Rioting and vandalism are unacceptable...until they aren't and are instead necessary.

Is everyone so quick to forget that the rights we have today in the US were won through violence after all other methods failed? The 40 hour work week we enjoy today was also won through blood.

Now, in this case between employees and Microsoft I'd agree, no, vandalism wasn't necessary at all.

But when it comes to defending our rights and freedoms, there will come a day when its absolutely necessary, and it's just as valid of a tool as peaceful protest is in enforcing the constitution.

▲

kbelder 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's a difficult question, because obviously violence is out of line for protests about many topics, while just as obviously necessary for some.

I think think that violence or vandalism in this case was unwarranted, but there are some other in this thread who believe otherwise.

I guess that I'd say that, probably, vandals/criminals should always be punished, because they're doing clearly illegal things... and it's up to the protestors to judge whether the cause they're supporting is really worth going to jail for. If sufficient numbers of people feel that, you have a revolution.

(And also, a separate issue, whether the violence is actually going to benefit their cause. It probably won't.)

I certainly don't think that we should be in a position where courts are are judging certain crimes as forgivable because of their cause, while supporters of other causes get the full weight of the law for similar actions. I think the vandals on Jan 6th should get the same punishment as, for instance, similar vandals during BLM.

▲

dmix 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There’s been a couple studies showing that disruptive protests (blocking roads, yelling at people entering buildings, etc) cause public support for their cause to decrease or even increase opposition.

If the ideas are good then support will build through effectively communicating those ideas. Being noisy is fine but there’s an obvious line that selfish activists cross. The sort of people who want their toys now and don’t want to patiently do the hard work of organically building up a critical mass. So they immediately start getting aggressive and violent in small groups. Which is counter productive.

▲

lomase 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think the people is just more vocal, not that the protest changed its opinion, but now they have an excuse, violence, to go against the cause they did not like.

"Violence" like stoping the traffic. If that is violence...

▲

BurningFrog 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Stopping traffic can easily kill people if it stops a medical transport, for example.

Even if it just ruins the day for thousands of people, I have zero sympathy for such assholery. Whether you call it "violence" is unimportant.

	▲	lomase 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Using your car every day create trafic and congestion. I have zero sympathy for people like yourself that use their car every day and put their time before others peoples lifes.

▲

jajuuka 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The classic "an effective protest is one that is neither seen nor heard". Which is just ahistorical. Civil rights in the US was not passed because black folks explained to white people that they are people deserving the same rights as them. I hate this white washing of history as a series of peaceful movements that everyone agreed with.

▲

coredog64 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The other side of this is that the people doing the protesting have to have the fortitude to accept judicial punishment. If the punishment is out of whack WRT the crime, then you get popular support (e.g. a year in jail for sitting at a lunch counter). But the current situation where folks can break the law and then suffer no consequences? F that noise.

	▲	jajuuka 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sitting at a lunch counter was illegal and the punishment was widely viewed as too light for the protesters. Like the racist violence going on right now, people of color were framed as disturbing the peace and disturbing a private business. There were called animals and criminals. Like I said, buying the white washed version of history where everyone was on the right side.

▲

stale2002 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There is nothing wrong with being seen or heard. Instead it is that being violently disruptive tends to lose you support.

You are posing a false dilemma where the only thing a person can do to voice there opinion is to destroy or disrupt things.

That's not true though. Instead you can simply voice your options. You can put out manifestos, publish articles in the newspaper, post to social media, or even talk to people in person.

All those methods are how speech and ideas are normally distributed in a normal society. And if people aren't convinced by what you say, then it is time for you to get better arguments.

▲

jajuuka 3 hours ago | parent [-]

If you think being violently disruptive loses you support you should look at any equality movement. I'm not posing a false dilemma, I'm saying that when peaceful means are not working then violence will follow. "A riot is the language of the unheard".

The idea that everyone can just be convinced with a good argument is a nice fantasy but just never true in reality. You've also rigged the game since you can just dig in your heels are refuse any argument and just say "get better arguments". It's a situation no one else can win. If people could so easily be convinced that different people deserve the same rights then we wouldn't have had to spend over a century trying to get them.

	▲	2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]