[smsm42]

Activities such as public disobedience to fight unjust laws are unlikely to be affected by surveillance because their whole point is to publicly violate unjust law to attract attention to its unjustness. MLK did not march in secret and avoid surveillance, he marched in public and welcomed attention. That was the whole point of it.

[godelski]

But there's different dangers and responsibilities by those leading and those joining.

The surveillance affects those in the march. Those who might lose their jobs or get arrested. Which did happen at that time. Surveillance increases that scale.

A weird thing is that as groups scale they become anonymous. Small groups have no anonymity, but big groups do. There's safety in numbers. This is why people protest differently now. Why they wear masks. Why people leave their phones at home. The way you protest evolves, but we should ensure that protesting is easy and safe

[smsm42]

> This is why people protest differently now. Why they wear masks

No, they wear masks to commit criminal acts, which we witness a lot and for which they definitely should be prosecuted. I am wholeheartedly for peaceful protests, but sorry, black block masked crowds torching businesses and beating up people is not peaceful protests. That's where our ways part. Anarchy and democracy are very different things, and I do not want the former, and I do not want the latter to be confused with the former. And no, it should not be easy and safe to wear a mask and riot - not individually and not with a mob. It should be very dangerous and land one in jail, preferable for a good long time. The fact that it is not happening today is one of the very profound problem that we have in our society - that breaking the laws is tolerated under the thin guise of "protest". And I am not talking about Jim Crow laws, I am talking about common sense laws like "don't torch your neighbor's business" and "don't loot your local Target" and "don't beat up random people walking on the street because you felt like they think wrong thoughts". This has to stop.

[godelski]

  > No, they wear masks to commit criminal acts,

Unless you are considering protesting a criminal act, then I'm going to disagree. This is America, we have the right to protest.

I've worn a mask at a protest and committed no crime while protesting. I, and many others, do it for exactly the reasons I have said above.

I won't defend looters nor deny their existence. But I'll also tell you I've been to protests where I get home and turn on the TV and see it painted as something very different from the thing I experienced. I've gone to parks where people spoke, where a bunch of hippies played drums, where people marched down the street, but then on the news saw only scenes of trash cans burning on the other side of town. I've seen people get gassed and arrested while holding up signs and shouting, then get home, turn on the TV and only see images of some brawl that I never saw. I would have never known had I turned on news. But the news also never showed the things I saw and experienced. I don't think these are fake, I'm sure they're things that happened, but it certainly feels misleading as it's certainly misrepresenting reality.

It doesn't matter if it's Fox or CNN, they show what gets them views. They show what makes you scared. They show what makes you angry. But what they don't show is people. In any big group you can find at least someone doing anything. But one person isn't the group just like one action doesn't define your whole life.

So I welcome you to go to protests. To counter protest if you want. That is your right and I'll defend that right too. It's your God given right and I'll defend it even if I hate you for it. You have the right to be a saint. You have the right to be an asshole. You can't have the right to but one without the right to be the other. I've done it in the past and I'll do it again. Because, first they come for the people who are easy to hate...

  > And no, it should not be easy and safe to wear a mask and riot

You've gravely misunderstood.

First, I agree, it should not be easy to riot. I don't want to condone rioting. Let's get that straight.

Second, I want to live in a world where wearing masks isn't seen as self defense for people exercising their rights. I want a system where people feel safe protesting and showing their faces. But it's not uncommon to go to protests and find a Cessna circling above it for hours. It's not uncommon to go to a protest with a rayhunter and see a lot of imsi catchers. It's not uncommon to go to protests and see police set up cameras and license plate detectors all throughout the neighborhoods. So help take down the surveillance state and I'll take off my mask. Deal? Because no matter which side of the isle you're on I'm sure we can agree there. I don't want to be ruled by communists, fascist, dictators, monarchs, plutocrats, nor any of the like. I'm not an anarchistic, I'm even more accepting of authority than our founding fathers. But authority needs to be kept in check, because power creeps

[smsm42]

> This is America, we have the right to protest.

Of course, and I agree. But wearing masks to protest is strongly correlated with "protests" that aren't protests but riots - not in theory, but in practice. That's like if you see someone marching with clean-shaved head and swastika on the sleeve - maybe it's a buddhist marching band, but in practice we know it's probably not.

> I've gone to parks where people spoke, where a bunch of hippies played drums,

And those hippies don't need to wear masks, and usually do not. I am all for hippies playing drums. It's the masked guys that hide behind them, waiting for the chance to set stuff on fire, that I am worrying about.

> So I welcome you to go to protests. To counter protest if you want.

No thank you. I have no particular desire to be beaten within an inch of my life, as it happened to many people already. Yes, I know not everybody would attack me, just a tiny minority, while the hippies will keep playing drums. Somehow it doesn't make me feel better about staying the next couple of months in the hospital. If I am lucky.

> In any big group you can find at least someone doing anything. But one person isn't the group

Unfortunately, it's not one person. It's a lot of persons. It's not all the persons, true, but that's not helping - it's like saying we shouldn't investigate murders because most people aren't murderers. True, they aren't - that's the minority that are that we worry about. And again, practice shows those are exactly the one that wear masks and other gear specially designed to make them hard to identify and prosecute. They are not stupid, they know that blending in the crowd of innocent people makes them harder to find and catch.

> But authority needs to be kept in check, because power creeps

Again, I agree, it needs to be. But not by means of mayhem, which is right now seems to be a very popular mode of doing it, for some reason. Yes, not everybody. Enough to be a huge problem.

[godelski]

  > And those hippies don't need to wear masks

They do. Go look up Portland ICE protests and you'll see tons of people wearing inflatable costumes. Guess what, those cover your face and make it hard to get you on film. Thats a mask.

  > No thank you. I have no particular desire to be beaten within an inch of my life,

Suppose this is true, why would someone beat you up? Are you arguing? You could literally go there, just walk around like a normal person, and be fine. They aren't beating up each other, right? There's no secret handshake. People aren't being interrogated before being allowed to join a protest. The only way they would know you're on the opposite side is if you tell them. Normal people aren't the government, they don't have access to mass surveillance technologies and can instantly know you're political beliefs by pointing a camera at your face and using facial recognition. Sorry, that technology isn't in the hands of everyday people.

So supposing you're right, that it is that dangerous: something doesn't add up. It's pretty trivial to act "undercover", if you will.

[smsm42]

> Go look up Portland ICE protests and you'll see tons of people wearing inflatable costumes

Some of them do not need to wear costumes, they do it because they want to. Others are criminals that intend to attack the police and interfere with lawful law enforcement activities. That's why they need masking - to avoid being prosecuted for their criminal activities. I agree that criminals indeed derive many benefits from not being prosecuted - but I don't see how it should make me sympathize, when I am not a criminal.

> Suppose this is true, why would someone beat you up?

Because in some parts of our political culture, wrong views are violence, and must be met with violence. Protesting (or counter-protesting) only makes sense if I disagree with something important, which automatically makes my views "wrong" to a sizable number of people, many of whom are members of that culture, and are proudly announcing it in public.

> They aren't beating up each other, right?

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they are also raping each other. Sometimes they even are killing each other. Look up Horace Lorenzo Anderson Jr.

> The only way they would know you're on the opposite side is if you tell them.

Or if they think I am looking suspicious or wearing wrong clothes or not chant enthusiastically enough or look like somebody they hate. Once violence is legitimized, there are thousands of reasons for violence. Why would I go to a place where there's a high chance this random violence would be turned against me? Why would I go there if the precondition is I can't even express my views - what's the point of going to a protest then? What would be the benefit of this action for me?

> It's pretty trivial to act "undercover", if you will.

Does the name Andy Ngo tell anything to you? How about Savanah Hernandez?

[jjav]

> It's the masked guys that hide behind them, waiting for the chance to set stuff on fire, that I am worrying about.

Those are ICE thugs.

[smsm42]

No those aren't. ICE is not going around setting stuff on fire. People who call them "thugs", surprisingly, often do. I'd rather sympathize with the non-setting-stuff-on-fire category.