This keeps getting lost in a semantics game I feel. This convo started by my assertion that the violence and property damage do more harm to the effectiveness of these protests than help. This somehow keeps getting turned into a commentary on what I feel is legitimate protest or now. I dont know how I can state it any clearer - There is nothing illegitimate about the protest, reasons for protest or actions of the protesters. PERIOD (In sean spicer voice) To equate that to a complaint about getting your brunch ruined is intellectually dishonest imo. To my point about effectiveness. The point of these protests is to be heard and raise awareness to the cause, with the ultimate goal of motivating voters to make the changes via the ballot box and or pressure their local, state and fed govs to change. I merely contend that the property damage ect stifles the protests ability to create sympathy to the cause. You have to acknowledge that if there were enough like minded people, changes for the most part would have been made and there wouldnt be a need to protest. My whole initial post is trying to put myself those people's shoes and how they view things, and most importantly how to win them over. If you take the attitude of "If they think X is too much, they can go get fucked" well that's a good way to alienate potential allies imo.
Ok, so if I'm getting you, you're just saying two things: 1) it's less effective. That's an empirical question and the link I provided shows how riots have been critical to making changes. It's hard to study since you can't have an experiment with riots vs civil disobedience. 2) we need to be careful not to alienate our potential allies That's true, I suppose, but there are two critical points here. The first is that I'm not sure they'd ever 'change sides.' Edit: or that it's necessary. If the people who think what's worth rioting about turned out, we can leave the Craigs to vote for reality tv stars all they want. The other is that people can't be compelled by riots. I'm not sure that's true either. These are all empirical questions that have likely been studied in a lot of depth. I'd be curious to look into it some more.
To point 2 - I agree you're probably not going to get many to change sides. However there is a lot in the middle that are ignorant of your plight, under informed, or just haven't really cared in the past. Those are who I speak of when I say potential allies. "The other is that people can't be compelled by riots." Of course some will. I feel more are turned off and less receptive to the merits of the protest. Plus those that would be compelled by riots most likely would be compelled by a peaceful protest anyway. The binary choice that I see a lot itt of "Fuck em all and riot. If youre not w us, youre against us" is a losing approach imo.
Well now who is misrepresenting the discussion? But I think we've at least found the impasse. You think it'll alienate potential voters more than standing around with signs. I don't think so, as evidenced by my earlier point that no matter how dissent is voiced, people hammer the dissenters. Riots are more effective than clicks, and both get shit on. Hell, women walking around saying "I'm not okay with this" or just standing in the street got characterized as unreasonable disruption and, by some, as violent when it wasn't.
Are you more or less aware of the issue of police violence in black communities than you were before Ferguson? Are you more likely to think there doesn't need to be criminal justice reform because property was damaged by rioters?
Yeah that was a huge thing to me. He used the America First thing during his campaign, was told of its history and then used it multiple times during his inauguration speech. He's absolutely insisting that he shares the same views for this country as those back in the 1930's. Bannon being chief among them directly stating that he wants to return the United States to the 1930's.
If I see people rioting my first reaction would be to question what's causing them to riot... unless I've already marginalized the people doing the rioting.
They got characterized by opponents who will never acknowledge our POV. Im not as concerned w those as I am with those potential allies that may at some point acknowledge our POV. Personally not much because I was fairly involved and aware of such issues. Im not talking about me. Im talking about those that may be less aware. I think it would be foolish to say America hasn't become more aware since Fergueson. The question is if those that have become aware have become sympathetic for the need of CJR.
Devising a strategy for resistance based on a nebulous line between those who can be reached and who can't is ineffective. You've made a few claims that aren't true and a few that need further investigation. What else is there to say? See above.
Appreciate the debate. I dont think you've proven anything Ive said is untrue though. There is evidence for both. From your link I do agree there isnt much else to say and in the end, we want the same goals achieved.
I'm not here to prove you wrong. I'm responding to your criticism. Y'all made the criticisms, others responded. If you want to prove your point, be my guest. I even went so far as to comment on why it would be difficult to study. And anyone will tell you that social progress is a reticulated model. Riots don't 'fix things' they highlight them. And they're a healthy part of the American democratic tradition. Claiming otherwise will be met with resistance by me and others. That's all.
It must be tough for all you militants to do this message board posting with a molotov cocktail in your left hand. Spoiler I'm just kidding
Busy, mostly. Is this really the tact you're going to take? "I could do research to support my criticism but instead I'm going to try to gotcha my interlocutor by getting him to say he doesn't riot for a tricky reason."
Yeah, I'm not driving to Ferguson to riot with oppressed blacks, but that doesn't mean there's a good criticism of riot in there.
Youre being a little over defensive here. I think that's a fair question for someone who Ive had a discussion about the effectiveness of it There was no gotcha to it.
You're making asinine points. I habitually call people out for it on this site. It makes me a bit of a cunt, but it's more entertaining than grading or writing this review.
Because in no sense is the discussion about whether or not I personally am a hypocrite. If that's the issue, then sure-- call me one and pat yourself on the back, but please don't mistake that for making a good point in a conceptual discussion of the merits of various forms of protest.
It's a complete non sequitur, "X isn't effective." "It seems like it is." "You didn't prove me wrong." "That's not the issue." "If it's so great, why don't you do it?"
Trust me, I'm not. That was probably not constructive to the debate to say on my part, but I don't think drawing comparisons to Farva was either. Personally, I don't think we're in as late in the game as you do. I understand the purpose of rioting, and I think that that riots in specific reaction to an event, such as Ferguson and Baltimore are not the type I'm condemning. The one that really stuck out as playing into the narrative, and what fueled this debate, was the event at Berkeley. I should also point out that I am not against punching fascists because I think they are able to be saved or going to change their mind.
This is basically my stance on punching Nazis. Punching someone for some reason besides self defense is illegal. Freedom of speech is legal. Punch Nazis, but understand the consequence of punching a nazi is that you might go to jail for assault.
For which I apologized when it was pointed out by a third party. Short of some Republican-tier hand-holding, I don't know what else you want there. I don't see those as sufficiently 'bad' to merit throwing the baby out with the bath water, much less to disparage the role of riots in American history. 2017 or not. So how often do you have pow-wows with fascists about their views?
Because George Soros doesn't pay enough for me to miss out on all the work it would take for me to drive around the country to participate in these riots.
Oh I support punching Nazis 100%. The reason I don't do it is because I have something to lose. Same reason I don't riot but can completely understand why people do it. Getting the point across is worth the punishment you might face.
It has nothing to do with hearing their views. I just generally don't support violence, especially against individuals. I also think it puts a human face and martyrdom on them for the opposition. Maybe I'll change my mind when they're dragging me off to the gas chamber, but until then I'll do my best to hold my principles. I don't mean for that to sound like I think I'm better than any of you, but I was an angry youth and I've been trying my best to stay serene lately. At the very least I'll just be the one with the tennis racket for tear gas cannisters when it all goes down.
But the riot at Berkeley is the one that showed the most immediate benefit in line with the protestors' goals. A "peaceful" protest doesn't prevent Milo from speaking. Their riot forced the University to cancel the event.
Don't think that's lost on me, but its a virtue inspired by many who did not have my position in society, yet maintained it.
Not to change the subject, but Im going to. Has anyone read Hillbilly Elegy? Heard Vance on Axelrod's pod last week and picked it up. Going to start tonight
I'd argue if they had simply denied access to campus (a jorge approved measure of protest), we had a case of Schrödinger's Fascist.
This is absolutely scrumptious. Please keep it going. A real-life armchair Che Guevara... disguised as a community college teacher in Kentucky.
This is what I mean about it being hard to study the efficacy of rioting. We don't know how else it would go if it hadn't gone the way it did. That's why it's frustrating to hear people say it shouldn't happen; look how much it has and where we've gotten.
Eh, if you're a Nazi you need to accept the fact you need to be punched. Because you're a fucking Nazi.