Quote (fender @ Dec 11 2019 01:09pm)

you might claim the same for literally tens of thousands of suffragette protests, and people used basically the same arguments back then.

no single one of them had 'caused anything directly' (except from making the nation talk about and reflect upon it) - UNTIL public opinion changed to a degree where actual steps were taken. it's an incredibly weak argument, and again, i DO think highway blocking can be problematic.

in case you didn't notice, his kneeling triggered about the same responses: 'gets nothing done / hurts the wrong people / disrespectful / he can protest, but not THAT way...'

btw, there's a difference between hyperbole, exaggerating something for effect, and claiming something that is just demonstrably not true, not even to a much lesser degree.


what it comes down to is that people who simply have no sympathy for the CAUSE will always claim those things to delegitimise and attack the protesters - and they will exaggerate the 'downsides' and inconveniences that draw public attention in order to do so.

Quote (excellence @ Dec 11 2019 01:14pm)

fender aka heinrich attacking someone who is actually in agreement with him. much like his ancestors violating non-aggression pacts lmfao

Quote (excellence @ 11 Dec 2019 20:14)

fender aka heinrich attacking someone who is actually in agreement with him. much like his ancestors violating non-aggression pacts lmfao

Quote (fender @ Dec 11 2019 01:24pm)

circle jerk is back on i see, i'll leave you to your 'hyperbole', boys.

just one thing: "blocking highways gets literally nothing done" is only true if you completely disregard a national conversation about it. again, exactly the same claims were made about the suffragette movement. maybe reflect on that...

Quote (thesnipa @ 11 Dec 2019 20:29)

was the suffragette movement doing illegal things?

2 false equivalencies dont cancel each other out.

the suffragette movement didnt doing anything so divisive it turned off people in support of it. as highway blockings do. makes people in support of the cause hate the form of protest. so any "gains" in conversation are washed away by people talking about "those idiots who block roads". illegally ofc. one is illegal, one isn't. and not like in a "youre eating at the whites only counter" type protesting unjust and unconstitutional laws. blocking roads always has been and always will be illegal and has no constitutional basis.

Quote (fender @ Dec 11 2019 01:45pm)

you're kidding me, right? they did nothing as "divisive" and "illegal"?

i guess arson, bombing, and vandalism doesn't count then. maybe you think that was 'legal' back then, or you simply don't know about it. of course they were also called 'terrorists', and their protests illegitimate and illegal.

Quote (thesnipa @ 11 Dec 2019 20:48)

Valid point, so in hindsight we consider the arson and bombing justified and helping getting them the vote? or is it more of a mixed bag of divisiveness?

now, rather than getting into this side tangent, please demonstrate that highway blocking has had more of an effect causally than Kaep kneeling. as that's actually what i claimed.

or dont. idc really. i was being hyperbolic for effect and BOOM along you came showing how effectual i was. so thanks?

but yes, please write me an essay with 27 different historical examples because when i said Kaep did more than highway blockers it got you hot and bothered. you said it was demonstrably false, feel free to demonstrate how.

edit: and another false equivalency. as i said highway blockers protests arent constitutionally based, as denying the vote to women or equal rights to blacks was.

Quote (fender @ Dec 11 2019 02:12pm)

another lie. you claimed "pre kneeling" - but it wasn't a national conversation back then. sure, since you outright disregard that as something tangible, there is obviously no convincing you how demonstrably false (not just hyperbolic) your claim is, but that's not at all required to demonstrate it to reasonable people.

also, i don't think it's too difficult to figure out who got 'hot and bothered' and took this personally, but whatever you have to tell yourself. so i guess you're welcome, buddy - for the history lesson as well of course.


regarding your edit: not only was it considered constitutional BEFORE it was changed, i'm pretty sure that (racially biased) abuse of police violence is ALREADY unconstitutional - so if this is a "false equivalency", then it's biased in the opposite way of what you are suggesting.