Leftists dislike Vietnamese refugees from Communism, because they are assumed to be anti-Communists. Most Vietnamese-Americans are refugees and their descendants. Leftists therefore dislike most Vietnamese-Americans.
Sadly common among many groups - Cubans, Venezuelans, etc.
Ideologues really don't want to hear that people actually suffer when their preferred system is actually implemented, so they try to tar the reputation of anyone who suffered.
Back when I tweeted there was this guy who interacted with a lot of the same people as me and generally had extreme views and an ungenerous attitude towards those he disagreed with. It turns out that a guy I knew had actually met him and found him to be exceptionally normal: he was only really like that online. As someone who consciously tries to be as nice or nicer online than I am in person, I’ve always found that sort of behavior to be super shocking: it’s the kind of thing I’d love to see studied in a scientific setting.
In the 2016 and 2020 election seasons, I had an old high school friend on Facebook that was an extreme Bernie or Bust-er. He was *constantly* sharing or reposting all sorts of bad faith memes and/or straight up lies from groups like "the Left Against Democrats" or whatever. The algorithm kept showing me his stuff because I kept falling into the trap of fighting in the comments trying to argue him into sanity, and when the Tara Reade accusations came out, and I pointed out the holes in the story and cautioned some healthy skepticism, I got all but accused of being a rapist.
Anyway, a few years ago I put out a post on FB looking for people to fill out my D&D group and he joined in. I was afraid we would end up arguing the whole time or he'd be an insufferable leftist, but he's been totally normal and nice. I don't know if he'd just gotten older and chilled out or if interacting away from social media humanized it more for him, but the difference was STARK.
I read a book many years ago called Traffic that talked about the psychology of driving, and it seems similar to me to some of what you're talking about here. People interacting in person are much more empathetic and understanding. Put them in huge hunks of metal that create natural physical barriers between people while everyone is traveling quickly and focused on reaching their destination as efficiently as possible, and it removes some of the essential elements that guard against rage and acrimony, hence road rage and whatnot. I think the internet has done similar things, though of course the details are different.
This post reads as falling victim to those same dynamics — the crazy/non-normals get the 1,000 words analyzing them, while the 99% of peaceful folks don’t get any analysis. Why is it more interesting/relevant, for so many commentators at the center, to talk about what randos who burn cars do than to talk about what the state is doing with our taxpayer money on our streets? And, what is the takeaway or new knowledge here — don’t go to a protest? If so, it seems less written to convince that audience than to preach to the already-converted and affirm their righteousness — again, making it more interesting as a demonstration of these dynamics rather than an indictment of them.
"Why is it more interesting/relevant, for so many commentators at the center, to talk about what randos who burn cars do than to talk about what the state is doing with our taxpayer money on our streets?"
First, it's very funny that you're implicitly accusing me of all people of not talking about what the government is doing. Good laughs all around.
This post is relevant because, if you want to defeat this dynamic, you have to name it and describe it. The media's going to harp on the most extremely folks whether I post or don't post. But since I'd prefer to actually win the political struggle against anti-immigration policies, I am trying to point out how harmful certain things are for getting anything done.
The 'takeaway' is that you should loudly denounce shitheads who burn cars or loot businesses, eject them from your protest movements, and not suffer their antics for a single second. I'm certainly not the first person to have said this, but it apparently requires repeating because *we're still losing*.
I don't mean to accuse you of silence on what the government is doing. What I worry is you've "taken the bait" of accepting a framing on this that over-emphasizes images and narratives optimized for polarizing social media.
If people like you and I are more exposed to (and moved by) images Elon Musk posts (of the flaming car, the Mexican flag guy, etc.) than by the livestreams you'll see on any social media platform of the "99% of people protesting peacefully," then it makes sense why he bought Twitter: it offers a way to shift the narrative to ground he'd rather fight on.
"Posting is the most powerful force in the world," as you have often and rightly said -- and this is an element of posting's power, is it not? A post does more than merely make a point, it sets the context into which other peoples' points may enter. And I think you make a tactical mistake by addressing the "shitheads who burn cars" first, you cede narrative ground.
I also think your view of the "political struggle" is distorted by that framing. In the Civil Rights movement, change was not accomplished by gradually convincing a group of Americans in the middle to accept their fellow people as equal citizens based on images they saw on TV. Change happened through a controversial campaign of "direct action" which, although nonviolent (and very crucially so) was often illegal and extremely disruptive of property, businesses, and everyday life. Protests in American history are not about asking politely for power or winning in the court of public opinion, but about modeling courage and exercising power to change the conditions on the ground and force decision makers to do things they wouldn't otherwise do.
While I respect where you’re coming from, I think the argument that these folks are to be ignored is based on some heavy optimism. I don’t know how possible it is to ask folks to ignore what amounts to movie posters of war torn countries. Even if they are snapshots of a much larger movement, it can’t be ignored for a similar reason to that old adage about how one solid negative comment on your work makes more of a mark than fifty positive ones. Humans are wired for being on the lookout for threatening behavior and responding harshly which is what those folks burning cars provide.
THAT’S why they need to be loudly denounced because otherwise we cede narrative grounds by allowing the only folks actively addressing it to be folks looking for an excuse to militarize. It also provides these more extreme and counter productive people to gain ground because we would rather ignore them than remove them (think the Nazi bar story). They can fester and grow until they do get a moment of power where we end up not only failing to denounce them but have people deciding to validate it as purely the language of the unheard like in the summer of protests we had a few years ago.
I don’t think we accomplish anything by asking people to not look at what is, on an instinctual level, more interesting than political talking points, even if they do affect them.
I agree the civil rights movement was very disruptive because they needed folks to pay attention, but the face of the movement was heavily curated to be the non-violent and more respectable looking face available. That organizing force was vital and something we do need to figure out how to incorporate in the modern world of activism.
In general, today’s protests model arrogance and privilege, do nothing to change conditions “on the ground” or force decision-makers to do anything. Rather, they tend to alienate those who might support their aims, result in completely sidetracking progress because of violence and lawlessness and reflect personal grievances and dysfunction having nothing to do with the issue nominally at stake. Having lived through the Civil Rights era, I saw that the “direct action” was not only violent but postdated most of the change and indeed represented the end to positive change and popular support for new civil rights advances.
I think you should go to a protest near where you live and look at these things yourself rather than reading about them on the computer. This image, and the resulting alienation some may feel, is more a result of rightwing information campaigns than anything else -- which was precisely my point on Jeremiah's post here.
Even the civil rights era, and I say this as an atheist, fell apart when it went from a mostly church based southern movement to a more secular northern one.
I kind of wonder if we’re caught in a similar version of the revolution of rising expectations problem that led to riots of a scale that seem unlikely today.
Given this conclusion, is there a point to public protest anymore? If any sufficiently large protest is going to attract people who want a cover to riot, and if it's impossible to filter these people out, is it always a bad idea at a certain size?
Why is it that right-aligned protests never block traffic, smash windows, start fires, throw bricks, or ban photos? Why is it that when these things happen at left-aligned protests, there is so much organization and funding? And denial?
Was gonna mention that. COVID broke the brains of enough conservatives that it became a "state of exception" to the general tactic of right wing protest. There were always the militia types who showed up in tacticool gear, but they mostly just stood around posing. Then the Michigan capitol demonstrations happened, and after that J6.
As a person who's committed to engaging in radical activism through kindness and relationality- it's because this style of protest isn't for optics, it's for sabotage. The "demonstration" is to disrupt the flow of capitalism because the goal is to topple capitalism, not reform it. It's from the mindset of fighting a giant- tiny blows but a lot of them. Think tree-sits to stop logging. Rarely works, but is a piece of sabotage that, although is disruptive, is disruptive to radically inhumane, extractive, and violent acts themselves. They see the violence that capitalism has normalized, and they often genuinely think that doing wildly violent things might help with the revolutionary process. And they're not entirely wrong, but it's so disorganized and so deeply conflicted with itself as a group body due to there being such a strong commitment to individualistic martyr-heavy, retaliation-based activism. This style of activism shoots itself in the foot because none of these people know to act lol. No manners, often so little social skills, and an atrophied sense of collectivity that is often in response to a pervasive abuse coming from systemic abuses, but instead of taking responsibility for their wounds and doing what's necessary to walk normal again (this can take years), they want to feel the catharsis of revenge.
Conservatives just rarely do grassroots protests (makes sense as it’s more individualistic so less likely to go for as big of political gatherings). The closest to anything else would be Trump rallies but those aren’t quite as big and come with more natural structure and organization from up top.
"the truth is that most people are still normal, but the internet marginalizes anyone who isn’t an extremist psychopath"
I think we all thought social media was the "modern public square" and the "voice of the people" way longer than it actually was, and then we got pot committed to some pretty extreme views along the way
I don’t think a ‘public square’ could ever have 500 million members and still be a public square. I do wonder how that somewhat obvious insight escaped us all for so long!
I keep telling people: This development was foretold in the 1950s movie FORBIDDEN PLANET.
In this cheesy old sci-fi movie, an advanced brain-computer interface can make human thoughts come alive - but when reason sleeps, the same technology unleashes monsters... monsters from the Id:
We've had the correct theory on this since 2004. This isn't a new observation or even close to current. It's been around since *before Facebook*. The only difference is now boomers get to be in on the action.
Protests did NOT use to work this way. There were so many violent riots during the civil rights era, but the history has been whitewashed to the point that you can go "look, they used to wear suits, that's how they won!" There is even an argument to be made that the Birmingham campaign, which had a big influence on the passing of the Civil Rights Act, only became this important because a riot broke out after someone bombed MLKs hotel. And even before that, the images from Birmingham that resonated across the nation weren't of well dressed men orderly walking down the street, it was pictures of children being attacked by police dogs. Show me any movement that supposedly won its concessions by being purely peaceful and I'll show a history of violent and militant protest that we have collectively forgotten about.
Besides, we've seen so many instances of peaceful protests that were reported as being violent and disruptive. As the adage goes, peaceful protest is a theater, it needs an audience in order to work. But even before that, it needs to be seen as peaceful protest in the first place and we're increasingly seeing that that's not the case.
You're just wrong. Respectability politics don't work, you just like to imagine a world where they do so you can scold "fringe anarchists" who are actually the people on the ground engaging in mutual aid to help the people being targeted by a fascist deportation police. You are the white moderate that MLK warned us about in the Letter from a Birmingham Jail, which makes it all the more infuriating that you try to use his legacy to make your point.
Can someone tell chuckehead here that the history of “protests” goes back a lot further than MLK, that many of them were FAR more violent than what we are presently seeing in California, that generally throughout society people do not wear suits like this anymore (has he been to church lately? “Sunday Best” is t-shirts now), that MLK’s protests were merely a PART of a civil rights movement that also involved more militant organizations, that the acronym is “NAACP” not “NACCP,” and so on and so forth.
“Respectability politics worked." Worked to do what, exactly? Black people are still poor, they’re still suppressed politically, they’re still segregated in practice. Meanwhile, even everything liberals claim to love was achieved through violence—Magna Carta, democracy, American independence, the end of slavery, all of these things were achieved through violence, not polite asking.
While I read this post as being more about the unhinged reactions to Guy rather than the merits of his arguments, you nonetheless kind of take a side here by claiming the protests have been "overwhelmingly" peaceful. The linked article, ostensibly there to prove this claim, cites (in LA alone)
* 7 officers wounded
* 29 businesses looted
* >300 arrests
* 67 people blocked the 101 freeway
I don't want to rehash the tired old arguments here. With thousands of protestors, the people that perpetrated the above crimes are surely a small minority (though 1% seems like an underestimate). From there, people tend to decide based on their political priors whether the "story" is really the "peaceful" protestors or the vandals.
What I want to call attention to is the word "peaceful" and how much work that is doing here. I find this a very odd term to be using, as it's quite subjective. It seems obvious that this term is favored by demonstrators because it sidesteps a lot of behavior that is *illegal* but not actual violence aimed at people or property. As a concrete example, we've seen Dem leaders distance themselves from the freaks that lit Waymos on fire, or hurled rocks at Police, but very little about the protestors that blocked the freeway 101. This is despite the latter of course being a clear crime that does obvious harm to uninvolved LA residents. I searched online extensively and the only major Dems I could find that spoke out against blocking freeways were Karen Bass (LA mayor) and Fetterman.
Let me give another anecdote from my hometown. ICE arrested two undocumented men and local activists showed up and sat down in front of the ICE van so it couldn't move. As more activists arrived, they surrounded the van and starting letting air out of the tires. Later, an activist slashed the tires. Simultaneously, activists blocked the exit to a parking lot of a federal building, restricting three federal agents' vehicles from leaving the parking lot for hours.
Ultimately, police gave orders to disperse, the activists refused, the police threw pepper bombs, and the crowd finally dispersed. Police made about 30 arrests, almost all of them on 'failure to disperse' charges. The ringleader of the protests (a former city councilman) was among those arrested on just that charge. This ringleader was also the first to sit down in front of the ICE van to block it, before calling in his buddies to join. The obvious question here, since this man openly confessed to journalists that he blocked an ICE van, is, why is he not being charged with obstruction of justice? [In case anyone wondering, you can be charged with obstruction of justice in state court for interfering with feds.]
The reason he wasn't hit with the more serious charge is the "de-escalation" doctrine that is quite standard among police forces. In other words, kid gloves. People that are not activists themselves readily observe that, whenever protests spark, lots of clearly illegal activity is permitted as long as it's not "violent". The are asked to just kind of bide their time while the lawlessness flames out. I'm afraid that the left-of-center media bubble fails to appreciate this, while they pat themselves on the back for their "mostly peaceful" demonstration.
Now, one could counter by pointing out that protestors overwhelmingly acted legally, and they'd be right. The problem, I think, is the messaging around this lawlessness and how it fits into the broader protest movement.
I've done extensive internet searching and I can find only two Dem leaders that have criticized interference with ICE raids. Fetterman and Eric Adams, which I think says a lot.
I am personally opposed to mass deportation and quite pro-immigration generally, but my candidate lost the election. The guy who won the election is anti-immigration and loves mass deportation, and that's just how it shook out. I don't think most Americans hate immigrants, but they are fed up with lack of democratic control over our borders, understandably. For Dems to win on this issue, opposing ICE enforcement seems like the worst imaginable strategy. Dems need to gain credibility on the enforcement side, which they were starting to do in the last year of Biden's term, but that is now completely unraveling. Dem leaders need to come out and say, we deeply disagree with Trump's policies, but he is POTUS, and that gives him quite a lot of legal authority over immigration. In those instances where POTUS has overstepped his legal authority, we will challenge him through the courts, but citizens should in no way interfere with ICE operations on the ground. Again, this seems like a wildly uncontroversial thing to say, yet no Dem leader is saying it!
So look at how much work "peaceful" is doing here. This is like pointing out that the Jan 6. insurrectionists were "unarmed". Who gives a sh*t! The point is, they broke laws. We all agree people should be "peaceful", but their is so much subjectivity in interpretation that we use a system of explicit laws to define what sort of conduct is and is not lawful.
Dems are very quick to point out legal issues with e.g. Trump sending in the National Guard, as they should, but if they are not going to do the same with respect to actors on their side, and they aren't, then they will have zero credibility.
I've had a few debates about this online with lefties/progressives and they have told me I am the sort of person that would criticize Rosa Parks for breaking Jim Crow laws. I get it. I appreciate that there comes a point where our moral consciousness demands that we break laws to do what is right. We can debate about whether ICE raids rise to that level, of course. What I think is clear though, is that embracing lawlessness will result in Dems losing elections and no end to ICE raids.
I don't think you can have a mass protest movement without some criminals in the mix. It's just statistics. So I am not blaming the protestors or the Democrats for those bad actors. But is there any attempt whatsoever to distance from these people? The guy in my town that impeded an ICE vehicle is still a prominent local activist leader. Why is he not now a person non-grata at these demonstrations? The answer is that few disagree with his tactics. He wasn't "violent", after all.
Rule of law. Embrace it or you won't have a leg to stand on in criticizing Trump. Attack immigration enforcement (Dem's weakest issue) and you are just committing political suicide. The current protest movement we are seeing has been careful to condemn "violence" and excuse lawlessness. That is why I am opposed to it. I have encountered approximately zero people that sympathize with the protestors that believe behaving 100% lawfully is important (cue the Rosa Parks arguments).
As a final aside, I found Guy's tweets pretty intellectually bland. It's nice that he shared his story and its worth meditating on, but his attached arguments are paper thin. Not every immigrant is in MS-13. Some even came over as children. OK, great. So anyone who comes to America with a small child and remains for a few years gets to stay indefinitely. This follows from Guy's principles (1) you can't deport the child because he doesn't know her "home" country. (2) We can't deport the parents because that's inhumane- separating families. This is de facto open borders. That's fine for a globalist like me, but most Americans believe in having an actual border. If Guy is not going to seriously engage with that belief, he's just preaching to the choir.
Connecting back to my main thesis, Guy writes, "I support and admire the protestors who are putting their bodies on the line for non-violent resistance."
Why would they have to "put their bodies on the line" if they aren't being violent? Presumably, because they are using their bodies to break laws, in particular, obstruction of justice and refusing police orders to disperse, so they can take a selfie amid the teargas and get more cred in the "resistance". So here we have yet another lover of "non violence" that is tacitly endorsing criminal behavior. Ironically, this is all from a person that wants us to think undocumented (like himself) aren't a threat. Well, it certainly seems threatening when you use your internet platform to applaud lawbreakers. I'm just shocked that the left-of-center is so tone deaf as to how this reads to ordinary Americans.
Dems want to disassociate from whatever isn't "peaceful", but I think they are up their own asses if they think the mass public won't be enraged by their tacit support of lawlessness.
Most Americans think illegals should be deported. It doesn't matter if they're friends with one of them.
Most people aren't so naive and stupid as to automatically believe without question illegals' self-serving made-up stories. Only clueless lefties.
Most people understand that most illegals have had plenty of opportunity to do things the legal way, but chose not to, because it was easier. And they don't buy the excuses.
Crazy Idea, I know but Illegals should be deported.
You should be happy deportation is the only proposed solution. Picking cotton, digging ditches, or picking up trash as a servant to the state for his crimes is what I would propose for Mister Derek Guy.
Why is the man above the burning car waving an Italian flag? Maybe he tried to buy a Mexican flag but couldn't find one and had to settle for an Italian flag (which lacks the Mexican coat of arms in the center)?
People need to remember that this isn't reality TV or a video game. I like your grounded, common sense approach to these issues and tried to offer a similar dose of sanity in my recent piece, "Middle Son of California." You may enjoy it: https://jeffgiesea.substack.com/p/sons-of-california
Leftists dislike Vietnamese refugees from Communism, because they are assumed to be anti-Communists. Most Vietnamese-Americans are refugees and their descendants. Leftists therefore dislike most Vietnamese-Americans.
Congratulations Leftists, you've reinvented racism.
Sadly common among many groups - Cubans, Venezuelans, etc.
Ideologues really don't want to hear that people actually suffer when their preferred system is actually implemented, so they try to tar the reputation of anyone who suffered.
Maybe that's what made them decide Asian people are "white adjacent."
Back when I tweeted there was this guy who interacted with a lot of the same people as me and generally had extreme views and an ungenerous attitude towards those he disagreed with. It turns out that a guy I knew had actually met him and found him to be exceptionally normal: he was only really like that online. As someone who consciously tries to be as nice or nicer online than I am in person, I’ve always found that sort of behavior to be super shocking: it’s the kind of thing I’d love to see studied in a scientific setting.
In the 2016 and 2020 election seasons, I had an old high school friend on Facebook that was an extreme Bernie or Bust-er. He was *constantly* sharing or reposting all sorts of bad faith memes and/or straight up lies from groups like "the Left Against Democrats" or whatever. The algorithm kept showing me his stuff because I kept falling into the trap of fighting in the comments trying to argue him into sanity, and when the Tara Reade accusations came out, and I pointed out the holes in the story and cautioned some healthy skepticism, I got all but accused of being a rapist.
Anyway, a few years ago I put out a post on FB looking for people to fill out my D&D group and he joined in. I was afraid we would end up arguing the whole time or he'd be an insufferable leftist, but he's been totally normal and nice. I don't know if he'd just gotten older and chilled out or if interacting away from social media humanized it more for him, but the difference was STARK.
I read a book many years ago called Traffic that talked about the psychology of driving, and it seems similar to me to some of what you're talking about here. People interacting in person are much more empathetic and understanding. Put them in huge hunks of metal that create natural physical barriers between people while everyone is traveling quickly and focused on reaching their destination as efficiently as possible, and it removes some of the essential elements that guard against rage and acrimony, hence road rage and whatnot. I think the internet has done similar things, though of course the details are different.
This post reads as falling victim to those same dynamics — the crazy/non-normals get the 1,000 words analyzing them, while the 99% of peaceful folks don’t get any analysis. Why is it more interesting/relevant, for so many commentators at the center, to talk about what randos who burn cars do than to talk about what the state is doing with our taxpayer money on our streets? And, what is the takeaway or new knowledge here — don’t go to a protest? If so, it seems less written to convince that audience than to preach to the already-converted and affirm their righteousness — again, making it more interesting as a demonstration of these dynamics rather than an indictment of them.
"Why is it more interesting/relevant, for so many commentators at the center, to talk about what randos who burn cars do than to talk about what the state is doing with our taxpayer money on our streets?"
First, it's very funny that you're implicitly accusing me of all people of not talking about what the government is doing. Good laughs all around.
This post is relevant because, if you want to defeat this dynamic, you have to name it and describe it. The media's going to harp on the most extremely folks whether I post or don't post. But since I'd prefer to actually win the political struggle against anti-immigration policies, I am trying to point out how harmful certain things are for getting anything done.
The 'takeaway' is that you should loudly denounce shitheads who burn cars or loot businesses, eject them from your protest movements, and not suffer their antics for a single second. I'm certainly not the first person to have said this, but it apparently requires repeating because *we're still losing*.
I don't mean to accuse you of silence on what the government is doing. What I worry is you've "taken the bait" of accepting a framing on this that over-emphasizes images and narratives optimized for polarizing social media.
If people like you and I are more exposed to (and moved by) images Elon Musk posts (of the flaming car, the Mexican flag guy, etc.) than by the livestreams you'll see on any social media platform of the "99% of people protesting peacefully," then it makes sense why he bought Twitter: it offers a way to shift the narrative to ground he'd rather fight on.
"Posting is the most powerful force in the world," as you have often and rightly said -- and this is an element of posting's power, is it not? A post does more than merely make a point, it sets the context into which other peoples' points may enter. And I think you make a tactical mistake by addressing the "shitheads who burn cars" first, you cede narrative ground.
I also think your view of the "political struggle" is distorted by that framing. In the Civil Rights movement, change was not accomplished by gradually convincing a group of Americans in the middle to accept their fellow people as equal citizens based on images they saw on TV. Change happened through a controversial campaign of "direct action" which, although nonviolent (and very crucially so) was often illegal and extremely disruptive of property, businesses, and everyday life. Protests in American history are not about asking politely for power or winning in the court of public opinion, but about modeling courage and exercising power to change the conditions on the ground and force decision makers to do things they wouldn't otherwise do.
While I respect where you’re coming from, I think the argument that these folks are to be ignored is based on some heavy optimism. I don’t know how possible it is to ask folks to ignore what amounts to movie posters of war torn countries. Even if they are snapshots of a much larger movement, it can’t be ignored for a similar reason to that old adage about how one solid negative comment on your work makes more of a mark than fifty positive ones. Humans are wired for being on the lookout for threatening behavior and responding harshly which is what those folks burning cars provide.
THAT’S why they need to be loudly denounced because otherwise we cede narrative grounds by allowing the only folks actively addressing it to be folks looking for an excuse to militarize. It also provides these more extreme and counter productive people to gain ground because we would rather ignore them than remove them (think the Nazi bar story). They can fester and grow until they do get a moment of power where we end up not only failing to denounce them but have people deciding to validate it as purely the language of the unheard like in the summer of protests we had a few years ago.
I don’t think we accomplish anything by asking people to not look at what is, on an instinctual level, more interesting than political talking points, even if they do affect them.
I agree the civil rights movement was very disruptive because they needed folks to pay attention, but the face of the movement was heavily curated to be the non-violent and more respectable looking face available. That organizing force was vital and something we do need to figure out how to incorporate in the modern world of activism.
In general, today’s protests model arrogance and privilege, do nothing to change conditions “on the ground” or force decision-makers to do anything. Rather, they tend to alienate those who might support their aims, result in completely sidetracking progress because of violence and lawlessness and reflect personal grievances and dysfunction having nothing to do with the issue nominally at stake. Having lived through the Civil Rights era, I saw that the “direct action” was not only violent but postdated most of the change and indeed represented the end to positive change and popular support for new civil rights advances.
I think you should go to a protest near where you live and look at these things yourself rather than reading about them on the computer. This image, and the resulting alienation some may feel, is more a result of rightwing information campaigns than anything else -- which was precisely my point on Jeremiah's post here.
Even the civil rights era, and I say this as an atheist, fell apart when it went from a mostly church based southern movement to a more secular northern one.
I kind of wonder if we’re caught in a similar version of the revolution of rising expectations problem that led to riots of a scale that seem unlikely today.
Given this conclusion, is there a point to public protest anymore? If any sufficiently large protest is going to attract people who want a cover to riot, and if it's impossible to filter these people out, is it always a bad idea at a certain size?
Why is it that right-aligned protests never block traffic, smash windows, start fires, throw bricks, or ban photos? Why is it that when these things happen at left-aligned protests, there is so much organization and funding? And denial?
Well, there's been one mass grass roots conservative protest in my lifetime and it was Jan 6
Michigan State House COVID protests
Was gonna mention that. COVID broke the brains of enough conservatives that it became a "state of exception" to the general tactic of right wing protest. There were always the militia types who showed up in tacticool gear, but they mostly just stood around posing. Then the Michigan capitol demonstrations happened, and after that J6.
You're right I totally forgot about those
As a person who's committed to engaging in radical activism through kindness and relationality- it's because this style of protest isn't for optics, it's for sabotage. The "demonstration" is to disrupt the flow of capitalism because the goal is to topple capitalism, not reform it. It's from the mindset of fighting a giant- tiny blows but a lot of them. Think tree-sits to stop logging. Rarely works, but is a piece of sabotage that, although is disruptive, is disruptive to radically inhumane, extractive, and violent acts themselves. They see the violence that capitalism has normalized, and they often genuinely think that doing wildly violent things might help with the revolutionary process. And they're not entirely wrong, but it's so disorganized and so deeply conflicted with itself as a group body due to there being such a strong commitment to individualistic martyr-heavy, retaliation-based activism. This style of activism shoots itself in the foot because none of these people know to act lol. No manners, often so little social skills, and an atrophied sense of collectivity that is often in response to a pervasive abuse coming from systemic abuses, but instead of taking responsibility for their wounds and doing what's necessary to walk normal again (this can take years), they want to feel the catharsis of revenge.
Conservatives just rarely do grassroots protests (makes sense as it’s more individualistic so less likely to go for as big of political gatherings). The closest to anything else would be Trump rallies but those aren’t quite as big and come with more natural structure and organization from up top.
"the truth is that most people are still normal, but the internet marginalizes anyone who isn’t an extremist psychopath"
I think we all thought social media was the "modern public square" and the "voice of the people" way longer than it actually was, and then we got pot committed to some pretty extreme views along the way
I don’t think a ‘public square’ could ever have 500 million members and still be a public square. I do wonder how that somewhat obvious insight escaped us all for so long!
I keep telling people: This development was foretold in the 1950s movie FORBIDDEN PLANET.
In this cheesy old sci-fi movie, an advanced brain-computer interface can make human thoughts come alive - but when reason sleeps, the same technology unleashes monsters... monsters from the Id:
https://youtu.be/f2BYyeS-fIU
We've had the correct theory on this since 2004. This isn't a new observation or even close to current. It's been around since *before Facebook*. The only difference is now boomers get to be in on the action.
https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/green-blackboards-and-other-anomalies
Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Total Fuckwad.
Except for a ton of normal people who don’t fit.
I'm assuming your talking about the "Anonymity" part, right?
In which case, I think I can change it in a way that still fits:
Normal Person + Perceived Freedom From Consequences. + Audience = Total Fuckwad.
Protests did NOT use to work this way. There were so many violent riots during the civil rights era, but the history has been whitewashed to the point that you can go "look, they used to wear suits, that's how they won!" There is even an argument to be made that the Birmingham campaign, which had a big influence on the passing of the Civil Rights Act, only became this important because a riot broke out after someone bombed MLKs hotel. And even before that, the images from Birmingham that resonated across the nation weren't of well dressed men orderly walking down the street, it was pictures of children being attacked by police dogs. Show me any movement that supposedly won its concessions by being purely peaceful and I'll show a history of violent and militant protest that we have collectively forgotten about.
Besides, we've seen so many instances of peaceful protests that were reported as being violent and disruptive. As the adage goes, peaceful protest is a theater, it needs an audience in order to work. But even before that, it needs to be seen as peaceful protest in the first place and we're increasingly seeing that that's not the case.
You're just wrong. Respectability politics don't work, you just like to imagine a world where they do so you can scold "fringe anarchists" who are actually the people on the ground engaging in mutual aid to help the people being targeted by a fascist deportation police. You are the white moderate that MLK warned us about in the Letter from a Birmingham Jail, which makes it all the more infuriating that you try to use his legacy to make your point.
Can someone tell chuckehead here that the history of “protests” goes back a lot further than MLK, that many of them were FAR more violent than what we are presently seeing in California, that generally throughout society people do not wear suits like this anymore (has he been to church lately? “Sunday Best” is t-shirts now), that MLK’s protests were merely a PART of a civil rights movement that also involved more militant organizations, that the acronym is “NAACP” not “NACCP,” and so on and so forth.
“Respectability politics worked." Worked to do what, exactly? Black people are still poor, they’re still suppressed politically, they’re still segregated in practice. Meanwhile, even everything liberals claim to love was achieved through violence—Magna Carta, democracy, American independence, the end of slavery, all of these things were achieved through violence, not polite asking.
While I read this post as being more about the unhinged reactions to Guy rather than the merits of his arguments, you nonetheless kind of take a side here by claiming the protests have been "overwhelmingly" peaceful. The linked article, ostensibly there to prove this claim, cites (in LA alone)
* 7 officers wounded
* 29 businesses looted
* >300 arrests
* 67 people blocked the 101 freeway
I don't want to rehash the tired old arguments here. With thousands of protestors, the people that perpetrated the above crimes are surely a small minority (though 1% seems like an underestimate). From there, people tend to decide based on their political priors whether the "story" is really the "peaceful" protestors or the vandals.
What I want to call attention to is the word "peaceful" and how much work that is doing here. I find this a very odd term to be using, as it's quite subjective. It seems obvious that this term is favored by demonstrators because it sidesteps a lot of behavior that is *illegal* but not actual violence aimed at people or property. As a concrete example, we've seen Dem leaders distance themselves from the freaks that lit Waymos on fire, or hurled rocks at Police, but very little about the protestors that blocked the freeway 101. This is despite the latter of course being a clear crime that does obvious harm to uninvolved LA residents. I searched online extensively and the only major Dems I could find that spoke out against blocking freeways were Karen Bass (LA mayor) and Fetterman.
Let me give another anecdote from my hometown. ICE arrested two undocumented men and local activists showed up and sat down in front of the ICE van so it couldn't move. As more activists arrived, they surrounded the van and starting letting air out of the tires. Later, an activist slashed the tires. Simultaneously, activists blocked the exit to a parking lot of a federal building, restricting three federal agents' vehicles from leaving the parking lot for hours.
Ultimately, police gave orders to disperse, the activists refused, the police threw pepper bombs, and the crowd finally dispersed. Police made about 30 arrests, almost all of them on 'failure to disperse' charges. The ringleader of the protests (a former city councilman) was among those arrested on just that charge. This ringleader was also the first to sit down in front of the ICE van to block it, before calling in his buddies to join. The obvious question here, since this man openly confessed to journalists that he blocked an ICE van, is, why is he not being charged with obstruction of justice? [In case anyone wondering, you can be charged with obstruction of justice in state court for interfering with feds.]
The reason he wasn't hit with the more serious charge is the "de-escalation" doctrine that is quite standard among police forces. In other words, kid gloves. People that are not activists themselves readily observe that, whenever protests spark, lots of clearly illegal activity is permitted as long as it's not "violent". The are asked to just kind of bide their time while the lawlessness flames out. I'm afraid that the left-of-center media bubble fails to appreciate this, while they pat themselves on the back for their "mostly peaceful" demonstration.
Now, one could counter by pointing out that protestors overwhelmingly acted legally, and they'd be right. The problem, I think, is the messaging around this lawlessness and how it fits into the broader protest movement.
I've done extensive internet searching and I can find only two Dem leaders that have criticized interference with ICE raids. Fetterman and Eric Adams, which I think says a lot.
I am personally opposed to mass deportation and quite pro-immigration generally, but my candidate lost the election. The guy who won the election is anti-immigration and loves mass deportation, and that's just how it shook out. I don't think most Americans hate immigrants, but they are fed up with lack of democratic control over our borders, understandably. For Dems to win on this issue, opposing ICE enforcement seems like the worst imaginable strategy. Dems need to gain credibility on the enforcement side, which they were starting to do in the last year of Biden's term, but that is now completely unraveling. Dem leaders need to come out and say, we deeply disagree with Trump's policies, but he is POTUS, and that gives him quite a lot of legal authority over immigration. In those instances where POTUS has overstepped his legal authority, we will challenge him through the courts, but citizens should in no way interfere with ICE operations on the ground. Again, this seems like a wildly uncontroversial thing to say, yet no Dem leader is saying it!
So look at how much work "peaceful" is doing here. This is like pointing out that the Jan 6. insurrectionists were "unarmed". Who gives a sh*t! The point is, they broke laws. We all agree people should be "peaceful", but their is so much subjectivity in interpretation that we use a system of explicit laws to define what sort of conduct is and is not lawful.
Dems are very quick to point out legal issues with e.g. Trump sending in the National Guard, as they should, but if they are not going to do the same with respect to actors on their side, and they aren't, then they will have zero credibility.
I've had a few debates about this online with lefties/progressives and they have told me I am the sort of person that would criticize Rosa Parks for breaking Jim Crow laws. I get it. I appreciate that there comes a point where our moral consciousness demands that we break laws to do what is right. We can debate about whether ICE raids rise to that level, of course. What I think is clear though, is that embracing lawlessness will result in Dems losing elections and no end to ICE raids.
I don't think you can have a mass protest movement without some criminals in the mix. It's just statistics. So I am not blaming the protestors or the Democrats for those bad actors. But is there any attempt whatsoever to distance from these people? The guy in my town that impeded an ICE vehicle is still a prominent local activist leader. Why is he not now a person non-grata at these demonstrations? The answer is that few disagree with his tactics. He wasn't "violent", after all.
Rule of law. Embrace it or you won't have a leg to stand on in criticizing Trump. Attack immigration enforcement (Dem's weakest issue) and you are just committing political suicide. The current protest movement we are seeing has been careful to condemn "violence" and excuse lawlessness. That is why I am opposed to it. I have encountered approximately zero people that sympathize with the protestors that believe behaving 100% lawfully is important (cue the Rosa Parks arguments).
As a final aside, I found Guy's tweets pretty intellectually bland. It's nice that he shared his story and its worth meditating on, but his attached arguments are paper thin. Not every immigrant is in MS-13. Some even came over as children. OK, great. So anyone who comes to America with a small child and remains for a few years gets to stay indefinitely. This follows from Guy's principles (1) you can't deport the child because he doesn't know her "home" country. (2) We can't deport the parents because that's inhumane- separating families. This is de facto open borders. That's fine for a globalist like me, but most Americans believe in having an actual border. If Guy is not going to seriously engage with that belief, he's just preaching to the choir.
Connecting back to my main thesis, Guy writes, "I support and admire the protestors who are putting their bodies on the line for non-violent resistance."
Why would they have to "put their bodies on the line" if they aren't being violent? Presumably, because they are using their bodies to break laws, in particular, obstruction of justice and refusing police orders to disperse, so they can take a selfie amid the teargas and get more cred in the "resistance". So here we have yet another lover of "non violence" that is tacitly endorsing criminal behavior. Ironically, this is all from a person that wants us to think undocumented (like himself) aren't a threat. Well, it certainly seems threatening when you use your internet platform to applaud lawbreakers. I'm just shocked that the left-of-center is so tone deaf as to how this reads to ordinary Americans.
Dems want to disassociate from whatever isn't "peaceful", but I think they are up their own asses if they think the mass public won't be enraged by their tacit support of lawlessness.
Sorry dude you are the one that is not normal.
Most Americans think illegals should be deported. It doesn't matter if they're friends with one of them.
Most people aren't so naive and stupid as to automatically believe without question illegals' self-serving made-up stories. Only clueless lefties.
Most people understand that most illegals have had plenty of opportunity to do things the legal way, but chose not to, because it was easier. And they don't buy the excuses.
Crazy Idea, I know but Illegals should be deported.
You should be happy deportation is the only proposed solution. Picking cotton, digging ditches, or picking up trash as a servant to the state for his crimes is what I would propose for Mister Derek Guy.
Why is the man above the burning car waving an Italian flag? Maybe he tried to buy a Mexican flag but couldn't find one and had to settle for an Italian flag (which lacks the Mexican coat of arms in the center)?
People need to remember that this isn't reality TV or a video game. I like your grounded, common sense approach to these issues and tried to offer a similar dose of sanity in my recent piece, "Middle Son of California." You may enjoy it: https://jeffgiesea.substack.com/p/sons-of-california