using those same tactics on a violent group of people tearing up storefronts?
Even if they donāt show watercannons being used on people actively breaking glass, theyāll show separate footage of the violent and unruly side-by-side in order to implicate the peaceful.
Liberals need to stop pretending as if āpublic perceptionā is something protestors have any control over. Yea, by all means, make a point to call for āpeacefulā protests. But even when a protest is completely peaceful, corporatized media will find sometimes even completely unrelated footage from a different time with different people, and place it next to images of police violence.
Liberals should be placing every bit of emphasis on the reasons those protestors are demonstrating, not the way they are demonstrating. Conservative media will paint whatever picture they want no matter what, but democrats have to keep on message.
Thereās no need to be concerned about āopticsā when youāre protesting non-violently. Or do you disagree?
Youāre using very definite language with absolutes, as you could always just run b-roll from some 90ās riots as modern stuff. See, I can strawman as well, because obviously thereās going to be material better suited than any news material from the 90ās. However, youāre strawmanning too, pretending that modern news doesnāt have any standards of veracity. I know Fox gives little fucking respect to veracity, but thereās a certain point at which it goes justā¦ absurd. And yeah, even then, some channels will keep doing it. I mean just look at NK television and Russian and Chinese propaganda. Itās utterly ridiculous.
But donāt pretend like that doesnāt matter. Itās much easier to influence people through news when the news actually has credibility, than when youāre knowingly watching shitty deepfakes. Or the news is claiming something about June protests while showing material from the winter or something equally ridiculous.
You need to stop pretending that the media, corporations and the state are some all powerful entities mind-controlling everyone, and youāre the only independent mind.
Liberals should be placing every bit of emphasis on the reasons those protestors are demonstrating, not the way they are demonstrating.
Followed immediately by:
Conservative media will paint whatever picture they want no matter what, but democrats have to keep on message.
But you donāt see that as a contradiction? Youāre saying people should stop imagining they can influence anything, but also, they need to be emphasising the reasons for their protests, ie talking, ie communicating their fucking thoughts and needs because violence as a language is not one with a wide vocabulary, ie people need to be emphasising the reasons and not protesting badly. Soā¦ we need more discussion and more non-violent protesting, and less distracting violence? Wow. Is there an echo in here?
edit remember that ānon-violentā doesnāt mean ādispassionateā
Thereās no need to be concerned about āopticsā when youāre protesting non-violently.
Begging the question.
Itās much easier to influence people through news when the news actually has credibility, than when youāre knowingly watching shitty deepfakes.
Iām not going to litigate this with you when your chosen example of misleading reporting is deepfakes. I canāt say anything that hasnāt been articulated far better than Noam Chomsky, so Iāll just leave this here. Go argue on behalf of your favorite media choice with him.
You need to stop pretending that the media, corporations and the state are some all powerful entities mind-controlling everyone, and youāre the only independent mind.
Theyāre not, and I donāt. But itās an open secret that corporate media seek out examples and footage that evokes the greatest amount of emotion, and cities like LA are huge, with millions of people and dozens of protests happening at any given time. Where one protest, in one location, during one part of the day may be 100% peaceful, another across the city, with different people, at a different time may be violent and unruly. Even if they give both protests an equal amount of air time the next day, which one do you think will leave the larger impression? And which one will be used as justification for escalating police violence?
Uhhh, no, because protestors arenāt the ones being asked to comment on the protests, political commentators are. Very rarely do protestors get to publicly defend their demonstrations and messaging, and even when they are, they donāt get to pick the footage or framing that gets communicated on network reporting. Protestors canāt control public perception
Youāre saying people should stop imagining they can influence anything
Lmao, no, what I said was āLiberals need to stop pretending as if āpublic perceptionā is something protestors have any control over.ā Protestors donāt get to chose how other people characterize their demonstrations or their messaging, nor do they have any control over what other people do at large, city-wide and nationally covered protests. Acknowledging that idiots like you will accept any footage or example of unlawful activity as indicative of the character of the whole demonstration is like saying water is wet.
Especially when we all agree that Trump is a fascist who is actively dissolving democratic checks on his power, the level of urgency should - you would think - drown out any piddling examples of rambunctious demonstrators. If liberals were serious about their stated fears about the end of democracy as they said they were, they wouldnāt be spending so much time complaining about the optics of anti-fascist demonstrations.
Iām not going to litigate this with you when your chosen example of misleading reporting is deepfakes
I explicitly went from a less obvious example, to the most ridiculous one, deepfakes, while explicitly mentioning thatās what Iām doing.
I started reading Chomsky back when he was a linguist, so yeah, I donāt need some youtube shorts about his highlights, and if you canāt be arsed to make an argument, Iām sure as fuck not gonna bother to watch some randoās videos.
Theyāre not, and I donāt.
50% correct
āCorporate media wants to twist the truthā isnāt exactly as easy to punch as a strawman, is it? Oh, sorry, I meant āthe media can just make the truth whatever they wantā.
Thatās my point. Your rhetoric is full of naive absolutes and you donāt recognise your own strawmen, while trying to pretend youāre a master debater. (Pun intended.)
Hereās the thing. One of those things is legal, one isnāt. If you want to live in a democracy, with rules, youād probably agree that the government should reflect the will of the people, and that there should be established rules.
Uhhh, no, because protestors arenāt the ones being asked to comment on the protests, political commentators are.
And which one do you take me for?
āProtestors canāt control public perceptionā
Remember when I mentioned the ānaive absolutesā?
This is one of them. You genuinely think thereās some hegemonic entity called āmediaā do you? āThereās no such thing as independent media in the USā, thatās literally what youāre arguing. Because if there is independent media, then yes, absolutely protestors CAN control public perception. The control is limited, yes, but to argue itās non-existent is literally to argue thereās some hegemonic entity controlling it all. Which is kinda childish.
Especially when we all agree that Trump is a fascist who is actively dissolving democratic checks on his power
Again, a naive absolute. If you all actually agreed, then he wouldnāt be in power in the first place, ffs. You feel like everyone agreed, because everyone you interact with seems to agree.
Iām not complaining about any perceived optics, as I keep repeating. Rather, Iām actually reiterating Bernieās point, and again, it is not to complain about any optics. Itās to instruct on the best approach to protesting.
You can tie up police resources without being violent or breaking the law. It will come at personal cost, but it the best way to approach this increasingly shitty situation. If you give in to the (justified) wrath and start acting like a fucking animal, then Trump gets what he wants; justification. If you donāt give it, he will probably try manufacturing it anyway, but why the fuck would you want to make his life easier by giving it to him?
Neither, youāre the one attributing protestors with the optics of their demonstration. Iām saying that even a perfectly peaceful protest can be implicated with a violent one down the street or later in the day.
If you all actually agreed, then he wouldnāt be in power in the first place, ffs. You feel like everyone agreed, because everyone you interact with seems to agree
A strange semantic injection to what was clearly a reference to āweā, the people protesting against him. Am I wrong in assuming you agree?
You can tie up police resources without being violent or breaking the law
Two things:
-you can also not break the law and still be implicated in other people breaking the law
-we have a āmoral responsibility to disobey unjust lawsā
If you donāt give it, he will probably try manufacturing it anyway, but why the fuck would you want to make his life easier by giving it to him?
Because knowing you could be killed or deported to a prison in El Salvador and demonstrating against a fascist anyway sends a far more potent message than obediently staying out of the street or dispersing your demonstration when the police give the order for you to. Iām not advocating people throw shit at the police or light cars on fire, Iām saying that even those small acts of rebellion pale in comparison to a tyrant illegally deploying the US military on US soil against civilians. And complaining about minor vandalism when the US is slipping into an actual dictatorship is a little lopsided, if not entirely suspect. Would it be preferable for there not to be disorder? Certainly. Does the presence of disorder invalidate the urgency or cause for protest? Absolutely not. And expecting perfect order when the community thatās protesting has been under actual assault from ICE agents abducting their friends and family is twofaced.
The problem isnāt protestors being disorderly, the problem is the tyrant in power who is actively eroding what little democratic checks on his power are left. And now Iāll remind you that Trump has already granted himself immunity from constitutional limitations by making spurious claims of āinvasionā at no fault to any of these people who are now being forcibly removed and sent to known torture prisons. He will take whatever power he wants regardless of how much people kick and scream in response. The fact that youād rather chastise those people fighting against it than amplify the opposition to the tyrant theyāre responding to says all I need to know about you.
Youāre still saying, explicitly, that Iām doing something that I explicitly said youāve misunderstood, and I am not doing, and then pointed out the reasons. This isnāt about the optics of anything. Itās about how youāre gonna protest.
āWe have a moral responsibility to disobey unjust lawsā
Thatās sort of very strongly included in the concept of civil disobedience, which I have advocated for in this thread several times, but I can understand missing that implication if youāre not familiar with the concept. Do you think laws that are against violence against other people are inherently unjust, so one should break them? Or which laws specifically are you talking about? Or are you talking about the right to protest? Because yes. That is indeed important. āYou should emphasise the reason for these protests, more than complaining about howā I heard someone saying recently. You have the right to protest, and should they try to take it away from you, you have a moral duty to oppose that. But you donāt have a moral duty to violently riot just because. Thatās what I keep iterating. THIS ISNāT ABOUT ANY āOPTICSā. This is about how to protest.
Because knowing you could be killed or deported to a prison in El Salvador and demonstrating against a fascist anyway
What are you talking about? Remember how you just argued that the protestors donāt actually get to influence how theyāre perceived? Then why the fuck would you choose to do violence on people and make it easier for them to enact their bullshit on you, when you can try non-violent protests to begin with? You can go on the street to protest without throwing stones in windows, you know? Throwing stones in windows makes you a worse person, not a better one.
He will take whatever power he wants regardless of how much people kick and scream in response.
Ah yes, ādonāt do anything because you canāt do anything since thereās nothing to be done itās all been done already by the giant absolute hegemony whoās absolute and who canāt be influenced in any way just give upā. Remember those childish absolutes I keep mentioning? This is very much your central theme through-out your messages. āGive into apathy, you wonāt win anyway.ā
No-one has āchastisedā anyone. Iām just schooling you.
This isnāt about the optics of anything. Itās about how youāre gonna protest.
Except your reasoning for this revolves around optics
Now which do you think will set off more people, watching cops maze and watercannon people sitting and singing kumbayaa, or using those same tactics on a violent group of people tearing up storefronts?
Which do you think will have a larger impact in motivating the general public? Which is easier to modify into whatever the fuck they want, even if there was justification for rioting? Which will play better for the State when ran in news highlights?
Iāve been saying this whole time that it doesnāt matter if you are sitting around singing kumbayaa, the tanks are still gonna roll in and youāll still be lumped together with the other protestors who arenāt.
Do you think laws that are against violence against other people are inherently unjust, so one should break them?
No. Iām saying that protests almost always involve breaking the law, and that will be used as justification for police violence. Trump planned to send in the National Guard before anyone had lit a match Being peaceful will not avoid this.
What are you talking about? Remember how you just argued that the protestors donāt actually get to influence how theyāre perceived?
The civil rights movement organized sit ins and nonviolent demonstrations knowing full well that theyād be subject to assault and arrest. Them doing those things knowing what it meant made their point for them. You asked āwhy give them a reason to punish you?ā, and this is why.
Then why the fuck would you choose to do violence on people and make it easier for them to enact their bullshit on you, when you can try non-violent protests to begin with?
Iāve repeatedly said I donāt advocate for violence. But as with many of the protests in MLKās time, well organized protests sometimes devolved into outright conflict. That doesnāt invalidate the nonviolent parts of that protest.
Throwing stones in windows makes you a worse person, not a better one
Lmao, now who is the one using definitive language? Why does that window have any moral significance? Better send in the national guard to protect that poor window.
Ah yes, ādonāt do anything because you canāt do anything since thereās nothing to be done itās all been done already by the giant absolute hegemony whoās absolute and who canāt be influenced in any way just give upā
Jesus christ youāre dense. Iām advocating against complacency you dumbass.
No-one has āchastisedā anyone. Iām just schooling you.
Nah, thatās what you think youāre doing, but youāre coming off as a nag.
Except your reasoning for this revolves around optics
Except it doesnāt, despite you trying to say it does. Ive explicitly mentioned they donāt matter, and explained the reasons. You ignored them. This isnāt about his protesting is perceived. It is what is achieved by it.
I feel like Iāve written that a dozen times now, ffs.
āThe tanks are still gonna roll in and kill everyoneā
Well then if youāre so set on this infantile absolutist daydream of yours, why not go out as a moral person? And no, moral doesnāt mean ānot opposing injusticeā. As Iāve explained another dozen times, you have the duty to oppose unjust laws, (like you conveniently reminded us in your last comment, despite me going on and on about civil disobedience ā almost as if you didnāt understand the term or hadnāt properly read the replies) and you have the right to assembly. The right to assembly is old as fuck, and if they try to take it away, yeah, itās time for a revolution. But see, you donāt have the right to a riot.
So if youāre actively rioting, the police are within their rights to come and disband and apprehend people to stop it.
If, however, youāre exercising youre right to assembly, then they canāt do that.
Now imagine a scenario in which thereās active rioting. The police can go in and take every single person, no matter how peaceful, under the guide of suppressing a riot. If everyone keeps their cool, when when shot with rubber bullets, teargassed, pushed, even arrested, then the cops will have to keep manufacturing completely bullshit reasons.
If the the right to assembly is clearly revoked and a dictatorship installed, thereās right to rebel. Until then, you shouldnāt, if you want to live in a democracy. Because itās the best move. I know it, Bernie knows it and Chomsky knows it. Youād know that had you actually read any of his works.
Breaking the law doesnāt matter. Non-violence does. Breaking the law is again very much included in the ācivil disobedienceā Iāve mentioned a couple of dozen times now. Weird how you canāt reply to any of my comments about you having missed that?
The civil rights movement organized sit ins and nonviolent demonstrations knowing full well that theyād be subject to assault and arrest. Them doing those things knowing what it meant made their point for them. You asked āwhy give them a reason to punish you?ā, and this is why.
Are you high on acid? āThe civil rights movement organized sit ins and nonviolent demonstrationsā. Why did you write ānon-violentā there? Perhaps because there people had to stress, emphasise, NON-VIOLENCE, just as Bernie is doing, and whoās point Iām here reiterating now for the umpteenth time in a row.
So what is it youāre advocating for or arguing against?
That doesnāt invalidate the nonviolent parts of that protest
And why would it? Where the fuck did you pull out that I implied that? Please, be specific. Except you canāt, since youāre just larping intelligence, linking some dumb-ass YouTube shorts, quotin shit about āweāve a moral duty to oppose unjust lawsā because your dumb-ass didnāt understand what ācivil disobedienceā mean.
I tried adopting your tone for a while so you can see how writing something like that would look like Iām getting aggravated. Except Iām not. But you clearly are. Why? Do you think this is personal? Iām advocating for the best strategy for the US to get itself out of this shitty situation, but luckily, you donāt need to listen to me, as Bernie made the points well enough, and Iām just backing him.
Iām advocating against complacency you dumbass.
Again, just like I keep reminding you of your naive absolutes, Iād also like to remind you that just because you think something, doesnāt make it true. If you donāt understand the rhetoric youāre pushing, then maybe itās not the rhetoric you think it is.
You are implicitly advocating for complacency with your naive absolutes. You just donāt realise it. Youāre perpetuating apathy. And apathy is the greatest tool of the opressor. Anywhere.
Nah, thatās what you think youāre doing, but youāre coming off as a nag.
Oh, like your mom, when she tells you that girls wonāt like a boy who doesnāt bathe or shower and wears dirty undies?
Even if they donāt show watercannons being used on people actively breaking glass, theyāll show separate footage of the violent and unruly side-by-side in order to implicate the peaceful.
Liberals need to stop pretending as if āpublic perceptionā is something protestors have any control over. Yea, by all means, make a point to call for āpeacefulā protests. But even when a protest is completely peaceful, corporatized media will find sometimes even completely unrelated footage from a different time with different people, and place it next to images of police violence.
Liberals should be placing every bit of emphasis on the reasons those protestors are demonstrating, not the way they are demonstrating. Conservative media will paint whatever picture they want no matter what, but democrats have to keep on message.
Stop concern trolling about optics.
Thereās no need to be concerned about āopticsā when youāre protesting non-violently. Or do you disagree?
Youāre using very definite language with absolutes, as you could always just run b-roll from some 90ās riots as modern stuff. See, I can strawman as well, because obviously thereās going to be material better suited than any news material from the 90ās. However, youāre strawmanning too, pretending that modern news doesnāt have any standards of veracity. I know Fox gives little fucking respect to veracity, but thereās a certain point at which it goes justā¦ absurd. And yeah, even then, some channels will keep doing it. I mean just look at NK television and Russian and Chinese propaganda. Itās utterly ridiculous.
But donāt pretend like that doesnāt matter. Itās much easier to influence people through news when the news actually has credibility, than when youāre knowingly watching shitty deepfakes. Or the news is claiming something about June protests while showing material from the winter or something equally ridiculous.
You need to stop pretending that the media, corporations and the state are some all powerful entities mind-controlling everyone, and youāre the only independent mind.
Followed immediately by:
But you donāt see that as a contradiction? Youāre saying people should stop imagining they can influence anything, but also, they need to be emphasising the reasons for their protests, ie talking, ie communicating their fucking thoughts and needs because violence as a language is not one with a wide vocabulary, ie people need to be emphasising the reasons and not protesting badly. Soā¦ we need more discussion and more non-violent protesting, and less distracting violence? Wow. Is there an echo in here?
edit remember that ānon-violentā doesnāt mean ādispassionateā
Begging the question.
Iām not going to litigate this with you when your chosen example of misleading reporting is deepfakes. I canāt say anything that hasnāt been articulated far better than Noam Chomsky, so Iāll just leave this here. Go argue on behalf of your favorite media choice with him.
Theyāre not, and I donāt. But itās an open secret that corporate media seek out examples and footage that evokes the greatest amount of emotion, and cities like LA are huge, with millions of people and dozens of protests happening at any given time. Where one protest, in one location, during one part of the day may be 100% peaceful, another across the city, with different people, at a different time may be violent and unruly. Even if they give both protests an equal amount of air time the next day, which one do you think will leave the larger impression? And which one will be used as justification for escalating police violence?
Nevermind that they absolutely have been known to shown footage from unrelated events before.
Uhhh, no, because protestors arenāt the ones being asked to comment on the protests, political commentators are. Very rarely do protestors get to publicly defend their demonstrations and messaging, and even when they are, they donāt get to pick the footage or framing that gets communicated on network reporting. Protestors canāt control public perception
Lmao, no, what I said was āLiberals need to stop pretending as if āpublic perceptionā is something protestors have any control over.ā Protestors donāt get to chose how other people characterize their demonstrations or their messaging, nor do they have any control over what other people do at large, city-wide and nationally covered protests. Acknowledging that idiots like you will accept any footage or example of unlawful activity as indicative of the character of the whole demonstration is like saying water is wet.
Especially when we all agree that Trump is a fascist who is actively dissolving democratic checks on his power, the level of urgency should - you would think - drown out any piddling examples of rambunctious demonstrators. If liberals were serious about their stated fears about the end of democracy as they said they were, they wouldnāt be spending so much time complaining about the optics of anti-fascist demonstrations.
I explicitly went from a less obvious example, to the most ridiculous one, deepfakes, while explicitly mentioning thatās what Iām doing.
I started reading Chomsky back when he was a linguist, so yeah, I donāt need some youtube shorts about his highlights, and if you canāt be arsed to make an argument, Iām sure as fuck not gonna bother to watch some randoās videos.
50% correct
āCorporate media wants to twist the truthā isnāt exactly as easy to punch as a strawman, is it? Oh, sorry, I meant āthe media can just make the truth whatever they wantā.
Thatās my point. Your rhetoric is full of naive absolutes and you donāt recognise your own strawmen, while trying to pretend youāre a master debater. (Pun intended.)
Hereās the thing. One of those things is legal, one isnāt. If you want to live in a democracy, with rules, youād probably agree that the government should reflect the will of the people, and that there should be established rules.
If not, then go watch this
And which one do you take me for?
āProtestors canāt control public perceptionā
Remember when I mentioned the ānaive absolutesā?
This is one of them. You genuinely think thereās some hegemonic entity called āmediaā do you? āThereās no such thing as independent media in the USā, thatās literally what youāre arguing. Because if there is independent media, then yes, absolutely protestors CAN control public perception. The control is limited, yes, but to argue itās non-existent is literally to argue thereās some hegemonic entity controlling it all. Which is kinda childish.
Again, a naive absolute. If you all actually agreed, then he wouldnāt be in power in the first place, ffs. You feel like everyone agreed, because everyone you interact with seems to agree.
Iām not complaining about any perceived optics, as I keep repeating. Rather, Iām actually reiterating Bernieās point, and again, it is not to complain about any optics. Itās to instruct on the best approach to protesting.
You can tie up police resources without being violent or breaking the law. It will come at personal cost, but it the best way to approach this increasingly shitty situation. If you give in to the (justified) wrath and start acting like a fucking animal, then Trump gets what he wants; justification. If you donāt give it, he will probably try manufacturing it anyway, but why the fuck would you want to make his life easier by giving it to him?
Neither, youāre the one attributing protestors with the optics of their demonstration. Iām saying that even a perfectly peaceful protest can be implicated with a violent one down the street or later in the day.
A strange semantic injection to what was clearly a reference to āweā, the people protesting against him. Am I wrong in assuming you agree?
Two things: -you can also not break the law and still be implicated in other people breaking the law -we have a āmoral responsibility to disobey unjust lawsā
Because knowing you could be killed or deported to a prison in El Salvador and demonstrating against a fascist anyway sends a far more potent message than obediently staying out of the street or dispersing your demonstration when the police give the order for you to. Iām not advocating people throw shit at the police or light cars on fire, Iām saying that even those small acts of rebellion pale in comparison to a tyrant illegally deploying the US military on US soil against civilians. And complaining about minor vandalism when the US is slipping into an actual dictatorship is a little lopsided, if not entirely suspect. Would it be preferable for there not to be disorder? Certainly. Does the presence of disorder invalidate the urgency or cause for protest? Absolutely not. And expecting perfect order when the community thatās protesting has been under actual assault from ICE agents abducting their friends and family is twofaced.
The problem isnāt protestors being disorderly, the problem is the tyrant in power who is actively eroding what little democratic checks on his power are left. And now Iāll remind you that Trump has already granted himself immunity from constitutional limitations by making spurious claims of āinvasionā at no fault to any of these people who are now being forcibly removed and sent to known torture prisons. He will take whatever power he wants regardless of how much people kick and scream in response. The fact that youād rather chastise those people fighting against it than amplify the opposition to the tyrant theyāre responding to says all I need to know about you.
Youāre still saying, explicitly, that Iām doing something that I explicitly said youāve misunderstood, and I am not doing, and then pointed out the reasons. This isnāt about the optics of anything. Itās about how youāre gonna protest.
āWe have a moral responsibility to disobey unjust lawsā
Thatās sort of very strongly included in the concept of civil disobedience, which I have advocated for in this thread several times, but I can understand missing that implication if youāre not familiar with the concept. Do you think laws that are against violence against other people are inherently unjust, so one should break them? Or which laws specifically are you talking about? Or are you talking about the right to protest? Because yes. That is indeed important. āYou should emphasise the reason for these protests, more than complaining about howā I heard someone saying recently. You have the right to protest, and should they try to take it away from you, you have a moral duty to oppose that. But you donāt have a moral duty to violently riot just because. Thatās what I keep iterating. THIS ISNāT ABOUT ANY āOPTICSā. This is about how to protest.
What are you talking about? Remember how you just argued that the protestors donāt actually get to influence how theyāre perceived? Then why the fuck would you choose to do violence on people and make it easier for them to enact their bullshit on you, when you can try non-violent protests to begin with? You can go on the street to protest without throwing stones in windows, you know? Throwing stones in windows makes you a worse person, not a better one.
Ah yes, ādonāt do anything because you canāt do anything since thereās nothing to be done itās all been done already by the giant absolute hegemony whoās absolute and who canāt be influenced in any way just give upā. Remember those childish absolutes I keep mentioning? This is very much your central theme through-out your messages. āGive into apathy, you wonāt win anyway.ā
No-one has āchastisedā anyone. Iām just schooling you.
Except your reasoning for this revolves around optics
Iāve been saying this whole time that it doesnāt matter if you are sitting around singing kumbayaa, the tanks are still gonna roll in and youāll still be lumped together with the other protestors who arenāt.
No. Iām saying that protests almost always involve breaking the law, and that will be used as justification for police violence. Trump planned to send in the National Guard before anyone had lit a match Being peaceful will not avoid this.
The civil rights movement organized sit ins and nonviolent demonstrations knowing full well that theyād be subject to assault and arrest. Them doing those things knowing what it meant made their point for them. You asked āwhy give them a reason to punish you?ā, and this is why.
Iāve repeatedly said I donāt advocate for violence. But as with many of the protests in MLKās time, well organized protests sometimes devolved into outright conflict. That doesnāt invalidate the nonviolent parts of that protest.
Lmao, now who is the one using definitive language? Why does that window have any moral significance? Better send in the national guard to protect that poor window.
Jesus christ youāre dense. Iām advocating against complacency you dumbass.
Nah, thatās what you think youāre doing, but youāre coming off as a nag.
Except it doesnāt, despite you trying to say it does. Ive explicitly mentioned they donāt matter, and explained the reasons. You ignored them. This isnāt about his protesting is perceived. It is what is achieved by it.
I feel like Iāve written that a dozen times now, ffs.
āThe tanks are still gonna roll in and kill everyoneā
Well then if youāre so set on this infantile absolutist daydream of yours, why not go out as a moral person? And no, moral doesnāt mean ānot opposing injusticeā. As Iāve explained another dozen times, you have the duty to oppose unjust laws, (like you conveniently reminded us in your last comment, despite me going on and on about civil disobedience ā almost as if you didnāt understand the term or hadnāt properly read the replies) and you have the right to assembly. The right to assembly is old as fuck, and if they try to take it away, yeah, itās time for a revolution. But see, you donāt have the right to a riot.
So if youāre actively rioting, the police are within their rights to come and disband and apprehend people to stop it.
If, however, youāre exercising youre right to assembly, then they canāt do that.
Now imagine a scenario in which thereās active rioting. The police can go in and take every single person, no matter how peaceful, under the guide of suppressing a riot. If everyone keeps their cool, when when shot with rubber bullets, teargassed, pushed, even arrested, then the cops will have to keep manufacturing completely bullshit reasons.
If the the right to assembly is clearly revoked and a dictatorship installed, thereās right to rebel. Until then, you shouldnāt, if you want to live in a democracy. Because itās the best move. I know it, Bernie knows it and Chomsky knows it. Youād know that had you actually read any of his works.
Breaking the law doesnāt matter. Non-violence does. Breaking the law is again very much included in the ācivil disobedienceā Iāve mentioned a couple of dozen times now. Weird how you canāt reply to any of my comments about you having missed that?
Are you high on acid? āThe civil rights movement organized sit ins and nonviolent demonstrationsā. Why did you write ānon-violentā there? Perhaps because there people had to stress, emphasise, NON-VIOLENCE, just as Bernie is doing, and whoās point Iām here reiterating now for the umpteenth time in a row.
So what is it youāre advocating for or arguing against?
And why would it? Where the fuck did you pull out that I implied that? Please, be specific. Except you canāt, since youāre just larping intelligence, linking some dumb-ass YouTube shorts, quotin shit about āweāve a moral duty to oppose unjust lawsā because your dumb-ass didnāt understand what ācivil disobedienceā mean.
I tried adopting your tone for a while so you can see how writing something like that would look like Iām getting aggravated. Except Iām not. But you clearly are. Why? Do you think this is personal? Iām advocating for the best strategy for the US to get itself out of this shitty situation, but luckily, you donāt need to listen to me, as Bernie made the points well enough, and Iām just backing him.
Again, just like I keep reminding you of your naive absolutes, Iād also like to remind you that just because you think something, doesnāt make it true. If you donāt understand the rhetoric youāre pushing, then maybe itās not the rhetoric you think it is.
You are implicitly advocating for complacency with your naive absolutes. You just donāt realise it. Youāre perpetuating apathy. And apathy is the greatest tool of the opressor. Anywhere.
Oh, like your mom, when she tells you that girls wonāt like a boy who doesnāt bathe or shower and wears dirty undies?
Yeah, thatās called schooling you.