No one is suggesting that the people protesting should be prohibited from doing so. As a result of course we as a society have to deal with it. The real question is, what is the goal of the protest and do these types of protest succeed in accomplishing those goals?
If the goal is to persuade new folks to the cause they are supporting I say these protests are counter productive. If they are simply to get publicity then they are a resounding success. Of course, not all publicity is good publicity. It’s up to each to decide if they want to be associated with the protester’s behavior.
As was pointed out already, no they aren’t excluded from the brunches because of race. So, it’s not even tangentially related to the problem.
I’m Wonder Bread white and of reasonable means, but I quite honestly don’t get why going out and having a late social breakfast would be considered fun. So, I’m not going to really defend the sacredness of brunch. But these particular dumbass white people are going to do fuck all about police violence whether breakfast is interrupted or not.
If the fallback position is “Well, now people are talking about it!”, my response is that we’re talking about protests, not the problem they are concerned with.
“2015 saw the advent of a new configuration in the design of gated communities and co-op apartment buildings, when commercial sub-enclaves were established within their walls: boutiques, gyms, and small cafes serving brunch.”
Well, no, they are not de facto excluded from having brunch at any restaurant that is not a private club. They are, under the laws of this country, and by the right of the almighty dollar, full faith and credit be upon it, entitled to book a reservation just like anyone else. And if a paying customer stood up and politicized at such an event, the patrons would expect the management to ask them to leave and call the police.
Only rude self-entitled fucking assholes interrupt strangers during their mealtime to complain about societal conditions. Leaflets, marches, speeches in public places, letters to the editor, registering to vote would all be more effective.
If you don’t want your rights trampled on, make sure every like minded person gets their vote in over any obstacles. There is nothing in this world quite as correlated as a politician scurrying after a voting majority.
If you want to scare the shit out of white people it seems like it’d be more effective to invade the gated communities themselves. Unfortunately, white people have houses all over the place, so they might just move away.
There’s also a danger of white people invading black spaces in retaliation. How would you like it if your barber shop was filled with lame white people talking about camping, pilates, and foodie culture? I can see them clucking to each other how authentic it all is. You dun goofed.
I can definitely see the appeal of the vote. Obviously, if black people want to see real change they should vote for…um…Ron Paul 2008! Or Kodos.
It’s important that these particular protesters are neither seen nor heard precisely because it isn’t helpful to their cause. Because their cause is pretty stupid and I don’t want to hear about it.
It is not a particularly bad thing that (for instance) Michael Brown got shot. He attacked a police officer (and robbed a store). Somewhat likewise for Eric Garner - it is too bad the police used a choke hold on him, but most of the cause of his death was that he resisted arrest when his health wouldn’t sustain it. Even somewhat likewise for the kid in PA who reached for the gun in his waistband (which had been altered to look real) when the police told him to put his hands up.
Black lives matter, but when the owners of those lives are either criminal or stupid the interests of the rest of us in living in an orderly society also matter. And selective perception and anecdotes do not establish that police racism is an issue that needs immediate attention.
So if you are only concerned that the police blew a hole in some criminal because he was a black criminal, go bother someone else - my eggs Benedict are getting cold.
No, I don’t. But since that’s not what I’m arguing, I don’t really see how it’s relevant.
My argument was that while many brunchers will be inconvenienced and annoyed by this tactic (as I would be), many more people will learn something more about police misconduct as a result of it. The question is simply whether the education is worth temporarily annoying some people.
I thought the whole point of brunch was that it was an excuse to start drinking really early. After enough Bloody Marys I’d probably join them and hold a placard or something.
This “most of the cause” doesn’t hold up to the ME’s report or common sense, in my view. He was nowhere near a deadly threat in any way to any of the police officers. “Most of the cause of his death” was due to police officers that used more force than necessary, in my view.
The video does not support the story of the police officers.
I think you overestimate the reach of the news. Remember, there are a bunch of (admittedly probably young) people discovering who Paul McCartney is this week because he’s working on a song with Kanye West. You think those people have the slightest notion that there are major protests going on over police treatment of African-Americans?
Yeah, really John. Welcome to modern PR campaigns.
The media loves this shit, because people love this shit. See, e.g, this thread. Or the Yahoo article it cites. Or the dozens of other articles about these protests, almost all of them containing statistics about police violence. Moreover, those articles often appear in different places than more dry news reporting about police violence.
For my premise to be correct, you don’t have to think that millions of eyeballs are seeing these stats for the first time. Just thousands. I don’t think that’s too implausible. I’ve seen people on my FB feed share this story, with comment threads about the actual underlying issue, who are otherwise entirely disconnected from politics and current events.
The media loves the cop shootings much more then they love this brunch shit. I’d have to see some statistics on how many people learned about the cops shootings only because they read about the black brunch thing before I’d believe this was an effective strategy. And even if it’s “thousands”, then that’s rounding error when it comes to voting in this country.
The point I was addressing was not whether interrupting a few brunches will fix this problem. Obviously no one thinks that, most of all these protestors.
The issue was whether this kind of action is a net positive for their cause or not. If they piss off 200 people having brunch but awaken 2000 people about the massive problems in policing because of the media coverage, then the trade-off may well be worth it.
Obviously you’re never going to see statistics on how many eyeballs are seeing these stats for the first time. But if you’re going to be skeptical, then you can’t claim you know that this tactic doesn’t work, because you’re admitting that you don’t know.
See, I just don’t get this. You could be eating leftover barbecue and drinking a beer, standing in the kitchen wearing your pjs. Brunch, the meal form of golf.
But if they haven’t heard of McCartney and Michael Brown, how are they going to hear about the brunch protests? I still haven’t heard of them outside of this board, and I read the news daily.
So, if the pro-lifers I mentioned came away saying, “Sure we annoyed a few hundred people who had nothing to do with abortion, but at least we got our message out, and media coverage will be valuable.” would you concede that their tactics were successsful?
Do you think ANYONE who heard about protestors interrupting that 100 year old man’s medal ceremony came away thinking, “You know, those protestors really had a point”?