What is "peaceful" protesting?

[D34DL1N3R]

The thing is there is no simple answer

I disagree that it's a simple question that can get a simple answer.
It's not my fault you want a simple answer.

It's easier to deal with examples, hitting a policeman over the head with a flag is not peaceful.

Ones own opinion on whether or not the social worker was peacefully protesting is not a difficult thing or question to answer. It's either yes or no.

 

[smf]

Ones own opinion on whether or not the social worker was peacefully protesting is not a difficult thing or question to answer. It's either yes or no.

I asked for details about the video because I found it too annoying to watch, but you refused to answer them.

But of the parts of the video I did watch there was no fighting, she was just running her mouth to people that didn't care. Therefore it's peaceful. But if I missed her harassing children, fighting with someone, or anything else that I wouldn't consider peaceful then please point that out and I'll change my opinion.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

I asked for details about the video that you refused to answer because I found it too annoying to watch.

But of the parts of the video I did watch there was no fighting, therefore it's peaceful. But if I missed her harassing children, or fighting with someone then please point out and I'll change my opinion.

I'm not holding you hand, kiddo. Watch the video. If you are too "annoyed" to watch it, then don't participate in the conversation acting like you know whats going on. And I did answer. You refuse to see the answer, just like you refuse to watch the video then act like you know wtf is going on. Lmao. You're hilarious.

 

[smf]

And I did answer. You refuse to see the answer

No, you did not answer it...

How about you just answer the question with a simple answer, instead of with another question? Thanks.

If you're this much of a jerk in a discussion then I don't need to watch the video as it's safe to just disagree with everything you say.

 

[digipimp75]

To me a peaceful protest involves order and respect to other persons or property. The minute a punch is thrown or a window is smashed, then it's over. Of course the media still classifies these as "peaceful" sometimes.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

No, you did not answer it...

How about you just answer the question with a simple answer, instead of with another question? Thanks.

If you're this much of a jerk in a discussion then I don't need to watch the video as it's safe to just disagree with everything you say.

Yes, I very much did. I laid out several key details of the video plain as day for you. I feel you are the one being the jerk in this discussion. Especially since you couldn't be bothered to watch the video yet STILL continue to run your mouth. I'll just take it you're not going to answer because you don't have one due to the fact you are too childish and stubborn to do the research yourself or without your hand being held, and also seem to have some reading/reading comprehension issues. It's all right there for ya, buddy. I'll expect your answer next reply. Are you capable, or nah?

 

[CMDreamer]

as i posted earlier most civil rights protest were peaceful from the suppressors (Minority as in blacks) standpoint it's when we threw in the cops into the mix (all of them racist white men) that things got ugly

Yes that's a way of having control over the protest and send it in the direction they (who?) wanted it to go.

Recently there are Asian people attacks, Blacks have made their point stand so they (who?) had to change their goals. Latinos have always been on their sight, but they can't be considered a minority in the US.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

Protesting is gathering in often pre-desiginated areas while holding signs or wearing clothing supporting a common cause. Protests are often organized by first contacting the city and getting permission to gather in a certain area to protest. Protests also consist of verbal messages being relayed by people. That's it, it's very simple.

What is not protesting is destruction of property, arson, theft, trespassing, assault and murder. If a protest starts into those things it's no longer a protest and it's a riot.

There were actually over 1,000 instances of rioting by BLM and Antifa following the death of George Floyd. If you look at the other side, there was one single instance of rioting at the Capitol, absent arson.

I personally refuse to get upset over 1 instance of a riot by one side when the other side refuses address their responsibility for thousands. How do you even get to ignore 1,000's of riots where people died, cars and buildings burnt, etc ... is beyond me.

 

[notimp]

Ah.

Don't want to look up the sources, so I keep it short. The 1968-er generation of protesters actually wrote the political theory for that...

Thats the tame version, with much of the controversial stuff not touched upon:
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-criminol-061020-124931

Those are the good parts:
https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1093&context=unh_lr

Not sure if the important ones are in the footnotes, but there were actual influential figures in the sociology departments back then who wrote the political theory on civil disobedience, and argued strongly for "destruction of property" as being a valid and necessary part of that. And there were others who obviously opposed it... But that was a proper scientific discussion on political theory that was held back then.

edit: This amuses me to no end right now... I'm still looking up the references that I know exist, but not in the top google search results, and not on Wiki in reference to the subject "direct action", which is identified as "propaganda" there... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_action

Now I'm really motivated to dig out the political theorists, that propagated direct action and property destruction in the 1968 public debate. I know - that they were pretty mainstream back then... Now I _have_ to find them..

 

[omgcat]

protesting doesn't HAVE to be peaceful. one all of the peaceful options have been tried, you basically have to break the peace. if protesting doesn't cause some sot of discomfort, it will be ignored and nothing will change.

 

[notimp]

Damn, this is hard to source... First text I found - that still doesnt mention the mainstream theorists in the sixites, but the reaction of the next generation of protesters to those...

Disenchanted with a perceived lack of results from previous endeavors, student activists in the 1970s turned to new means of expressing their dissent. Levine (1980) summarizes this methodological shift:

What stands out here is the decline in use of tactics familiar from the Sixties – building takeovers, strikes, demonstrations, and the destruction of property. What has taken its place are litigation and tactics ranging from lobbying and use of grievance procedures to educating the public and fellow students via seminars and research reports. (pp. 42-43)

Students in the 1970s moved away from the direct action approach, so characteristic of the 1960s, and abandoned tactical variety in favor of educational and litigious means

src: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/217322217.pdf

Same source:

The number of protests that involved the intentional destruction of property as tactic dropped from 11.6 percent in 1969 – 1970 to 1 percent in 1977 – 1978. Student takeover of a building occurred at 15.4 percent of campuses in 1969 – 1970, then had dropped to 0.8 by 1977 – 1978. Similar declines were reported for student threat of violence, which were reported at 20.3 percent in 1969 – 1970 and fell to 2.9 percent in 1977 – 1978. The student strike was reported at 13.9 percent of institutions in 1969 – 1970, then at 1 percent in the 1977 – 1978 sample.

To be edited.

Still no luck on finding the ideologs behind the pro "destruction of property" strain in the late 1960s, but here is a quite dumb account of a contemporary trying to argue, that it means different things to students and "tha irish cop". If you want to lol, read this:
http://www2.kobe-u.ac.jp/~alexroni/IPD 2015 readings/IPD 2015_7/Galtung_Violence, Peace, and Peace Research.pdf

To be edited.

Neat elitist historic account (only speedread so far, posted for personal reference (to read later)):
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1969/5/1/conflict-of-generations-pbnbo-matter-what/

To be edited.


Here we go.....

Here is your answer on the academic level - without calling everything in favor of "violence against property" propaganda, like the Wikipedia entry - featuring at least one mainstream political scientist of the time (late sixties, early seventies), arguing in favor of it. Also offers a few more insights, that might be valuable as well.

The intellectual arguments about civil disobedience have been presented many times, with no agreement reached (Cohen, 1971; Singer, 1973; Zinn, 1968). The key factor causing differences in conclusions is the assumption about the legitimacy of the state. Those who assume the primacy and legitimacy of the state invariably take a narrow view of civil disobedience; those who question the state take a broader view.

Is it morally legitimate to break just laws in order to protest against unjust ones? For example, is it legitimate to block traffic if one agrees with traffic ordinances but wants to protest against laws against homosexuality? A narrow perspective, which requires civil disobedience not to challenge and hence undermine respect for valid laws, answers no. A broad perspective, which sees civil disobedience as part of a wider struggle for social justice, answers yes.

Must civil disobedients accept any legal punishment as right which is imposed for their violation of the law? A narrow perspective, which puts acquiescence to the law and the state as an unquestionable priority, answers yes. A broad perspective, which puts pursuit of justice above acquiescence to the law and the state and hence questions punishment as well as the unjust law, answers no.

Must civil disobedience be nonviolent? A narrow perspective, which is built on the assumption of the state monopoly over legitimate violence, answers yes. A broad perspective, which weighs state violence against countervailing violence without exempting either from moral judgement, answers no. (A broad perspective does not necessarily favour violence, since violence is often counterproductive. Rather, it does not accept the double standard of automatically condemning protester violence while justifying or ignoring state violence.)

These examples show that the intellectual arguments about civil disobedience are part of a wider struggle in which the authority and power of the state are at stake. But the existence of the wider struggle is usually submerged, especially by those defending the state. By castigating protesters as disruptive, violent and illegitimate, critics are engaging in a political struggle against the goals of the protesters; by basing their arguments on the unquestioned premise of the legitimacy of state power, they hide their own de facto commitments to particular parties to the struggle.

Another shortcoming of the theory of liberal society is its assumption of a degree of democracy that does not exist in practice. Without a more participatory democracy than provided by the electoral system, the usual liberal arguments about the political obligations of citizens hold little weight (Pateman, 1979).

The intellectual jousting about protest is fascinating, but just as important is the practical political response of governments as a method of limiting and controlling challenging groups. Protest is not a great threat to the power of the state so long as the protest challenges only policies and not the institutions of the state itself. The most effective way for governments to ensure that this happens is to appear to respond, usually by some form of symbolic action such as studying the issue, preparing legislation or setting up an inquiry (Edelman, 1971). Most protest movements do not have the organisational or economic foundation to 'sit out' an issue and wait for normal processes to take account of the problem.

src: https://documents.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/94psa.html

edit: Further reading, if you are interested:
https://ssudl.solent.ac.uk/id/eprint/997/1/2005_9_1&2.pdf