Gaza war protesters shut down Golden Gate Bridge, block traffic in other cities
Gaza war protesters shut down Golden Gate Bridge, block traffic in other cities
Cars were stopped and chains were used to block traffic lanes on the famous bridge. Protesters also blocked traffic in Chicago, New York City and Seattle.
You're viewing a single thread.
ITT- You're allowed your first amendment right to protest war crimes, just not where I can see or be inconvenienced. Because all of the civil rights and anti war protests in the past 70 years that were truly successful were very polite and inconvenienced no one.
MLK Jr. literally wrote about this exact same thing in his Letter from Birmingham jail.
that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action’; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a ‘more convenient season.’ ”
Yeah I remember reading that in college. He wasn't the bland platitudes guy high schools teach.
He was also assassinated right after he started pivoting from civil rights to economic inequality (starting the Poor People's Campaign). Funny coincidence, that.
If it were today, he would've "commited suicide" with a shot to the back of the head.
it's just not a good time guys, maybe next year when things are better!
Stopping traffic on the Golden Gate bridge to protest a genocide on the other side of the planet is so far from direct action.
When the state responsible for the genocide is reliant on our military aid its disingenuous to refer to it as a "genocide on the other side of the planet"
It's realistic. And these protesters could be realistic and maybe even effective if they tried to disrupt production of that aid we're sending to Israel. But I'm pretty sure F-15s aren't made on a bridge.
There is difference between peaceful protest and sabotage. Exactly like there is a difference between discussing with someone and punch them in the face.
If you think people should not discuss because it’s pointless and should directly switch to punch in the face I suspect you are not necessarily the internet stranger I want to listen to
disrupting production is sabotage?
disrupting production is sabotage, but disrupting the economic health of a city is...?
at least you would be inconveniencing people that have a stake
Yet here I am, in Germany, seeing that many US citizens apparently care about the situation. This I might not have known without this article.
It's about exposure. That's why climate activists glue themselves to the streets here in Germany. Does it make sense? Not really. Do people know the cause they're fighting for? Absolutely. That's a good thing.
I wish they cared this much about the people suffering in Sudan right now... Where's the mass protests for those people..
The U.S. isn’t funding the Sudanese military junta or the foreign fighters, that’s such a ridiculous counterpoint to try to make.
They're still suffering? Why does it matter about USA funding the military in regards to what I am saying.
At least 16000 dead this last year in Sudan.. look it up, educate yourself. It's really horrific what those human beings are enduring. I'm also not American yet there's big protests disrupting our cities, so your country providing money to whoever doesn't mean anything to me.
Why do you care about the Palestinians or Israelis or whatever but you aren't putting the same effort into caring about the Sudanese suffering? It seems extremely hypocritical.
I guess my point is more that it's hypocritical for all these big protests over this one war but they aren't caring about this other war.
I want you to stop and think about something. The same indifference you are showing towards the Sudanese is the same indifference that a lot of us North Americans trying to live our life feel towards this stuff happening in Gaza.
You don't "care" about them (unsure of wording, maybe "don't think about them" is better?) the same way we don't care (or can't gather the mental energy to worry about what is happening across the ocean when we are struggling to take care of our families with high rent and high food prices and our own problems). We have our own life issues and while it's no where near as awful as what's happening to the people in either of those regions, it's hard to gather energy to care beyond "oh that's terrible" when you are struggling in your day to day life.
Stopping up a major bridge isn't going to help anyone. If they want to make a difference perhaps going to the place the politicians are would work better. Screwing over normal citizens trying to live their life isn't going to make any of them care more, it will have the opposite effect, people who are tired or don't care won't suddenly be sympathetic. They'll get angry at the protestors for making their day even harder. Disrupt the politicians lives, they're the ones who actually control this stuff.
Maybe I'm just fedposting, but I think probably my only objection to this protest is that it wasn't extreme enough, and I don't think it accomplished as much as it probably could've considering all the people protesting got arrested anyways. Probably a good amount of caltrops on the bridge and a bunch of cards or spray paint could've accomplished about the same goal, and I dunno if anyone would've even been arrested that way. Probably would take less in resources, too.
That's if you even looking at the same target, I dunno if shutting down the golden gate bridge is a great thing to hit up if you're looking to protest gaza. I would probably think one of many even local politician's domiciles, city halls, or lockheed martin manufacturing plants, offices, infrastructure, etc. would be better things to hit. I dunno of the economic or social impact or protesting at the golden gate bridge for what is basically an afternoon is going to put anyone under duress. Maybe the most you could say of it is that it's a mild social escalation, which, granted, isn't nothing, but is less direct and is harder to quantify the impact of.
They arrest them to clear the bridge. They tried to charge the ones in 2023 with ridiculous stuff but they eventually dropped all the charges in exchange for 5 hours community service. Don't give them the ammo they need to actually lock up protestors.
I know lets destroy random peoples cars?? wth
I mean, the people they're irritating aren't the ones that can do anything about it. All you're doing is pissing everyone off. Go to your state's capitol and fuck that place up instead.
Pissing people off is irrelevant. You're irrelevant. You will not be swayed. You have demonstrated that after 6 months of innocent deaths. Even if 100,000 children die. 1 million children die. You're selfish and lazy.
This is direct action, it's about adding a financial cost to the government's direction. They've decided supporting a genocide is more financially beneficial than pursuing justice. If we shut it all down, they'll change their tune.
No, they'll just have the National Guard shoo t you.
Great idea, cause an internal riot precisely when tensions for a civil war are at the highest in decades. Surely that wouldn't come to bite the status quo in the ass.
Basically how I feel about it as well. I'd be right up there with you talking about direct action if we didn't have a presidential candidate and millions of armed politically-charged suburbanites all but waiting for the spark to touch off the powder. Shit, every time we have something vaguely left-wing happen, I have to hear my own family talking about how "they all should be rounded up and dealt with".
You're getting downvoted, but have an upvote. There is precedence for this, ie. Kent State massacre. I think that's what you're getting at.
Is that what you're hoping for?
I mean, it sucks to get inconvenienced by stuff like this. But the goal is to make nations hurt economically for supporting the Palestinian genocide.
Most of the other options available would probably injure or kill innocent people. Like, you're not gonna make a difference without some casualties. Better that casualty be an afternoon instead of your life.
Do you support the Islamic Palestinian Jihad terrorists calling for genocide of the jews?
No. I assume you're talking about Hamas.
I don't support them, but they exist because Israel turned Gaza into a nursery for terrorist cells. I suspect they did it on purpose. They don't give a shit how many civilians die as a result; they need terrorists cells so they can justify their genocide to the rest of the world.
As far as I'm concerned every drop of blood Hamas spills is on Netanyahu's hands.
Go astroturf in hell, bot
It was a legitimate question.
No, it wasn't. We can see your other comments.
Yes, I am aware, it was still an actual question.
Its a loaded question with disagreeable premises.
Can I put this on my gravestone?
Disagreeable premises?? What was disagreeable, the part that was true?
Interrupting labor is the most peaceful way to threaten the capitalist class. If you object to this, you advocate for more extreme measures. Be careful what you wish for.
This argument completely ignores the impact this has on regular people. People who end up late to pick up their kids from daycare and end up owing extra money when they can barely make ends meet as it is. Yeah, this may have some marginal impact on the capitalist class, but it will be far more painful for the employees who WILL be held accountable for being late to work and may easily end up fired, and certainly will not be paid for the time they miss. Let alone the life safety issues this type of demonstration creates. This is holding your peers ransom because of something you want and you take away their autonomy to decide whether or not to take part. If you can't convince people to join your cause willingly, maybe your cause isn't as good as you think it is.
Yes the capitalist class has been waging war on the working class for decades through wage suppression. What do you propose be done to turn things around?
Clock in early /s
I wake up to beat the sun from her glory
I'm only one cigarette away from mobility
It's always punch in punch out
Go to work and go back home-7Mary3
Islamic terrorists could stop.. you know, terrorizing, and hand over the hostages. It's a starting point.
You seem like a person that reallllllly critically examines what they are told!
Yes, that is why my opinions are that of my own.
5 months and still this talking point. Kudos for tenacity.
If you want the inconvenient protests to stop, fucking join them so that the change happens quicker.
Right... because antagonizing and harming people is such a great way to convince them to help you.
At a certain critical mass a protest which interrupts labor needs no more recruits.
Worked for Mandela and the African National Congress.
After taking part in the unsuccessful protest to prevent the forced relocation of all black people from the Sophiatown suburb of Johannesburg in February 1955, Mandela concluded that violent action would prove necessary to end apartheid and white minority rule. Link
Yes I agree. A coordinated approach at all state capitals and Washington, DC would probably have more impact. This is where the people who care about reelected live and work.
Nah, it's random people who are at fault. How dare they have jobs or other things to do
Those people aren't at fault in any meaningful sense no. But collectively their labor keeps everything running. To interrupt labor is to interrupt the means with which the capitalist class commit their atrocities.
Do you want wide support for laws allowing cops to clear these protests out of the street? Because I'm quite sure that's what it'll do.
Ok, I give up then \s
Uh… that’s already happening.
The Supreme Court effectively abolishes the right to mass protest in three US states.
Are you under the impression that SCOTUS decisions represent what is widely supported by the public?
Also, imagine what a different world we’d live in now if Trump hadn’t gotten 3 (!) appointments…
“But I just couldn’t bring myself to vote for Clinton” ugh…
Sure we can do something about it. We can vote against anyone who supports the genocide.
The state level goverment doesn't have as much impact on foreign policy as federal does.
Legislatures are persuaded by polls and bribes, not by reason or empathy.
Did they have a permit to protest on a public road? Freedom of assembly comes with some perfectly rational stipulations.
Would you like them to take it to the free speach zone behind the mall?
I'm sorry I didn't see the word permit in the first amendment. I'm getting old enough to need glasses. Maybe I should try with them?
...
Nope, still no such requirement.
That's like arguing exceptions for hate speech shouldn't exist since it's not in the first amendment.
The US doesn't have exceptions for hate speech. Unless you actively commit a crime while shouting it.
Didn't see anything about age requirements in the second but it's illegal to sell a gun to a kid. Crazy how things work.
Historically kids have never been afforded Constitutional rights. Which is kind of crazy. Almost as crazy as making the idea of kids owning guns equivalent to the bedrock right of a Democracy.
Just trying to show that there's more to the rights in the Bill of Rights than just the text of the Bill of Rights.
To make it illegal to fight for lives vs. Fighting for right to own a gun are not the same. I guess nuance is not your forte?
What a deranged question
Freedoms and rights do need to have rules and regulations. Otherwise you would have nonstop hate speech and death threats protected by freedom of speech or protesting at hospitals and blocking ambulances like during COVID.
One may well ask, “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.
~MLK, Letter from Birmingham
So uh... Have you seen a planned parenthood clinic in the last 20 years? They have escorts for a reason.
So would you agree there should be rules about protestors blocking access to planned parenthood? Or is it perfectly fine the way the system is right now, just allowing them to threaten and harass everyone going inside for unhindered rights or assembly?
Oh so now the road protestors are threatening and harassing the people in the cars instead of just telling signs at them and holding signs?
Lmao.
Literally no one said that. I fully support anyone wishing to protest against Israel's treatment of Palestine and the hypocritical enabling of the democrats. The issue being discussed is whether or not certain rights and freedoms should have rules attached to it.
Blocking a bridge, people say there should not be rules against it because they need to be a disruption to be heard properly. Some people say certain rules preventing the right of assembly should be allowed in certain cases, like blocking hospital access or creating buffer zones around schools and abortion clinics.
Some people say there shouldn't be any rules at all preventing any rights from being expressed.
I'm of the opinion that blocking traffic shouldn't be allowed for protesting peacefully. Line the edges and walkways of the bridge and be as visible as you want with large vibrant signs and megaphones, but don't stand in the street preventing people from getting to work.
Others disagree and simply say that it's a right to do it, but then they are fine with attaching certain rules to other rights like preventing hate speech. It's simply a matter of trying to find where the line should be drawn.
You said it. This entire thing is in the context of protestors blocking the road. Either that or you're trying to deflect rather than deal with the actual issue.
Emergency vehicles just drive up the other side of the road.
And no. Your daily commute just isn't that important. Protests that don't get seen don't mean anything. Pushing people out of sight for your convenience effectively destroys the first amendment.
Please try to develop some reading comprehension.
In the context of
So would you agree there should be rules about protestors blocking access to planned parenthood? Or is it perfectly fine the way the system is right now, just allowing them to threaten and harass everyone going inside for unhindered rights or assembly?
It was in direct reply to your comment about planned parenting protestors.
In none of my comments am I bashing the bridge protestors other than saying they should not be allowed to block traffic, and the right of assembly should have rules and regulations to determine "proper" and "improper" forms of protest.
I don't even know what you are arguing about.
That the second you make proper and improper forms of peaceful protest you've abrogated the first amendment and made violence inevitable. Peaceful protest is the bedrock of all our rights. The people in power already routinely try to neutralize it so they can control the narrative. There's no reason to make it easier for them. We cried foul when the Bush administration trundled the protestors off to free speech zones for security concerns. The convenience of some car drivers doesn't even begin to rate.
I sometimes wonder how people feel about the long game here.. Iran and its proxies obviously want to continue to attack Israel. Do these protestors expect Israel to just allow thousands more rockets to try and land in civilian territory? Do any of these people actually believe that is a realistic view of the world?
IranIsrael and its proxies obviously want to continue to attackIsraelIran and Palestine.FTFY
Iran responded to Israel bombing its embassy. And now Iran has said it's concluded unless Israel wants to escalate.
In what universe is that continuing to attack Israel?
By Iran funding their Hezbollah proxies to continue the attacks (that just caused injury and serious injury to multiple people in Israel)? Seems like a continuation of the assault on civilian territory from an outside perspective.
Hezbollah doesn't need any encouragement from Iran. Not while Israel is still occupying Lebanese territory.
Israel continually commits acts of war against others and gets all the excuses in the world but when anyone attacks Israel in response it's all terrorism and evil.
An objective look at their history would show anyone this. They repeatedly make a big show of accepting peace while continuing to commit acts of war. Then when they inevitably get attacked they play the victim.