General Politics Discussion (III) [ARCHIVED] • Page 1280

To ignore some of the brilliance in "PR" strategy that changed public opinion, specifically like that referenced above, would be a disservice to history and any cause's end goals going forward IMO. (Especially in the short term of wanting to eject Trump from office.)

Related:
Attitudes Toward Racism And Inequality Are Shifting

Camille Charles, a professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied the GSS, said that the average white person often explained inequality during the Jim Crow era as a result of biological or genetic differences between blacks and whites, but that explanation has largely disappeared. The civil rights movement caused a shift among whites toward understanding inequalities as the result of structural forces, but today, differences are most often explained as cultural. [..]

Charles said the survey answers represent a conflict between a real shift toward an adoption of egalitarian principles by whites in the U.S., and long-held, strong beliefs in personal liberty. She believes that although there has been a change in public attitudes toward racial inequality, we are not living in a post-racial society. “In practice, when you actually have to trade in something personal, American individualism gets in the way,” Charles said. “There are some things we’re all willing to sacrifice for, and others where we are not.”

 

This is the more intelligent version of what I was getting at...

 

People despised and murdered the PR faces of old movements. I take your point but even if there was an antifa press secretary they'd still never get favorable coverage from corporate media, they'd be shouted down by some GWB admin turned pundit shithead on MSNBC, they'd be slandered in papers - or they'd become DeRay and sell me some Black Bloc LGBTQ doritos

 

I'm not proposing that as "the answer," I'm saying that something needs to change or this PR battle will be lost. Even anonymous statements or backchannel press conversations explaining something or giving context/explanation to a video of "bunch of people beat someone with sticks" would be better than what's currently happening. Who was that person? Why were they targeted? Why did it continue when they were on the ground? Explaining a video like that or denouncing it as the only two options that make sense. Letting it sit out there kills all the goodwill. Someone working on counter programming against the fake Facebook and Twitter stories would be better than what's currently happening. Or do nothing if you think this strategy is going to work ... I am convinced it will not, and it will lead to a Trump victory in 2020 instead because it plays exactly into his hands the entire way. It'll divide, consolidate, and give him the exact headlines he wants. There's a lack of organization around messaging and it's going to hurt this movement — the message on health care was clear, and it broke through to almost every person. The message on "people hitting other people with sticks" is not clear.

 

It really is like J. Jonah Jameson and Spider-Man.

 

Is the media really going to be generous to an anti-capitalist organization that wants to dismantle white supremacy? I doubt it. In terms of PR, I doubt them putting their message out there would do much good, because left-wing violence is still vilified. The communities they're involved in are where I think they're trying to win approval, because that's what they're actually protecting. The broader movement, on the other hand, of which antifa is a small part, has been making inroads. I mean, yes, people are still going to see the films and see an equivalence, but if that's going to happen in any case, I'd rather they continue to do what they need to do.

 

There are people that do that, they are published on sites like IGD as report-backs and such. No one else wants to read or publish them. And there's still no way for an unconstituted group like that to collectively denounce something.

 

I know this not to be true. I have talked to people in local and national papers multiple times about events.

If the argument is: it's not possible, then I'll go back to my original point — it's collectively becoming a win for Trump when this happens and the headlines he gets backs up his telling of events (violence on both sides). It's a colossal mistake in my opinion.

 

But I don't think they're winning those communities over ... that's central to my point. To win those communities over someone needs to address:

the person that worked all day, gets off work, and sees a viral video that says "antifa beats someone into a coma they mistook as a nazi" on their Facebook on the ride home is the person that needs to be reached. And I think there's a massive communication and response failure happening that is preventing that.

Most communities want less violence.

And lastly: The media wasn't generous (at first, or ever) to many of the leaders of movements. Many of the historical figures figured out how to use them to their advantage anyway. And we live in a time with access to people like never before ... Facebook, Twitter, etc., where a messaging/communications strategy doesn't need traditional media. The right have figured out how to get those people on YouTube/Facebook ... the left appear to be letting them have that ground and shape the news/narrative/viral stories. This still involves a specific strategy to counter message. And, I'm sorry, but snarky tweets about politicians saying "violence is bad" isn't doing that. If anything, I'd argue it's amplifying the alienation.

 

I look at the various places where they've been active, and I see a lot of folks who are grateful for their efforts. Hell, even Shaun King announced his support for antifa and he's not a communist by any means. You say most communities want less violence, but context matters, particularly if the context is the necessity of self-defense against fascists.

As for PR, again, I see a lot of left-wing outfits writing about and putting it into context. The difference between them and the right is, the right has an advocate among liberals who want to engage in that narrative. This is nothing new, obviously, but we can't act as though this is not a factor in how they're perceived. In my opinion, this is a conscious effort, because folks fear a radical left more than they do a radical right.

 

omg the replies that dude bill is getting. i can't handle

 

Ok, so let's put this in context, as I keep asking: what's the context and explanation for the most viral video over the weekend? Who was being beat? Was it self-defense against fascists? What fascist? What were they doing that led to this beating? Who was being protected and how by the beating? Why did it continue when the person was on the ground and surrounded? What' was the end goal, was it achieved? Because what most people saw was a black man saving the person being hit with sticks. If there's going to be context to explain these things to people ... where is it? What is it? I see no such explanation, instead it's condemnation on those that said, predictably, "violence is bad."

Where's the argument that specific, being condemned right now, act of violence was good? Where's that argument and can I read it? Any Googling finds right wing shit from that 'was a case of mistaken identity,' to the 'person is in a coma,' to it was a 'random passerby' ... I don't see this context anywhere. The advocation here is that beating someone with a stick until a camera man tries to save them ... is bad. What's the expectation ... that the "liberals" make an argument for why that beating was good? I can't find anyone on the left making that argument and I keep looking for specifics about this video and can't find anything that helps me understand it.

I mean, the proxy of that is that a radical left fears a centrist left more than a radical right. Which is why I spent a year trying to tell people what that leads to, and failing to convince in light of the most overwhelming evidence.

 

Fighting the Klan in Reagan’s America

Nonetheless there are lessons we can learn from the anti-Klan campaigning of the 1980s.

For one, while street actions such as counter-protests were an important form of resistance, preventing white supremacists from feeling a false sense of comfort in openly espousing their beliefs, they were neither the only form of fightback, nor even at times the leading one. As Randolph Scott-Thompson told those assembled at NAKN’s third conference, what was needed was “an organized, consistent response combining a variety of techniques.”

In addition to mass counter-protest, this ranged from the legal approach favored by groups like the SPLC to the education drives launched by NAKN and other groups. It also encompassed the actions taken by local communities, the majority of whose residents were not sympathetic to the Klan, and who used a variety of techniques to gradually peel off local support for the Klan and its activities.

Secondly, antiracist campaigners were a politically broad coalition that united in their opposition to white supremacy. While the energy and organizing experience often came from leftists, they were joined by liberal organizations, as well as nominally apolitical entities like church groups, plus activists for a variety of political causes, from feminism to gay rights. Organized labor was also key to these efforts, with several of the country’s largest and oldest unions joining in the fight.

Good read that got me thinking about all of this to begin with. Good lessons to learn here IMO.

 

Even Trumps posture is a continual source of annoyance to me. Hold your goddamn head up.

 

The people who watch that video and say "Wow, maybe Trump is right" were already heading down that path, because even without the violence, they weren't going to be on board with what the politics of the other protesters. The "average joe" is capable of calling Trump an idiot, but believe blocking a highway is grounds for being run over.

What matters most right now to communities who are facing far-right rallies, is to let them have agency. Everything I've ready about from people who've been on the ground with antifa has been positive and welcoming.

 

H Town represent
HOUSTON TELETHON ORGANIZED BY BUN B WILL FEATURE JAMIE FOXX, HILARY DUFF, KELLY ROWLAND, JIM PARSONS AND MORE

 

As I understand it, he was a part of the right-wing march. The black man that stepped in was part of the anti-racist contingent that didn't advocate violence. Why did the violence continue? Because fascists deserve to get beaten up severely. They're advocating genocide.

I don't expect anything from liberals. If they're conscious enough to make anti-racist statements, they should know that violence is going to be involved in the resistance to that. They have fallen for the tactics of "mistaken identity" twice before that I can count, only to find out that the person was, in fact, a Nazi. That should give them some pause it seems to me. Those should be the bigger stories, but they're not because liberals cling to norms that Nazis rely upon to legitimize themselves.


It isn't so much that we fear the liberal class. It's that they're way of doing politics, as we can see clearly with the antifa discourse, relies upon conceding territory to the right. And whereas I've seen multiple people on the radical left shift in terms of their relationship to the center-left, the center has been consistent in rejection of more left-wing policy. Some people have even been claiming that the desire to shift to single-payer is a white people thing. Ha.

 

This is just ridiculous. Some of the most ardent socialists I know are anti-violence. If you think everyone that watches someone getting beat-up with no context and thinks "oh shit there is violence on both sides" was going down that path anywyay, I don't even know what to say.

 

And as many others are seeing it: he wasn't part of the right wing march. That's the most viral story out there right now. That this person was mistaken as someone participating in the march. So, if what you're saying is true, my entire point has been about how this argument is not what anyone anywhere is reading. And that's the problem.