Or perhaps it’s because on the one hand we have a cause which seeks to protect marginalized groups, and on the other hand we have a cause which opposes the protection of marginalized groups.
1. this sounds awfully like to the "modern" definition of racism, which basically justifies any sort of action as long it's for the "marginalized" group.
2. What counts as "marginalized" here? I could plausibly make the argument that anti-vaxxers are marginalized because the government is cutting off their access to common services and threatening their livelihoods.
1. On the contrary, this is about giving everyone a fair chance. In no universe are protections for marginalized groups "racism". I would strongly encourage you to read about John Rawl's "veil of ignorance" concept. [1]
2. Pretty much 1:1 correspondence with the social determinants of health. [2]
>1. On the contrary, this is about giving everyone a fair chance. In no universe are protections for marginalized groups "racism".
this is exactly my point. back in the day "racism" really did mean "treating people differently based on race". https://web.archive.org/web/20071014174747/https://www.merri.... under that definition, "giving everybody a fair chance" or "protections for marginalized groups" could count as racism in certain cases. eg. "this scholarship is for black students only", or "you can't apply for this scholarship if you're asian or jewish".
>2. Pretty much 1:1 correspondence with the social determinants of health.[1]
So going off that list:
1. if you're a rich person protesting then that's bad because you're not marginalized
2. if you're employed and you're protesting, that's bad because you're not marginalized.
3. if you're well educated and you're protesting, that's bad because you're not marginalized.
4. if you haven't suffered childhood trauma and you're protesting, that's bad because you're not marginalized.
5. if you didn't grow up on the wrong side of the tracks and you're protesting, that's bad because you're not marginalized.
6. if you have social support and coping skills and you're protesting, that's bad because you're not marginalized.
7. if you have a healthy diet and you're protesting, that's bad because you're not marginalized.
8. if you have "access to health services" (live near a hospital and can easily take time off work?) and you're protesting, that's bad because you're not marginalized.
9. if you have better than average genes and you're protesting, that's bad because you're not marginalized.
10, 11, 12. if you're [redacted] and you're protesting, that's bad because you're not marginalized
If we're talking about truckers, we can definitely check off #3, and probably check off 1, 5, 7, and 8 as well. Does that check enough boxes to earn them "marginalized" status?
So protests are only just if they are against the 14 things listed by the government? I thought "free speech zones" were ridiculous, but this idea of approved protest topics takes the cake.
>and about how they do it
What does "marginalized groups" have to do with "how they do it"? Are you saying that if you're protesting against the 14 approved protest topics, you get additional leeway regarding illegal things to do?
If people blockade an important international crossing or trying to deny access to government buildings I expect that the authorities will promptly clear it, even if they are doing it in the name of a cause I support.
Yes, BLM sometimes blocked roads. In every case they were promptly removed if they did not disperse when ordered to.
2 women were killed in Seattle when BLM and police shutdown a highway for a protest: https://www.fox5dc.com/news/police-2-women-hit-by-car-on-clo...
>Protesters had shut down the interstate for 19 days in a row, Mead said at a press conference. The State Patrol responded by closing sections of the interstate to keep drivers and protesters safe.
