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
>do not believe that it actually exists on the moment

Precisely. People have been voting and non-violently protesting for decades, and it hasn't worked.

>>vzidex+Qv
People haven't been voting, which is why it hasn't worked.

>>throwa+iJ
Let's look at the subset of people that vote. If they consistently vote and encourage others to vote, and yet their candidates never win, they are effectively powerless. For them it is no different than living under a monarchy, except for the vague hope that maybe eventually their candidates will win and their policies enacted. Eventually that vague hope makes things even more painful, since they know that their government will never represent them, despite them theoretically having the power to decide their leaders. Either they will resent the system or they will resent their neighbors who either vote for the opposition or don't vote.

Think about all of the left-wing voters in a very Red congressional district or state. Think of all the right wing voters in a very Blue district or state. They are not officially disenfranchised, but their vote doesn't really matter either, so why vote at all? The equation changes somewhat for swing states/districts, but even then it's often a lesser of two evils choice, rather than any major progression towards policy goals. There are some democracies that mitigate some of these issues (getting rid of the electoral college and first past the post would go a long way in the US), but in general democracy leaves a lot of people dissatisfied.

If your major disagreement with the status quo is the tax rate, or certain business regulations, your dissatisfaction with the democratic process is manageable. If your major disagreement with the status quo is police brutality and injustice that make your life miserable, then what is the downside to rioting and destruction? Maybe there's only a tiny chance that something good will come out of it, but it's better than a zero percent chance of enacting change by continuing to vote and lose elections.