The Left Needs To Rethink How It Protests

cpwill said:

Sure. And they will make up 2% of the voting public. Maybe.

In the meantime, most swing voters kinda sorta you know, hear stuff occasionally on the news, and stuff, but who really follows all of that?

Unless the KKK decides to really come out of the shadows and start burning towns down (unlikely), they aren't going to get the media footprint that the anarchists, arsonists, and hard-left does.

The Tea Party was able to have it's off-year successes for a couple of different reasons - but key was that they didn't become violent, they picked up after themselves, etc. They went to effort to present themselves as decent. The Civil Rights movement used similar tactics, ensuring everyone wore ties, publicized that they would attempt to love those who beat them, etc.


If the 3-seconds of news that someone see's in a day is a girl in a red hat getting maced just for standing on a street, the conclusion will be that the Left is violent, even towards women. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Well, for what it's worth, the TV coverage I watched on Berkley, looked more like the tailgate bonfire parties we used have in East Texas, in my youth, than it did a riot.

I would like to see the peaceful protesters kick the **** out of the handful of anarchists when they show up. The peaceful protester's greatly outnumber the few. They should not allow the right the opportunity to define them by the hooligan's actions. But in today's "alt-world," people are going to believe what they want to believe anyways.

Geoist said:

The guy does get to talk. He is speaking his mind right now.

He doesn't have a right to speak in a specific forum. I didn't have a right to take to the podium during the inauguration and speak out against Trump.

Click to expand...

That's crap. The guy was invited to speak. That gives him the right to speak. Had Trump invited you to use his podium during the inauguration, anyone who tried to stop you would be violating your rights. Perhaps you might study what freedom of speech means.

katzgar said:

you are short on historic precedence. mass demonstrations have always influenced policy.

Click to expand...

Mass protests that also served a function. Going to MLK again...

The peaceful protests were for equal right for all people...that's what the Civil Rights movement was about then. People could get behind that movement and message.

What are the protests about now? Even the protestors can't really say, but it looks a whole lot like a nationwide temper tantrum because their chosen one lost. And their chosen one was not even a sympathetic character. It's impossible for moderates to even get behind these protests in principle let alone action.

Fletch said:

It is when these protests prevent others from speaking. Why not let the guy talk? As your clip pointed out, these protests are playing into his hands. If he is trolling you, don't feed him.

Click to expand...

The hours of protest before the rioters arrived where not preventing any one from speaking. Saying the speaker is an asshole is not preventing him from doing anything, and that was the essence of the protests.

reinoe said:

Mass protests that also served a function. Going to MLK again...

The peaceful protests were for equal right for all people...that's what the Civil Rights movement was about then. People could get behind that movement and message.

What are the protests about now? Even the protestors can't really say, but it looks a whole lot like a nationwide temper tantrum because their chosen one lost. And their chosen one was not even a sympathetic character. It's impossible for moderates to even get behind these protests in principle let alone action.

Click to expand...

again you are wrong. riots during the civil war and vietnam era had huge influence on policy

Geoist said:

Not the biggest TYT fan, but they make some excellent points here about the Berkeley protests. Stop giving internet trolls like Milo attention with these protests. Stop giving violent a-hole "anarchists" an opportunity to cause mayhem and give conservatives ammunition to their claim "see, liberals are violent!" There are other ways to protest (letters to the editor, inviting liberal speakers, sit-ins, etc) that are much less likely to backfire.




One more thought: It is ironic Trump threatens to cut Berkeley's funding because they "won't accept freedom of speech" when the university went out of its way to invite a far right (troll) conservative like Milo to speak on their campus.

Click to expand...

Anarchists are not liberals.

Please try to focus, okay? Please try to focus on the MASSIVE, nonviolent protests two weekends ago, and the nonviolent protest last weekend.

P.S. It is good that you raised Trump's stupid threat to cut Berkeley's federal funding despite their massive attempt to bend over backwards for Yiannopoulos.

Redress said:

The hours of protest before the rioters arrived where not preventing any one from speaking. Saying the speaker is an asshole is not preventing him from doing anything, and that was the essence of the protests.

Click to expand...

If you say mean things about a conservative, you are taking that conservative's free speech rights away. /snark

katzgar said:

again you are wrong. riots during the civil war and vietnam era had huge influence on policy

Click to expand...

So you support riots? And here I thought the OP was attempting to distance the political left from the violence associated with peaceful protest. I hope you don't paint floors for a living.

katzgar said:

again you are wrong. riots during the civil war and vietnam era had huge influence on policy

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I said minus the rioting! Jesus do you even read what is written? The CIVIL RIGHTS protests had a function. The Vietnam Protests had a function. The protesting of Trump has no function. And just like then as it is now, RIOTING is always condemned.

cpwill said:

Sure. And they will make up 2% of the voting public. Maybe.

In the meantime, most swing voters kinda sorta you know, hear stuff occasionally on the news, and stuff, but who really follows all of that?

Unless the KKK decides to really come out of the shadows and start burning towns down (unlikely), they aren't going to get the media footprint that the anarchists, arsonists, and hard-left does.

The Tea Party was able to have it's off-year successes for a couple of different reasons - but key was that they didn't become violent, they picked up after themselves, etc. They went to effort to present themselves as decent. The Civil Rights movement used similar tactics, ensuring everyone wore ties, publicized that they would attempt to love those who beat them, etc.

If the 3-seconds of news that someone see's in a day is a girl in a red hat getting maced just for standing on a street, the conclusion will be that the Left is violent, even towards women. :shrug:

Click to expand...

You're joking, right?

Violence at Tea Party rally: bare-knuckle politics in the streets - CSMonitor.com
Reporter Injured as Tea Party Rally Turns Violent--with Racially Motivated Attack | FTR Radio
Rand Paul Supporters Rough Up MoveOn Activist - CBS News
Tea Party Getting Violent? 10 House Dems Report Threats, Vandalism - CBS News

That's just skimming page one of Google. "Didn't become violent"? Sure, if you ignore all the times they became violent.

Oh, and the civil rights movement was NOT a bunch of people marching around in nice ties asking politely for their rights. Let's not forget that half of the movement was outrightly and intentionally disruptive and destructive.

But everyone forgets that and thinks solely of a softened fantasy narrative of MLK when they think of civil rights. Well, you want to know MLK's opinion on rioting?

Baltimore Protests: Behind "A Riot Is the Language of the Unheard" | Time.com

He saw rioting as the fault of the oppressor, not a failing within the movement itself, and not something that needed to be covered up or apologized for.

He also couldn't stand moderates and viewed that as the biggest roadblock towards progress, and was unafraid of saying so.

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

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

Click to expand...

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/060.html

And finally, let's just be clear on MLK's opinion of the more violent half of the civil rights movement, lead by Malcolm X. They were friends, firstly. Secondly, he viewed it as a probably inevitable and possibly necessary side to a movement designed to liberate people who were being oppressed WITH violence.

Just sayin'. Everybody always likes the hippie dippy parts of what MLK said, but they forget he was, at the time, a radical, and he wasn't afraid of that fact. He was not just a nicely dressed preacher singing Kum Ba Yah. He wasn't afraid of a call-out, he wasn't afraid to associate with the more destructive civil rights activists, and he wasn't asking nicely for his rights or entertaining appeasers of racism ("moderates" of the time). He was a radical who supported other radicals. He just wasn't personally one who used violence.

humbolt said:

So you support riots? And here I thought the OP was attempting to distance the political left from the violence associated with peaceful protest. I hope you don't paint floors for a living.

Click to expand...

katzger accidentally equating riots with peaceful protesting has made my day. He's pretty much admitting that these liberals aren't being peaceful at all.

katzgar said:

again you are wrong. riots during the civil war and vietnam era had huge influence on policy

Click to expand...

I wonder how log it will take some one to claim you support rioting...

humbolt said:

So you support riots? And here I thought the OP was attempting to distance the political left from the violence associated with peaceful protest. I hope you don't paint floors for a living.

Click to expand...

3 posts. Sometimes you can just see how some one will twist what is actually said to try and score points.

humbolt said:

So you support riots? And here I thought the OP was attempting to distance the political left from the violence associated with peaceful protest. I hope you don't paint floors for a living.

Click to expand...

another right wing made up crap post

reinoe said:

katzger accidentally equating riots with peaceful protesting has made my day. He's pretty much admitting that these liberals aren't being peaceful at all.

Click to expand...

your post is just a plain lie but that is expected.

reinoe said:

That's exactly what I said minus the rioting! Jesus do you even read what is written? The CIVIL RIGHTS protests had a function. The Vietnam Protests had a function. The protesting of Trump has no function. And just like then as it is now, RIOTING is always condemned.

Click to expand...

posts from the kremlins basement are so obvious in there dishonesty

cpwill said:

Yup. Generally in politics, the side that is seen as the aggressor/abuser gets' punished. I know lots of folks who don't like Trump, think very little of him, don't trust him, and voted for him, because the Left had convinced them that the alternative was a hostile far-left movement that was willing to seek out and target folks like them, and willing to condone violence.


Trump is wildly unpopular, for a POTUS. Given his antics, that's unlikely to improve. But if the left for the next couple of years allows itself to look like the Berkely riots, he will be reelected in 2020.


Now, I'm neither a rocket surgeon, nor a brain scientist, but as I count the number of Supreme Court Justices on my fingers who are likely to retire or die before 2023 (assuming that no one is chosen in an election year, like 2016), that's more than I think the left would like to see Trump picking.

Click to expand...

This is one of the most accurate things I've read about politics in a while. Also, I am a sucker for humor.

reinoe said:

katzger accidentally equating riots with peaceful protesting has made my day. He's pretty much admitting that these liberals aren't being peaceful at all.

Click to expand...

The unfortunate truth is that protests by the left of the size organized usually attract a violent element. Characterizing the violent one's as this or that doesn't change the fact that the protests provide the venue for them to do their thing. Every time a protest becomes violent, they reap the dubious benefit of association with the violent ones.

Notice that the protests at the airports didn't become violent. Telling. Bad venue for the bad guys. They'd be caught.

katzgar said:

another right wing made up crap post

Click to expand...

Rioting isn't non-violent protest. You and Redress are special. :roll:

I think the best form of protest these Berkeley kids could have done, was not protest at all. If they had stayed home, Milo would have given his talk to 500 people that already agree with him. And the only coverage he'd get is the fact it cost the Republican Club 10,000 for him to talk to 500 people that already agreed with him. In an auditorium that can fit thousands, the image of that would have been embarrassing.

By protesting and giving anarchist, and provocateurs a chance to escalate and take advantage of the mob mentality. They've gained him a great deal more support than his speech, to practically no one, would have yielded.

Future protests need to weigh the pros and cons like this. Stick to the things that matter, and stay organized. Do things like pass out buttons with tracking chips, in case anarchists show up. That way they can give their tracking info to law enforcement and the press to ensure they aren't cut off at the knees on important issues.

On the other side, I think law enforcement SOP for protests is specifically designed to eventually escalate things. And they need a good looking at.

humbolt said:

The unfortunate truth is that protests by the left of the size organized usually attract a violent element. Characterizing the violent one's as this or that doesn't change the fact that the protests provide the venue for them to do their thing. Every time a protest becomes violent, they reap the dubious benefit of association with the violent ones.

Notice that the protests at the airports didn't become violent. Telling. Bad venue for the bad guys. They'd be caught.

Click to expand...

There are no benefits to being associated with violence in a protest. That's why the anarchist's show up at liberal protests...

katzgar said:

I am not a fan of destruction but protests like these did ultimately get us out of vietnam. given the funds trump threatens are used to support poor attendees Trump just gave more fodder to his opposition.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not so sure.

Yeah - the protests worked, but the violence (which is the topic of this thread) did not.

The SDS (and movement in general) had to separate themselves from the Weathermen radicals. And I'd also add, televising Mayor Daley's police acting as thugs went a longer way in garnering sympathy and support for the student demonstrators, than did bombing police stations, college buildings, and the Pentagon.

We also saw the efficacy of Dr. King, and the repudiation of Malcom X and the Black Panther movement.

So in general, demonstrations work, but violence does not. You've got to convince society at-large it needs to see you're right, not threaten to harm it as a combative enemy. The most effective change is idealogical - inspiring change from within. N.B. Steve Bannon's Alt-Right ascension into the White House.

cpwill said:

Sure. And they will make up 2% of the voting public. Maybe.

In the meantime, most swing voters kinda sorta you know, hear stuff occasionally on the news, and stuff, but who really follows all of that?

Unless the KKK decides to really come out of the shadows and start burning towns down (unlikely), they aren't going to get the media footprint that the anarchists, arsonists, and hard-left does.

The Tea Party was able to have it's off-year successes for a couple of different reasons - but key was that they didn't become violent, they picked up after themselves, etc. They went to effort to present themselves as decent. The Civil Rights movement used similar tactics, ensuring everyone wore ties, publicized that they would attempt to love those who beat them, etc.


If the 3-seconds of news that someone see's in a day is a girl in a red hat getting maced just for standing on a street, the conclusion will be that the Left is violent, even towards women. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Bingo! :thumbs:

(relatively) Recent American history is in support of your post:

- 60's anti-war movement vs the Weathermen faction.

- Dr. King vs Malcom X

- etc., etc.

humbolt said:

Rioting isn't non-violent protest. You and Redress are special. :roll:

Click to expand...

Your post is ignorant

Chomsky said:

Well, I'm not so sure.

Yeah - the protests worked, but the violence (which is the topic of this thread) did not.

The SDS (and movement in general) had to separate themselves from the Weathermen radicals. And I'd also add, televising Mayor Daley's police acting as thugs went a longer way in garnering sympathy and support for the student demonstrators, than did bombing police stations, college buildings, and the Pentagon.

We also saw the efficacy of Dr. King, and the repudiation of Malcom X and the Black Panther movement.

So in general, demonstrations work, but violence does not. You've got to convince society at-large it needs to see you're right, not threaten to harm it as a combative enemy. The most effective change is idealogical - inspiring change from within. N.B. Steve Bannon's Alt-Right ascension into the White House.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree that to many Americans the violence during the Vietnam era was very much a turned off but on the other hand the people that were directly in a position to have to deal with it were terrified by the violence and we're in a position to make policy changes

LowDown said:

It's no use trying to tell progressives not to show up and try to suppress speech. They can't help it. It's a visceral thing. People who disagree with them won't be allowed to say so in peace.

Click to expand...

I don't necessarily agree.

After all, look at DP and the way people here respond to you.
No threats of violence. Nobody tries to shout you down or censor you...

They just point out how ridiculous your "arguments" are and move on.:2razz: