Support NeoGAF

[necrosis]

Need to make those laws to stem all protesters faster. We need the legal ability to run people over already. I'm tired of waiting. Cops are getting all the fun.

jesus christ you're a fucking sociopath

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

A hypothetical for those in favor of blocking public transit to protest: how long should they be allowed to occupy a street before their "point has been made"?

Should a well organized group, for instance, be allowed to block every road in D.C. Leading to and from the White House/Capital building for an indefinite amount of time? Should they be allowed to shut down I-95 for an indefinite amount of time?

You may consider this outlandish, but if people were allowed to block street access without prior permission whenever they wanted, I don't see how a couple dozen people wouldn't be able to pull this off.

Stop Nana Ruthing.

That said, as long as needed until the other side finally negotiate.

 

[pirateluigi]

A hypothetical for those in favor of blocking public transit to protest: how long should they be allowed to occupy a street before their "point has been made"?

Should a well organized group, for instance, be allowed to block every road in D.C. Leading to and from the White House/Capital building for an indefinite amount of time? Should they be allowed to shut down I-95 for an indefinite amount of time?

You may consider this outlandish, but if people were allowed to block street access without prior permission whenever they wanted, I don't see how a couple dozen people wouldn't be able to pull this off.

I mean... yeah. That's kind of the point.

Quoting MLK yet again: "The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation."

 

[ahoyhoy]

Are you saying the founders actions against the British did not affect the colonials at all? Because that is simply not true.

Of course they did, but they at least were reasonably directed towards the British.

That's the entire point here. People aren't mad at the disruptive protests, they're mad at the seemingly random nature of them.

I'm sure the Women's March was disruptive to many working class people as well, but the target of those protests were clear, their intentions for the March itself were broadcast well in advance, and they were organized in a way to allow the maximum amount of people to protest with the least amount of disruption (which is why they occurred on a Saturday and, for DC at least, were restricted to marching on the street downtown which is dead on the weekends).

 

[Gordon Shumway]

jesus christ you're a fucking sociopath

lol..How are you missing the sarcasm?

 

[Impeccable]

lol..How are you missing the sarcasm?

No critical thinking. Also fail to read like seven posts later where I for some reason had to explain.

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

The force used to bring that first guy down was unnecessary. Grabbing them and cuffing would have sufficed. Good on them for moving people though

Kinda goes against rallying people to your side when you are blocking them from getting somewhere they need to be. You expect people waiting in their cars for 20 minutes while you stand in the road to be sympathetic or ready to jump by your side in the future?

What really disgusts me is when I see videos of protestors blocking ambulances and fire trucks from getting places...like how is that helping anything.

 

[Jeevesmeister]

Americans are amazing, you're endangering the whole world and you still have the gaul to moan about protesters blocking traffic. This world is fucking done.

It's really cool to see people being straight up openly fascist and cheering police violence against civil disobedience. Really, really cool.

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

lol..How are you missing the sarcasm?

To be fair man, we already have people cheering the cops doing this, so it's hard to tell sometimes.

 

[JustenP88]

When 35 year-old Muslim engineers are being tracked down and sent away from the only home they've known since they were children, protestors blocking traffic for a bit is going to seem pretty fucking inconsequential.

Money is the only language we all understand. Fuck with their money and they might listen.

Also, can I ask what "Nana ruth" means? I've never heard that and Google is giving me some results that seem irrelevant...

 

[guek]

lol..How are you missing the sarcasm?

Are you telling me this isn't you?

 

[ahoyhoy]

I mean... yeah. That's kind of the point.

Quoting MLK yet again: "The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation."

The CRM created a crisis by creating martyrs and garneringsympathy from liberals and moderates outside of their area of action.

They understood they were never going to earn the sympathy of those they protested directly against: white southerners were as racist as they come and wouldn't think twice at hosing black folk or kicking them out of their businesses.

These actions instead exposed the barbarity and injustice of the South to the wider world, which contrasted directly with the world they enjoyed. This put pressure on elected officials in their districts to take action against a very tangible source of oppression.

I'd imagine if the CRM protests took place largely in already liberal hotbed of CRM activity the movement would have very little impact. Instead, they went to the source of oppression for maximum impact.

 

[Ms.Galaxy]

The force used to bring that first guy down was unnecessary. Grabbing them and cuffing would have sufficed. Good on them for moving people though

Kinda goes against rallying people to your side when you are blocking them from getting somewhere they need to be. You expect people waiting in their cars for 20 minutes while you stand in the road to be sympathetic or ready to jump by your side in the future?

What really disgusts me is when I see videos of protestors blocking ambulances and fire trucks from getting places...like how is that helping anything.

How many times is this going to have to be brought up? The point of protesting is not to make friends or allies, it's a nice bonus if it happens, the main point is to disrupt society until those on top listen because they will only respond to bad PR and their bottom line being hurt (money).

 

[Hale-XF11]

I can only see authoritarianism getting worse and worse for the next 4 years.

We are in for a rough ride, folks.

 

[ahoyhoy]

Stop Nana Ruthing.

That said, as long as needed until the other side finally negotiate.

I mean, as long as youre cool with it I guess that's fine.

Personally I wouldn't want my town completely shut down by protests on a daily basis until protesters accomplish some lofty goal like toppling the head of state.

Keep in mind this could also cut both ways. Soon you could have gun toting anti abortionists blocking streets and all but delivering vague threats to people trying to get by.

 

[pirateluigi]

The CRM created a crisis by creating martyrs and garneringsympathy from liberals and moderates outside of their area of action.

They understood they were never going to earn the sympathy of those they protested directly against: white southerners were as racist as they come and wouldn't think twice at hosing black folk or kicking them out of their businesses.

These actions instead exposed the barbarity and injustice of the South to the wider world, which contrasted directly with the world they enjoyed. This put pressure on elected officials in their districts to take action against a very tangible source of oppression.

I'd imagine if the CRM protests took place largely in already liberal hotbed of CRM activity the movement would have very little impact. Instead, they went to the source of oppression for maximum impact.

But.... this Portland protest is directed at the Portland police. This is a local issue that they protested locally. How else do you protest this?

And MLK really wasn't a fan of moderates. He was upset that they were more concerned with order and the illusion of peace than justice.

 

[Messofanego]

Note: because I know GAF, I'm going to preface this by saying I don't agree with the police here and do support peaceful but disruptive protests, provided it won't affect emergency vehicles where people need medical attention.


How about if we ONLY had "disruptive" protests?

What I mean is, do you... I don't know... Maybe... Perhaps... Think the local and state powers are getting just slightly on edge from "protests" turning into "riots" where property is being destroyed left and right?

Like, if you came over to my house on the reg just to punch me in the balls, chances are one of these days I'm going to see you walking up to my door and I'm just going to start swinging on you BEFORE you do something.

Protests have repeatedly turned into riots - not sure exactly what people are expecting moving forward. I don't agree with what police are doing here, but you have to be able to see past your own nose in these situations. It's compounding, not isolated.

Disruptive? Fine. Destructive? No. The more the latter happens the less the former will be allowed. Honestly, people will ruin it for themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ph5g0jb8cE&feature=youtu.be

"But at the same time, it is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities as it is for me to condemn riots. I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. In the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality and humanity. And so in a real sense, our nation's summers of riots are caused by our nation's winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention." - Martin Luther King Jr (The Other America, 1968)

 

[ahoyhoy]

But.... this Portland protest is directed at the Portland police. This is a local issue that they protested locally. How else do you protest this?

And MLK really wasn't a fan of moderates. He was upset that they were more concerned with order and the illusion of peace than justice.

If the objective of the protest was to expose the violence of Portland police by creating a situation where one could martyr themselves, I suppose it accomplished its goal.

And I think MLK become tired of moderates later in life well after the initial civil rights bills were passed. They got the movement to a certain point but not nearly far enough.

 

[sir_kevith]

If you have such overwhelming numbers to block traffic then by all means go for it. If you're just a ragtag group then please don't.

 

[pirateluigi]

If the objective of the protest was to expose the violence of Portland police by creating a situation where one could martyr themselves, I suppose it accomplished its goal.

And I think MLK become tired of moderates later in life well after the initial civil rights bills were passed. They got the movement to a certain point but not nearly far enough.

Nah, that line is from Letter From a Birmingham Jail, 1963:
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"

 

[PopeReal]

After the massive peaceful protests that caused an amazing amount of butthurt, bitching, moaning, anger, and hate, I will never believe people again who lecture about protesting.

If there is violence, they bitch, If it is peaceful, they bitch. It doesn't matter. They don't want protesting, period.

 

[Splash Wave]

My country is slowly slipping into fascism but at least I can take pride in knowing I made it to work on time so I can sit and jack off to innocent people getting choke slammed all day. Scum of the fucking earth.

I actually loled at this. Fuck those cops.

 

[PopeReal]

I mean, as long as youre cool with it I guess that's fine.

Personally I wouldn't want my town completely shut down by protests on a daily basis until protesters accomplish some lofty goal like toppling the head of state.

Keep in mind this could also cut both ways. Soon you could have gun toting anti abortionists blocking streets and all but delivering vague threats to people trying to get by.

So you set their goals, and sit on your ass and bitch?

LOL K.

 

[ahoyhoy]

Nah, that line is from Letter From a Birmingham Jail, 1963:
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"

Ah.

I still don't think they could have accomplished what they did without convincing some moderates to at least vote in their favor if not join them in action.

And just because MLK may have been right in being frustrated with moderate's unwillingness to endorse their protest methods of choice does not mean that the types of disruptive protests we're discussing here are right and good; just that they aren't instantly bad.

Beyond the legality of the methods, I'm generally questioning whether or not they're practically beneficial in a way that they're not going far enough in the right place. Much like I criticized the anarchist for throwing a molotov cocktail at a random limo last weekend rather than throwing one through the window of trump's hotel, I'll also criticize disruptive protests against random people rather than disruptive protests against those directly involved in oppressive behavior.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

I'd be pissed of if I was on the way to work and riding on that bus. You want to protest, fine. Do it where it doesn't interfere with other peoples lives.

And here we see the reason for terrible conditions. People, on a bus, to get to work are not going to effect the change we need, as individuals. But if you make them fight amongst themselves, they stay busy and fractured. Some people are too busy at work to care about their fellow man. They'll gladly take terrible wages and a bus ride over changing the system. They'll accept a small number of civil rights violations to keep their average job. As long as they feel they are coming out on top.

The strategy has worked very well against the American worker. Remove pensions and benefits, make them work longer for less pay, decrease overtime, gut unions. Force people to work multiple jobs. If they are too tired, they won't come even if they built it. The people upset with the average plight of Americans will stand aside and clap for their masters because they are focused on the wrong thing.

 

[commedieu]

After the massive peaceful protests that caused an amazing amount of butthurt, bitching, moaning, anger, and hate, I will never believe people again who lecture about protesting.

If there is violence, they bitch, If it is peaceful, they bitch. It doesn't matter. They don't want protesting, period.

It's a world view issue. If there are this many people upset and protesting that means my America isn't fair to everyone. And there is legitimacy behind claims of my privilege. I can't admit that truth, so I have to debunk the claim as hard work = equality for everyone. I got mine, and everyone that doesn't make it has only themselves to blame.

I don't have trouble with police so everyone is getting themselves into trouble. That's the way it is, that I've been raised by. That's the world I live in. I must resist any challenge to my view, as it defines me as a person. If it's not true, where does it leave me? What does that make me.

No, it's the children that are out of touch.

 

[Got]

Ah.

I still don't think they could have accomplished what they did without convincing some moderates to at least vote in their favor if not join them in action.

And just because MLK may have been right in being frustrated with moderate's unwillingness to endorse their protest methods of choice does not mean that the types of disruptive protests we're discussing here are right and good; just that they aren't instantly bad.

Beyond the legality of the methods, I'm generally questioning whether or not they're practically beneficial in a way that they're not going far enough in the right place. Much like I criticized the anarchist for throwing a molotov cocktail at a random limo last weekend rather than throwing one through the window of trump's hotel, I'll also criticize disruptive protests against random people rather than disruptive protests against those directly involved in oppressive behavior.

well, at least you're committed to and wallow in your ignorance

 

[TheOfficeMut]

Need to make those laws to stem all protesters faster. We need the legal ability to run people over already. I'm tired of waiting. Cops are getting all the fun.

Go ahead and run someone over then so you hopefully go to prison.

 

[superdeluxe]

Impeccable, I think you should update your original post

 

[pirateluigi]

Ah.

I still don't think they could have accomplished what they did without convincing some moderates to at least vote in their favor if not join them in action.

And just because MLK may have been right in being frustrated with moderate's unwillingness to endorse their protest methods of choice does not mean that the types of disruptive protests we're discussing here are right and good; just that they aren't instantly bad.

Beyond the legality of the methods, I'm generally questioning whether or not they're practically beneficial in a way that they're not going far enough in the right place. Much like I criticized the anarchist for throwing a molotov cocktail at a random limo last weekend rather than throwing one through the window of trump's hotel, I'll also criticize disruptive protests against random people rather than disruptive protests against those directly involved in oppressive behavior.

And I think that's a fair debate to have. I have great respect and admiration for Dr King, but I'm not going to act like his word is gospel. I just get frustrated with the people that say protests should never be disruptive, or should not inconvenience anyone. Which... I don't know how they expect change to happen. Even Gandhi's Salt March was about intentionally and publicly breaking an unjust law and the 2 mile long line of people was certainly disruptive.

I also vocally criticized the limo attack, but I see a wide gulf between blocking traffic and fire bombing an occupied vehicle.

 

[Eidan]

After the massive peaceful protests that caused an amazing amount of butthurt, bitching, moaning, anger, and hate, I will never believe people again who lecture about protesting.

If there is violence, they bitch, If it is peaceful, they bitch. It doesn't matter. They don't want protesting, period.

Yeah, I pretty much ignore those who complain about protesting. If your protest isn't pissing off white moderates, you probably aren't protesting right.

 

[Cipherr]

Yeah, I pretty much ignore those who complain about protesting. If your protest isn't pissing off white moderates, you probably aren't protesting right.

So true it hurts.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

Ah.

I still don't think they could have accomplished what they did without convincing some moderates to at least vote in their favor if not join them in action.

And just because MLK may have been right in being frustrated with moderate's unwillingness to endorse their protest methods of choice does not mean that the types of disruptive protests we're discussing here are right and good; just that they aren't instantly bad.

Beyond the legality of the methods, I'm generally questioning whether or not they're practically beneficial in a way that they're not going far enough in the right place. Much like I criticized the anarchist for throwing a molotov cocktail at a random limo last weekend rather than throwing one through the window of trump's hotel, I'll also criticize disruptive protests against random people rather than disruptive protests against those directly involved in oppressive behavior.

How do you easily identify the people involved in oppressive behavior? So they can be protested against.

 

[ahoyhoy]

And I think that's a fair debate to have. I have great respect and admiration for Dr King, but I'm not going to act like his word is gospel. I just get frustrated with the people that say protests should never be disruptive, or should not inconvenience anyone. Which... I don't know how they expect change to happen. Even Gandhi's Salt March was about intentionally and publicly breaking an unjust law and the 2 mile long line of people was certainly disruptive.

I also vocally criticized the limo attack, but I see a wide gulf between blocking traffic and fire bombing an occupied vehicle.

And I never said they couldn't be disruptive.

I absolutely cackled when I heard about the "Resist" banner in DC yesterday. That certainly caused traffic (I know because I was listening to the DC NPR station at the time which was discussing how it was affecting commutes in the area) but that was largely a side effect and the optics of the protest itself couldn't be more clear.

I'd love to see more stuff like that. And if traffic needs to be blocked, block it in front of the RNC headquarters or the BoA headquarters or the G20 summit or something.

 

[Jacksinthe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ph5g0jb8cE&feature=youtu.be

"But at the same time, it is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities as it is for me to condemn riots. I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. In the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality and humanity. And so in a real sense, our nation's summers of riots are caused by our nation's winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention." - Martin Luther King Jr (The Other America, 1968)

Oh I'm well aware of Dr King and that literally has nothing to do with my observation on what the government might be thinking.

So is there anything YOU would like to say, perhaps express an opinion on the matter other than invoking the obvious that gets invoked ad nauseum even though it has nothing to do with my point?

Perhaps don't understand what I'm saying? Don't understand I'm making an observation on what the other side possibly thinks?

I mean, if you read what I wrote, I'm saying that constant DESTRUCTION creates a response that can be additive and executed before a destructive catalyst is even present, hence the punching in the balls analogy.

Here's a simpler analogy if the point still eludes you:
If you keep on doing shit. People will expect shit and react preemptively.

Understand?

That doesn't make the police response correct and never stated as much, I'm making an observation on possible catalysts due to the increase in destruction at protests.

 

[RPGCrazied]

Looks like Trump's police to me. Start violence first ask questions later.

 

[commedieu]

Oh I'm well aware of Dr King and that literally has nothing to do with my observation on what the government might be thinking.

So is there anything YOU would like to say, perhaps express an opinion on the matter other than invoking the obvious that gets invoked ad nauseum even though it has nothing to do with my point?

Perhaps don't understand what I'm saying? Don't understand I'm making an observation on what the other side possibly thinks?

I mean, if you read what I wrote, I'm saying that constant DESTRUCTION creates a response that can be additive and executed before a destructive catalyst is even present, hence the punching in the balls analogy.

Here's a simpler analogy if the point still eludes you:
If you keep on doing shit. People will expect shit and react preemptively.

Understand?

That doesn't make the response correct, I'm making an observation on possible catalysts due to the increase in destruction at protests.

Savvy?

You wrote a lot to say you don't understand why people protest, and the point of protesting.

Capt. Jack.

Citation needed for what defines "constant destruction" too.. as surely you're not talking about a minority % of peaceful protests.

 

[Tarydax]

When did missing work become something that's like....not at all a big deal? A "minor inconvenience"? For some people maybe that's true, for others it definitely isn't. Maybe you're willing to sacrifice "Random Person X's" job for the greater good, but don't be surprised if Random Person X feels differently and wants you out of the fucking way regardless of how they feel about your cause.

But either way I can see where the other side is coming from, if you want to enact change then you have to capture attention somehow. So then you block a road, because that's a good way to capture attention and be very disruptive. It's going to make thousands of people late for wherever they're going, whether that's a particularly important place or not.

But then to say "OH BOO HOO, BOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOO IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL RESPECT THE PROTESTER'S RIGHTS", like, you know that making a lot of people late and fucking up their day is a big deal. That's the whole reason this is a strategy in the first place, because it's disruptive, right? It can't be a big deal and not a big deal at the same time.

If everyone shared your opinion and started applauding when traffic got blocked because who doesn't just love a good protest, it would ruin the point of doing it. You can't have the positive effect that protesting can bring without accepting the consequences. And in this case, blocking the road is illegal and you're probably going to get arrested if you do it.


Doesn't look like they should've tackled that person though. I see that as a separate issue.

If your employer fires you because you were held up by a protest (something you have no control over), you were going to be fired sooner rather than later, anyway. Either that or your employer is a draconian monstrosity. Besides, if everyone who was held up by a protest were fired, a lot of people would be out of work. Firing people for missing work because of protests is bad policy and no company is that stupid.

Companies would be throwing away their money. They would have to spend immeasurable amounts over a long period of time firing old workers, hiring and retraining new ones, and restarting the process all over again. That's why the people who were held up by this particular protest aren't going to get fired - because this whole imaginary scenario you created is fucking stupid.

 

[Jacksinthe]

You wrote a lot to say you don't understand why people protest, and the point of protesting.

Capt. Jack.

I never made an observation on why people protest. I made an observation on why the police were aggressive to a non-aggressive protest.

That shouldn't be difficult.

At all, actually.

If you want to see how I feel about protesting and when there is a need for more than disruption you should check my post history especially in regards to oppression of minorities.

So don't spin what I'm saying. I know how you operate, I've seen your posts and I'd appreciate you not do this to me a second time, thanks.

To your edit: any protest that goes above and beyond simple disruption and begins hurting the people in and the communities, themselves. We've had plenty of those in the past few years. There's a time and a place for that type of action but rarely do the protesters get the time and place correct. Frequency of, if time and place were on point, matters little. A lot in the right places will do less to damage public relations than a few in the wrong places.

 

[Messofanego]

And here we see the reason for terrible conditions. People, on a bus, to get to work are not going to effect the change we need, as individuals. But if you make them fight amongst themselves, they stay busy and fractured. Some people are too busy at work to care about their fellow man. They'll gladly take terrible wages and a bus ride over changing the system. They'll accept a small number of civil rights violations to keep their average job. As long as they feel they are coming out on top.

The strategy has worked very well against the American worker. Remove pensions and benefits, make them work longer for less pay, decrease overtime, gut unions. Force people to work multiple jobs. If they are too tired, they won't come even if they built it. The people upset with the average plight of Americans will stand aside and clap for their masters because they are focused on the wrong thing.

United States is the only developed country where paid time off is not guaranteed, Americans don't even get enough holidays, cite work as one the top causes of stress, and yet when it's convenient as an argument piece will sure love to bring up the inconvenience of not getting to work on time.

 

[Frozenprince]

A football player made the least disruptive protest in history and millions, literal millions, threatened him or told him to get in line and shut his ass up.

FOH with this right way to protest nonsense.

 

[Mimir]

Looks like Trump's police to me. Start violence first ask questions later.

That's kind of what you get when the police not only knowingly employee a nazi as a police captain, but the city gives him some extra vacation, a bonus, and his records wiped clean because of it.

 

[TalonJH]

The CRM created a crisis by creating martyrs and garneringsympathy from liberals and moderates outside of their area of action.

They understood they were never going to earn the sympathy of those they protested directly against: white southerners were as racist as they come and wouldn't think twice at hosing black folk or kicking them out of their businesses.

These actions instead exposed the barbarity and injustice of the South to the wider world, which contrasted directly with the world they enjoyed. This put pressure on elected officials in their districts to take action against a very tangible source of oppression.

I'd imagine if the CRM protests took place largely in already liberal hotbed of CRM activity the movement would have very little impact. Instead, they went to the source of oppression for maximum impact.

This actually isn't true. It was more than just a south thing.

The civil rights movement made most Americans uncomfortable. From presidents to ordinary citizens, many regarded it as ”extremism." People regularly called MLK and Rosa Parks communists and traitors, not just in the South but also in the ”liberal" North, for their critiques of police brutality and their support of housing and school desegregation.

The majority of the American public did not support the civil rights movement while it was happening. In May 1961, in a Gallup survey, only 22 percent of Americans approved of what the Freedom Riders were doing, and 57 percent of Americans said that the sit-ins at lunch counters, freedom buses and other demonstrations by Negroes were hurting the Negro's chances of being integrated in the South.

Lest we see this as Southerners skewing the national sample, in 1964, a year before the passage of the Voting Rights Act, in a poll conducted by the New York Times, a majority of white people in New York City said the civil rights movement had gone too far: ”While denying any deepseated prejudice, a large number of those questioned used the same terms to express their feelings. They spoke of Negroes' receiving ‘everything on a silver platter' and of ‘reverse discrimination' against whites." Nearly half said that picketing and demonstrations hurt black people's cause. In 1966, a year after Selma and the passage of the Voting Rights Act, 85 percent of white people and 30 percent of black people nationally believed that demonstrations by black people on civil rights hurt the advancement of civil rights.

http://www.theroot.com/mlk-would-never-shut-down-a-freeway-and-6-other-myths-1790856033

 

[EatinOlives]

A football player made the least disruptive protest in history and millions, literal millions, threatened him or told him to get in line and shut his ass up.

FOH with this right way to protest nonsense.

It's actually become a rule with me.

Is it drawing the ire of concern trolls and their "but what about MY convenience??? This isn't the right way to protest!!!" nonsense? Then you're doing the protest correctly.

 

[commedieu]

I never made an observation on why people protest. I made an observation on why the police were aggressive to a non-aggressive protest.

That shouldn't be difficult.

At all, actually.

If you want to see how I feel about protesting and when there is a need for more than disruption you should check my post history especially in regards to oppression of minorities.

So don't spin what I'm saying. I know how you operate, I've seen your posts and I'd appreciate you not do this to me a second time, thanks.

To your edit: any protest that goes above and beyond simple disruption and begins hurting the people in and the communities, themselves. We've had plenty of those in the past few years. There's a time and a place for that type of action but rarely do the protesters get the time and place correct. Frequency of, if time and place were on point, matters little. A lot in the right places will do less to damage public relations than a few in the wrong places.

You mean destruction in the sense of constant disruption? There are more peaceful protests than there are riots. If frequency is irrelevant, doesn't that speak even further to a problem with leo training if you're going to have zero tolerance and respond with violence because it happened before once?

You say constant destruction, then say frequency doesn't matter.

I think that your post, explains to me, that your focus on the minority to explain the actions of police illustrate an imagine of missing the reasons behind protests, and why your focus is in the wrong direction. Police aren't always attacked in protests, or in life in general. But if one was once, that explains their hostility toward civilians, as frequency doesn't matter.

I don't need to spin anything you've said. And I'm not trying to. That's my take home from your exchange with the other poster.

There is rarely a scheduled time and place for a riot. These are all reasons I believe you're looking at things oddly.

 

[Messofanego]

I never made an observation on why people protest. I made an observation on why the police were aggressive to a non-aggressive protest.

That shouldn't be difficult.

At all, actually.

If you want to see how I feel about protesting and when there is a need for more than disruption you should check my post history especially in regards to oppression of minorities.

So don't spin what I'm saying. I know how you operate, I've seen your posts and I'd appreciate you not do this to me a second time, thanks.

To your edit: any protest that goes above and beyond simple disruption and begins hurting the people in and the communities, themselves. We've had plenty of those in the past few years. There's a time and a place for that type of action but rarely do the protesters get the time and place correct. Frequency of, if time and place were on point, matters little. A lot in the right places will do less to damage public relations than a few in the wrong places.

You, the master of protesting, please outline to us the best and most effective means of protest by way of time and place so that protesters can learn from your sage wisdom.

Since you seem to be so incensed with MLK Jr quotes, I'll put down another one:

"...who constantly says 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a 'more convenient season'."

 

[chillybright]

Casual 👍

 

[Jacksinthe]

You mean destruction in the sense of constant disruption? There are more peaceful protests than there are riots. If frequency is irrelevant, doesn't that speak even further to a problem with leo training if you're going to have zero tolerance and respond with violence because it happened before once?

You say constant destruction, then say frequency doesn't matter.

I think that your post, explains to me, that your focus on the minority to explain the actions of police illustrate an imagine of missing the reasons behind protests, and why your focus is in the wrong direction. Police aren't always attacked in protests, or in life in general. But if one was once, that explains their hostility toward civilians, as frequency doesn't matter.

I don't need to spin anything you've said. And I'm not trying to. That's my take home from your exchange with the other poster.

There is rarely a scheduled time and place for a riot. These are all reasons I believe you're looking at things oddly.

I have no clue how you can conflate disruption with destruction. None. Destruction in a literal sense. Like breaking things. Fire. Vandalism. You get the idea.

But it didn't happen before "once".

And I clarified how frequency can work for or against you without contradiction. Reread if you need to but don't be daft.

You seem to be concerned with things I never spoke of and seem to think that if police aren't the ones being attacked they shouldn't strike first in a different encounter.

Not sure if you've been paying attention to how blacks are treated by police, unprovoked.

You would think it would be easy to bridge the gap between unprovoked violence by police and unprovoked violence by police in a different situation. You know, a clear lack of shit like logic and reason by the police.

I guess not :|

I'll continue the last part with one stone below:

You, the master of protesting, please outline to us the best and most effective means of protest by way of time and place so that protesters can learn from your sage wisdom.

Since you seem to be so incensed with MLK Jr quotes, I'll put down another one:

"...who constantly says 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a 'more convenient season'."

There are no best or most effective. There's only directing the protests at the right parties making them (hopefully) better and more effective.

You must actually think the police or elected officials give a shit about what happens to private citizen Joe Schmoe's personal effects, place of business, etc.

Are you not even remotely curious why there are murders by sometimes the dozens on weekends in Chicago but it's just a number blurb on the 4th page of the paper but HOT SHIT THERE WAS AN ARMED ROBBERY IN LILY WHITE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE NOBODY WAS INJURED front page news?

Perhaps the focus should be more in the backyards of those with power rather than the communities they rule over (note I am not saying lead or represent)?

Maybe then the powers that be will give a fuck when it hits close to home?

 

[adamsappel]

I was going to post pics of civil rights protesters being attacked by dogs and hit with fire hoses and truncheons, but it was making me physically sick to search for them, so I'll just ask: What's the difference between that and what happened in Portland? Do you condemn what happened in the '60s, but complain about being late for work this morning?

 

[Jacksinthe]

I was going to post pics of civil rights protesters being attacked by dogs and hit with fire hoses and truncheons, but it was making me physically sick to search for them, so I'll just ask: What's the difference between that and what happened in Portland? Do you condemn what happened in the '60s, but complain about being late for work this morning?

The difference is the level of force used, obviously.

The message is the same, though: oppress.