[Unthinking Majority]

Protesting is all about pushing the bounds of society, and protesters are NOT stupid for staying out past an unreasonable curfew imposed by a state unwilling to address the real problems.

The only people who need to protest past 9 or 10pm are punks, especially in a period when nighttime protests have generally gone horribly wrong.

Protesting is about making your voice heard in a democratic society. The curfew was imposed by the politicians, one of the good decisions they've made.

The Seattle and Portland mayors are cowardly lawless morons who refuse to uphold the law and maintain order. The reason why these fed troops are there in the first place. I'd say just let the city burn and destroy itself, but i assume there's good people living there who don't want their businesses destroyed by stupid protestors and politicians.

THis whole thing could be solved in a few days by arresting all the people who stay out long past curfew. But then the cops are stupid too and would probably do terrible and violent things to people and cause more BS. Meanwhile, the Chinese gov is laughing.

[Rancid]

@Wulfschilde, if the experiment to ban pepper spray and other tools makes things worse for property owners, then it will likely get reversed. Just be glad you don't live there. how about that?

[AFAIK]

Generally, it is up to protesters to petition for a permit, identify where they will be, estimate how many people will show up, how many police will be needed to ensure order, etc.

The so-called "peaceful protests" have generally been unlawful assemblies tolerated by the Democratic party establishment, because they seem to have calculated that it will have political benefits for them.

I think they have miscalculated. We will know soon enough.

Read the 1st amendment. If you have freedom of assembly enshrined in your constitution then you don't need to ask permission and be chaperoned by police dressed as soldiers during your assemblies.

Whilst I'm here can I ask the reactionaries why the NRA hasn't made it's presence felt in Portland? Secret police abducting people with no identifiers on their vehicles or uniforms. I thought we needed to be heavily armed at all times in order to fight against that.

[Godstud]

The 1st Amendment only counts when it's there to support what they want it to support.

[Unthinking Majority]

The 1st Amendment only counts when it's there to support what they want it to support.

I doesn't think anyone would have a problem with 1st amendment rights being exercised if it wasn't accompanied by rioting and looting and destruction.

[Julian658]

There are many ways to prevent a protest from becoming violent, without the use of force. Often, police presence is an instigator to violence.

Of course, stick with your stupid narrative that force is the only way. It's dumb. It suits you and the right-wing reactionary attitude.

It's simply an excuse not to try alternative, non-violent methods.

Typical Antifa/BLM commie propaganda.
To that you may add SJW tendencies and the proclivity to use foul language.
Or to cry racism.

And do not forget the idea of embracing the noble victim status.

[Wulfschilde]

@Wulfschilde, if the experiment to ban pepper spray and other tools makes things worse for property owners, then it will likely get reversed. Just be glad you don't live there. how about that?

https://bitwave.tv/doomtube

I just watched someone get shot on livestream in a protest in Texas. Appeared to be a completely random drive by shooting. Police are not equipped to deal with the chaos and people want to remove what tools they do have, then blame the cops and Trump as random people are dying for their causes they can't cognize. I dunno, guess I'd just be bored if I paid no attention to this stuff, it's the most interesting things happening.

Edit: I thought it was Portland at first but apparently it's an aggregate of multiple protests.

Edit 2: I was going to link the video but the time reference isn't carrying over.

[Godstud]

Typical Antifa/BLM commie propaganda.
To that you may add SJW tendencies and the proclivity to use foul language.
Or to cry racism.

You are trying to shut down conversation because you don't like what I am saying. You're worse than any SJW that ever existed, because you are a right-wing reactionary SJW.

And do not forget the idea of embracing the noble victim status.

That's your schtick.

[Doug64]

A bit more detail on the judge's ruling. Note that one of the people to challenge the city council's ordinance was Seattle's mayor--a Democrat, and I'd guess hardly a friend of Trump's:

Federal judge blocks Seattle's ban on crowd-control tools as police brace for weekend protests

A federal judge late Friday blocked a recently approved Seattle City Council ordinance banning police from using crowd-control measures like pepper spray as officers braced for a weekend of protest violence.

At an emergency hearing, U.S. District Court Judge James Robart issued a temporary restraining order on the Seattle ordinance passed last month, which bans the use of “less lethal” tools such as tear gas, rubber bullets, bean bags, pepper spray, flashbangs, ultrasonic cannons, water cannons, and other tools used to break up crowds.

“I urge you all to use it as an occasion to try to find out where it is we are and where it is we’re going,” Judge Robart said in a ruling from the bench, as reported in the Seattle Times. “I can’t tell you today if blast balls are a good idea or a bad idea, but I know that sometime a long time ago I approved them.”

The judge’s order came after a challenge by the Justice Department, which argued that the ordinance violated the federal government’s ongoing consent decree with the city.

Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan and Police Chief Carmen Best have also challenged the ordinance, sponsored by council member Kshama Sawant and passed unanimously last month by the city council following complaints from protesters about “police misconduct.”

This week, Chief Best issued warnings that the department would be unable to provide the same level of protection under the ordinance, saying “it would be reckless to have them [officers] confront this level of violence under the current legal restrictions imposed by Council.”

“It is a fact that there are groups and individuals who are intent on destruction in our City,” said Chief Best in a Thursday statement on the Seattle Police Blotter.

Federal tactical teams have been deployed to Seattle to protect federal buildings if necessary during the anticipated weekend protests.

“Yes, we also have seen weeks of peaceful demonstrations, but two recent events (Sunday, July 19th and Wednesday, July 22nd) have included wide-scale property destruction and attacks on officers, injuring more than a dozen, some significantly,” said Chief Best.

In a Friday letter to residents and businesses, she said that the department would have an “adjusted deployment in response to any demonstrations this weekend,” saying that she could not ask officers to “risk their personal safety to protect property without the tools to do so in a safe way.”

“Simply put, the legislation gives officers NO ability to safely intercede to preserve property in the midst of a large violent crowd,” Chief Best said.

Last month, Ms. Sawant cheered the passage of the ordinance, saying in a June 15 statement that Seattle had become “the first US city to take these violent weapons out of the hands of police.”

“Today’s movement victory is historic, but it’s only a start,” Ms. Sawant said. “It won’t stop police from terrorizing our communities, young people, and peaceful protesters. We have to move forward from today to build our movement to defund the Seattle Police Department, to end police violence and brutality, and to fully demilitarize the police.”

Yeah, I suspect we can expect something of a turnover on the council next election.

[Patrickov]

The only people who need to protest past 9 or 10pm are punks

False. For example, if the police unjustifiably locks someone up in the police station then even overnight protests are justified.

I doesn't think anyone would have a problem with 1st amendment rights being exercised if it wasn't accompanied by rioting and looting and destruction.

I actually only have problem with looting (which means attack on private property and violation of others' freedom). On extreme occasions even (carefully targeted) rioting and destruction can be justified, especially if what's being destroyed enables oppression (as in the Bastille in 1789)

[Wulfschilde]

https://www.statesman.com/news/20200725 ... in-protest

Story is that the man who was shot to death in a protest in Austin last night approached a vehicle while holding a rifle, at which point the man in the car opened fire with his own weapon.

Civilians should not be approaching held up vehicles with rifles, I guess some people don't understand that kind of thing.

In other related news, protestors burned down a juvenile detention center in Seattle even though the police were still equipped with the usual stuff. Imagine how bad it would have been had they not been?

[Godstud]

So, a man was exercising his right to bear arms and another man shot him for that?

Why aren't you angry at this?

Oh right... because the people aren't of the right political agenda.

If this has happened when those ranchers had carried their weapons to the government buildings a year or so ago, you'd be having a fit.

Fuck off.

[Wulfschilde]

So, a man was exercising his right to bear arms and another man shot him for that?

Why aren't you angry at this?

Oh right... because the people aren't of the right political agenda.

If this has happened when those ranchers had carried their weapons to the government buildings a year or so ago, you'd be having a fit.

Fuck off.

Man why do you do this to yourself. Right to bear arms does not mean you have the right to stop a car, point an AK-47 at the driver and run no risk of getting shot.

I don't think anyone is going to have any sympathy for this guy, like I have sympathy for him in the sense that I feel bad he was this stupid. It's not clear if he was actually intending to fire his weapon etc. That's as far as it can go.

Anyway, you are also wrong about the point of protests. The more people try to disrupt, the more of a crackdown there is and the less people will care. The shooter in this case is probably going to walk.

So they can disrupt the local businesses where people support them anyway. If they ever actually make it out to the suburbs and carry out violence it's over for their movement, not to mention most of their lives.

[Drlee]

I find it hard to believe that the Trump reelection campaign did not write this ordinance. It plays directly into Trump's hands.

Thank you Seattle. I believe the IQ of the city council is about 80. Now I have to listen to endless television ads about how "liberals" want to harm the police and allow violent riots. Look at @Wulfschilde post. He leads with the assumption that the protests are going to be violent. And I think he is right. Here is why and how this plays out.

1. Seattle city council passes absurd law.

2. Trump, "supporting the police and being the law and order president" deploys federal officers to Seattle "to protect federal buildings".

3. There are demonstrations. Trump supplied instigators throw rocks, bottles, fireworks, puppies, whatever, at federal officers who valiantly defend the federal buildings because "the liberals took away the Seattle Police's ability to defend the city".

4. 12,000,291 television ads.

And, here I go changing my mind again, Trump wins the election in the fall.

IF so-called liberals want Trump gone they need to pipe down. NOW. No more BLM protests on the streets. No more defund the cops talk. They need to waive the flag and worship "Middle Class Joe". They need to let him promise change and get behind him. They need to let Trump make a fool of himself and endlessly point to three things. The botched Covid response. Trump's lies and outrageous pronouncements and children in cages. If they don't Trump will win handily. And rightly so.

I have said this many times (and it is certainly not original) "never underestimate the ability for Democrats to loose an election".

This whole thing makes me sick. If I had to predict a winner right now I would have to say my money is on Trump. The Democrats have given him all of the ammunition he needs to win. All he has to do is shut up for 100 days and the Democrats will just hand it to him.

[Julian658]

I find it hard to believe that the Trump reelection campaign did not write this ordinance. It plays directly into Trump's hands.

Thank you Seattle. I believe the IQ of the city council is about 80. Now I have to listen to endless television ads about how "liberals" want to harm the police and allow violent riots. Look at @Wulfschilde post. He leads with the assumption that the protests are going to be violent. And I think he is right. Here is why and how this plays out.

1. Seattle city council passes absurd law.

2. Trump, "supporting the police and being the law and order president" deploys federal officers to Seattle "to protect federal buildings".

3. There are demonstrations. Trump supplied instigators throw rocks, bottles, fireworks, puppies, whatever, at federal officers who valiantly defend the federal buildings because "the liberals took away the Seattle Police's ability to defend the city".

4. 12,000,291 television ads.

And, here I go changing my mind again, Trump wins the election in the fall.

IF so-called liberals want Trump gone they need to pipe down. NOW. No more BLM protests on the streets. No more defund the cops talk. They need to waive the flag and worship "Middle Class Joe". They need to let him promise change and get behind him. They need to let Trump make a fool of himself and endlessly point to three things. The botched Covid response. Trump's lies and outrageous pronouncements and children in cages. If they don't Trump will win handily. And rightly so.

I have said this many times (and it is certainly not original) "never underestimate the ability for Democrats to loose an election".

This whole thing makes me sick. If I had to predict a winner right now I would have to say my money is on Trump. The Democrats have given him all of the ammunition he needs to win. All he has to do is shut up for 100 days and the Democrats will just hand it to him.

Doc:

I am surprised, this is one of your better posts. You have echoed what I have said from day one. The emergence of Trump and his election in 2016 was due to the incompetence of the Dems and the obsession with race and gender identity politics.

And what do they do in 2020: Put demented Joe Biden up there and become the party of looting, rioting, and murdered children in the large cities.

Covid 19 was a present from heaven for the Dems. Way better than Russia, pussy grabbing, Ukraine, etc. And somehow they are on their way to lose again in 2020.

[Patrickov]

The Democrats have given him all of the ammunition he needs to win. All he has to do is shut up for 100 days and the Democrats will just hand it to him.

The problem is whether Trump has the ability to shut up for 100 days.

[Rancid]

I doesn't think anyone would have a problem with 1st amendment rights being exercised if it wasn't accompanied by rioting and looting and destruction.

I suspect you would be a British loyalist back in 1776 then, huh?

[Doug64]

The problem is whether Trump has the ability to shut up for 100 days.

A problem Trump shares with his enemies.

[Rancid]

I still don't understand the whole David Dorn "argument". The people that continually bring him up, what exactly are they trying to say? That protesters condone rioting and violence? MOst protestors are not rioting, and most are calling for non-violence, soooo.... ?

I have yet to see anyone with significant influence get out there and say "YEA RIOT! COME ON EVERYONE RIOT!"

Anyway, as I've stated before, I believe BLM will in fact fail to bring about significant change. In short, because the movement lacks leadership and a cohesive and consistent message.

[Julian658]

I still don't understand the whole David Dorn "argument". The people that continually bring him up, what exactly are they trying to say? That protesters condone rioting and violence? MOst protestors are not rioting, and most are calling for non-violence, soooo.... ? :?:

I have yet to see anyone with significant influence get out there and say "YEA RIOT! COME ON EVERYONE RIOT!"

Anyway, as I've stated before, I believe BLM will in fact fail to bring about significant change. In short, because the movement lacks leadership and a cohesive and consistent message.

I am not so optimistic about the BLM/ANtifa alliance dying down. I bought two firearms to be ready to defend my home. I do not want looting in my neighborhood

How Protests Become Successful Social Movements


Step 1: Define the change you want to see
To create the change you want to see, you have to make an affirmative case and define exactly what you want to happen.

Step 2: Shift the spectrum of allies
Once you have clearly defined the change you want to happen, you need to start examining your spectrum of allies. Figure out whom you can expect active or passive support from and who will offer neutrality at best — or active or passive opposition at worst.


Step 3: Identify the pillars of power
While it is crucial to recruit allies from up and down the spectrum of support, it is also important to identify the institutions that have the power to implement the change you seek. These “pillars of power” can be the police, the media, the education system, government agencies, or other organizations. As important as popular support is to a movement, without institutional support, little is likely to change.

Step 4: Seek to attract, not to overpower
Every movement seeks to correct some injustice, so it’s easy to fall into the trap of demonizing the other side. Yet this is where many movements go off the rails. Anger is an effective mobilizer, but anger without hope is a destructive force. You need to make an affirmative case with affirmative tactics.

Step 5: Build a plan to survive victory
Ironically, one of the most dangerous stages of a revolution is just after victory has been won.

https://hbr.org/2017/01/how-protests-be ... -movements