4 ms·

Protesters are frequently classified as terrorists. Protesters frequently escalate their tactics when non-violent methods fail.

Mickydtron 11y ago
Are there statistics on how often non-violent protesters escalate to violence in the face of failure?
- danharaj 11y ago
  Sounds like a difficult to quantify phenomenon; I don't think statistics would increase clarity. A historian has a better claim to understanding whether or not it is true but I am not one. In other words, I'm full of shit unless someone backs it up.
  - nefitty 11y ago
    Yeah, there's an edit button for a reason.
logfromblammo 11y ago
And to be fair, police frequently escalate their tactics when faced with non-violent protesters. Those videos are all over YouTube. Less frequent are videos of the peaceful protesters identifying violent or disruptive elements within the protest as police employees. It takes a lot of willpower to keep to the moral high road when you can see the folks walking on it ahead of you getting their asses kicked. The rights to free speech and petition for redress in the U.S. are not universally respected by those targeted by the criticism. In that context, placing a protester on a watchlist has all the appearance of malicious retaliation for exercise of a protected right.
- danharaj 11y ago
  Oh I totally came off the wrong way. I fully understand and find it morally permissible for the aggrieved to escalate their tactics when less disruptive activities fail. The riot is the language of the unheard and all that. People commit violent acts because they feel like they are morally obligated to be violent, not because they are evil or malicious.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    One of the reasons why such rights as speech and petition for redress are supposedly protected is that retaliation in response to peaceful protest discourages that particular expression of discontent, and yet the discontent itself remains. Discontent will generate some form of expression, whether you like it or not. So if you will arrest angry people for blocking vehicular traffic and disturbing the peace, there is less incentive for them to march in the streets, and a greater incentive to do things less subject to identification and retaliation. For instance, someone might instead violate health codes when the state's agents are ordering food from their restaurant. The more you close off and punish the relatively less harmful means of venting discontent, the more likely you are to see more harmful means, such as riots. And likewise, if those less harmful means are seen as relatively ineffective, people will do other things. So putting protesters on a terrorist watchlist is, in a way, a form of self-fulfilling prophecy.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

Mickydtron 11y ago

Are there statistics on how often non-violent protesters escalate to violence in the face of failure?

danharaj 11y ago
Sounds like a difficult to quantify phenomenon; I don't think statistics would increase clarity. A historian has a better claim to understanding whether or not it is true but I am not one. In other words, I'm full of shit unless someone backs it up.
- nefitty 11y ago
  Yeah, there's an edit button for a reason.

logfromblammo 11y ago

And to be fair, police frequently escalate their tactics when faced with non-violent protesters. Those videos are all over YouTube. Less frequent are videos of the peaceful protesters identifying violent or disruptive elements within the protest as police employees. It takes a lot of willpower to keep to the moral high road when you can see the folks walking on it ahead of you getting their asses kicked. The rights to free speech and petition for redress in the U.S. are not universally respected by those targeted by the criticism. In that context, placing a protester on a watchlist has all the appearance of malicious retaliation for exercise of a protected right.

danharaj 11y ago
Oh I totally came off the wrong way. I fully understand and find it morally permissible for the aggrieved to escalate their tactics when less disruptive activities fail. The riot is the language of the unheard and all that. People commit violent acts because they feel like they are morally obligated to be violent, not because they are evil or malicious.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  One of the reasons why such rights as speech and petition for redress are supposedly protected is that retaliation in response to peaceful protest discourages that particular expression of discontent, and yet the discontent itself remains. Discontent will generate some form of expression, whether you like it or not. So if you will arrest angry people for blocking vehicular traffic and disturbing the peace, there is less incentive for them to march in the streets, and a greater incentive to do things less subject to identification and retaliation. For instance, someone might instead violate health codes when the state's agents are ordering food from their restaurant. The more you close off and punish the relatively less harmful means of venting discontent, the more likely you are to see more harmful means, such as riots. And likewise, if those less harmful means are seen as relatively ineffective, people will do other things. So putting protesters on a terrorist watchlist is, in a way, a form of self-fulfilling prophecy.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]