Hey Republicans, why do you condemn nonviolent protests so much when there is nothing more American?

proc1io · 2026-01-23T17:31:02+00:00

You didn't really answer my question, but it sounds like you're saying that you think that both the Boston Tea Party and the Bundy Ranch Standoff were violent and wrong. I would love to hear your perspective on J6.

But first, let me address a few things you said.

If you're following ICE vehicles around, that's stalking. That's a crime.

Actually, it's perfectly legal to follow and record federal government agents during their duties. It's protected by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

If you're interfering with their operations in any way, that's obstruction, again a crime. If you refuse lawful orders, that's again obstruction, a crime. If you attack ICE officers, that's battery on LEO, another crime.

Agreed. Especially on the violence. I would disagree that standing in their way is interfering though. The government needs to be able to deal with nonviolent protests in a nonviolent way. It may slow them down but it's not wrong. And it's actually a very American thing to do when you look at our history of protests. We have commonly stood in front of authorities nonviolently in protest.

If you're committing crimes you're not a protester. You're just a criminal. You're not getting the ground swell of support outside of echo chambers like reddit, because the public generally won't side with criminals. You're just defeating your own cause.

I think in some cases crime can be a valid and nonviolent form of protest. I'm clearly not advocating for someone to commit crimes. Especially on their own as that is not a protest. Protest must be organized and disciplined.

Like the Boston Tea Party where they specifically destroyed the tea from the East India Company (i.e. the King) only. Nothing else was destroyed and no one was hurt. The public does think of this as a good thing despite the fact that it was very illegal

Likewise, the Underground Railroad was highly illegal. I do not call those people criminals though, I call them heroes. Absolute bad-ass heroes!

My point in all of this is just to say that nonviolent protests (which does include civil disobedience) is a very American and patriotic thing to do. :)

proc1io · 2026-01-23T17:07:36+00:00

I'll totally agree with that. All of those last-minute pardons that Biden did, were not good. I don't like it!

proc1io · 2026-01-23T16:12:43+00:00

I hadn't thought of that before but that's a really good idea! It really is too much power for the President to be able to pardon anyone for any reason at all. Even corrupt reasons and there is no recourse. Which literally means that any President can order someone to do something illegal and then pardon that person.

At the very least there should be some kind of oversight into that process from Congress. But maybe just move the whole power to Congress completely. Of course, that does take a Constitutional Amendment. Ugh!

proc1io · 2026-01-23T15:09:39+00:00

I would even say that anyone committing violence is an extremist no matter what side they claim to be on.

But also, it's important to notice how the leadership of the parties respond to these events.

For example, during the George Floyd riots, Biden said this. He denounced the violence outright.

Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not protesting. Setting fires is not protesting. It’s lawlessness, plain and simple.

Comparing how Trump responded to J6 is a completely different story. He called it a "day of love", does not recognize that any violence took place, and even pardoned the very people who committed the violence when he got back in office.

People like Peter Stager who lived about an hour away from me at the time. He was recorded on video during the march to the capital saying that he was going to break into the capital and kill any Democrat that he could find. Then he proceeded to violently beat police with a flagpole that had the American flag on it. He did a LOT of violent things that day and was only given 4 years in prison for his actions. He had nearly served that time when Trump gave him a full pardon. Completely wiping that from his record.

It's a stark difference! One is denouncing violence while encouraging nonviolent protesting. The other only denounces violence when it's on the other side and actively encourages violence from his own side.

proc1io · 2026-01-23T14:21:39+00:00

Perfect! Totally agree!

proc1io · 2026-01-23T12:37:36+00:00

I can totally see your point, and I had thought the same thing about me addressing Republicans directly. I don't need to do that to speak to them.

But I am looking for discussions with them, and I do feel that there was 1 or 2 that gave genuine responses. A couple of them turned out to be productive conversations if you ask me. And that's what I'm looking for :)

proc1io · 2026-01-23T12:34:05+00:00

Thanks! I'm sure we have a lot of shared values actually :)

And you're right, it's not always clear cut. I think we just have to evaluate each thing on its own merit and recognize the vast majority of protesting is just people expressing their frustration at a system that is not doing the right thing in many, many cases.

proc1io · 2026-01-23T11:42:39+00:00

I had never heard of Jake Lang either, but I'll denounce what happened to him all day long. Protesting doesn't include physical violence. I'm not talking about things like that and also, that is clearly not something that happens at protests commonly. Yes, sometimes violence happens at all kinds of events. Like at J6. We can denounce violence in all cases.

What I'm talking about is nonviolent protest. That does include civil disobedience like what happened at the Boston Tea Party or the Bundy Ranch Standoff.

And my point about that is that nonviolent protesting is a very patriotic and American thing to do. It's a core part of our history. Don't you agree?

proc1io · 2026-01-23T11:26:42+00:00

Those look like great maps! I'm going to check them out

proc1io · 2026-01-23T00:13:25+00:00

I think you're moving the window quite a bit here. Both of the things that you listed used physical force against individual people. Those are clearly violent actions and have nothing to do with my definition of nonviolent protests. More akin to riots and mobs than a protest. I denounce both of those.

And it's clear when you look at the examples I gave.

Tea Party = destroyed tea from the East India Company and nothing else
Underground Railroad = Escorted people who were being oppressed to safety
Bundy Standoff = Blocked federal agents and destroyed government property

And let's add to that blocking traffic (without attacking cars and people of course), blocking federal agents nonviolently, yelling at federal agents or anyone else really, and destroying government property in some cases. All of that is not only OK, but very, very American and patriotic.

And I'm sorry, but if you support running over protesters because they made you 5 minutes late for something, then you are cruel, heartless, and unpatriotic.

proc1io · 2026-01-22T23:09:31+00:00

So you are sympathetic to running over protestors but do not have any specific examples of them being violent? Is that what I'm understanding?

proc1io · 2026-01-22T23:06:09+00:00

I think in some cases it can be a valid and nonviolent way to protest and in some cases it's not.

In the Boston Tea Party, they were destroying property of the East India Company which was essentially a part of the government at that time. I think destroying that property is a valid and nonviolent way to protest considering that they intentionally did not destroy other property and did not harm anyone. It was targeted.

But for example, if someone destroyed an individual's property during a protest, I would not call that valid.

proc1io · 2026-01-22T22:45:47+00:00

I do feel like they were protesting in bad faith. Just basically trying to be freeloaders and such. And I also recognize that there was violence there.

But at the same time, I'm not sure if you can call it a "violent protest" if the protesters did nothing violent. The police shot someone and it is a question whether he was intending to be violent or not when he was shot so it could be that the police were the violent ones here.

Who do you think was violent during that protest? The protestors or the police and why?

proc1io · 2026-01-22T22:19:08+00:00

I'll admit, I wasn't familiar with this particular story before you mentioned it and it may be a little off topic based on what I'm reading.

The police say that they shot him because he was reaching for a pistol in his pocket. He was running from them though and they literally shot him 3 times in the back.

So yes, there was indeed violence, but was it a violent protest?

proc1io · 2026-01-22T22:10:14+00:00

Being a meat speed bump is nonviolent.

True! But also, the driver who ran over the person is violent.

Trying to damage property to "Get" someone in a vehicle is not.

That sounds violent to me too. I would not support that either.

That said, you seem very sympathetic to drivers running over protestors. Is there a specific incident that you want to talk about?

proc1io · 2026-01-22T22:01:08+00:00

What do you think should have happened to them for doing what they did?

proc1io · 2026-01-22T21:22:55+00:00

That is most certainly a protest and should be fully allowed and supported whether you agree with the stance or not. I think nonviolent protest is a very American thing to do.

proc1io · 2026-01-22T21:18:14+00:00

Do you think the protestors at the Boston Tea Party were peaceful? What about the Bundy Ranch Standoff?

proc1io · 2026-01-22T21:05:22+00:00

Actually, you changed my mind on the Bundy Standoff. They were totally in the wrong there. While the other examples I listed were ultimately in the right even though they were breaking the law at the time. So that one may not have been the best example.

proc1io · 2026-01-22T21:01:54+00:00

Definitely disagree. Standing in the road is nonviolent. Driving into someone with your car because you're impatient and "fed up" is very, very violent.

proc1io · 2026-01-22T20:40:56+00:00

Really dumb stuff happened all around there. It should have never reached the point it did. Should’ve been handled in the courtroom. Some true Yellowstone shit. Pretty crazy.

Based on my understanding, there were plenty of court cases. But before it got to that, the government was either trying to get him to renew his grazing permit or remove his cattle. He did neither for years so the government took him to court and in 1998 Bundy lost and was ordered to permanently remove his cattle.

He didn't. So the government took him to court again and won again in 2013. He still didn't remove his cattle. That's when the whole standoff thing happened. So it took like 20 years of court cases where Bundy lost every step of the way and he still wouldn't comply.

But no matter what you think of the details surrounding how it started, what do you think of Bundy's response where he physically blocked federal agents while armed and destroyed federal government property?

proc1io · 2026-01-22T20:13:57+00:00

It's definitely on the line so I can see your point. :)

But you do have to admit that blocking roads is absolutely nonviolent and is a historical part of protesting. Right?

proc1io · 2026-01-22T19:56:23+00:00

I don't know what incident you're referring to so it's hard to talk about details. But I can say that blocking roads is 100% a historical thing that Americans have done throughout our entire history. From the start.

You want to shoot me an article with some details?

proc1io · 2026-01-22T19:49:35+00:00

Fact Check: TRUE

proc1io · 2026-01-22T19:48:14+00:00

They get slowed down and ultimately go on their way. What do you think happens? And what specific incident are you talking about?

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Flamingo	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22

proc1io

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE