10 ms·

If you were at a protest that was starting to get a bit rowdy and somebody used one of these on you, what would you do? I'd either come back prepared for actua

If you were at a protest that was starting to get a bit rowdy and somebody used one of these on you, what would you do? I'd either come back prepared for actual violence, or switch from protest to sabotage. It just screams "escalation" to me.

propagandist 2y ago
And that is possibly the aim. When the protests turn into violence or sabotage, the state uses that to justify its own violent repression.
- tonyhart7 2y ago
  so you saying if there are violence or sabotage, you let these people do it??? how can that be better
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    They're suggesting that the point of an authority using this weapon on a mass of people may be to cause those people to become violent so that the authority can use the subsequent fear to justify further abuses. Which I think is likely, but also a bad decision. Generally speaking, the job of a legitimate government is to make violent protest unnecessary. So depending on the situation, the best action may indeed be to back down and rethink how things got there in the first place, rather than continuing to provoke more violence. Continuing to escalate is not a sustainable strategy for anyone that intends to maintain power for long, as the numbers are not generally on their side.
    - tonyhart7 2y ago
      Yeah but the problem is with mass movement people like this, there are good chance people that can take advantage of these protest (looting,rob etc) the point of these weapon is not "defeat" but mostly to crowd control right because you cant rule out if there is no crime even in peaceful protest, both things can be true at the same time also if such weapon is not permanently injure or harm people, I can see why this weapon is in need like pepper spray
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - propagandist 2y ago
        That's very charitable to those in power. Believe me when I tell you most don't give two hoots about looting and vandalism. You don't break up a gathering because there's the possibility of crimes occurring unless you live in an authoritarian society.
        tonyhart7 2y ago
        "most don't give two hoots about looting and vandalism." of course who give a shit is the owner, its all sunshine until it happen on your neighbourhood
        propagandist 2y ago
        I think it's pretty clear the owners of the corner store are not deploying those tactics for they are not the state. Thank you for engaging in good faith.
    - propagandist 2y ago
      That's exactly it. Thank you.
NewJazz 2y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_riot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_riot
Philorandroid 2y ago
Are chemical irritants preferable, then? Or just LEOs in riot gear with rubber batons? There's no amount of pushback or repercussion that a rioter will feel is fair or humane, and the mindset of "I'll turn violent and/or destructive if my participation in civil unrest is punished" is a perfect justification for these systems to exist.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  > There's no amount of pushback or repercussion that a rioter will feel is fair or humane I mean you're talking about using violence against people to stop or prevent property damage. Most options are off the table in the moment, in the same way you can't execute someone if you catch them vandalizing your car. Smashing their fingers with a hammer wouldn't probably kill them but you can't do that either. After-the-fact repercussions like criminal charges or civil liabilities, well, it doesn't matter how they feel about it? That's not how court works.
  - Philorandroid 2y ago
    This reads like you suppose the only thing to do is let rioters vent their outrage against whatever objects happen to be in their way at the time, and hope that there exists some legal comeuppance after the fact. Why can't some reasonable degree of force be used to prevent property damage? What moral dilemma exists that makes protecting property deserve a comparison to executing someone?
    - fc417fc802 2y ago
      > Why can't some reasonable degree of force be used No one said that. It was suggested that physically injuring someone in direct retaliation for property damage wasn't appropriate. Add to that the fact that riot control measures are hardly targeted. There are many non-violent options available. Sometimes rioters will escalate violently against the officers carrying those out. It's far less likely anyone objects to proportionate and necessary use of force in such cases.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> If you were at a protest that was starting to get a bit rowdy and somebody used one of these on you, what would you do? Leave. The moment it turns into a riot you’re doing damage to your cause. (If you’re in a protest and see hooligans, restrain them.)
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  You might enjoy reading Rules for Radicals if you haven't already. If your riot can provoke a worse response from the authority, it can help your cause. The reaction is the action. It may be that this protest in Serbia got a bit rowdy and riotous (see "diversity of tactics") and now the headline is about the government's use of a disproportionate weapon against protestors, not about a riot.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Rules for Radicals is one of my favorite books and I don't think this an accurate summary of what Alinsky says, at all. It's a short book, you can get it for free online, people should just read it.
    - krainboltgreene 2y ago
      This tracks so much with what you’ve said before.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > You might enjoy reading Rules for Radicals if you haven't already. If your riot can provoke a worse response from the authority One motif of Allinsky's message is the importance of organisation. Triggering tear gas against your peaceful protest is one thing. Losing control of it such that stores start getting looted is not. > It may be that this protest in Serbia got a bit rowdy and riotous (see "diversity of tactics") and now the headline is about the government's use of a disproportionate weapon against protestors This is the first-order effect. They got a tweet. (Not a headline.) I'm sceptical they'll get a second because this isn't a clear case of a nonlethal weapon being used against a peaceful crowd, it's something more muddled, and as a result there are zero comments in this thread discussing what the protesters are protesting.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
yes, it is an escalation. Governance is maintaining public support for the government having a monopoly on violent escalation. If the government does not have this power, then any person has an individual veto over the rest of the country. Laws are used to describe how and when individuals can protest.
- zozbot234 2y ago
  As it turns out, part of maintaining that "public support" is not taking advantage of it. The very idea of a stable monopoly on violent escalation is obviously meant to deter violence. When it instead makes violence more likely (because the monopolist is suddenly planning to abuse its monopoly) that's quite a big change and people can be expected to react accordingly.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    That is correct. It really depends on the temperature of public sentiment . Many protests get a charitable assumption in the US as a legacy of civil rights and the Vietnam anti-war movements. However, I think a lot of that good will is eroding. Each country has different perceptions, and ultimately, each protest is different (e.g. who shot first, is it abuse, ect)
KennyBlanken 2y ago
At protests cops purposefully escalate things by having a cop undercover in the crowd to do something violent enough to justify police attacking the crowd. They lob a rock in the general direction of their buddies and Bob's your uncle. Years ago someone caught some campus cops tossing some bricks into the bed of one of their pickups behind their station. They claimed they'd removed them from a section of sidewalk where they'd come loose and become a hazard. First time I've ever heard of a cop doing something like that...

propagandist 2y ago

And that is possibly the aim. When the protests turn into violence or sabotage, the state uses that to justify its own violent repression.

tonyhart7 2y ago
so you saying if there are violence or sabotage, you let these people do it??? how can that be better
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  They're suggesting that the point of an authority using this weapon on a mass of people may be to cause those people to become violent so that the authority can use the subsequent fear to justify further abuses. Which I think is likely, but also a bad decision. Generally speaking, the job of a legitimate government is to make violent protest unnecessary. So depending on the situation, the best action may indeed be to back down and rethink how things got there in the first place, rather than continuing to provoke more violence. Continuing to escalate is not a sustainable strategy for anyone that intends to maintain power for long, as the numbers are not generally on their side.
  - tonyhart7 2y ago
    Yeah but the problem is with mass movement people like this, there are good chance people that can take advantage of these protest (looting,rob etc) the point of these weapon is not "defeat" but mostly to crowd control right because you cant rule out if there is no crime even in peaceful protest, both things can be true at the same time also if such weapon is not permanently injure or harm people, I can see why this weapon is in need like pepper spray
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - propagandist 2y ago
      That's very charitable to those in power. Believe me when I tell you most don't give two hoots about looting and vandalism. You don't break up a gathering because there's the possibility of crimes occurring unless you live in an authoritarian society.
      - tonyhart7 2y ago
        "most don't give two hoots about looting and vandalism." of course who give a shit is the owner, its all sunshine until it happen on your neighbourhood
        propagandist 2y ago
        I think it's pretty clear the owners of the corner store are not deploying those tactics for they are not the state. Thank you for engaging in good faith.
  - propagandist 2y ago
    That's exactly it. Thank you.

NewJazz 2y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_riot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_riot

Philorandroid 2y ago

Are chemical irritants preferable, then? Or just LEOs in riot gear with rubber batons? There's no amount of pushback or repercussion that a rioter will feel is fair or humane, and the mindset of "I'll turn violent and/or destructive if my participation in civil unrest is punished" is a perfect justification for these systems to exist.

giraffe_lady 2y ago
> There's no amount of pushback or repercussion that a rioter will feel is fair or humane I mean you're talking about using violence against people to stop or prevent property damage. Most options are off the table in the moment, in the same way you can't execute someone if you catch them vandalizing your car. Smashing their fingers with a hammer wouldn't probably kill them but you can't do that either. After-the-fact repercussions like criminal charges or civil liabilities, well, it doesn't matter how they feel about it? That's not how court works.
- Philorandroid 2y ago
  This reads like you suppose the only thing to do is let rioters vent their outrage against whatever objects happen to be in their way at the time, and hope that there exists some legal comeuppance after the fact. Why can't some reasonable degree of force be used to prevent property damage? What moral dilemma exists that makes protecting property deserve a comparison to executing someone?
  - fc417fc802 2y ago
    > Why can't some reasonable degree of force be used No one said that. It was suggested that physically injuring someone in direct retaliation for property damage wasn't appropriate. Add to that the fact that riot control measures are hardly targeted. There are many non-violent options available. Sometimes rioters will escalate violently against the officers carrying those out. It's far less likely anyone objects to proportionate and necessary use of force in such cases.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> If you were at a protest that was starting to get a bit rowdy and somebody used one of these on you, what would you do? Leave. The moment it turns into a riot you’re doing damage to your cause. (If you’re in a protest and see hooligans, restrain them.)

pclmulqdq 2y ago
You might enjoy reading Rules for Radicals if you haven't already. If your riot can provoke a worse response from the authority, it can help your cause. The reaction is the action. It may be that this protest in Serbia got a bit rowdy and riotous (see "diversity of tactics") and now the headline is about the government's use of a disproportionate weapon against protestors, not about a riot.
- tptacek 2y ago
  Rules for Radicals is one of my favorite books and I don't think this an accurate summary of what Alinsky says, at all. It's a short book, you can get it for free online, people should just read it.
  - krainboltgreene 2y ago
    This tracks so much with what you’ve said before.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > You might enjoy reading Rules for Radicals if you haven't already. If your riot can provoke a worse response from the authority One motif of Allinsky's message is the importance of organisation. Triggering tear gas against your peaceful protest is one thing. Losing control of it such that stores start getting looted is not. > It may be that this protest in Serbia got a bit rowdy and riotous (see "diversity of tactics") and now the headline is about the government's use of a disproportionate weapon against protestors This is the first-order effect. They got a tweet. (Not a headline.) I'm sceptical they'll get a second because this isn't a clear case of a nonlethal weapon being used against a peaceful crowd, it's something more muddled, and as a result there are zero comments in this thread discussing what the protesters are protesting.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

yes, it is an escalation. Governance is maintaining public support for the government having a monopoly on violent escalation. If the government does not have this power, then any person has an individual veto over the rest of the country. Laws are used to describe how and when individuals can protest.

zozbot234 2y ago
As it turns out, part of maintaining that "public support" is not taking advantage of it. The very idea of a stable monopoly on violent escalation is obviously meant to deter violence. When it instead makes violence more likely (because the monopolist is suddenly planning to abuse its monopoly) that's quite a big change and people can be expected to react accordingly.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  That is correct. It really depends on the temperature of public sentiment . Many protests get a charitable assumption in the US as a legacy of civil rights and the Vietnam anti-war movements. However, I think a lot of that good will is eroding. Each country has different perceptions, and ultimately, each protest is different (e.g. who shot first, is it abuse, ect)

KennyBlanken 2y ago

At protests cops purposefully escalate things by having a cop undercover in the crowd to do something violent enough to justify police attacking the crowd. They lob a rock in the general direction of their buddies and Bob's your uncle. Years ago someone caught some campus cops tossing some bricks into the bed of one of their pickups behind their station. They claimed they'd removed them from a section of sidewalk where they'd come loose and become a hazard. First time I've ever heard of a cop doing something like that...