• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What Happens If There's No Counter-Protest?

Dragonfly said:
Suppose the worst, most vile and hated "lawful assembly" you've ever heard of is coming to a town near you.
You're incensed and disgusted by the mere thought of the people who would actually support such hideous thoughts and ideologies.
That they have enough "power" to hold a public demonstration, and get legal protection to do so makes your blood boil.
At least 1000 people are projected to attend this protest.

Now, suppose this:

There are absolutely no counter-protesters anywhere. None.

What would that signify? What would it accomplish? What might it condone?

Does the size of the counter-protest mean something?

Would it actually send a stronger message if there was no counter-protest at all?

If the entire event was ignored, would that be the best "counter-punch" to those who would attend?

What's a bigger thrill for the original protesters? Silence, or a loud and extreme counter-protest?
Click to expand...


Silence can be very powerful. Ask anyone who gets upset when 45 doesn't comment on something they feel is important.

By giving any group, especially the scum Nazis and White Nationalists attention and media time, it only encourages them, IMO.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
No. Ok, let's look at what just happened with healthcare.

Why did Republicans start wobbling, and why did a few of them ultimately flip sides?

Because they saw the people on their doorstep. And none of them were saying "good job." They were persistent, and they were the only group out that day.

What message does it send to our politicians if they are seeing more and more white nationalists protesting, but they are not seeing any opposing side?

They might begin to wonder if that is the base they now need to appeal to.

And that HAS HAPPENED BEFORE. The KKK used to be a powerful base for Democrats, and later Republicans too. Many candidates made it to elections -- and sometimes won them -- because the big KKK was out in numbers, and they knew they had to please them. And I'm not talking about 1880. I'm talking about mid-late 20th century. This is not ancient history.

This has happened before. Politicians will pander to whoever their votes seem to be coming from. If the white nationalists are strong, and the rest of people don't seem to care, then they can logically conclude that the white nationalists are the ones who are going to vote. Because people who care enough to protest will vote more often than ones who don't.
Click to expand...

Fair point.

So what about this:

If a counter-protest is important, is it better to have the counter-protest happen in same location as original protest, and at the same time. Which guarantees the two opposing sides pretty much meet face-to-face?

Or would it be better to have the counter-protest in either a totally different location, or on a different day? Or both?

Example:
Keep the Confederate Statues Protest scheduled for Saturday, September 2nd in Richmond, Virginia.

Best option for counter-protest would be:

Sunday September 3rd in Richmond?

Saturday September 2nd, in Roanoke?

Saturday September 2nd on complete opposite side of Richmond?

Other?
 
Dragonfly said:
Fair point.

So what about this:

If a counter-protest is important, is it better to have the counter-protest happen in same location as original protest, and at the same time. Which guarantees the two opposing sides pretty much meet face-to-face?

Or would it be better to have the counter-protest in either a totally different location, or on a different day? Or both?

Example:
Keep the Confederate Statues Protest scheduled for Saturday, September 2nd in Richmond, Virginia.

Best option for counter-protest would be:

Sunday September 3rd in Richmond?

Saturday September 2nd, in Roanoke?

Saturday September 2nd on complete opposite side of Richmond?

Other?
Click to expand...

Well, if they're in a different state, then that still leaves, say, the government of Virginia wondering if THEIR STATE has to appeal to them. And one state at a time is a viable strategy for gaining power in the country as a whole. Congress critters vote for stuff that affects all of us, after all. Even if a different city, same problem, just smaller scale with STATE legislature, until they take the whole state.

If the white nationalists are local, the counter-protest also has to be local.

Letting them protest on different days in the same place, though, might be something worth considering for people's safety at this point. But I maintain the pressure has to be in any location that is seeing substantial numbers of white nationalists, so that THOSE local politicians know this is not who they need to be appealing to.
 
iguanaman said:
The white supremacists feed on fear, that is why the statues are a symbol to them. They would see a lack of counter protests as an indication of fear and of success. They don't need a majority to win if fear keeps their opposition silent. That is how Hitler succeeded.
Click to expand...

Holy hyperbole Batman. You do realize not everyone who opposes the removal of these statues is a Nazi, right?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Well, if they're in a different state, then that still leaves, say, the government of Virginia wondering if THEIR STATE has to appeal to them. And one state at a time is a viable strategy for gaining power in the country as a whole. Congress critters vote for stuff that affects all of us, after all. Even if a different city, same problem, just smaller scale with STATE legislature, until they take the whole state.

If the white nationalists are local, the counter-protest also has to be local.

Letting them protest on different days in the same place, though, might be something worth considering for people's safety at this point. But I maintain the pressure has to be in any location that is seeing substantial numbers of white nationalists, so that THOSE local politicians know this is not who they need to be appealing to.
Click to expand...

Roanoke & Richmond are both in Virginia. Separated by about 180 miles, and some mountains.

From the state perspective, they're both valid.
 
Dragonfly said:
Roanoke & Richmond are both in Virginia. Separated by about 180 miles, and some mountains.

From the state perspective, they're both valid.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it is still a viable strategy to take a state county by county, which ultimately leads to the same problem. Counter-protest needs to be where ever protest is. Different days in the same city might simply be something we need to consider for the sake of safety, but any city seeing their rise also needs to see their resistance.
 
Dragonfly said:
Yeah - but I'm not restricting the idea of this particular thread to just that one instance in Virginia.
Or just for things like white supremacy.

Think in broader terms too.
Like Westboro Baptist protests?
What about Pro-Life/Pro-Choice protests?
Gun control protests?
Political protests?

Any planned protest that ideologically speaking gets under your skin and strikes a nerve.

Is it best to counter-protest, or ignore it?

Suppose some "group" of people plan a protest in your town where they're calling for increasing your local taxes to some astronomical figure.
A tax so high you'd struggle to afford just to remain in your home.

Would you counter-protest? Would you ignore it? Would you _____________?
Click to expand...

The problem isn't counter protests. The problem is violent leftist radicals like AntiFA.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Like I said, it is still a viable strategy to take a state county by county, which ultimately leads to the same problem. Counter-protest needs to be where ever protest is. Different days in the same city might simply be something we need to consider for the sake of safety, but any city seeing their rise also needs to see their resistance.
Click to expand...

Take the "racism" angle out and make it an abortion issue. Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life.

I don't see how different day same location is an issue. Separate the sides by a week even.

10,000 people show up for the pro-life rally.
A week later, 12,000 show up for the choice rally. (or switch the numbers in attendance if that get's you off)

Make it a fully automatic weapons protest. One side for, the other against.
Separate the "assemblies" by a week.

Same state. Same city. Only disadvantage might be weather.

Do politicians, people, voters need to see raw emotion to know how to vote?
Does angry, face-to-face confrontation have to be the way to proceed?
 
Dragonfly said:
Take the "racism" angle out and make it an abortion issue. Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life.

I don't see how different day same location is an issue. Separate the sides by a week even.

10,000 people show up for the pro-life rally.
A week later, 12,000 show up for the choice rally. (or switch the numbers in attendance if that get's you off)

Make it a fully automatic weapons protest. One side for, the other against.
Separate the "assemblies" by a week.

Same state. Same city. Only disadvantage might be weather.

Do politicians, people, voters need to see raw emotion to know how to vote?
Does angry, face-to-face confrontation have to be the way to proceed?
Click to expand...

Well, I think that we should generally have as few limits on protests as humanly possible. The only reason I'm willing to hesitantly consider it in this case is because of how uniquely volatile racial protests have always been in America. Worse, even, than pro-choice vs. pro-life.

But if it is possible to have less limitations, we should have less limitations.
 
Dragonfly said:
Suppose the worst, most vile and hated "lawful assembly" you've ever heard of is coming to a town near you.
You're incensed and disgusted by the mere thought of the people who would actually support such hideous thoughts and ideologies.
That they have enough "power" to hold a public demonstration, and get legal protection to do so makes your blood boil.
At least 1000 people are projected to attend this protest.

Now, suppose this:

There are absolutely no counter-protesters anywhere. None.

What would that signify? What would it accomplish? What might it condone?

Does the size of the counter-protest mean something?

Would it actually send a stronger message if there was no counter-protest at all?

If the entire event was ignored, would that be the best "counter-punch" to those who would attend?

What's a bigger thrill for the original protesters? Silence, or a loud and extreme counter-protest?
Click to expand...

I said much of the same thing. What any protester group wants is publicity, media attention and in many instances trying to provoke a response to their protest. Just letting them march down the street, give a speech or two and do nothing, no confrontations probably would lead to little or no publicity. That would be the worst thing that could happen to them. That wasn't what they wanted.

But is it in human nature or in quite a lot of us just to sit bye and watch these demonstrations take place without trying to counteract them? I think most also want to be heard.
 
Perotista said:
I said much of the same thing. What any protester group wants is publicity, media attention and in many instances trying to provoke a response to their protest. Just letting them march down the street, give a speech or two and do nothing, no confrontations probably would lead to little or no publicity. That would be the worst thing that could happen to them. That wasn't what they wanted.

But is it in human nature or in quite a lot of us just to sit bye and watch these demonstrations take place without trying to counteract them? I think most also want to be heard.
Click to expand...

As I always do, I zoom to election consequences, especially with Virginia's statewide elections this 11/7/17.

The fact that DEMs are challenging in 86 of 100 lower house VA seats, compared to only 42 in 2015, won't mean a darn thing in red/con districts, where trump's 'sizable silent minority' is a huge factor ...
 
NIMBY said:
As I always do, I zoom to election consequences, especially with Virginia's statewide elections this 11/7/17.

The fact that DEMs are challenging in 86 of 100 lower house VA seats, compared to only 42 in 2015, won't mean a darn thing in red/con districts, where trump's 'sizable silent minority' is a huge factor ...
Click to expand...

That may be true, but if there is no challenger, there is no chance to win. Having another name on the ballot does give people a choice where there was none if no one challenged the incumbent. Although I think the number of challengers are sort of irrelevant, it is the quality of the challengers that count. Just placing a name on the ballot to challenge leads to the results you cited.
 
Perotista said:
That may be true, but if there is no challenger, there is no chance to win. Having another name on the ballot does give people a choice where there was none if no one challenged the incumbent. Although I think the number of challengers are sort of irrelevant, it is the quality of the challengers that count. Just placing a name on the ballot to challenge leads to the results you cited.
Click to expand...

GOP voter turnout in the Utah-3 CD and the GOP senate primary in Alabama was very low. Once again, the Trafalgar Group nailed the GOP results almost exactly in Alabama. Looks to me like turnout in the midterm will be a problem for the GOP.

When the DEM candidate Doug Jones, 61% and no divisive runoff, was brought up by GOPs, they immediately zoomed to Pelosi and Schumer. This schtick won't work forever; typical for GOPs to offer negative instead of positives.

The Alabama general for this special senate election is in December; Utah on 11/7/17; Ossoff is considering another run at the GA-6 CD ;;
 
countryboy said:
The problem isn't counter protests. The problem is violent leftist radicals like AntiFA.
Click to expand...

Antifa needs to get more organized and disciplined. If they limited their violence to kicking white supremacist ass, they'd have my 100% support.
 
OlNate said:
Antifa needs to get more organized and disciplined. If they limited their violence to kicking white supremacist ass, they'd have my 100% support.
Click to expand...

In other words, you approve of violence as a means to force your agenda on the populace. Got it. No big shocker there.
 
MrPeanut said:
I don't think sitting back and watching torch-wielding Nazis march through your town is the best way to beat them. In these instances I think silence would be a pretty big problem.
Click to expand...

It should be noted that the vast majority of those out on the streets in C'Ville were townspeople.
 
countryboy said:
In other words, you approve of violence as a means to force your agenda on the populace. Got it. No big shocker there.
Click to expand...

Yup, I'll own that, when it comes specifically to white supremacists, since that's their goal - to use fear and violence to force their agenda on the populace. **** them and anyone that supports them.
 
Dragonfly said:
Then why'd you leave them out of your comment?
Click to expand...

Do I need to point out the obvious every time I post? Where are your posts criticizing left wing agitators like AntiFA?
 
Ya gotta admit...if the protesters came and nobody was there to counter...no media, no recognition, no nothin'...well there would be nothin' to report...
 
OlNate said:
Yup, I'll own that, when it comes specifically to white supremacists, since that's their goal - to use fear and violence to force their agenda on the populace. **** them and anyone that supports them.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your candor.
 
countryboy said:
Do I need to point out the obvious every time I post? Where are your posts criticizing left wing agitators like AntiFA?
Click to expand...

Anyone who resorts to violence:

left
right
center
gay
straight
male
female
AntiFa
Neo-Nazi
Transgender
Transexual
Alien
Black
White
Brown
Purple

is not only a complete a-hole, but should be punished to the full extent of the law.
 
Dragonfly said:
Anyone who resorts to violence:

left
right
center
gay
straight
male
female
AntiFa
Neo-Nazi
Transgender
Transexual
Alien
Black
White
Brown
Purple

is not only a complete a-hole, but should be punished to the full extent of the law.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I agree.

Can we also agree that the police need to step up to this task? Why are certain leaders seemingly holding them back? This needs to stop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom