[JohnTHaller]

If you get to conflate the handful of anarchists breaking windows and setting fires the night before with the 3m of us who marched peacefully during the Women's March, then we get to conflate all Trump voters with the literal nazis - as in "Sieg Heil", nazi salute, call themselves "nazis" - that voted for him and celebrated his victory. It's only fair.

(And, yes, I'm saying that both of these things are a bad idea since tone tends to be lost particularly in online political discussion.)

[leereeves]

Violence wasn't limited to a handful of anarchists during the inauguration.

There have been numerous incidents of assault, arson, vandalism, looting, and such during protests for at least a couple years now, starting with BLM protests long before Trump and the election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_unrest

Some prominent activists have even defended these acts. For example, Deeray McKesson called In Defense of Looting "absolute required reading".

https://twitter.com/deray/status/524704650218729473

[troncheadle]

Just... so much wrong here. First and foremost, you are still characterizing an entire movement by it's worst actors, so the point of the poster above you stands.

Second -- 'Ferguson' was a community reacting to a state sponsored murder -- not a 'BLM protest'. They weren't out there for BLM, they were out there because Ferguson cops enacted violence on their community.

Finally, calling 'in defense of looting' required reading is not endorsing or defending looting. You aren't a Nazi because you read Mein Kampf. It's an interesting take and I'm sure Deray has a nuanced opinion on the issue -- but nah you're just going to keep mischaracterizing people and movements to fit your world view.

[leereeves]

First, while I don't want to argue the case of the shooting of Michael Brown here (nor do I have any special knowledge to add to the publicly available facts), you've jumped to conclusions regarding the case ("a state sponsored murder").

The grand jury did not find enough evidence to charge the officer and even CNN said "Some [witnesses] admitted lying. Others changed their stories under questioning."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/14/justice/ferguson-witnesses-cre...

You've clearly decided the facts of the case based not on evidence but on your own world view so kindly spare me spurious accusations of doing so.

Second, I'm not characterizing an entire movement, I'm merely referencing the events.

I'm not merely referring to Ferguson, that's simply one example of many, so I used a general term. You may prefer other terms but I suspect that you know what I'm referring to when I use the term "BLM protests".

Third, while Mein Kampf may be required reading for its historical importance, do tell, why would In Defense of Looting be required reading if not for the position it advocates?

...

So this is being downvoted without response - why?

[iak8god]

Hi. I just went off and read In Defense of Looting[1], which I'd never seen before, following its mention in your earlier post. It's fascinating. I think you should read it. It presents a very interesting perspective that many might not be familiar with and, despite the title, is not primarily a defense of looting.

Isn't this an interesting idea worth thinking about? "Looting is extremely dangerous to the rich (and most white people) because it reveals, with an immediacy that has to be moralized away, that the idea of private property is just that: an idea, a tenuous and contingent structure of consent, backed up by the lethal force of the state."

I don't think looting is a good idea, but I do think reading that essay is. Possibly Deeray McKesson felt the same way.

[1] http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/in-defense-of-looting/

[leereeves]

I've read it a few times.

"It is in solidarity with these latter protesters–along with those who loot–and against politicians and de-escalators everywhere that I offer this critique"

As someone who would like to see de-escalation before this all ends in civil war, the author has declared (correctly, I think) themselves against me.

It is, more than a mere defense of looting, an attack on capitalism and "white supremacy" (by which the author means American society in general, not extremist Neo-Nazis).

I'm as aware as anyone of the failures and injustices of capitalism, but merely taking what one wants isn't a sustainable solution.

[iak8god]

> It is, more than a mere defense of looting, an attack on capitalism and "white supremacy" (by which the author means American society in general, not extremist Neo-Nazis).

Right. Those are some of the reasons it's plausible that someone would recommend it with a more complex intention than "yay, looting."

[JohnTHaller]

Really had to move the goal posts from my specific example there, didn't you?

[leereeves]

You tried to move the goalposts where you wanted them; I moved the conversation back to the overall topic.

The comment you replied to didn't mention anything about the inauguration, the Women's March, Trump, or the election.

[JohnTHaller]

I spoke to the specific event I personally attended (the Women's March) that has been called violent by many Trump supporters.

[leereeves]

> The peaceful gatherings with signs and petitions, or the kind with assaults, battery, looting and vandalism on others for speaking their side?

I'd say the Women's March was the first kind, and, for example, the recent Berkeley-Milo protest was the second.

And I think the question in the quote is appropriate. Surely we don't intend the First Amendment to protect people the UC Chancellor reportedly described as: "more than 100 armed people in masks and dark uniforms who used paramilitary tactics to engage in violent destructive behavior intended to shut the event down."

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/opinion/violence-at-be...

[rdtsc]

>> The peaceful gatherings with signs and petitions, or the kind with assaults, battery, looting and vandalism on others for speaking their side?

> If you get to conflate the handful of anarchists breaking windows and setting fires the night before with the 3m of us who marched peacefully during the Women's March, then we get to conflate all Trump voters with the literal nazis - as in "Sieg Heil", nazi salute, call themselves "nazis" - that voted for him and celebrated his victory. It's only fair.

Hmm, did the op call the Women's March violent? I didn't see them doing it. So how did "Sieg Heil" even enter into this conversation?

I see people playing too fast and too loose with those terms. Both of my grandfathers drove the real "Nazis" all the way to Berlin and witnessed unimaginable horrors done by them. One was wounded had a part of his lung blow off by them. My mom told me stories of what happened with Jewish children in the village (for example daughter of the village school teacher) who was raped then had her arms cut off and buried in the back of their garden by "Nazis". You calling Trump voters "Nazis" is slap in the face to anyone who experienced the "Nazis".

You should be more careful about using those terms. You are also not advancing the cause you seem to advance because every time you write or say those words in reference to Trump voters you are probably end making more future Trump voters.

[JohnTHaller]

Except I didn't say what you're railing against. If you re-read what I posted, I said conflating all Trump voters with the nazis that voted for him. Two separate groups that should not be conflated: the small fraction of nazi Trump voters and the rest of Trump voters. I never once called all Trump voters nazis nor would I or any thinking person.

Yes, nazis did vote for Trump in the form of the American Nazi Party and others... literal "Sieg Heil", white power, "cleanse" others, nazi salute awful types. They were a very small fraction of his supporters. It's just as dumb to conflate those horrible excuses for humanity with the other millions who voted for Trump (and would be horrified by those nazi saluters) as it is to conflate the anarchists breaking windows and setting fires with the other millions who peacefully protested (and are horrified by the anarchists).

[merpnderp]

Nearly no one was arrested and thus put on a watch list for the Women's March. This list is a dumb thing, but it likely will only affect people in protests that get rough.

[ihsw]

It's not a handful -- show me a gathering of anti-government protestors and I'll show you a news report the following day of random acts of violence. This is a slippery slope and permitting this to happen without consequence is dangerous.

Domestic terrorism is being normalized by a fifth column.

[JohnTHaller]

400,000 people peacefully marched in NYC for the Women's March and no arrests were made of marchers according to the city. The biggest thing I saw in my hours there was two bloggers being told to climb down from taking a picture 4 feet up a scaffolding (they climbed down without incident). Heck, a couple female NYPD officers were hugging a bunch of marchers just around the corner from that.

You'll get far more arrests when you have someone win the Super Bowl. As such, it's a slippery slope, and people should not be permitted to win the Super Bowl.

Note that there is a huge difference between protestors and anarchists wearing all black with black face masks breaking windows, setting fires, and pepper spraying people. Those people are not protestors. They go with a very specific intention and it's definitely not to further the cause of the protestors.

[itsjohncena]

I like this challenge. I'll up it:

If anyone shows me an example of the US government in action, I'll show how the people, laws, policies, or circumstances involved were responsible for government-caused violence, oppression, and lies. I really don't understand how you're more willing to condemn activists for the bits of random acts of violence without a word toward our government that promotes and legalises the violence they use on people all over the world. Already in the last month Trump and Obama tag teamed to kill nearly an entire innocent family, including children: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-o...

As for your challenge, here's Portland Oregon police confirming one of the largest marches in the history of the most liberal city in America was "100% peaceful": https://twitter.com/PortlandPolice/status/822958708980260864

[TenOhms]

I didn't conflate anything, I'm merely trying to discern which side of the legal spectrum this fear is being directed towards. Judging by the reaction to my questions, I'm guessing it's towards the unlawful.