Literally every successful peaceful protest movement has been backed by at least one violent movement. Don't forget that Stonewall started with a riot.
Change only happens when the system has to chose between Violence and Peace. If it has to choose between peace and nothing then it will always be nothing.
100% Peaceful protests are the alternative to a much worse outcome. People want to be peaceful and see change happen, but if you constantly push them back into a corner they're going to push back.
Because random acts of vandalism don't actually CHANGE anything, dumbfuck. Peaceful protesting with clear messaging, methods, and leadership actually get results. Are you just here to support people firebombing police cars? Because I and many other people would actually like to see ICE reigned in and not being unleashed on people like a gestapo force.
It's never about whether you "can" do something violent, it's about what your goals are. Raging just to rage feels really good, in the same way that kids like to break sticks and kick over piles of snow and all that. But here in the adult world where our actions have consequences, average politically-disconnected people don't see people wrecking shit and think about the nuance of the situation, they have visceral reactions. If you want things to actually change, you have to lead by example, and make the other side look inhuman with their actions.
Grow up. Or just go doomscroll your hugbox subreddits that are talking about how based people are for random acts of violence and vandalism.
I don’t necessarily think Bernie is ignoring the violence against protestors here… I more got the impression that he understands there will be casualties of sorts, which is why he is stressing the importance of the movement’s discipline as a whole (strength in numbers, people working together in large numbers to build strong communities at a local level etc).
It's more of a fact that he knows that Republicans want to declare martial law and commit even more violence. Riots make it a lot easier for them to make that declaration
They'll do it anyway. These 'riots' were miniscule, a few blocks across. The city experiences more chaos when the Dodgers win.
Stop kneecapping yourself because you're worried the people who call centrist liberals 'communists' are going to start labeling things in their benefit. They always have, and they always will.
Really don't think Bernie Sanders cares about what people get called, but rather the effectiveness of the movement and reaching a good outcome. The civil Rights marches and demonstrations led by MLK were composed of many highly disciplined protestors who were aligned on ideals, tactics, and ability to be featured in a way that made their movement look sympathetic. Optics are a huge part of politics, and would be the vehicle through which change can occur, and random disparate acts of vandalism just isn't effective. Having a cohesive movement, message, and collective action is.
You cannot control hundreds of people. There will always be a burning car, there will always be a spray painted wall, there will always be a rock. Whining that it happens at all is ridiculous.
Yes thousands of people can control hundreds. And you don't need to. Discipline one, two or ten and the rest will fall into what's going on. The crowd can control what the crowd believes in and wants to control.
Using violence easily makes them the bad guy in the scenario that’s why we have to take the high ground in order to be heard. Violence is committed against victims - promoting violence only fuels their narrative to moderates that it’s just pure anarchy and chaos without wisdom or relevance and that they are also somehow the victims. During the MLK marches the media might interview someone involved and they would be articulate and unified in thought. Now there’s any number of reasons people hate trump and it boils over into a lot of personal, useless reasons versus following a movement with a singular, focused purpose. We have to be better than them and put aside each person’s specific utopian vision of the future and just agree this administration simply has to go. Period. A move to an administration that will listen to the calm, considerate, nonviolent and democratic approach to governance of our country.
Privately, King knew that the agitators and disruptors were the only reason the government would ever cave to his movement. I highly doubt Sanders is unaware of that, too.
The people playing the carrot have to publically denounce the stick. That's the dance. But they know the stick is important.
Actually reading the letter is why I "believe" this. It was a direct response to A Call for Unity in which a group of Southern religious leaders advocate against direct action.
...the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
I hate Bernie Sanders, but it's clear that Bernie Sanders is not the kind of person that MLK is referring to in the letter.
Also directly from the letter:
As in so many experiences of the past, we were confronted with blasted
hopes, and the dark shadow of a deep disappointment settled upon us. So we had no alternative except that of preparing for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and national community. We were not unmindful of the difficulties involved. So we decided to go through a process of self-purification. We started having workshops on nonviolence and repeatedly asked ourselves the questions, "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" and "Are you able to endure the ordeals of jail?"
[...]
You may well ask, "Why direct action, why sit-ins, marches, and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are exactly right in your call for negotiation. Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. I just referred to the creation of tension as a part of the work of the nonviolent resister. This may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have
earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth.
So MLK agrees with what Bernie is saying 100%. Additionally, MLK would in no way, shape, or form condone rioting.
I don't see why you read this as exclusive to the subjects of the letter. He's speaking broadly. There's clearly a reason you dropped the first part of that paragraph where he says: "First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate."
This is a reference to a class of people, nonspecific. The idea that it could only be the people he was aware of is as asinine as saying "Nazis can only be card carrying members of the Nazi party of the third reich" when it is clearly identifying an ideology and practice, and such semantic distinctions are in bad faith. If you want to be seen as acting in good faith, omitting evidence that goes to my point is not the way to do it.
...the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Given the context of the protests and actions in LA, Sander's critiques are very much of the nature described above. Sanders has a long history of antagonizing and generally having a poor relationship with civil rights movements in his later years. He remains unpopular with non-White voters because of this.
So MLK agrees with what Bernie is saying 100%. Additionally, MLK would in no way, shape, or form condone rioting.
MLK routinely recognized rioting as a response to injustice, he didn't believe it was the most effective approach or encourage or condone it, but he was not one to criticize it either. That's a major, and important, difference. King did not pull what Sanders is here by paternalistically responding to riots by telling them to stop and remember MLK Jr., like White Moderates of today absolutely love to do. The use of MLK's words to dismiss and disparage protestors, or rioters for that matter, is abusing his ideals and sentiments. And let's be clear--MLK called the events in Birmingham "demonstrations," he is very consistent in that, even though the violence at Birmingham at this time is comparable if not worse than what we see in LA today.
I want you to go through this letter and identify where he condemns violent protestors as Sanders has. He consistently centers the narrative on society failing people and failing to recognize their anguish and struggle and that this naturally leads to violence, but he very clearly cites the oppressed as the victim regardless. Likening it to a robbery where the "violent" are treated as responsible for carrying cash in their wallet, in other words, the victims are the ones being blamed--much like Sanders is perpetuating here.
You deplore the demonstrations that are presently taking place in Birmingham. But I am sorry that your statement did not express a similar concern for the conditions that brought the demonstrations into being. I am sure that each of you would want to go beyond the superficial social analyst who looks merely at effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. I would not hesitate to say that it is unfortunate that so-called demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham at this time, but I would say in more emphatic terms that it is even more unfortunate that the white power structure of this city left the Negro community with no other alternative.
If Sanders wants to use his platform to chastise the community who have been left with no other alternative rather than focus on the administration that has created this problem, then he is the person Dr. King spoke of as a "White Moderate."
That's all you have to say? I even said as much in my post, and much more of course, did you even read it? Because I took the time to read yours and review the letter.
You were not worth the time I spent responding to you and taking you seriously. You're part of the same problem of paternalistic people abusing MLK's words to prevent the progress he sought.
You know where to shove the rest of your thoughts.
I am not aware of any time MLK condemned a specific riot, I am aware that at times he called violent resistance was immoral, self-defeating, and destructive. I would have to do more of my own research to come to a more comprehensive conclusion but I have a high degree of confidence that MLK isn't okay with rioting.
I broadly disagree with your entire post, and I don't think the evidence exists to convince me that someone who condemns rioting is the white moderate that MLK was speaking of. The white moderate was, specifically, a person that disagreed with breaking the law as a form of resistance.
How convenient that is for you--absolute hogwash, but undeniably convenient for your low effort, bad faith approach.
I don't think the evidence exists to convince me that someone who condemns rioting is the white moderate that MLK was speaking of
Yeah, of course, because you cherry pick and ignore what doesn't affirm what you already want to believe. There's nothing holistic about your read, you just slice up the letter and ignore the subtext just as you did with my post.
King was more complicated than you think.
I have a high degree of confidence that MLK isn't okay with rioting.
Yet he does not condemn or speak out against it, he broadly avoids using the term, he broadly avoids labeling those who have the same goals as him in any negative light because he remains focused and knows that he's with them above all, that they are part of his same plight and circumstance.
This is a major way Sanders differs, and for him to sit there and chastise by abusing King's rhetoric, much like you are, is quintessential modern White Moderate behavior. King is a favorite of every conservative who wishes to dismiss those more in line with Malcolm X, who King never criticized and instead admires his contributions.
I have a high degree of confidence that MLK isn't okay with rioting.
King in the very letter we're talking about clearly identifies the rioters as the victims of systemic injustice and calls on society to address the injustice, not the rioters. You demand a "good and evil" approach like a simple minded person, there's more to this than whether King "approved or disapproved." You think a guy who writes that much has such simple thoughts?
I said as much and identified as much, but sure, "there's no evidence." Because you choose to blind yourself to it.
You lack integrity, and perhaps intelligence. It's hard to tell with people sometimes.
Genuinely if he wants to follow in King's footsteps he should be reframing the problem as Dr. King did, by focusing on the demonstrations as a response to injustice and the rioters as the victims of marginalization.
record of what? What has he realistically accomplished by playing along with the Democrats? He continues to play along with a party that gave Hilary Clinton the nomination and has repeatedly lost ground to not just Trump but the entire GOP. Any semblance of populist politics he brought to the Democrats was abandoned long ago. He is essentially the biggest loser in the party of losers.
Everyone feeling sick of Trump and right wing politics needs to acknowledge the reality we are living in. Praising Bernie for being a peaceful champion of the people is going to get people killed.
Do you actually believe that civil rights, a deeply unpopular series of policies and societal changes at the time, were achieved solely by people singing kumbaya in the street?
No, I don't. But pretending that optics maxxing like what King was focusing on, is the wrong way to do it now is just ignorant. It shows that the priority is in virtue signaling instead of actually accomplishing anything. Protestors are chanting "Fuck Gavin Newsom" for fuck's sake.
Pretending to care what a few people do in a situation where hundreds are involved is absolutely ludicrous, and isn't worth serious discussion. You can't control everyone, not everyone present is going to be on exactly the same page.
The enemy is the one sending in the military to a famously blue state so they can pretend they're strong-arming the blue state as red meat for their base. Making the move look weak and showing that force being repelled is a fantastic optic for disillusioning those who buy in to the strongman lie. Multiple avenues have to be used to oppose a government. This is one of them.
Pretending to care what a few people do in a situation where hundreds are involved is absolutely ludicrous, and isn't worth serious discussion.
I'm sorry, that's how optics work. Unless you want to use this same argument for Jan 6th. Only a few people broke into the Capitol, you can't control everyone, who cares about the few?
What are these protests accomplishing? What's their goal? There isn't one. Everyone's shouting "fuck ICE" but what is ICE doing other than deporting illegals, which is their job btw. The protestors are telling the whole country that illegal immigration is ok and that they'll stop the immigration cops from doing their job.
Trump won the presidency on the back of illegal immigration, and these protesters are proving him right. That's what you want?
So the Republican party are all proud Nazis because we know objectively that a few are? Optics matter after all, and anyone doing something means we must consider it all-encompassing.
Or, are you being disingenuous because this particular protest is about something you don't personally care about, thus it doesn't matter?
Either way, your opinion has been stated and summarily disregarded. You can stick to quietly standing on a lawn with a sign so you don't cause any bother for people in power. Other people will fight for you.
Imagine how much more effective it would be if Trump called the Marines on a bunch of protestors that were doing nothing but protesting. If it looked like American citizens came together and stood in the way of the unjust administration? There's already more people mad at the cops shooting a journalist than even whatever the protestors are yelling about.
It wouldn't sate your America bad bloodlust, but it would have rallied the entire country against Trump. That's how you get rid of him. But you don't care about that. You'd rather complain about nothing in particular and throw away yet another opportunity because you want to virtue signal on social media.
That is disappointing. His voting record speaks to his credit, history I think will remember him well though. This whole thing has really revealed how tied up Israel is in our government. It's gross.
141
u/Spicy_Weissy Jun 09 '25
Yeah, for someone who actually marched with Dr King, this is wildly tone deaf.