Protesting during a pandemic (split)

[EACLucifer]

We just don't agree with the risks they are not just taking, but imposing on the public, especially on the communities they purport to represent.

It's stuff like this that keeps getting under my skin. The protestors clearly do represent parts of those communities. You keep saying "claim to" and "purport to" as if you don't think the protests are legitimate.

One sub-section of a community cannot fully represent it. Unlike many US protests, this was entirely the young and fit, ie those who are risking others far more than they risk themselves.

This entire blowup occured because you insisted on tone policing a very vulnerable person who has been directly harmed by the pandemic who was concerned about increased risks and harm. The people getting frustrated with your inability to get the point are quite aware it's not just about one thing or another thing, but given the likely small at best - and remember, protests can be counterproductive - effects of the UK protests do not come close to justifying the risks, especially not given the protestors refusal to even slightly modify their protest to protect lives.

Tone in conversations about racism and responses to it is an important issue, though, as it is with any disadvantaged group. I apologise again for not considering your personal circumstances, but as far as I'm aware they don't apply to other people making similar points in this thread.

You need to think about this harder. Why are you talking about a disadvantaged group on the one hand, and my personal circumstances on the other? Your attitude was that I should not apply the same language that I have done to everyone else risking others with this pandemic because they were in a marginalised group, and yet when criticised for tone policing a member of a marginalised group for expressing concerns about the impact of their behaviour, you are still talking about personal circumstances. My objections to this protest lie in their refusal to consider the wellbeing of those endangered by their actions, which includes healthcare workers, elderly, disabled and otherwise infirm people, especially in BAME communities. I did not bring my own circumstances into this because they are my main motivation on this, but because they are perhaps an illustrative example of what so many people face with this pandemic. That it is worsening existing inequalities and placing people into intolerable situations.

For context, I was getting sufficiently sick of BOAF's dismissiveness of concerns that I sent him a DM explaining the time this march that I had to singlehandedly - literally - manage an EDS-caused sternoclavicular separation with morphine, diazepam and a length of old rope.

My own circumstances are not my main motivation in this - my main motivation here is fear of the deaths and suffering a second wave of the virus would cause, especially to the vulnerable - but I think they are a reasonable counter to the rather unpleasant "and who are you to have an opinion on this" attitude we've seen on this thread.

especially not given the protestors refusal to even slightly modify their protest to protect lives.

Again, why repeat things you know are untrue? Constantly exaggerating does not give the impression of somebody giving the protestors a fair hearing.

Because it isn't untrue. Because I've seen both the pictures of the protests, and the calls to action that lead to them, with people crammed in to streets like sardines, and chanting en masse, and chants organised in advance. They. Did. Not. Care. Enough. To. Adjust. Their. f.cking. Behaviour. I know you said early on that they were social distancing but the simple fact of the matter is that they were not, and your earlier claims they were do not correspond with reality.

[Bird on a Fire]

Why hold them now? Why? Now?
That. Is. What. Is. f.cking. Stupid.

The decision for the organisers and protestors was between capitalising on positive media and public support and obeying the lockdown. They made a different decision to the one you, I or many other people would have made, but I really don't think stupidity, or thoughtlessness, or recklessness, is the best explanation. That's really been my main point for all these pages, and will continue to be for as long as people keep asserting otherwise.

The time to protest was in Nov/Dec to remind everyone of the Tories racist policies and try to prevent racist Johnsin winning tha majority he did.

This preoccupation with Westminster politics comes from a position of privilege. Marginalised communities are objectively not, and certainly do not feel, well represented by either party or by the policies they enact in government. I'm not saying that they shouldn't vote - it would be great to increase turnout from those groups. But suggesting that that the Westminster election should necessarily be the focus of activism is ignoring the rich history of struggles for justice that have achieved success outside of periodic elections.

Johnson ran on a fairly transparently xenophobic platform. I can't imagine that BLM pointing out his obvious racism in a demonstration would have made any more difference than all the journalists pointing out the same thing, especially as people who reliably vote are probably more swayed by newspapers than by demonstrations.

[Bird on a Fire]

- I felt like boaf was expressing this and I agreed with what he was saying, and didn’t think he was being racist in even a technical way, just saying don’t be so insulting about choices made weighing two factors when you lack the experience to know how heavy one side is.

I'm glad that came across. I wish I had been as succinct.

[lpm]

No matter how many times people repeat that the end justifies the means, you will never be right. History is littered with disasters caused by betraying principles in order to pursue a righteous cause.

It's obvious you know the moral principles that require the lockdown, BoAF, but you have decided principles can be paused for a moment. You are showing principles are to be indulged only when individuals choose, and to be ignored whenever people feel there's something more important in their own lives. This is more important right now, you say to yourself. I'll do my own cost/benefit. I personally decide my cause is righteous.

You've cut a great road through society and citizen responsibility in order to go after the devil of racism. And when you've given away the last remnant of social responsibility, and the devil turns on you, what do you do? How will your social values stand upright in a world of individuals acting according to their personal decisions?

Shared citizenship where we combine to act for society requires people to surrender their own decisions and personal choices. It comes with a cost - for everything, not just the lockdown. But it comes with greater benefits. It's as citizens not individuals that we drive down R - plus act on climate, restore bird habitats and win social justice. Don't set aside these principles. You have surrendered more than you know.

[Bird on a Fire]

One sub-section of a community cannot fully represent it. Unlike many US protests, this was entirely the young and fit, ie those who are risking others far more than they risk themselves.

Of course. Obviously I think it's a good thing that the more vulnerable didn't attend. I don't see any reason to assume that protestors (or potential protestors) in regular contact with vulnerable individuals didn't consider they safety and discuss it with them.

Which brings us to the central issue of people weighing up community transmission of coronavirus versus racism. The issues are sufficiently different that I don't think the comparison is straightforward when they have affected people in completely different ways for totally different amounts of time.

You need to think about this harder. Why are you talking about a disadvantaged group on the one hand, and my personal circumstances on the other? Your attitude was that I should not apply the same language that I have done to everyone else risking others with this pandemic because they were in a marginalised group, and yet when criticised for tone policing a member of a marginalised group for expressing concerns about the impact of their behaviour, you are still talking about personal circumstances. My objections to this protest lie in their refusal to consider the wellbeing of those endangered by their actions, which includes healthcare workers, elderly, disabled and otherwise infirm people, especially in BAME communities. I did not bring my own circumstances into this because they are my main motivation on this, but because they are perhaps an illustrative example of what so many people face with this pandemic. That it is worsening existing inequalities and placing people into intolerable situations.

For context, I was getting sufficiently sick of BOAF's dismissiveness of concerns that I sent him a DM explaining the time this march that I had to singlehandedly - literally - manage an EDS-caused sternoclavicular separation with morphine, diazepam and a length of old rope.

My own circumstances are not my main motivation in this - my main motivation here is fear of the deaths and suffering a second wave of the virus would cause, especially to the vulnerable - but I think they are a reasonable counter to the rather unpleasant "and who are you to have an opinion on this" attitude we've seen on this thread.

I refer to your personal circumstances because it's your personal behaviour I object to. Your point about protesting during the lockdown is fair, and could have been made in other ways, as it was by e.g. discovolante and Squeak and bewilderd and probably others. I don't disagree with that point in the slightest - I disagree with your anger, insults, apparent misrepresentation and apparent dismissiveness. I simply don't think that's the right way to discuss sensitive issues that affect other people. If you think it's fine to behave like that then we're not going to get any further with this.

especially not given the protestors refusal to even slightly modify their protest to protect lives.
Because it isn't untrue. Because I've seen both the pictures of the protests, and the calls to action that lead to them, with people crammed in to streets like sardines, and chanting en masse, and chants organised in advance. They. Did. Not. Care. Enough. To. Adjust. Their. f.cking. Behaviour. I know you said early on that they were social distancing but the simple fact of the matter is that they were not, and your earlier claims they were do not correspond with reality.

The images I saw on social media were of the marching part of the protest, which do show people reasonably spread out, though most are ignoring the calls to wear masks - this is probably not surprising given that masks aren't compulsory in the UK as they are everywhere that's tackling the pandemic successfully.

The assembly in Trafalgar Square was far too high-density, I agree. It's a very big space, and the organisers have said they were surprised how many people turned up, so if they had intended to distance properly it would have been impossible. It's not like this are ticketed events with attendance strictly monitored in advance - I'm not sure that failing to predict turnout during a pandemic is necessarily stupid. It seems more like pessimism.

Given that they planned for lower attendance, chanting with distancing doesn't seem irresponsible. They should have rapidly re-organised the protest when the numbers became apparent, but the problem with decentralised movements like BLM is that it's very hard to issue commands to people at short notice.

I'd call it poor planning - they should have had contingencies in place for large numbers. I don't think that protesting safely during a pandemic is stupid, and I don't think that the reason these protests ended up unsafe is because of stupidity.

[Bird on a Fire]

No matter how many times people repeat that the end justifies the means, you will never be right. History is littered with disasters caused by betraying principles in order to pursue a righteous cause.

It's obvious you know the moral principles that require the lockdown, BoAF, but you have decided principles can be paused for a moment. You are showing principles are to be indulged only when individuals choose, and to be ignored whenever people feel there's something more important in their own lives. This is more important right now, you say to yourself. I'll do my own cost/benefit. I personally decide my cause is righteous.

You've cut a great road through society and citizen responsibility in order to go after the devil of racism. And when you've given away the last remnant of social responsibility, and the devil turns on you, what do you do? How will your social values stand upright in a world of individuals acting according to their personal decisions?

Shared citizenship where we combine to act for society requires people to surrender their own decisions and personal choices. It comes with a cost - for everything, not just the lockdown. But it comes with greater benefits. It's as citizens not individuals that we drive down R - plus act on climate, restore bird habitats and win social justice. Don't set aside these principles. You have surrendered more than you know.

In general I completely agree with the necessity of citizens behaving responsibly, and if everybody starts ignoring the lockdown all the time that would be terrible.

However, the problem with slippery-slope arguments like this is that sometimes it's not sensible to consider everything on the same scale, separated only by a matter of gradation. The events of the last 10 days have been really, really unusual in terms of the level of support for anti-racist action; I'd go as far as to call them unprecedented in my lifetime (BoaF 1990-2020). I don't think the case has been made that because people think it's ok to join an unusual protest in unusual circumstances that will lead to people flouting restrictions in other circumstances (more than they would have done anyway).

Plus, unfortunately these calls for isolation are largely pissing in the wind given that even popping to the shops in central London requires you to squeeze past queues of unmasked people on the pavements, getting to work means cramming in with unmasked strangers on public transport, and the unclear government 'guidance' and behaviour of c.nts like Cummings give the message that everybody should be deciding things for themselves. That's the background against which averagely or under-informed people will have been making the decision about participation, and I'll reiterate that I don't think it was known in advance how densely-packed the protests would be.

[EACLucifer]

You need to think about this harder. Why are you talking about a disadvantaged group on the one hand, and my personal circumstances on the other? Your attitude was that I should not apply the same language that I have done to everyone else risking others with this pandemic because they were in a marginalised group, and yet when criticised for tone policing a member of a marginalised group for expressing concerns about the impact of their behaviour, you are still talking about personal circumstances. My objections to this protest lie in their refusal to consider the wellbeing of those endangered by their actions, which includes healthcare workers, elderly, disabled and otherwise infirm people, especially in BAME communities. I did not bring my own circumstances into this because they are my main motivation on this, but because they are perhaps an illustrative example of what so many people face with this pandemic. That it is worsening existing inequalities and placing people into intolerable situations.

For context, I was getting sufficiently sick of BOAF's dismissiveness of concerns that I sent him a DM explaining the time this march that I had to singlehandedly - literally - manage an EDS-caused sternoclavicular separation with morphine, diazepam and a length of old rope.

My own circumstances are not my main motivation in this - my main motivation here is fear of the deaths and suffering a second wave of the virus would cause, especially to the vulnerable - but I think they are a reasonable counter to the rather unpleasant "and who are you to have an opinion on this" attitude we've seen on this thread.

I refer to your personal circumstances because it's your personal behaviour I object to. Your point about protesting during the lockdown is fair, and could have been made in other ways, as it was by e.g. discovolante and Squeak and bewilderd and probably others. I don't disagree with that point in the slightest - I disagree with your anger, insults, apparent misrepresentation and apparent dismissiveness.

This is why I have referred to your condescending behaviour as tone policing. You are refusing to acknowledge that there are more issues at stake here, or that people endangered by others behaviour, or concerned about those who are, have a right to be angry about it. You are on the one hand saying that we should not criticise marginalised people for expressing their anger in a way that endangered lives, then also saying that marginalised people shouldn't be angry at people needlessly endangering lives.

As for misrepresentation, you still seem to be pretending there were meaningful efforts at social distancing.

The pandemic is having a devastating effect on all kinds of vulnerable people. Tens of thousands are dead, many more are permanently damaged, many more still are grieving. The vulnerable are those expected to bear the burden of protecting the vulnerable.

But don't worry, you've made it clear how little you care about both the practical impact of things you approve of, and your own language - you've shown it by insisting on lecturing someone you know to have been harmed by the pandemic on how he's not allowed to be angry at people who are choosing actions that encourage the spread and risk increasing the duration of the pandemic. I've endured both agony and injury to protect people both directly and indirectly during this pandemic. I do not need the permission of a patronising hypocrite to feel angry about those who, enjoying the relative privilege of youth and health, have decided they can inflict risks on others. The danger of spreading this disease is not an inevitable cost of speaking out about injustice. It is possible to speak out about injustice without risking others, either by speaking out from home, or by engaging in much lower risk protests like the one Squeak was discussing attending.

I simply don't think that's the right way to discuss sensitive issues that affect other people. If you think it's fine to behave like that then we're not going to get any further with this.

It's been obvious we aren't going to get anywhere because despite having the point repeatedly explained to you, you continue to insist that you and only you are the only arbiter of the conversation, and that some people are allowed to be angry about people endangering them and others are not. The difference is that I don't think my anger - on this or any other issue - absolves me from the responsibility to protect human life.

[Bird on a Fire]

I don't want to keep going with this, as it's enormously tedious, but your post suggests you haven't read or understood anything I've posted. One last try, point by point:

This is why I have referred to your condescending behaviour as tone policing. You are refusing to acknowledge that there are more issues at stake here

I've acknowledged that loads of times.

, or that people endangered by others behaviour, or concerned about those who are, have a right to be angry about it.

I haven't said people shouldn't be angry. I've asked people to express themselves sensitively.

You are on the one hand saying that we should not criticise marginalised people for expressing their anger in a way that endangered lives, then also saying that marginalised people shouldn't be angry at people needlessly endangering lives.

I've repeatedly said it's fine to criticise marginalised people, and even gave you other examples of people who've done so in this thread in ways that I and others didn't find objectionable. To reiterate, compare how disco, Squeak, bewilderd, for example - and that's just the people who felt comfortable participating in a thread dominated by angry ranting, which excludes people.

As for misrepresentation, you still seem to be pretending there were meaningful efforts at social distancing.

As for misrepresentation, I've already acknowledged that distancing was impossible in Trafalgar Square and its environs and that the organisers should have adapted their plans as a result.

The pandemic is having a devastating effect on all kinds of vulnerable people. Tens of thousands are dead, many more are permanently damaged, many more still are grieving. The vulnerable are those expected to bear the burden of protecting the vulnerable.

But don't worry, you've made it clear how little you care about both the practical impact of things you approve of, and your own language - you've shown it by insisting on lecturing someone you know to have been harmed by the pandemic on how he's not allowed to be angry at people who are choosing actions that encourage the spread and risk increasing the duration of the pandemic. I've endured both agony and injury to protect people both directly and indirectly during this pandemic. I do not need the permission of a patronising hypocrite to feel angry about those who, enjoying the relative privilege of youth and health, have decided they can inflict risks on others. The danger of spreading this disease is not an inevitable cost of speaking out about injustice. It is possible to speak out about injustice without risking others, either by speaking out from home, or by engaging in much lower risk protests like the one Squeak was discussing attending.

I simply don't think that's the right way to discuss sensitive issues that affect other people. If you think it's fine to behave like that then we're not going to get any further with this.

It's been obvious we aren't going to get anywhere because despite having the point repeatedly explained to you, you continue to insist that you and only you are the only arbiter of the conversation, and that some people are allowed to be angry about people endangering them and others are not. The difference is that I don't think my anger - on this or any other issue - absolves me from the responsibility to protect human life.

Clearly I'm not the only arbiter of the conversation, nor the only person who's found your contributions objectionable - see posts by EPD, dyqik and bewilderd for examples.

And again, I haven't said people shouldn't be angry. I've asked people to express themselves sensitively.

[EACLucifer]

, or that people endangered by others behaviour, or concerned about those who are, have a right to be angry about it.

I haven't said people shouldn't be angry.

You literally said "I disagree with your anger". You are having a go at people for their tone, specifically because they are angry. There's really no point engaging with anyone willing to be so dishonest, so I'll leave it here for now.

And again, I haven't said people shouldn't be angry. I've asked people to express themselves sensitively.

Not just a patronising hypocrite, either gaslighting or goldfish brained.

I disagree with your anger

[Bird on a Fire]

, or that people endangered by others behaviour, or concerned about those who are, have a right to be angry about it.

I haven't said people shouldn't be angry.

You literally said "I disagree with your anger". You are having a go at people for their tone, specifically because they are angry. There's really no point engaging with anyone willing to be so dishonest, so I'll leave it here for now.

And again, I haven't said people shouldn't be angry. I've asked people to express themselves sensitively.

Not just a patronising hypocrite, either gaslighting or goldfish brained.

I disagree with your anger

Goldfish brained. I should have said "angry writing style" or something.

ETA Here's a better-expressed version of the paragraph in question:

I refer to your personal circumstances because it's your personal behaviour I object to. Your point about protesting during the lockdown is fair, and could have been made in other ways, as it was by e.g. discovolante and Squeak and bewilderd and probably others. I don't disagree with that point in the slightest - I disagree with your anger aggression, insults, apparent misrepresentation and apparent dismissiveness. I simply don't think that's the right way to discuss sensitive issues that affect other people. If you think it's fine to behave like that then we're not going to get any further with this.

Sorry for the confusion on my part.

[discovolante]

I just want to link to this Twitter thread here, because I think it's related to what I said earlier about something 'snapping'. However I also want to acknowledge that this is just the kind of situation where the concept of intersectionality is really important. I don't actually think I am in any position to be telling anyone how to feel so this is just my point of view that you can ignore as you wish, but I think the conflict between people who are protesting during a pandemic and people who are scared of the impact on them is converting fear to anger, when in reality everyone is more or less being treated like sh.t and with contempt by both the people in power and the overarching power structures that are in place. I appreciate that doesn't address the number of deaths issue but at the moment (and I may change my mind or regret saying this) I feel there is something missing in this discussion. Perhaps not deliberate divide and rule as such but something stemming from that.

https://twitter.com/JENDELLA/status/126 ... 16512?s=20

[Herainestold]

Can we just give Lucifer a time out until he calms down and comes back to his senses?

[Stephanie]

Can we just give Lucifer a time out until he calms down and comes back to his senses?

Herainestold, I'd like you to stop trolling these threads, and the forum overall. I've had a look at your post history here, and I think you are posting in a deliberately provocative way, designed to upset members of this forum. Consider this a first warning.

[tom p]

Why hold them now? Why? Now?
That. Is. What. Is. f.cking. Stupid.

The decision for the organisers and protestors was between capitalising on positive media and public support and obeying the lockdown. They made a different decision to the one you, I or many other people would have made, but I really don't think stupidity, or thoughtlessness, or recklessness, is the best explanation. That's really been my main point for all these pages, and will continue to be for as long as people keep asserting otherwise.

The time to protest was in Nov/Dec to remind everyone of the Tories racist policies and try to prevent racist Johnsin winning tha majority he did.

This preoccupation with Westminster politics comes from a position of privilege. Marginalised communities are objectively not, and certainly do not feel, well represented by either party or by the policies they enact in government. I'm not saying that they shouldn't vote - it would be great to increase turnout from those groups. But suggesting that that the Westminster election should necessarily be the focus of activism is ignoring the rich history of struggles for justice that have achieved success outside of periodic elections.

Johnson ran on a fairly transparently xenophobic platform. I can't imagine that BLM pointing out his obvious racism in a demonstration would have made any more difference than all the journalists pointing out the same thing, especially as people who reliably vote are probably more swayed by newspapers than by demonstrations.

f.ck off, you self important tway.
"Ooh, you're so privileged" is a pathetic argument no different to whining about the elites, and coming from you it's as honest as Cummings, johnson or trump playing it.
I don't have the time or energy to point out every wrong thing you said, but your post is inaccurate in so many ways

[Stephanie]

I'm really surprised at the response to boaf, gotta say.

He's gone out of his way to try and explain himself over and over, and is getting insults, PMs, and a lot of hostility for his troubles.

He's not doing this to upset people, he's trying to advocate on behalf of a group which lets face it, isn't well represented here.

It's a difficult discussion, yes. Please could people not add heat unnecessarily?

[Bewildered]

I'm really surprised at the response to boaf, gotta say.

He's gone out of his way to try and explain himself over and over, and is getting insults, PMs, and a lot of hostility for his troubles.

He's not doing this to upset people, he's trying to advocate on behalf of a group which lets face it, isn't well represented here.

It's a difficult discussion, yes. Please could people not add heat unnecessarily?

I was about to say the same thing. I do understand EACL’s perspective better from a lot of posts and a number of good points have been made on both sides. But I read what tomp wrote above and then looked at the post he was quoting expecting to see some sharp comment from boaf, but there isn’t one. there is a comment about privilege but I think it’s quite mild and not very critical or accusatory. For full disclosure I tend to think what he wrote there is true, so maybe I am biased, but it just seems a very inoffensive remark. People do sometimes use privilege in much more personal and confrontational ways, but that just isn’t happening in his post. I also don’t get why boaf is the target of the aggression. Like I said earlier, I thought some people had been quite unpleasant and unfair towards EACL, but boaf is the one who has gone out of his way to make considered responses and has acknowledge some mistakes as well. Not all of his posts are perfect, but..

[EACLucifer]

I'm really surprised at the response to boaf, gotta say.

He's gone out of his way to try and explain himself over and over, and is getting insults, PMs, and a lot of hostility for his troubles.

He's not doing this to upset people, he's trying to advocate on behalf of a group which lets face it, isn't well represented here.

It's a difficult discussion, yes. Please could people not add heat unnecessarily?

I was about to say the same thing. I do understand EACL’s perspective better from a lot of posts and a number of good points have been made on both sides. But I read what tomp wrote above and then looked at the post he was quoting expecting to see some sharp comment from boaf, but there isn’t one. there is a comment about privilege but I think it’s quite mild and not very critical or accusatory. For full disclosure I tend to think what he wrote there is true, so maybe I am biased, but it just seems a very inoffensive remark. People do sometimes use privilege in much more personal and confrontational ways, but that just isn’t happening in his post. I also don’t get why boaf is the target of the aggression. Like I said earlier, I thought some people had been quite unpleasant and unfair towards EACL, but boaf is the one who has gone out of his way to make considered responses and has acknowledge some mistakes as well. Not all of his posts are perfect, but..

The reason people are getting annoyed with BOAF is because he just keeps going and going with his "I'm not tone policing a vulnerable person I'm just objecting to the tone of a vulnerable person and refusing to accept the wider issues involved..."

And I think it's perfectly reasonable to have a go at him about him invoking privilege, because despite it being repeatedly shown to him, he is ignoring the privilege he, and the protestors enjoy - the privilege of youth and health meaning that if they catch the disease they have decided it is ok to spread they are unlikely to face the awful consequences someone not enjoying those privileges would face.

And the organisers cannot pretend this is something that caught them by surprise - they have once again organised mass gatherings in the middle of a pandemic, to respond to events in the US. Estimates of fifteen thousand gathering in Manchester, in a region where R is already estimated to be above one. This is worse by far than the VE day stuff, worse from a perspective of pandemic control than Cummings's jaunt by orders of magnitude.

Realistically, the number of lives saved by these protests is unlikely to be any at all. Meanwhile mass gatherings, eg football matches, Cheltenham, are widely considered to have been a mistake in March. Current new cases are higher than they were then, higher than they were on the day lockdown was announced.

And throughout this there's been the implied accusation that treating preventing a deadly pandemic's spread as more immediately urgent for the duration of the pandemic than going and shouting about police brutality means you do not think police brutality matters. Not only is that not true - I'll quote Seattle BLM below - but it is also ignoring every other axis of privilege and oppression. I know a number of people through disability organisation etc, and not one of them has not suffered as a result of this pandemic in a way people who have not been there and experienced or witnessed struggle to actually understand. That includes people who know they their lives are considered less worth saving by the health establishment, and who will, if it comes down to a choice between them and someone else, will not be triaged to receive medical care. BOAF's position is not just "if you deliberately do the most dangerous things anyone can think of to risk the spread of the pandemic in the name of a cause that is important people heavily impacted should mind their language when criticising your recklessness with others lives" but "if you have personally suffered from the pandemic and are worrying about other people who suffer disproportionately you should moderate your language to the point you must not call who are utterly reckless about it's spread idiots"

Everyone knows people are angry about racism and police brutality. Protestors should be willing to weigh up the lives of those their actions place in deadly peril with any gains their protest might achieve. In the UK, that means going the f.ck at home and self isolating for two weeks, then actually organising. Slogans and shouting are easy, sustained campaigning is hard.

We live in a country that has lost more than 100,000 people to COVID-19. This virus has ravaged our communities in a way that largely mirrors the existing inequities and structural racism inherent in our healthcare systems. We refuse to encourage our community members to needlessly risk their lives and their health during this time when other avenues of action are available. We reserve the right to take to the streets in the future, but we encourage those who are most directly impacted by this fight, to put your safety and health before anything else.

This is a marathon, not a sprint. The victory is hollow if we’re at the finish line alone.

[lpm]

Unfortunately, Facebook is now full of variants of:

1) If people are allowed to go to the beach and on protest marches, why aren't we allowed to do X?

2) Going to the beach: allowed. Going to Durham: allowed. Protesting for BLM: not allowed. f.ck off government.

I think this stage of the lockdown is over. We, as a society, need to rethink and come up with a new consensus. The current structure can't hold now both right and left wing are breaching.

[Fishnut]

Unfortunately, Facebook is now full of variants of:

1) If people are allowed to go to the beach and on protest marches, why aren't we allowed to do X?

2) Going to the beach: allowed. Going to Durham: allowed. Protesting for BLM: not allowed. f.ck off government.

I think this stage of the lockdown is over. We, as a society, need to rethink and come up with a new consensus. The current structure can't hold now both right and left wing are breaching.

The lockdown ended when they started allowing non-essential shops to reopen. The lockdown required people to only go out when it was essential, as soon as you can go out for non-essential things there is no way of enforcing a lockdown.

[EACLucifer]

Unfortunately, Facebook is now full of variants of:

1) If people are allowed to go to the beach and on protest marches, why aren't we allowed to do X?

2) Going to the beach: allowed. Going to Durham: allowed. Protesting for BLM: not allowed. f.ck off government.

I think this stage of the lockdown is over. We, as a society, need to rethink and come up with a new consensus. The current structure can't hold now both right and left wing are breaching.

A vast proportion of the blame has to go to the government for trying to create the illusion of victory, encouraging people back to work etc. The Cummings incident really, really didn't help.

However, if you are immature enough to reason "Dom shat on the table, why can't I?", then you are part of the problem. The protests have both realistically killed off attempts to maintain distancing, and given the Tories the exuse they spent months scrabbling for of why a second wave won't be their fault. They struggled to maintain the canard that the problem was that the rules were fine and people weren't following them during the Cummings affair, but the protestors have put it right back into play.

[EACLucifer]

Unfortunately, Facebook is now full of variants of:

1) If people are allowed to go to the beach and on protest marches, why aren't we allowed to do X?

2) Going to the beach: allowed. Going to Durham: allowed. Protesting for BLM: not allowed. f.ck off government.

I think this stage of the lockdown is over. We, as a society, need to rethink and come up with a new consensus. The current structure can't hold now both right and left wing are breaching.

The lockdown ended when they started allowing non-essential shops to reopen. The lockdown required people to only go out when it was essential, as soon as you can go out for non-essential things there is no way of enforcing a lockdown.

On the one hand, this is largely true, especially in the effect on people's attitudes.

On the other hand, different behaviours carry different risks. Going to a non-essential shop on foot while maintaining social distancing is not the highest risk thing to do, although I'd argue that right now, it shouldn't be something people are doing.

On the third hand, this thread occured in large part because several people here thought that someone who has been against premature re-opening and a massive critic of the government on this must don kid gloves before even considering criticising people organising mass gatherings right now.

Mass gatherings are one of the riskiest things, and in controlling a disease like this need to be the first to shut down and the last to reopen.

[plebian]

Sigh

[EllyCat]

Quote from the Dame Cressida (Met police commissioner) asking people not to protest:

"I would urge protesters to please find another way to make your views heard...”

Struck me as a complete failure to engage with or support the cause - it’s just a brush off, another brush off to be added to a very long list of brush offs. I Don’t think her urging is going to get her very far...

BoaF, I think you’re right and that there’s a complete disconnect between those perceiving themselves as unaffected by the BLM issues and focussing on the pandemic, and those for whom the pandemic is just another injustice.

[Woodchopper]

A thread by a scientist on the likely effects of the US demonstrations on Covid infection
https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/126939 ... 64832?s=20
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1269 ... 64832.html

[lpm]

Quote from the Dame Cressida (Met police commissioner) asking people not to protest:

"I would urge protesters to please find another way to make your views heard...”

Struck me as a complete failure to engage with or support the cause - it’s just a brush off, another brush off to be added to a very long list of brush offs. I Don’t think her urging is going to get her very far...

BoaF, I think you’re right and that there’s a complete disconnect between those perceiving themselves as unaffected by the BLM issues and focussing on the pandemic, and those for whom the pandemic is just another injustice.

Ah, death, just another injustice. "Sad news, Grandma suffered injustice far too young last night, only 71. The funeral's next week."