>> ^quantumushroom:
War protects freedom from enemies whose only solution is violence, and who recognize no one's rights but their own. Thanks to wars promoting and defending Western Civ, this matter at the JM was partially settled by civil disobedience, with the rest settled by trying a stupid, micromanaging law in the court of public opinion. It was not settled by gunfights between roving gangs or SS thugs.


Violence begets violence right? Ever heard of blow-back? If war is our solution, then how are we any different than the enemies you're talking about.

as someone stated earlier, the point of civil disobedience is to NOT resist arrest. In the video that spurred this one (the one with the snap-suplexes and DDT's) the "protesters" are spoiled children, not freedom fighters. unfortunately what gets media attention, or at least, internet attention, are these asinine breed of dissidents that intentionally goad the police into arresting them, then spasmodically resist, all the while crying tyranny.

there's a certain dignity in civil disobedience, but these numbnuts (the ones in the previous video anyway) have none

i can concede to the merit of civil disobedience towards a law that may seem trivial, however, one would really be showing their ass to compare this particular incident to the civil rights struggle of the 60's. I think that could sum up my frustration with the discussion

You may know the true cost of war, but war =/= freedom. A thousand military bases around the world, a million civilian deaths, drones leveling buildings with a 90% civilian death rate, military check points for lawful citizens, house to house searches for resistance fighters--none of this protects freedom.

War protects freedom from enemies whose only solution is violence, and who recognize no one's rights but their own. Thanks to wars promoting and defending Western Civ, this matter at the JM was partially settled by civil disobedience, with the rest settled by trying a stupid, micromanaging law in the court of public opinion. It was not settled by gunfights between roving gangs or SS thugs.

The only way to protect freedom is to fight those that encroach on the natural rights of individuals.

Such as jihadist a$$hole$.

War works.

Did you even read my comment?

These people aren't protesting because they are oppressed. They are protesting for fun. To try and paint these people as modern day Rosa Parks and MLKs is dumb. They don't even know how to do the civil disobedience thing correctly. Rule #1: Don't resist arrest, because getting arrested is the entire point of civil disobedience.

@Opus_Moderandi Agreed. I think one thing that needs to be considered is that the Boston Tea Party happened after all other legal recourse had been taken to try to get Britain to not only repeal the tea tax but also get representation in Parliament for the colonies. In other words, they had exhausted all other possible options. Civil disobedience is great for when you've exhausted all other possible options.

What options did these people exhaust? Did they petition to get the law changed? Did they write their representatives in government to demand it be changed? Did they try to raise awareness (through leaflet distribution, billboards, commercials, web campaigns, etc.) of the problem? Did they offer to run for election themselves to try to get the law changed?

No. They said "F*ck all that, it sounds like too much work. I'll just take a few hours to inconvenience everyone who wants to reflect quietly at the memorial and pretend I'm a hero fighting for justice."

@dystopianfuturetoday Slacktivism. Never heard that word until today, but it is the most awesome and apt description of what is happening here.

When civil disobedience is your first choice for reforming laws you disagree with, you've lost all perspective of how democracy and freedom work. When you think your rights or freedom are being violated because you cannot dance everywhere and anywhere, other people be damned, you've lost all perspective on what the words "rights" and "freedom" mean.

EDIT: Spelled dystopianfuturetoday's name wrong

EDIT 2: For a great read about the philosophy of civil disobedience (including a rationale for why civil disobedience should be a means of last resort) see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/

>> ^dag:

Yes, and when gay marriage is legalised, everyone's going to marry their toaster. You're going to keep all the crows away with that straw man.
>> ^smooman:
should we also be allowed to have sex in front of the lincoln memorial? we wouldnt be hurting anyone.......you mean theres a law against that? REVOLUTION



my point being, the ordinance in question, that is, no dancing in the jefferson memorial, is there for a reason. maybe some disagree with that reason, but anyone who would argue that the reason is to suppress civil liberties, i'd say you need a damn reality check. in that way, it is NO different than public indecency laws, or being disarmed by the government (gasp!) inside federal buildings despite our 2nd amendment rights.

so to put this act of civil disobedience on par with the civil rights movement of the 60's or something, is laughable at best and just plain offensive at worst.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

yes, it's very important to be respectful at the mausoleums of our dead leaders. Rules must be adhered to. You can't dance in front of Dear Leader's shrine in N.K. either. Those guys were really on to something.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^blankfist:
Was dancing turning into a big issue at the Memorial prior to this law? No. Then why? Because some legislator somewhere wanted to show the world the size of his cock. I say civil disobedience is the correct response to pathetically worthless laws that make victims out of the innocent people committing these victimless "crimes".

Maybe someone that was there thought they were being disrespectful by dancing in a memorial on Memorial Day weekend and complained to the police? I'm fairly positive not everyone there that day was down to get jiggy with it. Why dance at this memorial? Why not dance at the library? There are thousands of other buildings they could have chosen. Why the Jefferson Memorial?
And I really don't see how they are "innocent people", the cop very plainly said "Don't dance here." What did they do? They became belligerent, petulant little weasels, "You can't tell me not to dance here!" stomp, stomp, stomp. So the cop arrested them. How does that make the cop the bad guy? Sure, it's a stupid law but, it's still a law. Sure, it was a peaceful demonstration, until they decided to goad the cops by doing exactly what he told them not to do.
Lastly, my apologies to you and @GenjiKilpatrick (and anyone else) if my comments instigated this rage-fest. I just do not understand your point of view. I have total and utter lack of understanding of anyone that thinks this incident is a step (small or otherwise) forward for democracy or humankind. I leave you in peace.

>> ^blankfist:

Was dancing turning into a big issue at the Memorial prior to this law? No. Then why? Because some legislator somewhere wanted to show the world the size of his cock. I say civil disobedience is the correct response to pathetically worthless laws that make victims out of the innocent people committing these victimless "crimes".


Maybe someone that was there thought they were being disrespectful by dancing in a memorial on Memorial Day weekend and complained to the police? I'm fairly positive not everyone there that day was down to get jiggy with it. Why dance at this memorial? Why not dance at the library? There are thousands of other buildings they could have chosen. Why the Jefferson Memorial?

And I really don't see how they are "innocent people", the cop very plainly said "Don't dance here." What did they do? They became belligerent, petulant little weasels, "You can't tell me not to dance here!" stomp, stomp, stomp. So the cop arrested them. How does that make the cop the bad guy? Sure, it's a stupid law but, it's still a law. Sure, it was a peaceful demonstration, until they decided to goad the cops by doing exactly what he told them not to do.

Lastly, my apologies to you and @GenjiKilpatrick (and anyone else) if my comments instigated this rage-fest. I just do not understand your point of view. I have total and utter lack of understanding of anyone that thinks this incident is a step (small or otherwise) forward for democracy or humankind. I leave you in peace.

LOUD NOISES!

But seriously, this is why this protest is important to me. I don't know if anyone can claim these guys are all libertarians, first off. That label tends to be bandied about freely whenever someone or a group of people exercise civil disobedience.

Secondly, civil disobedience is extremely important to stave off tyranny early. If you wait until the brownshirts are kicking in your door, then it's too late. You have to start early and often.

And third, let's keep this in perspective. These people are dancing in a public place. If you're justifying the actions of the cops and legislators who want the Memorial to be 'dance free' then you have to ask yourself why. It's dancing. It's never been a problem at the Memorial (or any of the tourist locations in DC) in the history of it being built, so why now do we need a law banning it? Was dancing turning into a big issue at the Memorial prior to this law? No. Then why? Because some legislator somewhere wanted to show the world the size of his cock. I say civil disobedience is the correct response to pathetically worthless laws that make victims out of the innocent people committing these victimless "crimes".

@burdturgler & @bareboards2

[Edit: Please note that the following is sarcasm intended to ridicule the faulty logic of disparaging protestors, when you yourself "believe" or would engagement in civil disobedience for a particular cause.]

Again, you're both dumb hypocritical assholes for sayin' that shit.

Burd, you for bein' whiny cause someone on the int3rwebz called you a nigger.
[Seriously. You ever been to the internet before?]

And you bare, for whinin' about sexism and trollin'.
~~~

Remember "A protest is an expression of objection.."

You both obviously should have just shut the fuck up.

All your drama ruined another day for new visitors who came to the Sift.

You're lucky Dag and the others are so well trained as to not have Instabanned you two for non-compliance.

We have policies in place to prevent those types of disturbances, you know.

@marbles

I mean we never see what they are getting in trouble for, the very start of the video has the officer already walking towards them and we never see what the offending action was.

As a quick side note, can I do whatever I want as an "act of civil disobedience?" And that's honestly not a facetious question, I'm genuinely curious. Isn't that the same thing as doing something illegal because you don't personally agree with it?

If they really cared so much, why not organize a legal protest instead of showing up to make a scene and make an already difficult job for police even more difficult

All I see is a bunch of assholes who want to stir shit up instead of going through proper channels to get the law they dislike repealed. You know, like the guy in the memorial wants you to do!

Civil disobedience is for the lazy and the stupid.

@residue

No, they were dancing in an act of civil disobedience against the ordinance. It's not another issue, that is the issue.

And I'm not sure what you are referring to "before the cops showed up".

Hmm. I wonder what Jefferson would say...

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all."

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?"

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

I believe that Thomas Jefferson would have felt honored that this peaceful display of civil disobedience took place on his monument. In fact, I can think of no better place for people who believe that they are living in a police state to make their stand than at the Jefferson memorial, the patron saint of 'inalienable rights'.