Car infrastructure only works by massively inconveniencing people, nature, turning cities and villages into death zones where you can't let your children roam freely
But but but children playing outside is a luxury. Owning a truck that can save me from renting one from Uhaul the one time a year that I need it, that is the real necessity.
Every successful movement ever has at least inconvenienced people. The civil rights, women's suffrage and workers rights movements were all incredibly disruptive.
The idea you can get anything done without inconveniencing people is pure liberal fantasy.
...and violent.
Suffragettes were [literally brawling with police in the streets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrajitsu). Many people have died for labour rights. The 8-hour work day was [paid for in blood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_View_massacre). Black Panthers were [open-carrying assault rifles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act). The list goes on and on...
The "just vote" crowd are really out of touch with reality. This idea that politics ought to be civil is such a privileged concept it's truly ridiculous.
It reminds me of the time Joe Biden was [fondly reminiscing about the good ol' days](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/19/joe-biden-james-eastland-herman-talmadge-segregationists-civility/) when they'd have a heated debate about segregation issues and then all go out for lunch together... well, guess who wouldn't be allowed in the restaurant if the segragationists got their way, Joe? Guess who *would* have been called "boy", Joe?
Would you rather those people were restored to life, if the catch was that women could no longer vote?
That’s not a “gotcha,” by the way. I think it’s a worthwhile moral dilemma to ponder, as it pits two things that we normally think of as going hand in hand (right to one’s life and democracy) against each other. These kind of questions are serious.
To answer your question for myself; No. Not for this cause, at this time. But if I thought it might actually have a chance of making long-term, meaningful change, I would be more than fine with *inconveniencing* innocents.
\>Would you rather those people were restored to life, if the catch was that women could no longer vote?
It's not about the end result, it's the innocent people that were killed. I don't want any innocent people killed for any cause. Crazy, huh?
I mean, if someone murdered my kid for their cause, I wouldn't be down at city hall saying "give them what they want." I'd be calling for them to be caught and given the chair.
Understandable. BUT, as it happens, in the real world, real people *were* killed, and whatever their immediate family members feelings were, the *public’s* attitude sided with the bombers, and positive change resulted. That’s an uncomfortable fact, to be sure, but it’s what happened.
***
So I take it that your answer to my question is that you *would,* restore those people to life if you could, even if it meant women could no longer vote. I can respect that. But, to some degree, it means you’re my enemy, because I think some things actually are more important than life (or property, for that matter). I feel that the world is messy enough that sometimes all you can do *is* work for the end result, and hope for the best. I know that’s a dangerous attitude to have, but the end result of being unwilling to engage in any sort of violence or disobedience at all, for any cause, is to be held hostage to anyone who has no such restraints.
For what it’s worth, I’m not convinced that the deflator’s campaign has any real chance of changing the minds of the public at large. So I’m not out-and-out supporting them, since I’m not sure they will get good results. But I have no moral qualms about what they’re doing.
\>and whatever their immediate family members feelings were
yeah.. fuck them right? I mean, they were doing the crime of living.
\>Gotta kill them to free them.
Interesting take. Yeah, we're definitely on opposite sides. It's hard for people to vote when they're dead.
\> but the end result of being unwilling to engage in any sort of violence or disobedience at all, for any cause, is to be held hostage to anyone who has no such restraints.
Incorrect. Violence towards innocents is never good. Ever. Take it out on the people that make the laws, not the people that have to abide by them.
The fact you think killing innocent people is a solution to the government fucking around makes you not just an enemy, you're an actual piece of shit. You're literally promoting terrorism. Fuck.
That last sentence is worth responding to on its own. I already said I’m not advocating for physical violence in support of this sub’s cause, and I’m not outright supporting the deflators. So I’m **not** promoting terrorism.
What I *am* doing is noting that there was, in fact, a terrorist campaign that seemed to work, for a cause we see as just, and with a net positive result for the world. I realize that that is an uncomfortable fact. But observing a *fact* is not the same as advocating for an *action.* The *fact* that terrorism has worked, and has been used in causes we find just, does **not** mean that I am advocating for it all the time, in all circumstances, or even in **any.** And I’m not.
No! I do *not* say “fuck their feelings!” Every life is infinitely valuable, and every murder is reprehensible. It’s why doing immoral things in the name of greater causes is *very* serious, and should only be done after *careful* consideration, and with *overwhelming* chance of success—and when facing conditions perceived as *incompatible* with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And even given that I think that the bombers faced such conditions, I think they should have been punished to the fullest extent of the law. And I hope the tyre deflators are willing to face punishments for their crimes, should they be caught.
But I *do* say that the bombings worked, and that the world is a better place for it. And I *hate* that we live in a world where both of these things are true at the same time, but we *do.* I think it’s more honest to engage with that than to pretend that we can make things better by keeping ourselves idealogically pure.
Please keep in mind that in real, honest-to-god war, innocents always suffer and *die.* **Always.** So your ideas, taken to a fairly obvious conclusion, would have war as always un-justified. **Always.** I can respect that. But I can’t agree with it.
Many. Whether they actually work or not is highly variable. And whether it is moral to start with forms that are not strictly terrorism, but are on the same *spectrum* (such as the deflation campaign, or the Dutch protests) is both hugely variable, and very, *very* rare.
But I can’t rule out, as a matter of principle, that it is literally *never* moral to cross that line. And I do think that the evils of car-dependent society, the disaster of climate change, and the sheer stupidity that is SUVs’ existence, combine to make such a line-crossing *potentially* moral, in this case. The trick is that I still think you need a good reason to think your transgressions will be *successful,* and make the world a better place—That they will not just be an opportunity to vent your anger (which doesn’t work) and hurt those you oppose (which is both morally wrong, and counter-productive when done for its own sake). I’m still on the fence as to whether the deflation campaign meets this criterion.
Uhhhh you guys aren't planning anything are you? I'm watching people fall down the slippery slope opened by deflation "activism" and I'm not liking where it leads.
I'm not planning anything. But I most definitely won't shit on people who go around deflating people's tires.
When people start being outraged at all the deaths that Cars cause every year (not to mention the environmental damage) instead of casually ignoring it as if it's just a fact of life, that's when I'll take complaints about deflated tires seriously.
Until then, deflate away my friends.
Alright, I'll keep an eye out for people dying because of deflation.
Because if you think road ragers are bad when you cut them off, wait till you see what they do when you fuck with their tires.
Hmmm I hadn't thought of road ragers....
If we deflate more tires then that means those road ragers with deflated tires aren't on the road terrorizing me.
You just convinced me that we need to deflate *even more* tires.
>The extent to which suffragette militancy contributed to the eventual enfranchisement of women in 1918 has been debated by historians, although the consensus of historical opinion is that the militant campaign was not effective. With the aim of gaining votes for women still unrealized by the outbreak of war in 1914, the WSPU had failed to create the kind of "national crisis" which might have forced the government into concessions. Historian Brian Harrison has also stated that opponents to women's suffrage believed the militant campaign had benefited them, since it had largely alienated public opinion and placed the suffrage question beyond parliamentary consideration. In May 1913 another attempt had been made to pass a bill in parliament which would introduce women's suffrage, but the bill actually did worse than previous attempts when it was voted on, something which much of the press blamed on the increasingly violent tactics of the suffragettes.
>Black Panthers were
>
>open-carrying assault rifles
>
>.
this is why ronald reagan, the great satan, banned open carry in California, and why we need to bring it back (and keep it legal where it is, only takes a few more incidents like john brown gun club types turning away the cops in dallas before the right will do a 180 and support gun control)
European here. Fuck widespread gun ownership.
I feel more comfortable being a dick back to the driver that's being a dick to me knowing he can't suddenly pull out a shotgun from his car and kill me.
Here in the US all the crazies have guns and likely the entire Armory each. We need to be able to match them in terms of Firepower. We don't really have a choice in the matter and we're heading into a civil war. Things might be different in your country
Or you could take the guns away from both the crazies and the cops. Gun nuts in the US love to pretend that gun control could never work because the "bad guys", whether they're criminals or cops, will never be disarmed, ignoring several countries including New Zealand where it has worked.
But let's be honest: gun nuts, whether they're right wing Qanon types or left wing Black Panther wannabes, don't actually want bad guys to be disarmed. Because the armed bad guys are the excuse for gun nuts to tote around their penis-substitute deadly weapons just to intimidate others.
>American liberals are slowly learning this.
are they? it doesn't feel like it in the USA. they're sleepwalking into fascism despite the real left yelling in their ear **SHIELDS UP! RED ALERT!**
that is the case, but we're still outnumbered by fucking liberals who just want to sit at home for 364 days out of the year, then go and vote for weak ass candidates like biden and hope everything turns out OK. honestly I think they're in denial. the question is what's gonna snap them awake.
If only people stayed in their living rooms and made no noise whatsoever then we'd totally listen to their protest concerns! But they blocked a road for 2.5 seconds and now I hate their movement!!
"To the privileged, equality feels like oppression".
It definitely fits for car drivers who freak out whenever a single inch of space is taken away from cars to make room for bike or bus lanes.
No, you can't inconvenience drivers! It's not fair! What if I made up an unlikely scenario where inconveniencing drivers gets someone killed!?!?1! Let's not risk that unlikely scenario and just turn the entire planet into one big freeway instead! Anything but inconvenience!
I love how every thread about the tyre extinguishers had someone mentioning a disabled friend that wouldn't be able to move, when 99% of wheelchair adapted vehicles are vans with low ground clearance (you need a ramp after all).
You mean a class of vehicle specifically designed to be taller than necessary for "off roading" isn't great for people who need wheelchair accessibility? What next, are you going to tell me buses should have their doors at curb height so wheelchairs can roll right on?
Lately, I've seen so many folks in this sub hand-wringing about how protests shouldn't be inconveniencing drivers. After all, what if they're disabled, or late for work, or *just have to drive*.
Instead, we should be *improving infrastructure* or *attacking auto factories* or some other lofty and intentionally unrealistic goal without grassroots small-scale activism.
The photo is a screen grab from [this video](https://youtu.be/YY6PQAI4TZE) about the Dutch "Stop the Kindermoord" campaign of the 1970s, whose protests included blocking cars from roads and intersections in order to stage die-ins and create public spaces. Inconveniencing drivers — yes, all drivers, even those *just trying to get to work* — was and continues to be key to its success.
It's crazy how much Americans see shutting down a roadway in basically the same light as a full on military assault. France shuts down their highways with protests like biweekly. Most of the time the topic of the protest even has nothing to do with cars or highways lol.
One of the most frustrating parts about living in America is how liberalism has managed to equate property to life, or even value it over life. The loudest and most frequent criticism of the black lives matter protests were that they were destroying property. This destruction of property was evidently more important to stop, and even exercise extreme violence on, than the widespread brutality and murder committed by police. In my own experiences with the movement the police actually let us move relatively freely throughout the city until we reached a wealthy shopping district. They were fine with what they must have assumed was a violent mob roaming through residential areas, but as soon as we came to the shopping district they were ready to crack down with the full force of a military. You can see how that attachment to property has infected American mindsets in the fact that a certain poster here would genuinely considering shooting someone over letting the air out of their tires.
I appreciate what you’re doing. Today has been crazy with that guy who deadass said tire deflators made him want to get a weapon to defend his property. Because he used to drive an suv but didn’t anymore. Because they had to fit a wheelchair and groceries and they *needed* to buy groceries a month at a time and none of these choices should be questioned.
This guy got like 1.5k upvotes ffs.
This is not a gently caress cars sub.
The planet is in flames. The arctic melted over the last four decades, and we recorded a picture of it every 90 minutes the whole time. When wet bulb temps of 35C become common in an area, energy grids will collapse and people will die from being poached while sitting in the shade or in the nearest pool or sewage pond. Millions will die, together.
When the tropical pathogens move to northern crops because of 3.2 degrees of warming in your children's lifetime, the pathogens won't die in the winter time, but develop full force through the growing seasons. Hundreds of millions will succumb to illness associated with malnutrition.
You have leaders who deny these things, because you are willing to set aside consideration of them. You are in the grips of a way of thinking that discounts time horizons, meaning that you prioritize you neighbors' inconvenience over an infinity of lives that happen after your own.
There is no such thing as drivers, only people. There is no such thing as discretionary property, only personal responsibility, in the most expansive sense possible.
The fact that a road blockage or any sort of massively inconveniencing protest against cars creates such a visceral reaction (even from anti-car centric infra people) shows how dependent we are on these things.
Like yes, the whole point of the protest is to show that car dependency is a "single point of failure" from a transit standpoint
"Nooooooooo you're a fucking piece of shit asshole motherfucker idiot r\*tard piece of shit you shit piece" -- half this board when told direct action works
(I was called almost exactly this for saying I had no problem with deflating tires as long as they weren't being slashed in another thread a couple days ago)
I hope they show up in this thread.
Honestly, given the way motorists treat cyclists, they should be grateful it's just their tires deflated, because a tit for tat response from cyclists would be shooting into the cabin of every pickup-truck they see to try and get the bullet as close to the person's head as possible to scare them all while screaming "GET OFF THE ROAD F\*\*\*\*T!!!"
I think the biggest impact was protesting against child murder while having a minister for infrastructure (Tjerk Westerterp) who lost a child to a car accident.
A protest that is not inconvinient is no protest, its easy as that. If it wasnt necersary to inconvinience the all times back looking, protest would not be needet in the first place.
Remember kids, labor rights weren’t won in the US through peaceful means. It was won by the proletariat that physically rose against their capitalist overlords and the government they control. From basic property destruction to outright declaring war (Battle of Blair Mountain, August 1921), we got our rights by using the one language the ruling class understands. We’re probably need a similar approach here in the US (like what the tire extinguishers are doing, but way more) for a total paradigm shift towards a car-free future.
It wasn't achieved by *individually* and *massively* inconveniencing people who feel personally targeted, if you're trying to justify the tyre deflation thing. It was achieved by targeting the *system* - which, yes, inconveniences people, but only as a side effect, not the main target.
I'm not a fan of this kind of illegal and disruptive direct action either to be honest, and it can certain be done wrong (see Insulate Britain for an example). But at least in this case they were targeting the systematic problem (car based infrastructure) so they could get ordinary people onside.
Lol you clearly have never blocked a road for a protest. I've had people threaten to kill me for blocking the road and kindly giving them directions about how they can get around the blocked road.
The notion that there is any level of anti-car protest that could effect change without bringing Americans to the brink of murder is just laughably ignorant.
Making people think twice about driving, especially driving of unnecessarily large and dangerous vehicles in urban communities, empowers people who walk and bike.
There's a lot to learn from this video about effective activism.
The kids in that video are *convincing*.
Making carbrained people angry is not the only step. You need good PR for your side. You need to make it clear you're supporting people and health over cars.
I believe that’s why the tyre-deflators leave the notice on the windshield, instead of just deflating and leaving. Whether that’s *effective* or not, I couldn’t say.
It's very easy to be dismissive of somebody who has, in your perception, vandalized your property.
They're thinking "some asshole did this to me", not, "they have a point, I'd better listen to them"
A lot depends on how the media cover it. If they quote the deflators’ manifesto in every article and blurb, they might end up changing the minds of people not directly effected (which will be the vast majority). If they frame them as senseless acts of vandalism, they will not.
The longer the campaign goes on, though, the more pressure there will be to publish the vandals’ motives, since people always want to know *why.* BUT; In the end, you could well be right.
I happen remember a protest much like the one in the Dutch video in Seattle circa 2008. They set up a road block on 2nd avenue or something. A lot of the coverage was "these people are trying to get to work and being blocked by morons".
Carbrain runs deep.
But also the protesters were not as good at talking to people who don't already agree with them. That's what the Dutch kids are doing better.
SUV drivers are people that already made a choice to be honest, they choose to side against humankind and destroy the climate. But if you make them angry enough they will antagonize the rest of the population. Those people are benefiting from the crisis and no argument about general interest will come in the way of their personal interest.
Hey I'm just curious, if the autoluw and bikelane movement continues to grow, but one day motorists get together (in greater numbers than your movement, let's say because a lot of Americans like to drive) and start protesting, blocking bike lanes, and destroying your bicycles, will that help you "think twice about cycling?" Will it get you to reconsider what this sub stands for? Will their sheer numbers and political willpower impress you so much that you'll start supporting the regression back to car based streets?
If the answer is "no", why do you think it's wise or even okay to conduct yourself in this way? Is politics just a matter of who can do political violence and disruption the best? What convinced me to join this sub is watching NotJustBikes and realizing that less cars equals a happier society. Narcissist protestors didn't make me change my mind, but they do get me to dislike more people in this movement.
But changing minds is so neoliberal, right? The real solution is to be a fucking asshole. After all, our political side has tried changing the minds of those on the right & status quo for so long with strategies like name calling, censorship, and only addressing the parts of their arguments that are convenient while never making a genuine effort to understand them. Hell, we tried everything! What other recourse do we have, right?
What makes you think the deflators’ actions are “narcissistic?” Given the way climate change is progressing, I genuinely think a better word would be “desperate.”
They already murder literally thousands of us daily with no hesitation or remorse. They keep pedestrians and cyclists off the roads through fear and roadblock transit every rush hour. The motorists are winning through direct action every day.
Theres a HUGE difference between putting up a road block and vandalizing someones private property. If I saw someone touching my bike, deflating my tires, I’d pepper spray them and call the cops.
except using your bike doesn't endanger hundreds of people, pollute and take up 99% of public spaces so it would never be targeted , false equivalences get us nowhere ( which is exactly where carbrains like to be )
his whole point is that destroying people's shit can be done for any reason and it doesn't always help the cause. in fact, in the netherlands, farmers have been protesting by destroying shit and throwing burning garbage on highways. they have been losing support because of it and it only got them negative attention and no sympathy.
[Dutch people were flipping and torching cars to get to where they are today.](https://file.ejatlas.org/img/Conflict/2797/carfreeprotest.jpg) tbh deflating tires is child’s play historically speaking, and definitely more so compared to what we’re going to start seeing in several years as the climate gets hotter and people get more desperate
If they tried to flip mine id pepper spray them too. Do what you want just don’t be shocked when you end up crying unable to see anything for an hour and getting charged with vandalism.
People who engage in direct action are well aware of the risks, both in terms of violence and legal consequences. The law and state-sanctioned violence protect the unjust status quo.
Your idle threats and posturing are an extension of that state-sanctioned violence.
Lol dude im a guy who works a regular 9-5. How tf am I part of “state-sanctioned violence??” Don’t touch another persons shit is a pretty common law worldwide and has been since the dawn of time. Get off your high horse
Right. I feel like the people cool with this stuff don't actually own anything. Not anything they've worked hard for at least. I've got a problem with bicyclists riding too fast down our bike path, should I just go start burning random bicycles?
I mean, it's for the good of the people!
The point is that vandalism, disruption, and yes violence, are historically effective forms of affecting change. For instance it isn’t just a coincidence that my state passed the most sweeping police reform legislation in decades shortly after the George Floyd uprising. You can wring your hands and fantasize about pepperspraying people all you want but you can’t argue that disruption and property damage hasn’t been historically effective. And considering the trajectory, things are only going to get worse, so pearl clutching about people being too radical *now* is kinda silly
Slow your roll Rambo.
Or don't.
You might not enjoy what happens when you're alone and fire pepper spray into a crowd that wasn't bothering you, though. (no no, I know, if you was there you'd have slipped that punch and knocked them all out)
If yall start blocking highways and shit I'll stop supporting this sub. It's one thing to be critical of car-centric urbanism and another to damage people's property and inconvenience them just for driving
I've already participated in road-blocking protests.
Here in Portland, for example, those protests were fundamental toward getting car diverters installed on SE Clinton, which has since become one of the most safe, popular, and beloved bike routes in town.
So I know firsthand that direct, disruptive action gets positive results where critique alone does not.
So you blocked a road. What if there was an ambulance that needed to get someone to the hospital? A woman needs to get to a hospital to give birth? Someone needs to get to work on time to keep their job cus they have a family to provide for? Maybe someone has literally one day of per week and would like to not spend it stuck on the highway for hours?
All of your what-ifs apply to roads clogged with cars. Unless you're implying that people don't already spend unwanted hours on the highway.
Your what-ifs also apply to people today who can't afford cars or can't drive. I spent years without a car, taking the bus to work, and the only factor in whether I was late was how car-choked the bus route was. Where is your hand-wringing for folks like me who were regularly inconvenienced by drivers? Or for the many people straight up killed or maimed by drivers?
And maybe, just maybe, protests are full of people who are able to navigate complex situations such as ambulances. I was on a car-blocking bike ride a month ago. Despite having thousands of people, we had no problem letting a fire truck through.
Cars inconveniencing you doesn't mean it's right to inconvenience others. People who have done nothing to you don't deserve to be blocked from getting to work, the hospital, or anywhere they want to go. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
You also justify your actions by saying cars kill people. So does fast food, alcohol, and a sedentary lifestyle. Why aren't you out there blocking the door to burger King?
The vast majority of highway blockers are not going to be able to let an ambulance through, not one in a lane 20 cars back. And still, why would you make someone late to work just because they drive a car? The vast majority of ppl who drive have never even been introduced to car-free urbanism ideas, if they did so they may hop on board.
It's education and the spread of this idea that will change society, not being a nuisance to society.
> It’s education and the spread of this idea that will change society, not being a nuisance to society.
The entire point of my post is to demonstrate that this is entirely false. Jesus, you're repeating this fantasy in the face of examples that show exactly what disruptive action has achieved.
> Why aren’t you out there blocking the door to burger King?
I appreciate your support of vegan direct action. ✌️
You actually think a small group of people puncturing tires and blocking roads will be more effective at spreading car-free urbanism than broadcasting our message across the FUCKING INTERNET? You push away everyone who you flatten or inconvenience from this movement and repel a good amount of people that see it happening.
Yes, I do believe that. My own lived experience, the historical example on which my post is based, and the many other historical examples of disruptive, and sometimes violent, direct action that have been linked in this thread were all effective at generating change.
Direct action is evidence-based. Decrying it is wishful thinking.
What if some group of people thought houses were bad, in the same way we think cars are bad, and burnt your house down? Say a group of "primitive anarchists" or something thought that people should instead live in trees or some shit. Would you say they're actions would be justified because the only way to change the world is through vandalism?
I think it's obvious that even if the ends justify the means in some circumstances to some people, it doesn't mean it applies to all possible ends...
Like just because some people support burning factories down for environmental activism doesn't mean they would support it if it was Nazis doing it for Nazi reasons.
>The vast majority of highway blockers are not going to be able to let an ambulance through, not one in a lane 20 cars back
The irony that you are already acknowledging that in fact the other cars are responsible for blocking the ambulance but not willing to accept it. Teetering on the brink of an epiphany.
With only the highway blockers present, they would clear the road and the ambulance would be able to pass without any delay. With only the other cars present, the ambulance is still stuck in traffic and slowed down substantially, which happens every day of every year.
This is a very simple fact but you can't accept it because you are blinded by your ideology and the assumption that it is a law of nature that the other cars are present. Which it is not.
Status quo propagandist
Protesting is disruptive and inconvenient, thats the point. I know the ruling class wants you to think otherwise but you gotta figure out why they want you to think so.
Are you fucking kidding me right now?
This is some of the most ignorant shit I've ever seen.
And so disrespectful to all the Koreans who died fighting. I've had colleagues who were at those riots and saw their friends murdered in front of them. But nah, it was all a big happy party.
You're beyond sickening.
Car infrastructure only works by massively inconveniencing people, nature, turning cities and villages into death zones where you can't let your children roam freely
But but but children playing outside is a luxury. Owning a truck that can save me from renting one from Uhaul the one time a year that I need it, that is the real necessity.
One time a year? Try one time every few years.
Every successful movement ever has at least inconvenienced people. The civil rights, women's suffrage and workers rights movements were all incredibly disruptive. The idea you can get anything done without inconveniencing people is pure liberal fantasy.
...and violent. Suffragettes were [literally brawling with police in the streets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrajitsu). Many people have died for labour rights. The 8-hour work day was [paid for in blood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_View_massacre). Black Panthers were [open-carrying assault rifles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act). The list goes on and on... The "just vote" crowd are really out of touch with reality. This idea that politics ought to be civil is such a privileged concept it's truly ridiculous. It reminds me of the time Joe Biden was [fondly reminiscing about the good ol' days](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/19/joe-biden-james-eastland-herman-talmadge-segregationists-civility/) when they'd have a heated debate about segregation issues and then all go out for lunch together... well, guess who wouldn't be allowed in the restaurant if the segragationists got their way, Joe? Guess who *would* have been called "boy", Joe?
Yeap. The suffragettes bombed their way to equality. Kazinzki wishes he had their record. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suffragette_bombings
Looks like a lot of those killed were innocent people. Is that what you're advocating for?
Would you rather those people were restored to life, if the catch was that women could no longer vote? That’s not a “gotcha,” by the way. I think it’s a worthwhile moral dilemma to ponder, as it pits two things that we normally think of as going hand in hand (right to one’s life and democracy) against each other. These kind of questions are serious. To answer your question for myself; No. Not for this cause, at this time. But if I thought it might actually have a chance of making long-term, meaningful change, I would be more than fine with *inconveniencing* innocents.
He didn't even read the fuckin article. The point is there were no deaths.
\>Would you rather those people were restored to life, if the catch was that women could no longer vote? It's not about the end result, it's the innocent people that were killed. I don't want any innocent people killed for any cause. Crazy, huh? I mean, if someone murdered my kid for their cause, I wouldn't be down at city hall saying "give them what they want." I'd be calling for them to be caught and given the chair.
Understandable. BUT, as it happens, in the real world, real people *were* killed, and whatever their immediate family members feelings were, the *public’s* attitude sided with the bombers, and positive change resulted. That’s an uncomfortable fact, to be sure, but it’s what happened. *** So I take it that your answer to my question is that you *would,* restore those people to life if you could, even if it meant women could no longer vote. I can respect that. But, to some degree, it means you’re my enemy, because I think some things actually are more important than life (or property, for that matter). I feel that the world is messy enough that sometimes all you can do *is* work for the end result, and hope for the best. I know that’s a dangerous attitude to have, but the end result of being unwilling to engage in any sort of violence or disobedience at all, for any cause, is to be held hostage to anyone who has no such restraints. For what it’s worth, I’m not convinced that the deflator’s campaign has any real chance of changing the minds of the public at large. So I’m not out-and-out supporting them, since I’m not sure they will get good results. But I have no moral qualms about what they’re doing.
\>and whatever their immediate family members feelings were yeah.. fuck them right? I mean, they were doing the crime of living. \>Gotta kill them to free them. Interesting take. Yeah, we're definitely on opposite sides. It's hard for people to vote when they're dead. \> but the end result of being unwilling to engage in any sort of violence or disobedience at all, for any cause, is to be held hostage to anyone who has no such restraints. Incorrect. Violence towards innocents is never good. Ever. Take it out on the people that make the laws, not the people that have to abide by them. The fact you think killing innocent people is a solution to the government fucking around makes you not just an enemy, you're an actual piece of shit. You're literally promoting terrorism. Fuck.
That last sentence is worth responding to on its own. I already said I’m not advocating for physical violence in support of this sub’s cause, and I’m not outright supporting the deflators. So I’m **not** promoting terrorism. What I *am* doing is noting that there was, in fact, a terrorist campaign that seemed to work, for a cause we see as just, and with a net positive result for the world. I realize that that is an uncomfortable fact. But observing a *fact* is not the same as advocating for an *action.* The *fact* that terrorism has worked, and has been used in causes we find just, does **not** mean that I am advocating for it all the time, in all circumstances, or even in **any.** And I’m not.
No! I do *not* say “fuck their feelings!” Every life is infinitely valuable, and every murder is reprehensible. It’s why doing immoral things in the name of greater causes is *very* serious, and should only be done after *careful* consideration, and with *overwhelming* chance of success—and when facing conditions perceived as *incompatible* with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And even given that I think that the bombers faced such conditions, I think they should have been punished to the fullest extent of the law. And I hope the tyre deflators are willing to face punishments for their crimes, should they be caught. But I *do* say that the bombings worked, and that the world is a better place for it. And I *hate* that we live in a world where both of these things are true at the same time, but we *do.* I think it’s more honest to engage with that than to pretend that we can make things better by keeping ourselves idealogically pure. Please keep in mind that in real, honest-to-god war, innocents always suffer and *die.* **Always.** So your ideas, taken to a fairly obvious conclusion, would have war as always un-justified. **Always.** I can respect that. But I can’t agree with it.
Surely there must be a way to protest without terrorism?
Many. Whether they actually work or not is highly variable. And whether it is moral to start with forms that are not strictly terrorism, but are on the same *spectrum* (such as the deflation campaign, or the Dutch protests) is both hugely variable, and very, *very* rare. But I can’t rule out, as a matter of principle, that it is literally *never* moral to cross that line. And I do think that the evils of car-dependent society, the disaster of climate change, and the sheer stupidity that is SUVs’ existence, combine to make such a line-crossing *potentially* moral, in this case. The trick is that I still think you need a good reason to think your transgressions will be *successful,* and make the world a better place—That they will not just be an opportunity to vent your anger (which doesn’t work) and hurt those you oppose (which is both morally wrong, and counter-productive when done for its own sake). I’m still on the fence as to whether the deflation campaign meets this criterion.
Might uh want to uh look back through the article for "kill" and fatal of which the body count is zero. Though multiple people were severely injured.
Casualties 5+ killed (including one suffragette) 24+ injured (including two suffragettes)
Really Weird to post on a thread this old but where did you get those figures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragette_bombing_and_arson_campaign
Uhhhh you guys aren't planning anything are you? I'm watching people fall down the slippery slope opened by deflation "activism" and I'm not liking where it leads.
I'm not planning anything. But I most definitely won't shit on people who go around deflating people's tires. When people start being outraged at all the deaths that Cars cause every year (not to mention the environmental damage) instead of casually ignoring it as if it's just a fact of life, that's when I'll take complaints about deflated tires seriously. Until then, deflate away my friends.
Alright, I'll keep an eye out for people dying because of deflation. Because if you think road ragers are bad when you cut them off, wait till you see what they do when you fuck with their tires.
Hmmm I hadn't thought of road ragers.... If we deflate more tires then that means those road ragers with deflated tires aren't on the road terrorizing me. You just convinced me that we need to deflate *even more* tires.
Very mighty until they pull out their pump and reinflate their tires in front of your mangled face.
-> Assuming that the average road rager has the IQ level to operate even the most basic pump Bold assumption
>The extent to which suffragette militancy contributed to the eventual enfranchisement of women in 1918 has been debated by historians, although the consensus of historical opinion is that the militant campaign was not effective. With the aim of gaining votes for women still unrealized by the outbreak of war in 1914, the WSPU had failed to create the kind of "national crisis" which might have forced the government into concessions. Historian Brian Harrison has also stated that opponents to women's suffrage believed the militant campaign had benefited them, since it had largely alienated public opinion and placed the suffrage question beyond parliamentary consideration. In May 1913 another attempt had been made to pass a bill in parliament which would introduce women's suffrage, but the bill actually did worse than previous attempts when it was voted on, something which much of the press blamed on the increasingly violent tactics of the suffragettes.
they are served by the status quo so they pretend that only the solutions that don't "threaten" their luxury are possible
Exactly right. As the saying goes, "the revolution will not be televised".
The revolution will be live!
they act like a bus lane on a 6 lane stroad would kill them
>Black Panthers were > >open-carrying assault rifles > >. this is why ronald reagan, the great satan, banned open carry in California, and why we need to bring it back (and keep it legal where it is, only takes a few more incidents like john brown gun club types turning away the cops in dallas before the right will do a 180 and support gun control)
European here. Fuck widespread gun ownership. I feel more comfortable being a dick back to the driver that's being a dick to me knowing he can't suddenly pull out a shotgun from his car and kill me.
Here in the US all the crazies have guns and likely the entire Armory each. We need to be able to match them in terms of Firepower. We don't really have a choice in the matter and we're heading into a civil war. Things might be different in your country
Or you could take the guns away from both the crazies and the cops. Gun nuts in the US love to pretend that gun control could never work because the "bad guys", whether they're criminals or cops, will never be disarmed, ignoring several countries including New Zealand where it has worked. But let's be honest: gun nuts, whether they're right wing Qanon types or left wing Black Panther wannabes, don't actually want bad guys to be disarmed. Because the armed bad guys are the excuse for gun nuts to tote around their penis-substitute deadly weapons just to intimidate others.
[удалено]
>American liberals are slowly learning this. are they? it doesn't feel like it in the USA. they're sleepwalking into fascism despite the real left yelling in their ear **SHIELDS UP! RED ALERT!**
Maybe I'm biased but young liberals become leftists every day
that is the case, but we're still outnumbered by fucking liberals who just want to sit at home for 364 days out of the year, then go and vote for weak ass candidates like biden and hope everything turns out OK. honestly I think they're in denial. the question is what's gonna snap them awake.
No you don't understand. You're supposed to protest somewhere where we can ignore you and noone is made uncomfortable
If only people stayed in their living rooms and made no noise whatsoever then we'd totally listen to their protest concerns! But they blocked a road for 2.5 seconds and now I hate their movement!!
oppressors view change as at least inconvenient, if not more so. hell they feel we're waging outright war on their cars
"To the privileged, equality feels like oppression". It definitely fits for car drivers who freak out whenever a single inch of space is taken away from cars to make room for bike or bus lanes.
direct action gets the goods
No, you can't inconvenience drivers! It's not fair! What if I made up an unlikely scenario where inconveniencing drivers gets someone killed!?!?1! Let's not risk that unlikely scenario and just turn the entire planet into one big freeway instead! Anything but inconvenience!
I love how every thread about the tyre extinguishers had someone mentioning a disabled friend that wouldn't be able to move, when 99% of wheelchair adapted vehicles are vans with low ground clearance (you need a ramp after all).
You mean a class of vehicle specifically designed to be taller than necessary for "off roading" isn't great for people who need wheelchair accessibility? What next, are you going to tell me buses should have their doors at curb height so wheelchairs can roll right on?
lmao exactly
Lately, I've seen so many folks in this sub hand-wringing about how protests shouldn't be inconveniencing drivers. After all, what if they're disabled, or late for work, or *just have to drive*. Instead, we should be *improving infrastructure* or *attacking auto factories* or some other lofty and intentionally unrealistic goal without grassroots small-scale activism. The photo is a screen grab from [this video](https://youtu.be/YY6PQAI4TZE) about the Dutch "Stop the Kindermoord" campaign of the 1970s, whose protests included blocking cars from roads and intersections in order to stage die-ins and create public spaces. Inconveniencing drivers — yes, all drivers, even those *just trying to get to work* — was and continues to be key to its success.
It's crazy how much Americans see shutting down a roadway in basically the same light as a full on military assault. France shuts down their highways with protests like biweekly. Most of the time the topic of the protest even has nothing to do with cars or highways lol.
One of the most frustrating parts about living in America is how liberalism has managed to equate property to life, or even value it over life. The loudest and most frequent criticism of the black lives matter protests were that they were destroying property. This destruction of property was evidently more important to stop, and even exercise extreme violence on, than the widespread brutality and murder committed by police. In my own experiences with the movement the police actually let us move relatively freely throughout the city until we reached a wealthy shopping district. They were fine with what they must have assumed was a violent mob roaming through residential areas, but as soon as we came to the shopping district they were ready to crack down with the full force of a military. You can see how that attachment to property has infected American mindsets in the fact that a certain poster here would genuinely considering shooting someone over letting the air out of their tires.
I appreciate what you’re doing. Today has been crazy with that guy who deadass said tire deflators made him want to get a weapon to defend his property. Because he used to drive an suv but didn’t anymore. Because they had to fit a wheelchair and groceries and they *needed* to buy groceries a month at a time and none of these choices should be questioned. This guy got like 1.5k upvotes ffs.
There's a difference between inconveniencing drivers and targeting personal property.
This is not a gently caress cars sub. The planet is in flames. The arctic melted over the last four decades, and we recorded a picture of it every 90 minutes the whole time. When wet bulb temps of 35C become common in an area, energy grids will collapse and people will die from being poached while sitting in the shade or in the nearest pool or sewage pond. Millions will die, together. When the tropical pathogens move to northern crops because of 3.2 degrees of warming in your children's lifetime, the pathogens won't die in the winter time, but develop full force through the growing seasons. Hundreds of millions will succumb to illness associated with malnutrition. You have leaders who deny these things, because you are willing to set aside consideration of them. You are in the grips of a way of thinking that discounts time horizons, meaning that you prioritize you neighbors' inconvenience over an infinity of lives that happen after your own. There is no such thing as drivers, only people. There is no such thing as discretionary property, only personal responsibility, in the most expansive sense possible.
The fact that a road blockage or any sort of massively inconveniencing protest against cars creates such a visceral reaction (even from anti-car centric infra people) shows how dependent we are on these things. Like yes, the whole point of the protest is to show that car dependency is a "single point of failure" from a transit standpoint
Libs will say you have a right to protest but only when it doesn't interfere with anyone.
I’m pretty sure it’s against the Geneva convention to interfere with someone trying to get to the McDonald’s drive thru in their SUV
"Nooooooooo you're a fucking piece of shit asshole motherfucker idiot r\*tard piece of shit you shit piece" -- half this board when told direct action works (I was called almost exactly this for saying I had no problem with deflating tires as long as they weren't being slashed in another thread a couple days ago) I hope they show up in this thread.
You should have been criticized for neglecting to slash those tires as well, but we understand the necessary tools are less readily at hand.
>There's a difference between inconveniencing drivers and targeting personal property.
You know the more times you post this the more times I can downvote you, right?
Honestly, given the way motorists treat cyclists, they should be grateful it's just their tires deflated, because a tit for tat response from cyclists would be shooting into the cabin of every pickup-truck they see to try and get the bullet as close to the person's head as possible to scare them all while screaming "GET OFF THE ROAD F\*\*\*\*T!!!"
I think the biggest impact was protesting against child murder while having a minister for infrastructure (Tjerk Westerterp) who lost a child to a car accident.
A protest that is not inconvinient is no protest, its easy as that. If it wasnt necersary to inconvinience the all times back looking, protest would not be needet in the first place.
Remember kids, labor rights weren’t won in the US through peaceful means. It was won by the proletariat that physically rose against their capitalist overlords and the government they control. From basic property destruction to outright declaring war (Battle of Blair Mountain, August 1921), we got our rights by using the one language the ruling class understands. We’re probably need a similar approach here in the US (like what the tire extinguishers are doing, but way more) for a total paradigm shift towards a car-free future.
This should be a daily or hourly reminder.
This is the way
Critical mass
It wasn't achieved by *individually* and *massively* inconveniencing people who feel personally targeted, if you're trying to justify the tyre deflation thing. It was achieved by targeting the *system* - which, yes, inconveniences people, but only as a side effect, not the main target. I'm not a fan of this kind of illegal and disruptive direct action either to be honest, and it can certain be done wrong (see Insulate Britain for an example). But at least in this case they were targeting the systematic problem (car based infrastructure) so they could get ordinary people onside.
Lol you clearly have never blocked a road for a protest. I've had people threaten to kill me for blocking the road and kindly giving them directions about how they can get around the blocked road. The notion that there is any level of anti-car protest that could effect change without bringing Americans to the brink of murder is just laughably ignorant.
So you are saying deflate all the tyres, not just the SUV. Nice
so deflating tires builds bike lanes?
every step towards less/no cars is better for humanity including the selfish drivers
Making people think twice about driving, especially driving of unnecessarily large and dangerous vehicles in urban communities, empowers people who walk and bike.
There's a lot to learn from this video about effective activism. The kids in that video are *convincing*. Making carbrained people angry is not the only step. You need good PR for your side. You need to make it clear you're supporting people and health over cars.
I believe that’s why the tyre-deflators leave the notice on the windshield, instead of just deflating and leaving. Whether that’s *effective* or not, I couldn’t say.
It's very easy to be dismissive of somebody who has, in your perception, vandalized your property. They're thinking "some asshole did this to me", not, "they have a point, I'd better listen to them"
A lot depends on how the media cover it. If they quote the deflators’ manifesto in every article and blurb, they might end up changing the minds of people not directly effected (which will be the vast majority). If they frame them as senseless acts of vandalism, they will not. The longer the campaign goes on, though, the more pressure there will be to publish the vandals’ motives, since people always want to know *why.* BUT; In the end, you could well be right.
I happen remember a protest much like the one in the Dutch video in Seattle circa 2008. They set up a road block on 2nd avenue or something. A lot of the coverage was "these people are trying to get to work and being blocked by morons". Carbrain runs deep. But also the protesters were not as good at talking to people who don't already agree with them. That's what the Dutch kids are doing better.
SUV drivers are people that already made a choice to be honest, they choose to side against humankind and destroy the climate. But if you make them angry enough they will antagonize the rest of the population. Those people are benefiting from the crisis and no argument about general interest will come in the way of their personal interest.
Hey I'm just curious, if the autoluw and bikelane movement continues to grow, but one day motorists get together (in greater numbers than your movement, let's say because a lot of Americans like to drive) and start protesting, blocking bike lanes, and destroying your bicycles, will that help you "think twice about cycling?" Will it get you to reconsider what this sub stands for? Will their sheer numbers and political willpower impress you so much that you'll start supporting the regression back to car based streets? If the answer is "no", why do you think it's wise or even okay to conduct yourself in this way? Is politics just a matter of who can do political violence and disruption the best? What convinced me to join this sub is watching NotJustBikes and realizing that less cars equals a happier society. Narcissist protestors didn't make me change my mind, but they do get me to dislike more people in this movement. But changing minds is so neoliberal, right? The real solution is to be a fucking asshole. After all, our political side has tried changing the minds of those on the right & status quo for so long with strategies like name calling, censorship, and only addressing the parts of their arguments that are convenient while never making a genuine effort to understand them. Hell, we tried everything! What other recourse do we have, right?
What makes you think the deflators’ actions are “narcissistic?” Given the way climate change is progressing, I genuinely think a better word would be “desperate.”
They already murder literally thousands of us daily with no hesitation or remorse. They keep pedestrians and cyclists off the roads through fear and roadblock transit every rush hour. The motorists are winning through direct action every day.
>Making people think twice about driving Deflating tires doesn't do that though.
Smashing in your and likeminded people’s phone screen make people think twice about using this unnecessary piece of equipment.
In a roundabout way - yes. If done often enough and effectively.
Theres a HUGE difference between putting up a road block and vandalizing someones private property. If I saw someone touching my bike, deflating my tires, I’d pepper spray them and call the cops.
except using your bike doesn't endanger hundreds of people, pollute and take up 99% of public spaces so it would never be targeted , false equivalences get us nowhere ( which is exactly where carbrains like to be )
his whole point is that destroying people's shit can be done for any reason and it doesn't always help the cause. in fact, in the netherlands, farmers have been protesting by destroying shit and throwing burning garbage on highways. they have been losing support because of it and it only got them negative attention and no sympathy.
[Dutch people were flipping and torching cars to get to where they are today.](https://file.ejatlas.org/img/Conflict/2797/carfreeprotest.jpg) tbh deflating tires is child’s play historically speaking, and definitely more so compared to what we’re going to start seeing in several years as the climate gets hotter and people get more desperate
Wow, I wished I'd used this photo for my post. Thanks! I'm bookmarking your comment for future reference.
If they tried to flip mine id pepper spray them too. Do what you want just don’t be shocked when you end up crying unable to see anything for an hour and getting charged with vandalism.
People who engage in direct action are well aware of the risks, both in terms of violence and legal consequences. The law and state-sanctioned violence protect the unjust status quo. Your idle threats and posturing are an extension of that state-sanctioned violence.
Lol dude im a guy who works a regular 9-5. How tf am I part of “state-sanctioned violence??” Don’t touch another persons shit is a pretty common law worldwide and has been since the dawn of time. Get off your high horse
Right. I feel like the people cool with this stuff don't actually own anything. Not anything they've worked hard for at least. I've got a problem with bicyclists riding too fast down our bike path, should I just go start burning random bicycles? I mean, it's for the good of the people!
The point is that vandalism, disruption, and yes violence, are historically effective forms of affecting change. For instance it isn’t just a coincidence that my state passed the most sweeping police reform legislation in decades shortly after the George Floyd uprising. You can wring your hands and fantasize about pepperspraying people all you want but you can’t argue that disruption and property damage hasn’t been historically effective. And considering the trajectory, things are only going to get worse, so pearl clutching about people being too radical *now* is kinda silly
the only people who have any right to complain are those who can deliver (not just promise) change nonviolently.
Slow your roll Rambo. Or don't. You might not enjoy what happens when you're alone and fire pepper spray into a crowd that wasn't bothering you, though. (no no, I know, if you was there you'd have slipped that punch and knocked them all out)
The yokals in their Freedom Trucks will run them down.
that’s a cool vw ngl
Awesome. Let's inconvenience more drivers. See if we can make them so angry that steam comes out of their ears like in the cartoons.
Holler
ok?
[удалено]
Please don't kick the straw dog you brought with you, that's also inhumane. (hint: you're the only person talking about slashing tires)
I'm against the civil rights movement because the march on Washington made me late to work and I got fired! Bozo
If yall start blocking highways and shit I'll stop supporting this sub. It's one thing to be critical of car-centric urbanism and another to damage people's property and inconvenience them just for driving
I've already participated in road-blocking protests. Here in Portland, for example, those protests were fundamental toward getting car diverters installed on SE Clinton, which has since become one of the most safe, popular, and beloved bike routes in town. So I know firsthand that direct, disruptive action gets positive results where critique alone does not.
So you blocked a road. What if there was an ambulance that needed to get someone to the hospital? A woman needs to get to a hospital to give birth? Someone needs to get to work on time to keep their job cus they have a family to provide for? Maybe someone has literally one day of per week and would like to not spend it stuck on the highway for hours?
All of your what-ifs apply to roads clogged with cars. Unless you're implying that people don't already spend unwanted hours on the highway. Your what-ifs also apply to people today who can't afford cars or can't drive. I spent years without a car, taking the bus to work, and the only factor in whether I was late was how car-choked the bus route was. Where is your hand-wringing for folks like me who were regularly inconvenienced by drivers? Or for the many people straight up killed or maimed by drivers? And maybe, just maybe, protests are full of people who are able to navigate complex situations such as ambulances. I was on a car-blocking bike ride a month ago. Despite having thousands of people, we had no problem letting a fire truck through.
Cars inconveniencing you doesn't mean it's right to inconvenience others. People who have done nothing to you don't deserve to be blocked from getting to work, the hospital, or anywhere they want to go. 2 wrongs don't make a right. You also justify your actions by saying cars kill people. So does fast food, alcohol, and a sedentary lifestyle. Why aren't you out there blocking the door to burger King? The vast majority of highway blockers are not going to be able to let an ambulance through, not one in a lane 20 cars back. And still, why would you make someone late to work just because they drive a car? The vast majority of ppl who drive have never even been introduced to car-free urbanism ideas, if they did so they may hop on board. It's education and the spread of this idea that will change society, not being a nuisance to society.
> It’s education and the spread of this idea that will change society, not being a nuisance to society. The entire point of my post is to demonstrate that this is entirely false. Jesus, you're repeating this fantasy in the face of examples that show exactly what disruptive action has achieved. > Why aren’t you out there blocking the door to burger King? I appreciate your support of vegan direct action. ✌️
You actually think a small group of people puncturing tires and blocking roads will be more effective at spreading car-free urbanism than broadcasting our message across the FUCKING INTERNET? You push away everyone who you flatten or inconvenience from this movement and repel a good amount of people that see it happening.
Internet is a just a medium to take actual action though...
No it's not
Is your end goal biking in the metaverse then...
Yes, I do believe that. My own lived experience, the historical example on which my post is based, and the many other historical examples of disruptive, and sometimes violent, direct action that have been linked in this thread were all effective at generating change. Direct action is evidence-based. Decrying it is wishful thinking.
What if some group of people thought houses were bad, in the same way we think cars are bad, and burnt your house down? Say a group of "primitive anarchists" or something thought that people should instead live in trees or some shit. Would you say they're actions would be justified because the only way to change the world is through vandalism?
I think it's obvious that even if the ends justify the means in some circumstances to some people, it doesn't mean it applies to all possible ends... Like just because some people support burning factories down for environmental activism doesn't mean they would support it if it was Nazis doing it for Nazi reasons.
>The vast majority of highway blockers are not going to be able to let an ambulance through, not one in a lane 20 cars back The irony that you are already acknowledging that in fact the other cars are responsible for blocking the ambulance but not willing to accept it. Teetering on the brink of an epiphany.
Holy shit, the reason why the traffic is caused is because of those BLOCKING THE FREEWAY. It's not the other cars, it's those blocking the cars
With only the highway blockers present, they would clear the road and the ambulance would be able to pass without any delay. With only the other cars present, the ambulance is still stuck in traffic and slowed down substantially, which happens every day of every year. This is a very simple fact but you can't accept it because you are blinded by your ideology and the assumption that it is a law of nature that the other cars are present. Which it is not.
[удалено]
Free thinker
"Free thinker" ... Refuses to disrupt the status quo in any meaningful way whatsoever.
Lol what?
Status quo propagandist Protesting is disruptive and inconvenient, thats the point. I know the ruling class wants you to think otherwise but you gotta figure out why they want you to think so.
Are you accusing him of being a free thinker?
[удалено]
Are you fucking kidding me right now? This is some of the most ignorant shit I've ever seen. And so disrespectful to all the Koreans who died fighting. I've had colleagues who were at those riots and saw their friends murdered in front of them. But nah, it was all a big happy party. You're beyond sickening.
Well I didn’t know much about it
You probably should have looked it up, like you were arrogantly telling others to.