Can you provide historic examples of people's decorum while acting in events of social militancy in the name of civil rights?

Where is the historic correlation to justify persistent or popular anti social behavior as an act of social militancy on the internet?

I mean throughout the entirety of the civil rights movement the words militant and black were practically a collocation.

Lol. I am generally joking when I call pvn or fly liberal. Not sure about anyone else, but describing someone by their least salient feature is funny.

Well, that's racist.

That is a generalization. I do generally agree. Taking action and taking militant action are two distinct methods. The key word omitted here is social. Political militance is not synonymous with social militance. The social outcomes of militant behavior are different than political outcomes.

Unintended consequences are a risk for every method. How does the forum's method account for those?

Voting and electoral campaigning are taking political action. There's nothing even slightly militant with political action.

Sit-ins, boycotts, strikes, etc are taking social action. Most people would characterize most such social actions as militant. How exactly could the Greensboro Four have sat-in Woolworth's without being characterized as militants?

Posting on a interwebs forum isn't an 'action' at all. It's participating in the Special Olympics ~~ with you lately it's been the 'Word Salad' medal event. Interwebs forums don't have any 'method' to account for. WTF are you babbling about ??

Have you never heard of the black power movement? Black Panthers? Malcolm X? There's a lot of history where folks took a more militant stand over the non violent actions preached by others.

This might help.

As for it's link to posting here? Yeah, posting on a message board isn't militancy so that bit seems irrelevant.

Militant behavior is militant behavior, whatever the setting. It not irrelevant, and not reasonably arguable.

Slurring people's language after indicating you understood them by attempting to answer the question is just bad politics. Adversarial implications are social militance, not a sit in, protest parade, sing along, or a reasonable discussion.

How are unintended consequences factored in the your method? You imply intentional actions and those come with responsibility.

Spank, it would be relevant if posting on a message board could be considered militant actions. It's not though so that tangent is dead. Calling people names isn't militancy. After you read up on some actual militant actions we can discuss those. For someone that speaks so much on history I'm kind of surprised you didn't know that stuff existed.

This makes no sense to me. Who is "slurring people's language" (unless you talking about my valid characterization of your language as 'word salad'... because that's what this paragraph is). And I don't 'do' politics at all, my activism is exclusively union building and NVDA.

I don't 'imply' an active militance against racism, I'm out-of-the closet against it, and occasionally take anti-racist NVDA IRL.

I don't have any 'method'. What exactly are these 'unintended consequences' you keep implying exist? And WTF could any of this possibly have to do with posting on an interwebs forum?

You need to spit out what you mean by the word 'militancy'. Please no 'dictionary thinking' here... give particular examples from both history, and (LMFAO) from posts in Los Dos Politardia.

Shoot the messenger, again.

Keep lecturing spank on what to read while being completely uninformed about what possibly spank has read.

Can you explain how the political method of mischaracterization is any way educational or informative to a social discussion? It seems like misguided social militancy and little more.

Mocking dictionary attack. How many political styles does spanky know?

I'm not sure how you think I'm "shooting the messenger" or making assumptions on what you've read. You just said you didn't know about those things.

I gave trying to have a normal discussion with you a try and you don't seem interested in it so I'll bow out.

Still waiting for a definition of 'the forum's' anti- racist political method that fits a school of thought.

The tone, choice of words and images while posting in instances of such actions are describable and a lot of the social consequences of these actions are in hindsight.

This is a good stop for me for today. Happy peace day!

With jibberish like that, any time is a good time to stop.

Dude, why are you waiting... who's stopping you.

You're the only one who imagines an interwebs forum can have "a definition of... anti- racist political method that fits a school of thought". Nobody else has any idea what you even mean by this seemingly random selection of words.

You're the one who feels "The tone, choice of words and images while posting in instances of such actions are describable" and they have "a lot of the social consequences". What exactly are these actions you are referring to? WTF could these alleged 'social consequences' of posting on an interwebs forum even possibly be? Why can't you quote even one example with your 'hindsight'?

Ditto.

Personally-directed racism also exists. It is just less important. Still important though.

You mean that you think that racial animosity is rare?!?

None of that even resembles militancy. It is like saying that you are going to war, and then playing a game of Risk.

Grunching. Yes

Glad to see the denial of militancy has been dropped in favor of justification.

So we can begin to address the responsibility that comes with being angry. Also the unintentional risks of enabling extremism that come with the territory of popular militancy.

None of that arguing changes the fact that firm, civil, and mostly polite is the historic and more common modern disposition of the civil rights movement. Intelligent and intentional actions are the norm and the better way.

Even if firm civil and fairly are best way it doesn't mean its not sometimes better to add some 'militancy'.

Sometimes anger is justifiable. One measure of civilisation is how little it can be justified.

Dude, nobody in the world has any idea what you mean when you use the word 'militancy'. You need to spit that out first... we can't read your mind. Only after you explain what you mean when you use the word 'militancy' could anyone 'deny' or 'justify' anything. Of course, I can't imagine how 'deny' is even in the same category as 'justify' anyways... sounds like jibber-jabber.

We don't need to wait for you to spit out what you mean when you use the word 'militancy' to "address the responsibility that comes with being angry". There isn't any. Just like there isn't any responsibility with feeling sad, or bored, or tired. WTF BBQ ??

OK, add what you mean when you use the terms 'popular militancy (-vs- just plain militancy above) and 'enabling extremism' to things you need to explain first, before anyone else can respond to you.

What you're trying to do here is set up a false dichotomy between whatever you mean when you use the words "firm, civil, mostly polite, intelligent, and intentional" on one side -vs- whatever you mean by the words "militant, popular militancy, enabling extremism, and unintentional risks" on the other.

Well the Greensboro Four were militants. But they were firm, civil, mostly polite, intelligent, and were acting intentionally when they took the extreme militant action of shutting down that Woolworth lunch counter. They enabled a whole series of extreme militant actions, that shut down lunch counters all over. And there are unintended risks involved with not taking such extreme militant action too... the risk of perpetuating institutional racism by appeasement and inaction.

Missiledog criticizing someone for posting in an unintelligible fashion. Now, I've seen everything.

I am agreeable. Reasonable anger can usually be justified. It is actually not very reasonable to be angry at any one person because of systemic racism when I think about it. Rationalizing that as polite and socially just is like the zik zak method. Maybe it sounds good on the internet, but it looks like discord in progress.

Systemic racism is a reason to be angry. A reason to form and take action. There is responsibility in where, how, and when that anger is expressed. Responsibility guided by reason and social awareness. Leadership.

The other way is using anger like a weapon, the better way I speak for is having it like a tool. Not against people, but for people. So I do not reject anger, but I question the wisdom and reasoning to keeping it upfront and first.

What are all the pros and cons of a militant political disposition towards racism and social prejudice?

Unintended consequences are a big con. Anger and unintended consequences are responsibilities. I have as many grains of salt as needed to handle scoff at this.

That is one of his go to political maneuvers along with scoffing. He is not aware yet of being outflanked. His posts are a better example of schtick more than ethos if 13 is still reading.