Activism and Violence

Pages

For all your needs to Politic and Controverse about the efficacy, morality, and personal experiences/perspectives regarding violence and political activism.

I have no idea where that line is between staying inside the law and acts outside the law. I did just tour the bus Rosa Parks sat in at the Henry Ford in Detroit and it seemed like finding the line is often difficult and painful but in the end we are stronger by struggling to find it rather than ignoring the issue.

We're taught in school that non-violent resistance is always the way to go, and that violent resistance will always turn more people against you than--on your own side or the opposing side--than it moves closer to you.

As I said in the other thread, I strongly suspect that, like most things we learn in High School, and especially in the Social Studies, this is a very simplistic and less than 100% accurate viewpoint. I think that some amount of teeth in your movement simply has to be more optimal (from a results standpoint) than none, but overall even with those doubts I think that "nonviolent resistance is best" is a pretty good and accurate working approximation of the truth.

When I hear people say things like "we need to teach Trump supporters to fear reprisal of their violent idealogy, they are fundementally cowards, if people stand up to them they'll back down" I think "we need to teach Islamic fundamentalists to fear reprisal of their violent idealogy, they are fundementally cowards". Drone strikes and torture have been pretty ineffective at teaching the cowards to back down, instead that strategy drove ever increasing recruitment for various insurgent groups.

Note that I am not stating that punching a Trump supporter is on the same level, morally or in magnitude of violence, as a drone strike. I am tying them together based on the--I strongly believe--similar and incorrect rationale for the violence. Human beings have a tremendously hard time with moral shades of gray, by default we seem to assign people we agree with all the virtues, and people we disagree with all the vices. So our opponents are always cowards, and violence will always quell them. That just doesn't seem to be true. While people and small groups can be cowardly, large groups of humans rarely seem to actually ever behave like cowards. Maybe it's because they aren't actually cowards, maybe it's because human beings mostly seem to think they are lucky and some bad thing that is going to befall their group won't effect them, I don't know.

Suffice it to say, that I am intensely skeptical anytime anyone--anyone says that a little bit of violence is going to convince a large group of opponents that they are wrong and need to back off. This is regardless of my opinions of the aims of the person/group in question.

farley3k wrote:

I have no idea where that line is between staying inside the law and acts outside the law. I did just tour the bus Rosa Parks sat in at the Henry Ford in Detroit and it seemed like finding the line is often difficult and painful but in the end we are stronger by struggling to find it rather than ignoring the issue.

I think that illegal protest and violent protest are entirely separate issues. I can't think of any leader of nonviolent protest that wasn't also a leader in illegal acts to protest.

"Civil disobedience" by definition refers to illegal acts. Sitting in the front of a bus? Illegal act. Drinking out of a white water fountain? Illegal act. Sitting in a "White's Only" section of the diner? Illegal act. Trespassing on to a vehicle lot and chaining yourself to a bulldozer? Illegal act.

But none of those are in any way violent. A nonviolent civil disobedient protester breaks the unjust law (in the civil rights cases) or breaks a non-violent law in order to increase the impact of their actions in a completely non violent way (blocking equipment, entrances, streets) and then does not resist the arrest that happens as a result of breaking that law.

I asked a similar question in the other thread, and I'll ask it here.

As a marginalized person who is actively targeted by the opposition party, to the point where eliminating my civil rights is a written fixture of their official platform, how much of a threat am I expected to endure to to my ability to exist without persecution before I can act violently to resist it?

With some exceptions (and I thank DSGamer for his honest answer), the general sentiment seems to be that there is no upper limit, and I will always be condemnable for it.

Do I have to wait until their proposed policies are implemented, all the while hoping that they aren't? Do I literally have to wait until there's a gun to my head? Do I get to act before there's no realistic chance of fighting back?

(Lifting what I wrote in the other thread)

I urge anybody who is interested in understanding my strong denunciation of agitation / physical violence enacted against people who support a politician to listen to the latest Common Sense by Dan Carlin entitled "Disengaging the Lizard Brain."

Carlin is best known for the exceptional Hardcore History podcast, and I think his knowledge of history when applied to current events is illuminating.

I feel that there is a high standard to be met before violence is enacted against somebody. I think the standard should be very high indeed to enact violence against somebody engaging in protected speech, and higher still when that person is a citizen supporting a candidate and not somebody actively engaging in the behavior one is protesting against.

Disregarding the rule of law is something not to be done lightly. Aside from the morality of it, there's the practical question of whether it even has a useful impact in furthering your agenda.

Freyja wrote:

As a marginalized person who is actively targeted by the opposition party, to the point where eliminating my civil rights is a written fixture of their official platform, how much of a threat am I expected to endure to to my ability to exist without persecution before I can act violently to resist it?

I think there is a line where you do just have to use some degree of physical force. For example, ignoring a schoolyard bully and letting him/her beat up on you every day and throw you headfirst into a trashcan just doesn't work to make the bullying stop. Sometimes you just need to give the jerk the old one-two punch in the nose regardless of whether or not fighting is against the rules.

I don't know exactly where the line is, but I feel that once it's crossed, it shouldn't be out of a sense of hatred or revenge, but more as in you doing what you have to do to protect yourself, get the job done, etc. You do what you need to do and then stop once it's no longer necessary. Just make sure it *is* necessary.

Freyja wrote:

I asked a similar question in the other thread, and I'll ask it here.

As a marginalized person who is actively targeted by the opposition party, to the point where eliminating my civil rights is a written fixture of their official platform, how much of a threat am I expected to endure to to my ability to exist without persecution before I can act violently to resist it?

With some exceptions (and I thank DSGamer for his honest answer), the general sentiment seems to be that there is no upper limit, and I will always be condemnable for it.

Do I have to wait until their proposed policies are implemented, all the while hoping that they aren't? Do I literally have to wait until there's an gun to my head?

As in should you punch some random conservative/Trump supporter/Transphobic person in the face because they support a law/platform/policy that would cause you direct distress?

Is it justified as self defense, I thick that would involve the particulars.

Is it justified morally, that depends on a person's philosophy.

Is it justified as a protest, personally I would weigh the potential gains against the potential negatives and be motivated by what gained me/my cause the most.

For the first two the parallel I would look to is "stand your ground" laws. If you think those are wrong then preemptive violence as a form of protest should be wrong.

First of all "condemn" is a pretty strong word. I don't know of a single person in that thread other than Norman that wasn't making some distinction between the violence enacted by the group that first seized on violent rhetoric and violent action, and the group that became afraid in response to that violent rhetoric and responded to the first group with violence of their own.

Various people responded with a variety of input on different spectrums of "violent activism (for a just/defensive cause) is morally acceptable and effective", "violent activism is ineffective regardless of moral acceptability", "violent activism for a just cause is understandable and natural compared to violent activism for an unjust cause, but still wrong" and "violence is unacceptable/immoral regardless of the justice of your cause". Your responses convey that you are rejecting that nuance, but it's still there. Only the second and last groupings could defensibly be said to be "condemning" you.

To answer your question

Freyja wrote:

how much of a threat am I expected to endure to to my ability to exist without persecution before I can act violently to resist it?

I don't think that your barrier of justifiable violent resistance is any different from anyone else. You are allowed to act in self defense in response to physical harm to you or someone in your presence, or when you feel that that physical harm is directly, immediately imminent. For example, seeing a Trump supporter at a rally and kicking them from behind would not be justifiable self defense. If that Trump supporter cornered you in a bathroom and started threatening you then you could justifiably feel that harm to you was imminent and then could strike first.

I don't think that attacking Trump supporters at rallies are justifiable actions for a lot of reasons. I think that it would feed into their world view that the left in general and trans-people in particular are a threat to them and America. I think that it lessens the strength of the communal belief that violence and politics shouldn't mix. I think it brings a political group a portion of moral high ground that they don't deserve.

Let's completely arbitrarily say that 2% of Trump supporters would attack a trans-person in a bathroom with a 3-1 numerical advantage. After you attack a Trump supporter at a rally are you safer? Has that 2% number gone down? Have Trump supporters started going to the bathroom in smaller groups, so even if they would attack a Trans person they don't feel like they have the numbers to do so? Or are there now 3% of Trump supporters willing to attack Trans people, and are they more likely to go to the bathroom in small groups because the potential for violent conflict with a trans person is now higher in their mind?

Does aiding a politician to gain power who's party policies include revoking my civil rights (and therefore creating an environment where physical assaults against me more likely to both occur and to go unpunished) not constitute a threat? If yes, how I am I permitted to respond to that threat?

Freyja wrote:

Does aiding a politician to gain power who's party policies include revoking my civil rights (and therefore creating an environment where physical assaults against me more likely) not constitute a threat? If yes, how I am I permitted to respond to that threat?

I would be interested in your response to your own questions. Is this something you're exploring or something you've settled on already?

Certis wrote:
Freyja wrote:

Does aiding a politician to gain power who's party policies include revoking my civil rights (and therefore creating an environment where physical assaults against me more likely) not constitute a threat? If yes, how I am I permitted to respond to that threat?

I would be interested in your response to your own questions. Is this something you're exploring or something you've settled on already?

I'd say right now I'm at 'Yes, it is an existential threat to me' and 'I don't know yet', respectively.

Freyja wrote:

Does aiding a politician to gain power who's party policies include revoking my civil rights (and therefore creating an environment where physical assaults against me more likely to both occur and to go unpunished) not constitute a threat? If yes, how I am I permitted to respond to that threat?

Here's how I'd challenge you on this point:

Do you feel that enacting physical violence against a Trump supporter furthers your agenda?

Because I'll be honest, I can only see it as hurting. It may feel good in the moment, and you may even feel that it's justified, but pragmatically do you think it helps? I would suggest that, for most Americans, that kind of protest is most likely to create a negative image of the protesters instead of their target.

This is why peaceful protest has been advocated for. If you are trying to act in a democracy, your course forward is to win hearts and minds. Does violence do that in and of itself? Is it a sound strategy? If you embark upon a course of violence, what is your end-game? Do you intend to overthrow the government?

And as an aside I want to sincerely apologize to you specifically for any minimization of your suffering that I inadvertently am guilty of in the other thread. I want to acknowledge I haven't walked a mile in your shoes. Even in my attempt to apologize on that thread I clearly demonstrated my lack of understanding, so all I can really suggest is that I do understand the fact that you view this as an existential threat. Even so, I cannot see how targeted attacks against people attending political rallies are useful as anything beyond catharsis.

gore wrote:

This is why peaceful protest has been advocated for. If you are trying to act in a democracy, your course forward is to win hearts and minds. Does violence do that in and of itself? Is it a sound strategy?

I can't remember who it was, but someone over in the other thread mentioned the left having a 'wimp' problem. That liberals are laughed at by the other side, and people who still have open enough hearts and minds to be won are not paragons of reason and temperance. They're human beings, and they irrationally buy in to deceptive narratives sometimes.

I could see how pushing back on that narrative with low-level violence will net more hearts/minds than abstaining from all violence. Sure some people will be turned off by the violence and ceding some of the moral high ground. But an even greater number might look at people fighting back and respect them more.

I mean, look--no one wants to believe more in the power of logical argument as the best way to make the world a better place than I do. But I gotta admit: when I look at the way the world works, the peak of the moral high ground seems overrated when it comes to getting results. It seems to me that there's a point of maximal returns somewhere below the absolute summit, but still way above Base Camp Trump.

I think there is a situation where certain levels of violence are acceptable - even warranted. My concern with the egging is that it plays into Trump's hands and actually helps his cause (especially given that it was reported as being way more substantial - my impression, based from people's reactions, was that some lady had been beaten up.)

The high ground right now feels to me like the best way to cut this off at the pass. Trump's campaign is horrifying, and the people supporting him deserve a lot more than egg on their face. But they want us to give in to our anger and stoop to their tactics because it then legitimizes what they've been doing. Even if we only meet them part way.

And that sucks. That's the hardest part about having the moral high ground - the person who doesn't can get away with a lot more than you can completely unscathed, while if you take even a step towards what they're doing, that gives them license to escalate.

My concern with the attack on the Trump protester was that now Trump supporters will show up armed and ready to shoot. They'll claim equivalency, and it will be a false equivalency for sure, but it will be enough for them.

I do think that the conservative movement is horrific right now. They stand for all sorts of nonsense, and they want to actively take rights away from women, LGBT people, and minorities. And they're in a position to impose some of their tyranny - not all of it, thankfully, but more than they should be able to.

I honestly don't know when violence becomes appriopriate. My sense is that this election can blow back in their faces and send them into a profound defeat. My instinct is that by keeping above it, and pushing with every tactic at our disposal that isn't violence we can cut this thing off before it gets really bad, and in a way that buries this movement into the dustbin of history. And that'll be worth it.

Of course, I know I could be wrong. And I know that as a cishet white guy I'm not going to be the first target of these people if they do gain the power to enact their agenda.

So the question is, does violently protesting Trump now do anything to prevent him and the conservative party from gaining the power they need to enact their tyrannical ideas? Or does it help them enact their tyrannical ideas? I think it might help them, right now. That won't always be true, but right now I think it is.

If I am wrong, I'd absolutely stand in solidarity against anyone who attempted to enact an agenda this hateful. And if they ever came after anyone I cared about, I'd sure as hell fight back with everything I can muster.

gore wrote:
Freyja wrote:

Does aiding a politician to gain power who's party policies include revoking my civil rights (and therefore creating an environment where physical assaults against me more likely to both occur and to go unpunished) not constitute a threat? If yes, how I am I permitted to respond to that threat?

Here's how I'd challenge you on this point:

Do you feel that enacting physical violence against a Trump supporter furthers your agenda?

Because I'll be honest, I can only see it as hurting. It may feel good in the moment, and you may even feel that it's justified, but pragmatically do you think it helps? I would suggest that, for most Americans, that kind of protest is most likely to create a negative image of the protesters instead of their target.

This is why peaceful protest has been advocated for. If you are trying to act in a democracy, your course forward is to win hearts and minds. Does violence do that in and of itself? Is it a sound strategy? If you embark upon a course of violence, what is your end-game? Do you intend to overthrow the government?

And as an aside I want to sincerely apologize to you specifically for any minimization of your suffering that I inadvertently am guilty of in the other thread. I want to acknowledge I haven't walked a mile in your shoes. Even in my attempt to apologize on that thread I clearly demonstrated my lack of understanding, so all I can really suggest is that I do understand the fact that you view this as an existential threat. Even so, I cannot see how targeted attacks against people attending political rallies are useful as anything beyond catharsis.

At the moment, my agenda is 'Survive, and then I'll figure out the rest.' Do I think physical violence furthers that end? It can. I think that the understanding that I won't swear off violence when it comes to existential threats ought to be in the calculus of a Trump supporter.

For all the advocacy for non-violence, I can only think, what do you think trans activism has been doing for the last 40 years? Do folks honestly think we haven't tried it? All we got was TERFs getting into power and cutting off our access to care, mainstream LGBT activism leaving us in the dust, and a growing animus in the last ten years that comes along with our hyper-visibility.

There are hearts and minds that can be won and hearts and minds that cant, and I don't so much mind the latter existing so much as I care about their ability to harm me is curtailed, and right now that ability is on the cusp of being unleashed.

I appreciate the apology. I'm not upset with you. This isn't about catharsis, these people are supporting an agenda that wants me to wither and die, and I'm not willing to stand firm on a stance of 'I'll never violently resist this', because I can't honestly say that.

And I'd rather be alive than be respectable.

Yonder wrote:

First of all "condemn" is a pretty strong word. I don't know of a single person in that thread other than Norman that wasn't making some distinction between the violence enacted by the group that first seized on violent rhetoric and violent action, and the group that became afraid in response to that violent rhetoric and responded to the first group with violence of their own.

I was discussing a specific use case.

Freyja wrote:

For all the advocacy for non-violence, I can only think, what do you think trans activism has been doing for the last 40 years? Do folks honestly think we haven't tried it? All we got was TERFs getting into power and cutting off our access to care, mainstream LGBT activism leaving us in the dust, and a growing animus in the last ten years that comes along with our hyper-visibility.

I got to admit, my trans history isn't so hot, so this is a genuine pair of questions: are trans people in a better position after 40 years of non-violent activism, and how do you think that that position might have been further improved had that activism been violent in part?

Yonder wrote:

When I hear people say things like "we need to teach Trump supporters to fear reprisal of their violent idealogy, they are fundementally cowards, if people stand up to them they'll back down" I think "we need to teach Islamic fundamentalists to fear reprisal of their violent idealogy, they are fundementally cowards".

The huge differences aside, yeah. Making a violent ideology step down through violence seems like an ineffective plan at best, or a very effective way to make things worse.

On the other side at some point you are left with no other options. If a political group start to rampage through the streets, attacking opponents and minorities, then fighting back might certainly be the last option available.
But until that point it seems more likely that it would make it worse.

Freyja wrote:

At the moment, my agenda is 'Survive, and then I'll figure out the rest.' Do I think physical violence furthers that end? It can. I think that the understanding that I won't swear off violence when it comes to existential threats ought to be in the calculus of a Trump supporter.

Considering the black/white world people like Trump seem to believe they live in (and seem to desire to live in), I would be surprised if a substantial share of them don't already believe that whoever they are antagonizing might want to fight back. They would probably love it. In their rhetoric they are screaming for an 'us vs them world' - merely hold back by "everyone else", surely they are going to win, why would they fear anything. They seem like violent sports fans - maybe they don't care much about the political details, just the us vs. them rhetoric itself.

I wouldn't say it is an argument for non-violence, rather about deciding when it is time for violence and when it is not. Maybe there will come a time where you (and hopefully lots of supporters) will be ready to fight for their lives and/or way of life.
Violence at that point might easily be justified, and we can only hope that more people (also outside the attacked minorities) would stand up and fight then.
But do you truly feel that time is close? Is the threat really remotely existential at this point?

I'm looking at this from the outside in many ways (not American, nor in any of the most harassed minorities), so maybe I'm blind to how dire the situation really is.

whoops, failed edit

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

I think there is a situation where certain levels of violence are acceptable - even warranted. My concern with the egging is that it plays into Trump's hands and actually helps his cause (especially given that it was reported as being way more substantial - my impression, based from people's reactions, was that some lady had been beaten up.)

Trump and Trump supporters are authoritarian in nature. They're always going to default to the idea that keeping social order (that they benefit from) is vastly more important than any minority group trying to assert their rights.

The only way Trump supporters are going to be happy is if America goes back to the way it was in the 50s where anyone who wasn't a straight, white, Christian male literally didn't have a political voice and were essentially invisible.

That's simply not an acceptable vision for America.

Freyja wrote:

Does aiding a politician to gain power who's party policies include revoking my civil rights (and therefore creating an environment where physical assaults against me more likely to both occur and to go unpunished) not constitute a threat? If yes, how I am I permitted to respond to that threat?

That does not constitute the sort of threat that is legally (or usually morally) seen to justify self defense. Our justice code on self-defense varies from place to place, but typically violence is only permissible as a response to violence, or direct threats of imminent violence.

The threat being close to violence temporally and thematically are both necessary for legal self-defense. You have to feel that actual, physical violence is about to happen to you, not something one or two steps away from violence. And it has to be about to happen right away. If someone was to threaten to stop by your house this evening and kill you that is absolutely direct violence, but it means that you aren't allowed to go find him on his lunch break and find him first. Self-defense is only legally classified as an action of last resort, so that sort of preemptive strike is not seen as valid. Similarly, you need to fend yourself with "proportional" force, which is rough to prove one way or another, but the basic idea is that you can't kill in response to a shoving match. In non-stand your ground States you also are obligated to vacate the area if possible to do so safely.

I don't think the analogy is perfect, but in general I think that the principals are the same. Violence should be a last resort to direct danger after other measures have failed. In this case I'm not convinced either requirement is met, especially the time one. The election is more than 5 months away, neither candidate has chosen a Vice President, and current polling (as limited as those are this early on) doesn't show Trump as particularly likely to win. The idea that violence against Trump supporters would weaken Trumps candidacy seems super unlikely to me. Setting that aside, the idea that in early June nonviolent options for resisting Trump's candidacy have been exhausted seems pretty obviously incorrect as well.

I wonder if the people with hearts and minds to be won (maybe call them Undecideds for short?) see what Trump's supporters are doing as violence in the first place. His violence is the violence of the status quo, and so maybe it's not as horrifying to Undecideds as it should be. Maybe just the right amount of counter-violence serves to make people take Trump's violence seriously because that counter-violence provokes them into really thinking about this stuff.

https://aeon.co/essays/people-resort...

With just a few exceptions, EVERYONE who uses violence assumes they are morally right. I'm would not be particularly surprised to see that the "Moral Right" is more likely to use violence, individually or as a group, than the "left" but there are plenty of examples of both sides using violence. It's for this reason that I'm against violence as any course of proscribed action, especially towards making any sort of cultural change, because it turns out that we're just terrible arbiters of our own ability to harm others.

For Freyja (and anyone in her situation): I understand the need to not 'take violence off the table' as a course of action but I struggle to see how any non-defensive violence could be beneficial. There is so much grey area to that statement, though, around what constitutes a 'non-defensive violent act', especially when it comes to marginalized groups. We're the Stonewall Riots a form of defensive violence? Was Baltimore? When Black Rights Activists took control of government buildings, was that violence? How about when Bundy's group took over the Malhuer Refuge?

This subject is fraught with so much personal morality that I really struggle to come down on any side accept that generally violence is the wrong way to go about it, that non-violence can look a whole lot like violence depending on how you go about it and carry the same consequences regardless, and that even violence that I condone and consider to be morally correct is likely to be interpreted as otherwise by civil authorities. And at the end of the day I can only answer to myself and the safety and happiness of those I cherish, so regardless of my general thoughts I would have to act as I saw fit when the situation happens. Violence is never 'fully off the table' no matter how much I generally disagree.

Edit: This is looking more and more tone deaf as I catch up on the Presidential Election thread. My apologies, Freyja, as I catch up I may come back and edit in a better view of my point. TL:DR is that there's a large category of "defensive violence" that come to mind in these scenarios but all the examples that come to mind were in response to specific, physical attacks on the group responding. They were also either riots (based on a direct attack of the group) or very organized. My hope is that we can get greater support from other communities to help make any violence part of movement and not just the last resort of individuals under attack.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I wonder if the people with hearts and minds to be won (maybe call them Undecideds for short?) see what Trump's supporters are doing as violence in the first place. His violence is the violence of the status quo, and so maybe it's not as horrifying to Undecideds as it should be. Maybe just the right amount of counter-violence serves to make people take Trump's violence seriously because that counter-violence provokes them into really thinking about this stuff.

Then the risk is that it drives the undecideds to the candidate promising to protect them from the "violence prone other".

Garrcia wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I wonder if the people with hearts and minds to be won (maybe call them Undecideds for short?) see what Trump's supporters are doing as violence in the first place. His violence is the violence of the status quo, and so maybe it's not as horrifying to Undecideds as it should be. Maybe just the right amount of counter-violence serves to make people take Trump's violence seriously because that counter-violence provokes them into really thinking about this stuff.

Then the risk is that it drives the undecideds to the candidate promising to protect them from the "violence prone other".

There's always going to be a risk. I don't think any of these question can be answered as a matter of first principles, as if history has immutable laws. It's always going to be a judgement call.

Being former military, I'm not going to condemn violence being used in self defense. I even support adopting a "don't tread on me" stance so that your opponents recognize you won't be an easy target. But I can see major problems with preemptively targeting a bad guy or seeing all the supporters of said bad guy as evil and therefore fair game. Before Iraq, I was involved in a number of peacekeeping operations in South Korea and Bosnia which I'm proud of. After Iraq, I realized that first strikes on possible threats is horrible policy and that I could no longer see myself as noble defender using violence as a last resort. So I gave up a promising military career to be able to stay true to my principles.

The only other thing I can offer is that a big part of martial arts is knowing how to avoid fights in the first place. I've come to the point where I hate Trump and will actively be campaigning against him. But Trump supporters still have a right to assemble even if their views are reprehensible, which is why I'm not in support of protesting legal rallies. I'm afraid things will just continue to escalate and efforts are better devoted to raising money, registering voters, etc at this point.

The actual violence being discussed:
IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/YNHDFy5.png)

As I see it...activism should always start out as peaceful but at some point will probably need to turn to violence and social upheaval. The 1% will only force change if they feel at some point not doing so will upset the balance and ultimately create a scenario where their wealth is in danger.

The path we are going down right now as a society seems to be leading to one outcome which is around mass anarchy. You can only push the marginalized so far before they snap as a collective and fight back against the oppressors.

From my childhood my friends in my neighborhood are about 2/3rd incarcerated or dead. I saw many times what the War on Drugs in the 80's did to black neighborhoods and the sucking of wealth and hope from entire blocks. Then the devastating effects of Clinton's 3 strikes law on habitual non violent drug offenders (my wife's brother is currently serving a life sentence in the state of DE) I watched first hand a city block burn down when the Police dropped a thermal bomb on the Move House. I lost my best friend in 1990 when he was shot dead by the Philly PD. A Trump presidency doesn't signal some sort of official start to the war the war has been brewing for decades. What we have seen is a carefully orchestrated campaign to condition White Moderates that its ok to blame minorities for all your problems.

Trump wants to make America great again.. as do his supporters.. their vision of greatness is America in the 1950's so the marginalized should be very afraid. Right now the best activism we can do is vote while we still can and turn this country around by getting out the GOP politicians that are actively pushing for the removal of civil rights and the institution of a religious order. So while I support and endorse peaceful non-violent activism I do so from the safety and cushy life of a white male.. Thankfully my environment was not typical and I can understand somewhat the plight of others so much so that at times I'm shocked that we haven't seen an complete uprising by the marginalized in this country.

Sister Souljah said it best...

TheGameguru wrote:

A Trump presidency doesn't signal some sort of official start to the war the war has been brewing for decades. What we have seen is a carefully orchestrated campaign to condition White Moderates that its ok to blame minorities for all your problems.

Along the same lines (sorry for the multiple edits), maybe forcing people to deal with violence will wake them up to the fact that some political opinions like bathroom laws *are* violence. State-sanctioned violence that (edit) threatens other people even if they are safe, but violence nonetheless.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

A Trump presidency doesn't signal some sort of official start to the war the war has been brewing for decades. What we have seen is a carefully orchestrated campaign to condition White Moderates that its ok to blame minorities for all your problems.

Maybe forcing people to deal with violence will wake them up to the fact that some political opinions like bathroom laws *are* violence. State-sanctioned violence that doesn't threaten them, but violence nonetheless.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:

A Trump presidency doesn't signal some sort of official start to the war the war has been brewing for decades. What we have seen is a carefully orchestrated campaign to condition White Moderates that its ok to blame minorities for all your problems.

Maybe forcing people to deal with violence will wake them up to the fact that some political opinions like bathroom laws *are* violence. State-sanctioned violence that doesn't threaten them, but violence nonetheless.

This is where I see myself and others as having disconnect - they don't see these laws, advocacy for these laws or support for their advocates as violence, and I see them as direct threats to my ability to live.

Pages