this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
232 points (80.4% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

6281 readers
192 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

You identify a problem, you then call the attention of your family, friends and peers and really anyone who will listen to your rantings and ravings. After which if enough people support your claim to give confidence of legitimacy, you voice your concerns to authority. Or governing body or anyone that has been designated for the responsibility of resolving issues that arise within the realm of the aforementioned wrinkle in the rug. Only in the direst of need would would you and your conglomeration of dissatisfied citizenry shout, picket or otherwise raise a ruckus to your needs but life is such that needs be great at times. Go figure.

No, typically your movement starts with a letter campaign, phone calls and emails. If you're real lucky you might get a tête-à-tête with someone and if you're doubly lucky, on your way to resolution. It doesn't go down like that for most causes, most of the time it's all but ignored. Fear not seekers of change there is a way to avoid a fizzle out, get more people to join. Of course you could jump straight to hard disruption of daily life but letter writing, emails and phone calls are considered good places to start. Needs be great though and ignorance is willful and bliss. About now is a good time for ye ol' controlled rabble rousing... (it's a joke) but good intentions don't account for the actions of others though property damage doesn't trump a just cause. The bill on justification will come due and I expect to be satisfied. Feelings on rainbows don't meet my admittedly meager standards on letting your opinion be known, not that anyone asked.

There's not much recourse for your average person if the effects of your stance did not sway affections, unless that person is a multi-billion dollar corporation (cuz come on guys, corpos are people too) then you just drown the problem in money until it's buried or washed away to become someone else's problem. Most people are left with a problem unresolved and a pain in their chest that's not from the cuts, bruises or contusions that can accompany making your displeasure publicly known.

I would like to take this moment to tell you how stupid anyone is that intends to create change with the destruction of life that is not their own. I make an exception for self-immolation. If you believe in your cause so strongly that your only option is to extinguish your own flame in a dazzling display of sheer will. You get my respect for your force of determination if not your cause. The only 72 things anyone else gets though is in being blasted to 72 different dimensions of pain and shrapnel and good riddance too.

That is all to say that if you can't pay and you won't choose violence what other avenue is left to pursue?

Stop the machinations that allow people to remain willfully ignorant of the problem. I am sorry that you might be late to work, I'm sorry that couldn't get your triple pump whateverthefuck you're getting in a cup that makes you feel like the emptiness inside isn't so vast, I'm sorry you were delayed running those errands. I'm sorry for your death during a cardiac episode stuck in traffic. I am sorry. But to the point where your life has to stop in its tracks so you will listen, it's important. Some person decided to put their own life in danger to warn you that your own and those around you are also in danger. I'm not saying it is not a bitter pill.

Let us not forget that all of this is predicated on the assumption that when the piper cometh those ends were indeed justified by the means. What constitutes a worthy reason is beyond the purview of the arguments I'm laying forth. As for the eggs that are gonna get cracked, I don't mourn the loss of property only loss of life. In the many words I have used, I am saying that there is a reason the right to free speech and assembly are enshrined in places around the world and I believe in that reason. Whether or not those rights are protected in an equal and fair manner is a whole different can of worms.

tldr; I wrote this for amusement and for the play on words, doesn't mean I don't believe it. By default I care more about my own bodily waste than I'm going to care about your reactionary opinion. Exceptions will be made for adding to the conversation, upgrade to better-than-what-I'm-scooping-out-of-the-litter-boxes-at-home levels of interest.

I thank you for joining me in this ramble. Have a wonderful day.

edit: just want to give a couple special shoutouts, I won’t name names but you’ll know if I’m talking about you. First, to my peeps that are taking this personally, offensively or otherwise as an insult; fucking good, you need to face uncomfortable topics more often and I’m glad I could be there for you and share in this together. Second, to my peeps who found themselves vindicated in their original positions; the same to you as the first group. This has absolutely been my pleasure so thank you if you voted or voiced an opinion. Going to sleep for now but if you call me back to this topic with something good I’ll try to catch you in the morning.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Then people should have a right to shut down protestors.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

They already do. It’s called a counter protest.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

OK. then i think things are balanced.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It seems clear to me. What's wrong?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't know what you mean by shut down exactly.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Put an end to their disruptive activity.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

That just seems to be a synonym to shut down. How do suggest this be done exactly?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, there wasn't much to interpret. How would you remove disruptive people?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't think we should remove protestors. How would you remove protestors?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'd use legal force like police, riot control, etc.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like an escalation.why not just talk to them?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Well, you're right, have an escalation procedure. However, they could just talk to whomever they think they aught to disrupt.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

A formal de-escalation process seems best with nonviolent protestors. Why do you think they haven't tried to talk to them already?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's interesting that you end a post about how important it is to make yourself be heard with a note that you don't care to hear opposing viewpoints unless they are presented in a way you like.

Regardless, the way I see it is at the end of the day, it's all about how popular your position might be if more people were aware of it. If it's unpopular, then others will cheer as the disrupting protest is violently cleared from the street. If it's popular, then the violence used to clear it from the street might instead make the protest bigger when it's met with outrage.

Though it also depends on what you mean by "right". I agree that anyone has the physical ability to disrupt daily life and that doing so doesn't make them a bad person on its own (that judgement IMO is based more on the why than the what, though it also depends on how extreme the disruption is; ie a stronger disruption requires a stronger reason to justify it). I don't agree with a right that anyone should be able to disrupt things for whatever thing is bugging them without any expectation that the state will just say, "it's ok, do what you want because you're unhappy".

The reason why I think protests should sometimes be stopped is because if you have a movement that supports something and another movement that opposes it, if both decide to disrupt things until they get their way, nothing will happen and there's a chance it will eventually escalate to violence, either between the groups directly or from others who are neutral but tired of the disruptions.

Also it's good to be aware that disrupting things itself can generate opposition in those who might otherwise support or be neutral on the issue.

But if you think your issue is a hill worth dying on, then IMO you should fight your fight. Be true to yourself. Just be aware that it might take a martyr for your movement to gain traction, or it might never get off the ground even with a martyr.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's interesting that you end a post about how important it is to make yourself be heard with a note that you don't care to hear opposing viewpoints unless they are presented in a way you like.

That was not my intended meaning. Only that I do not care for reactionary opinions based on the assumption of what I think is a worthy cause to protest in this way and that if they were going to be presented anyway they should at least be interesting.

As for opposing views and arguments, I welcomed them to the best of my ability. There were very few of those, most responses were attacks on the parts of my reasoning that struck a nerve. It’s like trying to cut down a tree by picking off the leaves.

I can’t really argue with any of the other points you made because I had already accounted for them as conditions for my opinion.

The hill I’m choosing to die on is that whether you’re with the Canada Truck Convoy Boys or part of Palestines Pals you have a right to be heard and that we have a right to judge the actions taken to be heard against what you’re saying.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Ah I should have realized the "hill to die on" part was ambiguous. I didn't mean you in this discussion specifically, but anyone who has an issue they want to protest about. Ie, If someone wants to fight a fight they believe in, they should do whatever they can to push it forward, regardless of who disagrees with them, they should just be aware that they might generate opposition instead of support depending on what methods they use to fight that fight.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

I agree with that.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What if protesters aren't leftists but are on the political right?

For example, should pro-lifers be allowed to block the offices of abortion doctors?

What did you think of the trucker protest in Canada?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

These are great questions and these questions are exactly the reason I kept this as vague as possible.

What if protesters aren't leftists but are on the political right?

Does the right to free speech and assembly apply to them? Yes.

For example, should pro-lifers be allowed to block the offices of abortion doctors?

No. Their need isn’t justified.

What did you think of the trucker protest in Canada?

Hilarious, it brought a decent source of amusement to me. Also better than the alternative of attempting to overthrow a government through violent means.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No. Their need isn’t justified.

Ah, understood, people should feel empowered to risk health and safety, break as much stuff as they feel like, and get in the way of folks trying to live their lives... Unless you don't agree with their cause.

You made an effort to speak about "protest" in the abstract while ostensibly trying to steer clear of judging the cause of a give protest. However, in real life that's just not the case, like here where after a very long wall of text declaring protest to be good, you shoot down an example as unjustified.

The abstract concept of a 'protest' can be good or bad, and there are bad protests even for causes that would mostly be seen as 'good'.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Absolutely, having a personal opinion on a matter invalidates my arguments. You cornered me now, you wily rascal you. So everyone knows that you toppled my wall of text, three cheers for you:

HUZZAH! HUZZAH! HUZZAH!

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

OP comments like the ketamine is working

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago

Just a little pot nothing any stronger, this is just my normal unhinged self.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago (2 children)

There are cases where this applies, when a significant issue is censored across all media and you can only reach the rest of the people with greater power to resist the oppressors.

In most cases, it doesn't. We have somehow normalized the assumption that people will listen more to protests. But do you really? Don't reduce it to issues you already pay attention to. Think from the perspective of the uninformed target people. Think of political ideas you don't tolerate. Will you listen more to them, if they block your way, ruin your day and may even harm your life instead of having a conversation with you?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The climate crisis, previously the Iraq War now Ukraine and Palestine, trans rights, LGBTQIA+ rights, abortion are not at all "censored" and are still worthy of civil disobedience to course-correct imo.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

There are cases where this applies, when a significant issue is censored across all media and you can only reach the rest of the people with greater power to resist the oppressors.

This is the condition upon which I rest my case.

load more comments
view more: next ›