Nonviolent Protest and Resistance Privileged

[Mister Agenda]

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?

[Jackalope]

I don't think you're wrong, either, but I recognize that I may be missing something.

[abaris]

Should I revisit my stance on nonviolence? Is it passé in the current situation?

No, you shouldn't. My ancestors took up arms to fight fascism, but the situation they found themselves in is still a far cry from what this is. Yes, you have to fight it every step of the way. Non violently. In order for violence never to be needed again.

[Angrboda]

It's a question which has occurred to me before. At what point does oppression become bad enough that you need to fight back with more than words? At what point do you abandon working within the system and seek instead to overthrow it?

[Crunchy]

Violence should ever only be a last resort when you or someone else is threatened. Even then it's a judgement call as there may be better options available if you use your brains. 

To go violent at a protest is an instant fail. You might as well just tell your opponents they were right about you all along and that neither you nor your cause deserve an ounce of respect. It's not just dangerous, it's counter productive.

[abaris]

At what point do you abandon working within the system and seek instead to overthrow it?

The moment the system is replaced with one that doesn't grant civil liberties anymore. The moment the regime is obviously outside the law and discards the constitution. The moment checks and balances, such as the rule of law, doesn't work anymore.

These are at least my parameters without knowing if I had the guts to actually stand up.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

I think you're dead-on right. Resorting to violence is in itself a means of delivering a weapon into the hands of your antagonist -- a legal weapon which can, and often has, snuffed out otherwise legitimate points.

The only time violence is appropriate is, in my view, in response to violence. You've got my vote, Mr A.

[abaris]

The only time violence is appropriate is, in my view, in response to violence. You've got my vote, Mr A.

Yes, and that is a reason. Probably the one and only one. The moment you notice that the rule of force replaces the rule of law.

[paulpablo]

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?

It depends on so many factors.  Who is the person protesting, what are they protesting against, what other possible methods of protesting could be more useful, how useful will violence be in the long run.  What could be the best possible outcome.

Protesting is something that's been done in so many different contexts and can be done in future in so many possible contexts, asking if non violent protest is good or bad is like asking if it's good to drink liquid or not.

[Crunchy]

It's a question which has occurred to me before.  At what point does oppression become bad enough that you need to fight back with more than words?  At what point do you abandon working within the system and seek instead to overthrow it?

We can all come up with situations in which the oppression is so bad that violence could be considered self defense but I don't think that's what is being asked here.  

I believe that many people are willing to go violent at protests because violent people like an excuse to justify the violence they want to engage in, not because their cause actually justifies it.