This weekend a bunch of counter protesters went out and blocked a street in Ottawa to prevent new convoy protestors from entering the downtown core.[1]

I think if the ire of your neighbors has risen to the point that they'll go out and sit in -20C weather all day to stop you, it's not unlikely that someone would spend an afternoon poking at your website.

[1] https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/counter-protesters-block-convoy-ve...

So is somebody physically blocking a bridge with a giant truck and refusing to move it less militant than somebody pulling their music off Spotify and writing a letter explaining their choice?

Why did you use the term “militant” to describe the side that is not using military tactics.

This is the standard right-wing strategy. Speak of your opponent exactly as you deserve to be spoken about. As long as you do it first, it makes accusing you of what you're actually doing less impactful, and sows doubt.

Basically, they know that one side is militaristic, and the other is not, but they side with the militaristic side ideologically, so they reflexively demonize their opponents with terms that better describe themselves, Knowing it's a bad look intentionally distancing themselves from the reality of what they stand for.

Blocking bridges with trucks and no guns is a military tactic? I believe that is an example of civil disobedience. Words matter.

Yes. Disrupting supply chains is a thing militaries do. Regardless if they used guns or not. Militaries would love to win all conflicts with as few guns as possible. So if they could blockade a country with no guns at all, that would be ideal.

The point being made is that pulling one's music from Spotify is a personal choice about stuff you control.

Blocking bridges is forcing others who may not even be involved in your conflict to suffer the consequences of it. This is generally considered "a dick move".

Yes, blockades are a timeless military tactic.

They said “militant”. That does not mean “military”, it means “confrontational”.

Shutting down routes in and out of a city for such a selfish, delusional cause is well beyond what any rational person would call "civil disobedience". There is no basis for allowing the intentional permanent disruption of public resources and services to fight for a cause. You can't just filibuster society by sabotaging infrastructure like this.

With self-driving tech being a present reality, these truckers are just giving everyone a reason to automate them out of their jobs. A robot can't throw a tantrum, join a gang, and terrorize your city.

To be fair civil disobedience can be a military tactic if it´s employed to achieve a military/political goal.

And this isn't to pass judgment on any of the groups, I don't live in Canada, I'm not a Joe Rogan listener or Spotify user, I really don't care.

> Why did you use the term “militant” to describe the side that is not using military tactics.

I was using definition 2 to criticize censorship.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/militant#Adjective

Neil Young didn't just say he disagrees with Joe Rogan, he didn't launch his own podcast. He tried to use his position to silence Rogan.

Why wouldn't they? I've heard they're all over city cores and you wouldn't think a socially inept tech worker or teenager in a toronto tower would get annoyed enough on a pure noise basis to do something like this?

I think it's useful to set differences between freedom of speech and free usage of power.

You have a right to speak your mind, but your ability to exert power is regulated. The same goes for when the government ends a strike