Blocking streets at random is not nonviolence

a reply to: Grovit

See, now we've found something on which we can agree. "It needs addressing."
So who should address it?
Only those being directly impacted?
Who gets to say how it is addressed?
Is it my duty as a citizen to address the problem I've discovered?

Now, as it happens, I agree with all of you who are saying that simply blocking off random streets is going to cause a lot of frustration. A freeway, highway or bridge wouldn't be my target. I believe in directing protests to the proper place. In this instance that would be the police departments or city hall. I believe the First says we have the right to assemble and address our concerns to the government. The denizens of government should be the first and most disrupted. When letters are ignored and speeches fall on ears that refuse to hear...what is the next proper method of addressing the issue? When voting has failed to change anything then we must put our feet in the street if we expect to see any changes.

You say, "say what you want and so what you want, just dont bother me with it." and yet apparently you are very bothered by it because you've spent a goodly amount of time expressing your opinions on the issue. I do assure you that I never meant to bother you. I didn't realize you had been inconvenienced by one of these protests. That must have been quite traumatic.
As I said above, if you don't realize the very real costs to every taxpayer----(and by the way, I'm not worried about your taxes, I'm worried about mine and my children's and the grandkids' too)--- I was attempting to point out to you the economic impact the issues of police brutality and corruption have on a community.
We are witnessing the results of issues being ignored by those who are public servants charged with bringing order and prosperity to our community.
If that result can be avoided by blocking off a few government buildings or streets and taking the grievances to the responsible parties, I'm all for it if it avoids the violent reactions we're seeing today. It's freedom in action.

originally posted by: diggindirt


I believe the First says we have the right to assemble and address our concerns to the government. The denizens of government should be the first and most disrupted.

You say, "say what you want and so what you want, just dont bother me with it." and yet apparently you are very bothered by it because you've spent a goodly amount of time expressing your opinions on the issue.

yes, we have the right to free speech and the right to protest.
we do not have the right to protest wherever and whenever we want...
anyway

there are varying degrees of being bothered. maybe i should have used the word annoyed.
i express my opinions on lots of issues....
this is my outlet for conversation.
i dont interact with people in real life.
i dont talk to people about their opinions and what matters to them. so, i do it here.

i am around people as little as possible....and trust me, it is very little
i will say again....talking about in the real world now..not on a forum

say what you want. so what you want say it loud. scream it from the rooftops. just leave me out of it

that is pretty much how i feel about most things.
my level of caring or involvement basically stops when i hit post.

i isolate and insulate myself from people as much as possible. much better that way

a reply to: Grovit
Gee, I never would have guessed....
Yes, indeed, I can see the allure of the hermit's life sometimes.
Peace, love and freedom brother.

But you didn't answer my questions.

See, now we've found something on which we can agree. "It needs addressing."
So who should address it?
Only those being directly impacted?
Who gets to say how it is addressed?
Is it my duty as a citizen to address the problem I've discovered?

If you agree that the issue needs to be addressed, I'm all ears about how you suggest we go about addressing it.
Who, in your opinion has the responsibility to begin to make the needed corrections?
How do we get those responsible parties to act?

The edges of the structure of our society seem to be beginning to crumble. I believe with all my heart that the foundations of our society; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, are strong, solid foundations upon which to build a civil society. And yet those are the very things being threatened by the brutality and corruption in all levels of government.
I don't want to see the entire structure crumble so if it takes getting out in the street and getting into somebody's face---it is my duty to do that according to the men who founded this country--- to do what it takes to make it right. They saw violence as the only solution. Today we see people who are convinced that violence is the answer. I cannot agree. So we must encourage the non-violent protests and stop lumping protesters in with violent instigators and provocateurs.
Peace, love and freedom---or life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness---whichever your prefer.

originally posted by: diggindirt

If you agree that the issue needs to be addressed, I'm all ears about how you suggest we go about addressing it.
Who, in your opinion has the responsibility to begin to make the needed corrections?
How do we get those responsible parties to act?
first, im not a hermit. i go out of the house all the time. i just avoid people. i go to stores and such but i ignore people. i try my hardest to ignore them and not talk to them. except for a couple of family member, i dont let me come to my house. i just try not to interact. i do plenty of observing though...there does seem to be an issue with police brutality. it should be addressed. as to who in my opinion should address it? well, i am more confident in who should not verses who should. i dont know who should. i know who should not. you should not. not with the attitude you have. onequestion should not. not with his 'i dont care about the law(his words) and attitude about forcing people to listen

The edges of the structure of our society seem to be beginning to crumble. I believe with all my heart that the foundations of our society; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, are strong, solid foundations upon which to build a civil society. And yet those are the very things being threatened by the brutality and corruption in all levels of government.
i just dont see it the same way. yes there are police that are excessive in their tactics. but as a whole, citizens in this country do have the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. they dont however have the right to steal from others and attack cops
I don't want to see the entire structure crumble so if it takes getting out in the street and getting into somebody's face---it is my duty to do that according to the men who founded this country--- to do what it takes to make it right.
yeah well i dont feel the same way. i dont have to and people like you shouldt take it upon yourself to decide i need to. im not mr patriot like you. frankly im tired of the founding fathers and the war of independence tripe and how things were back then blah blah...its 2014 man. methods need to change

They saw violence as the only solution. Today we see people who are convinced that violence is the answer. I cannot agree. So we must encourage the non-violent protests and stop lumping protesters in with violent instigators and provocateurs.
Peace, love and freedom---or life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness---whichever your prefer.

as i said. i prefer to be left alone.
you keep your protest, boston tea party war of independence crap to yourself.
yeah, there seems to be an issue with the cops..the issue also seems to have a lot to do with the people that seem to think they can attack them and flat out not comply with them. so, i have little sympathy for them.
comparing this situation to the founding of this country is quite frankly retarded and it makes me want to listen to what you have to say even less.

a reply to: Aleister

Putting technology and cars before people is violence. Disassociating people from the cities in is violence. Putting economy and money before humainty is violence. Sitting on the street cross legs is an act of non violence. Bearing witness to the fact something is wrong...

purp..

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: NavyDoc

No it's not.

If something is happening that needs immediate public attention then I'm all for it.

So you would support people protesting in front of your house and stopping you leaving it for you to take part in a protest that would block the road.... As you wanting to stop people going about their normal business is something that needs immediate public attention!

a reply to: hellobruce

I would serve them coffee and hot cocoa. Freedom.