Right Wing Regressives Need to Stop

[Forty Two]

Sure, perhaps, but if Lemmy is just saying that Lemmy thinks that disruption of a pro-fascist play is cool-by-Lemmy because Lemmy hates fascism, then that's just acknowledging that we each have opinions setting up a hierarchy of importance of issues. Some people hate gays, some people hate fascists. Naturally, each will be sympathetic to a different set of disruptive protesters. However, I've been trying to get at an underlying principle. If the underlying principle is "legitimate disruptive protest of plays occurs when I think the cause is just" - well, then we really don't have an underlying principle.

[L'Emmerdeur]

What about "the performance of an anti-fascist play in a public park." Is such an even [sic], in your opinion, a legitimate target for non-violent disruption?

Yes, in my opinion, it is a legitimate target of non-violent disruption. One would think that would have been clear to you, given my previous posts in this thread.

[pErvinalia]

Sure, perhaps, but if Lemmy is just saying that Lemmy thinks that disruption of a pro-fascist play is cool-by-Lemmy because Lemmy hates fascism, then that's just acknowledging that we each have opinions setting up a hierarchy of importance of issues. Some people hate gays, some people hate fascists. Naturally, each will be sympathetic to a different set of disruptive protesters. However, I've been trying to get at an underlying principle. If the underlying principle is "legitimate disruptive protest of plays occurs when I think the cause is just" - well, then we really don't have an underlying principle.

That's the principle of democracy and political protest. It's up to individuals to decide what is and isn't important to them.

[pErvinalia]

What about "the performance of an anti-fascist play in a public park." Is such an even [sic], in your opinion, a legitimate target for non-violent disruption?

Yes, in my opinion, it is a legitimate target of non-violent disruption. One would think that would have been clear to you, given my previous posts in this thread.

The problem with 42 is that he's hyper-partisan and thinks that everyone else must be too. It's why we get so many "but what about the Democrats" tu quo ques and red herrings out of him.

[Forty Two]

What about "the performance of an anti-fascist play in a public park." Is such an even [sic], in your opinion, a legitimate target for non-violent disruption?

Yes, in my opinion, it is a legitimate target of non-violent disruption. One would think that would have been clear to you, given my previous posts in this thread.

The bit I wanted you to focus on was "why?" And, to compare the different targets of protest I suggested, and provide some principled explanation as to why the pro-fascist play would be a legitimate target, but the other targets I mentioned would not be.

So, again - other than your personal opinion that pro-fascist things are legitimate targets, what makes it legitimate?

If another person, not you, thinks an anti-fascist target is legitimate, is it legitimate? If so, why? If not, why not? And, if not, why is your view of what is a worthy protest target the one that wins the day, and not the other person's view?

[Forty Two]

Sure, perhaps, but if Lemmy is just saying that Lemmy thinks that disruption of a pro-fascist play is cool-by-Lemmy because Lemmy hates fascism, then that's just acknowledging that we each have opinions setting up a hierarchy of importance of issues. Some people hate gays, some people hate fascists. Naturally, each will be sympathetic to a different set of disruptive protesters. However, I've been trying to get at an underlying principle. If the underlying principle is "legitimate disruptive protest of plays occurs when I think the cause is just" - well, then we really don't have an underlying principle.

That's the principle of democracy and political protest. It's up to individuals to decide what is and isn't important to them.

Certainly, when you're talking about what people themselves want to talk about and express about.

What we're talking about here is legitimate DISRUPTION of other people's events - plays, speeches, whatever.

What does it mean to say that running onto the stage at A Doll's House or Julius Caesar and shutting the shows down or preventing the plays from proceeding is "legitimate disruption" -- or that one is legitimate disruption and the other not legitimate disruption? They're both disruption. And, different people can have different political motivations - someone might protest and disrupt A Doll's House because they don't like its attack on the sanctity of marriage, decency and the family, or it's rejection of traditional familial roles. That's their political view. Someone might protest Julius Caesar and disrupt the stage play because of the imagery of stabbing and murdering the President. That's their view.

I see neither "disruption" as legitimate, even though i certainly acknowledge that some people will view one issue as worthy of protest and another person will view the other issue as worthy of protest. Neither, however, are legitimate targets of "disruption" are they? The disruption is one private citizen interfering with and disrupting the lawful activities of another.

If a group of people protested the St. Patrick's Day Parade, and locked arms across the street to prevent the parade from happening, would that be "legitimate disruption?" Would it be legitimate disruption if the St. Patrick's Day Parade was, in fact, a St. Augustine's Day Parade, celebrating a man who advocating converting pagans to Christianity by force? Is there something other than the person view of the merits of the issue being protested which renders the disruption "legitimate?"

[Forty Two]

What about "the performance of an anti-fascist play in a public park." Is such an even [sic], in your opinion, a legitimate target for non-violent disruption?

Yes, in my opinion, it is a legitimate target of non-violent disruption. One would think that would have been clear to you, given my previous posts in this thread.

The problem with 42 is that he's hyper-partisan and thinks that everyone else must be too. It's why we get so many "but what about the Democrats" tu quo ques and red herrings out of him.

Absurd.

[pErvinalia]

This isn't really any different to any other sphere of political philosophy. There's no right answers, only well reasoned and less well reasoned arguments. Lemmy has made the critical point about this being about political protest. It's no different to claims of the legitimacy of different political systems in relation to say personal freedom. There is no right answer, only variously reasoned arguments.

[pErvinalia]

So to be clear, there's no right answer to whether say the Westbro Baptist Church disrupting an lgbti rights event is legitimate protest. There's only various arguments for and against the proposition.

[Svartalf]

basically, holding an event to protest an other event is okay, disrupting other people's first amendment rights ought to be grounds for on the spot shooting

[pErvinalia]

[Svartalf]

Hey, what's the second good for if not to protect the first?

[Forty Two]

This isn't really any different to any other sphere of political philosophy. There's no right answers, only well reasoned and less well reasoned arguments. Lemmy has made the critical point about this being about political protest. It's no different to claims of the legitimacy of different political systems in relation to say personal freedom. There is no right answer, only variously reasoned arguments.

This is not an explanation of the issue, pErvin. So what if it's about "political" protest?

All the issues I've cited as examples are "political" protest issues. Protesting a pro LGBT play is political. Protesting A Doll's House is political for the reasons I gave. Protesting anti-fascist plays is political, just as protesting pro-fascist plays is political.

I am wondering why Lemmy said that the examples I gave were not equivalent. Saying "this is about political protest" does not expound on a non-equivalence. They are all political.

What I'm looking for is the well-reasoned argument that DISRUPTING a pro-fascist play would be "legitimate" but disrupting an anti-fascist, or anti-LGBT play, etc., would not be legitimate. Even the example of me holding a family picnic. If someone is protesting me (I mentioned you) because of my political views as a hypothetical example, then it's a political protest. Maybe someone is protesting the very idea of family picnics as a feature of our patriarchal culture. That's political.

I'm simply not getting where "DISRUPTION" is legitimate and where it is not. Declaring that one views anti-fascist "disruption" as legitimate is an assertion, but it is not an explanation as to WHY it is legitimate. And, I don't think I've seen a clear answer as to whether the test of legitimacy lies solely in the mind of the protester or not.

Said another way, if Lemmy is saying that disruption of plays is legitimate if the person protesting thinks there is a political issue worth protesting, such that both pro-fascist and anti-fascist plays are subject of legitimate disruption if the person protesting believes the disruption to be a legitimate form of protest, then I can understand that logic. That affords everyone the same right to disrupt. If you say only pro-fascist protests are legitimate targets of disruption, then you are favoring one political view over another as to what is disruptive and legitimate. We know Lemmy thinks pro-fascist plays are legitimately disruptable because Lemmy is anti-fascist - great - but it should be clear that I'm not really asking what Lemmy's subjective opinion is. I'm asking for a principled argument to make the distinction as to what is legitimate disruption in our system.

Does everyone else have the same privilege as Lemmy to decide subjectively what is legitimate disruption? Then, if so, as I said, we don't really have a principled distinction at all. It's just everyone's subjective opinion, and the strongest side should win....using the tactics of disruption.

My view is different, in that protest is fine, but disruption is not (regardless of what view one holds or the protested play holds/expresses). Objectively, in my view, as a principle of individual rights, we can protest, but you can't go running on the stage and stop other people from engaging in lawful activities.

[Forty Two]

So to be clear, there's no right answer to whether say the Westbro Baptist Church disrupting an lgbti rights event is legitimate protest. There's only various arguments for and against the proposition.

What I'm asking are what are the arguments for and against the propositions:

(a) it is legitimate protest for WBC to disrupt a play';
or
(b) it is not a legitimate protest for WBC to disrupt a play, even though it IS a legitimate protest for people disrupt a pro-fascist play.

I've discussed my views on it already.

[pErvinalia]

This isn't really any different to any other sphere of political philosophy. There's no right answers, only well reasoned and less well reasoned arguments. Lemmy has made the critical point about this being about political protest. It's no different to claims of the legitimacy of different political systems in relation to say personal freedom. There is no right answer, only variously reasoned arguments.

This is not an explanation of the issue, pErvin. So what if it's about "political" protest?

I just told you. It's no different to elucidating the principles of any political ideology.

Ill address the rest when I have more time.