shimmy wrote:
We're clearly missing each other on the first point. I have voiced support for the protestors right to protest. I simply state that it should be done in the appropriate location, i.e. a public space or a private space where they were invited, not as a flash mob at a cultural institution that residents pay money to attend. I even went as far as to recommend highly visible and relevant alternate locations. I have no problem with protestors protesting peacefully outside of Busch in the public realm. My reasoning for this is because the tactics undertaken in the symphony have done nothing but solidify people's positions and turn the conversation hostile, hence the past three pages of this thread. If you think that such tactics are progressively moving the discussion forward because "any publicity is good publicity" then you are naive.
The point of a peaceful protest is to raise awareness and bring attention. In opining that there's even a such thing as an "appropriate location" shows how much you're missing that point. You're not in solidarity with the protesters. You don't share their voice. Obviously if they were violent that would be a different story, but that is not the case here. By pontificating that there is some place they should protest or some other place they shouldn't, you are asserting some moral high ground that you don't really have.
shimmy wrote:If you do advocate for this form of immature protest, and if you do admit that equal rights (whatever you base that belief on) are of the highest importance, then you should also condone the use of tactics in defense of rights that people feel are threatened, even if you don't agree with those rights at all. Either that, or you're arguing that everyone should only be focused on the problems that you want them to focus on, not the problems that they as individuals perceive.
It's condescending of you to call this form of protest "immature." I do condone use of tactics in defense of rights that ARE threatened. That people feel they are threatened is not enough.
shimmy wrote:As far as your argument against the Constitution, and it not being a "source of equal protections for all peoples. Because it does not adequately protect all peoples and ensure equality for all peoples," I would like for you to point out one right that I am guaranteed as a white man that any other citizen of the United States isn't guaranteed. Now, if you're saying that it doesn't provide equal opportunities because those opportunities haven't been realized, or because failed policies have made those opportunities less available, then that is a different argument entirely. That is an argument that should be taken up in the democratic forum, which the right and ability to protest plays a major role in. But the ultimate way to bring about that change is to vote, not to prematurely convict a person of a crime by disregarding the process that is in place to ensure that all facts are considered.
It isn't only "failed policies" that have made those opportunities less available. It's the entire fabric of our country. It's the way the constitution was written, who it was geared toward when it was written. It's true, the breadth and scope of people to whom constitutional rights is afforded has been expanded. They've shoe-horned in a bunch of exceptions for certain classes (not all) since then. But at the end of the day you're still working with a document that was written by rich white guys for rich white guys. One that is notoriously difficult to amend.
And you are correct in saying the ultimate way to bring about change is to vote. Unfortunately, lately right-wing policies have been aimed at making it as hard as possible for already-disenfranchised peoples to vote. Protest plays a major role, as you said.
That's what we're seeing at places like the symphony and the Cards game.
shimmy wrote:You say that it is a straw man argument that I compared your critique of the justice system to popular justice. You act insulted by it, but it's a legitimate question. If you're advocating for Officer Wilson to be indicted, I ask on what grounds? Do you have all the facts? The answer is no. Do the protestors have all the facts? The answer is no. Does the grand jury have all the facts? Yes. So the argument that the public demands justice, and that the only justice is an indictment, is to demand that the facts of the case be disregarded.
That I have suggested or even implied that Darrel Wilson should be convicted is yet another straw man. You keep making things up that I might be suggesting, and then arguing against those. That is straw-manning. And it's a clear sign that you have no real argument.
shimmy wrote:Again, I ask this: If the bigger issue is to have this discussion about race, inequality, the "system", etc. and to find solutions for those problems, then will you be content if the grand jury rules that the evidence against Officer Wilson is not sufficient to bring the case to trial, or that the evidence acquits Officer Wilson of any wrongdoing, if this discussion is had?
I'm not hopeful for an indictment or a conviction at all. I doubt if one will happen. But mere discussion is not enough. So, no.
shimmy wrote:So, the bottomline is we have two issues here. The first is an illegal form of protest that does nothing productive as it only further embarrasses the city and further divides people. I don't support that. The second is the topic of the protest, which while I disagree with their viewpoint, I support their right to say it in the appropriate (meaning public or welcomed private) location.
You're wrong. It doesn't only embarrass the city. It might be divisive in the short term. What it also does is force us to argue about it, to talk about it, and why they're protesting, as we've done here. It informs what we think and what we feel about race issues in St. Louis. It keeps these issues on the radar. It does far more than you are saying it does.
Your anti-civil disobiedience views "appropriate/welcomed protesting" (as if there's such a thing
) shows great ignorance of what was carried out during the civil rights era.
