I mean ultimately destroying useful government property doesn’t punish the government, because it’s going to be rebuilt/replaced out of taxpayer money.
You have no idea what protest is about then. When you have nothing and capital is entirely owned by someone else, you can burn your city and lose nothing. Peaceful protests are by definition useless and only Americans think it works.
Go burn the mansions of the billionaires then, sink their yachts. Why burn down your own history? It’s like shooting yourself in the foot because you are mad. How the hell does that change anything?
Exactly, pointless conserving if you have nothing to conserve.
Secondly gov’s, everywhere has shut down the avenues and options to complaint and peaceful protest have been minimised to stuff like fill in an online petition. Its not even appeasement at this stage.
They have ignored the voice of reason, so that voice is now back and looking to burn everything to the ground to get attention.
Peaceful protests are by definition useless and only Americans think it works.
Hell no? Nonviolence—properly planned, properly utilized nonviolence in the appropriate conditions—does work. The classic (good) examples here are Gandhi and MLK, but they’re are far from the only ones. What doesn’t work is American style cargo cult “protests” that reproduce the appearance of protest without having an actual theory of victory. This article does a great job explaining this.
2 examples that only worked thanks to being the alternative to other violent movements. Gandhi in particular also got a lot of people killed in his “peaceful” crusade, and did nothing about it.
I mean diversity of tactics is important; in practice many successful movements are going to have violent and peaceful wings (or one wing that does both, e.g. the US labor movement), both of which meaningfully contribute to the end result. That doesn’t mean the peaceful wing is useless or toothless; peaceful movements have options for escalation up to and including a general strike.
Right there with you, dude. I read history for fun and there are many, many things I learned just through self-educating that I know were deliberately censored by our public education system.
Protesting is fine. Destroying beautiful places like this is a serious loss
Do not fuck with your citizens then
Still don’ doesn’t excuse it
I mean ultimately destroying useful government property doesn’t punish the government, because it’s going to be rebuilt/replaced out of taxpayer money.
You really don’t understand the French.
If they raise taxes because of this, the next one will burn as well.
The French definitely have guts, but you’re overselling it. They keep protesting yet the retirement age keeps going up, for instance.
It may be going up but it’s still way below EU average. Their neighbors in Germany and Belgium retire at 67.
Yup. They aren’t the smartest.
Burn down a office tower or something then, not a beautiful historic building.
This is the main point. The French do not fuck around.
You have no idea what protest is about then. When you have nothing and capital is entirely owned by someone else, you can burn your city and lose nothing. Peaceful protests are by definition useless and only Americans think it works.
Go burn the mansions of the billionaires then, sink their yachts. Why burn down your own history? It’s like shooting yourself in the foot because you are mad. How the hell does that change anything?
Exactly, pointless conserving if you have nothing to conserve.
Secondly gov’s, everywhere has shut down the avenues and options to complaint and peaceful protest have been minimised to stuff like fill in an online petition. Its not even appeasement at this stage. They have ignored the voice of reason, so that voice is now back and looking to burn everything to the ground to get attention.
Hell no? Nonviolence—properly planned, properly utilized nonviolence in the appropriate conditions—does work. The classic (good) examples here are Gandhi and MLK, but they’re are far from the only ones. What doesn’t work is American style cargo cult “protests” that reproduce the appearance of protest without having an actual theory of victory. This article does a great job explaining this.
MLK achieved the lame duck of the 64 civil rights act, the 68 one with actual rights in it came after every city in the US rioted for 9 days straight.
2 examples that only worked thanks to being the alternative to other violent movements. Gandhi in particular also got a lot of people killed in his “peaceful” crusade, and did nothing about it.
I mean diversity of tactics is important; in practice many successful movements are going to have violent and peaceful wings (or one wing that does both, e.g. the US labor movement), both of which meaningfully contribute to the end result. That doesn’t mean the peaceful wing is useless or toothless; peaceful movements have options for escalation up to and including a general strike.
In our defense, Americans are only TAUGHT that peaceful protest is the only viable way.
Our schools don’t teach about the Battle of Blair Mountain, or Haymarket Square, or the Deacons for Defense, etc. etc. etc.
I’m sure it has to do with your education but I find it dangerous how it makes the average american allergic to non-cosmetic protests.
Right there with you, dude. I read history for fun and there are many, many things I learned just through self-educating that I know were deliberately censored by our public education system.