be ousted by someone with a bigger bankroll in their gerrymandered districts.

The sad truth is that this style of protest in this day and age is child's play. You think any of the above groups gives a shit about a momentarily blocked bridge? You think the annoyed common folk driving to or from work or doing errands can have any impact on the above groups? Of course not.

You want change, you gotta have money, charismatic leadership, and money. That's what annoys me about this whole thing. There's all this infighting between us lower-rung liberals about who is truly dedicated to the cause, the protest being the highest symbol of commitment to this idea of equality. But the protest is dead as a tool of change. BLM will go the same route as Occupy unless they understand this and get some serious money and power within the establishment, and this isn't the way to do that.

Solid post. You get it.

You're right that protests are ineffective against this system. This is going to take a revolution. I think we all know that, and it makes everyone uncomfortable in different ways.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Protest should only be held with guns on government property. No consequences there..

 

[Dai101]

calling them terrorists is a bit of a stretch

You know, you're right. They ain't brown.

Beat me to it, Gordon. But yeah.......

I'll go lie dow..........

 

[PeregrinSe7en]

Suppose the protest changes a law, causing for an overhaul on police procedure that prevents the potential death of your child?

How do you feel about the blocking of traffic then?



.

so your ok with a child potentially dying because he/she didnt get med treatment fast enough?

gotcha.

im all for a blm protest. its a great movement, but there has to better a less intrusive way of handling it.

 

[freeofgreed]

I just want to say that when BLM took the stage from Bernie Sanders that form of protest got even more of a backlash than this did. In the Bernie Sanders case, no one was injured or had the potential to be injured and it was at a political rally, probably the #1 place to protest. Yet BLM got an extreme amount of vitrol and hate. That told me all I needed to know. Regardless of how BLM protest people will hate them and criticize them. That's why I laugh at everyone saying this isn't the "right" way to protest. If the "right" way to protest is one where everyone is happy then it doesn't exists.

 

[Crimson_Gold]

Protest should only be held with guns on government property. No consequences there..

I fear that they fail the paper bag test that allows for such things.

 

[PeregrinSe7en]

Happened here in Belgium three months ago. Unions went on strike, surgeon couldn't reach the hospital and two patients died. Caused quite an uproar.

that's sad to hear

 

[Metrotab]

But what if in that situation, the protest didn't work because it wasn't as disruptive 0.o

Okay, suppose you're right. The effectiveness of this specific form of protest is more important than "hypothetical" lives lost.

How many lives are you willing to balance against traffic blockade protests?

I just want to say that when BLM took the stage from Bernie Sanders that form of protest got even more of a backlash than this did. In the Bernie Sanders case, no one was injured or had the potential to be injured and it was at a political rally, probably the #1 place to protest. Yet BLM got an extreme amount of vitrol and hate. That told me all I needed to know. Regardless of how BLM protest people will hate them and criticize them. That's why I laugh at everyone saying this isn't the "right" way to protest. If the "right" way to protest is one where everyone is happy then it doesn't exists.

Irrelevant. The metric here is "potential lives in danger", not "unhappy Sanders supporters".

 

[Gordon Shumway]

You know, you're right. They ain't brown.



Beat me to it, Gordon. But yeah.......

I'll go lie dow..........

Hey, you just got your chance. Look!

I fear that they fail the paper bag test that allows for such things.

 

[The Kree]

so your ok with a child potentially dying because he/she didnt get med treatment fast enough?

gotcha.

im all for a blm protest. its a great movement, but there has to better a less intrusive way of handling it.

If that protest saves thousands of lives, yes, the choice is obvious, one child dying is OK.

I don't understand all this hand-wringing over hypothetical children in critical condition when these protests are a response to ACTUAL lives lost.

 

[Vice]

so your ok with a child potentially dying because he/she didnt get med treatment fast enough?

gotcha.

im all for a blm protest. its a great movement, but there has to better a less intrusive way of handling it.

Well, what is it. People have tried other forms of protest. Sit ins in restaurants, sidewalk protests at city halls/ police stations, social media movements, taking the stge at rallies, gettingn celebrity backing, getting signatures, writing/messaging/calling politicians and they tend to get even less attention than causing minor traffic slowdown.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

so your ok with a child potentially dying because he/she didnt get med treatment fast enough?

gotcha.

im all for a blm protest. its a great movement, but there has to better a less intrusive way of handling it.

If you think it's a great movement, you understand what it's up against and that it's been around for years now because America isn't doing shit. So why shouldn't it be as intrusive as possible?

 

[freeofgreed]

Okay, suppose you're right. The effectiveness of this specific form of protest is more important than "hypothetical" lives lost.

How many lives are you willing to balance against traffic blockade protests?

That's an impossible call to make. How do you balance actual lives lost vs potential lives that are saved? It's impossible to answer which is why I think it's a bridge we should only cross if we actually happens.

 

[TheOctodad]

I just want to say that when BLM took the stage from Bernie Sanders that form of protest got even more of a backlash than this did. In the Bernie Sanders case, no one was injured or had the potential to be injured and it was at a political rally, probably the #1 place to protest. Yet BLM got an extreme amount of vitrol and hate. That told me all I needed to know. Regardless of how BLM protest people will hate them and criticize them. That's why I laugh at everyone saying this isn't the "right" way to protest. If the "right" way to protest is one where everyone is happy then it doesn't exists.

I think that one was technically "better," but strange. That one didn't piss me off and I think that's more of an effective platform. But it was a bit odd, as It seemed targeted incorrectly. I think Bernie was already for their movement and critiques, why not try to partner with him instead of "protest" his work?

It felt like if the police's lives matter people protesting at a Cruz speech...

 

[Two Words]

That's an impossible call to make. How do you balance actual lives lost vs potential lives that are saved? It's impossible to answer which is why I think it's a bridge we should only cross if we actually happens.

It's usually not good determine what is acceptable or not after it happens.

 

[tearsintherain]

I just want to say that when BLM took the stage from Bernie Sanders that form of protest got even more of a backlash than this did. In the Bernie Sanders case, no one was injured or had the potential to be injured and it was at a political rally, probably the #1 place to protest. Yet BLM got an extreme amount of vitrol and hate. That told me all I needed to know. Regardless of how BLM protest people will hate them and criticize them. That's why I laugh at everyone saying this isn't the "right" way to protest. If the "right" way to protest is one where everyone is happy then it doesn't exists.

The right way to protest would be to follow Gandhi's example - all black people pull out of the economy. Quit jobs, stop buying stuff, share food so nobody starves, etc. 13% of America stopping the economic engine from smoothly running will have a massive impact. If hispanics and committed white liberals joined it it would jump up to 30-40% of the economy, it would change the political landscape in a few days.

Won't happen though, too many people like their shiny things to ever do this. It was a key component of MLKs protests though. Would be insanely difficult to coordinate as well, although interestingly enough stuff like social media may make it even easier than ever. I suspect sometime in the far future we will see this kind of protest occur, probably not in the USA but other countries.

 

[freeofgreed]

Irrelevant. The metric here is "potential lives in danger", not "unhappy Sanders supporters".

No it's completely relevent to the point I'm trying to make here. That's why i didn't quote anybody. The point I'm trying to make is that people will find any criticism under the sun to opposse these protests. Even if no lives were/could be lost. That's why it's dumb to say this way is wrong. If this were another form a protest we'd be talking about x reason why these protests are "bad"

 

[TheOctodad]

The right way to protest would be to follow Gandhi's example - all black people pull out of the economy. Quit jobs, stop buying stuff, share food so nobody starves, etc. 13% of America stopping the economic engine from smoothly running will have a massive impact. If hispanics and committed white liberals joined it it would jump up to 30-40% of the economy, it would change the political landscape in a few days.

Won't happen though, too many people like their shiny things to ever do this.

Think of if the pro-athletes boycotted (of any color, anyone who was for the movement).

Think if musicians stopped playing. Think if actors refused to act. Think if accountants refused to work. Bus drivers, lawyers, etc.

Those are the kinds of things that would really cause some waves. It's going to require real sacrifice and skin in the game though from people who are generally comfortable. That's tough to catalyze.

 

[freeofgreed]

It's usually not good determine what is acceptable or not after it happens.

Like I said in the sentence you quoted. We can't really determine if it's acceptable before hand as it's an impossible call to make....

 

[theignoramus]

I'm glad the reincarnation of MLK Jr. is here to tell us what MLK Jr. would or wouldn't approve of.

lmao. And to call out the "pieces of shit" and "monsters" who dare transgress on his sense of appropriateness.

 

[Two Words]

Like I said in the sentence you quoted. We can't really determine if it's acceptable before hand as it's an impossible call to make....

It's impossible to know, but people should act with a sense of reason of what is possible and likely.

 

[Htown]

i'll get back to protesting for blm in ways that honor mlk's legacy

"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. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation."
- Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail

You don't create a crisis and tension by protesting in ways that are convenient and easily ignored.

 

[freeofgreed]

The right way to protest would be to follow Gandhi's example - all black people pull out of the economy. Quit jobs, stop buying stuff, share food so nobody starves, etc. 13% of America stopping the economic engine from smoothly running will have a massive impact. If hispanics and committed white liberals joined it it would jump up to 30-40% of the economy, it would change the political landscape in a few days.

Won't happen though, too many people like their shiny things to ever do this. It was a key component of MLKs protests though. Would be insanely difficult to coordinate as well, although interestingly enough stuff like social media may make it even easier than ever. I suspect sometime in the far future we will see this kind of protest occur, probably not in the USA but other countries.

I actually am a huge proponent of this style of boycott, but it is a pipe dream.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

It's impossible to know, but people should act with a sense of reason of what is possible and likely.

If we're taking that route, maybe everyone should just stay inside of their homes in case something happens, like Mortal Death. You never know.

 

[Metrotab]

No it's completely relevent to the point I'm trying to make here. That's why i didn't quote anybody. The point I'm trying to make is that people will find any criticism under the sun to opposse these protests. Even if no lives were/could be lost. That's why it's dumb to say this way is wrong. If this were another form a protest we'd be talking about x reason why these protests are "bad"

Yes, and those reasons wouldn't come close to the gravitas of "this protest might cause someone to not get access to medical services", which I think is a good enough reason to consider traffic blockades a bad form of protesting.