17
18

How does non-violent protest effectively keep the anarchist element away? (self.SRSDiscussion)

ameoba が 投稿

As you may have heard, for the last three nights, there have been large protests in Portland, OR. Last night, a protest organized by a local Black Lives Matter group went south when a group of black bloc anarchists joined in and started causing significant property damage (about 20 cars were smashed at a dealership, dozens of windows smashed at businesses, etc). Next thing you know, riot police show up & shut everything down. This is not the first time I've seen it happen and I doubt it will be the last.

How can a nonviolent protest protect itself from these people and ensure that their message doesn't get drowned out by reports of violence?

Edit: Yes, I know that not all anarchists are violent. I'm particularly asking about the people (who self-identify as anarchists) who show up with baseball bats knowing that a large crowd is cover for them to go around causing chaos.

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 232
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]airus92 17ポイント18ポイント  (1子コメント)

Why is it that people think if you're against property damage you think the property itself has innate value? I couldn't care less about a window, but I certainly could about the minimum wage worker who has to deal with it. I'm not even slightly concerned about liberals being offended, I'm very concerned if their fragility and inability to comprehend protest leads to further oppression of minorities because it confirms their view of them as violent and unruly. I don't care even slightly about moral righteousness here, I just want to win, and if I need to do that by lying to white supremacists and comforting them in the meantime, I'm fully willing to. Both sides already lie to the poor without having to actually do anything about it.

Why is criticism of any violence seen as a criticism of all violence?

[–]Lolor-arros 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

People are just ignorantly lashing out because someone used the term 'anarchist' wrong.

You're very right.

[–]GenericGropaga 16ポイント17ポイント  (4子コメント)

I fully understand that some collateral damage is unavoidable in fighting a capitalist society such as the US. People have emotions, people are angry, it's very understandable to all of us. But don't pretend smashing windows is some sort of an effective strategy for political change, that's just crazy. And besides, black clad provocateurs are a handy tool for any police department to crack down on protests. There are many examples of police agents and infiltrators starting shit at protests to shape public perception and media coverage as well as give police a reason to shut it down.

[–]ameoba[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm not even saying that this stuff is never called for but it seems a little premature and I'm concerned that people would be less likely to attend events if they think things will turn ugly.

An anarchist at the rally earlier today did make a very compelling argument for it: Everyone's watching Portland now. What's a few broken windows (and 25 people in jail) worth compared to being the top story on the BBC?

[–]PrinceLyovMyshkin 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

They events don't actually do anything unless they turn ugly. The very point of protest is to threaten ugliness. We need to make good on that threat sometimes for it to be useful.

Power doesn't give a shit about you or your protest. They care about their bottom line.

[–]WyzeGye 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you believe it to be premature, when will the time be right?

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

Watch Trump and his ilk try to turn this into a Reichstag Burning moment.

[–]Batsy22 19ポイント20ポイント  (1子コメント)

Whenever I'm at a protest, I always encourage people in the group to be mindful of those around them. I find that the people who get violent or escalate the protest are oftentimes white men. So I always try to tell them that when they do things that escalate the protests, they're putting all the less privileged people, POC folks specifically, in physical danger.

I hope that maybe addressed your concern in a roundabout way.

[–]Lolor-arros 38ポイント39ポイント  (5子コメント)

And by the way, when you say "the anarchist element" you mean the violent element.

Not all anarchists are violent. In fact, most aren't. I think that this is why you're being downvoted. Anarchy and violence are separate.

[–]pompouspug 14ポイント15ポイント  (4子コメント)

They're separate things, but you can't deny that anarchism draws in a pool of people that have only a very superficial clue about the philosophy behind it and just want to break stuff. At least here in Europe - I live in Germany, and every May 1st (Worker's day here) Anarchists just completely fuck up Berlin.

If it's different in the US, I'm sorry for projecting.

[–]AlwaysUnsureOfThings 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

To your comparison to the situation in Europe, often violent anarchists seem more like football hooligans and less like other left wing protesters.

That said, I'm at least somewhat comforted that there is a lot of anger against Trump. Sadly too little too late, but it does give me a glimmer of hope.

[–]pompouspug 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

To your comparison to the situation in Europe, often violent anarchists seem more like football hooligans and less like other left wing protesters.

I like adjusted anarchists, they're people with their heart in the right place. Fuck up hate groups? Yeah, do that. At much as I'm at odds with the violence there - it feels controlled, ya know? It feels like genuine anger and not like "just fuck shit up".

Shit, I live in Germany and everytime I hear a "Heil Hitler" here I kinda feel that there's a need for violence, but I'm a chickenshit.

Nobody (not even semi-left moderates) ain't angry for punching the KKK or Nazis here, we're just scared for ourselves because it's still a 10% chance that you might get the wrong policeman who makes up shit to fuck you over. I'm not brave enough, even against 10%. Sorry. I have no idea how black people in the US feel.

[–]AlwaysUnsureOfThings 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Oh yeah, I'm with you. No issue with those that attack neo nazi gatherings.

[–]pompouspug 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I fell like I'm going to break my nonviolence at some point because we've had that history and now this shit is starting again.

But then I get the feeling that these shits win, because now they're smart enough to keep up a pretense of seriosity. And it works? Every attack on them results in poll increase and state election percentage increase. As if it's a validation. People here say violence is the answer - but it obviously isn't.

I'm honestly having a really hard time fighting this, because it feels like the sun becoming a red giant - no matter what the fuck you do, rationality, hard opposition, something inbetween - they still somehow WIN VOTES.

[–]anarchaqueer 33ポイント34ポイント  (70子コメント)

Oh no, some people damaged property, heavens, that is literally the worst thing ever. Immigrants are in danger of being rounded up and deported, LGBT people are in danger of losing their rights or worse, women are in danger of being forced to use back alley family planning, and you're worried that some of these rightfully pissed off groups damaged a couple cars and broke some windows? Goddman, you liberals are fucking spineless. Maybe instead of telling people who are scared shitless about what could happen to them to be quiet and protest on your terms, maybe you should try to understand why these people feel the only way they can fight back against the system is to use violence. Black people are literally gunned down by the police, and you wag your finger at them when their protests aren't a big hug fest where everyone sings kumbayah. Your idea of revolution is electing someone President who went to Brown instead of Harvard or Yale.

[–]squirrelia 29ポイント30ポイント  (43子コメント)

Breaking a car window does nothing for the greater cause. It pushes the public opinion further away from understanding why people are protesting in the first place. I agree there is more than enough to be angry about. Yes OP's question could have been worded better. But succumbing to anger and turning to violence is not the answer, it's the easy way out. Keeping your calm in the face of a storm is much harder, but can actually yield true change. If we stoop to the level of our oppressors are we really fighting for what's just?

[–]peace_for_everyone 20ポイント21ポイント  (0子コメント)

You can't ever stoop to the level of your oppressors, that's impossible. You can act or have opinions that are superficially the same, but the power imbalance and other context of the act is what actually makes it different.

[–]indigo945 18ポイント19ポイント  (33子コメント)

Keeping your calm in the face of a storm is much harder, but can actually yield true change.

Historical proof that silent protest works, and fighting back always hurts the movement:

If we stoop to the level of our oppressors are we really fighting for what's just?

FFS, are your morals really so superficial and slavish that you require an answer to this question?

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

It's super funny watching liberals contort themselves into thinking like violence never solves anything when many of them live in a country literally founded on a violent revolution. The Russian revolutionaries should have just asked the Tsar nicely and posted some dank memes about love and unity on old-timey Facebook, maybe they could even have had the turn of the century equivalent of John Oliver say some witty things about Tsar Nicholas because that's clearly how we make change, and I'm sure that would have made the Russian bourgeoisie willingly give up power to the workers.

[–]TBrowser 9ポイント10ポイント  (17子コメント)

Equating the state of Russia in 1917 with the USA today is unbelievably misguided. Violence is the answer when there is literally no other choice. The USA sure as Hell isn't at that point yet.

[–]anarchaqueer 16ポイント17ポイント  (16子コメント)

Consider that black people being gunned down the police feel like they have no other choice. When the people in a society who are supposed to help you and are supposed to uphold law and order murder people like you for literally no reason, why in the hell should you trust them to protect you, and why shouldn't you feel like you need to take matters into your own hands?

[–]TBrowser 8ポイント9ポイント  (15子コメント)

Consider that black people being gunned down the police feel like they have no other choice

I fail to see how escalation will solve anything. If police officers misguidedly believe that black people are a threat, then I cannot fathom how giving them an actual reason to believe so will help the cause. I just don't think the bloodshed is worth it, when there are still in fact peaceful avenues that can get results.

and why shouldn't you feel like you need to take matters into your own hands

Because it obviously will only make matters worse. The end goal is a healthier society. Tell me how will an increase in violence achieve that?

[–]anarchaqueer 16ポイント17ポイント  (14子コメント)

I fail to see how escalation will solve anything. If police officers misguidedly believe that black people are a threat, then I cannot fathom how giving them an actual reason to believe so will help the cause. I just don't think the bloodshed is worth it, when there are still in fact peaceful avenues that can get results.

"Racists think black people are violent anyways and many of them literally want to re-institute Jim Crow laws, so clearly it's on black people to be respectable so maybe the KKK will stop hating them."

Are you people capable of anything but shitty centrism?

Because it obviously will only make matters worse. If our goal is a better society, then this is not the answer.

Good lord, do you know anything about history? Like, literally anything at all? You're right, violent conflict never ever ever helped people solve their problems at all. French Revolution? Never happened. The Glorious Revolution? Never happened The American Revolution? Never happened. The Russian Revolution? Never happened. The Cuban Revolution? Never happened. The Civil War? Never happened. The Haitian Revolution? Never happened. World War II? Never happened. The French Resistance? Never happened. The Civil Rights Movement? Never happened. The Stonewall Riots and other LGBT riots? Never happened. Suffragettes literally attacking the police? Never happened. Slave uprisings? Never happened. American Indian uprisings? Never happened. Worker riots? Never happened. Anti-Apartheid riots? Never happened. Anti-war riots during the 1960's? Never happened. Anti-colonial and anti-imperial wars during the wave of decolonization after WWII? Never happened. Leftist guerrillas fighting to protect the poor in places like Argentina and Chile during the years of military rule? Never happened.

Read a fucking history book.

[–]TBrowser 9ポイント10ポイント  (13子コメント)

I'm not really sure what your argument here is. Yes some cases of violence have had the desired effect. But most of those revolutions and civil wars you listed came at an incomprehensibly massive cost to human life. So you'd better be absolutely fucking certain there is no other choice.

In the end, I'm just not convinced that more violence will solve America's problems. Pointing to cases where something has changed (and not necessarily for the better, e.g. October Revolution) as a result of violence isn't an argument for violence today.

[–]anarchaqueer 16ポイント17ポイント  (12子コメント)

My argument is that this fetishization of non-violence and compromise is bullshit and violence often is the only way for marginalized people to stand up for themselves. There can be no compromise or moderation with ideologies like white nationalism or fascism, you don't debate them, you destroy them. Privileged people will always preach nonviolence to the oppressed because privileged people have nothing to worry about.

Useless, spineless liberals like you would probably tut-tut slaves for killing their masters, and would probably become absolutely apoplectic if they gasp burned down a plantation because "OH NOEZ, PROPERTEEEEEEEEEEE! WHAT ABOUT THE SLAVE OWNERS AND THEIR INVESTMENT AND WHAT THEY WANT. THE TRUTH IS IN THE MIDDLE!1!!1!!!!"

[–]Lolor-arros 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's super funny watching liberals contort themselves into thinking like violence never solves anything when many of them live in a country literally founded on a violent revolution.

It's only funny if you're deliberately trying to misinterpret people, like an asshole.

Of course the U.S. was founded on violence, come on. That doesn't mean anyone is contorting themselves.

[–]TBrowser 11ポイント12ポイント  (7子コメント)

If people were to actually start a civil war over this, I can guarantee that the result will be a thousand times worse than what the USA already has. It'd be so awful as to not even worth thinking about, and is only really justifiable when literally all over avenues have been exhausted.

For example, the October Revolution was obviously a disaster that the people of Russia (and Eastern Europe) are still feeling the "benefits" of today.

[–]indigo945 11ポイント12ポイント  (6子コメント)

the October Revolution was obviously a disaster

To paraphrase /u/anarchaqueer who has already said everything that I wanted to say in this thread: read a fucking history book. The Soviet Union was bad, but a lot better than tsarist Russia.

I also don't know how you get from smashing car windows to civil war. Your equating a protest with an act of war again shows how ideologically blinded your morals are.

[–]TBrowser 8ポイント9ポイント  (5子コメント)

but a lot better than tsarist Russia.

How about neither. You present a dichotomy because you want people to choose your preferred style of oppression. But it's false, not only as evidenced by history (the provisional government came before the communists and after the monarchy), but also with the reasonable conclusion that those tens of millions of deaths that sprung from the October Revolution were completely avoidable.

The sad thing is, you people honestly believe that the "USSR wasn't all that bad", and you alienate all normal people in the process. Because you could equally be saying "Nazi Germany wasn't all that bad" and they would be just as repulsed.

I also don't know how you get from smashing car windows to civil war

I never brought it up. It was indigo495 who used it as example of violent protest "that works". Please pay attention.

[–]failson422 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

The sad thing is, you people honestly believe that the "USSR wasn't all that bad", and you alienate all normal people in the process.

By "all normal people" you presumably mean "all white middle class Americans". Or do you think a person like Paul Robeson (for example) is not a normal person? Was he some sort of aberration?

[–]TBrowser 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

I think anyone who looks to USSR and thinks "that wasn't so bad!" knowing what we know now about the tyranny, murder and genocide, was quite a flawed individual.

[–]failson422 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

Nice of you to completely dismiss the opinions and lived experience of a black man who knew a million times more about struggle than you did. I guess he just wasn't a "normal person" or whatever. I guess people like Paul Robeson and other oppressed peoples the world over should just be "normal people" like white middle class Americans.

"We received enormous assistance from the Soviet Union, an assistance we would not get from the world" - Nelson Mandela

[–]TBrowser 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

OK if you say so. I'm sure there are plenty of black men who know a million times more about struggle than I do who would also condemn the USSR. Not to mention that there's no reason I have to agree with Robeson on this matter, just because he was black and "experienced". He was neither a scholar nor a historian, so why his personal opinion should trump the historical fact that the USSR was guilty of genocide (and countless other atrocities and human rights violations) I will never understand. But you've devolved this discussion into something facile ("Paul Robeson disagreed with you" is not an argument) so let's just leave it there.

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

What do you mean when you say the French Revolution? I'm french and I'm curious where you think our people peacefully protested.

[–]indigo945 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

In case you're serious, I was being sarcastic. None of these revolutions and rebellions was peaceful.

[–]yippee-kay-yay 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

FFS, are your morals really so superficial and slavish that you require an answer to this question?

Imaginary moral brownie points to brag about on reddit and twitter are more important than actual change.

[–]anarchaqueer 14ポイント15ポイント  (7子コメント)

pushes the public opinion further away from understanding why people are protesting in the first place.

Oh no, useless spineless liberals who already didn't actually give a fuck about the suffering of marginalized people except for when they can use them as a propaganda tool for elections might not listen to us if we throw a brick through a window, whatever will we do without their apathy.

But succumbing to anger and turning to violence is not the answer, it's the easy way out. Keeping your calm in the face of a storm is much harder, but can actually yield true change. If we stoop to the level of our oppressors are we really fighting for what's just?

L-O-Fuckin-L You're right, violence never solved anything, just ignore the French Revolution, the Spanish Civil War, the October Revolution, the American Revolution, the Civil Rights Movement (it was actually very violent, contrary to whatever revisionist nonsense is promoted as the official history), or the LGBT rights movement (queers love to riot and throw bricks at cops).

[–]TBrowser 6ポイント7ポイント  (6子コメント)

October Revolution was an absolute disaster, and anyway, nobody is saying "literally no violence ever under any circumstances". It's more a case of "violence is literally the last option."

[–]Qlanth 13ポイント14ポイント  (5子コメント)

The October revolution ignited labor and human rights movements across the globe. It sparked a fire in billions of people to fight against exploitation. It is easily the most historically significant event of the 20th century.

[–]TBrowser 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

October revolution ignited

It also led to mass summary executions and famine in the short term and genocide and imperialism in the medium term. And for what? In they end they were wrong. Western Europeans were more free with more rights and wealthier than the USSR and its attempt at socialism. It was a disaster. Anyone who tells me that the October Revolution was in any way necessary is spitting on the graves of the hundreds of millions who died as a result.

It sparked a fire in billions of people to fight against exploitation

No. It can't even claim that.

[–]Qlanth 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I wish I had the energy to respond to this properly but suffice it to say I disagree strongly. In the end when people study the cold war it will be obvious that it was the US, not the USSR who were the "bad guys."

[–]TBrowser -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm running out of energy as well, but it couldn't be clearer to me and the West that the USSR was a nasty and evil regime. The US was far from perfect, but yeah within the timeframe of 1917 to 1990, it never once committed a genocide on its own soil. Can't say the same about the USSR.

[–]caliburdeath 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

the USSR was trash. that doesn't make tsarist russia or the US better, and, since it didn't in any way enact communism, said nothing about whether or not communism is good. The genocide of native americans continued throughout the 20th century.

[–]Neo24 17ポイント18ポイント  (25子コメント)

So, tell us, how exactly is violence and damaging random property helping anybody here? Please, explain.

[–]Qlanth 19ポイント20ポイント  (24子コメント)

It takes the protest from being a six second spot on the local evening news to hours long discussions on national stations. It shows the people on the right that if we are pissed enough to do this before you've even tried anything, imagine what we will do when you try to deport my friends.

[–]Neo24 14ポイント15ポイント  (22子コメント)

And I guess innocent people caught in the middle are just acceptable collateral damage? It sure brings attention - the wrong kind of attention, and makes people less likely to support you and your cause. If you absolutely must use violence at this point (and I don't think that point has been reached yet), at least direct at it the people actually harming you.

[–]Qlanth 15ポイント16ポイント  (19子コメント)

At what point is violence acceptable then? You have the figurehead of the country telling everyone that the first thing he plans to do is round up and mass-deport 2 million people, and then if they show up again start putting them in prison. It's literally on his website. Are we supposed to wait for him to do it before we protest? How many people have to die before it becomes acceptable to smash a window out?

Violent protest now means they won't even try to deport. I'm not going to sit around and wait for the killing to begin before I throw a brick at a cop.

[–]CrisisTheory 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Here's my take on the 'collateral damage' charge: there were those at the protest who did not come out to smash windows or anything. They were unprepared and unwilling. But in this case, the anarchists followed them and surrounded them, breaking stuff and drawing the attention of the cops. The other protesters were then put into a situation where they could be arrested, injured or killed by the police, and they did not want to be put in that position.

I dont really care either way if a handful of anarchists want to smash private property (i.e. capital, not personal property). I dont think that's bad and I dont think it does much good, so I'm neutral on it. But it's also legitimate to say, "hey don't use people as a smokescreen or a shield, if they don't want to take part in the riot then go far from them."

[–]Neo24 10ポイント11ポイント  (3子コメント)

So, yes, those people are indeed acceptable collateral damage to you, glad we have that clear. I'm sure they're going to be thrilled and motivated to join the good fight now...

I honestly don't see how random violent protest in this case is going to be more effective than peaceful protest or other non-violent means. If anything, it'll only make Trump's position stronger.

[–]Qlanth 12ポイント13ポイント  (2子コメント)

Can we please not resort to that level of discourse? I think it's pretty unfair to put words in my mouth like that.

My opinion on protesting is that if you are going to actively participate in even a peaceful protest then you need to be prepared for the police to use violence against you. They can and will do it with the flimsiest of excuses. See: UC Davis. See: the countless non-violent civil rights protests that ended in police violence. To that end, when the police come to break up a protest, violent or not, no one is innocent to them. I don't want to sound like I'm blaming the victims for showing up to a protest and getting tear gassed or arrested. Far from it. I blame the people who commit the violence against them, the police!

Further, I suspect that we completely disagree on what we think the goal of a protest is. I don't think that a protest is there to make an argument. Its not there to change someone's mind or win someone's favor. It's there to send a message to anyone that will listen that we exist. We won't sit and let something happen without putting ourselves in the street. You are NEVER going to convince a racist that it's wrong to deport two million people by protesting it. You WILL convince them that if they try it the protests will be bigger and louder and more disruptive than they are now.

And the difference between a violent protest and a nonviolent protest is that one gains MUCH more attention than the other. Not that I want to argue all protests should be violent. In some cases I think there are decent ways to get attention without it. Like marching onto the highway and shutting down traffic. But even that isn't as effective as the attention flipping a cop car will get you.

[–]peace_for_everyone 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think that a protest is there to make an argument. Its not there to change someone's mind or win someone's favor.

Great comment overall, this especially is what many people might be missing.

[–]Neo24 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

What conclusion was I supposed to draw, though? You didn't respond to that part of my post and you are excusing actions that lead to a peaceful protest being hijacked against their will and other, probably unrelated and innocent (and possibly disadvantaged themselves) people suffering material harm.

Far from it. I blame the people who commit the violence against them, the police!

Of course, but that doesn't mean other people need to hijack a protest and increase the risk of harm coming to unwilling people.

And the difference between a violent protest and a nonviolent protest is that one gains MUCH more attention than the other.

It also gains a different kind of attention. Do you really think Trump is going to see these protests and go "oh well, better not deport those people then"? Like he cares about some cars being smashed. It's just going to be used as a further weapon.

But even that isn't as effective as the attention flipping a cop car will get you.

But that's the thing. Nobody's flipping a cop car here. I'd actually respect that more, that takes some balls and is actually more properly directed. But I guess it's easier to just smash whatever, no matter who might be negatively impacted by it.

[–]strong_potato 7ポイント8ポイント  (12子コメント)

Then why are you sitting around arguing on reddit instead of getting out there and fucking shit up? Why don't you smash the nearest thing to you?

[–]Qlanth 15ポイント16ポイント  (11子コメント)

You can't be serious right? This is the type of discourse you want to be having?

[–]strong_potato 9ポイント10ポイント  (10子コメント)

You're the one championing indiscriminate violence as the most affective course of action here. If you think it's going to work why aren't you out there doing it right now? What's stopping you?

[–]Qlanth 11ポイント12ポイント  (9子コメント)

I think we are all better than this kind of disingenuous bullshit. At no point did I ever champion "indiscriminate violence." I'm arguing that violent protest is a valid and effective means of protest. Protest is not indiscriminate. It's organized. It's directed. It sends a message.

[–]BachiBaziGold2016 8ポイント9ポイント  (8子コメント)

Protest is not indiscriminate. It's organized. It's directed. It sends a message.

How is burning down random car dealerships and stores directed? Nobody planned or organized that. And what message does it send? If you try to start a business or work at a business we will fuck your shit up and put you out of a job?

[–]airus92 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Who gets to decide who is going to be collateral damage? Who has that right?

[–]Orphan_Script 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

And I guess innocent people caught in the middle are just acceptable collateral damage?

Let's be clear that you're the one who put it in these terms. I don't think anyone here wants to see people killed or injured at riots. Things we are willing to excuse and/or encourage:

-Obstruction of business.

-Self defence against counter protesters and the police

-Vandalism of private property.

And most of us would not prefer the later, if it can be helped, but simply don't condemn those who do. That is a far cry from 'collateral damage' and all that entails.

And you're comparing this to the deportation of up to 11 million people, just to be clear.

It sure brings attention - the wrong kind of attention, and makes people less likely to support you and your cause. If you absolutely must use violence at this point (and I don't think that point has been reached yet), at least direct at it the people actually harming you.

When most people say this, it is cut and dry concern trolling. I don't know about you, but I'm dreadfully sick of the argument. People who believe that black lives matter don't change their mind when a black person pisses them off. That's true for all of these causes. If you have a better way of accelerating a protest into a national movement, I'd like to hear it, and we can discuss the merits of that over this strategy. But I'm hearing crickets on that front from all of you.

[–]Neo24 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think anyone here wants to see people killed or injured at riots.

Well, of course. If they wanted, it wouldn't be collateral damage, would it? From my perspective, the logic is the same. You are willing to accept harm to unrelated, probably innocent people in the name of some greater goal. If you think the goal is worthy, fine, just lets not try to beat around the bush here.

And you're comparing this to the deportation of up to 11 million people, just to be clear.

I am not comparing it, not really. I'd be willing to consider that it's acceptable damage if I believed it would actually achieve anything, but I don't.

If you have a better way of accelerating a protest into a national movement, I'd like to hear it, and we can discuss the merits of that over this strategy.

I believe peaceful protests (or at least protests not targeting and endangering innocent third parties) have a greater chance of achieving something, but you're probably not going to agree.

[–]anarchaqueer 17ポイント18ポイント  (0子コメント)

Bingo. Riots are a way for marginalized people to say "we are willing to literally fight for our rights, bring it on, fucker."

[–]VulgarExigencies 36ポイント37ポイント  (80子コメント)

maybe you should learn from them instead of trying to send them away

[–]anarchaqueer 29ポイント30ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, don't you know, fighting fascism literally makes you a fascist. Aggressively protesting against imperialism and fighting for marginalized people to be treated with respect is no different than white nationalism in liberal world.

[–]MeAndLazarus 31ポイント32ポイント  (75子コメント)

"property damage is literally violence!" smh

[–]Waltzer_White 65ポイント66ポイント  (38子コメント)

Whose property is getting damaged, though? What will that mean for them and their families, their employees and their families? What are the consequences of this?

Sorry I just don't understand at all. What is the difference between an Islamophobe throwing a brick through a Muslim man's shop window versus anti-Trump protesters throwing a brick through random shop windows?

Some POC, immigrant, LGBTQ, or other person who has nothing to do with Trump has a huge mess on their hands, has to close the shop for repairs, has to fight with insurance (if they have it)... I mean that's just kind of fucked, isn't it?

I get that you all don't like capitalism and neither do I, but it's capitalism or starve right now if you're realistic. There isn't a choice in the matter. So wrecking property could be wrecking people's livelihoods, at least temporarily.

[–]MeAndLazarus 27ポイント28ポイント  (1子コメント)

Everyone here needs to take some history classes - on protesting, rioting, and organizing. You really think people who advocate for a "diversity of tactics" (which property damage falls under) have never thought of those questions before?

For more info, I suggest you read any of the many articles about how rioting has been effective historically and effective today, BEFORE you just naively assume that some negative coverage in your local rinky-dink news outlet means you lost:

[–]Qlanth 13ポイント14ポイント  (3子コメント)

First you need to understand that from an Anarchist and Marxist perspective business owners are exploiters and supporters of economic structures that keep the marginalized people marginalized. They aren't really concerned with making them have a bad day.

Second, I would argue that a business owner having to clean up a mess or replace a broken window is a small price to pay to send a clear message that people will respond violently if the lives of black, mexican, muslim, jewish, gay, trans, queer, women are threatened.

[–]Neo24 14ポイント15ポイント  (1子コメント)

black, mexican, muslim, jewish, gay, trans, queer, women

What about if the business or car owner is black, Mexican, Muslim, Jewish, gay, trans, queer, a women? Or if they hire black, Mexican, Muslim, Jewish, gay, trans, queer people, women? (or if they hire nobody, it's not like we're talking about large businesses here)

[–]deltaSquee 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Then they are a black, Mexican, Muslim, Jewish, gay, trans, queer, a women capitalist. Still the enemy.

[–][削除されました]  (5子コメント)

[removed]

    [–]MeAndLazarus 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Oh you mean like this? I'm happy to engage in conversation, but there's no need to be so snarky and think "we've never actually considered the realities of rioting before!"

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

    If you want to snark instead of contribute to the discussion then find another subreddit

    [–]anarchaqueer 13ポイント14ポイント  (20子コメント)

    I can guarantee you the car dealership where some cars got smashed up or the businesses that got their windows broken have insurance precisely for this kind of thing, they're completely fine. These protests aren't happening in residential areas, it's not like people's houses are being burned down. Broken windows can be replaced, human lives cannot.

    Maybe you should question why we as a society care more about pissed off marginalized people throwing a brick through a window than we care about the horrific racism, homophobia, and xenophobia that people suffer under. Maybe you should question why marginalized people feel the only way people will give a shit about them is they smash a Mercedes. Maybe you should question why property is sacrosanct, but human life apparently is not. People are being gunned down by the police, but you'd rather "tut-tut" them for not responding to the situation by holding hands with their oppressors and singing kumbayah.

    [–]mujahida3301 21ポイント22ポイント  (5子コメント)

    the businesses that got their windows broken have insurance precisely for this kind of thing, they're completely fine.

    This is a pretty shitty attitude. I have car insurance but the several times my car was broken into(by thieves tho not protests) was definitely not fine. I'm poor as fuck and had to pay out of pocket for a deductible and couldn't afford a rental and almost lost my job. Assuming anyone who owns property can afford these contingencies is horribly classist. And those business probably employee a lot of poor people who aren't getting paid while the repairs are done.

    [–]chinggis_khan27 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

    They attacked a car dealership & police cars not you

    [–]flyafar 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

    People own and work in these places (dealerships). It's their livelihood.

    [–]chinggis_khan27 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Sucks to be them. It's still different to a precarious worker having their personal vehicle stolen or destroyed.

    [–]flyafar 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Sucks to be them.

    Ugh. I dunno what I expected.

    [–]pompouspug 15ポイント16ポイント  (13子コメント)

    not responding to the situation by holding hands with their oppressors and singing kumbayah.

    There are a lot of intermediates between "unorganized destruction of shit, even shit that belongs to other marginalized people" and "having a nice hugfest with oppressive assholes"

    [–]anarchaqueer 12ポイント13ポイント  (12子コメント)

    You're right, people who are being gunned down should definitely try to appeal to their oppressor's better nature. I'm sure that will get them far.

    [–]mujahida3301 16ポイント17ポイント  (10子コメント)

    At what point did car dealerships and random shops owned and staffed by people who are most likely trump haters become oppressors?

    [–]anarchaqueer 15ポイント16ポイント  (8子コメント)

    Lol, small business owners overwhelmingly supported Trump. Statistically speaking, they probably are Trump supporters.

    [–]mujahida3301 22ポイント23ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Statistically speaking, they probably are Trump supporters.

    Nationwide that is entirely correct, However I highly doubt that was the case in a place like Portland that was overwhelmingly anti-trump. That kind of stereotyping is not helpful and counterproductive; painting a single demographic with a broad brush is the type of thing we want to avoid.

    Using statistics to justify who to be violent against is the exact same kind of nonsense that wallbuilders and people who want to ban my religion think is a valid argument.

    [–]Meguminn 8ポイント9ポイント  (5子コメント)

    And even if they're not, I'm not shedding any tears for them.

    [–]BachiBaziGold2016 15ポイント16ポイント  (4子コメント)

    So you are okay with violence against certain people based on nothing but what demographic they belong to?

    [–]2k16throwaway 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Is this a joke...? In SRSDiscussion?

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

    In what way is that an appropriate answer to what I said? I never told marginalized people to just take the shit they get, I was quite far from that.

    EDIT: It is also quite telling that you didn't answer to this comment from someone who is actually part of the marginalized group you're talking about. College getting to your head?

    [–]insidescreamingvoice 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

    What is the difference between an Islamophobe throwing a brick through a Muslim man's shop window versus anti-Trump protesters throwing a brick through random shop windows?

    are you fucking serious?

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

    Yeah I'm fucking serious, when the RESULT is potentially the same. One crime is motivated by hatred, that's a form of terrorism. One form is motivated by politics, but it's also terrorism. In either case you end up with one fucked over and frightened human being.

    I want to focus on the humans. I will never, ever, remove human lives from equations.

    [–]FuckingWrites 13ポイント14ポイント  (30子コメント)

    Maybe it's not LITERALLY violence but it's an aggressive, deplorable action at the very best.

    [–]SocialismeOfBarbarij 8ポイント9ポイント  (3子コメント)

    I see absolutely no moral reason to not respond to state violence with people violence. Perhaps you could say that rioting should be opposed for practical reasons, because it isn't always as effective. But when rioting and violence is effective it follows that there is no reason to oppose it.

    [–]BachiBaziGold2016 11ポイント12ポイント  (2子コメント)

    How does a car dealership or independent bookstore equal "state violence" ?

    [–]SocialismeOfBarbarij 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I said state violence, so against police and state property among others. FuckingWrites seemed to dismiss all forms of violence, without discriminating between different kinds of violence. I felt it would add to the discussion to point out the distinction.

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

    Unfortunately the areas hardest hit by the violence tend to be minority communities which have the lowest amount of resources to repair the damage. There are areas of my city that were damaged during race riots in the 60s, which STILL have not been repaired and only further depress home values for the minority families that live there. Additionally, these commonly end up damaging minority owned businesses and only further perpetuate bias toward oppressed groups. For instance, I know Koreans that still hold hostility toward African-Americans for the damage done to Korean businesses during the LA riots. You can wax on all you want about some academic theory of property, but the wealth of minority communities can be completely wiped out as a result of un-targeted property damage and violence. And don't think that conservatives won't use that inter-minority resentment as a fulcrum for further oppression.

    [–]anarchaqueer 7ポイント8ポイント  (22子コメント)

    You're right, marginalized people should respond to groups gunning them down or threatening to deport them with flowers and kisses. Violence has never solved anything, says the person who probably lives in a country founded on a violent revolution.

    [–]Neo24 25ポイント26ポイント  (21子コメント)

    No, you're right, responding to violence with indiscriminate violence that harms innocent people will absolutely solve everything.

    [–]anarchaqueer 10ポイント11ポイント  (20子コメント)

    The protesters are harming people?

    [–]Neo24 21ポイント22ポイント  (18子コメント)

    Oh, don't play dumb, you know perfectly well what I meant. Or would you be OK with me coming over to your house and destroying stuff you own and is possibly important for your livelihood? I mean, I guess that's not "harm" according to you, right? Perfectly fine, right?

    Not to mention that when engaging in this kind of destruction, there is in fact a real possibility of actual people getting harmed. Or am I supposed to think that people who don't care what they're destroying as long as it "sends a message" are going to be suuuper careful about that?

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

    If I was in a position of power over you and abusing you, yes, I would expect you would come and fuck up my stuff, and you would absolutely be justified in doing so.

    [–]Neo24 23ポイント24ポイント  (15子コメント)

    Ah, yes, I'm sure they meticulously checked that the owner of every car or shop they were smashing was indeed a dirty oppressor before they smashed them.

    [–]anarchaqueer 15ポイント16ポイント  (14子コメント)

    Maybe you should question why we as a society apparently care more about some cars getting smashed up than the systematic violence poor communities, PoC, and LGBT people live with every single day.

    [–]scottsouth 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

    They aren't harming people?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGUxYjPxzJ8

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXBN8-ViwHM&feature=youtu.be

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFEXeUMN-1Y

    Trump is a sexist, racist, Islamophobic, hypocrite. We already know that. We know that's why these protests are happening. Now tell me how smashing random people's property and assaulting non-Hillary supporters is going to help sway public opinion on why we are right to be angry at Trump's election, and tell me how you know these properties don't belong to women and POCs who are trying to crawl out of poverty. If I was a vegan and I punched you in the face because I saw you eating steak, does that make you respect veganism more, or does it make you more resentful? Stop making excuses for toxic behavior.

    [–]caesar_primus 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The problem is that the media is looking for any excuse to discredit these protesters and they will take a second group causing property damage as a reason to discredit them. Hell, I've seen protests discredited because some completely unrelated shootings happened in the same area. Conservatives are looking for a reason to be offended and anyone that gives them that reason will make some good money from it.

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

    Property damage is actually literally violence. Just because it doesn't involve bodily injury, doesn't mean it doesn't qualify as violence.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence "the use of physical force to harm someone, to damage property, etc."

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/violence "Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something"

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/violence "the exercise or an instance of physical force, usually effecting or intended to effect injuries, destruction, etc"

    http://www.yourdictionary.com/violence "physical force used so as to injure, damage, or destroy; extreme roughness of action"

    smh

    [–]MeAndLazarus 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Jesus, four dictionaries said that? It's definitely not pedantry, in that case! Why not refer to my other post here with the links to all of the benefits of property destruction and actually engage with the substance of the issue here?

    [–]scottsouth 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

    How many lawful and social changes were made without the use of violence? Equal voting rights for women. Gay marriage. The decriminalization of cannabis. The worldly acceptance of science over religion. Violence is not always a necessary component for change, and I don't think it's a necessary component now, especially violence against innocent people, innocent people like women and POCs who's property these may belong to, people who may be poor like me and are trying to crawl out of poverty.

    Trump is not a dictator. He still has rules by which he must abide by to get policies across, policies that will be met with very much opposition from liberals and conservatives.

    I work second shift. I go home at 11:30pm. I need to go through the city to get home. If I were to accidentally run into these people, regardless of their political affiliation, and they were to fuck up my car, and my broke ass was fired from work because I didn't have a ride, you can bet your ass I'd be resentful. Especially resentful for the fact that these people supposedly represent POCs like me.

    There are countries where the government is very corrupt. Where war is a daily reality. Violence might be necessary for change there, but America is not one of those countries (yet). Trump is one person, and he does not have all the power. I will not destroy the livelihood of the women in my life, and other POCs, because of one man. I'm not going to slash my sister's tire because my boss voted for Trump. That's fucking stupid.

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

    Equal voting rights for women. Gay marriage. The decriminalization of cannabis. The worldly acceptance of science over religion.

    I'm officially convinced that you have never taken a history class. Have you heard of Stonewall? Women's active participation in the socialist movements on the 20th century, not to mention their own women-led riots throughout history? How many scientists died for their belief on the one hand, and how many wars were waged against indigenous peoples deemed "savages" because they weren't technologically advanced on the other?

    people who may be poor like me and are trying to crawl out of poverty.

    I seriously can't read any more of your "I'm poor, and the protestors are oppressing me" rant. lol, you think the protestors are all these wealthy people? Like they don't know poverty? Or that they're not people of color themselves who get repeatedly fucked over by society?

    Obviously no one wants to pick on some very small business owner. But assuming that every riot does that is 100% incorrect. For an easy example, if people rioted in Manhattan, there's a 100% chance of hitting wealthy targets. Most major cities have a downtown area that is much richer than the poor areas. If you want to be part of the solution and not the problem, do your best to make sure people are breaking bank and department store windows rather than some tiny corner shop.

    There are countries where the government is very corrupt. Where war is a daily reality.

    America is the largest purveyor of organized terror, war, and political upheaval around the world. The fact that we don't have that makes us super fucking privileged, not better or more civilized.

    I will not destroy the livelihood of the women in my life, and other POCs, because of one man. I'm not going to slash my sister's tire because my boss voted for Trump.

    No one's asking you to? That's a strawman argument. Go smash some corporate offices, not your fucking friends and family. Again, if you're concerned about local people's stuff being hurt, then try to be part of the organizers who direct rioters to fuck up the actual important targets.

    [–]ameoba[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    That's what I came here for. Maybe I've got an XY Problem.

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

    Learn what? That Trump is a sexist, racist, Islamophobic, hypocrite? We already know that. We know that's why these protests are happening. Now tell me how smashing random people's property and assaulting non-Hillary supporters is going to help sway public opinion on why we are right to be angry at Trump's election, and tell me how you know these properties don't belong to women and POCs who are trying to crawl out of poverty. If I was a vegan and I punched you in the face because I saw you eating steak, does that make you respect veganism more, or does it make you more resentful? Stop making excuses for toxic behavior.

    [–]kenwud 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

    the fact that riot police show up and shut down your peaceful protest should be even more reason for you to get angry lol not saying that being violent is the only or first answer but maybe just be aware that the police and the state and capital are all working against you and the anarchists are not your enemy

    [–]goldenrobotdick 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I was there... the riot police didn't get involved until certain individuals began smashing windows and tagging local businesses and throwing rocks at police and setting off fireworks at police...

    [–]kenwud 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

    like i said.. the police are only there to protect the capitalist class (the businesses). you should be mad that the police were protecting the businesses but not YOU

    [–]PrettyIceCube 22ポイント23ポイント  (7子コメント)

    If you disagree with anarchism then you're probably in the wrong place

    [–]gamegyro56 44ポイント45ポイント  (2子コメント)

    I mean most of the time this subreddit feels like 50% leftists and 50% liberals, so I'm not too sure about that.

    EDIT: This thread is feeling like 70% liberals and 30% leftists actually.

    [–]SweetNyan 17ポイント18ポイント  (1子コメント)

    The liberals are coming out of the woodwork to either demand we have unity with Trump or blame stoopid working class people for his election.

    [–]failson422 8ポイント9ポイント  (3子コメント)

    There are people defending Tsarist Russia in this thread. I don't think I'd be talking up this sub's leftist credentials if I were you.

    [–]Neo24 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Oh, come now, nobody is defending Tsarist Russia, it's this kind of willful simplistic misrepresentation that makes people frustrated. Just because you don't think the October Revolution and everything that came with it was necessarily the best possible response to Tsarist Russia (and possibly made things worse) doesn't mean you think Tsarist Russia was OK. Or do Marxists-Leninists have some kind of monopoly on leftist thought?

    [–]failson422 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

    (and possibly made things worse)

    This is a defense of Tsarist Russia. The revolution didn't make things worse; it was an inspirational example to oppressed peoples all over the world.

    https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/ho-chi-minh/works/1960/04/x01.htm

    Or do Marxists-Leninists have some kind of monopoly on leftist thought?

    No, I don't think that. I'm merely pointing out that this sub isn't really particularly leftist. The fact that we have people here who seem to think that Tsarist Russia might be better than the USSR is indicative of a strain of extreme right-wing thought. If we're talking about the range of opinion here it seems to be about 75% liberal or centrist. Indeed, if we're talking about "monopoly" it seems to be the anarchists who have a "monopoly" on leftist thought in this sub.

    [–]Qay1n 26ポイント27ポイント  (28子コメント)

    Lol pacifists attacking revolutionaries who wants to actually end fascism. Good luck shaming the fascists with your emotions, im sure the klan is gunna totally change if your have a peaceful "dialogue". Smh

    [–]failson422 32ポイント33ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Lol pacifists attacking revolutionaries who wants to actually end fascism.

    Being a revolutionary involves a lot more than smashing a few car windows and attracting police attention. A revolution is the forcible overthrow of one class by another. Petty unorganised vandalism will achieve nothing.

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

    Part of the problem is that the media isn't reporting that this is organized. They'd like you to think that these are random acts of violence because shining a light on a political organization which advocates for revolution would be to legitimize them.

    America runs on the fiction that the democrats are left wing. Showing leftist alternatives would destroy that fiction.

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

    Petty unorganised vandalism is not part of anybodies strategy; it is an expression of angry or fearful people who are lacking in an outlet to fight back effectively. Nobody is sitting here calling for broken car windows, or at least nobody being taken seriously. The difference between your view (I assume) and the other is that we don't condemn these people or try to drive them away because it makes us look bad. We must instead listen to these expressions and work on channelling this chaotic energy into a proper resistance.

    And I'm not hearing any real response, or alternative, from the other side. This is largely a circlejerk about your feelings on car windows or lack thereof, and not a real discussion on how to best respond to these actions. If you're hoping that a good stern talking to, or the passing of time will get these people to stop rioting, you're dead wrong. The only way to end the unorganised violence is to organise.

    [–]failson422 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Sorry yes I did not mean to imply that property damage was this horror that we should stamp down on or anything. My concern is that its an expression of how unorganized the left in the US is. I posted this Lenin quote elsewhere:

    When I see Social-Democrats proudly and smugly declaring “we are not anarchists, thieves, robbers, we are superior to all this, we reject guerrilla warfare”,—I ask myself: Do these people realise what they are saying? Armed clashes and conflicts between the Black-Hundred government and the population are taking place all over the country. This is an absolutely inevitable phenomenon at the present stage of development of the revolution. The population is spontaneously and in an unorganised way—and for that very reason often in unfortunate and undesirable forms—reacting to this phenomenon also by armed conflicts and attacks. I can understand us refraining from Party leadership of this spontaneous struggle in a particular place or at a particular time because of the weakness and unpreparedness of our organisation. I realise that this question must be settled by the local practical workers, and that the remoulding of weak and unprepared organisations is no easy matter. But when I see a Social-Democratic theoretician or publicist not displaying regret over this unpreparedness, but rather a proud smugness and a self-exalted tendency to repeat phrases learned by rote in early youth about anarchism, Blanquism and terrorism, I am hurt by this degradation of the most revolutionary doctrine in the world.

    [–]oortsaurus 47ポイント48ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'm sure the klan is totally going to change if you break random windows in Portland, OR too.

    [–]TBrowser 28ポイント29ポイント  (0子コメント)

    You're right. If you destroy enough cars and shop windows in cities (predominantly anti-Trump) then everyone knows the KKK roll over and become ardent anti-racists.

    [–]anarchaqueer 20ポイント21ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Literally liberals right now

    [–]Neo24 20ポイント21ポイント  (18子コメント)

    Look at me fighting fascism by breaking windows and causing harm to random unrelated people! I swear, I like a good chunk of things anarchists stand for but sometimes I think you guys just love violence for the sake of it.

    [–]anarchaqueer 13ポイント14ポイント  (17子コメント)

    Lol, I can guarantee you've never actually met an anarchist in real life, nor do you actually understand what anarchist philosophy actually is.

    [–]Neo24 16ポイント17ポイント  (16子コメント)

    Why, because I oppose dumb, pointless violence?

    [–]anarchaqueer 19ポイント20ポイント  (14子コメント)

    No, because you, like basically everyone else here, have such a simplistic, reductive view of anarchism.

    [–]Neo24 12ポイント13ポイント  (13子コメント)

    Lol, that's your argument? "You don't get it"? Or maybe we do get it and disagree? I think you're the one with a simplistic understanding of what violence can achieve.

    [–]anarchaqueer 15ポイント16ポイント  (12子コメント)

    You're right. Violence never solved anything. It's not like there was the French Revolution, the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, the Cuban Revolution, the German Revolution, the Hungarian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, World War II, the American Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, slave uprisings, the Haitian Revolution, anti-colonial and anti-imperial uprisings, women's suffrage riots, LGBT riots, civil rights riots, worker riots, anti-war riots, American Indian uprisings, or any of the other numerous violent resistances by marginalized groups throughout history. Read a fucking history book.

    [–]Neo24 14ポイント15ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Do you even read what people are saying to you? I'm not opposed to all violence, I'm opposed to dumb violence. This is exactly why I said you have a simplistic view of violence.

    [–]chinggis_khan27 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The solution to dumb violence is organising it into effective violence, not moral hectoring.

    [–]2k16throwaway 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Then maybe instead of being such a smug pacifist, you should be working into organizing the violence into something far more threatening.

    [–]mujahida3301 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

    You forgot the CPK revolution also

    [–]anarchaqueer 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Pol Pot was neither a leftist nor a communist, he was a CIA-backed nationalist who did what fascists do best and appropriate leftist language and symbolism to manipulate the working class. The United States let him run roughshod over Cambodia, and literally gave them weapons and training because they hoped the Khmer Rouge would be a bulwark against Vietnam and China.

    From the man's own mouth: When I die, my only wish is that Cambodia remain Cambodia and belong to the West. It is over for communism, and I want to stress that.

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

    Why are you bringing the CPK into this? Everything /u/anarchaqueer listed were popular uprisings by marginalized peoples. Are you putting the Khmer Rouge in the same category as the Stonewall Rebellion?

    There are many reasons to criticize the actions of anarchists in Portland, saying that the violence of oppressors is the same as violence to end oppression is not one of them.

    [–]ameoba[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    You wanna stay on the fringe and continue to be socially irrelevant? This is exactly how you should continue responding to people with good intentions asking sincere questions. Don't bother correcting their assumptions, just mock them for not being part of your little club.

    [–]failson422 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Heard reports on twitter of liberals shaking hands with cops, trying to take away black bloc masks, take photos and send them to the cops, etc. Liberals might not want to openly collaborate with the police state otherwise turnout is gonna be even lower for the Dems in 2020! Y'all spent the last year trying to convince everyone that you cared about police violence against minorities, now you're out there shaking hands with the jackboots. We see your duplicity!

    [–]counterc[🍰] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    What you should really be concerned about is the liberals that collaborate with the cops.

    [–]SweetNyan 9ポイント10ポイント  (3子コメント)

    As an anarchist, lol. Maybe you stay away from protesting the establishment if opposing both capitalism AND the state is too much for you. Anarchism isn't inherently violent, but starting by tossing away the propaganda that we are is probably the first step.

    And just out of interest, Trump wants to deport immigrants and his VP wants to convert gay people by force. How is a little property damage worse than that?

    While we're dismissing everything left of Clinton, lets also throw literally everything that syndicalists and anarchists have done for equality away too.

    [–]Lolor-arros 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

    How is a little property damage worse than that?

    It's not worse, but that doesn't make it okay.

    While we're dismissing everything left of Clinton

    ...excuse me? Where is that happening?

    [–]SweetNyan 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Have you looked at this board or even Reddit in general?

    [–]thinkonthebrink 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Listen to them.

    [–]oriaxxx 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Listen to them.

    damn. perfect response.

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

    It's like "how do we deal with these people who are telling us to think critically about our dogma without looking bad because we have no critical thinking??" Not that anarchists are always right, but certainly anarchism is more on point than mainstream liberalism. I understand these people are being disruptive. It's because you're not listening. Now, of all times, leftist radicals are 100% validated because of the utter implosion of the Democrats. Anyone trying to prop up the current version of the Democratic Party is more interested in preserving privilege than in challenging the status quo. Not an radicals are white or male either! Many are but we need to be looking at our post-colonial studies, our radical feminisms, etc.

    [–]Lolor-arros 7ポイント8ポイント  (14子コメント)

    How can a nonviolent protest protect itself from these people

    Through effort and communication.

    You can't stop a group of violent people from messing up your protest. Fuck the police, but that's what the police are for. All you can do is distance yourself.

    And you can stop them from interacting with your group long-term. Make it understood that they are not welcome.

    [–]indigo945 16ポイント17ポイント  (2子コメント)

    LMAO "fuck the police, but ensure that they arrest the leftists, denunciation under a fascist government ensures that we can create peaceful and non-violent change"

    Fuck the police, but fuck snitches in particular.

    [–]Lolor-arros 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

    but ensure that they arrest the leftists

    Are you kidding?

    You're kidding, right?

    Ensure they arrest the violent assholes. Not leftists.

    And who said anything about 'snitching'? All I said was to distance yourself and let the police handle it - which they will, on their own.

    [–]Orphan_Script 3ポイント4ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Your solution is to alienate the people who are most desperate and afraid from your movement? Go ahead then, see where you go. I think you need to brush up on your Martin Luther King. Ever heard the 'riot is the language of the unheard' quote? What do you think that means, to someone like King who was actually an effective and powerful organiser? It didn't mean 'tell those guys to piss off.'

    I'm really having a hard time understanding why your post is being taken seriously.

    [–]Lolor-arros 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Alienate them? No.

    This wold not be alienating anyone - I would welcome those people with open arms.

    I would not welcome their actions.

    The people are fine, it's what they do that excludes them. I have no problem with violence on a philosophical level. I do have a problem with stupid, senseless, useless violence, especially when it disadvantages everyone around you trying to do good things.

    Organized violence can be powerful. This is not organized, it is not useful, it is 100% harmful and stupid.

    Anyone who acts that way can piss off.

    It didn't mean 'tell those guys to piss off.'

    I am familiar with Dr. King.

    In some situations, a very small few, violence is 'the right thing' to do.

    In all others, it is not. This is one of those situations.

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

    So, anyone who acts that way can piss off. But not just anyone- we welcome people with open arms. It's their ideas that can piss off. Am I getting that right? What is your plan to welcome the people but not the ideas? It's to have them arrested and tell them to go away? That's the 'alienation'. Your philosophy on violence isn't really relevant here- I'm talking about tactics. What I am hearing is 'arrest them'. What I'm not hearing is any way to bring them into the fold.

    [–]Lolor-arros 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

    "Come back when you aren't pushing violence"

    What's wrong with that?

    What I am hearing is 'arrest them'.

    What I'm saying is distance yourself. Other people will handle it. Don't put yourself in harm's way.

    What I'm not hearing is any way to bring them into the fold.

    Like I've been saying, stop being pointlessly violent and you're in the fold. It's not difficult to understand...

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

    "Come back when you aren't pushing violence"

    What's wrong with that?

    What's wrong with that? Nothing, if you just want everybody to ignore you. Have you ever been to a riot? I'm guessing not, which is fine, but you don't seem to understand how those things work.

    Ensure they arrest the violent assholes.

    (Emphasis yours). Since you left the other half of your plan out. Which is the crux of the point. You don't have anything to say to these people. You're not gonna ask them to go away lol. You're gonna rely on the cops to sort the problem out for you.

    Like I've been saying, stop being pointlessly violent and you're in the fold. It's not difficult to understand...

    I'm asking you a very direct question. How do you plan on reaching people and effectively communicating with people who feel that the only way to express their political angst is through violence? You've not answered that. You don't get to decide who's 'in the fold'. That doesn't make any sense- who are you? The fact that your plan B is to rely on state violence means that you're, if anything, not in the fold. But in no way is saying that 'you're in or you're out' a reasonable answer to my question.

    Again I ask you. What would you say to these people? Before you call the police. Do you have a plan of action or is this just pointless chatter?

    [–]ameoba[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Make it understood that they are not welcome.

    How?

    [–]Lolor-arros 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

    "Violence is unacceptable"

    "Get out of here if you're going to keep suggesting violence, that is not okay"

    "No"

    for some examples...

    [–]ameoba[S] 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

    People were yelling at them to stop.

    [–]Lolor-arros 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Duh. Words only work long-term, like when people aren't actively smashing up a car dealership.

    Like I said above, that's a matter for the police. All you can do is distance yourself.

    After that, you can dissuade them from engaging with whatever group you're a part of.

    That's all you can do.

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

    People need leaders. You cannot just have a bunch of people together there are bound to create frictions and problem. They need someone to rally to and follow his thoughts and visions. Thus to stop a group of people from running amok, you first need a sheperd.