> He's not belittling them. He's supporting them and their cause, and offering course corrective advice so that they are better able to achieve their stated goals.

Kind of like telling women that they shouldn’t venture out at night? For their own safety.

Or to give another example, the recent arguments made that people shouldn’t publish cartoons that Muslims find offensive, for their own safety.

In all three cases telling people that they shouldn’t exercise their rights “for their own benefit” is seen as highly offensive.

He's not telling them not to exercise their rights. He's telling them not to protest violently. He is encouraging them to protest. He's encouraging those protests to be non-violent.

An impossible dream. 100% of protestors can be nonviolent and external forces, usually cops, can turn it violent.

But this is part of the problem for Dems: it's perception of truth, not truth, that matters for the undecided voter. So even though a few miles from me it's the Aryan Cowboys and Boogaloo Bois who are being prosecuted for property damage, it's the antifa that people in rural Oregon and Oklahoma are afraid of. They're also very afraid of "white slavery" (yes, I'm using the wording of the 1880s and 1910s [1] because it's the same tropes gussied up for today) -- they're afraid that some foreigner will come snatch their beautiful innocent daughter from Walmart; the reality is of course that their daughter's more likely to start doing meth. And of course there is abortion, too; it's wildly more likely that a Republican woman will need a procedure that will be forbidden under various proposed antiabortion laws than that a woman will have an abortion of a healthy baby in the 9th month, but the second scenario drives Republicans while the first is a fact to be swept under the rug ("it's different").

Dems don't speak to the feelings in the way that modern Republicans do. Dems think that because something is unlikely or illogical, they don't have to spend a lot of time talking about it; Republicans realize those are the best things to spend all your press time on, because then there can be no metrics to look bad on. Republicans know much better how to tap into the fear of the white electorate in particular, and then add the carrot that once the temporarily embarrassed millionaire is restored to riches, there'll be no taxes ;)

[1] https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/beyond-trafficking-and-slav...

>Violence was instigated on both sides, but regardless of what the underlying reality was, the perception was that leftists were responsible for much of the violence, and that is problematic electorally.

Literally "it doesn't matter who was responsible for the violence, the left get blamed for it so it's their fault." Fuck that. The police are very often responsible for the violence, and you should not stop protesting because they can attack you and make you look bad. Suggesting they should stop is belittling their protest.

>You may not like the fact that you have to think about the median Oklahoman voter, but the reality is that that voter is much more important than the median say, NYC voter

You completely missed the point of what was said. Maybe in Oklahoma this was a net negative, but countrywide including many swing states it was essential.

I don't think they were saying the protests should stop. They made on observation about how the protests were perceived by others, and that perception, correct or not, influenced voting decisions.

This is changing it from "they said to stop" to "they said it was wise to stop," and the distinction basically only matters if you want the Democrats to win. You're saying the same thing either way.

No, it really doesn't. You're making an extra leap in logic that isn't true for all people. Just because the protests could lose some votes doesn't mean everyone who acknowledge that possibility wanted them to stop.

Pick any issue. A person can support the issue and recognize it may have negative consequences. From there I'm making the distinct that beliefs on the issue can go (at least) two ways: 1) The issue is too important for those consequences to take precedence over fighting for the issue. OR 2) The consequences are too high to continue fighting for the issue and it would be wise to stop.

You seem to be saying that someone who supports the protests & believes it will lose votes must automatically jump to #2. That doesn't follow. A person can believe the lost votes are not important enough to override the importance of the protests.

>A person can believe the lost votes are not important enough to override the importance of the protests.

That person will spend their time discussing the issues important to the protests, not spend their time discussing how the protests are actually hurting their greater cause.

A responsible person considers the consequences of their actions and what trade offs are being made. Supporting the protests but also considering the consequences are not mutually exclusive and is in fact an obvious step to take for a mature and rational person.

OK? If you've thought through your actions, your still not going to belabor the point that the protests aren't helping in the elections. You'll talk about what is important enough to be worth those consequences.

Well, it seems like we parsed this conversation to the point where we found that we actually fundamentally agree on that issue. Thank you for a thoughtful conversation. Heck, even if we had ultimately disagreed, we went about the discussion productively, clarifying our points at each step etc. without insults or flame wars. This is why I find HN to be a unique community.

Of course the distinction only matters if you want the democrats to win. The comment being discussed was made by a Democratic strategist.

Do you mean I'm a democratic strategist? I'm the one that proposed the the distinction, and I'm no political strategist. If that part of your comment was meant for me, then I really have no idea where you got that impression.

The comment I was responding to seemed to be saying that a person cannot acknowledge that the protests would lose votes without automatically believing the protests should stop, even though they might support the issues being protested.

That's not true. A person can believe-- about any issue-- that fighting for that issue may have negative consequences but also that fighting for it is still the right thing to do, that the cost of the fight is worth the consequences.

Saying "don't want the Democrats to win" would have made it clearer, my mistake. Ignoring the outlying position the other poster mentions as they will make themselves clear on their own, if you want the Democrats to win those two positions are identical. If you don't, it's two separate negative views of the protests.