g_bambino Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) Actually, I'm talking of people who... hate the fact of dissent first, and the unruly behaviour second. And yet, you weren't anywhere near that specific. You were as general as could be; anyone who denounces the protests was self-righteous and sanctimonious. But, I take your point now and ask: What of it? I don't think the majority of people who disapprove of the methods of protest and don't buy the offered justifications for them are against dissent. [ed.: +] Edited June 4, 2012 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 And yet, you weren't anywhere near that specific. Fair enough; my bad. Now it's been corrected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 I don't think the majority of people who disapprove of the methods of protest and don't buy the offered justifications for them are against dissent. [ed.: +] What would you consider 'appropriate' ways of expressing dissent, that could also be effective? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 What would you consider 'appropriate' ways of expressing dissent... Lawful ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 Lawful ones. Fine but that means Rosa Parks just shuts the phuck up and sits her black ass down at the back of the bus! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 Fine but that means Rosa Parks just shuts the phuck up and sits her black ass down at the back of the bus! Yea, 'cause students in Quebec are in the same position today as people of sub-Saharan African descent in Alabama in the 1960s. For Chrissakes, get some perspective! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) Yea, 'cause students in Quebec are in the same position today as people of sub-Saharan African descent in Alabama in the 1960s. For Chrissakes, get some perspective! So who makes that decision? I'm sure plenty of crackers in the south said she had nothing to complain about too. Protests need to be non-violent. Civil disobedience otoh, is on as far as I'm concerned. These protests have gone way beyond being about raising tuition, that was just the trigger point. They have more to do with the occupy movement, which is why once the violence stopped so many non-students joined them. I'm sure we'll see more of this stuff happening all over the world, at least the free parts, and it will be different trigger points in each case. Edited June 4, 2012 by Canuckistani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 Yea, 'cause students in Quebec are in the same position today as people of sub-Saharan African descent in Alabama in the 1960s. For Chrissakes, get some perspective! This is my perspective... You were asked... What would you consider 'appropriate' ways of expressing dissent... You answered... Lawfull Ones This is a general statement that has nothing specifically to do with these particular protests. Its absolutely valid to point out that civil disobedience has been a part of almost every important protest movement in history... And you just condemned ALL of them with that little statement. If you dont want people to reply to your statements then dont make them... In any case you just told us a whole lot about yourself and your opinion of these protesters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) But, I take your point now and ask: What of it? I don't think the majority of people who disapprove of the methods of protest and don't buy the offered justifications for them are against dissent. [ed.: +] I think they think dissent is fine hypothetically, but they don't actually like to see it. I've heard as much about these "entitled" students who are "ignorant" and so on as I have about the behaviours that are the ostensible point of complaint. Two utterly different issues, incidentally...or not so incidentally. In fact, for these critics, any violence or other misbehaviours that occur are a godsend, because they dislike protests and protesters, and so find a convenient focus for their dislike; but all the other remarks about "entitled students" gives them away; or remarks about their "ignorance" (as opposed, evidently, to sober geniuses like Margaret Wente, and head-cracking police officers...who, after all, are articulating the doctrinal "truths" that our society needs no actual dissent....not when you can vote for this or that corporate Statist!) Only the poor and disenfranchised should protest, evidently...and believe me, if and when they do, the same critics who talk about "entitled protesters" will despise them as well; hell, they're already despised for their terrible crime of being poor and disenfranchised. But then, North Americans comprise an accutely class-conscious and elitist society. I think Canuckistani is right, and that this is all linked to the mass protest movements generally; and we've been hearing the same critiques of all those protesters as well. Violence and serious disruption has little to do with it. Edited June 4, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 I think they think dissent is fine hypothetically, but they don't actually like to see it. I've heard as much about these "entitled" students who are "ignorant" and so on as I have about the behaviours that are the ostensible point of complaint. I think Canuckistani is right, and that this is all linked to the mass protest movements generally; and we've been hearing the same critiques of all those protesters as well. "They're not starving, what do they have to protest about?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) I think they think dissent is fine hypothetically, but they don't actually like to see it. I've heard as much about these "entitled" students who are "ignorant" and so on as I have about the behaviours that are the ostensible point of complaint. I think Canuckistani is right, and that this is all linked to the mass protest movements generally; and we've been hearing the same critiques of all those protesters as well. This is nothing new though. Some people cringe at the idea that anyone would disobey the state and therefore challenge its supremecy. These are people somewhere on the north end of the authoritarian axis, and they just see things differently. Its quite understandable really... its easy to see why imagery of protesters vandalizing stuff or clashing with police would invoke this kind of response in some. Edited June 4, 2012 by dre Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 This is nothing new though. Some people cringe at the idea that anyone would disobey the state and therefore challenge its supremecy. These are people somewhere on the north end of the authoritarian axis, and they just see things differently. Its quite understandable really... its easy to see why imagery of protesters vandalizing stuff or clashing with police would invoke this kind of response in some. People vandalizing stuff and attacking police I have a problem with too, unless there is a dire issue involved - ie heading toward revolution. Peaceful protest and civil disobedience tho, I'm all in favor, even if I personally deem the issue trivial. We should all appreciate that these are signs of freedom, if the state refrains from cracking down on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) So who makes that decision? dre, apparently. Protests need to be non-violent. Civil disobedience otoh, is on as far as I'm concerned. It's unclear what you're trying to say here; civil disobedience is on where and for what reason and how wide ranging and how many non-protesting people affected? Rosa Parks was flat-out denied rights because of her genetic make-up; to protest, she sat on a bus where she wasn't supposed to; she didn't block people from getting on the bus or shut down the entire bus system; she didn't fight the arrest she knew was coming (because she knew she was breaking a law) and didn't level any insults or accusations against the officers who took her into custody. Students in Quebec all have the same constitutional guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms within only "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" and more privileges than Parks could probably dream of; they block roads, hold up traffic, negatively affect business, bully those who disagree with them, hijack campuses, and more because they want other people to keep paying for their already incredibly subsidised tuitions; they cry foul when accused of breaking laws, assume they're above the law, and label as brutal facists the police that try to enforce the law. Any comparison between the two scenarios is incredibly tenuous. They're both protests. That's about it. [ed.: sp] Edited June 4, 2012 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 I think they think dissent is fine hypothetically, but they don't actually like to see it. I don't see any evidence of that at all. It's certainly not my opinion, nor that of anyone I've discussed the matter with. I can't think of anyone other than a person aiming to be an authoritarian despot who wants freedom of expression eliminated. I do, however, think there are too many people who don't understand that freedom of expression isn't unlimited. I'm almost certain that anyone who screams into a camera about their freedoms being squashed by jackboot police has never even heard of S.1 of the Charter, let alone knows its contents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 dre, apparently. It's unclear what you're trying to say here; civil disobedience is on where and for what reason and how wide ranging and how many non-protesting people affected? I support civil disobedience pretty well any time, anywhere, no matter how trivial I deem the protest. The people protesting need to deal with the consequences of their actions - ie be willing to go to jail. The police need to act calmly and arrest people peacefully, no pepper spray etc, and the protesters need to not use violence to resist. In that case I fully support the right of those people, and who am I to judge whether their protest is merited. That to me seems to be the right balance in a democratic state. Of course it rarely happens, since there are always idiots among the protesters now who live to cause violence. And police who use that as an excuse to overreact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 I don't see any evidence of that at all. It's certainly not my opinion, nor that of anyone I've discussed the matter with. I can't think of anyone other than a person aiming to be an authoritarian despot who wants freedom of expression eliminated. Anyone who agrees with Charest certainly thinks there is too much of it; anyone who thinks "free speech zones" ("Orwellian" is an overused term, but this qualifies) are ok thinks there is too much of it; anyone who agrees with Britain's elitist libel laws has serious issues with it... .....and anyone who uses the generic term "protesters" to desribe the actions of some of the protesters is quite cynical about freedom of expression and the right to protest. I do, however, think there are too many people who don't understand that freedom of expression isn't unlimited. I'm almost certain that anyone who screams into a camera about their freedoms being squashed by jackboot police has never even heard of S.1 of the Charter, let alone knows its contents. You can't be certain of it; it's a literal impossibility that you are; but even if you're (coincidentally) correct, that doersn't make them automatically wrong, much less you automatically right. Hell, I have spent most of my life among the uneducated, and they understand certain things that a plurality, if not a majority, of educated folks simply can't perceive, presumably thanks to the indoctrination quality inherent to formal education within a classist and elitist society such as Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 You can't be certain of it... I can't be certain of my almost certainty? Or you missed where I placed "almost" in front of "certain"? You can't be certain of it; it's a literal impossibility that you are; but even if you're (coincidentally) correct, that doersn't make them automatically wrong, much less you automatically right. Hell, I have spent most of my life among the uneducated, and they understand certain things that a plurality, if not a majority, of educated folks simply can't perceive, presumably thanks to the indoctrination quality inherent to formal education within a classist and elitist society such as Canada. So says the person who seems awfully certain... Anyone who agrees with Charest certainly thinks there is too much of it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 I can't be certain of my almost certainty? Or you missed where I placed "almost" in front of "certain"? I did, in fact. Sorry. So says the person who seems awfully certain... "Seems"...just so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 The people protesting need to deal with the consequences of their actions... Well, that kind of awareness and willingness to be held responsible for one's actions doesn't seem to be greatly present in the streets or on the campuses of Montreal and Quebec City these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 Ok, let debate this, what would happen if ALL the students decide to lower student fees they did manage to form a strike and no students showed up for class at the colleges and university and would stay out until they got lower fees? Would the Feds order them back to school because no teachers were working, no inside workers, no need to order food for services, the ripple effect would spiral down and hurt the economy? How long would they have to stay out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 Ok, let debate this, what would happen if ALL the students decide to lower student fees they did manage to form a strike and no students showed up for class at the colleges and university and would stay out until they got lower fees? Would the Feds order them back to school because no teachers were working, no inside workers, no need to order food for services, the ripple effect would spiral down and hurt the economy? How long would they have to stay out? They would just import immigrants that already have the education that jobs need and are willing to take a lower wage. Then they would tell the Canadian students "tough we have a majority for the next 4 years what you gonna do about it." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 (edited) Lawful ones. They were lawful ones until the government decided to create new laws in the middle of a protest, essentially undermining any ethical validity those laws could otherwise have. Edited June 4, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 I don't see any evidence of that at all. It's certainly not my opinion, nor that of anyone I've discussed the matter with. I can't think of anyone other than a person aiming to be an authoritarian despot who wants freedom of expression eliminated. I do, however, think there are too many people who don't understand that freedom of expression isn't unlimited. I'm almost certain that anyone who screams into a camera about their freedoms being squashed by jackboot police has never even heard of S.1 of the Charter, let alone knows its contents. It seems you're only happy if people are expressing their dissent in the least effective ways possible. I think many would disagree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 Well, that kind of awareness and willingness to be held responsible for one's actions doesn't seem to be greatly present in the streets or on the campuses of Montreal and Quebec City these days. IF, one is proud of their behavior and standing up as a dissident, they should be willing to expose their face for the cause and not hide in like they're ashamed of their behavior. If the cause is just then show your identity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 It seems you're only happy if people are expressing their dissent in the least effective ways possible. I think many would disagree with you. It seems some will justify illegal behavior and malicious damage and infringements on others rights. Personally I'm against such behavior as justifiable in a democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.