[NEWS] Violent UC Berkeley riots force cancellation of Milo Yiannopoulos event

[beachbum111111]

Didn't India essentially become independent from peaceful protests?

[Ad Bot]

[LeisureSuit912]

Didn't India essentially become independent from peaceful protests?

America became independent from violent protests.

[beachbum111111]

America became independent from violent protests.

That didn't answer my question

[bloody jumper]

America became independent from violent protests.

Yeah, except we call it what it is, you idiot. A loving war.

[TristanLuigi]

America became independent from violent protests.

You're not wrong

Didn't India essentially become independent from peaceful protests?

Partially, but there was plenty of violence too. Er just tend to remember the peaceful ones because Gandhi.

Yeah, except we call it what it is, you idiot. A loving war.

Civil wars are just larger scale violent protests.

[SeventhSandwich]

America became independent from violent protests.

I don't necessarily agree with that. There were violent protests, but what ultimately mattered more was the peaceful spread of ideas about a government free from colonial rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense_(pamphlet)

Common Sense is a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine in 1775–76 advocating independence from Great Britain to people in the Thirteen Colonies. Written in clear and persuasive prose, Paine marshaled moral and political arguments to encourage common people in the Colonies to fight for egalitarian government. It was published anonymously on January 10, 1776, at the beginning of the American Revolution, and became an immediate sensation.

It was sold and distributed widely and read aloud at taverns and meeting places. In proportion to the population of the colonies at that time (2.5 million), it had the largest sale and circulation of any book published in American history. As of 2006, it remains the all-time best selling American title, and is still in print today.

[bloody jumper]

Civil wars are just larger scale violent protests.

They're nothing alike, in one two or three fatalities are the result. In the other, thousands die in the name of a cause.

[beachbum111111]

They're nothing alike, in one two or three fatalities are the result. In the other, thousands die in the name of a cause.

Plus I'm pretty sure in the American Revolution the colonists didn't destroy their own cities

[SeventhSandwich]

There's lots of differences between a violent protest and a war, but I'd say the biggest thing is that wars are often involuntary. We had basically no choice but to war against Britain for our independence. Protests, on the other hand, can always be peaceful and tend to work better that way.

[RedGajin]

Plus I'm pretty sure in the American Revolution the colonists didn't destroy their own cities

they sure did in the civil war tho lmao

[beachbum111111]

they sure did in the civil war tho lmao

Blame the south. Back when whites chimped out

[Insert Name Here²]

Destroying other people's stuff because you want to make a point, get noticed or make a change where peaceful protest wouldn't work is completely justified.

Yeah no it isn't. You have a right to peacefully protest as long as it doesn't infringe upon other people's rights. You don't have the right to protest via rioting which infringes upon's everyone's rights who is involved, and it breaks major laws as well.

[RedGajin]

Yeah no it isn't. You have a right to peacefully protest as long as it doesn't infringe upon other people's rights. You don't have the right to protest via rioting which infringes upon's everyone's rights who is involved, and it breaks major laws as well.

so if the jews protested violently against the national socialists it wouldnt have been ok..?

[SeventhSandwich]

so if the jews protested violently against the national socialists it wouldnt have been ok..?

That's not really brown townogous since the national socialists were actively trying to kill Jews. At that point it's self-defense and the term 'protest' no longer applies.

[Insert Name Here²]

so if the jews protested violently against the national socialists it wouldnt have been ok..?

I'm not talking about mass genocide nor the victims involved. I'm talking about situations like this, where violence is extremely unnecessary and also illegal as well.

Plus just like Seventh said

That's not really brown townogous since the national socialists were actively trying to kill Jews. At that point it's self-defense and the term 'protest' no longer applies.

In self defense, violence is justified. In protests where the only thing against you is opinion, it is not justified and it is also illegal to do so.