Saint Louis is preparing for riots tomorrow

[Blackjack200]

It certainly is looking like non-violent protest is not going to change this. Most of the protests have been non-violent, and they have been going on for decades now. The violence is an exception, not the rule. It is the violence that gets the news, but for ever violent protester there is hundreds of non-violent protestors. Expecting a 100% non-violent protest is asking for humanity to change. Groups of people can't manage to watch a sportsball game with out there being some violence.

This is not a new issue. This is still the same issue that sparked the 1992 LA Riots. We have been protesting that police given immunity to the laws they enforce for more than 20 years and it is only getting worse.

One of the historians I follow on Twitter claims that characterizing protests as "violent" or "non-violent", and only considering the non-violent protests to be virtuous is a fairly recent development.

I also think that there is a tendency to overstate the effectiveness of non-violent protests, and understate the effectiveness of violent protests. Not to suggest that non-violent protests are always ineffective, or that violent struggles are always effective; but more to balance all the opinions we've seen recently that antifa and Nazi punchers and the people that throw canisters back at the police are somehow undermining the non-violent side.

Both forms of protest can be effective, and both forms can be ineffective.

 

[SMOGZINN]

One of the historians I follow on Twitter claims that characterizing protests as "violent" or "non-violent", and only considering the non-violent protests to be virtuous is a fairly recent development.

I agree with this. The idea that only non-violent protests are valid is a fairly recent concept.

Both forms of protest can be effective, and both forms can be ineffective.

I agree, and I think that most of the time both are needed. Non-violent protests are needed to have a civil discourse on a subject that has a real chance of coming up with solutions, and violent protests are needed to drive home the idea that this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed even by those not directly affected by it. In effect violent protests works to spread the costs of social injustice out to those that are not directly affected by it and gives them more incentive to do something about it.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I agree with this. The idea that only non-violent protests are valid is a fairly recent concept.



I agree, and I think that most of the time both are needed. Non-violent protests are needed to have a civil discourse on a subject that has a real chance of coming up with solutions, and violent protests are needed to drive home the idea that this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed even by those not directly affected by it. In effect violent protests works to spread the costs of social injustice out to those that are not directly affected by it and gives them more incentive to do something about it.

So you and Blackjack are calling for violent and deadly riots in St. Louis?

 

[SMOGZINN]

So you and Blackjack are calling for violent and deadly riots in St. Louis?

I'm discussing the efficacy of violent vs. non violent protests and how we talk about them. Am I calling for violent protests? No. Do I think that is what will be needed to get change? Yes.

Truth is I'm very nearly a pacifist, but I also believe that those with power rarely give up that power willingly.

 

[Puffnstuff]

This is not a new issue. This is still the same issue that sparked the 1992 LA Riots. We have been protesting that police given immunity to the laws they enforce for more than 20 years and it is only getting worse.

Meanwhile DOD gives PD's surplus military hardware to combat imaginary domestic terrorism which is really a euphemism for noncompliant citizenry.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I'm discussing the efficacy of violent vs. non violent protests and how we talk about them. Am I calling for violent protests? No. Do I think that is what will be needed to get change? Yes.

Truth is I'm very nearly a pacifist, but I also believe that those with power rarely give up that power willingly.

I think the costs will be astronomical and the change minimal at best.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I think the costs will be astronomical and the change minimal at best.

It is the astronomical cost that will drive the change. If the change is minimal then the cost will just keep increasing.

 

[gplracer]

It's going to take a lot of action. Some of it will be non-violent, and some of it will be violent. Some of the violence will be justifiable, some won't be. Same as every protest movement in history, including the labor movement in early 20th century and the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s.



Who gives a shit? People are being murdered by cops and we're worried about somebody's shop window?

The people who work hard to keep their businesses a float care about their windows. There is no reason for looting and stealing. The people who own those businesses had nothing to do with the trial.

 

[gplracer]

What court found him guilty? As far as I know in the United States you are still presumed innocent until a court says otherwise.

No court found him guilty. But I thought when the police ask you to stop, you stop.

 

[Chaotic42]

People are being murdered by cops and we're worried about somebody's shop window?

It's possible to be worried about both. Destruction hurts the cause by being a distraction and giving the people who want to see the status quo remain the status quo something to point at as a justification for doing so. I'm still holding out hope for a peaceful resolution to this problem.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Destruction hurts the cause by being a distraction and giving the people who want to see the status quo remain the status quo something to point at as a justification for doing so.

Peaceful protest only works up to a point. At some point destruction of property serves to spread the social injustice around and give the people not directly effected by the injustice some reason to care about it. The idea is that eventually it just gets easer to fix the problem then to keep rebuilding the city.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Peaceful protest only works up to a point. At some point destruction of property serves to spread the social injustice around and give the people not directly effected by the injustice some reason to care about it. The idea is that eventually it just gets easer to fix the problem then to keep rebuilding the city.

Preaching to the violent?

 

[MrDudeMan]

Preaching to the violent?

You seem to either be daft or intentionally misunderstanding his point. He's not saying violent protest is the final answer to every situation. It's a tool that should be used sparingly, but appropriately. I'm not down with violent protests, but I definitely see the utility of such a thing when non-violent protests aren't working for extended periods of time. It comes down to the people who feel wronged either accepting their fate or taking another step to change it. Agree or disagree, it's a useful tool to those who feel like they need it. That doesn't mean it will be met with open arms and it won't absolve them of consequences, but could it effect change when nothing else works? Yes.

 

[BurnItDwn]

You seem to either be daft or intentionally misunderstanding his point. He's not saying violent protest is the final answer to every situation. It's a tool that should be used sparingly, but appropriately. I'm not down with violent protests, but I definitely see the utility of such a thing when non-violent protests aren't working for extended periods of time. It comes down to the people who feel wronged either accepting their fate or taking another step to change it. Agree or disagree, it's a useful tool to those who feel like they need it. That doesn't mean it will be met with open arms and it won't absolve them of consequences, but could it effect change when nothing else works? Yes.

Dude, man, it's called trolling. It's not possible to be that obtuse unless you are doing it on purpose.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Dude, man, it's called trolling. It's not possible to be that obtuse unless you are doing it on purpose.

Calling a stupid comment trolling in an attempt to defend it isn't useful especially when it has been posted more than once. Thanks for the insight, though.

 

[SMOGZINN]

You seem to either be daft or intentionally misunderstanding his point. He's not saying violent protest is the final answer to every situation. It's a tool that should be used sparingly, but appropriately. I'm not down with violent protests, but I definitely see the utility of such a thing when non-violent protests aren't working for extended periods of time. It comes down to the people who feel wronged either accepting their fate or taking another step to change it. Agree or disagree, it's a useful tool to those who feel like they need it. That doesn't mean it will be met with open arms and it won't absolve them of consequences, but could it effect change when nothing else works? Yes.

Thank you. I think that in what this really comes down to is a lesson humanity seems to keep forgetting. If we want to live in peace we need to listen to, and work together on solutions to, the problems of all members of our society, not just the majority.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

You seem to either be daft or intentionally misunderstanding his point. He's not saying violent protest is the final answer to every situation. It's a tool that should be used sparingly, but appropriately. I'm not down with violent protests, but I definitely see the utility of such a thing when non-violent protests aren't working for extended periods of time. It comes down to the people who feel wronged either accepting their fate or taking another step to change it. Agree or disagree, it's a useful tool to those who feel like they need it. That doesn't mean it will be met with open arms and it won't absolve them of consequences, but could it effect change when nothing else works? Yes.

Another one of the -if my protest doesn't do what I want i'm going to start killing people- .


It's a bad idea. It's a really bad idea. Usually it's called terrorism.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Things that make you go hmmm?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Like a neighbor said, a protester had broken the window earlier and the officer was removing dangerous shards and looked like an idiot when he was videoed. You are quite welcome to believe what you want though.I know I will.

Things that make you go hmmm?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Peaceful protest only works up to a point. At some point destruction of property serves to spread the social injustice around and give the people not directly effected by the injustice some reason to care about it. The idea is that eventually it just gets easer to fix the problem then to keep rebuilding the city.

Yeah, so instead of being neutral (or even FOR the movement in a passive way) they can now hate the movement in an active way. Sounds incredibly intelligent.

 

[Blackjack200]

It's possible to be worried about both. Destruction hurts the cause by being a distraction and giving the people who want to see the status quo remain the status quo something to point at as a justification for doing so. I'm still holding out hope for a peaceful resolution to this problem.

Who does it serve as a justification to? All this hand wringing over violence/destruction is a bunch of bullshit. Again, look at Kaepernick's peaceful protest, how has that gone over? Look at the meme that Perknose posted threatening to run over peaceful protestors that block the street. They've already done that.

You're the one hurting the cause by buying into this bullshit narrative that if only the protests were peaceful, they would be productive. Stop taking the fucking bait.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Like a neighbor said, a protester had broken the window earlier and the officer was removing dangerous shards and looked like an idiot when he was videoed. You are quite welcome to believe what you want though.I know I will.

Yeah like the cop had the right to go cause further damage to the shop adding to the growing mess.. Once he realized that people were watching him he moved back over to the parked cars.

 

[Blackjack200]

Yeah, so instead of being neutral (or even FOR the movement in a passive way) they can now hate the movement in an active way. Sounds incredibly intelligent.

Yeah, I'm sure all those shop owners supported justice for poor communities before their fucking window got broken.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Yeah, so instead of being neutral (or even FOR the movement in a passive way) they can now hate the movement in an active way. Sounds incredibly intelligent.

This is not a new thing. This is how many, maybe most, major social changes happen. Either society changes or the protests will keep getting more and more violent, and eventually bloody. Eventually it rises to the point of revolt, and if enough people support it, revolution.

I'm not supporting this, I'm telling you that this is what history says happens again and again. When people get angry enough they force change. We can either do it peacefully by empathizing with them and working together to create change, or change will be forged from blood. This is that Thomas Jefferson was talking about in his The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants quote. Humanity keeps forgetting this lesson.

 

[gplracer]

Peaceful protest only works up to a point. At some point destruction of property serves to spread the social injustice around and give the people not directly effected by the injustice some reason to care about it. The idea is that eventually it just gets easer to fix the problem then to keep rebuilding the city.

This sounds like terrorism.