And he's right, but the other point of that is we need to deny those people the excuse to justify their bigotry. One of the reasons the images of Bull Connor turning the firehoses on protestors was so powerful is because the protesters were peaceful, they hadn't done anything to make the violence warranted.
And since then, police have figured out that all they need to do to avoid that perception is to send a buddy into the crowd to throw a rock and run away.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+14
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
There is no existing group called "Black Bloc" to my knowledge. The black bloc is not an organization, it is a protest tactic, one which is popular with anarchists, anti-fascists, anti-capitalists and other assorted radicals. The idea is, if everybody looks identical and anonymous, it is impossible for the cops to pin a crime on a particular individual.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I strongly urge people not to snitch on their fellow protesters. Respect a diversity of tactics and let others protest the way they feel is best. Do not under any circumstances encourage the police to intervene in a protest. The police are not our friends. If you feel that a protest has taken a direction that you are uncomfortable with, leave or relocate to a different part of the protest.
Yeah. No.
As soon as people start looting, beating and burning at a peaceful gathering they're not protesting. They're being a dangerous and damaging presence and giving legitimacy to the crack downs and police brutality.
If you want to go throw bricks through windows and steal shit or tip over ambulances have the balls to do it without the shield of anonymity.
If people are looting and burning, the protest has turned into a riot. If a riot is not something you want to participate in, leave. Do not switch sides and start aiding the police, they don't need your help.
No. When we protect these geese, we undermine our credibility.
Was the credibility of Black Lives Matter undermined just because the Ferguson and Baltimore protests turned into riots?
There is no existing group called "Black Bloc" to my knowledge. The black bloc is not an organization, it is a protest tactic, one which is popular with anarchists, anti-fascists, anti-capitalists and other assorted radicals. The idea is, if everybody looks identical and anonymous, it is impossible for the cops to pin a crime on a particular individual.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I strongly urge people not to snitch on their fellow protesters. Respect a diversity of tactics and let others protest the way they feel is best. Do not under any circumstances encourage the police to intervene in a protest. The police are not our friends. If you feel that a protest has taken a direction that you are uncomfortable with, leave or relocate to a different part of the protest.
Yeah. No.
As soon as people start looting, beating and burning at a peaceful gathering they're not protesting. They're being a dangerous and damaging presence and giving legitimacy to the crack downs and police brutality.
If you want to go throw bricks through windows and steal shit or tip over ambulances have the balls to do it without the shield of anonymity.
If people are looting and burning, the protest has turned into a riot. If a riot is not something you want to participate in, leave. Do not switch sides and start aiding the police, they don't need your help.
No. When we protect these geese, we undermine our credibility.
police kill people, pretty sure their lives are worth more than your credibility
There is no existing group called "Black Bloc" to my knowledge. The black bloc is not an organization, it is a protest tactic, one which is popular with anarchists, anti-fascists, anti-capitalists and other assorted radicals. The idea is, if everybody looks identical and anonymous, it is impossible for the cops to pin a crime on a particular individual.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I strongly urge people not to snitch on their fellow protesters. Respect a diversity of tactics and let others protest the way they feel is best. Do not under any circumstances encourage the police to intervene in a protest. The police are not our friends. If you feel that a protest has taken a direction that you are uncomfortable with, leave or relocate to a different part of the protest.
Snitching is reporting someone for a relatively minor transgression. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't extend to people attacking other protestors or onlookers. If someone intends commit violence against someone else I absolutely intend to report it and anyone calling me a snitch can piss off.
There is no existing group called "Black Bloc" to my knowledge. The black bloc is not an organization, it is a protest tactic, one which is popular with anarchists, anti-fascists, anti-capitalists and other assorted radicals. The idea is, if everybody looks identical and anonymous, it is impossible for the cops to pin a crime on a particular individual.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I strongly urge people not to snitch on their fellow protesters. Respect a diversity of tactics and let others protest the way they feel is best. Do not under any circumstances encourage the police to intervene in a protest. The police are not our friends. If you feel that a protest has taken a direction that you are uncomfortable with, leave or relocate to a different part of the protest.
Yeah. No.
As soon as people start looting, beating and burning at a peaceful gathering they're not protesting. They're being a dangerous and damaging presence and giving legitimacy to the crack downs and police brutality.
If you want to go throw bricks through windows and steal shit or tip over ambulances have the balls to do it without the shield of anonymity.
Crackdowns and police brutality don't NEED legitimacy.
Yeah, they do. It comes back to the point made here:
The thesis statement of those protests was, "Black lives are undervalued." If property damage is enough to convince somebody that that message is invalid, no amount of peaceful messaging would convince them. "I was going to think that black lives had value, but then I saw those windows get broken, and now I don't" is rhetoric to justify already-held bigotry, not to express a genuine emotional journey.
And he's right, but the other point of that is we need to deny those people the excuse to justify their bigotry. One of the reasons the images of Bull Connor turning the firehoses on protestors was so powerful is because the protesters were peaceful, they hadn't done anything to make the violence warranted.
I'm not convinced that peaceful protests are as effective as some people make them out to be. UC Berkley saw Milo paint a target on the back of a trans student at UW Milwaukee. They saw one of Milo's fans shoot a protester at UW Seattle. They didn't care. Why would a bunch of people standing around holding signs change that?
The problem is that non-violent protesting only works when the people in power have a moral compass. I'm not convinced they do.
Edit: When people hold a candle light vigil for a burned-down CVS, but not a man who had his spine severed by the police, can appeals to human life really work?
I think this is what keeps bothering me. Sure, okay, we can say that the Black Bloc undeniably escalated things....but then again, the stakes were already pretty goddamn high.
Milo outs a trans student, and then one of his fans shoots a protester (thankfully, not fatally). What do we actually do when someone's words are already inciting violence? If we accept that we should never meet force with force, what is the correct avenue for these protests to take?
I don't think there is a good option here- if the protests are peaceful and accomplish the goal of getting Milo's talk canceled, the protesters and university get slammed for being too "politically correct" and stifling free speech and the free exchange of ideas. We saw wave after wave of these articles written in the last year, most of them about people like Milo (if not him, specifically), and these weren't just written in fringe blogs. These were written in and discussed in major news outlets.
On the other hand, if the protests are violent and prevent Milo from speaking, the protesters are a bunch of thugs undermining their own cause.
It seems to me that it's a Win-Win for the instigators here (i.e. Milo and other people who have built public platforms on hate speech) and it's always a losing move by people opposed to this kind of speech.
To those condemning this violence, I pose this question to you- what, exactly, should be both the repercussions to someone like Milo, how should those be accomplished, and what is the correct form of protesting hate speech?
Note, that I'm not really sure where I stand here. I can't really criticize a riot breaking out, given that someone was literally shot by one of Milo's supporters, even if it undermines the ultimate message. Or rather, I can say that I wish it hadn't happened, but can't really see a way that it could have been avoided.
I guess the question above is the actual question I'm interested in. What, exactly, do we do about people like Milo? What is the correct course of action to oppose hate speech being given a legitimate and public platform?
I'm not convinced the answer is "more speech of a type you like!", but if that's your answer, I'd be interested in you explaining it to me.
Similarly, I'm not convinced the answer is "Don't let them speak!", nor am I convinced the answer is "Violently revolt against them!". Again, if this is how you feel, I'd love to hear why, and how it should work.
I'm really, really conflicted on this whole thing, as someone who is generally a pacifist, but is becoming increasingly angry at the wide-spread acceptance of hate these days.
There is no existing group called "Black Bloc" to my knowledge. The black bloc is not an organization, it is a protest tactic, one which is popular with anarchists, anti-fascists, anti-capitalists and other assorted radicals. The idea is, if everybody looks identical and anonymous, it is impossible for the cops to pin a crime on a particular individual.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I strongly urge people not to snitch on their fellow protesters. Respect a diversity of tactics and let others protest the way they feel is best. Do not under any circumstances encourage the police to intervene in a protest. The police are not our friends. If you feel that a protest has taken a direction that you are uncomfortable with, leave or relocate to a different part of the protest.
Yeah. No.
As soon as people start looting, beating and burning at a peaceful gathering they're not protesting. They're being a dangerous and damaging presence and giving legitimacy to the crack downs and police brutality.
If you want to go throw bricks through windows and steal shit or tip over ambulances have the balls to do it without the shield of anonymity.
If people are looting and burning, the protest has turned into a riot. If a riot is not something you want to participate in, leave. Do not switch sides and start aiding the police, they don't need your help.
No. When we protect these geese, we undermine our credibility.
Was the credibility of Black Lives Matter undermined just because the Ferguson and Baltimore protests turned into riots?
Yes
Personally, I disagree
The thesis statement of those protests was, "Black lives are undervalued." If property damage is enough to convince somebody that that message is invalid, no amount of peaceful messaging would convince them. "I was going to think that black lives had value, but then I saw those windows get broken, and now I don't" is rhetoric to justify already-held bigotry, not to express a genuine emotional journey.
It's not just property damage, but also violence against bystanders. This validates people who believe stereotypes of the African American community. This is NOT what you want and only fuels hatred and ignorance.
I am again of the opinion that if you hold those stereotypes closely enough that a night or two of violence are enough for you to write off an entire race, no amount of peaceful protest would be enough to change your mind. To use the events as "evidence" is, again, a narrative to justify pre-existing bigotry. The absence of that evidence would not do anything to change their minds; ergo, the cause isn't "hurt" because of what the predisposed already thought.
But there are people on the fringe who will not support a movement if it resorts to violence. I certainly wouldn't want to be involved in violent protests and illegal activities. But I attended the women's march and would do it again because the event was safe and well organized.
This was the only kind of organization that was able to get me out there. This type of rallying was the largest and safest in recent history because people did not feel intimidated by the prospect. We are in an era of hyper-reactivity and you cannot give people an excuse to invalidate your messaging.
Yeah it's not fair. It's not right. But we are fighting against something that isn't fair or right. So use the tactics that gets the most people to march with you on the streets. This is about winning, and not about vengeance.
When you use violence, the government knows how to deal with violence. Humour and peaceful protest are something that are harder to combat. That is why you need 30 year old white moms and their daughters showing up. That is why you do not shame them for not showing up for BLM. You need them with you. Shame and guilt will not bring that size of a crowd to you. Kindness, safety, and predictability will do that.
You need them because police are not going to fire bean bags into a crowd of 5 year old white girls.
The whole riots undermine the legitimacy of protests thing is something I never really bought into.
Its a false narrative that gets dragged out by those benefiting from repressing others, that the media eats up. Its just an extension of a pro-docility bias that is always present in reporting on protests, someone can't get into a building, traffic is blocked, a window broken, doesn't really matter what it is; the narrative is always "OMG Why do the protesters have to do X"
I also think that the way its reported in the media is counter to how we understand history. Did the race riots of the 60s, or the Rodney King riots undermine their cause or highlight it.
Hard to get another link that isn't Breitbart. Shooter claims "self-defence" and that he thought the protestor was a white supremacist (...); has been released by police. I think I read elsewhere he turned himself in, but even then, he just shot a guy.
I don't know law or how that state, city, ect. handles shootings, but I think the guy was let go because the guy shot didn't press charges. In the article, he expressed empathy towards his shooter, hoping that the two could meet and discuss things later. The guy also turned himself in, which means he didn't do it out of spite. Sounds like to me it is a case of chaos and confusion along with fear caused someone to overreact and the victim understood and forgave the guy. Which, if that is the case, applaud that gentleman for seeking a peaceful solution. The police might still take action, but if the victim doesn't want to, not much reason for the police to do so. Doesn't sound like secret fascist conspiracy to me, in this case.
There is no existing group called "Black Bloc" to my knowledge. The black bloc is not an organization, it is a protest tactic, one which is popular with anarchists, anti-fascists, anti-capitalists and other assorted radicals. The idea is, if everybody looks identical and anonymous, it is impossible for the cops to pin a crime on a particular individual.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I strongly urge people not to snitch on their fellow protesters. Respect a diversity of tactics and let others protest the way they feel is best. Do not under any circumstances encourage the police to intervene in a protest. The police are not our friends. If you feel that a protest has taken a direction that you are uncomfortable with, leave or relocate to a different part of the protest.
Yeah. No.
As soon as people start looting, beating and burning at a peaceful gathering they're not protesting. They're being a dangerous and damaging presence and giving legitimacy to the crack downs and police brutality.
If you want to go throw bricks through windows and steal shit or tip over ambulances have the balls to do it without the shield of anonymity.
Crackdowns and police brutality don't NEED legitimacy.
Yeah, they do. It comes back to the point made here:
The thesis statement of those protests was, "Black lives are undervalued." If property damage is enough to convince somebody that that message is invalid, no amount of peaceful messaging would convince them. "I was going to think that black lives had value, but then I saw those windows get broken, and now I don't" is rhetoric to justify already-held bigotry, not to express a genuine emotional journey.
And he's right, but the other point of that is we need to deny those people the excuse to justify their bigotry. One of the reasons the images of Bull Connor turning the firehoses on protestors was so powerful is because the protesters were peaceful, they hadn't done anything to make the violence warranted.
I'm not convinced that peaceful protests are as effective as some people make them out to be. UC Berkley saw Milo paint a target on the back of a trans student at UW Milwaukee. They saw one of Milo's fans shoot a protester at UW Seattle. They didn't care. Why would a bunch of people standing around holding signs change that?
The problem is that non-violent protesting only works when the people in power have a moral compass. I'm not convinced they do.
Edit: When people hold a candle light vigil for a burned-down CVS, but not a man who had his spine severed by the police, can appeals to human life really work?
BLM got police in many states to have to wear body cams, a step towards accountablity. Had BLM been rioting the whole time and not calling out those who did under the BLM banner, then that wouldn't have happened. The police would have spend that money are more lethal weapons and better protection. Riots don't do anything but make your group a monster. Once you start destroying things, you aren't victims, you are criminals.
Part of the issue is that in the abstract you might say, "Okay sure, a broken Starbucks window or an ATM here or there are trivial compared to a life lost due to institutional police violence," and I am sympathetic to this viewpoint.
The problem is that just getting a big enough group together to celebrate a sports victory can turn mob-violent quickly.
I have zero real sympathy for Milo not getting the spout his nonsense, but when random bystanders are getting dragged out of cars and beaten then you have the Nth example in human history about the dangers of crowds getting whipped up about any topic, whether the issue is just or unjust.
I am in agreement that shutting down a street with protest or blocking an airport terminal or the like are valid tactics -- I don't think people being briefly inconvenienced outweighs the gravity of things like a travel ban being enacted.
But does a large anonymous crowd really have the coolheadedness to smash a surveillance camera and not start escalating to hitting people?
Further, our country is full of people carrying guns (CC license or no) and you can go peruse their webforums full of giddy discussions about how eagerly they await the excuse of someone breaking into their house or threatening them or so on to justify using lethal physical force as quickly as possible. It's happened once already and I dread to think of how soon it will happen again.
The whole riots undermine the legitimacy of protests thing is something I never really bought into.
Its a false narrative that gets dragged out by those benefiting from repressing others, that the media eats up. Its just an extension of a pro-docility bias that is always present in reporting on protests, someone can't get into a building, traffic is blocked, a window broken, doesn't really matter what it is; the narrative is always "OMG Why do the protesters have to do X"
I also think that the way its reported in the media is counter to how we understand history. Did the race riots of the 60s, or the Rodney King riots undermine their cause or highlight it.
Obstruction is fine, but not violence against bystanders, nor robbing immigrants of their livelihoods. As someone who lived and worked in LA, that era left a dark mark on the opinions of local businesses that never recovered. We had business owners on top of buildings with shotguns and downtown asian immigrants never moved beyond it.
Yeah it's not fair. It's not right. But we are fighting against something that isn't fair or right. So use the tactics that gets the most people to march with you on the streets. This is about winning, and not about vengeance.
When you use violence, the government knows how to deal with violence. Humour and peaceful protest are something that are harder to combat. That is why you need 30 year old white moms and their daughters showing up. That is why you do not shame them for not showing up for BLM. You need them with you. Shame and guilt will not bring that size of a crowd to you. Kindness, safety, and predictability will do that.
You need them because police are not going to fire bean bags into a crowd of 5 year old white girls.
Sadly, you usually need both. Most successful civil rights movements have had a pacifist wing and a militant wing, including the American Civil Rights movement, the Indian independence movement, and the South African anti-apartheid movement. MLK would probably not have been successful without the Black Panthers to give his peaceful message an undertone of menace.
+13
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
If they win whether you smash stuff or not, then at least smashing stuff makes sure universities lose money when they invite evil people. Attacking their wallets is much better than attacking them physically.
Yeah it's not fair. It's not right. But we are fighting against something that isn't fair or right. So use the tactics that gets the most people to march with you on the streets. This is about winning, and not about vengeance.
When you use violence, the government knows how to deal with violence. Humour and peaceful protest are something that are harder to combat. That is why you need 30 year old white moms and their daughters showing up. That is why you do not shame them for not showing up for BLM. You need them with you. Shame and guilt will not bring that size of a crowd to you. Kindness, safety, and predictability will do that.
You need them because police are not going to fire bean bags into a crowd of 5 year old white girls.
Sadly, you usually need both. Most successful civil rights movements have had a pacifist wing and a militant wing, including the American Civil Rights movement, the Indian independence movement, and the South African anti-apartheid movement. MLK would probably not have been successful without the Black Panthers to give his peaceful message an undertone of menace.
The civil rights movement succeeded because people were brought in outside of the community to vote for change and to march with each other. Threat of violence turns us into bullys and stains perceptions. Why is there a need to be perceived as a threat? These are real people on the streets being affected by riots, not some huge corporations. How does smashing a shop owner's window make them suddenly put up BLM posters in their store. Is there any scenario you can think of where that could happen?
My friend lost a father to violence. He was just loading stuff into a warehouse when two guys smashed his head in with a 2x4. Why? Because he didn't let them use the bathroom. Do not encourage the notion that racism is justification for violent retribution.
If they win whether you smash stuff or not, then at least smashing stuff makes sure universities lose money when they invite evil people. Attacking their wallets is much better than attacking them physically.
Unfortunately that doesn't really work. Student groups may invite whomever they like. The university - both by law and by charter - can't deny even a neo-nazi the opportunity to talk unless there's an imminent threat to safety. Meanwhile, UC in particular tends to pass costs like these along to the students. UC Berkeley being such a prestigious school and incoming students being not-particularly price adverse, vandalism doesn't really hurt the regents at all and the repair cost comes almost entirely out of undergraduates' pockets.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Except people are being attacked physically. Innocent people are being pulled out of cars and beaten. People with different opinions are being beaten. This isn't how you go about things. Sure, Milo is an asshat who should never had been born, but he isn't worth physically assaulting people over. Shooting people. Killing people. There is a line and Berkeley protesters crossed it.
If they win whether you smash stuff or not, then at least smashing stuff makes sure universities lose money when they invite evil people. Attacking their wallets is much better than attacking them physically.
Unfortunately that doesn't really work. Student groups may invite whomever they like. The university - both by law and by charter - can't deny even a neo-nazi the opportunity to talk unless there's an imminent threat to safety. Meanwhile, UC in particular tends to pass costs like these along to the students. UC Berkeley being such a prestigious school and incoming students being not-particularly price adverse, vandalism doesn't really hurt the regents at all and the repair cost comes almost entirely out of undergraduates' pockets.
This is true. Most funding comes from tuition as the regents get paid a guaranteed salary. Repair costs are part of the budget. Smashing windows just sends a violent message. You do get official statements denouncing the violent protests.
Except people are being attacked physically. Innocent people are being pulled out of cars and beaten. People with different opinions are being beaten. This isn't how you go about things. Sure, Milo is an asshat who should never had been born, but he isn't worth physically assaulting people over. Shooting people. Killing people. There is a line and Berkeley protesters crossed it.
And the problem is that this was isolated to 150 people who were members of specific group wearing the same clothes. But the entire Berkeley protest was marred. People reading the feed on facebook aren't going to distinguish between Black Bloc and peaceful protesters.
It's the "speak softly and carry a big stick" principle. You need to demonstrate to the powers that be that if your peaceful demands are not addressed, you have a Plan B up your sleeve. If you don't listen to Martin now, next time you'll get Malcolm. Otherwise you can be ignored.
+10
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
The First Amendment has exceptions already, and it is hardly beyond consideration that leaving it as it is produces harm not only by entertaining morons like Milo and Bannon, but then effervescing vigilante justice in retribution.
Ignoring the ACAP lot, the premise of society is the creation of laws and enforcement institutions for those laws to reduce harm to the greater populace. It's pretty clear the current set of both is not working.
Breaching the monopoly on violence against people is not something that is either well controlled or singular in direction.
It's the "speak softly and carry a big stick" principle. You need to demonstrate to the powers that be that if your peaceful demands are not addressed, you have a Plan B up your sleeve. If you don't listen to Martin now, next time you'll get Malcolm. Otherwise you can be ignored.
Let me clarify, why is there a need to be perceived as a physical threat? What is the message that you want to send? That black people are violent and dangerous?
You can perceived as threat through other means; economic threat via boycotting and political via voting and organizing. Violence is not the answer, no matter how good it makes you feel. Do not seek vengeance as it will feed into a cycle of hatred that our generation is trying desperately to break free from.
My friend lost a father to a big stick and that did not help her perception of the black community one bit.
The First Amendment has exceptions already, and it is hardly beyond consideration that leaving it as it is produces harm not only by entertaining morons like Milo and Bannon, but then effervescing vigilante justice in retribution.
Ignoring the ACAP lot, the premise of society is the creation of laws and enforcement institutions for those laws to reduce harm to the greater populace. It's pretty clear the current set of both is not working.
Breaching the monopoly on violence against people is not something that is either well controlled or singular in direction.
I'm of the opinion of when you try to silence someone, you make their voices louder. Like, I didn't know who Milo was until he was banned from Twitter, got a book deal, and suddenly was getting large protests at colleges where he was going to speak. Before, he was a nobody, to me and most people I know. Now, he's a household name, on the news, even my grandfather knows who his is. While I don't mind calling his stuff hate speech, I don't think in the day and age that trying to silence him is going to do any good. Debating his words with reason and logic might keep people from listening to his shit and believing it.
The First Amendment has exceptions already, and it is hardly beyond consideration that leaving it as it is produces harm not only by entertaining morons like Milo and Bannon, but then effervescing vigilante justice in retribution.
Ignoring the ACAP lot, the premise of society is the creation of laws and enforcement institutions for those laws to reduce harm to the greater populace. It's pretty clear the current set of both is not working.
Breaching the monopoly on violence against people is not something that is either well controlled or singular in direction.
I'm of the opinion of when you try to silence someone, you make their voices louder. Like, I didn't know who Milo was until he was banned from Twitter, got a book deal, and suddenly was getting large protests at colleges where he was going to speak. Before, he was a nobody, to me and most people I know. Now, he's a household name, on the news, even my grandfather knows who his is. While I don't mind calling his stuff hate speech, I don't think in the day and age that trying to silence him is going to do any good. Debating his words with reason and logic might keep people from listening to his shit and believing it.
I think that we often feel that one solution can be used to counter people like Milo. Ignoring can only be the first step, until something slips up and he becomes viral. After that, they can't be ignored anymore as that attention quickly becomes self-sustaining without outside help. Social media makes it so that once you get enough views, you kind get stuck as some d-tier internet celeb no matter what you do.
Ex: Jontron got a major subscription boost for his twitter explosion on denouncing the woman's march.
edit: RE: Violent protests. When your group threatens violence if your political or ideological demands are not met, you are essentially terrorists. You are trying to incite change through fear of injury or death and that is not okay.
The First Amendment has exceptions already, and it is hardly beyond consideration that leaving it as it is produces harm not only by entertaining morons like Milo and Bannon, but then effervescing vigilante justice in retribution.
Ignoring the ACAP lot, the premise of society is the creation of laws and enforcement institutions for those laws to reduce harm to the greater populace. It's pretty clear the current set of both is not working.
Breaching the monopoly on violence against people is not something that is either well controlled or singular in direction.
I am 100% on-board with this.
The United States has among the weakest hate speech laws in the industrialized world. Before the rise of Gamergate and the alt-right, I used think this was a good thing. I was wrong.
There's no political value in speech that broadly denies the basic humanity of large groups of people.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The First Amendment has exceptions already, and it is hardly beyond consideration that leaving it as it is produces harm not only by entertaining morons like Milo and Bannon, but then effervescing vigilante justice in retribution.
Ignoring the ACAP lot, the premise of society is the creation of laws and enforcement institutions for those laws to reduce harm to the greater populace. It's pretty clear the current set of both is not working.
Breaching the monopoly on violence against people is not something that is either well controlled or singular in direction.
I'm of the opinion of when you try to silence someone, you make their voices louder. Like, I didn't know who Milo was until he was banned from Twitter, got a book deal, and suddenly was getting large protests at colleges where he was going to speak. Before, he was a nobody, to me and most people I know. Now, he's a household name, on the news, even my grandfather knows who his is. While I don't mind calling his stuff hate speech, I don't think in the day and age that trying to silence him is going to do any good. Debating his words with reason and logic might keep people from listening to his shit and believing it.
I think that we often feel that one solution can be used to counter people like Milo. Ignoring can only be the first step, until something slips up and he becomes viral. After that, they can't be ignored anymore as that attention quickly becomes self-sustaining without outside help. Social media makes it so that once you get enough views, you kind get stuck as some d-tier internet celeb no matter what you do.
Ex: Jontron got a major subscription boost for his twitter explosion on denouncing the woman's march.
edit: RE: Violent protests. When your group threatens violence if your political or ideological demands are not met, you are essentially terrorists. You are trying to incite change through fear of injury or death and that is not okay.
Re the last bit: And when what they're protesting is "you should all die"?
The First Amendment has exceptions already, and it is hardly beyond consideration that leaving it as it is produces harm not only by entertaining morons like Milo and Bannon, but then effervescing vigilante justice in retribution.
Ignoring the ACAP lot, the premise of society is the creation of laws and enforcement institutions for those laws to reduce harm to the greater populace. It's pretty clear the current set of both is not working.
Breaching the monopoly on violence against people is not something that is either well controlled or singular in direction.
I'm of the opinion of when you try to silence someone, you make their voices louder. Like, I didn't know who Milo was until he was banned from Twitter, got a book deal, and suddenly was getting large protests at colleges where he was going to speak. Before, he was a nobody, to me and most people I know. Now, he's a household name, on the news, even my grandfather knows who his is. While I don't mind calling his stuff hate speech, I don't think in the day and age that trying to silence him is going to do any good. Debating his words with reason and logic might keep people from listening to his shit and believing it.
I think that we often feel that one solution can be used to counter people like Milo. Ignoring can only be the first step, until something slips up and he becomes viral. After that, they can't be ignored anymore as that attention quickly becomes self-sustaining without outside help. Social media makes it so that once you get enough views, you kind get stuck as some d-tier internet celeb no matter what you do.
Ex: Jontron got a major subscription boost for his twitter explosion on denouncing the woman's march.
edit: RE: Violent protests. When your group threatens violence if your political or ideological demands are not met, you are essentially terrorists. You are trying to incite change through fear of injury or death and that is not okay.
Re the last bit: And when what they're protesting is "you should all die"?
Hate speech laws to make incitement like that illegal. Sadly you are never going to kill ideas like that, but you can limit how many people that message gets out to.
Also doesnt a statement like that already fall under Fighting Words or Incitement?
There is no existing group called "Black Bloc" to my knowledge. The black bloc is not an organization, it is a protest tactic, one which is popular with anarchists, anti-fascists, anti-capitalists and other assorted radicals. The idea is, if everybody looks identical and anonymous, it is impossible for the cops to pin a crime on a particular individual.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I strongly urge people not to snitch on their fellow protesters. Respect a diversity of tactics and let others protest the way they feel is best. Do not under any circumstances encourage the police to intervene in a protest. The police are not our friends. If you feel that a protest has taken a direction that you are uncomfortable with, leave or relocate to a different part of the protest.
Yeah. No.
As soon as people start looting, beating and burning at a peaceful gathering they're not protesting. They're being a dangerous and damaging presence and giving legitimacy to the crack downs and police brutality.
If you want to go throw bricks through windows and steal shit or tip over ambulances have the balls to do it without the shield of anonymity.
If people are looting and burning, the protest has turned into a riot. If a riot is not something you want to participate in, leave. Do not switch sides and start aiding the police, they don't need your help.
No. When we protect these geese, we undermine our credibility.
Was the credibility of Black Lives Matter undermined just because the Ferguson and Baltimore protests turned into riots?
Yes
Personally, I disagree
The thesis statement of those protests was, "Black lives are undervalued." If property damage is enough to convince somebody that that message is invalid, no amount of peaceful messaging would convince them. "I was going to think that black lives had value, but then I saw those windows get broken, and now I don't" is rhetoric to justify already-held bigotry, not to express a genuine emotional journey.
It's not just property damage, but also violence against bystanders. This validates people who believe stereotypes of the African American community. This is NOT what you want and only fuels hatred and ignorance.
I am again of the opinion that if you hold those stereotypes closely enough that a night or two of violence are enough for you to write off an entire race, no amount of peaceful protest would be enough to change your mind. To use the events as "evidence" is, again, a narrative to justify pre-existing bigotry. The absence of that evidence would not do anything to change their minds; ergo, the cause isn't "hurt" because of what the predisposed already thought.
Yeah it's not fair. It's not right. But we are fighting against something that isn't fair or right. So use the tactics that gets the most people to march with you on the streets. This is about winning, and not about vengeance.
When you use violence, the government knows how to deal with violence. Humour and peaceful protest are something that are harder to combat. That is why you need 30 year old white moms and their daughters showing up. That is why you do not shame them for not showing up for BLM. You need them with you. Shame and guilt will not bring that size of a crowd to you. Kindness, safety, and predictability will do that.
You need them because police are not going to fire bean bags into a crowd of 5 year old white girls.
Right, winning is what's important. But...this protest succeeded in cancelling Milo's talk where other more peaceful protests failed. So can it be said people care about winning if they refuse to use tactics that are proven to work?
The First Amendment has exceptions already, and it is hardly beyond consideration that leaving it as it is produces harm not only by entertaining morons like Milo and Bannon, but then effervescing vigilante justice in retribution.
Ignoring the ACAP lot, the premise of society is the creation of laws and enforcement institutions for those laws to reduce harm to the greater populace. It's pretty clear the current set of both is not working.
Breaching the monopoly on violence against people is not something that is either well controlled or singular in direction.
I'm of the opinion of when you try to silence someone, you make their voices louder. Like, I didn't know who Milo was until he was banned from Twitter, got a book deal, and suddenly was getting large protests at colleges where he was going to speak. Before, he was a nobody, to me and most people I know. Now, he's a household name, on the news, even my grandfather knows who his is. While I don't mind calling his stuff hate speech, I don't think in the day and age that trying to silence him is going to do any good. Debating his words with reason and logic might keep people from listening to his shit and believing it.
Well, you missed the times where he organized harassment of vulnerable people to the point of forcing them to be silent. He and his goons doctored photos of a Sikh man to make him look like a terrorist, to the point where the police advised him to cease using social media. One of his earlier talks targeted a trans student for harassment, and she had to drop out of the school. Furthermore, Milo's Berkley talk had a part where he encouraged people to report undocumented immigrants to ICE. These protests protected their speech, and possibly their lives. Why do they not matter?
There is no existing group called "Black Bloc" to my knowledge. The black bloc is not an organization, it is a protest tactic, one which is popular with anarchists, anti-fascists, anti-capitalists and other assorted radicals. The idea is, if everybody looks identical and anonymous, it is impossible for the cops to pin a crime on a particular individual.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I strongly urge people not to snitch on their fellow protesters. Respect a diversity of tactics and let others protest the way they feel is best. Do not under any circumstances encourage the police to intervene in a protest. The police are not our friends. If you feel that a protest has taken a direction that you are uncomfortable with, leave or relocate to a different part of the protest.
Yeah. No.
As soon as people start looting, beating and burning at a peaceful gathering they're not protesting. They're being a dangerous and damaging presence and giving legitimacy to the crack downs and police brutality.
If you want to go throw bricks through windows and steal shit or tip over ambulances have the balls to do it without the shield of anonymity.
If people are looting and burning, the protest has turned into a riot. If a riot is not something you want to participate in, leave. Do not switch sides and start aiding the police, they don't need your help.
No. When we protect these geese, we undermine our credibility.
Was the credibility of Black Lives Matter undermined just because the Ferguson and Baltimore protests turned into riots?
Yes
Personally, I disagree
The thesis statement of those protests was, "Black lives are undervalued." If property damage is enough to convince somebody that that message is invalid, no amount of peaceful messaging would convince them. "I was going to think that black lives had value, but then I saw those windows get broken, and now I don't" is rhetoric to justify already-held bigotry, not to express a genuine emotional journey.
It's not just property damage, but also violence against bystanders. This validates people who believe stereotypes of the African American community. This is NOT what you want and only fuels hatred and ignorance.
I am again of the opinion that if you hold those stereotypes closely enough that a night or two of violence are enough for you to write off an entire race, no amount of peaceful protest would be enough to change your mind. To use the events as "evidence" is, again, a narrative to justify pre-existing bigotry. The absence of that evidence would not do anything to change their minds; ergo, the cause isn't "hurt" because of what the predisposed already thought.
Yeah it's not fair. It's not right. But we are fighting against something that isn't fair or right. So use the tactics that gets the most people to march with you on the streets. This is about winning, and not about vengeance.
When you use violence, the government knows how to deal with violence. Humour and peaceful protest are something that are harder to combat. That is why you need 30 year old white moms and their daughters showing up. That is why you do not shame them for not showing up for BLM. You need them with you. Shame and guilt will not bring that size of a crowd to you. Kindness, safety, and predictability will do that.
You need them because police are not going to fire bean bags into a crowd of 5 year old white girls.
Right, winning is what's important. But...this protest succeeded in cancelling Milo's talk where other more peaceful protests failed. So can it be said people care about winning if they refuse to use tactics that are proven to work?
Would they have still worked if 150 shitbags didnt turn up to wreck the place? I'd like to think so but its unlikely we will ever find out.
There is no existing group called "Black Bloc" to my knowledge. The black bloc is not an organization, it is a protest tactic, one which is popular with anarchists, anti-fascists, anti-capitalists and other assorted radicals. The idea is, if everybody looks identical and anonymous, it is impossible for the cops to pin a crime on a particular individual.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I strongly urge people not to snitch on their fellow protesters. Respect a diversity of tactics and let others protest the way they feel is best. Do not under any circumstances encourage the police to intervene in a protest. The police are not our friends. If you feel that a protest has taken a direction that you are uncomfortable with, leave or relocate to a different part of the protest.
Yeah. No.
As soon as people start looting, beating and burning at a peaceful gathering they're not protesting. They're being a dangerous and damaging presence and giving legitimacy to the crack downs and police brutality.
If you want to go throw bricks through windows and steal shit or tip over ambulances have the balls to do it without the shield of anonymity.
If people are looting and burning, the protest has turned into a riot. If a riot is not something you want to participate in, leave. Do not switch sides and start aiding the police, they don't need your help.
No. When we protect these geese, we undermine our credibility.
Was the credibility of Black Lives Matter undermined just because the Ferguson and Baltimore protests turned into riots?
Yes
Personally, I disagree
The thesis statement of those protests was, "Black lives are undervalued." If property damage is enough to convince somebody that that message is invalid, no amount of peaceful messaging would convince them. "I was going to think that black lives had value, but then I saw those windows get broken, and now I don't" is rhetoric to justify already-held bigotry, not to express a genuine emotional journey.
It's not just property damage, but also violence against bystanders. This validates people who believe stereotypes of the African American community. This is NOT what you want and only fuels hatred and ignorance.
I am again of the opinion that if you hold those stereotypes closely enough that a night or two of violence are enough for you to write off an entire race, no amount of peaceful protest would be enough to change your mind. To use the events as "evidence" is, again, a narrative to justify pre-existing bigotry. The absence of that evidence would not do anything to change their minds; ergo, the cause isn't "hurt" because of what the predisposed already thought.
Yeah it's not fair. It's not right. But we are fighting against something that isn't fair or right. So use the tactics that gets the most people to march with you on the streets. This is about winning, and not about vengeance.
When you use violence, the government knows how to deal with violence. Humour and peaceful protest are something that are harder to combat. That is why you need 30 year old white moms and their daughters showing up. That is why you do not shame them for not showing up for BLM. You need them with you. Shame and guilt will not bring that size of a crowd to you. Kindness, safety, and predictability will do that.
You need them because police are not going to fire bean bags into a crowd of 5 year old white girls.
Right, winning is what's important. But...this protest succeeded in cancelling Milo's talk where other more peaceful protests failed. So can it be said people care about winning if they refuse to use tactics that are proven to work?
They won the battle but they lost the war. Milo doesn't get to speak here, but he might get a real audience when he gets to talk about this on CNN or NBC or Fox News. He gets sympathy because he and his supporters where attacked by a violent mob. He gets to show video of this shit to demonstrate how important it is for him to speak, to uphold the First Amendment.
So, no. The protesters didn't win. They just suicide bombed their fight.
There is no existing group called "Black Bloc" to my knowledge. The black bloc is not an organization, it is a protest tactic, one which is popular with anarchists, anti-fascists, anti-capitalists and other assorted radicals. The idea is, if everybody looks identical and anonymous, it is impossible for the cops to pin a crime on a particular individual.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I strongly urge people not to snitch on their fellow protesters. Respect a diversity of tactics and let others protest the way they feel is best. Do not under any circumstances encourage the police to intervene in a protest. The police are not our friends. If you feel that a protest has taken a direction that you are uncomfortable with, leave or relocate to a different part of the protest.
Yeah. No.
As soon as people start looting, beating and burning at a peaceful gathering they're not protesting. They're being a dangerous and damaging presence and giving legitimacy to the crack downs and police brutality.
If you want to go throw bricks through windows and steal shit or tip over ambulances have the balls to do it without the shield of anonymity.
If people are looting and burning, the protest has turned into a riot. If a riot is not something you want to participate in, leave. Do not switch sides and start aiding the police, they don't need your help.
No. When we protect these geese, we undermine our credibility.
Was the credibility of Black Lives Matter undermined just because the Ferguson and Baltimore protests turned into riots?
Yes
Personally, I disagree
The thesis statement of those protests was, "Black lives are undervalued." If property damage is enough to convince somebody that that message is invalid, no amount of peaceful messaging would convince them. "I was going to think that black lives had value, but then I saw those windows get broken, and now I don't" is rhetoric to justify already-held bigotry, not to express a genuine emotional journey.
It's not just property damage, but also violence against bystanders. This validates people who believe stereotypes of the African American community. This is NOT what you want and only fuels hatred and ignorance.
I am again of the opinion that if you hold those stereotypes closely enough that a night or two of violence are enough for you to write off an entire race, no amount of peaceful protest would be enough to change your mind. To use the events as "evidence" is, again, a narrative to justify pre-existing bigotry. The absence of that evidence would not do anything to change their minds; ergo, the cause isn't "hurt" because of what the predisposed already thought.
Yeah it's not fair. It's not right. But we are fighting against something that isn't fair or right. So use the tactics that gets the most people to march with you on the streets. This is about winning, and not about vengeance.
When you use violence, the government knows how to deal with violence. Humour and peaceful protest are something that are harder to combat. That is why you need 30 year old white moms and their daughters showing up. That is why you do not shame them for not showing up for BLM. You need them with you. Shame and guilt will not bring that size of a crowd to you. Kindness, safety, and predictability will do that.
You need them because police are not going to fire bean bags into a crowd of 5 year old white girls.
Right, winning is what's important. But...this protest succeeded in cancelling Milo's talk where other more peaceful protests failed. So can it be said people care about winning if they refuse to use tactics that are proven to work?
Would they have still worked if 150 shitbags didnt turn up to wreck the place? I'd like to think so but its unlikely we will ever find out.
Given similar campus protests have happened with nothing to show for it, I doubt it. I don't like violence or riots and whatnot, but if it's the only way to get people actually realize the harm they're doing, then I can't exactly in good conscious oppose it. If pleas of humanity were enough to get UC Berkley to listen, they would never have invited Milo to begin with.
There is no existing group called "Black Bloc" to my knowledge. The black bloc is not an organization, it is a protest tactic, one which is popular with anarchists, anti-fascists, anti-capitalists and other assorted radicals. The idea is, if everybody looks identical and anonymous, it is impossible for the cops to pin a crime on a particular individual.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I strongly urge people not to snitch on their fellow protesters. Respect a diversity of tactics and let others protest the way they feel is best. Do not under any circumstances encourage the police to intervene in a protest. The police are not our friends. If you feel that a protest has taken a direction that you are uncomfortable with, leave or relocate to a different part of the protest.
Yeah. No.
As soon as people start looting, beating and burning at a peaceful gathering they're not protesting. They're being a dangerous and damaging presence and giving legitimacy to the crack downs and police brutality.
If you want to go throw bricks through windows and steal shit or tip over ambulances have the balls to do it without the shield of anonymity.
If people are looting and burning, the protest has turned into a riot. If a riot is not something you want to participate in, leave. Do not switch sides and start aiding the police, they don't need your help.
No. When we protect these geese, we undermine our credibility.
Was the credibility of Black Lives Matter undermined just because the Ferguson and Baltimore protests turned into riots?
Yes
Personally, I disagree
The thesis statement of those protests was, "Black lives are undervalued." If property damage is enough to convince somebody that that message is invalid, no amount of peaceful messaging would convince them. "I was going to think that black lives had value, but then I saw those windows get broken, and now I don't" is rhetoric to justify already-held bigotry, not to express a genuine emotional journey.
It's not just property damage, but also violence against bystanders. This validates people who believe stereotypes of the African American community. This is NOT what you want and only fuels hatred and ignorance.
I am again of the opinion that if you hold those stereotypes closely enough that a night or two of violence are enough for you to write off an entire race, no amount of peaceful protest would be enough to change your mind. To use the events as "evidence" is, again, a narrative to justify pre-existing bigotry. The absence of that evidence would not do anything to change their minds; ergo, the cause isn't "hurt" because of what the predisposed already thought.
Yeah it's not fair. It's not right. But we are fighting against something that isn't fair or right. So use the tactics that gets the most people to march with you on the streets. This is about winning, and not about vengeance.
When you use violence, the government knows how to deal with violence. Humour and peaceful protest are something that are harder to combat. That is why you need 30 year old white moms and their daughters showing up. That is why you do not shame them for not showing up for BLM. You need them with you. Shame and guilt will not bring that size of a crowd to you. Kindness, safety, and predictability will do that.
You need them because police are not going to fire bean bags into a crowd of 5 year old white girls.
Right, winning is what's important. But...this protest succeeded in cancelling Milo's talk where other more peaceful protests failed. So can it be said people care about winning if they refuse to use tactics that are proven to work?
They won the battle but they lost the war. Milo doesn't get to speak here, but he might get a real audience when he gets to talk about this on CNN or NBC or Fox News. He gets sympathy because he and his supporters where attacked by a violent mob. He gets to show video of this shit to demonstrate how important it is for him to speak, to uphold the First Amendment.
So, no. The protesters didn't win. They just suicide bombed their fight.
There's a term for people who sympathize with Nazis. If this makes people sympathize with Milo, they were never good people to begin with.
Edit: And why aren't CNN, NBC, Fox, et. al. interviewing his victims? Right, because we accept all forms of right-wing violence in this country.
Did the race riots of the 60s, or the Rodney King riots undermine their cause or highlight it.
While the 60s riots in Selma highlighted a problem nationwide, Selma the city got fucked over because if it. To this day, Selma is still suffering from those riots, with a current 41% poverty rate. Remember the recent Selma movie covering the events of that era? They initially couldn't even show the movie in Selma, because the only theater had closed down 2 years prior. The movie studio had to quickly renovate the old theater, to reopen it for a single day, just to screen their movie to all the visiting VIPs.
There is no existing group called "Black Bloc" to my knowledge. The black bloc is not an organization, it is a protest tactic, one which is popular with anarchists, anti-fascists, anti-capitalists and other assorted radicals. The idea is, if everybody looks identical and anonymous, it is impossible for the cops to pin a crime on a particular individual.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I strongly urge people not to snitch on their fellow protesters. Respect a diversity of tactics and let others protest the way they feel is best. Do not under any circumstances encourage the police to intervene in a protest. The police are not our friends. If you feel that a protest has taken a direction that you are uncomfortable with, leave or relocate to a different part of the protest.
Yeah. No.
As soon as people start looting, beating and burning at a peaceful gathering they're not protesting. They're being a dangerous and damaging presence and giving legitimacy to the crack downs and police brutality.
If you want to go throw bricks through windows and steal shit or tip over ambulances have the balls to do it without the shield of anonymity.
If people are looting and burning, the protest has turned into a riot. If a riot is not something you want to participate in, leave. Do not switch sides and start aiding the police, they don't need your help.
No. When we protect these geese, we undermine our credibility.
Was the credibility of Black Lives Matter undermined just because the Ferguson and Baltimore protests turned into riots?
Yes
Personally, I disagree
The thesis statement of those protests was, "Black lives are undervalued." If property damage is enough to convince somebody that that message is invalid, no amount of peaceful messaging would convince them. "I was going to think that black lives had value, but then I saw those windows get broken, and now I don't" is rhetoric to justify already-held bigotry, not to express a genuine emotional journey.
It's not just property damage, but also violence against bystanders. This validates people who believe stereotypes of the African American community. This is NOT what you want and only fuels hatred and ignorance.
I am again of the opinion that if you hold those stereotypes closely enough that a night or two of violence are enough for you to write off an entire race, no amount of peaceful protest would be enough to change your mind. To use the events as "evidence" is, again, a narrative to justify pre-existing bigotry. The absence of that evidence would not do anything to change their minds; ergo, the cause isn't "hurt" because of what the predisposed already thought.
Yeah it's not fair. It's not right. But we are fighting against something that isn't fair or right. So use the tactics that gets the most people to march with you on the streets. This is about winning, and not about vengeance.
When you use violence, the government knows how to deal with violence. Humour and peaceful protest are something that are harder to combat. That is why you need 30 year old white moms and their daughters showing up. That is why you do not shame them for not showing up for BLM. You need them with you. Shame and guilt will not bring that size of a crowd to you. Kindness, safety, and predictability will do that.
You need them because police are not going to fire bean bags into a crowd of 5 year old white girls.
Right, winning is what's important. But...this protest succeeded in cancelling Milo's talk where other more peaceful protests failed. So can it be said people care about winning if they refuse to use tactics that are proven to work?
This is what I find problematic about the situation. He canceled his talk due to threat of violence. But violence was carried out anyways. That gave him several talking points as well as an increased audience. So the talk was canceled. But the question is whether this was a victory at all. People felt good stopping him this one instance, but can it be called a victory if the outcome was net negative for the protesters?
I'm of the opinion of when you try to silence someone, you make their voices louder. Like, I didn't know who Milo was until he was banned from Twitter, got a book deal, and suddenly was getting large protests at colleges where he was going to speak. Before, he was a nobody, to me and most people I know. Now, he's a household name, on the news, even my grandfather knows who his is. While I don't mind calling his stuff hate speech, I don't think in the day and age that trying to silence him is going to do any good. Debating his words with reason and logic might keep people from listening to his shit and believing it.
Banning Milo from Twitter didn't give him a platform. It was a story because he already had a platform.
The dude literally has the President of the United States stumping for him, and people act like he's losing his voice to the mean old protesters.
There is no existing group called "Black Bloc" to my knowledge. The black bloc is not an organization, it is a protest tactic, one which is popular with anarchists, anti-fascists, anti-capitalists and other assorted radicals. The idea is, if everybody looks identical and anonymous, it is impossible for the cops to pin a crime on a particular individual.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I strongly urge people not to snitch on their fellow protesters. Respect a diversity of tactics and let others protest the way they feel is best. Do not under any circumstances encourage the police to intervene in a protest. The police are not our friends. If you feel that a protest has taken a direction that you are uncomfortable with, leave or relocate to a different part of the protest.
Yeah. No.
As soon as people start looting, beating and burning at a peaceful gathering they're not protesting. They're being a dangerous and damaging presence and giving legitimacy to the crack downs and police brutality.
If you want to go throw bricks through windows and steal shit or tip over ambulances have the balls to do it without the shield of anonymity.
If people are looting and burning, the protest has turned into a riot. If a riot is not something you want to participate in, leave. Do not switch sides and start aiding the police, they don't need your help.
No. When we protect these geese, we undermine our credibility.
Was the credibility of Black Lives Matter undermined just because the Ferguson and Baltimore protests turned into riots?
Yes
Personally, I disagree
The thesis statement of those protests was, "Black lives are undervalued." If property damage is enough to convince somebody that that message is invalid, no amount of peaceful messaging would convince them. "I was going to think that black lives had value, but then I saw those windows get broken, and now I don't" is rhetoric to justify already-held bigotry, not to express a genuine emotional journey.
It's not just property damage, but also violence against bystanders. This validates people who believe stereotypes of the African American community. This is NOT what you want and only fuels hatred and ignorance.
I am again of the opinion that if you hold those stereotypes closely enough that a night or two of violence are enough for you to write off an entire race, no amount of peaceful protest would be enough to change your mind. To use the events as "evidence" is, again, a narrative to justify pre-existing bigotry. The absence of that evidence would not do anything to change their minds; ergo, the cause isn't "hurt" because of what the predisposed already thought.
Yeah it's not fair. It's not right. But we are fighting against something that isn't fair or right. So use the tactics that gets the most people to march with you on the streets. This is about winning, and not about vengeance.
When you use violence, the government knows how to deal with violence. Humour and peaceful protest are something that are harder to combat. That is why you need 30 year old white moms and their daughters showing up. That is why you do not shame them for not showing up for BLM. You need them with you. Shame and guilt will not bring that size of a crowd to you. Kindness, safety, and predictability will do that.
You need them because police are not going to fire bean bags into a crowd of 5 year old white girls.
Right, winning is what's important. But...this protest succeeded in cancelling Milo's talk where other more peaceful protests failed. So can it be said people care about winning if they refuse to use tactics that are proven to work?
This is what I find problematic about the situation. He canceled his talk due to threat of violence. But violence was carried out anyways. That gave him several talking points as well as an increased audience. So the talk was canceled. But the question is whether this was a victory at all. People felt good stopping him this one instance, but can it be called a victory if the outcome was net negative for the protesters?
It hasn't even been 24 hours, so we can't say either way. But if the punching of Richard Spencer is any indication, then this should prove to be effective.
There is no existing group called "Black Bloc" to my knowledge. The black bloc is not an organization, it is a protest tactic, one which is popular with anarchists, anti-fascists, anti-capitalists and other assorted radicals. The idea is, if everybody looks identical and anonymous, it is impossible for the cops to pin a crime on a particular individual.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but I strongly urge people not to snitch on their fellow protesters. Respect a diversity of tactics and let others protest the way they feel is best. Do not under any circumstances encourage the police to intervene in a protest. The police are not our friends. If you feel that a protest has taken a direction that you are uncomfortable with, leave or relocate to a different part of the protest.
Yeah. No.
As soon as people start looting, beating and burning at a peaceful gathering they're not protesting. They're being a dangerous and damaging presence and giving legitimacy to the crack downs and police brutality.
If you want to go throw bricks through windows and steal shit or tip over ambulances have the balls to do it without the shield of anonymity.
If people are looting and burning, the protest has turned into a riot. If a riot is not something you want to participate in, leave. Do not switch sides and start aiding the police, they don't need your help.
No. When we protect these geese, we undermine our credibility.
Was the credibility of Black Lives Matter undermined just because the Ferguson and Baltimore protests turned into riots?
Yes
Personally, I disagree
The thesis statement of those protests was, "Black lives are undervalued." If property damage is enough to convince somebody that that message is invalid, no amount of peaceful messaging would convince them. "I was going to think that black lives had value, but then I saw those windows get broken, and now I don't" is rhetoric to justify already-held bigotry, not to express a genuine emotional journey.
It's not just property damage, but also violence against bystanders. This validates people who believe stereotypes of the African American community. This is NOT what you want and only fuels hatred and ignorance.
I am again of the opinion that if you hold those stereotypes closely enough that a night or two of violence are enough for you to write off an entire race, no amount of peaceful protest would be enough to change your mind. To use the events as "evidence" is, again, a narrative to justify pre-existing bigotry. The absence of that evidence would not do anything to change their minds; ergo, the cause isn't "hurt" because of what the predisposed already thought.
Yeah it's not fair. It's not right. But we are fighting against something that isn't fair or right. So use the tactics that gets the most people to march with you on the streets. This is about winning, and not about vengeance.
When you use violence, the government knows how to deal with violence. Humour and peaceful protest are something that are harder to combat. That is why you need 30 year old white moms and their daughters showing up. That is why you do not shame them for not showing up for BLM. You need them with you. Shame and guilt will not bring that size of a crowd to you. Kindness, safety, and predictability will do that.
You need them because police are not going to fire bean bags into a crowd of 5 year old white girls.
Right, winning is what's important. But...this protest succeeded in cancelling Milo's talk where other more peaceful protests failed. So can it be said people care about winning if they refuse to use tactics that are proven to work?
This is what I find problematic about the situation. He canceled his talk due to threat of violence. But violence was carried out anyways. That gave him several talking points as well as an increased audience. So the talk was canceled. But the question is whether this was a victory at all. People felt good stopping him this one instance, but can it be called a victory if the outcome was net negative for the protesters?
It hasn't even been 24 hours, so we can't say either way. But if the punching of Richard Spencer is any indication, then this should prove to be effective.
But punching Spencer wasn't effective. It blew up conversation about whether or not punching a nazi was deemed ethical. It watered down the messaging of the protests and galvanized members of the Alt Right. he became a martyr over-night.
I do not condone violence for political activism because it creates victims. Even if you are a victim and want to get back at people, doing that will not get the people you need on your side. Do not keep the people who can help you from helping you due to bitterness. The movement for equality needs help from everyone. We cannot take out our anger on bystanders that will prompt physical retaliation and create victims. We cannot continue a cycle of violence that divides communities. Do not let the hatred and pain that you feel lash out at people who might be willing to help you. Do not belittle the many women that marched for equality just because they've not marched for you. We must be more inclusive for that is what all this marching is all about.
And no that does not mean we also include hate speech.
Stop presuming that the violence in UCB was instigated by people with sincere anti-Milo goals.
I would except the videos show otherwise. And don't tell me it was 150 members of some black mask group, in the videos you see whole crowds of people joining in on the violence, smashing buildings, cars, and people. So while they might have came for a good intentions, they marched their ways to Hell.
Posts
And since then, police have figured out that all they need to do to avoid that perception is to send a buddy into the crowd to throw a rock and run away.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
the assertion being made is that support went down over time
the data you're presenting here is only one point
I can't speak to whether the initial assertion is true or false but this data does not engage with the assertion at all
police kill people, pretty sure their lives are worth more than your credibility
Snitching is reporting someone for a relatively minor transgression. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't extend to people attacking other protestors or onlookers. If someone intends commit violence against someone else I absolutely intend to report it and anyone calling me a snitch can piss off.
I think this is what keeps bothering me. Sure, okay, we can say that the Black Bloc undeniably escalated things....but then again, the stakes were already pretty goddamn high.
Milo outs a trans student, and then one of his fans shoots a protester (thankfully, not fatally). What do we actually do when someone's words are already inciting violence? If we accept that we should never meet force with force, what is the correct avenue for these protests to take?
I don't think there is a good option here- if the protests are peaceful and accomplish the goal of getting Milo's talk canceled, the protesters and university get slammed for being too "politically correct" and stifling free speech and the free exchange of ideas. We saw wave after wave of these articles written in the last year, most of them about people like Milo (if not him, specifically), and these weren't just written in fringe blogs. These were written in and discussed in major news outlets.
On the other hand, if the protests are violent and prevent Milo from speaking, the protesters are a bunch of thugs undermining their own cause.
It seems to me that it's a Win-Win for the instigators here (i.e. Milo and other people who have built public platforms on hate speech) and it's always a losing move by people opposed to this kind of speech.
To those condemning this violence, I pose this question to you- what, exactly, should be both the repercussions to someone like Milo, how should those be accomplished, and what is the correct form of protesting hate speech?
Note, that I'm not really sure where I stand here. I can't really criticize a riot breaking out, given that someone was literally shot by one of Milo's supporters, even if it undermines the ultimate message. Or rather, I can say that I wish it hadn't happened, but can't really see a way that it could have been avoided.
I guess the question above is the actual question I'm interested in. What, exactly, do we do about people like Milo? What is the correct course of action to oppose hate speech being given a legitimate and public platform?
I'm not convinced the answer is "more speech of a type you like!", but if that's your answer, I'd be interested in you explaining it to me.
Similarly, I'm not convinced the answer is "Don't let them speak!", nor am I convinced the answer is "Violently revolt against them!". Again, if this is how you feel, I'd love to hear why, and how it should work.
I'm really, really conflicted on this whole thing, as someone who is generally a pacifist, but is becoming increasingly angry at the wide-spread acceptance of hate these days.
But there are people on the fringe who will not support a movement if it resorts to violence. I certainly wouldn't want to be involved in violent protests and illegal activities. But I attended the women's march and would do it again because the event was safe and well organized.
This was the only kind of organization that was able to get me out there. This type of rallying was the largest and safest in recent history because people did not feel intimidated by the prospect. We are in an era of hyper-reactivity and you cannot give people an excuse to invalidate your messaging.
Yeah it's not fair. It's not right. But we are fighting against something that isn't fair or right. So use the tactics that gets the most people to march with you on the streets. This is about winning, and not about vengeance.
When you use violence, the government knows how to deal with violence. Humour and peaceful protest are something that are harder to combat. That is why you need 30 year old white moms and their daughters showing up. That is why you do not shame them for not showing up for BLM. You need them with you. Shame and guilt will not bring that size of a crowd to you. Kindness, safety, and predictability will do that.
You need them because police are not going to fire bean bags into a crowd of 5 year old white girls.
artistjeffc.tumblr.com http://www.etsy.com/shop/artistjeffc
Its a false narrative that gets dragged out by those benefiting from repressing others, that the media eats up. Its just an extension of a pro-docility bias that is always present in reporting on protests, someone can't get into a building, traffic is blocked, a window broken, doesn't really matter what it is; the narrative is always "OMG Why do the protesters have to do X"
I also think that the way its reported in the media is counter to how we understand history. Did the race riots of the 60s, or the Rodney King riots undermine their cause or highlight it.
I don't know law or how that state, city, ect. handles shootings, but I think the guy was let go because the guy shot didn't press charges. In the article, he expressed empathy towards his shooter, hoping that the two could meet and discuss things later. The guy also turned himself in, which means he didn't do it out of spite. Sounds like to me it is a case of chaos and confusion along with fear caused someone to overreact and the victim understood and forgave the guy. Which, if that is the case, applaud that gentleman for seeking a peaceful solution. The police might still take action, but if the victim doesn't want to, not much reason for the police to do so. Doesn't sound like secret fascist conspiracy to me, in this case.
BLM got police in many states to have to wear body cams, a step towards accountablity. Had BLM been rioting the whole time and not calling out those who did under the BLM banner, then that wouldn't have happened. The police would have spend that money are more lethal weapons and better protection. Riots don't do anything but make your group a monster. Once you start destroying things, you aren't victims, you are criminals.
The problem is that just getting a big enough group together to celebrate a sports victory can turn mob-violent quickly.
I have zero real sympathy for Milo not getting the spout his nonsense, but when random bystanders are getting dragged out of cars and beaten then you have the Nth example in human history about the dangers of crowds getting whipped up about any topic, whether the issue is just or unjust.
I am in agreement that shutting down a street with protest or blocking an airport terminal or the like are valid tactics -- I don't think people being briefly inconvenienced outweighs the gravity of things like a travel ban being enacted.
But does a large anonymous crowd really have the coolheadedness to smash a surveillance camera and not start escalating to hitting people?
Further, our country is full of people carrying guns (CC license or no) and you can go peruse their webforums full of giddy discussions about how eagerly they await the excuse of someone breaking into their house or threatening them or so on to justify using lethal physical force as quickly as possible. It's happened once already and I dread to think of how soon it will happen again.
Obstruction is fine, but not violence against bystanders, nor robbing immigrants of their livelihoods. As someone who lived and worked in LA, that era left a dark mark on the opinions of local businesses that never recovered. We had business owners on top of buildings with shotguns and downtown asian immigrants never moved beyond it.
artistjeffc.tumblr.com http://www.etsy.com/shop/artistjeffc
Sadly, you usually need both. Most successful civil rights movements have had a pacifist wing and a militant wing, including the American Civil Rights movement, the Indian independence movement, and the South African anti-apartheid movement. MLK would probably not have been successful without the Black Panthers to give his peaceful message an undertone of menace.
The civil rights movement succeeded because people were brought in outside of the community to vote for change and to march with each other. Threat of violence turns us into bullys and stains perceptions. Why is there a need to be perceived as a threat? These are real people on the streets being affected by riots, not some huge corporations. How does smashing a shop owner's window make them suddenly put up BLM posters in their store. Is there any scenario you can think of where that could happen?
My friend lost a father to violence. He was just loading stuff into a warehouse when two guys smashed his head in with a 2x4. Why? Because he didn't let them use the bathroom. Do not encourage the notion that racism is justification for violent retribution.
Also there was no bathroom in that warehouse.
artistjeffc.tumblr.com http://www.etsy.com/shop/artistjeffc
Unfortunately that doesn't really work. Student groups may invite whomever they like. The university - both by law and by charter - can't deny even a neo-nazi the opportunity to talk unless there's an imminent threat to safety. Meanwhile, UC in particular tends to pass costs like these along to the students. UC Berkeley being such a prestigious school and incoming students being not-particularly price adverse, vandalism doesn't really hurt the regents at all and the repair cost comes almost entirely out of undergraduates' pockets.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
This is true. Most funding comes from tuition as the regents get paid a guaranteed salary. Repair costs are part of the budget. Smashing windows just sends a violent message. You do get official statements denouncing the violent protests.
artistjeffc.tumblr.com http://www.etsy.com/shop/artistjeffc
And the problem is that this was isolated to 150 people who were members of specific group wearing the same clothes. But the entire Berkeley protest was marred. People reading the feed on facebook aren't going to distinguish between Black Bloc and peaceful protesters.
artistjeffc.tumblr.com http://www.etsy.com/shop/artistjeffc
It's the "speak softly and carry a big stick" principle. You need to demonstrate to the powers that be that if your peaceful demands are not addressed, you have a Plan B up your sleeve. If you don't listen to Martin now, next time you'll get Malcolm. Otherwise you can be ignored.
The First Amendment has exceptions already, and it is hardly beyond consideration that leaving it as it is produces harm not only by entertaining morons like Milo and Bannon, but then effervescing vigilante justice in retribution.
Ignoring the ACAP lot, the premise of society is the creation of laws and enforcement institutions for those laws to reduce harm to the greater populace. It's pretty clear the current set of both is not working.
Breaching the monopoly on violence against people is not something that is either well controlled or singular in direction.
Let me clarify, why is there a need to be perceived as a physical threat? What is the message that you want to send? That black people are violent and dangerous?
You can perceived as threat through other means; economic threat via boycotting and political via voting and organizing. Violence is not the answer, no matter how good it makes you feel. Do not seek vengeance as it will feed into a cycle of hatred that our generation is trying desperately to break free from.
My friend lost a father to a big stick and that did not help her perception of the black community one bit.
artistjeffc.tumblr.com http://www.etsy.com/shop/artistjeffc
I'm of the opinion of when you try to silence someone, you make their voices louder. Like, I didn't know who Milo was until he was banned from Twitter, got a book deal, and suddenly was getting large protests at colleges where he was going to speak. Before, he was a nobody, to me and most people I know. Now, he's a household name, on the news, even my grandfather knows who his is. While I don't mind calling his stuff hate speech, I don't think in the day and age that trying to silence him is going to do any good. Debating his words with reason and logic might keep people from listening to his shit and believing it.
I think that we often feel that one solution can be used to counter people like Milo. Ignoring can only be the first step, until something slips up and he becomes viral. After that, they can't be ignored anymore as that attention quickly becomes self-sustaining without outside help. Social media makes it so that once you get enough views, you kind get stuck as some d-tier internet celeb no matter what you do.
Ex: Jontron got a major subscription boost for his twitter explosion on denouncing the woman's march.
edit: RE: Violent protests. When your group threatens violence if your political or ideological demands are not met, you are essentially terrorists. You are trying to incite change through fear of injury or death and that is not okay.
artistjeffc.tumblr.com http://www.etsy.com/shop/artistjeffc
I am 100% on-board with this.
The United States has among the weakest hate speech laws in the industrialized world. Before the rise of Gamergate and the alt-right, I used think this was a good thing. I was wrong.
There's no political value in speech that broadly denies the basic humanity of large groups of people.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Re the last bit: And when what they're protesting is "you should all die"?
Hate speech laws to make incitement like that illegal. Sadly you are never going to kill ideas like that, but you can limit how many people that message gets out to.
Also doesnt a statement like that already fall under Fighting Words or Incitement?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Right, winning is what's important. But...this protest succeeded in cancelling Milo's talk where other more peaceful protests failed. So can it be said people care about winning if they refuse to use tactics that are proven to work?
Well, you missed the times where he organized harassment of vulnerable people to the point of forcing them to be silent. He and his goons doctored photos of a Sikh man to make him look like a terrorist, to the point where the police advised him to cease using social media. One of his earlier talks targeted a trans student for harassment, and she had to drop out of the school. Furthermore, Milo's Berkley talk had a part where he encouraged people to report undocumented immigrants to ICE. These protests protected their speech, and possibly their lives. Why do they not matter?
Steam: pazython
Would they have still worked if 150 shitbags didnt turn up to wreck the place? I'd like to think so but its unlikely we will ever find out.
They won the battle but they lost the war. Milo doesn't get to speak here, but he might get a real audience when he gets to talk about this on CNN or NBC or Fox News. He gets sympathy because he and his supporters where attacked by a violent mob. He gets to show video of this shit to demonstrate how important it is for him to speak, to uphold the First Amendment.
So, no. The protesters didn't win. They just suicide bombed their fight.
Given similar campus protests have happened with nothing to show for it, I doubt it. I don't like violence or riots and whatnot, but if it's the only way to get people actually realize the harm they're doing, then I can't exactly in good conscious oppose it. If pleas of humanity were enough to get UC Berkley to listen, they would never have invited Milo to begin with.
There's a term for people who sympathize with Nazis. If this makes people sympathize with Milo, they were never good people to begin with.
Edit: And why aren't CNN, NBC, Fox, et. al. interviewing his victims? Right, because we accept all forms of right-wing violence in this country.
Steam: pazython
That's what you're inviting when you invite riots. You're inviting generations of ruin upon your city. Ferguson got crushed post riots and is still depressed below pre-riot levels, even 3 years out, as businesses and people who left have yet to return. Similarly, Baltimore's crime rate has skyrocketed to historic levels post riots, averaging one murder a day so far in 2017.
So while riots may highlight problems to the nation, you absolutely do not want one in your backyard.
This is what I find problematic about the situation. He canceled his talk due to threat of violence. But violence was carried out anyways. That gave him several talking points as well as an increased audience. So the talk was canceled. But the question is whether this was a victory at all. People felt good stopping him this one instance, but can it be called a victory if the outcome was net negative for the protesters?
artistjeffc.tumblr.com http://www.etsy.com/shop/artistjeffc
Banning Milo from Twitter didn't give him a platform. It was a story because he already had a platform.
The dude literally has the President of the United States stumping for him, and people act like he's losing his voice to the mean old protesters.
It hasn't even been 24 hours, so we can't say either way. But if the punching of Richard Spencer is any indication, then this should prove to be effective.
Steam: pazython
But punching Spencer wasn't effective. It blew up conversation about whether or not punching a nazi was deemed ethical. It watered down the messaging of the protests and galvanized members of the Alt Right. he became a martyr over-night.
I do not condone violence for political activism because it creates victims. Even if you are a victim and want to get back at people, doing that will not get the people you need on your side. Do not keep the people who can help you from helping you due to bitterness. The movement for equality needs help from everyone. We cannot take out our anger on bystanders that will prompt physical retaliation and create victims. We cannot continue a cycle of violence that divides communities. Do not let the hatred and pain that you feel lash out at people who might be willing to help you. Do not belittle the many women that marched for equality just because they've not marched for you. We must be more inclusive for that is what all this marching is all about.
And no that does not mean we also include hate speech.
artistjeffc.tumblr.com http://www.etsy.com/shop/artistjeffc
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I would except the videos show otherwise. And don't tell me it was 150 members of some black mask group, in the videos you see whole crowds of people joining in on the violence, smashing buildings, cars, and people. So while they might have came for a good intentions, they marched their ways to Hell.