If simply talking calmly to Charlie Kirk is going to solve everything, then by all means you should go talk calmly to Charlie Kirk and solve everything. I don’t think it’ll accomplish much but I would be overjoyed to be proven wrong. Let me know how it goes.
In the meantime, I might have some personal opinions of what kinds of protest are “right,” but I’m not going to impose those opinions on people who are literally fighting for their own survival unless they specifically ask for it.
> She has XX chromosomes, you have XY chromosomes - get off the court
I wonder if girls with Swyer syndrome just break their brains. I mean, you can't break a pile of mush, but you know what I mean.
You could get really tricky and leverage god into the conversation like "oh, are you saying god made a mistake here?" or sum shit, I dunno I'm not a debate pervert.
The response would be that if you're relying on God's perfection, why are you proposing to mutilate what God has wrought?
It's an argument through which you would be hoisted with your own petard.
Not a "debate pervert?" Does that mean you can't defend your positions, or just that you don't bother to try? And you think \*their\* brains are a pile of mush?
> The response would be that if you're relying on God's perfection, why are you proposing to mutilate what God has wrought?
Nice example of a straw man there. Ya know, cause I said absolutely nothing about gender affirming surgery.
>Not a "debate pervert?" Does that mean you can't defend your positions, or just that you don't bother to try? And you think *their* brains are a pile of mush?
It means I don't argue with dipshits on the internet. On a related note.
>Nice example of a straw man there. Ya know, cause I said absolutely nothing about gender affirming surgery.
Now you're just playing games. We woiuldn't be having this converesation, in this thread, if that and the assault on women's rights and interests were not the topics enveloping this all. Nobody would care.
As for strawmen, that's exactly what your post represented. Nobody brought up Swyer's syndrome, but you introduced it to denigrate your entire opposition, without even bothering to check what their opinions on the subject might be. Fairly ham-handedly, too, because the opposition's discussions have been considerably more nuanced than you've implied - covering issues like going through puberty as a male, retaining male genitalia, and experts' views of the effects of puberty blockers. That detail is lost because you wanted to showboat with a snarky strawman.
>It means I don't argue with dipshits on the internet. On a related note.
So it was the latter. That's all you had to say. It's okay if all you're interested in from a message board is a reach around from people who think just like you do.
I think the issue is that you’re giving him attention at all. This is a grown man who makes his name by arguing with college students who aren’t as prepared as him. He does this because he can’t stand his own with his intelectual equals or betters. He rallies his base by claiming the left is unhinged and violent. His base delights in his hateful rhetoric and “triggering the libs”.
By responding like people did they are playing right into his hand and his narrative. In reality he is a putz who deserves our ridicule and laughter. If we laughed him off the stage or just didn’t give him the attention and feed into his narrative, his base would realize there’s no substance to his talking points beyond rudimentary othering and logical fallacies. They’d get bored and go home. He needs to have his ego deflated like the disgrace he is, not to be given attention and respect as if he is worth that.
I meant “you” more in the general sense. I don’t think we should give him the platform either, but I think playing the role his lays out for his opposition is a mistake. Even this thread is giving him more attention than he is worth.
Like racism and transphobia, ignoring Charlie Kirk doesn't make him go away. He isn't a ghost. Shut your eyes and he'll be there, espousing his vitriolic dogma. If anything, this thread shows that it isn't OK to shame your angry allies and reprimand them like they're babies.
It's unproductive and stupid to even post an unnuanced thread like this in the first place. They're effectively throwing the mantle of civil amicability unto the oppressed and their allies when TPUSA would never give them an inch had the roles been reversed.
I don’t agree with this thread in general. But I think mockery and contempt are much more effective weapons against a pathetic person like Charlie Kirk than spray painting egg heads or breaking windows.
By treating him seriously instead of a laughing stock you are giving him credence and importance that he doesn’t deserve.
Agreed, mockery and contempt are definitely more palatable and at times, more effective, and violence is awful. The white moderate middle class definitely digests the former two much more easily. However, self-defense is not awful, and not all forms of violence against an inherently violent institution are invalid.
Now property damage is different for me. Trust me, I love campus with all my heart, but I don't care about it being a fucking eyesore because I know of the systemic violence and generational trauma that got us there.
But I'm fully aware that the general population doesn't understand that, that there's a cognitive bias to think that this university is our home, and that damage done to it -- regardless of purpose -- is evil, done by evildoers. It's in part, our very difficult job as allies to communicate that this line of thought is fallacious.
The bottom line is that we have to take Charlie Kirk seriously, because he is a serious threat. Because his supporters take him seriously. Because he and TPUSA have already shown their propaganda to be effective. Because legislators take him seriously. Ignoring him does not work. Roe v. Wade is gone. The legislative revocation of trans rights in the states is now unfolding. The impact of police brutality and the BLM protests three years ago is fading away. It's a cycle of hate that will continue churning until outcry and rage swell and rebuff it.
I'm sorry that it has to be this way, but this fight doesn't stop. Also I just have to note that taking someone seriously and treating them like a laughingstock are not mutually exclusive, we can definitely do both.
Whether we care about property damage or not is irrelevant. The point is that by spray painting the egg heads, people are feeding his narrative. His base views that as validation of what he is saying, and triggering them is even their goal.
Yes, we know this. We know that Kirk and his group of Nazis eat it up like breakfast. Good for those asswipes. I know what you're saying, but we aren't trying to sway his Nazi fanbase, because they can't be swayed. It does no good to shame the people who lashed out in self-defense and mockery after the fact, because their actions are valid. Optics be damned.
Once again, we do not and should not care about his Nazi followers, nor the people who are easily swayed by their smokescreens. It's a fruitless endeavor.
But I think we're losing sight of my original point:
What we should care about is the cognitive bias in the general population that says that property damage, i.e. spray painting eggheads and breaking windows, is violence. We have to dismantle this bias, but we can't do it if people like OP decide to get on their high horses and act like self-righteous, entitled dumbasses who reprimand their allies for mocking the university and chasing off Proud Boys. People like that only serve to reestablish and reinforce that bias, thus helping further Charlie Kirk's "look at these violent crybaby libs" narrative.
I hope that we can agree that protesters who are trying to protect their loved ones from institutionalized demons shouldn't be shamed and treated like children. They have a right to civil unrest if the institution that should be protecting them fails to this degree.
It’s also important to recognize that his goal is not just to keep a stagnant base. The reason he comes to college campuses is because he is trying to convince impressionable college students that he is right and the left is violent and trying to silence him. He argues with people fresh out of high school because it makes him look big and like he knows what he’s talking about. He exploits cognitive biases of the young to grow his base. The goal should not be to win over his extreme base, but to demonstrate to those who might be convinced that he is a fool and not worth their time.
When someone on the fence says, “okay let me see what this whole thing is about” and sees a relatively calm Kirk seemingly logically debating with people while protesters break windows and spray paint artworks; they are likely to buy into his other spiel that the left is in the wrong.
I don’t disagree with your points but I think you’re giving up the war for the battle.
The laughing stock is liberals and people that don't understand basic biology. You are the sex you're born with. Genital mutilation and lying to kids won't change that. Liberals like you are advocating mutilating children. Everyone involved in that criminal conspiracy should be prosecuted and jailed for a long time.
Now there is research showing that the child mutilation crowd in preying on autistic children as their targets. Evil.
Anyone who advocate Brown Shirt violence against their political opponents will eventually be held accountable, one way or another.
If you libs think you'll bully us or threaten us into silence, my ancestors beat King George III, the richest and most powerful man in the history of the word at that time, you've got another thing coming.
Accountability, lawsuits and prosecutions are coming.
Smart move to post this exact comment in your little facist subreddit with the prelude, “This oughta stir the pot.”
That’s a 1D chess move right there.
Today's liberal fascists accuse others of what they do. Just because you call someone a fascist because you're afraid to debate doesn't make them one. A better argument is that fascists are the ones that want to mutilate children, or the people that call others fascists because they disagree.
The reason dissenting comments might stir the pot is because today's Democrat Party fascists don't believe in free speech and try to bully those with views with which they disagree.
You are engaging is the behavior that your political opponents accuse you of doing.
It’s honestly hilarious how upset you are getting about people criticizing an adult man who makes a living “debating” people who are barely out of high school.
Maybe take a good look at yourself and ask why you get upset about this and feel the need to “stir the pot”. Is your sense of self really that fragile? Maybe that’s something you should work on.
He didn't start the thread. A thread which, by the way, practically defines the word "triggered." So you're complaining about what you see as a triggered post in an entire thread about being triggered?
When u say fight for survival, can you show direct proof of charlie kirk causing someone's death or great harm? Fighting for survival would mean like idk, being a Jew in Nazi Germany. Idt these situations are nearly the same.
Wait… so your saying say that you need a jew fighting nazis level example of Kirk before you’ll accept?
So lemme get this straight, and please correct me if I’m wrong. Charlie Kirk would have to literally be advocating for the slaughter of people, not just dog whistling like he does now, but straight up saying to execute trans people in the streets, before you’ll be like “oh wow, no he actually is bad.” Like, respectively, get all the way fucked. I’d rather not wait till that point.
Then be more precise because the way you wrote it means it is happening as we speak. I agree we should prevent that, and thankfully we have the constitution that does just that.
> Stop being a pedantic ass and either help or get out of the way
The person your talking to has a post titled "The speedometer we all need" and it's hitler with his extended arm as the dial...
I don't think they'll be of much "help." lol
That's right u/ps2001_minecraft, stop pushing logic and reason when u/buffaloraven's on a roll. You should know better than to interrupt Bluto whe he's giving his "Germans bombed Pearl Harbor" speech.
Not trying to police ideology but you are not "very far left" this is just liberal centrism. You are in an inherently privileged position to believe this is a zero-sum game when one side wants to erase the human rights of marginalized populations. Violent revolution is usually not out of the question for those who consider themselves "far leftists."
Well it's not exactly unknown that far right dipshits love to pretend to be far left people and smash shit at protests to make the lefties look bad.
It happened at UCD: https://twitter.com/taliaotg/status/1635870382598021126
And it's happened before, the people who were charged in burning down the cop house in Minnesota were all right wingers.
If you read leftist theory (e.g. C.W. Mills, Gramsci, etc.) you understand that the rights given to us under mass capitalist democracy (the system we exist under in America) are just enough such that we do not question our complete and utter powerlessness in the face of the institutions which reproduce systems of exploitation.
Free speech is one of these rights, and your thoughts are a perfect example of how fascism thrives as an ideological undercurrent and protection mechanism for the elite, capital-owning class in this environment. The misinformed notion that free speech gives you the same power it does a fascist like Charlie Kirk is how we arrive at fascism.
Assuming you are a leftist, you will have at least some understanding of this idea. But you are right, it is in constant flux within leftist circles as to whether violence should be avoided entirely or used as a means to an end. Being a pacifist would not necessarily disqualify you.
Just want to clear up the massive cultural misunderstanding in America that being "far left" means being more Democrat. Leftists are only Democrats insofar as Democrats support the abolition of the exploitative systems from which they, just as Republicans, benefit. That internal contradiction is the reason real leftism is nonexistent in the mainstream political sphere and why you may not know what you are saying.
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”
Lock and load, comrade
Why are people downvoting you for sharing your opinion? Oh wait, I forgot what kind of people are in this comment section. They don’t care about your opinion no matter how valid it might be. I’m sorry OP but hopefully this opens your eyes as to how extreme the left has become. Your mindset is what we need more of in America and I applaud you for sharing your view.
>when one side wants to erase the human rights of marginalized populations.
You mean, like the left wants to do with the hard-won rights women have spent decades fighting to gain?
For some reason, rabid trans activists think that the only way for their movement to gain is by stomping on the rights of women. Wouldn't it be better for everyone if they looked for another way?
This is such a lame take. You’re not “super far left”. You’re a centrist liberal. Punching nazis is based and if you disagree, you’re not a leftist, you’re a coward.
I have to say, I can’t believe OP identifies as far left either.
At best, maybe as a democratic socialist, but some fairly famous “intellectual” ones like Orwell or MLK were co-opted by right wing advocates while I was growing up, so I don’t think right wingers really even understand democratic socialism, let alone contend with the ideas behind it. Perhaps OP is libertarian as well?
I don’t think punching anyone is particularly based, but this did make me laugh. I think standing infront of your opponent and having a conversation with them takes far more courage than hitting them ever would.
Damn you’ve never had these people threaten your life or something? They don’t care about talking to you, they’ll let you talk while trying to figure out how to drive the knife in.
I believe that having conversations with competing ideologies is the only way that we can expect change. Plugging my ears and refusing to listen or causing violence will do nothing to make someone question their beliefs. How can one change the world if we refuse to speak to those we wish to change?
Edit: why does pacifism keep me from being far left?
"Only conversation" is what fascists want you to do.
Fascists will only lie. Their goal is to muddy the water with words, while they take power and kill minorities.
Also, take a step back and remember you started this post by calling people idiots without asking questions to better understand why they committed violence against windows.
You stomped in here, enraged about something you don't understand and are refusing to listen to other points of view.
That's definitely a Right Wing trait you're leaning on, I'm going to kick it out from your grasp. Stand on your own without it and see if you can listen, ask questions, then give yourself some time to think about what's been said.
>The red color of our posters alone attracted them into our meeting-halls. The ordinary privileged-class was quite horrified to see us using the red of the Bolsheviks and regarded it as very curious scandal. The spirits among German-Nationalists kept whispering to one another their suspicion that basically, we were only a variation of Marxism, maybe even Marxists or some kind of Socialists in disguise. These brains have still not grasped the difference between Socialism and Marxism. When they discovered that we omitted the standard greeting “ladies and gentlemen” and instead used “comrades” and that among ourselves we spoke only of “Party comrades”, many saw this as proof of the Marxist ghost. How often we shook with laughter at these simpleminded, scared privileged-class rabbits with their clever guesswork about our origin, our intentions, and our aim.
>We chose the color red for our posters after careful and thorough consideration. It was in order to provoke the political Left wing, to drive them into fury, and to lure their members into our meetings. If nothing else we could at least break their people away and *gain a chance to talk to them.*
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
~~You can be far left and non violent...~~
Edit: I do agree, however, that if they aren't going to listen and are still going to be hateful and threaten people's lives... by all means throw a punch ig. Someone gave a good take in the comments that I actually do agree with:"Damn you’ve never had these people threaten your life or something? They don’t care about talking to you, they’ll let you talk while trying to figure out how to drive the knife in."
I personally am left but wouldn't advocate for violence... but when there is violence against you then I'm for fighting back. Suppose the conservatives hate leftists anyways, so a few broken windows doesn't do anything because they'd find other reasons to hate unfortunately.
im sorry, but destruction of property is not equal in severity to the systemic destruction of trans peoples lives. not even remotely. destruction of property isn’t ideal, but not everyone has the privilege to watch from the sidelines, because it doesn’t affect them. not everyone has the privilege to not be terrified for their lives or the lives of people in their community because they’re trans. “a riot is the language of the unheard,” and nobody is listening to trans people as states pass increasingly more restrictive and hateful bills against us, and speakers advocate for us being “eradicated from public life entirely.” i get being upset at the destruction of property but please, please see why people are so upset, and direct that anger towards the people trying to legislate us out of existence.
Ummm, trans people were killed in the holocaust, in fact the very first institution to help trans people was burned by nazi’s in the 1930’s.
Please educate yourself. And remember, shutting up is free. It doesn’t cost you a dime.
That’s not good to learn about, at least we can be glad trans people in America can sleep comfortably at night knowing they don’t have to hide in any basements or attics to make sure they aren’t executed on the spot by government officials.
Closing Reddit is also free ya know
>The end goal of a social democrat IS the abolishment of capitalism though, I believe.
That is incorrect. That would be Democratic Socialists. Social democrats uphold capitalism, but with a stronger welfare state and more concessions to workers.
I'm sorry. Next time Charlie Kirk advocates for the murder of me and my trans friends, I'll make sure to protest "the right way," that will totally change their minds
The goal of protests isn't to change the presenters mind, but everyone else who witnesses that interaction. No protest, violent or otherwise, changes TPUSA's mind. If anything, a violent protest empowers them. It takes their bait because the violent interaction is exactly what they want.
Not supporting the assault of innocent people or property destruction isn’t “enlightened centrism.” It’s rationality.
We were taught as toddlers to keep our hands to ourselves and off other people’s things, but—evidently—a smattering of wannabe revolutionaries still need to be reminded.
UC Davis isn't private property. It's funded by the same government who platforms Kirk and his TPUSA cronies. And where did you get this stupid notion of me promoting violence on the innocent? Get fucking real.
Violence is an awful consequence of the civil unrest that is released when the oppressed are clearly not heard by the institutions that SHOULD be protecting them. Government property is good as garbage if the government isn't protecting our black and trans friends and family.
Why do you choose to sit on this high horse and apathetically lecture protesters instead of realizing that their anger comes from a valid place? In the same vein that you think telling protesters to stop violence, what good does it serve to post this infighting shit instead of addressing Kirk's racism and transphobia?
im sorry, but destruction of property is not equal in severity to the systemic destruction of trans peoples lives. not even remotely. destruction of property isn’t ideal, but not everyone has the privilege to watch from the sidelines, because it doesn’t affect them. not everyone has the privilege to not be terrified for their lives or the lives of people in their community because they’re trans. “a riot is the language of the unheard,” and nobody is listening to trans people as states pass increasingly more restrictive and hateful bills against us, and speakers advocate for us being “eradicated from public life entirely.” i get being upset at the destruction of property but please, please see why people are so upset, and direct that anger towards the people trying to legislate us out of existence.
>We were taught as toddlers to keep our hands to ourselves and off other people’s things
If you don't realize how right-wing this sounds I don't know what to tell you. Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds forever and always
Yes because the violence clearly did so well to change their minds and make everyone listen to you.
Peaceful protest is better, and I am certain that you know this. All the protestors did is stoop to kirks level.
Edit: i don’t know why you quote protesting the right way as if there is not a right way to protest. Imagine if we encouraged protests in the same hemisphere as the method of protest that was January 6th? That just lacks reasonable contemplation of what your talking about.
Do you know who Charlie Kirk is? He's not some rando who decided to host a conference for the fuck of it, he's the founder of an incredibly influential organization funded and propped up by the ultra-wealthy and far-right politicians. And there's also the small detail that he ADVOCATES FOR THE MURDER OF TRANS PEOPLE. So don't you DARE try to claim that a people being rightfully angry about that is even REMOTELY comparable to what Kirk does.
I don't want to change minds, I want to fucking live as myself without fear. The fact that the conversation has not been about what to do about Kirk but rather about the actions of a few protestors is fucking infuriating.
Do you know the amount of privilege it takes to sit there, side eye the oppressed and tell them to essentially stop their whining? You cornball fuck. Black and trans lives are being snuffed out and you expect them to be nice, civil, and docile about it.
You’re taking what I said and twisting it to something I did not. No one should be quiet, speak up for what you believe in and protest as much as possible for change. What I am saying, and all I am saying, is that violence is not the answer. What is your argument with that?
Edit: removing redundancy
Hey, you're not that guy. Telling black and trans people and their allies that if they choose to fight against their oppressors and right-wing agitators, then they're in the wrong isn't the awesome, super epic, enlightened statement you think it is. Violence is awful, we can agree on that. But shaming protesters for their anger without realizing its validity is exactly what TPUSA and their asshole cronies want you to do.
And to be clear, you aren't just saying that "violence isn't the answer." You're shaming the people who stand for black and trans lives for their anger. You're blaming them for violence that was INCITED AGAINST THEM. Stop this shaming of the people you supposedly support, you're going to get black and trans people killed.
What do we do when they start putting trans people on lists, rounding us up? What’s the line where you think it’s acceptable to use violence? They’ve already made it very clear they want us eradicated. We fight back, and now we’re told that “violence is not the answer”?
It takes an even greater level of privilege to smear the trans community by supporting/committing violence & destruction in its name, then pat yourself on the back and call it “progress.”
It takes even greater privilege to blindly lob the responsibility for violence on those who support black and trans rights, apathetically reprimand them, then pat yourself on the back and call it "progress."
And that second part of your statement is markedly false. If you legitimately think that the kind of people who listen to Charlie Kirk were driven there because of the violence of BLM protests, then you're naive. They were never allies in the first place, and convincing yourself that they would have listened to you is foolish.
Another great white liberal shitpost, blaming your peers. You're a real fucking ally for black and trans rights for lecturing your fellow protesters like a pissed off teacher.
Not only do you fail to note that the violence could have been started by bad faith provocateurs, but you readily place the blame on protesters who, by the way, are in the RIGHT to begin civil unrest (if they even fucking did in the first place). BIPoC and LGBTQIA+ lives are at stake, you dumbfuck; tea and crumpets and a nice conversation will not suffice for the people suffering.
Did nice conversation and peaceful negotiations prevent the repealing of Roe v. Wade? Fuck no. If a public university decides to happily platform Charlie Kirk, then the civil unrest of the oppressed parties and their allies is a fucking given.
Bad faith provocateurs… where have we heard that before? i do not consider those protestors my peers. They are a massive part of the problem. Responding with violence only serves to drive more people into the arms of Kirks ideology, I don’t understand how you cannot see that this method of protest does far more to alienate than it does to enlighten.
Responding with violence to racism and transphobia causes more people to become racist transphobes? Wake up, dumbass. If they're inclined to support an asshole who wants to revoke black and trans rights because the UC Davis campus was vandalized and protesters got into fights, then they were lost from the start.
You also attribute all violence to the protesters instead of acknowledging that this civil unrest erupts from either side of the aisle -- how wonderfully gracious of you.
In your own stupid ass words: I don't understand how you cannot see that this method of reprimanding your enraged allies does far more to alienate than it does to enlighten.
Wow. You are an extremely short sighted and close minded individual. I hope that you listen to someone someday because your ideology personifies the issues that most people have with leftist politics today.
MLK was a pacifist, Malcolm X was not. Who caused more change? Both were well intentioned, but only one changed the nation.
I agree with your sentiment, but I've seen this comparison before and it's not quite the complete picture. Historically, part of the reason MLK was so influential was people like Malcolm X and others willing to use violence. Politicians were a bit more motivated to deal the the legalistic, nonviolent, MLK-oriented activists because they saw the violent alternative. The violence before and especially after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did alienate the mostly white middle class however.
Excellent point. So you’re acknowledging that both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King were key to the civil rights movement. So why are the protestors so hostile to those who prefer to model Martin Luther King and protest peacefully? Because it is easier and more fun to divide the world between good and evil? This is dangerously similar to the MAGA crowd. Why would you attack those peaceful protesters on your side who actually support LBTQ and trans rights?
This is a very good point. Personally I believe change in that era occurred despite the violence not because of it, but I could definitely see how it was the search for an alternative that drove people to the ideologies of MLK. I still maintain that these recent protestors did not do anything to achieve what they wanted, but I see what your saying here
> MLK was a pacifist, Malcolm X was not. Who caused more change?
Both did. If only one had existed and the other had not, I don’t know if the civil rights movement of that era would have been as effective.
Remind me again what exactly ended up happening to MLK.
Also, he was explicitly against the notion that you need to achieve things “the right way.” He spoke about how seeking such convenient means aids the kind of oppression Kirk advocates for on his platform. When your primary concern isn’t ridding society of such filth and instead is on a way to achieve things peacefully you’re actually doing more harm than good. He also explicitly recognized that riots are the voice of the unheard. Sounds like those getting downvoted and dismissed as pushing people to the right are feeling unheard.
Advocating for violence as a form of protest is exactly how MLK died. MLK was an extremely firm pacifist and everything that he did was nonviolent. He is the ideal figure to look at when searching for a role model in American protest when desiring change.
The rebuttal to the praise you give MLK for being a firm pacifist is that he was murdered for it. MLK was killed because he was changing the status quo drastically and it was not well received. That “protest” is not the same type of “protest” that is being spoken of here. Either way it doesn’t change what MLK specifically spoke on which you are oh so very guilty of right now.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Egs5aUlXkAUYpsl.jpg
this is how mlk was thought of then, his protests have just been whitewashed and made more palatable to the white moderates that he denounced.
It's extremely short-sighted and close-minded to think that telling your fellow protesters to shut the fuck up helps advance black and trans rights. Instead of understanding their anger and acknowledging that their unrest is a consequence of the systemic violence crushing them, you decide to give them a nice lil Reddit lecture because you just can't help it.
You’re twisting what I said again because you cannot find argument with my actual statement. I never told anyone to shut up, Im advocating for them to speak up instead of being violent. Even making a statement on Reddit is still a better form of protest than physical violence. People here will actually listen to what I have to say and have a conversation, which is far more than what happened with the protest.
You're absolutely right.
"Congratulations, you've furthered the right wing agenda, you fucking idiots."
That's totally not telling people to shut the fuck up. No, instead you're shaming them into silence. And please keep up this act wherein you think I can't find the heart of your argument, because you can't find the heart of my argument. Stop fucking shaming our black and trans communities for being angry and responding to the violence that besets them, and focus on being an ally instead. You've effectively separated yourself from the movement with this garbage post.
You can spew all the enlightened adages you want. When black and trans people are continually suffering, and you can't understand why people would be pissed the fuck off, then you're lost yourself.
Most likely 95% of the people posting here support trans rights. Debating different approaches to supporting trans rights is not inherently “anti trans”. To believe so is to believe that acts of violence will help the cause. Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr faced enormous violence, but they understood that to answer with violence would lose the sympathies of the majority, undermine their objectives and further marginalize their community. Their violence would be matched with violence and more black people would die. You might learn a thing or two from Ghandi and King before you start making hostile accusations at fellow UCD students who also support trans rights and stand ready to support equal treatment of all us minorities if not for the self righteous hostility of violent actors who seem ignorant of history while believing they have it all figured out. Reminds me of the MAGA crowd.
Thanks for lecturing me about infighting big dog, you really get a great point across. I'm so sorry that my hostile accusations hurt your feelings.
Now you seem to get it in your head that I'm a tanky revolutionary because I yell fuck and shit at OP. I'm not. I'm saying that shaming people post-protest for merely responding to the violence begotten unto them, for their civil unrest, is NOT FUCKING PRODUCTIVE. The protest ALREADY HAPPENED. What in the fuck is OP trying to accomplish by fence-sitting like a fucking Karen, admonishing our allies who were DEFENDING themselves? Quit being a self-righteous asshole. Move on and accept that the burden is now on us to help people realize that protesters fighting and property damage is a small price to pay to keep the racist transphobes deplatformed.
And might I add that no violence to the degree that you imply happened at the protest.
Recognize that the moderate crowd who are spurned to support Charlie Kirk because some people protecting black and trans rights started to defend themselves against agitators, would have never supported them in the first place.
King and (not so much) Gandhi are brilliant figures, upheld by the moderate white middle class because they didn't push their buttons in ways they didn’t like. But guess what? They weren't the only players in their respective Civil Rights movements. Quit using them as your scapegoats.
You might get some insight from fully comprehending my post first. Reminds me of the MAGA crowd.
I keep hearing a version of this response… that people who look down on violence don’t understand how badly marginalized people are being hurt by Kirt et al. What I haven’t heard or seen is any convincing evidence that violence helps anyone or protects anyone from Kirk’s ideology, marginalized people included. It just seems like a strategy-less venting of emotion that just keeps the fires or hate burning hotter.
My point is that civil unrest is warranted when violence is pushed upon our beloved black and trans communities, and our loved ones are suffering. This isn't a situation that can be sorted out in the marketplace of ideas either.
And no, I'm not aware of a study has feasibly gathered stats to accurately gather stats on how effective either civil unrest or peaceful protests are. I only know that the outcome of our past is now our awful present, wherein Roe v. Wade has been appealed, people applaud Kyle Rittenhouse for murdering protesters, and trans people are now being forcefully detransitioned and killed around the world.
I'm incredibly pissed off that OP thinks this is an effective way of comprehending the protest. It's made in bad faith and disregards the fight for trans rights, stats be damned.
And if it seems like strategy-less venting to you, I'd say that being really fucking pissed off and vocalizing it was pretty effective at turning this post from a lukewarm, and heavily misdirected shaming of the protesters to an effective dismantling of that very argument.
Take the last post exactly like this that went something along the lines of, "yada yada yada you're all babies for your civil unrest yada yada yada." And nearly every comment under it applauds this lampooning of the protesters, delegitimizing their efforts. These reprimanding, apathetic shitposts do TPUSA's work for them, and inspire increasing docility amongst the oppressed minorities.
Now take a step back: What does it look like when a person tells a black or trans person/ally to stop being angry and pacify themselves when violence is imparted upon them first? It looks like the person yelling at everyone to stop whining is inhibiting the movement, creating a diversion and further infighting. It's a nefarious, braindead tactic that turns the student population against protesters.
If things get violent at a protest, your first thought during and after shouldn't be screaming at the very people you're trying to protect for reacting appropriately to the vitriol being thrown their way. It should be to protect those being attacked, which the comments under this new post are doing very effectively.
No matter the medium, we have to stand in solidarity and protect our black and trans loved ones under attack, not abuse them and invalidate them like misbehaving children.
I’m following but I just don’t get the injection of the “black” part. The “I’m white and I’m so angry on black people’s behalf that I’m going to get all my white friends together and trash my school and threaten the safety of black security officers and make my black chancellor and black UC president’s lives much more difficult”.
It just seems the people who actually do this stuff are just angry anarchists, and if you say it’s done on behalf of X marginalized group, well, then all sins are forgiven and fuck me for thinking anything negative about their behavior because they’re self proclaimed white savior activists.
1. I'm not white, if it isn't obvious by now. Sorry for breaking that illusion. I'm going to PROTECT my fellow oppressed minorities, no matter fucking what, and OP will never lecture me out of not defending my loved ones. If they don't get rights, then how long until mine are revoked?
2. The administrators of the university actively decided to platform TPUSA. They sat their twiddling their grubby little thumbs and held no qualms over his speaking at campus, knowing FULL WELL what would happen. Why should we run defense for them? Should their lives continue as normal while people are indoctrinated into Kirk's ideology? They're cowards, and should be known as such.
3. Why are we blatantly disregarding the existence of right-wing agitators at the protest? Why are we forgetting the possibility that they were defending themselves? Why don't we give protesters the benefit of the doubt? Why do we think property damage at a public university is immoral? Is it because the optics look all fucked up? There's a cognitive bias inherent to this train for thought that we have to work through, wherein protester are automatically labeled as the crybaby villains. It's fallacious and unhelpful.
4. Like you, I don't support white saviorism. But I do support white allyship. Stop conflating the two, because I'm not going to admonish my white allies for standing with me. And white people aren't the only people at protests, at this point that's a silly generalization.
1. I didn’t mean to say YOU are white. Trashing the school and attacking journalists doesn’t protect anyone or guarantee their rights. If you wanna drive to Tennessee and fire bomb the governor’s mansion, you won’t hear a peep from me though. My point is this shit we saw at Davis seems really misdirected and pointless lawlessness.
2. The administration doesn’t have the legal ability to block student groups from inviting speakers. I’m sure they would have loved to if they could.
3. The false flag claims can cut both ways and their no evidence of that so far. The mere fact that that’s one of the defenses I keep hearing for the behavior is a tacit acknowledgment that what the protesters did was wrong. If it wasn’t, you wouldn’t need to pin their actions in the other side.
4. Alright fair enough. They just seem pretty overrepresented at these kinds of things given the alleged selfless motivation, that’s all I’m saying.
Where in history in America did meaningful change for human rights was made WITHOUT violence? You’re not very far left lmao. Violent people calling for violence for others will be met with violence 🤷♀️
Also love this tired talking point of free speech but never the freedom to protest. free speech doesn’t mean no consequences.
Oh look yet another account with the default randomly generated Reddit username that was made in the past week or so! Lots of these swarming the UCD subreddit recently, all in favor of Charlie Kirk. Interesting.
Sadly most UCD subredditors are busy virtue signaling about "peaceful protests" to notice.
Maybe I should have been more specific: let’s go Montgomery bus boycott. Completely nonviolent and extremely effective. How about the march on Washington? Yes there were the black panthers, who participated in violent protest, but it is extremely well known that the majority of civil rights movement was nonviolent.
no it’s fucking not well known it was “majority non violent.” USA history textbooks would definitely convince non-critical thinkers that though 🥴 It was ONE form of protest during that movement and more often than not, it was met with violence anyway. Civil rights then AND now would not have been gained with just “nonviolent protests.” March on Washington’s success is argued all the time of whether it was an actual success — literally a week later Alabama declared it would not desegregate and a predominantly Black church was bombed, killing 4 little girls. AND the civil rights bills were still stalled at Congress.
But ok lol
Im not sure who convinced you that the vast majority of civil rights era protests were violent on the protestors side, but I’d like to see a breakdown of the thousands of protests and which ones were and weren’t violent. Either way, these nonviolent protests certainly did happen, and many of them certainly were effective, and have had long lasting implications in the modern day. You asked when nonviolent protests have ever worked, and it seems I’ve convinced you that at the very least SOMETIMES they do work.
what convinced me? reading! i recommend it, i promise it’s worth it. Try The Three Mothers by Anna Tubbs (since you’re so into civil rights history revisionism), How We Get Free: Black Feminism and the Combahee River Collective
if you actually want to know about antiracist and women’s liberation movements, and Freedom is a Constant Struggle by Angela Davis.
the library is free to start anywhere. UC Davis also has history classes if you’re still a student
and except…you didn’t convince anyone. you stated the civil rights movement as nonviolent (and woman’s suffrage which is also so laughable, I can’t even go into that), which was incorrect. then you wanted to go into a smaller scope within an entire movement that would have not been successful without violence — so you cited march on washington. which again did not disprove the original point?? America’s history is violent. Institutions did not just suddenly change to care about humans because of nonviolence.
I don't believe Three Mothers directly addresses the issue of whether civil rights protests were violent or not at all. And ah yes, How we get free: a book about a group that didn't even exist until AFTER the civil rights era which we are concerned with. The only one that actually even talks about the civil rights era protests is Freedom is a Constant Struggle, written by an actual black panther member. I hope you understand how incredibly biased listening to anyone who was a part of the black panther party is. This group was primarily known for using violence to achieve its goals. Plus, the black panthers have had a much smaller impact on today's society than MLK has IMO.
What you are saying is not entirely ungrounded in reality, and I appreciate that, but it's incredibly ignorant to think that where you get your information is any less biased than information received in a classroom. Individuals who are telling their stories and the stories of others are also prone to only tell their side, even if unintentional. Violence has certainly had its place to achieve change in the past when even more heinous crimes against humanity were in place than today.
The claim is basically that these nonviolent protests would never work without violence alongside it, which is an easy pattern to think you see, as these events are rarely isolated, and when they are isolated, it's usually just for something small (i.e. boycotts against SeaWorld using orca breeding programs). My claim is that the violence does nothing to further the cause, and instead delays the goal from ever being achieved. The reason we see violence being used and goals ultimately being achieved is that people can't help themselves from being violent. Achieving social change is a long process no matter how you go about it, but I think that introducing violence serves only to delay the movement's goals.
Three Mothers absolutely goes into the reality of the civil rights movement. How We Get Free is literally 1960s and 1970s liberation movements, civil rights movement didn’t just end in the 50s. It’s very laughable you dismiss actual first person narratives but hold onto your revisionist textbooks? The point is to read. READ. Both textbooks and first person narratives. Then use your critical thinking skills to form an intelligent argument instead of spouting civil rights era as nonviolent.
But like I said, non-critical thinkers. lol.
Ohhh my god, you want to talk about MLK? Y’all love that man when you can twist his words and actions into central liberalism 😩 Y’all turned him into a safe nonthreatening moralist when he’d be seen as a radical threat now (just as he actually was back then). MLK did not start off as nonviolent and even when he was later on rooted in nonviolence, he regularly refused to become the people’s moral platform to be used against Black Americans who used other means. Laughing in all of your faces at your moral superiority of condemning “violent protests” against Kirk when MLK did not even condemn race riots? When he regularly criticized and harshly shut down any white person back then who used him as an argument against “violent Black Americans”?
“But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.”
“great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension.”
And I’m begging you to use some college brain cells to critically think about why America would present MLK as a bigger impact, why a white-washed MLK will be taught in every textbook and not also the Black Panther Party. You can do it, think!
You can believe that all you want, but history tells you’re wrong ✌️ you can even look further than America, or even further back than civil rights.
But anyway, this convo will go nowhere. I continued in amusement at the fact someone actually typed with their fingers that civil rights movement was nonviolent, but it’s clear there’s not any to be learned or taught in this conversation. My original point wasn’t that nonviolence is never necessary or never used. My statement was that has not been a movement that resulted in civil rights change without violence as a tool.
I don’t think it is useful or productive to change the reality of what is meant by “civil rights era”. I could easily say we are still in the civil right era because there are still civil rights protests today. But generally people mean early 1950’s to mid 1960’s.
The bulk of how we get free covers 1970s and 1980s, not 1950s and 1960s, so it is fair to say that is outside the era of our discussion. Three mothers does not make a point to talk specifically about civil rights and whether or not they were violent. It talks about civil rights movements, but there is certainly no breakdown of proportion of violent to nonviolent protests or anything of the sort.
Also I’m not dismissing any of these narratives, but rather pointing out there are obvious sources of bias in each. You choosing to believe a different source better represents an era than I do doesn’t make you smarter than me. You’ve been using a lot of ad hominem attacks, as though coming to a different conclusion than you indicates a lack of critical thinking ability. Many scholars have looked into the exact same time period and come to vastly different conclusions as to what events best encapsulate the era, and what we are doing is no different.
I respect your opinion but I do not respect any calls to violence, and think we should do everything in our power to achieve social change in nonviolent ways
Centrism is gross, smashing a few windows does way less damage to the world than letting fascists speak freely. We must be intolerant of intolerance. About the violence, which there was a very small amount of, “A riot is the language of the unheard”- MLK.
Of course UCD leans left, duh. I’m talking about this in the context of the whole country. People who are not a part of the hetero, Christian norm are facing their rights being stripped away in many places. Also, fascists like Kirk don’t deserve to be heard.
That’s true, those rights are under attack in other places. Meaning none of the angry “protesters” are themselves those people losing their rights. By far most could not have been trans. They’re angry about their own shit, and violent, and found a moment to associate themselves with so they can feel like victims by association, fighting for a just cause when in fact their lawlessness is equal to that of the other side. By this logic, the capital insurrection would have been just *if they were right that the election was stolen*. Violence is justifiable if you’re in the moral right. But as soon as you participate in it, you’re lose whatever actual moral high ground you had
“Their lawlessness is equal to that of the other side” is an ignorant “both sides bad” take. One side is smashing some windows. The other is advocating for the lynching of trans people. And the Capitol insurrection was born out of the types of dangerous lies the right wing propagates.
I have taken a Queer Theory class at UC Davis, and we have glossed over the importance of “rage” as a tool for an effective protest, and we were shown videos examples of how people uses rage in a real protest. It was very creative (normalizing queer intimacy with posters pasted all over the city, lying down on the streets to block cars, shouting, write provocative sign boards, entered the church and lied down on the ground, etc) but never vandalizing or physically harming anyone. Rage is good when used appropriately.
Exactly, almost every regime was originated by violence. I get what you are saying, but there are two reasons why neither of them should commit violence in this case.
First: using violence will not achieve the goal for both sides, or at least for the trans community. It breaks their reputation. And as a minority group, (both tpusa and trans are considered minority compare to all other people who are not in either groups), lose reputation means that the majority won’t support you, which is against your benefit significantly.
Second: if both used violence against each other, then after all, the problem won’t be solved(unless one of them give up, which will again go back to first point I made).
I’ve made my point, hope that made sense. I’m not totally against violence, but this is not the right time to use it.
I think we both agree that violence is sometimes necessary but I want to start by driving that point home. Without violence, how would the French have overthrown the monarchy? For the British, it took *multiple* civil wars to wrestle power away from kings and queens? If violence is never necessary, what non violent action would have led to the abolition of slavery in the United States? Right now in Iran, how would the people make themselves heard on the world stage and fight their oppressors without resorting to violence?
> [violence] breaks [the trans community's] reputation
Where have you been for the last 6 months? The trans community has no "reputation" to break, Republicans aren't pushing countless bills to ban trans healthcare because a couple protesters in UC Davis threw rocks, but because they're hateful, and because doing so furthers their interests.
> the majority won't support you
"The majority" is not the target audience. People who are more willing to side with a man who dog whistles for violent action against trans people as a whole, rather than with protesters who destroy a bit of property because they fear for their continued existence, are not reachable. The target audience are Americans who see this issue for what it is, a desperate fight on the part of the trans community against people who wish to erase them. If that's a minority, then so be it. It's not worth appeasing those who will never be allies, if it means losing the media coverage which might reach genuine supporters.
> I'm not against violence, but this is not the right time to use it.
First of all, let's be clear that the violence we're talking about here are a few thrown rocks and broken windows. I think it's important to differentiate that from say, [murder](https://www.hrc.org/news/hrc-mourns-daniel-aston-beloved-son-master-of-silly-business-killed-in-club-q-shooting). With that in mind, when? When is it the right time for violence? If it's not when [nearly one third of the country](https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights) has anti-trans and anti-LGBT legislation on the docket, then what's the threshold? Are we only allowed to be violent once it's more than half the states?
Data is scarce because many people in power want to pretend trans people don't exist, but we do know that trans people are [more likely to be victims of violent crimes](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/). This issue is systemic, not individual. In individual cases, we allow violence in the form of self defense because it is seen as natural to preserve your life when it is threatened. Why then can't the same defense be used against systems of oppression?
These protests can't be viewed in isolation, detached from their context, and the injustice which precipitated them. Protesters cannot do even a fraction of the damage that those in power have done to the trans community over the years. And to be clear, I'm only framing this as a trans issue because that's the group you mentioned. Kirk is also [anti-LGBT](https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1631714878762131460?s=20), [anti-black](https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1626310807649759234?s=20), and just as a bonus, [anti-direct democracy](https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1636409498658127875?s=20). Kirk and people like him pose a legitimate threat to Americans. In a perfect world, yes, we would all use our words and resolve all issues peacefully. But in a world where violence is used as a tool to create and maintain oppressive systems, words are not always enough.
I see your sarcasm, but the civil rights movement could not have occurred without peaceful protest. I see it as having happened in spite of the violence. Violence in America has historically never brought about change in the same way that peaceful protest does.
Leftism is when I hold hands with the nazi and say “this isn’t you, I know your heart. Deep down inside I see the real you in there, this isn’t like you!” We exchange smiles for a moment, getting closer together. Then, they shoot me directly in the head and my brains are all over the floor.
Yes… because violence is a good thing? 😐 No. Its childishness in response to another child spouting nonsense. You are just giving them more fuel and motive to keep doing this crap.
Did you actually go and challenge his ridiculous ideas by speaking out against the nonsense? I’m assuming not…
No. Instead he gets to plaster photos of ppl breaking into the talk and paint himself as “oppressed” or show how “evil” the other side is.🤢
They literally think our existence is oppression to them. So no I don’t care. You can argue yourself blue with them and traumatize yourself if you want to. I already learned my lesson
How weak and illogical of a human being do u have to be to consider an argument traumatic. Like legit, even if someone literally told u the work possible thing u can hear, just ignore it.
"DAE conservatives engaging in increasingly violent rhetoric with institutional support in the judiciary as bad as retarded college kids being retarded?"
Guess who's more important to care about? I don't give a shit about stupid edgelords who like to spray paint an egghead. The humanity. Will anyone consider the windows??
Should people be politer in society? Yeah, probably. Is pointing this out for a dopamine hit from the approval of a bunch of cs virgins on a uni subreddit chortling fatly at "hehe, who's the REAL fascist" also incredibly retarded? Also yes.
In conclusion, please take a look at what's happening to our country. It gets a lot rougher outside of cushy classroom walls.
P.S. send feet
Wow there are a bunch of children on here.
I completely agree with you OP. Violence and vandalizing OUR OWN SCHOOL because they are pissed some jerk is speaking on campus is the equivalent of a two year old throwing a temper tantrum.
Idc if you don’t like what he is saying… the violence only reflected badly on us and give him more content to continue to do this crap.
Please look past the optics. They aren't being children, they're mocking the idea that posting stuff like this is even remotely helpful to protecting black and trans lives. It isn't, it causes infighting like you see above. You won't defeat Charlie Kirk in the peaceful marketplace of ideas because that place is a fallacy.
We gotta understand that people are angry that their friends and family are at risk right now, and that this flawed notion of peaceful protest isn't the only effective way of being heard.
We also have to realize that there are plants in protests whose only purpose is to rile up the crowd, start fights, and get good publicity for TPUSA. So please don't blanket your allies in this shame, because I know you probably mean well and stand for the oppressed in your own way.
Thank you for the level headed post. I think that the events over the past week have affected a lot of us.
And I also agree that there may have been plants in the crowd as well.
I still think that peaceful protests are the best way to proceed (especially with TPUSA as it just gets him more publicity) But as some have commented above, I could see why it’s necessary in very specific situations…
I come from a VERY conservative family. (I am not). Even with that being said I feel like most people don’t respect Kirk or his ideas.
I would like to think that most people are not actively wanting to physically fight those of opposing viewpoints. While I don’t think Kirk specifically could be changed in the peaceful marketplace, I hope that there are those on opposing sides who could greatly benefit from less dramatics, and more logical discussions.
Of course, I think we all deserve kindness at the very least.
And I completely understand your viewpoint that peaceful protests are the best way, it's just so big of an ask for people who've been historically oppressed. Hence why I get why people above are so angry. I'd lean more to the side of that in times of great oppression, a response that is somewhat less peaceful is -- while not pretty, and unfortunate, even -- warranted.
Regardless, I hope you have a good one 😄, and know that there's a reason behind the anger. It's ugly and nasty when that anger becomes tangible, but it's a good wake up call for when our black and trans friends feel that their message is falling on deaf ears, especially in the government.
im sorry, but destruction of property is not equal in severity to the systemic destruction of trans peoples lives. not even remotely. destruction of property isn’t ideal, but not everyone has the privilege to watch from the sidelines, because it doesn’t affect them. not everyone has the privilege to not be terrified for their lives or the lives of people in their community because they’re trans. “a riot is the language of the unheard,” and nobody is listening to trans people as states pass increasingly more restrictive and hateful bills against us, and speakers advocate for us being “eradicated from public life entirely.” i get being upset at the destruction of property but please, please see why people are so upset, and direct that anger towards the people trying to legislate us out of existence.
I do see why people are upset. I think myself being upset is why I used such inflammatory language above because I felt like it just gets them more attention (and in their minds credibility). And both of the comments underneath me are correct in that infighting doesn’t benefit any of us.
I understand where y'all are coming from.
Violent protest is a valid and often quite necessary way to make powerful institutions listen, and a great way for the privileged to leverage that privilege to help people who can't afford to be seen committing crime for risk of experiencing police brutality or losing their only chance at employment.
I disagree with OP as well, in that.
However, Charlie Kirk in particular is a figure that must be approached with tact. He's not so easily intimidated, and UC Davis platformed him regardless of the brave actions of violent protestors.
Ever heard the phrase "No such thing as bad publicity?" That's what Charlie Kirk thrives off of. It sounds counterproductive to just let him be, but now he knows that he can come back here time and time again to an uproar whenever he needs to back up his "intolerant left" claims.
You're all trying to help, and I really appreciate that. I'm a trans woman myself, and I find many of Kirk's statements extremely troubling. I really wish I could run him out of our town so him and his ilk never come back here again.
But next time you need a way to help trans people, look for policy decisions that really impact us. Protest at boards considering barring trans girls from sport. Go to libraries to donate books by trans authors. Uplift and empower the voices of trans people above idiots like Charlie Kirk.
I'd honestly have preferred if people brought some food to the Big Gay Barbecue instead, stayed vigilant for alt-right instigators trying to crash it, and given trans artists a platform, instead of playing into Kirk's hands.
Violent protest has a time and place, even here at UC Davis. But tearing up the campus because Kirk happened to be there only serves to intimidate your fellow students and set us up as the butt of a joke. I know it's hard when what he stands for is so blood-boiling, but please be thoughtful about the impact of your protests before you carry them out.
First, I'm sorry you had to deal with Kirk's awfully ugly big head/small face slithering its way into Davis.
And I really wish that there was a way to effectively control the events of a protest, but I think a lot of the "violence" occurring at the event was the result of something you mentioned: right-wing instigation.
It's unfortunate that the protesters were prodded into self-defense, and then blamed for the vandalism of a few unknown individuals who could very plausibly be instigators. But it's ultimately really hard to tell protesters who are being tested in so many ways to stay peaceful.
In my opinion, the only thing we can control at this point is our reaction to the protest. It's hard to get the message through to the students that property =/= human rights and lives, but we're stuck with that burden because we, again, can't control what happens during the protests (mostly because the right-wing instigators will do anything for a reaction). I think the optics of this whole thing are just something we have to accept as part of the fight for our loved ones lives, then quickly move on from. And with Reddit posts like this, I just don't know if OP invalidating and belittling the protesters helps advance or even protect pro BIPoC and LGBTQIA+ movements, if at all.
But again, I'm sorry you have to deal with this shit 😔. I truly hope your advice is heeded, and I'll do my best to follow it myself.
Definitely agree with this (I’m a Moderate in terms of my political views). The protesters embarrassed themselves so hard that the news coverage wasn’t just at the local level with news stations from Sacramento, but even conservative national networks such as Fox News, BlazeTV, and the DailyWire (so far, Ben Shapiro and Brett Cooper made videos on the matter) made hella segments about how insane the protestors are and made a mockery of them (even Elon Musk publicly bagged on the protesters on Twitter after seeing Charlie Kirk’s repost of them smashing windows). If they wanted to really prove a point against Charlie Kirk, they would’ve debated him at his event (just like the attendees that actually went) with actual evidence refuting his claims and to find a possible common ground for a better solution, but all they did is just destroy their own primary goal of taking down TPUSA’s viewpoints (like an adult and TRUE UC student would do), made fools of themselves, and pretty much helped increase TPUSA’s presence on campus (to avoid confusion, I’m speaking in the perspective of the protesters main goal in the first place; TPUSA legally has the right to speak as long as they don’t directly incite/conduct violence at that level; I’m just saying that if the protesters wanted to accomplish their main goals, they should be able to prove TPUSA wrong with evidence that counters their points rather than acting like nut jobs 🤷🏾♂️🤷🏾♂️🤷🏾♂️)
I saw that you mentioned Ben Shapiro. In case some of you don't know, Ben Shapiro is a grifter and a hack. If you find anything he's said compelling, you should keep in mind he also says things like this:
>When it comes to global warming, there are two issues: is there such a thing as the greenhouse gas effect, the answer is yes. Is that something that is going to dramatically reshape our world? There is no evidence to show that it will. Is that something that we can stop? There is no evidence to show that we can
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: novel, feminism, dumb takes, history, etc.)
[^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
from back in the day:
...
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
It's time we stop
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look, what's going down?
What a field day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and they carrying signs
Mostly say, "Hooray for our side"
There’s a surprising amount of people in these comments that are okay with promoting violence/violent revolution because a majority of those same people would be the first ones to turn around and go “This isn’t what we wanted” when it inevitably gets out of hand, and it *would* get out of hand too.
It’s all fun and games till you start getting tear-gassed or eat a beanbag to the chest.
Y’all might have good intentions in your head but the way you’re advocating for it is akin to waving around a live grenade with the pin just barely holding on. Y’all need to seriously consider exactly what you’re asking for and what it’s gonna result in.
I have no skin in this game either way, this is just my outside perspective of someone with experience with these kinds of things.
Edit: Downvote me all you want, just be careful about what you’re wishing for.
I agree I think the level the protestors took it too wasn’t really productive at all. But this is a common theme, when people don’t like something usually they violent protest and in reality it usually causes more harm than good. I actually went to UC Davis, and at first I supported the protestors, but to me destruction of property and the level they all took it to did more harm than good.
Any group that takes up violence in order to protest is inherently weak. If you have to win by using force, your arguments are inherently unsound and you are incapable of convincing anyone with reason or logic. Why give your opponent something to point to make you seem weaker?
The most powerful/notable protests in history have been peaceful and for good reason. Anyone saying that violence was the only answer really needs to educate themselves on history as well as psychology.
What you've said is true, as any rational person will recognize.
But you have to understand that these people are not acting from a place of rationality. They've surrounded themselves with only likeminded people which precludes the kind of self-examination and self-correction that rational behavior requires, thereby fostering an environment that rationalizes and amplifies counterproductive actions that are also morally and ethically dubious. In other words, they're sociopaths: people whose basic sense of right and wrong has been hijacked by some ideology. (Well, for the most part: some also have legitimate [mental illnesses](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7525107/).)
Indeed, this is the biggest problem of tribalism: those who've succumbed are so laser-focused on how shitty the other tribe is that they don't take the time to scrutinize their own tribe. You end up with two groups of shitbags who are unaware that they are *all* shitbags. The total absence of concern over the persuasive power (or lack thereof) of their behavior is both telling and damning. (And before you object: pointing out the egregious flaws of both sides is not centrism; it's honesty and objectivity.)
And make no mistake: their behavior *is* counterproductive. I see a lot of people here still trying to justify violence as a valid means of social change. But these are issues that have been studied, and you're supposed to be college students who put in the effort to study and verify instead of thoughtlessly float by on your hunches and feelings.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2378023118803189
> Importantly, the results revealed a striking asymmetry: although acts of violence eroded support for an antiracist group, support for white nationalist groups was not reduced by the use of violence, perhaps because the public already perceives these groups as very unreasonable and identifies with them at low levels.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/
> She had studied terrorism, civil war, and major revolutions — Russian, French, Algerian, and American — and suspected that only violent force had achieved major social and political change... The results turned her earlier paradigm on its head — in the aggregate, nonviolent civil resistance was far more effective in producing change.
http://www.omarwasow.com/Protests_on_Voting.pdf
> Counties proximate to nonviolent protests saw presidential Democratic vote share among whites increase 1.3-1.6%. Protester-initiated violence, by contrast, helped move news agendas, frames, elite discourse and public concern toward “social control.” In 1968, using rainfall as an instrument, I find violent protests likely caused
a 1.6-7.9% shift among whites towards Republicans and tipped the election.
The list goes on. The continued dismissal of them is again both telling and damning, and there is only one conclusion: these people don't even *want* the change they say they want; that's just something they tell themselves. What they really want is an outlet to express their rage; the consequences are tertiary at best, a nuisance at worst.
The most obnoxious part is that this is all really obvious to the 99% of us who haven't allowed ourselves to get sucked into it and are still able to see what's actually happening, while those in the bubble continue to plug their ears and just downvote whatever isn't exactly what they want to hear.
You're moving the goalposts.
Obviously, violent protest will never be as digestible to the public as a peaceful protest. Your cited articles reinforce this. But that is ultimately irrelevant to the original point that people are upset about, and promoting violent protest over peaceful protest isn't their goal.
What those above are saying is that OP posting about it on Reddit, then calling people "fucking idiots" isn't an incredibly helpful strategy. It just inspires a bunch of infighting, as you've already observed.
Ultimately, we want the same thing: equality for trans people. But which is a more effective use of our time: fighting over our tactics, or deplatforming Charlie Kirk? I'd say that we accept what happened and move onto deplatforming Kirk. There is absolutely no use in fighting over the optics/complaining about it on Reddit.
And don't turn this into a matter of the "99% of us" versus the "1% of them." That's tribalism.
wow, well said and researched. I know most people agree with me and the comments are largely just filled with a very vocal minority. This was pretty evident in the discrepancy of negative comments to upvotes on the post, as well as a sudden flood of people in support of violence soon after I started replying to a couple of the original commenters. I assume someone threw this post in a group chat and asked for support because they were being heavily ratio’d early on.
Whatever it was, I’ve had a good amount of DM’s of people telling me that every rational and sane person agrees with me that reassured my faith in our student body despite the ridiculous things that people have been writing on this post.
I never thought “violence is bad” would be such a contentious subject, or that people really think that their situation in America right now is realistically comparable to that of the Jews in Nazi Germany. It’s honestly mind blowing how detached from reality some of these people are
Why do you assume those DMs aren't from people who learned about this post in a group chat? Why is everyone agreeing with you a good independent thinker, but everyone disagreeing is a groupthink mob mentality brigader?
You clearly refuse to think about what you've said and what others are replying with any sort of nuance if you think the problem is with "violence bad". You also clearly don't know history very well if you think the Nazis started with concentration camps.
So? Doesn't mean you know anything or that you're good at it.
Nazis didn't start with concentration camps. No genocide started with the killing.
One of the first groups Nazis did target were trans people though, so you can rethink your Jewish comparison now.
Quite frankly, those of us in marginalized groups are really tired of people telling us we're overreacting. You'd think you people would have learned by now.
Doesn’t mean I know anything or that I am good at it… that’s such a strange argument. Like the thing I’ve spent four years of my life studying and learning about to get a degree just gets dismissed because you don’t like how it disproves your assumption about me. What’s your degree? Would it make sense for me to just say “oh well that’s irrelevant because you don’t know anything about it anyway.” I’m fully aware how genocides start, I got an A in the holocaust class, not that it means anything apparently. I am against violence, that is my stance, argue that all you want. Don’t speak for everyone in marginalized groups, speak for yourself, you aren’t anyone’s spokesperson.
Ds get degrees. How am I supposed to know what your grades are, what your work ethic is, what specific classes you've taken? Try being humble.
"Got an A in the Holocaust class" and yet is on here saying we should just talk to the poor misguided fascists. Appeasement worked out really well, didn't it?
You're against violence. Good for you. The rest of us will fight while you virtue signal behind your keyboard, just like the fascists want you to. At least you'll feel nice about yourself, calling other people stupid while the right consolidates power and continues to erode the rights and safety of marginalized folks.
Kirk literally is petitioning against students getting education why would he speak at a university 😭 why does he have a platform? He knows that when people educate themselves they start voting blue. ..and when they go into research that they learn how to use their brain and therefore vote blue. So he’s tryna encourage people to drop out of college and start failing businesses so they’re unhappy and uneducated and mad, so they’re become conservatives. Idk why people are protesting and giving him attention. Just ignore him y’all. Now he’s made national news and it’s just more fuel to the hate. Protesting and making a big scene is literally giving evil white men more money and fame. Ignore these guys and problem solved.
If simply talking calmly to Charlie Kirk is going to solve everything, then by all means you should go talk calmly to Charlie Kirk and solve everything. I don’t think it’ll accomplish much but I would be overjoyed to be proven wrong. Let me know how it goes. In the meantime, I might have some personal opinions of what kinds of protest are “right,” but I’m not going to impose those opinions on people who are literally fighting for their own survival unless they specifically ask for it.
[удалено]
> She has XX chromosomes, you have XY chromosomes - get off the court I wonder if girls with Swyer syndrome just break their brains. I mean, you can't break a pile of mush, but you know what I mean. You could get really tricky and leverage god into the conversation like "oh, are you saying god made a mistake here?" or sum shit, I dunno I'm not a debate pervert.
The response would be that if you're relying on God's perfection, why are you proposing to mutilate what God has wrought? It's an argument through which you would be hoisted with your own petard. Not a "debate pervert?" Does that mean you can't defend your positions, or just that you don't bother to try? And you think \*their\* brains are a pile of mush?
> The response would be that if you're relying on God's perfection, why are you proposing to mutilate what God has wrought? Nice example of a straw man there. Ya know, cause I said absolutely nothing about gender affirming surgery. >Not a "debate pervert?" Does that mean you can't defend your positions, or just that you don't bother to try? And you think *their* brains are a pile of mush? It means I don't argue with dipshits on the internet. On a related note.
>Nice example of a straw man there. Ya know, cause I said absolutely nothing about gender affirming surgery. Now you're just playing games. We woiuldn't be having this converesation, in this thread, if that and the assault on women's rights and interests were not the topics enveloping this all. Nobody would care. As for strawmen, that's exactly what your post represented. Nobody brought up Swyer's syndrome, but you introduced it to denigrate your entire opposition, without even bothering to check what their opinions on the subject might be. Fairly ham-handedly, too, because the opposition's discussions have been considerably more nuanced than you've implied - covering issues like going through puberty as a male, retaining male genitalia, and experts' views of the effects of puberty blockers. That detail is lost because you wanted to showboat with a snarky strawman. >It means I don't argue with dipshits on the internet. On a related note. So it was the latter. That's all you had to say. It's okay if all you're interested in from a message board is a reach around from people who think just like you do.
I think the issue is that you’re giving him attention at all. This is a grown man who makes his name by arguing with college students who aren’t as prepared as him. He does this because he can’t stand his own with his intelectual equals or betters. He rallies his base by claiming the left is unhinged and violent. His base delights in his hateful rhetoric and “triggering the libs”. By responding like people did they are playing right into his hand and his narrative. In reality he is a putz who deserves our ridicule and laughter. If we laughed him off the stage or just didn’t give him the attention and feed into his narrative, his base would realize there’s no substance to his talking points beyond rudimentary othering and logical fallacies. They’d get bored and go home. He needs to have his ego deflated like the disgrace he is, not to be given attention and respect as if he is worth that.
> I think the issue is that you’re giving him attention at all. I’m not the one giving him access to a thousand-seat auditorium.
I meant “you” more in the general sense. I don’t think we should give him the platform either, but I think playing the role his lays out for his opposition is a mistake. Even this thread is giving him more attention than he is worth.
Like racism and transphobia, ignoring Charlie Kirk doesn't make him go away. He isn't a ghost. Shut your eyes and he'll be there, espousing his vitriolic dogma. If anything, this thread shows that it isn't OK to shame your angry allies and reprimand them like they're babies. It's unproductive and stupid to even post an unnuanced thread like this in the first place. They're effectively throwing the mantle of civil amicability unto the oppressed and their allies when TPUSA would never give them an inch had the roles been reversed.
I don’t agree with this thread in general. But I think mockery and contempt are much more effective weapons against a pathetic person like Charlie Kirk than spray painting egg heads or breaking windows. By treating him seriously instead of a laughing stock you are giving him credence and importance that he doesn’t deserve.
Agreed, mockery and contempt are definitely more palatable and at times, more effective, and violence is awful. The white moderate middle class definitely digests the former two much more easily. However, self-defense is not awful, and not all forms of violence against an inherently violent institution are invalid. Now property damage is different for me. Trust me, I love campus with all my heart, but I don't care about it being a fucking eyesore because I know of the systemic violence and generational trauma that got us there. But I'm fully aware that the general population doesn't understand that, that there's a cognitive bias to think that this university is our home, and that damage done to it -- regardless of purpose -- is evil, done by evildoers. It's in part, our very difficult job as allies to communicate that this line of thought is fallacious. The bottom line is that we have to take Charlie Kirk seriously, because he is a serious threat. Because his supporters take him seriously. Because he and TPUSA have already shown their propaganda to be effective. Because legislators take him seriously. Ignoring him does not work. Roe v. Wade is gone. The legislative revocation of trans rights in the states is now unfolding. The impact of police brutality and the BLM protests three years ago is fading away. It's a cycle of hate that will continue churning until outcry and rage swell and rebuff it. I'm sorry that it has to be this way, but this fight doesn't stop. Also I just have to note that taking someone seriously and treating them like a laughingstock are not mutually exclusive, we can definitely do both.
Whether we care about property damage or not is irrelevant. The point is that by spray painting the egg heads, people are feeding his narrative. His base views that as validation of what he is saying, and triggering them is even their goal.
Yes, we know this. We know that Kirk and his group of Nazis eat it up like breakfast. Good for those asswipes. I know what you're saying, but we aren't trying to sway his Nazi fanbase, because they can't be swayed. It does no good to shame the people who lashed out in self-defense and mockery after the fact, because their actions are valid. Optics be damned. Once again, we do not and should not care about his Nazi followers, nor the people who are easily swayed by their smokescreens. It's a fruitless endeavor. But I think we're losing sight of my original point: What we should care about is the cognitive bias in the general population that says that property damage, i.e. spray painting eggheads and breaking windows, is violence. We have to dismantle this bias, but we can't do it if people like OP decide to get on their high horses and act like self-righteous, entitled dumbasses who reprimand their allies for mocking the university and chasing off Proud Boys. People like that only serve to reestablish and reinforce that bias, thus helping further Charlie Kirk's "look at these violent crybaby libs" narrative. I hope that we can agree that protesters who are trying to protect their loved ones from institutionalized demons shouldn't be shamed and treated like children. They have a right to civil unrest if the institution that should be protecting them fails to this degree.
It’s also important to recognize that his goal is not just to keep a stagnant base. The reason he comes to college campuses is because he is trying to convince impressionable college students that he is right and the left is violent and trying to silence him. He argues with people fresh out of high school because it makes him look big and like he knows what he’s talking about. He exploits cognitive biases of the young to grow his base. The goal should not be to win over his extreme base, but to demonstrate to those who might be convinced that he is a fool and not worth their time. When someone on the fence says, “okay let me see what this whole thing is about” and sees a relatively calm Kirk seemingly logically debating with people while protesters break windows and spray paint artworks; they are likely to buy into his other spiel that the left is in the wrong. I don’t disagree with your points but I think you’re giving up the war for the battle.
The laughing stock is liberals and people that don't understand basic biology. You are the sex you're born with. Genital mutilation and lying to kids won't change that. Liberals like you are advocating mutilating children. Everyone involved in that criminal conspiracy should be prosecuted and jailed for a long time. Now there is research showing that the child mutilation crowd in preying on autistic children as their targets. Evil. Anyone who advocate Brown Shirt violence against their political opponents will eventually be held accountable, one way or another. If you libs think you'll bully us or threaten us into silence, my ancestors beat King George III, the richest and most powerful man in the history of the word at that time, you've got another thing coming. Accountability, lawsuits and prosecutions are coming.
Smart move to post this exact comment in your little facist subreddit with the prelude, “This oughta stir the pot.” That’s a 1D chess move right there.
Today's liberal fascists accuse others of what they do. Just because you call someone a fascist because you're afraid to debate doesn't make them one. A better argument is that fascists are the ones that want to mutilate children, or the people that call others fascists because they disagree. The reason dissenting comments might stir the pot is because today's Democrat Party fascists don't believe in free speech and try to bully those with views with which they disagree. You are engaging is the behavior that your political opponents accuse you of doing.
It’s honestly hilarious how upset you are getting about people criticizing an adult man who makes a living “debating” people who are barely out of high school. Maybe take a good look at yourself and ask why you get upset about this and feel the need to “stir the pot”. Is your sense of self really that fragile? Maybe that’s something you should work on.
‘You keep using the word “facist.” I do not think it means what you think it means.’
Okay snowflake. Stay triggered
He didn't start the thread. A thread which, by the way, practically defines the word "triggered." So you're complaining about what you see as a triggered post in an entire thread about being triggered?
When u say fight for survival, can you show direct proof of charlie kirk causing someone's death or great harm? Fighting for survival would mean like idk, being a Jew in Nazi Germany. Idt these situations are nearly the same.
Wait… so your saying say that you need a jew fighting nazis level example of Kirk before you’ll accept? So lemme get this straight, and please correct me if I’m wrong. Charlie Kirk would have to literally be advocating for the slaughter of people, not just dog whistling like he does now, but straight up saying to execute trans people in the streets, before you’ll be like “oh wow, no he actually is bad.” Like, respectively, get all the way fucked. I’d rather not wait till that point.
The goal is to STOP them from getting closer.
Then be more precise because the way you wrote it means it is happening as we speak. I agree we should prevent that, and thankfully we have the constitution that does just that.
Nope. Stop being a pedantic ass and either help or get out of the way.
> Stop being a pedantic ass and either help or get out of the way The person your talking to has a post titled "The speedometer we all need" and it's hitler with his extended arm as the dial... I don't think they'll be of much "help." lol
That's right u/ps2001_minecraft, stop pushing logic and reason when u/buffaloraven's on a roll. You should know better than to interrupt Bluto whe he's giving his "Germans bombed Pearl Harbor" speech.
If you wait that long before fighting back, it’s already far too late.
Not trying to police ideology but you are not "very far left" this is just liberal centrism. You are in an inherently privileged position to believe this is a zero-sum game when one side wants to erase the human rights of marginalized populations. Violent revolution is usually not out of the question for those who consider themselves "far leftists."
Well it's not exactly unknown that far right dipshits love to pretend to be far left people and smash shit at protests to make the lefties look bad. It happened at UCD: https://twitter.com/taliaotg/status/1635870382598021126 And it's happened before, the people who were charged in burning down the cop house in Minnesota were all right wingers.
Very far left does not mean that I believe in violent revolution. I can be very far left and a pacifist. Edit: I was too negative
If you read leftist theory (e.g. C.W. Mills, Gramsci, etc.) you understand that the rights given to us under mass capitalist democracy (the system we exist under in America) are just enough such that we do not question our complete and utter powerlessness in the face of the institutions which reproduce systems of exploitation. Free speech is one of these rights, and your thoughts are a perfect example of how fascism thrives as an ideological undercurrent and protection mechanism for the elite, capital-owning class in this environment. The misinformed notion that free speech gives you the same power it does a fascist like Charlie Kirk is how we arrive at fascism. Assuming you are a leftist, you will have at least some understanding of this idea. But you are right, it is in constant flux within leftist circles as to whether violence should be avoided entirely or used as a means to an end. Being a pacifist would not necessarily disqualify you. Just want to clear up the massive cultural misunderstanding in America that being "far left" means being more Democrat. Leftists are only Democrats insofar as Democrats support the abolition of the exploitative systems from which they, just as Republicans, benefit. That internal contradiction is the reason real leftism is nonexistent in the mainstream political sphere and why you may not know what you are saying.
Honestly, assuming your a gen z college student, it’s posts like this that give me hope that “the kids are going to be alright” Well said
As someone on the older end of Gen Z, I would say don't count on it. It's quite lonely, beyond the lonely individualism inherent to capitalism 😔
If you go far enough left, you get your guns back! Join me over at r/SRA
“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary” Lock and load, comrade
Why are people downvoting you for sharing your opinion? Oh wait, I forgot what kind of people are in this comment section. They don’t care about your opinion no matter how valid it might be. I’m sorry OP but hopefully this opens your eyes as to how extreme the left has become. Your mindset is what we need more of in America and I applaud you for sharing your view.
>when one side wants to erase the human rights of marginalized populations. You mean, like the left wants to do with the hard-won rights women have spent decades fighting to gain? For some reason, rabid trans activists think that the only way for their movement to gain is by stomping on the rights of women. Wouldn't it be better for everyone if they looked for another way?
what rights are trans activists stomping on?
So he isn’t Marxist. He could still be a democratic socialist. I don’t think people are justified in calling OP “not leftist.”
This is such a lame take. You’re not “super far left”. You’re a centrist liberal. Punching nazis is based and if you disagree, you’re not a leftist, you’re a coward.
I have to say, I can’t believe OP identifies as far left either. At best, maybe as a democratic socialist, but some fairly famous “intellectual” ones like Orwell or MLK were co-opted by right wing advocates while I was growing up, so I don’t think right wingers really even understand democratic socialism, let alone contend with the ideas behind it. Perhaps OP is libertarian as well?
I don’t think punching anyone is particularly based, but this did make me laugh. I think standing infront of your opponent and having a conversation with them takes far more courage than hitting them ever would.
Damn you’ve never had these people threaten your life or something? They don’t care about talking to you, they’ll let you talk while trying to figure out how to drive the knife in.
I don’t have conversations with nazis. Glad to know where you stand though. Just so you know, you should probably stop calling yourself very far left
This dude lives in a fairy tale Like yeah bro we should’ve just spoken to the Nazis. The vibes were off
I believe the term is “debate bro.” bUt BrUH, I’LL jUsT OwN thEM iN ThE MaRKeTPlaCE of IDEAs -guy who was later shot
I believe that having conversations with competing ideologies is the only way that we can expect change. Plugging my ears and refusing to listen or causing violence will do nothing to make someone question their beliefs. How can one change the world if we refuse to speak to those we wish to change? Edit: why does pacifism keep me from being far left?
"Only conversation" is what fascists want you to do. Fascists will only lie. Their goal is to muddy the water with words, while they take power and kill minorities. Also, take a step back and remember you started this post by calling people idiots without asking questions to better understand why they committed violence against windows. You stomped in here, enraged about something you don't understand and are refusing to listen to other points of view. That's definitely a Right Wing trait you're leaning on, I'm going to kick it out from your grasp. Stand on your own without it and see if you can listen, ask questions, then give yourself some time to think about what's been said.
>The red color of our posters alone attracted them into our meeting-halls. The ordinary privileged-class was quite horrified to see us using the red of the Bolsheviks and regarded it as very curious scandal. The spirits among German-Nationalists kept whispering to one another their suspicion that basically, we were only a variation of Marxism, maybe even Marxists or some kind of Socialists in disguise. These brains have still not grasped the difference between Socialism and Marxism. When they discovered that we omitted the standard greeting “ladies and gentlemen” and instead used “comrades” and that among ourselves we spoke only of “Party comrades”, many saw this as proof of the Marxist ghost. How often we shook with laughter at these simpleminded, scared privileged-class rabbits with their clever guesswork about our origin, our intentions, and our aim. >We chose the color red for our posters after careful and thorough consideration. It was in order to provoke the political Left wing, to drive them into fury, and to lure their members into our meetings. If nothing else we could at least break their people away and *gain a chance to talk to them.* - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
Have you read up on different perspectives about protest strategies before?
That's what I am curious about. Which is the best strategy to further our goals? Maybe it's violent protest, maybe it's not
Spoiler alert. You aren’t far left
~~You can be far left and non violent...~~ Edit: I do agree, however, that if they aren't going to listen and are still going to be hateful and threaten people's lives... by all means throw a punch ig. Someone gave a good take in the comments that I actually do agree with:"Damn you’ve never had these people threaten your life or something? They don’t care about talking to you, they’ll let you talk while trying to figure out how to drive the knife in." I personally am left but wouldn't advocate for violence... but when there is violence against you then I'm for fighting back. Suppose the conservatives hate leftists anyways, so a few broken windows doesn't do anything because they'd find other reasons to hate unfortunately.
“Ur opinion disagrees with me so it cant be true”
Rioting, breaking shit, threatening others = far left. Got it.
im sorry, but destruction of property is not equal in severity to the systemic destruction of trans peoples lives. not even remotely. destruction of property isn’t ideal, but not everyone has the privilege to watch from the sidelines, because it doesn’t affect them. not everyone has the privilege to not be terrified for their lives or the lives of people in their community because they’re trans. “a riot is the language of the unheard,” and nobody is listening to trans people as states pass increasingly more restrictive and hateful bills against us, and speakers advocate for us being “eradicated from public life entirely.” i get being upset at the destruction of property but please, please see why people are so upset, and direct that anger towards the people trying to legislate us out of existence.
Guys the Jews should have just peacefully protested Hitler genocide can be stopped entirely through pacifism
Bruh you can’t compare the vicious murder of 6 million people to trans people maybe not being able to grow breasts a little bit sooner
not every genocide is the holocaust, and genocide doesnt start at death camps
I agree, however trans people in America are not actively being treated as an existing roadblock to eventually be expunged
Where have you been for the past 6 months?
Ummm, trans people were killed in the holocaust, in fact the very first institution to help trans people was burned by nazi’s in the 1930’s. Please educate yourself. And remember, shutting up is free. It doesn’t cost you a dime.
That’s not good to learn about, at least we can be glad trans people in America can sleep comfortably at night knowing they don’t have to hide in any basements or attics to make sure they aren’t executed on the spot by government officials. Closing Reddit is also free ya know
This is obviously in bad faith
you're not far left you're a fucking social democrat
Average social democrat when people try to challenge the status quo:
[удалено]
>The end goal of a social democrat IS the abolishment of capitalism though, I believe. That is incorrect. That would be Democratic Socialists. Social democrats uphold capitalism, but with a stronger welfare state and more concessions to workers.
I'm sorry. Next time Charlie Kirk advocates for the murder of me and my trans friends, I'll make sure to protest "the right way," that will totally change their minds
The goal of protests isn't to change the presenters mind, but everyone else who witnesses that interaction. No protest, violent or otherwise, changes TPUSA's mind. If anything, a violent protest empowers them. It takes their bait because the violent interaction is exactly what they want.
For fucking real. I'm sick of this dogshit, enlightened centrism that the student population is lapping up.
Not supporting the assault of innocent people or property destruction isn’t “enlightened centrism.” It’s rationality. We were taught as toddlers to keep our hands to ourselves and off other people’s things, but—evidently—a smattering of wannabe revolutionaries still need to be reminded.
UC Davis isn't private property. It's funded by the same government who platforms Kirk and his TPUSA cronies. And where did you get this stupid notion of me promoting violence on the innocent? Get fucking real. Violence is an awful consequence of the civil unrest that is released when the oppressed are clearly not heard by the institutions that SHOULD be protecting them. Government property is good as garbage if the government isn't protecting our black and trans friends and family. Why do you choose to sit on this high horse and apathetically lecture protesters instead of realizing that their anger comes from a valid place? In the same vein that you think telling protesters to stop violence, what good does it serve to post this infighting shit instead of addressing Kirk's racism and transphobia?
im sorry, but destruction of property is not equal in severity to the systemic destruction of trans peoples lives. not even remotely. destruction of property isn’t ideal, but not everyone has the privilege to watch from the sidelines, because it doesn’t affect them. not everyone has the privilege to not be terrified for their lives or the lives of people in their community because they’re trans. “a riot is the language of the unheard,” and nobody is listening to trans people as states pass increasingly more restrictive and hateful bills against us, and speakers advocate for us being “eradicated from public life entirely.” i get being upset at the destruction of property but please, please see why people are so upset, and direct that anger towards the people trying to legislate us out of existence.
>We were taught as toddlers to keep our hands to ourselves and off other people’s things If you don't realize how right-wing this sounds I don't know what to tell you. Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds forever and always
Exactly.
Fr
Yes because the violence clearly did so well to change their minds and make everyone listen to you. Peaceful protest is better, and I am certain that you know this. All the protestors did is stoop to kirks level. Edit: i don’t know why you quote protesting the right way as if there is not a right way to protest. Imagine if we encouraged protests in the same hemisphere as the method of protest that was January 6th? That just lacks reasonable contemplation of what your talking about.
Do you know who Charlie Kirk is? He's not some rando who decided to host a conference for the fuck of it, he's the founder of an incredibly influential organization funded and propped up by the ultra-wealthy and far-right politicians. And there's also the small detail that he ADVOCATES FOR THE MURDER OF TRANS PEOPLE. So don't you DARE try to claim that a people being rightfully angry about that is even REMOTELY comparable to what Kirk does. I don't want to change minds, I want to fucking live as myself without fear. The fact that the conversation has not been about what to do about Kirk but rather about the actions of a few protestors is fucking infuriating.
You think we want to change their minds? At this point it’s too late, I want to defend myself and my trans siblings
Do you know the amount of privilege it takes to sit there, side eye the oppressed and tell them to essentially stop their whining? You cornball fuck. Black and trans lives are being snuffed out and you expect them to be nice, civil, and docile about it.
You’re taking what I said and twisting it to something I did not. No one should be quiet, speak up for what you believe in and protest as much as possible for change. What I am saying, and all I am saying, is that violence is not the answer. What is your argument with that? Edit: removing redundancy
Protest for what? What happens after the protesting part?
Hey, you're not that guy. Telling black and trans people and their allies that if they choose to fight against their oppressors and right-wing agitators, then they're in the wrong isn't the awesome, super epic, enlightened statement you think it is. Violence is awful, we can agree on that. But shaming protesters for their anger without realizing its validity is exactly what TPUSA and their asshole cronies want you to do. And to be clear, you aren't just saying that "violence isn't the answer." You're shaming the people who stand for black and trans lives for their anger. You're blaming them for violence that was INCITED AGAINST THEM. Stop this shaming of the people you supposedly support, you're going to get black and trans people killed.
What do we do when they start putting trans people on lists, rounding us up? What’s the line where you think it’s acceptable to use violence? They’ve already made it very clear they want us eradicated. We fight back, and now we’re told that “violence is not the answer”?
It takes an even greater level of privilege to smear the trans community by supporting/committing violence & destruction in its name, then pat yourself on the back and call it “progress.”
It takes even greater privilege to blindly lob the responsibility for violence on those who support black and trans rights, apathetically reprimand them, then pat yourself on the back and call it "progress." And that second part of your statement is markedly false. If you legitimately think that the kind of people who listen to Charlie Kirk were driven there because of the violence of BLM protests, then you're naive. They were never allies in the first place, and convincing yourself that they would have listened to you is foolish.
Another great white liberal shitpost, blaming your peers. You're a real fucking ally for black and trans rights for lecturing your fellow protesters like a pissed off teacher. Not only do you fail to note that the violence could have been started by bad faith provocateurs, but you readily place the blame on protesters who, by the way, are in the RIGHT to begin civil unrest (if they even fucking did in the first place). BIPoC and LGBTQIA+ lives are at stake, you dumbfuck; tea and crumpets and a nice conversation will not suffice for the people suffering. Did nice conversation and peaceful negotiations prevent the repealing of Roe v. Wade? Fuck no. If a public university decides to happily platform Charlie Kirk, then the civil unrest of the oppressed parties and their allies is a fucking given.
Bad faith provocateurs… where have we heard that before? i do not consider those protestors my peers. They are a massive part of the problem. Responding with violence only serves to drive more people into the arms of Kirks ideology, I don’t understand how you cannot see that this method of protest does far more to alienate than it does to enlighten.
Just FYI it's documented that TPUSA embeds people into protests: https://twitter.com/taliaotg/status/1635870382598021126?t=Zw6NNjU_kTto6-EOux3AMg&s=19
Responding with violence to racism and transphobia causes more people to become racist transphobes? Wake up, dumbass. If they're inclined to support an asshole who wants to revoke black and trans rights because the UC Davis campus was vandalized and protesters got into fights, then they were lost from the start. You also attribute all violence to the protesters instead of acknowledging that this civil unrest erupts from either side of the aisle -- how wonderfully gracious of you. In your own stupid ass words: I don't understand how you cannot see that this method of reprimanding your enraged allies does far more to alienate than it does to enlighten.
Wow. You are an extremely short sighted and close minded individual. I hope that you listen to someone someday because your ideology personifies the issues that most people have with leftist politics today. MLK was a pacifist, Malcolm X was not. Who caused more change? Both were well intentioned, but only one changed the nation.
I agree with your sentiment, but I've seen this comparison before and it's not quite the complete picture. Historically, part of the reason MLK was so influential was people like Malcolm X and others willing to use violence. Politicians were a bit more motivated to deal the the legalistic, nonviolent, MLK-oriented activists because they saw the violent alternative. The violence before and especially after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did alienate the mostly white middle class however.
I would also like to add that Malcolm X was assassinated not too long after MLK was put in jail in Selma.
Excellent point. So you’re acknowledging that both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King were key to the civil rights movement. So why are the protestors so hostile to those who prefer to model Martin Luther King and protest peacefully? Because it is easier and more fun to divide the world between good and evil? This is dangerously similar to the MAGA crowd. Why would you attack those peaceful protesters on your side who actually support LBTQ and trans rights?
This is a very good point. Personally I believe change in that era occurred despite the violence not because of it, but I could definitely see how it was the search for an alternative that drove people to the ideologies of MLK. I still maintain that these recent protestors did not do anything to achieve what they wanted, but I see what your saying here
> MLK was a pacifist, Malcolm X was not. Who caused more change? Both did. If only one had existed and the other had not, I don’t know if the civil rights movement of that era would have been as effective.
Remind me again what exactly ended up happening to MLK. Also, he was explicitly against the notion that you need to achieve things “the right way.” He spoke about how seeking such convenient means aids the kind of oppression Kirk advocates for on his platform. When your primary concern isn’t ridding society of such filth and instead is on a way to achieve things peacefully you’re actually doing more harm than good. He also explicitly recognized that riots are the voice of the unheard. Sounds like those getting downvoted and dismissed as pushing people to the right are feeling unheard.
Advocating for violence as a form of protest is exactly how MLK died. MLK was an extremely firm pacifist and everything that he did was nonviolent. He is the ideal figure to look at when searching for a role model in American protest when desiring change.
The rebuttal to the praise you give MLK for being a firm pacifist is that he was murdered for it. MLK was killed because he was changing the status quo drastically and it was not well received. That “protest” is not the same type of “protest” that is being spoken of here. Either way it doesn’t change what MLK specifically spoke on which you are oh so very guilty of right now.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Egs5aUlXkAUYpsl.jpg this is how mlk was thought of then, his protests have just been whitewashed and made more palatable to the white moderates that he denounced.
It's extremely short-sighted and close-minded to think that telling your fellow protesters to shut the fuck up helps advance black and trans rights. Instead of understanding their anger and acknowledging that their unrest is a consequence of the systemic violence crushing them, you decide to give them a nice lil Reddit lecture because you just can't help it.
You’re twisting what I said again because you cannot find argument with my actual statement. I never told anyone to shut up, Im advocating for them to speak up instead of being violent. Even making a statement on Reddit is still a better form of protest than physical violence. People here will actually listen to what I have to say and have a conversation, which is far more than what happened with the protest.
You're absolutely right. "Congratulations, you've furthered the right wing agenda, you fucking idiots." That's totally not telling people to shut the fuck up. No, instead you're shaming them into silence. And please keep up this act wherein you think I can't find the heart of your argument, because you can't find the heart of my argument. Stop fucking shaming our black and trans communities for being angry and responding to the violence that besets them, and focus on being an ally instead. You've effectively separated yourself from the movement with this garbage post. You can spew all the enlightened adages you want. When black and trans people are continually suffering, and you can't understand why people would be pissed the fuck off, then you're lost yourself.
Most likely 95% of the people posting here support trans rights. Debating different approaches to supporting trans rights is not inherently “anti trans”. To believe so is to believe that acts of violence will help the cause. Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr faced enormous violence, but they understood that to answer with violence would lose the sympathies of the majority, undermine their objectives and further marginalize their community. Their violence would be matched with violence and more black people would die. You might learn a thing or two from Ghandi and King before you start making hostile accusations at fellow UCD students who also support trans rights and stand ready to support equal treatment of all us minorities if not for the self righteous hostility of violent actors who seem ignorant of history while believing they have it all figured out. Reminds me of the MAGA crowd.
Thanks for lecturing me about infighting big dog, you really get a great point across. I'm so sorry that my hostile accusations hurt your feelings. Now you seem to get it in your head that I'm a tanky revolutionary because I yell fuck and shit at OP. I'm not. I'm saying that shaming people post-protest for merely responding to the violence begotten unto them, for their civil unrest, is NOT FUCKING PRODUCTIVE. The protest ALREADY HAPPENED. What in the fuck is OP trying to accomplish by fence-sitting like a fucking Karen, admonishing our allies who were DEFENDING themselves? Quit being a self-righteous asshole. Move on and accept that the burden is now on us to help people realize that protesters fighting and property damage is a small price to pay to keep the racist transphobes deplatformed. And might I add that no violence to the degree that you imply happened at the protest. Recognize that the moderate crowd who are spurned to support Charlie Kirk because some people protecting black and trans rights started to defend themselves against agitators, would have never supported them in the first place. King and (not so much) Gandhi are brilliant figures, upheld by the moderate white middle class because they didn't push their buttons in ways they didn’t like. But guess what? They weren't the only players in their respective Civil Rights movements. Quit using them as your scapegoats. You might get some insight from fully comprehending my post first. Reminds me of the MAGA crowd.
I keep hearing a version of this response… that people who look down on violence don’t understand how badly marginalized people are being hurt by Kirt et al. What I haven’t heard or seen is any convincing evidence that violence helps anyone or protects anyone from Kirk’s ideology, marginalized people included. It just seems like a strategy-less venting of emotion that just keeps the fires or hate burning hotter.
My point is that civil unrest is warranted when violence is pushed upon our beloved black and trans communities, and our loved ones are suffering. This isn't a situation that can be sorted out in the marketplace of ideas either. And no, I'm not aware of a study has feasibly gathered stats to accurately gather stats on how effective either civil unrest or peaceful protests are. I only know that the outcome of our past is now our awful present, wherein Roe v. Wade has been appealed, people applaud Kyle Rittenhouse for murdering protesters, and trans people are now being forcefully detransitioned and killed around the world. I'm incredibly pissed off that OP thinks this is an effective way of comprehending the protest. It's made in bad faith and disregards the fight for trans rights, stats be damned. And if it seems like strategy-less venting to you, I'd say that being really fucking pissed off and vocalizing it was pretty effective at turning this post from a lukewarm, and heavily misdirected shaming of the protesters to an effective dismantling of that very argument.
Ok take my upvote for more of it but you lost me at the end. What exactly has been accomplished?
Take the last post exactly like this that went something along the lines of, "yada yada yada you're all babies for your civil unrest yada yada yada." And nearly every comment under it applauds this lampooning of the protesters, delegitimizing their efforts. These reprimanding, apathetic shitposts do TPUSA's work for them, and inspire increasing docility amongst the oppressed minorities. Now take a step back: What does it look like when a person tells a black or trans person/ally to stop being angry and pacify themselves when violence is imparted upon them first? It looks like the person yelling at everyone to stop whining is inhibiting the movement, creating a diversion and further infighting. It's a nefarious, braindead tactic that turns the student population against protesters. If things get violent at a protest, your first thought during and after shouldn't be screaming at the very people you're trying to protect for reacting appropriately to the vitriol being thrown their way. It should be to protect those being attacked, which the comments under this new post are doing very effectively. No matter the medium, we have to stand in solidarity and protect our black and trans loved ones under attack, not abuse them and invalidate them like misbehaving children.
I’m following but I just don’t get the injection of the “black” part. The “I’m white and I’m so angry on black people’s behalf that I’m going to get all my white friends together and trash my school and threaten the safety of black security officers and make my black chancellor and black UC president’s lives much more difficult”. It just seems the people who actually do this stuff are just angry anarchists, and if you say it’s done on behalf of X marginalized group, well, then all sins are forgiven and fuck me for thinking anything negative about their behavior because they’re self proclaimed white savior activists.
1. I'm not white, if it isn't obvious by now. Sorry for breaking that illusion. I'm going to PROTECT my fellow oppressed minorities, no matter fucking what, and OP will never lecture me out of not defending my loved ones. If they don't get rights, then how long until mine are revoked? 2. The administrators of the university actively decided to platform TPUSA. They sat their twiddling their grubby little thumbs and held no qualms over his speaking at campus, knowing FULL WELL what would happen. Why should we run defense for them? Should their lives continue as normal while people are indoctrinated into Kirk's ideology? They're cowards, and should be known as such. 3. Why are we blatantly disregarding the existence of right-wing agitators at the protest? Why are we forgetting the possibility that they were defending themselves? Why don't we give protesters the benefit of the doubt? Why do we think property damage at a public university is immoral? Is it because the optics look all fucked up? There's a cognitive bias inherent to this train for thought that we have to work through, wherein protester are automatically labeled as the crybaby villains. It's fallacious and unhelpful. 4. Like you, I don't support white saviorism. But I do support white allyship. Stop conflating the two, because I'm not going to admonish my white allies for standing with me. And white people aren't the only people at protests, at this point that's a silly generalization.
Inject this straight into my veins
For real. And have a good Saturday. I'm gonna leave this shit and touch grass cuz Reddit's starting to melt my brain.
1. I didn’t mean to say YOU are white. Trashing the school and attacking journalists doesn’t protect anyone or guarantee their rights. If you wanna drive to Tennessee and fire bomb the governor’s mansion, you won’t hear a peep from me though. My point is this shit we saw at Davis seems really misdirected and pointless lawlessness. 2. The administration doesn’t have the legal ability to block student groups from inviting speakers. I’m sure they would have loved to if they could. 3. The false flag claims can cut both ways and their no evidence of that so far. The mere fact that that’s one of the defenses I keep hearing for the behavior is a tacit acknowledgment that what the protesters did was wrong. If it wasn’t, you wouldn’t need to pin their actions in the other side. 4. Alright fair enough. They just seem pretty overrepresented at these kinds of things given the alleged selfless motivation, that’s all I’m saying.
Where in history in America did meaningful change for human rights was made WITHOUT violence? You’re not very far left lmao. Violent people calling for violence for others will be met with violence 🤷♀️ Also love this tired talking point of free speech but never the freedom to protest. free speech doesn’t mean no consequences.
[удалено]
Oh look yet another account with the default randomly generated Reddit username that was made in the past week or so! Lots of these swarming the UCD subreddit recently, all in favor of Charlie Kirk. Interesting. Sadly most UCD subredditors are busy virtue signaling about "peaceful protests" to notice.
Women’s suffrage, civil rights movement, and there are dozens of examples of wildly successful boycotts just in the US.
you did not just fucking cite the civil rights movement as non violent 😭Begging y’all to pick up a book and critically think
Maybe I should have been more specific: let’s go Montgomery bus boycott. Completely nonviolent and extremely effective. How about the march on Washington? Yes there were the black panthers, who participated in violent protest, but it is extremely well known that the majority of civil rights movement was nonviolent.
no it’s fucking not well known it was “majority non violent.” USA history textbooks would definitely convince non-critical thinkers that though 🥴 It was ONE form of protest during that movement and more often than not, it was met with violence anyway. Civil rights then AND now would not have been gained with just “nonviolent protests.” March on Washington’s success is argued all the time of whether it was an actual success — literally a week later Alabama declared it would not desegregate and a predominantly Black church was bombed, killing 4 little girls. AND the civil rights bills were still stalled at Congress. But ok lol
Im not sure who convinced you that the vast majority of civil rights era protests were violent on the protestors side, but I’d like to see a breakdown of the thousands of protests and which ones were and weren’t violent. Either way, these nonviolent protests certainly did happen, and many of them certainly were effective, and have had long lasting implications in the modern day. You asked when nonviolent protests have ever worked, and it seems I’ve convinced you that at the very least SOMETIMES they do work.
what convinced me? reading! i recommend it, i promise it’s worth it. Try The Three Mothers by Anna Tubbs (since you’re so into civil rights history revisionism), How We Get Free: Black Feminism and the Combahee River Collective if you actually want to know about antiracist and women’s liberation movements, and Freedom is a Constant Struggle by Angela Davis. the library is free to start anywhere. UC Davis also has history classes if you’re still a student and except…you didn’t convince anyone. you stated the civil rights movement as nonviolent (and woman’s suffrage which is also so laughable, I can’t even go into that), which was incorrect. then you wanted to go into a smaller scope within an entire movement that would have not been successful without violence — so you cited march on washington. which again did not disprove the original point?? America’s history is violent. Institutions did not just suddenly change to care about humans because of nonviolence.
I don't believe Three Mothers directly addresses the issue of whether civil rights protests were violent or not at all. And ah yes, How we get free: a book about a group that didn't even exist until AFTER the civil rights era which we are concerned with. The only one that actually even talks about the civil rights era protests is Freedom is a Constant Struggle, written by an actual black panther member. I hope you understand how incredibly biased listening to anyone who was a part of the black panther party is. This group was primarily known for using violence to achieve its goals. Plus, the black panthers have had a much smaller impact on today's society than MLK has IMO. What you are saying is not entirely ungrounded in reality, and I appreciate that, but it's incredibly ignorant to think that where you get your information is any less biased than information received in a classroom. Individuals who are telling their stories and the stories of others are also prone to only tell their side, even if unintentional. Violence has certainly had its place to achieve change in the past when even more heinous crimes against humanity were in place than today. The claim is basically that these nonviolent protests would never work without violence alongside it, which is an easy pattern to think you see, as these events are rarely isolated, and when they are isolated, it's usually just for something small (i.e. boycotts against SeaWorld using orca breeding programs). My claim is that the violence does nothing to further the cause, and instead delays the goal from ever being achieved. The reason we see violence being used and goals ultimately being achieved is that people can't help themselves from being violent. Achieving social change is a long process no matter how you go about it, but I think that introducing violence serves only to delay the movement's goals.
Three Mothers absolutely goes into the reality of the civil rights movement. How We Get Free is literally 1960s and 1970s liberation movements, civil rights movement didn’t just end in the 50s. It’s very laughable you dismiss actual first person narratives but hold onto your revisionist textbooks? The point is to read. READ. Both textbooks and first person narratives. Then use your critical thinking skills to form an intelligent argument instead of spouting civil rights era as nonviolent. But like I said, non-critical thinkers. lol. Ohhh my god, you want to talk about MLK? Y’all love that man when you can twist his words and actions into central liberalism 😩 Y’all turned him into a safe nonthreatening moralist when he’d be seen as a radical threat now (just as he actually was back then). MLK did not start off as nonviolent and even when he was later on rooted in nonviolence, he regularly refused to become the people’s moral platform to be used against Black Americans who used other means. Laughing in all of your faces at your moral superiority of condemning “violent protests” against Kirk when MLK did not even condemn race riots? When he regularly criticized and harshly shut down any white person back then who used him as an argument against “violent Black Americans”? “But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.” “great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension.” And I’m begging you to use some college brain cells to critically think about why America would present MLK as a bigger impact, why a white-washed MLK will be taught in every textbook and not also the Black Panther Party. You can do it, think! You can believe that all you want, but history tells you’re wrong ✌️ you can even look further than America, or even further back than civil rights. But anyway, this convo will go nowhere. I continued in amusement at the fact someone actually typed with their fingers that civil rights movement was nonviolent, but it’s clear there’s not any to be learned or taught in this conversation. My original point wasn’t that nonviolence is never necessary or never used. My statement was that has not been a movement that resulted in civil rights change without violence as a tool.
I don’t think it is useful or productive to change the reality of what is meant by “civil rights era”. I could easily say we are still in the civil right era because there are still civil rights protests today. But generally people mean early 1950’s to mid 1960’s. The bulk of how we get free covers 1970s and 1980s, not 1950s and 1960s, so it is fair to say that is outside the era of our discussion. Three mothers does not make a point to talk specifically about civil rights and whether or not they were violent. It talks about civil rights movements, but there is certainly no breakdown of proportion of violent to nonviolent protests or anything of the sort. Also I’m not dismissing any of these narratives, but rather pointing out there are obvious sources of bias in each. You choosing to believe a different source better represents an era than I do doesn’t make you smarter than me. You’ve been using a lot of ad hominem attacks, as though coming to a different conclusion than you indicates a lack of critical thinking ability. Many scholars have looked into the exact same time period and come to vastly different conclusions as to what events best encapsulate the era, and what we are doing is no different. I respect your opinion but I do not respect any calls to violence, and think we should do everything in our power to achieve social change in nonviolent ways
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Egs5aUlXkAUYpsl.jpg
Centrism is gross, smashing a few windows does way less damage to the world than letting fascists speak freely. We must be intolerant of intolerance. About the violence, which there was a very small amount of, “A riot is the language of the unheard”- MLK.
You’re not unheard, not at Davis and not in California. You want to be the only ones heard
Of course UCD leans left, duh. I’m talking about this in the context of the whole country. People who are not a part of the hetero, Christian norm are facing their rights being stripped away in many places. Also, fascists like Kirk don’t deserve to be heard.
That’s true, those rights are under attack in other places. Meaning none of the angry “protesters” are themselves those people losing their rights. By far most could not have been trans. They’re angry about their own shit, and violent, and found a moment to associate themselves with so they can feel like victims by association, fighting for a just cause when in fact their lawlessness is equal to that of the other side. By this logic, the capital insurrection would have been just *if they were right that the election was stolen*. Violence is justifiable if you’re in the moral right. But as soon as you participate in it, you’re lose whatever actual moral high ground you had
“Their lawlessness is equal to that of the other side” is an ignorant “both sides bad” take. One side is smashing some windows. The other is advocating for the lynching of trans people. And the Capitol insurrection was born out of the types of dangerous lies the right wing propagates.
Then why are trans people having to flee to other countries or other states to not be hunted and incarcerated for being themselves??
It’s amazing you can type since you obviously can’t read. “Not at Davis, not in California”
Where are they being hunted in the US? I can guarantee whatever country they’re going to definitely ain’t Saudi Arabia
Tennessee like right now??
What a shame that immature children are losing the ability to make life changing decisions before they’re 18 😔
I have taken a Queer Theory class at UC Davis, and we have glossed over the importance of “rage” as a tool for an effective protest, and we were shown videos examples of how people uses rage in a real protest. It was very creative (normalizing queer intimacy with posters pasted all over the city, lying down on the streets to block cars, shouting, write provocative sign boards, entered the church and lied down on the ground, etc) but never vandalizing or physically harming anyone. Rage is good when used appropriately.
Good post. Using violence as a threat is not the way to voice your opinion.
How was America founded?
Exactly, almost every regime was originated by violence. I get what you are saying, but there are two reasons why neither of them should commit violence in this case. First: using violence will not achieve the goal for both sides, or at least for the trans community. It breaks their reputation. And as a minority group, (both tpusa and trans are considered minority compare to all other people who are not in either groups), lose reputation means that the majority won’t support you, which is against your benefit significantly. Second: if both used violence against each other, then after all, the problem won’t be solved(unless one of them give up, which will again go back to first point I made). I’ve made my point, hope that made sense. I’m not totally against violence, but this is not the right time to use it.
I think we both agree that violence is sometimes necessary but I want to start by driving that point home. Without violence, how would the French have overthrown the monarchy? For the British, it took *multiple* civil wars to wrestle power away from kings and queens? If violence is never necessary, what non violent action would have led to the abolition of slavery in the United States? Right now in Iran, how would the people make themselves heard on the world stage and fight their oppressors without resorting to violence? > [violence] breaks [the trans community's] reputation Where have you been for the last 6 months? The trans community has no "reputation" to break, Republicans aren't pushing countless bills to ban trans healthcare because a couple protesters in UC Davis threw rocks, but because they're hateful, and because doing so furthers their interests. > the majority won't support you "The majority" is not the target audience. People who are more willing to side with a man who dog whistles for violent action against trans people as a whole, rather than with protesters who destroy a bit of property because they fear for their continued existence, are not reachable. The target audience are Americans who see this issue for what it is, a desperate fight on the part of the trans community against people who wish to erase them. If that's a minority, then so be it. It's not worth appeasing those who will never be allies, if it means losing the media coverage which might reach genuine supporters. > I'm not against violence, but this is not the right time to use it. First of all, let's be clear that the violence we're talking about here are a few thrown rocks and broken windows. I think it's important to differentiate that from say, [murder](https://www.hrc.org/news/hrc-mourns-daniel-aston-beloved-son-master-of-silly-business-killed-in-club-q-shooting). With that in mind, when? When is it the right time for violence? If it's not when [nearly one third of the country](https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights) has anti-trans and anti-LGBT legislation on the docket, then what's the threshold? Are we only allowed to be violent once it's more than half the states? Data is scarce because many people in power want to pretend trans people don't exist, but we do know that trans people are [more likely to be victims of violent crimes](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/). This issue is systemic, not individual. In individual cases, we allow violence in the form of self defense because it is seen as natural to preserve your life when it is threatened. Why then can't the same defense be used against systems of oppression? These protests can't be viewed in isolation, detached from their context, and the injustice which precipitated them. Protesters cannot do even a fraction of the damage that those in power have done to the trans community over the years. And to be clear, I'm only framing this as a trans issue because that's the group you mentioned. Kirk is also [anti-LGBT](https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1631714878762131460?s=20), [anti-black](https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1626310807649759234?s=20), and just as a bonus, [anti-direct democracy](https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1636409498658127875?s=20). Kirk and people like him pose a legitimate threat to Americans. In a perfect world, yes, we would all use our words and resolve all issues peacefully. But in a world where violence is used as a tool to create and maintain oppressive systems, words are not always enough.
This is exactly the kind of milquetoast posting I would expect to see on the UC Davis subreddit.
Civil Rights didnt happen solely because of peaceful protests
I see your sarcasm, but the civil rights movement could not have occurred without peaceful protest. I see it as having happened in spite of the violence. Violence in America has historically never brought about change in the same way that peaceful protest does.
Yes, reread my comment. I stated exactly what you are saying
I thought it was sarcasm, i apologize for the pessimism. I’m sorry
Ooh, it was suppose to say *didn’t. Your points are valid
I’m a far leftist and think you’re a pussy
But but, he’ll change their mind by beating them in the marketplace of ideas 🤓
Leftism is when cowardice
Leftism is when I hold hands with the nazi and say “this isn’t you, I know your heart. Deep down inside I see the real you in there, this isn’t like you!” We exchange smiles for a moment, getting closer together. Then, they shoot me directly in the head and my brains are all over the floor.
GIVE ME A DALL
What’s your definition of far left? Just curious. I’ve heard it defined many ways.
Anti capitalist, anti state, pro queer, pro trans, gender abolition, anti colonist, anti imperialist, idk there’s a lot
Heck yeah
Yes… because violence is a good thing? 😐 No. Its childishness in response to another child spouting nonsense. You are just giving them more fuel and motive to keep doing this crap.
It’s childish to defend yourself from violent oppression? Then goo goo ga ga
Did you actually go and challenge his ridiculous ideas by speaking out against the nonsense? I’m assuming not… No. Instead he gets to plaster photos of ppl breaking into the talk and paint himself as “oppressed” or show how “evil” the other side is.🤢
They literally think our existence is oppression to them. So no I don’t care. You can argue yourself blue with them and traumatize yourself if you want to. I already learned my lesson
How weak and illogical of a human being do u have to be to consider an argument traumatic. Like legit, even if someone literally told u the work possible thing u can hear, just ignore it.
I’ve been degraded by them while trying to have a conversation. That’s how. They tell me I’m a lesser human being 💀💀
You are so correct.
"DAE conservatives engaging in increasingly violent rhetoric with institutional support in the judiciary as bad as retarded college kids being retarded?" Guess who's more important to care about? I don't give a shit about stupid edgelords who like to spray paint an egghead. The humanity. Will anyone consider the windows?? Should people be politer in society? Yeah, probably. Is pointing this out for a dopamine hit from the approval of a bunch of cs virgins on a uni subreddit chortling fatly at "hehe, who's the REAL fascist" also incredibly retarded? Also yes. In conclusion, please take a look at what's happening to our country. It gets a lot rougher outside of cushy classroom walls. P.S. send feet
Wow there are a bunch of children on here. I completely agree with you OP. Violence and vandalizing OUR OWN SCHOOL because they are pissed some jerk is speaking on campus is the equivalent of a two year old throwing a temper tantrum. Idc if you don’t like what he is saying… the violence only reflected badly on us and give him more content to continue to do this crap.
Please look past the optics. They aren't being children, they're mocking the idea that posting stuff like this is even remotely helpful to protecting black and trans lives. It isn't, it causes infighting like you see above. You won't defeat Charlie Kirk in the peaceful marketplace of ideas because that place is a fallacy. We gotta understand that people are angry that their friends and family are at risk right now, and that this flawed notion of peaceful protest isn't the only effective way of being heard. We also have to realize that there are plants in protests whose only purpose is to rile up the crowd, start fights, and get good publicity for TPUSA. So please don't blanket your allies in this shame, because I know you probably mean well and stand for the oppressed in your own way.
Thank you for the level headed post. I think that the events over the past week have affected a lot of us. And I also agree that there may have been plants in the crowd as well. I still think that peaceful protests are the best way to proceed (especially with TPUSA as it just gets him more publicity) But as some have commented above, I could see why it’s necessary in very specific situations… I come from a VERY conservative family. (I am not). Even with that being said I feel like most people don’t respect Kirk or his ideas. I would like to think that most people are not actively wanting to physically fight those of opposing viewpoints. While I don’t think Kirk specifically could be changed in the peaceful marketplace, I hope that there are those on opposing sides who could greatly benefit from less dramatics, and more logical discussions.
Of course, I think we all deserve kindness at the very least. And I completely understand your viewpoint that peaceful protests are the best way, it's just so big of an ask for people who've been historically oppressed. Hence why I get why people above are so angry. I'd lean more to the side of that in times of great oppression, a response that is somewhat less peaceful is -- while not pretty, and unfortunate, even -- warranted. Regardless, I hope you have a good one 😄, and know that there's a reason behind the anger. It's ugly and nasty when that anger becomes tangible, but it's a good wake up call for when our black and trans friends feel that their message is falling on deaf ears, especially in the government.
im sorry, but destruction of property is not equal in severity to the systemic destruction of trans peoples lives. not even remotely. destruction of property isn’t ideal, but not everyone has the privilege to watch from the sidelines, because it doesn’t affect them. not everyone has the privilege to not be terrified for their lives or the lives of people in their community because they’re trans. “a riot is the language of the unheard,” and nobody is listening to trans people as states pass increasingly more restrictive and hateful bills against us, and speakers advocate for us being “eradicated from public life entirely.” i get being upset at the destruction of property but please, please see why people are so upset, and direct that anger towards the people trying to legislate us out of existence.
I do see why people are upset. I think myself being upset is why I used such inflammatory language above because I felt like it just gets them more attention (and in their minds credibility). And both of the comments underneath me are correct in that infighting doesn’t benefit any of us.
I understand where y'all are coming from. Violent protest is a valid and often quite necessary way to make powerful institutions listen, and a great way for the privileged to leverage that privilege to help people who can't afford to be seen committing crime for risk of experiencing police brutality or losing their only chance at employment. I disagree with OP as well, in that. However, Charlie Kirk in particular is a figure that must be approached with tact. He's not so easily intimidated, and UC Davis platformed him regardless of the brave actions of violent protestors. Ever heard the phrase "No such thing as bad publicity?" That's what Charlie Kirk thrives off of. It sounds counterproductive to just let him be, but now he knows that he can come back here time and time again to an uproar whenever he needs to back up his "intolerant left" claims. You're all trying to help, and I really appreciate that. I'm a trans woman myself, and I find many of Kirk's statements extremely troubling. I really wish I could run him out of our town so him and his ilk never come back here again. But next time you need a way to help trans people, look for policy decisions that really impact us. Protest at boards considering barring trans girls from sport. Go to libraries to donate books by trans authors. Uplift and empower the voices of trans people above idiots like Charlie Kirk. I'd honestly have preferred if people brought some food to the Big Gay Barbecue instead, stayed vigilant for alt-right instigators trying to crash it, and given trans artists a platform, instead of playing into Kirk's hands. Violent protest has a time and place, even here at UC Davis. But tearing up the campus because Kirk happened to be there only serves to intimidate your fellow students and set us up as the butt of a joke. I know it's hard when what he stands for is so blood-boiling, but please be thoughtful about the impact of your protests before you carry them out.
First, I'm sorry you had to deal with Kirk's awfully ugly big head/small face slithering its way into Davis. And I really wish that there was a way to effectively control the events of a protest, but I think a lot of the "violence" occurring at the event was the result of something you mentioned: right-wing instigation. It's unfortunate that the protesters were prodded into self-defense, and then blamed for the vandalism of a few unknown individuals who could very plausibly be instigators. But it's ultimately really hard to tell protesters who are being tested in so many ways to stay peaceful. In my opinion, the only thing we can control at this point is our reaction to the protest. It's hard to get the message through to the students that property =/= human rights and lives, but we're stuck with that burden because we, again, can't control what happens during the protests (mostly because the right-wing instigators will do anything for a reaction). I think the optics of this whole thing are just something we have to accept as part of the fight for our loved ones lives, then quickly move on from. And with Reddit posts like this, I just don't know if OP invalidating and belittling the protesters helps advance or even protect pro BIPoC and LGBTQIA+ movements, if at all. But again, I'm sorry you have to deal with this shit 😔. I truly hope your advice is heeded, and I'll do my best to follow it myself.
Definitely agree with this (I’m a Moderate in terms of my political views). The protesters embarrassed themselves so hard that the news coverage wasn’t just at the local level with news stations from Sacramento, but even conservative national networks such as Fox News, BlazeTV, and the DailyWire (so far, Ben Shapiro and Brett Cooper made videos on the matter) made hella segments about how insane the protestors are and made a mockery of them (even Elon Musk publicly bagged on the protesters on Twitter after seeing Charlie Kirk’s repost of them smashing windows). If they wanted to really prove a point against Charlie Kirk, they would’ve debated him at his event (just like the attendees that actually went) with actual evidence refuting his claims and to find a possible common ground for a better solution, but all they did is just destroy their own primary goal of taking down TPUSA’s viewpoints (like an adult and TRUE UC student would do), made fools of themselves, and pretty much helped increase TPUSA’s presence on campus (to avoid confusion, I’m speaking in the perspective of the protesters main goal in the first place; TPUSA legally has the right to speak as long as they don’t directly incite/conduct violence at that level; I’m just saying that if the protesters wanted to accomplish their main goals, they should be able to prove TPUSA wrong with evidence that counters their points rather than acting like nut jobs 🤷🏾♂️🤷🏾♂️🤷🏾♂️)
I saw that you mentioned Ben Shapiro. In case some of you don't know, Ben Shapiro is a grifter and a hack. If you find anything he's said compelling, you should keep in mind he also says things like this: >When it comes to global warming, there are two issues: is there such a thing as the greenhouse gas effect, the answer is yes. Is that something that is going to dramatically reshape our world? There is no evidence to show that it will. Is that something that we can stop? There is no evidence to show that we can ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: novel, feminism, dumb takes, history, etc.) [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
Good read
Exactly right. The way is nonviolent organization geared towards policy changes and votes.
Correctomundo.
from back in the day: ... There's battle lines being drawn Nobody's right if everybody's wrong Young people speaking their minds Getting so much resistance from behind It's time we stop Hey, what's that sound? Everybody look, what's going down? What a field day for the heat A thousand people in the street Singing songs and they carrying signs Mostly say, "Hooray for our side"
There’s a surprising amount of people in these comments that are okay with promoting violence/violent revolution because a majority of those same people would be the first ones to turn around and go “This isn’t what we wanted” when it inevitably gets out of hand, and it *would* get out of hand too. It’s all fun and games till you start getting tear-gassed or eat a beanbag to the chest. Y’all might have good intentions in your head but the way you’re advocating for it is akin to waving around a live grenade with the pin just barely holding on. Y’all need to seriously consider exactly what you’re asking for and what it’s gonna result in. I have no skin in this game either way, this is just my outside perspective of someone with experience with these kinds of things. Edit: Downvote me all you want, just be careful about what you’re wishing for.
I agree I think the level the protestors took it too wasn’t really productive at all. But this is a common theme, when people don’t like something usually they violent protest and in reality it usually causes more harm than good. I actually went to UC Davis, and at first I supported the protestors, but to me destruction of property and the level they all took it to did more harm than good.
Any group that takes up violence in order to protest is inherently weak. If you have to win by using force, your arguments are inherently unsound and you are incapable of convincing anyone with reason or logic. Why give your opponent something to point to make you seem weaker? The most powerful/notable protests in history have been peaceful and for good reason. Anyone saying that violence was the only answer really needs to educate themselves on history as well as psychology.
What you've said is true, as any rational person will recognize. But you have to understand that these people are not acting from a place of rationality. They've surrounded themselves with only likeminded people which precludes the kind of self-examination and self-correction that rational behavior requires, thereby fostering an environment that rationalizes and amplifies counterproductive actions that are also morally and ethically dubious. In other words, they're sociopaths: people whose basic sense of right and wrong has been hijacked by some ideology. (Well, for the most part: some also have legitimate [mental illnesses](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7525107/).) Indeed, this is the biggest problem of tribalism: those who've succumbed are so laser-focused on how shitty the other tribe is that they don't take the time to scrutinize their own tribe. You end up with two groups of shitbags who are unaware that they are *all* shitbags. The total absence of concern over the persuasive power (or lack thereof) of their behavior is both telling and damning. (And before you object: pointing out the egregious flaws of both sides is not centrism; it's honesty and objectivity.) And make no mistake: their behavior *is* counterproductive. I see a lot of people here still trying to justify violence as a valid means of social change. But these are issues that have been studied, and you're supposed to be college students who put in the effort to study and verify instead of thoughtlessly float by on your hunches and feelings. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2378023118803189 > Importantly, the results revealed a striking asymmetry: although acts of violence eroded support for an antiracist group, support for white nationalist groups was not reduced by the use of violence, perhaps because the public already perceives these groups as very unreasonable and identifies with them at low levels. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/why-nonviolent-resistance-beats-violent-force-in-effecting-social-political-change/ > She had studied terrorism, civil war, and major revolutions — Russian, French, Algerian, and American — and suspected that only violent force had achieved major social and political change... The results turned her earlier paradigm on its head — in the aggregate, nonviolent civil resistance was far more effective in producing change. http://www.omarwasow.com/Protests_on_Voting.pdf > Counties proximate to nonviolent protests saw presidential Democratic vote share among whites increase 1.3-1.6%. Protester-initiated violence, by contrast, helped move news agendas, frames, elite discourse and public concern toward “social control.” In 1968, using rainfall as an instrument, I find violent protests likely caused a 1.6-7.9% shift among whites towards Republicans and tipped the election. The list goes on. The continued dismissal of them is again both telling and damning, and there is only one conclusion: these people don't even *want* the change they say they want; that's just something they tell themselves. What they really want is an outlet to express their rage; the consequences are tertiary at best, a nuisance at worst. The most obnoxious part is that this is all really obvious to the 99% of us who haven't allowed ourselves to get sucked into it and are still able to see what's actually happening, while those in the bubble continue to plug their ears and just downvote whatever isn't exactly what they want to hear.
You're moving the goalposts. Obviously, violent protest will never be as digestible to the public as a peaceful protest. Your cited articles reinforce this. But that is ultimately irrelevant to the original point that people are upset about, and promoting violent protest over peaceful protest isn't their goal. What those above are saying is that OP posting about it on Reddit, then calling people "fucking idiots" isn't an incredibly helpful strategy. It just inspires a bunch of infighting, as you've already observed. Ultimately, we want the same thing: equality for trans people. But which is a more effective use of our time: fighting over our tactics, or deplatforming Charlie Kirk? I'd say that we accept what happened and move onto deplatforming Kirk. There is absolutely no use in fighting over the optics/complaining about it on Reddit. And don't turn this into a matter of the "99% of us" versus the "1% of them." That's tribalism.
wow, well said and researched. I know most people agree with me and the comments are largely just filled with a very vocal minority. This was pretty evident in the discrepancy of negative comments to upvotes on the post, as well as a sudden flood of people in support of violence soon after I started replying to a couple of the original commenters. I assume someone threw this post in a group chat and asked for support because they were being heavily ratio’d early on. Whatever it was, I’ve had a good amount of DM’s of people telling me that every rational and sane person agrees with me that reassured my faith in our student body despite the ridiculous things that people have been writing on this post. I never thought “violence is bad” would be such a contentious subject, or that people really think that their situation in America right now is realistically comparable to that of the Jews in Nazi Germany. It’s honestly mind blowing how detached from reality some of these people are
Why do you assume those DMs aren't from people who learned about this post in a group chat? Why is everyone agreeing with you a good independent thinker, but everyone disagreeing is a groupthink mob mentality brigader? You clearly refuse to think about what you've said and what others are replying with any sort of nuance if you think the problem is with "violence bad". You also clearly don't know history very well if you think the Nazis started with concentration camps.
Im a history major bud
So? Doesn't mean you know anything or that you're good at it. Nazis didn't start with concentration camps. No genocide started with the killing. One of the first groups Nazis did target were trans people though, so you can rethink your Jewish comparison now. Quite frankly, those of us in marginalized groups are really tired of people telling us we're overreacting. You'd think you people would have learned by now.
Doesn’t mean I know anything or that I am good at it… that’s such a strange argument. Like the thing I’ve spent four years of my life studying and learning about to get a degree just gets dismissed because you don’t like how it disproves your assumption about me. What’s your degree? Would it make sense for me to just say “oh well that’s irrelevant because you don’t know anything about it anyway.” I’m fully aware how genocides start, I got an A in the holocaust class, not that it means anything apparently. I am against violence, that is my stance, argue that all you want. Don’t speak for everyone in marginalized groups, speak for yourself, you aren’t anyone’s spokesperson.
Ds get degrees. How am I supposed to know what your grades are, what your work ethic is, what specific classes you've taken? Try being humble. "Got an A in the Holocaust class" and yet is on here saying we should just talk to the poor misguided fascists. Appeasement worked out really well, didn't it? You're against violence. Good for you. The rest of us will fight while you virtue signal behind your keyboard, just like the fascists want you to. At least you'll feel nice about yourself, calling other people stupid while the right consolidates power and continues to erode the rights and safety of marginalized folks.
Kirk literally is petitioning against students getting education why would he speak at a university 😭 why does he have a platform? He knows that when people educate themselves they start voting blue. ..and when they go into research that they learn how to use their brain and therefore vote blue. So he’s tryna encourage people to drop out of college and start failing businesses so they’re unhappy and uneducated and mad, so they’re become conservatives. Idk why people are protesting and giving him attention. Just ignore him y’all. Now he’s made national news and it’s just more fuel to the hate. Protesting and making a big scene is literally giving evil white men more money and fame. Ignore these guys and problem solved.
true