pull down to refresh
79 sats \ 10 replies \ @kingzing131 7 May \ parent \ on: What the Campus Protesters and Their Critics Get Right and Wrong alter_native
I mean unless you have been so obedient to all the different US leading political parties, that you have no raised or joined any protest, I don't see why you are praising Reagan's approach.
-
Civil disobedience does not imply you have to take legal consequence. The very fact you only list the leaders show how incorrect it is. Historically the leaders and those who are caught would accept the legal consequences.
-
Modern day public disobedience have been very much decentralised and fairly leaderless. Good luck with mass arrest with legal consequences not leading to a massive social issues.
-
both Gandhi and MLK movements came together with mass riots from other political activists.
The goal for any "illegal" means to protest isn't to get arrested, that would be very much against the point lol
What you are advocating is anarchy and social disorder
Some of us still want a society based on rule of law
reply
Rule of Law, not rule by law. Learn the difference.
Which part of North Korea are you from? Or are you new to this world, only getting exposed to social movements?
The US literally had a deadly riot over a beer ban, hell most democratic countries had public disobedience or riot some part of its established history.
reply
Rule of law is rule by law.
You are confusing rule by law with rule by men or tyrants.
You are also confusing civil disobedience with rioting. Riots are not civil.
1965 watts riots were an example of social decay not civil disobedience
The French Revolution was a disaster because of the guillotine.
Social movements don’t require chopping heads or arson or theft