spwilcen
Opinion
Let us suppose you are upset over what you consider unjust treatment you’ve received. Perhaps you’ve been cheated of your birthrights. An odds-on possibility exists that you simply covet something regardless of your rights to ownership. Let your motives fester by themselves momentarily.
“Cheated” of whatever fulfillment of your desires, you protest. Whether or not you begin your protestations mildly, civilly, politely, and reasonably, maybe you are a modern protestor. If so, your protest quickly escalates [or begins initially, as we often see] to unreasonable rhetoric and ultimately irrational violence. You spew disrespect and hatred for anyone who would persist in denying your “rights.”
Friends, this does more harm than good. Yes, surely to innocents caught in the maelstrom of your protest. It is irrelevant whether this takes the form of vocal protest or [what you deem justified] violence, or both. The damage you ignore is what you visit upon yourself and your cause. Your chance of achieving what is rightfully2 yours is less hopeful.
Further, if you insist on maintaining the legality of and justification for your protest methods, you encourage those who do violence purely for the sake of loving lawlessness or for the rewards they can steal under guise of protest. This discredits and villainizes your arguments.
Finally, those3 you would [legitimately] sway or punish, instead of knuckling under, instead of conceding any point, go into reactionary mode. They will use against you, your most violent methods. They will redouble their convictions, feeling if nothing else, Biblically justified. They will return and shamefully magnify your disrespect, hatred, and distrust.
If you are one of these intractably [verbally] abusive or violent protestors, you have escalated to war. No one wins a war. Everyone gets hurt, suffers, and maybe dies prematurely. Even, sadly, innocents as “collateral damage.”
Reconsider your methods.4 I can think of two from history who would agree with me in principle.
—
1 End-for-ended here, Queen Gertrude, in Hamlet by Wild Bill Shakespeare.
2 Let us not quibble over the legality or morality of whatever it is this brings to your mind as your crusade. I’m in pursuit of a single point.
3 Consider them merely opponents or enemies.
4 This then, my ultimate point, justified, I hope.
Ramblings 
And then what do you expect them to do? Continue to allow the government or others (presumably powerful groups) to continue to trample upon them? No. One has to fight for one’s rights against anyone, just like the women are now doing in Iran and many young people are doing in Russia. In the US there are many groups that are being mistreated, looked down upon and abused by the supposed “white” majority, and although I do not advocate violence, they do have a God given right to defend themselves and to change things if they can.
LikeLike
You cannot be god, love and peace, and at the same time Che Guevara and Carl Marx. My complaint here is with wild-eyed godless radicals who immediately resort to violence, defund the police mentality, with absolutely no regard for life, property, or decency. Do you propose that in the US, any group considering themselves downtrodden should take-up arms? Is not US-like “democracy” and pliable legal structure what you expect to set an example for revisionist decency, for recognizing and correcting society’s ills? This cannot be achieved by taking-up arms, burning buildings, flaunting law, for then the example and method established, you will have anarchy. Your “god given right” is defined individually by each violently radical group and to hell with any other groups’ “god given rights” that are contrary to the first group’s. I expect no one to lie down and be trampled, but neither do I expect the trampled upon to declare they ave the right to trample others. One cannot in Liberal fashion, take my argument that a particular METHOD of arguing/protesting is wrong and CORRUPT that into meaning I suggest the downtrodden resign.
LikeLike