World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Your protest should not harm or target individual people, even if that "harm" is a mere annoyance.
Sounds like a great rule to implement if your goal is completely ineffective protests.
Consent is key. Even if it's a toy, touching/interacting/trapping someone in public is not cool.
If your protest doesn't maintain consent, it's a mob.
If your protest isn't inconvenient it's going to be ignored.
Inconvenience isn't what I called out.
Taking a space and making your voice heard is great. Surrounding and touching certain individuals is not. It lacks consent.
Edit as another critical point why this behavior isn't ok:
In this case, it just so happens they are "targeting" tourists. What if it was far right extremists "targeting" immigrants? Even if they did the exact same thing (squirt guns), that would obviously be inappropriate. My point in this second paragraph is that encouraging or normalizing mob like behavior is not ok, because someday it may be used for a more dangerous or hateful topic.
Nazis don't give a shit what people think is acceptable. That comes with the territory. I know you think you're being kind by saying protests need to be sterile and out of the way but all you're really doing is helping rich people keep them ineffective. How's that been going for the last 50 years?
Ignoring consent is not something I'll agree with. Edit it's literally always wrong.
Targeting individuals is always wrong, even with a toy.
The point is if you normalize mob behavior, when the "Nazis" come they'll be operating within the space you built. "What bro, I'm just protesting by surrounding this immigrant family and harassing them"
I never said sterile. I never said out of the way. I said don't trap, don't touch, don't harass individuals.
Respect individual consent. Protest systems, not individuals, because that is mob behavior.
Yes you never said sterile but that's still the kind of protest you're describing. To avoid any further semantic confusion let's try a different approach, why don't you describe what your ideal protest to deal with this tourism issue, or any other issue, looks like? Where does it take place and what kind of action occurs during it?
Any protest that does not threaten, harass, entrap, or otherwise victimize individuals. No vigilante justice, no "stick it to em", no risk to health or safety.
If you can't agree to that, there's no point in me describing a protest I agree with, because we arent getting off the starting line.
Edit consent is not "semantics" what the fuck
People can spin any action you choose to fit that definition and by extension deny your right to protest. That's the point. If you don't see that then you're right, there's no reason to continue this conversation.
Untrue. Peaceful, but meaningful protest is absolutely possible without endangering bystanders or denying personal autonomy and consent.
The alternative is just mob justice by your own personal flavor. Pray another group never identifies you as their target.
If that's true then it should be easy to identify what a productive protest that follows your guidelines would look like and provide a real world example of it. You declined to do that when asked.
Because I've made my position quite clear, and am smart enough to not give you a hypothetical to attach to yet revealed moving goalposts.
Your position is intentionally vague and you know it. That's why you're refusing to engage beyond generalities. Framing that refusal as evading a logical fallacy I haven't proposed is just your way of avoiding introspection.
No, I defined the parts of the situation I'm arguing from and stopped there. I never purported what the perfect protest was and am not endeavouring to do so
When did locals consent to have their city taken over?
When the purchasing power disparity is too big, you create this imbalance where you can't just refuse them while at the same time you know that long term it fucks everything up badly.
Businesses will accept them given that they can now charge triple rate for everything. Politicians get extra tax revenue and benefit from bits of corruption here and there. Meanwhile the commoner has to figure another place to live.
The entire south of Portugal (so, not all that far from Barcelona) is now devoid of locals. If you go there in the winter you get to see almost-empty-towns that used to be major cities. Everyone moved to Lisbon. And now that Lisbon also happens to have grown to be an hot spot as well? You guessed it, people mass moving as well, this time for another countries.
A few years back, our PM literally told us to emigrate; that's how bad things got in here.
As for political parties that "want" to "solve this", it is basically a single party show; the far right.
Classic. You're applying systemic issues onto the individual. It wasn't "taken over". Private property was used for business means. (Tourism). That's an issue between landowners and the state, not between 2 (or more) random people on the street. Everyone in that system consented. The tourists are there legally, and should not be the victim of mob practices.
Always maintain the consent and autonomy of others. Simple stuff.
Plenty of movements went on due to public pressure through protests. iIRC the Dutch pro-livable cities movement started that way, with protests against cars, half a century ago.
Also, you're giving to tourists a right while stripping it from ourselves. You forget that in a crowd you're going to have some that are going to break into private property, halt streets and do all kinds of dumb shit in the name of an Instagram picture.
Touristing and handling garbage can be seen the same way. You can think a bit about what bin to use and that takes some extra effort or you can just throw everything in the general because it is easier.
You're touristing in another countries for like 1 week a year. That means that the ratio of time you're touristing to the time you're not is like 53:1, assuming that everyone does the same (which is def not the case). So, a perfectly balanced town in this hypothetical reality has 1 person touristing for each 53 not doing it. In some parts of these cities the opposite happens. It is so massive that you get many times more tourists than locals and that is enough to get everything malfunctioning.
Barcelona just had to remove bus lines from Google Maps to let locals have a chance to ride them. How is this fair? And this is the authorities doing something as you just advocated for. They got called out for that as xenophobic and whatnot. So, tell me, if I live in a place with a nice environment, how to I go to work? And how do I keep a house and a job given the rent increases sponsored by the millions that want to prop up their Instagram? If we can't forbid them from coming, what exactly should we do that is not going to be called xenophobic? Tax it to reduce their numbers? That's also condemned by plenty as gentrification. What is the good solution exactly?
Again, sounds rough. Barcelona should change.
But individuals do not deserve to be trapped or harassed for doing something legal.
The issue lies solely between residents, property owners and the government.
Don't target individuals.
Use some critical thinking, Im not defending unlimited tourism. I'm not discussing the situation in Barcelona at all really. I'm talking about the fundamentals of ethical protest. If your point requires you to abuse individuals, you aren't protesting, you're a mob.
If "you" so casually ignore consent and bodily autonomy in public, what's happening in private?
There are plenty of legal things that are condemnable.
Going to a place that you know upfront that is suffering like this, where you know that you're contributing a teeny bitsy to get someone homeless, jobless and cultureless might be legal but it isn't moral.
One might argue that most tourists do not know that. They simply look up some "top 17 best places to go in summer 2024" and off they go. They think that they are going to ride in a lovely tram through lovely streets and then some paradisiac beach when reality is smelling sweaty butts through crowds all the way.
But how to you convince dumb tourists to be smart and moral tourists when there are plenty of good places they can go to that aren't overcrowding (even in these same countries)? I personally dunno. And since you think that individuals should not be concerned then you probably prefer some other route.
We can have quotas, but then you get gentrification. Whoever is the richest gets in and the others do not.That's also terrible. Plus you'd get a black market with illegal renting due to market pressures.
What solution do you propose exactly?
I propose not targeting individuals with a mob.
I propose turning that group back from a mob, into a protest, and getting in the government's face.
Like, the tourists walked into a door marked: "free candy, please come in. Yes, you!", then once through, are told "how dare you, we have so little candy for ourselves". They can't undo that they walked through the door. They were invited through. The folks inside should instead take the issue up with whoever put the sign on the door, and work to take that down.
Has happened, hundreds of times. Zero effect. Governments couldn't love anything more but free money that comes independently of the well being of their citizens. Dutch disease 2.0. Plus, the Madrid government isn't exactly known for attending Catalonia's needs. For some reason they tried to declare independence 9999 times in these last decades.
Well, having a reputation for being annoying towards tourists is a sign by itself. And put yourself in the shoes of those fellas. What can they realistically do if the democratic process doesn't cut? Should they just abandon their land?
What they can't (shouldn't ) do is popularize mob justice by harassing (legally) innocent people.
And what I asked you was what they should do instead given that Catalonia will always be a minority.
The last minority in Spain that was veeeeery unhappy started a diplomat space program. Is that the way?
I also pointed out that this pacific-ish way of manifestation (cmon, this is not hard assaulting; more like attention grabbing) has done wonders for some movements in the past. Modern Netherlands were reborn out of people roadblocking "innocent people trying to go to work or trying to enjoy their off days" with bicycle protests.
Roadblocking is not entrapping or touching (even with a toy). (Provided road users are given a chance to safely divert without being trapped)
Edit it seems like you think I think public protest isn't practical or safe. I don't feel that way. Protest is good, and safe protest is possible.
I'm specifically focusing on a behavior: that of surrounding/hounding/bothering individuals, as this can intimidate them, and reduce their personal freedom, and disrespect their consent/bodily autonomy.
I conclude by saying I get this is a "light-hearted" version, but I fundamentally disagree with it because normalizing this stuff makes it easier for more hatful people to get away with it in the future, on other, more inflammatory topics
Yes, they are not. One of them leads to annoyances, the other leads to people losing their jobs or missing their connections. Everything is a matter of cost-benefit. If a major annoyance once might do country-wide changes, then that's maybe worth doing.
I would, at best, classify this as a minor annoyance. I understand this to be a largely cultural thing. I personally don't care much if people interact with me that way. I wouldn't even call it a rare thing; it happens a lot outside of protests.
That's... the entire point? Those fellas want to create this idea that tourists are not welcome without actually harming them. That's precisely the goal. If that's the idea you got out of this then the protest just worked.
Ehhh, big meh. There are waaaaay worse experiences in that regard in a "tourist's life". For example you have this "mandatory tourist thing" to do in Lisbon which is to ride the tram 28. You can hardly find an online picture of what it actually looks but it basically is equivalent to putting 15 clowns in a mini. The kind of crammed where people get troubles breathing. Barcelona has their equivalents as well.
Tourists aren't supposed to feel their bodily autonomy harmed from this; they are supposed to feel that they're not welcome.
Of course that hate-twats will try to capitalize on every opportunity to erode freedoms, however, in my opinion, there are quuuuuuuuuuuuite a few steps between this particular event and that scenario.
Quite some southern cities even have this without the protests. It is very common for people to attach water misters to buildings. Those spray people passing them without asking for any consent. Just so happens that they feel great during the hot days.
We just fundamentally disagree on this.
Your "minor annoyance" could be someone else's trigger for past serious trauma.
This is hypothetical, but calling an invasion of personal space and consent a minor annoyance is like saying "oh it's just a little kiss, come on, give me a kiss". Sure, a kiss never killed anybody, but we can agree it's inappropriate to do so without consent right?
To be clear I'm not suggesting you ever did that, or that a water gun is the same. I'm sharing a hypothetical to illuminate the core concept: the invasion of personal space is an issue.
I conclude by saying political goals should be completed WITHOUT needing to do that.
I think it is fair to let the local populations set what they consider to be fair or minor. In other comment thread (https://lemmy.world/comment/11138636) I actually bothered looking up the law and, I don't think that this even considered in criminal law. At least in Portugal there's no "assault" and the equivalent doesn't cover this ; Spain is probably the same.
In Japan it is minor to have a station officer force push you into a train. That could be someone's trigger for past serious trauma.
One of those is a sexual offense, the other is mostly speech. 5ml of water in the summer heat do not physically affect most people any more than a megaphone would, and this is where law gets muddy. Law doesn't penalize sound waves (below 120db), farts or whatever things that happen without solid-to-solid contact, but the moment there's some physical contact, no matter how light, some people in some jurisdictions go crazy.
If I touch you to grab your attention like "hey buddy, you lost this", I'm technically touching you and that could evoke some weird past trauma, but since the intent is not to cause harm I could never get hooked over that.
Ideally, however neither your thread nor the other thread where I'm talking presented any example on how to solve this without causing bigger troubles. The "people in Barcelona are mean" stereotype is one of the least damaging things they can do to themselves. Quotas & such are terrible for several reasons and ofc that everyone argues that the individual is never responsible for anything they chose to do with their money.
I don't think we will come to alignment.
I just don't think it's ok to point a gun (I know a toy) at someone and put something (water) on them. That can trigger people.
What if it's not water? What if someone thinks it's a real gun (even for a second)?
And if they make an attempt to leave from some risk/fear (real or perceived), they can't, because they are surrounded.
I don't consider ok to cause real panic to people. I also don't quite imagine that to be a common thing and I imagine that the crowd to stop if anyone starts looking not ok. That crowd is not trying to harm people at all, they're trying to get mediatic attention to spread a message that they need to take less tourists. That's what the first image in the article is saying (in Catalan). It is not saying "no tourists", it is asking for "reduction of tourism".
With this said, literally anything can be a trigger. A guy with a megaphone can very well be a trigger.
The other fella I was arguing with said that acid attacks are a common thing in other parts of the world. I had zero clue. I also imagine that it would float this from "totally not a crime, just an annoyance" to "you're going to be locked behind bars". That's what I'd wish if someone did that; it is obviously not ok to give pain and lifelong consequences to someone who's maybe lacks consideration.
Have you looked at the pictures in the article? I don't quite think that people would confuse a crowd with those to be a crowd with guns. Nothing in the context matches out. Not the looks of people. Not the place because Iberia barely has guns.
If they come from a place where everything can be seen as a gun, they can vote for that not to be the case. We don't need to stack up the considerations to appease literally every possible culture and cultural problem in the world. Zero people who in here are afraid of guns (except for the colonial fighters).
If you're afraid of clowns, don't visit the circus.
That would be the case for any other protest. Is independent of the water thing.
Mobs can be scary. They also tend to be very predictable. If your senses tell you that you have been hearing "fuck tourists" for the last 5 minutes and that there's a huge crowd coming in you direction, well, balance that our with your fear of crowds.
Protests are not mobs. You don't seem to get that
From a legal standpoint, the tourists had every right to be there.
I wouldn't rest on legality of purpose for your argument
I did not argue they didn't, I did argue that this was not a mob but a protest.
Did the cops approve the water things? They probably knew, just didn't pronounce as they probably thought nobody would care much (they're Spanish cops, not world cops, their cultural bias is what is considered harmful by Spaniards and those don't see water as a harm).
But if mob-things were to start happening (which could be the case if some tourist just started yelling something like "you should be thankful that I'm spending my money here") cops would halt that pretty fast. I personally don't see things escalating in any other way.