United States Politics Thread 46

[Raphael]

(About to post one small addition to the Guardian sub-discussion over in the British Politics thread.)

(Edit: done. https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?p=69761#p69761 )

[Linguoboy]

I expect most of us on this board (not all of us, but a solid majority) have no direct experience with sexism, racism, and so on as a target, and of course none of us are perpetrators.

I can't tell if that last statement is actually serious or not, but I've definitely perpetrated sexism and racism and--despite my best efforts--continue to do so. Moreover, I've seen this, to various degrees, from most if not all the participants in this discussion.

Maybe try to care less about whether people your privilege allows you to avoid interacting with are saying things about you you think are mean and unfair and worry more about not actually contributing to the ills they're complaining about? How about that for an approach?

I also broadly agree with Torco about the "not playing into the hands of fascists" arguments. To me, it feels a lot like tone policing coupled with some kind of mistaken idealism. There is no perfect needle-threading strategy that gets you the support of the angry activists who actually drive social change without producing anything that bad actors can exploit. Continuing to maintain that there is is counterproductive at best and at its worst (dare I say it?) "plays into the hands of fascists".

[Travis B.]

I expect most of us on this board (not all of us, but a solid majority) have no direct experience with sexism, racism, and so on as a target, and of course none of us are perpetrators.

I can't tell if that last statement is actually serious or not, but I've definitely perpetrated sexism and racism and--despite my best efforts--continue to do so. Moreover, I've seen this, to various degrees, from most if not all the participants in this discussion.

It is one thing to have reflexive racist, sexist, or like feelings, it is even one thing to allow them to subtly influence ones actions despite one's best efforts, but it is another thing to deliberately perpetrate injustice based upon them. There is a difference between these things.

I also broadly agree with Torco about the "not playing into the hands of fascists" arguments. To me, it feels a lot like tone policing coupled with some kind of mistaken idealism. There is no perfect needle-threading strategy that gets you the support of the angry activists who actually drive social change without producing anything that bad actors can exploit. Continuing to maintain that there is is counterproductive at best and at its worst (dare I say it?) "plays into the hands of fascists".

To me complaining about "tone policing" is in many cases justifying very poor political strategy on the basis of that people who are angry ought to be allowed to act angry in whatever fashion they so wish and saying that it is wrong to insist on political strategies that actually help one's cause, all because us privileged people have no right to criticize less privileged people and especially angry less privileged people.

A good example of them is in cases of rioting that arose from the George Floyd protests - there were those who insisted that it was "tone policing" to criticize the rioters that there actually were, in a limited number of cases, for, well, rioting (which of course in itself served no useful political goals), which of course was counterproductive because it allowed the right to paint the (largely peaceful when the police aren't counted) George Floyd protests as a bunch of violent rioting for its own sake. Then all the protests were slandered as a bunch of violent riots when they in the vast majority of cases were not.

[Torco]

but protests, violent or not, are very good and effective praxis^TM.

[Travis B.]

but protests, violent or not, are very good and effective praxis^TM.

The key thing about the rioting that made it poor propaganda was when it in many cases targeted things like shops that in many cases were owned and run by people who can be described as petty bourgeois at the very most. People may not sympathize too much with the capitalists when it is a Starbucks that has its windows smashed in, but when it is an immigrant-run small shop which is ransacked people tend to sympathize with the shopowner and not with the protestors.

[Torco]

sure, but like... do we abandon prostesting? this is my original point! if we don't do anything the fash don't like, well, we may as well join them or limit our praxis to, I don't know, peer-reviewed articles or something.

[Travis B.]

sure, but like... do we abandon prostesting? this is my original point! if we don't do anything the fash don't like, well, we may as well join them or limit our praxis to, I don't know, peer-reviewed articles or something.

Umm... in the case of the George Floyd protests, the vast majority of protestors weren't ransacking shops.

[Torco]

as in every other protest I've been a part of. point is, those things happen in protests, for a number of reasons: some of them are that the police criminalize the protest almost immediately, unless it's a right-wing protest, in which case they don't. And when you criminalize protests, the cops are not doing their job of preventing crime but, rather, they're fighting the protest itself: this means that if you're into ransacking shops, this is the perfect opportunity for a good ransacking. in a sane world, there'd be cops marching alongside the protest, policing people and stopping the dudes who, say, ransack a shop: but that's not the world.

Also, destruction of public property is very often just done in the people's self defense: lightpoles and whatever are broken and used to set up barricades, so that armored police vehicles can't just steamroll the protest and run over the old ladies demanding better pensions etcetera.

and like, sure, we shoud be for protest but against protestors ransacking uncle bob's liquor store or whatever: but ultimately what's more important, huh? the fash and the bougies are going to put all cameras in that one tea store that got graffitied and not on the half a million people marching peacefully anyway.

[Travis B.]

The key thing is that when you bring out the "tone policing" phrase, in the case of protests, you in effect are defending those who do do things like ransack immigrants' shops, and in turn you are marrying your own position to them. Yes, people do exploit protests for their own purposes, as if one wants to ransack shops they do often provide the opportunity to do so for the reasons you specify, but we certainly should not be defending their doing so, which is what complaining about "tone policing" is precisely doing. Rather, we should be loudly denouncing them and making it clear that they have nothing to do with the actual protests and their goals.

[Torco]

na. I'm not pro ransacking shops, that would be illegal and I would never advocate anything illegal (please mister CIA man don't tag me) but to let a massive protest be *about* the actions of six or seven dudes who do some crime is, well, kind of exactly playing in the hands of the fascists. better to acknowledge it and move on. crimes are not the fault of the protestors, and they don't marr the whole of the protest: crime is the problem of the cops who we're paying to stop crime -and not to repress the people's freedom of speech: don't you think if the cops were doing their jobs they would have been able to stop those crimes? well, then i hope they do better next time: now, about those pensions the 500k people were protesting for...

[Linguoboy]

It is one thing to have reflexive racist, sexist, or like feelings, it is even one thing to allow them to subtly influence ones actions despite one's best efforts, but it is another thing to deliberately perpetrate injustice based upon them. There is a difference between these things.

Not to the person experiencing the racism, sexism, etc.

It wouldn't matter to me at all if every one of the many health care workers who discriminated against me and my husband during his long terminal illness didn't mean too. We still received inadequate care because of people's homophobia, "reflexive" and otherwise.

To me complaining about "tone policing" is in many cases justifying very poor political strategy on the basis of that people who are angry ought to be allowed to act angry in whatever fashion they so wish and saying that it is wrong to insist on political strategies that actually help one's cause, all because us privileged people have no right to criticize less privileged people and especially angry less privileged people.

So far I haven't really been impressed with you as a source of effect political strategies, so I'm not sure why I should value your opinions in this area.

Take this for instance:

A good example of them is in cases of rioting that arose from the George Floyd protests - there were those who insisted that it was "tone policing" to criticize the rioters that there actually were, in a limited number of cases, for, well, rioting (which of course in itself served no useful political goals), which of course was counterproductive because it allowed the right to paint the (largely peaceful when the police aren't counted) George Floyd protests as a bunch of violent rioting for its own sake. Then all the protests were slandered as a bunch of violent riots when they in the vast majority of cases were not.

This strikes me as a poor analysis of the George Floyd protests and of US policing in general. As Torco says, if the police don't agree with your protest (and--as I think we can all agree--the police in North America at least are largely fascist in orientation) they will do basically everything they can to provoke you to violence so they can use this circularly to justify their violent response, not to mention their bloated budgets and insane stockpiles of military hardware. I guess in your ideal world all protestors are perfect Gandhis who just sing Crosby, Stills, and Nash while they're shoved, teargassed, kettled, driven into, beaten, and worse because any resistance plays into the narrative that rightwingers are going to believe despite any evidence to the contrary anyway.

When it comes to the George Floyd protests, there's actually proof that some of the most violent "protesters" were actually right-wing provocateurs or even undercover police intent on helping authorities discredit protests. I'm sure you've heard of "Umbrella Man" but he wasn't the only example. Despite the fact that some of these accelerationists were arrested and prosecuted, it had no effect that I can see on the right-wing narrative that "antifa" was to blame for any and all violence. So between fascist cops, accelerationists and other right-wing agents provocateurs, and opportunists who just want to steal stuff or see cities burn, there is always going to be "rioting" at anti-racist protests; insisting on some perfect standard of leftist pacifism is a dead-end strategy.

Instead we should be ignoring rightwing histrionics and concentrating on bringing the focus back to the underlying message. You can see an example of this strategy from Brandon Johnson, who's weathering his first strong challenge as Mayor of Chicago before even taking office. He issued a statement on violent activity in the Loop weekend before last and right-wing media immediately tried to paint him as "making excuses" and "condoning violence". But fuck them; 55% of Chicago voters don't agree, which is why Johson is Mayor-Elect and not Vallas. Johnson has support for his approach from the City Council, State's Attorney, and others and starting next month he'll roll it out.

He'll have an uphill battle given that the CPD have basically declared war on him. (There's already an investigation underway into accusations that police stood by and failed to intervene, presumably as a foretaste of what's to come.) It may well get more violent in Chicago before it gets better, since Johnson's initiatives will take time to bear fruit. But I don't see where in all this giving a damn about what the WSJ, Fox, DeSantis, etc. chooses to say about the situation gets us one inch closer to our goal of defunding the police and eliminating poverty and discrimination.

[Travis B.]

I very recognize the fact that much violence by protestors is a reaction to violence by police. I was not referring to that. Rather I was referring to defending people who do things like ransack immigrants' shops or burn random individuals' cars that just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time by referring to criticism of it as "tone policing". And this seems even worse in cases where this is being committed by right-wing agents provocateurs and accelerationists, because in essence you are then defending the enemies of the movement and marrying yourself to their actions, and that is precisely what they want you to do - if you defend them, i.e. treat them as being the actions of genuinely angry people who have a right to act on their anger violently, rather than loudly expose them for being the agents provocateurs and accelerationists they are, aren't they going to do so more?

[Ares Land]

I expect most of us on this board (not all of us, but a solid majority) have no direct experience with sexism, racism, and so on as a target, and of course none of us are perpetrators.

I can't tell if that last statement is actually serious or not, but I've definitely perpetrated sexism and racism and--despite my best efforts--continue to do so. Moreover, I've seen this, to various degrees, from most if not all the participants in this discussion.

You may be a bit too hard on yourself. I'd be really surprised to hear you denied a job or housing, on the basis of race, or denied promotion on grounds of gender, or even disparaged female colleagues at the water cooler.
What I mean is that I assume that everyone here, while none of us are angels (who are?), are doing their best.

My main point is, though, most (not all) people here do not know how bad things can get. Which is relevant to the matter at hand: 'men is trash' is easier to understand as a slogan if you know how things can get (and routinely do) for women.

Maybe try to care less about whether people your privilege allows you to avoid interacting with are saying things about you you think are mean and unfair and worry more about not actually contributing to the ills they're complaining about? How about that for an approach?

That's kind of a strawman, but maybe I wasn't clear enough because that's exactly the kind of approach I'm advocating for.

The key thing is that when you bring out the "tone policing" phrase, in the case of protests, you in effect are defending those who do do things like ransack immigrants' shops, and in turn you are marrying your own position to them. Yes, people do exploit protests for their own purposes, as if one wants to ransack shops they do often provide the opportunity to do so for the reasons you specify, but we certainly should not be defending their doing so, which is what complaining about "tone policing" is precisely doing. Rather, we should be loudly denouncing them and making it clear that they have nothing to do with the actual protests and their goals.

Here in France protests are a deep cultural thing, and they 100% work. They don't achieve all of their stated goals, but they certainly achieve some of them.

Precisely because they work, a lot of the media coverage is about whatever damage was done. It doesn't matter what the protest is about, how peaceful the protesters were (they largely are), how violent the police was (violent, and growing even more worryingly violent), the media coverage is all about the broken window, or the trashcan that was set on fire.
A few years back I might have felt some sympathy for the shop owners, but by now the tactic is extremely obvious, and I am not walking into it anymore.

[Torco]

but let's look at how these things function: people protest, fascists provoke violence, six dudes ransack a tea shop, and then the coverage is all about the poor tea shop owner blablabla. Then when leftists go "okay, but what about the protest tho, what about the pensions, what about the old people who are starving" (or the race stuff i don't know whatever the protest was about). but we shout this into the wind, the journos and the fascists just ignore it and keep shouting BUT THE VIOLENCE LOOK AT THE VIOLENCE WILL YOU CONDEMN THE VIOLENCE VIOLENCE VIOLENCE LOOK VIOLENCE ONE GUY THREW A ROCK SO THIS PROTEST WAS ALL VIOLENCE CONDEMN THE PROTESTOR'S VIOLENCE THIS INSTANT OR YOU'RE A TERRORIST.

and then to make things worse, misguided leftists go "YEAH DOWN WITH VIOLENCE I CONDEMN THE VIOLENCE LOUDLY AND TOTALLY VIOLENCE IS BAD, FUCK THE PROTESTORS THIS ISN'T THE WAY TO DO THINGS". while the old ladies keep starving, or the black dudes keep getting executed in the streets or whatever. and *that's* what leftos call tone policing: it's ultimately collaborating with the right-wing psyop to discredit any and all protests in the name of "condemning violence" and civility. like, I don't know, black people are getting murdered and you want to contribute to "condemning the violence" of the people protesting against that? and yeah, what if the people protesting extrajudicial killings of black people by the police <or grannies starving> get a bit miffed and burn down a park bench or a trash can, huh?

ultimately, it's not so much about the content, yes bob the tea shop guy didn't deserve his shop front getting graffitied or whatever, but that doesn't mean we should joint up with, again, a concerted psyop to discredit all protest as evil. besides, bob the tea shop guy benefits greatly from his shop being in the sort of places riots and protests happen, so he really should have taken out insurance against it. and, anyway, his shop is not the most important thing that happened in protest day, considering the starving grannies and the two hundred people who got gassed, shot at, and/or tortured after being detained, see?

[Ares Land]

ultimately, it's not so much about the content, yes bob the tea shop guy didn't deserve his shop front getting graffitied or whatever, but that doesn't mean we should joint up with, again, a concerted psyop to discredit all protest as evil. besides, bob the tea shop guy benefits greatly from his shop being in the sort of places riots and protests happen, so he really should have taken out insurance against it. and, anyway, his shop is not the most important thing that happened in protest day, considering the starving grannies and the two hundred people who got gassed, shot at, and/or tortured after being detained, see?

That exactly. Also, in my experience, and given how TV works... 90% of the time bob's shop is fine.

[Travis B.]

The key thing is that when you bring out the "tone policing" phrase, in the case of protests, you in effect are defending those who do do things like ransack immigrants' shops, and in turn you are marrying your own position to them. Yes, people do exploit protests for their own purposes, as if one wants to ransack shops they do often provide the opportunity to do so for the reasons you specify, but we certainly should not be defending their doing so, which is what complaining about "tone policing" is precisely doing. Rather, we should be loudly denouncing them and making it clear that they have nothing to do with the actual protests and their goals.

Here in France protests are a deep cultural thing, and they 100% work. They don't achieve all of their stated goals, but they certainly achieve some of them.

Precisely because they work, a lot of the media coverage is about whatever damage was done. It doesn't matter what the protest is about, how peaceful the protesters were (they largely are), how violent the police was (violent, and growing even more worryingly violent), the media coverage is all about the broken window, or the trashcan that was set on fire.
A few years back I might have felt some sympathy for the shop owners, but by now the tactic is extremely obvious, and I am not walking into it anymore.

This misses my point, which is that is that responding to criticism of violence or damage done by protestors by crying out "tone policing!" only hurts your own cause. Sure, the media will focus on violence and damage done by protestors (or agents provocateurs or accelerationists pretending to be protestors, or other people just taking advantage of protests for their own purposes), if given the chance, but invoking "tone policing!" only strengthens one's enemies' propaganda, because it will allow them to say that you are defending the violence and destruction - which is precisely what they want.

[Travis B.]

Geez, I don't think you guys are actually seeing what I am saying. What I am saying is that invoking "tone policing" is strategically counterproductive. Yes, in protests there will be violence and destruction, in a very large part because of the police themselves, and often also because of agents provocateurs too. Strategically one is best off doing as much as one can to emphasize this. But when people do happen to ransack shops or burn cars or like, while one in many cases cannot necessarily avoid this, particularly because it oftentimes is committed by agents provocateurs and likes themselves, one should not defend it, and effectively defend the actions of agents provocateurs and likes themselves - and invoking "tone policing" is doing just this. Defending such actions is precisely what those who commit them want you to do, because they will strengthen their own propaganda, by making it easier for the imagery of violence and destruction that is shown in the media to be pinned on you.

[Torco]

but if you go along with it you *also* play into the enemy's hands, by joining the psyop. It's a wargames thing, the only right move is not to play (the game of 'condemning the violence'). I agree with you that one should not *defend* it if, like, interviewed by the TV or whatever, but what you don't seem to see is that one should also not accede to the tone-policing "condemn violence" dealio: the correct line is to refuse to make protest day about poor bob's window. it's about solidarity with the starving grannies.

mr CIA man pls no tag

More: show

Besides, and here I am perhaps more radical than others, don't we actually justify the (some, ofc) violence, to some degree? as a regrettable necessity at least ? like, violent protest *works*. the agent provocateurs are not 'pretending' to be protesting, a lot of them are sincere (and others are cops, sure). I think this is true in france and in the US as well, but here the violent minority of the protest *is* performing a useful and valuable function, because violence a) protects the mainstream protestors, i.e. the grannies who don't wish to starve but also don't wish to be run over by police tear-gas tanquettes, it b) actually does exert pressure on the rulers that if they want to keep their stable markets and whatever, they're gonna have to at least increase pensions a bit, so the grannies don't starve. it suggests a trade: you increase pensions or else i'm gonna decrease your fucking bottom line, bougie. it c) calls attention to the protest having happened (at least here, totally peaceful protests that disperse the moment the cops deploy gas do not, in fact, work). this thing about 'condemning violence' is always and forever in the interest of the ruling class, because when the cops shoot at our eyes that's not going to be framed as 'violence'.

like... wasn't the ancien regime's demise worth the bob's tea shop's marquée ?

[Ares Land]

This misses my point, which is that is that responding to criticism of violence or damage done by protestors by crying out "tone policing!" only hurts your own cause. Sure, the media will focus on violence and damage done by protestors (or agents provocateurs or accelerationists pretending to be protestors, or other people just taking advantage of protests for their own purposes), if given the chance, but invoking "tone policing!" only strengthens one's enemies' propaganda, because it will allow them to say that you are defending the violence and destruction - which is precisely what they want.

I've thought quite a bit about that sort of things in those past few years.

The thing is... right-wing propaganda is not based on reality in any way. It's complete fantasy with a few cherry-picked bits for flavour.
They will say you are defending the violence and destruction, no matter what you actually do.

There's nothing to be gained by conceding points to the American right-wing. These are not reasonable people.
(Surprisingly, that's also true of the French neoliberal, who I'd thought would be more reasonable. Not so. They're just as eager to make up things, in their own way.)

[Travis B.]

This misses my point, which is that is that responding to criticism of violence or damage done by protestors by crying out "tone policing!" only hurts your own cause. Sure, the media will focus on violence and damage done by protestors (or agents provocateurs or accelerationists pretending to be protestors, or other people just taking advantage of protests for their own purposes), if given the chance, but invoking "tone policing!" only strengthens one's enemies' propaganda, because it will allow them to say that you are defending the violence and destruction - which is precisely what they want.

I've thought quite a bit about that sort of things in those past few years.

The thing is... right-wing propaganda is not based on reality in any way. It's complete fantasy with a few cherry-picked bits for flavour.
They will say you are defending the violence and destruction, no matter what you actually do.

There's nothing to be gained by conceding points to the American right-wing. These are not reasonable people.
(Surprisingly, that's also true of the French neoliberal, who I'd thought would be more reasonable. Not so. They're just as eager to make up things, in their own way.)

The right will always be against you and make up propaganda against you if they cannot find anything real to base their propaganda on in the first place - but there is no need to help them with their propaganda.