• knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      You sound desperate and cringey

      Says the person who thinks inconvenience should be illegal.

      Freedom of movement implies the freedom not to move (while in the middle of a road), not the freedom from temporary obstructions.

      • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Interesting… so what are your thoughts on the practice of Kettling then? Police have used this tactic on protests that were properly permitted but may run afoul of the incumbent parties views.

        Using your logic this seems like it is just a small inconvenience for the protesters.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling

        • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Awwh, you think being detained by cops is the same thing as road closures? Next time they start doing construction are you gonna file kidnapping charges? XD

          • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            It was a simple question which you’ve decided to not answer and instead make a snide remark.

            So I’ll ask it again what are your feelings on the practice of Kettling? It seems like if you’re ok with being illegally detained by protesters, you would be just as ok with being illegally detained by police?

            Road closures are not

            • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Pretty simple leading question, of course. If you want to equate police malfeasance with protesters who dare cause any sort of disturbance to the status quo, then that sounds like a “you” problem.

              • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                I see, so when police violate an individual’s rights it’s malfeasance on their part. Yet when protesters that you happen to agree with violate those rights in a shockingly similar manner, it’s a disturbance and the individual should “get over it” and it’s their problem.

                It was indeed a very simple question which you tried to side step. You seem to understand how an individual who doesn’t have a stake in your cause could feel victimized by actions that directly affect their safety and liberty. But you and the protesters don’t care about those particular victims, you want just the attention.

                  • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    It is disingenuous to conflate a generic traffic jam that happens naturally, with intentionally blocking traffic and conspiring to detain people for the purpose of publicity.

                    The two are not nearly the same.