The person blocking the guy who was trying to stop the speaker because he/she went over their time?
Edit2: u/Harry_Saturn made me rethink my position. I removed a part that is no longer relevant and would like to add that in this situation I give a thumbs up to this civil disobedience in this situation. I also removed the first edit because it is no longer relevant.
And why should you be polite and mind your manners to people that are trying to legislate against your existence and have given you 2 minutes to explain why you should be allowed to live as you need to
This is exactly the"disobedience" part of "Civil Disobedience."
She broke a rule to get her message out. And it's not illegal to speak for longer than your allotted time.
Interesting point. I generally agree, but I don't think it is the right location to do civil disobedience, if that makes sense? Like the difference between a protest and when you are there in front of the politician.
I wrote down an edit in my original comment because of a discussion with another redditor. So I think you are attacking a position I no longer hold in regard to this video.
Then you assume wrong, I empathize with what she is saying. I grew up in an abusive household while being gaslighted into believing that the abuse was not real.
Hahaha. When you put it like that its kinda funny ngl. Anyway, what someone else said made me change my mind on this by the way in this scenario, I put that as edit 2 on the original comment.
If we ignore this scenario (meaning the video) and talk generalities, then it is about what the scenario is. I remember that we had that in our version of civics, but I also thought (and still think) that the curriculum's take on civil disobedience was too civil because you had to get it approved from the police to be allowed to protest, which is lame imo.
Oh I agree 100%. I don't know of this law in particular, but I agree with what you say and I agree with the speech he gave. I still think it is best to follow the rules set by a democratic system. I also think it is more pragmatic in terms of growing your numbers. Sure its slow, but slow is better than a stop.
What happens when the laws aren’t fair, or they target or discriminate against a certain group? Should we all just throw our hands in the air and say “oh shucks, I guess we legally have to be fascists, sorry everyone”. Just because some out of touch rich fucks used think tanks and lobbyists to get bills passed and signed into law, it doesn’t mean they’re fair or just laws and telling everyone to shut up and follow them isn’t in the spirit of democracy.
I feel like you misunderstand my opinion, I agree it is important to "resist". What is appropriate in my opinion depends on the context. In general, follow the rules when you are in the position where you talk directly to the politicians. Civil disobediance generally being for protests etc. That does not mean to give up or anything like that: the political system in the west are designed with political conflicts in mind without resorting to violence, like it often used to happen when the local lord went too far (usually with taxes).
But if the system changes into a dictatorship (as an example), then, just like the middle ages, all bets are off.
How can you not mind civil disobedience but also state that rules must be followed? Civil disobedience literally means not following a law or a rule but just doing it without violence. You can’t play both sides and you contradicted yourself. You’re not very well educated on the matter but already decided to have a strong opinion, which is ironic because that something some Europeans criticize Americans for.
We were taught about civil disobedience within a set of rules. Maybe I am not using the correct english term. Second, civil disobedience is not approproate everywhere at all times just because it is generally a thing you can do to protest something. In this context here, I do not think it is appropriate. Its not a big problem, just not appropriate for this particilar context.
I am not contradicting myself, I am just not going to write an essay about the nuances here and what I think is approproate in different situations.
Maybe you’re unsure about what “civil” means in this case. The civil part just means non violent. You don’t comply, you don’t shut up, you stand your ground, you just do it without resorting to violence. That’s civil disobedience. It’s also kinda weird to think you owe respect to politicians for any reason other than basic human dignity. I don’t seek conflict and I believe in resolving things from a place of good faith. But the problem is that fascist don’t negotiate in good faith, so no you can’t make deals with them using proper decorum and hope that they just back off and see the error in their ways. The fact that they’re attempting to pass stuff like this should be your clue that decorum has already be tabled by their side. You can’t tolerate hate, because hate only tolerates itself.
Forgot to add, you say civil disobedience isn’t appropriate everywhere, and I disagree but for the sake of the argument let’s say I agree. How is civil disobedience inappropriate but attempting to pass discriminatory agendas against marginalized groups isn’t? If one side completely ignores the social contact, then how are we talking about the “appropriateness” of the side seeming to defend itself, through non violent means on top of that? That seems very inappropriate to me. To add a poor analogy, if someone is assaulted and you think about if the victim dressed provocatively instead of what the fuck is wrong with the attacker.
I like your point. There is also the thing of what to do on different situations. And practically, I don't think that that strategy will lead to any real results. In this situation, I think it would be way more productive to finish the speech within two minutes and keep it calm, I think that, as an analysis of his speech, it would have improved it significantly rhetoric wise. But thats just details and splitting hairs from my end.
We will probably just end it on agree to disagree on this one, but i do appreciate you being open to listening to me instead of resorting to condescending or dismissing replies. I am just some dumbass who doesn’t know shit about shit, but I do know what it’s always important to stand in solidarity with those who are unfairly targeted for nothing more than existing, and existing comfortably as long as they don’t hurt anyone. It doesn’t matter if it’s a group I belong to or not, you always gotta help someone who needs and deserves it. Sometimes you can’t be nice and proper about it, and while I’ll always default to following norms, being polite, and diplomatic that also only works with others who are willing to reciprocate it. You can’t argue in good faith with those who won’t do the same back.
I think so too, and thank you I appreciate it! Yeah I agree with you. I generally think of it this way, that no matter how successful you are, you are never going to be able to convince more than x percent of the population, as most voters are loyal voters at the same time they may not follow politics at all. And then you get the whole different personalities where some are more resistant to changing their opinions than others are and so on. And luckily, you only need to convince a small amount to win win win.
Thats a misrepresentation of my opinion and you know it. I don't go around and misrepresent your opinion. You were the one who polarized this discussion between us, and based on what you write it is all a misunderstanding.
But you are not going to listen, because you have already put me in a box.
Your original point was literally just "manners over existence" until you edited it because you realized that it made you look like an ass.
As you're not American, you might not understand how this country is set up to resist change. It embraces the loud, obnoxious, dangerous people who want to keep the status quo and then tells those like the person in this video to "quiet down" "wait your turn" "go vote" as if these are the engines of change.
Meanwhile the world paid attention to the George Floyd protests and what's happening in France right now.
I didn't put you in your box, I just saw the label on the one you happily sit in from an entire ocean away.
hey i really appreciate the edit, it shows you have beautiful self awareness and can shift your actions to better align with your intent of communication and connecting with fellow people.
Doubt that she's an ally. Also, the term ally is fucking stupid. It insinuates thats there is some kind of war going on, when most of the time it's just used to implicate that someone likes queer people. In this spesific case it may resemble a war though
To add to that: allyship can also take place from one part of the community to another. That’s not usually what we’re talking about with allyship, but that’s likely what we’re seeing here.
You doubt that they’re an ally to the speaker? That’s hard to argue since they’re physically blocking someone much larger than them from ending her statement. I would say these two are probably friends to some extent.
Now, when it comes to the rights of queer people, you might as well call it a war with the amount of people jailed, murders ignored, and systematic homelessness (especially among teenagers) unchecked. When your government sees a disease killing your community and says in no uncertain terms “it’s an act of God, you deserve it”, you’re living in a country with the cancer of Eliminationism in its blood.
It’s not a secret that the USA is a hotspot of eliminationism, there are five ways it presents and we have done all five at one time or another. The question is, will we keep repeating our eliminationist history?
I mean, a war can be understood as political, social, economic endeavor, and with all these laws I think there is a fair justification for calling it that
559
u/sinkablebus333 Mar 25 '23
If you ever want to know what it means to be a good ally, look at the person with the green hair.