Don't get it, What Exit?

You just closed my “civil disobedience” thread re: SCOTUS , on the grounds that:

  • This is not a Great Debate, not sure where it would belong, but not here.
  • This is a call of action and we do not allow those without prior approval and as this is generic it will never get approval.
  • It appears the answers being looked for would violate assorted laws.

So this thread is closed and will remain closed.

I don’t get any of this. I’m looking for ideas or suggestions on how something could be implemented legally, and it certainly isn’t a trivial topic, so if it isn’t “Great” enough for your tastes, it certainly could go elsewhere.

It is NOT a call of action. I’m trying to find more effective methods of protesting than just gathering in public and shouting for hours. I don’t even know what a “call of action” is–you sure you don’t mean “call to action”?

It may appear that I’m asking people to violate laws but I am decidedly NOT doing that, unless you think that civil disobedience is against the law.

You forgot to link to the thread. Very strongly recommended:

#1: Clearly you did not frame a debate. If the thread wasn’t problematic in other ways it could go to IMHO or maybe P&E.

Posts like this one seem to be elevating this to a call to action and calling for violations of the law.

From our registration agreement:

Well, you’re certainly good at repeating yourself, but where have I (just for one thing) called for action, as opposed to asking for which ideas could be effective?

Civil disobedience is, by its definition, breaking laws.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:


Cool. I guess I won’t be posting any new threads in praise of MLK, then. Don’t want to get banned for violating the SD’s agreements document.

Do you not see that there is a difference between discussing (even praising) an individual who engaged in civil disobedience, and asking for suggestions on “the most effective form of civil disobedience that might have some effect?” (your exact words)?

You seem to want to discuss fine points of the thread that was closed, and I don’t believe this is the appropriate place for such a discussion.

Dude, you are the one who opened up this thread, asking why your other thread had been closed, and then used this thread to try to argue that the mod who closed it was not understanding your post, and not fairly applying board rules to it.

While I don’t always agree with the board’s position on calls to action, I absolutely understand why it could be difficult to manage (with both sides wanting to use/abuse it, and the other flagging it until the end of time) and risk of awakening the slumbering corporate overlords.

And it’s not like this is any sort of recent thing, there have been multiple other threads closed for various calls to action, so it’s not something dredged up to shut down just this thread/poster.

I think @kenobi_65 has done a fair analysis of how it was a CtA, and the difference between an active call and analysis of historical ones.

Don’t think there’s much more to see here, but as an aside, I do agree and understand that recent events are infuriating and it helps to vent, or to look to alternatives. @Roger_That, I also suspect even if we rules lawyers are saying that yes, you’re in the wrong in terms of the thread, we are in no way blaming or unsupportive of the reasons and emotions that prompted you to start it.

The OP was given a variety of good suggestions and blew them off, instead requesting what could only be interpreted as co-ordinated illegal violence. The thread had to be closed immediately.

Of the three reasons why @What_Exit closed the original thread, “Call to Action” was maybe the one questionable one. The OP wasn’t overtly saying, “I am planning to organize a protest, and I want you all to join me,” but I’m not a moderator, and I’m not deeply familiar with what the mods consider to be (or not to be) a Call to Action.

It clearly wasn’t a debate (whereas, a topic like “Is civil disobedience an appropriate response to the repeal of Roe v. Wade?” would be); if that’d been the only issue with the OP’s thread, then I imagine that the “moderation” would have simply entailed moving the thread to a more appropriate forum, like IMHO.

But, the fact that civil disobedience is intentional (if typically peaceful) breaking of laws is the dealbreaker.

I’m definitely in this camp, as well. I’ve seen this day coming for years, and it still infuriates and saddens me, and makes me want to learn what I can do.

Not at all. My initial thought was for some kind of Lysistrata move, women staging a sexual strike until this issue was addressed, but that seemed a bit impractical to be truly effective, so I sought other avenues, like boycotts or work stoppages or providing free transportation and lodging to women seeking abortions–stuff like that, but maybe with ideas and wrinkles I hadn’t thought of yet. If the states banning abortion ruled those things illegal, then perhaps funding a legal defense fund would be a possibility. I’m certainly not advocating violence, merely wondering about forms of passive resistance or legal actions.

I wonder if advocating civil disobedience is itself against the registration agreement–do you know if it is? (if so, I’ll argue that I was NOT advocating anything, simply looking for ideas. If anyone suggested methods that WERE felonious in nature, they might be in violation of the agreement–I don’t see how asking for ideas would be.) In other words, if I were to advocate taking things up a notch, and staging a sit-in on courtroom steps blocking entry, and replenishing those hauled off to jail endlessly with a fresh supply of sitters-in, would that be a violation of the registration agreement?

Asking about ways to engage in illegal activity is against board rules, in the same way that threads about how to find illegal streaming of TV shows and movies are also against the rules.

You may not have intended to be asking about (or advocating) illegal acts, but as I already noted here, civil disobedience is, by definition, an act of intentionally breaking or ignoring a law or order in protest.

I am not a moderator, but if people are being hauled off to jail, it’s likely because they are unlawfully blocking entry, and hence, breaking a law (even if they are morally justified in doing so). So, yeah, I think it would be in violation of the registration agreement.

So you’re advocating something, unless it’s against the rules, in which case you are not advocating it but “simply looking for ideas”?

As a neutral onlooker, I have to say this is not terribly convincing.

How about this: I am looking for people to come up with LEGAL ways to protest SCOTUS re abortion, some of which we haven’t thought of, or used effectively, before. The examples I have given in this thread are boycotts, transporting women in need of abortion facilities on a heretofore-unseen scale, volunteering safe bedrooms for lodging while such trips are in effect, and so on. If I put LEGAL in ALL-CAPS throughout my thread would that make it clear enough?

This I find incredible. Are you really suggesting that I can’t start a thread called something like “Would you support sit-ins against racial segregation if the Civil Rights Laws of the 1960s were reversed?” because that would be advocating support of illegal actions? How about “How could German Jews in the 1930s have effectively resisted the Nazi laws restricting them from things that German Christians were allowed to do?”

Again, there is, apparently, a difference between a debate about whether civil disobedience is justified (which is what you have just framed in this quote), and specifically advocating for civil disobedience, as you hypothetically discussed in post #12.

IMO, it boils down to a difference between debating “do you feel that disobeying a law is justified in this case,” versus “let’s all go break this law, because I think it’s justified.”

There’s a real fundamental issue with the intent of the thread: the narrow space between what is being done now, legally, and what would not be permissible to discuss or advocate in this forum because it crosses the line and violates one or more laws.

Tens of millions of people are wildly upset about the abortion decision and literally thousands of groups are plotting actions they can take. The internet is flooded with them.

The Dope is nice small community, with, realistically, a majority of men doing most of the responding. You’re asking a handful of Dopers to come up with solutions nobody else has even though tens of millions of women are banding together on this?

I think it’s encouraging to our survival that people come here and ask these questions. And indeed you got several good answers, though none of them were original, that you rejected.

So here’s an alternative. Go out on the internet. Find some of those thousands of groups who are strategizing and bring back a few dozen ideas that are not illegal, already have backing and organization, and are original. Those then can be discussed.


Exactly. Tens of millions of women have proposed no sensible solutions I’ve heard other than going to your local park and shouting your head off. I would like to see if a smaller group, with hopefully a higher median IQ, can propose an effective LEGAL (but clever) way of channeling all this energy towards a useful and effective (AND LEGAL!!!) result. (LEGAL LEGAL LEGAL, just for good measure.) I think I should be able to discuss it here, but apparently not. LEGAL!