Is anyone really that surprised by that statement though, given her background and history.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Serious The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Oglemi
- Start date
- Status
Apparently there were reports of criminal activity and violence within the protests, at least according to both the US Park Police and US Capitol Police. I'm not sure about the level of truthfulness with these reports, considering protestors claiming the protests were "no threat to police", and I believe that the Democratic response to these protests compared to the BLM protests shows a clear double standard, but if the protests were truly violent then they should be condemned.
Agitators and anarchists that are unrelated to the protest movement typically show up to protests, for the exact reason of discrediting said protest. Violence, arson, and vandalism is their goal. Politicians always have to side with peace, law, and order. Social unrest is bad for their re-election chances. Not sure how it would be considered a double standard.
I didn’t really want to post here because this thread is gross, but I keep getting bombarded as a Jewish member of the community who hasn’t really made much noise on the genocide publicly, so here goes.
Let’s be honest: the amount of violence we are seeing in Gaza is absurd and a horrible blemish on both US parties right now. We are fully complicit to and enabling a genocide — I am saying this as someone who is Jewish with loved ones who have strong ties to Israel: this is unacceptable. I regularly get in fights with my own family over something that seems plainly obvious to me. Israel’s government/forces need to be stopped and we should play a major role in stopping, not enabling, them — I hope the people in Israel are safe and well (same goes to my many Jewish friends IRL and on here, who I care for dearly at this time), but the countries regime is filled with war criminals and innocent Palestinians are killed/endangered so frequently that it’s a giant humanitarian issue. Both parties are complete failures on this front.
Our country is absolutely pathetic for its current role here and we are once again in the wrong side of history. This is an issue I have with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, but it seems like it would be even worse (if that’s fucking possible) under Trump or any Republican for that matter. At least Kamala called for a ceasefire, but so much more is needed, including actually enacting that very basic demand for a ceasefire. The bare minimum isn’t acceptable when so many lives are being lost and we are funding it. I won’t pretend to know the hurdles or the governmental specifics because I try my best to not have my life consumed by politics, but I am disappointed to say the very least. I don’t care about logistics when so many people are dying.
Given this, I think it’s safe to say that sometimes it requires more extreme or violent protest rather than ordinary measures to make an actual difference. Yes, it’s nice to say “peaceful protest good, violent protest bad”, but at a certain point we have to realize what’s at stake and accept that unprecedented times where lives are lost so unnecessarily require unprecedented measures and impact.
It was obvious Kamala or any candidate would respond this way because they’re trying to pander and retain, but that doesn’t really make it right. That’s just politics. That’s why I hate it so much. It’s infrequently about right vs wrong, and frequently about positioning. I’ve become numb to it over the years, but it’s at least refreshing to see so many people in this age group who are calling people on their shit.
Don’t get me wrong: I’ll be voting for Kamala and anyone who votes for Trump has no care for minorities, women, general safety, the future of the world, and plenty more (like seriously, how are we here, smh), but I’ll be doing so despite her terribly lacking stance on the genocide, not because of it. And I imagine the same can be said of many others.
Let’s be honest: the amount of violence we are seeing in Gaza is absurd and a horrible blemish on both US parties right now. We are fully complicit to and enabling a genocide — I am saying this as someone who is Jewish with loved ones who have strong ties to Israel: this is unacceptable. I regularly get in fights with my own family over something that seems plainly obvious to me. Israel’s government/forces need to be stopped and we should play a major role in stopping, not enabling, them — I hope the people in Israel are safe and well (same goes to my many Jewish friends IRL and on here, who I care for dearly at this time), but the countries regime is filled with war criminals and innocent Palestinians are killed/endangered so frequently that it’s a giant humanitarian issue. Both parties are complete failures on this front.
Our country is absolutely pathetic for its current role here and we are once again in the wrong side of history. This is an issue I have with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, but it seems like it would be even worse (if that’s fucking possible) under Trump or any Republican for that matter. At least Kamala called for a ceasefire, but so much more is needed, including actually enacting that very basic demand for a ceasefire. The bare minimum isn’t acceptable when so many lives are being lost and we are funding it. I won’t pretend to know the hurdles or the governmental specifics because I try my best to not have my life consumed by politics, but I am disappointed to say the very least. I don’t care about logistics when so many people are dying.
Given this, I think it’s safe to say that sometimes it requires more extreme or violent protest rather than ordinary measures to make an actual difference. Yes, it’s nice to say “peaceful protest good, violent protest bad”, but at a certain point we have to realize what’s at stake and accept that unprecedented times where lives are lost so unnecessarily require unprecedented measures and impact.
It was obvious Kamala or any candidate would respond this way because they’re trying to pander and retain, but that doesn’t really make it right. That’s just politics. That’s why I hate it so much. It’s infrequently about right vs wrong, and frequently about positioning. I’ve become numb to it over the years, but it’s at least refreshing to see so many people in this age group who are calling people on their shit.
Don’t get me wrong: I’ll be voting for Kamala and anyone who votes for Trump has no care for minorities, women, general safety, the future of the world, and plenty more (like seriously, how are we here, smh), but I’ll be doing so despite her terribly lacking stance on the genocide, not because of it. And I imagine the same can be said of many others.
I agree with your framework and your state of mind, but I do not agree with this crux of your post
Violent protests are harming innocent people. By being violent towards uninvolved parties and destroying property (that is often the base of people's livelihood), only the divide between sides is fueled and the cause is stigmatized
I'll be honest, I do not know what the solution is. But I am sure that violent protest will be only detrimental
No, Finch is based for this. The whole point of protest is to disrupt and force action. If protest has been defanged to the point where protest can happen for months on end across the entire country with no measurable change, the methodology is no longer working. Politicians on the whole will always denounce violence as the status quo is exactly what lines their books. History has tried to revise the rhetoric of MLK Jr to be much more milquetoast than it actually was, and an unfortunate truth is that many pushes towards equality have come at the literal blood of the ruling class. Am I saying we should French Revolution this shit? Probably not, but we're wearing rose tinted glasses if we think demonstrating the same way we have for over half a year will do more than make political leaders *say* they're pushing for a ceasefire more.
I am not willing to condone violent protests but I am willing to state with absolute certainty that they are sometimes inevitable. Not everyone is capable of a detached, pragmatic analysis of a situation, especially when they or their loved ones are directly affected. It is entirely understandable that the recipients of state or state-funded violence will sometimes react in kind. This is not an endorsement of that, it is an acknowledgement.
I am also not a Ghandist. I don't believe in submitting yourself to the butcher's blade. If an act of violence is necessary to prevent a greater act of violence, it is a net act of non-violence. This is a fact that liberals often balk at, but I have yet to hear one actually engage with it directly. They'll deny that state violence exists until the cows come home, but they'll never address the underlying point being made.
I am also not a Ghandist. I don't believe in submitting yourself to the butcher's blade. If an act of violence is necessary to prevent a greater act of violence, it is a net act of non-violence. This is a fact that liberals often balk at, but I have yet to hear one actually engage with it directly. They'll deny that state violence exists until the cows come home, but they'll never address the underlying point being made.
police and the democratic party responded p similarly during that wave of blm protests, accuse protests of destroying property "rioting" etc, as well as philosemitic accusations of antisemitism against individuals and groups who expressed support for palestine.
and ofc it was not just rhetoric but, as today, large scale arrests and charges taken as far as they could, including but obv not limited to a few cases that got mainstream media attention such as two lawyers in nyc who faced federal rather than state level prosecution and were ultimately sentenced to >1 year in prison for alleged destruction of police property.
im not sure what u remember that u think shows a 'double standard' but accusations of "violent" protest, associating protesters with terrorism, etc these are all tried and true propaganda tactics of both the pigs and the democratic party in response to left protest, and not just since 2020 but over 60+ years.
and to be clear of course u cannot trust the police propaganda statements they say shit like this about pretty much any left protest.
in reality, the police are the primary instigators of 'violence' at almost any left protest, in the case of this protest in dc the NYPD literally bussed hundreds of their own pigs in to intensify the police attacks on protesters. the police assault protesters and if the protesters defend themselves then the police accuse the protests of being violent and if they dont defend themselves then the pigs succeed in arresting everyone. in either case the pigs have near complete control of what the mainstream media say about it afterwards bc most "journalists" at those outlets will literally just ask the pigs for comment and do no other investigation, nowadays theres social media so theres a bit less control overall but the orientation of the cops is still consistently violent repression first and damage control in the media later.
Last edited:
I think we're getting into a theoretical discussion of "to what extent is violent protest important," and that can be a good discussion. But if the discussion is going to happen, IMO it would be best to do it without spreading unsubstantiated claims about the specific protests that we're talking about in this case.
For example, we have comments such as "Agitators and anarchists that are unrelated to the protest movement typically show up to protests," but is there evidence of this happening in this case?
Another comment: "Violent protests are harming innocent people." Is this something that has happened in this instance?
"By being violent towards uninvolved parties and destroying property" did this happen?
"there were reports of criminal activity and violence within the protests" did this happen? the police were cited here, but I have personally seen the police lie about this. kamala guaranteed 100000% knows about this aspect of the police
---
police statements are completely invalid because violence in their minds can be like "oh one kid in a crowd threw a waterbottle at me and that's why i sprayed them all with dangerous chemicals and/or bodyslammed people."
or an 'agitator' can be someone who literally just does organization work in any capacity. or they just straight up lie about there being 'agitators' at all.
---
My position is that even if protests against genocide were to get really violent and destroy property, I'd be behind them all the way. But the point I'm trying to make here is that politicians/cops intentionally lie about them specifically to discredit them in the eyes of the bulk of liberals who are antsy about protest violence (but totally cool with systemic violence). So we can't really afford to let lies about specific protests spread unchallenged and become the commonly-accepted narrative.
For example, we have comments such as "Agitators and anarchists that are unrelated to the protest movement typically show up to protests," but is there evidence of this happening in this case?
Another comment: "Violent protests are harming innocent people." Is this something that has happened in this instance?
"By being violent towards uninvolved parties and destroying property" did this happen?
"there were reports of criminal activity and violence within the protests" did this happen? the police were cited here, but I have personally seen the police lie about this. kamala guaranteed 100000% knows about this aspect of the police
---
police statements are completely invalid because violence in their minds can be like "oh one kid in a crowd threw a waterbottle at me and that's why i sprayed them all with dangerous chemicals and/or bodyslammed people."
or an 'agitator' can be someone who literally just does organization work in any capacity. or they just straight up lie about there being 'agitators' at all.
---
My position is that even if protests against genocide were to get really violent and destroy property, I'd be behind them all the way. But the point I'm trying to make here is that politicians/cops intentionally lie about them specifically to discredit them in the eyes of the bulk of liberals who are antsy about protest violence (but totally cool with systemic violence). So we can't really afford to let lies about specific protests spread unchallenged and become the commonly-accepted narrative.
but what cases are there of violent protests (as they have occured at times over the last months) leading to the success of the cause? I just see violence that is untargeted and indiscriminatory, violence that devalues the cause and gives ammo to the opposition
MLK Jr. was pushing for change in the courtrooms and the civil rights movement under him has boycotted and worked directly against institutions. Targeted protests before government institutions and targetted boycotts could bring the changes
I am ready to change my opinion but I don't see violent protests change the masses. You need the masses, some concentrated groups of regular people won't bring the change, even when they're violent
MLK Jr. was pushing for change in the courtrooms and the civil rights movement under him has boycotted and worked directly against institutions. Targeted protests before government institutions and targetted boycotts could bring the changes
I am ready to change my opinion but I don't see violent protests change the masses. You need the masses, some concentrated groups of regular people won't bring the change, even when they're violent
You're correct about needing the masses. That's a sensible position. But the effective way to look at it, imo, is that "there are times where violent tactics can be useful, and there are other times where they can be not-so-useful." Then you can have a discussion about whether this moment right now is one where violent tactics are useful or not.
It sounds like what you're saying though, is "oh violent protest just isn't good or useful, full stop." That is an extreme position, but a very common one, because from the perspective of the ruling class it is basically one of their win conditions to get the vast majority of the population to reject any use of violence against them.
It sounds like what you're saying though, is "oh violent protest just isn't good or useful, full stop." That is an extreme position, but a very common one, because from the perspective of the ruling class it is basically one of their win conditions to get the vast majority of the population to reject any use of violence against them.
what "violent protests"
i obviously cannot speak to the details of every single protest in every city but where i live, the entirety of violence at protests has come from the police and from zionists who raided encampments, including but not limited to the overnight assault on the ucla encampment that was funded by bill ackman jessica seinfeld and others and received a lot of attention in the media. which police stood around and watched and then a couple hours later raided the encampment themselves.
the UC Chancellor organized police raids not only at ucla but attacking encampments across the uc system including the mass arrest of hundreds at uc irvine.
every other "violent protest" that i know of here was also initiated by the police, not by protesters. including assaulting a protest of a real estate event selling illegal settlements in the west bank at adas torah in pico-robertson, which is now being used by los angeles city council to push for a $1 million security contract with the JNF half going to magen am an organization of former IDF soldiers. if passed this will empower the same extralegal forces that have already been responsible for violent assaults on pro-palestine protests to now be officially licensed by the city to enact such assaults.
(i do not have the knowledge to go into a detailed analysis of the police and fbi repression of the so called civil rights movement during the 1960s, its very off topic tho regardless.)
This is an argument that has been often used to justify any forms of violence. The Israeli gov could say (maybe they already do, I don't know) that their actions against Palestinians is to deny the possibility of terroristic violence towards them. Of course, the framework is a completely different one, violent protests aren't genocide, but the basic logic is still there of committing violence to a goal of net non-violence. The wrongdoings of one side do not justify to wrongdoings of another
I am not against using force towards the ruling class (albeit, I do not know if violence is the right kind of force, we've seen what this has done to France or countries like Zimbabwe), but violent protest aren't against the ruling class, as they are unfocused
Again, people going on the streets and being destructive isn't productive. It will just fuel further violence and make the cause less palpable towards the masses. When I talk with uninvolved people about the gaza situation, there are more focused on unsavory protest actions as these are the ones that they were most exposed to. When I talk with them and try the informative approach of explaining the situation to the best of my abilities, they will agree with the standpoint that what happens in the middle east is genocide. Like I got into this described discussion atleast thrice since October. I even got asked what can be done and I suggested boycotting Israeli products and joining peaceful protests (I would've said around government institutions but my country doesn't give military aid and only supports humanitarian work in Gaza)
It's easy to look at the divided and pluralized condition of political discussion and to see no hope of talking things out with reason. But that's untrue. A consent can be reached with the right approach and I am certain that the masses can be mobilized towards the cause with said approaches
I looked at my sources but it seems that the violence was instigated by police forces in most cases
I will say that self defense against authorities is justified and that attempts to squash peaceful measures should be met with resistance (within reason ofc). For example, I consider the clashes in Bangladesh to be targeted acts of resistance against violent authorities, as in, self defense. That is not violence by my definition
HOWEVER
The instigations of violence in protests is still not right. Again, it's detrimental, untargeted and harms innocent lifes. Call me naive, but I don't see a place for violence in our world. It backfires and multiplies
That would be a lie. What's your point? I am well aware the Israeli government can lie to attempt to justify their actions; they've been doing that a lot actually.
Well this is because the mainstream media, owned by the ruling class, pushes this narrative of horrible evil violent protests. This is propaganda which has greatly affected you and which you are spreading currently.
If the ruling class media reported truthfully, people would widely support basically all anti-genocide protests. Also they would be joining them. The ruling class extremely does not want this. They want people to believe that violence is an ineffective tactic that should never be used, because in fact it is effective and should certainly be used. If they can convince people that violence is never the answer, they can hold a monopoly on violence (huge win condition for them) and on top of that, they can even use this to smear peaceful protest!
Unfortunately, it's not about being naive, it's about being directly opposed to forces fighting for liberation.
Proof? This is the second time I am asking for proof about the effectiveness of violence. Against, the french revolution and some failed states are a direct disproof of the effectiveness of violence
I probably shouldn't interact with you because you did post the phamplet of a terrorist group and really are trying your darndest to whitewash terrorism. This is again a good argument for this choice. How is me being against violence being oppossed to liberation?
Also, speaking of liberation, do you really think that the terrorists that you are defending would give liberty if they were in charge?
I am for the liberty of palestine and for the safey of it's people. I am against hamas. That is not a contradiction
I'm sidestepping the 'giving specific examples of violence effectively leading towards liberation' line of argument because I've used it many times online with zero effectiveness on people holding your ideology. The people I've tried it with have two main responses: either they point to some other, nonviolent actions that were, in their mind, the 'true' thing that lead to liberation; or they suggest that even if the violence did lead to liberation, it wasn't 'true' liberation because the nation then may have had some problems afterwards. So from your current ideological perspective I don't think you'll accept anything I have to say here.
But here is where I don't think you'll be able to have a response: if violence is ineffective, then why does the ruling class use it so much? And perhaps even more importantly, if violence is ineffective, then why do they take great pains to convince us to reject it as a tactic?
---
Regarding the 'opposed to liberation' comment, I'm not saying that you are intentionally opposing liberation, or that you're a bad person or anything of that nature. I'm saying that there is a sense of urgency here because what could be passed off as 'naivety' is in reality a very real obstacle to us having effective strategy for achieving liberation.
---
Regarding the Hamas stuff, I'm not going to dig much into that right now because I have to get ready to go out really soon, I have a lot of passionate thoughts and if I get going, it's hard to stop.
I will tease a little bit though and say that the same propagandists who attempt to turn us against evil scary protesters domestically are they very exact same propagandists who make, I guess let's say, very provocative and questionably-supported claims about Palestinian resistance groups. And it's not a coincidence. I'll leave it there this time
But here is where I don't think you'll be able to have a response: if violence is ineffective, then why does the ruling class use it so much? And perhaps even more importantly, if violence is ineffective, then why do they take great pains to convince us to reject it as a tactic?
---
Regarding the 'opposed to liberation' comment, I'm not saying that you are intentionally opposing liberation, or that you're a bad person or anything of that nature. I'm saying that there is a sense of urgency here because what could be passed off as 'naivety' is in reality a very real obstacle to us having effective strategy for achieving liberation.
---
Regarding the Hamas stuff, I'm not going to dig much into that right now because I have to get ready to go out really soon, I have a lot of passionate thoughts and if I get going, it's hard to stop.
I will tease a little bit though and say that the same propagandists who attempt to turn us against evil scary protesters domestically are they very exact same propagandists who make, I guess let's say, very provocative and questionably-supported claims about Palestinian resistance groups. And it's not a coincidence. I'll leave it there this time
Last edited:
What I don’t get is how people can get so angry at the burning of a flag…but not the state sponsored deaths of tens of thousands of innocent children by bombs, starvation, dehydration, disease and sniper fire.
Is the burning of a nation’s flag really more important than the lives of innocents being slaughtered?
Is the burning of a nation’s flag really more important than the lives of innocents being slaughtered?
This is basically my view. I'm wary of anybody who tries to imbue violence with glamor or glory, but if it's got to happen for substantial change to be motivated, then so be it. I accept it as an unfortunate inevitability.
Remember: Per the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson, burning the American flag is protected speech under the First Amendment. According to them, it is every American's God-given right to burn the American flag as a form of symbolic protest.
I’m a Brit, so thank you for the context.
Not that I condone it, or really have a strong view on it. I just think if you want peace in the Middle East, maybe take note of the ICJ rulings, ICC arrest warrants, and perhaps stop making orphans, cripples, and homeless people on a grand scale. That would seem to be the bigger issue than a couple of burned flags?
Did convicted felon Trump lie about getting shot? Where are the medical records?
No, he would never lie about that. Never.
No, he would never lie about that. Never.
The report doesn’t say he may not have been shot at, just that they aren’t sure if it was the direct bullet or shrapnel that hit his ear. Either way he was clearly wounded and there are surely more productive conversations to be had besides whether or not Trump was really shot.
Does it really matter? Shots were fired into the rally, which we know to be the case because somebody died, and something grazed Trump's ear. Whether it was a bullet or a piece of shrapnel doesn't seem to be of great importance.
I disagree. It’s another example of sick pathological lying behavior and the media normalization of it. We spent four weeks bitching and complaining about cognitive tests and Parkinson’s disease yet not one person in the press asks about a medical report from the candidate that was hospitalized for being shot at.
This is normalizing another lie from a pathological liar and normalizing the press’ inability and/or unwillingness to apply any scrutiny to those lies. He lies twice a minute on average. Every time he opens his mouth, it is a lie. The FBI director is strongly hinting that the former President and his campaign knowingly lied about this.
- Status