The media may focus on violent elements, but the idea that nobody noticed the peaceful elements of something like the Women’s March is just prima facie false.
Focusing on violence can be a way to dismiss the legitimacy of those protesting – which honestly seems very much like what you’re doing.
and the infantilizing tone is such a new addition to the authoritarian bootlicking repertoire - oh wait no it isn’t.
do nothing my ass. that is part of why we are in this mess.
Protesting does things that matter, because it gets noticed. Anyone who says the bits of violence here and there are the only thing people see is projecting, or hoping for nothing to result.
the best thing to do is nothing
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.
I don’t get to do nothing, I get to fight or I get to die (and I will come up on the Fascists extermination lists quite a few times if their actions during the last 80 years are anything to go by)
I am not happy to resort to violence, but that day seems to be approaching rapidly when I will have no choice (death being the ultimate removal of choice).
non-violent protests are a nice ideal, but it only takes one person to turn it violent. One agent provocateur, or one false flag. If we are to stop protesting because of this then evil will have won.
No problem, he can sit home and watch it all on the TV and feel superior.
We’re going to the protest in Brussels this weekend. If there’s any violence I will be shocked. But if there is, it might be me, punching out a fucking Nazi.
The masked Anonymous protests against Scientology in 2008 were much that way. Hundreds of people at each location, with the general understanding that if anyone tried anything, everyone else would cooperate with police: point at the offenders, turn over pictures, move away from them, even sit down en mass.
The black bloc types have a playbook of tactics, like: go into a huddle to to mask up and later unmask/change clothes, rough up anyone nearby with cameras, melt back into the crowd, etc.
Peaceful protestors need a counter-playbook of tactics, or all the news will show are the brick-throwers.
I struggle with this, and have all my life. I know your statement to be true, but sometimes I just can’t do it. I greatly admire people who advocate and perform non-violent protests. My mother was a semi-hippy and taught me to respect that viewpoint. The peaceniks of the 60s were my role models growing up, and I went to more than my share of protests, sit-ins, and love-ins in those years.
That said, I am capable of great violence. I am big and strong and quick, and have been all my life. I have always liked to fight and I am good at it. But I was fortunate enough to join the Navy as a young man. The finest warriors in the world-- the US Navy and Marine Corps-- taught me to control and exploit my violent tendencies, how to let them out when necessary, and much more important, when not to. That alone was worth the experience. But they also taught me the philosophy of violence of action: if you have to fight to achieve an end, then do it. Dominate your enemy, use whatever tools you have available, never give up an inch of ground, and always attack… never give your enemy a moment’s respite. If you have to fight, have a clear goal, and win.
In many ways, this situation is the same 60’s conflict all over again. We fight against an authoritarian government that is expanding frighteningly fast, has its own goals, that does not want to acknowledge the view of the majority, and does not seem to even want to engage in dialog. I find myself wanting to be a Martin Luther King, but my soul is more towards Malcolm X.
I’m not sure what that has to do with this discussion, but I wanted to get it off my chest.
Bullshit.
Welp, I hate the first one and dislike the last one, but I think I could go somewhere with the tone of the others.
/'speriment
I saw this on twitter and it made me giggle, and frankly we need all the giggles right now…
First they came for the Australians and I did nothing because I was so confused…
I understand. Let me see if I can pull my thoughts together on this…
Protesting against Scientology isn’t a normal conflict where it can be defeated by direct application of force. Violence against Scientology would only increase their support and strengthen the membership. Legal conflict is a problem too due to Scientology’s resources, and extensive field advantage on battlegrounds involving the First Amendment.
Scientology is composed of people, some of whom are oppressors, some are victims, and many are both in turn. It’s more like a hostage situation. (A Blazing Saddles one.) There are people inside where I now know their relatives, who are out. Using violence against them would be wrong, morally and tactically.
Organized groups against Scientology (even government ones like the IRS) were fixed targets that Scientology could attack from all directions, including from within.
So, protests against Scientology have been asymmetric conflicts by “partisan” individuals: while Scientology could attack one protestor, they couldn’t destroy them all, nor could they target a central control. (It does not exist.)
As physical and legal weapons were useless, the weapons left were psychological. One person with a protest sign in front of a Scientology Org is a tremendous irritant to their mindset, planting seeds of doubt about the rightness of their cause just by existing. It’s not something that the organization can ignore, and many times goons were sent out to provoke protestors or even assault them.
Protesting a group classified as a religious organization walks a fine line of the law and public opinion. Even responding to Scientology violence in kind would result in police intervention, restraining orders and public condemnation. (Especially in the days before omnipresent phone videos to document what really happened.)
Adopting a policy of non-violence robbed Scientology of that powerful weapon. (Luckily I was never tested too hard on that. I’d have taken one punch for the team, but not more than one.) Without it, we were defended by our right of peaceful expression to protest. (In Toronto, Scientology hired an off-duty police officer to protect the protestors.)
In a way, the current situation is similar. This isn’t a conflict of direct force, this is a war of narrative. If protestors can be cast as violent jobless anarchist socialist Soros-funded smelly hippies, etc, then they can be dismissed by the portion of the public who voted for Trump. Also, that thin-skinned orange can’t seem to ignore a single mocking tweet.
‘A walk down the path of history is crunchy with the crispy corpses of those who pooh-poohed or ignored the clown car of ridicule when it pulled-up to the curb. Who would have thought such a tiny car could contain so many infectious and revolutionary guffaws? Satires, parodies, blue humor, pants to the ground ass-wavings, tea-dumping, Modest Proposal submiting, 7 dirty word spewing, flag burning, frankly impolite, just plain rude and improper expressions of ridicule have either ignited reform, fanned the flames or kicked the corpse to make sure it was dead.’
– Stephen Jones
I know what you mean. But there was a third path - armed activist defense, as exemplified by the Deacons for Defense and Justice.
In my opinion, without the Panthers and Black Muslims and other violent groups, the majority establishment would never have feared the non-racist minority and would have simply ignored them. But without Martin Luther King and the non-violent resistance, there would have been no politically viable reaction for the establishment other than brutal repression of all minorities. Yet without the Deacons, and similar organizations, the non-violent resistance would have disappeared without a trace, quietly murdered by the police in a thousand small towns.
I’ve started wearing a safety pin in my lapel, because although I will not engage in violent protest, and I don’t carry confiscatible weapons, I’m more than willing to engage in violent defense.
“It appears you are going to punch a Nazi, would you like me to hold your coat?”
Ah, the Homer Simpson school of philosophy!
.
Ah but the word violence means that you support war and therefore defeat and so must want to lose.
Thanks for your concern, but I’ll be attending protests anyway. If you’re afraid, feel free to stay home, write letters, call senators, donate, and do whatever else you see fit, but so far every protest I’ve been to has been peaceful, and protests are still a powerful way to send a message. You seem to have a confused misperception that the Black Bloc and other agitating extremist nihilists ruin most protests with violence, but that’s not how things are and your fears are not grounded in reality.
