Demonstrations

[Secret Chief]

And then there are those that just stop by to leave snarky and glaringly ironic comments about maturity.

Yes they really pee me off too.
As to "success" that can be rather out of the hands of the demonstrators, whatever the number. Did the 36 million demonstrators worldwide stop the invasion of Iraq? Warmonger Blair was right in the sense he could ignore this well-meaning rabble.
Protests against the Iraq War - Wikipedia

 

[exchemist]

But aren't the demonstrations a vehicle for the protest?

'Boston Tea Party' comes to mind.

What protest? The OP asked about demonstrations, meaning, I presume, political ones. I attended two of them last year. They were not so much a protest as an expression of political support. Most political demonstrations, including those that are protests, take place without rioting.

By the way, it is far from unknown for opponents of demonstrations, whether people of a rival political persuasion or even the authorities themselves, to try to incite a riot, as a means of discrediting the demonstrators and depriving them of popular support. The job of policing demonstrations - in well-run democracies - is to ensure this does not happen, by treating the demonstrators with respect, keeping rival groups apart, and keeping the temperature low.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Now, if a demonstration turns into a riot, then you have something close to a mass tantrum on your hands.

Not necessarily. Riots are how we have LGBT rights. It's how it's no longer a crime to "cross dress." Before the Stonewall Riots, for all intents and purposes being queer was illegal. They were arrested and criminally charged with being themselves. Then one night during a police raid, a group of drag queens who had been arrested began rioting. And now instead of eletroshock therapy and lobotomies for queers, we have same-sex marriage, medical treatment options for transitioning, and legal allowance for drag queens and cross dressers to wear the clothes of the gender they want.

 

[exchemist]

Not necessarily. Riots are how we have LGBT rights. It's how it's no longer a crime to "cross dress." Before the Stonewall Riots, for all intents and purposes being queer was illegal. They were arrested and criminally charged with being themselves. Then one night during a police raid, a group of drag queens who had been arrested began rioting. And now instead of eletroshock therapy and lobotomies for queers, we have same-sex marriage, medical treatment options for transitioning, and legal allowance for drag queens and cross dressers to wear the clothes of the gender they want.

The motive and the result are not relevant to my point.

A riot does have something in common with a tantrum, as it involves a largely undirected and uncontrolled outpouring of anger, in this case the collective anger of a crowd.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The motive and the result are not relevant to my point.

A riot does have something in common with a tantrum, as it involves a largely undirected and uncontrolled outpouring of anger, in this case the collective anger of a crowd.

A tantrum is a child (or man-child in the case of Trump) throwing a fit because they can't get their way. People acting collectively to rise up and demand their rights and dignity is not a tantrum.

 

[exchemist]

A tantrum is a child (or man-child in the case of Trump) throwing a fit because they can't get their way. People acting collectively to rise up and demand their rights and dignity is not a tantrum.

If, by people "rising up" you mean a riot, then that is either akin to a tantrum or something worse, namely premeditated violence.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If, by people "rising up" you mean a riot, then that is either akin to a tantrum or something worse, namely premeditated violence.

It wasn't premeditated. And it's not a tantrun to stand up against your oppressors. People were arrested due to discriminatory and prejudiced laws, people said no more, stood up, and began the riots that kick started LGBT rights. Sort of like how the French Revolution was definitely not a tantrum, but a fight for a more just society and a fight to literally keep their heads attached.
A tantrum is telling a child no and the child throws themselves on the ground kicking and screaming.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Rise or sit, IMHO, nobody has the right to damage private or public property (people spend life to gather it). If a protest, demonstration is doing that, then a democratic government should act against it and stop it (by whatever means it employs).

 

[Thief]

Tantrums involve a lot of foot stomping, demonstrations change the world

so the result determines the level of demo.....

like Hitler and his goose steppers

 

[Tambourine]

Rise or sit, IMHO, nobody has the right to damage private or public property (people spend life to gather it). If a protest, demonstration is doing that, then a democratic government should act against it and stop it (by whatever means it employs).

Do you consider human lives to be of lesser value than private property?

If, by people "rising up" you mean a riot, then that is either akin to a tantrum or something worse, namely premeditated violence.

That is the opinion of a person mostly satisfied with the status quo.

Now imagine being oppressed for a second.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you consider human lives to be of lesser value than private property?

I consider the law of the land to be supreme. We cannot be lenient in India otherwise India will turn (more) lawless. We have 1380 million people to care about. If anyone has a problem, let him/her go to Courts, and get a fair redress. Take law in hand, then the person should suffer the consequences. What about the people who are killed in riots? At least three people died in Bangalore riots this Tuesday apart from loss of properties.

 

[ChristineM]

so the result determines the level of demo.....

like Hitler and his goose steppers

I am sure you understood

 

[Secret Chief]

I consider the law of the land to be supreme.

Always? How about if you found yourself in 1930s Germany?

Governments only remain "benign" when they can be held to account by society. If lawful redress is not permitted, then attempts to redress will arise through unlawful means, until the law (or the government) is changed.

 

[stvdv]

Should people just be sheep and never object when government does something wrong? That's not my viewpoint.

The Governments would like that. And using corona as a tool to get the people to stop objecting.
Here in Holland they wanted to allow the police to just enter your house to check on corona violations.
That is one of the ca. 10 laws they tried to get through in just a few month.

Big Brother, total control is their end-game, and I see it world wide happening as a Big Plan
I was not aware that America is heading to a police state this fast though

 

[Aupmanyav]

Always? How about if you found yourself in 1930s Germany?
Governments only remain "benign" when they can be held to account by society. If lawful redress is not permitted, then attempts to redress will arise through unlawful means, until the law (or the government) is changed.

I am talking of today's India and not of any other country at any other time. There is no bar to lawful redress in India. We have a very fair and powerful judicial system. Remember that a State Court declared the election of a strong Prime Minister like Indira Gandhi void for corrupt poll practices. If a few people want to change the laws established by majority in a democratic set-up, then they should not blame the government for strict action. (It is about some laws passed in both the houses of Indian parliament by the required majority)

 

[Revoltingest]

Tantrums for adults?

Sometimes yes...sometimes no.

Help me to understand the difference.

It will vary from group to group, & individual to individual.

I'm sure this group has both.
https://nypost.com/2020/08/14/seattle-blm-protesters-demand-white-people-give-up-their-homes/
So we must not judge them all for the actions of those most visible.

 

[Secret Chief]

I am talking of today's India and not of any other country at any other time. There is no bar to lawful redress in India. We have a very fair and powerful judicial system. Remember, the Indian judicial system declared the election of a strong Prime Minister like Indira Gandhi void for corrupt poll practices. If a few people want to change the laws established by majority in a democratic set-up, then they should not blame the government for strict action.

But you didn't say "I consider the law of the land to be supreme in India today." You said it as a general principle - "I consider the law of the land to be supreme" - in response to a comment that was also general, not specific ("Do you consider human lives to be of lesser value than private property?") General principles apply in all times and places, if they are considered true.

 

[exchemist]

It wasn't premeditated. And it's not a tantrun to stand up against your oppressors. People were arrested due to discriminatory and prejudiced laws, people said no more, stood up, and began the riots that kick started LGBT rights. Sort of like how the French Revolution was definitely not a tantrum, but a fight for a more just society and a fight to literally keep their heads attached.
A tantrum is telling a child no and the child throws themselves on the ground kicking and screaming.

The French revolution was an insurrection to overthrow the government - a civil war, in effect.

I notice you continue to use these grand, but tendentious, terms like "rising up" and "standing up", while remaining coy about whether violence was involved and, if it was, whether it was deliberate or not.

Unpremeditated violence, erupting in the course of a demonstration, would be what I would say could be thought somewhat akin to a mass tantrum - though I have been clear from the start that tantrum is not really the appropriate term for it. Premeditated violence, in pursuit of a political cause, is something I would regard as far more sinister. I don't have a lot of time for people trying to defend that in a functioning democracy.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Do you consider human lives to be of lesser value than private property?"

Human lives are important, but there are other important things too. Human lives cannot overcome all that. I am not one to support abandonment of capital punishments. For example, it takes money to buy a bus for public transport. A person should not damage it. Because if he/she does, then more money will be required to buy a replacement. This money could have been used for some other useful purpose. India is a poor country. Simple explanation.

 

[Secret Chief]

Human lives are important, but there are other important things too. Human lives cannot overcome all that. I am not one to support abandonment of capital punishments. For example, it takes money to buy a bus for public transport. A person should not damage it. Because if he/she does, then more money will be required to buy a replacement. This money could have been used for some other useful purpose. India is a poor country. Simple explanation.

The quote: that was not me, it was @Tambourine.