this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
1823 points (94.4% liked)

Memes

45753 readers
941 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You keep using those words, but you clearly don't comprehend their meaning.

"Selfish" is demanding exclusive access to public thoroughfares. "Selfish" is insisting that you are the only person who can use a public road. "Selfish" is denying public access to public roads.

"Tyranny" is when an individual forces the public to bend to their personal whims, instead of allowing them to conduct their own affairs in peace.

These people are not protesting. They are infringing on the rights of every person they deliberately delay.

Protesters have the right to speak. They do not have the right to demand a captive audience to hear their speech. They do not have the right to stop anyone who wants to move. They do not have the right to harass. You can speak; you cannot force anyone to listen, and you should be jailed for trying.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, no, you're being selfish. You can't be assed to sit in traffic for 10 minutes or simply turn around to accommodate for other people's right to protest. That silly thing people fought and died to have. All because you don't want to tolerate being inconvenienced. That is the height of selfishness.

You are selfish. Selfish, selfish, selfish.

Drivig isn't even a right, it's a privilege. Legally it's a privilege. You have no right to drive and never did. They do, however, have a right to protest.

Stop only caring about yourself and invest your mental energy in something other than your shitty 9 to 5.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No, no, you're being selfish. You can't be assed to sit in traffic

No, no, no: that isn't traffic. I'm not stuck in traffic. "Traffic" is people trying to get from where they are to where they want to be. I have no problem sitting in traffic.

The problem is that they aren't traveling. They aren't creating "traffic". They are detaining people. They are unlawfully stripping people of their right to travel, without their consent. Unlawful detention is a crime.

I'm not caring only for myself. I am caring about all the other people who are similarly being unlawfully detained by these selfish, tyrannical, criminals who have unilaterally stripped us of our right to travel in peace.

You can Share the road, get the fuck off the road, go to jail, or get run over. I don't particularly care which one you pick, but "detain others" is not an option.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, you're the one with the ability and the will to run them over and kill them and yet somehow, you're the victim being detained. 🙄

Grow the fuck up. You are not a victim. It is not all about you. You are not entitled to 100% guaranteed access to empty roads.

You have to share the road with pedestrians and even protesters whether you like it or not. Protesters are a part of driving and a part of life you have to accept.

Do what you tell everyone else to do: Get over it.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You have to share the road with pedestrians and even protesters whether you like it or not. Protesters are a part of driving and a part of life you have to accept.

Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.

Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.

Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.

Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.

Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.

Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.

Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.

Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.

Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.

Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.

Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.

Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.

Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.

Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.

Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.

Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.

Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.

Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.

Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.

Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.

Obstructing the road is not sharing the road.

I have to share with travelers. I have no problem sharing with other people traveling on the road, even when the act of traveling introduces delays.

Protesters also have to share the road. They are not allowed to obstruct the road in the course of their protest. Obstructing the road is a criminal act specifically because the roads must be shared and "obstruction" is not sharing.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

Pedestrians always have the right of way regardless.

See, I can be obnoxious to prove a point too.

It doesn't matter if protesters are hanging out in the middle of the road. You have to put up with them regardless. And honestly, the situation is too serious for your inconvenience to be taken into account. Fix the planet, then we'll talk.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Pedestrians do, indeed, have the right of way. "Right of way" meaning they are traveling.

To have the right of way, you have to be traveling. If you are not traveling, you can have no right of way. If you are not traveling on a thoroughfare, you are obstructing traffic for those who are traveling.

Protesters obstructing traffic do not have the right of way. They are criminals, and it is a good thing that they like jail.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They have the right of way regardless of whatever they're doing on the road. You don't get to run them over like you're in a Newgrounds game no matter how much you want to.

That means even when protesters are sitting on the road, you have to put up with it. Turn around. Find another route. Park and find another route.

Deal with it.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's not what "right of way" means. They do not have the right of way. They are violating the right of way.

They can be arrested, charged, and convicted for obstructing traffic. Their act of violating the right of way can also constitute unlawful detention, and the detained can use force to escape or arrest their captor.

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes it is what right of way means. You can't just run over pedestrians on the street no matter how much they inconvenience you. You especially can't run over protesters.

Get over their presence and get a life that doesn't revolve around your 9 to 5, or you in general.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, sorry, it is not. "Right of way" means they are legally permitted to be there. If they had the right of way, it would not be lawful to remove them.

They do not have the right of way. It may not be completely legal in all cases to run their asses over, but they do not have the right of way. The travelers they are obstructing have the right of way. Travelers have the right to use the road, but non-travelers are illegally infringing on that right.

Yes, actually, it is, and you have to deal with them whether you want to or not. You can't justify your hatred and bloodlust against protesters with the law; the law sides with them.

So yes, protesters on the street have the right of way. That's the price you pay to live in a country that claims to be free. Don't like it, move to Russia with your topsie Putin.