zlacker

No, they don't. They discredit the legitimate point that many state actors wantonly use excessive force in the minds of most Americans. Nobody will listen to proposals while he's worried about his things being destroyed. Nobody is going to vote for reform under the threat of having his business burned or his neighborhood terrorized. Using violence to achieve a political aim is terrorism, and will never achieve long-term social change. All it will do is prompt a backlash and close most Americans' minds to what is otherwise a legitimate grievance.

>>mmm_gr+(OP)
Sure it will when you use enough of it. Remember October revolution, Cultural revolution. You first have to eliminate your direct political opponents. Then you eliminate your allied but potential political opponents. Then you eliminate your possible political opponents from the general population. One of such systems collapsed but the other is still flourishing.

>>mmm_gr+(OP)
There's a list out there of dozens of things the protests have accomplished. Fear of rioting was a factor.

>>mixmas+S2
What is this list? I guess I can think of a few things—tearing down a statue or two, getting a few people killed, destroying a few businesses, getting a few product names changed. And getting a couple people charged rightly and a couple probably charged wrongly. Getting one city to get rid of police. Ok. I’m not sold.

>>jtbayl+Xs
One more off the top of my head, California gov stopped use of chokeholds. The list is a lot longer.

>>mmm_gr+(OP)
Senators are on the record saying the MLK assassination riots spurred the passing of the civil rights act.