What types of externalities invalidate the claim of "peaceful" in the context of method of protest?

[durangodawood]

Let's say that only 1% of the protesters were violent agitators. That 1% causes 90% of the damages. But even if we applied that 1% to conservatives, you will still not find a single situation where mobs of conservatives gathered for a peaceful assembly to protest anything that devolved into national violence, thuggery, and looting like that seen with ANTIFA, BLM, and the current anti-ICE movement that originated in LA.

Generally true. Probably because conservatives are moral laggards and for the most part only see the need for change once its well underway or later. They are more disposed than others to the status quo regardless of how unjust it is.

(Liberals have their own mirror image sort of problem where their disposition toward change can lead to ill considered failure or even disaster.).

 

[probinson]

Let's say that only 1% of the protesters were violent agitators. That 1% causes 90% of the damages.

For anyone not familiar with the Pareto Principle, that's what you're describing here, and it's true in pretty much anything.

The Pareto Principle, or the 80/20 rule, state that 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. It's often described as the "meaningless many" and the "significant few". When liars want to use numbers (i.e. stating that protests are "mostly peaceful") they will point to the meaningless many while downplaying the significant few.

As a hypothetical, there could be 10,000 completely peaceful, scattered protests and ONE protest that results in hundreds of people killed. Mathematically (from raw percentages), it would be accurate to say that the "protests" were "mostly peaceful". But an honest assessment would show that the "protests" were in fact quite deadly when objectively analyzed.

 

[RDKirk]

Probably exposure.

No one will even notice, let alone report on, you walking around with a sign in front of the museum. But get out the glue and youve made a scene people find interesting. Then you can say youre super upset about climate change and someones heard you.

Nah, they didn't actually hear your message, they're just mad at you.

 

[durangodawood]

Nah, they didn't actually hear your message, they're just mad at you.

Sure they didnt get all your finer points of policy recommendations - if you even had any. But they should at least know what issue is getting you bent out of shape. Theres no good reason for failure on that account.

 

[RDKirk]

What does opposing ICE raids, gay rights, socialist activism, climate activism, BLM, and voices for Palestine have in common, apart from the the aspect of being opposed to Trump?

Do you feel it was actually planned then?

You had made this comment:
"But your whole line of argument seems to be based on the assumption that the LA protest was an organized, coordinated effort on the part of the bogeyman left."
(implying that I was perhaps buying into some sort of conspiracy theory about the origins of the protest being "planned")

I said "no quite the opposite, it clearly lacked coherent planning"

And now it appears you have a critique about me saying that.


So is it wrong to say it was planned?, or wrong to say it lacked planning?

which is it?

The left has a very effective but fairly flat system ("system" is probably an inaccurate word, because it implies a fixed structure that isn't the case) of hundreds of organizations that can drum up protestors at a moment's notice.

They are not hierarchies, but they inhabit the same echo chambers.

They don't all have precisely the same essential causes, but they all have roughly the same list of "villains" they're always ready to protest.

Generally speaking, the people at the level of prompting and participating in street-marches aren't receiving outside funds, but this day of social media doesn't require a lot of funding to turn out a crowd when the influencers already have their followers.

So, there is a "system" always in place that can get bodies out into the street at a moment's notice.

 

[BCP1928]

The left has a very effective but fairly flat system ("system" is probably an inaccurate word, because it implies a fixed structure that isn't the case) of hundreds of organizations that can drum up protestors at a moment's notice.

They are not hierarchies, but they inhabit the same echo chambers.

They don't all have precisely the same essential causes, but they all have roughly the same list of "villains" they're always ready to protest.

Generally speaking, the people at the level of prompting and participating in street-marches aren't receiving outside funds, but this day of social media doesn't require a lot of funding to turn out a crowd when the influencers already have their followers.

So, there is a "system" always in place that can get bodies out into the street at a moment's notice.

There was a time, back in the Viet Nam war days, when lots of protests were going on. Despite the protests, the war dragged on but I knew the a war was over when my staid, conventional elderly aunt and uncle got on a bus with other seniors and travelled from Vallejo down to 'San Francisco to take part in a protest. Is that the kind of thing you are afraid of? That some of the people who are protesting might not be the leftist zombies of your stereotype?

 

[partinobodycular]

I raise this question, because obviously there's a lot of debate about the current protests happening right now.

While the predictable battle lines have been drawn, and there are clear-cut cases of "peaceful" and "non-peaceful" that everyone can point to...


I'm more concerned with the grey area. The methods of protest that don't actually involve hitting someone in the face or throwing a brick, but that carry certain externalities that harm people in other ways.

I'm sorry, but if one person has the right to come into someone's place of work... who's been peacefully contributing to society for years... and rip them away from friends and family by deporting them to a place that they've never been, then by golly that person has the right to block a highway and inconvenience others in the process.

As a human being, I have the exact same rights that you have, and if your rights include inconveniencing me then my rights include inconveniencing you.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

As a hypothetical, there could be 10,000 completely peaceful, scattered protests and ONE protest that results in hundreds of people killed. Mathematically (from raw percentages), it would be accurate to say that the "protests" were "mostly peaceful". But an honest assessment would show that the "protests" were in fact quite deadly when objectively analyzed.

The other aspect that often gets downplayed, is the fact that the "peaceful" (as in, not the ones physically doing anything illegal) ones are often complicit in getting the "loose cannons" whipped up into a frenzy.

So for instance, one person with a megaphone shouting "police are corrupt, and we're not going to take it anymore, it's time for action!" in a hostile tone (while a couple hundred people applaud), is the only greenlight the irrational guy with brick in his backpack needs to throw it at a cop car.

It also doesn't help that the "peaceful" protestors are often cheering it on when the "violent few" are acting out.

That seems to be the pattern I've noticed in a lot of these videos, it'll only be 1 or 2 people lighting the cop car on fire are smashing it, but there's certainly no shortage of people, not engaging in the act itself -- but enthusiastically cheering it on.

So for instance, in this one, there were only 2 or 3 people actually whipping the Molotovs and bricks off the bridge, but the hundreds of others lining the bridge were cheering while it was happening.

And while there's obviously no law against cheering for a squad car fire, I think we can all agree that does create a bad incentive structure.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm sorry, but if one person has the right to come into someone's place of work... who's been peacefully contributing to society for years... and rip them away from friends and family by deporting them to a place that they've never been, then by golly that person has the right to block a highway and inconvenience others in the process.

As a human being, I have the exact same rights that you have, and if your rights include inconveniencing me then my rights include inconveniencing you.

So they should be protesting in the parking lot of the ICE facility then and specifically trying to block them?

The random people in all of those blocked cars just trying to mind their own business aren't the ones who were doing anything to them.

 

[public hermit]

So should I safely assume that you are opposed to any protest that blocks traffic?

In general, I don't think it's an effective form of protest if by effective we mean changing the position of others on an issue. It think it can lead to resentment and violence. But it does depend on context. Stopping a tank with one's body and stopping traffic with a group of bodies might seem to be similar forms of protest but context changes a lot. There's something about Tank Man during the Tiananmen Protests that doesn't quite ring the same with folks stopping the evening commute.

 

[partinobodycular]

The random people in all of those blocked cars just trying to mind their own business aren't the ones who were doing anything to them.

The same goes for the person working at Home Depot... they're just trying to mind their own business. Why is it fair for one to be inconvenienced, but not the other?

 

[public hermit]

There was a time, back in the Viet Nam war days, when lots of protests were going on. Despite the protests, the war dragged on but I knew the a war was over when my staid, conventional elderly aunt and uncle got on a bus with other seniors and travelled from Vallejo down to 'San Francisco to take part in a protest. Is that the kind of thing you are afraid of? That some of the people who are protesting might not be the leftist zombies of your stereotype?

Maybe this is just my impression, but I think the later stages of the Viet Nam War protests show how peaceful protests become effective, i.e., huge numbers. Once aunt and uncle get involved, once much of the populace is on the same page, changes start happening.

 

[BCP1928]

Maybe this is just my impression, but I think the later stages of the Viet Nam War protests show how peaceful protests become effective, i.e., huge numbers. Once aunt and uncle get involved, once much of the populace is on the same page, changes start happening.

Maybe that will happen on Saturday. MAGA is definitely overplaying its hand.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The same goes for the person working at Home Depot... they're just trying to mind their own business. Why is it fair for one to be inconvenienced, but not the other?

Because one is here legally and the other is not.

When you're outside of the legal boundaries, there's always a possibility of being apprehended for it.

 

[public hermit]

Maybe that will happen on Saturday. MAGA is definitely overplaying its hand.

I would love to see the majority of our populace organize to say "No" to MAGA. I mean, it's the next best thing to MAGA not being a thing. I think people are already getting exhausted with this administration. It's only been months and it feels like forever. Lol.

 

[BCP1928]

Because one is here legally and the other is not.

When you're outside of the legal boundaries, there's always a possibility of being apprehended for it.

Hopefully it will be a legal apprehension.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Maybe that will happen on Saturday. MAGA is definitely overplaying its hand.

It should have happened last November.

 

[rambot]

When was the last time conservatives did a nation wide protest on anything that involved cities burning and store being looted? I know, "what about January 6th!" That was one incident that lasted 8 hours an only one person was killed. Now compare that to BLM, ANTIFA summer of love, CHAZ/CHOP, LA, ect..., what do you have?

I don't know if you've noticed this but conservatives love the "Status quo" so.....
1) Why WOULD they protest?
2) How do the police handle their protests or mistread conservatives?

You'll recall how many charges were dropped by judges because police mistreated BLM protestors. That was "liberal justices"; that was overzealous and improper police work.

 

[durangodawood]

....It also doesn't help that the "peaceful" protestors are often cheering it on when the "violent few" are acting out.....

That looks typical of protest when the cameras (and the viewing/paying audience and bulk of internet commenters) prefer the violent scenes.

 

[rambot]

Let's say that only 1% of the protesters were violent agitators. That 1% causes 90% of the damages. But even if we applied that 1% to conservatives, you will still not find a single situation where mobs of conservatives gathered for a peaceful assembly to protest anything that devolved into national violence, thuggery, and looting like that seen with ANTIFA, BLM, and the current anti-ICE movement that originated in LA.

Could you provide some examples of right wing protests from the last, say 10 years that were specifically targetting a CAUSE or a SPECIFIC? Not like a "Proud Boys Cheerleading" event but a cause?

Outside of Jan 6 and those types of events, I'm having trouble thinking of any.