Well, I know they mentioned violent protests - including those using inflammatory language - leads to unfavorable results for that protest which leads to the results we don’t want. And it usually ends up tipping the favor of protests towards the oppositions political stance.
Problem is, I’ve seen people being beaten by police in even non violent protests.
So I don’t know what to make of that. Or what to say about that.
Also, propaganda really is effective at dissuading people from protesting because it causes a lot of self doubt.
Personally, I don’t see why the Internet is often not seen as a place for protest. It’s safer than physical protests which is why I can’t understand why so many are against it - or that it doesn’t count. I mean it’s like people don’t believe online discourse is a place where change can occur because …? Because there’s no potential for violence?
I really wish someone would explain that to me.
Otherwise, there’s the problem that people definitely believe that (and I do too) the bigger issue is that it’s more about seeing who’s lining whose pockets.
Idk. I’m also just extremely tired physically so it’s a struggle just to focus and dismantle a lot of propaganda as it is. And it definitely feels like there’s a lot of hostility in the social/political climate and it’s reasonable to be afraid of physical violence.
The Internet is a good thing and technological advancement is a good thing and I believe it can help resolve conflict more rapidly without violence.
In that respect we are more fortunate than people in the past who didn’t have this luxury and had no choice but to make mistakes and advancements with a lot of physical sacrifice.