[hoopd]

The pepper spray incident you linked was just about the best thing that could happen to those protesters. It was the plan, and then after it happens you go "oh my god we never saw this coming!" It's political theater - they got pepper-sprayed while trying to get arrested. Yeah, the cop was a jerk, but I'm not sure what linking the article is supposed to prove.

I have no idea why the Quebec students were even protesting - you're getting tuition subsidized so much that it's cheaper than the areas that are subsidizing it? Unless it's a remarkably worse education that doesn't any sense to me.

Seriously, don't just wave your hands at somebody asking you to back up a serious claim you made. This is why you're so easy to write off. You said we're so far beyond a reasonable protest culture that we shouldn't protest at all. You posted two links - one showing political theater is alive and well in the US and the other showing what look like some unreasonable students getting their way in Quebec. If that's your idea of "reasonable protest" then why should we even want it?

[gozo]

A reasonable protest culture is where people step up to defend others right to protest even if they don't agree with them.

Protesting in the US means potentially facing physical harm, detention, bail you can't pay, overworked public defenders, overzealous prosecutors, civil forfeiture, court fees, harsh sentencing, plea bargains, restrictive parole and being discriminated again because of your record. And most of that even if you don't go to prison. Of course you don't even have to be protesting, just be close enough to one and panic when the police, maybe even undercover, comes to abuse you and you'll be just another footnote in the history of the US justice system.

What happened in Montreal was that when the police tried to crack down on the protests everyone who remotely agreed started protesting too. When the government then went on to enacted a new law to limit the protests, even the people who didn't agree with the original protests started protesting. Then the government was subsequently voted out in the next election. That is a culture where it's reasonable to protest. Because even if worst comes to worst, you at least have some chance of people coming to your aid. Instead of rationalizing what you had to go through by proclaiming essentially "you shouldn't have been protesting".

[hoopd]

So in Quebec there was no physical harm, detention, high bail, etc? I think you like Quebec's way because the protesters "won"

You've yet to name, specifically, one thing you can't do in the US that you think you should be able to do. You just use a blanket term "protesting" like anything under that umbrella should magically be OK. You're like a child complaining that the ice cream isn't there. But when you're talking about intentionally damaging property (spraypainting, breaking windows, burning cars and buildings) or disrupting infrastructure yeah you don't get to do that.

If you want to deal with the paperwork you can get 10,000 people and walk down major streets with a police escort even if the police don't like what you stand for. But you can't do it on a Tuesday when other people need to go to work. You can't force people to listen to your ideas.

In the history of the entire world has it ever been easier to have not only a voice but a LOUD voice than in modern day US? In the 1800's maybe they'd shut down your printing press and literally prevent you from distributing information. Today that's not the problem. Today people are sick of hearing it.

Plus Canada has a much smaller population than the US. You have 35 million people total - we have 46 million people living below the poverty line. We have more illegal immigrants in our country than you have people in Quebec. Quebec doesn't have problems America has because it's 90% white people with the same religion living in a large area. Our major cities have 4-10 times the population density of Quebec City. Overall the US has 5 times the population density of Quebec. We have one state (of 50) with a GDP as small as Quebec's. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

[gozo]

"You've yet to name, specifically, one thing you can't do in the US"

What makes you think it would be about one thing? One thing doesn't make the difference. It's overall climate that matters. If you can't de facto exercise your right as much as in another country that right isn't worth as much.

"You're like a child complaining that the ice cream isn't there"

Of course you have to resort to calling names when you can't make a good argument, who's really the child here?

"disrupting infrastructure yeah you don't get to do that"

In many countries you can disrupt traffic because of a protest without the need for a permit. Now you have your one thing. I'm guessing you're now going to tell me how it doesn't matter?

"You can't force people to listen to your ideas."

You've made that point very clear. I've stated repeatedly the differences between protesting in the US and elsewhere and you keep changing the question to something that suits your own thinking and rationalizing the problems.

"a police escort even if the police don't like what you stand for"

The US police are no exactly known for being unbiased.

"You have 35 million people"

No "we" don't since I'm not from nor have ever been to Canada. I have friends and can read material from there though.

"In the history of the entire world has it ever been easier to have not only a voice but a LOUD voice than in modern day US? [...] Today people are sick of hearing it"

I quite specifically talked about protest culture i.e. how people care about other peoples voice and your "counter" argument is that "people are sick of hearing it"? Some great logic right here.

"It's an apples and oranges comparison"

So you agree it's the situations are different now? Or is this just a case of the magic "but US is different" excuse. The US has much higher free speech ambitions than most other countries. Maybe there should be more footnotes in the constitution.

[hoopd]

> Of course you have to resort to calling names when you can't make a good argument, who's really the child here?

I didn't call you a child. It was a metaphor suggesting you're being shortsighted and entitled without understanding that the things you want don't just magically appear. A child just wants ice cream, they have ice cream at Johnny's house so why can't he have ice cream at home? The child stomps their feet and says "It's not fair!" An adult grows out of this mindset.

> In many countries you can disrupt traffic because of a protest without the need for a permit. Now you have your one thing. I'm guessing you're now going to tell me how it doesn't matter?

That's great - which countries? They don't get arrested for it over there? You're sure you're not idealizing them because it supports your feeling of outrage?

That's the one concrete thing you're upset about and it's ridiculous. Other than that you're upset Americans don't just blindly go support protesters because they're protesting. Key word there is 'blindly.' That's the protesters fault for not knowing why they're there, not being able to express themselves clearly, and frankly for being so idiotic so much the time. Protesters have trained us that protesters are idiots.

I looked up the Quebec protests you linked - that's the point right, to raise awareness for an issue? - and it looks like a temper tantrum that happened to work.