I think that 'forcibly' is a bad choice of words for a legal order that people could, and some did, ignore without serious consequence, and definitely without response by force—witness the 'liberate' protests—when compared to the literal and illegal use of force that the current protests are addressing, which have themselves been met in many places with force (as, for example, this very article discusses).

Businesses were shut down, by law. Some that stayed open in defiance of the law were fined and shuttered by the government.

It most certainly was not optional.

And the defiance cost them fines, sometimes, not their lives. The protests are addressing compliance resulting in death for a select portion of the population that has been systematically singled out for centuries because of the pigment of their skin.

Not caring if there is a pandemic does not absolve people of actions they take that endanger others as a result of their disregard for the situation.

I think the point is that addressing police brutality is more important than stopping COVID-19 spread which is more important than going to work and visiting families.

You can’t protest if you’re sick though.

So I get it it’s a short term push to get recognition but if the pandemic is as bad as they say it means many people will be hospitalized or worse.

Of course it’s a devils bargain, damnned if you do, damnned if you don’t, but it’s still present.

> You can’t protest if you’re sick though.

I'm not sure if you mean "they can't join the protests when sick" or "they can't protest getting sick from doing this". For the former, I imagine those that are technically can if they really want to. For the latter, those that aren't are seemingly willing to take the risk of getting sick in order to help address this.

> it means many people will be hospitalized or worse.

Yes, they seem willing to risk that consequence.

And that's a value judgement they can make. The issue is that ordering was different for millions of people and they didn't get a choice in the matter.

> issue is that ordering was different

No, it's not. The ones that are protesting are also being ordered to disperse and go back home. The reason they're not is because they're disobeying.

For those that aren't explicitly ordered, it's because it's pointless, given that civil disobedience is in the nature of protests.

Good luck disobeying if you are small business owner who was told you can no longer legally do business.

On a more personal note, my 98 year old Grandma has been confined to her room at the nursing home for three months. Good luck to her civil disobeying orders.

> Good luck disobeying if you are small business owner who was told you can no longer legally do business.

Exactly. The fact that you can't effectively do a sizeable protest around that so goes to show how the population in general prioritizes these issues.

> On a more personal note, my 98 year old Grandma has been confined to her room at the nursing home for three months. Good luck to her civil disobeying orders.

Yeah, public support for your grandma risking getting sick is going to be even less.

Please don't post flamebait to HN. It makes things worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Except you're still killing grandma which is just as bad as police brutality.

It's not clear to me that these are equivalent, nor do I see why they necessarily should be. The impact to the average life expectancy of a few young people dying could be as large or larger than several times more old people dying.

With regard to an individual going out and protesting, it is the same. If I choose to do something that I know will result in the unjust death of another I would be morally culpable of murder.

I agree that when determining the best public policy. One has to weigh the risks and rewards. And the difference in life expectancy is relevant to that discussion.

In a democracy I don't think there's a clear demarcation line between determining the best public policy and individuals determining the proper actions for themselves. Individuals may choose to protest, despite their belief that doing so will spread the pandemic, because they also believe that protesting will make it less likely for other people to die for other reasons. Spreading the pandemic by protesting might make them morally culpable of murder in some sense, but failure to protest might similarly make them morally culpable of murder in some sense.

These individuals are making public policy decisions when they weigh one of these concerns against the other. As participants in a democracy, there's no way to avoid making such decisions.

Is the argument, then, that protestors should wait until police brutality results in another death when it is more convenient to protest?

>another death

Is the argument that we should accept another 100,000 COVID-19 deaths to prevent even one more police death?

I agree that it is a less-than-ideal time to protest police brutality and racial injustice. However, I'd argue still - when is? Minorities are also disproportionately impacted by the pandemic which is highly relevant to both addressing the health crisis and racial injustice. Again, when should all this be addressed?

The people protesting the lock-downs appeared to largely be protesting lifestyle inconvenience. Whether that was the actual case or not, I don't know and I'd love to learn more from any sources you could share.

> I agree that it is a less-than-ideal time to protest police brutality and racial injustice. However, I'd argue still - when is?

I'm not trying to say that people shouldn't protest. I'm only pointing out that a lot of people who are very pro police brutality protests right now were 5 minutes ago saying that protesting lock downs and going out is tantamount to murdering grandma.

> Minorities are also disproportionately impacted by the pandemic...

Is there any evidence that this is a result of racism? We are seeing the same elevated impact on blacks in other countries.

> The people protesting the lock-downs appeared to largely be protesting lifestyle inconvenience

It's more of protesting the government destroying peoples' livelihoods by driving their small businesses into the ground. Moreover, it is an unconstitutional overreach.

The ones that agree with you would not support the protests, while the ones that disagree would.

Actually, in general we support the protest insofar as we agree that there are problems with certain police incentive structures. We heavily disagree with the rioting and looting.

Where we disagree with some people is the generalized notion that the principles of America are inherently evil and racist and that Americans society now in general is racist.

I thought news outlets had established that the looting was done by opportunists that are independent of the protesters. The rioting might also be independent of the protesters, perhaps to distract enforcement units away from the looting. Some of the looting does seem to be organized to a degree.

> looting was done by opportunists that are independent of the protesters

That seems right, although I think there is probably a small degree of overlap. Unfortunately, I'm still seeing multitudes of people online defending the rioting and looting.

Posting like this will get you banned here. No more of this please.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

That's my theory too. Floyd was a catalyst but not the full reason for the riots.

Total aside: Also what's our country's obsession with masks that are designed to make people look creepy - like a dead skeleton. And same truck window art, like skulls with bullets for teeth or something. I don't understand are these people just murdering thousands of people daily or something?

Some people just like to use non-verbal queues to keep others at arm's length.

Forcibly is being used rather hyperbolically here, don't you think? Some business owners that opened in defiance of local public health orders received fines or license suspensions, that's not equivalent.

It's hyperbolic in one sense, but not in another. Consider the fact that every law is backed by an implicit threat of force. For example, it's easy to say "I'm just asking for everyone to pay their fair share" when referring to taxes. But what happens when you don't pay your taxes? You can be arrested and jailed. That is underlying threat of force. Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

An implicit threat of force is very different from an explicit application of it. Feeling disgruntled (perhaps by proxy) over a small fine is not the same as being actually beaten, gassed, or jailed.

You're not teaching me anything I don't already know, so what point are you attempting to make here?

They are different, but it's not clear to me that the distinction is significant in the context of OP I was addressing which is the exact point I was making. Not every difference is relevant in every context.

As for me not teaching you anything you don't already know, I can't possibly have any idea what you do or don't already know and I think it'd be more productive to leave that kind of snark out of the discussion here.

Of course you can have such an idea, by thinking about the context of the thread in which this discussion is taking place and the fact that I acknowledged two examples of state-imposed sanctions that business owners might have been pissed off about. Offering explanations of elementary concepts in the middle of a more advanced discussion is patronizing and unhelpful. Your point that the distinction is not significant speaks to a lack of experience on your part so I will assume your behavior was unintentional.