[flagged]
Tame is good.
The administration wants the protests to turn into a flashpoint so they can send in more military control.
Lighting things on fire and launching fireworks is enough to create the tipping point. Don't encourage this stuff.
https://theonion.com/protesters-urged-not-to-give-trump-admi...
The reason why non-violent protest works is not because it prevents escalation, but because when escalation does inevitably happen, the masses will think the escalation was unwarranted and be sympathetic to the protestors. The worst possible thing for a protest movement to do is scaring the masses, since then they will flock to the state for "protection" and give the state carte blanche to get the situation under control.
For all the work that MLK and his coalition did to practice nonviolence and to appear respectable, they were always disliked by the majority of the public. Being liked by the public is not a prerequisite to getting results. If you focus too much on respectibility, the impact of what you can do decreases until it hits YouGov petition levels.
This doesn't just work by getting the public on your side. It works by showing that you are not repressed by fear. Fear is how facists rule, so showing others they don't need to fear, that they can decide not to fear, that is the real threat to authority.
That means they will abuse you to make others fear. When that happens, you need it to trigger outrage as widely as possible.
Being annoying can be quite beneficial to a protest. It brings attention and forces people to think about you. There is a point after which it turns people off, and becomes a net negative, but you usually have to be very annoying for that to happen.
Being scary is entirely different thing though. When people are afraid they tend to become closed off to new ideas, and look to strong leaders. You absolutely don't want that in a protest.
> The protest has to be disruptive enough to affect the powerful, and approachable enough for sufficient people to join.
I think the ultimate point of a protest is to reach the ordinary people who aren't part of a movement. Movements succede and fail not by how much they convince the die hard supporters, but by how much they convinced average uninvolved people.
The problem with your opinion is that it leaves out the fact that one side is deeply involved in ensuring this escalation takes place, either in fact or in appearance only.
So regardless of what protestors are doing, or even who infiltrated protests to inflame and escalate events, the Trump administration is hell bent on having these protests escalate.
So a tipping point is required. ideally you engineer it to more likely tip the right way. But doing nothing because otherwise it might reinforce the status quo, will guarantee the status quo.
Horribly, this means one of the best possible outcomes is an unprovoked massacre by these Marines, ordered by Trump.
I've seen a number of people on social media thanking others for neutralising tear gas, so it's definitely happening. Maybe just not evenly distributed.
I tell my friends that we need to look to Hong Kong and France in case the protests move to Texas.
Such "protests" would be much rarer and shorter in Texas.
edit: I got throttled, as is the case on HN when things get "active". Here is my response to koolba:
---
At a head? Sure.
Do I think police can get rough and "in it" with civilians without live fire and without the use of the US Military? Yes.
Do I think, when a sufficient bloc of a city rebels against its law enforcement, then maybe the law enforcement should reconsider what they're enforcing? Also yes.
I disagree with the premise that the State is always right and that their monopoly on violence is absolute.
We celebrate the US revolution and revolutions across the world when governments act illegally and against the will of the people, violating civil rights.
I would not support firing into a crowd of people because of minor property damage.
So you are saying, guy throws rock. Now he has no rock. He should be shot despite having no rock?
So you are saying, police riot gear is useless against rocks?
I'm not suggesting they police should just blindly open fire on the crowd. But if you are in a crowd that turns violent and starts attacking the police, I think it's reasonable to expect some collateral damage in whatever their response is going to be.
> So you are saying, guy throws rock. Now he has no rock. He should be shot despite having no rock?
Yes. Or are you suggesting that if a guy shoots a gun and misses, then we should we wait for him to reload too? If the guy does not drop down on all fours and assume the position, I think it's reasonable for police to shoot someone throwing rocks at them.
> So you are saying, police riot gear is useless against rocks?
I doubt it's some invincible force field. They could still get hurt. And the police are there not just for their own safety. They are there to protect everybody. If someone is throwing rocks it could hit non police as well.
I do find it incredible the lengths people will go to argue in favor of violence to defend law breakers.
I'm arguing against disproportionate and escalatory violence. Police in other countries somehow deal with rock throwing without shooting.
Trailer: https://youtu.be/QDz1WVUHim4
Def worth watching with people and sharing. Very inspiring <3