NationStates Jolt Archive

This morning on CNN I saw footage of a protester using what looked like a long, makeshift crowbar to attack a police van. On the BBC newshour this morning they spoke of protesters blocking roads. This behavior doesn't look good to the majority of people. They may sympathize with the people the protesters are protesting against just because the protesters are being destructive pricks.

I find them to vary from shamelessly idiotic to offensively violent.

Yes, it does hurt their cause.

This morning on CNN I saw footage of a protester using what looked like a long, makeshift crowbar to attack a police van. On the BBC newshour this morning they spoke of protesters blocking roads. This behavior doesn't look good to the majority of people. They may sympathize with the people the protesters are protesting against just because the protesters are being destructive pricks.
they only get press coverage if the are destructive pricks. i've seen protests of 10 people burning a flag get more of a press response than several thousand behaving themselves and without press coverage a protest is just political masterbation.

I find them to vary from shamelessly idiotic to offensively violent.

Yes, it does hurt their cause.
but at least you know they have a cause, if they were all polite and civil you'd never even notice they were there.

they only get press coverage if the are destructive pricks. i've seen protests of 10 people burning a flag get more of a press response than several thousand behaving themselves and without press coverage a protest is just political masterbation.

If being good is political masturbation, then being violent is a political assfucking.

Something that most people don't want to see in public, and will look away from.

but at least you know they have a cause, if they were all polite and civil you'd never even notice they were there.
But is all publicity good publicity? I think that the destructive crap is actually quite counterproductive. I'll assume that most people start out neutral on the issues. After seeing someone throw a trashcan through a store window I think most people will start to sympathize with the people who are being protested against.

I think that type of publicity further marginalizes the protesters and makes more people oppose them. Aren't there other ways to get publicity? The million man march got alot of publicity, and nobody torched any police cars.

You will not convince anybody of the justness of your cause if you turn violent. These protestors damage innocent people's property, endanger the police officers, and commit crimes, and then proceed to preach moral platitudes about how terrible and evil capitalism is while they act like little more than thugs.

Would minorities have gained equal rights if they had vandalized and ruined property? Or the same for women?

(The best thing about the ELF is that whenever they burn down a housing project, they release more pollutants in to the air and kill more animals than the actual housing project ever would)

This morning on CNN I saw footage of a protester using what looked like a long, makeshift crowbar to attack a police van. On the BBC newshour this morning they spoke of protesters blocking roads. This behavior doesn't look good to the majority of people. They may sympathize with the people the protesters are protesting against just because the protesters are being destructive pricks.
Yes, it does hurt their cause, but they are a minority. Most protestors are peaceful and abhor destructive cabals of hooligans that hijack peaceful protests.

This morning on CNN I saw footage of a protester using what looked like a long, makeshift crowbar to attack a police van. On the BBC newshour this morning they spoke of protesters blocking roads. This behavior doesn't look good to the majority of people. They may sympathize with the people the protesters are protesting against just because the protesters are being destructive pricks.

Violent, destructive behavior like this is precisely why I don't give a flying flip through a rolling doughnut about anything PETA and its ilk have to say about animals -- despite the fact that I love animals and think they ought to be protected, conserved, and at least treated with the minimum decency one living being ought to have for another. (However, animal rights being superior to humans' -- in my opinion that's going a bit far.)

But is all publicity good publicity? I think that the destructive crap is actually quite counterproductive. I'll assume that most people start out neutral on the issues. After seeing someone throw a trashcan through a store window I think most people will start to sympathize with the people who are being protested against.

I think that type of publicity further marginalizes the protesters and makes more people oppose them. Aren't there other ways to get publicity? The million man march got alot of publicity, and nobody torched any police cars.
sure peaceful protest can be effective if you have massive numbers, but i've seen protests of several thousand almost completely ignored. what's ideal is a huge protest with a sizable minority in it breaking things. then the authorities are made to feel uncomfortable by the destruction, but the "good" protesters can disavow the naughtiness and focus on the numbers, and the politicians can claim they are responding to the numbers and not the hooligans. the british poll taxs riots were a good example of this as were alot of 60s us antiwar protests.

sure peaceful protest can be effective if you have massive numbers, but i've seen protests of several thousand almost completely ignored. what's ideal is a huge protest with a sizable minority in it breaking things. then the authorities are made to feel uncomfortable by the destruction, but the "good" protesters can disavow the naughtiness and focus on the numbers, and the politicians can claim they are responding to the numbers and not the hooligans. the british poll taxs riots were a good example of this as were alot of 60s us antiwar protests.
I think the US antiwar protests of the '60s were effective because of their frequency and the fact that they happened all over the country. Not because of violence.

The most effective protestor is the peaceful protestor that gets his opponents to be violent towards him in the view of the public...

another impotant if extremely dangerous aspect of more extreme protests can be the sympathy generated by acts of police violence. the early 60s us civil rights movement often gained from the brutality of the police forces they opposed. unfortunately in modern protests the police are better disciplined about not inflicting damage infront of cameras or in obvious ways.

also generally a dead comrade, even a martyr isn't preferable to a live one. its much better to get the police to hurt the "good" protestors, they gain more sympathy with their bewildered tears and shocked expressions than the somewhat cynical stoicism of the experienced cadres.

The most effective protestor is the peaceful protestor that gets his opponents to be violent towards him in the view of the public...
damn beat me to it.

In some cases, where the world's media is not already focussed on the event, some minor violence may be justified to attract attention. In this case though, the world's media is already there, looking for any story to cover. Any action out of the ordinary would work to get coverage, violence is not necessary.

It is apparent that the majority of protesters in Endinburgh at the moment know this, and are not causing problems, there are however a few nutcases who seem to think that anyone in a uniform is a target for violence regardless, and they realy don't care about the image this creates. The image is of being a mindless yob who does not care about anything except having an opportunity to inflict pain and damage.

This morning on CNN I saw footage of a protester using what looked like a long, makeshift crowbar to attack a police van. On the BBC newshour this morning they spoke of protesters blocking roads. This behavior doesn't look good to the majority of people. They may sympathize with the people the protesters are protesting against just because the protesters are being destructive pricks.

yeah, next thing you know, they'll be dumping tea into the harbor. that can only hurt their cause. the only way to get things done is to accept that your leaders are usually right and when you disagree with them, write them a letter. certainly you should never do anything to actively resist them.

yeah, next thing you know, they'll be dumping tea into the harbor. that can only hurt their cause. the only way to get things done is to accept that your leaders are usually right and when you disagree with them, write them a letter. certainly you should never do anything to actively resist them.
It wasn't dumping the tea that got things done. It was pamphlets like "common sense" and events like the "Boston Massacre".

It wasn't dumping the tea that got things done. It was pamphlets like "common sense" and events like the "Boston Massacre".

so handing out pamphlets and throwing rocks at the authorities then. hmm, that also seems to be on the agenda these days too.

so handing out pamphlets and throwing rocks at the authorities then. hmm, that also seems to be on the agenda these days too.
Only if you can get the people you're throwing stones at to shoot you and get the press to treat you like innocent angels.

Only if you can get the people you're throwing stones at to shoot you and get the press to treat you like innocent angels.

which reminds me, it's been nearly 4 years since genoa.

fuckers.

Not all protesters are violent, not all are peaceful, they do not all have the same agendas or goals, or beliefs. So yes, when people are not aware of the wider issues, and of the dissenting viewpoints, and see all protesters as part of the same group, violence can 'hurt' their cause. However, I would hope most people realise there will always be yo-yos who just want to trash shit, and have no real political reason for doing so.

Then again, I support the right of people to use civil disobedience, and strategic acts of vandalism or violence if necessary. I would not myself participate in such violence, but in certain cases, it is more successful than peaceful protest.

It wasn't dumping the tea that got things done. It was pamphlets like "common sense" and events like the "Boston Massacre".
Funny...everyone remembers the tea...

Funny...everyone remembers the tea...
Because the founding father's actual opinions, like what Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense are too subversive to teach in schools, the boston massacre is too violent and involves collonists starting it by throwing rocks, but the tea party seems like harmless fun.

It's too bad that the behaviour of the police is almost always ignored unless they shoot people.

I've been at a lot of protests, and common for all of them is police conduct. Goading people into rioting is common practice. People wont stand for being clubbered for no aparent reason. When it happens, they start to fight back.

Often civilian police will start throwing shit thru windows or at fellow officers.
The police will often try to illegally disperse demonstrators, usually by driving vans through a mass of people. Oddly, people usually respond violently to that sort of thing. I wonder why...
The police will often "raid" a demonstration, meaning they single out a couple of individuals in the middle of a large group of people, and send a squad of officers to beat their way to them, cuff them and drive them off to where ever.

It's very rare the police doesn't actively seek confrontation. Normally people won't be goaded into responding, because everyone knows they'll be portrayed as raving loons in the media no matter what actually happened. But sometimes people can't help responding. In a demonstration, the lowest denominator rules the day. If 1 person starts throwing rocks, more people start. There's no doubt in my mind the police aren't seeking to induce rioting because they're evil. I'm dead certain they'd rather stay the fuck away from demonstrations or stick to regulating the traffic around them.
It's pretty obvious they do what they do in order to make the demonstrators look like deranged and dangerous psycho's.

Because the founding father's actual opinions, like what Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense are too subversive to teach in schools, the boston massacre is too violent and involves collonists starting it by throwing rocks, but the tea party seems like harmless fun.
That, and 'freedom' and 'independence' sound better than "didn't want to pay tax". And I'll bet they don't mention that they shoved tea off a privately owned boat.

You can have a crowd of 10,000 protesting and mixed in with them is a dozen trouble makers and they are the ones who get all the attention because of their violent activity. The purpose of the protest gets lost because of them.

You can have a crowd of 10,000 protesting and mixed in with them is a dozen trouble makers and they are the ones who get all the attention because of their violent activity. The purpose of the protest gets lost because of them.
And usually that dozen violent sods will be undercover coppers.

And usually that dozen violent sods will be undercover coppers.
Do you have any proof for that?

And usually that dozen violent sods will be undercover coppers.
In that case you can kill three birds with one stone by tackling the violent people, beating them into submission and turning them over to the police. Here's what it will accomplish.

1 It will attract media attention.

2 It will show protestors policing their own, which will impress the majority of viewers positively.

3 You get even with someone who was trying to sabotage your political objectives.

The purpose of the protest gets lost because of them.

and without them the protest itself won't even get mentioned on the back pages. mass protest alone, without sabotage, work stoppages, road blocks, fights with the authorities, etc, will always be ignored. it makes for boring news, and it doesn't represent even the hint of a threat to the status quo.

you can have millions of people go out to peacefully protest a war that hasn't even started yet, and not even make them delay the bombing campaign. but when you start occupying government buildings and setting up roadblocks and barricades and organizing general strikes, you can cause governments to fall.

The most effective protestor is the peaceful protestor that gets his opponents to be violent towards him in the view of the public...
Not necessarily. The ProtestWarrior guys are the masters of this...yet you still have numbnuts on here crucifying them even though they are completely peaceful protesters.

Because the founding father's actual opinions, like what Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense are too subversive to teach in schools, the boston massacre is too violent and involves collonists starting it by throwing rocks, but the tea party seems like harmless fun.


Some were dressed like Indians, I might add.

Not necessarily. The ProtestWarrior guys are the masters of this...yet you still have numbnuts on here crucifying them even though they are completely peaceful protesters.

no, the protest warriors are fascist idiots. they don't run into problems with the naive democrats they think are their enemies. they get their asses handed to them by the same people that physically confront the other fascists running around.

i know they think they are clever with the whole 'look, the pacifists are really violent' thing. but since they aren't dealing with pacifists, but with militants, the whole thing is just sad.

Some were dressed like Indians, I might add.

masked up and hiding their identities. what a bunch of cowards. why don't they just play by the rules and obey the commands of their rulers?

I'm sorry but much as I'd like to, I can't prove my claim.

I can't prove it because the only unquestionable web sources I have aren't in English. The Media cares fuck all about who instigates rioting. They only care about showing the worst bits of it, not who start it.

I could tell you plenty about what I personally have witnessed, but I doubt you'd consider my words reliable proof. I probably wouldn't.

I'm pretty sure any regular protester of just about anything will confirm that it's exceedingly rare that undercover coppers don't try to infiltrate legal demonstrations. I'm also pretty sure they'll confirm that aggressive demonstrators are - in general - kicked out of the demo's.

Seriously tho, don't you guys wonder justa little bit why people will show up wearing crash helmets? Or why demonstrators form blocks and armour the flanks with planks and ladders and such?
I assure you people don't do it because it makes it really easy to attack anyone, break things, toss shit at people or anything else of the sort. They do it because it makes it harder for coppers to drive their armoured vans thru people without seriously injuring them etc.

People usually aren't violent, and it's very very rare anyone sets out to cause havoc. But the only proof I can offer is to encourage you to experience it first hand. A warning though.. It can get nasty, and often you'll feel compelled to kill people. Please resist the urge.

*sigh*
I remember the protestors chaining themselves in the street after we invaded Afghanistan. Stupid idiots who block traffic. If I had been working in one of those cities, I would have slowly crushed them under the wheels of my gas guzzling SUV. If I didnt have a gas guzzling SUV, I would go and borrow one so I could crush them with it.
If you going to chain yourself in front of something to protest a military invasion, go chain yourself in front of a government building. I think that if somebody organized a human chain around the Pentagon that would get news coverage. Of course, in a post 9/11 environment, it would most likely also get you shot. But thats the general idea :P

Most protesters are slogan-shouting automatons lacking the conviction or ability to express their viewpoint in a debate.

These people are harmless enough, but they tend to get infiltrated by small groups of black-clad, masked (meaning they're afraid to show their faces) anarchic imbeciles, who are usually the main cause of violence in otherwise peaceful protest.

Q: What's the difference between a temper tantrum and a protest?

A: about sixteen years.

These people are harmless enough, but they tend to get infiltrated by small groups of black-clad, masked (meaning they're afraid to show their faces) anarchic imbeciles, who are usually the main cause of violence in otherwise peaceful protest.

infiltrated?! hah! dude, we organize half of those things.

and it's the cops that are the cause of violence. that's why they lose every lawsuit we bring against them. shit man, we're essentially being financed by the state at this point. we got $6.25 million off them from one civil rights suit against them just a couple months ago.

Violent protestors usually hurt their causes.
Who tkaes PETA and those anarchists protests seriously?
However some violent protests are actually meaningful and occasionally entertaining.
The best example are counter protests, such as the Nazi and Anti-Nazi protests that happen in Germany.

DCD they a lot of them are a bunch of Anarchist Commie Tree Hugging Gangbanging Loop de Loop Bastards on pot whos Mothers and Fathers are Brother and Sister and they like to argue for the sake of it.

DCD they a lot of them are a bunch of Anarchist Commie Tree Hugging Gangbanging Loop de Loop Bastards on pot whos Mothers and Fathers are Brother and Sister and they like to argue for the sake of it.
Why, thank you very much. I'm curious though, how exactly did you arrive at that conclusion?

The most effective protestor is the peaceful protestor that gets his opponents to be violent towards him in the view of the public...

Almost impossible to do nowadays. The media will focus on the handful of violent protestors, so that when the police do respond, no matter how disproportionate the response is, it always seems justified, even when they take it out on the peaceful protestors.