ACLU and activists say North Carolina anti-riot, looting bill is 'racist' and 'anti-BLM'

[COTO]

So what you're saying is all I need to do to silence a movement is break a few windows at one of their gatherings.

At least some of the incidents at BLM protests were actually right wing guys pretending to be protesters and inciting. We know because they got arrested a couple of times.

A proper protest is well organized, having a hierarchy of leadership with appointed leaders over groups of ten, groups of fifty, groups of five hundred, etc., up to the full number of protesters. Each leader of ten knows the nine members in their group and is responsible for monitoring them during the protest. Groups of more than five hundred people are separated by distance of at least 200-300 feet.

If infiltrators start making trouble, the leaders follow a protocol to have their groups distance and denounce--or, if need be, disperse--and allow the police to arrest the troublemakers. Group leaders report the names of infiltrators or bad actors to the protest organizers to exclude them from signing up for future protests.

The protest atmosphere is organized, orderly, and closely monitored. Organizers are swift to condemn any violence or lawlessness, and proactively let protest participants know what will and will not be tolerated.

Any protest march that is too large--or whose members are too unruly--to be organized in this way is a recipe for chaos and should be avoided. Since protests have little power to change people's hearts and minds even under the best of circumstances, this is no loss.

 

[What if...?]

A proper protest is well organized, having a hierarchy of leadership with appointed leaders over groups of ten, groups of fifty, groups of five hundred, etc., up to the full number of protesters. Each leader of ten knows the nine members in their group and is responsible for monitoring them during the protest. Groups of more than five hundred people are separated by distance of at least 200-300 feet.

If infiltrators start making trouble, the leaders follow a protocol to have their groups distance and denounce--or, if need be, disperse--and allow the police to arrest the troublemakers. Group leaders report the names of infiltrators or bad actors to the protest organizers to exclude them from signing up for future protests.

The protest atmosphere is organized, orderly, and closely monitored. Organizers are swift to condemn any violence or lawlessness, and proactively let protest participants know what will and will not be tolerated.

Any protest march that is too large--or whose members are too unruly--to be organized in this way is a recipe for chaos and should be avoided. Since protests have little power to change people's hearts and minds even under the best of circumstances, this is no loss.

I don't think everybody agrees protests effect no changes.

I also think perfectly orderly protests don't do much. That's just complaining.

 

[pamak]

A proper protest is well organized, having a hierarchy of leadership with appointed leaders over groups of ten, groups of fifty, groups of five hundred, etc., up to the full number of protesters. Each leader of ten knows the nine members in their group and is responsible for monitoring them during the protest. Groups of more than five hundred people are separated by distance of at least 200-300 feet.

If infiltrators start making trouble, the leaders follow a protocol to have their groups distance and denounce--or, if need be, disperse--and allow the police to arrest the troublemakers. Group leaders report the names of infiltrators or bad actors to the protest organizers to exclude them from signing up for future protests.

The protest atmosphere is organized, orderly, and closely monitored. Organizers are swift to condemn any violence or lawlessness, and proactively let protest participants know what will and will not be tolerated.

Any protest march that is too large--or whose members are too unruly--to be organized in this way is a recipe for chaos and should be avoided. Since protests have little power to change people's hearts and minds even under the best of circumstances, this is no loss.

You describe a military parade instead of a protest. BLM is an organization that does not have a "hierarchy of leadership," and mass protests cannot be controlled with 100% effectiveness even when you have recognizable leaders like MLK.

King's Last March | King's Last March | APM Reports

features.apmreports.org

The marchers paraded down Beale Street, the famed Memphis thoroughfare where musician W.C. Handy pioneered the blues. King was at the head of the column. Then, a number of young African Americans began breaking storefront windows. James Lawson was leading the march with King. When they turned onto Main, Lawson says, they saw "lengths of police in riot gear across the street."

Remembering a violent crackdown by Memphis police during a February protest march, Lawson feared the police would attack again. He recalls telling King, "You must leave. They are going to break up the march and go after you more than anyone." A reluctant King was led away. The marchers turned around. Then, police attacked with tear gas and clubs. Peaceful marchers were caught up in the same violence as youthful looters.

And yes, this is what critics were telling MLK: avoid large demonstrations that bring chaos. History showed that they were wrong! Mass demonstrations increase political pressure. Small demonstrations will be likely ignored!

 

[pamak]

And by the way, as it has been mentioned, the vast majority of BLM protests were peaceful

Black Lives Matter Protesters Were Overwhelmingly Peaceful

https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/news-and-ideas/black-lives-matter-protesters-were-overwhelmingly-peaceful-our-research-finds When the Department of Homeland Security released its Homeland Threat Assessment earlier this month, it emphasized that self-proclaimed white supremacist groups are...

debatepolitics.com

In short, our data suggest that 96.3% of events involved no property damage or police injuries, and in 97.7% of events, no injuries were reported among participants, bystanders or police.

 

[COTO]

I don't think everybody agrees protests effect no changes.

I suppose they irritate and divide people plenty.

You describe a military parade instead of a protest. BLM is an organization that does not have a "hierarchy of leadership," and mass protests cannot be controlled with 100% effectiveness even when you have recognizable leaders like MLK.

Hence don't participate in them.

History showed that they were wrong!

Post hoc fallacy.

Mass demonstrations increase political pressure.

Which amounts to nothing if there's no changing of people's hearts and minds, which protests never accomplish to any great extent.

People today reflexively point to the protests and marches of the 1960's, 1970's, etc. and claim laws changed as a result of the protests. This is a fallacy. The laws changed because Americans' hearts and minds had been slowly changing towards blacks for generations, and America had simply reached the point where a majority was willing to tolerate a new social order.

If anything, the protests irritated people and lent credence to the idea that blacks were violent hooligans.

Dr. King's speeches were of value since he provided the movement with a coherent message and inspired his followers with hope. But even his speeches didn't change many whites' hearts and minds towards blacks. Furthermore, his rising up at the time he did was a consequence of the changing political tide, not the cause of it. It was the first time in American history where white America tolerated black America enough for any kind of sustained movement to take place. Any earlier in history, and it would have been extinguished like all movements before it, with public sanction.

 

[What if...?]

I suppose they irritate and divide people plenty.


Hence don't participate in them.


Post hoc fallacy.


Which amounts to nothing if there's no changing of people's hearts and minds, which protests never accomplish to any great extent.

People today reflexively point to the protests and marches of the 1960's, 1970's, etc. and claim laws changed as a result of the protests. This is a fallacy. The laws changed because Americans' hearts and minds had been slowly changing towards blacks for generations, and America had simply reached the point where a majority was willing to tolerate a new social order.

If anything, the protests irritated people and lent credence to the idea that blacks were violent hooligans.

Dr. King's speeches were of value since he provided the movement with a coherent message and inspired his followers with hope. But even his speeches didn't change many whites' hearts and minds towards blacks. Furthermore, his rising up at the time he did was a consequence of the changing political tide, not the cause of it. It was the first time in American history where white America tolerated black America enough for any kind of sustained movement to take place. Any earlier in history, and it would have been extinguished like all movements before it, with public sanction.

Sometimes hearts are black and minds are full of snakes.

There is no "winning them over".

Your premise's fatal flaw.

 

[pamak]

...

Post hoc fallacy.

Which amounts to nothing if there's no changing of people's hearts and minds, which protests never accomplish to any great extent.

Dr. King's speeches were of value since he provided the movement with a coherent message and inspired his followers with hope. But even his speeches didn't change many whites' hearts and minds towards blacks. Furthermore, his rising up at the time he did was a consequence of the changing political tide, not the cause of it. It was the first time in American history where white America tolerated black America enough for any kind of sustained movement to take place. Any earlier in history, and it would have been extinguished like all movements before it, with public sanction.

The fact that I explained WHY mass demonstrations create more political pressure and use historical examples refutes your point that I am guilty of post hoc fallacy

You make unreasonable claims about the effects of mass demonstrations. Mass demonstrations do change the perspective of neutrals regarding the magnitude of a grievance and can even convince politicians who are hostile to protesters' demand to make concentions in order to avoid a revolution.

I used King as an example of how even a charismatic leader cannot control 100% mass protests, and even if his speeches did not change the heart of many whites, his demonstrations DID change the perspective of whites because these demonstrations triggered an abuse of government power by people who wanted to address the looting and violence that DID exist in the mass demonstrations during the civil rights movement. Also, many whites were afraid that without concessions, the radical Blacks could bring even more looting and violence in the US.

Also, it is funny how you try to argue (with no evidence) that the rise of MLK was a consequence of the changing political tide but the rise of Macolm X and the more militant wing of the civil-right movement was not a consequence of the "changing poltical tide". I guess if you concede the latter, you realize that you also need to concede that more violent protests (including looting) is a consequence of the changing political tide and your "advise" that people should avoid mass demonstrations which sometimes trigger violence makes no sense since the people who participate in such mass demonstrations are not the cause of that violence. Their action simply reflects the "changing political tide," so instead of focusing on the actions of individuals, let's address the poltical factors which shape the people's action and lead them to mass demonstrations!

 

[COTO]

Sometimes hearts are black and minds are full of snakes.

There is no "winning them over".

Your premise's fatal flaw.

Not at all a flaw.

The fact that hearts and minds change slowly, often only due to attrition (i.e. older generations dying off), is precisely why it took until the 1960's for public sentiment toward blacks to improve enough that a majority would tolerate changes in the law (of the time).

 

[COTO]

You make unreasonable claims about the effects of mass demonstrations. Mass demonstrations do change the perspective of neutrals regarding the magnitude of a grievance and can even convince politicians who are hostile to protesters' demand to make concentions in order to avoid a revolution.

Demonstrations can only do these things if the public is already 98% of the way to tolerating these concessions.

I used King as an example of how even a charismatic leader cannot control 100% mass protests, and even if his speeches did not change the heart of many whites, his demonstrations DID change the perspective of whites because these demonstrations triggered an abuse of government power by people who wanted to address the looting and violence that DID exist in the mass demonstrations during the civil rights movement. Also, many whites were afraid that without concessions, the radical Blacks could bring even more looting and violence in the US.

I'm sure some whites did, and I'm sure just as many whites hated blacks all the more because they felt society was being held hostage by violence. Precisely how many whites feel about BLM.

Also, it is funny how you try to argue (with no evidence) that the rise of MLK was a consequence of the changing political tide but the rise of Macolm X and the more militant wing of the civil-right movement was not a consequence of the "changing poltical tide". I guess if you concede the latter, you realize that you also need to concede that more violent protests (including looting) is a consequence of the changing political tide...

It is indeed a consequence of the changing political tide. This was the first time in American history when the public tolerated protests (including violent protests) by blacks enough that it was unacceptable for TPTB to simply exterminate all of the troublemakers.

As I said earlier, if the protests had come any earlier in history (and many uprisings did), the movement would have been suppressed and the participants mercilessly exterminated. The 1960's and 1970's were the first time in US history when the majority of whites cared enough about black agitators to oppose the police simply shooting them all dead. This was a consequence of a slow, progressive process of social change, not the protests themselves.

and your "advise" that people should avoid mass demonstrations which sometimes trigger violence makes no sense since the people who participate in such mass demonstrations are not the cause of that violence. Their action simply reflects the "changing political tide," so instead of focusing on the actions of individuals, let's address the poltical factors which shape the people's action and lead them to mass demonstrations!

Of course people who participate in mass demonstrations that turn violent are the principle cause of the violence.

True, a changing political tide is what emboldens them to protest, underpinning their belief that public opinion has shifted enough in their favour that protests might avail something (which thus far has failed to materialize in the case of BLM). But blaming a greater public tolerance of violence for the violence doesn't exonerate the perpetrators.

 

[pamak]

Demonstrations can only do these things if the public is already 98% of the way to tolerating these concessions.


I'm sure some whites did, and I'm sure just as many whites hated blacks all the more because they felt society was being held hostage by violence. Precisely how many whites feel about BLM.


It is indeed a consequence of the changing political tide. This was the first time in American history when the public tolerated protests (including violent protests) by blacks enough that it was unacceptable for TPTB to simply exterminate all of the troublemakers.

As I said earlier, if the protests had come any earlier in history (and many uprisings did), the movement would have been suppressed and the participants mercilessly exterminated. The 1960's and 1970's were the first time in US history when the majority of whites cared enough about black agitators to oppose the police simply shooting them all dead. This was a consequence of a slow, progressive process of social change, not the protests themselves.


Of course people who participate in mass demonstrations that turn violent are the principle cause of the violence.

True, a changing political tide is what emboldens them to protest, underpinning their belief that public opinion has shifted enough in their favour that protests might avail something (which thus far has failed to materialize in the case of BLM). But blaming a greater public tolerance of violence for the violence doesn't exonerate the perpetrators.

Answering in sequence by focusing on the bold parts

Toleration of concessions is often the effect of fear that hard stance will make things worse. Mass civil disobedience affects everybody.

If you see everything as a consequence of the changing political tide, then do not try to council people about what they should personally do with respect to participating in mass demonstrations. Focus instead on changing the factors that create the tide of mass demonsrations

You contradict youself when you try to see the effects of individuals only when it fits you but other times you try to dismsiss the effects of individuals such as MLK by using your theory that the effects of their actions is simply a product of wider "political trends." You cannot have it both ways

Blaming PEACEFUL protesters for choosing to participate in demonstrations and exercize heavier political pressure is the issue with your stance. It is true that mere attempt to apply heavier poltical pressure does not uarantee success, but you will never learn the real outcome until you try because people with competing interests do not make concessions without feeling some type of presure. And if some opportunists want to use such demonstrations to benefit themselves by stealing a TV from Walmart, you need to blame only them . The attempt to argue that protesters should refrain from attempting to apply heavier political pressure for fear that some opportunists will commit a crime makes no sense.

 

[COTO]

Toleration of concessions is often the effect of fear that hard stance will make things worse. Mass civil disobedience affects everybody.

You're basically arguing for the effectiveness of terrorism.

And yet I can't think of a single contemporary example of where acts of terrorism elicited a change in the law favourable to the terrorists' demands except where the terrorists' demands were near-universally approved of by the public.

If you see everything as a consequence of the changing political tide, then do not try to council people about what they should personally do with respect to participating in mass demonstrations. Focus instead on changing the factors that create the tide of mass demonsrations

Firstly, I can't change any of the factors that "created the tide of mass demonstrations". Even if I could, I can't change any of the factors without making a great many other social problems worse. I'm curious about what it is you think I can do to reduce violence in black communities.

Secondly, I advise people not to participate in these demonstrations because it's counterproductive. These marches stifle commerce, destroy businesses, depress property values, vandalize properties, block traffic, and leave trails of garbage in their wake. They breed enmity between the police and the communities they serve. They waste police and fire resources on dealing with criminality and crowd control. They waste the time of the protesters themselves, who could otherwise be working, or volunteering, or doing something constructive. To top it all off, they create chaos--the kind of chaos that gets people beaten up and thrown in jail for simply being at the wrong place at the wrong time--which was my original point.

You contradict youself when you try to see the effects of individuals only when it fits you but other times you try to dismsiss the effects of individuals such as MLK by using your theory that the effects of their actions is simply a product of wider "political trends."

I think individuals can effect immense political change, just not with protests, and only at specific times.

Blaming PEACEFUL protesters for choosing to participate in demonstrations and exercize heavier political pressure is the issue with your stance. It is true that mere attempt to apply heavier poltical pressure does not uarantee success, but you will never learn the real outcome until you try because people with competing interests do not make concessions without feeling some type of presure.

I'm not 'blaming' protestors so much as I'm arguing that getting hit, gassed, arrested, or even wrongly charged in the chaos of a protest is a foreseeable consequence of participating in mass protests. Hence, just as I would advise a man to not break open a hornets' nest unless he's willing to get stung, I'd advise a protestor not to join one of these unruly BLM marches unless he's willing to face criminal charges. If he feels so strongly about the effectiveness of protest that he's willing to accept the risk, then more power to him.

As for exerting political pressure, there are a hundred ways to do it that don't involve protests. Elections, ballot initiatives, letter-writing campaigns and petitions, running candidates, passive resistance, and those most underrated of tools: patience, grace, forgiveness, and living by example.

 

[pamak]

You're basically arguing for the effectiveness of terrorism.

And yet I can't think of a single contemporary example of where acts of terrorism elicited a change in the law favourable to the terrorists' demands except where the terrorists' demands were near-universally approved of by the public.


Firstly, I can't change any of the factors that "created the tide of mass demonstrations". Even if I could, I can't change any of the factors without making a great many other social problems worse. I'm curious about what it is you think I can do to reduce violence in black communities.

Secondly, I advise people not to participate in these demonstrations because it's counterproductive. These marches stifle commerce, destroy businesses, depress property values, vandalize properties, block traffic, and leave trails of garbage in their wake. They breed enmity between the police and the communities they serve. They waste police and fire resources on dealing with criminality and crowd control. They waste the time of the protesters themselves, who could otherwise be working, or volunteering, or doing something constructive. To top it all off, they create chaos--the kind of chaos that gets people beaten up and thrown in jail for simply being at the wrong place at the wrong time--which was my original point.


I think individuals can effect immense political change, just not with protests, and only at specific times.


I'm not 'blaming' protestors so much as I'm arguing that getting hit, gassed, arrested, or even wrongly charged in the chaos of a protest is a foreseeable consequence of participating in mass protests. Hence, just as I would advise a man to not break open a hornets' nest unless he's willing to get stung, I'd advise a protestor not to join one of these unruly BLM marches unless he's willing to face criminal charges. If he feels so strongly about the effectiveness of protest that he's willing to accept the risk, then more power to him.

As for exerting political pressure, there are a hundred ways to do it that don't involve protests. Elections, ballot initiatives, letter-writing campaigns and petitions, running candidates, passive resistance, and those most underrated of tools: patience, grace, forgiveness, and living by example.

Answering in sequence

Political pressure can come without even violence. Mass demonstrations imply also choices of voting or oirhr methods of civil disobedience which is perfectly peaceful, including mass strikes, boycotted, etc.

Your advise to people regarding what they should do shows an attempt of yours to change behaviors, so apparently, you contradict yourself regarding what you believe.

Applying political pressure is not counterproductive. Remain silent is counterproductive. Ohh, you said protests depress property values? GOOD! Then we can agree that consequences come in different forms which do not include violence. Economic consequences is fair game. I know that mass demonstrations will upset some cops but that is okay too! If you want better relations between the police and some communities and you think that you may experience some consequences from such mass demonstrations, do your part to reform police practices and not have cases of racial discrimination. And yes, there is legal proof of such practices from NYC's stop and frisk policies to Arizona's Arpaio practices (which did not trigger any consequence because a president pardoned him).


I think that mass protests AND individual action is more effective and I explained why. Your thinking is unsupported by reasonable thinking. You just express a wish or desire but the truth is that EVEN YOU clearly imply that mass demonstrations can increase political pressure because you admit that mass protests can depreciate property values. And yes, voters with depreciated property will demand in more strong terms from their representatives to come with an actual plan and solutions that satisfy the protesters.

And I argue that increasing political pressure is also a foreseeable consequence, and yes, every fight demands some type of cost.

No, you do not make sense. If police officers kill people there is no reason for people to wait until the next election cycle to demand change. Not to mention that elections are often manipulated by things like gerrymandering, racism and non-democratic procedures in which powerful minorities can dismiss the will of the majority. Not to mention that teenagers, and non-citizens (who are also affected by police practices) can and should have the right to express their grievances. Mass demonstration bring people together, empower them and deliver a strong message to politicians in a very short time. There is a reason why the Bill of Rights protects mass protests.

 

[pamak]

You're basically arguing for the effectiveness of terrorism.

And yet I can't think of a single contemporary example of where acts of terrorism elicited a change in the law favourable to the terrorists' demands except where the terrorists' demands were near-universally approved of by the public.

and something else.

I do understand that you prefer to use the word "terrorism" instead of "revolution" but the reality is that the two of them often come hand in hand. And there are countless examples of acts of terrorism within successful revolutions. And in such cases we do not have success as a result of a " near-universally approval of the terrorist demands by the public. The Loyalists were a big part of the public during the American Revolution when the Tea Party looted and destroyed the property of the British Indian company, and the Vietnamese did not approved communism "near-universally. ". So, as I said, the satisfying of demands of peaceful demonstrations is often an attempt to avoid more dire consequences by a more violent revolution or whatever you want to call it because sometimes such violence can actually be very successful in topping off a government and even in creating new nations.

 

[What if...?]

Not at all a flaw.

The fact that hearts and minds change slowly, often only due to attrition (i.e. older generations dying off), is precisely why it took until the 1960's for public sentiment toward blacks to improve enough that a majority would tolerate changes in the law (of the time).

Science has made it easy to change minds. See COVID deniers. See 01/06/21.

Practitioners would be the ones with black hearts, who put the snakes in their audience's heads.

It's not your grandpa's propaganda anymore.