BLM did not just loot Philly you fucking liar. I know because I live around there and I’ve been reading about the story you’re referring to all day. Fuck off with that bullshit, the cops themselves say that the looting was by opportunists that were unconnected to the peaceful protests that were going on the same night.
In other countries hitting someone in a vehicle is considered assault regardless of the circumstances and is enforced as such.
I would condemn the driver, the one with the responsibility to drive a tonne of steel around safely, over the pedestrian being an nucence(?) on the road.
If the law is the other way around. The law needs to be changed.
I absolutely feel the drivers actions should be condemned, as it is surely illegal for him to do what he did. However the people blocking the road are also very likely doing something illegal as well.
The situation here is just like reddit. People are justifying one group doing something illegal, while condemning the other person.
Yes, one is much worse than the other, but the world isn’t black and white. People fail to understand that at the most basic level. Commiting a crime that ends in you getting hurt often times means you have no recorse.
What if the people that got hit, have no protection because they were blocking the road?
The guy goes to jail and they are SOL. Now, not only are they out of the protest to fight for basic human rights that we should all have, they are in the hospital, making no money, with even more bills stacking up, and potentially (it doesn’t seem like it in this case but it’s not impossible) looking at charges.
Justifying something that is deemed illegal is how laws change.
It is true that the world isn’t in black and white. But laws are and we must respond in kind.
If it isn’t justified, you should be able to come up with a rational argument against me, of which I’m amicable. The argument being about the driver having more responsibility.
To me, a person in a lesser position of control of a situation should be given more leeway in terms of outcomes. This is because with control comes responsibility and failure of that responsibility comes justice.
You would have to argue that the driver had less control over this situation.
I agree with your first point on how laws change. Why should we justify blocking traffic though?
The protest is about corporations giving people peanuts while the investors and C level employees take in millions. Not the ability to stand in the way of oncoming traffic. Those are two very different things.
The driver is absolutely responsible for his actions, but a group of people intentionally placing themselves in a road, be it entry/exit or just a main road are also partly responsible for their actions that led to their injuries. They know and understand what they are doing.
Hundreds or thousands of people walking out of these factories effectively stopping production speaks volumes, and definitely has an effect. Why tarnish that effect by acting irrationally and taking yourself out of the fight because you want to stand in the road?
This isn’t a single person with less control of a situation. This is a group of organized protesters trying to send a message, and knowingly obstructing traffic when the walk out itself is more effective.
I 100% support the UAW but I can’t openly justify either party doing what they did, the driver who is absolutely more responsible nor the protesters that were knowingly putting themselves in a position to get physically hurt. It does nothing aside from potentially hurt your message when you do that.
We are not going through a civil war, we are not at the point of people fighting with their lives (yet) over the necessity of basic survival. Both parties were wrong in this situation.
The difference is you’re actively trying to both sides it.
To me, there is a substantial difference in optics and consequence between hitting someone in a car and standing on a road.
The latter is barely worth talking about when the former is the topic of discussion, especially when the justification seems to be - they were in the way.
Oh my fuck, blocking an exit to a property with a bunch of scabs working on it is not equivalent to blocking a major highway where the closest exit is to the only hospital in the area. You are absolutely defending the corps when you continue to make the style of arguments you make. Get real.
Doesn’t matter if it’s a main road or an exit to done. It is still likely illegal.
You are confusing my logic in thinking that these UAW protesters should be protecting themselves with your logic of thinking I’m defending the corporations.
The UAW protesters should be protecting themselves. They are already putting themselves on the line with the protest. They shouldn’t put themselves in more danger just so they can be taken out of the fight.
Try to think rationally, educate yourself on the real world and how it works.
And before you say “JuSt UndErsTand bEtteR” “it’s nOt my fAuLt they aRe dUmB” consider who’s the one making a case here and who’s responsibility it is to speak your own points clearly as possible.
I’m fucking awful at wording how I feel sometimes about a viewpoint I have, but just giving up on conveying what you’re trying to get at…. I mean what’s even the point in speaking your mind in the first place then you know? Obviously the way you worded it wasn’t clear enough to convey what you mean, just try again.
Don’t stand in front of oncoming cars if you don’t want to get hit. Don’t be a dick and run people over.
Is that simple enough for you?
Or is reading comprehension not your strong point?
Edit: I apologize for that last line but It’s quite frustrating trying to express a valid and correct point accurately and concisely while consistently being shit on and insulted. Even after going back and reading the several different comments I made, it is pretty clear what I have been saying. Both parties are at fault. I don’t see how it could be misinterpreted to me just straight up blaming the protestors.
Learn how to control your outbursts and your life will be infinitely easier my friend. I’m right there with you, look at my post history too.
You’ll catch more flies with honey than vinegar. There’s all kinds of gadfly’s swarming about on this platform, keep in mind you might appear like one to others. Everyone should be ignoring them or calmly and concisely squashing them anyway. Don’t wanna get squirshed _
Ill join you on the downvote boat. Protest all you want, but they were blocking a exit, not an entrance. They were not blocking people from working, they were blocking them from going home.
Protests should not impede traffic.
Protest without civil disruption is impossible. There’s many many examples of this throughout history. I wish it weren’t necessary, because yes I know things have become so bad under the current capitalistic economy that even a few hours or a day can make/break livelihoods, but it is necessary if we as a society want to have any hope of reclaiming power from our corporate and governmental overlords. They’re simply too entrenched and empowered in comparison to those they abuse at this point to fight with mere words alone.
Removed by mod
I think they should block more roads
Effective protests are disruptive.
Removed by mod
BLM did not just loot Philly you fucking liar. I know because I live around there and I’ve been reading about the story you’re referring to all day. Fuck off with that bullshit, the cops themselves say that the looting was by opportunists that were unconnected to the peaceful protests that were going on the same night.
Block early, block often.
Leave the disinfo peddlers, bigots, and trumpers with no one but each other to talk to.
It may not have been BLM specifically but the pattern and motives are exactly the same. I’m not the only person making that connection.
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1707093499722514692
LOL ANDY NGO??? That’s your rebuttal??? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
What fucking racist publication told you it was BLM, and why did you believe it so readily even though it doesn’t make any sense?
Do you understand hiw picket lines and striking work or are you just missing the fundamental knowledge base?
Do you understand that breaking the law while protesting could be more detrimental to the people that are protesting for better pay and a better life?
I’m not defending the corporations in any fashion. I’m simply noting that it could risk their numbers in doing so.
Edit: added a missing “s”
Depends on the law.
In other countries hitting someone in a vehicle is considered assault regardless of the circumstances and is enforced as such.
I would condemn the driver, the one with the responsibility to drive a tonne of steel around safely, over the pedestrian being an nucence(?) on the road.
If the law is the other way around. The law needs to be changed.
I absolutely feel the drivers actions should be condemned, as it is surely illegal for him to do what he did. However the people blocking the road are also very likely doing something illegal as well.
The situation here is just like reddit. People are justifying one group doing something illegal, while condemning the other person.
Yes, one is much worse than the other, but the world isn’t black and white. People fail to understand that at the most basic level. Commiting a crime that ends in you getting hurt often times means you have no recorse.
What if the people that got hit, have no protection because they were blocking the road?
The guy goes to jail and they are SOL. Now, not only are they out of the protest to fight for basic human rights that we should all have, they are in the hospital, making no money, with even more bills stacking up, and potentially (it doesn’t seem like it in this case but it’s not impossible) looking at charges.
Justifying something that is deemed illegal is how laws change.
It is true that the world isn’t in black and white. But laws are and we must respond in kind.
If it isn’t justified, you should be able to come up with a rational argument against me, of which I’m amicable. The argument being about the driver having more responsibility.
To me, a person in a lesser position of control of a situation should be given more leeway in terms of outcomes. This is because with control comes responsibility and failure of that responsibility comes justice.
You would have to argue that the driver had less control over this situation.
I agree with your first point on how laws change. Why should we justify blocking traffic though?
The protest is about corporations giving people peanuts while the investors and C level employees take in millions. Not the ability to stand in the way of oncoming traffic. Those are two very different things.
The driver is absolutely responsible for his actions, but a group of people intentionally placing themselves in a road, be it entry/exit or just a main road are also partly responsible for their actions that led to their injuries. They know and understand what they are doing.
Hundreds or thousands of people walking out of these factories effectively stopping production speaks volumes, and definitely has an effect. Why tarnish that effect by acting irrationally and taking yourself out of the fight because you want to stand in the road?
This isn’t a single person with less control of a situation. This is a group of organized protesters trying to send a message, and knowingly obstructing traffic when the walk out itself is more effective.
I 100% support the UAW but I can’t openly justify either party doing what they did, the driver who is absolutely more responsible nor the protesters that were knowingly putting themselves in a position to get physically hurt. It does nothing aside from potentially hurt your message when you do that.
We are not going through a civil war, we are not at the point of people fighting with their lives (yet) over the necessity of basic survival. Both parties were wrong in this situation.
It sounds like we agree on principle.
The difference is you’re actively trying to both sides it.
To me, there is a substantial difference in optics and consequence between hitting someone in a car and standing on a road.
The latter is barely worth talking about when the former is the topic of discussion, especially when the justification seems to be - they were in the way.
Oh my fuck, blocking an exit to a property with a bunch of scabs working on it is not equivalent to blocking a major highway where the closest exit is to the only hospital in the area. You are absolutely defending the corps when you continue to make the style of arguments you make. Get real.
Doesn’t matter if it’s a main road or an exit to done. It is still likely illegal.
You are confusing my logic in thinking that these UAW protesters should be protecting themselves with your logic of thinking I’m defending the corporations.
You’re missing a whole lot more than just an s.
Fuck off. Your inconvenience is not worth more than their livelihoods.
And you are putting words in my mouth.
I never said it was an inconvenience.
The UAW protesters should be protecting themselves. They are already putting themselves on the line with the protest. They shouldn’t put themselves in more danger just so they can be taken out of the fight.
Try to think rationally, educate yourself on the real world and how it works.
You are taking out of both sides of your mouth. “They didn’t have been run over but they had it coming!”
More putting words in my mouth.
Good job.
Explain yourself differently then?
And before you say “JuSt UndErsTand bEtteR” “it’s nOt my fAuLt they aRe dUmB” consider who’s the one making a case here and who’s responsibility it is to speak your own points clearly as possible.
I’m fucking awful at wording how I feel sometimes about a viewpoint I have, but just giving up on conveying what you’re trying to get at…. I mean what’s even the point in speaking your mind in the first place then you know? Obviously the way you worded it wasn’t clear enough to convey what you mean, just try again.
BOTH ARE WRONG, BOTH ARE TO BLAME.
Don’t stand in front of oncoming cars if you don’t want to get hit. Don’t be a dick and run people over.
Is that simple enough for you?
Or is reading comprehension not your strong point?
Edit: I apologize for that last line but It’s quite frustrating trying to express a valid and correct point accurately and concisely while consistently being shit on and insulted. Even after going back and reading the several different comments I made, it is pretty clear what I have been saying. Both parties are at fault. I don’t see how it could be misinterpreted to me just straight up blaming the protestors.
Learn how to control your outbursts and your life will be infinitely easier my friend. I’m right there with you, look at my post history too.
You’ll catch more flies with honey than vinegar. There’s all kinds of gadfly’s swarming about on this platform, keep in mind you might appear like one to others. Everyone should be ignoring them or calmly and concisely squashing them anyway. Don’t wanna get squirshed _
Be well
I suppose it makes sense that you’re less likely to listen to people if you feel like you are being shit on and insulted.
…
Maybe if you weren’t shitting on and insulting people they wouldn’t come at you with a similar attitude.
Where are you getting this presupposition that striking means putting oneself in danger?
What real world factor involves this bizarre assumption?
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Ill join you on the downvote boat. Protest all you want, but they were blocking a exit, not an entrance. They were not blocking people from working, they were blocking them from going home. Protests should not impede traffic.
“Protest all you want, just don’t do anything effective.” Gotcha.
The refrain of piece of shit pearl-clutching reactionaries everywhere.
Protest without civil disruption is impossible. There’s many many examples of this throughout history. I wish it weren’t necessary, because yes I know things have become so bad under the current capitalistic economy that even a few hours or a day can make/break livelihoods, but it is necessary if we as a society want to have any hope of reclaiming power from our corporate and governmental overlords. They’re simply too entrenched and empowered in comparison to those they abuse at this point to fight with mere words alone.
What other kinds of people do you believe you have a right to hit with your car?