514
Several injured after UAW strikers hit by vehicle
(www.mlive.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
514 points (100.0% liked)
News
36118 readers
3190 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I think they should block more roads
Effective protests are disruptive.
BLM did not just loot Philly you fucking liar. I know because I live around there and I've been reading about the story you're referring to all day. Fuck off with that bullshit, the cops themselves say that the looting was by opportunists that were unconnected to the peaceful protests that were going on the same night.
Block early, block often.
Leave the disinfo peddlers, bigots, and trumpers with no one but each other to talk to.
What fucking racist publication told you it was BLM, and why did you believe it so readily even though it doesn't make any sense?
Do you understand hiw picket lines and striking work or are you just missing the fundamental knowledge base?
Do you understand that breaking the law while protesting could be more detrimental to the people that are protesting for better pay and a better life?
I'm not defending the corporations in any fashion. I'm simply noting that it could risk their numbers in doing so.
Edit: added a missing "s"
Depends on the law.
In other countries hitting someone in a vehicle is considered assault regardless of the circumstances and is enforced as such.
I would condemn the driver, the one with the responsibility to drive a tonne of steel around safely, over the pedestrian being an nucence(?) on the road.
If the law is the other way around. The law needs to be changed.
I absolutely feel the drivers actions should be condemned, as it is surely illegal for him to do what he did. However the people blocking the road are also very likely doing something illegal as well.
The situation here is just like reddit. People are justifying one group doing something illegal, while condemning the other person.
Yes, one is much worse than the other, but the world isn't black and white. People fail to understand that at the most basic level. Commiting a crime that ends in you getting hurt often times means you have no recorse.
What if the people that got hit, have no protection because they were blocking the road?
The guy goes to jail and they are SOL. Now, not only are they out of the protest to fight for basic human rights that we should all have, they are in the hospital, making no money, with even more bills stacking up, and potentially (it doesn't seem like it in this case but it's not impossible) looking at charges.
Justifying something that is deemed illegal is how laws change.
It is true that the world isn't in black and white. But laws are and we must respond in kind.
If it isn't justified, you should be able to come up with a rational argument against me, of which I'm amicable. The argument being about the driver having more responsibility.
To me, a person in a lesser position of control of a situation should be given more leeway in terms of outcomes. This is because with control comes responsibility and failure of that responsibility comes justice.
You would have to argue that the driver had less control over this situation.
I agree with your first point on how laws change. Why should we justify blocking traffic though?
The protest is about corporations giving people peanuts while the investors and C level employees take in millions. Not the ability to stand in the way of oncoming traffic. Those are two very different things.
The driver is absolutely responsible for his actions, but a group of people intentionally placing themselves in a road, be it entry/exit or just a main road are also partly responsible for their actions that led to their injuries. They know and understand what they are doing.
Hundreds or thousands of people walking out of these factories effectively stopping production speaks volumes, and definitely has an effect. Why tarnish that effect by acting irrationally and taking yourself out of the fight because you want to stand in the road?
This isn't a single person with less control of a situation. This is a group of organized protesters trying to send a message, and knowingly obstructing traffic when the walk out itself is more effective.
I 100% support the UAW but I can't openly justify either party doing what they did, the driver who is absolutely more responsible nor the protesters that were knowingly putting themselves in a position to get physically hurt. It does nothing aside from potentially hurt your message when you do that.
We are not going through a civil war, we are not at the point of people fighting with their lives (yet) over the necessity of basic survival. Both parties were wrong in this situation.
It sounds like we agree on principle.
The difference is you're actively trying to both sides it.
To me, there is a substantial difference in optics and consequence between hitting someone in a car and standing on a road.
The latter is barely worth talking about when the former is the topic of discussion, especially when the justification seems to be - they were in the way.
Oh my fuck, blocking an exit to a property with a bunch of scabs working on it is not equivalent to blocking a major highway where the closest exit is to the only hospital in the area. You are absolutely defending the corps when you continue to make the style of arguments you make. Get real.
Doesn't matter if it's a main road or an exit to done. It is still likely illegal.
You are confusing my logic in thinking that these UAW protesters should be protecting themselves with your logic of thinking I'm defending the corporations.
You're missing a whole lot more than just an s.
Fuck off. Your inconvenience is not worth more than their livelihoods.
And you are putting words in my mouth.
I never said it was an inconvenience.
The UAW protesters should be protecting themselves. They are already putting themselves on the line with the protest. They shouldn't put themselves in more danger just so they can be taken out of the fight.
Try to think rationally, educate yourself on the real world and how it works.
You are taking out of both sides of your mouth. "They didn't have been run over but they had it coming!"
More putting words in my mouth.
Good job.
Where are you getting this presupposition that striking means putting oneself in danger?
What real world factor involves this bizarre assumption?
Ill join you on the downvote boat. Protest all you want, but they were blocking a exit, not an entrance. They were not blocking people from working, they were blocking them from going home. Protests should not impede traffic.
Protest without civil disruption is impossible. There's many many examples of this throughout history. I wish it weren't necessary, because yes I know things have become so bad under the current capitalistic economy that even a few hours or a day can make/break livelihoods, but it is necessary if we as a society want to have any hope of reclaiming power from our corporate and governmental overlords. They're simply too entrenched and empowered in comparison to those they abuse at this point to fight with mere words alone.
"Protest all you want, just don't do anything effective." Gotcha.
The refrain of piece of shit pearl-clutching reactionaries everywhere.
What other kinds of people do you believe you have a right to hit with your car?