this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023
104 points (100.0% liked)

196

16265 readers
2313 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is an actual conversation I had with my oldest nephew when we went to the Boston Tea Party Museum last week.

"If you ever hear people complaining that damaging commercial property during a protest is unacceptable, remember what you learn about the Tea Party today. Our country was literally founded on protests trashing commercial property. And remember that some people complained to them that it was unacceptable too."

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The tea wasn't owned by the mom and pop shop neighbors who were also fighting for the same cause. There is a difference to me in a large corporation sustaining damage it will recoupe from insurance and people trying to scrape by and now can't afford rent until the hopefully if they had insurance, then maybe a check comes in a few months.

Those places if a protestor breaks in during a riot I am fine with being shot at and even killed if need be. Your cause doesn't give you the right to starve or put in jeopardy other people's lives who did not choose to riot.

[–] Stoneykins@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

Owners are owners. I can't have too much sympathy if a group of disenfranchised people, who have never had the opportunity to own anything, don't distinguish between hyper capitalists and regular vanilla capitalists. Both are pieces of the system that denies people the value of their labor.

[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What a fucking asshole. Maybe your position will change when it's your property that's being destroyed.

Destroying private property does not make politicians or police question their choices. It barely hurts them in any way. You know who it hurts? Your friends and neighbors who had abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with whatever it is you're upset about.

The Sons of Liberty only destroyed property that was directly responsible for their oppression.

You wanna go burn down the mayor's house? The police commissioner's house? The police union HQ? Have the fuck at it, you have my full support.

You wanna burn down the local convenience store or meat market? You wanna destroy vehicles and businesses that belong to your neighbors who are suffering alongside you? You're human garbage.

[–] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Second verse, same as the first:

"IIt was the Sons of Liberty who ransacked houses of British officials. Threats and intimidation were their weapons against tax collectors, causing many to flee town. Images of unpopular figures might be hanged and burned in effigy on the town's liberty tree.

Of course, the winners write the history books. Had the American Revolution failed, the Sons and Daughters of Liberty would no doubt be regarded as a band of thugs, or at the very least, outspoken troublemakers."

https://www.ushistory.org/us/10b.asp#:~:text=It%20was%20the%20Sons%20of,on%20the%20town's%20Liberty%20Tree.

I'll let Dr. King do the talking:

"A riot is the language of the unheard. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/05/29/minneapolis-protest-martin-luther-king-quote-riot-george-floyd/5282486002/

"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White citizens’ “Councilor” or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direst action” who paternistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/letter-from-birmingham-jail

[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Of course, the winners write the history books. Had the American Revolution failed, the Sons and Daughters of Liberty would no doubt be regarded as a band of thugs, or at the very least, outspoken troublemakers."

So then you agree?

"A riot is the language of the unheard. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again."

Your mistake is conflating an explanation with a justification.

the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice

Maybe you glossed over the part where I supported disorder. The problem is with how and where (and not when, as you suggested) that disorder takes place.

Remind me: did they burn down or steal from MLK's church?

[–] Chetzemoka@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Third verse, same as the first:

This is an actual conversation I had with my oldest nephew when we went to the Boston Tea Party Museum last week.

"If you ever hear people complaining that damaging commercial property during a protest is unacceptable, remember what you learn about the Tea Party today. Our country was literally founded on protests trashing commercial property. And remember that some people complained to them that it was unacceptable too."

See also Dr. King:

"who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action” who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom"

[–] HughJanus@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Dude I think your record is broken. If you're just going to repeat the same nonsense over and over without acknowledging my responses I can safely block you and move on with my day.

[–] Chais@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Jesse's absolutely right. The only reason our politicians are governing us is because we let them. Occasionally they need to be reminded of that fact.

[–] MostlyBirds@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The reason our government governs us today is because they have an overwhelming ability to do violence on us, and the majority of us fear it, even if only subconsciously. If you think it's by our choice, you're utterly delusional.

[–] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're right. I never signed a contract with the USA agreeing the current system is the best. We have our ancestors to thank for that, and even then, most of them had no control over the situation.

What's the best way forward here? Constitutional renewal every generation?

[–] the_lennard@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Constitutional renewal every generation?

As a non-USA-Citizen, this is what always gets me about the originalists at SCOTUS: the idea of changing the constitution to reflect what the majority of US citizen believes is simply not possible anymore, because of outrageous distortions of the process. Given how unequal voters are distributed across states and the effective veto power of very small states, there is no way for the majority of people to do what the originalists demand: adapting the law so that no interpretation is necessary.

What makes originalism and those that represent it so incredible stupid is THAT THEY ADMIT THIS. Scalia used to chuckle in interviews when this was pointed out to him.

[–] parlaptie@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Would be nice if we could start at not demonizing peaceful protests. Nowadays any protest is seen as a massive misguided problem of you so much as block a street.

[–] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But then muh car can't move! Go defend your human rights somewhere where it doesn't inconvenience me!

spoiler/s

[–] Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Riots are generally an escalation of peaceful protests, sure there are exceptions.

Usually, riots break out when people get so frustrated at the fact that no progress gets made during protests that they start to lash out.

[–] Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Based take.

I swear, if you could teleport some people back to the French revolution, they'd be like "No need to protest, the king will give up absolute power on his own if we keep asking nicely" 🙄

[–] BloodForTheBloodGod@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

The idea of a Right Wing literally exists because the deputies who thought that way in France back then took the right side of the chamber.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

The French Revolution is way more complex and nuanced than that, and saying the people protested against the power of the king per se is really missing the point.

A better example would have been King Charles I and the English civil war.

We should just start calling riots championship football celebrations. Then the media and the pols would love them.

[–] colin@lemmy.uninsane.org 2 points 1 year ago

my favorite is whenever i encounter the phrase "non-permitted protest". like, the idea that you should ask permission from the authority you're protesting before doing so: it's just so laughably missing the point

[–] NotAPenguin@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Yep.. People hate protests because they don't understand that's how it has always worked.

[–] topRamen@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As long as no one is damaging private property of people who have nothing to do with what is being rioted over.

[–] darcy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

oh no! what ever will walmart do now that some windows are smashed?!

[–] topRamen@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

For a protest/riot over something that has nothing to do with walmart, what good does that do?