Hacker News Reader

Comment by jetzzz | Hacker News Reader

A lot of people in this thread seem to have some false dichotomy in their mind - either you are peacefully protesting or you are rioting by burning random cars and destroying uninvolved storefronts. There is another option: peacefully protest but try to occupy administrative buildings and only use violence as a response to police violence. This is what happened in many post-USSR countries in the so called "colour revolutions", Euromaidan, etc. In particular in Euromaidan there were heavy clashes with police, but no destruction of private property (at least not deliberately by protesters). Police cars were burned, paving stone, garbage bins, etc were used for fighting/barricades, but this doesn't hurt anyone in particular the way destroyed car or store would. Meanwhile in US/Western Europe riots are for some reason seem to be directed not at government and police but at uninvolved car/store owners.

View on HN

There's also a false dichotomy between peaceful and violent.

There are non-violent, non-peaceful protests where protesters are noisy, block traffic, etc. Many of the speakers I've heard have expanded on the phrase "No Justice, No Peace" to describe how they'd like their protests to be remembered not as peaceful, but as non-violent. One speaker I recall saying, "This is a peaceful protest! Wait, no no, it's not that. It's a non-violent protest! We're here because if there is no justice, then there is no peace."

> there were heavy clashes with police, but no destruction of private property (at least not deliberately by protesters)

I think this is the key distinction. Protesting against injustice by government is one thing. Perpetrating further injustices is another.

In the examples you gave the state was the obvious enemy to the people rioting. In the US right now there seems to be a heavy focus on property owners, business owners being as much the enemy of the people as the government is.

I would argue that both CHAZ and that siege with the national park that happened a few years ago would fall into that third category of "non-collateral violence", for lack of better words.

My guess is that in Eastern Europe because private business was rare and was an exception and somewhat counterrevolutionary it was seen as part of them of their estate. In the West people who see business as part of the problem of wealth disparity see business as anathema to their promiseland where the community is everything and private enterprise is a vestige of capitalism so it has to go down for participating.

Except that’s only the view of radicals and the normal people protesting and not protesting see a problem in that since they do not believe the whole system is bad, but rather needs some reform.

In more concise terms in the East they were fighting to get capitalism, in the West some fight to defeat capitalism.

>Meanwhile in US/Western Europe riots are for some reason seem to be directed not at government and police but at uninvolved car/store owners.

Makes it seem like those rioters have different - maybe opposite - motivations than the protesters.

This is pretty common:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/quebec-police-admit-they-went...

"However, the police force denied allegations its undercover officers were there on Monday to provoke the crowd and instigate violence."

"Police came under fire Tuesday, when a video surfaced on YouTube that appeared to show three plainclothes police officers at the protest with bandanas across their faces. One of the men was carrying a rock."

"In the video, protest organizers in suits order the men to put the rock down, call them police instigators and try unsuccessfully to unmask them."

These events are not commonly believed when there isn't clear cut video evidence, though. Property destruction will be, by default, blamed on the protestors rather than police instigators. In this case the police were easily identified simply because they were sloppy and forgot to not wear police issue boots. Had the video not proved that and that they intended to commit violence, this would have been a wild conspiracy theory.

I don't quite understand why this practice isn't extremely illegal in every country that has pretenses towards democracy. It's a form of fraud.

The government and the police permit themselves to commit fraud, as it is often a convenient means by which to achieve their objectives (i.e. the police can lie to you, but you cannot lie to the police).

If I pointed a gun at your head, I'm being non-violent, no? Of course, you might reasonably shoot me if I tried.

Threatening anything, by compromising the security of something, is not neutral; occupying buildings is not either. Neither is wearing a mask and showing up in large, angry groups: even if you do no harm, you are still threatening. Even if the majority commit no crime, they might provide cover for those who do.

To me, the whole appeal of protest in this form is less about an accurate expression of feeling, opening up and appealing to the out-group, than it is about threatening harm, often is a sloppy, undifferentiated manner (e.g. public stores/car are at risk, messages are mixed).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com