Premier Rock Forum

rsmurphy wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 9:32 pm

jason from volo wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 8:28 pm Protesting is not *my* best option, that’s all I am saying.

The right to protest is slowly eroding away. We all do what we have to do.

AMEN. PRF Protest Crew. Let's get ORGANIZED like it were BBQ 2022

rsmurphy wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 5:54 pm

Geiginni wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:46 pm Temper tantrums do nothing. Temper tantrums do not amount to or result in "redress of grievances".

I can't think of one time that advances in civil rights have been gained without civil unrest and/or protest.

Correct.

jason from volo wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 8:28 pm ...me holding up a sign in the frightening streets of Volo (a small village in the far NW suburbs of Chicago) asking for justice is going to result in nothing.

One person and their sign, not two years ago.

jason from volo wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 11:07 pm I feel like you’re just arguing with me for the sake of argument at this point, like the Monty Python skit.

Sadly, this might be the most-illuminating post you've made in this exchange. Good health.

A_Man_Who_Tries wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 10:42 pm

One person and their sign, not two years ago.

To be fair, she’s doing that outside Swedish Parlament in Stockholm, in a climate-change and protest friendly country, not the Volo Auto Museum.

zorg wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:12 amTo be fair, she’s doing that outside Swedish Parlament in Stockholm, in a climate-change and protest friendly country, not the Volo Auto Museum.

I live in Stockholm. There's nothing more climate-change nor protest friendly here than most of the other places I've lived, and some of those have been pretty dangerous places.

Fact is, one person with a sign has been shown to make a difference by sustained protest. Hasn't even required violence. Saying "it won't make a difference" is one of many refuges of the comfortable and can't be arsed. And that's fine, I just wish they'd own it at least.

Beyond the minutia of the case/legal technicalities/etc., if you zoom out enough and read between the lines here, the underlying "message" is clear enough.

Namely, if you show up to a protest and voice dissent on the heels of some grave injustice, taking part in civil disobedience of any stripe, you can expect the possibility of "getting what's coming to you" and end up regretting ever having done this.

Only, instead of this "punishment" being meted out by someone in uniform (which is bad enough), it could be from the hands of a random armed civilian who steps into this scenario because he's mostly looking for an excuse to blow someone away. And what's more, he could well get away with it; being right of center and white would likely only help him do so, especially if this occurs in a conservative locale.


So yeah, it's a bad precedent of sorts going forward, but not exactly a surprise.

jason from volo wrote: Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:34 pm There’s only so much that one person can do, but I can refuse to spend any money in or visit the state of Wisconsin.

There were some unique factors in this case but framing this as a Wisconsin thing and not a USA thing is a mistake..

I don't really know what to do. Last year was not short on protest and unrest and now look at us.. 5 steps back. The little doughboy fuck.. whatever, I feel like he'll fuck up his life again and again. I hope that judge's house burns to the ground..

jason from volo wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:46 am We do not, however, have a law (or lack thereof) that makes it legal for someone as young as sixteen to parade around the streets openly with a loaded AR-15 in tow.

Until a sympathetic judge elsewhere also throws out that part of the charge on a 'technicality'.

As a non-gun guy I've been allowed to take for granted the terrible truth. It seems we're in a wild west, libertarian dystopia where opposing sides can legally show up to a protest legally armed to the teeth. If at any point one of these self styled desperados points their weapon in the direction of the others they are then within their rights to shoot them down in self defense. Of course, if you're standing near the original gun pointer you'd be under fire having done nothing wrong yourself and would naturally return fire. Repeat ad infinitum.

How is this political gang fight not condoned by the judge's ruling?