Do you believe that Activism through disturbing the general public is justified?

[diddle]

Personally I'm rather disgusted by it, and more than that I think it's f**king stupid as it antagonizes people rather than swaying them. Of course there are hundreds of examples, wouldn't want to bother you guys with such a long list though.

Example; imagine you're a person on their way to work who believes the Ferguson verdict was wrong, yet lo and behold you're now about to be late to work now because a band of morons decided to block a transportation route, despite the fact you agree with them.

Also, do these people have jobs given they're interrupting innocent people's lives on workdays?

TLDR: Do you believe it is justified and/or smart to disrupt the lives of individuals uninvolved with an issue to bring attention to an issue?

http://www.startribune.com/local/min...283891941.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/...f-america.html

http://www.startribune.com/local/west/286443781.html

[Deleted]

Depends on what it is about and how it's done.

[Darkis]

In extremely rare cases. Majority of such activists though deserve an inoperable tumor where sun doesn't shine.

[Dispraise]

Generally speaking, going out of your way to piss me off is the absolute worst way to get me to agree with and/or support you. I think you'd have to be suffering from a chronic case of stupid to think it would turn out otherwise.

[Revi]

It can be, yes.

[Tyderi]

Depends on what it is about and how it's done.

Bussing in professional protestors and burning a town to the ground isn't the correct way?!

[Daerio]

Yes, it's justified. I don't think hurting anyone is, but disrupting the economy is fair game in my opinion. Costing somebody a dollar is like a sin in this capitalist bastion we live in though, so it's almost as if causing a business to close down for a day is somehow worse than if somebody got hurt.

Look at protests in France... and the rest of the first world. I'm not sure you'll find a lot of support there for the police-controlled methods we use here, along with the police brutality against completely nonviolent protesters. How dare they protest anything, right? I mean, things are pretty good here. /s

[st33l]

No.
/10chars.

[tehealadin]

Depends on what it is about and how it's done.

This.

I think you need a very good reason to disturb the general public. Most of the time I have seen this happening, such as with some of the occupy movement, I whilst sympathetic (to begin with at least, before it was hijacked by lunatics) to their motivations, I remember seeing a lecture theatre being occupied and people had their education disrupted and I felt that as angry as they may be, anger and indignation did not give them the right to do that, depriving people of an education will not somehow overthrow "the man".

I think you need to be careful when doing it. I worry sometimes that people get carried away and take it as a licence to be dicks. Don't get me wrong- I am not against protesting, the right to do so is fundamental for a free society, and there are some issues that I am glad when I see protesters taking it to the streets. I also think however that it can easily descend into something wholly unhelpful. And sadly there is no shortage of people willing to make things that way.

[diddle]

To those that say it is justified, why?

To me it seems to do nothing but bastardize a worthy cause by antagonizing innocent people.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.s...nneapolis.html

Why the hell do you think it will help deter racism in Ferguson by messing up traffic in Minneapolis?!?

[larrakeyah]

It's not justified, I'm with Diddle (lol).

[Daerio]

Why the hell do you think it will help deter racism in Ferguson by messing up traffic in Minneapolis?!?

As Boomzy said above, people who give a shit do what gets results.

What exactly would you do to bring change about? Nothing effectual or realistic, I'm sure.

But I should be outraged because some people got stuck in traffic, or businesses lost money, and everything did not go exactly as normal after what happened. Boo hoo.

Again, this is not related to violence or even destruction of property, but the question of whether or not "disrupting the peace" has a place.

Lunch counter sit-ins during the civil rights movement of the 60s is pretty close to what we're talking about here. Those were pretty disruptive at the time.

[Sledfang]

I support their right to protest (legally), but I also agree with the growing disenchantment in this particular brand of activism. People see the civil rights era and how important it was. However, with today's protest we see that its dominated by hoodlums and teen angsty-ness.

[Spectral]

I'm generally repulsed by mass movements. I suspect that this has more to do with my general distaste for group activities than anything else, with a bit of extra dislike coming from how much I hate inconveniencing other people.

[Korgoth]

Nope Id like to see the people blocking off freeways shot with rubber bullets, taze, and then tossed into Mexico. You want to protest, go do it in front of City Hall, or Congress, or the National Mall, not in the middle of a roadway.

[Garnier Fructis]

Yes, it's justified. I don't think hurting anyone is, but disrupting the economy is fair game in my opinion. Costing somebody a dollar is like a sin in this capitalist bastion we live in though, so it's almost as if causing a business to close down for a day is somehow worse than if somebody got hurt.

It's not just dollars. You can ruin people's lives by blocking transportation routes.

[Sindile]

I would rather my day not be disturbed or hindered by some protesters

[Deleted]

It's not just dollars. You can ruin people's lives by blocking transportation routes.

But you for sure ruin a nation if you block their protests.

[Deleted]

But you for sure ruin a nation if you block their protests.

Why the hell would a nation be ruined over that?

[larrakeyah]

But you for sure ruin a nation if you block their protests.

u wot mate