• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Violent "Protest" Effective?

Is Violent "Protest" Effective?

  • Total voters
    23
X Factor

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,651
Reaction score
32,279
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is a spin off question about when violent "protest" is justified and the responses seem to fall along the lines of "only as a last resort". My thought was immediately whether violent "protest" ever actually made any situation better or made people more likely to sympathize with whatever the protesters are mad about or is more likely to set people against them? I think it's the latter. I do think there is a case, sometimes, for civil disobedience but that's not the same as saying that violence is justified and/or effective as a means of protest.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
This is a spin off question about when violent "protest" is justified and the responses seem to fall along the lines of "only as a last resort". My thought was immediately whether violent "protest" ever actually made any situation better or made people more likely to sympathize with whatever the protesters are mad about or is more likely to set people against them? I think it's the latter. I do think there is a case, sometimes, for civil disobedience but that's not the same as saying that violence is justified and/or effective as a means of protest.
Click to expand...

Violence is not protest, nor is it "civil disobedience." The people rioting and looting just are using the Brown case as an excuse to riot and loot. They're mostly just hurting local businesses, probably mostly owned by blacks.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Violence is not protest, nor is it "civil disobedience." The people rioting and looting just are using the Brown case as an excuse to riot and loot. They're mostly just hurting local businesses, probably mostly owned by blacks.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think that's what kind of struck me about that other thread, this notion that violent "protest" meant success where other methods have failed. I think that's backwards.
 
I'm assuming the context from which this question comes is Ferguson.

The real answer to your question is very complex because violent protest can be effective depending on what the ultimate goal is.

There was some violence involved in Burkina Faso protests but they ultimately brought down a dictator of 28 years... was that justified and effective... I think most would agree yes.

Ferguson though is not a "violent protest", it's individuals, taking advantage of a temporary situation of relative lawlessness to steal, it will effect nothing at all, it doesn't bring Michael Brown back and it does nothing to address any potential issues with Police using lethal force (thought there did not appear to be an issue in this case).

Ultimately the question shouldn't be whether violent protest is effective, it should be when is it justified.

If people in position of authority (police, politicians etc.) have gone out of their way to cause harm to the people under their protection, it can be somewhat understandable that violence would take place, though when it's justified can always be a tricky line.

But destroying ones own community because you're angry with police actions is not justified or effective and will and should be met with the full force of law.
 
Jetboogieman said:
I'm assuming the context from which this question comes is Ferguson.

The real answer to your question is very complex because violent protest can be effective depending on what the ultimate goal is.

There was some violence involved in Burkina Faso protests but they ultimately brought down a dictator of 28 years... was that justified and effective... I think most would agree yes.

Ferguson though is not a "violent protest", it's individuals, taking advantage of a temporary situation of relative lawlessness to steal, it will effect nothing at all, it doesn't bring Michael Brown back and it does nothing to address any potential issues with Police using lethal force (thought there did not appear to be an issue in this case).

Ultimately the question shouldn't be whether violent protest is effective, it should be when is it justified.
Click to expand...

There is already a thread asking that very question, though that thread did inspire my question. I probably should have tailored my question to ask if it was effective in the US because, sure, in some places violence is probably the only answer but the I'd think that becomes more a question of civil war rather than mere protest.

If people in position of authority (police, politicians etc.) have gone out of their way to cause harm to the people under their protection, it can be somewhat understandable that violence would take place, though when it's justified can always be a tricky line.

But destroying ones own community because you're angry with police actions is not justified or effective and will and should be met with the full force of law.
Click to expand...

Interesting, so you are saying that you could see violence as being a legit response as long as people are targeting communities other than their own? It's not the violence you object to but, rather, simply where it's located. Would looting/burning other parts of the city be more justified/effective?

Sincere questions based on your response.
 
Last edited:
I said sometimes/possibly but I dont think this justifies using it. The violent protest might open dialog but I believe that dialog could have been opened without it. The violent protestors just didnt give it time.
 
Are violent protests effective? No I don't think so. Revolution, insurgency etc can be effective but that goes beyond what I'd normally consider a "protest"
 
Last edited:
Amandi said:
I said sometimes/possibly but I dont think this justifies using it. The violent protest might open dialog but I believe that dialog could have been opened without it. The violent protestors just didnt give it time.
Click to expand...

But the dialogue is usually along the lines of how to squash the violence and what assholes the "protestors" are.
 
X Factor said:
This is a spin off question about when violent "protest" is justified and the responses seem to fall along the lines of "only as a last resort". My thought was immediately whether violent "protest" ever actually made any situation better or made people more likely to sympathize with whatever the protesters are mad about or is more likely to set people against them? I think it's the latter. I do think there is a case, sometimes, for civil disobedience but that's not the same as saying that violence is justified and/or effective as a means of protest.
Click to expand...

I almost always the weirdo. I'll probably be the only one to vote yes. Many cops all across American have re-adjusted their mentality when dealing with black citizens because of the violence in Missouri. Just as cops changed their attitude because of the L.A. riots in 1992.

Good or bad was not your question. Effective or non-effective was your question. Did I understand you right?
 
Jetboogieman said:
was that justified and effective
Click to expand...

Justified and effective are not the same thing. This question was about effectiveness. To vote 'no' on this question means that violent protest has a net neutral effect or pretty close to a net neutral impact. That is highly unlikely in my opinion. A severe negative impact can be a result of effective actions. A severe positive impact can be a result of effective actions.

To imply that violence yields neutral results is silly. If someone punched you in the face every time that you looked at them with your left eye then you would stop opening your left eye when that person was around.
 
Normally in this country I would say no. We have a long history of becoming so repulsed by the violence which ensues that the pendulum ends up swinging the other direction. This happened after the violent upheaval in the late 1960s. Progress was made toward African American rights and respect, however, what also happened was the destruction of the city fueled a temporarily resting conservatism.

In this instance, I think what happens is that legitimate concerns and criticisms surrounding contemporary police procedures, internal management, community outreach, and personnel diversity become overshadowed by the sheer destruction of a mob.

Eventually it will even out once more and perhaps the criticism of police tendencies will renew and lead to effective changes. Nevertheless, there is nothing more damaging to feeding off the impulse that the police are fear-inducing than being faced with an unrestricted mob who is unable or unwilling to stop total mayhem or the dangers to any nearby civilian.

When things like this happens, only one question should stick to a decent civilian: "Where are the police and how can I keep them nearby so I feel safe?"
 
X Factor said:
Interesting, so you are saying that you could see violence as being a legit response as long as people are targeting communities other than their own? It's not the violence you object to but, rather, simply where it's located. Would looting/burning other parts of the city be more justified/effective?

Sincere questions based on your response.
Click to expand...

:doh

He is suggesting no such thing.

He's already stated he is assuming the context from which your question comes is Ferguson. His reply is based on the Ferguson situation. He's stating that destroying ones own community because you're angry with police actions is not justified or effective and will and should be met with the full force of law. He's not talking about any other communities and he is most definitely not supporting targeting any other communities. That's your words, not his.

How can you not see that is what he was saying? He was very clear.
 
Serenity said:
:doh

He is suggesting no such thing.

He's already stated he is assuming the context from which your question comes is Ferguson. His reply is based on the Ferguson situation. He's stating that destroying ones own community because you're angry with police actions is not justified or effective and will and should be met with the full force of law. He's not talking about any other communities and he is most definitely not supporting targeting any other communities. That's your words, not his.

How can you not see that is what he was saying? He was very clear.
Click to expand...

Ok, Serenity, I'm not trying to do some sort of gotcha thing. Did he not say that under certain circumstances, violence is, at least understandable but that's never the case if one targets their own community? Does that not leave open the idea that targeting some place other than their own community could be, at least, understandable?

Incidentally, speaking of protest, I'm still downtown and there's chanting and honking horns so we're having our own little protest here. Think I'll check it out before I head home (how funny would it be if that was the last thing I ever posted? :lol:)
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
This is a spin off question about when violent "protest" is justified and the responses seem to fall along the lines of "only as a last resort". My thought was immediately whether violent "protest" ever actually made any situation better or made people more likely to sympathize with whatever the protesters are mad about or is more likely to set people against them? I think it's the latter. I do think there is a case, sometimes, for civil disobedience but that's not the same as saying that violence is justified and/or effective as a means of protest.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it depends on who initiates the violence. A long time ago I watched a peaceful protest by blacks in Birmingham turn ugly as the police used dogs and fire hoses to break it up. The police initiated the violence, that day was a huge turning point in the march for civil rights. It proved in this old Georgia boys mind that segregation were wrong. they were the aggressors. It was time to change and for change. Without Birmingham who knows how the 1964 civil rights bill would have fared?

Ferguson is different, it was the blacks themselves that initiated the violence, the burning and looting. Burning their homes, their shops, their friends and families homes and businesses. A lot of the people who were initially supportive and sympathetic to the Brown family are not anymore. The message they were trying to convey has been lost amid the burning houses and shops. Now a lot of folks just look upon the residents of Ferguson as hooligans.
 
Perotista said:
Perhaps it depends on who initiates the violence. A long time ago I watched a peaceful protest by blacks in Birmingham turn ugly as the police used dogs and fire hoses to break it up. The police initiated the violence, that day was a huge turning point in the march for civil rights. It proved in this old Georgia boys mind that segregation were wrong. they were the aggressors. It was time to change and for change. Without Birmingham who knows how the 1964 civil rights bill would have fared?

Ferguson is different, it was the blacks themselves that initiated the violence, the burning and looting. Burning their homes, their shops, their friends and families homes and businesses. A lot of the people who were initially supportive and sympathetic to the Brown family are not anymore. The message they were trying to convey has been lost amid the burning houses and shops. Now a lot of folks just look upon the residents of Ferguson as hooligans.
Click to expand...

We are experiencing protests in other places over this and those people are largely not rioting and burning things down. There are broader issues with the police that have been festering, and regardless of the facts of this Brown case, this may not being going away. While I largely consider Obama a weak leader, I think his comments on this in the last 24 hours have all been insightful and on-point to the broader issues. Hopefully this time these discussions will not be squelched by the outcome of one case when that one case may or may not be related to the broader issues.
 
X Factor said:
Interesting, so you are saying that you could see violence as being a legit response as long as people are targeting communities other than their own? It's not the violence you object to but, rather, simply where it's located. Would looting/burning other parts of the city be more justified/effective?

Sincere questions based on your response.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

It's where the violence is directed.

As an example, it'd be understandable if it was clear cut that the police in Ferguson in a hypothetical, routinely gunned down unarmed blacks and got away with it and you say, overrun the police station and burn it down.

Just a hypothetical.

That could, in theory be effective right, you would force the issue to be addressed either by the state of by the Federal Government.

However in the actual instance, you've got a person killed under initially dubious circumstances, the jury came back and said he was innocent and then people burned down businesses in their own community, that is not effective or justified, it serves no purpose.
 
Declan said:
We are experiencing protests in other places over this and those people are largely not rioting and burning things down. There are broader issues with the police that have been festering, and regardless of the facts of this Brown case, this may not being going away. While I largely consider Obama a weak leader, I think his comments on this in the last 24 hours have all been insightful and on-point to the broader issues. Hopefully this time these discussions will not be squelched by the outcome of one case when that one case may or may not be related to the broader issues.
Click to expand...

I am sure there are lots of broader issues. That there are tons of just grievances that fall upon deaf ears because of violence like what is taking place in Ferguson. I personally think the divide will grow, not shrink. I use to think we were steadily, abet slowly moving forward.

I don't know, all I know is burning and looting like in Ferguson does not help.
 
Jetboogieman said:
I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

It's where the violence is directed.

As an example, it'd be understandable if it was clear cut that the police in Ferguson in a hypothetical, routinely gunned down unarmed blacks and got away with it and you say, overrun the police station and burn it down.

Just a hypothetical.

That could, in theory be effective right, you would force the issue to be addressed either by the state of by the Federal Government.

However in the actual instance, you've got a person killed under initially dubious circumstances, the jury came back and said he was innocent and then people burned down businesses in their own community, that is not effective or justified, it serves no purpose.
Click to expand...


I honestly think burning down a police station, especially if there were police in it (as is always the case with police stations since they don't usually close) would damage whatever you're trying to accomplish. I know I wouldn't be sympathetic to anyone who would do that but that's just my opinion on a very specific hypothetical. Anyway, thanks for clarifying.
 
Perotista said:
I am sure there are lots of broader issues. That there are tons of just grievances that fall upon deaf ears because of violence like what is taking place in Ferguson. I personally think the divide will grow, not shrink. I use to think we were steadily, abet slowly moving forward.

I don't know, all I know is burning and looting like in Ferguson does not help.
Click to expand...

I try to think of it with a sports analogy. When your team blows a big game or a player really makes the stupidest play you have ever seen, you can be as mad as hell, but come tomorrow, they are still your team. Burning and looting does not help and the ones who do it do not deserve to be heard, but those who just happen to look like the looters who are not themselves burning and looting should have a place at the table and be listened to in good faith. My police department isn't so bad as some of these appear to be. I want to know about the ones who are better and the ones who are worse. We really need to find out how bad, why, and what we can do to make them less sucky if that is possible for those.
 
Yes and no.

Violence draws a lot of attention so that subsequent non-violent activism becomes more noteworthy. Such was the case with Malcolm X.

Non-violent protest works better generally when the state has something to lose, i.e. people halting the gears of industry and stopping economic production. Problem is, most industry is being outsourced now and most companies are globalized, so if any one country throws its bodies on the gears it doesn't really have an impact. Such is the case with impoverished, minority, disenfranchised parts of the United States. They have no real leverage.

I'd say that violence generally works less well than non-violent protest, however if there's no leverage then violence is probably better than nothing. Also, violence works incredibly well at disabling governments if the protest encompasses huge numbers of people, during times when government has decided to ignore the will of the people.

To summarize my view... violence works when all other options to stop tyranny have been exhausted. If the choice is between ONLY violence or accepting tyranny, then I'd support violence.
 
X Factor said:
I honestly think burning down a police station, especially if there were police in it (as is always the case with police stations since they don't usually close) would damage whatever you're trying to accomplish. I know I wouldn't be sympathetic to anyone who would do that but that's just my opinion on a very specific hypothetical. Anyway, thanks for clarifying.
Click to expand...

Ultimately it depends on the type of violence and who it's directed at.

As an example, during the infancy of the armed struggle under apartheid, the ANC's armed wing conducted a campaign of bombings that targeted things like power substations, power lines, empty government posts etc.

I absolutely see that as justified.

Murder of civilians is not justified under those circumstances as a few members committed in later years.

As to the Police Station having police in it... well... context is always important.

I'm never one to condone violence, but let's say in America no, the police station would be empty.

Let's repaint a picture.

Iraq.

Arab spring.

Saddam Hussein is still in power, protesters overrun a police station and find officers inside known to have tortured men and raped women in the locale... what do you think is gonna happen there and how would it make you feel?
 
Declan said:
I try to think of it with a sports analogy. When your team blows a big game or a player really makes the stupidest play you have ever seen, you can be as mad as hell, but come tomorrow, they are still your team. Burning and looting does not help and the ones who do it do not deserve to be heard, but those who just happen to look like the looters who are not themselves burning and looting should have a place at the table and be listened to in good faith. My police department isn't so bad as some of these appear to be. I want to know about the ones who are better and the ones who are worse. We really need to find out how bad, why, and what we can do to make them less sucky if that is possible for those.
Click to expand...

Down here in order to be a member of the county sheriff's department one must live in the county. The same for the different town police departments. They are all part of the community, our neighbors and friends who just happen to be police. Now we are a fairly rural county, Atlanta is 30 miles to the north of us. But it works for us, I don't know how it would work in the big cities.

I don't think any of them gave it a try. Atlanta is always short of police or so it seems by all the advertisements in the AJC trying to recruit them. One of my neighbors about a mile down the road is an Atlanta cop. He drives 40 miles to work everyday. The difference here is the police in Henry are part of the Henry County Community, the police in Atlanta are not, to them it is just a job.

Just something to think on.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Ultimately it depends on the type of violence and who it's directed at.

As an example, during the infancy of the armed struggle under apartheid, the ANC's armed wing conducted a campaign of bombings that targeted things like power substations, power lines, empty government posts etc.

I absolutely see that as justified.

Murder of civilians is not justified under those circumstances as a few members committed in later years.

As to the Police Station having police in it... well... context is always important.

I'm never one to condone violence,
Click to expand...

What if it was saaaay the GOP headquarters or the radio station Rush Limbaugh broadcasted from?

but let's say in America no, the police station would be empty.
Click to expand...

Well that's a little too easy. If you're going to say that violence against American police stations is justified, then you have to accept violence for what it is. It's unweildy and unpredictable. Burning down a police station as you used in your example of justifiable violence absolutely carries with it the possibility, in fact, the probability that someone will be in it. You can't sanitize violence. So now, if a couple cops were burned along with the building, do you think those people should be tried and punished for the cop killers they would be or not?

Let's repaint a picture.

Iraq.

Arab spring.

Saddam Hussein is still in power, protesters overrun a police station and find officers inside known to have tortured men and raped women in the locale... what do you think is gonna happen there and how would it make you feel?
Click to expand...

Which is why I said I should have tailored my question to violent protest in the US (similar as you might think we are to Iraq with a GOP controlled Senate and House :D).
 
Perotista said:
Down here in order to be a member of the county sheriff's department one must live in the county. The same for the different town police departments. They are all part of the community, our neighbors and friends who just happen to be police. Now we are a fairly rural county, Atlanta is 30 miles to the north of us. But it works for us, I don't know how it would work in the big cities.

I don't think any of them gave it a try. Atlanta is always short of police or so it seems by all the advertisements in the AJC trying to recruit them. One of my neighbors about a mile down the road is an Atlanta cop. He drives 40 miles to work everyday. The difference here is the police in Henry are part of the Henry County Community, the police in Atlanta are not, to them it is just a job.

Just something to think on.
Click to expand...

One does not need to live in the city to be an officer in the city in my town. Not sure about the county sheriff's policy on that.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Justified and effective are not the same thing. This question was about effectiveness. To vote 'no' on this question means that violent protest has a net neutral effect or pretty close to a net neutral impact. That is highly unlikely in my opinion. A severe negative impact can be a result of effective actions. A severe positive impact can be a result of effective actions.

To imply that violence yields neutral results is silly. If someone punched you in the face every time that you looked at them with your left eye then you would stop opening your left eye when that person was around.
Click to expand...

Not true. I'm not at all saying that I think violent protest is "neutral", I'm saying it's detrimental to your cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom