Most BLM protests are peaceful, despite claims to the contrary

[Cooky]

Protest is as American as apple pie, such as the Boston Tea Party, for just one example.

It's not exclusive to America, let's not fool ourselves... It's as "human" as Protestantism and even Jesus Christ himself... It extends back to the animal kingdom with the alpha male defending against rivals... Even further it goes than that.

It's not "American".

 

[metis]

Whereas did I say or imply that it's exclusive to America?

 

[Cooky]

Whereas did I say or imply that it's exclusive to America?

We can't claim that it's "American as apple pie" when it's just as much every other nation and animal in the world...

Why should anyone be proud of such an animal instinct, so much as to identify with it as patriotic in some way?

 

[Watchmen]

It could also "possibly" involve every member of the police force being made to wear Winnie The Pooh costumes.

The question is, if you want police reform, what kind of reform would you like, and would you consider defunding the police to be included?

This isn't a "gotcha" question.

If you’d like to discuss police reform I suggest you start another thread so we don’t derail this one. Peace.

 

[metis]

I have no interest in even attempting to have any kind of discussion with those who support Trump and consider themselves to somehow be a "libertarian".

 

[McBell]

We can't claim that it's "American as apple pie" when it's just as much every other nation and animal in the world...

Why should anyone be proud of such an animal instinct, so much as to identify with it as patriotic in some way?

I was completely unaware that America is the only country that has apple pie.

 

[Cooky]

I have no interest in even attempting to have any kind of discussion with those who support Trump and consider themselves to somehow be a "libertarian".

Quoted for all to see what a complete failure of an argument looks like.

Classic example Ad Hominem.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Are you sure about that? How do you know it wasn't the will of the majority that caused the changes to begin with, regardless of the existence of public protest..? Because there's a long list of protests throughout history, and the end results seem random in comparison to the existence of the protest itself.

...Maybe will of the majority is all that's ever mattered? And protests are just 'side things' on their own.

Uses you can actually prove that protests are actually effective in changing public opinion in their favor?

In a lot of cases the lawmakers themselves reference the protests in the referendums, especially the civil rights act and women's suffrage. And also clearly the formation of the US was as a direct result of violent uprising. It would be silly to claim otherwise.

The will of the majority often stymies progress if that majority is of a traditionalist lean. Most civil rights changes were done against the public vote, such as the striking down of DOMA, by the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS being the only check against tyranny of the majority is one of the reasons why America takes so long to progress compared to other first world nations. (We've been late on virtually every civil rights battle.) That's why MLK said 'Riots are the voices of the unheard.'

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you sure about that? How do you know it wasn't the will of the majority that caused the changes to begin with, regardless of the existence of public protest..? Because there's a long list of protests throughout history, and the end results seem random in comparison to the existence of the protest itself.

...Maybe will of the majority is all that's ever mattered? And protests are just 'side things' on their own.

Uses you can actually prove that protests are actually effective in changing public opinion in their favor?

There's great drive to justify rioting, vandalism, looting, & arson
over & above mere protesting. It's the "by any means necessary"
philosophy. I disagree that it's appropriate in modern Ameristan.

But if they do argue that violent protests are useful, protestors
enduring violence from authority was part of that in Ameristan
(& famously in India). By their reasoning, suffering is essential
to the process. The protests would fail if protester violence
went unanswered in kind. I don't like that either.

 

[Revoltingest]

Quoted for all to see what a complete failure of an argument looks like.

Classic example Ad Hominem.

Here's how it sometimes works.....
If you address faults of an argument that criticizes Trump,
then you're a Trump supporter. There are only 2 boxes,
ie pro-Trump & anti-Trump. So even if you don't support
or even like him, you're assigned that first box.
Now you're a racist, misogynist, vet hating white supremacist.
Boxes & labels....they "trump" issues & views.
And once you're the enemy, it becomes very personal.

 

[metis]

Quoted for all to see what a complete failure of an argument looks like.

Classic example Ad Hominem.

No, it's much a reflection of your twisting my words to have me saying something I didn't say nor imply, but you're certainly not the first person here who has used that rather disingenuous tactic.

Anyhow, believe in what you want.

 

[Cooky]

There's great drive to justify rioting, vandalism, looting, & arson
over & above mere protesting. It's the "by any means necessary"
philosophy. I disagree that it's appropriate in modern Ameristan.

But if they do argue that violent protests are useful, protestors
enduring violence from authority was part of that in Ameristan
(& famously in India). By their reasoning, suffering is essential
to the process.

The protests would fail if protester violence
went unanswered in kind. I don't like that either.

Like the protesters who entered the restaurant and started knocking plates and glasses off tables... They were obviously provoking a confrontation, so that they could play victim to some "far-right" white person who might even be a Trump supporter if they're lucky.

...Then they could accuse someone else for physical attacks.

It's the same tactic one might expect to see applied by extremists in the Middle East somewhere.

 

[Revoltingest]

Like the protesters who entered the restaurant and started knocking plates and glasses off tables... They were obviously provoking a confrontation, so that they could play victim to some "far-right" white person who might even be a Trump supporter if they're lucky.

...Then they could accuse someone else for physical attacks.

It's the same tactic one might expect to see applied by extremists in the Middle East somewhere.

Seeking martyrdom, eh.

 

[Cooky]

Seeking martyrdom, eh.

Fortunately it didn't happen and they were left standing there as the bullies they are, for all to see.

I hope they're all left, so the history books can offer a clear picture.

 

[Cooky]

...Or do we want history books associating successful social change with violent protest?

Obviously rioters should not be allowed to win.

 

[Tambourine]

I hate crowds to begin with.
But add in hostility, unity, chanting, signs, & sometimes violence....ugh.

Not a fan of Rock music, eh?

 

[Tambourine]

I have no interest in even attempting to have any kind of discussion with those who support Trump and consider themselves to somehow be a "libertarian".

It's ironic how people who seemingly follow an ideology of maximizing liberty and free markets somehow always appear to end up on the same side as the agents of oppression and tyranny.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not a fan of Rock music, eh?

Not much.

 

[Cooky]

It's ironic how people who seemingly follow an ideology of...

I'm 100% ideology free.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm 100% ideology free.

I have a couple of them.
But they're hard for some to understand.