Protesters in Barcelona have sprayed visitors with water as part of a demonstration against mass tourism.

Demonstrators marching through areas popular with tourists on Saturday chanted “tourists go home” and squirted them with water pistols, while others carried signs with slogans including “Barcelona is not for sale.”

Thousands of protesters took to the streets of the city in the latest demonstration against mass tourism in Spain, which has seen similar actions in the Canary Islands and Mallorca recently, decrying the impact on living costs and quality of life for local people.

The demonstration was organised by a group of more than 100 local organizations, led by the Assemblea de Barris pel Decreixement Turístic (Neighborhood Assembly for Tourism Degrowth).

  • GBU_28
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    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.

    • krashmo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      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?

      • GBU_28
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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

        • krashmo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • GBU_28
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            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.

            • krashmo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              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.

              • GBU_28
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                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.

                • krashmo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  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.

                  • GBU_28
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    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