• ssorbom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    24 days ago

    No they aren’t. Not all protests are good. It is essential that political disagreements don’t capsize the society we live in. Any protests that can’t be ignored is essentially mob rule

    • archomrade [he/him]OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      24 days ago

      Any protests that can’t be ignored is essentially mob rule

      Thank god for the mob that Marched on Washington in 1963 then.

        • archomrade [he/him]OP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          24 days ago

          Maybe not any protest then?

          I’m just trying to square ‘any protest that can’t be ignored’ with literally every successful protest in the history of democracy. Seems like the biggest difference between your example and mine is that one is demanding equality and one is demanding forced segregation.

          • PugJesus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            24 days ago

            Seems like the biggest difference between your example and mine is that one is demanding equality and one is demanding forced segregation.

            Which means, in objective terms, the biggest difference between our examples is whether you (or, if you prefer, anyone who isn’t a horrendous cretin) agree with it.

            Protests must be addressed carefully - a government that concedes to every large-scale protest has neither democracy nor rule of law - likewise, a government that concedes to no large-scale protests has probably neither democracy nor rule of law.

            • assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              24 days ago

              You know if these single issue voters could read, they’re be really mad at you.

              You’re completely right, and I find the fact that this needs to be explained very funny. Ancaps and ancoms are so wild to me conceptually - they want someone to enforce their will on others but hate the idea of a government. Both get really whiny when they realize that democracy doesn’t mean “we get what we want” but instead means “we get what the plurality of people around me want”. Sucks when you’re a minority opinion, even if it’s the “right” opinion.

            • archomrade [he/him]OP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              24 days ago

              But a democracy that can outright ignore (and put down by force, even) a protest demanding something that is by all accounts reasonable (that we do not provide arms used to commit genocide (among other actions against genocide), much like a demand that African Americans have equal rights) is, what, exactly?

              • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                24 days ago

                But a democracy that can outright ignore (and put down by force, even) a protest demanding something that is by all accounts reasonable

                Reasonable is nothing but a point of view, man. That’s the point of democracy. Democracy does not create reasonable solutions - it creates solutions that are approved of by the majority.

                If you want reasonable governance, find a philosopher-king that agrees with you. Democracy provides consensus governance, or what is as close as seems possible.

                is, what, exactly?

                A government that doesn’t collapse because a large number of people gather in one place. Not much else is inherently implied by a government that doesn’t concede to large-scale protests.

                • archomrade [he/him]OP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  24 days ago

                  Reasonable is nothing but a point of view, man

                  And what is your point of view on supporting genocide, then?

                  If we all agree that supporting genocide is bad then i’d think we’d all also agree that protesting against it is… Good?

                  And it might be one of those kinds of protests that a democracy isn’t supposed to ignore.

                  edit: i really have to admire that you’ve gotten to the point where you’re arguing against protesting government-supported genocide. That’s an unexpected level of reactionary

    • mojo_raisin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      24 days ago

      Democracy is mob rule (and therefore authoritarian) where the mob is organized by vote. Democracy is just an relatively egalitarian way to create a mob.

      • Eldritch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        23 days ago

        Better to be ruled by the majority consent than minority fiat. Neither is perfect. But the latter is far far worse.

      • riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        24 days ago

        i think this is true for a direct but centralised democracy.

        in parliamentary democracies it’s different, with rulers being chosen through popularity contests. the majority of the people usually doesnt have actual controll over individual political decisions.

  • jaspersgroove@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    23 days ago

    A protest that can be safely ignored isn’t a protest, it’s just a circlejerk where slacktivists gather to congratulate themselves about how virtuous they are.

    Actual protests are disruptive, by definition.

    • archomrade [he/him]OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      23 days ago

      But a protest that can’t be safely ignored is a choice to destroy the country, apparently

      • jaspersgroove@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        23 days ago

        Well, as JFK said, a nation that makes peaceful protest impossible makes violent protest inevitable.

        It doesn’t have to destroy the country, but if it comes to that…you can’t say nobody warned you.