124
submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/sneerclub@awful.systems
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

This passage from the above-linked lw post from the "stone age billionaire" guy about how counter-protestors tried to prevent them from speaking is really telling:

Then my friend Ben realized that this is a giant game of “I’m not touching you” for adults. Which is the stupidest dang thing IMO, but is pretty symetrical. A few of us just stood close together in a line, and we moved the speeches to the other side of that line. The counter-protestors would have to walk through us to block that speech, and we just didn’t move. When they tried to go around us we shifted to be in front of them. And they couldn’t actually touch us because that was against the rules, so this worked?

I thought we all understood at this point that baiting your enemies into violence was one of the operating principles behind a lot of protests like this. Maybe not as a primary goal (unless you're the Westboro Bastard Church trying to get ammunition for lawsuits against the host city for failing to adequately protect you from the consequences of your own actions) but historically speaking violent repression isn't exactly a failure state for these events. One of the biggest victories for civil disobedience was putting the violent absurdity of segregation on full display by getting massive crackdowns on them for sitting in a restaurant, for example. Making the implicit violence of injustice explicit changes the emotional valence and makes it harder for John Q Public to justify actively supporting it. If you don't have enough mass support to implicitly threaten to do something (i.e. look at all these people who will cause problems if not recognized) then arguably being repressed is an even more significant goal because showing that "about two-dozen kooks believe something" isn't exactly going to mobilize social change on its own and it's not like billionaires care about solidarity with the hoi polloi.

But considering the absolute bafflement on display about counterprotests being willing to rudely inconvenience them it really feels like they understood that sometimes people who believe things will do this thing called a "protest" where they get together and chant slogans and wave signs and have a grand old time, but had no coherent idea of why and never really thought to ask.

[-] maol@awful.systems 4 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

The problem for them is that the cops are actually the army of the rich and state and national government is controlled by billionaire lickers. They could go to DSA meetings and picket, but at best they could get a DSA member to be rude to them and then complain about it.

this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2026
124 points (96.3% liked)

SneerClub

1232 readers
14 users here now

Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.

AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)

This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.

[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]

See our twin at Reddit

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS