#violent protests

[jangillman]

Why isn't this traitorous little grub in handcuffs??!!

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

You’re Not Protesting Like Dr. King

For Dr. King, my uncle, protest wasn’t a moral stance alone—it was a strategy, a discipline, and a craft, writes Isaac Newton Farris Jr., To

By: Isaac Newton Farris Jr.

Published: Mar 24, 2026

For my uncle, protest wasn’t a moral stance alone—it was a strategy, a discipline, and a craft. Today, we’ve lost all three.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “The greatness of America is the right to protest for rights.” The freedom of assembly (protest) joins the freedom of speech, the freedom to petition, the freedom of the press, and the freedom of religion as the five essential freedoms granted to every American citizen. In the 20th century, it was the Civil Rights Movement’s nonviolent protests that finally made America a true democracy. Today, in the 21st century, it is violent protests that threaten to return it to autocracy.

Invoking Dr. King in any conversation about the act of protesting is appropriate because he is the Henry Ford of protesting. Of course, Ford did not invent the automobile, nor did Dr. King invent protesting. But Ford taught the world how to efficiently build a car by applying his assembly line idea to the process. Similarly, Dr. King taught Americans how to properly protest by applying his philosophy of nonviolence to the act of resistance.

The last few years have seen a potent number of protest movements sweep America: Black Lives Matter, the January 6 insurrection on Capitol Hill, the “Free Palestine” movement, the “No Kings” rallies, and the ongoing protests against the actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). All claimed to be acting in the great spirit and grand tradition of Dr. King. But the only thing these have in common with the protest demonstrations of the Civil Rights Movement is that they gathered a crowd of people together.

Black Lives Matter protests provoked property destruction. On January 6,, 2021, protesters attacked one of the seats of our government and temporarily shut down the certification of a national election. Pro-Palestinian protesters have seized campus buildings, scuffled with police, and physically stopped pro-Israel rallies. And many of us are aware of protesters committing vehicular attacks on ICE agents. These acts of resistance are anything but nonviolent.

The core principle of the Civil Rights Movement was voluntary conversion, never any compulsion or arm-twisting. Its protests were mounted as an appeal to the conscience and goodwill of both the protest target and the wider public. Protesters, never the protest targets, endured every consequence their demonstrations brought: physical assault, destruction of their property, restriction of movement, and imprisonment by law enforcement. For them, protest was a demonstration of their commitment to the cause; it was never a punishment of the people or institutions that were the protest’s target.

The core principle of today’s movements seems to be involuntary coercion and intimidation. Too often, they want to force others to adopt their perspective and support their cause by threat or physical attack. They seek to shut down any program, activity, or speech they disagree with.

[ A man poses in front of a burning auto parts store across from Minneapolis's 3rd Precinct during 2020 protests following George Floyd's death. ]

When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama, bus, she didn’t attempt to interfere with the bus driver or to stop any other passengers from sitting down where they chose. Her message was not If I can’t sit where I choose, I will stop the bus from operating. Her message was I am prepared to subject myself to physical abuse and arrest, offering no resistance, in order to exercise my right as a human being and an American citizen to choose to sit in any available empty bus seat.

When black college students first sat down at a Greensboro, North Carolina, lunch counter and refused to move until they were served or arrested, they purposely didn’t occupy all the empty seats available at the lunch counter. They knew not to prevent other customers from entering and conducting business in the store, because their protest message was not If blacks can’t buy lunch here, no one will be allowed to buy lunch or shop here. The message was We will not move from this lunch counter until served or arrested, because the color of one’s skin should not prevent someone from being served.

The Birmingham, Alabama, schoolchildren who participated in a march on city streets in 1963 were attacked by police dogs and sprayed with high-pressure fire hoses. The images shocked Americans. Yet, regardless of the morality of their cause, had these children been armed with guns, knives, and lead pipes to resist their attackers, American sentiment would have been Yes, the police needed the dogs and fire hoses to put down violent thugs with weapons. Instead, the students met violence with nonviolence. Their only intention was to resist racism and possibly sacrifice their lives for justice, freedom, and democracy. As a result, American sentiment was moved, and in 1964, the Civil Rights Act became the law of the land, which made America a true democracy for the first time in its history.

The Civil Rights protesters also avoided violent speech. Never would you have seen a Civil Rights protest sign that read “Death to the KKK.” Even when it came to one of America’s most notorious racists, never would you have heard a protest speaker say, “George Wallace should be condemned to hell.” The only messages Dr. King would allow printed on signs and heard in speeches at protests were positive and affirmative: “I too am a human being,” “I am an American citizen entitled to equal rights,” or “We shall overcome.” There was never any violent speech directed to or about the protest targets. Yet today’s protesters frequently abuse their opponents, call down retribution upon them, and praise acts of horrific violence.

A nonviolent protester’s goal is to create a minimum degree of discomfort or inconvenience to draw attention to the protest cause. But the discomfort or inconvenience should never exist to the point of preventing a college class, a public speech, or a legal arrest. It must never deny its opponent’s rights.

A successful nonviolent protest generates sympathy for the cause, and it requires planning. Dr. King would have never sent out a social media message to meet him in an hour for a protest; instead, he would have sent out a message to meet him in an hour to plan a protest. He never led a march, organized a boycott, or convened a rally without first addressing all the necessary logistical questions and contingencies. A proper site must be selected and, if necessary, permits applied for. Plans must be made to deal with counterprotesters and any other attempts to interfere with the protest and for how law enforcement should be dealt with if and when they show up. Most importantly, protest organizers must insist on nonviolent protesting and explain its meaning. As Dr. King wrote in his first book, Stride Toward Freedom, nonviolence is “a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love.”

Yet the passivity of the protester can only go so far. Denial of a permit does not mean a protest should not happen, because an act of civil disobedience or disobeying a denied protest permit can itself be a legitimate protest tactic. Dr. King’s famous “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” was written because he had been arrested for leading a march in defiance of a court order banning “racial demonstrations.” But attempting to obtain permission to protest is a necessary step along the Kingian path. Seeking permission to protest sends the message to all concerned that the intention is for the demonstration to be peaceful. Such a message could determine if the police or security forces show up wearing riot gear or their normal uniforms.

When pro-Palestinian students and activists took over Hamilton Hall on Columbia University’s campus in 2024, the spectacle drew the worst possible attention to the cause. The students caused damage to the building by breaking its windows and using its furniture to barricade themselves inside. Occupying a campus building to focus attention on a protest cause can be a legitimate protest tactic. But truly effective protest requires that no property is destroyed to facilitate the protest. Protesters can plan to use their bodies en masse as an obstacle to prevent entering or reoccupying the building. And they should never resist arrest—in 1968, when nonviolent protesters occupied the same Columbia University building, they did not resist removal.

But the way that pro-Palestinian college students occupied a Columbia University campus building in 2024, the way some BLM protests turned to property destruction, the way protesters violently invaded Capitol Hill on January 6, and the way some protesters impede ICE from doing their job is to adopt the means of tyranny and autocracy. Ironically, these protesters see themselves as genuinely resisting tyranny, but by doing so violently, they make their causes deeply unsympathetic. As Dr. King wrote in 1967, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness: Only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: Only love can do that. The beauty of nonviolence is that in its own way and in its own time it seeks to break the chain reaction of evil.”

American democracy cannot survive without the right to protest. Yet in the 21st century, 23 states have enacted at least 55 laws to limit how people can exercise their constitutional right to protest. Protesting in the way of Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights activists he led is the way to protect one of America’s greatest rights, the right to protest for rights. If a just protest is to succeed, its advocates must walk in Dr. King’s footsteps.

==

All anyone can or should think is, these violent, dangerous animals don't belong in our society so why should we give them what they want?

[bamm072]

[kaiofhobbiton]

Kinda stupid take on what’s going on rn as I perceive it but I have a genuine question

I genuinely don’t understand this whole “violent vs nonviolent protesting” thing, especially in the case of retaliation against ICE. Like.. why are you limiting yourself to just one? I don’t think nonviolent protest is meant to take down the oppressor on its own, but meant to show the people how the administration reacts to nonviolent “provocation” with acts of violence and desperate grasps at control, which will break some illusions by showing that their power really is challenged by resistance, showing the people who are standing idly by thinking “well there’s nothing *I* can do about it” that they CAN change the conditions they live under if they join and support our efforts to dismantle the oppressive system, which will involve attack efforts that will pretty much have to be violent?

Like can’t you be nonviolent to exemplify the violence and deliberate ignorance of the administration and then be violent when you need to be???? If you attack at the wrong time you’ll be weak and lose support, and if you’re non violent at the wrong time you’ll just be handing the fight over to them. That’s an incredibly basic view of the overall struggle between Americans and our government rn but you get the main idea.

I feel as if our efforts are so reactionary and we don’t actually know what we’re doing 😭 Does it sound so outlandish that our fear and indecision work in their favor? Aren’t they just causing mass destruction and using our fear against us to make us think the world is ending, hindering any organized effort at retaliation???

I just think we really need to look at the administration not as if they’re just incompetent, but more in the context of the damage they’ve already accomplished and seeing that the way they operate IS working in their favor and WE are helping to keep that system operating by standing here in indecision over whether it’s right or wrong to be violent or nonviolent, fighting amongst ourselves and in that time we aren’t really making any progress.

Does this make any sense??? Probably not. But seriously why can’t you protest both ways??? Be bisexually violent. Biviolent.

[jackass-democrats]

Democrat Domestic Terrorists In Minneapolis – Democrat Domestic Terrorists in #Minneapolis riot break into federal agent’s car and steal wea

Democrat Domestic Terrorists in #Minneapolis riot break into federal agent’s car and steal weapons and ammo. Wake Up America, Before It’s To

Democrat Domestic Terrorists during Minneapolis riot break into federal agent's car and steal weapons and ammo.

[harlow-spam]

lets turn billionaires into fertilizer for our gardens

[lethroe-radicalised]

In a world of MLK JRs, be the Malcom X

IYKYK

[senhor-do-escuro]

I don't respect or like the "pacifist Left".

How can you expect to fight Fascism if you aren't able to throw a single punch? With dancing and songs? You think real life is like Steven Universe, you can just sing to fascists and they will see the wrong in their ways?

Nah! We really need a Left that can and should use violence when necessary. Fascists aren't scared of your voice. They are scared when they see protesters with bricks in hand. They scared when they fear the harm can come their way and hit them hard. That's when they are scared.