What is Peaceful Protest?

I don't understand much of the disparagement of OWS here on ATS. OWS was meant to be disruptive, yet from what I have seen also peaceful. Others have seen it differently. Maybe some have confused disruptive, which doesn't have to mean politely disruptive, and see acts such as yelling at passersby and such as confrontational or violent.

Pissed off people don't tend to be nice, they tend to be pissed off, which is why they are protesting.

I don't know, maybe I am not verbalizing well. This question has bothered me for quite some time now, seeing how hated OWS has been seen when they are trying to do more than most.

I'm not making my point, which I'm not sure what it is. I'll try later.

reply to post by Liquesence

Not every point must be met for the definition to apply.

If we cannot confront the vagueness and ambiguity of language by insisting on clarification, then we are not communicating, merely engaging in sophistry.

When understanding the term "violence" under the definition of abuse or injury then all you've described could certainly be construed as violence. Obstructing a persons right of way is an injury and an abuse. Some may consider this to be a "peaceful" form a rights violation, but using peaceful as being synonymous with disparagement or denial of human rights is oxymoronic.

However, this what is construed is not necessarily what is the case. I had an incident years ago with police officers who had decided that what I was doing by right was a violation of an ordinance. So, when they ordered me to stop doing what I was doing, I responded by saying "I don't understand". They got louder with their command, and I maintained the same volume insisting I did not understand. I was handcuffed and unlawfully detained.

After a few moments of me challenging their jurisdiction these police officers finally came to realize they stepped deep in it and uncuffed me and tried to make nice. In that lame effort they tried to explain to me that the three words I used; "I don't understand" could be legally construed as violence because of "non-compliance". I laughed at them and asked them if they honestly believed they could convince a jury - particularly considering that jury would have to then listen to my arguments - that my use of the phrase "I don';t understand" was actually violence. Both police officers looked sheepishly and kept silent.

The difference between their argument, and mine now, lies in the violation of rights. I had not violated their rights by insisting I did not understand, they did violate my rights, which they understood, and why they ultimately backed off.

As long as it is excusable in peoples mind to deny and or disparage the rights of others, there will be no peace.

www.mindbodygreen.com...

I'd probably define this as a start.