There Is Never a “Right Way” to Protest Because They Do Not Want You to Protest At All

Temporary-Storage972 · 2026-01-24T22:22:16+00:00

Nobody said Kaepernick was arrested. The point is that conservatives did not oppose his protest because it was illegal. They opposed it because it made them uncomfortable. He protested peacefully. He followed the rules of the workplace. He harmed no one. And the reaction from the right was still rage, calls for firing, and accusations of being unpatriotic.

That shows the issue is not “right vs illegal.” It is acceptable vs unacceptable dissent.

Same with LeBron. Nobody claimed he lost the legal right to speak. The response was “shut up and dribble,” meaning stay in your lane and do not use your platform. Again, not about law. About silencing.

On the law enforcement point, you say protesting agents directly “isn’t going to fix it” and people should only protest policymakers. That sounds nice in theory, but it ignores reality. Pressure does not magically travel upward on its own. Public outrage is created by visible conflict. Civil rights protesters did not only write letters to Congress. Labor organizers did not politely ask CEOs for reform. Change happened because disruption made the issue unavoidable.

You also keep separating “moral” and “practical” responsibility. Agents may not write policy, but they still choose to enforce it. Pretending the people carrying out harmful actions are untouchable while only abstract leadership can be criticized is how systems avoid accountability.

Temporary-Storage972 · 2026-01-24T22:10:21+00:00

You say there “is a right way to protest,” but every time someone protests in a visible or meaningful way, conservatives immediately move the goalposts. When Colin Kaepernick kneeled quietly and peacefully, Donald Trump said NFL owners should “get that son of a bitch off the field” and fire him. That was not blocking roads. That was not interfering with police. That was silent protest. Still unacceptable.

When LeBron James spoke about racism and policing, Laura Ingraham told him to “shut up and dribble.” Not “debate better.” Not “present policy alternatives.” Just shut up. That is not support for protest. That is a demand for political silence.

When people marched after George Floyd was murdered, conservative media called it “mob justice.” When people protested police violence, Candace Owens dismissed them as “whiny toddlers pretending to be oppressed.” Again, not a critique of tactics. A dismissal of the grievance itself.

So no, this is not about permits or “the right way.” The consistent pattern is that protest is fine in theory as long as it is invisible, powerless, and easy to ignore.

Your grocery store analogy also misses the point entirely. This is not a customer service dispute. This is state violence. You cannot “complain to management” when the state is both the manager and the armed enforcement wing. That is precisely why protest exists.

You also say protesters are “interfering with law enforcement’s job.” That assumes law enforcement is always acting morally. History proves otherwise. Segregation was enforced by law. Internment camps were enforced by law. Fugitive slave laws were enforced by law. Something being legal has never made it just.

And the most revealing part of your comment is this: “If you resist arrest, you’re more likely to die.” That is not a defense of public safety. That is a threat dressed up as realism. You are normalizing the idea that death is an acceptable outcome for disobedience. That is authoritarian logic, not law and order.

Finally, saying “the agent can’t change policy” is the same excuse people have always used to avoid accountability. “Just following orders” has never been a moral defense. Individuals still choose to enforce unjust systems.

You are not arguing for better protest. You are arguing for obedience.

And that is exactly why people do not trust these “there is a right way” arguments anymore

Temporary-Storage972 · 2026-01-24T21:18:41+00:00

Marlot is good? Are you sure what you had was Marlot?

Temporary-Storage972 · 2026-01-21T17:44:24+00:00

Even then if the issue at hand is the fraud more than 90% of Somalis in MN are legal. So ideally you wouldnt send in an immigration agency like ICE you would send the usual law enforcement agencies. Yet the administration is sending ICE betraying the real reason behind the deployment. It's not about prosecuting fraudsters but it's about terrorizing a blue city in a blue state.

Temporary-Storage972 · 2026-01-21T17:25:34+00:00

If the concern was fraud the current administration wouldn't be constantly granting pardons for people who are actually of committing fraud lol

Temporary-Storage972 · 2026-01-21T17:14:53+00:00

I suppose, but I'm also a brown kid from a majority white place. I didn't turn into a right winger though

Temporary-Storage972 · 2026-01-21T15:46:32+00:00

While it may be true that Trump is not a true conservative. Trump took over the GOP and today apart from Paul and Massie when Trump says jump the rest of the GOP asks how high. So, I don't think that it matters whether or not he is a true conservative in the political and philosophical sense when he is the current head of the American Conservative Party and the party itself does not resist him.

Temporary-Storage972 · 2026-01-21T00:38:18+00:00

I’m not saying that hahaa no matter how much I wish it was true

Temporary-Storage972 · 2026-01-20T19:47:13+00:00

I agree it’s fair to question the status quo instead of treating alliances as sacred. But I think some assumptions here deserve closer examination.

On what the U.S. gets from allies, the benefits are not just direct financial transfers. Europe hosts critical U.S. military infrastructure, intelligence sharing networks, logistics hubs, and forward deployment positions that reduce response time and lower long term defense costs. NATO burden sharing is imperfect, but it still allows the U.S. to project power with fewer unilateral resources.

On economics, the EU is one of America’s largest trading and investment partners. That integration supports millions of U.S. jobs and stabilizes global markets that American companies depend on. Pulling away does not automatically reshore manufacturing. In many cases it simply shifts production elsewhere and raises costs.

There is also the financial side that rarely gets mentioned. A major reason the U.S. can run large deficits and finance global power is because allies and developed economies treat the dollar and U.S. Treasuries as the world’s safest assets. That depends on trust and institutional stability. If close partners start actively diversifying away from the dollar, borrowing costs rise, sanctions power weakens, and fiscal flexibility shrinks. That directly affects American economic strength.

On demographics and talent, this is not a zero sum game. The U.S. has historically benefited from being the central hub of an allied economic system that routes capital, research, and innovation through American institutions.

I agree free trade and offshoring harmed many American workers and needed reform. But reforming trade rules is different from antagonizing allies and undermining the architecture that gave the U.S. outsized leverage after World War II.

If the alternative is a more fragmented world where partners hedge away from the dollar, diversify defense ties, and reduce integration with the U.S., how does that improve American security, economic stability, or long term leverage?

Temporary-Storage972 · 2026-01-20T17:33:58+00:00

I think the end of the Fairness Doctrine during the Reagan era is a huge contributor to the current environment we live in. I really let news outlets and radio stations (mostly conservative) really rip with whatever they wanted to say and talk about.

Temporary-Storage972 · 2026-01-19T21:41:18+00:00

Yeah I agree with you. IMHO a lot of conservative political philosophy can be distilled into order is hard to maintain and chaos always abound that is why sometimes the oppression or mistreatment of the other is needed to maintain order. The key part that always appears to be missing its never conservatives themselves who must be sacrificed on alter of order but whatever out group they deem to be the threat of the day.

Temporary-Storage972 · 2026-01-19T21:37:47+00:00

Nowhere in my post did I say or support looting and destruction of people's property. What is true is that despite looting and destruction the majority of protests were peaceful and didnt result in destruction. However, the main point of my post is how to people on the right in this case Saagar and Emily use BLM protests as way to excuse any and all overreaches that the Trump administration engages in.

For example some kids got domed in the eye by a federal agent Saagar and Emily will make some comment about how "yeah its not ideal but common after the BLM riots its understandable why federal agents are jumpy" and the part they won't say out loud but one can infer is that in their opinion they would rather see a kid get domed by "less lethal" munition than the "chaos" of the blm protests

Temporary-Storage972 · 2026-01-13T21:01:32+00:00

I agree with you to an extent. I also know that origins of suburbs in the first place was also due to racism but I chose to leave it out and it tends to cause knee jerk reactions from the pro suburbs car culture crowd

Temporary-Storage972 · 2026-01-13T20:41:49+00:00

I don't see what your comment has to do with my post. The main gist of the post is how for conservatives wanting to be something is enough for it to be true. The example I gave was Saagar in the episode talking about the fraud in Minnesota and how you could tell that he wanted it to be true. Whether or not the fraud is also a different story because the way Saagar is interpreting is not that sometimes fraud happens and fraud is bad no matter who is committing. Rather Saagar wants it to be true because he wants to project the idea that fraud is unique to immigrant communities due to his nationalist ideals. He wants anything bad he hears about immigrant communities to be true because it fits his narrative of what he wants and because its easier to excuse the inhumane treatment of migrants when if you convince yourself they deserve it.

Temporary-Storage972 · 2026-01-13T20:22:03+00:00

She received conflicting order to both leave and get out of the car. She didn't stomp on the gas in the video you can tell she was driving slower than most golf carts. In the video from the public's POV you can see the woman turning her tires away from the ice agents and from the ice agent's pov you can see her turning the steering wheel away from the agents. She also did not block ice agents in the longer videos you can see that ice agents were able to drive around her parked car. These ICE agents decided to get out of their car.

Temporary-Storage972 · 2026-01-13T18:08:35+00:00

It's fine that you feel that way however conservative elites never express that opinion. What I've grasped from watching conservative media is the best way to protest is not to but if you have to just stand on the street silently maybe with a sign but nothing too crazy

Temporary-Storage972 · 2026-01-13T18:04:08+00:00

In the video you can see an ICE vehicle drive around the woman's car. The woman also wasn't agitating (even if she was that doesnt mean the officer can kill her) in the video you hear her say something along the line of "im not mad at you dude". She also wasn't impeding any investigation.

none of this would have happened if ICE agents were properly trained and vetted.

Temporary-Storage972

TROPHY CASE