(February 13, 2017 at 7:02 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I've long been an advocate of nonviolent protest. It seems to me to be very effective, and I see lots of downsides to using violent means, not least of which that it seems to generate free publicity for whoever the people resorting to violence are against.
But what I'm hearing when I try to promote that kind of protest/resistance against oppression is that it's my white cis-male privilege speaking. I'm not the designated target, not obviously in an endangered group, so it's easy for me to say 'stay disciplined, don't let yourself be provoked to violence, it only serves your enemies.'
I suppose it IS easy for me to say and that I don't face the same kind of danger and don't have the same anger and fear. I acknowledge that. But it doesn't mean I'm wrong. But something else might.
Should I revisit my stance on nonviolence? Is it passé in the current situation? I don't think the people advocating violence are making much sense, does anyone else get it? I'm not asking if violence is justified, if someone is screaming in your face about what they're going to do to people like you once the law is on their side, punching them in the face may not be legal or strategic, but I'm not going to tell you they didn't deserve it or you don't deserve to do it. But I think opposing them in other ways is smarter and that hitting them is counter-productive to your aims. Am I wrong?
The US has history of violent protests for very little reason. They had an entire revolution because of a tea tax. They don't even drink tea!
You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.
Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.
