Doing nothing is defeatist bullshit.
De-platforming, non-violent protest, and scrupulous recording is much better.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Non-violent is wishful thinking. It was violent.
We’ve done it before. We can do it again. The data shows unequivocally that humanity has never been less violent than it is now. It’s a well documented trend, and it’s been consistent for more than a hundred years now.
Correction: a minority of people present at the protest in question resorted to violence. One innocent person was hurt by protesters, who mistook one driver for another who had engaged in a hit-and-run against protesters.
The reasonable conclusion is not “it is better to do nothing than to attempt nonviolent protest,” but rather “we must be more vigilant to avoid violence at future protests.”
Like I said, good luck with that. You attract violent people when you collect people en masse. Recent history cannot be denied. If the protests continue, the violence will follow. Just like it did tonight.
Ten days ago the nation just saw the largest public protests in its 240-year history, with an estimated 3-4 million participants. No violence. Not even any vandalism to speak of.
You’re worried about the potential that mass protests might lead to some people getting out of hand and breaking some windows. I’m worried that complacency is allowing some people to get out of hand and breaking our country.
Do nothing? Sure, if you want shitheads like that to have your tacit blessing, why not. That always works, right.
Now I ain’t saying firebomb the fuckers either. Non-violent action and protest is the ideal, should be aimed for and if you’re organizing a protest, you need to take steps to stop both scumbag infiltrators looking to cause a ruck and hotheads getting a bit carried away. Control the vibe of the things, don’t let it get heavy, isolate trouble and self-police.
And sure, sometimes, you just gotta punch a Nazi. Or hold the hat for someone who is. But that don’t mean it should ever be your first, best option.
The non-violent are guilty by association. People don’t look at those pictures and videos and pick out the passive people. They see the violence. Whether you want to see it or not is moot. The fire and destruction stands out.
There it is, ten posts into the discussion. As I said, non-violent is wishful thinking.
In the same sense that anyone who doesn’t protest is a Nazi by association.
C’mon, man. If I go to a civil rights march with a picket sign and someone else throws a brick through a window that doesn’t mean I should have just stayed home. It means the person with the brick should have.
Like I said, defeatist bullshit.
You so far claim that all protests will always become violent.
We give you examples of protests that are nonviolent.
Your talking points are getting worn out.
I’m beginning to think that @time is not on our side.
Sorry. You’ve mistaken me for someone that gives a fuck about appeasing Nazis.
You ignored the third sentence. A protests aren’t inevitably violent. And the only people I’ve been hearing actually complaining about the nazi being punched is other nazis. So, not so compelling. It’s possible to protest peacefully, even if it would be satisfying to harm someone who says you don’t have a right to exist and aren’t human.
Negative. You are trying to convince others to see things your way. The brick through the window is counter productive. That’s what people see, not your sign. When collect en masse, you attract the brick thrower. Then, that is what people see.
I’ve also heard a lot from some very committed pacifists and I respect their measured opinion, even if I disagree with it.
If only the comrades were actually as interesting as a Stones’ song: