zlacker

>>mwseib+(OP)
> So let’s not excuse violence, or rationalize it, or participate in it.

Taboos around violence for political are one of the crucial building blocks for a functioning democracy. If those taboos are broken, even for a good cause, you set a precedence that violence works. And the next cause won’t be as good. One only has to look at the lessons of the Roman Revolution that started with the murder of Grachus, and ended with an Emperor who everyone acclaimed as they were so tired of the bloodshed.

>>RcouF1+pg
I don't condone violence, but at the same time you have to acknowledge that modern American democracy was built on the foundation of political violence. It worked for us.

>>nradov+ck
You do not use violence in a democratic protest. To use it is effective acknowledgement that you either want to destroy the democracy or do not believe that it actually exists on the moment.

>>marcos+Lq
The American revolution was a violent protest.

>>evanli+Bs
Against a tyrannical, non-representative government, and it was a last-ditch effort.

We have a democracy. People have opportunities to vote. Police policy is decided largely at the local level, so individual votes are powerful. Imagine if even 10% of protesters voted in their local elections...

>>throwa+OJ
Local elections can be rigged against local voters. I wish I could find the link now, but I recall reading an article recently (was it in The Atlantic?) about how one American town with a huge African-American population was unable to get a single African-American councilman elected, because back in the heyday of segregation the local whites had managed to do some gerrymandering-like trick that made most local citizens’ votes now count for nothing.

You can also see dirty tricks at local council meetings, where those in authority abuse the meeting’s rules of order to quickly shut down anyone speaking up about problems that those in authority don’t want addressed.