Joun_Lord wrote:Being too actiony can fuck things up for themselves and others. Not even talking about "2nd Amendment solutions" but things like overly confrontational protests, blocking the flow of traffic, and shutting down things can negatively effect a cause. Nobody wants to have some angry protestor screaming in their face, aren't even going to care what they are screaming about. Very few are going to appreciate having their work or lives compromised by a bunch of people blocking off bridges or camping out at their place of work. People and jobs are effected and hurt financially and possibly even physically when things are shut down.
However on the flipside, attempting to stay away from any confrontation will not achieve anything. By definition, a protest is when your interests and the interests of the people you are protesting against collide. Both sides are going to defend their interests, and often the only way to get the side in power to buckle is to get in their faces. If you don't do that, then you will only be as annoying as a single mosquito bite to them.
Sure, in the process, some people in the middle, such as minor workers doing the jobs of the people in power, people unrelated to both sides trying to go about their daily lives, are going to be inconvenienced. But if the protesters are neatly sectioned away like in "free speech zones", they will
never be noticed. Hell, the media doesn't take kindly many times to people protesting the powerful. Look at their almost nonexistent coverage of the Standing Rock protests. And those people are getting right in the faces of the corporate giant in front of them!
This is one situation where idealism is nice, but it is not likely to effectually work, and one needs to accept that in order to make real change.
Joun_Lord wrote:Look at a some of the protests that have taken too much action and the results. Occupy Wall Street protested on public property in already crowded urban areas, blocked the Brooklyn bridges, were extremely confrontational, placed a long term drain on public resources, and were pretty reviled by some for it (didn't help the media smear job agaisnt them). Their counterparts the Tea Party were less reviled, only really getting shit from many for the racists assclowns that they welcomed with open arms and the stupidity of a bunch of conservatives protesting a Dem president over government spending when their own people drove the spending up in the first place. The TPers won't so in peoples faces, any protest was temporary and usually in rural areas, they didn't disrupt things, and weren't picking fights with people.
"Fortune favors the bold." --Benjamin Sisko
Anyway, I can't really comment because I don't remember a lot of Occupy's activities or the Tea Party's genesis, but I can guess the Tea Party did not need to be up close and personal as much because their interests already aligned with the interests of many conservatives in Congress. We'd been seeing calls for "less government oversight, regulation, and spending" for longer than them.
Joun_Lord wrote:Black Lives Matter has a good message, should have alot of support, black people by their population percent are killed more then white people even if they are killed less by numbers alone. However some don't support them because some in their ranks go out of their way to antagonize people, even allies like Bernie Sanders, to disrupt other things like political functions, and to inject their politics into others peoples business like their thing with cops at gay pride parades. Some are anti-cop (though possibly with good reason, maybe), they defend everyone under their purview regardless of guilt or innocence, and have led protests that turned into riots. This stuff along with others have turned people off to BLM even if they might agree with some of their rhetoric.
"some in their ranks" being an insignificant minority though. With a movement as gigantic as BLM, you're of course not going to get full cohesion. The Civil Rights Movement never had that either; it's an impossible standard to hold them to. Accusations against BLM in today's times can also be found back during the CRM, if perhaps even moreso in those days.
People turned off to BLM, if not being outright racists themselves, generally do not really understand the gravity of the situation people of color in this country face that leads them to rise up like this. The anger, the frustration, the resentment that boiled over to lead to BLM's inception has been a force building up for decades. It would be "easier" for them to stay at home and try to live their lives as best as they can in this horrible society, but society came to a point where enough was enough. Their calls for fair treatment, for black people's lives not to be treated as fodder, fell on deaf ears for so long that the only way now for them to be noticed is to get in the faces of the people in power.
What we should examine is not their willingness now to rise up, but the very real conditions that led them to believe rising up is the only viable course of action.
Joun_Lord wrote:The two Bundy protests were VERY actiony, didn't give a shit about disrupting the flow of government (was actually the point of the second and the first was started to stop the lawful actions of the other BLM), and were willing to fight for the protest, even die. But they threatened people (allegedly), turned some peoples workplace and other people vacation destination and still other peoples cultural heritage site in their own little shitfilled clubhouse. They were willing to do whatever, disregard whatever laws, to protest for their right to have free stuff because they are too stupid to realize how they are pretty much fitting to a T the stereotype of the welfare queen. Rightfully (in my opinion) many saw them for the morons shitbags they were, people who even agree with their sentiment about government controlling too much land in the west weren't willing to saddle themselves with the fuckers (especially once daddy Bundy started talking about the "negros" who were better as slaves, maybe Trumpo the Clown should hire this fucking ancient cow fucking bastard asshole to be in charge of minority outreach). They pissed off people so bad that some wanted the cops to go in with guns blazing and fuck them up (I can't take the high road on this, I'd be lying if I said part of me didn't want the same thing, Bundy realllllllllly pisses me off).
There has to be some sort of equilibrium between action and doing nothing. Doing nothing gets nothing done, obviously, but too much action can get a negative amount done.
I mean, yeah, on the extreme other end of the scale you have the wannabe revolutioneers like the Bundies who organized literal armed militias. You definitely don't want that happening, although at the road the justice system seems to be walking, they are probably going to end up giving tacit support to violent revolutions eventually thanks to things like pardoning Ammon Bundy.
They shouldn't be treated as the norm at all, but rather an extreme that is unfortunately being excused by the law and may well likely become the norm sooner than we think. Or, actually let me correct myself, being excused by the law for white folks primarily. Have a bit of color in your skin and you won't be in for a good time.
