[dayvid]

People have too much to lose nowadays. Having a jail or protesting history gives you a black mark if you're middle class and you have to pursue alternate avenues to provide for yourself and your family. It's a last resort and has allowed a lot of insidious things to grow in US gov't and outside

[shipman05]

The men and women who protested with MLK Jr. risked physical harm and death. Many of them paid the ultimate price. So it's hard to argue they didn't have much to lose.

I do take your point, though. Civil disobedience and a digital trail of "undesirable" behavior isn't compatible with a high-earning life in the corporate world.

[pkkim]

Hmmm. When I was in college, I protested and went to jail multiple times in the US, though I was never convicted (the organization I was with provided for legal representation). I don't believe it has ever damaged my career. I'm curious if your experience has been different?

[AngryData]

Well you weren't convicted, and a huge part of that is likely your free legal representation which would otherwise have cost you thousands of dollars that many people don't have to spend themselves.

[pkkim]

Absolutely. If I hadn't been assured there would be a lawyer afterwards (he represented us as a group btw), I wouldn't have done it...

I strongly recommend that anyone doing civil disobedience join up with an organization which can provide training, logistical support, and at least some degree of legal support. The first two are if anything even more important given that these situations tend to be chaotic and tense. The book Waging a Good War documents the intensive training that activists underwent during the civil rights movement which was crucial for their success.

Of course the situation is much more lawless now in places like Minneapolis and ICE is much more undisciplined than the police, which makes civil disobedience much more challenging and dangerous. That just makes training and legal aid all the more necessary.

[hn_throwaway_99]

When were you in college?

[pkkim]

Well within the time period when even minor news was routinely posted to the Internet, so it's searchable. On the other hand I have a really common name.

[pear01]

People have too much to lose nowadays?

Many of King's contemporaries died for this. He was shot and killed. The FBI tried to blackmail him and get him to commit suicide.

I would rather people just admit they are cowards. It is fine, most people are. But saying people have too much to lose nowadays as if this is a contemporary phenomenon is just disingenuous. People always have much to lose, arguably "nowadays" less than ever before.

Maybe the real change is in how things are valued or what society sees as virtues. Perhaps our modern society values wealth more than personal integrity for example. I would suggest though a lot of this is just cope for the fact that people are learning they aren't fit for their heros, they don't belong in the same room let alone the same building. It's easy to valorize King when he's a voice from the past. The people who stay home today are the same who stayed home then. The American revolution was really instigated by a minority of the colonial population. Most people stay home.

It's just a basic fact of humanity - most people are cowards, and that is probably fine. If they weren't society would likely never exist in the first place. What does a polity even look like in a land where everyone is a hero?

[watwut]

The whole bus protest was AGAINST enforcement of the law. It was civil disobedience on the side of Rosa Park and it was all about them not wanting to accept the criminal consequences.

The activists generally did a lot to actually avoid criminal consequences of the time. It was not a suicide pact.

[pear01]

Your logic on the criminal consequences is simply bizarre. It's like you think if I put myself out there protesting a law and subjecting myself to arrest or other consequences by virtue of this opposition I really don't want to accept consequences. What do you think happens to people who protest against the enforcement of a law?

And let's not move the goalposts. I never said it was a suicide pact, nor did anyone else. Reads like more cope. Yes you can tailor your approach, as they did. But ultimately are you staying home or not? Let's take another example, was D Day a suicide pact? Or do you regard them as heroes? Did they not have much to lose?

The fact remains most people stay home. Most people are cowards, unless compelled otherwise. Let's also understand leadership is extremely important. A good leader makes people around them stronger. King made people resolute, and in turn they made him resolute.

Like Eisenhower and the paratroopers before D Day. They made each other feel better. Go read about the visit I'm sure you've seen the famous photograph. The real tragedy of today isn't about cowards, which again have always existed and always will. It's about a vacuum of leadership.

[watwut]

> It's like you think if I put myself out there protesting a law and subjecting myself to arrest or other consequences by virtue of this opposition I really don't want to accept consequences. What do you think happens to people who protest against the enforcement of a law?

In democracies, they are just protesters protected against the retaliation by laws and constitutions. In autocracies and wanna be autocracies, police can abuse them with various levels of impunity.

In fact, people are protesting the law and it enforcement. What they do not do is following this idiotic idea OP was promoting that all protesters should do and promote:

> One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. [...] willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice

No, of course not. No, civil disobedience does not have to imply you will let yourself be abused. That can be occasionally used as tactic, but is absolutely unnecessary for it to be valid.

And it was not even what most protesters in bus protests were doing this all that much. They were trying to avoid the penalty and they were not intentionally giving themselves up to the law.

[pear01]

Sorry but you're just wrong, and shockingly so.

"In democracies, they are just protesters protected against the retaliation by laws and constitutions"

This is a mind numbing statement to make in context. What do you think the civil rights fight was about? You think black people marching around freely in the pre civil rights South were treated as "just protestors"? You realize for a long time the Constitution outrightly failed to protect people who were black, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selma_to_Montgomery_marches#%2...

This is just one example. And sorry, it was part of their philosophy that exposing the country to this brutality would awaken the conscience of the nation. As it eventually did. That meant accepting the police brutality they knew was waiting for them. You are simply wrong, and frankly again, shockingly so.

1. Don't seem to understand the nature of civil disobedience - disobedience being a key word here.

2. Don't seem to understand how engaging in civil disobedience invites severe consequences - especially in the face of an aggressive state. We aren't just talking criminal penalties we are talking risk to life and limb.

3. Don't seem to understand the nature of nonviolence - it wasn't just about not being violent. It was about exposing the barbarity of the state as they attacked nonviolent people not responding even remotely in kind.

4. Don't seem to understand the nature of democracies in reality. Engaging in outright fiction re how democracies treat protestors vs autocracies, as if there is some obvious invisible line. Apparently ignorant of the fact that especially in King's time, protestors rights were often not protected by local authorities in the South.

5. Don't seem to understand that's kind what the entire movement was about, rights for me but not for thee.

I was kind of expecting this response given it was the only logical rejoinder after your previous statements, but it rests on a real misstatement and misunderstanding of the facts that even though was anticipated, is still disappointing.

Democracies can abuse protestors too. Always have, always will. It's why the founders feared the people's temptation for mobs as well as tyrants.

Have a good day

[JKCalhoun]

Really?

Well, when they have nothing left to lose, watch out, I guess.

[OGEnthusiast]

Most of the people today with nothing to lose are just self-medicating on weed, sports betting, Netflix, etc. I don't think there's much to be worried about.