Putin, I'm not saying that every protest is bad. I'm not sure where you're reading that. I'm saying that letting the government kill you, directly or indirectly, in the name of your cause isn't going to accomplish what living and fighting for said cause would.

I presume you don't disagree with me on the fact that blocking an ambulance and potentially endangering a patient's life, or blocking police or fire crews or any other emergency crews, is not heroic.

@Putin I assume you're referring to the Revolutionary War. For one thing, Americans had no representation for their laws. Secondly, Americans at the time were treated better than those back in England. Thirdly, you're committing post hoc fallacy. The US could easily have gone the way of Canada.

@Tr ... martyrdom can bolster a movement or kill it. Typically, when martyrdom bolsters a movement, it only does so temporarily. A living leader can keep a movement going for decades.

"Putin, I'm not saying that every protest is bad. I'm not sure where you're reading that."

You're condemning a tactic as "immature" that is routinely used to fight unjust laws and policies. Ambulances inevitably got blocked when roads are blocked.

"I assume you're referring to the Revolutionary War."

No, I'm referring to every major civil disobedience campaign in American history.

"Ambulances inevitably got blocked when roads are blocked."

Then what's heroic about blocking a road?

"You're condemning a tactic as "immature" that is routinely used to fight unjust laws and policies."

Yes, because when you're dead, you can't fight that unjust law or policy. You're dead.

"You're condemning a tactic as "immature" that is routinely used to fight unjust laws and policies. Ambulances inevitably got blocked when roads are blocked."

Inconveniencing the general populace generally fails to garner you sympathy from them. Look how the Hong Kong protests went.

"Then what's heroic about blocking a road?"

It challenges the political system to deal with a protest's demands.

Please explain to mean your theory of political change.

"Yes, because when you're dead, you can't fight that unjust law or policy."

And how exactly do you fight against an unjust law if you're actually doing anything to fight it?

"Inconveniencing the general populace generally fails to garner you sympathy from them. Look how the Hong Kong protests went."

It depends on whether people value the cause over convenience.

*if you're not doing anything to fight it* I meant to say. If you don't challenge the system, nobody is going to care about your demands.

"If you don't challenge the system, nobody is going to care about your demands."

Trump isn't quite part of the system yet. I presume that the protesters' goals are to get Trump to drop out (impossible) or to get Illinois people to vote against Trump, a message that they aren't going to get through by blocking the roadways. Instead, they only anger the people they're seeking to convince.

*were

They aren't seeking to convince Trump supporters, who are a lost cause. They're seeking to prevent Trump from incitement, since the political class has given him a pass on doing this for the last 5 years.

"They're seeking to prevent Trump from incitement"

Why would Trump cease his "incitement" because protesters are blocking a road in some faraway city?

" since the political class has given him a pass on doing this for the last 5 years."

Are you suggesting that the government should take away Trump's freedom of speech?

"Why would Trump cease his "incitement" because protesters are blocking a road in some faraway city?"?

Huh? They blocked the roads leading to Fountain Hills, where the Trump rally was being held. Chicago managed to get a rally canceled due to the protests. It's the same idea.

"Are you suggesting that the government should take away Trump's freedom of speech?"

No but they've lovingly embraced him, taken his endorsements, had him on their talk shows, attended his weddings, and have not done anything at all to challenge him on his rhetoric for years. Now all of a sudden they're "outraged". Too little, too late.

"It challenges the political system to deal with a protest's demands."

It stalls ambulances. It blocks police. It blocks emergency crews. It may very well block someone trying to attend a funeral or someone who is gonna get fired if they're late to work again. It does not affect the people in power, it affects everyone else.

"And how exactly do you fight against an unjust law if you're [not] actually doing anything to fight it?"

That's my point. You can't fight an unjust law if you're dead. If you're alive, you can. Do you actually think that they only way to fight for something is to die for it?

"It does not affect the people in power, it affects everyone else."

No it absolutely affects people in power. If it did not then the authorities would ignore them. If transportation is shut down, cities are shut down, and the economy is affected. Nobody in power is going to ignore disorder and a halt to commercial activity.

"You can't fight an unjust law if you're dead."

Blocking a highway via civil disobedience rarely leads to death.
You have yet to answer the question as to how you "fight for something" if you're not willing to challenge the authorities except via processes that they control and approve of?

You think that authorities only act when the people in power are affected? What kind of world view do you have if you think the police don't do their job and take care of a crime unless it affects their higher-ups? 99 out of 100 murders and home invasions would go unsolved because the people wouldn't be important enough to deal with. That's not how it works. Authorities respond to crimes. Blocking a highway is a crime. It gets reported to them by regular people, not suits driving Bentleys as a rainy day car.

The economy isn't grossly affected by a highway being stopped for an hour or two. Commerce still happens. Trade still occurs. The city doesn't shut down. Find me one highway protest in this country that has actually resulted in the entire siege of a city. That's what you're describing.

Blocking a highway is just stupid. I've already demonstrated that. Standing in front of a tank barreling straight at you is also stupid.

"You have yet to answer the question as to how you "fight for something" if you're not willing to challenge the authorities except via processes that they control and approve of?"

You are extrapolating sooooooo far. I never said that. I said that being dead prevents you from fighting for a cause. You can challenge authority without dying or risking your life. It's not that hard, people do it every day.

For fuck's sake, can you even read? You quote me saying that you can't fight an unjust law if you're dead and somehow that means to you that I don't think people should challenge authority. How do you draw that from what I've said?

"You quote me saying that you can't fight an unjust law if you're dead and somehow that means to you that I don't think people should challenge authority. How do you draw that from what I've said?"

Calm down. You're equating highway protests with risking life, and then complaining about extrapolation. I never exhorted people to "die" in order to protest effectively, I've been arguing here repeatedly that civil disobedience is effective, and that blocking roads is a very common and effective way to protest that has been done everywhere.

So unless you're claiming that civil disobedience leads to death or is likely to lead to death, your insistence on this "death" line doesn't make any sense. But I will say that yes, a certain amount of courage about one's own physical security is necessary in order to successfully confront the authorities. If the authorities know you're afraid, it's not going to take much in the way of intimidation to get rid of it.

You referenced protests in Tiananmen. I said that the guy who stood in front of a moving tank was dumb for risking his life. When I talk about risking life, I'm not talking about the highway protests. Those are dumb for different reasons. You need to read more closely.

I'm yet to see how blocking a highway is an effective form of protest. Other than getting the protestors arrested and the road reopened within an hour, it's not going to accomplish much.

If the only intention of the protestors is to get on TV, then I'll admit that blocking a highway is massively effective.

"I said that the guy who stood in front of a moving tank was dumb for risking his life. When I talk about risking life, I'm not talking about the highway protests. Those are dumb for different reasons. You need to read more closely."

No you were sufficiently vague about what you were referring to. You said you thought it was immature to put yours or others lives at risk after I mentioned the shutting down of Tahrir Square and Tiananmen Square, which were first and foremost a form of "highway protest". In a separate post you mentioned the tank man being crazy.

"I'm yet to see how blocking a highway is an effective form of protest. "

Blocking Tahrir Square brought down the Mubarak government, so I'd say that worked. Many similar sudden resignations of authorities have happened due to street protests where large important areas of traffic were blocked. Your assessment is ahistorical.

I again ask if we're not allowed to block roads or engage in "risky" illegal protests what exactly are tactics that you approve of?