(Clarification: by "(real) problems", I mean the real problems of people going off and undertaking a tactic that may result in costs to other, unconsenting, participants. Such tactics have tradeoffs, which means there will be bad things about them, as well as possible benefits.)
All the best,
Tj --
BTW, I agree with you that Bill's comments were inflammatory. He immediately made clear that he had no respect for you and so you're right to call it trolling and tell him to fuck off.
I wonder what your thoughts are on this issue that always bothers me. It came up again at our Occupy in a discussion of what people there meant by non-violence.
Lots of people on the left are aware that the Sizzlean aren't Officer Friendly and know they are going to attack at some point or another. Others, especially people who aren't radicalized, often can't imagine that cops will do such a thing or, if they do, they've just assumed it was often because the protesters deserved it, or they didn't agree with the cause, so had no sympathy.
When people advocate non-violence as a tactic - because people look a lot more innocent when they're non-violent - this has sometimes been out of a desire to promote an image of protesters as victims being brutalized by the cops. The idea is that this is an important way to maintain or gain public sympathy for the movement. People pointed to the police beating up on people in NYC as the reason why there was an upsurge in support. [1]
That whole approach to using non-violence tactically gives me the creeps. It feels like we are purposefully putting people out to slaughter - the people who are naive about police brutality. It's one thing when someone trained in non-violent civil disobedience doesn't. When you are, you're made fully aware of what can happen to you. But, like the women penned in and shot in the face with pepper spray in NYC, they are often clueless.
This also seems especially problematic when people advocate non-violent civil disobedience. In that case, you're encouraging people who won't do it to come to the march but you know you're going to do something disobedient, which has the intention of provoking the cops.
Finally, it also creeps me out when people indicate that it's so wonderful that we have public support for a movement -- and point to the cops' brutality against the peaceful as a reason why we have it. "See, let's just pretend we're "non-violent" and "peaceful", we'll provoke the cops, they'll beat us, and then we'll win more public support."
Basically, I guess, fuck that noise.
[1] I disagree with that.