• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Students should be punished for protesting

Lukraak_Sisser said:
Yes, how dare students protest in a way that might be noticed.
First of all they should tow the government line and secondly, IF they protest they should only do so by appointment somewhere out of the way where they don't bother other people. (and still be removed from the university of course)
Click to expand...
Hey, yeah. Those two, Hans and Sophie Scholl deserved everything they got.

:rolleyes::sarcasm::rolleyes:
 
There's a couple of different questions here. One is "Should students be punished for protesting.' The other is, "should schools be punished for students' protesting." My answer is no ... they should not be punished for meeting up, carrying signs, singing songs. But that isn't civil disobedience, it's peacefully expressing their opposition to a war, or anything else they feel strongly about.

When you introduce the concept of civil disobedience, sometimes getting arrested is the *whole point*. No - getting *photographed* being arrested is the whole point. Cops bodily carrying away "innocent" cross-legged protesters" is the image you want to promote. Rosa Parks planned to get arrested and was selected for the role partly for her clear head.

But if your civil disobedience includes, for example, blocking traffic in a way that impedes emergency vehicles, and there is a law or policy against that, the individual in the road should be asked to move. Calmly, preferably by someone trained in negotiations. If someone who appears to be a leader says, "We'll leave if the dean comes and talks to us," try to get the dean to talk to them. If people stay in the roadway, begin making arrests. They may decide they've won at that point. Don't lose your temper, even if rocks start flying from all around. Announce,
"if violence persists we will use teargas to clear the area." Oops, here comes another rock. OK, here's the teargas. Let the arrests begin, because all of them have been told to disperse due to public safety concerns.

What I've never understood - I will look for myself, but if you have anything, great - is exactly what is being said and done at these protest. All the time I was hearing about anti-Semitism I wondered how many Muslim students were dealing with Islamaphobia. "Ceasefire now," "I stand with the Palestinian people," "Let my people go," even "Stop the genocide" are fine with me. Not fine: death threats, obviously. I personally do not equate anti-Zionism with antisemitic, but it's very easy to cross the line between the two sentiments.

If hate speech against Israel/Jews/Zionism is not tolerated, neither should hate speech against Palestinians, Arabs or Muslims. I've seen plenty of people saying Islam should be eradicated and Israel should "finish the job" by letting Gaza starve. I would imagine the Constitution would protect most of these phrases, but if there are university rules against such speech, schools should enforce them evenly. And inciting violence may be a crime despite 1A protections. I find it hard to believe that Muslims haven't also experienced a ****storm of hate but I haven't really researched it.

BTW if anyone says "they elected Hamas" - I have calculations somewhere indicating that only 6 percent of Israelis now living ever voted for Hamas. Can't find them at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
I have never criticized students for protesting. I protested quite a lot myself when I was in college.
Click to expand...

That's all you have been doing all thread long. BTW, how are those answers on the top of Page 1 coming along? You almost finished with your first draft yet?
 
Nihilianth said:
That's all you have been doing all thread long. BTW, how are those answers on the top of Page 1 coming along? You almost finished with your first draft yet?
Click to expand...
No, I have never condemned anyone for simply protesting. Its cool in my book. I did lots of protesting when I was younger.

But I did it legally, civilly, and without threatening people, destroying property, harassment, restricting the freedom of others.


I may be wrong but I'm getting the impression that the only form of protest that you believe in, is the kind that is illegal or steps on the rights of other people.
 
Walking around with a cardboard sign for a little while and going to Starbucks is a form of protest, I guess, but I' think of it as more milquetoast disagreement. I think of protest as a couple steps past that, when it's time to let them know they have gone too far and are sitting on a powderkeg of unrest, with wholesale destruction of order and property right around the corner. Kind of an opening volley. Problem is, the destruction is often indistinguishable from a Philly after-game party. Our recreational destruction looks a lot like our political protesting destruction, so you can't objectively tell which is which.

ETA: a cardboard sign march indicates to the powers that be that they are annoying citizens that aren't going to do much of anything. Burning a police precinct lets them know that they are pissing off the people that will kill them.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Walking around with a cardboard sign for a little while and going to Starbucks is a form of protest, I guess, but I' think of it as more milquetoast disagreement. I think of protest as a couple steps past that, when it's time to let them know they have gone too far and are sitting on a powderkeg of unrest, with wholesale destruction of order and property right around the corner. Kind of an opening volley. Problem is, the destruction is often indistinguishable from a Philly after-game party. Our recreational destruction looks a lot like our political protesting destruction, so you can't objectively tell which is which.

ETA: a cardboard sign march indicates to the powers that be that they are annoying citizens that aren't going to do much of anything. Burning a police precinct lets them know that they are pissing off the people that will kill them.
Click to expand...
That's fine. 1 million people on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial with cardboard signs demanding equal rights for black people is a pretty strong message. Even if they are being completely peaceful.

The idea that protest must be violent, uncivil, rude and destructive in order to do any good is ridiculous. And shown to be false many many times by history.
 
Hercules56 said:
That's fine. 1 million people on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial with cardboard signs demanding equal rights for black people is a pretty strong message. Even if they are being completely peaceful.

The idea that protest must be violent, uncivil, rude and destructive in order to do any good is ridiculous. And shown to be false many many times by history.
Click to expand...
A major peaceful march *can* be impactful, of course. The question posed here is about much smaller protests. Had you forgotten?
 
Thermal said:
A major peaceful march *can* be impactful, of course. The question posed here is about much smaller protests. Had you forgotten?
Click to expand...
If the protests are much smaller that suggests that the agenda and goal is not very popular.

Regardless it has been proven time and time again that peaceful nonviolent protest can affect significant political change. In my view violent protest is for the weak minded and the lazy. And for angry immature insecure people who just have a need to kick ass and ◊◊◊◊ stuff up.
 
Hercules56 said:
If the protests are much smaller that suggests that the agenda and goal is not very popular.
Click to expand...
Could be. Could also be that it's the first shots fired in a larger movement that has yet to gain momentum, possibly because not many are aware yet. You're oversimplifying to a comical degree.
Hercules56 said:
Regardless it has been proven time and time again that peaceful nonviolent protest can affect significant political change.
Click to expand...
No one is disagreeing. You're arguing against an imaginary opponent.
Hercules56 said:
In my view violent protest is for the weak minded and the lazy. And for angry immature insecure people who just have a need to kick ass and ◊◊◊◊ stuff up.
Click to expand...
That's what the cardboard sign holders think. Folks like our Founding Fathers weren't walking around with cardboard signs, then having some tea. They were pissed off well past that point, and acted.
 
Thermal said:
Could be. Could also be that it's the first shots fired in a larger movement that has yet to gain momentum, possibly because not many are aware yet. You're oversimplifying to a comical degree.

No one is disagreeing. You're arguing against an imaginary opponent.

That's what the cardboard sign holders think. Folks like our Founding Fathers weren't walking around with cardboard signs, then having some tea. They were pissed off well past that point, and acted.
Click to expand...
A lot has changed since 1776. Mankind has evolved. Well, at least most of us.
 
You obviously cant stop an invading army and missiles with peaceful protest.

Thanks for the laugh.
 
Hercules56 said:
You obviously cant stop an invading army and missiles with peaceful protest.

Thanks for the laugh.
Click to expand...
You argue that protesting with violence is unnecessary because we "evolved". I point out that protesting with violence is alive and well, thriving even. Same as it ever was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom