Prop 8 battle turns violent

[The Romulan Republic]

The only way to get non-violent change in this country is, frankly, when you are A) A visible Minority. B) A Minority where sufficient numbers of those in your group are not ashamed or afraid to "exist" socially.

I don't know what to say other than that I hope you're wrong, because otherwise a lot of people will die and we can say good by to niceties like Democracy and the Rule of Law. Hate begets hate.

We are hardly black people who form a huge portion of the population in the Jim Crow south, or Indians, who ARE the population of india. We are less than three percent of the population, 4-5 if you are being generous and assuming a LOT of closet cases. What are we going to do? Hold a sit in at people's weddings? Oh yeah, that'll gain sympathy

Again, I don't know what to say, other than that I believe that democracy and the rule of law are things worth preserving, and that giving in to frusteration and anger and resorting to violence will only make things worse all round.

Take a look at the fucking numbers. Every time an anti-gay marriage ballot initiative comes to a vote, it passes (with the exception of AZ, but that will soon be remedied). We have been introducing the same legislation in congress, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, for thirty fucking years. Originally it covered housing discrimination too, but that was found to be over-reaching, so we decided to settle for protection from discrimination in employment. It has never passed both houses of congress, and usually it is a legislative miracle to get it out of fucking committee.

Same with hate crime legislation.

Hell, the hate is so bad, that 10% of gay teenagers come out of HS, if they make it at all (teen suicide rates are IIRC 7 times higher than the rest of the population, to to the point that it pulls down life expectancy) with PTSD. The school systems, often intentionally, leave these kids crying in the dark with no one to turn to but drugs or the barrel of a gun.

Its a deplorable state of affairs. But their has been progress. We've gone from an age where homosexuality was a crime across the western world to the current state of affairs. The US has lagged behind the rest of the world, but change has come, and will continue to come. Their are times where violence is nessissary, but as long as progress is being made through legal and non-violent methods, we cannot lightly condone violent actions.

Now you tell me? Isnt AT LEAST punching someone in the face more than understandable? Dont you think that it is just a little bit actually justified. There is a person sitting there, basically calling you sub-human, and actively working to keep you cowed underneath their boot. Dont you think the least they deserve is a right hook?

Understandable? Yes. But that doesn't make it right. Why sink to their level? If change can still be made through non-violent means, then that is the path I would prefer. I would rather achieve change by rising above the violent and bigoted. I know, its easy for me to talk. I'm not a member of an oppressed minority. Maybe if I was I would feel differently. But I hope not. I hope I would remember the times that justice and equality have been achieved through non-violent means, remember that I can and should be better than oppressors and bigots. I hope I would see violence as a last resort, not as a way of relieving my anger and frusteration.

[Feil]

A person whose government fails to grant him equal rights before the law is not a citizen but a subject, and is therefore in no way obligated to cooperate with the governmental process; and when the governmental process sets itself as his enemy, he may justly oppose it with whatever means are proportionally appropriate to the degree of action taken against him. The fact that battery is illegal, counterproductive, and antithetical to the democratic process doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

[The Romulan Republic]

A person whose government fails to grant him equal rights before the law is not a citizen but a subject, and is therefore in no way obligated to cooperate with the governmental process; and when the governmental process sets itself as his enemy, he may justly oppose it with whatever means are proportionally appropriate to the degree of action taken against him.

I would question how you can justify something that is counterproductive to your cause, or inflicts needless harm? I would also point out that if every injustice or failing of government were met with violence, we would dwell in a state of constant anarchy.

The fact that battery is illegal, counterproductive, and antithetical to the democratic process doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

Emphasis mine, obviously. If being counterproductive especially on such a serious issue doesn't make something wrong, what the hell does?

[Feil]

especially on such a serious issue

That's fair. I was thinking about a person existing in a vacuum whose choices ranged from taking no action to taking action that harmed only those trying to harm him. I would amend my assertion to

"A person whose government fails to grant him equal rights before the law is not a citizen but a subject, and is therefore in no way obligated to cooperate with the governmental process; and when the governmental process sets itself as his enemy, he may justly oppose it with whatever means are proportionally appropriate to the degree of action taken against him, provided that these means do not do harm to those who have not set themselves against him."

As to your other point, a government can be unsuccessful in protecting a person's rights or guaranteeing equity, but there is a difference between that and legally depriving him of equality before the law. The former is a friend (or, more appropriately, a contractual partner) trying but not succeeding to fulfill its obligations. The latter is an enemy (or, more appropriately, a fraud).

[Feil]

EDIT: obviously my amendment qualifies as a concession in the context of this thread.

[Saxtonite]

Let me put it this way:

[snip]

Think about it.

Actually, when Black Nationalist Groups, like Black Panthers were willing to organize, do battle with the police and repel them from their home and defend their people from police aggression people noticed them (civil rights people) more. When the Nation of Islam; lead by Malcolm X grew and were willing to do the same thing to Caucasians that the Caucasians have done to the Afro-Americans for the past 300 years and violently gain their freedom "by any means necessary", get vengeance, etc THEN the middle America was more willing to give them their rights. When they are given a choice between Malcolm X and his beliefs and Black Separatism, and Martin Luther King's 'nonviolent' strategy it DOES make the 'nonviolent' strategy an easier pill to swallow! When people were rioting in the streets it scared a lot of people into giving them their rights. The same with Vietnam arguably, when people made their wills KNOWN directly and violently THEN people started listening. See the 1968 Democratic Nat'l Convention and the rioting, etc and how it helped with the 'Vietnam War'. And stuff like the Weathermen and other groups like that.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Let me put it this way:

[snip]

Think about it.

Actually, when Black Nationalist Groups, like Black Panthers were willing to organize, do battle with the police and repel them from their home and defend their people from police aggression people noticed them (civil rights people) more. When the Nation of Islam; lead by Malcolm X grew and were willing to do the same thing to Caucasians that the Caucasians have done to the Afro-Americans for the past 300 years and violently gain their freedom "by any means necessary", get vengeance, etc THEN the middle America was more willing to give them their rights. When they are given a choice between Malcolm X and his beliefs and Black Separatism, and Martin Luther King's 'nonviolent' strategy it DOES make the 'nonviolent' strategy an easier pill to swallow! When people were rioting in the streets it scared a lot of people into giving them their rights. The same with Vietnam arguably, when people made their wills KNOWN directly and violently THEN people started listening. See the 1968 Democratic Nat'l Convention and the rioting, etc and how it helped with the 'Vietnam War'. And stuff like the Weathermen and other groups like that.

I cant say I disagree. Our pride parades are actually NOT in the same vein as your straight parades, which are based off of a roman military Triumphal march. Ours are re-enactments of the stone wall riots, which kicked off the gay rights movement.

[Saxtonite]

I cant say I disagree. Our pride parades are actually NOT in the same vein as your straight parades, which are based off of a roman military Triumphal march.

can you explain? I don't know of any 'straight parades'

Ours are re-enactments of the stone wall riots, which kicked off the gay rights movement.

heh. again that's an example of the fringe directly opposing the mainstream.

Aren't many of those parades 'festive' as well?

[Pablo Sanchez]

When Nunez tried to take back his signs, the man punched him in the face. The punch sent Nunez to the hospital where he needed stitches.

I'm not sure what the rules are for grabbing a bunch of signs from someone who was freely distributing them (is it actually stealing?), but I really wonder how he "tried to take back his signs", because the article doesn't elaborate. It might be unfair to speculate, but I'm going to go ahead and do so: I bet Nunez tried to use physical force to retake his signs, and he ended up getting pasted one. Even if he didn't, I still think he deserved it in just the same way as somebody who went out in the 1960's handing out pro-segregation signs deserved to get beaten up.

I'm also going to call bullshit on the title of this thread. When I read "Prop 8 battle turns violent" I expected something more than "Random Homophobe Punched in Head". One guy getting socked does not mean that the entire Prop 8 Battle has turned violent.

[Darth Wong]

It's always easy to laud the nonviolent struggle/protest/suffering of a marginalized minority you are not a part of. They're not physically fighting back, and they're not scary. in a primitive, physical way, they've already been beaten.

Its unfortunate that you consider non-violent resistance to amount to being beaten. And fortunate that the rest of the world does not all share that view.

Non-violent resistance is generally ineffective except in cases where the oppressor's dedication is weak. The history of the world shows that quite clearly: a sufficiently motivated oppressor will react to non-violent resistance the same way he reacts to violent resistance: the only difference is that it will be a helluva lot easier for him.

It's when the oppressed loose their patience, and decide they're not gonna take the crap anymore, and begin to fight back that people outside of the minority group, whatever it is, get scared. You hear a lot about the how and why Ghandi, King, or the Dali Llama changed history, but many people are unwilling to admit that their ideals are in the minority of societal change and protest.

But they did bring change, none the less. Well, the Dali Llama hasn't gotten far with China yet, but the others achieved a great deal of positive change. And yet you equated non-violent resistance to being "beaten".

Ghandi didn't actually get the British to leave India until they were virtually wiped out as a superpower after WW2. King's speeches occurred at the same time as violent race riots in major centres across the United States. The Dali Llama hasn't brought freedom to Tibet and no one seriously thinks he will.

Sorry, but you are working from a serious misconception. In reality, non-violent resistance doesn't work worth a damn unless the enemy is not particularly committed to his goal.

If American society is ready for gay marriage, then non-violent resistance will help them take that step. If, on the other hand, the majority of American society is hardened against it, and committed to this course of action, then non-violent resistance probably won't accomplish much of anything. It depends on the circumstances.

I personally suspect that violent resistance would be counter-productive because anti-gay attitudes seem to be heavily generational. In other words, given another generation, attitudes might change to the point where reform is possible. However, I can understand why someone belonging to the oppressed group might not take that view. It's always easy to declare that the correct response to a bully is to just walk away and let him have his way. It's not quite so easy when you're the one being bullied.

[The Romulan Republic]

Non-violent resistance is generally ineffective except in cases where the oppressor's dedication is weak. The history of the world shows that quite clearly: a sufficiently motivated oppressor will react to non-violent resistance the same way he reacts to violent resistance: the only difference is that it will be a helluva lot easier for him.

Well I'm not sure the current United States constitutes a "sufficiently motivated oppressor". Last I checked, protesters were not routinely tortured or killed, and I doubt the majority of the US actually believes in violently oppressing gays (even if far too many of them do). Its not like the police routinely break up pride parades and execute supporters of the gay rights movement. The oppression today is frankly less brutal than that encountered during the civil rights movement or by Ghandi in India (though perhaps all the more insidious).

Ghandi didn't actually get the British to leave India until they were virtually wiped out as a superpower after WW2. King's speeches occurred at the same time as violent race riots in major centres across the United States. The Dali Llama hasn't brought freedom to Tibet and no one seriously thinks he will.

Sorry, but you are working from a serious misconception. In reality, non-violent resistance doesn't work worth a damn unless the enemy is not particularly committed to his goal.

Maybe you're right. I'll admit I don't have the historical knowledge to attempt to refute that without doing a lot of research first.

If American society is ready for gay marriage, then non-violent resistance will help them take that step. If, on the other hand, the majority of American society is hardened against it, and committed to this course of action, then non-violent resistance probably won't accomplish much of anything. It depends on the circumstances.

Will violent resistance achieve any more? Other than to escalate the conflict of course. And even if it does, I don't believe that the US is hardened enough against homosexuals that non-violent resistance cannot succeed. I would point again to the progress made over recent decades. Homosexuality is no longer a crime, and a couple of states have allowed gay marriage. Pride parades are not broken up by armed police. I don't think the US meets the definition of "determined oppressor" on this issue, at least not on the Nazi-like level needed to make peaceful resistance a lost cause.

I personally suspect that violent resistance would be counter-productive because anti-gay attitudes seem to be heavily generational. In other words, given another generation, attitudes might change to the point where reform is possible. However, I can understand why someone belonging to the oppressed group might not take that view. It's always easy to declare that the correct response to a bully is to just walk away and let him have his way. It's not quite so easy when you're the one being bullied.

As I said, its an understandable response, but that doesn't make it right. If you can achieve your goals without needless animosity and bloodshed, and do it within the law, then isn't that generally the appropriate course of action?

[bobalot]

As I said, its an understandable response, but that doesn't make it right. If you can achieve your goals without needless animosity and bloodshed, and do it within the law, then isn't that generally the appropriate course of action?

The important word in that sentence, is if. In a perfect world, it would be the correct course of action (then again, this situation wouldn't occur if we weren't in a world filled with morons). I think the more the word gets around that homosexuals will actually start fighting back, it may convince some people trying to discriminate by law won't be feasible. I can guarantee you if a group of people propose laws discriminating against Christians in the same way, they would have been shot in the street.

If you protest peacefully for your rights and you are a minority or oppressed people, most likely, absolutely jack shit will happen. It's been repeated again and again. Especially if you are poor. As soon as you start breaking the law, rioting, starting armed revolutions, well shit, people start to want to negotiate with you. I remember a line from Frank Herbert's Dune "Only one bargains with equals or near equals".

If you are an oppressed minority or people, violence is the best way to the negotiating table otherwise you got nothing to bargain with. Which is why the larger party always tries to make disarming a precondition, which make would the "negotiation" a dictation from the stronger to the weaker.

[Vendetta]

Ghandi didn't actually get the British to leave India until they were virtually wiped out as a superpower after WW2. King's speeches occurred at the same time as violent race riots in major centres across the United States.

Gandhi's nonviolent protest also followed a long history of armed rebellion in India, and came at the end of a long decline of the Empire, which had begun being dismantled even before WW2 with the independence of Canada and Australia.

Well I'm not sure the current United States constitutes a "sufficiently motivated oppressor". Last I checked, protesters were not routinely tortured or killed, and I doubt the majority of the US actually believes in violently oppressing gays (even if far too many of them do).

Violent oppression is passe. It's all about legalistic oppression these days, and far too large a percentage of the population believes in the oppression through law of homosexuals (witness the existence of Proposition 8, and similar legislation which almost always passes in other states.)

And frankly, these people need to be punched in the face a few times. Some people do.

[DrMckay]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Malcom X once said something like: "The Establishment was willing to talk to Martin Luther King, because they didn't want to deal with him(Malcom X) ."

That's the kind of motivation we're talking about here.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I cant say I disagree. Our pride parades are actually NOT in the same vein as your straight parades, which are based off of a roman military Triumphal march.

can you explain? I don't know of any 'straight parades'

Ours are re-enactments of the stone wall riots, which kicked off the gay rights movement.

heh. again that's an example of the fringe directly opposing the mainstream.

Aren't many of those parades 'festive' as well?

By straight parades I only mean the standard holiday parades with local politicians and floats and such. They are basically stylized military triumphal marches.

Our parades are festive riot-re-enactments.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well I'm not sure the current United States constitutes a "sufficiently motivated oppressor". Last I checked, protesters were not routinely tortured or killed, and I doubt the majority of the US actually believes in violently oppressing gays (even if far too many of them do). Its not like the police routinely break up pride parades and execute supporters of the gay rights movement. The oppression today is frankly less brutal than that encountered during the civil rights movement or by Ghandi in India (though perhaps all the more insidious).

Why do the police need to do the murdering? For one that did happen well into the 1970s under Lewdness and Vagancy laws (heaven forbid two men hold hands in public or sit next to eachother at a bar)

But the murder and violent oppression is already being done at our homes, in our schools, and on the streets.

Will violent resistance achieve any more? Other than to escalate the conflict of course. And even if it does, I don't believe that the US is hardened enough against homosexuals that non-violent resistance cannot succeed.

We have been doing it for thirty years, to no effect

Homosexuality is no longer a crime

That will change with the right supreme court appointees.

and a couple of states have allowed gay marriage.

Only because those states didnt amend their constitutions on time

Pride parades are not broken up by armed police.

No, they just attacked by mobs of civilians.

If you can achieve your goals without needless animosity and bloodshed, and do it within the law, then isn't that generally the appropriate course of action?

Sure it is. But the key word there is "If" and so far the answer is no. Strict non-violence is not working

[sketerpot]

Everybody who's not familiar with the Stonewall riots should look it up. It's a good story, and it demonstrates how effective a riot can be now and then.

Gay people had been quietly, peacefully lobbying for their rights for the past two decades, and they were still being stepped on by everybody else. The FBI kept dossiers on people for being gay, there were psychotherapy conferences on curing gay people using electroshock therapy, the police could arrest you for holding hands with someone of the wrong sex -- the peaceful lobbying wasn't working.

Then a police raid on a sleazy gay bar turned violent as the patrons started to riot. The place burned down, a few police officers were injured, and suddenly some more aggressive gay rights groups started sprouting up and totally eclipsing the older, more polite ones. The gay pride parades started exactly one year later, to commemorate this pivotal event. That's what a riot can do for people.

[Saxtonite]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Malcom X once said something like: "The Establishment was willing to talk to Martin Luther King, because they didn't want to deal with him(Malcom X) ."

That's the kind of motivation we're talking about here.

because of Malcolm X offering a worse option for White America, the establishment HAD to choose Dr. King.

By straight parades I only mean the standard holiday parades with local politicians and floats and such. They are basically stylized military triumphal marches.

okay then.

Our parades are festive riot-re-enactments.

Hmm. I remember some pictures of some parades in Brazil and some other cities and the like and they seem like like Mardi Gras in a way.

[montypython]

Using South Africa as an example, non-violence indeed works well as a point of negotiation against the possibility of a full-scale insurrection against the regime, so in some ways non-violent and violent methods do intertwine in their effectiveness.

[The Romulan Republic]

Using South Africa as an example, non-violence indeed works well as a point of negotiation against the possibility of a full-scale insurrection against the regime, so in some ways non-violent and violent methods do intertwine in their effectiveness.

If I understand correctly, you're talking about a version of the old doctrine of "talk softly, but carry a big stick?"

Forget who said that.

[Covenant]

Using South Africa as an example, non-violence indeed works well as a point of negotiation against the possibility of a full-scale insurrection against the regime, so in some ways non-violent and violent methods do intertwine in their effectiveness.

If I understand correctly, you're talking about a version of the old doctrine of "talk softly, but carry a big stick?"

Forget who said that.

Teddy Roosevelt, quoting a West African saying. It was "Speak Softly, and Carry a Big Stick: You will go far."

[Dahak]

By straight parades I only mean the standard holiday parades with local politicians and floats and such. They are basically stylized military triumphal marches.

Our parades are festive riot-re-enactments.

The gay parades I have seen and/or been to are not that much different from standard carnival/mardi gras parades, except consisting mostly of gays/lesbians and louder music...

[thejester]

Sorry: can you actually seriously argue that violence would help at all? There's no way in hell it could actually turn into a big enough problem to change social policy and would almost certainly harden the wider populace against the gay movement.

[Alyrium Denryle]

By straight parades I only mean the standard holiday parades with local politicians and floats and such. They are basically stylized military triumphal marches.

Our parades are festive riot-re-enactments.

The gay parades I have seen and/or been to are not that much different from standard carnival/mardi gras parades, except consisting mostly of gays/lesbians and louder music...

Might be more tame in the fatherland, and we dont have huge Carnival celebrations here that would allow for such a comparison either.

[Lord Poe]

I haven't heard of this idea being seriously made into a proposition, but you have to admit that when something is being done for your own good, it's not exactly the same thing as doing it because they just plain hate you. It's like the laws which impose all sorts of restrictions on cigarette smoking; the smokers whine about "discrimination", but these laws are actually intended to save lives.

Not the same thing if "healthy" people are allowed into an establishment while the obese are not. Smoking restrictions are meant for everyone across the board.