661–670 of 731 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very impressive dodge of the question. Let’s say a sit in did need support. Do you think that’s a valid use of GoFundMe?
Is this what your rhetoric is reduced to? Demanding that people answer for invented, imaginary hypocrisy? I didn't "dodge" a completely stupid, manufactured question because I have literally no onus to answer it. GFM shouldn't be used to sponsor *ANY* protest. I've said that REPEATEDLY, and consistently. A protest that needs sponsorship is not a legitimate protest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this what your rhetoric is reduced to? Demanding that people answer for invented, imaginary hypocrisy? I didn't "dodge" a completely stupid, manufactured question because I have literally no onus to answer it. GFM shouldn't be used to sponsor *ANY* protest. I've said that REPEATEDLY, and consistently. A protest that needs sponsorship is not a legitimate protest.
And as the other response mentioned, demonstrations were in fact funded in the past. Getting all defensive and outraged is one way to avoid an answer.
You think this is a retort. Amazing.
"Getting all defensive and outraged is one way to avoid an answer"
Demanding an answer out of someone, especially when they've spoken directly to the topic repeatedly, and then announcing an imagined, projected hypocrisy, is an unbelievably ignorant, boorish tactic. I might just say a troll tactic. Did you learn this from Tucker Carlson? It has absolutely no place on HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
BLM protestors were going around pouring drinks on diner's heads, and eating their food off their plates, then assaulting them. GoFundMe had no issues with that.
I doubt that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this what your rhetoric is reduced to? Demanding that people answer for invented, imaginary hypocrisy? I didn't "dodge" a completely stupid, manufactured question because I have literally no onus to answer it. GFM shouldn't be used to sponsor *ANY* protest. I've said that REPEATEDLY, and consistently. A protest that needs sponsorship is not a legitimate protest.
You realize the Civil Rights movements in the US had substantial fundraising? The March to Selma? How do you think people were fed? Where did they sleep? So by your logic the Civil Rights movement was not legitimate ?
"How do you think people were fed? Where did they sleep?"
They literally slept in fields and went days with negligible food. In Ottawa protesters are sleeping in hotels and in $600,000 sleeper cabs running 24/7 and are eating like kings. They have built various facilities including a sauna. They are treating it like a fun vacation. What a shocking contrast.
All of this makes the other reply to you simply incredible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anti mandate movements in general have something closer to what you said, but everyone I know that isn't right wing is embarrassed or angry at the convoy, even those who don't like mandates.
What other option is there when the government is tone deaf? They do it in France for other things and it's quite legal when there's a union behind it. And what will the government do if the truckers finally throw in the towel like they did in the UK (or maybe it was Polish and other Eastern European truckers who chose to operate on the mainland after Brexit)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's obviously a peaceful protest*. The word "occupation" here is already spin from the side that wants to shut it down and is trying to build a case for doing so. Peaceful protest involves physically assembling and making noise. That is no doubt unpleasant both for those who disagree with the protestors and those who live in the neighborhood, but the right to do this in public is fundamental and vital in democratic…
It is literally, by every definition, an occupation. People came in and brought homes with them (sleeper cabs, RVs, etc). Now they have set up permanent structures such as kitchens and other facilities (today they brought in a sauna), and have been stating repeatedly that they are in for the long haul. There is a reason that's called an occupation. A protest is normally a discomfort for the protester. Enduring the el…
Just to be clear: Are you asserting that the fact people are building/taking into account logistics to protest for the long haul with regards to something they vehemently disagree with detracts from the legitimacy of the act of protesting?
If so, wow. That's low-key\backhand authoritarian to a T; defining legitimate protest as something that isn't in the grand scheme of things effective at disrupting something enough people disagree with, and anything that does make a dent either terrorism or something else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anti mandate movements in general have something closer to what you said, but everyone I know that isn't right wing is embarrassed or angry at the convoy, even those who don't like mandates.
What other option is there when the government is tone deaf? They do it in France for other things and it's quite legal when there's a union behind it. And what will the government do if the truckers finally throw in the towel like they did in the UK (or maybe it was Polish and other Eastern European truckers who chose to operate on the mainland after Brexit)?
It isn't "truckers". Some participants brought trucks because they a) have sleeping facilities, b) have big loud horns, c) take a lot of space and are hard to remove. That doesn't make it a trucker protest anymore than someone riding a bicycle there would make it a bicycle protest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The requirement was not dropped, I'm surprised Reuters hasn't corrected that article. https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/in-for-a-rough-winter... https://www.bing.com/search?q=canada+trucker+vaccine+require...
So according to these sources, Canadian truckers don't have to be vaccinated. They just have to quarantine if they have symptomatic COVID. The first link says "On Wednesday evening, a Canadian Border Services Agency spokesperson said truckers would remain exempt from vaccination, testing and quarantine rules — a reversal from what the government had said publicly just hours before." My top hit on the search is a prim…
This is the important part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is literally, by every definition, an occupation. People came in and brought homes with them (sleeper cabs, RVs, etc). Now they have set up permanent structures such as kitchens and other facilities (today they brought in a sauna), and have been stating repeatedly that they are in for the long haul. There is a reason that's called an occupation. A protest is normally a discomfort for the protester. Enduring the el…
So wait... Just to be clear: Are you asserting that the fact people are building/taking into account logistics to protest for the long haul with regards to something they vehemently disagree with detracts from the legitimacy of the act of protesting? If so, wow. That's low-key\backhand authoritarian to a T; defining legitimate protest as something that isn't in the grand scheme of things effective at disrupting somet…
Just to be clear"
The intro to an always disingenuous comment.
"If so, wow."
Yet more.
Protests throughout time have been at hardship and discomfort of the participants. When your "protest" are sleeper cabs (in vehicles regulated through monopoly by the government, which seems like an easy lever) and hotel rooms, now with saunas and food prep rooms, funded by the American right, and your "protest" is laying on horns 24/7, there is zero legitimacy there.
Canada had railway blockades in early 2020 that were groups of people literally sitting in the cold for days on end on railway tracks. And the interesting paradox is that the Canadian "right" were demanding that the police go full stormtrooper on them. Now this same group is cheering on parking a transport truck in the middle of the road and blasting horns around the clock. Bizarre times.