In case any U.S. members have time for protesting

[SolarpunkFan]

I found out about this website a few minutes ago: https://www.indivisibleguide.com/

It has a guide for practical political resistance and it also has this tool for finding nearby action groups: https://www.indivisibleguide.com/local-action-groups

If this post is deemed unsuitable for the forums then by all means delete with extreme prejudice.

[Wild Zontargs]

Please remember to have more patience and class than the counter-protesters / trolls. Otherwise, you just wind up looking like goofs and encouraging the other side:


(Yes, that's 4chan's /pol/ leaking into real life. Welcome to 2017.)

[Ziggy Stardust]

Any U.S. members who want to make a difference should go about calling their representatives in Congress, encouraging other like-minded people to also call, as well as attending town halls and other public fora. Not saying you shouldn't attend protests, as well, but these other options are easy and make a difference. Basically the only things that don't work are e-mails, letters, and complaining on Internet forums.

[Rogue 9]

Showing up at town halls held by Congressmen and making a bunch of noise is how the Tea Party rose to prominence in 2010. Before that, town hall meetings were usually ill-attended, quiet affairs. Using their playbook to influence Congress is probably one of the most effective things that can be done.

As for counter-protesters, I can attest from personal experience that it's usually pretty damn easy to get a protester to fly off the handle and say/do something stupid on camera. If you find yourself in contact with counter-protesters, the smartest thing to do, presuming you don't have the skill set for extemporaneous public debate, is keep your mouth shut and hands down.

[Grumman]

Optimize visibility. Unlike in town halls, you want your presence as a group to be recognizable and attention-getting at this event. It may make sense to stick together as a group, wear relatively similar clothing / message shirts, and carry signs in order to be sure that your presence is noticeable.

Be prepared to interrupt and insist on your right to be heard. Since you won’t get the mic at an event like this, you have to attract attention to yourself and your message. Agree beforehand with your group on a simple message focused on a current or upcoming issue. Coordinate with each other to chant this message during any public remarks that your MoC makes. This can be difficult and a bit uncomfortable. But it sends a powerful message to your MOC that they won’t be able to get press for other events until they address your concerns.
...
Hold organizational hosts accountable. Often events such as these will be hosted by local businesses or non-partisan organizations — groups that don’t want controversy or to alienate the community. Reach out to them directly to express your concern that they are giving a platform to pro-Trump authoritarianism, racism, and corruption. If they persist, use social media to express your disappointment. This will reduce the likelihood that these organizations will host the Trump-friendly MoC in the future. MoCs depend on invitations like these to build ties and raise their visibility — so this matters to them.

Taking this advice makes you a shitty demonstrator, a shitty American and a shitty human being. Shouting people down and deplatforming are tools to destroy free speech and useful discussion. The use of these tactics is illegitimate and everyone else knows it.

[Joun_Lord]

I disagree for the most part.

The interrupting meetings is rude, a bit shitty, but also the only thing some groups can do to get their message heard. There is certainly some ambiguity on whether its right to interrupt meetings, especially private meetings, but it is part of protesting to do some things a bit shitty. Its a tactic that certainly can backfire especially when you interrupt allies or potential, we had a whole conversation about how some BLM group in Canada pissed off alot of people by making a LGBT pride event all about themselves, interrupting a parade to demand that the events organizers bow to their wishes. Both the Tea Party and the Occupy movement were hurt by being seen as disruptive firebrands intruding on other people.

Also didn't help either organization the media against them, both for legitimate raisins (the Tea Party constantly doing outright racist shit) and possibly made up shit (the rape epidemic that the Occupy movement was accused of covering up and exacerbating) plus the informal nature of the beast allowed any random jackhole to fuck shit up, both crazies on their side and IRL trolls.

I'd only agree that trying to stop others exercising their own free speech rights goes into illegitimate territory. Everyone has the right to say their piece and if you try to coerce others from being allowed you yourself are abusing the right.

Though some members of Congress are so far up their own ass screaming at them and chanting at them may be the only way to get them to acknowledge that any opposition exists and has concerns.

More or less I can see the argument for and against such disruptive protesting but can also see how its can hurt the group attempting to create change.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Optimize visibility. Unlike in town halls, you want your presence as a group to be recognizable and attention-getting at this event. It may make sense to stick together as a group, wear relatively similar clothing / message shirts, and carry signs in order to be sure that your presence is noticeable.

Be prepared to interrupt and insist on your right to be heard. Since you won’t get the mic at an event like this, you have to attract attention to yourself and your message. Agree beforehand with your group on a simple message focused on a current or upcoming issue. Coordinate with each other to chant this message during any public remarks that your MoC makes. This can be difficult and a bit uncomfortable. But it sends a powerful message to your MOC that they won’t be able to get press for other events until they address your concerns.
...
Hold organizational hosts accountable. Often events such as these will be hosted by local businesses or non-partisan organizations — groups that don’t want controversy or to alienate the community. Reach out to them directly to express your concern that they are giving a platform to pro-Trump authoritarianism, racism, and corruption. If they persist, use social media to express your disappointment. This will reduce the likelihood that these organizations will host the Trump-friendly MoC in the future. MoCs depend on invitations like these to build ties and raise their visibility — so this matters to them.

Taking this advice makes you a shitty demonstrator, a shitty American and a shitty human being. Shouting people down and deplatforming are tools to destroy free speech and useful discussion. The use of these tactics is illegitimate and everyone else knows it.

They have nothing worthwhile to say, and being shouted down and deplatforming someone DOES NOT VIOLATE FREE SPEECH. Period. Free Speech is protection from government censorship. Not your fellow citizens telling you to shut the fuck up--because that is free speech too.

If a Nazi gets shouted down with "NOPE! NO NO NO! Bad Nazi Bad! NO BISCUIT!" or someone like me singing music from Fiddler on the Roof, it humiliates them and makes them feel weak and powerless, which is exactly how they should feel. It is also effective. Ridicule and derision, especially if it is funny, turns people off of Fascism, because humans are social animals that tend to follow a dominance hierarchy and respond to ostracism. You laugh at the Nazi, and everyone else gets the signal that they are unacceptable in civil society. If you let them talk, they can Gish Gallop you (throw out crazy bullshit you have to ignore and look ignorant, or fall all over yourself trying to refute while they throw out more crazy bullshit, thus controlling the terms of debate). So you don't let them talk.

[Grumman]

If a Nazi gets shouted down with "NOPE! NO NO NO! Bad Nazi Bad! NO BISCUIT!" or someone like me singing music from Fiddler on the Roof, it humiliates them and makes them feel weak and powerless, which is exactly how they should feel. It is also effective.

It's only effective because they aren't Nazis. Not only does the strategy fail to distinguish between Nazis and non-Nazis, actual Nazis are the ones most capable of defending themselves against the strategy.

[Dragon Angel]

I like how I made the point in the other thread about people declaring effective nonviolent protest methods being illegitimate, and here Grumman comes to do just that. It's like I'm clairvoyant or something.

I guess you just really want violent revolution to happen, don't you, Grumman? Since people like you keep changing the god damn goalposts to water down the act of protesting to merely being insects that the authorities can sideline elsewhere or swat without any trouble. If you're going to do that, don't expect people to think you're interested in any form of peaceful change, forcing them to resort to worse methods.

[Wild Zontargs]

They have nothing worthwhile to say, and being shouted down and deplatforming someone DOES NOT VIOLATE FREE SPEECH. Period. Free Speech is protection from government censorship. Not your fellow citizens telling you to shut the fuck up--because that is free speech too.

First Amendment != Free Speech/Expression.

One is a specific self-imposed restriction on the US Government. The other is a general principle and Universal Human Right (according to the UN).

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Shouting over others and deplatforming them as a private citizen or organization are not violations of the First Amendment, but they are violations of the principle that everyone should be free to express their opinions. Non-governmental censorship is still censorship.

Do not imagine how the side of Light and Good would use a tactic against the forces of Evil. Instead, consider how your worst enemy would use it against you, because if it becomes fair play, they will. If you deplatform your political opponents, don't be shocked if they gain power in spite of it, and then proceed to deplatform you.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Taking this advice makes you a shitty demonstrator, a shitty American and a shitty human being. Shouting people down and deplatforming are tools to destroy free speech and useful discussion. The use of these tactics is illegitimate and everyone else knows it.

Why is it only the Left doing it that makes you mad? You have never voice any opposition to the tactics of the Tea Party that I can recall. Or the Bundys and the militias that I can recall.

Do not imagine how the side of Light and Good would use a tactic against the forces of Evil. Instead, consider how your worst enemy would use it against you, because if it becomes fair play, they will. If you deplatform your political opponents, don't be shocked if they gain power in spite of it, and then proceed to deplatform you.

Why are you acting like this is hypothetical? The deplatforming of the Left, the LGBT, etc. has ALREADY HAPPENED. Tea Partiers have been using these tactics for years, now, to effectively high-jack the government. But now suddenly that people on the Left want to have their voices heard, NOW you suddenly have such a problem with these tactics? How convenient.

[Grumman]

Taking this advice makes you a shitty demonstrator, a shitty American and a shitty human being. Shouting people down and deplatforming are tools to destroy free speech and useful discussion. The use of these tactics is illegitimate and everyone else knows it.

Why is it only the Left doing it that makes you mad? You have never voice any opposition to the tactics of the Tea Party that I can recall. Or the Bundys and the militias that I can recall.

The Tea Party didn't come here looking for recruits. The Left did.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If a Nazi gets shouted down with "NOPE! NO NO NO! Bad Nazi Bad! NO BISCUIT!" or someone like me singing music from Fiddler on the Roof, it humiliates them and makes them feel weak and powerless, which is exactly how they should feel. It is also effective.

It's only effective because they aren't Nazis. Not only does the strategy fail to distinguish between Nazis and non-Nazis, actual Nazis are the ones most capable of defending themselves against the strategy.

What? You think a Nazi is only a Nazi when they have uniformed Strumbateilung und Schutzstaffel? Nein. This is how you shut them down before they get those things. Nazis are very good at suppressing dissent when they have guns, they are very bad at it when they face social ostracism and ridicule.

I have people calling for me to lose everything. Everything I have fought for me entire adult life, including my legal right to exist. And suddenly, while you don't decry protest tactics including shouting people down from them, it is illegitimate when I use these tactics in political self-defense? And it is actual self-defense. These people would throw me in prison if they could, or worse.

But oh, I am so mean for singing Matchmaker from Fiddler On the Roof at that them. So very mean.

The Tea Party didn't come here looking for recruits. The Left did.

I don't know if you realize this, but you are the odd man out here. We collectively tolerate you.

Do not imagine how the side of Light and Good would use a tactic against the forces of Evil. Instead, consider how your worst enemy would use it against you, because if it becomes fair play, they will. If you deplatform your political opponents, don't be shocked if they gain power in spite of it, and then proceed to deplatform you.

They do it anyway. Whether I use that tactic informally or not. For years they (and here, we are being far more expansive than Nazis, but it applies to them even more) have done everything in their power to prevent gay people from holding positions of public trust, from adopting children, from being able to participate in society as equals, to prevent us from having actual liberty. They want to make it legal to inflict conversion therapy on us when we are minors. The First Amendment Defense Act (which will likely pass and be signed this year) strips us of all protections of civil society and leaves it up to the good will of individuals whether our marriages are honored by state government employees and hospitals, whether we will be served dinner, or get mental health care. Whether we get treatment in hospitals. Whether a probate judge honors the existence of our families. Hell, in many states, including the one I now live in, it is illegal to teach that being gay is OK in the public school system. In others, it is so bad that teachers risk censure for intervening in bullying against LGBT students.

If that is not deplatforming, I don't know what is.

And when it comes to Nazis... what the fuck value is there in letting a Nazi speak? We have been down that road before. Tens of millions died. They have nothing to say that is of any societal value. Nothing to say that has any merit. Nothing to say that is worth debating. Period. When you let them speak, the only thing can possibly come out of it is that they are allowed to increase in number. Authoritarians, Nazis included, don't operate on rational argument. They take advantage of people's fears, their petty prejudices, their insecurity and uncertainty in a changing world. They win when they can project power and social dominance, because humans are social animals that respond to that. They lose when they are portrayed as weak.

And let's not pretend that democracy will suddenly collapse if we don't let Nazis speak. Germany gets along just fine, and the Germans arrest their Nazis and throw them into prison. Shouting someone down or singing at them is also free expression. It is a form of rhetoric. Using it ipso facto does not violate principles of free speech.

So neither of you sit there and say "We cannot trust people to distinguish between Nazis and non-Nazis, but we WILL trust people to debate Nazis and be able to fend off their ideology and rhetoric". That is bullshit. The bar for one is much lower than the other, and you are pegging your trust to the higher bar while rejecting trust in the other.

[Flagg]

I don't know if you realize this, but you are the odd man out here. We collectively tolerate you.

Can we... Can we like, not? Because I'm willing to go Meyer Lansky with Lucille on these motherfucking swine. Swastikas make damned good bullseye's.

[Flagg]

Taking this advice makes you a shitty demonstrator, a shitty American and a shitty human being. Shouting people down and deplatforming are tools to destroy free speech and useful discussion. The use of these tactics is illegitimate and everyone else knows it.

Why is it only the Left doing it that makes you mad? You have never voice any opposition to the tactics of the Tea Party that I can recall. Or the Bundys and the militias that I can recall.

Do not imagine how the side of Light and Good would use a tactic against the forces of Evil. Instead, consider how your worst enemy would use it against you, because if it becomes fair play, they will. If you deplatform your political opponents, don't be shocked if they gain power in spite of it, and then proceed to deplatform you.

Why are you acting like this is hypothetical? The deplatforming of the Left, the LGBT, etc. has ALREADY HAPPENED. Tea Partiers have been using these tactics for years, now, to effectively high-jack the government. But now suddenly that people on the Left want to have their voices heard, NOW you suddenly have such a problem with these tactics? How convenient.

Pay no attention to the man with the stupid mustache behind the keyboard.

[Aether]

And let's not pretend that democracy will suddenly collapse if we don't let Nazis speak. Germany gets along just fine, and the Germans arrest their Nazis and throw them into prison.

Uhhh....Germany's highest court rejected a bid to ban the National Democratic Party.

Shouting someone down or singing at them is also free expression. It is a form of rhetoric. Using it ipso facto does not violate principles of free speech.

True, but it's simply bad form and doesn't do anything except make yourself feel better. There are those who say that if you allow [a Nazi] to speak, then you lend credence to their ideology. Others will argue that by allowing them to speak, people will see how ridiculous their philosophy actually is. You cannot shout down an idea, you are simply pushing it away to some other area out of your sight which accomplishes what, exactly?

There are plenty of groups and philosophies that are repugnant, and I can respect (although I disagree in execution) a person if they are consistent in their approach. It's childish, small, and contemptuous to single out only one grotesque philosophy for the sake of being a modern day Pharisee. I am not saying that YOU are doing this, I am speaking in general. A similar thread popped up on my FB feed from some of my very liberal friends.

My greater point is, how do you draw the boundaries of your box? Are you only singling out Nazism? If so, why? What is acceptable to push back against Nazism? Is punching someone who is simply a Nazi ok (Richard Spencer at Trump's Inauguration)?

The Racist Tree sums up my view on the matter, and so does Accidental Courtesy.

[Flagg]

And let's not pretend that democracy will suddenly collapse if we don't let Nazis speak. Germany gets along just fine, and the Germans arrest their Nazis and throw them into prison.

Uhhh....Germany's highest court rejected a bid to ban the National Democratic Party.

Shouting someone down or singing at them is also free expression. It is a form of rhetoric. Using it ipso facto does not violate principles of free speech.

True, but it's simply bad form and doesn't do anything except make yourself feel better. There are those who say that if you allow [a Nazi] to speak, then you lend credence to their ideology. Others will argue that by allowing them to speak, people will see how ridiculous their philosophy actually is. You cannot shout down an idea, you are simply pushing it away to some other area out of your sight which accomplishes what, exactly?

There are plenty of groups and philosophies that are repugnant, and I can respect (although I disagree in execution) a person if they are consistent in their approach. It's childish, small, and contemptuous to single out only one grotesque philosophy for the sake of being a modern day Pharisee. I am not saying that YOU are doing this, I am speaking in general. A similar thread popped up on my FB feed from some of my very liberal friends.

My greater point is, how do you draw the boundaries of your box? Are you only singling out Nazism? If so, why? What is acceptable to push back against Nazism? Is punching someone who is simply a Nazi ok (Richard Spencer at Trump's Inauguration)?

The Racist Tree sums up my view on the matter, and so does Accidental Courtesy.

A ban should be placed on any speech that advocates restricting the rights of any condition one is born with. Pretty fucking simple. Pretty fucking effective. Pretty fucking necessesary since America's appendix has burst and all the infected fecal matter disguised as human beings is making the country septic.

[Ralin]

They have nothing worthwhile to say, and being shouted down and deplatforming someone DOES NOT VIOLATE FREE SPEECH. Period. Free Speech is protection from government censorship. Not your fellow citizens telling you to shut the fuck up--because that is free speech too.

So, are you okay with being fired for being a feminist? How about if a group on campus arranged to attend any event where you talked about some ecology thing and collectively made so much noise it was impossible for you to speak and be heard. Because last I checked we do have laws against things like that, and if they apply to you they apply to everyone.

[Alyrium Denryle]

They have nothing worthwhile to say, and being shouted down and deplatforming someone DOES NOT VIOLATE FREE SPEECH. Period. Free Speech is protection from government censorship. Not your fellow citizens telling you to shut the fuck up--because that is free speech too.

So, are you okay with being fired for being a feminist? How about if a group on campus arranged to attend any event where you talked about some ecology thing and collectively made so much noise it was impossible for you to speak and be heard. Because last I checked we do have laws against things like that, and if they apply to you they apply to everyone.

It doesn't happen. If someone fires me for being a feminist:

1) There is legal recourse

2) Being a feminist is not so far outside social norms (it is well-within them these days) that such things would happen

3) Do I really want to work for someone who would fire me for being a feminist? No.

If I were in a private space giving a talk, let them. I have acoustic amplification. If that does not work, they are trespassing and there are other forms of recourse. Even if there were not, I would not like it, but my right to freedom of speech is not being violated.

There, they just scum on the merits.

In a public space, such as on a street corner, or the courtyard outside of a student union? Pfffft. Whatever. That is Tuesday. OH NO! A shouting match on a street corner, quick! Someone's rights are being violated!

[Ralin]

1) There is legal recourse

And that same legal recourse must be available to Nazis and any other political opinion

2) Being a feminist is not so far outside social norms (it is well-within them these days) that such things would happen

Free speech is dependent on how normal the opinions behind it are? Good to know.

3) Do I really want to work for someone who would fire me for being a feminist? No.

Oh, I guess we don't really need all those laws against religious discrimination in the workplace either, because why would a Muslim or a Jew want to work for someone who would hire them for being a Muslim or a Jew?

If I were in a private space giving a talk, let them. I have acoustic amplification. If that does not work, they are trespassing and there are other forms of recourse.

And harassing Nazis (or anyone else) at a similar event is different how?

Even if there were not, I would not like it, but my right to freedom of speech is not being violated.

Yeah, no. If someone can be shouted down, fired, harassed etc for legally expressing their opinions then they don't have freedom of speech in any meaningful sense.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And that same legal recourse must be available to Nazis and any other political opinion

Which is fine. I don't object to that.

I am not advocating that they should be stripped of their legal rights and protections. Only that treating them like crap on a personal level is perfectly ethically acceptable, because they are garbage people who want to commit genocide. Free speech does not mean consequence-free speech. Just because the government won't censor you, does not mean that the society in which you live will not censure you.

The difference between censor and censure is lost upon you. I understand. They are not exactly homophones but they are close enough that idiots can lose the distinction.

Free speech is dependent on how normal the opinions behind it are? Good to know.

Basic literacy is not one of your strong suits.

Employers have pretty wide latitude for firing people for what they do in public on, say, social media. If a manager at a grocery store goes into a racist rant on twitter, their employer is likely to fire them, because being a racist is something that is socially unacceptable and it damages their brand etc.

Being a feminist is not such a thing. That is just a matter of empirical fact. No other principles need be involved.

Oh, I guess we don't really need all those laws against religious discrimination in the workplace either, because why would a Muslim or a Jew want to work for someone who would hire them for being a Muslim or a Jew?

That is my personal outlook.

My father and I mutually disowned eachother when I came out of the closet. I have a cantankerous personality when it comes to this sort of thing. I would certainly sue my employer for discrimination if, for instance, they discriminated against me. But would I want my job back? No.

Those laws dont protect people from discrimination (it is very difficult to prove in court), they impose a cost on discrimination in the rare instances in which it can be proved.

And harassing Nazis (or anyone else) at a similar event is different how?

It isn't. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. My argument is that freedom of speech goes in two directions and can include shouting someone down or mocking them as a rhetorical technique (and can include simply not giving them a public platform upon which to speak, such as a university lecture hall. Any given speaker is not entitled to that space, it is opened up as an activity, and the speakers are curated. No one is entitled to that). At no point have I made the argument that I am somehow immune to this as well.

That is a strawman you decided to build and then set on fire.

Yeah, no. If someone can be shouted down, fired, harassed etc for legally expressing their opinions then they don't have freedom of speech in any meaningful sense.

Why not? Shouting someone down is an argument in the street. It happens all the damn time under circumstances far more prosaic than this.

Do you object if a police officer gets fired for a racist or otherwise bigoted rant on twitter? I would hazzard not, but do you? What about the private sector?

Harassment is not acceptable generally. Telling someone to shut the fuck up or singing at them is a bit different from leaving dogshit on their door, swatting them or something like that. There are limits.

[Simon_Jester]

When people talk about singing to drown out Nazis...

I always think of Casablanca.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTsg9i6lvqU

Good luck convincing me that was unjustified harassment of those poor, poor German occupation troops.

[madd0ct0r]

Free speech means the right to speak.
It does not mean the right to be believed
It does not mean the right to be listened too
It does mean the right to have an opinion, but not to be protected from society's opinion of you.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The Tea Party didn't come here looking for recruits. The Left did.

What are you even talking about? Where is "here"? Who is being recruited? What does this even have to do with what we are talking about?

Do you honestly think that this is any way addresses the question I asked you, or are you just being a dishonest troll per usual?

So, again, I ask you: why are the actions you have no qualms about the Tea Party or the militias or other right-wing groups committing suddenly so horrible now that the Left is doing them?

[Grumman]

The Tea Party didn't come here looking for recruits. The Left did.

What are you even talking about? Where is "here"? Who is being recruited? What does this even have to do with what we are talking about?

Read the title. SolarpunkFan started this thread because he wanted people on this forum to use the tactics in the link he posted, for the cause he supports. Do you dispute this?

So, again, I ask you: why are the actions you have no qualms about the Tea Party or the militias or other right-wing groups committing suddenly so horrible now that the Left is doing them?

There are many reasons why you shouldn't be trying to make an issue out of this, but if you won't accept that first one, here's some more:

- I'm not a member of the Tea Party and have no obligation to answer for their actions;
- The Tea Party was formed three years before I joined this forum, so any thread about them using these tactics would have been dead and buried by the time I was in a position to comment;
- Whataboutism is a cretin's excuse - I don't care if the Tea Party, or the Bundys, or Bush are shit, I want the Left to be better than they are.

Now stop being a fucking idiot.