Some minor progress was made because of the millions of people who turned out to peacefully protest. Those who rioted and destroyed shit only contributed ammunition to the opposition.
I disagree, I think having an entire block burnt down made a lot of people decide they don’t want to see this happen again, in a way a regular protest wouldn’t have.
Really? You think people had their businesses burned down and their town destroyed and thought to themselves “boy I hope these people get what they wanted!” or do you think they thought “These people are human garbage and I hope they rot in prison”? Which one of these thought processes makes more sense to you?
The protests started because the police murdered a man in full view of a group of witnesses, a lot of people had a vested interest in making sure that didn’t happen again, in a way that non violent protest would not have achieved.
Quite the opposite. A non-violent protest would have achieved much more. The rioters and looters only obstructed the cause.
Did you ever get smacked as a child, out of interest?
Correct. English sufferage was only gained after a group of women took on learning jujitsu, wearing badass capes and paper body armor and went out burning government buildings and breaking all the windows in anti sufferagette buildings/homes and when police showed up they’d kick the shit out of them with jujitsu and then they’d make a speech the police couldn’t break up because their faces were meeting their asses for the first time and in a most uncomfortable way.
Ed: because it’s interesting and I’m sure people won’t take my word.
There’s no way I would have believed you without the link.
It’s a very weird story, I won’t take it personally.
That is fucking wild! How was I never aware of this? Thanks for sharing it.
Because governments don’t particularly want it known that an effective protest is one that puts the government in fear.
