|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 10 hours, 20 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: qman]
#26874738 - 08/11/20 09:51 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
ballsalsa said: The crowd is the obstruction. Driving into a crowd is an attack.
I think the burden is really upon the organizers of the protest to make sure vehicles don't have the opportunity to come close to where the protest is taking place.
If they fail in that attempt and a vehicle ends up near the protesters by pure chance, that burden does not then switch to the driver of that vehicle.
My point here is the protection of innocent people accidentally driving into a street that has protesters and then getting attacked for that mistake. Protesters don't get to automatically attack vehicles because the organizers of that protest didn't do their jobs of potentially protecting them.
Can the organizers of these protests 100% protect them from all vehicles? No, but they at least have to try and then also assume some responsibility. Preemptively attacking vehicles isn't legal and it completely discredits any movement in my opinion.
I don't agree with the implied hierarchy in shifting the burden to nebulous 'organizers' but I agree in essence. My experience with street protests is that traffic control has always been an important consideration - but in the past, the biggest threat was irate drivers and soft-blockades of people and bikes were sufficient - clearly this is no longer the case.
It'll be a challenge, because hard-blockades will limit the maneuverability of protests - which is one of our strengths when resisting police forces. The examples that ballsalsa posted - rebar caltrops and industrial cling-wrap - are good examples of area denial tactics that won't significantly affect our mobility, but I would also expect hard blockades of parked and disabled vehicles to become more prevalent too.
Basically we will have to set up conditions so that no vehicle could accidentally approach the protest, and then treat any vehicle who breaches that barrier as a lethal threat. That's a development you can thank the fascist terrorists using vehicular attacks for.
--------------------
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 1 day, 7 hours
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: shivas.wisdom] 1
#26874740 - 08/11/20 09:53 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
MagicMush123 said: Apparently you think that attacking an unknown vehicle in your proximity is more reasonable than simply walking away. If a vehicle is crawling towards you like in the video, whats more reasonable; parting like the red sea or confronting it and proceeding to smash it up? If you can say with a straight face that confronting and attacking a vehicle is more reasonable than moving away from it then you have picked sides
'Get out of the way' assumes the driver doesn't have malicious intent. The threat that I believe the protesters were reasonably justified in fearing was the threat of a malicious vehicular attack.
I've asked multiple times to multiple people: how do you suggest we respond to the recent trends of vehicular attacks on protests? 'Get out of the way' isn't sufficient if you are being directly targeted - avoiding protests in areas with vehicle access isn't reasonable either. Can you propose a better solution?
It's ultimately up to the organizers of the protests to ensure the safety of the protesters. Can they ensure 100% safety? Absolutely not. Does that automatically mean preemptive attacks on ANY vehicle near the protesters is justifiable? Absolutely not.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 10 hours, 20 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 1
#26874744 - 08/11/20 09:54 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
natedawgnow said: That antifa is an organized domestic terror group
That's his opinion. Though I disagree, he's done a much better job defending his position than others have in attacking it.
Source, or make believe.
--------------------
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 1 day, 7 hours
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: shivas.wisdom] 2
#26874756 - 08/11/20 10:05 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
qman said:
Quote:
ballsalsa said: The crowd is the obstruction. Driving into a crowd is an attack.
I think the burden is really upon the organizers of the protest to make sure vehicles don't have the opportunity to come close to where the protest is taking place.
If they fail in that attempt and a vehicle ends up near the protesters by pure chance, that burden does not then switch to the driver of that vehicle.
My point here is the protection of innocent people accidentally driving into a street that has protesters and then getting attacked for that mistake. Protesters don't get to automatically attack vehicles because the organizers of that protest didn't do their jobs of potentially protecting them.
Can the organizers of these protests 100% protect them from all vehicles? No, but they at least have to try and then also assume some responsibility. Preemptively attacking vehicles isn't legal and it completely discredits any movement in my opinion.
I don't agree with the implied hierarchy in shifting the burden to nebulous 'organizers' but I agree in essence. My experience with street protests is that traffic control has always been an important consideration - but in the past, the biggest threat was irate drivers and soft-blockades of people and bikes were sufficient - clearly this is no longer the case.
It'll be a challenge, because hard-blockades will limit the maneuverability of protests - which is one of our strengths when resisting police forces. The examples that ballsalsa posted - rebar caltrops and industrial cling-wrap - are good examples of area denial tactics that won't significantly affect our mobility, but I would also expect hard blockades of parked and disabled vehicles to become more prevalent too.
Basically we will have to set up conditions so that no vehicle could accidentally approach the protest, and then treat any vehicle who breaches that barrier as a lethal threat. That's a development you can thank the fascist terrorists using vehicular attacks for.
I agree, IF a car finds its way through a bunch of barriers, at that point it could be considered a lethal threat.
I just take myself for an example when driving in places I'm unfamiliar with, I can't count of the numbers of times I got lost in urban areas taking wrong turns, driving the wrong way on one way streets and ending up in places I didn't even know where I was. In other words, people get lost driving around to no fault of their own, I don't want to see them attacked for that possibility.
|
christopera
Stranger


Registered: 10/13/17
Posts: 14,201
Last seen: 48 minutes, 31 seconds
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#26874768 - 08/11/20 10:12 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
natedawgnow said: That antifa is an organized domestic terror group
That's his opinion. Though I disagree, he's done a much better job defending his position than others have in attacking it.
Source, or make believe.

Was it the part where Vahn said he would blast Nyan Cat as loud as he could or the part where he provided a single video of one man being pissed off about the protests that is so convincing? It's one spooky position.
Since Vahn is such a visionary on the matter, perhaps he should organize a few convenient protests to prove his point. Otherwise he is just another guy that's full of shit.
Yet, here we are at 21 pages, and Vahns attempts to make Antifa less relevant as a result of their inconvenient protesting has only brought them more exposure. It's a bit ironic really.
-------------------- Enjoy the process of your search without succumbing to the pressure of the result. A Dorito is pizza, change my mind. Bank and Union with The Shroomery at the Zuul on The internet - now with %'s and things I’m sorry it had to be me.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,428
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 10 hours, 20 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: qman]
#26874790 - 08/11/20 10:29 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
qman said: I agree, IF a car finds its way through a bunch of barriers, at that point it could be considered a lethal threat.
I just take myself for an example when driving in places I'm unfamiliar with, I can't count of the numbers of times I got lost in urban areas taking wrong turns, driving the wrong way on one way streets and ending up in places I didn't even know where I was. In other words, people get lost driving around to no fault of their own, I don't want to see them attacked for that possibility.

Exactly, no one benefits in that situation. The trend of vehicular attacks on protests is relatively new, and I think we are going to see new protest trends developing in response, in real-time. If protesters are legitimately fearful of being approached by unknown vehicles, they will need to take proper precautions to prevent that from happening - not just attack any vehicle that crosses an invisible line.
Also, for the record, if the protesters had responded with lethal force against the driver of the pickup, I would have been much more critical of them - but otherwise, it seems like a situation where the actions of both parties are understandable without behind absolutely justifiable.
--------------------
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 3 hours, 35 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 1
#26874817 - 08/11/20 10:47 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
natedawgnow said: You'll call koods a make believer for taking trumps words literally
Source, or make believe?
I would never have called koods a make believer for taking Trump's words literally. I'm confident you're lying AGAIN.
You’re a fucking liar.
Mods, why does falcon get to continuously lie like this? Isn’t trolling banned in this forum?
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Vahn421 said: Dude, do even LISTEN? 
I can't figure out if you're just hard of hearing or if your modus operandi is to lie about what your opponents have said.
The ENTIRE POINT is that NO ONE is sure what his intent was when he wished Maxwell well.
His modus operandi is to make believe (lie). He has a strong reputation on this forum as the King of Make Believe, and though I've been warned not to call him that, he is caught make believing in almost every single post, so how can you fault me? No one comes close
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: shivas.wisdom] 1
#26874830 - 08/11/20 10:56 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: You absolutely can preemptively attack someone in self-defence, assuming the fear is reasonable and the force proportional to the feared threat. If someone is threatening you with a gun, you don't need to wait until you are shot before fighting back. If someone is threatening you with a vehicle, you don't need to wait until you are run over before fighting back.
Putting a vehicle driving down the road in the same category as a gun threat is ridiculous TO ME, but everyone's entitled to their opinion. The guy slowed down as he approached the crowd and stopped before they started smashing in his windshields. He then zoomed off after he realized he was being attacked. If people truly felt threatened by the driver I BELIEVE that running up to the truck and attacking it wasn't going to make them or the other protesters any safer. But again, that's MY opinion.
At this point I think we need to turn it over to an anonymous jury (the other members of this board) for their input.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: koods] 1
#26874831 - 08/11/20 10:58 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
natedawgnow said: You'll call koods a make believer for taking trumps words literally
Source, or make believe?
I would never have called koods a make believer for taking Trump's words literally. I'm confident you're lying AGAIN.
You’re a fucking liar.
Mods, why does falcon get to continuously lie like this? Isn’t trolling banned in this forum?
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Vahn421 said: Dude, do even LISTEN? 
I can't figure out if you're just hard of hearing or if your modus operandi is to lie about what your opponents have said.
The ENTIRE POINT is that NO ONE is sure what his intent was when he wished Maxwell well.
His modus operandi is to make believe (lie). He has a strong reputation on this forum as the King of Make Believe, and though I've been warned not to call him that, he is caught make believing in almost every single post, so how can you fault me? No one comes close
These last 3 pages really have revealed fal to be a liar and a troll.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#26874837 - 08/11/20 10:59 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Hard-blockades will limit the maneuverability of protests - which is one of our strengths when resisting police forces.
At least now I understand your defensiveness.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
christopera
Stranger


Registered: 10/13/17
Posts: 14,201
Last seen: 48 minutes, 31 seconds
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 1
#26874839 - 08/11/20 11:00 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Loaded questions, dude.
-------------------- Enjoy the process of your search without succumbing to the pressure of the result. A Dorito is pizza, change my mind. Bank and Union with The Shroomery at the Zuul on The internet - now with %'s and things I’m sorry it had to be me.
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,049
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 3 hours, 35 minutes
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow] 2
#26874841 - 08/11/20 11:01 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I’ve known it for years. You cannot get into s substantive argument without him lying about sources or your own words. He’s even changed quotes to support his own argument.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow]
#26874846 - 08/11/20 11:04 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
natedawgnow said: These last 3 pages really have revealed fal to be a liar and a troll.
There you go again, not linking to or talking about specifics for a discussion, but just making a general claim that there's something bad out there that you can't quite put your finger on. No specifics as per usual I see.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
natedawgnow
Rocky mountain hood rat



Registered: 02/09/15
Posts: 8,939
Loc: ation
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] 1
#26874849 - 08/11/20 11:05 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not wasting my time with you 
Anybody can go back and read this thread dude.
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: christopera]
#26874862 - 08/11/20 11:17 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
christopera said:
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
natedawgnow said: That antifa is an organized domestic terror group
That's his opinion. Though I disagree, he's done a much better job defending his position than others have in attacking it.
Source, or make believe.

Was it the part where Vahn said he would blast Nyan Cat as loud as he could or the part where he provided a single video of one man being pissed off about the protests that is so convincing? It's one spooky position.
I've posted multiple videos that are protest-related.
Quote:
Since Vahn is such a visionary on the matter, perhaps he should organize a few convenient protests to prove his point. Otherwise he is just another guy that's full of shit.
Uh.... what?
Quote:
Yet, here we are at 21 pages, and Vahns attempts to make Antifa less relevant as a result of their inconvenient protesting has only brought them more exposure. It's a bit ironic really.
Ironic? More like the point. Exposure = good.
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: koods] 1
#26874864 - 08/11/20 11:18 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
natedawgnow said: You'll call koods a make believer for taking trumps words literally
Source, or make believe?
I would never have called koods a make believer for taking Trump's words literally. I'm confident you're lying AGAIN.
You’re a fucking liar.
Mods, why does falcon get to continuously lie like this? Isn’t trolling banned in this forum?
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Vahn421 said: Dude, do even LISTEN? 
I can't figure out if you're just hard of hearing or if your modus operandi is to lie about what your opponents have said.
The ENTIRE POINT is that NO ONE is sure what his intent was when he wished Maxwell well.
His modus operandi is to make believe (lie). He has a strong reputation on this forum as the King of Make Believe, and though I've been warned not to call him that, he is caught make believing in almost every single post, so how can you fault me? No one comes close
I mean, concerning where you quoted me, you pretty much did lie, dude.
--------------------
|
Vahn421
Awakening Moonlighter



Registered: 04/03/12
Posts: 2,162
Loc: Portland
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: natedawgnow] 1
#26874872 - 08/11/20 11:23 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
natedawgnow said:
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
natedawgnow said: You'll call koods a make believer for taking trumps words literally
Source, or make believe?
I would never have called koods a make believer for taking Trump's words literally. I'm confident you're lying AGAIN.
You’re a fucking liar.
Mods, why does falcon get to continuously lie like this? Isn’t trolling banned in this forum?
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
Vahn421 said: Dude, do even LISTEN? 
I can't figure out if you're just hard of hearing or if your modus operandi is to lie about what your opponents have said.
The ENTIRE POINT is that NO ONE is sure what his intent was when he wished Maxwell well.
His modus operandi is to make believe (lie). He has a strong reputation on this forum as the King of Make Believe, and though I've been warned not to call him that, he is caught make believing in almost every single post, so how can you fault me? No one comes close
These last 3 pages really have revealed fal to be a liar and a troll.
And yet he's not.
It's been very amusing seeing more people descend into the level of personal attack lately. I can feel the vitriol on the board building.
Give in to the Dark Side, everyone. Let your anger fuel you.
--------------------
Edited by Vahn421 (08/11/20 11:23 AM)
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: shivas.wisdom]
#26874873 - 08/11/20 11:23 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
natedawgnow said: That antifa is an organized domestic terror group
That's his opinion. Though I disagree, he's done a much better job defending his position than others have in attacking it.
Source, or make believe.

I love it when people ask me that question, because everyone here knows I ALWAYS provide a source. Vahn started an ENTIRE THREAD about this topic. He posted lots of videos and links that he believes supports his position.
I realize people can and do disagree with Vahn, and debate is what this forum should be about, but can you find a post from natedawgnow explaining why it's not a domestic terror group? That's the type of discussion we should have here, not what a big fat poo poo head Vahn is.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: christopera]
#26874876 - 08/11/20 11:23 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
christopera said: Loaded questions, dude.
How so? What did I get wrong?
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger



Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 4 months, 21 days
|
Re: Is there ANY good argument for blocking traffic? [Re: koods]
#26874887 - 08/11/20 11:29 AM (3 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:
natedawgnow said: You'll call koods a make believer for taking trumps words literally
Source, or make believe?
I would never have called koods a make believer for taking Trump's words literally. I'm confident you're lying AGAIN.
You’re a fucking liar.
Mods, why does falcon get to continuously lie like this? Isn’t trolling banned in this forum?
Because you keep failing to provide evidenece for your make believe claims, that's why. If you'd do that I would support a temporary ban on myself, but since you can't back yourself up, I believe you're the one that needs to be banned (though enlil says he wants to protect the make believers here).
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
|