Add me to the list, I just went back and liked it.
You liked a post that supports violence and says that peaceful actions are useless. If that’s your thing, then the same questions I posed to @zikzak, I pose to you.
Again, what’s your point? Are you saying that basic self-defense is an implicit support of violent riots? Are you saying that MLK would support @zikzak’s post that endorses violence and disparages peaceful actions?
If so, that’s rather delusional.
Did you not read Milliefink’s post, where she quoted MLK defending rioters?
Did you fail to notice that Zikzak was discussing what the police describe as violence, each time putting quotes around the word?
Was he defending rioters, so much as explaining them? He said riot(er)s were to be deplored, but are understandable, if I’m reading that right.
3 Likes
Did you not read Milliefink’s post, where she quoted MLK defending rioters?
I obviously read it since I responded to it. Did you not read my response to that post where I addressed that?
MLK was not endorsing riots. He was explaining what was causing them. There’s a huge difference.
Did you fail to notice that Zikzak was discussing what the police describe as violence, each time putting quotes around the word?
Did you fail to notice that @zikzak has outright endorsed violent riots as a solution while also claiming peaceful actions are useless? That is what I responded to.
Again, how about you make a point and address me directly and let’s take it from there. Please stop pussyfooting around.
Then you’re not really listening to what I’m saying.
In context, I think it’s most accurate to call MLK’s comments a defense, as the question of the moment was how to respond to rioters. No, it wasn’t an endorsement.
Violent as defined by the police. And as used by the police, “violence” has included some acts of property destruction, but mostly it’s meant failing to strictly follow police instructions.
“Peaceful demonstrations” have come to be defined as strictly in conformance with police instructions – and those are ineffective.
4 Likes
I wonder how many states would have legalized same sex marriage by 2015 if the Stonewall riots had never happened.
4 Likes
Sure, as I said previously within this thread, that was MLK expressing his understanding of how the riots and looting happen (and who is at fault). As I said, I fully understand the anger that leads to the violence as well. I don’t differ from MLK’s thoughts on this whatsoever.
However, if one bothers to read the vast majority of MLK’s writings and speeches, he is overwhelmingly against using such violent methods as a way to progress human rights.
I find it a bit disingenuous that people are propping up this one blurb written by MLK and attempting to blow it out of proportion and away from the context of the rest of his life’s work which robustly advocated for peaceful solutions.
Peaceful demonstrations are effective. The results I’ve listed here speak for themselves. It’s rather delusional, in my opinion, to deny that.
Do peaceful demonstrations solve everything? No, nothing does. That’s why it’s called a civil rights struggle. It’s our human condition. It’s an ongoing struggle against oppression and ignorance.
That’s why I support and participate in many forms of peaceful activism that includes civil disobedience among many other peaceful methodologies.
That’s my point. I’m still struggling to understand yours. Do you think violence is the answer or not? The problem I have with @zikzak is the post where he or she promoted violence in replace of peaceful activism.
1 Like
I think you’ve made a bit of an assumption about what it means to “like” a post. Personally, I have liked posts that I feel offer some valuable insight, even if I don’t agree with them 100% (which has sometimes led to me liking posts that, on face value, contradict each other, as long as I saw something of value in each viewpoint). While I don’t condone violence, I do feel that it’s inevitable when people are pushed far enough, and that, justified or not, it has lasting effects which may cause permanent change. I don’t think peaceful protest is useless, nor do I think MLK was a minor part of the civil rights movement, but I think it’s important to acknowledge that, while courageous and responsible for a lot of progress, he wasn’t the end-all-be-all of the movement- it was a variety of different leaders, groups and tactics. So no, I don’t agree absolutely with everything zikzak said, but I do think it’s good to be reminded that the goal of the protests isn’t to appease anyone and that violence has indeed played a part in the civil rights movement before, for better or worse, and that’s enough to get a “like” from me.
I have little doubt that you wouldn’t have done the same, as you seem to put a lot of time, passion and research into your posts and are very confrontational with them (that’s not meant to be an insult, I think that directness can be a good thing), and probably see the significance of liking a post as something much more serious. So, let your venom fly if you must, but it might be a bit wasted on me, since I’m not as extreme in my beliefs as you may have thought.
9 Likes
This video is probably on the front page of Stormfront by now.
Not all Nazi’s, man.
Personally I think there are four different ‘times’ at the same time, which I will call a ‘time cube’. So in this cube there are bananas and parrots and soot…
Wait, where am I?
Oh, right.
My flippant but sincere response. Mandatory camp fires for all involved, compulsory joints for all involved, and no alcohol. Every person must find five other people they have something in common with, and at least two must be from “the other side”.
Anger is to be met with chocolate, depression is to be met from the popping of bubble wrap, indignation means you plant a flower, narcissism means you give a foot rub to a stranger, and psychopaths are banned to their homeland, Wall Street.
5 Likes
That’s why I asked questions. I wanted to know if you supported violence like @zikzak very clearly does.
That said, I really don’t see much value in that post as it outright supports violence as an answer and disparages all peaceful actions as fruitless.
It’s one thing to acknowledge what led to the violence and discuss that situation, it’s quite another to endorse and recommend violence as @zikzak did within that post.
I don’t think peaceful protest is useless
Unfortunately, that’s within the post you showed support for. Just what was the part you agreed with or you thought brought something of value?
How is the rampant support of violence something of value during explosive events? I don’t get it.
Do you support violence in this case like @zikzak does?
I do feel that it’s inevitable when people are pushed far enough, and that, justified or not, it has lasting effects which may cause permanent change.
Permanent damage is overwhelmingly the kind of change we see with most violence of this nature.
It may “feel good” to think that these riots are serving some sort of greater good, but history shows us it changes little, if anything, and most certainly causes a lot of regression and pain.
Case in point (again):
Rodney King Is Dead, but Little Else Has Changed Since the Riots That Bore His Name
When it comes to civil rights within the USA – true, lasting, positive change comes from peaceful actions:
I think it’s important to acknowledge that, while courageous and responsible for a lot of progress, he wasn’t the end-all-be-all of the movement-
Right, but I think that’s a bit of a straw man argument. No one is saying MLK singlehandedly fought for civil rights. On the other hand, people here are saying that MLK had very little impact at all and that’s ridiculous.
Spreading disinformation and disparagement of MLK’s legacy isn’t something I see of value. It’s regressive and harmful – and I’m not going to endorse it nor let it stand unanswered when I see that kind of drivel.
So no, I don’t agree absolutely with everything zikzak said, but I do think it’s good to be reminded that the goal of the protests isn’t to appease anyone and that violence has indeed played a part in the civil rights movement before, for better or worse, and that’s enough to get a “like” from me.
I think that’s a shame considering @zikzak is very clearly endorsing violence and that should be enough to not get a “like” from anyone who doesn’t want to be a part of that nonsense.
You seem to be in support of peaceful actions, but I’m still not sure what’s your stance on violent actions. You said it’s for “better or worse”. I think history shows it’s been for the worse overall and promoting more violence in this precarious time is irresponsible at best and an outright harmful influence at worst.
Words matter. Promoting violence (within this forum and elsewhere) influences people. I’m not going to ignore that because someone is being “provocative” and/or “interesting” within a post that endorses more violence.
I have little doubt that you wouldn’t have done the same
I don’t endorse posts from chickenhawks (or otherwise) who promote violent riots as part of a solution to our civil rights issues. Too many times have I seen promotion of violence go from a chickenhawk’s quivering chicken lips and put into action by others (who suffer and make others suffer).
I think it’s a shame you did so inadvertently or otherwise, but I’m also pleased to see that you at least say you don’t agree that peaceful actions are useless (as @zikzak clearly said in that ridiculous post you “liked”).
So, let your venom fly if you must, but it might be a bit wasted on me, since I’m not as extreme in my beliefs as you may have thought.
I appreciate your nuance on the issue.
However, I just find it a shame that you endorsed a post that is extremist, does support violence and doesn’t support peaceful actions.
If you and some others here think some good will come of that, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Violence is a tool when you need to completely, absolutely, and without moral afterthought eliminate a target. Think Aliens, or most michael bay films.
Non violence, while the emotionally harder route has been the only lasting source of societal change that doesn’t involve genocide or extinction.
And recognition of people as equals, as in internalizing it and not giving lip service (i. E. I have a black friend so I am not racist) is the only true long lasting cure.
(Spoken by a white dude that mostly interacts with cats and individuals ‘on the spectrum’)
2 Likes
I don’t think that police in the US can be defeated through some sort of urban guerrilla strategy. So in that sense, I don’t think violence is the answer. I’m not a pacifist, and I believe people have the right to defend themselves, so long as that defense doesn’t cause greater harm than the offense would have.
There’s a tendency to pose these questions as if we have only two options: armed struggle, or Gandhian non-violence. And then, every tactic is placed in one category or the other. This is misleading enough as it is, and in recent years, this has been complicated by a tendency to describe any tactic that will cause some sort of disruption as violent. Police, journalists, and even political activists do this. I’ve heard people describe labor strikes, marching without a permit, occupying a building, or even using a bullhorn as “violent”.
(That Gandhian non-violence involves consciously risking martyrdom is mentioned surprisingly seldom, and expecting a mass movement to commit to martyrdom is ethically problematic, in my opinion, especially if organizers can’t be bothered to point this out.)
When I was more directly involved in organizing demonstrations and the like, I’d often volunteer to help with security. In the context of a march, this would often mean simply walking along the outside edge of a march, to help keep the crowd together. Not infrequently, the security team would have to defuse a situation: commonly, small groups of counter-protesters would try to bait protesters into confronting them, and we’d link arms to stop anyone from charging at the counter-protesters and talk down anyone from our side who seemed moved to aggression. The most challenging situations, though, were at anti-death penalty demonstrations at the gates of the state prison, where pro-death penalty people would try to muscle their way through the crowd to the speaker’s platform to disrupt the proceedings. We’d have to quickly persuade people to link arms and block someone who was actually aggressively pushing towards the platform.
I’m pointing out this last because, in the coalition of anti-death penalty groups that organized these demonstrations, some would argue that it was inappropriate for us to do this, and instead of resorting to violence to stop the counter-protesters, we should leave it to the police. There were several objections to this, as you may imagine, but what was peculiar was the mindset that our actions were objectionable violence but if the police did the same thing, that would not count as violence.
5 Likes
One guy in Baltimore’s message is fairly mediocre. I can see how it would bounce right off of protestors who are working hard to define themselves as such while all media and police attempt to define them as rioters.
They have to continue to protest, some must break the curfew, refuse to disperse, while tolerating being treated more roughly by police and maligned by media, who both justify it by pointing at a comparatively small number of riot actions, some of which were definitely provoked.
If all the people protesting had from the outset agreed to be fenced into free speech zones, gone to their homes at the established hour of closing for said zones, made some typical statements to the media…
you think there would have been charges laid?
Sure, lasting changes come from a long hard slog of concerted peaceful, lawful efforts. Look at the gains brought by labour movements for so many. Look at the example being touted above, the hard work done by MLK & others. Look at various peace movements, to a lesser degree.
But each of those were frequently and pointedly punctuated by violence in both directions. Like it or not, just like today, the establishment used that to it’s advantage, but it was a double edged sword, some people defended the status quo as a result, others were drawn into the issues and decided differently. Violence is drama that draws all eyes. It isn’t good by necessity of being a part of larger efforts that are, but it’s effects are not by necessity bad for those efforts in the long run.
A good speech will go a long long way, it’s just a part of the human condition that it will go further made atop a coffin.
Protestors aren’t rioters even when they riot sometimes. It’s just true.
1 Like
Speaking for myself, I wouldn’t consider that situation resorting to blind violence. You linked arms to defend yourselves from an attack and nothing more, in my view. If someone comes busting ass into my home and violently threatens my loves ones, there’s a good chance they will be leaving our premises within a body bag.
In my personal life, I’m far from a pacifist. As far as national/societal strategies go, I see that non-violence is the best way to go. If violence worked, I’d throughly enjoy offing certain people, frankly. However, violence doesn’t work to push forward civil rights. Riots are regressive and I’m certainly not going to support or condone them here on this forum nor anywhere else.
As I mentioned elsewhere, it may “feel good” to think that these riots are serving some sort of greater good, but history shows us it changes little, if anything, and most certainly causes a lot of regression and pain instead.
I think it’s a despicable shame some here seem to support or promote otherwise. I also get the distinct feeling that some of these people (unlike you and me) have never felt the sting of pepper spray beyond their imaginations in front of their little, fucking computer screens.
Except that wasn’t the only choice, by far. This is 2015, some critical dynamics have changed.
Peaceful civil disobedience would have still led to mass arrests and more violence from the police. That violence from the police would have been documented by many hundreds of smartphone cams and that story would have also eventually led to national outrage and charges.
Instead…
We have a distraction from those who risked their asses out there utilizing peaceful civil disobedience – and there’s now a harmful focus on those who chose to loot businesses, set property afire and injure officers and/or pigs.
This has all happened before already.
I actually appreciate the rage, but I think you should watch the eye-opening Weather Underground documentary or re-watch it more closely if you already have seen it. So much more could have been accomplished if they had never resorted to violence.
Hell, the SDS may have evolved into a third political party that would exist today if it wasn’t for the divisive, violent path the Weather Underground chose to take.
That said, I respect some aspects of the WU and can even understand their rage. But, violence only sent them backwards and it’ll do the same for us today.
Before anyone resorts to or promotes violence, please read this following statement from a guy who has been there, used violence and very literally risked his life to fight against injustice:
http://www.markrudd.com/?sds-and-weather/thinking-about-the-weather-underground-documentary.html (seriously, people… READ THIS)
We should all try to learn from the past mistakes and accomplishments of others when it comes to whether violence works or not for activism within the USA.
Also, threatening violence doesn’t scare the world’s largest military-industrial complex, it gives the owners a massive hardon instead. The more people threaten violence, etc. the more these guys can try to justify their obscene budgets.
Actually, if I was a corporatist leader, I’d do everything in my power to get some bozos to spread violence. Riots and looting are a Godsend for megalomaniacs to garner more public support to achieve authoritarian goals in order to garner even more money and entrenched power.
Let’s not be their unwitting pawns in this battle for civil rights.
1 Like
I’m increasingly reminded of the London (and lots of other places in England) riots of 2011 - and how what was a legitimate anger about the killing of Mark Duggan was turned into a easy script about thugs for right-wing media.
1 Like
