“Violent protests” no they’re not.
-
Without fail, if someone uses the phrase “violent protests,” they are lying. They don’t exist. Period.
Sometimes, when people are attacked by agents of the state, protesters defend themselves. They might throw stones, or kick tear gas canisters back at the cops, or shoot fireworks. They might even cobble together incendiaries like Molotov cocktails.
The violence belongs to the state and its suppression of protests, not the actual protest.
Do I want cops, who are themselves just workers coopted by the state to do its violence on behalf of state and capital, to get hurt or die? No, I honestly don’t.
The way to prevent this from happening is for the state to decline to deploy them against protests, which are—in virtually every case—at least formally legal, a right that allegedly belongs to the public. But the state tattles on itself, deploying cops to crush protests with violence and then crying false tears about violence against its poor police and its poor property.
-
Do I want cops, who are themselves just workers coopted by the state to do its violence on behalf of state and capital, to get hurt or die? No, I honestly don’t.
The way to prevent this from happening is for the state to decline to deploy them against protests, which are—in virtually every case—at least formally legal, a right that allegedly belongs to the public. But the state tattles on itself, deploying cops to crush protests with violence and then crying false tears about violence against its poor police and its poor property.
@HeavenlyPossum I object to the idea that "cops are workers". Workers can be fired when they defy their bosses. Cops OTOH can bring down any mayor/civilian government who tries to tell them they can't do what they want to do.
Cops are organized crime, not workers.
-
“Violent protests” no they’re not. This is a lie. Every single fucking time, it’s a lie. Period, without exception. This is a heuristic I rely on.
The state has all the power. It has police with guns and armies with tanks. It has money and surveillance and legitimacy. When people turn out to protest with their bare bodies against the power of the state, they are exquisitely vulnerable. Agents of the state might beat them, handcuff them and kidnap them, spray them with high powered hoses, deploy chemical weapons like tear gas to torture them, or use increasingly exotic weapons involving sound or microwaves.
Or the state might just shoot them, or burn them, or drive over them with tanks.
There is nothing protesters can do that even remotely compares.
Indeed. Our headlines ought not to read “protests turn violent” but instead “protests subjected to police violence”
-
Do I want cops, who are themselves just workers coopted by the state to do its violence on behalf of state and capital, to get hurt or die? No, I honestly don’t.
The way to prevent this from happening is for the state to decline to deploy them against protests, which are—in virtually every case—at least formally legal, a right that allegedly belongs to the public. But the state tattles on itself, deploying cops to crush protests with violence and then crying false tears about violence against its poor police and its poor property.
@HeavenlyPossum
What I want from cops is for them to stop being cops. I'd prefer them to quit... -
“Violent protests” no they’re not. This is a lie. Every single fucking time, it’s a lie. Period, without exception. This is a heuristic I rely on.
The state has all the power. It has police with guns and armies with tanks. It has money and surveillance and legitimacy. When people turn out to protest with their bare bodies against the power of the state, they are exquisitely vulnerable. Agents of the state might beat them, handcuff them and kidnap them, spray them with high powered hoses, deploy chemical weapons like tear gas to torture them, or use increasingly exotic weapons involving sound or microwaves.
Or the state might just shoot them, or burn them, or drive over them with tanks.
There is nothing protesters can do that even remotely compares.
@HeavenlyPossum If the world were sane, deploying the police to a protest would be seen as violent provocation on the state's part.
-
“Violent protests” no they’re not. This is a lie. Every single fucking time, it’s a lie. Period, without exception. This is a heuristic I rely on.
The state has all the power. It has police with guns and armies with tanks. It has money and surveillance and legitimacy. When people turn out to protest with their bare bodies against the power of the state, they are exquisitely vulnerable. Agents of the state might beat them, handcuff them and kidnap them, spray them with high powered hoses, deploy chemical weapons like tear gas to torture them, or use increasingly exotic weapons involving sound or microwaves.
Or the state might just shoot them, or burn them, or drive over them with tanks.
There is nothing protesters can do that even remotely compares.
@HeavenlyPossum this is such a good point. Surely by definition protests are non-violent, cause then it’s always called “riots”, and they would be only delighted to call them riots, sooo…
-
@HeavenlyPossum I object to the idea that "cops are workers". Workers can be fired when they defy their bosses. Cops OTOH can bring down any mayor/civilian government who tries to tell them they can't do what they want to do.
Cops are organized crime, not workers.
@dalias @HeavenlyPossum correct
-
“Violent protests” no they’re not. This is a lie. Every single fucking time, it’s a lie. Period, without exception. This is a heuristic I rely on.
The state has all the power. It has police with guns and armies with tanks. It has money and surveillance and legitimacy. When people turn out to protest with their bare bodies against the power of the state, they are exquisitely vulnerable. Agents of the state might beat them, handcuff them and kidnap them, spray them with high powered hoses, deploy chemical weapons like tear gas to torture them, or use increasingly exotic weapons involving sound or microwaves.
Or the state might just shoot them, or burn them, or drive over them with tanks.
There is nothing protesters can do that even remotely compares.
@HeavenlyPossum Violent Protests is so 20th century.
Now we call it terrorism!
-
Do I want cops, who are themselves just workers coopted by the state to do its violence on behalf of state and capital, to get hurt or die? No, I honestly don’t.
The way to prevent this from happening is for the state to decline to deploy them against protests, which are—in virtually every case—at least formally legal, a right that allegedly belongs to the public. But the state tattles on itself, deploying cops to crush protests with violence and then crying false tears about violence against its poor police and its poor property.
I find it extremely difficult to judge people raised in a neofascist culture, in a society that basically murders the poor as policy, for doing anything to get work and protect themselves from those outcomes.
Once those conditions are eliminated, we can harshly judge people who choose immoral and unethical ways of participating in the economy and interacting with society. Until then, balancing our judgement with an understanding of relative social agency is important.
-
I find it extremely difficult to judge people raised in a neofascist culture, in a society that basically murders the poor as policy, for doing anything to get work and protect themselves from those outcomes.
Once those conditions are eliminated, we can harshly judge people who choose immoral and unethical ways of participating in the economy and interacting with society. Until then, balancing our judgement with an understanding of relative social agency is important.
Not to be confused with the necessity of having accountability for (the significant number of) cops who are straight up antisocial abusers and grifters. Just trying to say that "being a cop", absent specific offenses, shouldn't be a totally disqualifying bit of history.
How many cops there are who aren't antisocial abusers and grfiters is a whole other question, and probably one with an unsurprisingly low answer.
-
Not to be confused with the necessity of having accountability for (the significant number of) cops who are straight up antisocial abusers and grifters. Just trying to say that "being a cop", absent specific offenses, shouldn't be a totally disqualifying bit of history.
How many cops there are who aren't antisocial abusers and grfiters is a whole other question, and probably one with an unsurprisingly low answer.
@johnzajac Nice addendum, as it covers a considerable range to also... consider.
Gen Z on has a relatively unseen element, of subconsciously seeing their agency being further and further abused, as the Tech Bros and Fossil Fuels Oligarchy swing the pendulum of value exchange, more and more in the abusers' favor.
Combine this with more viral social media stimulii, and you have a recipe for resistance at levels that... well, it's still difficult to measure this pushback at the level of the 1%, going to .01% - since it's such a rarity in human history. These abusive 'elites' literally have luxury bunkers they can retreat to, come too much of a monumental resistance.
Add in the level of wealth and Hollywood level script writing, that the current US Admin brings with it, and it gets even more difficult to see a 'way back'.
Sux big time.
-
@HeavenlyPossum this is such a good point. Surely by definition protests are non-violent, cause then it’s always called “riots”, and they would be only delighted to call them riots, sooo…
@meljoann @HeavenlyPossum "Riot" vs "protest" is an editorial manipulation, not factual definition. Remember: the media is a tool of control, not information, and their masters aren't the people.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
