Be very careful about embracing the "violence" rhetoric [View all]

[Prism]

The Nevada convention was, at worst, a fierce display of cantankerousness. Let's call it out of control grumpies. There was no physical violence, there was no permanent damage, and no one was hurt.

But the Establishment and the media keep referring to this as "violence".

The problem with this is, it feeds into Establishment narratives. Any time one diminished group gets out of hand, politicians and eager reporters like to go to the fore talking about how "violent" everyone in the protesting group is.

It may be useful now, if you oppose Sanders, but the adoption of this won't be useful when one day you may want something.

How many Black Lives Matters protests have been described as violent? Or Ferguson. Or Occupy. Or ACT UP. Or any marginalized group.

The people in power always, always, always want to depict protestors as out of control thugs who the state needs to crush in order to protect the rest of us who are law-abiding and decent.

I've already seen, here on DU, the verbiage. "Thugs". Would you like that word used against your cause? When African Americans protest the justice system, or Latinos and their fellow immigrants complain about our shitty immigration policies, or LGBTers march for equality, what will you think when reporters and politicians leap on cable news and the internet to call us thuggish and violent?

You won't like that one little bit.

So don't do it now, just because it benefits you at this specific point in time.