No they aren’t. Not all protests are good. It is essential that political disagreements don’t capsize the society we live in. Any protests that can’t be ignored is essentially mob rule

Any protests that can’t be ignored is essentially mob rule

Thank god for the mob that Marched on Washington in 1963 then.

I’m so glad we couldn’t ignore this fine protest

Maybe not any protest then?

I’m just trying to square ‘any protest that can’t be ignored’ with literally every successful protest in the history of democracy. Seems like the biggest difference between your example and mine is that one is demanding equality and one is demanding forced segregation.

Seems like the biggest difference between your example and mine is that one is demanding equality and one is demanding forced segregation.

Which means, in objective terms, the biggest difference between our examples is whether you (or, if you prefer, anyone who isn’t a horrendous cretin) agree with it.

Protests must be addressed carefully - a government that concedes to every large-scale protest has neither democracy nor rule of law - likewise, a government that concedes to no large-scale protests has neither democracy nor, probably, rule of law.

But a democracy that can outright ignore (and put down by force, even) a protest demanding something that is by all accounts reasonable (that we do not provide arms used to commit genocide (among other actions against genocide), much like a demand that African Americans have equal rights) is, what, exactly?

But a democracy that can outright ignore (and put down by force, even) a protest demanding something that is by all accounts reasonable

Reasonable is nothing but a point of view, man. That’s the point of democracy. Democracy does not create reasonable solutions - it creates solutions that are approved of by the majority.

If you want reasonable governance, find a philosopher-king. Democracy provides consensus governance, or what is as close as seems possible.

is, what, exactly?

A government that doesn’t collapse because a large number of people gather in one place. Not much else is inherently implied by a government that doesn’t concede to large-scale protests.

Reasonable is nothing but a point of view, man

And what is your point of view on supporting genocide, then?

If we all agree that supporting genocide is bad then i’d think we’d all also agree that protesting against it is… Good?

And it might be one of those kinds of protests that a democracy isn’t supposed to ignore.

And what is your point of view on supporting genocide, then?

My point of view? That supporting genocide is unreasonable.

If we all agree that supporting genocide is bad then i’d think we’d all also agree that protesting against it is… Good?

Yep. Both from an ordinary moral standpoint (“genocide is bad”) and a civic moral standpoint (“protesting is a civic duty”).

And it might be one of those kinds of protests that a democracy isn’t supposed to ignore.

It’s one of those kinds of protests that a moral government isn’t supposed to ignore. Although, arguably, if there was such a thing as a moral government to begin with, protests against genocide support would not be necessary.

But ‘moral’ and ‘democratic’ are two entirely different concepts. The purpose of a democratic government is to represent the will of the people - the consensus. The process through which that will, that consensus, is confirmed is elections, or recall petitions in some governments, not protests. Protests are merely a warning in most democratic governments, that there is some amount of groundroots support for (or against) an issue - it is not a confirmation of the opinion of the whole electorate, but that of exceptionally animated (and dutiful) citizens.

The process through which that will, that consensus, is confirmed is[sic] elections

We’re running around in circles. I thought you said voting for a candidate is not and indication support for all their policies? Is a vote for Biden a vote for more genocide or not?

We’re running around in circles. I thought you said voting for a candidate is not and indication support for all their policies?

Voting for a candidate is not an indication of support for all of their policies - it’s an indication that you prefer their policies to those of the realistic opposition candidates. Seeking consensus is not the same as seeking a complete lack of dissent - consensus inherently includes compromise. Typically, those citizens actually involved in the political process begin by running, assisting, and promoting candidates in the primaries, who they agree with most closely. Then, as the agreement of proportions of the electorate winnow down the field to a smaller number of candidates whose policies are acceptable to a larger subsection of the voters, voters pick which one they disagree with least; as the concept of finding a candidate that agrees with you 100% on every issue is about as insane as finding a fellow voter that agrees with you 100% on every issue.

Do I have to simplify this any further, or have I now succeeded where your high school civics course failed?