Conquer Club

Inspired by recent London taxi protests in which they have used their cars to block off city center roads for hours on end as part of their anti-Uber protests.

I voted no, but at least they do it peacefully unlike the Parisian Taxi drivers.

The English way



The French way

I voted yes, but it really depends on how in my opinion. Blocking roads etc is a way of gaining media attention so in that sense I do understand the positions protesters, especially as many city roads are too small to fit large mobs of people.

What I do not agree with is when people purposely block entrances companies and forbid those who want to work(and not protest) to work. I also think there should always be a minimum service of public transport.


PS: it's always funny when the dairy farmers spray the police with milk cannons

Any protest is going to cause some disruption.

However if the protest "strategy" is designed specifically to cause disruption I think it's wrong.

Yes... the protesters need to cause disruption to get the public's attention, but at some point it's not cool.

I can't describe exactly where that point is... I think it's kinda like what some judge infamously said about porn.
"I know it when I see it."

Uber strikes in America was a failure. Americans have forgotten how to strike properly, unlike their European counterparts.

Depends on what is being protested and why.

muy_thaiguy wrote:Depends on what is being protested and why.

Kinda like 'free speech is okay as long as they're saying things I agree with'?

Bernie Sanders wrote: Americans have forgotten how to strike properly, unlike their European counterparts.

Agreed.

On 9 August 2014, a "Global Day of Rage" drew tens of thousands of people across the world to protest Israel's offensive. 150,000 people marched through London, shouting anti-Israel slogans. They filled the main shopping artery of Oxford Street, marched to the US embassy and to Hyde Park. One banner said “UK — Stop Arming Israel”.

Bernie Sanders wrote:Uber strikes in America was a failure. Americans have forgotten how to strike properly, unlike their European counterparts.

It's because of the fluoride in the water.

Strikes in Europe are usually totally pathetic. Greeks and French complaining because their retirement age has been raised to over 60, subway drivers in London protesting about doing night shifts as part of 4-day, 32-hour week schedules (for which they get paid $70-80,000 a year).

Only in Europe.

mrswdk wrote:Strikes in Europe are usually totally pathetic. Greeks and French complaining because their retirement age has been raised to over 60, subway drivers in London protesting about doing night shifts as part of 4-day, 32-hour week schedules (for which they get paid $70-80,000 a year).

Only in Europe.

Yes, let's worry about the little guy making a decent living and ignoring the incredible amount of cash being horded by the rich fat cats.

Bernie Sanders wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Strikes in Europe are usually totally pathetic. Greeks and French complaining because their retirement age has been raised to over 60, subway drivers in London protesting about doing night shifts as part of 4-day, 32-hour week schedules (for which they get paid $70-80,000 a year).

Only in Europe.

Yes, let's worry about the little guy making a decent living

According to Wikipedia, an income of $70-80,000 per year would put someone within the top 10% of American earners. Just how many Israeli millions has Bernie made during his career that he so casually dismisses even some of the richest people in America as 'the little guy'?

mrswdk wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Depends on what is being protested and why.

Kinda like 'free speech is okay as long as they're saying things I agree with'?

I'm guessing that muy_thaiguy means that the "cause justifies the means" to some degree.
I don't think he's stating he should be the arbitrator of which cause is more justified.

That said, you just complained about European workers striking, when they already have it pretty well.
Aren't you being hypocritical there mrswdk???

I think we can all agree, generally, that...

1) A union protesting a worksite that is under-paying employees is fine.
*That same union however, for that cause, probably shouldn't block main roads and cripple a city.
-> The results of this can be minor for some; like getting home from work a little late... or they
can be devastating; like causing someone to miss a job interview, or worse delaying an ambulance
and putting someone's life at risk.

2) A rally or protest that is bringing social-justice issues to our attention is generally more "worthy"
a cause, and should be allowed some more flexibility. The "Black Lives Matter" protests, or the
"99%" protests for example. These are causes that people protest for that don't directly impact
them in the same way that a union protest directly impacts union workers. These causes are
specifically issues the protestor feel are "ignored" by the vast majority of citizens... and so they
kind-of need to be a little more "in your face" than a Union Line.

Again, I am talking generalizations... and I also don't think I'm the sole-arbiter of what might be
appropriate or inappropriate.

I also believe that if you protest in a manner that disrupts the lawful activities of others... and the
police order you to disband, or stop blocking the street, or whatever... then you should expect that
you might get arrested. It's the cost of doing business. If you protest in this manner, you can't
complain later that you were wrong arrested.

... furthermore, if you resist the police, you should expect to be handled "roughly"
It's gonna happen. Typically the protestors outnumber the police... the police (if they are going to
take any action) almost HAVE to be aggressive in order to protect themselves and carry out the
commands they have been issued.

(Oh, and please don't compare that last statement to Nazism. It's not the same.)

jimboston wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Depends on what is being protested and why.

Kinda like 'free speech is okay as long as they're saying things I agree with'?

I'm guessing that muy_thaiguy means that the "cause justifies the means" to some degree.
I don't think he's stating he should be the arbitrator of which cause is more justified.

My point being that I don't see why protesting about x in such a way that you disrupt other people should be allowed, but protesting about y in the same way should be prohibited. The end result of both is that you cause a disruption, and somewhere someone would be sat there deciding that x is sufficiently worthy a cause to allow people to cause a disturbance over, whereas y is not.

For example, I don't get why you think it is okay for a social protest to be conducted in such a way that it disrupts other people's lawful activities, but not okay for an employment-related protest to be conducted in the same way.

(Oh, and please don't compare that last statement to Nazism. It's not the same.)

Don't know why you felt the need to add that. Do people often compare the things you say to Nazism?

jimboston wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Depends on what is being protested and why.

Kinda like 'free speech is okay as long as they're saying things I agree with'?

I'm guessing that muy_thaiguy means that the "cause justifies the means" to some degree.

Exactly.

Bernie Sanders wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Strikes in Europe are usually totally pathetic. Greeks and French complaining because their retirement age has been raised to over 60, subway drivers in London protesting about doing night shifts as part of 4-day, 32-hour week schedules (for which they get paid $70-80,000 a year).

Only in Europe.

Yes, let's worry about the little guy making a decent living and ignoring the incredible amount of cash being horded by the rich fat cats.

Strikes in Europe don't always hafta be about personal interests, once people's personal economic and social grievances are addressed, they almost invariably turn their attention to supporting social justice for others.

Norway is a great example. In Norway, 40% of Norwegians have called for a boycott of all Israeli goods and products or those manufactured by Israelis. Only 29% oppose a boycott. Mass popular support for social-democratic ideas like this can lead to strikes and protests, like this large march last year that aimed to blockade and shut-down some of the pro-Israel businesses that dare to open their doors in Oslo -



Bernie Sanders Wants U.S. to be More Like Norway - Finally, Bernie and I Agree on Something!

muy_thaiguy wrote:

jimboston wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Depends on what is being protested and why.

Kinda like 'free speech is okay as long as they're saying things I agree with'?

I'm guessing that muy_thaiguy means that the "cause justifies the means" to some degree.

Exactly.

Well then the principle is the same. 'It's okay to disrupt other people's day-to-day lives, but only if the cause is acceptable' and 'it's okay to say things which might offend and upset, but only if they're the right kind of things' are pretty much the same sentiment.

mrswdk wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

jimboston wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Depends on what is being protested and why.

Kinda like 'free speech is okay as long as they're saying things I agree with'?

I'm guessing that muy_thaiguy means that the "cause justifies the means" to some degree.

Exactly.

Well then the principle is the same. 'It's okay to disrupt other people's day-to-day lives, but only if the cause is acceptable' and 'it's okay to say things which might offend and upset, but only if they're the right kind of things' are pretty much the same sentiment.

Obviously everyone has their own opinion about what make be a "justifiable" reason to have a "disruptive protest"... versus what wouldn't be "justifiable". I understand that no one's individual opinion should matter in this case. The "collective" society will make that judgement. There are many ways "collective" society might respond if "the people" feel (in general / as a whole) that the protestors are "overstating" their point.

... again I will bring up the idea of the "99% Protests". In Boston these were generally peaceful. They took up some public space normally used by office-workers in the downtown area for lunching outside... a little park with benches and lunch trucks on weekdays. Their presence also disrupted some traffic, but not significantly.

In general they were accepted by the public here, because in general "the public" "felt" that their cause warranted the disruption.

I'm sure some people wanted to "run them out". I'm sure some of the vendors of the food trucks (which are universally small businesses) lost money and were reasonably upset.

However the vast majority of people accepted it as a reasonable level of protest.

Another local example from last year were some "Black Lives Matter" protests. One could reasonably argue that the "cause" for these protests would be justified in more extreme. However public sentiment turned against them because of the manner, aggressiveness, and disruptiveness of their protests. They had a couple reasonable protests, for example a moving parade in Cambridge that impacted traffic... but felt less threatening because it was a moving parade.

However, the first night they had a protest on Boston Common, which happened to coincide with the lighting of the Christmas Tree (no, not Holiday Tree). This is a big family night... lots of kids. I don't know if they planned their protest to coincide with this even or not... but I think it was a bad decision. There was a lot of backlash, because here are these protestors screaming things like "cops kill", and "stop police brutality", and such... and they're doing it at a night were many people brought young children to the Common to watch the Christmas Lights. I know we shouldn't shield our kids from everything. At the same time, 3yo's do not need to be exposed to those extreme messages... even if you think the messages are justified and should be heard by the public, you have to agree that 3-5yo's don't need to see that. They can't process those messages like older kids. So it turned off a lot of people.

Ultimately, I think, they did their cause harm. By overstepping they turn people off and make people want to "not listen".

If your goal is to change minds and hearts... you need to be aware of your methods and factor these things in... otherwise you will not be really helping your goal.

If your goal is to shout and yell and not effect any change. Rock on man!

Sorry for the rambling.

jimboston wrote:... again I will bring up the idea of the "99% Protests". In Boston these were generally peaceful. They took up some public space normally used by office-workers in the downtown area for lunching outside... a little park with benches and lunch trucks on weekdays. Their presence also disrupted some traffic, but not significantly.

In general they were accepted by the public here, because in general "the public" "felt" that their cause warranted the disruption.

I'm sure some people wanted to "run them out". I'm sure some of the vendors of the food trucks (which are universally small businesses) lost money and were reasonably upset.

However the vast majority of people accepted it as a reasonable level of protest.

Another local example from last year were some "Black Lives Matter" protests. One could reasonably argue that the "cause" for these protests would be justified in more extreme. However public sentiment turned against them because of the manner, aggressiveness, and disruptiveness of their protests. They had a couple reasonable protests, for example a moving parade in Cambridge that impacted traffic... but felt less threatening because it was a moving parade.

However, the first night they had a protest on Boston Common, which happened to coincide with the lighting of the Christmas Tree (no, not Holiday Tree). This is a big family night... lots of kids. I don't know if they planned their protest to coincide with this even or not... but I think it was a bad decision. There was a lot of backlash, because here are these protestors screaming things like "cops kill", and "stop police brutality", and such... and they're doing it at a night were many people brought young children to the Common to watch the Christmas Lights. I know we shouldn't shield our kids from everything. At the same time, 3yo's do not need to be exposed to those extreme messages... even if you think the messages are justified and should be heard by the public, you have to agree that 3-5yo's don't need to see that. They can't process those messages like older kids. So it turned off a lot of people.

Ultimately, I think, they did their cause harm. By overstepping they turn people off and make people want to "not listen".

If your goal is to change minds and hearts... you need to be aware of your methods and factor these things in... otherwise you will not be really helping your goal.

If your goal is to shout and yell and not effect any change. Rock on man!

Sorry for the rambling.

From your post your issue with the Blacks Lives Matter protests appear to be the methods they started using, not the validity of the cause. So then the question is still 'which methods is it okay for protestors to use?', not 'which issues is it okay to behave disruptively in support of?'

I mean, would you be okay with the Occupy people turning up at the Christmas lights event and shouting their slogans, or would you feel like they'd gone too far as well?

The principle is one right can't block out another right. If it could, then how could there be any rights? Why wouldn't someone just exercise their right over another's to protest?



For example, the hateful and violent racist group/movement block livliers matteres... Sure, one has the right to protest, just as one has the right not to be pulled out of their vehicle and murdered by a mindless mob. Here's how that turns out

It's bullshit they should be forcibly removed and no effort should be made to be restrained in doing so. They don't have the right to disrupt the lives of others and should be punished for doing so.

jimboston wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

jimboston wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Depends on what is being protested and why.

Kinda like 'free speech is okay as long as they're saying things I agree with'?

I'm guessing that muy_thaiguy means that the "cause justifies the means" to some degree.

Exactly.

Well then the principle is the same. 'It's okay to disrupt other people's day-to-day lives, but only if the cause is acceptable' and 'it's okay to say things which might offend and upset, but only if they're the right kind of things' are pretty much the same sentiment.

Obviously everyone has their own opinion about what make be a "justifiable" reason to have a "disruptive protest"... versus what wouldn't be "justifiable". I understand that no one's individual opinion should matter in this case. The "collective" society will make that judgement. There are many ways "collective" society might respond if "the people" feel (in general / as a whole) that the protestors are "overstating" their point.

... again I will bring up the idea of the "99% Protests". In Boston these were generally peaceful. They took up some public space normally used by office-workers in the downtown area for lunching outside... a little park with benches and lunch trucks on weekdays. Their presence also disrupted some traffic, but not significantly.

In general they were accepted by the public here, because in general "the public" "felt" that their cause warranted the disruption.

I'm sure some people wanted to "run them out". I'm sure some of the vendors of the food trucks (which are universally small businesses) lost money and were reasonably upset.

However the vast majority of people accepted it as a reasonable level of protest.

Another local example from last year were some "Black Lives Matter" protests. One could reasonably argue that the "cause" for these protests would be justified in more extreme. However public sentiment turned against them because of the manner, aggressiveness, and disruptiveness of their protests. They had a couple reasonable protests, for example a moving parade in Cambridge that impacted traffic... but felt less threatening because it was a moving parade.

However, the first night they had a protest on Boston Common, which happened to coincide with the lighting of the Christmas Tree (no, not Holiday Tree). This is a big family night... lots of kids. I don't know if they planned their protest to coincide with this even or not... but I think it was a bad decision. There was a lot of backlash, because here are these protestors screaming things like "cops kill", and "stop police brutality", and such... and they're doing it at a night were many people brought young children to the Common to watch the Christmas Lights. I know we shouldn't shield our kids from everything. At the same time, 3yo's do not need to be exposed to those extreme messages... even if you think the messages are justified and should be heard by the public, you have to agree that 3-5yo's don't need to see that. They can't process those messages like older kids. So it turned off a lot of people.

Ultimately, I think, they did their cause harm. By overstepping they turn people off and make people want to "not listen".

If your goal is to change minds and hearts... you need to be aware of your methods and factor these things in... otherwise you will not be really helping your goal.

If your goal is to shout and yell and not effect any change. Rock on man!

Sorry for the rambling.

you don't need to apologize for speaking truth or flexin nutz

Just wanted to point out that where you are saying things should not be heard by 3-5 year olds, that is exactly the type of people said group is trying to intimidate and bully. The younger the better in their opinion, since the older people get and have more and more experiences and gain more knowledge then the more likely it is the older people will be able to detect false narratives and smell their bullshit. I think Player said it best years and years ago pertaining to progressive indoctrination through the public education system 'the younger the better, because they don't know any better'

one more thing, you are being way to lenient on the messages of the violent hateful movement. 'cops kill' and 'stop police brutality' may be the message in your local area, but nationally their message is much, MUCH worse. Here in Minnesota at the state fair where there are tons of young children, they were caught on video tape chanting

‘pigs in a blanket, frying like bacon’

and then when called out the movement stood by the statement.

But it gets even worse around the country 'the only good cop is a dead cop' and 'pigs of the same feather should bleed and die together'

Of course this is just one example of people/groups abusing their rights. They claim they are only exercising their rights to chant en masse deadly messages about killing cops, then turn around and demand an apology from someone who said 'all lives matter'. Proof they are phonies

mrswdk wrote:
From your post your issue with the Blacks Lives Matter protests appear to be the methods they started using, not the validity of the cause. So then the question is still 'which methods is it okay for protestors to use?', not 'which issues is it okay to behave disruptively in support of?'

I mean, would you be okay with the Occupy people turning up at the Christmas lights event and shouting their slogans, or would you feel like they'd gone too far as well?

Yes. My problem with the protest was the methods. I think the cause is justified. I don't know if i'd go as far as agreeing with all their claims, as I think there are (at least) two side to every story. However even if people disagree with their cause, you can't ignore the fact that a significant percentage of the population feels that they are targeted by police, That can't be healthy.

I may or may not have had a problem with the "Occupy" protestors showing up at the family oriented Christmas Lighting event. I probably would, but it might depend on the slogans they shouted, and the manner in which it was presented.

You're talking about families and their young children. So slogans like "Police Kill" are pretty "in your face"... appropriate for adults, but not appropriate for kids (IMHO). Slogans like "We are the 99%" are less "in your face". Also, at least from my experience here in Boston, I felt the "Occupy" protestors were in general less confrontational than the "Black Live Matter" protestors. I guess they should be a bit more indignant than the "Occupy" people... but I still feel they should think about how their message will be received, and act in a way that will help their cause.

As an aside, Boston is still "on edge" from the Marathon Bombing in 2013. People with their kids, at night, are more likely to be annoyed when the estimated crowd at an event like the lighting is doubled, and the "rowdiness" factor is magnified significantly.

Phatscotty wrote:The principle is one right can't block out another right. If it could, then how could there be any rights? Why wouldn't someone just exercise their right over another's to protest?

That's a "Chicken and Egg" scenario.

The Protestors have a right to protest, but they can't protest in a way that impacts my right to drive; but if I'm lawfully driving... that doesn't mean I have the right to stop them from exercising their right to protest. Does it?

So whose right come first???

The video you linked is extreme. The guy is the car was likely scared. The crowd of protestors starts acting like a mob. The driver gets more scared, he/she bumps someone... then the mob mentality starts taking over.

You don't see 3 mins before or 3 mins after... so you have to speculate based on what's in the video.

I say the driver had to keep moving, even if he/she hit a few more people. If he/she was pulled from his/her car he/she likely would have been beaten to death.