Assault and battery are not legitimate forms of protest. Neither are throwing rocks at police, smashing doors in, and breaking down barriers.
Let’s not dignify these actions by calling them “protests”. They’re thuggery. Or rioting.
Assault and battery are not legitimate forms of protest. Neither are throwing rocks at police, smashing doors in, and breaking down barriers.
Let’s not dignify these actions by calling them “protests”. They’re thuggery. Or rioting.
We have phrases for the nice, orderly, easily contained events you want — “non-violent protests” or “peaceful protests.” This suggests that there can be violent protests.
Non-violent protests are easily ignored and dismissed or whisked away to free speech zones. There were lots of marches against police brutality across the nation that accomplished nothing before we had the riots in Ferguson, and they were completely ineffective and the problems continued unabated. How long should people be peaceful putzes?
Most Americans get their news from TV, and there is the long-running adage “if it bleeds, it leads.” The TV stations don’t cover non-violent protests. Violence then becomes a near requirement.
I would rather we took non-violent protest seriously enough that the protesters didn’t feel they had to resort to violence to be heard.
Resorting to violence in order to get attention is rarely a justified excuse. In the setting of stifling an opposing party’s candidate, harassing “peaceful” people going into a venue to hear said candidate speak, I agree with Dave that it is plain & simple thuggery.
@Gustopher, that assumes protests intend to convey a message to the public. Mostly these are exercises in self-actualization and in-group solidarity at best; at worst (per one of daughter’s classmates admitted), the goal is to be a youtube star.
What is the limitation on the ends justifying the means?
More violent protests and a few riots. Yeah, that’s the answer. The Mexican flags are a wonderful touch, but they should throw in a few ISIS flag next time.
I am confused. Are the protesters Trump supporters or not?
The Watts riots really made a difference. Oh wait, they do not count because they have been forgotten. What has not happened in the last 30 minutes does not count. I love the educated class – a bunch of f*cking morons.
The only way that any of these shitholes gets any better is if rich white progressives move in and run off the minority population.
I suggest everybody start practicing saying “President Trump”, and for those who are going to leave the country, start packing your bags. I am sure Mexico will take you. The drug lords can always use more mules.
Yiannopoulos writes things like this: “For the meme brigade, it’s just about having fun. They have no real problem with race-mixing, homosexuality, or even diverse societies: it’s just fun to watch the mayhem and outrage that erupts when those secular shibboleths are openly mocked. These younger mischief-makers instinctively understand who the authoritarians are and why and how to poke fun at them.”
That’s where we are right now, basically–some sad alt-right repressed dude who has ‘fun’ by turning the tables on the uptight authoritarians who don’t like their conformist and staid pro-miscegenation views ‘challenged’. It’s like asking a bunch of Auschwitz survivors to treat with respect Himmlerlover34’s controversial take on why the Holocaust didn’t happen. Or listening to Trump talk about rapists and recycle white-supremacist talking points.
But the real problem is a few angry (and frightened) college kids.
Got it. You’re saying that of obnoxious rhetoric and assault and battery, obnoxious rhetoric is worse.
What’s the limiting factor on that?
I don’t think it’s obnoxious, any more than I think that the ‘Jews control the banks’ or ‘The Holocaust did not happen’ is obnoxious. He’s playing around with white supremacy, and white supremacy is not rhetorical or obnoxious. It’s a real thing with consequences in real life.
The problem is that today’s youth have been raised in padded school cells that isolate them from the nature of violence, they are not allowed to speak of it in their essays, or draw pictures of it in art. They will be suspended and sent to a therapist to authorize re-entry. The paternalism has been escalating with Columbine, but the education process has stunted youth morally and ethically. They believe words are violence, and thus words justify violence.
The contingent Tyler Cowen thesis of all the craziness going on is that males, or at least many males, are not well served in the post-production economy of cubicle-living and feminized ideals. They will seek an outlet for their frustration. These “protesters” are finding outlets for their suppressed desires for violence in what they believe are socially-accepted ways against socially-unacceptable people.
Honestly the idea that free speech is simply rhetorical affectation and ornament is just revolting. Why would you want it to be true? I can think of two reasons why. 1) Because it is a useful defense for actual intentions. 2) Because the fact that an enormous and white portion of our country seems to be diving deep into the eugenicist/white power sewer needs to be avoided at all costs by other white people.
TV doesn’t make law, but that comment shows how warped thinking can become.
PD gets it right that these protesters just use words or ideas they don’t like as thinly disguised rationale for violence.
That these are just a few angry college kids and this is not organized by professional protesters is delusional, if not somewhat of an intelligence test.
At least Obama has brought the races together………. Did the protesters look,love key his sons or daughters?
Like the protesters, neurotic people with too much time on their hands.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sexist-ghostbusters-backlash-coincides-2016-gender-divide
The video is pretty funny. I didn’t watch it and assumed he was actually hit or something. But no–it was case of a sad weirdo being put in his place by a black female. Calling this thuggery or rioting–could you possibly be clenched tighter in life? No wonder black teenagers are shot. My god.
Modulo Myself:
You have one comment to explain why you shouldn’t be banned. You are accusing me of condoning or fostering the murder of black teenagers. That’s a lie and you’re a filthy liar and a fool.
This is my blog and I don’t have to put up with your lies. You have one comment to apologize.
It was neither thuggery nor rioting. Plain and simple. Do I think you condone the actual taking of a black teenager’s life? No. Do I think your identifying the behavior as thuggery or rioting has something in common with a cop identifying a black teenager as dangerous? Yes.
The people in that video were obnoxious, but they were not rioting, were not a threat, and were not dangerous in any way.
So I apologize for making it sound as if you are for murdering black teenagers, but I don’t apologize for saying that your perception of those protesters is connected to the reasons a black guy walking around Walmart is gunned down for holding an air rifle.
If you can’t handle that, you should ban me then.
Breaking down doors and throwing rocks is rioting. If you don’t see that, you’re a thug and a fool. I have seen single frames from the video that show she struck him. That’s assault and battery, both misdemeanors.
You are arguing that speech is more dangerous than actual violent conduct. That’s incredibly dangerous.
You are arguing that speech is more dangerous than actual violent conduct. That’s incredibly dangerous.
I agree. It blows a hole in the idea that differences are reasonable and they can be dealt with peacefully via debate. It says that speech can be about power and control rather than convincing another in good faith. To me, that’s obvious.
I think it’s arguable if Donald Trump is actually legitimizing white supremacy/xenophobia/anti-semitism. But I don’t fault others for believing that he is and in assuming that he, using free speech as a means to obtain power, represents a danger far greater than people rioting at a speech of his.
If you analyze a video frame-by-frame like it’s the Zapruder film in order to justify the idea that she took a swing at Milo, you’re conceding a great deal. I don’t understand how anyone could watch that video in good faith and think that the two were in anything other than young and disruptive. Rioters? No. Thugs? No. Assault and battery? Sure. Let him press charges if he wants.
Google some of the stuff the guy says. Reason claims the protester was crazy. What’s crazier? Trolling rape victims online, saying feminism is cancer, and claiming lesbianism isn’t real, or being really angry about that this person was invited to a college to speak?
Like if you ban me I would have a good idea why, and I’m not going to claim I was wronged or misinterpreted. I said what I wanted to say about what I think it means that you thought those protesters were rioters and thugs. From Trump down the right is composed of people who act the opposite. They spout crazy indefensible shit 24/7 and they blame others for hearing it and not reacting exactly like they say. They have no real regard for free speech. It’s power and ego, and that’s it.
@PD Shaw: The protests about Trump have a very real, concrete message — a major party embracing white supremacists is beyond the pale and unacceptable. The Republican Party has been winking at white supremicists since the days of Nixon, flirting with them since Reagan, and is now apparently engaged in an open mouthed kiss with tongue.
Or, put another way, a majority of 50%+1 better tread carefully with respecting the rights of minorities.
@Dave Schuler: the ends don’t justify the means, but when all non-violent means are neutered to render them ineffective, you cannot be surprised when people resort to violence.
Are the protesters Trump supporters or not?
Effectively, yes, they’re Trump supporters!
For the record, on the DePaul University situation. The guy who had to abandon the DePaul speech says he was threatened with being “laid out” by the guy who jumped up on stage. He made the claim on radio and sounded matter of fact.
Sadly, when the security was asked to control the crowd they did nothing. The university president’s response was also cowardly.
First off, there is always a place for violent riots that lead to the State changing course, e.g. the Nika Riot, the Boston Riot of 1770, the march on the bridge in Selma, Ulster, etc. However, when you break the law expect consequences unless of course nihilism and anarchy is the preferred end state.
That’s just silly, Walt. You know, I happen to find progressive types as racist/bigoted as they come. The condescendingly assume minorities cannot thrive without the state. That’s simply offensive. Making them our “national pets,” as I mock. Further, I find the proposed solutions to be largely ineffective and often counterproductive. They are used for cynical political gain in my opinion. That makes the politicians at least, disgusting humans. HRC, by the way, is Exhibit A. Liberals, on the other hand, somehow have (bizarrely) convinced themselves that they are compassionate and doing good.
But those are philosophical differences.
What set this whole thread off stands. What’s going on has nothing to do with philosophy or policy prescriptions. Its thuggery. Dressing it up pathetically in “what do you expect?” doesn’t change that. Notice that Laquan McDonald has long been forgotten.
1) For the record, the DePaul speaker is an ass who tries to provoke people. He succeeds. 19-20 y/o college kids fall for his schtick. They should just ignore him.
2) At first, I thought PD’s psychobabble about feminization was just crazy. Then I wrote a nice long response to it in which I was going to agree with him, but my new curtains came and I needed to go hang them.
3) At least liberals will agree with you that those who break the laws at these events should be prosecuted and jailed if found guilty. On the conservative side thuggery and outright murder is defended. Cop shoots an unarmed person running away? Fine with them. Cop shoots a minority with an air gun, while they ignore white guys expressing their open carry rights? Cool. Throw a minority perp in the back of the van and rough him up a bit to teach him a lesson. Great! Oops, he died. Oh well. So at least be honest. It’s not that you oppose thuggery or violence, you just care about it when it is directed at the wrong people.
The difference here? Those few people engaging in that “riot” aren’t engaging in acts most on the left condone. Most of us think it is counterproductive. That it is criminal. We understand that the GOP is threatening to harm them. To support more of them being killed. However, they need to work within the political process. However, on the right, the majority defend and support the killings and abuse of minorities as shown by their blanket support for the thugs who kill and murder in their name.
Query- How much longer does the Vietnam War last absent the protests? How many more Americans get killed in a senseless war?
Steve
@Gustopher, that’s a lot of extrapolation from a F___ Trump! chant. People operating at their level, regardless of the cause, don’t have any sort of interesting or unique message worth anybody’s time.
@steve, the feminization line came from Tyler Cowen, not me. This his theory of Trump and his discontents. I tried to think of a better word than feminization, but I suspect that unless you are married to a therapist whose agency has referral contracts with school districts, most people have no idea how low the bar is to getting suspended for personal expression in an essay. If it happened to you or your kid, you’d keep quiet, and the school would be obligated not to discuss it.