America

[Stom]

I love this idea that there is a more mild form of protest that would actually prompt some action (or even acknowledgement) towards the issues people are protesting. They're currently just holding back on a load of solutions for police brutality and racial equality? Waiting until people have politely registered their outrage and lack of representation in the correct format.

It's not about everyone coming to an agreement that violent protesting is good, but there seems to be this broad refusal to accept that so many people are desperate enough to risk getting beaten, pepper sprayed and shot at by the police, day after day, in order to try and change things.

Everybody voting is a nice idea. Maybe they are just lazy and can't be arsed to vote, I dunno. The same arguments about why black voter turnout is so low go on and on. Does it persist because it's an excuse or because nothing is actually being done about it? Assuming they actually believe there is someone worth voting for.

Mild protesting can prompt change and is historically much more successful than violent protest, violent protest tends not to secure the change wanted and can often make things worse. The idea there's more than a mild protest is thus an odd one to me.

Black voter turnout isn't especially low either, it's basically the same as white voter turnout, though you could and I would argue both don't actually vote enough. So there's a massive upside to black (and other minority groups) voting that hasn't so far been exploited across the range of elections in the US. Getting voters registered and getting them out to vote, and where they don't like the candidates because they're not addressing the issues they think important get them to vote for the party candidates earlier in the process. Change is possible, it's just very slow. I don't like it's very slow, I do prefer that to violence, and I especially prefer that to violence I don't think will work anyway.

Firstly, when has “mild” protesting created actual change?

Secondly, you’re missing the point by drawing parallels with your own experiences. Which is normal. They don’t have those same experiences.

While it may seem normal and useful to draw a parallel to something you know, it’s actual potentially damaging as there is no parallel for them.

And the violence of the protests can actually be directly attributable to the actions of the police in dealing with what started as completely peaceful protests.

The police wanted to escalate this. They wanted to get out their big weaponry they’d spent millions on. They wanted to paint the protestors as violent. So how do you do this? Be violent and let the right wing media do the rest for you.

And while you may say “vote”, listen to the stories of voters and of those running for office, and do so without prejudice.

[Digby]

I love this idea that there is a more mild form of protest that would actually prompt some action (or even acknowledgement) towards the issues people are protesting. They're currently just holding back on a load of solutions for police brutality and racial equality? Waiting until people have politely registered their outrage and lack of representation in the correct format.

It's not about everyone coming to an agreement that violent protesting is good, but there seems to be this broad refusal to accept that so many people are desperate enough to risk getting beaten, pepper sprayed and shot at by the police, day after day, in order to try and change things.

Everybody voting is a nice idea. Maybe they are just lazy and can't be arsed to vote, I dunno. The same arguments about why black voter turnout is so low go on and on. Does it persist because it's an excuse or because nothing is actually being done about it? Assuming they actually believe there is someone worth voting for.

Mild protesting can prompt change and is historically much more successful than violent protest, violent protest tends not to secure the change wanted and can often make things worse. The idea there's more than a mild protest is thus an odd one to me.

Black voter turnout isn't especially low either, it's basically the same as white voter turnout, though you could and I would argue both don't actually vote enough. So there's a massive upside to black (and other minority groups) voting that hasn't so far been exploited across the range of elections in the US. Getting voters registered and getting them out to vote, and where they don't like the candidates because they're not addressing the issues they think important get them to vote for the party candidates earlier in the process. Change is possible, it's just very slow. I don't like it's very slow, I do prefer that to violence, and I especially prefer that to violence I don't think will work anyway.

Firstly, when has “mild” protesting created actual change?

Secondly, you’re missing the point by drawing parallels with your own experiences. Which is normal. They don’t have those same experiences.

While it may seem normal and useful to draw a parallel to something you know, it’s actual potentially damaging as there is no parallel for them.

And the violence of the protests can actually be directly attributable to the actions of the police in dealing with what started as completely peaceful protests.

The police wanted to escalate this. They wanted to get out their big weaponry they’d spent millions on. They wanted to paint the protestors as violent. So how do you do this? Be violent and let the right wing media do the rest for you.

And while you may say “vote”, listen to the stories of voters and of those running for office, and do so without prejudice.

Mild, or legal, protesting creates change all the time. Frankly if people are unable to do more with a message of mums dressed in yellow standing in front of kids out protesting to dissuade police from shooting at them than violent actions you're not even trying to advance an agenda for change, you're just looking for a fight.

I'm some sympathy with wanting to look for a fight, I quite enjoy violence, as I suspect do many others. I just think it's helpful to a society if we limit the violence to boxing or rugby, and not consider just because I'm livid about Brexit I get to take a baseball bat and cave in the head of everyone I can find in the ERG and the likes of Farage, Banks, Cummings...

You'd have to remove many more societal norms before I think violence becomes part of any solution.

[Stom]

Mild protesting can prompt change and is historically much more successful than violent protest, violent protest tends not to secure the change wanted and can often make things worse. The idea there's more than a mild protest is thus an odd one to me.

Black voter turnout isn't especially low either, it's basically the same as white voter turnout, though you could and I would argue both don't actually vote enough. So there's a massive upside to black (and other minority groups) voting that hasn't so far been exploited across the range of elections in the US. Getting voters registered and getting them out to vote, and where they don't like the candidates because they're not addressing the issues they think important get them to vote for the party candidates earlier in the process. Change is possible, it's just very slow. I don't like it's very slow, I do prefer that to violence, and I especially prefer that to violence I don't think will work anyway.

Firstly, when has “mild” protesting created actual change?

Secondly, you’re missing the point by drawing parallels with your own experiences. Which is normal. They don’t have those same experiences.

While it may seem normal and useful to draw a parallel to something you know, it’s actual potentially damaging as there is no parallel for them.

And the violence of the protests can actually be directly attributable to the actions of the police in dealing with what started as completely peaceful protests.

The police wanted to escalate this. They wanted to get out their big weaponry they’d spent millions on. They wanted to paint the protestors as violent. So how do you do this? Be violent and let the right wing media do the rest for you.

And while you may say “vote”, listen to the stories of voters and of those running for office, and do so without prejudice.

Mild, or legal, protesting creates change all the time. Frankly if people are unable to do more with a message of mums dressed in yellow standing in front of kids out protesting to dissuade police from shooting at them than violent actions you're not even trying to advance an agenda for change, you're just looking for a fight.

I'm some sympathy with wanting to look for a fight, I quite enjoy violence, as I suspect do many others. I just think it's helpful to a society if we limit the violence to boxing or rugby, and not consider just because I'm livid about Brexit I get to take a baseball bat and cave in the head of everyone I can find in the ERG and the likes of Farage, Banks, Cummings...

You'd have to remove many more societal norms before I think violence becomes part of any solution.

Nice question dodging, Sir Humphrey.

[Digby]

Firstly, when has “mild” protesting created actual change?

Secondly, you’re missing the point by drawing parallels with your own experiences. Which is normal. They don’t have those same experiences.

While it may seem normal and useful to draw a parallel to something you know, it’s actual potentially damaging as there is no parallel for them.

And the violence of the protests can actually be directly attributable to the actions of the police in dealing with what started as completely peaceful protests.

The police wanted to escalate this. They wanted to get out their big weaponry they’d spent millions on. They wanted to paint the protestors as violent. So how do you do this? Be violent and let the right wing media do the rest for you.

And while you may say “vote”, listen to the stories of voters and of those running for office, and do so without prejudice.

Mild, or legal, protesting creates change all the time. Frankly if people are unable to do more with a message of mums dressed in yellow standing in front of kids out protesting to dissuade police from shooting at them than violent actions you're not even trying to advance an agenda for change, you're just looking for a fight.

I'm some sympathy with wanting to look for a fight, I quite enjoy violence, as I suspect do many others. I just think it's helpful to a society if we limit the violence to boxing or rugby, and not consider just because I'm livid about Brexit I get to take a baseball bat and cave in the head of everyone I can find in the ERG and the likes of Farage, Banks, Cummings...

You'd have to remove many more societal norms before I think violence becomes part of any solution.

Nice question dodging, Sir Humphrey.

Meh. And fwiw I suspect the vast majority of those advocating for progressive change would agree with me that violence isn't part of an answer.

And that now as ever it's time to get into good trouble

[Stom]

Mild, or legal, protesting creates change all the time. Frankly if people are unable to do more with a message of mums dressed in yellow standing in front of kids out protesting to dissuade police from shooting at them than violent actions you're not even trying to advance an agenda for change, you're just looking for a fight.

I'm some sympathy with wanting to look for a fight, I quite enjoy violence, as I suspect do many others. I just think it's helpful to a society if we limit the violence to boxing or rugby, and not consider just because I'm livid about Brexit I get to take a baseball bat and cave in the head of everyone I can find in the ERG and the likes of Farage, Banks, Cummings...

You'd have to remove many more societal norms before I think violence becomes part of any solution.

Nice question dodging, Sir Humphrey.

Meh. And fwiw I suspect the vast majority of those advocating for progressive change would agree with me that violence isn't part of an answer.

And that now as ever it's time to get into good trouble

But again, I don’t see how. Firstly because I cannot remember one single “peaceful” protest that had large scale change as a result, and secondly because the police are making it impossible to have peaceful priests with their actions towards anyone who is peaceful!

[Mikey Brown]

Mild, or legal, protesting creates change all the time. Frankly if people are unable to do more with a message of mums dressed in yellow standing in front of kids out protesting to dissuade police from shooting at them than violent actions you're not even trying to advance an agenda for change, you're just looking for a fight.

I'm some sympathy with wanting to look for a fight, I quite enjoy violence, as I suspect do many others. I just think it's helpful to a society if we limit the violence to boxing or rugby, and not consider just because I'm livid about Brexit I get to take a baseball bat and cave in the head of everyone I can find in the ERG and the likes of Farage, Banks, Cummings...

You'd have to remove many more societal norms before I think violence becomes part of any solution.

Nice question dodging, Sir Humphrey.

Meh. And fwiw I suspect the vast majority of those advocating for progressive change would agree with me that violence isn't part of an answer.

And that now as ever it's time to get into good trouble

That’s fine I guess, but anyone preaching this line they’d be fully supportive of the protests were it not for the violence, while ignoring/condoning-as-necessary all the violence being used to shut down efforts at peaceful protesting, is being hugely disingenuous.

For the police, the media, the GOP, various right-wing agitators, this is a fucking gold mine. When one side so clearly has incentive and the other does not, it just seems strange to me to buy in to this idea of the legitimate protestors being the ones to instigate most of the violence/damage.

[Puja]

Capture.jpg

[Digby]

Nice question dodging, Sir Humphrey.

Meh. And fwiw I suspect the vast majority of those advocating for progressive change would agree with me that violence isn't part of an answer.

And that now as ever it's time to get into good trouble

That’s fine I guess, but anyone preaching this line they’d be fully supportive of the protests were it not for the violence, while ignoring/condoning-as-necessary all the violence being used to shut down efforts at peaceful protesting, is being hugely disingenuous.

For the police, the media, the GOP, various right-wing agitators, this is a fucking gold mine. When one side so clearly has incentive and the other does not, it just seems strange to me to buy in to this idea of the legitimate protestors being the ones to instigate most of the violence/damage.

I've never stated the protesters are as a majority into violence, and the response of the police whilst hardly uniform (there is still a lot of good policing happening) is far too often appalling, and it's appalling from the police in the leadership, their culture, their tactics and their decision making on the ground.

I'm not always fully supportive of protesters just because there's no violence, I might not fully agree with their complaint(s) or their solution(s) but I'd certainly support their right to protest.

[Digby]

Nice question dodging, Sir Humphrey.

Meh. And fwiw I suspect the vast majority of those advocating for progressive change would agree with me that violence isn't part of an answer.

And that now as ever it's time to get into good trouble

But again, I don’t see how. Firstly because I cannot remember one single “peaceful” protest that had large scale change as a result, and secondly because the police are making it impossible to have peaceful priests with their actions towards anyone who is peaceful!

Okay, then name a violent protest which has succeeded. Also at this time how long a period and how much violence is needed, and what will change as a consequence of the violence for the better?

If I look at the progression of civil rights in the USA and at the leaders of the civil rights movement the most progress, the most building of a society has in my estimation come from the likes of Martin Luther King, Frederick Douglas, and of course given his quote above and in light of his recent passing John Lewis. I also don't recall as a for instance Rosa Parks needing to attack anything to make a point and start to effect change

[Stom]

Meh. And fwiw I suspect the vast majority of those advocating for progressive change would agree with me that violence isn't part of an answer.

And that now as ever it's time to get into good trouble

But again, I don’t see how. Firstly because I cannot remember one single “peaceful” protest that had large scale change as a result, and secondly because the police are making it impossible to have peaceful priests with their actions towards anyone who is peaceful!

Okay, then name a violent protest which has succeeded. Also at this time how long a period and how much violence is needed, and what will change as a consequence of the violence for the better?

If I look at the progression of civil rights in the USA and at the leaders of the civil rights movement the most progress, the most building of a society has in my estimation come from the likes of Martin Luther King, Frederick Douglas, and of course given his quote above and in light of his recent passing John Lewis. I also don't recall as a for instance Rosa Parks needing to attack anything to make a point and start to effect change

MLK most definitely was involved in what you would call violent protests. The end of apartheid in SA was not what you would call peaceful. The topping of countless dictators. Popular race or religion based uprisings around the world are pretty much exclusively non peaceful.

And it wasn’t me who made an assertion, it’s your responsibility in debate to backup your claims.

The only peaceful protests I can remember having any kind of impact are white mums against things, actually, that’s seriously it.

[morepork]

These protests have pushed forward the best chance for actual reform in a generation. They have united black, brown, and white in anger like nothing has for a long time. The most agitating actors in this process are the government that are openly inciting a culture war to obscure the point of the protests, which is systemic racism from public servants. Peaceful protesting gets met with inappropriate counterinsurgency tactic from the authorities.

Who the fuck would lie down and take that?

[Puja]

But again, I don’t see how. Firstly because I cannot remember one single “peaceful” protest that had large scale change as a result, and secondly because the police are making it impossible to have peaceful priests with their actions towards anyone who is peaceful!

Okay, then name a violent protest which has succeeded. Also at this time how long a period and how much violence is needed, and what will change as a consequence of the violence for the better?

If I look at the progression of civil rights in the USA and at the leaders of the civil rights movement the most progress, the most building of a society has in my estimation come from the likes of Martin Luther King, Frederick Douglas, and of course given his quote above and in light of his recent passing John Lewis. I also don't recall as a for instance Rosa Parks needing to attack anything to make a point and start to effect change

MLK most definitely was involved in what you would call violent protests. The end of apartheid in SA was not what you would call peaceful. The topping of countless dictators. Popular race or religion based uprisings around the world are pretty much exclusively non peaceful.

And it wasn’t me who made an assertion, it’s your responsibility in debate to backup your claims.

The only peaceful protests I can remember having any kind of impact are white mums against things, actually, that’s seriously it.

The 1992 LA Riots after the beating of Rodney King resulted in legislation that allowed federal oversight of police departments and consent decrees to forcibly overhaul them if they proved recalcitrant. Wasn't a perfect solution (and has become much less so since Trump rolled them all back), but there - a concrete result of a violent protest that would not have happened without it (citation, all the other times police beat black men and no legislation happened).

Puja

[morepork]

That legal recourse is not applied objectively Digby. See Jim Crow and the civil rights movement for an example of angry protests precipitating change.

[morepork]

Armed Black Men = threat

Armed to the teeth cosplay white men = OK

https://www.theadvocate.com/acadiana/ne ... 469cb.html

What systemic racism? You gots to pro-tect yer statues, right?

[Mikey Brown]

Meh. And fwiw I suspect the vast majority of those advocating for progressive change would agree with me that violence isn't part of an answer.

And that now as ever it's time to get into good trouble

That’s fine I guess, but anyone preaching this line they’d be fully supportive of the protests were it not for the violence, while ignoring/condoning-as-necessary all the violence being used to shut down efforts at peaceful protesting, is being hugely disingenuous.

For the police, the media, the GOP, various right-wing agitators, this is a fucking gold mine. When one side so clearly has incentive and the other does not, it just seems strange to me to buy in to this idea of the legitimate protestors being the ones to instigate most of the violence/damage.

I've never stated the protesters are as a majority into violence, and the response of the police whilst hardly uniform (there is still a lot of good policing happening) is far too often appalling, and it's appalling from the police in the leadership, their culture, their tactics and their decision making on the ground.

I'm not always fully supportive of protesters just because there's no violence, I might not fully agree with their complaint(s) or their solution(s) but I'd certainly support their right to protest.

Yeah I wasn’t meaning to say that was your position on it.

[Digby]

But again, I don’t see how. Firstly because I cannot remember one single “peaceful” protest that had large scale change as a result, and secondly because the police are making it impossible to have peaceful priests with their actions towards anyone who is peaceful!

Okay, then name a violent protest which has succeeded. Also at this time how long a period and how much violence is needed, and what will change as a consequence of the violence for the better?

If I look at the progression of civil rights in the USA and at the leaders of the civil rights movement the most progress, the most building of a society has in my estimation come from the likes of Martin Luther King, Frederick Douglas, and of course given his quote above and in light of his recent passing John Lewis. I also don't recall as a for instance Rosa Parks needing to attack anything to make a point and start to effect change

MLK most definitely was involved in what you would call violent protests. The end of apartheid in SA was not what you would call peaceful. The topping of countless dictators. Popular race or religion based uprisings around the world are pretty much exclusively non peaceful.

And it wasn’t me who made an assertion, it’s your responsibility in debate to backup your claims.

The only peaceful protests I can remember having any kind of impact are white mums against things, actually, that’s seriously it.

I can accept violence in the toppling of dictators where there's no election to vote in. That simply isn't the case in the USA, and again if you're turning out 50-60% of the electorate and then telling me nothing can be done I'd feel embarrassed for you were you trying to make that claim. Voting can work, it does work, if it didn't work the GOP and the Dems wouldn't put such effort into voter suppression (granted I think the GOP much worse but the Dems don't exactly live up to their name)

What would I call violence? It's your assertion I would recognise MLK as being involved in violent protest and I'm given to understand it's your responsibility in debate to backup your claims. (Though if it speeds things up if you're talking about the militancy of non violence I'm happy to actually file that under good trouble rather than violence)

SA is an interesting example, but also hard to strip out cause and effect of the violent and peaceful protests. For me Mandela was far more successful building on a non violent message than taking direct violent action, Women's Suffrage was overwhelming peaceful as a protest, Rosa Parks and the ensuing bus boycott as mentioned some earlier in the thread, the Singing Revolution in Estonia, Ghandi ending British occupation in India, MLK's march on Washington (the I Have a Dream speech), Tiananmen Square, Vietnam War flower power, and most elections held in most democratic countries where we get to protest those in power

[Mikey Brown]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/03/us/m ... oting.html

LACEY, Wash. — Law enforcement agents shot and killed an antifa supporter on Thursday as they moved to arrest him in the fatal shooting of a right-wing activist who was part of a pro-Trump caravan in Portland, Ore., officials said.

The suspect, Michael Forest Reinoehl, 48, was shot by officers from a federally led fugitive task force during the encounter in Lacey, Wash., southwest of Seattle, according to four law enforcement officials familiar with the investigation.

Lt. Ray Brady of the Thurston County Sheriff’s Office said in an interview that the suspect being sought by the law enforcement team had exited an apartment and got into a vehicle.

“As they attempted to apprehend him, there was gunfire,” Lieutenant Brady said. He said four law enforcement officers fired their weapons.

"There was gunfire" tends to be code for the cops opening fire rather than returning it. I can't imagine them not making a point of it if the suspect had shot at them. That's certainly not anything unusual if he was armed when the cops approached him though.

There's something very odd about this story though. Antifa guy (apparently) shoots right-wing activist, does Vice interview discussing it, sets up gofundme for his kids, awaits retaliation but Police kill him first. Maybe it's weird, maybe it's actually a perfect snapshot of America right now.

[Banquo]

Quite interesting debate in here...

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/ ... e-politics

[paddy no 11]

Okay, then name a violent protest which has succeeded. Also at this time how long a period and how much violence is needed, and what will change as a consequence of the violence for the better?

If I look at the progression of civil rights in the USA and at the leaders of the civil rights movement the most progress, the most building of a society has in my estimation come from the likes of Martin Luther King, Frederick Douglas, and of course given his quote above and in light of his recent passing John Lewis. I also don't recall as a for instance Rosa Parks needing to attack anything to make a point and start to effect change

MLK most definitely was involved in what you would call violent protests. The end of apartheid in SA was not what you would call peaceful. The topping of countless dictators. Popular race or religion based uprisings around the world are pretty much exclusively non peaceful.

And it wasn’t me who made an assertion, it’s your responsibility in debate to backup your claims.

The only peaceful protests I can remember having any kind of impact are white mums against things, actually, that’s seriously it.

I can accept violence in the toppling of dictators where there's no election to vote in. That simply isn't the case in the USA, and again if you're turning out 50-60% of the electorate and then telling me nothing can be done I'd feel embarrassed for you were you trying to make that claim. Voting can work, it does work, if it didn't work the GOP and the Dems wouldn't put such effort into voter suppression (granted I think the GOP much worse but the Dems don't exactly live up to their name)

What would I call violence? It's your assertion I would recognise MLK as being involved in violent protest and I'm given to understand it's your responsibility in debate to backup your claims. (Though if it speeds things up if you're talking about the militancy of non violence I'm happy to actually file that under good trouble rather than violence)

SA is an interesting example, but also hard to strip out cause and effect of the violent and peaceful protests. For me Mandela was far more successful building on a non violent message than taking direct violent action, Women's Suffrage was overwhelming peaceful as a protest, Rosa Parks and the ensuing bus boycott as mentioned some earlier in the thread, the Singing Revolution in Estonia, Ghandi ending British occupation in India, MLK's march on Washington (the I Have a Dream speech), Tiananmen Square, Vietnam War flower power, and most elections held in most democratic countries where we get to protest those in power

Vote for who? Who's out there campaining on a ticket of National police reform to purge systematic racism, often culminating in murder

[paddy no 11]

MLK most definitely was involved in what you would call violent protests. The end of apartheid in SA was not what you would call peaceful. The topping of countless dictators. Popular race or religion based uprisings around the world are pretty much exclusively non peaceful.

And it wasn’t me who made an assertion, it’s your responsibility in debate to backup your claims.

The only peaceful protests I can remember having any kind of impact are white mums against things, actually, that’s seriously it.

I can accept violence in the toppling of dictators where there's no election to vote in. That simply isn't the case in the USA, and again if you're turning out 50-60% of the electorate and then telling me nothing can be done I'd feel embarrassed for you were you trying to make that claim. Voting can work, it does work, if it didn't work the GOP and the Dems wouldn't put such effort into voter suppression (granted I think the GOP much worse but the Dems don't exactly live up to their name)

What would I call violence? It's your assertion I would recognise MLK as being involved in violent protest and I'm given to understand it's your responsibility in debate to backup your claims. (Though if it speeds things up if you're talking about the militancy of non violence I'm happy to actually file that under good trouble rather than violence)

SA is an interesting example, but also hard to strip out cause and effect of the violent and peaceful protests. For me Mandela was far more successful building on a non violent message than taking direct violent action, Women's Suffrage was overwhelming peaceful as a protest, Rosa Parks and the ensuing bus boycott as mentioned some earlier in the thread, the Singing Revolution in Estonia, Ghandi ending British occupation in India, MLK's march on Washington (the I Have a Dream speech), Tiananmen Square, Vietnam War flower power, and most elections held in most democratic countries where we get to protest those in power

Vote for who? Who's out there campaining on a ticket of National police reform to purge systematic racism, that often culminates in murder

[Digby]

MLK most definitely was involved in what you would call violent protests. The end of apartheid in SA was not what you would call peaceful. The topping of countless dictators. Popular race or religion based uprisings around the world are pretty much exclusively non peaceful.

And it wasn’t me who made an assertion, it’s your responsibility in debate to backup your claims.

The only peaceful protests I can remember having any kind of impact are white mums against things, actually, that’s seriously it.

I can accept violence in the toppling of dictators where there's no election to vote in. That simply isn't the case in the USA, and again if you're turning out 50-60% of the electorate and then telling me nothing can be done I'd feel embarrassed for you were you trying to make that claim. Voting can work, it does work, if it didn't work the GOP and the Dems wouldn't put such effort into voter suppression (granted I think the GOP much worse but the Dems don't exactly live up to their name)

What would I call violence? It's your assertion I would recognise MLK as being involved in violent protest and I'm given to understand it's your responsibility in debate to backup your claims. (Though if it speeds things up if you're talking about the militancy of non violence I'm happy to actually file that under good trouble rather than violence)

SA is an interesting example, but also hard to strip out cause and effect of the violent and peaceful protests. For me Mandela was far more successful building on a non violent message than taking direct violent action, Women's Suffrage was overwhelming peaceful as a protest, Rosa Parks and the ensuing bus boycott as mentioned some earlier in the thread, the Singing Revolution in Estonia, Ghandi ending British occupation in India, MLK's march on Washington (the I Have a Dream speech), Tiananmen Square, Vietnam War flower power, and most elections held in most democratic countries where we get to protest those in power

Vote for who? Who's out there campaining on a ticket of National police reform to purge systematic racism, often culminating in murder

If they don't have the right candidates this time then get involved earlier in the process, vote for the candidates. Don't turn around after the fact and claim nothing can be done.

And as an aside given much of this is being driven by in large parts by an excellent BLM movement Biden is the candidate because of black voters. Biden does have things to say about police reform, perhaps not as much as some people want, and he likely talks about it in more moderate terms than will appease many, but it's not an issue neither he nor Harris will have thought about or spoken about.

I'm not much of a fan of Biden, but it does seem odd to say he's not there to represent for issues like this when he's there because of black voters

[paddy no 11]

i'm sure plenty of them will vote for him, but i doubt his ability to carried out any meaningful change

For any black people whi believe the democratic process is dead to them i wouldn't argue with them for a second

[Mikey Brown]

Voting local would do a great deal, but you can’t discount the importance of fluffing the donor base for anyone who starts to climb the ladder. You can’t separate the reliance on the rich and upholding corporate interests from the disenfranchisement of people who could never afford to be involved in such things.

Bernie fucking got it. God knows how he made it to where he did.

In regards to peaceful vs forceful/violent protests, how do you measure the resistance of their opposition in any way meaningful enough to compare? That’s not me disagreeing with anybody’s stance on how any of those historical moments went down, or would go down today, but along with the state of the media now it seems impossible to really know for sure.

[Digby]

i'm sure plenty of them will vote for him, but i doubt his ability to carried out any meaningful change

For any black people whi believe the democratic process is dead to them i wouldn't argue with them for a second

I would argue because I don't think the alternative to a democratic process is going to help anyone. Also what counts as meaningful change and how do you deliver that? Mostly societies are where they are because that's what they want, so how do you shift the behaviour of an entire society in double quick fashion? There are some interim steps which can be taken, but real structural change is likely to take time, and oftentimes will prove a Sisyphean task.

If anyone has a magic answer as to how to fix health, education, banking, environmental damage, immigration, judicial imbalance, policing, housing... such it's real and meaningful change and can be done quickly then let people know because that would be useful. The protests are a start, they open a conversation that says something needs to change but the protests don't effect actual change, and violence, blame, fear as well as adding pressure for change, and they do, will also delay and create pushback.

[Digby]

As an alternative to discussing the merits of violence in a good cause where do people stand on the issue of Washington DC statehood? Which is to say should DC become its own state granting it full voting powers on a par with other states? And then maybe should similar be done in Puerto Rico?

I'm in the camp that says yes, but I recognise that's a big change, the GOP will dislike putting 4 almost certainly safe Democratic seats into the Senate (you'd like to think that shouldn't be an issue but reality says otherwise) so is the best bet to hold out for statehood, or are there other steps which would be seen by many as falling short of interim steps but might actually happen in the near to medium term?