Are aggressive acts legitimate forms of protest and do you believe they are protected free speech?

[Fearandloathing]

I've witnessed multiple posters in threads on this topic recently defending aggressive acts as a legitimate form of protest. What is everyone's position on this idea?

It is NOT a 'yes/no' question.

Define "aggressive acts". Pushing someone out of your way? Pushing a cop out of your way.

Yelling too loud?

Do this. Actually attend a demonstration. Then offer an opinion.

 

[Lutherf]

At some point it would be a good idea for you to admit you shouldn’t have said that.

Yeah. I should refrain from stating the truth and just stick with the liberal narrative. it's the only "right" thing to do.

 

[Bodi]

I've witnessed multiple posters in threads on this topic recently defending aggressive acts as a legitimate form of protest. What is everyone's position on this idea?

Physically aggressive or verbal? Big difference.

 

[Bodi]

If masked, unidentified strangers are kidnapping people from the street, I would argue that violence is warranted. As that's a fully illegal act under the guise of legality.

That isn't protest... that is resisting kidnappers. The issue of this thread is protesting. People leave their home under no thread and go to protest aggressively or physically against cops just maintaining order or civilians or shops doing nothing. . Should that be allowed?

 

[Rogue Valley]

What about when Republican Governors encourage violence?

Ron DeSantis says Floridians have right to hit protesters with cars

"That's their fault for impinging on you," Florida's governor said.

www.newsweek.com

What about presidential candidates?

Trump says there will be a 'bloodbath' if he loses the election

Trump made the comments at a rally in Ohio, where he spoke about auto manufacturing. The Biden campaign responded by criticizing the former president’s “threats of political violence.”

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Hello My Son]

Physically aggressive or verbal? Big difference.

Any and all forms, including physical aggression toward other people or objects/property.

 

[Hello My Son]

It is NOT a 'yes/no' question.

Define "aggressive acts". Pushing someone out of your way? Pushing a cop out of your way.

Yelling too loud?

Do this. Actually attend a demonstration. Then offer an opinion.

That's why I offered "Some" and "Other" options with the request for people to elaborate.

 

[SuperDS77]

What about when Republican Governors encourage violence?

Ron DeSantis says Floridians have right to hit protesters with cars

"That's their fault for impinging on you," Florida's governor said.

www.newsweek.com

What about presidential candidates?

Trump says there will be a 'bloodbath' if he loses the election

Trump made the comments at a rally in Ohio, where he spoke about auto manufacturing. The Biden campaign responded by criticizing the former president’s “threats of political violence.”

www.nbcnews.com

What about Jan 6th?

 

[Bodi]

Any and all forms, including physical aggression toward other people or objects/property.

Then no.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Of course.

The "I know what you are, but what am I?" Retort is just as popular today as it ever was.

2ndly, I prefer to mimic the most simple minded people among us, you know the ones, Righties and Trump supporters. They are SO easy to mimic. All it requires is a limited vocabulary, simple-minded thinking, and a TOTAL lack of a sense of humor.

 

[CharisRose]

I’m providing my favorite online dictionary link.

Aggression - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms

Aggression is hostile, purposely unfriendly behavior that can sometimes be violent. A motorist who shows aggression for another may follow too closely, honk the horn, or otherwise try to intimidate.

www.vocabulary.com

“Aggression is hostile, purposely unfriendly behavior that can sometimes be violent. A motorist who shows aggression for another may follow too closely, honk the horn, or otherwise try to intimidate.”

“When someone deliberately tries to make another person feel intimidated or threatened, it's an act of aggression.”
“Forceful, unfriendly behavior towards others is one example of aggression, and one country's hostile action toward another is also a kind of aggression.”
“It's been used since the 1600s to mean "an unprovoked attack," from the Latin root word aggressionem, "attack," and in 1912 aggression was first used to mean generally "hostile behavior."”

Definitions of aggression

1. noun
   a disposition to behave aggressively
   
   see more
2. noun
   a feeling of hostility that arouses thoughts of attack
   synonyms:aggressiveness
   see more
3. noun
   violent action that is hostile and usually unprovoked
   synonyms:hostility
   see more
4. noun
   the act of initiating hostilities
   see more
5. noun
   deliberately unfriendly behavior

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

But whatabout Jan 6th?

#79

 

[Visbek]

Civil disobedience was made righteous in my lifetime by the civil rightsmovement. An example is the lunch counter sit-ins. They were illegal, but I wouldn't call them aggressive. Others might.

They were definitely called "too aggressive" at the time -- not just by segregationists, but by hand-wringing centrists as well.

FYI, MLK Jr tore those mild-mannered centrists a new one in "Letter From Birmingham Jail." I recommend you read it.

But for civil disobedience to be righteous two things must be present:

The protesters must accept, even demand punishment for their law breaking. That is part of the protest.

Uhhhh.... No, not really. Not all righteous protest requires violating laws.

It can't be aggressive.

What does "aggressive" mean?

Do you mean non-violent?

 

[reinaert]

Yes, you think the revolutionary war is just like torching a small business.

E

They literally attacked multiple business interests, and the gods help you if your Tory ass hadn't fled to Canada.

One wonders at the state of American civics education. Here in New England, it's still taught. Elsewhere, it seems, not so much.

 

[trixare4kids]

Civil disobedience is not constitutionally protected speech.

Exactly.

That doesn't mean that there are not times when it is required.

Who gets to decide this?

 

[j brown's body]

They were definitely called "too aggressive" at the time -- not just by segregationists, but by hand-wringing centrists as well.

FYI, MLK Jr tore those mild-mannered centrists a new one in "Letter From Birmingham Jail." I recommend you read it.


Uhhhh.... No, not really. Not all righteous protest requires violating laws.


What does "aggressive" mean?

Do you mean non-violent?

If they're not breaking the law, they're not engaging in civil disobedience.

I have read it. Indeed, it was directed at such centrists.

In this case, I'm defining aggressive as any ill-will towards those who oppose them, whether it be law enforcement or people in general. And that is in thought, words or actions, which could include violence and destruction.

 

[j brown's body]

Civil disobedience is not constitutionally protected speech.

That doesn't mean that there are not times when it is required.

True, but those who are engaged in it must accept the punishment for it, even demand it. Its part of the protest.

 

[Phys251]

The reason i have come to the conclusion that political violence is no longer completely unacceptable is precisely because we have put ourselves in a bind that makes legal remedies in all but letter impossible. There wont be any legal consequences for a president that leads political violence and uses it quite fragrantly and skirts by on technicalities. If a president can do this without getting arrested the law is inept. We are in might makes right territory precisely because the American system is a failure even if not a total failure.

That's what our enemies want. They've badly out-armed us.

Then again i have also come to the conclusion that our system has made a trump like figure inevitable. I do not totally blame the voters, the system will have to be radically changed.

 

[reinaert]

If they're not breaking the law, they're not engaging in civil disobedience.

I have read it. Indeed, it was directed at such centrists.

In this case, I'm defining aggressive as any ill-will towards those who oppose them, whether it be law enforcement or people in general. And that is in thought, words or actions, which could include violence and destruction.

All true, until fascists arrive from stage right. Rules change, then. They love non-violent opponents.

Ghandian non-violence has a narrow context in which it is effective: the people who run things have to believe they are moral, class, racial and/or ethical betters than the hoi polling who put their bodies on the line against their "rightful" and "natural" rulers. That means they are shameable if their conduct is exposed as not matching their class narrative about themselves. They have to be vulnerable to shame. They have to be of a species of self-conscious aristocrat.

Fascists revel in their depravity. Class and caste are not how they define themselves. They cannot be shamed. Their narrative is, we **** you up, you show us your throat, we **** you up some more, and then we tell crude jokes about it. Maybe you live, but it will be humiliating.

Non-violence in the presence of fascists is and can only be abject, revolting cowardice.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Non-violence in the presence of fascists is and can only be abject, revolting cowardice.

This.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

I've witnessed multiple posters in threads on this topic recently defending aggressive acts as a legitimate form of protest. What is everyone's position on this idea?

There is nothing funnier to me than watching right-wingers express their opinions about whether protests are "legitimate" or not.

We don't ****ing care if you think it's legitimate or not. You are the bad guys. We want you to be pissed off.

We're not trying to convince you of anything - fascists can't be convinced to stop being fascists. If protests and rioting upset you and make you afraid, good.

 

[gman]

Another one whining about the left leaning members of this forum. JAYSUS, this has recently become a new theme. You aren't the first. The new grievance is too many leftists on here. I mean, do folks on the Right ever do ANYTHING but moan and groan? It's getting pathetic, it really is.

Ha! Pot calling kettle, pot calling kettle. Look in the mirror @SNOWFLAKE .

 

[reinaert]

(Snip)

We're not trying to convince you of anything - fascists can't be convinced to stop being fascists. If protests and rioting upset you and make you afraid, good.

(Emphasis mine.)

It is only at their defeat, one they have never made easy or simple, and which costs a too-heavy blood-price from their victims and resisters (Lebanon, Paraguay, Argentina, Brazil, Portugal, Spain, Chile, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, Italy. Germany) have even a small number of them "repented" of their fascism, and nearly to a man have they been opportunists like Speer.

Of the two famous fascist intellectuals (Cioran, Malaparte) who turned on their respective movements, both had doubts from the beginning, both were isolated melancholics, both were already satirists, and both turned before their movements looked vulnerable to defeat.

Nearly all the rest of the world's fascists, to this moment and hour, have stayed true to their initial conversion. Because in fascism they found their truest expression of self: the liberation from empathy, the liberation from thought, the freedom from social constraints without the burdens of reciprocity and accountabilty, that serving the leader confers upon them.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

That depends on what you're protesting. If you're advocating for a liberal cause then vandalism, arson, throwing rocks and terrorizing motorists is all protected PEACEFUL speech. If you're advocating somethingthat ISN'T a liberal cause then holding signs and wearing patriotic gear is domestic terrorism. Finally, if you're protesting abortion then sitting silently in prayer then you are among the worst of the worst and need to be removed from society permanently.

These posters are neoMarxists. (This forum has many)
Karl Marx wrote about aggressive acts and violence as being acceptable forms of protest between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in his Communist Manifesto.

Terrorism is predicated upon the notion of punishing random, innocent people for some grievance the perp has with the government.
It is never acceptable.

Beating cops half to death is a celebrated American tradition

How do y'all feel about America's decision to commemorate the occasion when​

CITIZENS GANGED UP AND DISGUISED THEMSELVES TO RAID A COP'S PLACE WHILE HE WAS STILL ASLEEP AND BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF HIM​

​

​

 

[AZRWinger]

That depends entirely on the situation.

One thing we should note is that 99% of the time, critics will suggest that ANY protest tactics are "too aggressive." E.g. MLK Jr and Gandhi were both attacked for being "too extreme" or violating laws (ones they found to be unjust btw). Often, these accusations are made in bad faith, as the true intention is to make them and their movements go away.

Oh I agree, critics of President Trump have incessantly complained his straightforward speeches are too extreme. Even trying to disqualify him from seeking office for exercising his 1A rights.

Further, there's a long history of authorities infiltrating protest movements and using informants. In some cases, those infiltrators will encourage or participate in illegal behavior, sometimes to bolster their credibility, other times to discredit those movements.

Even complaints about minor damage are often raised in bad faith, as those same critics fail to acknowledge that riots after sporting events often cause more damage than many protests.

Preliminary estimates of the damages from the latest round of Leftist thuggery are in the $20 million range. With 6 Waymo cars destroyed, Nike and an Apple store looted, and who knows how many police vehicles destroyed that's probably conservative.

If you have evidence the damage is being exaggerated pleas presenr it.

And of course, let's not forget that many of the critics are rank hypocrites. You can't defend the J6 insurgents or celebrate the Boston Tea Party, while insisting that protesters whose goals you disagree with are all violent paid crisis actors who crave illegitimate violence.

Whataboutism as an attempt at deflection.

Ultimately, movements need to determine for themselves what actions will be effective, and that will change from one day to the next. What they can't do is allow critics acting in bad faith to decide what is, and is not, a legitimate protest.

No, society has decided what actions will be allowed. It's the rule of law. Leftist thugs don't get to make law up based on how they feel.

P.S.: If you haven't done so already, I recommend you read MLK Jr's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." He discusses a few of these topics, and why activists shouldn't pay attention to those types of critics.

MLK jr was a champion of nonviolent protest for reform. Suggesting the violent thugs trying to create a new lawless chop zone in LA's streets are guided by MLK's work only defiles his legacy.