this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
754 points (100.0% liked)

196

667 readers
96 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 98 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This is an actual conversation I had with my oldest nephew when we went to the Boston Tea Party Museum last week.

"If you ever hear people complaining that damaging commercial property during a protest is unacceptable, remember what you learn about the Tea Party today. Our country was literally founded on protests trashing commercial property. And remember that some people complained to them that it was unacceptable too."

[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

What a fucking asshole. Maybe your position will change when it's your property that's being destroyed.

Destroying private property does not make politicians or police question their choices. It barely hurts them in any way. You know who it hurts? Your friends and neighbors who had abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with whatever it is you're upset about.

The Sons of Liberty only destroyed property that was directly responsible for their oppression.

You wanna go burn down the mayor's house? The police commissioner's house? The police union HQ? Have the fuck at it, you have my full support.

You wanna burn down the local convenience store or meat market? You wanna destroy vehicles and businesses that belong to your neighbors who are suffering alongside you? You're human garbage.

[–] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Second verse, same as the first:

"IIt was the Sons of Liberty who ransacked houses of British officials. Threats and intimidation were their weapons against tax collectors, causing many to flee town. Images of unpopular figures might be hanged and burned in effigy on the town's liberty tree.

Of course, the winners write the history books. Had the American Revolution failed, the Sons and Daughters of Liberty would no doubt be regarded as a band of thugs, or at the very least, outspoken troublemakers."

https://www.ushistory.org/us/10b.asp#:~:text=It%20was%20the%20Sons%20of,on%20the%20town's%20Liberty%20Tree.

I'll let Dr. King do the talking:

"A riot is the language of the unheard. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/05/29/minneapolis-protest-martin-luther-king-quote-riot-george-floyd/5282486002/

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White citizens’ “Councilor” or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direst action” who paternistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/letter-from-birmingham-jail

[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Of course, the winners write the history books. Had the American Revolution failed, the Sons and Daughters of Liberty would no doubt be regarded as a band of thugs, or at the very least, outspoken troublemakers."

So then you agree?

"A riot is the language of the unheard. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again."

Your mistake is conflating an explanation with a justification.

the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice

Maybe you glossed over the part where I supported disorder. The problem is with how and where (and not when, as you suggested) that disorder takes place.

Remind me: did they burn down or steal from MLK's church?

[–] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Third verse, same as the first:

This is an actual conversation I had with my oldest nephew when we went to the Boston Tea Party Museum last week.

"If you ever hear people complaining that damaging commercial property during a protest is unacceptable, remember what you learn about the Tea Party today. Our country was literally founded on protests trashing commercial property. And remember that some people complained to them that it was unacceptable too."

See also Dr. King:

"who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action” who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom"

[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dude I think your record is broken. If you're just going to repeat the same nonsense over and over without acknowledging my responses I can safely block you and move on with my day.

[–] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago
[–] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

I'm not getting into how overly exaggerated incidents of property damage during the BLM protests were. You're not interested in facts

[–] beta_particle@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Historically inaccurate concern trolling. Nice.

[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you going to actually construct an argument against me or just throw up some fancy words you learned on the internet and bail?

[–] beta_particle@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nah I don't owe ya that lol. Next.

[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

You don't owe me your trolling either but you saw fit to put that on me regardless.

[–] Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone 46 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Based take.

I swear, if you could teleport some people back to the French revolution, they'd be like "No need to protest, the king will give up absolute power on his own if we keep asking nicely" 🙄

[–] BloodForTheBloodGod@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 year ago

The idea of a Right Wing literally exists because the deputies who thought that way in France back then took the right side of the chamber.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago

The French Revolution is way more complex and nuanced than that, and saying the people protested against the power of the king per se is really missing the point.

A better example would have been King Charles I and the English civil war.

[–] parlaptie@feddit.de 45 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Would be nice if we could start at not demonizing peaceful protests. Nowadays any protest is seen as a massive misguided problem of you so much as block a street.

[–] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

But then muh car can't move! Go defend your human rights somewhere where it doesn't inconvenience me!

spoiler/s

[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

In fairness, I've got too many emergency workers in my family not to draw the line at fully blocking thoroughfares. Can you look an EMT in the eye who has had a patient die while their ambulence couldn't get through protestors to the hospital and insist you're in the right? Happens more than you'd want to know. Can't find statistics, but googling it shows just page upon page of different incidents, and unfortunately most of the time shit like that happens it isn't published since it's all HIPAA-complicated to discuss that stuff.

You want to inconvenience someone walking into a Macdonalds? Go ahead. But keep the artery roads clear. It's not about convenience, it's about shutting down life-saving infrastructure. Those assholes that cemented themselves to 93N in Boston 5 years back didn't earn any sympathy from anyone, even their own cause.

To simplify, the only way to get me not to stand beside you in defending your human rights is if you're recklessly taking away someone else's.

[–] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good point. I was thinking more about people just driving in their cars, but I now see that I was a bit ignorant about emergency vehicles.

[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

That's why I replied. You seemed like you'd be receptive to that side of things.

Protest is complicated. The less you inconvenience people, the less effective it is. The more you inconvenience people, the more harm you can do and the more fence-sitters might find a good reason to challenge you. We shouldn't NEED protests, but we do.

I think most of the time BLM is a great modern example of doing it right. It shows how much to take the "protesting is wrong" attitude with a grain of salt because so many good peaceful BLM rallies get painted as riots anyway. Yet through all the horseshit, progress.

Just progress with as few deaths as possible, if we can :)

[–] Holzkohlen@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago

Dang kids should do their climate strike on the weekends!
Not much of a strike then, is it? You want workers to strike in their free time too? That will show 'em!

[–] Vampiric_Luma@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

I like the spoiler XD

spoilerI really do~

[–] Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Riots are generally an escalation of peaceful protests, sure there are exceptions.

Usually, riots break out when people get so frustrated at the fact that no progress gets made during protests that they start to lash out.

[–] colin@lemmy.uninsane.org 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

my favorite is whenever i encounter the phrase "non-permitted protest". like, the idea that you should ask permission from the authority you're protesting before doing so: it's just so laughably missing the point

[–] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 year ago

Yep. Having to get permission from some authority in order to oppose the authority in question makes no sense.

[–] NotAPenguin@kbin.social 21 points 1 year ago

Yep.. People hate protests because they don't understand that's how it has always worked.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 year ago

We should just start calling riots championship football celebrations. Then the media and the pols would love them.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

When localities pass ordinances to restrict more peaceful protests, they run the risk of pressurizing into even more violent and illegal protest situations.

I try to explain this to my dad. Protest means that people are unhappy and feel like their voices aren't being heard. People need to be motivated to do it. It's an effect, not a cause.

[–] Rindel@lemmy.fmhy.ml 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

When I was growing up I had a lot of right-wing influences in my ear; I almost grew up to be an alt-right/fascist psycho. I've reformed now, and I'm the polar opposite of where I was when I was younger, but I hope I can offer a little insight into why protest is so demonized: it's because people don't think it actually works.

Protests, riots, and other public shows of solidarity are viewed in the same way as a petition: it's not going to actually get anything done, it's just raising awareness and trying to get people to agree with you. This is, of course, a fundamental misunderstanding of what protest (or even petitions) are really about... But when I was in that mindset, I didn't care to know more, and I didn't bother to read into. There's a great deal of cognitive dissonance regarding it, because historically-speaking, protests are typically lionized, i.e. the Boston Tea Party.

I'm not saying to sympathize either; being a fashy shithead is first and foremost a choice. I just hope this helps with understanding a bit more. ACAB, taxation is theft, keep fighting the good fight.

[–] tias@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't think protests work and sometimes I roll my eyes when I hear about them. But it's just because I'm disillusioned, and far be it from me to stop anyone from trying.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemmy.fmhy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

What is protest about in your opinion then?

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.one 11 points 1 year ago

As a Portlander, we had our fair share of riots... The problem is any lack of a coherent message.

Things would start off fine during the day with a Black Lives Matter protest, but as soon as the sun went down it became taken over by anarchist white kids who just wanted an excuse to break things and steal shit.

Not all protests are the same, and when you have people attacking an Historical Society for no good goddamn reason, that's where you lose support:

https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2021/04/portland-church-park-historical-society-damaged-in-downtown-riot-the-destruction-is-pretty-gnarly.html

Same for blocking streets and freeways. You want to piss off your intended audience? Keep them from going home.

https://www.wweek.com/news/2020/06/09/portland-protesters-briefly-seize-a-freeway-but-police-refrain-from-using-more-force/

To top things off... the things they were protesting had fuck all to do with Portland. What do you want Portland to do about ANY of this shit?

[–] Kalkaline@lemmy.one 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Riots are a last resort because people end up dead or in jail if they fail. You want to keep people who are on your side free and alive while achieving your goals.

[–] vaeleery@kbin.social 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.

MLK Jr. - “The Other America,” 1968

Love this quote, everyone starts with the last sentence and sometimes include a few sentences after that but I think this section is the most generically useful bit. This applies everywhere for every struggle of the oppressed.

[–] Rentlar 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

For context this is the full quote, where MLK Jr. condemns riots but also equally condemns the conditions that cause people to riot: inequality, injustice, lack of humanity, lack of progress.

Let me say, as I’ve always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I’m still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapons available to oppress[ed] people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve, that in a real sense, it is impractical for the Negro to even think of mounting a violent revolution in the United States. So I will continue to condemn riots and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way. Continue to affirm that there is another way.

But at the same time, it is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities, as it is for me to condemn riots. I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society, which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. And in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. So in a real sense, our nation’s summer’s riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.

[–] Kalkaline@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Wise words, but I think even MLK Jr would say take the peaceful approach first. You have to give peace a chance. If that doesn't work, you escalate from there, but you don't go scorched earth without trying the alternatives first.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He used peace because the bigots seeing "inferior violent savages" organizing peaceful protests made them more uncomfortable than if they were violent. It's not because he thought violent protest was outright bad, just not as useful in his circumstances. He worked along side of organizers who did use violence. His approach was likely strengthened by this. Also, so many of his protests were called riots by the media. If you take a stand against the monied, they will use it to make your movement appear violent and evil even when it's not.

[–] Kalkaline@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago

You do understand I'm not saying "riots and violence don't have a place", they absolutely do. What I'm saying is don't go straight to riots and violence unless peaceful options have been exhausted. The French and US revolutions were two prime examples of violence bringing change, and I can't say there was anything wrong with what the people were doing as those in power refused to accept peaceful resolution.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 5 points 1 year ago

His way was nonviolent, not peaceful.

What he was doing and why is often buried in history class - you could put it as "exploiting the system until everyone feels the hurt"

Civil disobedience wasn't about a message or public sentiment - they were about getting arrested. You make a scene, the police are called, you refuse to cooperate until they're forced to arrest you.

Having been arrested, they either let you go and you do it again, or they charge you - and now you're in the court system. Now you have standing to challenge the laws, appeal to higher courts, and counter-sue

They tied up the courts, ground businesses to a halt, and disrupted people's lives

It wasn't physically violent, but it was violent in a more metaphorical way. They didn't win over hearts and minds... They just made it more politically costly to keep fighting them off than to give in

And there's an argument to be made that this all wouldn't have worked without the black Panthers... Their purpose was to show up armed when the police came to black neighborhoods. They were an unspoken threat - we're playing within the rules of the system, but if you break them all bets are off

[–] topRamen@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago

As long as no one is damaging private property of people who have nothing to do with what is being rioted over.

[–] Robaque@feddit.it 7 points 1 year ago

Seems like Heisenburg was a one trick pony. Jesse was the real visionary all along!