(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.)
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".
The comment you replied to didn't mention anything about the inauguration, the Women's March, Trump, or the election.
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...
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.
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?
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.
"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.
Right. Those are some of the reasons it's plausible that someone would recommend it with a more complex intention than "yay, looting."
Perhaps one could even find sources that present a fair criticism of the flaws of other economic systems and the injustices perpetrated by other societies alongside the critique of capitalism and American history.
When a prominent activist like DeRay Mckesson recommends an article like In Defense of Looting, it's likely to encourage looting by some of his followers.
> 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.
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).
Domestic terrorism is being normalized by a fifth column.
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.
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