3 ms·

There's a faulty premise that militant action is a strict choice. Once the police start beating and arresting people there's often no going back. Look at all th

by gozo 11y ago

There's a faulty premise that militant action is a strict choice. Once the police start beating and arresting people there's often no going back. Look at all the movements that in the US that no one cares about. That study seemingly doesn't say anything about why the riots happened, it might very well be that "social control" was more politically prevalent at certain times which reflected in both in violence and in public opinion.

Kalium 11y ago
Militant action is a choice. People choose violence. Sentient human beings are always capable of not choosing violence. Therefore, I believe the premise to be correct and valid. Do you have a reason for believing otherwise? The study doesn't just look at years. It looks at county-by-county voting patterns.
- gozo 11y ago
  Well. HN is probably not the best place for this, so I'm not going to make this too long, but there are a couple of point. Few movements will survive its more prominent members being beaten and arrested, which is what happens when there's no power balance. Even fewer movement will survive going out and doing the same thing all over again. No seasoned movement can ever guarantee that a protest won't turn violent if the police start arresting people. I'm not saying you should go out and do militant things, but you can't make is easy for the authorities to stop you from protesting. If the choice is between your movement being silenced and trying to defend yourself then maybe that's not really a choice as such. Of course the US is so far beyond any reasonable protest culture that you might as well not protest at all.
  - hoopd 11y ago
    > Of course the US is so far beyond any reasonable protest culture that you might as well not protest at all. Really? It seems like it's all some people do anymore. You can even become a professional activist and monetize your own victimhood. In the past year we've had people literally rioting and burning down buildings while the intelligentsia provided apoligies for them. "This is self-expression of a voiceless people, that burning car is a statement...." Are you upset that you're not allowed to stop traffic during rush hour and chant slogans at people? Name one thing you can't do in the US that's part of a "reasonable protest culture"
    - gozo 11y ago
      Your not really offering any arguments to this discussion. If you're interested you can compared the student tuition protests in the US and Canada[0]. Violent or non-voilent, no protest can occur if people don't believe in the right of making your voice heard. In the US you are very good at rationalizing away those rights. I would do that to if I faced the US justice system and frankly that's why I don't spend a lot of time in the US. Plenty of incidents have been written about, from unlawful arrests to free speech zones and jail time for simple Internet attacks. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Quebec_student_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Quebec_student_protests [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper-spray_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper-spray_incident
      - hoopd 11y ago
        The pepper spray incident you linked was just about the best thing that could happen to those protesters. It was the plan, and then after it happens you go "oh my god we never saw this coming!" It's political theater - they got pepper-sprayed while trying to get arrested. Yeah, the cop was a jerk, but I'm not sure what linking the article is supposed to prove. I have no idea why the Quebec students were even protesting - you're getting tuition subsidized so much that it's cheaper than the areas that are subsidizing it? Unless it's a remarkably worse education that doesn't any sense to me. Seriously, don't just wave your hands at somebody asking you to back up a serious claim you made. This is why you're so easy to write off. You said we're so far beyond a reasonable protest culture that we shouldn't protest at all. You posted two links - one showing political theater is alive and well in the US and the other showing what look like some unreasonable students getting their way in Quebec. If that's your idea of "reasonable protest" then why should we even want it?
        gozo 11y ago
        A reasonable protest culture is where people step up to defend others right to protest even if they don't agree with them. Protesting in the US means potentially facing physical harm, detention, bail you can't pay, overworked public defenders, overzealous prosecutors, civil forfeiture, court fees, harsh sentencing, plea bargains, restrictive parole and being discriminated again because of your record. And most of that even if you don't go to prison. Of course you don't even have to be protesting, just be close enough to one and panic when the police, maybe even undercover, comes to abuse you and you'll be just another footnote in the history of the US justice system. What happened in Montreal was that when the police tried to crack down on the protests everyone who remotely agreed started protesting too. When the government then went on to enacted a new law to limit the protests, even the people who didn't agree with the original protests started protesting. Then the government was subsequently voted out in the next election. That is a culture where it's reasonable to protest. Because even if worst comes to worst, you at least have some chance of people coming to your aid. Instead of rationalizing what you had to go through by proclaiming essentially "you shouldn't have been protesting".
  - wisty 11y ago
    Few governments can beat and arrest more than a few movement leaders (unless those movement leaders were behaving violently). Arguably, the only reason a relatively free society would want to beat (or kill) a movement leader (if they're rational) is to provoke a riot in order to discredit the movement. Even then, it's a risky move.
    - gozo 11y ago
      "unless those movement leaders were behaving violently" What you consider violent and what the police consider violent isn't necessarily the same thing. "The individuals who linked arms and actively resisted, that in itself is an act of violence" [0]. Read comments on YouTube [1] for extra confidence in humanity. In reality you don't have to be violent to get beaten and arrested by the police, you essentially only have to not comply with whatever they say. [0] http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/UC-cops-use-of-batons-on-Occupy-camp-questioned-2323415.php http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/UC-cops-use-of-batons-on-... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_f06VQOkI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_f06VQOkI4
      - wisty 11y ago
        A little poke from a baton will do more to harden a protester's stance than scare them off. And it will create massive backlash by spectators. The fact that you're pulling out a 4 year old article about it shows how counter-productive those tactics are. Even though I don't have any opinion on that particular protest (I don't know what it was about), I think that whoever let that happen should be sacked, because it would have only escalated the protests.

by gozo 11y ago

Kalium 11y ago

Militant action is a choice. People choose violence. Sentient human beings are always capable of not choosing violence. Therefore, I believe the premise to be correct and valid. Do you have a reason for believing otherwise? The study doesn't just look at years. It looks at county-by-county voting patterns.

gozo 11y ago
Well. HN is probably not the best place for this, so I'm not going to make this too long, but there are a couple of point. Few movements will survive its more prominent members being beaten and arrested, which is what happens when there's no power balance. Even fewer movement will survive going out and doing the same thing all over again. No seasoned movement can ever guarantee that a protest won't turn violent if the police start arresting people. I'm not saying you should go out and do militant things, but you can't make is easy for the authorities to stop you from protesting. If the choice is between your movement being silenced and trying to defend yourself then maybe that's not really a choice as such. Of course the US is so far beyond any reasonable protest culture that you might as well not protest at all.
- hoopd 11y ago
  > Of course the US is so far beyond any reasonable protest culture that you might as well not protest at all. Really? It seems like it's all some people do anymore. You can even become a professional activist and monetize your own victimhood. In the past year we've had people literally rioting and burning down buildings while the intelligentsia provided apoligies for them. "This is self-expression of a voiceless people, that burning car is a statement...." Are you upset that you're not allowed to stop traffic during rush hour and chant slogans at people? Name one thing you can't do in the US that's part of a "reasonable protest culture"
  - gozo 11y ago
    Your not really offering any arguments to this discussion. If you're interested you can compared the student tuition protests in the US and Canada[0]. Violent or non-voilent, no protest can occur if people don't believe in the right of making your voice heard. In the US you are very good at rationalizing away those rights. I would do that to if I faced the US justice system and frankly that's why I don't spend a lot of time in the US. Plenty of incidents have been written about, from unlawful arrests to free speech zones and jail time for simple Internet attacks. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Quebec_student_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Quebec_student_protests [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper-spray_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_pepper-spray_incident
    - hoopd 11y ago
      The pepper spray incident you linked was just about the best thing that could happen to those protesters. It was the plan, and then after it happens you go "oh my god we never saw this coming!" It's political theater - they got pepper-sprayed while trying to get arrested. Yeah, the cop was a jerk, but I'm not sure what linking the article is supposed to prove. I have no idea why the Quebec students were even protesting - you're getting tuition subsidized so much that it's cheaper than the areas that are subsidizing it? Unless it's a remarkably worse education that doesn't any sense to me. Seriously, don't just wave your hands at somebody asking you to back up a serious claim you made. This is why you're so easy to write off. You said we're so far beyond a reasonable protest culture that we shouldn't protest at all. You posted two links - one showing political theater is alive and well in the US and the other showing what look like some unreasonable students getting their way in Quebec. If that's your idea of "reasonable protest" then why should we even want it?
      - gozo 11y ago
        A reasonable protest culture is where people step up to defend others right to protest even if they don't agree with them. Protesting in the US means potentially facing physical harm, detention, bail you can't pay, overworked public defenders, overzealous prosecutors, civil forfeiture, court fees, harsh sentencing, plea bargains, restrictive parole and being discriminated again because of your record. And most of that even if you don't go to prison. Of course you don't even have to be protesting, just be close enough to one and panic when the police, maybe even undercover, comes to abuse you and you'll be just another footnote in the history of the US justice system. What happened in Montreal was that when the police tried to crack down on the protests everyone who remotely agreed started protesting too. When the government then went on to enacted a new law to limit the protests, even the people who didn't agree with the original protests started protesting. Then the government was subsequently voted out in the next election. That is a culture where it's reasonable to protest. Because even if worst comes to worst, you at least have some chance of people coming to your aid. Instead of rationalizing what you had to go through by proclaiming essentially "you shouldn't have been protesting".
- wisty 11y ago
  Few governments can beat and arrest more than a few movement leaders (unless those movement leaders were behaving violently). Arguably, the only reason a relatively free society would want to beat (or kill) a movement leader (if they're rational) is to provoke a riot in order to discredit the movement. Even then, it's a risky move.
  - gozo 11y ago
    "unless those movement leaders were behaving violently" What you consider violent and what the police consider violent isn't necessarily the same thing. "The individuals who linked arms and actively resisted, that in itself is an act of violence" [0]. Read comments on YouTube [1] for extra confidence in humanity. In reality you don't have to be violent to get beaten and arrested by the police, you essentially only have to not comply with whatever they say. [0] http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/UC-cops-use-of-batons-on-Occupy-camp-questioned-2323415.php http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/UC-cops-use-of-batons-on-... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_f06VQOkI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_f06VQOkI4
    - wisty 11y ago
      A little poke from a baton will do more to harden a protester's stance than scare them off. And it will create massive backlash by spectators. The fact that you're pulling out a 4 year old article about it shows how counter-productive those tactics are. Even though I don't have any opinion on that particular protest (I don't know what it was about), I think that whoever let that happen should be sacked, because it would have only escalated the protests.