But is that the new standard? Showing up to protest when confronted means you’re in the wrong?
There’s not going to be a clear line. A person can protest without being a jerk. People can disagree on what constitutes “being a jerk”.
Sorry, but you lost me on that one. I’m not sure if we’re agreeing or disagreeing.
The people accusing the two guys are the people presenting the evidence. What do you see in the accusers’ evidence that they were doing anything other that minding their own business before being confronted?
Neither. I was clarifying.
But we can get into fisticuffs if you like.
I’ll start by changing the word replacement filter for words you’re likely to use, for gibberish.
I’ve already done it once. I’ll do it again.
There’s nothing wrong with sitting somewhere in a peaceful protest when you think something is wrong…
1 Like
I like to avoid fisticuffs.
They decided to bring in politically charged messaging into a place it would grab negative attention. It’s unclear from the video if they were just minding their own business before the confrontation.
It was the accusers’ evidence.
And the messaging they displayed was rather minor. Indy said “You’re going to say ‘don’t be such snowflakes’.” Maybe the accusers should have been told that long ago.
That’s…hard to refute.
This photo you posted was protesting to correct an unjust imbalance of power.
I didn’t watch the video in the OP to give an opinion on that. However, if their sitting there was to silently protest “blue lives matter” to a bunch of “woke snowflakes”, then they’re actually more interested in diminishing the voice of those seeking to correct an unjust imbalance of power.
1 Like
Make that kneeling for the national anthem. I’m sure people will have the same feeling.
Take that however one wishes. The above statement is very likely to still ring true.
1 Like
Enough said.
Is that meant to be dismissive or sense of pwning me?
It’s easy to look at Ranger’s photo from 60 years ago and say “but that was okay because of these good reasons” while ignoring the fact that those who were opposed to the people in the photo felt just as justified at that time as you do now with your apparent opinion of the 2 guys studying at ASU. It will be interesting to see what 2081 society thinks of 2021.
1 Like
Are you familiar with the term “marginalized”?
I said I didn’t watch the video in the OP, mostly because I more often than not find them a waste of time. If you have a transcript, I’d read that.
I rolled my eyes at the article noting that the guys were eating Chick-fil-a, as there are plenty of people who are unaware (or don’t care) about what the company has supported politically. However, I’ve less lenience that someone familiar with “Blue Lives Matter” is unaware that statement is offensive to those who support “Black Lives Matter.”
If it’s just a sticker on his computer that he really didn’t really think about (doesn’t really notice anymore) to realize it could interpreted as insensitive given the multicultural space, maybe it’s an over reaction. I don’t know how it was presented to them and whether they were at all receptive for receiving that feedback.
If, as you implying, they were purposely protesting by sitting there displaying what they intended to be inflammatory, then they’re d-bags.
1 Like
You have just described every non-violent protest.
I’m talking about this specific situation for the opinion at the end. Non-violent protests are to highlight a real or perceived unjust situation. This make or may not be inflammatory.
Are we now requiring people to prove that they perceive a situation as unjust before we allow a non-violent protest? Who’s in charge of that audit? I don’t see that working well.
“Perceived injustice” is in the eye of the beholder.
4 Likes