Support NeoGAF

[benjipwns]

Nationality can also unite a nation in a time when they have to unite, see the events of world war 1 and 2.

So can establishing totalitarian states that arrest citizens for protesting slavery/war or being of a certain ethnicity, see the events of World War I and II.

And flag burning / not voting is disrespectful to veterans, imo.

Thankfully, you're here to argue on behalf of veterans that they only fought for the concept of rights, not to actually protect or preserve them.

 

[benjipwns]

In the same way freedom of speech does not give one the right to incite panic by shouting fire in a theater.

That was an analogy used to justify the arrest and suppression of those opposed to slavery. Not a legal holding.

And you left off the "falsely" part of Holmes' vile quote.

And we're supposed to be beyond this: http://www.theatlantic.com/national...g-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

Please pay no heed to armchair revolutionaries who tell you your vote does not matter. Again, this is a conflation of revolutionary politics and the actual context of the 2016 General Election. It will be easy for you to defeat Trump nationwide and put his campaign to bed because the majority of the electorate is opposed to him.

I don't see how the latter makes someones vote matter.

 

[Hexa]

Thankfully, you're here to argue on behalf of veterans that they only fought for the concept of rights, not to actually protect or preserve them.

Once again, expressing a negative opinion on something does not constitute calling for something to be made illegal or for freedoms along those lines to be limited. Just because something is legal obviously doesn't mean you can't dislike it.
Furthermore if what you're implying is that any use of freedom is automatically respectful of veterans because they fought for freedom that makes little sense. Veterans having fought for rights doesn't mean all uses of such rights is automatically respecting them, nor that the usage of such rights can't be disrespectful towards them, ie saying "Fuck veterans" would obviously be freedom of speech and a right they fought to protect and preserve, but would also clearly be disrespectful towards them.

 

[benjipwns]

Enjoying your liberties isn't respectful or disrespectful to anyone inherently.

Regarding the content. Burning a flag, as long as its yours, doesn't disrespect anyone. Not voting, under any circumstances, doesn't disrespect anyone.

In neither case are veterans somehow set off from everyone else and are in this case are simply being used as but a propaganda tool to fail and shame someone for supposedly offending an entire class of diverse individuals who merely share a past profession/experience/position.

The idea that not voting is an attack on veterans is a far more shameful than burning a flag could ever represent.

 

[Christopher]

Enjoying your liberties isn't respectful or disrespectful to anyone inherently.

Regarding the content. Burning a flag, as long as its yours, doesn't disrespect anyone. Not voting, under any circumstances, doesn't disrespect anyone.

In neither case are veterans somehow set off from everyone else and are in this case are simply being used as but a propaganda tool to fail and shame someone for supposedly offending an entire class of diverse individuals who merely share a past profession/experience/position.

The idea that not voting is an attack on veterans is a far more shameful than burning a flag could ever represent.

Burning a flag doesn't disrespect anyone...???

 

[benjipwns]

Why would it? I mean, unless it was your flag. Or maybe if you were wrapped in it. That could be somewhat disrespectful.

 

[Darkangel]

Why would it? I mean, unless it was your flag. Or maybe if you were wrapped in it. That could be somewhat disrespectful.

Seriously?

You can't comprehend why people might be upset when a symbol that represents them is disrespected?

 

[Malfunky]

Seriously?

You can't comprehend why people might be upset when a symbol that represents them is disrespected?

They can be upset all they want. The American flag is an oppressive symbol to a lot of people. Probably the majority of the world. Don't you think they have a right to express themselves that way? Or does it hurt your sensibilities too much? I mean, really. Respecting the flag means respecting our right to dissent. You're fetishizing the damn thing if you get riled up over it.

 

[benjipwns]

It doesn't represent them.

The flag != the state != the nation != the people != you or me.

The flag represents, in the select instance, whatever the people burning their own flag think it does. I don't care what they think it represents, it's their flag and their business, why do you think it's an attack on yourself or your ideals?

I can understand if someone is a fascist and thus thinks a symbol literally represents the totalitarian state and so they'd be upset since it's an attack on the all-encompassing state but I would imagine most think individuals exist separately from the states within which they reside. And also recognize that symbols are not, in fact, the things themselves.

 

[BennyBlanco]

They can be upset all they want. The American flag is an oppressive symbol to a lot of people. Probably the majority of the world. Don't you think they have a right to express themselves that way? Or does it hurt your sensibilities too much? I mean, really. Respecting the flag means respecting our right to dissent. You're fetishizing the damn thing if you get riled up over it.

i would never get worked up over some edgelord burning a flag, but it's something people do intentionally trying to get a rise out of people so nobody should be surprised when it happens

 

[sphagnum]

Violence isn't inherently bad. There are absolutely legitimate times to use violence. It's inherently distasteful and upsetting but it is incredibly naïve and silly to say that violence in and of itself is morally wrong. Anyone who thinks that is either a pacifist or a hypocrite.

Usually violence isn't the best idea for a protest because of the bad optics, but that doesn't make it illegitimate or "wrong". You just have to calculate when is the best time to use what tactic.

 

[BennyBlanco]

Violence isn't inherently bad. There are absolutely legitimate times to use violence. It's inherently distasteful and upsetting but it is incredibly naïve and silly to say that violence in and of itself is morally wrong. Anyone who thinks that is either a pacifist or a hypocrite.

Usually violence isn't the best idea for a protest because of the bad optics, but that doesn't make it illegitimate or "wrong". You just have to calculate when is the best time to use what tactic.

Yeah, it's inherently wrong to violently attack people for having different political views. Whats wrong with you?

 

[Claude Augario]

It's interesting someone that could potentially become leader of the free world has threatened to build walls, ruin families and ban people of certain faiths with resounding support elicits less offense in this thread than people that will be directly harmed by that toxic rhetoric burning the flag that "represents" the people that want to harm them!

 

[sphagnum]

Yeah, it's inherently wrong to violently attack people for having different political views. Whats wrong with you?

Do you disagree that there are legitimate times to use violence? Because that's what I was arguing.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

It's interesting someone that could potentially become leader of the free world has threatened to build walls, ruin families and ban people of certain faiths with resounding support elicits less offense in this thread than people that will be directly harmed by that toxic rhetoric burning the flag that "represents" the people that want to harm them!

.

 

[User1608]

It's interesting someone that could potentially become leader of the free world has threatened to build walls, ruin families and ban people of certain faiths with resounding support elicits less offense in this thread than people that will be directly harmed by that toxic rhetoric burning the flag that "represents" the people that want to harm them!

That's because they don't give a damn about any of us.

 

[BennyBlanco]

Do you disagree that there are legitimate times to use violence? Because that's what I was arguing.

Yeah I do agree, but a Donald Trump rally certainly isn't one of them and that's what this thread is about.

 

[sphagnum]

"If only someone had stopped the Nazis before they came to power!"
"Ok" *attacks fascists*
"What are you doing, don't you know they have rights?! What a barbarian!"

Yeah I do agree, but a Donald Trump rally certainly isn't one of them and that's what this thread is about.

I don't have much regard for the rights of the centurions of the capitalist state.

 

[BennyBlanco]

"If only someone had stopped the Nazis before they came to power!"
"Ok" *attacks fascists*
"What are you doing, don't you know they have rights?! What a barbarian!"



I don't have much regard for the rights of the centurions of the capitalist state.

So what exactly are you suggesting here? You sound like a real badass, man.

 

[sphagnum]

So what exactly are you suggesting here? You sound like a real badass, man.

I'm suggesting that it's not morally indefensible for protestors to smash police car windows?

 

[BennyBlanco]

I'm suggesting that it's not morally indefensible for protestors to smash police car windows?

That's destruction of property, not violence.

 

[spwolf]

It's interesting someone that could potentially become leader of the free world has threatened to build walls, ruin families and ban people of certain faiths with resounding support elicits less offense in this thread than people that will be directly harmed by that toxic rhetoric burning the flag that "represents" the people that want to harm them!

from the outsiders view, this seems like it would benefit Trump, unite his possible voters who might be undecided still, and motivate them to go and vote so Trump can "fix whats wrong with America".

So this is a great favour to Trump campaign and that sucks.

 

[Darkangel]

They can be upset all they want. The American flag is an oppressive symbol to a lot of people. Probably the majority of the world. Don't you think they have a right to express themselves that way? Or does it hurt your sensibilities too much? I mean, really. Respecting the flag means respecting our right to dissent. You're fetishizing the damn thing if you get riled up over it.

They're free to do whatever they want, I just think it's weird that some people don't understand why others would be upset.

This whole protest just seems poorly planned out to me. I mean, they decided to protest a candidate by waving the flag of a foreign country and burning their own? It certainly isn't going to help dispel the "not real Americans" rhetoric.

I don't have much regard for the rights of the centurions of the capitalist state.

Remind me to bring my boxing gloves to the next CPUSA picnic.

 

[benjipwns]

That's destruction of property, not violence.

They're not mutually exclusive.

 

[BennyBlanco]

They're not mutually exclusive.

Right, but one is way more extreme than the other. Advocating violently attacking people for attending a fucking rally is way over the top.

 

[MHWilliams]

First of all, let's just take all these posts conflating this protest with the civil rights movement and throw them in the trash where they belong.

The following are neither civil nor universal human rights:

a) the right to wealth
b) the right to violate immigration laws
c) the right to freedom from the views and opinions of political opponents
d) the right to commit vandalism or assault because you are angry

Ah, but the right to protest is indeed universal. That some resort to violence has little to do with the rest and the views being represented. So, let's drop that.

Let's also discuss some realities. Protest movements have not, in a shocking exclusive reveal, uncovered Trump's unsavoury opinions, policies or positions. He has said those things himself, and the media has amplified that to the whole country. Does that mean more sympathizers have heard his message? Yes. Does it mean vastly more critics have heard it too? Also yes. There is no scoop here, nothing people haven't known for months. Millions of people tuned into the debates and tens if not hundreds of thousands have watched his rallies, or at least, the bits where he said the bad stuff. All of that is being broadcast by an excitable media for so long now that it has, and still is to an extent, dominating the national news. It even started bleeding over into this forum when for some time there were anywhere between 2-4 Trump topics on the front page.

Those who feel they've been misrepresented and maligned by Trump's hate speech aren't allowed to protest? Already covered most of this. That's not the point of protest. Protest is not an informative action. It's a collective one, as I pointed out before; these people are expressing their collective viewpoint and letting others know they are not alone.

Let's dive back into a previous protest that people were absolutely sure was wrong: Black Lives Matter and Bernie Sanders. At the time, people were up and down that they were protesting the wrong people. They said it was done poorly. They said nothing would come of it.

And yet, it ultimately had a tangible effect on the Democratic Primary. Collective visibility does that at times. Collective visibility is one tool, one that is followed by direct action, which is more nuanced and informative. Because again, protest as a tool of messaging tends to be rather poor.

Please pay no heed to armchair revolutionaries who tell you your vote does not matter. Again, this is a conflation of revolutionary politics and the actual context of the 2016 General Election. It will be easy for you to defeat Trump nationwide and put his campaign to bed because the majority of the electorate is opposed to him.

Hey, this is a good point, one I've stated previously in other threads. This is not revolutionary information, but good on you.

Lastly, the implication that it is racist to suggest leftists not commit violence or property damage is a worthless smokescreen intended to shield themselves from any wrong doing by using the R-word to strong arm the argument away from the inconvenient interjections from moderates who live in real life.

Violence is bad. Violent protests aren't good. Understanding how people came to that point is however, pretty easy, and attempting to ignore that is myopic at best.

And furthermore, if a protest going poorly - this is the end of multiple days of peaceful protest, mind you - is the straw that pushes you into Trump's rhetoric, then you were already sympathetic to that rhetoric. If 500 people protest and 20 of them turn to violence, do the other non-violent protestors and their grievances cease to matter? This seems to be the argument I'm seeing.

Violence isn't inherently bad. There are absolutely legitimate times to use violence. It's inherently distasteful and upsetting but it is incredibly naïve and silly to say that violence in and of itself is morally wrong. Anyone who thinks that is either a pacifist or a hypocrite.

Usually violence isn't the best idea for a protest because of the bad optics, but that doesn't make it illegitimate or "wrong". You just have to calculate when is the best time to use what tactic.

That said, this argument is a non-starter in this particular situation. Violence in protest tends to come from an emotional place and I understand that, but it's not the best way to go about it.

And on the flag-burning, I understand why people might dislike the fact that it's being burned. Part of that visibility as a personal symbol is why it can be used for personal and political protest. So I get those who are angry about it, but I also understand those that malign it in protest.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Enjoying your liberties isn't respectful or disrespectful to anyone inherently.

Regarding the content. Burning a flag, as long as its yours, doesn't disrespect anyone. Not voting, under any circumstances, doesn't disrespect anyone.

I'd beg to differ on the first one and on the second one.... you're actively being a part of shitting on our country because you are selfish.

 

[benjipwns]

you're actively being a part of shitting on our country because you are selfish.

Nein: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=202322037#post202322037

 

[Enzom21]

Burning a flag doesn't disrespect anyone...???

Who does it disrespect? I thought you loved the freedom in this country?

 

[sphagnum]

That said, this argument is a non-starter in this particular situation. Violence in protest tends to come from an emotional place and I understand that, but it's not the best way to go about it.

I agree. I'm not comfortable with castigating the protestors though. For me it's all about what fits best for what situation.

 

[Pepboy]

Ah, but the right to protest is indeed universal. That some resort to violence has little to do with the rest and the views being represented. So, let's drop that.

First, the right to protest is not universal. There are international agreements, like the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but even a quick look at Wikipedia will tell you there are exceptions and limitations if it is "in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Protests which have a history of becoming violent, as the anti-Trump protests are quickly becoming, do indeed infringe on public safety, public order, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. As a result of these violent protests, rally goers would be justified in fearing for their safety.

Within the US, there are also states and local districts that do have codified rules on the right to protest. Even the ACLU admits that violent protests, or protests that could become intimidating, are not "universally" acceptable:

At the same time, there may be limited situations where protesters obstruct or intimidate people who are exercising their own constitutional rights. Where the facts demonstrate that aggressive protest inhibits other citizens in the exercise of their rights, we weigh the competing constitutional rights at stake and assist the courts in analyzing these tough issues.

Furthermore, though you may wish to construe this as the act of a small minority, it is now becoming a trend.

It happened in Chicago, after which several protestors were arrested for violence, including striking 2 police officers:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/politics/donald-trump-chicago-protests/

There are now plans for an upcoming protest in Cleveland, the site of the Republic Convention, which has resulted in the Cleveland police purchasing $20 million worth of riot gear (2000 suits, more than the number of police in Cleveland):

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/29/11535528/trump-orange-county-violence

So, even though you have a privileged position of authority here on NeoGAF, could you please stop telling other posters not to discuss the societal implications of protesting based on your personal viewpoints and biases? It is moderation like this that runs the risk of NeoGAF becoming even more of an echo chamber.

Those who feel they've been misrepresented and maligned by Trump's hate speech aren't allowed to protest?

Certainly they are. Personally I believe they should protest further from the site of the actual events in order to protect the safety of individuals who wish to engage in their constitutional right to assemble peacefully (going to the Trump rallies).

That may or may not be a current law in some states, but even if it wasn't, that doesn't mean we should not be able to discuss the ramifications for and against it. Just because you approve of a seemingly unlimited right to protest, does not mean that we should not be allowed to peacefully discuss it.

And furthermore, if a protest going poorly - this is the end of multiple days of peaceful protest, mind you - is the straw that pushes you into Trump's rhetoric, then you were already sympathetic to that rhetoric. If 500 people protest and 20 of them turn to violence, do the other non-violent protestors and their grievances cease to matter? This seems to be the argument I'm seeing.

I personally would not go to a Trump Rally. But I do support the right for political candidates to reach out to their potential constituents. At this point, if Trump were a political figure I would want to hear more from, I would be honestly concerned for my personal safety if I were to attend one of his rallies, specifically because the anti-Trump protests have started down this trend of violence.

That said, this argument is a non-starter in this particular situation. Violence in protest tends to come from an emotional place and I understand that, but it's not the best way to go about it.

On this we can agree, although I would say it's not just "not the best way" but rather the most terrible way to go about it.

 

[daniels]

Do you disagree that there are legitimate times to use violence? Because that's what I was arguing.

Yet if trump supporters punch idiotic people that show up in a kkk costume in the face half of gaf falls over itself in fake outrage, same with the women that did not get pushed to the ground and not even a video could convince some people on here.. until it even got thrown out by the lawyer with the words that "jeb got more reason to sue than this women".
But here destruction of property, attack of innocent people, attack on police in other anti trump demos we had hindering ambulances and we even had an actual attempt on trump on a stage... and you get almost nothing but excuses on here no matter what happens.
So as always its the typical liberal bullshit view of "Hey trump supporter violence is BAAAD! unless we do it of course
case in point https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn7fCT7zkaQ

 

[Claude Augario]

from the outsiders view, this seems like it would benefit Trump, unite his possible voters who might be undecided still, and motivate them to go and vote so Trump can "fix whats wrong with America".

So this is a great favour to Trump campaign and that sucks.

The mere existence of minorities "benefits" Trump because his platform is built on white supremacy. It's an extension of America's favorite pastime of scapegoating minorities. That's why the riots don't matter - respectability politics exists in an alternate reality where victim blaming is the norm. Trump and his supporters were gunning for them before the first rock was thrown and no riots wouldn't have changed a fucking thing about Trump's campaign, but it did let him and the world know that not everyone in America is going to roll over and let him threaten to destroy their livelihoods without a fight.

That's why the "this helps Trump" arguments are null. There is no quantitative measure of how much more of a threat Trump is now than he was before some car windows got smashed. The reason we are here now is because he's already a threat and he already has support. The things he's threatened to do to America aren't something anyone would be on the fence about. There is no Streisand Effect here - everyone knows him, knows what he stands for, and his media representation's been in overdrive for months.

 

[Tigress]

That post keeps bringing up Gandhi and MLK and that's the problem, those people, leaders of that caliber don't grow on trees and you can't expect them to. Every community would GREATLY benefit from having leaders like that, able to pull everyone together, able to voice their group'a wants and desires in a clear way everyone understands, and re-direct the energy that would normally lead to violence into something else.

The rest of the time when you don't have people like that you're gonna get the next thing that people know will always get acknowledged and leads to change(for better or worse) violence.

Ghandi was also on the backs of decades of armed and violent Indian independence movements, they were even violent when Ghandi was was at his prominence. There is still a lot of ignorance regarding Indian independence, it wasn't just Ghandi that got the British to pull out. Protests need to disruptive to be effective, people who claim anger to protests likely never supported the causes to begin with.

The point is more to say that when you protest you want to get people sympathetic to you. To complain that people claiming anger would never support the protest says that you think protesting is for preaching to the choir at which point, what is the point if it only reaches those who already agree with you? And I assure you some who agree with you about why to protest still won't endorse how you protest (because you are representing them too). And they have every right to disagree and even voice it. In fact if they think you are doing more harm then good, they should voice their concerns and show that not everyone endorses that behavior.

You will get people more sympathetic if you protest in a way that makes you look "innocent" but can provoke the other side into looking like the bad guys by a violent or bad reaction (particularly if you can get them to act I. A way that shows exactly why you are protesting them). Which was my point which seemed to be missed entirely (as the replies seem to focus on ghandi and not the principles behind peaceful protest).

In fact I am betting as I said before trump loves these protests getting out of hand when he can blame that side cause that principle is working for him. He can look like his supporters are blameless and just want to practice their right of free speech and these other people are being violent and trying to shut him down. I'd even venture he encourages it. In fact he's using the principles I mentioned in a way. He's provoking the violent/bad response to make the other side look the unreasonable one.

 

[interactivemonodrama]

This is why Trump is going to win

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Yet if trump supporters punch idiotic people that show up in a kkk costume in the face half of gaf falls over itself in fake outrage, same with the women that did not get pushed to the ground and not even a video could convince some people on here.. until it even got thrown out by the lawyer with the words that "jeb got more reason to sue than this women".
But here destruction of property, attack of innocent people, attack on police in other anti trump demos we had hindering ambulances and we even had an actual attempt on trump on a stage... and you get almost nothing but excuses on here no matter what happens.
So as always its the typical liberal bullshit view of "Hey trump supporter violence is BAAAD! unless we do it of course
case in point https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn7fCT7zkaQ

Won't someone please think of the fascists!

 

[Vicetrailia]

This is why Trump is going to win

More here.

 

[Henkka]

Do you disagree that there are legitimate times to use violence? Because that's what I was arguing.

I'm suggesting that it's not morally indefensible for protestors to smash police car windows?

Nobody is saying there aren't legitimate times to use violence, and nobody is talking about smashing windows. The way you're tapdancing around the issue makes you look like a coward.

This is why Trump is going to win

These people don't believe in the values of a liberal democracy. They're just totalitarians of a different colour than Trump.

 

[Carl2291]

More here.

These videos man. Watching them pushing him around really grinds my gears. The guy is trying to walk away from you, let him walk away. They're like a bunch of hyenas around him... And the guy who has to cover up his face? That says it all.

Cowards.

 

[commedieu]

The point is more to say that when you protest you want to get people sympathetic to you. To complain that people claiming anger would never support the protest says that you think protesting is for preaching to the choir at which point, what is the point if it only reaches those who already agree with you? And I assure you some who agree with you about why to protest still won't endorse how you protest (because you are representing them too). And they have every right to disagree and even voice it. In fact if they think you are doing more harm then good, they should voice their concerns and show that not everyone endorses that behavior.

You will get people more sympathetic if you protest in a way that makes you look "innocent" but can provoke the other side into looking like the bad guys by a violent or bad reaction (particularly if you can get them to act I. A way that shows exactly why you are protesting them). Which was my point which seemed to be missed entirely (as the replies seem to focus on ghandi and not the principles behind peaceful protest).

In fact I am betting as I said before trump loves these protests getting out of hand when he can blame that side cause that principle is working for him. He can look like his supporters are blameless and just want to practice their right of free speech and these other people are being violent and trying to shut him down. I'd even venture he encourages it. In fact he's using the principles I mentioned in a way. He's provoking the violent/bad response to make the other side look the unreasonable one.

This logic is missing a huge factor.


People should be sympathetic at the treatment of minorities in the usa.


They are not. Thus, why the protests are the bottom of the barrel social response.


People have had time to hear people out. No one cares and fuck all has happened. That's why you have a protest. I feel like america just doesn't get what protesting is anymore. For a country so proud of property damage, Boston tea party. It's a shame that people can't protest anymore unless they are abiding by some logic that people who don't really give a damn about their problems, are demanding.

If you haven't been on the "side" of the issues trump and the gop has stirred up. You won't be. It's not like this protest is going to make people with this mindset go "holy shit THAT'S going on????" That's not what a protest is for. JFK said it best. But people have been denied a voice for some time now, and shit has come to a total boiling point in this nation.



You know people don't give a shit about racism and bigotry, as is proven by people saying that there are sides to it. That's why there are protests. There aren't any sides to trumps fascisim. And yes, there are a lot of racists in the GOP, and liberals who don't give a shit, and don't want to see property damaged by brown people. That's why there are protests and riots. America let it go this far. We as an entire nation have, by being in denial about how far we aren't from our recent history.

This is why it's going to continue, and it doesn't matter if people aren't on the side of the protestors.


They were never on the side of the protestors to begin with.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

This logic is missing a huge factor.


People should be sympathetic at the treatment of minorities in the usa.


They are not. Thus, why the protests are the bottom of the barrel social response.


People have had time to hear people out. No one cares and fuck all has happened. That's why you have a protest. I feel like america just doesn't get what protesting is anymore. For a country so proud of property damage, Boston tea party. It's a shame that people can't protest anymore unless they are abiding by some logic that people who don't really give a damn about their problems, are demanding.

If you haven't been on the "side" of the issues trump and the gop has stirred up. You won't be. It's not like this protest is going to make people with this mindset go "holy shit THAT'S going on????" That's not what a protest is for. JFK said it best. But people have been denied a voice for some time now, and shit has come to a total boiling point in this nation.



You know people don't give a shit about racism and bigotry, as is proven by people saying that there are sides to it. That's why there are protests. There aren't any sides to trumps fascisim. And yes, there are a lot of racists in the GOP, and liberals who don't give a shit, and don't want to see property damaged by brown people. That's why there are protests and riots. America let it go this far. We as an entire nation have, by being in denial about how far we aren't from our recent history.

This is why it's going to continue, and it doesn't matter if people aren't on the side of the protestors.


They were never on the side of the protestors to begin with.

Yep.

There's so much "this is just bolstering Trump supporters" without any awareness that complaining about methods of protest instead of what the protest is about bolsters protestors. You're looking at their anger and deciding you care more about everyone behaving for your own peace of mind than supporting the dismantling of oppressive forces.

 

[E92 M3]

Won't someone please think of the fascists!

That's a dumb response laced with ignorance.

Instead of trying to evoke fake emotion, try making a real counterpoint.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

That's a dumb response laced with ignorance.

Instead of trying to evoke fake emotion, try making a real counterpoint.

im not trying to evoke any emotion. there's no counterpoint to make. fascists and their supporters dont deserve the time of day no matter what.

 

[E92 M3]

im not trying to evoke any emotion. there's no counterpoint to make. fascists and their supporters dont deserve the time of day no matter what.

You're purposely using loaded language. The United States will never turn into a fascist state.

 

[sphagnum]

Nobody is saying there aren't legitimate times to use violence, and nobody is talking about smashing windows. The way you're tapdancing around the issue makes you look like a coward.

Throwing rocks at random cars is stupid and violence is not always the best choice for a protest because it can be counterproductive. But let me state as clearly as I can, since apparently I wasn't clear before, that I have no problems with fascists being violently suppressed if other methods fail. They are not a hypothetical threat that we can armchair philosophize about, they are a literal, real threat that must be defeated.

These people don't believe in the values of a liberal democracy.

You're right!

They're just totalitarians of a different colour than Trump.

You're wrong.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

You're purposely using loaded language. The United States will never turn into a fascist state.

It will never turn into a fascist state? probably not due to protests like these...

Is it loaded language when the leading candidate for one party is a fascist or displays many fascist ideas and tendencies?

 

[E92 M3]

It will never turn into a fascist state? probably not due to protests like these...

Is it loaded language when the leading candidate for one party is a fascist or displays many fascist ideas and tendencies?

We have the constitution and various arms of government to make sure it doesn't; not protests where people throw rocks at random cars.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

We have the constitution and various arms of government to make sure it doesn't; not protests where people throw rocks at random cars.

a constitution that:

a) considered black people 3/5 of a person for census reasons
b) allowed slavery
c) "separate but equal"
d) only land owning men could vote.
etc.

the constitution isn't some perfect infallible object. Preventing the rise of white supremacy (again) is necessary and the constitution won't protect that considering it was built on white supremacy in the first place.

 

[sphagnum]

The Constitution only matters if it's protected by force. It is just a piece of paper otherwise.

Demographics are trending in such a way that a white fascist government will likely be impossible in the future, but we have to make sure that we don't get to that point now. Considering how much other stuff presidents get away with, I don't know why we should expect that Trump wouldn't just trample on the Constitution anyway. Thankfully he's said and done so much stuff that he will almost certainly lose this election, but he's rallying up a white populist base that isn't going to go away and may only get more rabid, and they need to know that their politics are not welcome here.

 

[ipukespiders]

white populist base that isn't going to go away and may only get more rabid, and they need to know that their politics are not welcome here.

Does not welcome "here" mean the United States, or more specifically NeoGAF?