The Democrat Party Hates America

[Walker]

What’s the deal with all this Tesla News?
Mostly Peaceful, But Genuinely Stupid Protests by the Left

Protesting these days looks like a jobs program for the disaffected, and the job assignment is Protest Theater.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1906343739267891349

[Immanuel Can]

Protesting these days looks like a jobs program for the disaffected, and the job assignment is Protest Theater.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1906343739267891349

I notice that these "protests" actually never seem to do any positive good. Things get burned, businesses get raided, streets and the atmosphere get fouled, a great noise is made...yet, when the protesters are gone, the people are no better off, and usually poorer (now living in a destroyed area). No money, or power, or freedom, or benefit of any kind comes to those for whom the protesters allegedly "advocated."

And government policy continues by other means. Whether or not people rabble-rouse on the streets does not change the way the government gets things done; the politicians can choose to cater to the protest, or leverage it for publicity, or do their own virtue signalling if they wish...or they can ignore it completely, because at the end of the day, it can do nothing to them, and the means they use are largely hidden from public view anyway.

The protesters got to virtue-signal. That's all. Any money that was donated disappeared into the bureaucracy of the "protesting" organization, as it did with BLM, or with the student pro-Hamas protests of the recent months. It enriched somebody, no doubt; there's no shortage of takers of unguarded money. But the somebody benefitted was not the alleged oppressed. It was probably the organizers.

[Walker]

Money is definitely a factor. Organization, funding, publicity.

Interesting that in the sixties the protests were anti-government. ROTC wasn't cool in those days. Now the protests are pro-swamp.

[Impenitent]

Money is definitely a factor. Organization, funding, publicity.

Interesting that in the sixties the protests were anti-government. ROTC wasn't cool in those days. Now the protests are pro-swamp.

pro swamp, pro violence, pro crime

you will be enslaved by our government machine and you will revel in our utopia!!

ever wonder why we have a second?

-Imp

[mickthinks]

Some protests are less effective than others, and some protesters are more venal, it’s true.

For example, the civil rights marches achieved nothing, and John Lewis had his skull cracked just for the money.

And Walker loves America so much he helped sick Trump on it.

[FlashDangerpants]

ever wonder why we have a second?

The last person who tried to use it only hit the ear. Are you hoping for a better shot next time?

[Impenitent]

ever wonder why we have a second?

The last person who tried to use it only hit the ear. Are you hoping for a better shot next time?

different targets entirely...

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

Some protests are less effective than others, and some protesters are more venal, it’s true.

For example, the civil rights marches...

There's no comparison. The Civil Rights Movement actually achieved something. They were also non-violent, and non-kleptomaniac, and led in a dignified way by the Reverend Martin Luther King. Today's "protests" are about burning car dealerships, beating Korean store owners, and stealing free sneakers and Gucci bags.

[Immanuel Can]

pro swamp, pro violence, pro crime

Exactly so.

[Gary Childress]

Some protests are less effective than others, and some protesters are more venal, it’s true.

For example, the civil rights marches...

There's no comparison. The Civil Rights Movement actually achieved something. They were also non-violent, and non-kleptomaniac, and led in a dignified way by the Reverend Martin Luther King. Today's "protests" are about burning car dealerships, beating Korean store owners, and stealing free sneakers and Gucci bags.

There were violent riots after MLK was assassinated, though. Violence is a scary thing, undermining the legitimate grievances of protest organizers, and it just begets more violence. It would be nice if those who instigate violence wouldn't.

[Immanuel Can]

Some protests are less effective than others, and some protesters are more venal, it’s true.

For example, the civil rights marches...

There's no comparison. The Civil Rights Movement actually achieved something. They were also non-violent, and non-kleptomaniac, and led in a dignified way by the Reverend Martin Luther King. Today's "protests" are about burning car dealerships, beating Korean store owners, and stealing free sneakers and Gucci bags.

There were violent riots after MLK was assassinated, though. Violence is a scary thing, undermining the legitimate grievances of protest organizers, and it just begets more violence. It would be nice if those who instigate violence wouldn't.

In the case of the Civil Rights marchers, it was the evil people who responded with violence to the peaceful protesters. In the present case, it's the evil people who are initiating the violence, and they ARE the protesters. Regardez la difference.

[FlashDangerpants]

Stonewall

[Gary Childress]

There's no comparison. The Civil Rights Movement actually achieved something. They were also non-violent, and non-kleptomaniac, and led in a dignified way by the Reverend Martin Luther King. Today's "protests" are about burning car dealerships, beating Korean store owners, and stealing free sneakers and Gucci bags.

There were violent riots after MLK was assassinated, though. Violence is a scary thing, undermining the legitimate grievances of protest organizers, and it just begets more violence. It would be nice if those who instigate violence wouldn't.

In the case of the Civil Rights marchers, it was the evil people who responded with violence to the peaceful protesters. In the present case, it's the evil people who are initiating the violence, and they ARE the protesters. Regardez la difference.

I was pointing out that after MLK was assassinated, there were violent riots in some inner cities by blacks in response to the assassination, including incidents of arson. And there were, of course, counter-protestors and police who assaulted civil rights marchers during their peaceful protests. It seems that you may have misunderstood my post.

My point was that there are often legitimate grievances on the part of affected people that spark protests, however, I don't think violence is ever very productive in protests unless it's self-defense. It usually just sparks counterviolence and makes a big mess. Not all people present at protests that erupt into violence participate in the violence. Not everyone in the January 6th, 2020, protest at the US Capitol initiated violence, for example. However, those that did gave the protest a bad reputation.

[Immanuel Can]

There were violent riots after MLK was assassinated, though. Violence is a scary thing, undermining the legitimate grievances of protest organizers, and it just begets more violence. It would be nice if those who instigate violence wouldn't.

In the case of the Civil Rights marchers, it was the evil people who responded with violence to the peaceful protesters. In the present case, it's the evil people who are initiating the violence, and they ARE the protesters. Regardez la difference.

I was pointing out that after MLK was assassinated, there were violent riots in some inner cities by blacks in response to the assassination, including incidents of arson.

And what did they achieve? Just destruction. Nothing close to what the principled passive resistance of King et al. achieved. Those riots are hardly remembered, in fact.

My point was that there are often legitimate grievances...

Sure. The question is, what is moral and strategic to do about them?

Nothing about the current riots or protests is productive. Taking the moral high ground and using genuinely peaceful means of protest seems to work much better. Of course, nothing guarantees results: even MLK-type protests can be ignored by a genuinely tyrannical regime. However, it's hard to keep being tyrannical when your opposition is obviously acting more morally than the tyrants are.

But violent, stupid protests never do any good at all. And that's all we seem to see these days.

[Gary Childress]

In the case of the Civil Rights marchers, it was the evil people who responded with violence to the peaceful protesters. In the present case, it's the evil people who are initiating the violence, and they ARE the protesters. Regardez la difference.

I was pointing out that after MLK was assassinated, there were violent riots in some inner cities by blacks in response to the assassination, including incidents of arson.

And what did they achieve? Just destruction. Nothing close to what the principled passive resistance of King et al. achieved. Those riots are hardly remembered, in fact.

My point was that there are often legitimate grievances...

Sure. The question is, what is moral and strategic to do about them?

Nothing about the current riots or protests is productive. Taking the moral high ground and using genuinely peaceful means of protest seems to work much better. Of course, nothing guarantees results: even MLK-type protests can be ignored by a genuinely tyrannical regime. However, it's hard to keep being tyrannical when your opposition is obviously acting more morally than the tyrants are.

But violent, stupid protests never do any good at all. And that's all we seem to see these days.

I agree. Non-violent protests and civil disobedience in the face of injustice seem more productive than violence and destruction.