As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Arrested for silently dancing at the Jefferson Memorial? You better believe it bud!

12346»

Posts

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I would most certainly have a strong urge to choke slam people having the audacity to use the Vietnam War Memorial as their location for protest, regardless of what it is they're protesting.

    Quid on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Quid wrote: »
    I would most certainly have a strong urge to choke slam people having the audacity to use the Vietnam War Memorial as their location for protest, regardless of what it is they're protesting.

    So what you're saying is that it might disrupt your experience?

    Just to be clear.

    EDIT: And for further clarification, does this apply even if they are only hugging and swaying?

    mcdermott on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    That would be a fair assessment.

    Quid on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    So that's two.

    mcdermott on
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    mcdermott wrote: »
    So that's two.

    Plus wouldn't it be inherent. As in, if there's a ban on something, inherently someone is inconvenienced by whatever is banned; Probably the person who had it banned in the first place.

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    So that's two.

    Plus wouldn't it be inherent. As in, if there's a ban on something, inherently someone is inconvenienced by whatever is banned; Probably the person who had it banned in the first place.

    So we're up to at least three, probably more depending whether this decision-making process involves a committee or a single person in authority.

    EDIT: Thanks for that, BTW. I mean, yeah even if I hadn't spent pages making it absurdly clear that my experience would be disrupted, it's logically obviously that somebody (that somebody being a member of "anyone") must be. Some people really just have a hard time internalizing the idea that people who are not themselves exist, and might have feelings different from their own.

    mcdermott on
  • dbrock270dbrock270 Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Russia Today is the worst news agency in the world. I mean, they are so liberally biased that I can't even watch five minutes of it, and the culture reporting is so ridiculously pretentious I want to punch my computer screen.

    But since they are liberal's and (somewhat) conspiracy theorists, they are right and I am a government sheep.

    dbrock270 on
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2011
    There is a woman who has been living across from the white house for decades as an anti-war protest. There is no way we wouldn't get similar debris in the war memorials that people are actually trying to use. Really, if you aren't using the memorial or moving along, you are disrupting traffic and people's ability to utilize the memorial (through sight) and need to leave. Given that protests by definition are lingering affairs meant to insert themselves into the view of nearby people, they should absolutely be excluded.

    Bagginses on
  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    So that's two.

    Plus wouldn't it be inherent. As in, if there's a ban on something, inherently someone is inconvenienced by whatever is banned; Probably the person who had it banned in the first place.

    So we're up to at least three, probably more depending whether this decision-making process involves a committee or a single person in authority.

    EDIT: Thanks for that, BTW. I mean, yeah even if I hadn't spent pages making it absurdly clear that my experience would be disrupted, it's logically obviously that somebody (that somebody being a member of "anyone") must be. Some people really just have a hard time internalizing the idea that people who are not themselves exist, and might have feelings different from their own.

    People will get annoyed by anything. I'm just having a hard time separating getting annoyed with this at the Jefferson Memorial in specific (yes, the Vietnam Memorial is totally different. Jefferson's widow is not going to grieve at his memorial) from "Islam is the Light."

    I don't like crocs, but I hardly want cops to choke slam people wearing them in public.

    programjunkie on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    So that's two.

    Plus wouldn't it be inherent. As in, if there's a ban on something, inherently someone is inconvenienced by whatever is banned; Probably the person who had it banned in the first place.

    So we're up to at least three, probably more depending whether this decision-making process involves a committee or a single person in authority.

    EDIT: Thanks for that, BTW. I mean, yeah even if I hadn't spent pages making it absurdly clear that my experience would be disrupted, it's logically obviously that somebody (that somebody being a member of "anyone") must be. Some people really just have a hard time internalizing the idea that people who are not themselves exist, and might have feelings different from their own.

    People will get annoyed by anything. I'm just having a hard time separating getting annoyed with this at the Jefferson Memorial in specific (yes, the Vietnam Memorial is totally different. Jefferson's widow is not going to grieve at his memorial) from "Islam is the Light."

    I don't like crocs, but I hardly want cops to choke slam people wearing them in public.

    Crocs? Oh yeah, definitely need to get chokeslammed.

    What's funny is that EIEIYNP was talking about the Vietnam War Memorial in particular, which would seem to suggest a complete lack of any understanding of humanity in general.

    But really, I'd lump all the national monuments and memorials together. Yes, some will be more emotionally charged than others (such as war memorials from wars with living veterans), but all of them are set aside for purposes other that a soapbox for whatever protesters get there first that day.

    If I thought such protests would be few and far between, I'd honestly see no real need to limit them; at that point, free speech would win out on my scale. But, like I said, we had weekly protests in a tiny college town in the middle of nowhere, every week, for years. 4th and Pine is a zoo every single weekend, all day long. The idea that anybody would fail to grasp the obvious result of allowing unrestricted protest (or even "non-disruptive" protest) at every national monument and memorial across our nation's capital would be...it's just mystifying to me.

    So yeah, we don't let people do that. You want to protest something? Do it somewhere else. The only thing you should ever be protesting at a national monument or memorial is, maybe, the construction of that monument or memorial. In the case of the Jefferson, you're a bit late.

    mcdermott on
  • KiplingKipling Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    So that's two.

    Plus wouldn't it be inherent. As in, if there's a ban on something, inherently someone is inconvenienced by whatever is banned; Probably the person who had it banned in the first place.

    So we're up to at least three, probably more depending whether this decision-making process involves a committee or a single person in authority.

    EDIT: Thanks for that, BTW. I mean, yeah even if I hadn't spent pages making it absurdly clear that my experience would be disrupted, it's logically obviously that somebody (that somebody being a member of "anyone") must be. Some people really just have a hard time internalizing the idea that people who are not themselves exist, and might have feelings different from their own.

    People will get annoyed by anything. I'm just having a hard time separating getting annoyed with this at the Jefferson Memorial in specific (yes, the Vietnam Memorial is totally different. Jefferson's widow is not going to grieve at his memorial) from "Islam is the Light."

    I don't like crocs, but I hardly want cops to choke slam people wearing them in public.

    Crocs? Oh yeah, definitely need to get chokeslammed.

    What's funny is that EIEIYNP was talking about the Vietnam War Memorial in particular, which would seem to suggest a complete lack of any understanding of humanity in general.

    But really, I'd lump all the national monuments and memorials together. Yes, some will be more emotionally charged than others (such as war memorials from wars with living veterans), but all of them are set aside for purposes other that a soapbox for whatever protesters get there first that day.

    If I thought such protests would be few and far between, I'd honestly see no real need to limit them; at that point, free speech would win out on my scale. But, like I said, we had weekly protests in a tiny college town in the middle of nowhere, every week, for years. 4th and Pine is a zoo every single weekend, all day long. The idea that anybody would fail to grasp the obvious result of allowing unrestricted protest (or even "non-disruptive" protest) at every national monument and memorial across our nation's capital would be...it's just mystifying to me.

    So yeah, we don't let people do that. You want to protest something? Do it somewhere else. The only thing you should ever be protesting at a national monument or memorial is, maybe, the construction of that monument or memorial. In the case of the Jefferson, you're a bit late.

    Has anyone actually looked at the region where you can't protest or do anything? It is extremely limited. There have been many protests and speeches on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial - but none went inside to protest or demonstrate. Page 9 & 10: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/julqtr/pdf/36cfr7.96.pdf

    Also, on the the anti-nuke (and anti-war) people camped continuously outside of the White House have been there for 30+ years now. They may have gotten grandfathered in.

    Kipling on
    3DS Friends: 1693-1781-7023
  • The_SpaniardThe_Spaniard It's never lupines Irvine, CaliforniaRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I wonder what would happen to a kid being dragged to the memorial doing a pee pee dance.

    crashfootball.jpg
    :winky:

    The_Spaniard on
    Playstation/Origin/GoG: Span_Wolf Xbox/uPlay/Bnet: SpanWolf Nintendo: Span_Wolf SW-7097-4917-9392 Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/Span_Wolf/
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    The thing that bugs me about this group is that their complaint is so petty. Yes, there are a relative handful of places in DC where you can't protest. But, protests of every ideological stripe happen all the time here. If you're looking for a prominent, public place to hold your protest, the only thing that's going to stop you is if someone else got a permit for your spot first.

    If these people wanted to make some sort of point, they could have easily done so at a spot on the Mall that would have afforded them as much, if not more, public exposure for whatever it was they were trying to say.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited June 2011
    But being required to get a permit violates their First Amendment Rights! Or something. I dunno, but it seems like people who have actually been to/live in the DC area recognize what would happen if requiring permits became a formality that was ignored.

    Fencingsax on
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The thing that bugs me about this group is that their complaint is so petty. Yes, there are a relative handful of places in DC where you can't protest. But, protests of every ideological stripe happen all the time here. If you're looking for a prominent, public place to hold your protest, the only thing that's going to stop you is if someone else got a permit for your spot first.

    If these people wanted to make some sort of point, they could have easily done so at a spot on the Mall that would have afforded them as much, if not more, public exposure for whatever it was they were trying to say.

    Don't worry, I'm sure they'll disappear for a while after protesting the fact that they don't get free speech and the right to protest at 121.5 MHz by broadcasting their protests on that frequency.

    Bagginses on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    kyleh613 wrote: »
    first world problems

    exactly

    if you happen to be in DC and want to protest but can't think of anything worthwhile, go for something that matters, like the ebbing rights of District residents.

    Evander on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The thing that bugs me about this group is that their complaint is so petty. Yes, there are a relative handful of places in DC where you can't protest. But, protests of every ideological stripe happen all the time here. If you're looking for a prominent, public place to hold your protest, the only thing that's going to stop you is if someone else got a permit for your spot first.

    If these people wanted to make some sort of point, they could have easily done so at a spot on the Mall that would have afforded them as much, if not more, public exposure for whatever it was they were trying to say.

    The absurdity of it all is the notion that protests have to be lawful.

    Civil disobedience, and all that, having "no protest zones" actually makes it EASIER to get attention to your cause, when the police and media show up.

    Evander on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Evander wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The thing that bugs me about this group is that their complaint is so petty. Yes, there are a relative handful of places in DC where you can't protest. But, protests of every ideological stripe happen all the time here. If you're looking for a prominent, public place to hold your protest, the only thing that's going to stop you is if someone else got a permit for your spot first.

    If these people wanted to make some sort of point, they could have easily done so at a spot on the Mall that would have afforded them as much, if not more, public exposure for whatever it was they were trying to say.

    The absurdity of it all is the notion that protests have to be lawful.

    Civil disobedience, and all that, having "no protest zones" actually makes it EASIER to get attention to your cause, when the police and media show up.
    I guess. But I really can't figure out what these dancing individuals' cause is.

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The thing that bugs me about this group is that their complaint is so petty. Yes, there are a relative handful of places in DC where you can't protest. But, protests of every ideological stripe happen all the time here. If you're looking for a prominent, public place to hold your protest, the only thing that's going to stop you is if someone else got a permit for your spot first.

    If these people wanted to make some sort of point, they could have easily done so at a spot on the Mall that would have afforded them as much, if not more, public exposure for whatever it was they were trying to say.

    The absurdity of it all is the notion that protests have to be lawful.

    Civil disobedience, and all that, having "no protest zones" actually makes it EASIER to get attention to your cause, when the police and media show up.
    I guess. But I really can't figure out what these dancing individuals' cause is.

    The first group were just libertarian hipsters getting their liberhipster on.

    The second group were protesting not being able to protest (with the specific protest in question being "dance").

    mcdermott on
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I highly doubt the vietnam war memorial (or any other memorial) would turn into a 24/7 antiwar protest, since we don't have 24/7 antiwar protests anywhere else. Like anything else, there'd be a protest event there a couple times a year, everyone would go home and that'd be that. And if the protest amounted to "5-10 people quietly hugging and swaying" I have a hard time believing anyone's experience would be disrupted.

    We had protests every single week on main street in my town. A "city" of maybe 20K people. For years.

    Maybe an hour or two each, mind you. But that's a small town in Montana.

    Now make it a national monument. In a city of millions, in the middle of the eastern seaboard.

    Yeah, I'm sure the protests there (and at other monuments and memorials) would be few and far between. Right. Sure. Really. Gettin' that sarcasm yet?

    And if a group of hippies were hanging out at the Vietnam Memorial for hours, quietly hugging and swaying? My experience would be disrupted. So, are you trying to say I am not anyone?

    I mean, when you say "hard time believing anyone's experience would be disrupted" I need only come up with a single person to refute that. And I have already made it clear that even if no other such person exists (which is so far from the truth it's ridiculous), I am that person.

    So, you might want to reconsider that line.

    Well, maybe liberal-ass Portland, Oregon is a poor frame of reference for the vagaries of antiwar protesters, but we haven't had ongoing antiwar protests since probably the 2004 election.
    EDIT: By trying to hand-wave away the very idea that anybody would be disrupted by it, you're basically attempting to clear that side of the scale, reality be damned. Which might, to you at least, seem to bolster your argument...but it doesn't say much to anybody else about that honesty of that argument.

    Do you not understand why I consider this a circular argument? You have continuously asserted, essentially, that this is disruptive because you envision yourself being disrupted by it, without ever offering any reasoning or metric that explains why you consider these folks' actions so offensive.

    Somebody screaming at you, running around in circles, hell even holding a sign, okay, I buy that as potentially disruptive. This "dancing?" I'm not getting it.
    What's funny is that EIEIYNP was talking about the Vietnam War Memorial in particular, which would seem to suggest a complete lack of any understanding of humanity in general.

    I'm not sure what you're getting at here, I didn't bring up the vietnam memorial.

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    P
    EDIT: By trying to hand-wave away the very idea that anybody would be disrupted by it, you're basically attempting to clear that side of the scale, reality be damned. Which might, to you at least, seem to bolster your argument...but it doesn't say much to anybody else about that honesty of that argument.

    Do you not understand why I consider this a circular argument? You have continuously asserted, essentially, that this is disruptive because you envision yourself being disrupted by it, without ever offering any reasoning or metric that explains why you consider these folks' actions so offensive.

    Somebody screaming at you, running around in circles, hell even holding a sign, okay, I buy that as potentially disruptive. This "dancing?" I'm not getting it.

    I don't give a shit if you "get it."

    You said you found it hard to believe anybody's experience would be disrupted by it. Despite the fact that I had already told you I would be disrupted by it. And now you have at least one other poster saying that as well. Plus whoever complained in the first place about it, and whoever made the decision to ban it.

    The issue isn't that it's a circular argument. It just looks that way to you because you said something that was quite obviously, even at the time you said it, wrong.

    You and I (and Quid, and obviously plenty of others) simply have different values when it comes to the observances of monuments and memorials. You should really try to wrap your head around that, because it will prevent you from saying things that are wrong.
    What's funny is that EIEIYNP was talking about the Vietnam War Memorial in particular, which would seem to suggest a complete lack of any understanding of humanity in general.

    I'm not sure what you're getting at here, I didn't bring up the vietnam memorial.

    You didn't bring it up to begin with, but let me help you out:
    I highly doubt the vietnam war memorial (or any other memorial) would turn into a 24/7 antiwar protest, since we don't have 24/7 antiwar protests anywhere else. Like anything else, there'd be a protest event there a couple times a year, everyone would go home and that'd be that. And if the protest amounted to "5-10 people quietly hugging and swaying" I have a hard time believing anyone's experience would be disrupted.

    Bolded and golded, for her pleasure.

    You specifically speak of the Vietnam War Memorial (or any other memorial, which would include it), then state that you have a hard time believing anyone's experience would be disrupted. I know, it was so long ago. I actually thought you were just going to disappear, because you realized how wrong you were, didn't want to admit it, but didn't have anything else to say.

    Never understimate people, I guess.

    All I can recommend to you is that you actually read what other people write, and maybe get to know some actual human beings, before making statements about what you can and cannot believe would bother "anyone."


    EDIT: Also, if you can't understand how (say) a Vietnam veteran might feel "disrupted" by a group of five to ten hippies getting their slowdance on in protest at the memorial, while all he wants to do is find the name of his buddy that got his head blown off....well, you are broken. You are not broken because it wouldn't bother you, I get that, people are affected differently by things. But you are broken because you cannot "believe" it would disrupt "anyone." Get out more.

    mcdermott on
  • SmokeStacksSmokeStacks Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    I know that the PA D&D forums are serious business and all, but chill dude.

    No reason to get all riled up.

    SmokeStacks on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Do you not understand why I consider this a circular argument? You have continuously asserted, essentially, that this is disruptive because you envision yourself being disrupted by it, without ever offering any reasoning or metric that explains why you consider these folks' actions so offensive.

    Somebody screaming at you, running around in circles, hell even holding a sign, okay, I buy that as potentially disruptive. This "dancing?" I'm not getting it.
    Why is it circular reasoning to consider dancing disruptive but not holding a sign?

    Quid on
  • southwicksouthwick Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    Personally, after watching this, reading the intent of the "dancers", and reading these pages I feel sorry for the Security officers. This entire thing is set up to elicit the exact response that was received. At the beginning one of the "protesters" is actively insulting the officer while breaking the law. Many of them go on to resist arrest, all the while acting "shocked" as to why they are being arrested. Its fairly obvious what their tactics are, and it seems the park police were very restrained..no tazers, no mace, no strikes. Yet you come on these boards and see the stream of insults & hostility aimed at the police. What a thankless job.

    southwick on
  • ChillyWillyChillyWilly Registered User regular
    edited June 2011
    This is pretty simple.

    In general, people can act pretty much any way they want to as long as they are not getting in the way of other people going about their day and living out their rights.

    Protest on a sidewalk or in the grass where people can walk around you? Fine. Protest by laying down in the street where people would literally have to run you over to get to where they're going? You're getting arrested.

    Same thing applies here. Protest somewhere where you aren't actively pissing people off by getting in their way and otherwise making it to where they can't enjoy the monument or be solemn while near it. This is the exact reason why the KKK and/or Westboro Baptist can spew hate all day long and not get in any trouble with the police. They know the laws of the land and they go where they know none of them will get arrested. Apparently, the people in this video didn't have this same understanding.

    Do I agree that there should be a law against dancing silently at a memorial? Not really. On the face of it, it seems like a really stupid law to waste time voting on and/or enforcing. But there is a reason it exists: Because WTF are you dancing at a memorial? You're a disturbance to the people that are there for the right reasons and you are therefore violating them. Find something important to protest about and then we'll talk.

    ChillyWilly on
    PAFC Top 10 Finisher in Seasons 1 and 3. 2nd in Seasons 4 and 5. Final 4 in Season 6.
Sign In or Register to comment.