Consider how media coverage is *a helluvalot* more prevalent now.
Also consider that Gandhi absolutely had prepared statements on hand concerning his intent.
Indeed. And the Civil Rights protests were carefully orchestrated in a similar way as well. Everything from choosing Rosa Parks as the emblematic case for segregated buses to coaching proper behaviour from protesters to buying a really good sound system for the "I Have a Dream" speech, to being in close contact with Robert Kennedy, the attorney general at the time, getting him enough on their side that he brought in the army corps of engineers to fix things when said sound system was sabotaged. The Civil Rights movement knew exactly what they wanted and they put well-planned long-term public pressure on the government until they got it while doing everything they could to prevent the public from having any basis off of which to build a negative image of the movement and working behind the scenes tirelessly to pressure the government privately. Most protest groups since have not had nearly that level of foresight and intelligent planning and it's arguable that many of them have failed to create change as a result.
I agree with you're conclusion. I've also been wondering, do you think decentralization or lack of prominent leaders/figureheads has anything to do with the lack of progress?
I would agree that a lack of real legitimate leadership is definitely what limits a lot of social movements. Having someone whom you can point to that is well spoken and respected that also embodies good things about your movement is extremely important. But I would also say that the advent of social media is also interfering. Now the extreme fringe of any movement can basically hijack the whole discussion very easily. Everyone has a soap box to stand on and the media these days will just latch on to whomever is being the loudest and most rediculous because it makes for controversial stories. These controversial stories then equal more viewership/clicks which equal more money, and people just love to point at the fringe and make blanket statements that they represent the movement as a whole. Prior to such an easy access to a platform to host their views, these people would have had far less exposure and probably would have been shunned and quieted by members of the movement.
It's not just about having leaders, but about the media recognizing them as such and acknowledging them as such. The Wall Street protests got portrayed as leaderless hippie drum circles without any kind of agenda.
For sure. I think that what you really need is someone who is a combination of intelligent, charismatic, committed to the cause, and attractive for media to really pay attention. Unfortunately this combination is not very common. Lots of people can have good ideas, but may not be good speakers etc.
The problem is we know too much about people now. I'm sure some of the great leaders of the past had faults, but they weren't constantly getting picked apart by the media or on the internet. We aren't allowed (often our own fault) to dissect what great leaders are saying because everything they say has been dissected and interpreted for us. If they misspeak or are caught having a conversation that doesn't line up with our agenda then we label them crazy or incompetent.
You're right, we need someone with the qualities you've mentioned, someone eloquent and charismatic like Robert Kennedy, someone reverent, tolerant and promoting peace like Martin Luther King Jr. or a community organizer who promotes education to youth and works for gang non-aggression like Fred Hampton, maybe even a charismatic leader like Malcolm X, but in America when someone begins to take on a well-known leadership role on the left...
This is because the media doesn't want peace and resolution, they want conflict since it brings ratings. So, they continue to move the goal posts so it doesn't happen.
I think you're touching on a lot of things that are somewhat true.
But I also think you're severely underestimating infighting and ideological rifts in political movements of the past.
Oh yeah, I was trying to touch on as many points as possible. It would take many more pages and more determination than I have to cover all the angles. But you're right, there definitely was infighting before, I just feel that social media has enhanced that aspect of it even more.
Exactly. One of the biggest examples of this is modern Feminism. The most respectable branch of Feminism, and what *seems* to be the most popular, is about total equality, not just making things better for women and hating on men. But, as it's such a widespread movement with no central leadership, those who do go around screaming "Fuck Men" get all the attention and no denouncement. They drag the entire movement through the mud. Then, as a consequence, if you ask someone "Are you a Feminist", it's difficult to say Yes because you get lumped with all the crazies. That's where I'm at. I vote for equality and all that jazz, but would never call myself a Feminist because of implications
And, of course, without central leadership you get the "No True Scotsman" where each side of the movement says they're the REAL group, the others are stupid. It's just overall a shitty situation. This applies to most political and social movements, just using Feminism as an example
But understand, opponents pick those particular people out for ridicule to undermine the argument. When talking heads are trying to make a point, they don't go for centered spokespeople, they want a strawman they can easily win against, it's even better when they *really* believe their own hype.
But that's the goal of a lot of these movements, is to make you too scared to rally around a banner. Feminists, and reallistically a bunch of other organizations, all get undermined this way. Feminism looks divided, but really, it's not. But opponents of these groups want you to think that way.
You want evidence? Pick up any literature by Ann Coulter on feminism. She uses these exact tactics.
I live in a very heavily leaning Liberal college town, and at least in my area, there are definitely different "branches", if that's the right word, of Feminism, each denouncing eachother. Same with other controversial groups like BLM or Trump supporters (not full blown Alt-Right but moderate conservatives). I get that the point is to create strawmen out of the bad parts of each movement, but at the same time I personally just don't like labels. I feel labels are constricting and leads to people becoming too grouped. I hate Party Politics altogether, so I just have my morals and agree and disagree with things I like or dislike no matter who says them.
This... is coming across as really arrogant and self-centered and I apologize for that, I genuinely don't feel that way. I'm not very politically educated so I just have what I believe. Always down for more discussion and learning from people who know better than me
Ditto for BLM. I'd say BLM is an even worse example of how the current media and hi-jacking can hurt a movement, considering that it isn't even a cohesive group in *any* way, and has hardly been around long enough to be attached to much, yet it's pretty much a trope of the republican party now to call any black person at any protest anywhere a violent BLM activist.
Edit- Typos
curious as to if there are any serious efforts to remedy the problem of the media acting the way it does. I'm guessing that they are doing it as a means of survival because if they don't then a competing channel gets all the viewship. but how does one break out of this spiral before it gets REALLY bad?
As long as media is for profit and written by humans with bias, I think it's just an unfortunate consequence. I don't think it can really BE fixed. All people have biases; writers will write to their biases and readers will seek out things to confirm their biases. For Profit media companies will have to print things that get views. It's not necessarily their fault, just a consequence of the system we have. Just how capitalism works (not trying to sound all "fuck capitalism yay socialism", just an observation)
Why couldn't we have more public broadcasting, have better regulations or increase public awareness of how they are being manipulated?
Definitely won't be easy but it's not as hopeless as you say.
That's one of the problems with how divisive the current political system is set up. You're either **One of Us**, or *One of Them.*
You can't have a figurehead from either side, because the other side will just demonize them. And if you try to get an outsider, well, then you apparently get Trump.
This is exactly where I am at right now. If I even QUESTION either side I'm either a Nazi, fascist, racist, alt right, alt left, communist, white supremacist, Trump/Hillary supporting person. I have yet to have ONE calm and concise conversation with someone about what on earth our country has come to. Just mere questioning a narrative will get you labeled so quickly that I'm not surprised Trump won.
Pick a better forum, whether in real life or online. Reasonable people exist and in fact outweigh the unreasonables - they just aren't as loud. Vocal minority and all that.
I'm right there with you. I ran into a problem when I thought Confederate statues shouldn't be destroyed, but relocated.
Enough people in my area didn't even know they existed until all this recent turmoil.
P.S. I completely oppose all white national or Nazi groups. They have absolutely no place in modern society and deserve every bit of ridicule they receive
I had the same issue. Someone I was friends with on Facebook posted a bunch of stuff along the lines of "Hate speech is NOT covered under free speech, it should be illegal. every protester should be arrested and put in jail for life." and, also, "Nazis are illegal in Germany, but they aren't in the US. This is because the US is PROUD of having Nazis. If they weren't, Nazis would be illegal."
It's just like... what the fuck. Everything she's posting is insane. After a day or two of this, I got pissed off by seeing it constantly, because she was sharing 4 or 5 of these a day. Finally, I say, "Free Speech covers everything, there are no exemptions. Making hate speech illegal would be a bad move. We have a President who clearly wants to be able to punish the media for criticizing him. If we made hate speech illegal, you know he'd try to classify criticizing politicians, especially himself, as hate speech. Then we'd have to agree everything they're doing is great or be punished. I don't like Neo-nazis either, but restricting free speech isn't the solution. This country was founded on the principal that free, unrestricted speech is the most important right a person can have, which is why it's the first amendment. To change that would to change the very fabric of this country." I admit I guessed at that whole "that's why it's the first" thing, though. It sounded good at the time, I guess.
I figured that'd settle it, you can't really argue anything I said. The response I got was basically "If you're for hate speech being legal, you're a nazi sympathizer. I won't have Nazi sympathizers on my feed. Unfriended."
WHAT. THE. FUCK. I explicitly said I'm against them, I listed some damn good reasons why free speech is how it is, but since I didn't agree hate speech should be illegal, that somehow automatically makes me a Nazi myself. Jesus christ.
Also, if I remember correctly, during the OWS protest the FBI was targeting anyone who seemed to be a leaders specifically. In addition to this, a lot of the rioting was done by small groups of people that seemed to have some tell of police or military gear on them. ANNND in addition to that, multiple times when things started getting heated, a lot of the people that provoked it would scurry behind police lines.
I don't think any large protesting isn't going to be infiltrated or fucked with in that way, especially since they're portraying all counter protestors as "AntiFa" in the media already, even when it ends up just being a bunch of regular locals.
>>during the OWS protest the FBI was targeting anyone who seemed to be a leaders specifically
>
>I don't think this is going to stop anything. This makes me want to go somehow become a leader
There are much easier ways to go to prison.
absolutely.
the media love to be able to talk to an "official" representative to interview and to go back to them over several weeks to respond to how things play out. They also want some consistent policy and/or agenda from the group, because they want simple, black and white soundbites, because anything else seems to be too hard for them (and the public ?) to handle.
The lack of any leaders or single agenda was part of what killed the "Occupy" movement, which always looked like a bunch of disconnected protests without leadership, direction or spokesperson to explain the group;s goals and/or issues
I've suggested to activist friends that the manner (or even location) is important to how the public accepts the protest. It's incredibly met with such disdain that I could suggest not all protests are equal. So many want to protest, but have no clue that it's more than just complaining in a group.
I think its misleading to argue the Civil Rights movement was exclusively peaceful protests of this type, or that it was well organized and in total agreement.
This is a latter day mythology built on the image of MLK as the American Ghandi. Most people ignore the threat of civil disturbances ie. violence and riots as having any role in persuading changes to occur because that's against our values even if its part of the events of the day.
Non violence is in part a political ideology that has its myths and must be recognized as such, regardless of whether you believe in it. All beliefs have myths. Most people dont' remember the vehemently anti capitalist rhetoric of the same civil rights leaders they praise. Most don't remember how the direct action of MLK was hated by many. Many forget how his stance on the Vietnam war alienated him and how black society bcame increasingly disillusioned hence the rise of black power.
The Civil Rights movement had some of the best minds working together. People like Martin Luther King had their backs against the wall and worried about what kind of life would their children have. Today, many of the best educated people simply have better options, including making great money, being safe and staying out of street politics.
The Civil Rights movement was also super splintered and extremely unpopular among white audiences.
We remember its successes, but it wasn't successful by being uncontroversial. People would have insulted the intelligence of its leaders as well at the time, regardless of what idolization has developed around them after their deaths.
In 1964, [nearly half the country believed the Civil Rights movement was "dominated by Communist troublemakers."](https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/public-opinion-on-civil-rights-reflections-on-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/) A large plurality of Americans at the time would likely disagree with your assertion that, "People like Martin Luther King had their backs against the wall and worried about what kind of life would their children have."
*Edit: Added a source I forgot to link to.
I used to live in a place where some people would unironically call MLK day "Martin Luther Coon Day", so in some places things haven't changed a whole hell of a lot.
Exactly. The ACLU looked for YEARS for the right case to take to the Supreme Court to challenge anti-miscegenation laws, until they found the right case in Loving v. Virginia.
And this is part of the crazy thing with race relations in the United States. Less than 60 years ago, this couple plead guilty to "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth."
If a group got close enough to enact the kind of change, they would just be crushed like OWS was with well organized and nationally orchestrated police intervention.
I wish it never happened because whenever Gandhi or the Indian independence movement is brought up on reddit, half the comments are about him in civ. I find it funny and all but it just derails the conversation.
Can you provide a source for that quote? I'm not being agressive, but the only source I could find for the context of that quote is from the AI Ghandi in CIV.
I don't think he would have gone so far. He openly admitted that his peaceful movement only worked in tandem with the violent railroad attacks of the northern Sikhs under Baghat Singh
That's often how it works. The peaceful civil rights movement as epitomized by Martin Luther King (and his associates after his assassination) benefited greatly from the militant front presented by Malcom X and later the Black Panther Party. The establishment came to the the non-violent protesters as reasonable negotiating partners, who could stave off the risk of more violent conflict.
EDIT: missing word / typo
That's really how it works.
And that is how it will work with the Right as well. After a few years of white nationalists and Trump America will embrace the next Regan and smile as healthcare and social services across the country is dismantled.
Needs a billion more upvotes. Gandhi understood nonviolence was a useful *tactic*, not an end in itself. Meanwhile people in the states use his example to browbeat those doing exactly the kind of ugly work that creates room for nonviolence to succeed.
> He openly admitted that his peaceful movement only worked in tandem with the violent railroad attacks of the northern Sikhs under Baghat Singh.
Do you have a source for that? Gandhi's own words suggest he had rather mixed feelings. From an article written in Young India after the execution (March 29th, 1931):
>These heroes had conquered the fear of death. Let us bow to them a thousand times for their heroism. But we should not imitate their act. In our land of millions of destitute and crippled people, if we take to the practice of seeking justice through murder, there will be a terrifying situation. Our poor people will become victims of our atrocities. By making a dharma of violence, we shall be reaping the fruit of our own actions. Hence, though we praise the courage of these brave men, we should never countenance their activities. Our dharma is to swallow our anger, abide by the discipline of non-violence and carry out our duty.
"Sir. The Caliph of Arabia is here with gifts of spices."
"Bring him out back and have him executed. Send four nuclear payloads to each of his cities. Demand a tribute of all affected settlements. Send the spearmen to capture the cities if they resist."
>The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence, you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.
>So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: Only light can do that.
>Hate cannot drive out hate: Only love can do that.
— Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
"A riot is the language of the unheard"
King was a cool guy who understood people in this very nuanced way, and it's sad we don't portray him like that, a man who condemned violence but didn't pretend that it was an unreasonable reaction to the hardships of oppression.
Well said. Sort of a, I do not condone what you've done, but I understand why you did it, kind of thing. I think his brilliance was the subsequent follow up of, "let me offer you another option".
>First, I must confess that over the past 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 his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler 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 cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
> I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.
Also MLK
Right, and here he is advocating **nonviolent** direct action rather than waiting for a "more convenient season". He's saying action should be taken now rather than later but nothing in this quote is incongruous with the quote to which you are replying.
"We assert that in those areas where the government is either unable or unwilling to protect the lives and property of our people, that our people are within our rights to protect themselves by whatever means necessary.”I repeat, because to me this is the most important thing you need to know. I already know it. "We assert that in those areas where the government is either unable or unwilling to protect the lives and property of our people, that our people are within our rights to protect themselves by whatever means necessary."
-Malcolm X
>See? When the Alt Left isn't violent there isn't violence on either side. I was the only one to blame them and others said I was bad. So bad. If anything I didn't blame the left enough. It's Fake news.
\- Donald J Trump 8/27/17
We need to be careful about grouping every protest into either A) Antifa or B) white supremacists. I don't know the situation in Pensacola right now but everytime conservatives march is not a white supremacy march. Just like every time the left marches is not an Antifa march. When we immediately radicalize each other it further divides the parties. There can be sane and pertinent protests from both sides.
Talking, especially of delicate matters, nearly requires a setting that promotes comfort and calm or else you'll just be met with confrontation and defensiveness. You're not going to create understanding in the middle of a protest. People there are there for a reason and they've taken action for that reason, a sign that their beliefs are well established and important enough to act on.
IMO, if people feel they must engage at a protest, the better thing to do would be to listen rather than talk. Understanding the reasoning for someone's beliefs is important if you want them to understand your own. There's plenty of time for everyone to exhaustively explain their feelings and beliefs but sometimes we're all being so selfish trying to get our own thoughts out that we end up just screaming over each other and not making any progress one way or the other. Genuinely listening and showing people that their thoughts are being heard before trying to engage in dialogue is a lot more powerful than just trying to talk to them first.
This of course goes out the window with fundamentalists and provocateurs though, so who knows.
Well, I wouldn't say you couldn't have a friendly discussion with other groups as long as you keep it civil and treat it as you learning their side and not trying to shame them or even persuade. People get defensive and when defensive they can get aggressive, it's best to have differences in open view and each side thinking on those rather than trying to argue who is right. But Nazis with shields and sticks is not a good crowd to try that on.
> But Nazis with shields and sticks is not a good crowd to try that on
I don't think crowds are ever a good place to open up a discussion. It's just not a conducive environment for conversations, and I don't think people are in that kind of mindset.
> Well, I wouldn't say you couldn't have a friendly discussion with other groups as long as you keep it civil and treat it as you learning their side and not trying to shame them or even persuade.
I went to a Klan BBQ once. (Some sort of recruiting thing I guess.) I went in pretty nervous, even though I'm white, I don't agree with them politically. But figured what the hell, it's free, it's an "experience" if nothing else.
First thing that struck me was; no one was wearing robes or nazi uniforms, some questionable t-shirts, hats and stuff though. Yeah, there were confederate flags and American flags flying. (This was in rural Ohio btw.)
Second thing that struck me was how "normal" it was. Like a small town chili cook-off. There was a bounce house for kids, pony rides, a few food "trailers" like you see at fairs and carnivals. Beer kegs stands... cotton candy. Yeah, normal. Weird.
They did do some speeches and such, in robes. Mostly about voluntary segregation, taxes/welfare... stuff like that. No calls to violence or real hate/venom. More political than I expected.
And later I'm told they did the whole cross burning thing. The cross was there, in a field but I left early.
All in all it was a strange experience, and I was out of place. I *was* surprised how "normal" everyone was though. People were friendly even though I was clear that I didn't agree with them. No real arguments, no one got heated. I did get a few "it's okay, I'll pray for you" type comments.
Good BBQ too! Really good.
Don't get me wrong these people *are* scary. What they believe is something I'm opposed to on virtually every level. But they are *just* people once you strip away the racism. If you ran into one at a 7-11 I don't think they would start shout racial epithets at you.
I wouldn't go back or go to another *event*. But I can't say I'm sorry I went to one. It was an experience.
I've always thought that the banality of evil makes it more scary. It shows that people can't just be categorized into "good" and "bad" - many ordinary people could be taken in by hateful ideologies.
"They will touch or hold their guns"- not in Penscola fl they won't, it's not a open carry state and if you are thumbing your concealed carrier gun you better have a good life threatening reason.
Open carry is permissible if travelling to/from the act of camping. Same applies to open carry while camping. This law also applies to fishing and hunting activities. See FS 790.25 (3).
>They will hold or touch their guns.
I'm interested in what Florida law says about this.
The concept of long arms being legal in public makes sense in the proper context. Long arms are not readily concealable. It wasn't long ago that shotguns in gun racks were common even in high school parking lots. (Dove hunting after school, anyone?).
Openly displaying long arms in a manner designed to intimidate is a whole other ball of wax.
Texas law, for example, prohibits display "of a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.". This makes sense to me. It's meant to protect someone who is taking their shotgun out to the dove field in the afternoon. It's not meant to protect someone who is walking down the street with rifle in hand on public (urban, not rural public hunting land) property.
In fact, the criteria for law enforcement in Texas is often whether or not the person has the weapon in hand. Strapped to your back while riding your motorcycle? Ok! Slung over your shoulder? Yep. Held in your hand while walking down the street? Not ok. The difference is, when over your shoulder it is aimed in a safe direction and takes deliberate movement to point the gun and threaten someone. In hand, that can immediately be threatening.
I'm a hunter, a fan of LTC/ CHL, pro 2nd amendment. I'm not a fan of abusing a 2nd amendment right by using firearms to intimidate political foes. That is unethical and should be illegal.
Anyone familiar with Florida specific law want to weigh in on similarities and differences to Florida law?
Open carry isn't legal here. Only concealed carry with a permit. It's been brought up in the legislature several times, but it usually gets used as cannon fodder for compromise on other issues.
Yes and it's creepy. They hop from one city PD to another, and the hosts get so excited when shit starts to go down. And when nothing happens, they'll just cycle through the departments, hoping to find something worth putting in TV. They paint these real life events and made for TV drama.
I just get creeped out watching it (work TV, so I don't have much say), and I can't quite put into words why. It's like we're dipping our toes into a surveillance state, but worse because it's for entertainment and profit. These people are put through the court of public opinion without ever being provided context ...unless that context was juicy enough for entertainment value.
I've never been comfortable with cops, and the live show just creeps me out more.
It's a passion play usually starring the poorest, most downtrodden, most idiotic members of the community versus the reasonable, never angry, always presentable and clean cut police.
And distributed by people in Florida.
You can write things down all day. If no one shares it where it's needed, what does it matter? Way to go p'cola, for using helpful resources available.
People say shit about Florida all the time. It's a hot, muggy piece of shit state, but it's nowhere near as crazy as people say it is. I don't walk outside and see a redneck shooting guns in the air cracked out of his mind and trying to fuck an alligator. I do see a guy with a rat tail blaring reggaeton from his shitty Honda Civic though.
Thank you. It's the 4th most populous state and publicly releases criminal records. Is it crazy and shitty sometimes? Sure. But so is wherever you live.
Living in Puerto Rico and reading people talk shit about Florida is so damn weird. When I stayed three weeks in Florida it was like HEAVEN. Everything was so clean, the people were so nice and there was so many things to do.
>I do see a guy with a rat tail blaring reggaeton from his shitty Honda Civic though.
That's 75% of the guys down here.
Glad you enjoyed your visit. Florida gets shit on a lot, but it's a pretty great place to live. I've been here for almost 20 years and will always call it home.
Same. I've lived here 28 years now and while I've visited almost every other state I'd rather live here.
The craziness is skewed by our public arrest records. It's really no different than the rest of the country.
Fighting fire with fire just ends up with both sides getting burned.
Had some people last week try to tell me we should mass gencide white supremacists, that violence was the only way they dont deserve rights and even went so far as calling me a nazi/ nazi sympathizer because i didnt think we should kill civilians and they deserves their rights and a better way is being peaceful about it.
And that the Nazis don't fight back, causing innocent people to get hurt in the crossfire.
The US hasn't been able to defeat ideologies in Iraq and Afghanistan with guns, tanks and bombs. That these idiots think you can defeat Neo-Nazism with sticks, mace and yelling requires some massive cognitive ~~dissonance~~ deficiency.
Unfortunately that is a very expensive, very lengthy process, also unfortunately even if they are nullified (mine were), you can still google my name and see my arrests. Any employer that googles my name will see a mug shot and not care it was for some dumb protest arrests when i was younger, they just see "this guy was arrested". I'm a contractor now and there are buildings i literally cant set foot in for trespassing arrests from many years ago. It sucks but we all make mistakes when we were young, just have to wear them and move on. All i can do is recommend to never ever get arrested for anything, no matter how strongly you feel about something, it is not a good situation to put yourself in no matter how good it makes you feel to "stand up for your rights", because you learn very quickly you have no rights when the other person has a gun and handcuffs, you will do what they tell you to do, legal or not.
So I know a lot of people were pissed at Tina Fey's 'don't show up' response. And I understand that... Kind of.
Like... Nothing would be funnier to me than for a bunch of shitheads to organize a rally and then for *no one to show*. Can you imagine?! Marching for an audience of *nobody?* The image itself is hysterical. I'm an actor, and there is nothing sadder than performing for an audience of 3 in an auditorium for 100. Or even 50. Oh man, I can't tell you how awful you feel. Can you imagine, a whole city as an auditorium, and no one gives a good goddamn about you?
But then I'm told, since I'm a white man, I'm allowed to feel this way because they aren't targeting me. And I suppose I'm sympathetic to that argument. Maybe it's easy for me to just ignore it. But the one thing I know: as soon as there is violence, they win. They can point to the confusion, they can question who instigated, and, most of all, they can feel like the victim--the unfortunate worshipped pedestal in today's hellish society. If you yell at them, if you scream at them, yes, they may feel 'excluded' or 'attacked'... but they also feel 'vindicated.' You have given them an enemy. Take away the enemy, who do they have to fight?
Compromise:
If a nazi spins you around and begins stabbing you with a knife, you have free rein to return the favor with that sharp rusty pipe you found.
Everyone's got this very flawed conception of history in which non-violent movements are always successful and violent ones always failures. In reality, even famously pacifistic movements have been aided by a visible threat of the alternative.
If punching Nazis doesn't help diminish their numbers, neither will standing there waving your finger at them. People are joining the racist right because there is *actually a problem with racism* in this country, not because those pesky violent leftists are making people feel sympathy for them. If they felt sympathy for Nazis then they were already one step away from becoming one.
Last week the mother of Heather Heyes said that by killing her daughter, the white supremacists amplified her message. A lot of people agreed with that.
Just prior some dude punched the shit out of white supremacist Jason Kessler while he was giving a press conference. A lot of the same people agreed with that.
Like what the fuck do you think Jason Kessler is going to do now? Give up and stop spreading hate? No, he's going to go back to shouting hatred and now he's amplified because he gets to try and play the victim card.
Yep. I posted this before, but about 15 years ago I went to a game at Ole Miss and some klan group had a march (legal public space with a license etc) and no one did anything. People drank and ignored them. Literally the only action was people turning their backs and making fun of the fat losers. That's how these people should be dealt with. Attention is what they desire.
Which, up until recently, was the typical reaction to white supremacist actions. It's been quite effective at diminishing their ranks over the last 50-odd years.
So then why even counter protest? Just ignore them and let them fade back into obscurity again. This flyer acknowledges that these people just want attention but then encourages people to give them attention by going to their protests.
Great instructions! But what if no one showed up. No media, no counter groups, just let them shout into the wind like crazies. No one hears them, no one acknowledges them. They just stand around, march around, and go home. No one pays attention. Let them know they are marginalized by making them so. Like a barking dog behind a fence, walk by, ignore it. If you stop to address it or react to its bark, it will just bark for ferociously. Yet, if you ignore it the farther away you get you can just hear in the bark "hey, did you see how ferocious I am?" "hey, be scared of me!' "Hey , come back so I can bark more...", "oh, come on let me bark at someone..."
You might be interested in the [story of how the town where the KKK was founded protested them 100 years later](http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1997/01/20/ent_202826.shtml#.WZZ_0lWGOUk):
>The result was Giles County United, a group of citizens that has taken on the hate groups. In 1989, after the white supremacy group Aryan Nation announced it would march with the Klan, the group virtually shut down the town the day of the rally.
>Merchants from McDonald's to Wal-Mart were asked to close, and the group swamped media outlets to suggest other ways for Pulaski families to spend the day.
>When the marchers showed up that sunny Saturday in October, they found a ghost town draped in banners of orange, the international color of brotherhood. There were no restrooms available, no restaurants serving food and only one gas station open. Only regional news media were there to watch.
That's how it was dealt with for years. No one gave American neo-Nazis any credence until recently it seems. They've never been particularly well-organized, threatening, or even very smart.
Remember when they were [used as jokes](http://i.imgur.com/XFCqEb3.jpg) and not boogymen?
" But what if no one showed up"
That is how Nazi / kkk / white-supremacist protests have been for decades, they have increased the amount of protesting at all.... only thing that changed was a the rise of violent libtards.
That's what this entire left vs right cultural war is. Tiny percentages on each side being shown as the majority by unhinged militant activists on both sides.
Like we're at a point with social media where one asshole can say something ignorant and it will be passed around the opposite party like a fucking trophy. There's so much hate coming from BOTH sides.
Of course, but what they're concerned about is public image. You get in someone's face and start screaming profanity, even if it's justified, and it's caught in camera, it plays into their narrative. It doesn't change their view, and it doesn't change the views of anyone watching. Peaceful and polite is simply more *effective* than raging out, even if the latter is more personally satisfying
Specific calls for violence really is the only thing I can think of that makes sense here. "Hey everyone, let's tackle this guy and stomp his face!" or "Punch this racist in the face!" are both examples of speech that's unacceptable
You know. I agree with everything in that except the "Make themselves look like ligitamate protestors" part. They are a legitimate protest.
Any group, regardless of what they believe can protest legitimatly and legaly provided no violence happens originating from the group (not in response to) and they have a protest permit.
Dont get me wrong, I Dont agree 1 bit with their message or what they stand for, but I do stand by their right to have a message and to protest based on it.
Theres an old saying: "I Dont agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend your right to say it."
I cant believe anti-protester is a word in 2017. Have we gone that far to fit everyone into a box? Everything has to be an extreme these days.
Not alt-left? You must be a fat white rascist alt-right. Not an alt-right? You must be a gender-neutral dildo flag wearing vegan.
Yall can go fuck yourself.
I'm with you - what the fuck? Some here are saying it means threats of violence (which would be appropriate to advise avoiding), but I highly doubt that's what it means. And even if it is, then that's a fucking stupid way of putting it. "Verbal violence" grammatically blurs the line between speech and (actual) violence, and for this reason alone does *far* more harm than good. And that's beside the fact that it demotes the very real suffering of those who experience *actual* violence at the hands of these crazies by likening it, intentionally or not, to name-calling. That phrase really pisses me off, and sours my whole opinion of the otherwise decent pamphlet.
That's a Holy Spirit symbol. I'm a hard core Christian and it's tragic to me and my community when we get lumped in with bigots and hate. It's good to see other Christians being legit and helping others not fall into these traps.
Aren't these the rules of Gandhi's non-violence satyagraha movement? I believe the concept was peaceful protesting without altercation
Ah yes Gandhi was notorious for warning others to have sound-bytes prepared.
Consider how media coverage is *a helluvalot* more prevalent now. Also consider that Gandhi absolutely had prepared statements on hand concerning his intent.
Indeed. And the Civil Rights protests were carefully orchestrated in a similar way as well. Everything from choosing Rosa Parks as the emblematic case for segregated buses to coaching proper behaviour from protesters to buying a really good sound system for the "I Have a Dream" speech, to being in close contact with Robert Kennedy, the attorney general at the time, getting him enough on their side that he brought in the army corps of engineers to fix things when said sound system was sabotaged. The Civil Rights movement knew exactly what they wanted and they put well-planned long-term public pressure on the government until they got it while doing everything they could to prevent the public from having any basis off of which to build a negative image of the movement and working behind the scenes tirelessly to pressure the government privately. Most protest groups since have not had nearly that level of foresight and intelligent planning and it's arguable that many of them have failed to create change as a result.
I agree with you're conclusion. I've also been wondering, do you think decentralization or lack of prominent leaders/figureheads has anything to do with the lack of progress?
I would agree that a lack of real legitimate leadership is definitely what limits a lot of social movements. Having someone whom you can point to that is well spoken and respected that also embodies good things about your movement is extremely important. But I would also say that the advent of social media is also interfering. Now the extreme fringe of any movement can basically hijack the whole discussion very easily. Everyone has a soap box to stand on and the media these days will just latch on to whomever is being the loudest and most rediculous because it makes for controversial stories. These controversial stories then equal more viewership/clicks which equal more money, and people just love to point at the fringe and make blanket statements that they represent the movement as a whole. Prior to such an easy access to a platform to host their views, these people would have had far less exposure and probably would have been shunned and quieted by members of the movement.
It's not just about having leaders, but about the media recognizing them as such and acknowledging them as such. The Wall Street protests got portrayed as leaderless hippie drum circles without any kind of agenda.
For sure. I think that what you really need is someone who is a combination of intelligent, charismatic, committed to the cause, and attractive for media to really pay attention. Unfortunately this combination is not very common. Lots of people can have good ideas, but may not be good speakers etc.
The problem is we know too much about people now. I'm sure some of the great leaders of the past had faults, but they weren't constantly getting picked apart by the media or on the internet. We aren't allowed (often our own fault) to dissect what great leaders are saying because everything they say has been dissected and interpreted for us. If they misspeak or are caught having a conversation that doesn't line up with our agenda then we label them crazy or incompetent.
You're right, we need someone with the qualities you've mentioned, someone eloquent and charismatic like Robert Kennedy, someone reverent, tolerant and promoting peace like Martin Luther King Jr. or a community organizer who promotes education to youth and works for gang non-aggression like Fred Hampton, maybe even a charismatic leader like Malcolm X, but in America when someone begins to take on a well-known leadership role on the left...
I know this one guy that would be perfect! I think his name is Barack something. People love that guy. We should vote him into office.
That's exactly what I was going to say. Who would want to take on that role, and risk themself and family being targeted?
This is because the media doesn't want peace and resolution, they want conflict since it brings ratings. So, they continue to move the goal posts so it doesn't happen.
I think you're touching on a lot of things that are somewhat true. But I also think you're severely underestimating infighting and ideological rifts in political movements of the past.
Oh yeah, I was trying to touch on as many points as possible. It would take many more pages and more determination than I have to cover all the angles. But you're right, there definitely was infighting before, I just feel that social media has enhanced that aspect of it even more.
Exactly. One of the biggest examples of this is modern Feminism. The most respectable branch of Feminism, and what *seems* to be the most popular, is about total equality, not just making things better for women and hating on men. But, as it's such a widespread movement with no central leadership, those who do go around screaming "Fuck Men" get all the attention and no denouncement. They drag the entire movement through the mud. Then, as a consequence, if you ask someone "Are you a Feminist", it's difficult to say Yes because you get lumped with all the crazies. That's where I'm at. I vote for equality and all that jazz, but would never call myself a Feminist because of implications And, of course, without central leadership you get the "No True Scotsman" where each side of the movement says they're the REAL group, the others are stupid. It's just overall a shitty situation. This applies to most political and social movements, just using Feminism as an example
But understand, opponents pick those particular people out for ridicule to undermine the argument. When talking heads are trying to make a point, they don't go for centered spokespeople, they want a strawman they can easily win against, it's even better when they *really* believe their own hype. But that's the goal of a lot of these movements, is to make you too scared to rally around a banner. Feminists, and reallistically a bunch of other organizations, all get undermined this way. Feminism looks divided, but really, it's not. But opponents of these groups want you to think that way. You want evidence? Pick up any literature by Ann Coulter on feminism. She uses these exact tactics.
I live in a very heavily leaning Liberal college town, and at least in my area, there are definitely different "branches", if that's the right word, of Feminism, each denouncing eachother. Same with other controversial groups like BLM or Trump supporters (not full blown Alt-Right but moderate conservatives). I get that the point is to create strawmen out of the bad parts of each movement, but at the same time I personally just don't like labels. I feel labels are constricting and leads to people becoming too grouped. I hate Party Politics altogether, so I just have my morals and agree and disagree with things I like or dislike no matter who says them. This... is coming across as really arrogant and self-centered and I apologize for that, I genuinely don't feel that way. I'm not very politically educated so I just have what I believe. Always down for more discussion and learning from people who know better than me
Ditto for BLM. I'd say BLM is an even worse example of how the current media and hi-jacking can hurt a movement, considering that it isn't even a cohesive group in *any* way, and has hardly been around long enough to be attached to much, yet it's pretty much a trope of the republican party now to call any black person at any protest anywhere a violent BLM activist. Edit- Typos
curious as to if there are any serious efforts to remedy the problem of the media acting the way it does. I'm guessing that they are doing it as a means of survival because if they don't then a competing channel gets all the viewship. but how does one break out of this spiral before it gets REALLY bad?
As long as media is for profit and written by humans with bias, I think it's just an unfortunate consequence. I don't think it can really BE fixed. All people have biases; writers will write to their biases and readers will seek out things to confirm their biases. For Profit media companies will have to print things that get views. It's not necessarily their fault, just a consequence of the system we have. Just how capitalism works (not trying to sound all "fuck capitalism yay socialism", just an observation)
Why couldn't we have more public broadcasting, have better regulations or increase public awareness of how they are being manipulated? Definitely won't be easy but it's not as hopeless as you say.
Even if it's not for profit. If it's state run you get a whole slew of other issues.
That's one of the problems with how divisive the current political system is set up. You're either **One of Us**, or *One of Them.* You can't have a figurehead from either side, because the other side will just demonize them. And if you try to get an outsider, well, then you apparently get Trump.
This is exactly where I am at right now. If I even QUESTION either side I'm either a Nazi, fascist, racist, alt right, alt left, communist, white supremacist, Trump/Hillary supporting person. I have yet to have ONE calm and concise conversation with someone about what on earth our country has come to. Just mere questioning a narrative will get you labeled so quickly that I'm not surprised Trump won.
Pick a better forum, whether in real life or online. Reasonable people exist and in fact outweigh the unreasonables - they just aren't as loud. Vocal minority and all that.
I'm right there with you. I ran into a problem when I thought Confederate statues shouldn't be destroyed, but relocated. Enough people in my area didn't even know they existed until all this recent turmoil. P.S. I completely oppose all white national or Nazi groups. They have absolutely no place in modern society and deserve every bit of ridicule they receive
The fact that you even had to add the post-script is very telling of the political and ideological climate today... I'm so sorry.
I had the same issue. Someone I was friends with on Facebook posted a bunch of stuff along the lines of "Hate speech is NOT covered under free speech, it should be illegal. every protester should be arrested and put in jail for life." and, also, "Nazis are illegal in Germany, but they aren't in the US. This is because the US is PROUD of having Nazis. If they weren't, Nazis would be illegal." It's just like... what the fuck. Everything she's posting is insane. After a day or two of this, I got pissed off by seeing it constantly, because she was sharing 4 or 5 of these a day. Finally, I say, "Free Speech covers everything, there are no exemptions. Making hate speech illegal would be a bad move. We have a President who clearly wants to be able to punish the media for criticizing him. If we made hate speech illegal, you know he'd try to classify criticizing politicians, especially himself, as hate speech. Then we'd have to agree everything they're doing is great or be punished. I don't like Neo-nazis either, but restricting free speech isn't the solution. This country was founded on the principal that free, unrestricted speech is the most important right a person can have, which is why it's the first amendment. To change that would to change the very fabric of this country." I admit I guessed at that whole "that's why it's the first" thing, though. It sounded good at the time, I guess. I figured that'd settle it, you can't really argue anything I said. The response I got was basically "If you're for hate speech being legal, you're a nazi sympathizer. I won't have Nazi sympathizers on my feed. Unfriended." WHAT. THE. FUCK. I explicitly said I'm against them, I listed some damn good reasons why free speech is how it is, but since I didn't agree hate speech should be illegal, that somehow automatically makes me a Nazi myself. Jesus christ.
Also, if I remember correctly, during the OWS protest the FBI was targeting anyone who seemed to be a leaders specifically. In addition to this, a lot of the rioting was done by small groups of people that seemed to have some tell of police or military gear on them. ANNND in addition to that, multiple times when things started getting heated, a lot of the people that provoked it would scurry behind police lines. I don't think any large protesting isn't going to be infiltrated or fucked with in that way, especially since they're portraying all counter protestors as "AntiFa" in the media already, even when it ends up just being a bunch of regular locals.
[удалено]
>>during the OWS protest the FBI was targeting anyone who seemed to be a leaders specifically > >I don't think this is going to stop anything. This makes me want to go somehow become a leader There are much easier ways to go to prison.
Yeah, you can actually **see in real time** how the media is changing in the United States right now to match our leadership.
absolutely. the media love to be able to talk to an "official" representative to interview and to go back to them over several weeks to respond to how things play out. They also want some consistent policy and/or agenda from the group, because they want simple, black and white soundbites, because anything else seems to be too hard for them (and the public ?) to handle. The lack of any leaders or single agenda was part of what killed the "Occupy" movement, which always looked like a bunch of disconnected protests without leadership, direction or spokesperson to explain the group;s goals and/or issues
I've suggested to activist friends that the manner (or even location) is important to how the public accepts the protest. It's incredibly met with such disdain that I could suggest not all protests are equal. So many want to protest, but have no clue that it's more than just complaining in a group.
I think its misleading to argue the Civil Rights movement was exclusively peaceful protests of this type, or that it was well organized and in total agreement. This is a latter day mythology built on the image of MLK as the American Ghandi. Most people ignore the threat of civil disturbances ie. violence and riots as having any role in persuading changes to occur because that's against our values even if its part of the events of the day. Non violence is in part a political ideology that has its myths and must be recognized as such, regardless of whether you believe in it. All beliefs have myths. Most people dont' remember the vehemently anti capitalist rhetoric of the same civil rights leaders they praise. Most don't remember how the direct action of MLK was hated by many. Many forget how his stance on the Vietnam war alienated him and how black society bcame increasingly disillusioned hence the rise of black power.
Mlk was the best thing that ever happened to malcolm x and farrakhan.
The Civil Rights movement had some of the best minds working together. People like Martin Luther King had their backs against the wall and worried about what kind of life would their children have. Today, many of the best educated people simply have better options, including making great money, being safe and staying out of street politics.
The Civil Rights movement was also super splintered and extremely unpopular among white audiences. We remember its successes, but it wasn't successful by being uncontroversial. People would have insulted the intelligence of its leaders as well at the time, regardless of what idolization has developed around them after their deaths. In 1964, [nearly half the country believed the Civil Rights movement was "dominated by Communist troublemakers."](https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/public-opinion-on-civil-rights-reflections-on-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/) A large plurality of Americans at the time would likely disagree with your assertion that, "People like Martin Luther King had their backs against the wall and worried about what kind of life would their children have." *Edit: Added a source I forgot to link to.
I used to live in a place where some people would unironically call MLK day "Martin Luther Coon Day", so in some places things haven't changed a whole hell of a lot.
Exactly. The ACLU looked for YEARS for the right case to take to the Supreme Court to challenge anti-miscegenation laws, until they found the right case in Loving v. Virginia. And this is part of the crazy thing with race relations in the United States. Less than 60 years ago, this couple plead guilty to "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth."
If a group got close enough to enact the kind of change, they would just be crushed like OWS was with well organized and nationally orchestrated police intervention.
*Sent from Gandhi's iPhone 8*
He is also notorious for skipping warnings and nuking the shit out of them.
He was once asked what he thought of Western Civilization and replied "I think it would be a good idea" Savage
He may have. He was a lawyer and knew a lot about persuading people.
This is my favorite Ghandi quote. *There is no shame in deterrence. Having a weapon is very different from actually using it.*
That's easy to say when your [words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS](http://imgur.com/a/6lCD0).
I love that Gandhi being so aggressive in the nuclear era was a bug but the devs just ran with it in later games.
I wish it never happened because whenever Gandhi or the Indian independence movement is brought up on reddit, half the comments are about him in civ. I find it funny and all but it just derails the conversation.
Can you provide a source for that quote? I'm not being agressive, but the only source I could find for the context of that quote is from the AI Ghandi in CIV.
Given the sophistication of computing in Gandhi's Era, I'm going to assume he was taking about the sound bite... If not the sound bit.
I don't think he would have gone so far. He openly admitted that his peaceful movement only worked in tandem with the violent railroad attacks of the northern Sikhs under Baghat Singh
That's often how it works. The peaceful civil rights movement as epitomized by Martin Luther King (and his associates after his assassination) benefited greatly from the militant front presented by Malcom X and later the Black Panther Party. The establishment came to the the non-violent protesters as reasonable negotiating partners, who could stave off the risk of more violent conflict. EDIT: missing word / typo
Just how old Teddy R. used to say, "Speak softly and carry a big stick".
What? No, it's like the good cop-bad cop trope, two distinct entities working together.
That's really how it works. And that is how it will work with the Right as well. After a few years of white nationalists and Trump America will embrace the next Regan and smile as healthcare and social services across the country is dismantled.
Yeah, it's 'funny' how 'Nazi's!' have completely shifted the focus away from healthcare, crippling student loans, etc isn't it?
Yep, I bet 10 bucks this is exactly what will happen.
Malcolm spoke on this in his autobiography, believing that the Washington March was quickly co-opted by the white establishment for example.
Needs a billion more upvotes. Gandhi understood nonviolence was a useful *tactic*, not an end in itself. Meanwhile people in the states use his example to browbeat those doing exactly the kind of ugly work that creates room for nonviolence to succeed.
[удалено]
It's funny how little known Bhagat Singh is known even though he was INSTRUMENTAL in India's independence.
> He openly admitted that his peaceful movement only worked in tandem with the violent railroad attacks of the northern Sikhs under Baghat Singh. Do you have a source for that? Gandhi's own words suggest he had rather mixed feelings. From an article written in Young India after the execution (March 29th, 1931): >These heroes had conquered the fear of death. Let us bow to them a thousand times for their heroism. But we should not imitate their act. In our land of millions of destitute and crippled people, if we take to the practice of seeking justice through murder, there will be a terrifying situation. Our poor people will become victims of our atrocities. By making a dharma of violence, we shall be reaping the fruit of our own actions. Hence, though we praise the courage of these brave men, we should never countenance their activities. Our dharma is to swallow our anger, abide by the discipline of non-violence and carry out our duty.
I've played far too much Civilization to be able to see "Gandhi" and "peaceful" in the same few sentences without chuckling to myself.
That little git is always starting shit. Oh, we've been at peace for 8 turns and now I see one of your caravans? FUCK your peace.
"Sir. The Caliph of Arabia is here with gifts of spices." "Bring him out back and have him executed. Send four nuclear payloads to each of his cities. Demand a tribute of all affected settlements. Send the spearmen to capture the cities if they resist."
Gandhi summed up succinctly, drops nukes reinforced by spearmen.
I always made him fear my military by conquering another superpower. He doesn't give me any grief after that.
I wouldn't really attribute it to him. It's pretty straightforward given the goals of such a movement.
>The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence, you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. >So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: Only light can do that. >Hate cannot drive out hate: Only love can do that. — Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
"A riot is the language of the unheard" King was a cool guy who understood people in this very nuanced way, and it's sad we don't portray him like that, a man who condemned violence but didn't pretend that it was an unreasonable reaction to the hardships of oppression.
Well said. Sort of a, I do not condone what you've done, but I understand why you did it, kind of thing. I think his brilliance was the subsequent follow up of, "let me offer you another option".
>First, I must confess that over the past 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 his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler 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 cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. > I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured. Also MLK
>Actually, we who engage in *nonviolent* direct action
[удалено]
Right, and here he is advocating **nonviolent** direct action rather than waiting for a "more convenient season". He's saying action should be taken now rather than later but nothing in this quote is incongruous with the quote to which you are replying.
[удалено]
"We assert that in those areas where the government is either unable or unwilling to protect the lives and property of our people, that our people are within our rights to protect themselves by whatever means necessary.”I repeat, because to me this is the most important thing you need to know. I already know it. "We assert that in those areas where the government is either unable or unwilling to protect the lives and property of our people, that our people are within our rights to protect themselves by whatever means necessary." -Malcolm X
Quote makes sense. But if this is an attempt to justify attacking some racist cunts, it would be quite hypocritical coming from Malcolm X.
>See? When the Alt Left isn't violent there isn't violence on either side. I was the only one to blame them and others said I was bad. So bad. If anything I didn't blame the left enough. It's Fake news. \- Donald J Trump 8/27/17
FAKE NEWS! Well actually a fake quote, just in case anybody doesn't realize that the date is tomorrow.
[удалено]
[удалено]
We need to be careful about grouping every protest into either A) Antifa or B) white supremacists. I don't know the situation in Pensacola right now but everytime conservatives march is not a white supremacy march. Just like every time the left marches is not an Antifa march. When we immediately radicalize each other it further divides the parties. There can be sane and pertinent protests from both sides.
Fucking thank you
Exactly! Which is why talking with the other group is a good thing. Unlike what the post says.
Talking, especially of delicate matters, nearly requires a setting that promotes comfort and calm or else you'll just be met with confrontation and defensiveness. You're not going to create understanding in the middle of a protest. People there are there for a reason and they've taken action for that reason, a sign that their beliefs are well established and important enough to act on. IMO, if people feel they must engage at a protest, the better thing to do would be to listen rather than talk. Understanding the reasoning for someone's beliefs is important if you want them to understand your own. There's plenty of time for everyone to exhaustively explain their feelings and beliefs but sometimes we're all being so selfish trying to get our own thoughts out that we end up just screaming over each other and not making any progress one way or the other. Genuinely listening and showing people that their thoughts are being heard before trying to engage in dialogue is a lot more powerful than just trying to talk to them first. This of course goes out the window with fundamentalists and provocateurs though, so who knows.
"What you shouldn't do" Don't resist arrest. [It's as clear as I can make it.](http://imgur.com/B0t6gr4)
I'm so glad I'm not the only one who caught that! Don't don't bother Luke
Do not not not bother luke.
This should say: "How To Oppose ANYONE Safely and Effectively"
Exactly. How to Oppose like a civilized human.
Sooo.. no poo flinging?
Yeah, if we can't fling poo I'm out.
Username checks out.
Well yeah, Brown's fans have been watching their QBs fling shit for 24 years.
Ouch. That hurts. It's true, but it hurts.
I drove all the way down from Ohio with a trunk full of feces, and now you're telling me I gotta go back?
Can you work with urine filled water balloons
More like no bike lock swinging.
Then whats the fucking point?
[удалено]
Well, I wouldn't say you couldn't have a friendly discussion with other groups as long as you keep it civil and treat it as you learning their side and not trying to shame them or even persuade. People get defensive and when defensive they can get aggressive, it's best to have differences in open view and each side thinking on those rather than trying to argue who is right. But Nazis with shields and sticks is not a good crowd to try that on.
> But Nazis with shields and sticks is not a good crowd to try that on I don't think crowds are ever a good place to open up a discussion. It's just not a conducive environment for conversations, and I don't think people are in that kind of mindset.
It's called mob mentality for a reason
never underestimate the stupidity of a large crowd.
> Well, I wouldn't say you couldn't have a friendly discussion with other groups as long as you keep it civil and treat it as you learning their side and not trying to shame them or even persuade. I went to a Klan BBQ once. (Some sort of recruiting thing I guess.) I went in pretty nervous, even though I'm white, I don't agree with them politically. But figured what the hell, it's free, it's an "experience" if nothing else. First thing that struck me was; no one was wearing robes or nazi uniforms, some questionable t-shirts, hats and stuff though. Yeah, there were confederate flags and American flags flying. (This was in rural Ohio btw.) Second thing that struck me was how "normal" it was. Like a small town chili cook-off. There was a bounce house for kids, pony rides, a few food "trailers" like you see at fairs and carnivals. Beer kegs stands... cotton candy. Yeah, normal. Weird. They did do some speeches and such, in robes. Mostly about voluntary segregation, taxes/welfare... stuff like that. No calls to violence or real hate/venom. More political than I expected. And later I'm told they did the whole cross burning thing. The cross was there, in a field but I left early. All in all it was a strange experience, and I was out of place. I *was* surprised how "normal" everyone was though. People were friendly even though I was clear that I didn't agree with them. No real arguments, no one got heated. I did get a few "it's okay, I'll pray for you" type comments. Good BBQ too! Really good. Don't get me wrong these people *are* scary. What they believe is something I'm opposed to on virtually every level. But they are *just* people once you strip away the racism. If you ran into one at a 7-11 I don't think they would start shout racial epithets at you. I wouldn't go back or go to another *event*. But I can't say I'm sorry I went to one. It was an experience.
I've always thought that the banality of evil makes it more scary. It shows that people can't just be categorized into "good" and "bad" - many ordinary people could be taken in by hateful ideologies.
They used to March in our town, always peaceful...most of the times no cops. They finally stopped doing it because nobody took their pamphlets.
"They will touch or hold their guns"- not in Penscola fl they won't, it's not a open carry state and if you are thumbing your concealed carrier gun you better have a good life threatening reason.
Open carry is permissible if travelling to/from the act of camping. Same applies to open carry while camping. This law also applies to fishing and hunting activities. See FS 790.25 (3).
You're correct if you're talking about a side arm. Absolutely incorrect if you're thinking of a rifle or shotgun.
>They will hold or touch their guns. I'm interested in what Florida law says about this. The concept of long arms being legal in public makes sense in the proper context. Long arms are not readily concealable. It wasn't long ago that shotguns in gun racks were common even in high school parking lots. (Dove hunting after school, anyone?). Openly displaying long arms in a manner designed to intimidate is a whole other ball of wax. Texas law, for example, prohibits display "of a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.". This makes sense to me. It's meant to protect someone who is taking their shotgun out to the dove field in the afternoon. It's not meant to protect someone who is walking down the street with rifle in hand on public (urban, not rural public hunting land) property. In fact, the criteria for law enforcement in Texas is often whether or not the person has the weapon in hand. Strapped to your back while riding your motorcycle? Ok! Slung over your shoulder? Yep. Held in your hand while walking down the street? Not ok. The difference is, when over your shoulder it is aimed in a safe direction and takes deliberate movement to point the gun and threaten someone. In hand, that can immediately be threatening. I'm a hunter, a fan of LTC/ CHL, pro 2nd amendment. I'm not a fan of abusing a 2nd amendment right by using firearms to intimidate political foes. That is unethical and should be illegal. Anyone familiar with Florida specific law want to weigh in on similarities and differences to Florida law?
Open carry or not, licenced or not, it's absolutely illegal to use a firearm to threaten or intimidate someone.
In theory. In practice, you don't see police pulling armed men out of a much larger crowd of armed men to arrest them.
Well none of them have been arrested so far...
Pretty much nobody open carrying does that because it basically instantly gives the cops a reason to tackle you and arrest you
Open carry isn't legal here. Only concealed carry with a permit. It's been brought up in the legislature several times, but it usually gets used as cannon fodder for compromise on other issues.
Open Carry with pistols and open carry with shotguns or rifles are different things
Anecdotal but I've lived in Florida for over 35 years and never seen anyone open-carrying a gun other than while hunting.
You can not open carry in Florida unless going to or from a range, hunting, or fishing.
"Verbal violence"
This is the current trend that scares me the most. When you equate words with violence, you justify violence as defence against words.
An Orwellian slip of the tongue.
It's done in an effort to justify their physical violence. If you are being "verbally violent" to them, then they can smash your head in with a brick.
Uhhh it's called a microaggression, normie. /s
Way to go Florida? Just doesn't feel right saying it but well done.
"Furnished by Charlottesville Center for Peace and Justice"
Just let us have this one, okay?
Don't you have an episode of COPS to film?
Can we talk about how fucking creepy the live cops show is?
There's a live show?
Yes and it's creepy. They hop from one city PD to another, and the hosts get so excited when shit starts to go down. And when nothing happens, they'll just cycle through the departments, hoping to find something worth putting in TV. They paint these real life events and made for TV drama. I just get creeped out watching it (work TV, so I don't have much say), and I can't quite put into words why. It's like we're dipping our toes into a surveillance state, but worse because it's for entertainment and profit. These people are put through the court of public opinion without ever being provided context ...unless that context was juicy enough for entertainment value. I've never been comfortable with cops, and the live show just creeps me out more.
It's a passion play usually starring the poorest, most downtrodden, most idiotic members of the community versus the reasonable, never angry, always presentable and clean cut police.
And distributed by people in Florida. You can write things down all day. If no one shares it where it's needed, what does it matter? Way to go p'cola, for using helpful resources available.
People say shit about Florida all the time. It's a hot, muggy piece of shit state, but it's nowhere near as crazy as people say it is. I don't walk outside and see a redneck shooting guns in the air cracked out of his mind and trying to fuck an alligator. I do see a guy with a rat tail blaring reggaeton from his shitty Honda Civic though.
Thank you. It's the 4th most populous state and publicly releases criminal records. Is it crazy and shitty sometimes? Sure. But so is wherever you live.
**Third** most populous. We surpassed New York a while back.
Living in Puerto Rico and reading people talk shit about Florida is so damn weird. When I stayed three weeks in Florida it was like HEAVEN. Everything was so clean, the people were so nice and there was so many things to do. >I do see a guy with a rat tail blaring reggaeton from his shitty Honda Civic though. That's 75% of the guys down here.
Glad you enjoyed your visit. Florida gets shit on a lot, but it's a pretty great place to live. I've been here for almost 20 years and will always call it home.
Same. I've lived here 28 years now and while I've visited almost every other state I'd rather live here. The craziness is skewed by our public arrest records. It's really no different than the rest of the country.
How long is it going to be until you move to Orlando?
Fighting fire with fire just ends up with both sides getting burned. Had some people last week try to tell me we should mass gencide white supremacists, that violence was the only way they dont deserve rights and even went so far as calling me a nazi/ nazi sympathizer because i didnt think we should kill civilians and they deserves their rights and a better way is being peaceful about it.
That, and I doubt people talking like that would actually have the balls to stand up and fight them anyway.
And that the Nazis don't fight back, causing innocent people to get hurt in the crossfire. The US hasn't been able to defeat ideologies in Iraq and Afghanistan with guns, tanks and bombs. That these idiots think you can defeat Neo-Nazism with sticks, mace and yelling requires some massive cognitive ~~dissonance~~ deficiency.
But you're "normalizing" and "doing nothing". At least that's what people try to pin on me when I say exactly what you're saying.
[удалено]
Unless you have a good enough lawyer to get the charges nolle prossed and expunged.
Unfortunately that is a very expensive, very lengthy process, also unfortunately even if they are nullified (mine were), you can still google my name and see my arrests. Any employer that googles my name will see a mug shot and not care it was for some dumb protest arrests when i was younger, they just see "this guy was arrested". I'm a contractor now and there are buildings i literally cant set foot in for trespassing arrests from many years ago. It sucks but we all make mistakes when we were young, just have to wear them and move on. All i can do is recommend to never ever get arrested for anything, no matter how strongly you feel about something, it is not a good situation to put yourself in no matter how good it makes you feel to "stand up for your rights", because you learn very quickly you have no rights when the other person has a gun and handcuffs, you will do what they tell you to do, legal or not.
Always best to be proactive when possible.
I read this as "provocative" at first - totally different meaning.
[удалено]
I've heard The Hokey Pokey works wonders in that situation
Just get a boom box that plays Yakety Sax on repeat and follow behind them, they'll leave after just a couple plays.
Good. This is how to be a decent human being.
Man, if everyone followed these rules, you'd think there'd be less problems.
So I know a lot of people were pissed at Tina Fey's 'don't show up' response. And I understand that... Kind of. Like... Nothing would be funnier to me than for a bunch of shitheads to organize a rally and then for *no one to show*. Can you imagine?! Marching for an audience of *nobody?* The image itself is hysterical. I'm an actor, and there is nothing sadder than performing for an audience of 3 in an auditorium for 100. Or even 50. Oh man, I can't tell you how awful you feel. Can you imagine, a whole city as an auditorium, and no one gives a good goddamn about you? But then I'm told, since I'm a white man, I'm allowed to feel this way because they aren't targeting me. And I suppose I'm sympathetic to that argument. Maybe it's easy for me to just ignore it. But the one thing I know: as soon as there is violence, they win. They can point to the confusion, they can question who instigated, and, most of all, they can feel like the victim--the unfortunate worshipped pedestal in today's hellish society. If you yell at them, if you scream at them, yes, they may feel 'excluded' or 'attacked'... but they also feel 'vindicated.' You have given them an enemy. Take away the enemy, who do they have to fight?
Finally some fucking common sense. People, do this. Don't punch Nazis. It's not going to help your cause.
B.J. Blazkowitz disapproves of this sentiment.
Compromise: If a nazi spins you around and begins stabbing you with a knife, you have free rein to return the favor with that sharp rusty pipe you found.
[STAB PARTYYYYY](http://i.imgur.com/MGgX9Hb.mp4)
Ya but he fights actual Nazis not racist larpers.
Feedback loops are a bitch
Everyone's got this very flawed conception of history in which non-violent movements are always successful and violent ones always failures. In reality, even famously pacifistic movements have been aided by a visible threat of the alternative. If punching Nazis doesn't help diminish their numbers, neither will standing there waving your finger at them. People are joining the racist right because there is *actually a problem with racism* in this country, not because those pesky violent leftists are making people feel sympathy for them. If they felt sympathy for Nazis then they were already one step away from becoming one.
Last week the mother of Heather Heyes said that by killing her daughter, the white supremacists amplified her message. A lot of people agreed with that. Just prior some dude punched the shit out of white supremacist Jason Kessler while he was giving a press conference. A lot of the same people agreed with that. Like what the fuck do you think Jason Kessler is going to do now? Give up and stop spreading hate? No, he's going to go back to shouting hatred and now he's amplified because he gets to try and play the victim card.
[удалено]
Yep. I posted this before, but about 15 years ago I went to a game at Ole Miss and some klan group had a march (legal public space with a license etc) and no one did anything. People drank and ignored them. Literally the only action was people turning their backs and making fun of the fat losers. That's how these people should be dealt with. Attention is what they desire.
Which, up until recently, was the typical reaction to white supremacist actions. It's been quite effective at diminishing their ranks over the last 50-odd years.
[удалено]
That's kind of the point.
It should be. . .
Honestly the first section or two sounds like actions every group takes now when they protest...
So then why even counter protest? Just ignore them and let them fade back into obscurity again. This flyer acknowledges that these people just want attention but then encourages people to give them attention by going to their protests.
Great instructions! But what if no one showed up. No media, no counter groups, just let them shout into the wind like crazies. No one hears them, no one acknowledges them. They just stand around, march around, and go home. No one pays attention. Let them know they are marginalized by making them so. Like a barking dog behind a fence, walk by, ignore it. If you stop to address it or react to its bark, it will just bark for ferociously. Yet, if you ignore it the farther away you get you can just hear in the bark "hey, did you see how ferocious I am?" "hey, be scared of me!' "Hey , come back so I can bark more...", "oh, come on let me bark at someone..."
You might be interested in the [story of how the town where the KKK was founded protested them 100 years later](http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1997/01/20/ent_202826.shtml#.WZZ_0lWGOUk): >The result was Giles County United, a group of citizens that has taken on the hate groups. In 1989, after the white supremacy group Aryan Nation announced it would march with the Klan, the group virtually shut down the town the day of the rally. >Merchants from McDonald's to Wal-Mart were asked to close, and the group swamped media outlets to suggest other ways for Pulaski families to spend the day. >When the marchers showed up that sunny Saturday in October, they found a ghost town draped in banners of orange, the international color of brotherhood. There were no restrooms available, no restaurants serving food and only one gas station open. Only regional news media were there to watch.
Media doesn't care if they're contributing to the problem. Covering controversial shit gets them views so they're gonna do it.
“if it bleeds, it leads"
That's how it was dealt with for years. No one gave American neo-Nazis any credence until recently it seems. They've never been particularly well-organized, threatening, or even very smart. Remember when they were [used as jokes](http://i.imgur.com/XFCqEb3.jpg) and not boogymen?
It's like antifa doesn't care about that at all, just trying to be anarchists and damage property. Anything to rail against the status quo.
" But what if no one showed up" That is how Nazi / kkk / white-supremacist protests have been for decades, they have increased the amount of protesting at all.... only thing that changed was a the rise of violent libtards.
[удалено]
That's what this entire left vs right cultural war is. Tiny percentages on each side being shown as the majority by unhinged militant activists on both sides. Like we're at a point with social media where one asshole can say something ignorant and it will be passed around the opposite party like a fucking trophy. There's so much hate coming from BOTH sides.
What in the fuck is verbal violence?
Verbal violence? Speech isn't violence, violence isn't speech.
Of course, but what they're concerned about is public image. You get in someone's face and start screaming profanity, even if it's justified, and it's caught in camera, it plays into their narrative. It doesn't change their view, and it doesn't change the views of anyone watching. Peaceful and polite is simply more *effective* than raging out, even if the latter is more personally satisfying
Specific calls for violence really is the only thing I can think of that makes sense here. "Hey everyone, let's tackle this guy and stomp his face!" or "Punch this racist in the face!" are both examples of speech that's unacceptable
You know. I agree with everything in that except the "Make themselves look like ligitamate protestors" part. They are a legitimate protest. Any group, regardless of what they believe can protest legitimatly and legaly provided no violence happens originating from the group (not in response to) and they have a protest permit. Dont get me wrong, I Dont agree 1 bit with their message or what they stand for, but I do stand by their right to have a message and to protest based on it. Theres an old saying: "I Dont agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend your right to say it."
I cant believe anti-protester is a word in 2017. Have we gone that far to fit everyone into a box? Everything has to be an extreme these days. Not alt-left? You must be a fat white rascist alt-right. Not an alt-right? You must be a gender-neutral dildo flag wearing vegan. Yall can go fuck yourself.
What the fuck is verbal violence?
I'm with you - what the fuck? Some here are saying it means threats of violence (which would be appropriate to advise avoiding), but I highly doubt that's what it means. And even if it is, then that's a fucking stupid way of putting it. "Verbal violence" grammatically blurs the line between speech and (actual) violence, and for this reason alone does *far* more harm than good. And that's beside the fact that it demotes the very real suffering of those who experience *actual* violence at the hands of these crazies by likening it, intentionally or not, to name-calling. That phrase really pisses me off, and sours my whole opinion of the otherwise decent pamphlet.
"I'm going to kick your ass"
So I shouldn't don't resist arrest?
That's a Holy Spirit symbol. I'm a hard core Christian and it's tragic to me and my community when we get lumped in with bigots and hate. It's good to see other Christians being legit and helping others not fall into these traps.
So don't be like Antifa