> democratic protest

It seems like the protestors have lost faith in the democratic process. Can you still call it a democratic protest?

Then is it a revolution? What is the plan? The want to secede Minneapolis?

It is either a democratic protest, domestic terrorism, or a civil war. I hope with all my being that it is a democratic protest.

It's the same justification many people used for voting for Trump, which was that?

I am sorry, I am a bit lost, but if Trump election had to be one of those three it would have been a democratic protest against the establishment.

Or were you referring to something else?

Many Trump supporters (primarily the alt-right and white supremacist fringe) didn't simply protest against the establishment, and certainly didn't intend to do so democratically (as that would imply a belief in the legitimacy of the system and the views of their opponents.) They voted with the intent of seeing the system destroyed and an ethnostate emerging from the rubble. Reasonable people can disagree about the size and relative influence of this contingent on the election, but it exists.

Drawing too many parallels between that and the protestors would be unfair, particularly where motive is concerned, but it is hard not to notice the energy is the same in a lot of ways. One side doing violence against the system and another doing violence against infrastructure, each because they feel the system has been irreparably damaged by the influence of the other.

Ok, so what? I have no sympathy for violent far right extremism and I intend to denounce neo-nazist ideologies as much as I can. Especially since it has devolved into (mostly non collective) violence already.

On the other hand your comment is saying that one of the worst thing those groups collectively did was voting. I don't think you are making the argument you think you are making.

On the other hand, if you are saying that the other side might start rioting too; isn't that an argument for deescalation?

> You do not use violence in a democratic protest.

Tell that to the police. The current "don't use violence" rhetoric is cleverly being aimed at the protestors and seems to be giving a consistent pass to the other side's behavior. In many cases, these guys are suited up like shock troops, visibly excited and ready to bust skulls, and when they're unleashed they are going to find skulls (peaceful or not) to bust. This is a system that only knows how to use violent escalation to solve problems, and lo and behold, they're out there bringing on the violence. The protests are about police brutality, and the police are coming in and using the only tool they know: brutality. But it's OK because someone somewhere else is burning down a Target?

> To use it is effective acknowledgement that you either want to destroy the democracy or do not believe that it actually exists on the moment.

From your wording you seem to be agreeing that the police also "want to destroy the democracy".

The American revolution was a violent protest.

Yes, and the people participating on it were pretty sure they weren't living in a democracy.

I imagine that many people on those current protests believe they aren't in one either (or, at least, if one exists they are cast out of it). I'm in no position to judge if they are right, but on the case they are not, violence is no means to do a democratic protest.

It was actually seeking to overthrows the government, and it was treason from the eyes of the British. If the British had won, likely every one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence would have been hanged or worse.

If you want to change the way things are inside the system vote, organize, protest. But actually seeking to overthrow the government is opening a whole can of very, very bad things.

Gay rights, women's rights, civil rights were all won by combating unjust power using every tool available, including violence. Oppressors don't self-limit the tools they'll use to maintain power. Neither can those who are oppressed.

Against a tyrannical, non-representative government, and it was a last-ditch effort.

We have a democracy. People have opportunities to vote. Police policy is decided largely at the local level, so individual votes are powerful. Imagine if even 10% of protesters voted in their local elections...

Local elections can be rigged against local voters. I wish I could find the link now, but I recall reading an article recently (was it in The Atlantic?) about how one American town with a huge African-American population was unable to get a single African-American councilman elected, because back in the heyday of segregation the local whites had managed to do some gerrymandering-like trick that made most local citizens’ votes now count for nothing.

You can also see dirty tricks at local council meetings, where those in authority abuse the meeting’s rules of order to quickly shut down anyone speaking up about problems that those in authority don’t want addressed.

Why would you think that the voter turnout among protestors is less than 10%? That seems absurd and at least a little offensive.

>do not believe that it actually exists on the moment

Precisely. People have been voting and non-violently protesting for decades, and it hasn't worked.

People haven't been voting, which is why it hasn't worked.

Let's look at the subset of people that vote. If they consistently vote and encourage others to vote, and yet their candidates never win, they are effectively powerless. For them it is no different than living under a monarchy, except for the vague hope that maybe eventually their candidates will win and their policies enacted. Eventually that vague hope makes things even more painful, since they know that their government will never represent them, despite them theoretically having the power to decide their leaders. Either they will resent the system or they will resent their neighbors who either vote for the opposition or don't vote.

Think about all of the left-wing voters in a very Red congressional district or state. Think of all the right wing voters in a very Blue district or state. They are not officially disenfranchised, but their vote doesn't really matter either, so why vote at all? The equation changes somewhat for swing states/districts, but even then it's often a lesser of two evils choice, rather than any major progression towards policy goals. There are some democracies that mitigate some of these issues (getting rid of the electoral college and first past the post would go a long way in the US), but in general democracy leaves a lot of people dissatisfied.

If your major disagreement with the status quo is the tax rate, or certain business regulations, your dissatisfaction with the democratic process is manageable. If your major disagreement with the status quo is police brutality and injustice that make your life miserable, then what is the downside to rioting and destruction? Maybe there's only a tiny chance that something good will come out of it, but it's better than a zero percent chance of enacting change by continuing to vote and lose elections.

Not talking about national or even state elections here—talking about local elections. And if one can mobilize thousands in a particular locale to protest (to take off work and go out shoulder-to-shoulder during a pandemic no less), why can’t they mobilize enough voters?

> You keep spouting bullshit absolutes but don't seem to realize (or you're just unwilling to accept) that there are effectively two systems; a more of less functioning system for people like you, and one in name only for the disenfranchised.

Look, you’re not here in good faith. That’s cool, go off all you want, but I’m not here for it. Find someone else.

How has it not worked?

Remind me again... how do we elect presidents that don't win the popular vote?