Nonviolent Protest and Resistance Privileged

[A Theist]

Violence never comes out of nowhere, unless it is because a small group deliberately trying to disrupt a peaceful protest so that it can be denounced by the establishment. Peaceful protest works and is always preferable. But sometimes violence escalates over time from both sides. The establishment use more forceful means to quell free speech, so the protesters protest more strongly which leads to more forceful methods deployed against them next time.

Expect a serious increase in escalation with Trump in charge as he deploys force to stop a protest.

The serious increase in the escalation of violence is because of the left's hate filled intolerance toward people they disagree with. They've become a cancer, and elements of the far left are quickly approaching the status of home grown terrorists. I don't think the left knows what peaceful protests are anymore. They're the ones who quell free speech, as was demonstrated at Berkeley recently. The left has become so fucked in the head that I think the National Gaurd and a strong police presence in riot gear need to be standing watch at every so called peaceful protest that the left organizes.

[downbeatplumb]

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!

[paulpablo]

Violence never comes out of nowhere, unless it is because a small group deliberately trying to disrupt a peaceful protest so that it can be denounced by the establishment. Peaceful protest works and is always preferable. But sometimes violence escalates over time from both sides. The establishment use more forceful means to quell free speech, so the protesters protest more strongly which leads to more forceful methods deployed against them next time.

Expect a serious increase in escalation with Trump in charge as he deploys force to stop a protest.

Violence happens lots of times for the sake of it.  It's really fun when you're a teenager.

I've been part of a riot at a music festival, it's basically a bunch of teenagers setting fire to things and throwing bricks at the police.  I saw a skinny,short 14 year old girl pick up a full brick and launch it right through the back of a police car window while it was driving away.  That always sticks in my mind.

If anyone remembers the bumfights videos, they were made by a group called Indecline. They now make videos about black lives matter, anti trump videos, random vioence videos.  So they've basically gone from making millions by manipulating black people people to take drugs and commit crime on camera while making fun of them and making millions of dollers off it to supporting black lives matter and being anti trump because that's what's cool now.

On their website they sell trunctions and weapons they advertise as being great for smashing up police cars and all sorts.

So yeh there's some utter psychopaths at these anti trump protests.  That's why they can turn into violenct protests.

I'm not saying there's no psychotic trump supporters, but to say the violence always happens for a political reason at these events is false.

[Exian]

It's funny that you'd be accused of white privilege for advocating non-violent protest, when John Lewis and his Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee are the gold standard. What more proof do you need? No, it seems to me that they're just trying to justify their urge to use violence to get a message across, which is counter productive. Being non-violent is not the default position. It requires ideology and practice to preemptively counteract your natural violent reaction to oppression.

Is there a limit to non-violence? Did the SNCC take it too far when they practiced maintaining eye-contact with their attacker while they were being beaten to humanize themselves and their attacker, or when their reaction to the murders and bombings were to quickly organize a new march for the next day, instead of quitting or retaliating? There they were in a system, whose solution to the marches and sit-is and bus rides was to have cops standby as mobs of angry white people beat them for a while before stepping in, if not doing the beating themselves, and they stayed on message. Well, they couldn't know how far to take their non-violence, but luckily we can look back at them as an example and see it works.

People were murdered in response to the sit-ins, marches, and freedom rides, so could you imagine the response if they resorted to violence? How justified the rasicsts would feel to kill even more people, while the authorities stood by? They couldn't afford the privilege of violence.

[The Grand Nudger]

We don't -have- a natural, violent reaction to oppression.  See: slavery.

Racists already feel justified in anything their racism compels them to do, exian, lol.

[Exian]

Point taken. Though I would point to any revolution in history.

You're, of course, correct that racists already feel justified, but I wasn't focused on their feelings. I was focused more on their actions and what fueled them. They killed for mere sit-ins and marches; is it so hard to imagine a worse response if the protesters turned violent?

[The Grand Nudger]

What certain point would that be, Thump? Are the issues getting close enough, yet, to where you and Rhythm 'have' to decide whether or not violence might be required?

Hah.  I'm the right shade of lipstick, a combat arms vet....and a married, middle aged property owner in an anomalously wealthy section of rural america.  Not only is our entire system set up to support and fellate me, I -could- open fire on a cop and not only survive...but some dipshit like you would laud me as resisting the evil federal oppressors.

@Exian, they killed before there were sit-ins as well.  African trophy hunting has a long and venerable history with southern racists.  Since we're rattling the bones of the civil rights movement and shaming the current crop by reference, let's take a closer look.  If the civil rights movement was as successful in coercing america to fulfill it's promise, why is there an impetus for rioting today?  Have people -not- been peacefully protesting institutional racism every day since that day?  Is that approach working, in your opinion?  Is the propaganda spun about our current unrest different than the propaganda spun about hat civil unrest?  Today, rioters are anarchists engaged in illegal activities that are ruining america, who don't have it so bad, and just want to upset the apple cart and blah blah blah, yesterday...... the same was said about civil rights operatives.  

Some things never change.  For better or for worse, even.  As an example of the "better", the US will -never- have any purchase on condemning violent rebellion.  We availed ourselves of and reserved the right -to- revolution.  Rioting in the face of tyranny is a foundational american tradition.....but I guess we don;t think that everybody™ should be able to make the same arguments and ake the same actions that some™ of us did.

[abaris]

They killed for mere sit-ins and marches; is it so hard to imagine a worse response if the protesters turned violent?

Answering violence with violence may be understandable but it's probably not the wisest reaction. The faction controlling the narrative, and that's usually the more powerful one, will point to the counter violence as being the reason and justification for their violence.

As I view it, the civil rights movement largely not resorting to violence assured their victory. The ugly face of the racists was reveiled for everyone to see and it became harder to associate with them. Even for people who's sympathy may have been with racism and segregation in general.

[paulpablo]

We don't -have- a natural, violent reaction to oppression.  See: slavery.

Racists already feel justified in anything their racism compels them to do, exian, lol.

I'd argue that people do have a natural violent reaction to being oppressed in many circumstances.
Speaking about slavery, I don't think there's ever been an instance of one group of people who took another group as slaves without the monopoly of violence on their side.
Either by superior weaponry, superior numbers or some form of violent threat.

[Mister Agenda]

Thanks for all the thoughtful responses, food for thought is exactly what I need.

I'm not a pacifist, I believe everyone has the right to defend themselves from immediate threat.

I'm falling into this category: I empathize with people feeling angry, especially in the face of a ranting racist or misogynist. Wanting to punch someone like that in the face is understandable, and having no legal recourse would be mind-numbingly frustrating. I can't blame someone for taking a swing. However, my empathy does not, and should not overcome my conviction that nonviolent means are not only ethically preferable, they are more effective. If the evidence was that violence is necessary to effect change, I would have to rethink my position, but nonviolent protest has accomplished so much that it's a means that should be exhausted before considering escalating to violence.