this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
2 points (75.0% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

6285 readers
12 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

You identify a problem, you then call the attention of your family, friends and peers and really anyone who will listen to your rantings and ravings. After which if enough people support your claim to give confidence of legitimacy, you voice your concerns to authority. Or governing body or anyone that has been designated for the responsibility of resolving issues that arise within the realm of the aforementioned wrinkle in the rug. Only in the direst of need would would you and your conglomeration of dissatisfied citizenry shout, picket or otherwise raise a ruckus to your needs but life is such that needs be great at times. Go figure.

No, typically your movement starts with a letter campaign, phone calls and emails. If you're real lucky you might get a tête-à-tête with someone and if you're doubly lucky, on your way to resolution. It doesn't go down like that for most causes, most of the time it's all but ignored. Fear not seekers of change there is a way to avoid a fizzle out, get more people to join. Of course you could jump straight to hard disruption of daily life but letter writing, emails and phone calls are considered good places to start. Needs be great though and ignorance is willful and bliss. About now is a good time for ye ol' controlled rabble rousing... (it's a joke) but good intentions don't account for the actions of others though property damage doesn't trump a just cause. The bill on justification will come due and I expect to be satisfied. Feelings on rainbows don't meet my admittedly meager standards on letting your opinion be known, not that anyone asked.

There's not much recourse for your average person if the effects of your stance did not sway affections, unless that person is a multi-billion dollar corporation (cuz come on guys, corpos are people too) then you just drown the problem in money until it's buried or washed away to become someone else's problem. Most people are left with a problem unresolved and a pain in their chest that's not from the cuts, bruises or contusions that can accompany making your displeasure publicly known.

I would like to take this moment to tell you how stupid anyone is that intends to create change with the destruction of life that is not their own. I make an exception for self-immolation. If you believe in your cause so strongly that your only option is to extinguish your own flame in a dazzling display of sheer will. You get my respect for your force of determination if not your cause. The only 72 things anyone else gets though is in being blasted to 72 different dimensions of pain and shrapnel and good riddance too.

That is all to say that if you can't pay and you won't choose violence what other avenue is left to pursue?

Stop the machinations that allow people to remain willfully ignorant of the problem. I am sorry that you might be late to work, I'm sorry that couldn't get your triple pump whateverthefuck you're getting in a cup that makes you feel like the emptiness inside isn't so vast, I'm sorry you were delayed running those errands. I'm sorry for your death during a cardiac episode stuck in traffic. I am sorry. But to the point where your life has to stop in its tracks so you will listen, it's important. Some person decided to put their own life in danger to warn you that your own and those around you are also in danger. I'm not saying it is not a bitter pill.

Let us not forget that all of this is predicated on the assumption that when the piper cometh those ends were indeed justified by the means. What constitutes a worthy reason is beyond the purview of the arguments I'm laying forth. As for the eggs that are gonna get cracked, I don't mourn the loss of property only loss of life. In the many words I have used, I am saying that there is a reason the right to free speech and assembly are enshrined in places around the world and I believe in that reason. Whether or not those rights are protected in an equal and fair manner is a whole different can of worms.

tldr; I wrote this for amusement and for the play on words, doesn't mean I don't believe it. By default I care more about my own bodily waste than I'm going to care about your reactionary opinion. Exceptions will be made for adding to the conversation, upgrade to better-than-what-I'm-scooping-out-of-the-litter-boxes-at-home levels of interest.

I thank you for joining me in this ramble. Have a wonderful day.

edit: just want to give a couple special shoutouts, I won’t name names but you’ll know if I’m talking about you. First, to my peeps that are taking this personally, offensively or otherwise as an insult; fucking good, you need to face uncomfortable topics more often and I’m glad I could be there for you and share in this together. Second, to my peeps who found themselves vindicated in their original positions; the same to you as the first group. This has absolutely been my pleasure so thank you if you voted or voiced an opinion. Going to sleep for now but if you call me back to this topic with something good I’ll try to catch you in the morning.

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hello_there@fedia.io 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The only acceptable way to protest is in designated free speech zones located out of sight so that nobody can hear or see you.
That was exactly what MLK and other civil rights leaders did.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I really wonder sometimes what'd happen if modern protestors started staging bus takeovers or restaurant occupations

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

It depends. Part of the reason for the bus protests and sit-ins was precisely because those were the segregated spaces that they were protesting. So if your protest doesn't specifically have anything to do with buses or restaurants, you'll probably end up confusing people.

In the absence of a modern day analog, might be better to just pick larger public spaces to protest in where you'll attract more attention than random bus routes or restaurants.

[–] Veraxus@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I agree in principle, but if you put people in danger or could put people in danger, I consider that crossing the line of the Golden Rule of Liberty. That includes trapping people on highways and bridges.

So while protests can and should be disruptive and inconvenient, they must never endanger the general public.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

See the thing is that most protests that adopt these tactics do permit emergency services to cross the picket. We just hear more about the ones who don't because reasonable behavior doesn't make for click getting headlines.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

If you're just a person in your car, the protest has no way to know you may be having an emergency

[–] Veraxus@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Trapping people is harm. It’s kidnapping at best, and putting lives in danger at worst. “Allowing emergency vehicles through” is not good enough. If the protest is structured in a way that the public needs to take a different/longer route, that’s one thing… but if someone is trapped by such a takeover with no way out, that is an unacceptable infringement on the public’s natural rights; particularly the right to not be trapped or imprisoned (in either person or property).

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Trapping people is harm

This I agree with. Am I wrong or would it be dead simple to do a protest on a highway where it doesn’t trap folks and causes no harm? Like two steps:

  • hold it not on a bridge and just after an exit
  • allow any/all emergency vehicles through, coordinating with them as much as possible

Obviously this is still a major inconvenience, which is good per the whole point of protesting. Perhaps I need to read more on protest history and strategy as I know there is a whole body of literature on the subject.

[–] Veraxus@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

That’s exactly the right idea!

[–] Audrey0nne@leminal.space -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

There’s no disputing that it’s harm but if the harm caused is less than the harm that is possible then the actions are worth taking.

[–] Slotos@feddit.nl 1 points 5 months ago

I could write a long tirade on the terrifying flaws of this logic, but instead I’ll just share a reminder that barely anyone is the villain of their own story.

[–] MockingMoniker@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Then people should have a right to shut down protestors.

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] MockingMoniker@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It seems clear to me. What's wrong?

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't know what you mean by shut down exactly.

[–] MockingMoniker@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Put an end to their disruptive activity.

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

That just seems to be a synonym to shut down. How do suggest this be done exactly?

[–] MockingMoniker@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, there wasn't much to interpret. How would you remove disruptive people?

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't think we should remove protestors. How would you remove protestors?

[–] MockingMoniker@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'd use legal force like police, riot control, etc.

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like an escalation.why not just talk to them?

[–] MockingMoniker@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago

Well, you're right, have an escalation procedure. However, they could just talk to whomever they think they aught to disrupt.