Peaceful Protests

[Marrow]

1 hour ago, Arodash said:

a police officer who isnt racist by the act of engaging in his job is fighting racism, because he is upholding the constitution as well as the laws of his state and dispenssing with said justice in a fair non racial manner, therefore, fighting racism.

This is a good point, if "all cops are racist" then the cops that arent racist are fighting the system therefore, fighting against racism

[R_1]

Now that the protest discussion moved to here. What do you say about this? Do not watch if sensitive.

 

 

 

 

 

[Marrow]

19 hours ago, R_1 said:

Now that the protest discussion moved to here. What do you say about this? Do not watch if sensitive.

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I mean its awful, but not very surprising. Its similar to sticking your hand in water and being surprised its wet.

[Marrow]

So let me ask you guys something, but first watch this...

Spoiler

https://www.foxnews.com/media/don-lemon-chuck-todd-barr-hearing-jim-jordan

 

Yes I know its fox, but I couldnt find a way to link the video directly. The video is from the Barr hearing last night and has zero interference from fox.

My question is: Why is it so hard for people to admit to and denounce riots?

 

Im not putting anyone here on trial, but I see this so often. The media claims its "peaceful" and if i mention the riots someone quickly snaps back "They're mostly peaceful" like does that really matter? You dont have to suport rioting to support protest. I feel a lot more people would agree with protests if more people and the media would just denounce the rioting. I think Perskectiv put it best...

On 7/26/2020 at 4:22 PM, Perspektiv said:

Yes I do, but ironically speaking, the peaceful protestors are getting a slight taste of what it is like to be a black male in a city and labeled a threat, before any dialogue is had.

 

The majority are good. Obviously no harm is meant, when you consider the volume of families that make the trek. Kids.

 

Yet, they unfairly have to bear the weight of the actions for a mere minority which share their same appearance.

 

Being a black male, this has been my entire life.

 

Me with braids and a sweater, is me up to no good. Potentially about to commit a crime, around the wrong police officer.

 

Also an irony that all cops aren't bad, either.

 

You can't push forth that narrative, then get mad when its pushed onto you.

 

I don't feel bad for the peaceful protesters getting a bad rap as a result. You should aggressively denounce those hijacking your movement. There is no need for it. No place.

 

Organizers should do the same.

 

If this is the case, then the case can be made that peaceful protesters should be separated from the bad. Silence is acceptance. Same reason cops are painted with the same brush, until that silence and protection of your brothers in blue, is removed.

 

I have zero fear of calling out someone with my skin color pulling bullshit acts, and playing the victim. Peaceful protesters need to man up and call the rioters what they are. Terrorists. Rioters.

 

Make it clear. You're not welcome.

 

[R_1]

Yes, it matters because we do have knowledge that there will always be people that starts up shit to delegitimize the message of a protest. Imposter rioters are things and have been use in other places to justify actions against protesters because they know people will turn a blind eye to the protests and by effect, discredit them.

[Missing]

3 hours ago, Marrow said:

The media claims its "peaceful" and if i mention the riots someone quickly snaps back "They're mostly peaceful" like does that really matter?

It does, because there are a number of people who use the fact that there are riots as a way of discrediting the movement behind the peaceful protests.

 

Now, obviously, if someone states that a specific riot was a peaceful protests, that would be incorrect, but with how much attention the riots are getting, it sometimes feels necessary to remind people that the majority of these protests are in fact peaceful, they just get less coverage.

 

I agree that it’s usually good optics to denounce the use of rioting as a tactic for political change. That said, I don’t think anyone except the rioters should answer for the actions of the rioters, just like I don’t think people who peacefully protest outside abortion clinics should have to answer for the actions of people who murder abortion doctors. It might still be a smart political move to denounce those actions anyway, though, but I won’t expect it of them, personally.

[Marrow]

@R_1 @Mackenzie Holiday

Personally, i think its unessecary. If i were to be specifically calling all protests riots then, yes, I understand. I'm talking whenever someone talks about the riots themselves theres always someone chiming in "their mostly peaceful". When people constantly say that in response to riots it really gives off the impression that your trying to gloss over the riots. Maybe thats not your intentions, but it really seems that way with some people.

 

R_1

Spoiler

5 hours ago, R_1 said:

Yes, it matters because we do have knowledge that there will always be people that starts up shit to delegitimize the message of a protest. Imposter rioters are things and have been use in other places to justify actions against protesters because they know people will turn a blind eye to the protests and by effect, discredit them.

Yes, I'm aware of that possibility, however I can see that quickly becoming a scape goat if overused. It's better to assume the likely than the unlikely. Also if BLM came out and said "We dont support riots" then they would be lifted from responsibility. Wouldnt matter at that point if an imposter started up, BLM denounced it, but at this point its too late. Also if you saw in the video there was multiple examples of media personalities calling the riots peaceful so thier not really a threat in my opinion.

Mackenzie

Spoiler

5 hours ago, Mackenzie Holiday said:

It does, because there are a number of people who use the fact that there are riots as a way of discrediting the movement behind the peaceful protests.

 

Now, obviously, if someone states that a specific riot was a peaceful protests, that would be incorrect, but with how much attention the riots are getting, it sometimes feels necessary to remind people that the majority of these protests are in fact peaceful, they just get less coverage.

 

I agree that it’s usually good optics to denounce the use of rioting as a tactic for political change. That said, I don’t think anyone except the rioters should answer for the actions of the rioters, just like I don’t think people who peacefully protest outside abortion clinics should have to answer for the actions of people who murder abortion doctors. It might still be a smart political move to denounce those actions anyway, though, but I won’t expect it of them, personally.

Your asking the criminal to jail themself; wishful thinking. True, we dont ask that of abortion protestors, but the difference is one person commited a crime compared to a angry mob of people commiting multiple crimes and shouting "Black Lives Matter". At that point its nessecary to bring distinction between the two. In nearly every one of MLK's he made sure to clarify he was pro peace, regardless of how many times he'd said it before.

 

I dont expect BLM to say anything because, honestly, I dont think they care. Free publicity is free publicity and as long as those donations are flowing their happy.

 

[Marrow]

It appears we have entered the same room on this matter. One side has to tell everyone "Not all cops are racist" and the other has to tell everyone "Not all protests are riots". We are more alike in are way of thinking then some may even realize.

[Missing]

26 minutes ago, Marrow said:

Your asking the criminal to jail themself

I’m not, I’m saying I don’t think people who haven’t committed any crimes should be expected to denounce the crimes of others. It’s good optics to do so, but I disagree with the idea that they should be expected to. The expectation that someone should have to denounce someone else’s actions encourages an attitude that people are guilty by association with others who share a similar ideology, which is something I strongly disagree with.

 

That’s just my point of view, though.

[Mostly Peaceful Ryan]

 

[gisiebob]

if we are not calling all protests riots, then why are we talking about the riots in the thread specifically for the nonrioting  protests?

[Marrow]

15 hours ago, Mackenzie Holiday said:

I’m not, I’m saying I don’t think people who haven’t committed any crimes should be expected to denounce the crimes of others. It’s good optics to do so, but I disagree with the idea that they should be expected to. The expectation that someone should have to denounce someone else’s actions encourages an attitude that people are guilty by association with others who share a similar ideology, which is something I strongly disagree with.

 

That’s just my point of view, though.

No it does not. Denouncing something helps to clear the publics vision and draw a line. The Muslim community denounced terrorists to seperate themselves from extremists in the middle east so people wouldnt be able to blame them. When you dont say anything at all it makes you look like you either dont care or you silently agree with it. As I said no one would blame BLM if they did denounced it, but its too late now.

[Missing]

1 hour ago, Marrow said:

No it does not. Denouncing something helps to clear the publics vision and draw a line.

It does help clear the public vision and draws a line, because most of the time people in an ideological group are considered guilty by association of the violent acts of other members within that ideological group. Which is an attitude I disagree with.

 

1 hour ago, Marrow said:

The Muslim community denounced terrorists to seperate themselves from extremists in the middle east so people wouldnt be able to blame them.

Right, because people were considering them guilty by association because people were fallaciously associating all Muslims with terrorists.

 

1 hour ago, Marrow said:

When you dont say anything at all it makes you look like you either dont care or you silently agree with it.

I disagree with making that assumption that someone must not care or must silently agree with people they don't go sufficiently out of their way to denounce.

 

1 hour ago, Marrow said:

As I said no one would blame BLM if they did denounced it

You're right, they probably wouldn't. But I don't think it's right that they were blamed in the first place. 🤷‍♀️

[Marrow]

5 hours ago, gisiebob said:

if we are not calling all protests riots, then why are we talking about the riots in the thread specifically for the nonrioting  protests?

Because I asked this question:

On 7/29/2020 at 7:38 AM, Marrow said:

My question is: Why is it so hard for people to admit to and denounce riots?

I did so here becuase I thought it was the best place to find the people with differing opinions.

My question had nothing to do with and i had no intention to compare the riots with protestors. 

[Missing]

7 minutes ago, Arodash said:

So do you also disagree when people say "silence is consent" 

Yes, I personally do.

[Marrow]

4 minutes ago, Mackenzie Holiday said:

It does help clear the public vision and draws a line, because most of the time people in an ideological group are considered guilty by association of the violent acts of other members within that ideological group. Which is an attitude I disagree with.

 

Right, because people were considering them guilty by association because people were fallaciously associating all Muslims with terrorists.

 

I disagree with making that assumption that someone must not care or must silently agree with people they don't go sufficiently out of their way to denounce.

 

You're right, they probably wouldn't. But I don't think it's right that they were blamed in the first place. 🤷‍♀️

1. I agree. This sorta behavoir hurts the oppertunity for dialogue to start. When there's no dialouge things dont get resolved.

 

2. Right, and in doing so they were cleared. Anybody who would try and make that claim again would be quickly debunked.

 

3. Thats just how the public is. The same thing happens when a cop shoots someone. The people want to know what the chief is going to do, they want answers. People dont like obscurity.

 

4. I dont think its right either, but unfortuanatly the riots are so closely attached that clarity is needed. The people want to know where the officially stand on the matter, but staying silent leaves the people to speculate and conspire.

[Missing]

4 minutes ago, Marrow said:

1. I agree. This sorta behavoir hurts the oppertunity for dialogue to start. When there's no dialouge things dont get resolved.

My thoughts exactly.

 

4 minutes ago, Marrow said:

2. Right, and in doing so they were cleared. Anybody who would try and make that claim again would be quickly debunked.

I agree that it's a good idea and good optics for groups to denounce the people they don't want to be associated with if they're being associated with them.

 

5 minutes ago, Marrow said:

3. Thats just how the public is. The same thing happens when a cop shoots someone. The people want to know what the chief is going to do, they want answers. People dont like obscurity.

There is a difference, to me at least, when it comes to the actions of a police chief in response to abusive cops within their ranks. Honestly, I don't think it's as important that the police chief denounces racist, abusive cops, but I do expect them to use their authority to ensure those abuses don't happen again (because that's their job).

 

9 minutes ago, Marrow said:

4. I dont think its right either, but unfortuanatly the riots are so closely attached that clarity is needed. The people want to know where the officially stand on the matter, but staying silent leaves the people to speculate and conspire.

I agree that it would help their movement a lot of they did more to denounce rioting, but there are already plenty of people calling for them to denounce the riots. I would rather spend my energy questioning why so many of us feel justified in distributing responsibility for people's actions to their entire ideological group in the first place. I think the more that's questioned, the more we will be able to have meaningful dialog, like you said.

[Marrow]

4 hours ago, Mackenzie Holiday said:

My thoughts exactly.

 

I agree that it's a good idea and good optics for groups to denounce the people they don't want to be associated with if they're being associated with them.

 

There is a difference, to me at least, when it comes to the actions of a police chief in response to abusive cops within their ranks. Honestly, I don't think it's as important that the police chief denounces racist, abusive cops, but I do expect them to use their authority to ensure those abuses don't happen again (because that's their job).

 

I agree that it would help their movement a lot of they did more to denounce rioting, but there are already plenty of people calling for them to denounce the riots. I would rather spend my energy questioning why so many of us feel justified in distributing responsibility for people's actions to their entire ideological group in the first place. I think the more that's questioned, the more we will be able to have meaningful dialog, like you said.

1. Agreed

 

2. Agreed

 

3. I probably should have worded this one better because what you said is what I meant to say. Completely agree the Chief needs to take action instead of doing nothing, but i think it highlights the importance of taking action to bring clarity

 

4. I guess this is where we reach an impasse because I would prefer the end of the riots and I'm hoping that denouncing them would take the wind from their sails and give more attention to protestors. Regardless, I'm 100% behind you in your quest for answers. I have my own theories, but I'll save that for a different discussion. I will say though when that time does come I'll be ready for it.

[Missing]

@Arodash wouldn’t that video be more relevant in one of the coronavirus/mask threads?

[Missing]

1 minute ago, Arodash said:

I think its relevant in both to be honest

While it is on the topic of (peaceful) protests, my goal in making this thread was to start a conversation about the degrees of attention peaceful and violent protests should be getting, not to just talk about protests in general, since there are already a number of protest-related threads.

[Missing]

Just now, Arodash said:

fair enough, would you like me to delete my post then?

No, don’t worry about it. I just wanted to be proactive about making sure the thread doesn’t get too general.

[Marrow]

2 hours ago, Arodash said:

I wanna point out also, in the news today I saw reports of the peaceful protestors stopping those who where trying to become violent, which is AWESOME. I will support them all the way on that

It reminds me of the early days of all this. During the mass looting I remember a small group of BLM protestors denouncing the looters. Sucked to see that their little group was practically washed away by the chaos.

[Marrow]

1 minute ago, Arodash said:

they are regaining strength, the peaceful people are tired of the idiots causing trouble

Like I've said in the past, I dont really support their movement, but I fully support them protesting. If they needed help getting rid of rioters id be right at their side

[Alaska Native Manitou]

"The protesters are getting violent" is what you're supposed to think:

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/06/27/fbi-running-illegal-cointelpro-against-blm-smears-and-hoaxes-paid-for-by-taxpayers/

https://www.democracynow.org/2020/9/2/daniel_thompson_kenosha_news_jacob_blake

[EvaKnievel]

So I would suggest not trying to narrow the discussion to just being about relative attention, there is a lot going on regarding protests and how they work that has nothing to do with how the media reacts. In most situations the media will work against the protests unless the news outlet buys into the political ideology of the protestors because the media are almost always part of the status quo and protests are a mechanism for challenging the status quo.

 

A protest is a show of power, the ideology is proven strong by bringing people out on the streets, the message is that we can hit back. Even if it's "peaceful" the message should always be that it's only peaceful for now, this is your opportunity to negotiate before we fuck you up. In a fully democratic society this doesn't actually require breaking laws or engaging in violence, they simply have to demonstrate that they can get out the vote when the time comes. If it's not possible to create change through democratic means you need to prove that you have a different form of power. Labour unions go on strike, taxis can go slowly on a motorway, poor people can steal from the wealthier. The important part is to make your impact felt, to make everyone realise that they can't actually ignore you.

 

I was in Egypt in 2011, for them it was really easy to make their impact felt because just by protesting they were breaking the law, if you can break the law and get away with it you have already won ground for your protest. The police responded by escalating the violence, torture, forced disappearances, driving vans into the crowd, shooting protestors, it was more violent than what's happening in America at the moment but it reminds me of it a lot. The Egyptian protestors ran the police off the streets, when I was there after the protests had won there wasn't a single policeman on the streets, I saw the inside of a police station which was completely burnt out, the army were everywhere but no police.

 

If your protest isn't capable of fighting against brutality it will lose, if it can't control the narrative it will lose, if it ignores really big threats like the army it will lose, there are so many reasons that protests fail. It's actually really rare that protests succeed because you are fighting against a better funded more organized enemy.

 

When it comes to peaceful vs violent protest no one should care one way or the other, what matters is how are the status quo going to respond to what is ultimately a demonstration of immense suffering. If the status quo sits back and judges people in poverty for stealing then it doesn't deserve to survive this era.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, EvaKnievel said:

When it comes to peaceful vs violent protest no one should care one way or the other

I disagree. 

 

The true power of your protest, is in the collective ideal you are fighting for.

 

People feeling violence helps their cause, against a far better armed and media backed opponent, are day dreaming. 

 

You must fight intelligently and in a calculated manner. This is true power, when the power is deafening yet controlled. People then buy into your cause in droves. 

 

Every fire burnt, ever business destroyed, is a handful of votes for Donald Trump. 

 

These were people minding their business. Businesses that often times, employed a highly marginalized workforce. Now told they are jobless. 

 

Your message shouldn't target those who are in your corner. That's how you turn them against you. 

 

I saw a video of an irate black store owner angrily pointing an assault rifle at a cowering BLM protester begging for his life. After having his business set on fire and looted, I honestly would have laughed if he lit the protester up. Thing is, that was a waste of space, and not worth the cost of those bullets. His nearly peeing his pants all over the internet, should be enough karma. Only a coward would try to ransack an innocent civilian's business. 

 

You're fighting the police and the government. Why in the actual fuck  are you making a miserable year for small business owners, even worse. 

 

Do these idiots even know what they are fighting for anymore or even understand the cause. I see so many interviewed that clearly don't have a clue. 

 

Martin Luther King would be turning in his grave, seeing the handling of the BLM movement. 

 

The irony is these protesters finally know what its truly like to live with my skin color, and having to constantly answer for the actions of the minority within their group.

 

Do I think its fair? Absolutely, since they have the loudest voice.

[Alaska Native Manitou]

 

Quote

Martin Luther King would be turning in his grave, seeing the handling of the BLM movement.

https://twitter.com/officialmlk3/status/1266040838628560898

https://timeline.com/by-the-end-of-his-life-martin-luther-king-realized-the-validity-of-violence-4de177a8c87b

 

He never led any violence himself but was constantly accused of it:

https://www.vox.com/2016/1/18/10777146/mlk-day-martin-luther-king

[Guest]

2 hours ago, 2SpiritCherokeePrincess said:

 

https://twitter.com/officialmlk3/status/1266040838628560898

https://timeline.com/by-the-end-of-his-life-martin-luther-king-realized-the-validity-of-violence-4de177a8c87b

 

He never led any violence himself but was constantly accused of it:

https://www.vox.com/2016/1/18/10777146/mlk-day-martin-luther-king

Martin Luther King was fighting for a just cause. 

 

Many of these protesters are opportunists. Many don't even know what they are fighting for. 

 

Some are demanding reparations, to the full disbanding of the police. 

 

There isn't even a fully consistent consensus, nor leadership. 

 

There aren't even solutions in their minds, as they are all over the place on that, too. 

 

Violence can be a tool if used properly.

 

The BLM are mostly peaceful protesters, the the loudest of them are opportunistic thugs.

 

To me, I would want to see a politician in place who would allow the peaceful protests to occur, and bring the entire weight of the law on those who choose to break it. 

[Guest]

Someone needs to stand up to the opportunistic thugs. 

 

I want heavy handed jail sentences on anyone destroying a war memorial. 

 

Like I said  every one that gets destroyed, along with property, is a vote for Trump. 

 

Those behind this movement have the right idea, but just act like selfish idiots for a percentage of them to where I would never be caught dead protesting with them as am silently accepting that behavior. 

[Missing]

19 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

The BLM are mostly peaceful protesters, the the loudest of them are opportunistic thugs.

They’re not any louder than anyone else, they’re just the ones we give the microphone to.