Right Wing Regressives Need to Stop

[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?

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.

That doesn't explain why disrupting a pro-fascist play would be legitimate, but disrupting an anti-fascist play or some other play, LGBT, or A Doll's House, would not be legitimate, given that they are all political protests.

Every group supporting each "protest" would have an argument in favor of their political position, but how does that render the disruption legitimate?

Saying it's no different than elucidating the principles of any political ideology does not answer the question I've been posing, so if that's offered as an answer to what I've been talking about, then it seems quite inapposite.

[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.

That doesn't explain why disrupting a pro-fascist play would be legitimate, but disrupting an anti-fascist play or some other play, LGBT, or A Doll's House, would not be legitimate, given that they are all political protests.

It does if you read what I've been writing. I've said it a number of times now: there are no right answers.

[Forty Two]

Why do you always stop short of actually explaining what you mean? There are no right answers? So? Does that mean all the disruptions are legitimate? None are legitimate? Some are legitimate? Or, that the are legitimate if a person thinks they are legitimate?

Is that last one it? That there are no right answers, so if Lemmy thinks its a legitimate form of protest in one instance, but not in another, then that's what Lemmy thinks, and that's that.

Do we not still have the question of WHY Lemmy thinks that? Saying "there is no right answer" doesn't explain why LEMMY thinks that it's legitimate protest to disrupt a pro-fascist play, but would not equivalently be legitimate to do the same to an LGBT play. What's the difference? Is it just that Lemmy thinks one issue is meritorious and the other not?

Is there, for example, an issue where Lemmy says, well, I don't agree with the protesters and why they are protesting, but it's still a legitimate disruption to storm the stage? I.e., are legitimate disruptions those with which Lemmy sides politically, and all others are illegitimate. Or, is there some other contributing factor?

[Brian Peacock]

... Would your position be the same if the play featured an LGBT cast...,

Is this a case of, "But you don't really mean what you say or even think what you mean"?

[L'Emmerdeur]

Do we not still have the question of WHY Lemmy thinks that? Saying "there is no right answer" doesn't explain why LEMMY thinks that it's legitimate protest to disrupt a pro-fascist play, but would not equivalently be legitimate to do the same to an LGBT play. What's the difference? Is it just that Lemmy thinks one issue is meritorious and the other not?

Is there, for example, an issue where Lemmy says, well, I don't agree with the protesters and why they are protesting, but it's still a legitimate disruption to storm the stage? I.e., are legitimate disruptions those with which Lemmy sides politically, and all others are illegitimate. Or, is there some other contributing factor?

Here's a deal for you: I'm fine with you continuing to call me "LEMMY" as long as I have permission to begin calling you "FARTY."

It seems that you really can't stop yourself from employing contemptibly dishonest arguments, Forty Two. I have not argued against non-violent disruptive political protests in this thread (nor elsewhere), regardless of the object of those protests.

The basis for my opinion is that I believe in freedom of expression, barring the infliction of harm. If the free expression is in some way illegal then so be it, and in general I would not argue against the protesters facing legal consequences for their actions. I'm capable of distinguishing between "legitimate" and "legal." One is my opinion, the other is entirely in the hands of the government.

[JimC]

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.

Is the park venue (and that it might not be pay-to-view) the difference here? I am definitely opposed to any form of political disruption of commercial plays in entertainment venues, but after that, I suppose some grey areas emerge...

[Forty Two]

... Would your position be the same if the play featured an LGBT cast...,

Is this a case of, "But you don't really mean what you say or even think what you mean"?

Not really, because Lemmy said that the LGBT example was not an equivalent example, but there has yet to be an explanation as to why it's not. pErvin offered a quip about the anti-fascist disruption being "political", but since an anti-LGBT disruption is also political, I am still wondering why it's not equivalent.

[pErvinalia]

Why do you always stop short of actually explaining what you mean?

Well in this instance it was because I was lying on my back at 2am and typing on my phone. And I thought it should be clear enough to you anyway going by what I've said up to this point.

There are no right answers? So? Does that mean all the disruptions are legitimate? None are legitimate? Some are legitimate? Or, that the are legitimate if a person thinks they are legitimate?

Jeezus. Legitimacy isn't objective.

Is that last one it? That there are no right answers, so if Lemmy thinks its a legitimate form of protest in one instance, but not in another, then that's what Lemmy thinks, and that's that.

Yes, but if Lemmy wants to make that case with any authority then she'll back it up with some amount of reasoning (which she has, despite you not being able to identify it). And if you or anyone else wants to disagree with her assessment of legitimacy, then you'll provide some amount of reasoning to back up your argument.

Do we not still have the question of WHY Lemmy thinks that? Saying "there is no right answer" doesn't explain why LEMMY thinks that it's legitimate protest to disrupt a pro-fascist play, but would not equivalently be legitimate to do the same to an LGBT play.

She hasn't said that. This seems to be another case of your hyper-partisanship. Why should she explain the WHY of something she hasn't said?

Is there, for example, an issue where Lemmy says, well, I don't agree with the protesters and why they are protesting, but it's still a legitimate disruption to storm the stage?

If you read what she's written you'll clearly see an exact example of this. Take your blinkers off.

(apologies if Lemmy isn't a "she").

[Brian Peacock]

L'Emmy was clear that the legitmacy of political protest is contingent on rights not political persausion. Shall we move on now?

[rainbow]

That doesn't explain why disrupting a pro-fascist play would be legitimate, but disrupting an anti-fascist play or some other play, LGBT, or A Doll's House, would not be legitimate, given that they are all political protests.

Gosh, I will have to explain yet again.

If you protest we have the equivalent right to throw poo at you in counter-protest.

If you do the same however it is a hate crime and you will be arrested.

You really are very slow.

[Forty Two]

Do we not still have the question of WHY Lemmy thinks that? Saying "there is no right answer" doesn't explain why LEMMY thinks that it's legitimate protest to disrupt a pro-fascist play, but would not equivalently be legitimate to do the same to an LGBT play. What's the difference? Is it just that Lemmy thinks one issue is meritorious and the other not?

Is there, for example, an issue where Lemmy says, well, I don't agree with the protesters and why they are protesting, but it's still a legitimate disruption to storm the stage? I.e., are legitimate disruptions those with which Lemmy sides politically, and all others are illegitimate. Or, is there some other contributing factor?

Here's a deal for you: I'm fine with you continuing to call me "LEMMY" as long as I have permission to begin calling you "FARTY."

I wouldn't try to stop you calling me Farty. It's no big deal. I did not call you Lemmy as an insult. I followed pErvin's lead. Seemed like a nice shorthand, so I don't have to write out your full screen name - easier to type - and it gave me the image in my head that I'm talking to Lemmy from Motorhead. But, if you don't want me to use that name, I'm cool with that.

It seems that you really can't stop yourself from employing contemptibly dishonest arguments, Forty Two. I have not argued against non-violent disruptive political protests in this thread (nor elsewhere), regardless of the object of those protests.

Well, I haven't employed any dishonest argument. You haven't even identified any dishonest argument. I was very clear that what I was talking about was your statement that my example was not equivalent, that a more equivalent example was the disruptive protest of the pro-fascist play. I was trying to get a handle on what distinction you were making. Why is a disruptive protest, of the "run onto the stage" and "scream and yell in the audience" kind we saw in the Julius Caesar protest, not "equivalent" if directed at a pro-LGBT play? Or, maybe I misunderstood you, and you classify both examples as legitimate forms of protest.

I'm not attacking you - just trying to understand your distinctions, why you were saying one example was not equivalent enough.

The basis for my opinion is that I believe in freedom of expression, barring the infliction of harm. If the free expression is in some way illegal then so be it, and in general I would not argue against the protesters facing legal consequences for their actions. I'm capable of distinguishing between "legitimate" and "legal." One is my opinion, the other is entirely in the hands of the government.

Sure, I get that. And, I can accept that. However, that concept seems to me to apply just as well, just as equivalently, to the example I gave of the Westboro Baptist Church people disrupting a pro-LGBT play, which I think you mentioned was not really equivalent. So, I just wanted to know why that wasn't equivalent - what's the difference? But, if I am wrong about your position on that, then please accept my apologies, and I'll drop it.

Another way to look at it is this - we see the Westboro Baptist Church folks protesting soldiers' funerals, right. But, they inevitably do it away from the actual funeral. Close enough to be perhaps seen, but they don't go onto the property where the funeral is taking place, and they don't run into the midst of the proceedings and yell their political protest message. A lot of people think they shouldn't be allowed to protest the funerals at all, because of how hurtful it may be to the attendees of the funeral. I don't agree - I think they have every right, on public property, to march, sing songs, and carry signs, mostly sayin' hooray for our side, that kind of thing. But, I would say it is not legitimate protest to run to proceeding, jump in front of the minister and yell a political protest message. I think that's because they are invading the property rights of the funeral home/cemetery and the rights of the funeral attendees themselves, who made arrangements with the cemetery to reserve the property temporarily.

So, would it be legitimate protest to disrupt such a funeral?

And, address that same question but the protesters are now pro-choice protesters, and the funeral is for Johnny Dickbag, a man killed by police while he was trying to shoot abortion doctors. And, a couple of their protesters jump in front of the minister and disrupt the service with a political message.

[Forty Two]

That doesn't explain why disrupting a pro-fascist play would be legitimate, but disrupting an anti-fascist play or some other play, LGBT, or A Doll's House, would not be legitimate, given that they are all political protests.

Gosh, I will have to explain yet again.

If you protest we have the equivalent right to throw poo at you in counter-protest.

If you do the same however it is a hate crime and you will be arrested.

LOL. I see what you did there.

You really are very slow.

Opinions vary.

[Forty Two]

L'Emmy was clear that the legitmacy of political protest is contingent on rights not political persausion. Shall we move on now?

Sure, but, what, then, was the lack of equivalency in the example of the disruptive protest of the pro-LGBT play? If legtimacy of political protest is contingent on rights, then isn't the disruptive protest of the pro-LGBT play just as legitimate? Isn't it equivalent? If not, what's the distinction. If so, then I'll be thankful for the clarification.

[Brian Peacock]

LGBT isn't a political persuasion but a state of being.

[Forty Two]

There are no right answers? So? Does that mean all the disruptions are legitimate? None are legitimate? Some are legitimate? Or, that the are legitimate if a person thinks they are legitimate?

Jeezus. Legitimacy isn't objective.

Sure, legitimacy is a matter of subjective opinion, not objective fact. However, even subjective opinion is subject to reason. So, what's the rationale being employed? Even if you say "I think X is legitimate protest, but Y is not" there should be a reason for it, if someone is thinking rationally. I suppose it's possible to just say that I think X is legitimate and Y is not, because that's the way I feel, or because I think disruptive protests about things I support are legitimate, and disruptive protests about things I don't support are not. But, again, there is no principle there.

It would also not support any suggestion that there is a non-equivalency between disruptive protest of a pro-LGBT play vs. a disruptive protest of a pro-fascist play. Saying "I just subjectively think that the disruption of the pro-fascist play is legitimate and the disruption of the pro-LGBT play is not equivalent" doesn't present even a rational basis for the subjective viewpoint, it's just an arbitrary declaration.

Lot's of viewpoints are subjective, but they still can have stronger or less strong rationale. Like any view that X or Y or Z is immoral. Certainly subjective. But, if one say "I just feel like X is immoral," or " I read it in a book" is rather a weak rationale. Whereas, X is immoral because [insert utilitarian argument, common good argument, harm argument, or whatever] would make the subjective case stronger. That's the same here with the legitimate protest argument. So what I was looking for was the rationale.

Is that last one it? That there are no right answers, so if Lemmy thinks its a legitimate form of protest in one instance, but not in another, then that's what Lemmy thinks, and that's that.

Yes, but if Lemmy wants to make that case with any authority then she'll back it up with some amount of reasoning (which she has, despite you not being able to identify it). And if you or anyone else wants to disagree with her assessment of legitimacy, then you'll provide some amount of reasoning to back up your argument.

Well, the discrete point I was looking for was the rationale behind saying that the disruptive protest of the pro-LGBT play was not really an equivalent example. That has not been described or backed up.

Do we not still have the question of WHY Lemmy thinks that? Saying "there is no right answer" doesn't explain why LEMMY thinks that it's legitimate protest to disrupt a pro-fascist play, but would not equivalently be legitimate to do the same to an LGBT play.

She hasn't said that. This seems to be another case of your hyper-partisanship. Why should she explain the WHY of something she hasn't said?

I think L'Emmerdeur has. Let me scroll back up and check, and I'll come back to this and edit in what was written.

Yes, here is what I'm talking about that set the ball rolling on this issue:

I appreciate the attempt at 'balance', but I don't find this little bit of political theatre to be particularly objectionable (the shouting right-wingers, rather than the Julius Caesar). Disrupting a performance is a legitimate form of protest, in my opinion. Condemning this action seems to be motivated by a hyper-developed concern over law 'n order.

Well, we can agree to disagree. I don't think if there was, for example, and LGBT parade that fundamentalist Christian or Muslim groups have some legitimate right to "disrupt" the performance of the parade. They have the right to protest it - to be out in public and speak their mind. But, to stop it from happening by standing in front of it, or getting into the parade groups and bollocksing up performances? They have no such right.

A more accurate equivalence would be the performance of a pro-fascist play in a public park. Such an event is, in my opinion, a legitimate target for non-violent disruption.

So, what's the distinction - disruptive protesting a pro-LGBT event vs the same actions toward a pro-fascist event?