Wasnāt there another video where he made a real bone-headed victim-blaming comment about racism on campus.
Actually, I think that was [name-most-any-school-that-is-surprised-by-this-stuff].
Happy about the white allies who joined the protestors. Wish it hadnāt taken so long. The imagery of the white people blocking off the African American protestors, as well as the ones waving the speakers away as if theyāre full of it is sickening.
Fat, middle-aged white men trying to silence anyone non-white/non-male/non-hetero*. Sounds about right, doesnāt it. Shameful.
*delete as appropriate
Physically blocking a public road and impeding another personās right to move freely is not āpeaceful protestā.
Hello!
You seem to be āAn Adult,ā posting on The Internet!
Can I interest you in readings on Civil Disobedience?
Shouting with a megaphone also stretches the meaning. Nice to see professor Click in the midst again. If I did that to my boss, I would be fired.
someone wants to disobey laws by standing in the street, iām free to disobey laws by nudging them out of the way.
Did they know the president was going to be there? Was that the purpose? Why were there so many people watching (I saw them lining the blocks in every direction). Was this part of a longer event?
Would anyone be expected to exit their car and engage in a discussion, or would that be unique to his responsibility as president? If he had exited and discussed, would that have stopped their shouting, or would that be seen as an attempt to silence them?
If I would not be expected to exit, does that mean if a group of people block my path and shout at me with megaphones I am required to wait patiently until they let me pass?
Kinda seems like everybody in the video is being kind of an asshole. Why should I care about any of them in this context?
Thank you for the link. Apparently you think it proves something. Would you like to formulate that idea in your own words? If you could address how physically impeding other people from moving around freely is āpeacefulā, that would be awesome.
It seems like the power structure there didnāt really think he had to go until they realized the football team really wasnāt going to play games and they were going to lose lots of money.
Iām an old fashioned liberal who likes freedom and justice and kind of felt that Occupy Wall Street was not nearly organized enough. This issue, however leaves me with a lot more questions than answers. I am of the impression that the demonstrators were not just blocking the street but they were blocking a parade route that the President taking part in. Iām trying to figure out why Mark did not feel it was enlightening to mention this, as it seems to me to change the equation pretty significantly. People were there to see a parade, and it speaks to motive other than bigotry leading to their behaviors.
It is clear that this group was specifically targeting the University President to set up for removal. For the life of me, for all the smoke on this topic, I fail to be enlightened as to the REAL reason this president was specifically targeted for removal, cause THIS wasnāt it Mark. Apparently some sort of lack of action on some actual hate crimes, but nobodyās giving specifics, and I canāt even find much about the hate crimes. Now that would be a boingboing article Iād like to see, as this article just seems to be a blunt-object. I really want to know what is going on in depth before I jump on a social justice bandwagon, especially lately when a lot of what presents itself as progressive seems to me to be anything but.
Physically blocking a public road is a well recognized form of nonviolent peaceful protest. A form of nonviolent protest that was used extensively during the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. It is not wholly passive, however, it is nonviolent.
Violent protest involves Molotov cocktails, broken windows, vandalism, bodily injury, fire, etc.
The fact that you donāt like the protesters or disagree with them in some way does not Magickally remake the meaning of a term thatās been in use for a century. Their activities are not āviolentā simply because they inconvenience you or offend your sensibilities.
Ohh, not exactly. Most laws against āstanding in the streetā are obviously inapplicable to the civil action(s) captured in this video. Theyāve been used against such protests in the past, however itās broadly recognized that such use was an illegitimate abrogation of some of our most potent political rights (the inalienable ones. Google it boy.)
Beyond that, ānudgingā is an act of physical assault (low degree, ~3rd or so, depending on the jurisdiction). It is a very large step further into illegality than shouting, arm linking and standing in a thoroughfare. There are many trial lawyers in every state in this nation who would happily concurā¦ on behalf of the nudgee.
You are confusing āpeacefulā and ānonviolentā. I never said it was violent, so Iām not sure why you addressed that to me.
As for not liking the protesters, I generally donāt like people who infringe on other peopleās rights.
Oh this thread, thoā¦
Comparing the two makes for interesting reading. Iām not sure that either answers the question of why the Univ Prez was targeted for removal though.
Peaceful is not a perfectly accurate term to describe these protest actions, however, itās regularly used loosely as an antonym for āviolentā. You write idiomatic American English, so Iām very confident that you already know this, and know that you are making a bogus distinction.
Youāve made no negative comments about the dickish heckler (at c. 5.30ā in the video clip, the āyou kin go 'round meā man with the open beer) and physical assaulter (the ānudgerā in the GIF above, pushing physically against the armlinked student protesters, seen at c. 6.50ā in the video). In light of the fact that you have negative words only for the student protestersā¦ Iām afraid I do not believe you are motivated by a āgeneral dislikeā of those who infringe on the rights of others.
That sweet assertion reads like self-congratulatory rot.
