Dear White America, which form of protest do you actually prefer?

[Trausti]

When a guy wearing a Castro shirt complains about "oppression" he deserves to be ridiculed.

 

[laughing dog]

When a guy wearing a Castro shirt complains about "oppression" he deserves to be ridiculed.

Yeah, why bother reading a book when the cover is much easier to see.

 

[Bronzeage]

I have to go with marches and sit-ins. The more disruptive, the better. Nothing gets more attention than blocking traffic and interfering with commerce.

My second choice is voter registration drives and rides to the voting polls. It's always puzzled me, why in a country where many election turn-outs barely scrape 20%, someone hasn't figured out how few votes it takes to swing an election.

Actually the GOP has figured it out, and took positive(?) steps to counteract such a strategy. That alone should prove how effective it is.

 

[JonA]

A simple question.

The most common, politically correct refrain I have heard from white critics of Colin Kaepernick's silent protest during the "Star-Spangled Banner" is that they kind of understand his motivations for protesting, but they just don't like his methods

...

Well, I have a question.

Exactly which form of our protest do you actually prefer?

You hated when Cleveland Browns player Andrew Hawkins wore a "I Can't Breathe" T-shirt before a game.

You hated when Lebron James did the same thing.

You hated when several players from the St. Louis Rams simply put their hands up in the air before a game in solidarity with unarmed victims of police brutality.

When we march across the country, you mock us.

When we block intersections and hold up traffic, your blood boils.

When we simply express our concerns on Twitter and Facebook, we receive extreme opposition.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...america-form-protest-prefer-article-1.2775698

- - - Updated - - -

I have to go with marches and sit-ins. The more disruptive, the better. Nothing gets more attention than blocking traffic and interfering with commerce.

That's good.

Let me know when you plan on having a heart attack or stroke. I'll show up to keep the ambulance from getting to your house.

 

[Bronzeage]

I guess that is black fragility - can't handle their opinions being challenged or attacked in any way. If you protest, you should accept that many people might not like what you are protesting about and voice their opinions just as forcefully as you voiced yours.

If that quarterback guy has the right to protest against America then other Americans have the right to voice their opinion of the quarterback. Free speech goes both ways.

Also, when professional athletes make on-field protests, they are doing that while they are "on the clock". Not too many employees would be fine with their employees protesting while they are supposed to be working.

P.S.: Oh, an article written by Shaun King. How precious, if you like logical fallacies and wild-ass speculation that usually turns out to be wrong (like that the deaf guy did not know he was being pulled over).

Actually, the clock doesn't start until the kick off, so he was on his own time. As for fragility, that is your fantasy.

The problem with protests against protests is it's difficult to avoid the appearance if hypocrisy. For example, as you are a good Georgia boy, I'm sure you've seen plenty of flags which commemorate armed rebellion, and today is shown to honor the thousands of US military officers who violated their oath of commission and fought against the legally constituted government of the United States.

Anyone who displays a Confederate flag has no room to talk about anyone who won't stand for the National Anthem. Only a few generations back, his grandfathers would applauded him for his loyalty to his master. It reminds me of a man I knew, God rest his treasonous soul, who would leave the pennies in his change on the sales counter, because he refused to soil his hands with an image of Abraham Lincoln.

Consider some of the political commentary which has portrayed the President of the United States as a simian. That's a monkey, of some type. How can any person who has so little respect for the Executive of our elected government have a complaint because someone declined to engage in public ritual of loyalty?

 

[Trausti]

 

[Bronzeage]

A simple question.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...america-form-protest-prefer-article-1.2775698

- - - Updated - - -

I have to go with marches and sit-ins. The more disruptive, the better. Nothing gets more attention than blocking traffic and interfering with commerce.

That's good.

Let me know when you plan on having a heart attack or stroke. I'll show up to keep the ambulance from getting to your house.

That could be anytime, so stay alert.

The last time I saw a protest march(a few weeks ago), the police were determined to keep the crowd away from the Interstate on-ramp, and drove them into residential streets. The people obeyed orders to get off the street, which they did. This put the police in a strange situation. They had just ordered protesters to surround them. The police had no choice but chase people though hedges and lawns and arrest them for getting off the street as ordered. The officers on the scene claimed bricks were thrown, but the hundred or so videos shot of the scene showed no such thing, and no one was charged with that particular crime.

Since the point of the march was to protest poor training and supervision of the police department as well as the common practice of filing false reports.

In the end, the police can't control a large crowd without the cooperation of the crowd. Sometimes they forget that and need to be reminded of the limits of their power. If there were no unjustified police shootings which result in no police prosecutions, protest marches would be a rare thing, and my chances of surviving an heart attack would be improved. I'll take my chances.

Of course, the hospital which serves my neighborhood(poor people) was closed because it was losing too much money, and now my ambulance ride will be an extra 30 minutes, so there's that to consider.

 

[JonA]

I have to go with marches and sit-ins. The more disruptive, the better. Nothing gets more attention than blocking traffic and interfering with commerce.

That's good.

Let me know when you plan on having a heart attack or stroke. I'll show up to keep the ambulance from getting to your house.

That could be anytime, so stay alert.

I don't need to stay alert because you're going to let me know, remember?

The last time I saw a protest march(a few weeks ago), the police were determined to keep the crowd away from the Interstate on-ramp, and drove them into residential streets. The people obeyed orders to get off the street, which they did. This put the police in a strange situation. They had just ordered protesters to surround them. The police had no choice but chase people though hedges and lawns and arrest them for getting off the street as ordered. The officers on the scene claimed bricks were thrown, but the hundred or so videos shot of the scene showed no such thing, and no one was charged with that particular crime.

Since the point of the march was to protest poor training and supervision of the police department as well as the common practice of filing false reports.

What's that got to do with anything? We've enough examples in the last couple years of protesters blocking interstate highway traffic - AA even mentioned such in her post.

In the end, the police can't control a large crowd without the cooperation of the crowd.

If so, then more than just the police is required.

If there were no unjustified police shootings which result in no police prosecutions, protest marches would be a rare thing, and my chances of surviving an heart attack would be improved. I'll take my chances.

A strange thing to take your chances on given that unjustified police shootings are far more rare than the disruptive anarchy that often claims to be 'protesting' such things.

Of course, the hospital which serves my neighborhood(poor people) was closed because it was losing too much money, and now my ambulance ride will be an extra 30 minutes, so there's that to consider.

People weren't having enough heart attacks apparently.

 

[Bronzeage]

I have to go with marches and sit-ins. The more disruptive, the better. Nothing gets more attention than blocking traffic and interfering with commerce.

That's good.

Let me know when you plan on having a heart attack or stroke. I'll show up to keep the ambulance from getting to your house.

That could be anytime, so stay alert.

I don't need to stay alert because you're going to let me know, remember?

The last time I saw a protest march(a few weeks ago), the police were determined to keep the crowd away from the Interstate on-ramp, and drove them into residential streets. The people obeyed orders to get off the street, which they did. This put the police in a strange situation. They had just ordered protesters to surround them. The police had no choice but chase people though hedges and lawns and arrest them for getting off the street as ordered. The officers on the scene claimed bricks were thrown, but the hundred or so videos shot of the scene showed no such thing, and no one was charged with that particular crime.

Since the point of the march was to protest poor training and supervision of the police department as well as the common practice of filing false reports.

What's that got to do with anything? We've enough examples in the last couple years of protesters blocking interstate highway traffic - AA even mentioned such in her post.

In the end, the police can't control a large crowd without the cooperation of the crowd.

If so, then more than just the police is required.

If there were no unjustified police shootings which result in no police prosecutions, protest marches would be a rare thing, and my chances of surviving an heart attack would be improved. I'll take my chances.

A strange thing to take your chances on given that unjustified police shootings are far more rare than the disruptive anarchy that often claims to be 'protesting' such things.

Of course, the hospital which serves my neighborhood(poor people) was closed because it was losing too much money, and now my ambulance ride will be an extra 30 minutes, so there's that to consider.

People weren't having enough heart attacks apparently.

What's it got to do with it? Plenty. People don't take to the streets when there are easier and more reasonable alternatives. The powers that be have to be reminded that their power is not absolute and if they want to maintain order, they have to maintain standards which keep people content. This is reality, not some Polly Anna "can't we all just get along," homily.

When a policeman shoots a person because his poor training and supervision led him to make a bad decision in the split second of the moment, the police must be held accountable.

If you fear anarchy, as you seem to, I suggest you work to maintain justice and anarchy has little appeal. What are the alternatives, other than shooting more people.

 

[Trausti]

What's it got to do with it? Plenty. People don't take to the streets when there are easier and more reasonable alternatives.

Perhaps the organizers of these protests "take to the streets" because it can be quite lucrative to do so. Looking at you, Soros.

 

[Ford]

What's it got to do with it? Plenty. People don't take to the streets when there are easier and more reasonable alternatives.

Perhaps the organizers of these protests "take to the streets" because it can be quite lucrative to do so. Looking at you, Soros.

Well that's the biggest non-sequitur I've seen today by a long shot.

 

[Trausti]

Perhaps the organizers of these protests "take to the streets" because it can be quite lucrative to do so. Looking at you, Soros.

Well that's the biggest non-sequitur I've seen today by a long shot.

Are you really not aware of that?

 

[Ford]

Well that's the biggest non-sequitur I've seen today by a long shot.

Are you really not aware of that?

Are you really saying that Soros' source of income is protests?

 

[Trausti]

Are you really not aware of that?

Are you really saying that Soros' source of income is protests?

I'm saying he helps fund them. It used to be just speculation. But his "charitable" organization was hacked and all was revealed.

 

[Ford]

Are you really saying that Soros' source of income is protests?

I'm saying he helps fund them.

And that makes him money...how?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

So, the usual suspects FAIL to answer the question posed

 

[Trausti]

I'm saying he helps fund them.

And that makes him money...how?

Why does he have to make money? He's using BLM as a proxy to influence policy. He's the left's Koch.

- - - Updated - - -

So, the usual suspects FAIL to answer the question posed

You started an OP to moralize against White people. You've got the responses this deserves.

 

[Ford]

And that makes him money...how?

Why does he have to make money?

You claimed his support of protests was "lucrative.'


Now you're saying it isn't.

 

[Bronzeage]

What's it got to do with it? Plenty. People don't take to the streets when there are easier and more reasonable alternatives.

Perhaps the organizers of these protests "take to the streets" because it can be quite lucrative to do so. Looking at you, Soros.

Are you saying George Soros is paying people to protest?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

And that makes him money...how?

Why does he have to make money? He's using BLM as a proxy to influence policy. He's the left's Koch.

- - - Updated - - -

So, the usual suspects FAIL to answer the question posed

You started an OP to moralize against White people.

#NotAllWhitePeople Just the ones who get upset when black folk protest.

You've got the responses this deserves.

Still not an answer. Is the question too hard?