[vkou]

If a protest doesn't inconvenience anyone, why would the powers that be pay attention to it?

"Shut up, go home, you live in a democracy, so complain at the ballot box" isn't a civilized response to a protest issue. When it's used to justify tyranny of the majority, it is borderline fascism.

[weberc2]

I'll take the "borderline fascism" of protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens over the actual anarchy of allowing protesters to infringe upon those rights with impunity. Democracy isn't perfect, but anarchy is worse. Further, would your tune change if the protesters were right-wing? Would you support their right to block critical infrastructure (not to mention the violence that characterizes so many of these "protests") in defense of what they perceive as their rights?

[hx87]

A protest is an organized expression of dissatisfaction, not anarchy--they're obeying the law as much as everyone else. If I'm inconvenienced, that's fine--there are ways to get around it, and it's a cost I'd gladly pay for the freedom of association and protest.

> Further, would your tune change if the protesters were right-wing?

Absolutely. Conservatives, reactionaries, and fascists have exactly the same rights that I do.

> Would you support their right to block critical infrastructure (not to mention the violence that characterizes so many of these "protests") in defense of what they perceive as their rights?

Critical infrastructure almost always has redundancies, and in case there isn't one (e.g. a protest in front of a hospital), the police should just clear a route with minimum force and no legal actions afterwards. Violence is another issue entirely--if people are being violent in a protest, then stop and arrest them for being violent, not for merely protesting, and leave the other protesters alone.

[mason240]

>A protest is an organized expression of dissatisfaction, not anarchy--they're obeying the law as much as everyone else.

No on is disputing this, the key part being "obeying the law."

>Critical infrastructure almost always has redundancies, and in case there isn't one (e.g. a protest in front of a hospital), the police should just clear a route with minimum force and no legal actions afterwards.

And here is the bait the switch. Now the protesters are no longer law abiding.

>Absolutely. Conservatives, reactionaries, and fascists have exactly the same rights that I do.

So you supported the Oregon protesters that occupied Federal land in protest?

[hx87]

> And here is the bait the switch. Now the protesters are no longer law abiding.

You mean bait & switch. It isn't--in many cases marches and protests are lawful even if they block roads. If they aren't, use muscle, batons, and shields so that the law is no longer being violated. Don't go after them afterwards.

> So you supported the Oregon protesters that occupied Federal land in protest?

Absolutely, up to the point where guns became involved.

[vkou]

An abolitionist stealing a slave impedes on the rights of a law-abiding citizen to own another human being as chattel.

Is this really the hill you want to die on?

People turn to protest, violent, or otherwise, when other forms of petition have failed.

[weberc2]

Are you really comparing "going to work without being held hostage", "not having your property looted or burned", and "not being assaulted/murdered" to slavery? Is this really the hill you want to die on?