It is an oversimplification, granted. It's not that we shouldn't reach out to all people, but the message needs to stay the same.
You understand that it is possible to court these people in the middle, while also pushing a more progressive platform, right? We can do both. We need to do both.
Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both. - William Sloane Coffin Also, fucking lol at an American saying there is no place for rioting. This whole god damned country is what it is because people took to the streets and rioted. Not nice brunch-stopping protests, fucking riots.
Jeopardy Effect whiplash A Venezuelan guy I practice language with asked me to translate a bunch of political quotes last weekend and this was one of them.
Sure, but the premise of this article is that they are the "base". That our message needs to start with them. That is the disagreement I have with it. The progressive message benefits all. Take that message to them. Effectively communicate it in a way that relates to people across economic, educational, and cultural divides.
Counterpoint - it would be better for the country if the Democratic Party became the new right wing party - marginalizing the extreme right neofascist Republican Party and giving rise to a new competitive left wing party.
Need to take one for the team and start a real Tea Party Left that called for the government to seize means of production, seize assets, redistribute wealth, confiscate guns, et al. Perhaps then more people can understand how centrist the current US progressive movement is...
I would've you would be smart enough to understand what we were saying instead of joining the "LOL NO RIOTING WTF!!?!>!?>!"
Pffft, I am plenty smart enough to know what you're saying-- get fucked, by the by-- but think it's absurd. Playing the 'appropriate protest' card is how the resistance fails. OTM completely nailed the purpose of destructive protests, and no, it being 2017-- as if time is some linear staircase ever upward-- does not diminish the fact that a potent way of expressing contempt for political structures that rend you lesser is to destroy the material representations of those structures: property, capital, etc.
I would argue you're ignoring the ability for the oppressors to adapt, and that they are playing into the same rhetoric that got us here. America bought into the criminality of the left and people of color and now we have mass incarceration of the latter.
If anyone is interested in reading more about the efficacy and sheer unadulterated Americana of rioting: http://werehistory.org/riots/
Sure, but that sort of social force is a decades-long one. A riot makes a point, quickly. Here's a nice discussion that skirts the issue, focusing on the importance of long-term resistance and immediate responses to threats. http://international.sueddeutsche.de/post/157058066625/we-have-at-most-a-year-to-defend-american
We've had this discussion about protesting like 5 times in the last 2 months. It reminds me of the one about who is and isn't qualified to be president, actually. People come up with some standard that ends up with Eisenhower being unqualified to be president or whatever, and instead of saying "yeah maybe that's not a very good standard," they feel like they've backed themselves into some rhetorical corner and defend a bad argument to the death. Also cue that MLK quote about the white moderate.
Sure wish it would die. Or that we'd get that public handbook of appropriate ways to express displeasure with tremendous injustice published and distributed. "omg millenials are so lazy clicktivism doesn't fix shit" - Scott Van Pelt "omg these animals are rioting please make them stop and behave" - craig et al
To be fair, Craig et al are simply pitiful trolls who are liable to go on a shooting spree for attention...they don't care about the actual merits of the debate
We can look back to the protests right after Trump was elected. "I would have been willing to oppose Donald Trump if a few assholes hadn't broken a window at Starbucks." This actually sounds like a good take to some people. It reminds me more of a parody of a conversation at a yuppie dinner party.
Since I defended protestors shutting down roads, I would prefer not to be lumped in with the trolls. I am not against all riots, just ones targeting the wrong structures.
meanwhile back on planet earth, some neo-nazis assaulted a guy with an antifa cell phone cover and his brother http://nypost.com/2017/02/12/neo-nazis-beat-up-brothers-over-anti-fascist-sticker-cops/
Ok. My bad. I'm not trying to misrepresent anyone. Apologies Truman and jorge. It seems like the same vein from where I'm sitting, for what it's worth.
Fair enough. But it is the other side of the catch-22 for protesters between being ineffective and being too violent. There's like a magic zone of 'oh nice social activism' between signing petitions online and throwing bricks.
I don't care at all for the argument that it's unacceptable, but at the same time I don't think it's in the same vein as the one you mentioned. The most glaring difference being that Truman and jorge in this instance aren't attempting to delegitimize the fundamental root of the protest. Basically, they're just nancy boys
I disagree. Saying that there is only so much that's appropriate in the way of protesting is saying that the offense is only so great.
Tangent: isn't this echo chamber miserable? Sure wish we could get some spirited, engaged debate like in the R thread. *clicks R thread* Holy shit.
Agree...perhaps I should say that aren't purposefully trying to delegitimize the root of the protest...they might be lamenting the fact that others will use it to delegitimize the protest. I don't agree with that, but I don't think it's close to the same level as the hardos who think any kind of protest is a bunch of whiny pussies.
Ok, sorry? Would you like to elaborate? I'm not trying to stifle you here; this is how it looks from my seat, fwiw.
“In short, what the sensitive liberals want is a decaffeinated revolution, a revolution which doesn’t smell of revolution.” Slovenian Philosopher Dude.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/...c=twr&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0&referer= Can't wait for our dear leader's strong response