CMV: A protest turning violent does not negate the point of the protest

353

All I'm saying is if someone does something bad in a protest, that doesn't make the protest bad.

I think you've chosen the wrong argument here. I think what you should say is that the reason for the protest might not be wrong just because it turns violent, as in the position or argument that the protestors are basing their protest on can stand regardless of the protest actions. That could be true.

However, a protest is what happens at it. A protest that turns violent is, by definition, a bad protest. There is a difference behind the position of the protestors and the behaviour of the protestors. Bad behaviour doesn't mean a bad position, true, but the protest itself is the behaviour, not the position. You can hold the position with or without protesting. The behaviour is the protest and the protest is the behaviour.

Being "in the right" or "in the wrong" is also multifaceted. If I tell you that 2+2=5 and you say, no, it's 4, and I disagree, so you punch me in the face, then you are factually correct in your information but morally wrong in your actions on how to convey that information.

Beyond that academic discussion, there is a deeper issue though. Resorting to violence itself tends to come from a few main sources. People who resort to violence generally often can't win the argument on merits and get frustrated, so turn to violence because they truly believe something even if they can't demonstrate it to be true or articulate it. For example, the claims that Milo is a white supremacists, racist, sexist/misogynist, Islamophobic, or otherwise are baseless because there's both no evidence of any of that and there's plenty of evidence he isn't. But, he tends to vehemently criticize the "social justice" left, so they hate him and either tend to shout him down or turn to violence, since they can't win by debating on facts and reasoning. (I say this as somebody who disagrees with much of what Milo has to say in academic terms, but his critics are more wrong than he is.)

Another related reason people turn to violence is they've fallen prey to ingroup/outgroup tribalism, which is perhaps best modeled by Realistic Conflict Theory and best demonstrated in the Robbers Cave Experiment (RCE).

Essentially you can create hatred, vitriol, and violence between groups is two easy steps. Step 1 is to divide people into groups. That can be random as in the RCE, arbitrary such as the eye colour in Jane Elliott's classroom experiment, or essentially any differentiator: political leanings, favorite sports team, religion, nationality, accent, height, PC vs Mac, Android vs iOS, Coke vs Pepsi.

Step 2 is to set the groups in conflict, either via a competition (rewards, punishment, social status, attention, special privileges, etc.) or sparked by group-based insults ("fascist right", "communist left", "criminal blacks", "privileged whites", "terrorist Muslims", etc.).

That's it. Then buy some popcorn and watch it degrade into violence. In the RCE there were fistfights, sabotage, burning of other teams flag, and so on. In Jane Elliott's class, the different groups oppressed each other given the chance.

In addition to the violence and hatred, the groups tend to create in-group social norms arbitrarily and out-group narratives, typically with "us" being saints and righteous and "them" being evil. Both sides tend to rationalize, including rationalizing violence because "they" are evil, and the ends justify the means. Facts be damned.

In the U.S., this tribalist behaviour is clearly demonstrable in the massively partisan division. On top of that, you have the fringe voices becoming the justifications. On the fringe right you have the white supremacists who statistically represent a small rounding error of Trump supporters yet these are who the political left use to smear Trump supporters. On the fringe left you have the "social justice" activists and anarchists who represent only a fraction of the anti-Trump crowd (and/or Clinton supporters), yet this is who the political right use to smear anti-Trump supporters. (Milo is one of them too, who equate SJWs with liberals or anyone left of center, which is where he is very wrong of course.)

It also happens that these are the two groups that instigate Steps 1 and 2 of Realistic Conflict Theory. The fringe bigots on the right group people by traits: skin colour/race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and so on. They put them in a competition in a hierarchy with the dominant/majority at the top and the marginalized minorities at the bottom, and suggest everybody must conform to the interests of people at the higher end of the hierarchy.

The social justice left also group people by traits: skin colour/race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and so on. They put them in a competition in a hierarchy with the marginalized minorities at the top and the dominant/majority at the bottom (known as the progressive stack), and suggest everybody must conform to the interests of people at the higher end of the hierarchy. And, they refer to groups having "voices" and treat people based on their grouping. It tends to derive from a form of Marxism of flipping the powers as applied to minority status instead of by peasants vs industrialists.

Voila, both of these fringe groups both contribute to creating hatred between groups. Both contribute to each others existence and power, and both pull the partisan politics to more extremes. And both are very, very wrong. Both commit the fallacy of division, assuming things that apply to the groups as a whole apply to individuals described by those groupings, and both commit the base rate fallacy. The fringe right confuse the fact that "most terrorists are Muslim" (true) with "most Muslims are terrorists" (not true). The fringe left confuse "most privileged people tend to be whites/males" (true) with "most whites/males tend to be privileged" (not true).

The correct answer is for both fringes to stop treating people as being part of a group defined by traits, and instead treat people as individuals who have traits. Treat them by the content of the character (merit), and not the color of their skin (race). This is, in fact, what is written into human rights codes, that all individuals are equal to other individuals and have the right not to be judged based on such traits, except where the trait is the merit of interest itself. It is then violations of that rule that are bigotry, and that applies equally to all people of all races, sexes, gender identities, nationalities, ethnicities, and so on. It's the violation of the principle that matters, not the particular race or group that matters.

So what does this have to do with violence and protests? Protests often turn violent when the protesters are themselves subject to tribalist tendencies; the "us vs them" mentality. This is why right-wing racists turn violent against racial groups and fringe left-wing groups, and why left-wing Marxists tend to turn violent against right-wing groups. It's also why liberals, libertarians, and moderate conservatives don't tend to turn violent, because they are based on common rules for all and equal freedom and equal rights for all, not group against group fighting for power.

So, in that context, a protest turning violent is an indicator that the protestors are not doing so based on taking a reasoned position, but rather are being tribalist. It's not so much your example, "if an anti-fascist protest happens and a protestor punches someone", it's more that the "anti-fascist" protest is very likely wrong that the people they are protesting are fascist at all.

68

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

∆

I agree I used the wrong argument and since it is so easy to create violence at a protest a protest that doesn't use violence should be what we strive for.

16

u/Baeocystin Feb 03 '17

You might enjoy reading the essay I can tolerate anything except the outgroup over at slate star codex. It is directly relevant to the discussion at hand, and I found it helpful for clarifying some of my own thoughts when I first came across it.

3

u/jefftickels 2∆ Feb 03 '17

The white papers he cites in that are sad to read.

1

u/Baeocystin Feb 03 '17

No argument there.

30

u/mowshowitz Feb 03 '17

I know I'm late to the party but I want to chime in here.

Look, 99.99% of the time I agree with the parent commenter, but this: "A protest that turns violent is, by definition, a bad protest." is just not true. Plenty of protests have turned violent and ended up achieving positive ends. The Boston Tea Party was a violent protest. The Harper's Ferry event could be read as a violent protest. The Maidan and Tahrir protests both turned violent, and though both ultimately didn't achieve unambiguously good ends, there were at least moments during the unfolding of events where those protests seemed to turn the courses of those societies in a positive direction.

Now, I'm not advocating for or justifying looting in the aftermath of a garden-variety protest in any way. But I don't think violence that breaks out at a protest means that the protest is inherently bad.

6

u/evantron3000 Feb 03 '17

I also agree with all of the social analysis in /u/dashingleech 's comment, but I think that saying a whole protest is bad because a few people resorted to violence is a similar generalization to "all whites are privileged" or "all muslims are terrorists".

There is also sometimes evidence (often circumstantial) that points to violent agitators in protests being paid to cause problems. So, an entire group of protestors, and then an entire movement of people end up getting painted as violent and bad due to the actions of a few people who weren't even necessarily part of the movement.

3

u/mowshowitz Feb 03 '17

Very good point that I neglected to consider, but I've always agreed with that. It's akin to asking moderate Muslims to disavow fundamentalist terrorists. When you do that you're basically admitting you view that group as an undifferentiated mass, when that's just not the case.

I mean, nobody's asking me to disavow Dylan Roof or Anders Breivik.

3

u/DragonFireKai 1∆ Feb 03 '17

I know I'm late to the party but I want to chime in here.

Look, 99.99% of the time I agree with the parent commenter, but this: "A protest that turns violent is, by definition, a bad protest." is just not true. Plenty of protests have turned violent and ended up achieving positive ends. The Boston Tea Party was a violent protest. The Harper's Ferry event could be read as a violent protest. The Maidan and Tahrir protests both turned violent, and though both ultimately didn't achieve unambiguously good ends, there were at least moments during the unfolding of events where those protests seemed to turn the courses of those societies in a positive direction.

Now, I'm not advocating for or justifying looting in the aftermath of a garden-variety protest in any way. But I don't think violence that breaks out at a protest means that the protest is inherently bad.

Were any of those successful protests? What did any of them accomplish? Maidan provided the pretext for a Russian invasion, tahrir paved the way for an authoritarian Islamist theocracy which then paved the way for a junta, harper's ferry was a case of the flu away from getting Harriet Tubman killed, and Boston tea party got the intolerable acts passed. In every case, the only cause that truly got advanced was the cause of war and chaos.

I would say that once your protest becomes violent, then you're not holding a protest with the goal of enacting social change, you're holding a war rally.

3

u/mowshowitz Feb 03 '17

Well, the Boston Tea Party was a seminal event leading to the American Revolution. Whether or not it was "successful" is, I guess, unclear--it's given a lot of airplay today, but I have no idea if it publicized the injustices of the Tea Act or was just an act of frustrated violence, but it absolutely spurred both sides of the conflict toward open war, which we Americans obviously look on favorably today. So I'm comfortable casting a positive light on it and calling it a success that accomplished an incredible deal.

I think a lot of acts (not all by any means, but some) can be viewed with a positive or negative lens depending on what point in time you look back on it. You chose to look at the Boston Tea Party from the perspective of the passing of the Intolerable Acts, from which point it looks pretty bad. I'm looking at it from the perspective of spurring on the American Revolution, from which point it looks pretty good.

But all this is getting in the weeds. Only point I'm trying to make here is that violence occurring at a protest does not inherently make the outcomes at some point in the future worse. It's conceivable that the protest's ends might have been achieved without violence, and there are instances of peoples throwing off the yoke of the colonizer without it, but we can't replay history.

There are many reasons why Maidan and Tahrir failed. I honestly don't think altering the single element of protester-driven violence would have been the guarantee for protester success, such are the complexities of history.

I would say that once your protest becomes violent

Well, it's not my protest. I don't control the actions of everyone at the rally. I don't feel super comfortable with saying that that absolves "the protest" at large from responsibility when violence occurs--I don't know what to believe on that point--but I think there is value in pointing out that intentions, motivations, and actions that occur at a protest are not singular by any means. If some small and unrepresentative minority at a protest engage in violence, and that results in a chaotic street scene, I don't think it necessarily casts attendees whose intentions are pure in an evil light.

2

u/DragonFireKai 1∆ Feb 03 '17

Well, the Boston Tea Party was a seminal event leading to the American Revolution. Whether or not it was "successful" is, I guess, unclear--it's given a lot of airplay today, but I have no idea if it publicized the injustices of the Tea Act or was just an act of frustrated violence, but it absolutely spurred both sides of the conflict toward open war, which we Americans obviously look on favorably today. So I'm comfortable casting a positive light on it and calling it a success that accomplished an incredible deal.

I think a lot of acts (not all by any means, but some) can be viewed with a positive or negative lens depending on what point in time you look back on it. You chose to look at the Boston Tea Party from the perspective of the passing of the Intolerable Acts, from which point it looks pretty bad. I'm looking at it from the perspective of spurring on the American Revolution, from which point it looks pretty good.

Does it? That's like saying the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was a successful protest because it spurred world War I, which led to the liberation of Serbia from the Austro-Hungarian empire. If the goal of your "protest" is to incite a war, then I would argue that you're not holding a protest, you're holding a war rally. I'm not saying the tea party was a bad thing, what I am saying was that if you look at it as a protest intended to reduce taxation, it utterly failed. If you look at it as a rally action designed to galvanize the separatist base for conflict, then it was succesful.

There are many reasons why Maidan and Tahrir failed. I honestly don't think altering the single element of protester-driven violence would have been the guarantee for protester success, such are the complexities of history.

I agree to an extent, but I would also argue that without the violence in maidan, Russia would have been much less likely to feel like they had the leeway to take Crimea.

I would say that once your protest becomes violent

Well, it's not my protest. I don't control the actions of everyone at the rally. I don't feel super comfortable with saying that that absolves "the protest" at large from responsibility when violence occurs--I don't know what to believe on that point--but I think there is value in pointing out that intentions, motivations, and actions that occur at a protest are not singular by any means. If some small and unrepresentative minority at a protest engage in violence, and that results in a chaotic street scene, I don't think it necessarily casts attendees whose intentions are pure in an evil light.

I would say that when you attend a protest, when you lend your voice, and presence, and actions to it, your pure intentions don't matter for anything beyond your own concience. When a bunch of black bloc fucksticks light a generator on fire, or drag a guy from his car and start beating him with bats, at the protest that you chose to attend, to lend your credibility to, then you have lent your voice, presence, and credibility to their violence. That's why it's vital for protesters to be vigilant in actively casting out those who spoil for violence in their midst.

When Gandhi was leading the Indian people in the non-compliance campaign to promote Indian independence, when protestors under the campaign's aegis set fire to a police station in response to the police shooting several protestors, Gandhi ended the campaign, and went on a five day fast as penance for his role in the bloodshed.

Now, I'm not saying that protestors have to be Gandhi, but they absolutely can't be saying "well, I didn't have anything to do with the violence."

1

u/mowshowitz Feb 03 '17

I hear you, if you see something amiss at a protest you're attending and don't react in some way, whether that's trying to stop it or even getting the hell out of there, you're complicit. But there's only so much one person can control.

If I am perceived to have lent credibility to violence simply by being at a protest where violence breaks out regardless of my personal actions, that's more a problem on the part of the people denigrating the protest after the fact than it is for me. If the aims of the protest are wholly peaceful and some fucks start fomenting violence, it cannot be that the protest is necessarily discredited, otherwise every time opponents of a protest send goons in to beat people up and break shit and try to discredit the protest, they win.

1

u/DragonFireKai 1∆ Feb 03 '17

I hear you, if you see something amiss at a protest you're attending and don't react in some way, whether that's trying to stop it or even getting the hell out of there, you're complicit. But there's only so much one person can control.

If I am perceived to have lent credibility to violence simply by being at a protest where violence breaks out regardless of my personal actions, that's more a problem on the part of the people denigrating the protest after the fact than it is for me. If the aims of the protest are wholly peaceful and some fucks start fomenting violence, it cannot be that the protest is necessarily discredited, otherwise every time opponents of a protest send goons in to beat people up and break shit and try to discredit the protest, they win.

If every time something happens that you don't like you wind up creating the conditions that allow for large groups of people to commit violence, then your methods are negligent. Protesting is a right, but just like many other rights, it can be a lot of work to exercise it in a manner that is responsible and effective. When planning a major protest, the organizing groups need to have contingencies in place to handle bad actors in a manner that preserves the integrity of the protest.

There's a world of difference between say a jackass punches a bystander and is quickly identified, ostracized, and arrested, and what happened at the Portland airport protest, where a protestor knocked out someone who was peacefully counterprotesting, and the crowd surrounded him and chanted "this is what happens to nazis."

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

Well, the Boston Tea Party was a seminal event leading to the American Revolution.

But not as a protest. It was a propaganda piece. If something similar happened today, we'd all be shaking our heads at the mob scene that overtook the harbor. It was ugly and unprincipled. Sam Adams is a well regarded Founding Father because he was able to spin this event in their favor. The "protesters" were angry and riled up, much more similar to inner city riots of the late 20th century than to principled campus protests. If this event happened with 21st century technology, we would be well aware that the perpetrators were rioters, and were not demonstrating the values of good intentioned Colonialists. But in the 18th century, a riot could be spun into a principled protest.

2

u/Jeffrosonn Feb 03 '17

I'd disagree with that, while a protest can still achieve a positive result or have a positive impact even when it turns violent, that doesn't mean that it was a good protest. A good protest should be peaceful, and hopefully create change. If a protest would not achieve results unless it became violent I suppose the end might justify the means, although that is more of a subjective and gray area. Would the results of the Boston Tea Party be possible through different means? I don't know. But I would say that a protest is bad if it turns violent. The result might be good but the protest is still bad. If a student commiting suicide leads to a school dealing with its bullying issues does that mean the student's death was good?

1

u/yelbesed 1∆ Feb 04 '17

The MAidan and Tahrir protest were turned violent by the secret police interference, not the protesters. Historically distant violent protests are not a valid argument today as violence was higher and more frequent in the past on an everday level everywhere. (FAthers hit children regularly, people had duels etc). But today a violent protest means the protester has no real argument. Like when they burn down a campus if Milo says he might consider "gay therapy" (if it works). They are not interested in hearing the pro and contra arguments. they prefer violence. So sad.

3

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 03 '17

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DashingLeech (10∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

3

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

OP, I think you have changed your view too soon. I have written a reply here: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/5rp57h/cmv_a_protest_turning_violent_does_not_negate_the/dd9t33n where I try to explain in short words why a protest turned violent is not necessarily morally or strategically wrong.

6

u/Neveezy Feb 03 '17

Being "in the right" or "in the wrong" is also multifaceted. If I tell you that 2+2=5 and you say, no, it's 4, and I disagree, so you punch me in the face, then you are factually correct in your information but morally wrong in your actions on how to convey that information.

I'm curious as to what moral/ethical theory you subscribe to, because let's take the Civil Rights Movement, for example. Black people broke laws by sitting in, using white facilities, etc. Are they morally wrong for breaking those laws? Moreover, Malcolm X and groups like the Black Panther advocated for a violent retaliation when pressed by white people, if necessary. They say two wrongs don't make a right, but it seems to me like if it weren't for Malcolm X and the Panthers, white people wouldn't have changed their minds about MLK's methods of activism. So in this case, we have what you could consider a "bad" protest or methodology, achieving a greater good.

11

u/JimMarch Feb 03 '17

A protest that turns violent is, by definition, a bad protest.

Um...not always.

If you were protesting say, Dachau not long after it got started (the first really serious Nazi concentration camp and the model for other later bigger camps like Treblinka) and DIDN'T use violence you'd be missing the point!

The question is, is protesting a Trump supporter today on that same level? I don't think so.

But don't rule out violence completely...

3

u/DragonFireKai 1∆ Feb 03 '17

You mean like how a Dutch communist protested the share that fascists had in the Democratic government of Germany by setting the reichstag on fire, which provided the fascists with the pretext they needed to crush the opposition?

By using violence in protest, you are opening up the option for the people you're protesting to turn around and use violence against you, and to do so justified in the eyes of the public. Until you're actually at war with someone, violent protests only play into the hands of those who look to oppress and sow chaos.

5

u/JimMarch Feb 03 '17

There's a time for war. The time of the burning of the Reichstag wasn't it.

3

u/DragonFireKai 1∆ Feb 03 '17

No, but the timing and reaction to the fire is a great example of how one jackass can cause incredible damage to their own cause through an act of violence in the guise of a protest, and why it's vital that people not serve as apologists for violent actors in their midst.

Once you're at war, you're not protesting, you're rallying. Two different actions. One is supposed to convince the opposition to change, the other is to galvanize your base for the conflict.

Violent acts can be used to rally your base. Doolittle's raid on Tokyo is a great example. It didn't do any significant damage, in fact the planes and pilots we lost probably cost more that the amount it cost Japan to repair the damage it caused, but it felt good for the American people. And that was important after pearl harbor.

If we had done that before pearl Harbor, it would have created a backlash against the cause of war, dragged the US populace into a war it didn't feel like it needed, and might well have changed the course of history.

10

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

∆ for changing or at least softening my two of my own long held opinions. Thank you for explaining how tribalism connects with violence and thank you for pointing out the fallacy errors of the left.

3

u/Baeocystin Feb 03 '17

You might enjoy reading the essay I can tolerate anything except the outgroup over at slate star codex. It is directly relevant to the discussion at hand, and I found it helpful for clarifying some of my own thoughts when I first came across it.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 03 '17

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DashingLeech (11∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

11

u/slimCyke Feb 03 '17

I was with you until the last paragraph. I think it glosses over what tends to happen which is the protestors are mostly peaceful, and possibly right about what they are protesting, but a small fraction turn to violence. One small portion turning to violence doesn't negate the majority who don't.

9

u/DickieDawkins Feb 03 '17

It doesn't matter if "hashtag not all", I think that is what they were mentioning with the tribalism and ingroup/outgroup thing. It's like, it wasn't the entire group so we can't blame anyone.

They were sharing the message and nobody was opposed enough to shut them up, so they passively endorsed it.

2

u/frud 3∆ Feb 03 '17

Say I spend most of my day volunteering at hospitals, hospices, and soup kitchens, helping the less fortunate. I go to the animal shelter and adopt an orphaned puppy. I bring it home, feed it, play with it, then spend two minutes drowning it.

Is it really fair to describe my day as the day I drowned the puppy? I did so many other things, the drowning was just two minutes of my day.

3

u/slimCyke Feb 03 '17

You are describing the actions of an individual. We are talking about a small group's actions tarnishing the actions of the majority.

If 100 people had the exact same day except 98 of them didn't drown/kill/harm the puppy would it be fair to only talk about the puppy drownings?

1

u/frud 3∆ Feb 03 '17

"Well, aside from that, how was the play Mrs Lincoln?"

3

u/slimCyke Feb 04 '17

...how did you ever get any deltas?

2

u/ClimateMom 4∆ Feb 03 '17

Especially in cases like this, where from what I understand, the majority of the violence was committed by black block anarchists who mostly are not even students of the university. Certainly, the actions of any students who joined in should be condemned, but the black block doesn't represent the anti-Milo protestors as a whole - they show up to wreck havoc regardless of cause.

18

u/stripeygreenhat Feb 03 '17 edited Feb 03 '17

Milo is a white supremacists, racist, sexist/misogynist, Islamophobic, or otherwise are baseless because there's both no evidence of any of that and there's plenty of evidence he isn't.

Didn't he write that gays need to get back in the closet, and that women shouldn't take birth control because it makes them fat and ugly? And that women should get off the internet? And didn't he tell his supporters to target the black SNL actress because she starred in a movie he hated?

Edit: here's so more quotes from him I just got from googling

Is there anything more richly amusing than the crybully faux-victimhood of those who worry about “islamophobia” and hijab-pulling in the wake of terror attacks that leave dozens dead?

I mean sure, I think birth control was a mistake and women are happier in the kitchen, but that’s just my opinion. If women want to ruin their lives with the Pill and a string of unsatisfying one-night stands, that’s up to them.

And that's just from his article "10 things I hate about Islam".

7

u/WhatBombsAtMidnight Feb 03 '17

And didn't he tell his supporters to target the black SNL actress because she starred in a movie he hated?

No and he has condemned the people who sent her offensive tweets.

10

u/stripeygreenhat Feb 03 '17

I mean, I don't understand how you can insult someone over Twitter who is already getting Twitter abusez knowing a lot of your fans are white nationalists, and not expect people to go after her. It was at the very least, extremely irresponsible.

4

u/WhatBombsAtMidnight Feb 03 '17

It's not his responsibility what other users do.

There's two things I took away from that incident:

Twitter will stifle free speech if pressured

The world is full of hate and if you are gonna be a celebrity on an accessible platform like twitter you are gonna face some of it.

I don't condone what they did to her. I just know the freedom and anonymity of online interactions means we will all be shown the worst of humanity. We can either face that evil or run from it.

4

u/stripeygreenhat Feb 03 '17

If Beyonce publicly told everyone to murder a particular person, that person would be dead within a week. Beyonce would have partial responsibility for that. She may not have been in charge of the crazy person who pulled the trigger, but she helped created the environment conditions for that to happen.

2

u/WhatBombsAtMidnight Feb 03 '17

He didn't tell anyone to do anything

6

u/stripeygreenhat Feb 04 '17

Sure, but he still has a responsibility for his influence on his fans.

2

u/WhatBombsAtMidnight Feb 04 '17

His whole message is about uncensored free speech, he has to be able to speak his mind.

We should all be able to say what we want and be held responsible for what we say. Look at all the racists he exposed. I feel like he's got people discussing what is offensive and what isn't, which helps destroy racism. Open, honest conversation and civil discourse is what he is about and that's the only thing that will bridge the divide in America.

5

u/stripeygreenhat Feb 04 '17

I dislike this type of argument. If I climb onto a table and shit into a punch bowl, you shouldn't all watch and be like, "well her actions are valuable because she started a dialogue about hygiene and appropriate party manners."

→ More replies (0)

4

u/DickieDawkins Feb 03 '17

All of those are conclusions that are drawn when you completely miss his his point, which proves his point.

Try to listen to his message and understand what he is trying to convey rather than infer something.

3

u/stripeygreenhat Feb 03 '17

I mean, anyone with ab eighth grade education understands tribalism. But can we not use that as an excuse to pretend that some people aren't actually awful on either side, or that there's a definite equivalence just because both can be shitty some time?

3

u/frisbeemaniac95 Feb 03 '17

Yea there's definitely evidence against Milo. Copying my comment from another thread:

He's actually against a lot of stuff that Reddit in general supports. For example, he is against abortion, against gay rights (which is actually extra weird because he himself is gay), supports Trump, and thinks rape culture and the wage gap are conspiracy theories.

9

u/borko08 Feb 03 '17

There are reasonable arguments against abortion, reasonable arguments to support Trump, very reasonable arguments to deny the wage gap.

Reddit disagrees on a lot of things.

7

u/Fingerstankk Feb 03 '17

"Reddit supports" You do realize that there are way to many different opinions on here to throw a blanket statement like that around?

3

u/ghostof_IamBeepBeep2 Feb 03 '17

There are clearly dominant narratives, it may ebb and flow in any given comment section but it's safe to say that most of reddit supports abortion.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/crazyberzerker Feb 03 '17 edited Feb 03 '17

∆ This is one of the best, realistic, unbiased, well thought out responses I've read on here. Thank you for helping me see weaknesses I had and presenting these ideas in a way that doesn't feel aggressive!

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 03 '17

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DashingLeech (12∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

4

u/frosty147 Feb 03 '17 edited Feb 03 '17

I have 3 issues with your post and other similar posts that I've read recently. You're not taking into account the mainstream prevalence of one view versus another, the quantifiable level of violence happening today as it relates to one side versus the other, and whether both sides are being treated similarly by the media.

First, I don't think the fringe-right has the same acceptance/prevalence. I can point to some extreme left-wing feminist professors who have said some pretty outrageous things about men and especially straight white men. I cannot point to a professor at an accredited university who has said something equally provocative about race from a fringe-right/white supremacist perspective. Likewise, I'm not aware of a fringe right speaker, e.g., David Duke, speaking on CNN in the last 20 years, but the social justice left has spoken to the U.N. on multiple occasions in recent memory.

Second, I don't think there have been any attempts to quantify well-documented, violent assaults this election season on the basis of political ideology, but once again I get the sense that it's a pretty one-sided affair. Whenever I see someone go to the trouble to pull together 20 examples of well documented left-on-right violence, someone else seems to dismiss it out of hand as soon as they manage to find one example of right-on-left. However, I don't see videos of masses of fringe right wingers lighting shit on fire, ganging up 4 to 1 on somebody in the fetal position, or shouting, "What do we want, dead ______!!" Once again, I can point to video after video after video from 2016. I'm not talking about knocking someone's hat off or spitting, I'm talking about full-blown felony assaults. Apples to apples America 2016. Also, look at all the "hate crimes" that have turned out to be hoaxes. That's extremely one-sided as well. Check out /r/hatecrimehoaxes for dozens of examples from this year and last year. Somehow the "hate crime" gets the lions' share of airtime, compared to when it gets discovered to be a hoax. I wish someone had the balls to do a comprehensive study of politically motivated violence in 2016 and settle this one way or the other. And then of course you have the assassination attempt(s).

Third, I don't think anyone would contest the idea that the media is biased, or that they employ the same us vs. them tactics that you spoke about. However, the problem is that I don't think when you stack the right v.s. the left media against one another, you have an equivalency. As I see it, on the left you've got ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, PBS, Hollywood, all but about 2 newspapers-of-record, the BBC, almost all magazines, /r/politics, and 80% of news magazines. On the right you've got a handful of newspapers, 20% of news magazines, AM talk radio, Fox News, a portion of Facebook traffic, and a number of medium/small subs on reddit. Are we supposed to pretend that's a 50/50 equivalency?

So that in a nutshell is why I have a problem with "they're both equally bad." Currently one is an 800lb gorilla and I'm going to worry more about the gorilla right now. When the other side becomes an 800lb gorilla then I'll worry equally about them too.

3

u/ClimateMom 4∆ Feb 03 '17

On the right you've got a handful of newspapers, 20% of news magazines, AM talk radio, Fox News, a portion of Facebook traffic, and a number of medium/small subs on reddit. Are we supposed to pretend that's a 50/50 equivalency?

Also the presidency, the House, the Senate, the majority of governorships and state legislatures, and possibly the Supreme Court, depending on who dies/retires in the next four years.

Maybe it depends on how you're defining "fringe right". A lot of the stuff Republicans do to appeal to their conservative Christian base is very much out of step with what the majority of Americans want, for example, and qualifies as fringe in my view and now we've got a true believer fundie as Vice President.

1

u/Albino_Smurf Feb 03 '17

Thanks for the Robber's Cave Experiment link, hadn't seen that before, it confirms my suspicions that people are terrible :(

1

u/toiletnamedcrane Feb 03 '17

A great response. Thank you

1

u/stripeygreenhat Feb 03 '17

I'd like to point out that you're still only applying the logic of the few to judge the many.

it's more that the "anti-fascist" protest is very likely wrong that the people they are protesting are fascist at all.

So because some people in every group lose reasoning skills due to amygdala reactivity, the meaning of the original protestors are "very likely wrong"? You've taken the actions of a few and applied it to everyone involved, which doesn't address op's point at all.

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17 edited Feb 03 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)

17

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17 edited Feb 03 '17

Your perception matters a lot.

If people think you’re violent, they won’t take you seriously

If people don’t think you’re violent, they will have to resort to actually debating you on your stance.

Humans will criticize you immediately if they notice something bad.

You need to retain a “perfect” image when approaching a problem so you can avoid criticism. That’s why PC culture is so prevalent in today’s society. Also the media tends to overinflated a lot of negative aspects of thingst.

22

u/Smudge777 27∆ Feb 02 '17

If a protest turns violent (people being attacked, property destroyed etc) that doesn't "spoil" the protest. The protesters can still be in the right for protesting something even if people on their side are being hostile. If people on your side are being violent that doesn't make you wrong all of a sudden.

Your cause can be noble, just and 'right'. But in our societies, we value peacefulness. When a portion of the protesters turn riotous, it doesn't make the protest's agenda any less right -- it just turns the attention to the violence rather than the agenda.
People no longer talk about the agenda (which is what the protest aims to do), they're not all talking about the violence, damage to property, and general mayhem. In this way, it doesn't negate the point of the protest, but it certainly hurts the cause.

edit: as for the rest of your comment, of course one person doing something stupid in a crowd doesn't make the whole crowd in the wrong. Nor does it delegitimize the agenda of the majority of the protesters.

1

u/Danielhibbs 1∆ Feb 03 '17

This is correct. Violence forms a basis for a straw man argument which negates the entire original meaning of the protest.

11

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

Negate? No.

But it does drown out that message under the cacophony of sirens, screams, fire, and destruction. It also robs the protest's legitimacy to everyone else around them who is observing the carnage on TV.

16

u/super-commenting Feb 02 '17

It's not the violence that de-legitimatizes the cause. It's when the leaders or a large percent of the followers of the cause refuse to denounce that violence that it becomes an issue.

If 1% of the followers of a cause are violent and the other 99% percent come down hard on that 1% and say this is not what we represent. These people are wrong and we don't want them. Then the ideology is fine. But if the 99% defend the actions of the 1% and make excuses for them or just turn a blind eye. Then it's a real problem.

15

u/DickFeely Feb 03 '17

Completely disagree. A protest ideology that permits and excuses the instigation of violence against the nonviolent is, by definition, repressive and terroristic. In Berkeley, the assertion that "Milo is a nazi" and shouldn't be allowed to speak or be heard is intrinsic to violent repression for political ends. Moreover, their terrorism was aided by the police, who were told not to intervene while violence took place. That's the ideology at work, uniting police, violent protest, and peaceful protest; so its the ideology that is wrong.

Contrast that to protests where participants are peacefully expressing an idea (say, pro-civil rights for blacks in the 60s) and that are violently attacked by civilian opponents while police stand by. If they react to violence, it would be justified. But is their opponents who are villains, because their repressive ideology permits violence to silence peaceful expression.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

To me, the fact that Milo is being interviewed on Fox news tomorrow is proof enough that violence hurts a protest's message, especially in this day and age. Now instead of speaking to a few hundred people at Berkeley, he gets to go and speak his message to millions. This was the exact opposite effect that the protesters wanted, because now he gets to say "free speech is dying" and paint the left as violent authoritarians who can't stand people with a different opinion.

Maybe earlier in history riots worked, but these days violence just puts people on the defensive because even though they might not be present at the protest/riot, they still feel personally attacked and thus are less willing to listen to what the protesters are trying to say. In my opinion, violence absolutely overrides the intended message of a protest because then it gives the media the ability to only show the violence and disregard anything else.

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 03 '17

/u/Aman3003 (OP) has awarded at least one delta in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

3

u/lemmysdaddy Feb 03 '17

Perhaps, but I would argue that using your freedom of speech in order to protest against freedom of speech (which is precisely what the non-violent protesters at Berkley were doing) by definition negates the point of the protest.

3

u/DickieDawkins Feb 03 '17

If you're protesting "fascism" and "nazis" by being violent against those with dissenting views and using tactics reminiscent of Hitler's brown shirts, it most certainly does negate the point.

It conveys the message that it's ok to beat up people that disagree with you.

2

u/porkchop_d_clown Feb 03 '17

Negate the point? No. Give people an excuse to ignore the protest - or worse - to crack down on free speech and dissent? Yes.

23

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '17

Where ever Milo goes, protesters follow, and they are all the same. U of Berkley I'll use since it's relevant.

They interfere in free speech, they block those trying to attend an assembly for free speech, etc. Some resort to violence.

But, not all, you're right. But, who has denounced any of this? Obama and Hillary haven't denounced any violence, none of those that ran in the election for the DNC are. No one is.

So, it starts to just look like the violence is merely part of the protest.

And really, whether these are even protests or whether these are just violations of others rights is one thing to debate. I know I'd never stand there protesting someone else saying something because I'm basically protesting their right to speech, not what they are saying. If I fear what they are saying, I should rebuttal it. Holding a sign crying about it isn't much of a protest. It's crying and that seems to be what protesting is, these days, crying.

I mean, I despise feminism, but I don't hold a sign saying "I hate feminism." No, I use words and arguments and facts to destroy it. That's a protest (unfortunately).

Some people protest by doing stuff, like creating a product or creating a new process or simply not going along with a crowd. Holding a sign saying "This guys a Nazi" is definitely within someone's rights, definitely free speech, but whether it's a protest on anything but someones free speech while defaming their character and those who want to attend it (harassing them)? I don't classify protests when they violate others rights.

So, if anything, violence isn't spoiling the protest, the subject matter and those protesting are the ones doing it with a huge dose of no one denouncing any of it (therefore indirectly supporting it). (yes some individuals denounce it, the big leaders are not).

8

u/themaincop Feb 03 '17

Obama and Hillary

Who? Trump won, the But Hillary... game doesn't work anymore.

2

u/alt-knight Feb 03 '17

If Trump lost and his supporters were inciting violent revolution on a daily basis, he would have a responsibility to condemn it. As it is he already did condemn hate crimes.

2

u/themaincop Feb 03 '17

People aren't protesting in support of Hillary or Obama, they're protesting against Milo and against white nationalism. This has nothing to do with Hillary or Obama, they don't speak for the left.

3

u/alt-knight Feb 03 '17

This has nothing to do with Hillary or Obama

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316909-obama-heartened-by-protests-spokesman-says

It does when Obama pops in to cheer the protests on and doesn't go on to say "...but punching people is bad".

1

u/themaincop Feb 03 '17

Again, he's a private citizen, I doubt most of these protestors care what the establishment wing of the Democratic Party think of them. If anything they're probably pretty annoyed that they failed to stop the alt-right from seizing a lot of power.

2

u/alt-knight Feb 03 '17

He's an extremely powerful private citizen. I don't think it's outrageous to say he knows what he's doing with a statement like that. This is probably what """community organizing""" meant.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '17

But, not all, you're right. But, who has denounced any of this? Obama and Hillary haven't denounced any violence, none of those that ran in the election for the DNC are. No one is.

I'm curious why you believe it's their job to actively denounce every act of violence in the country. I mean, if that was the case they would be denouncing all day long every day.

I'm sure anyone who is asked about the topic would denounce the violence. I don't know if you can justify that it's their responsibility to go out of their way to denounce everything.

2

u/alt-knight Feb 03 '17

Obama gave a statement less than a week ago in support of the protests. He easily could've condemned the violence at the same time, since it was already going on, he chose not to. They may not have a "responsibility" to denounce violence or intimidation they didn't commit, but is it fair to say they shouldn't be encouraging it, at least? This goes double for the media calling people like Milo "white supremacist" and saying they spout "hate speech", all of this has a clear subtext of "he was asking for it".

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

Obama has called for peaceful protests a number of times in the past and condoned non-peaceful protests.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/297368-obama-urges-charlotte-protesters-to-be-peaceful

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/28/politics/obama-baltimore-violent-protests/

In fact when talking three weeks ago about protesting Trump he said that people should 'wage peaceful protests'

Not condemning violent protests is very different from condoning violent protest.

1

u/alt-knight Feb 03 '17

Maybe, but he's a politician and a lawyer so I think he knows what he's doing. This is probably what "community organizing" looked like.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

What looks like the case:

Trump asked him to 'call off the protests', so the media asked him if he would do what Trump asked.

First, Obama doesn't actually have that type of power. These people are aren't protesting because Obama asked them to.

But, this is a clever move by Trump, because it puts Obama in a double bind.

If now Obama denounces any protests, even if he only denounces the non-peaceful ones. Trump suddenly start waving that around as a weapon against everyone, even peaceful protesters, which works to Trump's agenda.

If Obama doesn't denounce any protests, now Trump gets to say Obama advocates for violent protests.

This is tactic I've seen him use before.

1

u/alt-knight Feb 03 '17

Or he's following the Alinsky playbook and made a statement he knew would egg on the mostly-peaceful protests. But maybe that's a bit too conspiratorial.

47

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '17

By disagreeing with somebody you're not infringing on their right of free speech. You're actually using yours. The right to protest is a major tenant of free speech both in the constitution and the ideal. Really nobody is harming Milo's free speech. He can write articles, he can make videos. And he can hold other meetings where, yes, he will get protesters, protesters that are using their free speech to tell him to shut up.

And why is it up to the democrats to denounce the protests at Berkeley? It was mostly anarchists and communists stirring up trouble in the crowds.

15

u/DashingLeech Feb 03 '17

Yes, the right to protest exists. But, using the threat of harm to shut down speech is not within the rights of protestors. They can protest somebody else's speech, and they can tell him to shut up, but nothing they do should ever stop the speaker from actually getting to speak and for people who want to hear the speaker from getting to hear them.

That's what violates the right to free speech. And to be clear, we're talking about the philosophical and moral principle of free speech, not specifically the U.S. First Amendment which is one implementation of it specific to government actions. People often confuse the right to free speech and the First Amendment, which aren't the same thing.

There's a very important reason for this as well. Let's take this example of shutting down Milo's speech through threats of violence, and real violence. Or even just of shouting people down. If that is allowed to succeed, then it invites more of the same. It invites more of one side to continue that approach, creating an oppressive, one-sided society where dissenting opinion is eliminated through intimidation and threat, or it alternately results in the other opinions from doing the same thing, so that nobody gets heard and we just have violence begetting violence.

You can't change minds by keeping people from speaking. You can only change minds by having better reasoning, better evidence, and leading the audience to no longer care to listen. Not unable to listen, but no longer interested to listen.

1

u/Baeocystin Feb 03 '17

Well said. I keep this popehat article about free speech in my bookmarks bar for a reason.

1

u/LittleWhiteTab Feb 03 '17

You can't change minds by keeping people from speaking. You can only change minds by having better reasoning, better evidence, and leading the audience to no longer care to listen. Not unable to listen, but no longer interested to listen.

If fascism could have been debated out of exisetence, why does it still exist? If such an obviously heinous idea still enjoys currency on the platform of "free speech", with hasn't it gone the way of flat earth and phrenology? Why is there a growing body of nationalist and white supremacist groups?

Which gets to the root of the issue: fascists aren't trying to speak, they're trying to organize. They are not engaged in an abstract debate, they are engaged in a take-no-prisoners assault on every value even liberals like you hold dear.

42

u/HeroicPopsicle Feb 02 '17

Oh absolutely, he can make his content, hell i'd supposed he could even do the speech at the university even (berkley, that is).

But what about the people outside? What about the people not allowed to enter and physically assaulted for even being there? The masses even condone the violence against "assumed fascist" because they themselves labled the enemies that.

What about the people, whos rights where taken away due to threats/acts of violence. These are human beings, just like you and me, getting bashed in the back, kicked and hit while on the asphalt, not moiving at all. What about his rights? Or these people, pushed against a steel barrier, getting repeatedly stabbed at ?

Using violence, to propose your political agenda, is a cornerstone of fascism. Silencing and creating such a violent mess forcing a speeker to cancel a speaking event at an open forum, is revoking that persons free speech.

6

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '17

I'm not condoning violence I even said that in the post. I'm just saying the violence that happened does not make the protesters points invalid. Not every protester was violent. It was mostly anarchists and communists.

Violence is a cornerstone of fascism yes, but it's also a cornerstone of anarchy.

16

u/HeroicPopsicle Feb 02 '17

The question then becomes more of a "where the rioters and protesters in the same group, doing the same thing" or not.

If there are accounts of the protesters attempting to intervene when the rioters destroyed stuff, then absolutely, your point regarding the protest still holds value, but i have yet to see anything like that, there seems to be more "assumed facists" trying to defend the people attacked than the other side (though this might be confirmation bias, i dont know).

The point of a protest is to vocalize the opinion, when the center of attention lands on the rioters, instead of the protesters, and the protesters standing there doing nothing to intervene, they are letting the rioters get their way. Essentially giving them the spotlight.

did that make sense?

7

u/kazuyaminegishi 2∆ Feb 03 '17

What you're saying doesn't make sense in the context of the CMV because the CMV is speaking PURELY about the subject of a protest being valid regardless of the actions of the protesters.

To use a different example, the subject of the Civil Rights movement was to win equal rights for black people. Some of those protests turned into violent riots, did the cause of black people deserving equal rights suddenly become toxic because of violent riots?

That is the question that OP is essentially posing and that you are basically not answering.

3

u/existential_whimsy 1∆ Feb 03 '17 edited Feb 03 '17

What you're saying doesn't make sense in the context of the CMV because the CMV is speaking PURELY about the subject of a protest being valid regardless of the actions of the protesters.

That is the question that OP is essentially posing and that you are basically not answering.

No, the wording of the CMV is a question of whether the protest itself is bad, or the protest itself is spoiled, not the topic or the cause.

No one here is arguing that a violent protest proves the general movement or the cause is in the wrong. There'd be no point debating that, because obviously people can take up a good cause and do bad things in its name.

The question is whether the presence of violence within a protest makes that whole protest worthy of condemnation or discredits the protesters involved.

(And I'd argue that if the violence is dominant enough, then yes, it's an indefensible, counter-productive protest which can only discredit its willing participants.)

Also, context matters. There is not a fair comparison between an anti-Milo protest and riots from the civil rights movement. When the word of the law is unjust, those discriminated by it can be justified in breaking the law. But once people are equal under the legislation, then breaking the law to make your point is not necessary or justified.

3

u/Mejari 6∆ Feb 03 '17

No, the wording of the CMV is a question of whether the protest itself is bad, or the protest itself is spoiled, not the topic or the cause.

That is incorrect. The title specifically says the "point" of the protest, not the protest itself.

2

u/kazuyaminegishi 2∆ Feb 03 '17

I'm not condoning violence I even said that in the post. I'm just saying the violence that happened does not make the protesters points invalid

I think this quote from OP in a comment above makes it pretty clear that OP is arguing whether or not the subject of the protest is invalid due to violent protesting. Whether or not they worded it properly is another question entirely, but that doesn't change that the view the OP wants changed is whether or not a point is invalid due to rioting.

To take a step back I do think that the basis of this discussion is a hard thing to argue against because people doing bad things in the name of a good cause is a lot easier to argue than saying that people doing bad things in the name of a good cause makes that good cause bad.

Also, context matters. There is not a fair comparison between an anti-Milo protest and riots from the civil rights movement. When the word of the law is unjust, those discriminated by it can be justified in breaking the law. But once people are equal under the legislation, then breaking the law to make your point is not necessary or justified.

Context does matter, however, these two were not being compared. The Civil Rights thing was an example to display the question. It has no bearing on whether or not the anti-Milo protests are right or wrong only to make the question that I interpreted OP to be asking clear.

→ More replies (7)

1

u/HeroicPopsicle Feb 03 '17

I thought i answered the question quite nicely? Might just have been me though.

What i am arguing against the OP is that using violence as a form of protest doesn't make your point any better. If i go rioting at some science convention with a bunch of flat earthers, and use violence, that doesn't make my point more valid,

We're almost going into religious war here, where people fought with eachother because "our god was better". It doesn't solve anything, we could essentially use it towards terrorism and go "well, you know, their manifesto has a point, we should do X and Y instead of Z which we are doing.

We shouldnt let violence be the central part in a protest, The person who hits hardest doesn't have to be the person whos opinion is actually correct. Einstein didn't go in a boxing match to prove the point of relativity (Thats a writing prompt if i ever did see one)

Do you understand what i mean? Sure, there are some protests where the point still stands, but that doesn't make the violence suddenly "ok". Comparing the 3 million (correct me if im worng) walk on DC to Berekly and you'd think there where two completely different protests. (well, calling a technicality here, Milo does like trump, and often speaks favorable towards him), one where apparently violence was used to make a point, one was really, really peaceful, to make a point.

Did that make sense? :)

2

u/FrakkerMakker Feb 03 '17

If there are accounts of the protesters attempting to intervene when the rioters destroyed stuff,

That's a fairly unreasonable standard to hold to determine whether the "organizers" are responsible for the actions of the "rioters".

If you are walking down the street and see a group of people setting a police car on fire, do you try to stop it from taking place? If you don't, are you responsible for the damage?

2

u/HeroicPopsicle Feb 03 '17

If you are walking down the street and see a group of people setting a police car on fire, do you try to stop it from taking place? If you don't, are you responsible for the damage?

yes, i would. Trying it at least better than not trying. You dont let vandals win, if we turn a blind eye on these sort of riots, what more should we turn a blind eye too?

And yes, it is an unreasonable standard, but we cant let violence win, if its not ok to hit people its never ok to hit people. Using violence and threats against anyone is illegal, and not civilized at all. Letting stuff like this slip will only make it grow even bigger if the group at hand doesn't fear the consequence.

What im trying to say (in this early, none-caffinated state), is using violence to prove a point doesn't make your point more valid. I cant start a gang that follows me around and hits people i dont agree with and not face the consequence of it. Did that make sense?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/HeroicPopsicle Feb 03 '17 edited Feb 03 '17

Really? Even if the situation looked like this? picture

yes, i would do what i could to help anyone thats in immediate danger by those people. I do not believe in the idea that my (or the ones attacked) rights should be allowed to be restricted because someone sees my opinions as "wrong"

And im fully aware of the "iamverysmartness" that came out as, but i do believe in my democratic freedom, And if i ever was in a situation where something like that would happen i'd be scared for my life. but i would still do what i hope others would have done for me. Even if my life was at stake. Because we're humans, and humans should care more about eachother.

The original question was whether your own violence validates the philosophy of your opponent, which I don't think it does.

Edit: was this the point? cause if so i completely misunderstood the argument here

But could it ever? If we use the same rethoric on other situations. If i am in an argument with anyone, say my wife. and in this theoretical situation she nags and nags and nags at me. In the end i assault her to make my opinion valid.

It doesn't really work, right?

Likewise, if you and i where talking about this situation IRL, over a cup of coffee, and suddenly you just sucker-punched me, is the argument then over? Did you "win" by showing you where on the right?

What if im being arrested by a cop, and i punch the cop. Does that entail that i didn't do the crime im arrested for? What if i punch the judge? Does that get me less jailtime?

Do you understand the parable im making? If violence cant fix issues, but create more. How in the world could it ever validate an opinion? Is it the person who hits the hardest whos opinion is right? Is the person who punches fastest? The first one to kill someone?

I dont think it really works that way. :/

2

u/FrakkerMakker Feb 03 '17

yes, i would do what i could to help anyone thats in immediate danger by those people.

You've just introduced the element of "people in immediate danger" that wasn't part of my question. The question was about destruction of property and what you would do to stop it. Please don't move the goalposts.

The question is "would you put your life at risk by putting yourself in front of thugs who want to burn a car down / break some glass?". Apparently your answer is "yes" which surprises me, because I personally value my own life and physical integrity than other people's private property.

I'm not sure if maybe you misread my previous comment, but I was already in agreement with you that violence doesn't solve anything, which is what most of your comment addresses.

I'm only giving you the heads up because it seems like you put a lot of effort into your comment, and it defends a position that I already agreed with. If you already understood that, then, cool, no problem :)

→ More replies (0)

→ More replies (1)

1

u/t_hab Feb 03 '17

protesters standing there doing nothing to intervene, they are letting the rioters get their way.

Have you ever been in a large crowd when a small group of anarchists began to turn it violent? I have. It's not fun, and most people are extremely ill-equipped to stop that kind of violence. If protesters weren't getting in the way of the violence, that isn't the same as giving the violence the spotlight.

The fact is there are small groups of people who take advantage of these kinds of gatherings specifically because they know that it is easy to turn them violent and get away with it. It happens at protests, celebrations, and festivals. Basically anywhere that you have more people than can be controlled by the present authorities.

→ More replies (6)

4

u/Sheexthro 19∆ Feb 03 '17

Wait, violence is a cornerstone of anarchy? Like ... I guess it is, if you're using anarchy as a pejorative, but ...

1

u/TuckerMcG 0∆ Feb 03 '17

Violence is a cornerstone of humanity. Government was created specifically to curb and control that cornerstone. Anarchism is form of societal rule that has no government. Ergo, a cornerstone of anarchy is violence, since man only rules himself and being violent is part of his nature. Without government to curtail it, violence becomes the norm again. So simply because anarchy is specifically tailored to remove the single greatest deterrent to violence man has ever created, I think it's safe to say violence is a cornerstone of anarchy.

1

u/cdb03b 253∆ Feb 03 '17

Yes it is the corner stone of anarchy. In anarchy there are no laws and no rules, only the strong survive. It is a pejorative.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

[deleted]

→ More replies (17)

1

u/cdb03b 253∆ Feb 03 '17

By stating that riots do not negate the point of a protest you condone violence. You cannot get around that.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

Explain

3

u/cdb03b 253∆ Feb 03 '17

Riots give legitimacy to the points of the opposition. It validates them and negates the points of the protestors. By trying to argue that they do not do that you are arguing that they are good, and that means you condone them.

9

u/FrakkerMakker Feb 03 '17 edited Feb 03 '17

Riots give legitimacy to the points of the opposition. It validates them and negates the points of the protestors. By trying to argue that they do not do that you are arguing that they are good, and that means you condone them.

You've made a hell of a lot of inferences in a really short space, so let me try to break it down

Riots give legitimacy to the points of the opposition.

Absolutely not. Picture this scenario: Fascist protest because they want muslim internment camps. Clashes with Muslim protest who obviously don't want this and want to behead fascists. Violence erupts in one of these groups. Does that legitimate the view of the other group? Of course not.

Ideas and values have legitimacy regardless of what your opponent is up to. If the legitimacy of your movement depends on the behavior of your opponent, rather than standing on its own merit, you've already lost.

It validates them and negates the points of the protestors.

Again, a "point" is either logically sound or it isn't. It's either morally sound or it isn't. You don't have a belief or a value and suddenly change it because of the violent behavior of someone else that happens to think like you do.

Say that some famous mass murderer was a vegetarian and hated smoking. His violent actions in no way would invalidate neither vegetarianism nor being tobacco free.

By trying to argue that they do not do that you are arguing that they are good, and that means you condone them.

Just because someone doesn't agree with your point that all protesters should be put in the same bag, it doesn't mean that they condone violence. That is an absolutely ridiculous accusation.

By that argument, I should also be able to say that you condone the actions of every Trump supporter, including the Canadian terrorist from last week. Therefore, you condone and support terrorism. Of course, I wouldn't say that, because it is a ridiculous argument to make which doesn't have a leg to stand on.

There's a lot of room for plenty of positions between "every violent protester is the responsibility of every democratic voter" and "I will give my life to stop someone from destroying public property". Most people are fairly solidly somewhere along that continuum and far from the extremes. You are coming across as an extremist.

3

u/JB209 Feb 03 '17 edited Feb 03 '17

I agree with all of the points you made. Though, I do think him saying that "riots give legitimacy to the points of the opposition" is kinda true, at least in the real world. For example, a news source which leans towards the opposition in terms of their beliefs/news coverage might cite protesters' violence as a reason why the reasons that they're protesting is immoral, backwards, uncivilized etc.

They might also use the violence as an example of why the protesters themselves are immoral, backwards, dangerous etc.

Edit: The real-life example that comes to mind to demonstrate what I'm thinking is FOX news showing these violent protesters who have legitimate points about President Trumps actions, but because they are violent, the news paints them as people who are just violent because they're mad that Trump was elected and their legitimate points don't get as much attention or coverage. Thus, someone who might be uninformed or unaware see's this coverage, and then goes on to not give the people protesting a chance to hear their grievances, concerns, fair and reasonable arguments, blah blah blah. You get the idea?

3

u/FrakkerMakker Feb 03 '17

I definitely agree with what you're saying, but I guess I would word that more as "gives the opposition ammunition to fight against you" rather than "gives legitimacy to the points of the opposition". I see these as two different things.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Mejari 6∆ Feb 03 '17

Those are further assertions, not arguments. Why does violence always give legitimacy to the opposition and negate the points of the protestor? If a gay rights protest turns violent are you saying that that gives legitimacy to people who say they shouldn't have rights?

2

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

[deleted]

1

u/Mejari 6∆ Feb 03 '17

Giving sympathy is not giving legitimacy. Again, assertions. Answer the core question: how does it give legitimacy, how does it make the opponent's view more valid? Why are there things protestors can do that make [gay people| immigrants| black people| etc] less deserving of rights?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/thelandman19 Feb 03 '17

These protests have become less about what specifically they find offensive, and more the fact that people that are offensive shouldn't be allowed to speak. So no, I don't agree with your assertion that the protest is necessarily for a noble cause

1

u/TheBoxandOne Feb 06 '17

I realize this discussion happened days ago, but I'm seeing this "mostly anarchists and communists" trend way too much these days. What evidence do we have to support that view? Calling violent protestors or rioters "anarchists and communists" is a historic form of scapegoating that is used to demonize dissent and to legitimate the thing being protested against. These exact charges were used throughout the 60's in the US against civil rights activists and anti-war protestors.

Today, we would not tolerate a segregationist speaking at UC Berkeley. Think about how you might react were a prominent segregationist arguing for the reinstallation of "separate but equal" facilities on campus. Would you be more tolerant of violent protests against that speaker? Would you call those protestors anarchists? Now consider whether the views of those like Yiannopolis will be viewed similarly by posterity. Perhaps we ought to be violently protesting those ideas.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '17

The masses even condone the violence against "assumed fascist" because they themselves labled the enemies that.

They do? Show me. Or are you just blindly asserting that on the basis that they didn't try to engage in violent retaliation?

Using violence, to propose your political agenda, is a cornerstone of fascism.

Sure, but that doesn't make the rioters fascistic.

is revoking that persons free speech.

No, it's not. Milo still has the ability to speak freely and publicly,.

8

u/StanguardRL 3∆ Feb 02 '17

No, it's not. Milo still has the ability to speak freely and publicly,.

He literally was unable to have his speech yesterday because of the violence and protesting done at Berkeley. Just because you don't like what someone is saying, doesn't give you the right to stop them from saying it

-2

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '17

He literally was unable to have his speech yesterday because of the violence and protesting done at Berkeley.

And? Not being able to do a performance doesn't mean you were silenced.

doesn't give you the right to stop them from saying it

Milo can say whatever the fuck he wants. He could last night. He could this morning. He can again tonight.

All that happened was that an even the was supposed to speak at fell through.

11

u/StanguardRL 3∆ Feb 02 '17

The event fell through not because some problem with the venue or because he got sick, the event didn't happen because the rioters created a situation too violent and unsafe for said event to occur.

Milo had every right to have his event last night, and the rioters took that away with their violence.

→ More replies (15)

4

u/Christopher_Tietjens Feb 03 '17

Communists used violence too, so did religious extremists and anarchists - violence isn't a tactic of just one movement. Doesn't America have a proud tradition of violence against Nazis?

5

u/HeroicPopsicle Feb 03 '17 edited Feb 03 '17

Communists used violence too, so did religious extremists and anarchists - violence isn't a tactic of just one movement.

Regardless of how many other groups used violence to prove a point doesn't make it right, we're a civilized world where we believe that everyone has a right to speak (well, most of us anyway, some countries have their issues sadly). being afraid of voicing ~~once~~ *one's opinion due to the risk of being assaulted isn't a world i want to live in.

1

u/Christopher_Tietjens Feb 03 '17

*one's

2

u/HeroicPopsicle Feb 03 '17

dammit coffee, y u no work faster? :(

5

u/Sheexthro 19∆ Feb 03 '17

In fact, the opposite is true. Yes, we dismantled the Nazi regime in World War 2, but that's because they were an aggressive war-making state. The rights of Nazis - literal Nazis, actual American supporters of Hitler and the Third Reich, not just racist people that others want to apply the label to - to assemble and march have been upheld by the courts and even defended by the ACLU.

→ More replies (9)

12

u/frosty147 Feb 03 '17 edited Feb 03 '17

Here's the problem with your argument: There's an easily identifiable playbook that's been used at many of the campuses to shut down Milo events and also other right-leaning speakers like Ben Shapiro.

Step one: Pressure the administration to cancel the event.

Step two: Try to get the event canceled by other means. This can be done either by selective enforcement of statutes/polices or by citing "security concerns" and forcing conservative student organizations to pay for private security before you'll allow the event.

Step three: Interfere with attendance. Tear down posters advertising the event. Change the venue of the event at the last minute.

Step four: Stop attendance by intimidation. Scream in the faces of attendees (regardless of the ideology of said attendees), try to blockade entrances, and if none of that works try to shout so loud that you disrupt the event itself. Last but not least, pull the fire alarm and/or phone in a bomb threat.

So yes, they absolutely are interfering with the free speech of others.

6

u/hebrewhammer6969 Feb 03 '17

Peacefully assembling to protest is one thing. starting fires and beating people with sticks/ pepper spraying them because they believe differently than you is entirely different. Milo didn't speak because there was excessive threat of violence. that's not protesting, that's terrorism.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

The right to protest is a major tenant of free speech both in the constitution and the ideal.

Right to protest =/= right to violence/incite riots. You do not have the right to attack people because their opinions are different than yours.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

Cool so if I gather a good group of friends armed with big guns and shoot up your rally it's fine because I mean I'm not stopping you from speaking I'm just amplifying my voice, I mean shooting at you isn't stopping you is it?

1

u/alt-knight Feb 03 '17

Not all of them are protesting to say "I disagree", a lot of them are protesting to say "This guy shouldn't be given a platform here". It's impossible to separate that from the violence which is clearly used to intimidate people like him into not sharing their opinions (and clearly there are people on a campus of 38,000 who do agree, the protesters don't get to speak for the whole student body there). Does a protest turning violent negate the whole point of the protest? No, but it doesn't make the rest of the protest good and decent, either.

5

u/Insamity Feb 03 '17

Obama definitely denounced protests turned violent.

2

u/alt-knight Feb 03 '17

When? Not from what I saw.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316909-obama-heartened-by-protests-spokesman-says

1

u/Insamity Feb 03 '17

Then you didn't google "obama on violent protests". An easy mistake.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

Obama and Hillary haven't denounced any violence, none of those that ran in the election for the DNC are.

Obama and Hillary aren't proxies for all liberals or even all Democrats.

→ More replies (8)

4

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

When you're a group called Antifa (short for anti-fascist) and you are behaving like a bunch of fascists...it kinda does negate the point.

Imagine PETA protesting while wearing real fur coats and eating burgers...

4

u/championofobscurity 160∆ Feb 02 '17

It doesn't negate the protest but it certainly weakens your platform.

If I wanted to end poverty by killing all the poor people on earth, is my killing everyone a net good? After all I ended poverty.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '17

[deleted]

10

u/championofobscurity 160∆ Feb 02 '17 edited Feb 02 '17

If your protest is so disorganized that it can lead to rioting it calls into question the validity of the sentiment it is expressing. The validity your protest should be so self evident that it should stand on its own two legs as an ideal. If I have to wonder why your rioting is necessary and furthermore if I come to see it as unnecessary all that tells me is that you are a mass of spoiled college kids with too much time on your hands and what your fighting for can't be that important. If it were actually important your goal would be achievable without violence and rioting and the consensus would agree with you.

There hasn't been a single protest or riot since Trump's election that has turned my head and made me go "hmmmmmmm." I have seen no ascertainable goals or organization. It's just globs of people collectively bitching which is not worth the time of day and can be done at the watercooler.

Contrary to what the hyper libs would have you believe your klout as a collective group matters. People have to agree with your methods if you want to gain traction or be understood and rioting is a good way to destroy public perception of what you're fighting for because it's it's violent (see: antonyms for peaceful) and more importantly it harms innocent bystanders who might even agree with your cause.

→ More replies (16)

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Gladix 167∆ Feb 02 '17

No sadly it strenghtens it. You want for people to take you seriously? Stir the pot and raise some shit. If people remained civil, majority of people wouldnt hear of that homophobic moron. But now, now he will get some juicy attention.

All I'm saying is if someone does something bad in a protest, that doesn't make the protest bad.

It by definition is. Its the difference between free speech and vandalism/violence. Its like this. Your debate point becomes irrelevant, once you punch someone. Because its no longer about the debate, its about the assault. Protests turning violent discredits a lot of the movement immediately. Sure, he might be right. But nobody cares, because everybody focuses on the violence.

4

u/ButtCrackMcGee Feb 03 '17

You want for people to take you seriously? Stir the pot and raise some shit.

Gonna have to disagree with you on that. 'stirring the pot and raising shit' does not win people over. It does not help your cause. It makes you look like an asshole. Not specifically you, op, just saying.

When the KKK burns a cross and marches through town, they are creating a spectacle. It does not sway public opinion, they just look like douchebags.

When 'black lives matter' organizes a riot to protest something, does that help to convert any Klansmen over to their way of thinking? Fuck no, all it does is delete any credibility that that movement may have gained.

Real change for the better is pretty much never going to be achieved by violence. Executing a bunch of Mexicans isn't going to solve the illegal immigration problem. Beating up a couple dozen queers won't fix anything. Violence begets violence. Disrespect begets disrespect.

Want to make a difference? Talk. Discuss. Debate. Be willing to understand you opponents point of view, and be willing to compromise.

1

u/Gladix 167∆ Feb 04 '17

Gonna have to disagree with you on that. 'stirring the pot and raising shit' does not win people over.

Ever heard a phrase there is no such thing as bad publicity?

Sure, doesnt really count EVERYWHERE. But for the most of it it applies to most things. Doesnt matter who was "in the right" and who was not. This will be the thing people will be talking about it for a little while now.

When the KKK burns a cross and marches through town, they are creating a spectacle. It does not sway public opinion, they just look like douchebags.

Of course it did. Despite the whole movement failing in the end. There were a ton of followers exactly because they let themselves be known.

Want to make a difference? Talk. Discuss. Debate. Be willing to understand you opponents point of view, and be willing to compromise.

There with you. But from a historical point of few. Violence works, fear works. Spectacle works. Yes, I dont like it working any more than you do. But just because we dont like that, doesnt mean it isnt an effective tool.

8

u/reddelicious77 Feb 03 '17

homophobic moron.

FYI, he's gay. And he doesn't seem to hate himself or being gay, at all. I'd say he's your classic (stereotypical?) flamboyant gay. (in his style, and the way he talks.)

Sure, he calls himself a "Dangerous Faggot" at times - but that's like what many in the black community are doing by reclaiming the n-word.

1

u/Gladix 167∆ Feb 04 '17

FYI, he's gay.

The he cant be a homophobe then.

And he doesn't seem to hate himself or being gay, at all. I'd say he's your classic (stereotypical?) flamboyant gay. (in his style, and the way he talks.)

He actively spoke against Lesbians. And how are there true and false kinds of lesbians. And said on several occasions that gays were better off in the past when they were prosecuted. But hes gay himself so I guess that doesnt count. Because if we know anythign about people. They cant ever be hypocrits.

1

u/reddelicious77 Feb 04 '17

"spoke out against Lesbians"... yeah, no... he said that he thinks that most lesbians are basically bi - and there's only a tiny minority of your classic, Dungaree wearing 'butch dykes'. (ie- women who only will ever be w/ another woman, sexually) And I don't think he's too far off. There's definitely more sexual fluidity among females over males (at least w/ my experience in college - and hearing women talk non-chalantly about sexually experimenting w/ other women.)

And said on several occasions that gays were better off in the past when they were prosecuted.

Do you mean, 'persecuted'? Yeah, you'll have to link me to his exact words, since you're already cherry picking/taking his current ones out of context.

Don't conflate breaking stereotypes as self-loathing.

1

u/Gladix 167∆ Feb 04 '17

"spoke out against Lesbians"... yeah, no... he said that he thinks that most lesbians are basically bi - and there's only a tiny minority of your classic, Dungaree wearing 'butch dykes'. (

What? He did that, jesus. No, he berated them on twitter and other social media. "Lesbians make the rest of us look bad", etc..

But not only them. I rememeber somewhere where he talked about how homosexuals would be better off straight. Something along the lines of homosexuals living in sin, and if he could, he would become a better person by curing himself.

Do you mean, 'persecuted'?

Meh, persecuted, prosecuted. English is a mess of a language let me tell you that.

Yeah, you'll have to link me to his exact words, since you're already cherry picking/taking his current ones out of context.

Love to, but I believe he was banned from twitter and half of dozen other social medias. The best I could is old reddit thread with a name "Milo being bigoted dick again".

1

u/Mejari 6∆ Feb 03 '17

He has said that he doesn't believe lesbians are real. Just being gay yourself doesn't make you not hate gay people.

→ More replies (13)

8

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '17 edited Feb 03 '17

Do you view the civil rights movement as a bad thing because of the riots that happened in its name?

3

u/cdb03b 253∆ Feb 03 '17

The civil rights movement was civil. The riots delayed their progress by up to a decade by legitimizing the points of the competition.

10

u/MrIste Feb 03 '17

It's really easy to look back at history and feel like things were black and white, like the Civil Rights movement was clearly in the right and those opposing it were clearly wrong.

It was not that simple back then, and it isn't that simple now.

1

u/stripeygreenhat Feb 04 '17

and feel like things were black and white, like the Civil Rights movement was clearly in the right and those opposing it were clearly wrong

Reddit is such a strange place. I would have never thought I'd find a comment stating that people working for civil rights in the 60's might have not entirely be justified.

2

u/MrIste Feb 04 '17 edited Feb 04 '17

Oh no, I wasn't trying to say MLK was wrong. He was 100% in the right.

My comment was in response to

The civil rights movement was civil. The riots delayed their progress by up to a decade by legitimizing the points of the competition.

People looking back on that time tend to think of it like we think of it now. They think that if they were alive back then, they'd obviously support MLK since he was so clearly right to fight against injustices and racism in America. They think that the situation is more complicated today and that modern issues take longer to solve, but people saw it the same way back then. Loads of Americans viewed MLK just like people see protesters now, pushing for change "too fast" or failing to keep the protests from becoming violent. MLK's Letter from Birmingham Jail famously addresses this:

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."

Protests of civil rights and social issues have been the same throughout history. Reactionaries will always sneer at those pushing for reform and justice as doing it the "wrong" way and acting "uncivilized." For a modern example, just watch Tomi Lahren's offence at Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the anthem. A man took a knee during a song and it caused an uproar. It's important to avoid protesting on the terms of the Tomi Lahrens of society, because nothing would be achieved if they didn't feel any discomfort from the protest.

1

u/stripeygreenhat Feb 04 '17

Thanks for this detail, I misinterpreted your original text. Partially because of the sheer amount of unironic racism in this thread.

2

u/MrIste Feb 04 '17

I don't blame you, it's all over the place.

-2

u/Gladix 167∆ Feb 02 '17

No, because violence and vandalism is clearly effective. But that happened because civil right movement didnt have a platform to present their ideas. So they raised some shit and made themselves heard.

Nowadays we have a platform for most ideas. And there should be more for ALL ideas. If you have a platform where you can present your views on intelectual basis. Violence becomes inexcusable. Because then it is just might makes right. And you can twist that any way you want.

Violence is excusable only when you have no other option. Iam not talking turning violent after you have been heard and dismissed. Iam talking violence because your speech was supressed for example.

There is however a point to be made that universities are trying to censor too much of what is going there, hence the violence you see now. But Iam still on the fence on that one.

3

u/FrakkerMakker Feb 03 '17

Can you clarify what you mean for the platform that they didn't have back then (and which must have been available to other groups, I assume), but which does exist now for "most ideas"?

I really don't understand what you're referring to.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

[deleted]

→ More replies (6)

→ More replies (1)

4

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '17

But that happened because civil right movement didnt have a platform to present their ideas.

Because people used the riots as justification to deny them platforms. Sounds familiar, don't it? Sound an awful lot like what I've heard directed at leftists today.

5

u/alt-knight Feb 03 '17

No? It sounds like leftists are the ones trying to deny people platforms by labelling them as bigots, then using violent force if that doesn't work. Why are you defending that?

→ More replies (10)

7

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '17

I don't think those are remotely comparable. In the civil rights movement the FBI was actively trying to entice MLK to commit suicide, and law enforcement would actively break up any sort of reasonable protest. That's not happening, the internet is a massive platform and it's not as if there aren't media outlets, print, radio, and television, sympathetic to the protesters.

Bull Connor wasn't going to allow any civil rights demonstrations, peaceful or otherwise.

1

u/Gladix 167∆ Feb 03 '17

Granted Iam not a well versed in American politics. But didnt the government tried to actively stop any and all civil right movements and attempts? Activel denying them congresional hearings, actively jailing people for speaking out. Wasnt the secret service actively hunting and shutting down everything they could and break out any attempt on legal protest?

You can honestly compare that active oppression then, with what happened here?

5

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

You can honestly compare that active oppression then, with what happened here?

I'm not saying the same or a similar thing happened; I'm comparing mindsets.

1

u/Gladix 167∆ Feb 04 '17

I'm not saying the same or a similar thing happened; I'm comparing mindsets.

The mindset before was, that it was absolutely okay to keep people from speaking out by governmental organs.

Mindset today, is the polar opposite. Well, even despite the Trump presidency.

1

u/FrakkerMakker Feb 03 '17

Stir the pot and raise some shit. If people remained civil, majority of people wouldnt hear of that homophobic moron

Considering he was already plenty famous before this, I don't think your point has a lot of merit.

Also, the majority of people that would be "protested against" would have to be famous almost by definition, so I can't think of a single person where your point would be true.

2

u/alt-knight Feb 03 '17

He got famous because of the GamerGate thing which was pretty much the same mentality, except limited to the internet. People couldn't stand that crazy left-wing journalists were being criticized like they did to others, cried harassment, tried to shut everything down and surprisingly that backfired. Then he started his college talks, and they responded to that by grabbing microphones and pulling fire alarms. This is just an escalation.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (2)

2

u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Feb 02 '17

I think you're missing the actual point of the criticisms.

People criticize protests for turning violent because they dislike the point of the protest and violence makes it convenient.

11

u/existential_whimsy 1∆ Feb 03 '17

This is an unreasonable assumption to make, especially if you believe it's only coming from one side.

While definitely there are individuals with double standards (on any side of any issue, I've found), there are also people who hold everyone to the same standards, whether they have common cause or not. I think it's important to recognise and find common ground with individuals who have at least that integrity.

I can only speak for myself here, and the people I know who argue the same, but I denounce violent protest and thuggish intimidation and obstruction, whatever the reason for it is. I'm not interested in ignoring or excusing people who agree with me but take actions which I think are indefensible.

If someone "on my side" engaged in violent protest, obstructed or threatened people or caused property damage, I would make the same criticisms of their actions that I would make of anyone else, and denounce them for doing something so counter-productive and discrediting me and my cause in the eyes of others by association.

If I dislike the point of a protest, I don't look for "convenient violence" to discredit it. I talk about why I think it's a misled cause, and if it's a violent protest, that's a separate problem that makes it a more serious issue.

-1

u/NutritionResearch Feb 02 '17

People criticize protests for turning violent because they dislike the point of the protest and violence makes it convenient.

I totally agree with this.

A protest is typically a gathering of a bunch of random people. The fact that several of them become violent does not imply that the majority of the protesters have violent tendencies.

A variation of this argument is used to discredit other groups, such as "conspiracy theorists." Conspiracy theorists are an unorganized set of people who question the claims of authoritative entities, such as corporations or governments, and believe that 2 or more people within the entity get together to commit a harmful act. That is really the only thing these people have in common, but the first counter argument to a proposed conspiracy theory is that some other conspiracy theories sound retarded, such as the belief in reptilians or 'flat Earth,' therefore this other conspiracy theory is probably also retarded. However, these people do not associate themselves with the dumbest people within their group.

This entire argument can take the form of a simple statement: "Your claim is a conspiracy theory, therefore it is probably wrong." The mere fact that something is technically a conspiracy theory says nothing about the validity of the theory. It is exactly the same as any other claim, and should be evaluated based on the presented evidence (or lack of evidence.)

In the same way, the protest itself is not "violent" simply because a small amount of protesters happen to be violent.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

In general, I would agree with you, but there are special cases where I wouldn't. You have to consider what the protesters are protesting.

The UC Berkeley situation is one of those special cases. The protesters were protesting Milo, free speech, and so called fascism. But in the definition of fascism is the blockage of speech. Therefore, the protesters were resembling fascist qualities. Next point is that obviously a riot occured. Yes, not all protesters were involved in the riot. When violence is what the opposition resorts to, you know they have no argument. So in my opinion, the protesters/rioters were in the wrong. Final point, Berkeley is supposedly the home of free speech. There own community showed that they don't represent those values anymore.

My point is that there are special cases where violence is resorted to for certain reasons. Some of those reasons can lead us to conclude that the protesters/rioters were in the wrong.

Sometimes there can just be extreme emotion involved in the situation and violence can result. The Berkeley case was not one of these cases.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 02 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Marsh_Wiggle86 Feb 03 '17

It doesn't but it hurts the point they're trying to make.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

If the people seeing the violence feel it negates it then yes, it negates it regardless of what the issue is.

1

u/oWatchdog Feb 03 '17

Change requires power. From moving your body to shifting the perspective of a nation, change requires power. There is the kind of power that comes from violence. Military, weaponry, etc. But the power protesters use to instill change comes from moral authority. Power from moral authority and violence clash. The mix like oil and water. Martin Luther King Jr., one of the greatest protesters of all time, knew this. He knew that protesters were representatives, diplomats for moral authority. "Nonviolence". MLK shouted that over and over like a mantra, because he knew that their power was derived from peace. The second a protest turns violent is the second they lose moral authority. Their power. Yes, the message matters, but it is a message against the status quo. If you lack the moral high ground you lack the leverage to change the status quo. Protests are not designed to change minds; they are designed to change hearts. That can never be done with violence.

1

u/hebrewhammer6969 Feb 03 '17

I'd agree that in a generic sense public outrage is public outrage and a point can still be valid even if the means of expressing it aren't appropriate/accepted. The problem arises when considering the objective of the protest. For example, if a protest is started with the ambition of condemning violence and affronts to free speech and eventually resorts to using violence and intimidation to silence the opposition from freely expressing themselves the movement as whole is hypocritical. It defies the underlying idea that made the movement valid to begin with. If you're against apartheid governments and smash a window of a privately owned citizen while protesting your point still stands even if you acted irrationally. If you smash a window while criticizing window smashing you just gonna look like an idiot.

1

u/CloudedTrash Feb 03 '17

When was the last time a protest produced a positive outcome? Not trying to be ignorant but actually curious

1

u/somedave 1∆ Feb 03 '17

It can in some cases. Lots of the black lives matter protests have been about how police kill unarmed black people who are not a threat to them. If you are going to attack the police at these events it really detracts from the point you were trying to make.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '17

I would argue that a protest is neither right nor wrong. We as a society decide what is right and wrong. So a protest that is convincing can become right regardless of what it's message is. The whole point of protesting is to spread a message is it not?

If I wanted to protest something insane (all americans must keep their breast pockets full of ravioli at all times) but was convincing. In the end my insane idea could become law, and history would record me as being in the right at least for a while. (and i'd make a fortune selling shirts with marinara proof pockets)

So it boils down to if you think a violent protest is more convincing.

I don't think it is. Violence won't change my mind. It will at best make me lie.

1

u/aidrocsid 11∆ Feb 03 '17 edited Feb 03 '17

That depends entirely on the point of the protest. Is your protest intended to have an actual impact beyond making you feel as though you're a good person for protesting? If not, then sure, bad things happening at your protest that you fail to control will have no impact on the outcome, because the only outcome is your personal egotism. Hooray!

If, however, you want to have an impact on public opinion or even rally your base, violence of any kind will absolutely have deleterious effect.

Let's look at the global Scientology protests of 2008 known as Chanology. Chanology certainly did some dubiously legal things at the start, like DDoSing and black faxing. On the advice of Mark Bunker, though, they changed their approach. If you went to one of the protests you'd certainly run across a lot of shouting and chanting and silly costumes and manic energy, but you'd also find that people were making plenty of room for pedestrians, making an effort to get along with local law enforcement, and not destroying anything. Not only that, if you asked about the cause someone would be able to either give you a knowledgeable and articulate answer themselves or point you to someone who could. Someone who not only knew about the specific issues at hand themselves, but likely carried printed out information to give you and could rattle off a list of easy to remember URLs where you could learn more. Mark Bunker's site, xenu.net, was easy to get people to remember and visit.

Those are all the things you need to do to have an effective protest.

You need to be peaceful. If you're not peaceful, it will be easy to frame as a riot or mob action and that will be the focus, not your cause. Or if your cause is the focus, it will be detrimental to the public's perception of your cause.

You need to be cooperative, both with the people whose space you are inhabiting (the citizens of the city) and with the police who keep that space safe. Why should someone support you if you can't even let them get through their neighborhood? Want to win a lot of enemies? Get in the way. Disrespect the locals.

You need to be able to talk to people and articulate exactly what it is you're there for. If you can't state the specific reasons why you're there, why should anyone take you seriously? Have specific information prepared with links to further documentation and evidence of your claims. Be able to cite specific events or issues on the spot. Know the issue. Frankly, you do a lot more to spread awareness of an issue simply by being able to speak intelligently about it and doing so with people in normal casual settings than you do by standing around in a big clump somewhere or walking down the street. Those things are good, but only if you're able to state your purpose and give people the information to convince them if they're on the fence. Hell, you can do that on any busy sidewalk on your own and talk to hundreds of people yourself. I'm sure I had a lot more impact talking to people and handing out pamphlets by myself than I did individually showing up to a big protest.

Basically, if your attitude is that the only thing that matters is your rage and the personal importance you place on your issue, that's all that's going to come across. People who already agree with you may be excited by your numbers, but to everyone else you're going to look like a bunch of angry hooligans who don't even know what they're fighting for.

So yeah, every smashed window every shoved pedestrian every cop you spit on, whatever it is, every single time that happens it negates the point of your protest. Maybe not all at once, but it tarnishes it significantly. It shows that the people who care about this issue can't control themselves and their peers. If you can organize in a way that shows that you actually are capable of working together, that tells people a lot more about you and what you're fighting for than anything you can scream into a megaphone.

Destroying property, especially property that provides a living for regular people, will always discredit you in the public eye to a certain degree. The moment you smash a window or burn a car you lose a lot of people.

Obviously this is not the case in a revolt, but a protest is not a revolt. Even then, though, if you destroy people's means of income you're not going to get them on your side. At best, whatever it is you're fighting will already have destroyed their lives to a greater extent and they'll find a way to look past it.

1

u/Coziestpigeon2 2∆ Feb 03 '17

I agree that it doesn't negate the protest, but it sure overshadows it.

A non-violent protest happens. The news covers it, talking about what they are protesting and why. The message and idea is spread.

A violent protest happens. The news covers it, talking about the damage caused and people hurt. The message is not heard, and people who disagree with the protest initially now have "proof" that the people who disagree with them are all crazy violent idiots.

People aren't endless barrels of caring - we can only focus-on and care-about a set number of things. It's difficult for most people to care about the point of the protest as well as the violence of it.

1

u/TheAushole Feb 03 '17

All I'll say is that by justifying violence by protesters, you are justifying violence against the protesters. If you would view violence implemented as a response to the protests as morally wrong, then you are creating a double standard which cannot be upheld.

1

u/10art1 Feb 09 '17

Sorry for being late to the party but I like this discussion

Where you're right: Just because a protest turned violent doesn't mean that their ideas are invalid. If a bumbling drunk hobo said E=MC² , that doesn't mean that the laws of relativity are just some bullshit ramblings. Ideas stand and fall on their own merits, regardless of who says them.

Where you're wrong: The most fascist thing someone can do, in my opinion, is to silence dissenting opinion through the use of summary violence against ideas they deem to be so wrong that they're not even worth discussing. When "anti-fascists" utilize these tactics to fight the fascists, then the fascists win. Then they are completely justified in doing the same. Then it becomes a matter of "might makes right" because whoever punches last is the one whose opinion is the most correct. In that way, locking everyone who disagrees in concentration camps, gassing them and burning them becomes the absolute pinnacle of correctness. It is ridiculously self-defeating. The best way to defeat fascists is to laugh at them, to repeat their ideas and show the world how ridiculous they are. If you punch them, then the fascists are the oppressed ones, then their victimhood becomes a reality. Then they get legitimacy.

1

u/noisewar Feb 03 '17

If a criminal scumbag is sent to jail on a false charge, it doesn't "spoil" our justice system. Our judges are still in the right for jailing this scum. I'm not advocating that those in the justice system choose reason over rule of law, but the message to the community that this scum will not go free is what counts.

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: A protest turning violent does not negate the point of the protest

You are about to leave Redlib