• solo@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s one thing not to like illegal protests and a different one to equate them with anarchy. I understand that the term “anarchy” is often used as a synonym to “lawlessness” but in reality it is a movement that aims to eradicate societal hierarchies and replace them with horizontal organizational structures.

    Also as I’m sure you know, law is not set in stone, it does change. Many things that are legal now, were illegal in the past. Sometimes in order to influence lawmakers we need to do illegal stuff, like non-violent disruptive protests.

    • parpol@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      If you want to change the law, you contact politicians, sign petitions, protest in a way that doesn’t prevent emergency vehicles or public transport from reaching their destinations, and you vote during election. If that isn’t enough, you run for office. Doing illegal stuff isn’t justified at all.

      • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 months ago

        Your 8-hour work week was achieved by “illegal protests” among other things. Getting rid of the divine right of kings was “illegal”.

        Setting the world on fire is somehow not “illegal” though.

      • Fuzzy_Red_Panda@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s appropriate when you’re trying to change certain things, not everything. When you’re trying to get civil rights or anything else that the higher ruling class doesn’t want you to have, it can and usually does necessitate illegal and violent protesting and uprising.

      • solo@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Of course what you describe is a way of doing things. What you say and what I said are not exclusionary. People can have both legal and illegal approaches on the same topic. Sometimes it is justifiable on moral grounds to break the law, and many countries recognize that need in their constitutions.