1359

went to my first protest today :33 (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 8 months ago by riwo@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

251 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

It kinda makes sense, protests are supposed to be peaceful, why bring a mask if your intent is a peaceful protest?

[-] CobblerScholar@lemmy.world 74 points 8 months ago

Protest is never peaceful, if it is you're doing it wrong. It should be non-violent and as respectful as possible but it needs to be disruptive and you can't be peacefully disruptive

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Peaceful and non-violent are synonyms….

You also contradict yourself as well. You say to be non-violent, then you say you can’t be peacefully disruptive… those contradict each other.

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 40 points 8 months ago

If me and my fellow protestors block a road, we are being non-violent, but we are being disruptive.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

And that is peaceful as well, until it isn’t.

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 36 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

...and in 99% of the cases where it stops being "peaceful" it's because cops come in and violently assault everyone to try to break up the protest.

I'm really not sure of the point you're trying to make. Protest can be peaceful, non-violent and disruptive.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

You’re the one arguing with me after I said protests are peaceful. What the fucking hell is going on here?

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Sorry, my bad, I confused you with the guy above you. That ones on me.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 8 months ago

No, they aren't. You must be disruptive, which isn't peaceful.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

How can you be non-violent and not peaceful at the same time…? lmfao. They mean the exact same thing.

[-] BigWheelPowerBrakeSlider@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

Hmm I see what the dictionaries are saying but (using an example from above) I think argument exists that:

If me and my fellow protestors block a road, we are being non-violent, but we are not being peaceful.

But it's Friday and no time for argument!

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

What’s not peaceful about blocking a road?

The argument falls apart when you ask for the difference lol.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 8 months ago

Peaceful: freedom from disturbance; tranquility.

It is a disturbance to the system, and it isn't tranquil. They are not synonyms. Non-violent means you aren't hurting anyone, peaceful means you aren't disturbing anything. You can't be violent and peaceful but you can be non-violent and non-peaceful. Peace is sufficient but not necessary for non-violence.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Literally the next definition after that one….

not involving war or violence.

SYNONYMS…

Peaceful literally means non-violent…. Literally defines the bloody term lmfao.

[-] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago

the next definition

So, overlapping meanings, not synonyms

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

They are both, one is defined by other, AND they are synonyms.

Isn’t language fucked up?

[-] Ookami38@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago

One definition of peaceful is synonymous, and one isn't. This is exactly why language has so many synonyms, each one is sliiiightly different. Choosing one intentionally instead of another is important.

In this instance, "peace" is being defined (not directly, but through context) as status quo, going about your day unhindered. "Violence" is being defined as causing direct physical harm to a person, and possibly property depending on who you ask.

With these definitions laid out, it's easy enough to see a situation that is not violent (no one got hurt at all) and also not peaceful (some people's days were interrupted) - one person mentioned blocking a road. This is a FANTASTIC example of non-peaceful non-violent protest. No one likes a pedant.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

No one likes a pedant.

Goes on a bloviated pedantic rant…

Yep, just like the people trying to say blocking a road isn’t peaceful. They are trying to pedantically choose a definition to make a point. Blocking a road is absolutely peaceful, trying to explain it any other way would be to be pendantic. Lmfao.

[-] BigWheelPowerBrakeSlider@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

I see a lot of other people have responded with examples and argument.

So I'll disagree and say the argument falls apart when I don't argue. (Cause it's Friday. You ain't got no job. You ain't got shit to do. I'm gonna get you high today.)

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago

Disruptive doesn't mean violent, but it isn't peaceful.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Peaceful and non-violent mean the exact same thing…

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 months ago

They do not.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Peaceful and non-violent mean the exact same thing…

[-] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Skydiving isn't peaceful, but it certainly isn't violent.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

What’s not peaceful about skydiving…?

[-] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

I'd go with the wind, noise, speed, and imminent possiblity of death.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

wind, noise, speed.

So going for a drive wouldn’t be peaceful either…?

imminent possiblity of death.

So… driving again? Or riding a motor bike? Not peaceful…? Strange perspective to have…

Strange example to try and use lol.

[-] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Go ahead, take a nice bath, read a book, or do some origami while skydiving, or driving at 200mph with the top down.

Strange example to try and use lol.

You know what is peaceful? Take a hike.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Getting chased by bears is peaceful..? Getting attacked by wasps is peaceful…?

Anything can be twisted one way or the other dude lol.

[-] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

You're making petty, empty, semantic "arguments" and you know it.

Also, whoosh.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

You started…

And I knew that, lmfao hence why I gave you the same stupid bull shit.

This is what my argument is.

not involving war or violence.

"there were no violent incidents reported and it was a peaceful protest"

You can’t be non-violent without also being peaceful…

So yeah skydiving is actually peaceful by definition, no matter which pedantic argument EITHER of us use.

[-] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Ah, so if someone catches a charge for disturbing the peace, then they must have been violent?

So yeah skydiving is actually peaceful by definition, no matter which pedantic argument EITHER of us use.

1st definition of peaceful. adjective

free from disturbance; tranquil.
"everything was so quiet and peaceful in the early morning"
synonyms: tranquil, calm, restful, pleasant, quiet, still, relaxing, soothing, sleepy, silent, soundless, hushed, noiseless, undisturbed, untroubled, private, secluded, solitary, isolated, serene, composed, placid, at peace, at rest, at ease, in repose, reposeful, unworried, unruffled, anxiety-free, content, blissful, secure

You are factually wrong on this statement.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The term is “causing a disturbance” they avoid that term for a very good reason.

You understand a word can mean multiple things… yeah…?

There is no first definition, just multiple, they aren’t ranked, other dictionaries have the one I put first. So what point do you think that was making?

[-] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

I thought your point was that neither definition fit my usage of peaceful? Is that not what you meant by...

...So yeah skydiving is actually peaceful by definition, no matter which pedantic argument EITHER of us use.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Does skydiving involve war or violence…? It fits both and neither depending on how you twist it… yeesh.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago

They do not.

[-] shani66@ani.social 1 points 8 months ago

Peaceful means not being disturbed, nonviolent means no violence.

[-] SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

not involving war or violence. "there were no violent incidents reported and it was a peaceful protest"

Peaceful literally means non-violent.

If you are being non-violent by definition you are also being peaceful….

[-] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee 6 points 8 months ago

Non-violent in the context of political action does not exclude property damage and looting. A non violent protest is still disruptive, it's the entire point

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 34 points 8 months ago

In the USA its because they use facial recognition and then decide to harass you for the next decade over every small infraction they can.

Because nobody in a position of power would ever abuse that power! /s

[-] mumblerfish@lemmy.world 28 points 8 months ago

There have been events where nazis show up to counter protest and film/photograph you to then share among themselves so they can attack you later.

[-] Random_German_Name@feddit.de 2 points 8 months ago

Thats happening a lot lately in Germany. At every fucking Antifa protest at least one suspicious looking guy films with his handy. I honestly doubt, that they have the necessary skill and contact with other fascists in other cities to identify everybody, but I still don‘t want them to know my face

[-] bl_r@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 8 months ago

Masks are no indicator of criminality. The idea that bad protesters wear masks is complete horseshit. It serves to divide movements and prevent momentum from being gained. It seeks to dissolve solidarity that couls have been gained at the protests.

Masks allow peaceful protests to remain peaceful if they prevent the violence of the justice system. Sometimes protesters and organizers are simply arrested and thrown in jail for a bit, sometimes even given nonsense charges, which is something that happens to organizers and some protesters in my area.

As well as that, masks can simply be good secops in some counter-protests such as protesting against fascist marches, gatherings, etc. If I’m showing up to show nazis or boogaloos or proud boys that they are unwelcome, the last thing I want is a violent right wing extremist group to try and doxx me. If I’m escorting people to a drag-queen story hour, I don’t want fascists to doxx me.

It’s also smart in some areas, such as Harvard’s campus where organizers are constantly doxxed and accused of antisemitism even though they are not.

Finally, what if the government makes your particular movement illegal? What if they start throwing the book people, accusing everyone involved(or at least the ones they can catch) of domestic terrorism? Wearing a mask will make it a lot easier for you to maintain your freedom when faced with the tyrrany of the state.

Also, masks look cool, and that’s a pretty good reason imo.