More idiocy from protestors

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**cincydooley**

nkelsch wrote:

As a white, well-off person with a high paying 9-5 job, I love brunch... Where else can you pay 20$ for 1.50$ of breakfast food and dress up and eat that food at 12:30pm instead of 8AM? It personifies people who have nothing to do because they don't have to work on weekends,don't need a second job to make ends meet and can piss away money. If anything, it is a social economic representation of people who don't work multiple jobs or struggle with disposable income.

Wow. Didn't realize I was part of this high class white aristocracy because I have a job I work Monday - Friday for 50 hours and get brunch with my family after mass on Sunday. SWEET!

**AduroT**

Brunch at 1230? That's called Lunch, sir.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Sigvatr wrote:
nkelsch wrote:

How is it racist? It is a peaceful protest where they talk about statistic in regards to a real issue... You go to places with populations need to hear it. No point to preaching to the choir.

It is an action that specifically aimed at discomforting white people. Not racist?

It's not aimed at discomforting people. Discomforting people is the means, not the ends.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Brunch could just as easily be for people on welfare without a job that don't get up until 10 am, have a leisurely meal and arrive back home in time to hit the mailbox for their check.

**A Town Called Malus**

Sigvatr wrote:
nkelsch wrote:

How is it racist? It is a peaceful protest where they talk about statistic in regards to a real issue... You go to places with populations need to hear it. No point to preaching to the choir.

It is an action that specifically aimed at discomforting white people. Not racist?

So were the sit-ins when segregation was in effect. But, as previously mentioned, discomforting is the means not the end.

**Sigvatr**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
So were the sit-ins when segregation was in effect. But, as previously mentioned, discomforting is the means not the end.

Comparing segregation with the recent, non-racist motivated cases is a pretty far shot.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

It's not aimed at discomforting people. Discomforting people is the means, not the ends.

According to who?

**nkelsch**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Brunch could just as easily be for people on welfare without a job that don't get up until 10 am, have a leisurely meal and arrive back home in time to hit the mailbox for their check.

Except it isn't... There is a difference between hitting a diner for an 11:30 breakfast and brunch. Usually to the tune of 20$ meals and alcohol being served and a smattering of tablecloths and sportcoats, not paper napkins and sweatpants.

Seems like it is working perfectly as a protest. The real question is: Why would facts which point out problems with institutionalized violence and economic inequity make you uncomfortable? Unless you want to deny they exist or are part of the population which gets an advantage out of the way the system works right now?

**AlmightyWalrus**

Sigvatr wrote:

Comparing segregation with the recent, non-racist motivated cases is a pretty far shot.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

It's not aimed at discomforting people. Discomforting people is the means, not the ends.

According to who?

According to myself. According to who is the aim just to discomfort people?

**A Town Called Malus**

Sigvatr wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
So were the sit-ins when segregation was in effect. But, as previously mentioned, discomforting is the means not the end.

Comparing segregation with the recent, non-racist motivated cases is a pretty far shot.

Fact remains that, in this brunch case, the method of protest is pretty much the same.

So why is this suddenly a racist act where it wasn't before? Just because you don't agree with the protest? Seems a bit ridiculous.

**nkelsch**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
nkelsch wrote:

How is it racist? It is a peaceful protest where they talk about statistic in regards to a real issue... You go to places with populations need to hear it. No point to preaching to the choir.

It is an action that specifically aimed at discomforting white people. Not racist?

So were the sit-ins when segregation was in effect. But, as previously mentioned, discomforting is the means not the end.

Seriously... I suppose people advocating for civil rights 50 years ago were also racist by daring to inconvenience white people?

**Sigvatr**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

According to myself. According to who is the aim just to discomfort people?

According to the act itself. Purposefully discomforting people who are not involved in anything at all just because of their skin color is racism. Nothing more. It's a method to vent for them and it's misdirected.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

So why is this suddenly a racist act where it wasn't before? Just because you don't agree with the protest? Seems a bit ridiculous.

Who said that it wasn't racist before? If you do anything specifically targetted at a certain race, then that's racist. The difference is that, and I cannot believe that I have to explain this, segregation was an active way of oppressing black people whereas in this very case, it's about perceived racism, not racism.

**Frazzled**

nkelsch wrote:
SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Brunch could just as easily be for people on welfare without a job that don't get up until 10 am, have a leisurely meal and arrive back home in time to hit the mailbox for their check.

Except it isn't... There is a difference between hitting a diner for an 11:30 breakfast and brunch. Usually to the tune of 20$ meals and alcohol being served and a smattering of tablecloths and sportcoats, not paper napkins and sweatpants.

Seems like it is working perfectly as a protest. The real question is: Why would facts which point out problems with institutionalized violence and economic inequity make you uncomfortable? Unless you want to deny they exist or are part of the population which gets an advantage out of the way the system works right now?

Exactly. I don't see how any group of people standing and shouting in a restaurant people are eating at would be uncomfortable. All those diners must all be racists!

Interestingly, the civil rights sit ins usually involved locations that were discriminating. That would mean they would have to go to police stations no?

**Sigvatr**

The Civil Rights sit-ins started at Woolworth stores. Ye know, stores that were actually related to pretty racist "employmentships". People protested against something. Others included lunch counters were black people were not getting served.

You know. Protesting against actual racism.

**Rainbow Dash**

djones520 wrote:
Easy E wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Wow, The second one is more stupid. Seriously, inconveniencing others who are just having a good time with friends or family.

Yeah, that's how protesting actual gets people to take action. If an issue never impacts you, why would you ever care enough about it to do anything? Once it starts impacting your life, then you will take action.

Granted, sometimes tha action is counter to what the protesters want, but at least you are now involved with the issue; which is better than apathy.

That's the whole premise of protesting. If a protest doesn't disrupt anyone/anything then that protest is a waste of time.

Being pissed at the protestors won't get any help for your issue though. It's like the guys who were blocking interstates in St. Louis. You think the people stuck on the highway for who knows how long, had anything but anger at the protesters?

In Ottawa when the transit drivers went on strike they'd have to have cops protect them because they'd picket at shuttle bus stops and people would throw ice and stuff at them.

**cincydooley**

nkelsch wrote:

Except it isn't... There is a difference between hitting a diner for an 11:30 breakfast and brunch. Usually to the tune of 20$ meals and alcohol being served and a smattering of tablecloths and sportcoats, not paper napkins and sweatpants.

Are we talking $20 for a single person here, or $20 for a couple? I mean, I sweatpants it up on Saturday mornings at Panera all the time with my wife to work (on days when we are 'off' mind you) and we're usually looking at a close to $20 bill. Is it the alcohol?

I'm just really trying to get an understanding on whether or not I'm having the brunch of a privileged whitey, or if I qualify for the plebeian version of brunch.

**PhantomViper**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
So were the sit-ins when segregation was in effect. But, as previously mentioned, discomforting is the means not the end.

Comparing segregation with the recent, non-racist motivated cases is a pretty far shot.

Fact remains that, in this brunch case, the method of protest is pretty much the same.

So why is this suddenly a racist act where it wasn't before? Just because you don't agree with the protest? Seems a bit ridiculous.

Because the protests in the civil rights era were being held in places where segregation happened so they actually had a purpose and meaning.

These "protests" on the other hand are just pointless and seem to be designed solely to annoy people eating late breakfasts...

**SlaveToDorkness**

Also, Civil Rights protesters didn't say "Blacks Only" for their protests.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:
Why would facts which point out problems with institutionalized violence and economic inequity make you uncomfortable?

Doesn't make me uncomfortable, especially since the "facts" they're spouting have been proven wrong and they still insist on spouting them. It would make me angry or laugh, depending on my mood at the time. I'd probably stand up and chant " Pants Up, Don't Loot!" along with them.

Luckily I'm out working most of the day and don't have time for this idiocy to have an effect.

**Frazzled**

In Ottawa when the transit drivers went on strike they'd have to have cops protect them because they'd picket at shuttle bus stops and people would throw ice and stuff at them.

I have newfound respect for Ottawites.

"the union staged a strike and a hockey game broke out. The blood! SO MUCH BLOOD!"

**curran12**

Ottawa is a powder keg, just ready to explode into hockey at the slightest spark.

**Asherian Command**

Doesn't make me uncomfortable, especially since the "facts" they're spouting have been proven wrong and they still insist on spouting them. It would make me angry or laugh, depending on my mood at the time. I'd probably stand up and chant " Pants Up, Don't Loot!" along with them.

Thats quite right.

I think there are people throwing around these untrue statements just to get a rise out of people.

**Jihadin**

It only takes one individual (one who was using racial slurs) to screw it up on the brunch thing
The one guy that threaten to break the jaw of the security guy (Security guy did look pretty crusty) who was trying to close the door is another thing.
Dead Cops chant in NY
Protestors chanting "Hit them again" when LEO bikers got hit

I'm with Frazz. I was with them at first and then a some people got stupid

**Albatross**

Sigvatr wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:

According to myself. According to who is the aim just to discomfort people?

According to the act itself. Purposefully discomforting people who are not involved in anything at all just because of their skin color is racism. Nothing more.

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Nope.
If a group of (mostly) black people think that comfortable middle-class (mostly) white people are not paying enough attention to issues affecting their fellow citizens, where's the racism in that?

You only have to look at this thread to see that a significant proportion of middle-class Americans don't really give a gak about the issue, so feth 'em. Disturb their brunch. It's just brunch. If I had been in one of those restaurants I would have joined in, without question. 'It's your fault we kill so many of you' just isn't going to cut it anymore. It's not the whole truth.

**Frazzled**

'It's your fault we kill so many of you' just isn't going to cut it anymore. It's not the whole truth.

Whats this "we" gak? No one in my family has ever belonged to this mythical race called "police" you refer to. Evidently rich liberals living in democratic enclaves are performing some sort of mass killing.

Note that of the two cops that were assassinated, one was hispanic, and one was first generation Chinese immigrant.

And whats this so many of us thing? Us implies black people only. Concerns about police militarization have been bubbling for some time, for the population at large, and you kill support you have when you make it racial. Sharpton would be proud.

**Asherian Command**

Albatross wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:

According to myself. According to who is the aim just to discomfort people?

According to the act itself. Purposefully discomforting people who are not involved in anything at all just because of their skin color is racism. Nothing more.

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Nope.
If a group of (mostly) black people think that comfortable middle-class (mostly) white people are not paying enough attention to issues affecting their fellow citizens, where's the racism in that?

You only have to look at this thread to see that a significant proportion of middle-class Americans don't really give a gak about the issue, so feth 'em. Disturb their brunch. It's just brunch. If I had been in one of those restaurants I would have joined in, without question. 'It's your fault we kill so many of you' just isn't going to cut it anymore. It's not the whole truth.

Thats like hating someone for not paying attention to you.

If someone doesn't think its a problem don't hate them for not caring.

There are certain things to get mad at. But don't blame a bunch of civilains for not caring

**Albatross**

Frazzled wrote:

'It's your fault we kill so many of you' just isn't going to cut it anymore. It's not the whole truth.

Whats this "we" gak? No one in my family has ever belonged to this mythical race called "police" you refer to.
Note that of the two cops that were assassinated, one was hispanic, and one was first generation Chinese immigrant.

Note that I am wearing sweatpants and a t-shirt that says 'The Clash' on it.

Are we just noting random things or were you going somewhere with that?

...And by 'we' I meant 'the State', and by extension, the public, who's will it serves.

**hotsauceman1**

cincydooley wrote:
nkelsch wrote:

As a white, well-off person with a high paying 9-5 job, I love brunch... Where else can you pay 20$ for 1.50$ of breakfast food and dress up and eat that food at 12:30pm instead of 8AM? It personifies people who have nothing to do because they don't have to work on weekends,don't need a second job to make ends meet and can piss away money. If anything, it is a social economic representation of people who don't work multiple jobs or struggle with disposable income.

Wow. Didn't realize I was part of this high class white aristocracy because I have a job I work Monday - Friday for 50 hours and get brunch with my family after mass on Sunday. SWEET!

Since When is it wrong to enjoy the fruits of your labor working at a demanding very difficult job?

**Frazzled**

But the state wasn't in those restaraunts. Rich liberals were.

Again, I'm just fine with rich liberals being inconvenienced at lunch whenever possible, and would enjoy youtube footage for my amusement.

But helping the cause (I guess the cause needs to be defined) not a whit.

It would also be helpful if the protesters supported some sort of actual action to be taken. "Don't shoot us just because we're trying to take your pistol and shoot you with it" is not effective legislation.

And as for your Tshirt-"the Clash?" Respect.

EDIT: In support of my "real legislation proposed" argument this is part of what I had on discussions on the rabid scenery chewing sites, where concern about police overreach is widespread:

*No more "noknock" warrant entries absent murder/battery/orkidnapping in progress.
*No SWAT teams for any federal govenrment entity outside of DOJ, Marshals, Secret Service and other specifically defined anticrime units.
*No SWAT teams serving warrants except for violent felons. Normal warrants-no SWAT teams.
*Elimination of sale of surplus military equipment to the PoPo from the federales.
*Elmination of sale of seized properties for benefit of the state (ie can't seize a car with drugs found in it and then sell the car, giving the money to the PoPo or government)
*Mandatory implacement of conflict de-escalation technique training for police.

SInce the recent events I'd add:
*special prosecutor or at least 3rd party DA (from nearby jurisdiction) or empanelled judiciary review of police shootings (like a 3 judge board of review) of people and dogs. "Following procedure" is not sufficient defense to trump the state's criminal statutes.
*mandatory body cams THAT CAN'T BE TURNED OFF.

Thats a start. Quick someone pay me $5,000 for a consulting fee.

**curran12**

I'm on board, Frazzled. I can't pay you in money, but I can pay you in sausages.

**Asherian Command**

Frazzled wrote:
But the state wasn't in those restaraunts. Rich liberals were.

Again, I'm just fine with rich liberals being inconvenienced at lunch whenever possible, and would enjoy youtube footage for my amusement.

But helping the cause (I guess the cause needs to be defined) not a whit.

It would also be helpful if the protesters supported some sort of actual action to be taken. "Don't shoot us just because we're trying to take your pistol and shoot you with it" is not effective legislation.

And as for your Tshirt-"the Clash?" Respect.

EDIT: In support of my "real legislation proposed" argument this is part of what I had on discussions on the rabid scenery chewing sites, where concern about police overreach is widespread:

*No more "noknock" warrant entries absent murder/battery/orkidnapping in progress.
*No SWAT teams for any federal govenrment entity outside of DOJ, Marshals, Secret Service and other specifically defined anticrime units.
*No SWAT teams serving warrants except for violent felons. Normal warrants-no SWAT teams.
*Elimination of sale of surplus military equipment to the PoPo from the federales.
*Elmination of sale of seized properties for benefit of the state (ie can't seize a car with drugs found in it and then sell the car, giving the money to the PoPo or government)
*Mandatory implacement of conflict de-escalation technique training for police.

SInce the recent events I'd add:
*special prosecutor or at least 3rd party DA (from nearby jurisdiction) or empanelled judiciary review of police shootings (like a 3 judge board of review) of people and dogs. "Following procedure" is not sufficient defense to trump the state's criminal statutes.
*mandatory body cams THAT CAN'T BE TURNED OFF.

Thats a start. Quick someone pay me $5,000 for a consulting fee.

That seems reasonable.

**Jihadin**

I'm on Vox server now in Everquest Frazz. I can pass over 50K in plat to whatever toon you make