13
14

On Anti-Trump Violence at Trump Rallies (self.SRSDiscussion)

emojiclast が 投稿

Hello all, glad to see this sub back. So: violence at Trump rallies. I am going to hope for the best of our nature and hope that most of us are in agreement that this is generally not a good or productive thing. What is worse, although the violence did prompt in their camp, the anti-Trump violence on Trump supporters is worse than anything that has transpired from supporters at their rallies so far. In my opinion, this cannot stand and it only escalates to further violence. But my opinion isn't really why I am posting this, since I do have some questions for the group:

  • Is this anti-trump violence a logical end-result of believing that hateful rhetoric = violence? If we are to believe that words are akin to violent behavior, what kind of moral ground can one stand on when saying this isn't the right kind of retribution?

  • For those who believe that this violence is justified (perhaps because of the above question) what is the end game? When things eventually escalate if the violence continues, would that be part of the end-game?

全 113 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]dream_meme_team 27ポイント28ポイント  (24子コメント)

For those who believe that this violence is justified (perhaps because of the above question) what is the end game? When things eventually escalate if the violence continues, would that be part of the end-game?

People are consistently answering your first question but not this one because there is no endgame. All this theoretical discussion about whether violence is justified is pointless. The fact of the matter is, political violence, whether just or not, has a poor track record of achieving the goal which originally prompted it, and often ends up harming innocent people.

I have a feeling that most of the people in this thread calling for political violence are insulated from the reality of it. For these people, calling for violent uprising is just a way of showing how committed and ideologically pure they are. I doubt politically-minded millennials from Cambodia or the Democratic Republic of the Congo are as trigger-happy as their comparatively-privileged first-world counterparts in this thread calling for political violence.

[–]suto 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree strongly.

Angry people aren't motivated by ideology, they're swept into action by demagogues. The problem with the idea that people need to get angry enough to revolt is that it confuses the anger against the ruling party for an agreement on what to do after.

When you imagine that consensus exists, then it seems obvious that everything will be great in the aftermath. But the truth is it doesn't, and then you're left with a power vacuum and those are filled by the most greedy, ruthless, and violent, not the most benevolent.

[–]SpookyStirnerite 4ポイント5ポイント  (19子コメント)

The fact of the matter is, political violence, whether just or not, has a poor track record of achieving the goal which originally prompted it, and often ends up harming innocent people.

This is just patently false. No fight against fascism and oppression has ever been won without violence. The civil rights movement wasn't peaceful, the Stonewall riots weren't peaceful, the Indian independence movement wasn't peaceful, the fight against the Nazis and Franco and ISIS isn't peaceful, and the labor rights movement wasn't peaceful.

Violence is integral for political progress.

[–]suto 8ポイント9ポイント  (14子コメント)

In none of those examples did violence fundamentally change the power structure. Violence can bring attention to issues, but when violence is the primary act of change, the existing power structure either persevered or a dictator became the new center of power.

[–]inngrinder 6ポイント7ポイント  (8子コメント)

Please explain how the fight against the Nazis didn't "fundamentally change the power structure".

[–]suto 5ポイント6ポイント  (7子コメント)

Capitalism and (economic) imperialism ruled the Earth before the Nazis gained power, and they continue to do so to this day.

[–]inngrinder 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

Uh huh. So your solution to both capitalism and imperialism is... ?

[–]suto 9ポイント10ポイント  (5子コメント)

I should be asking you that question. The capitalists and the imperialists control the tools of violence. Why is violence the solution?

[–]inngrinder 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

They also control the tools of non-violence and "legitimate" political institutions. I'm not really sure what you're arguing for here.

[–]suto 7ポイント8ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'm saying that fascism being defeated by the war machine of capitalist countries that were more powerful before and continue to be more powerful after doesn't constitute a fundamental change of power.

[–]inngrinder 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Ok. And how was non-violent protest more successful?

[–]SpookyStirnerite 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

In none of those examples did violence fundamentally change the power structure.

What? It absolutely did. Are you kidding? None of those things would've succeeded without the use of violence.

Part of the whitewashing of the civil rights movement is the idea that it was all just peaceful sit-ins and protests and speeches about pacifism.

There was a lot of violence and a lot of conflict, and this is what led to radical change. You think blacks got equal rights by electing the lesser evil or that the politicians who passed the civil rights act did so because after hundreds of years they suddenly just decided now was the time for racial equality? They did it because they didn't want the riots and the conflicts to continue, they didn't it want them to escalate even further.

It's the same with BLM. Without riots, there's no way BLM can succeed. There's no way the state is just going to suddenly start punishing cops out of the goodness of its heart.

[–]suto 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

I didn't deny that violence played a part. But the change that has happened since was a slow change led by legal and cultural shifts.

Wealthy white men were the power-brokers in 1800 and they still are today. I don't see a fundamental change in power, here.

[–]SpookyStirnerite 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

I didn't deny that violence played a part. But the change that has happened since was a slow change led by legal and cultural shifts.

Legal and cultural shifts driven by violence.

Wealthy white men were the power-brokers in 1800 and they still are today. I don't see a fundamental change in power, here.

Because we need more violence. Wealthy white men weren't the power brokers in anarchist Catalonia or the Paris Commune.

The labor rights movement got us the new deal instead of revolution because the state was smart enough to understand the need to pacify the workers, but all of the protections and reforms put forth in the new deal have been slowly stripped away over the past 40 or so years.

France should be our inspiration right now. There's rioting and strikes all over the country. They have a real chance of getting shit done.

Regardless of who gets elected, things are just gonna keep getting worse, inequality is gonna keep increasing, and there's only one way to fight back. Organize, strike, fight, sabotage.

[–]sphericalbeaver 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

France should be our inspiration right now. There's rioting and strikes all over the country. They have a real chance of getting shit done.

This is completely wrong, "shit done" here actually means forcing the government to drop the Labour Bill - it's merely a reaction to attacks on our rights and nothing close to a revolutionnary shift or a 2016 Commune. Strikes are mostly limited to sectors in which unions are strong and they're (mainly, railway workers have their own reasons) looking to get that bill stopped.

I'm curious, where did you get the idea that there were riots going on? Sure, some protesters break things, but even the most liberal fearmongerers aren't calling the current events "riots" (and neither are anarchists).

This isn't to say that the current social struggles are nothing - people are uniting and organising, there's a lot of police violence, but this is nothing close to a revolution.

[–]pompouspug 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

EDIT: Was misinformed, read sphericalbeavers comment. Just leaving this here because the other point I made is still kind of valid.

Regardless of who gets elected, things are just gonna keep getting worse, inequality is gonna keep increasing, and there's only one way to fight back. Organize, strike, fight, sabotage.

Don't you create figurative martyrs by doing that? Won't the political right spin this to its advantage, as it has always done?
"Look at these barbarians, fighting with VIOLENCE for basic sustainability and a fair chance in life!" and people will believe that.

I mean, when you riot and get approval of a huge part of the populace (like in France), yeah, go on and fuck shit up. The right won't really gain traction with their bullshit counters.

The political situations and popular opinions are completely and utterly different. Just because it's promising there doesn't mean at all that it would be promising in the US. You can't just equate France where huge protests with millions of people happen fairly regularly and the US. It's naive to think it would work the same way.

[–]OneJobToRuleThemAll 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

This is just patently false. No fight against fascism and oppression has ever been won without violence.

Fascism only prospers if it has a violent opponent. You can't send out the brownshirts to intimidate and beat up your detractors if there isn't already a culture of fear and violence. Every single fascist leader ever was preceded by a violent socialist/leftist movement and a climate of political instability.

Ergo, the most effective strategy against fascism is strict adherence to non-violence and stability. There is literally no way whatsoever for a fascist to get elected in that case, they can only win if the violence escalates to a degree that stops the majority from voting.

[–]inngrinder 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fascism only prospers if it has a violent opponent.

Why didn't fascism prosper after the allies beat them through massive violence if this is the case?

[–]SpookyStirnerite 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

lmao

[–]insideofus 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Cable Street?

[–]inngrinder -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have a feeling that most of the people in this thread calling for political violence are insulated from the reality of it. For these people, calling for violent uprising is just a way of showing how committed and ideologically pure they are. I doubt politically-minded millennials from Cambodia or the Democratic Republic of the Congo are as trigger-happy as their comparatively-privileged first-world counterparts in this thread calling for political violence.

Where are you from?

[–]An_Inside_Joke 27ポイント28ポイント  (4子コメント)

Honestly, I wish people were this pissed off at all bourgeois politicians.

[–]AlwaysUnsureOfThings 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Cause they're all equally bad, right?

[–]An_Inside_Joke 18ポイント19ポイント  (2子コメント)

Never said that. People should be even more mad at Trump.

[–]AlwaysUnsureOfThings 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Thanks for clarifying. It wasn't clear from your post.

Pavlovian reaction on my part from actually having had people tell me without a hint of irony that there is literally no difference between Trump and Bush/Clinton/Sanders. Apologies.

[–]srsdthrow 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

The question here is whether violence will stop people from voting for Trump, and I don't think any of the pro-violence posters here have proven that. Violence for violence's sake isn't okay, even if it's theoretically in the name of something noble.

[–]Hamstak 9ポイント10ポイント  (3子コメント)

As far as people I know are concerned, the primary goal is to curtail and beat down fascist ideologies and in turn diminish the popularity of fascism in America.

I can't speak for anyone who actually partakes in anti-trump resistance, but I would say that the proliferation of fascist ideology and supreme goals of enacting state violence are definitely a much larger concern than hate speech.

[–]denreyc 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

the primary goal is to curtail and beat down fascist ideologies and in turn diminish the popularity of fascism in America.

Is that what has happened? Did the violence happen and then Trump come out the next day and say "aw shucks guys I guess we should give it up"? Did Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity take that violence as an indication that their tone needs to be softened? I think if you actually pay attention to the right wing, people who already want confrontation with the left, people who have been trying to claim some type of victim status for some time now from the evil evil left, I think you'd see the exact opposite of your goal is what has happened.

Now in terms of whether it's immoral or whatever to have that violence, that's probably a separate conversation. But these people, Trump supporters, no amount of violence towards them is going to convince them that fascism isn't the way to go. Stopping short of actual revolution.

[–]WouldstThouLike -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

But these people, Trump supporters, no amount of violence towards them is going to convince them that fascism isn't the way to go.

you lack imagination

[–]OscarGrey 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What do you mean? Actually killing them?

[–]comrade-pupper 13ポイント14ポイント  (17子コメント)

The Trump campaign is pushing for state sanctioned violence against millions of American citizens. Some fights breaking out at rallies is nothing compared to that. Does that make the violence justified? I don't know. But it is absolutely understandable why it is happening. If my family or friends would be deported en mass under a Trump presidency, I would probably be out starting riots.

[–]Circle_Breaker 7ポイント8ポイント  (16子コメント)

What state sanctioned violence is the Trump Campaign pushing for?

[–]comrade-pupper 12ポイント13ポイント  (8子コメント)

Mass deportation of undocumented immigrants.

[–]Circle_Breaker 6ポイント7ポイント  (5子コメント)

You said violence against american citizens, so that doesn't really qualify. But i guess i see your point.

[–]ormindcanhide 17ポイント18ポイント  (2子コメント)

The distinction is important in theory but not in practice. The act of deporting 12 million immigrants will naturally catch a substantial number of citizens in its net, and will result in abuse and deaths, whether of citizens or non-citizens. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

Additionally, the kind of country where Mexican-Americans are afraid to leave their houses for fear of being stopped and, likely, abused by ICE/CBP because of the color of their skin or their accents (which, realistically, is the only thing immigration raids like the ones that would be necessary for mass deportation could be based on) is not a country I want to live in.

[–]Laser_Damselfish 15ポイント16ポイント  (1子コメント)

The act of deporting 12 million immigrants will naturally catch a substantial number of citizens in its net, and will result in abuse and deaths, whether of citizens or non-citizens.

This is really important. Even if it only effects undocumented immigrants, you'll see families torn apart (children born in America will lose parents, family members will be separated and sent away, etc), and people who have spent their entire lives in America without being documented who will suddenly lose everything they have.

But it won't effect just undocumented immigrants: there will be huge scrutiny of documented immigrants. People who immigrated totally legally will be forced to prove their citizenship, some will be arrested, some will be caught committing minor crimes and have the book thrown at them whether they're citizens or not. It sanctions a witch hunt that will undoubtedly result in communities expelling people without any real reason.

[–]Orphan_Script 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm in Arizona and this is especially important/scary given our history with this kind of thing. I have heard stories of children who's parents were sent back, leaving them without any support. Also children who are sent back and don't know any Spanish themselves. SB1070 was an experiment in stop-and-frisk style document checking which made anyone who even looked somewhat Mexican afraid to leave their homes without their birth certificate. We've had massive abuses of hispanic/latinx communities by sheriff officials looking for illegal immigrants, who roll in heavily armed and threatening. Dogs get shot, people get beat up, children are traumatized and even white people have to deal with semi-routine raids going on in their neighborhood. It's absolutely violent, every part of it, and Trump wants to take those same practices and blow them up beyond our humble politician's wildest dreams.

[–]comrade-pupper 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

You are right, technically most of the people who would be deported are not citizens. I still consider them to be fellow Americans.

[–]VorpalEskimo -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

As a Native American, the way I see it they have more of a right to be here than the white folks, especially the ones who call the Latinx folks illegals.

[–]Sir_Marcus 13ポイント14ポイント  (5子コメント)

Forced deportation of Hispanics living in America. Closing America's borders to all muslims. His desire to curtail the freedom of the press is also troubling.

[–]Hamstak 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Beyond what the others have stated he openly, as a face of the state, regales listeners of his wishes for people to be beaten. Which if non-physical harm isn't compelling enough, then there's that.

[–]efg444 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Honestly as someone currently living in Canada, seeing the hatred and vitriol spewed by Trump and his supporters at rallies being so forcefully combated was a breath a fresh air after horrifyingly watching his ascent over the past year. While I was aware that a contingent of the Republican party was motivated by racism, xenophobia and bigotry, I honestly didn't believe that racial resentment was so high in White America that it trumped common decency and other considerations (since Trump lacks a consistent platform or record) and would propel a narcissistic protofascist to the nomination. Unabashed bigotry not only uncontested but cheered on at huge rallies across the country with seemingly very little protest showed me just how complacent so much America is to the literal rise of fascism and made me fearful as a PoC of ever residing in large swathes of the country. The violence and protests in Chicago and the more recent ones is the only proof that there are tons of people out there that won't allow American society to be literally dragged into the past, who aren't comfortable with handing over the Presidency to someone with contempt for women and minorities, that there are people angry enough to stand up against Trump and all his supporters.

The common reaction at work and among my social circles to the violence and protests has been positive. Some arguments I've heard condemning the protesters and violence have been tat they are "against American values" and hurts the popular opinion of America but believe me, the fact that a racist demagogue might become president damages the image of America way more than the violent protesters do. Its clear that Trump supporters are unfettered by peaceful protests and resist appeals to logic and any semblance of rationality, so the only recourse is humiliating them, making them fearful, and forcefully letting them know that the America for white men only that they want to return to doesn't exist anymore.

[–]metaopolis 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

imo american regime is bad, therefore its destabilization is good. Furthermore, while violence is pretty morally 'bad' we have different ethical opinions on different kinds of violence, and to varying degrees. I for one do not have much sympathy for people who attend a racist demagogue's hate rallies and then are the victims of cosmetic violence.

[–]mac_dooney 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

imo american regime is bad, therefore its destabilization is good

only someone truly sheltered and having lived in the first world their entire lives could say something like this.

[–]metaopolis 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think you're right.

[–]inngrinder 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

How many third-worlders living in poverty have you asked about it?

[–]srsdthrow 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

cosmetic violence

You may support using violence to achieve a political goal, but let's not pretend it's something it isn't. Violence against people is never "cosmetic."

[–]metaopolis 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

meant to communicate non-lethal and non-injury producing violence.

[–]srsdthrow 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

There's no form of violence against people, especially political mob violence, that can be carried out without potentially (and I would argue in practice, actually) causing injury or death. The question of using violence for political reasons is whether the cause is worth causing others to be injured or die, not whether it would be okay for the opposition to go home with hurt feelings.

[–]metaopolis 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This might be a false dichotomy but I understand the caution you're employing and I think you're right.