If you look at actual statistics and not just participate in virtue signalling you’ll see the real threat to people’s lives is the criminal element. Do you honestly believe that eliminating police, even though some of the police are corrupt and criminal themselves, will be a net benefit to society? Especially in the areas which have the most dysfunctional people and the most gang violence?
This is insanity. More people are hand wringing about the prevention of arson, assault with deadly weapons, looting and rioting than with the actual destructive behavior. Well, when the cartels and other organized criminal elements move into the power vacuum what will the response be? Folks willing to do what the cartels and similar elements are willing to do aren’t impressed with catchy slogans or goofy chants.
How about breaking windows causes the media to report on protests more than a peaceful demonstration. More media coverage means the issues are publicized, and now millions of people are aware of an issue they didn’t know existed, and policies are changed because millions of people put pressure on the government. Most reports on the protests also put them in the context of why people are protesting. The protests that disrupt business as usual are page 1. The quiet protests are buried, if reported at all.
The fact that you ignored the most obvious reason in your little list makes me question your sincerity in this. You started to touch on it with #3, then immediately pivoted to such a ridiculous conclusion that it makes it seem like you are trying to poison the well on that explanation.
I regard the claim that the ONLY difference in the scope, quantity, and kind of protests that are going on now and the ones prior is the violence to be absurd on the face of it. You may as well be arguing that if a protest doesn’t do damage it doesn’t exist.
But sure, fine:
7: It is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE for any protest without violence to make the news. Thus it is necessary to break windows or nobody will realize that the protests are occurring at all.
Clearly, the best protests are the ones that leave carnage and destruction in their wake - there’s no such thing as bad publicity, after all.
I agree with you to some extent. As I said in my response to begbert2, a protest has to disrupt business as usual to gain media attention. Ideally, I’d prefer this take the form of massive marches that shut down streets and bridges without causing damage. Of course, then people complain they couldn’t get to work or get home, or their customers couldn’t get to their store, or some ambulance couldn’t get through. And I can see an argument that a broken window is less important than a blocked ambulance. No matter what you do, some people will be pissed, and that is a requirement for a protest to be noticed.
What do you think would represent an effective protest? If the only solution is something that doesn’t bother other people, then that isn’t a solution at all.
I notice you are now referring to “violence.” Evidently “broken windows” isn’t inflammatory enough? But fine, please list some protests that didn’t disrupt business as usual, yet still resulted in change. Then contrast that with the list that included disruption.
“Carnage and destruction.” I stand by my assessment of your sincerity in discussing this fairly.
If a violent protester is more effective than a non-violent protester, would that mean that the best protests are the ones where everyone is violent and destructive?
Oh look, a non-answer. I presume it’s because you know the answer is “no, of course not”. Which inevitably raises the question of why peaceful protesters are an important element in these protests.
It is of course true that many effective protests are, at a minimum, annoying. They impede businesses; they block streets.
The question, of course, is should the protesters lead with hammers and molotovs, and if not, why not? Burning downtown down is sure to make the news.
It’s probably worth noting that the discussion, as it’s currently going, has drifted away from the described antics of Antifa, which sounded a lot more like sabotage and terrorism than the kind of mobbish protests that we’re currently claiming are the newsworthy ones.
Gah, this is tedious. Of COURSE the answer is no, that’s why it’s an embarrassing question. When the answer is so damn obvious, maybe stop to think that you might be making a mistake in your conclusion.
Ten people causing a ruckus is not a newsworthy protest, it’s some hooligans causing trouble. A thousand people, of which a few cause issues, becomes newsworthy.
Now, I bet if you think hard, you could come up with some answers to why I don’t think it’s a good idea to lead with hammers and molotovs and burn the downtown, so I’m going to skip that question. Call it another non-answer if you must.
You know what? After careful consideration, I’m going to reject your premise. To paraphrase, it’s so damn obviously wrong that it’s embarrassing.
You are floating the idea that if you have 1000 people there and two of them toss rocks through some windows and run away, this’ll make the front page and turn the protest into an effective one - even if the police stand politely by and do nothing. Poppycock.
Supposing we embrace your dubious opinion that 1000 angry people (or 5000, or 10000) aren’t enough to make the news on their own. That would mean that the mere presence of a group of protesters isn’t news - what’s needed is something else. Something newsworthy.
Of course in actual real life, the fact that the protests are protesting police brutality makes it very newsworthy when the police use tear gas and rubber bullets against the peaceful protesters! It’s irony, baby!
But you seem to be entirely discounting police action as a factor here. (Probably because the only way violent protesters can be a factor in that is if they’re cavalierly tossing the innocent protesters to the wolves). This means that all the newsworthy action would have to come from the protesters. Which is to say, the angry mob. Angry mobs are news.
At least the nazis think so. Which is why they try and provoke liberal protests into becoming riots.
The numbers certainly matter. A thousand people is newsworthy in a way that ten people are not. But the thousand people will be newsworthy just by their numbers; they don’t need violence to put them in the news.
The violence will however, change what the news story is. A thousand people peacefully protesting will be viewed one way. A thousand people in a violent protest - even if only ten people in the crowd are causing the violence - will be viewed as a dangerous riot. Those ten violent criminals became the face of the protest.
How about this–if you think it is “silliness” to be bothered by this, why don’t you tell us your address so that we can go burn down your house to protest George Floyd’s death? After all, you had exactly as much to do with it as the owners of businesses looted and torched. I’m sure that you will be willing to make the sacrifice for Social Justice.
So it is okay to destroy unconnected people’s property for your politics just as long as it isn’t you property? Good to know you lack the courage of your convictions.
I disagree with you on the numbers, but that might just be reflective of our respective locations. 50,000 people would be newsworthy here no matter what. 10,000 would make the news, but not necessarily front page. But 1000 people protesting in Portland is just a regular Tuesday. That doesn’t make the news unless it’s disruptive.
And you can’t get those 10,000+ person crowds without first generating media coverage to make people aware. We’ve had several large peaceful protests here the last few nights, but the first ones were smaller and more chaotic. There’s enough critical mass now that chaos isn’t needed, but they had to start somewhere.
I don’t feel that violence or the promise of violence was what drew in the increasing numbers. If anything, it probably kept some potential protesters from showing up.
And any people who were drawn in by violence or the promise of violence were not people you should have wanted to draw in.