What's so important about refraining from violence and rioting when protesting?
Printable View
What's so important about refraining from violence and rioting when protesting?
Loss of life is always a tragedy.
Is it better to live on your knees than die standing?
I don't know, perhaps, are you a practitioner of Shinto?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
No but I like the concept. I think it's worth arguing that some things are more valuable than the physical body.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phion
I might agree with you there, though, personally, and it may seem cowardly, if I were given the choice to live or die depending on my outward beliefs or activities I would probably choose life every time. However, to be fair, I can honestly tell you that my convictions have not been tested to the extent that some might participate in a riot, other unlawful behavior, or even warfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
A lot of times when protests get violent it seems like the protesters are then seen as stupid punks who need to go to jail. Non-violent protests, if publicized right, seem much more intelligent and I think taken more seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phion
Hypothetically speaking, do you believe there are any values which are more important than your particular life? Is there any possible circumstance you can imagine where it'd be worth it to sacrifice yourself to change or protect human ethos? By that I mean to help make the world a better place or stop it from degenerating into a worse place, better and worse obviously being subjective and I leave them free for your own personal interpretation. For this, I personally would point to freedom, equality and justice as three tenants I would be willing to die for, and kill for. Even though I couldn't blame the officer unwittingly assaulting these values, I would stop him the same way I would stop a rabid dog from hurting my family. No blame, no hate, but if the choice came between ending a life or allowing that life to cause more harm to my ethos, I would end the life.
It seems as though the media tends to paint whatever picture it wants on protests, as do information warriors that incite riots within protests in order to provoke police retaliation. But I have a question, if the rioters were truly causing damage, perhaps with molotovs and the like, does it really matter what the media thinks? Does it really matter what kind of attention they give it? What is the purpose of a non-violent protest? What is achieved by holding up a bunch of signs and marching down a street?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
I shouldn't have got involved in this - I'm not the activist type really and the issue isn't that important to me (until such time as that may change). But all I'm saying is that Martin Luther King and Ghandi seem a lot more intelligent to me, and to be taken a lot more seriously, than rioters throwing molotovs. To me that's not what I'd call a 'demonstration' so much as guerilla warfare. A demonstration is to bring public attention and awareness to an idea or issue - rioting is a reaction against imminent attack or unfair infringement of rights. They both have their places - I just don't consider them both to be 'demonstrations'.
Perhaps not, but I still think it's important to analyze the best way to accomplish one's goals, which invariably is either change of a bad model or protection of a threatened model. I respect MLK and Gandhi as much as the next hippy, but I don't know if clinging to their philosophies of non-violence is really going to save us from oppression. What does a non-violent protest achieve that a violent one can't? You mentioned awareness and public attention, but what does this all culminate to in order to achieve what the protestors envision?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
My point being that we've been trying it that way for the last 50 years and despite all our resolve to do things correctly the police have still gone and equipped themselves for guerrilla warfare. They've escalated the conflict, free of the necessary provocation. Oppositely, it almost appears as though the police are attempting to provoke the protestors into degenerating to violence.
They're called elections, and there is usually a dress code.Quote:
Non-violent protests, if publicized right, seem much more intelligent and I think taken more seriously.
If you are violent it gives government an excuse to come down hard on you, while at the same time removing your support. If you are very violent and riot you put other people in danger and so the government is justified in breaking up the protest with force. On the other hand when the government breaks up peaceful protests it causes a great deal of outrage and anger at the government.
The point of a protest is to be visible and draw people to your cause. Being peaceful draws in support while being violent removes support.
But how does support actually get anything practical done? Like I said before, the police have escalated without the help of violent protestors. They already bring the hammer down a quickly as possible. They come equipped to fight a war, they pepper spray without justification, and they forcibly end peaceful protests. All of this is going on and I don't really see any causes getting much done through protesting. I could be wrong but it doesn't seem as though the 99% have managed to win back a dime that was stolen by the bankers. So what's the fucking point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alric
In regards to the African-American civil rights movement, I think what what worked best for it was the contrast between it's two most notable figures - MLK went the peaceful route but Malcolm X was ready to resort to violence. I think once the general public realized that change was inevitable, they figured it was was one or the other - they could either pay attention to MLK's peaceful protests, or they could maintain the status quo and risk going up against a potentially violent revolution led by Malcolm X and like-minded supporters.
I think refraining from violence is always important when protesting, simply because people are more likely to support a peaceful movement. But with that being said, I also acknowledge the importance of the threat/possibility of violence - it pressures the general public to demand action from it's political leaders. It's a bit of a risky move though, the threat of violence can also undermine or discredit a protest so it should only be used as a last resort imo.
The legalization effort has been pushing for cannabis law reform for decades and it only just recently started to make strides. It's been a peaceful movement so far, and I think that's why it took so long for the masses to start giving a shit. Had there been a chance of a violent revolt, people would have started to give it some serious consideration ages ago. But on the flip side, had it gotten violent, there's a chance the supporters would have been labelled as crazed radicals and their arguments for legalization would been dismissed.
tl;dr - It's a bit of a balancing act.
I really don't see how lobbing flaming hot toddies at riot officers is going to win back any money from the bankers either though. Are the police really the enemy? Or did you have something else in mind?
It seems like what Occupy needs isn't violence, but unity and organization.
At least some destruction would prove that actions have consequences. Marching around with a sign doesn't appear to provide wrongdoers with any sort of consequences for their actions. Civil Disobedience still means disobedience, and MLK didn't just advocate marches, he advocated breaking bad laws. I'm not trying to advocate violence against anyone, I'm simply waiting for someone to explain adequately how non-violence helps anything. What could non-violent protests lead to that actually helps the cause? It doesn't seem like attracting support for a cause does much unless it could be utilized for some sort of worldwide worker strike. Most people don't seem to support protestors whether they're violent or not because either some undercover feds spark riots or the media paints them as a bunch of imbeciles anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
I dont really believe in black or white, it really depends on the situation. First off I'm against killing especially out of anger. A violent protest for me is stone throwing, flaming bottle tossing and pushing over vehicles. Once protesters start knifing or gunning-- its not a protest its war.
Peaceful protesting has defined the 20th century - in stark contrast to its world wars. The power of the peaceful protest lies in its contrast. The greater the threat, the greater the peaceful protest, the greater its power has.
Take for example the egyptian protestors saying their daily prayers as they were blasted with water cannons. This made the egyptian government look completely retarded to the entire global community - which was the point the demonstraters were making. Had they instead always reacted violently to the water cannons their message could have been lost in the anger.
But peaceful or violent protests in America doesn't mean nothing much. America is on the opposite end of the global protest.
On black friday thousands and thousands of factory workers in asian countries took the streets in protest against the injustice and the lack of soverignty because they are owned by foreign countries. While they protested injustice, Americans were mindlessly shopping for all the goods they produced without a care. Nothing occupy said or did could change this.
It's hard for me to believe that non-violent protests will be taken more seriously when I see shit like this
http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/q...slyamerica.png
The problem is that you are looking at protests as if they were the entire method of change. The point of a protest is to raise visibility of your cause, and increase support. You don't act violently because that is better for getting the support of the people on your side. You have to do other stuff at the same time though. For example, the protests go on and then we talk about it on here, that raises awareness even more because you had the big protest and then follow up with people talking about the issue. Or you protest and then it leads up to the election and you use all your support you gain to vote a certain way and it makes an impact like that. Or you bring pressure on someone and force them to change their ways.
Or like you pointed out, you build up and then you use your huge support for a strike. Any way the point of a protest is to build support and bring awareness to your cause, if you want change you need to do other things in addition to it.
As for violence that really doesn't solve anything. That just makes you feel better and relives some frustration. If you do think there is some time for violence you sure the heck shouldn't riot and just destroy things at random. That is stupid. Harming innocent people does nothing to further a cause and only hurts people. If you want violence you better plan it out well, because you are directly responsible for every person hurt and every person who dies. If you are not prepared to accept that responsibility you shouldn't even consider violence.
What if I were prepared to accept responsibility? What if it was well planned out? What if the right buildings were targeted?
Actions need consequences. What type of consequences are realistically in our grasp as people in order to rectify the damage that has been to our rights or to our economy? It seems unrealistic, when most people have families to feed, to pull a worker's strike, at least not with this putrid level of media gestated ignorance. Elections are the same way, people are so scared of one clone they all rally behind another clone. And talking about an issue, well that's just makes my panties wet but it doesn't provide any sort of consequence for oppression and exploitation.
Satyagraha, man.
The effectiveness of it depends entirely on your plan. I don't really condone it, but obviously destroying stuff does destroy the value of things. Going around blowing stuff up is a type of warfare. While protests are a way to change things they are not warfare, so you can't really compare the two. Violence at a protest and rioting isn't expression or warfare, it is just random chaos and random chaos doesn't really produce positive results.
If you are going to go to war with someone, you don't do it as a mob with random destruction and chaos.
Why not? What if the mob is targeting specific people? I mean sure there's collateral damage but the bulk of the damage would hopefully be aimed at the perpetrators. A mob would be a group of people all enraged pass the boiling point, this isn't the smartest animal but they typically go after whatever pissed them off so bad. The UK Police shot a kid in the head for no fucking reason so they got riots aimed at them for abusing power and committing a crime. Did the kid who got shot in the head deserve a peaceful protest in his honor where they all wear hoodies like they did for Trayvon Martin in the US? Or did he deserve to have a few molotovs thrown in his honor?
There is no honor to be had through violent retaliation. I'm sure I don;t have to explain to you what that leads to.
If you really want to overturn a fundamental injustice (and not satisfy some base craving for revenge following a single event, as if injuring the first wrongdoer somehow makes everything okay), your greatest option is to secure the moral high ground. I really doubt most bystanders were concerned about why those rioters in the UK were lobbing firebombs, they just saw a riot, which is never a good thing in anyone's book.
So what sort of moral high ground is there to take that doesn't forsake the murdered boy?
Are we speaking about action focused on a systemic problem or a particular event?
The boy is dead, and despite what your natural emotions tell you, causing further damage to property or people, including those responsible, will never do anything to help that.
I'm not saying it would. What I'm saying is actions should have consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supernova
Mobs don't go after specific targets, that is my entire point. Rioting mobs going after whatever is available, and near by. Like the UK rioting where they were burning down innocent businesses and shops that had nothing to do with anything.
What consequence would be more suitable then?
Then punish him as you would any other person who comitted such an act in your society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Police shooting people for no reason is a systemic problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supernova
I can see why people want to do this. I have the urge almost everyday to just go blow up parliament.
The only other option is literally getting to the top, which will take years and years and changing it from there.
For example changing the hiring process of police and changing the policies drastically.
I have to agree with Gavin I think.
Peaceful protests are the best to garner support for your cause.
If you're still being oppressed, or they otherwise are not listening to your ideas even when you have
huge numbers (Occupy), then you organise violent protests aimed specifically at the target.
I think the problem - why peaceful protests aren't working - is that we simply do not have them enough and in large enough numbers.
We need to instill a sense of responsibility in the general public. I'd say 95% do not have that.
That is probably due to overworking.
The other thing is simple protests aren't enough. You need to organize specific action that will help you reach your goal (which is the one thing that the occupy movement is lacking in). I.E., for Gandhi and the Indian National Congress Party, it was the cotton boycott and the salt march. Not being listened to by those in power is not for lack of violence. You have to make them listen to you, and turning to violence will only result in them resisting much more. It's like a Chinese finger trap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otpor
It depends on who specifically you are talking about.
I think part of the problem of your question is the thread title. Demonstration is something you do at a protest. A protest should be short, strong and direct, when it drags people start ignoring the protest.
But a revolution is different. When a protester is willing to lay their life for the cause, its a revolution. Thats when things get unavoidably violent. Innocent people always die in a revolution. How will the protesters react to such horrifying deaths? The protesters are going to decide just how bloody their revolution is going to be.
The biggest problem with protester violence is the retaliation of the government is nondiscriminate. Once those soldiers or cops in the middle of it, everyone looks like the enemy!
Rather then reacting as hostile as the government, its more important that the revolution never loses hope. Neighbors and strangers are brought together and that gives them a greater strength than any corrupt government.
Part of the reason Otpor was successful was that they made a great effort to make police across the country understand that the police weren't their enemy, only Milosevic.
Demonstrations start out peaceful generally. There is that boiling point that the people no longer feel like they are being heard, and they start going out doing their own stuff, what they feel is right. When it comes to the violence, it must be selective one. One meant to maintain/strive for a balance.
So far, the policing force of america has made it their duty, to no longer serve the people, but to serve themselves. To a degree I understand that Its a job, and they need work, but to pick up a badge and go forth committing the horrible crimes we see coming from officers in america..... its fucking sickenning. Can post videos of cops being caught on camera planting drugs, can show you them harming your children on all levels, from basic manhandeling to pummelling, to killing. They parade around in their cruisers, clad in black, strapped to the teeth.... and when they step forward, again, past the line I've set, what am I supposed to do? Am I to sit and set the example for my fellow man, that we will sit by like a fucking dog and let them do what they please despite the moral implications?
We have to set an example, when they make the challenge. We cannot allow them to play us like dogs and children, it is supposed to be the other way around. Instead year after year they refine their wording and speech as to allow them the most power when charging you with whatever it is they are focused on. Its sad how easily cops trick people into incriminating/implicating themselves....
Where do I draw the line? Well on a personal 1 to 1 level, I try to play ball, job is a job and I will never believe all cops are bad, so its only fair that if they are coming to me genuinely that i give them some respect. Now if cops came to the door asking to search the place based off of heresay, I'm just gonna ask for a warrant, to which if they don't I'll tell them to have a nice day and close the door in their face. Sadly.... I wonder how long it'll be till they'll be ok with the door being shut in their face.
And i'm not just talking about the police anymore, talking about the government (i'm getting back to violence and protests), fema, fbi. Mandatory "vaccinations", checks for weapons, food supply, etc etc. They've already charged some kids with being terrorists, claiming to have found some plans and shit for some bullshit attack..... its all about making examples.
If one side sits down, they are only giving the example that they are either to scared or to strong to care. Sadly the majority of america is Thought to be lazy pigs, so the idea that we would be like europe n the way we handle our police brutality.... is a dream. We claim it to be to be a show of good sportsmanship, to walk away as we are being hit with mace and batons but honestly I believe it to be cowardice.
To many people in for themselves, if that wasn't the case we'd stand strong against them taking our brothers and sisters and putting them into vans, we'd match them, locking arm n arm. Instead we let them label anything resist as violent. You don't have to harm another person to pull your friends back, you just have to be willing to put your own ass on the line, sadly as I said, I believe people are to cowardly to do that.
That is the time I, and many others seem to be waiting for, the moment the we decide its time to stop them harassing the protests and taking people more out of making an example out of them as opposed to actually keeping the demonstration peacefull. Don't think that to be true? You call shooting rubber bullets and metal tear gas canister/flashbangs into crowds of upset people peaceful? They are poking the bear in an attempt to make him look savage, and they've succeeded. The violence must be selective, non of this breaking random windows and tagging bullshit.
Spectrum holds true and to that there is such a thing as forward movement through defensive violence. MLK had a nice dream, but it was, and still is just that, a dream. I still hear people at work say some of the most racist ridiculous bullshit. The only thing that has changed is a few laws implicating loss of money if you break them. People haven't changed. Just as lazy as ever.
We do not have to beat them at their as much as we need to balance it. We start throwing molotovs, they bring the media back, and we loose the strength of our numbers. But if we simply dis-obey, we hold our ground, and by that I do not mean wait till they arrest you, I MEAN HOLDING YOUR FUCKING GROUND......
They will eventually raise their bid to high, and at that moment, they will have made us stronger than they could have ever feared possible.
We assemble-> they fence and arrest
We stare them down at their barricades -> they shoot teargas/flashbangs/use mace
If no one does something violent on a defensive level, people will leave simply out of fear, the policing having made enough examples, going unchallenged/punished.
There will not be a need for them to broadcast the anarchists in guise of being occupy, as the masses will be tired, their lazy asses not used to walking the streets like back in the day, they will go back to their huts and they will.... do what they've always done.... wait for someone else to come along and either do it for them, or to show them the way.
The problem is, we don't have it quite as bad as some of the places the more violent protests stem from, its good.... but the general middle class is to busy trying to get that next notch on the ladder to focus on whats instore for their children and their childrens children. If we don't fight now, we will fight eventually..... people act so clueless of why people get passionate enough to do the things they do at protests.... they just don't know.
And thats pretty much what it boils down to, are you willing to risk your future, for the past present and future of those to come? I know I am, just waiting for crowds to come back, its still the summer after all, why wait till more rains and snow to be right back where we were last year......
If your not willing to fight for yourself to not be maced/arrested for the general bullshit they chum up => like here where an officer assualts someone, and then they arrest him http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv4mdjPUUb4
If not for you, at least for your brothers and sisters. And i don't just mean your personal friends and family, i'm talking about your brethren in arms, your Earthly, human family. People need to evolve past selfish thinking on so many levels. I understand self preservation but.... when your out there trying to give a message, and these black clad bullies are just pushing you around and snatching your brothers and sisters off the street for just the most rediculous crap..... how can you just let them bend your cause over and rape it? We are trying to win the populace of america over, and to an extent they believe the policing to be necessary, as the mainstream media is in "their" pocket for the most, being fed constant twisted version of shit. So when they see someone getting arrested, looking like a bum, they think lowly "oh he was probably on drugs or doing something". Which is why we must stop them from arresting our brothers and sisters. So they stop twisting it past resistance.
We do not have to physically fight them, as much as we simply have to pull our own from them. Amidst the chaos, the police will as i said before, bid to far, and lead by far, the worst example of any us. They will inevitably incite a riot through this process, and if done through my method, will make the protest look peaceful, while at the same time incriminating the police as far as they are willing to take it.
I just hope this pack mentality can be obtained before our numbers are once again to few :/ until then, in my eyes its just a bunch of mother fuckin douche-bags, pretending to give a shit about eachother, when in fact they are just angry they can't go back to be ignorantly blissfull of how gracefully our government has gone about raping our country over the years (since kennedy fo sure anyway.... talked about ending the federal reserve.... got a bullet in the head).
Just a bunch of sad selfish (to their blood family), pretending they are different from the greedy fucks breaking the system. They parade around pretending to give a shit about one another, yet stand by when their brothers TRULLY demonstrating, have a large tent brought over them, filled, and then entered by several police, taking one out at a time. I'd show you the video, but by now the words in the search engine only bring thousands of videos to which its been lost in. These people held their ground together in the street, laying out actually, and when they couldn't seperate them, they brought in this tent so they could hide more brutal methods to be used. What would of happened if the crowd stormed the tent for their brothers and sisters being harmed for being TRUE protestors? Well I can tell you one thing.... police sure would have had a hard time trying to arrest EVERYONE. You can put some water in the ocean in a cup..... but how about the whole ocean, or a sea, lake.... pond.... the cup sinks and disappears.
I personally, am not about to risk my pottential for a bunch of people pretending to be ready to do anything other than run in fear. In their too lies a dilemna because if I feel this way so must others right? We have to define the practices of peace and the practices of violence. Violence is a cop shoving someone just talking to them, and then having that person arrested. And people inturrpting this....they would of been the peace-keepers.
Sadly the only people "keeping peace" are just as equally scared cowards, just they feel righteous due to law, and protection from their pack mentality/weapons.
The moment we share the pack mentality of the police when it comes to protecting our own, we will be to much for them to handle, with weapons or not.
I've stood with the few left in the city hear, sadly our numbers aren't the same as in other cities..... so there is very little pushing from either side. In the end for here I tend to be more valuable making the communications and spreading the news via web. Once they start causing harm to my brothers and sisters, here where I can reach.... I will be there.
How many of you will/can say this for your fellow man/woman? Would you stand and hold? Or buckle and go? Will you let them drag away the young simply because they do not share your blood and know your name? Sadly I think more would feel more comfortable making an excuse for their earthly siblings being arrested. Yet many go on protesting "this isn't about me, this is about all of us getting together and doing whats best for the whole and not just a few".
Its lovely n all.... but in comparison to our siblings in other countries..... its a fucking joke. There so much potential.... just waiting to be tapped.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgGL9jKrbD0
When I start seeing more protests such as these, where people actually go to hold their ground, will I make my return to help them. Cops gotta be stopped, otherwise they will, like a puppy, go around unchecked, tearing everything they feel fit to apart. They are marching as we speak, behind closed doors in between emails. All we must do is take to the streets and have a little gusto left over to do something more than run :P but yeah.... so much potential sitting idle.....
You draw the line when you have nothing to lose. People have an illusion of "freedom" or "society" that they are unwilling to sacrifice to challenge the status quo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oceanboy
If you are dirt poor, have no job, have no home, have no family... have nothing to lose... those are the ones who will bark at the status quo, not the rich and wealthy.
Guess that really depends on what you can be thankful for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindraker
Oceanboy, along the lines of what you're talking about....
It just reminds me of these "strikes" that workers have. These pussy-ass strikes where some executive or administrator
says that they are hurting the business and the people that rely on the business so the workers end their strike.
What the fuck is that?
That's literally the point of the strike, to show how important the workers are. You don't go back just as your point was being made.
I feel this is also due to people not really banding together. They are still too focused on their personal short-term detriments.
I don't know if this will change soon. Humans are basically evolved to only focus and plan may a couple of days or weeks in to the future.
It has to get really, really bad before we start sacrificing ourselves or our privileges to make it better.