They are showing that they are passionate about what they are protesting about. And it’s a grassroots movement, no organized leadership control has risen that has the capability to ask them to “take a night off”. If there was a leadership of this movement it would be more effective for them to say, stand off a certain distance from the Federal buildings (like rock throwing distance X 2) and do nothing but peaceful protesting.
…then the Feds got involved and they have stopped dying out.
Its almost as if you don’t know what the protests are actually about. Are they gaining anything? Well “gain” is subjective. The media moved on from “Black Lives Matter” about a month ago. They barely cover the dissent. The House, The Senate, local governments, they been largely performative in their response but in reality not a lot has changed. Americas legacy of white supremacy isn’t going to disappear overnight. So are they gaining anything? Well we are talking about “black bagging.” Which I would argue is important.
You seem to have confused “trolling” with “democracy.” The Federal Government isn’t the same thing as an internet troll. You can’t just ignore acts of authoritarianism and expect the authoritarianism to simply go away.
Sounds like a good idea to me. But, as an act of good faith, how about the police and other paramilitaries out there playing LEO take a few days off first?
What you’re proposing is that citizens react to the government attempting to forcibly prevent them from exercising their Constitutional rights to assembly and to free speech by saying ‘ok then, we’re willing to be suppressed, we’ll give up those rights if you threaten us’.
Can’t you see what’s wrong with that?
Precisely.
That technique will get you lots more authoritarianism.
What I’m proposing is that the protestors make an attempt to separate themselves from the agitators who WANT kinetics from the police and the feds. Is that against some rule?
Ah, so you want to talk to the agitators then. Ask them to separate themselves from the protesters.
The protesters do not know who the agitators are, only the agitators (and those who sent them in to agitate) know who they are.
So, sure, you get the agitators to stop using the protests as cover for their desire for violence, and you get them to stop causing destruction specifically to increase tensions. That’s not against any rules, is it?
-
How would ceasing to protest guarantee that? Agitators could show up claiming to be protestors even if the protestors aren’t there.
-
If the intention of the agitators is to shut down the protests, then shutting down the protests is only going to encourage agitators to use the same technique on any later protests about whatever subjects they’d rather have silence on.
-
If the protestors want to separate themselves from the agitators, having a large number of peaceful protestors show up seems to me a good way to do that. If there are enough of them, they can physically hamper anyone who tries to commit violence from within the middle of the group; and the presence of the peaceful people makes it clear (at least to anyone who isn’t getting all their news from carefully chosen camera angles) that the sense of the protest is nonviolent.
…everything is perfectly normal. Just stay home and pretend this isn’t happening. That will make it go away.
@ThisIsTheEnd, so you want the peaceful protesters, the one group who is completely in the right, to stop. That’s your solution - bad things are happening, so let’s stop the people who aren’t doing those bad things.
I understand that you think the protesters who knocked down a fence and are banging on plywood covering the federal building are in the wrong. What’s your opinion of the federal response? Is it justified, appropriate, and effective in meeting its goals?
Do you think the federal paramilitary who are grabbing people off the street is acceptable? Is beating a 53-year old Navy vet who was just standing there acceptable? Is shooting a protester in the head for holding up a speaker in his best Lloyd Dobler impression acceptable?
Give me your opinion on the feds’ actions. Bonus points if you can do it without a “but” qualifier.
I’m sure you’re smart enough to realize that the person who posted the video is not the person who was kidnapped, so unless you think matcha_chai somehow staged a fake kidnapping, I don’t know what that has to do with anything.
He/She/It said “take a few nights off”, not “stop”. People who do show up will be non-peaceful protestors, and can be shot, thoroughly gassed, disappeared, or otherwise appropriately treated. The legitimate protestors then return after resting up for two or three days. Repeat as necessary.
So let’s play this out…
If I’m an agitator, whether an Anarchist, or right-wing troll, or fill-in-the-blank shit disturber, my m.o. is to use the rest or the protesters for cover. So I show up at a protest and see that I’m one of a handful of fellow agitators. What do you think I’m most likely to do?: a) start shit to get arrested, b) lie low and come back when the regular crowds return?
It seems to me your goal is to stop peaceful protests in order to keep the agitator trolls at home.
You think disappearing people is appropriate treatment?
You think people should be shot merely for showing up?
And what would prevent agitators from showing up again as soon as the protests started again? The pool of such may be finite, but it’s highly unlikely that everyone in that pool is going to obligingly show up to be shot or disappeared on the first three nights.
You apparently didn’t read my final sentence.
I think SCAdian’s post is a parody of people who are advocating for the shooting, gassing, and disappearing of protesters without coming out and clearly stating it . The alternative is too depressing to consider.
“Repeat as necessary”? That’s what I was addressing in my final paragraph.
If yours was meant to be sarcasm: it’s getting difficult to tell, these days.
That’s funny. I thought the federal troops were the agitators.
Certainly didn’t sound like it. Or were you offering reasons to repeat?
I was giving an additional reason why the suggested tactic wouldn’t work, and protestors would do better to just stay out there in the first place.
And if it wasn’t sarcasm: again, do you seriously think that “disappearing” is “appropriately treated”?
I’m waiting for @SCAdian to explain how he/she is going to make sure the right people are disappeared or shot.
Are agitators likely to agitate with no one around to obscure their actions?
One ironic aspect to this whole situation is that at this point I’d feel safer around German or Japanese federal cops compared to American federal cops.