Does rioting get more results than protesting? | The Tylt

A state of emergency was declared in North Carolina. The rioters got the attention they wanted. But is it the kind of attention that will help make change? 

Riots are often rooted in deep feelings of neglect and injustice, and can produce results when demonstrations of violence challenge the status quo:

"When you have a major event like this, the power structure has to respond," [Darnell] Hunt of UCLA said. "Some very concrete, material things often come out of these events."

Megan McArdle makes the argument that we may have learned the wronglessons from the sixties, and the status quo reflexively reacts against rioters:

"Therein lies a tragic truth about rioting: It doesn't work. The left can try to treat a crime wave as a call for social justice, but that voice will be drowned out. The disorder will only fuel calls for order."

"Peaceful protesting is a luxury only available to those safely in mainstream culture."

Does rioting remove from support from people who might otherwise be in favor of social changes?

You can't have a dialogue if people don't feel safe. And without dialogue there will be no progress. 

When things get violent, nobody wins. (Warning: If you click into the tweet she is quoting, it's a violent video.)

If you feel as though you aren't safe anywhere, then a violent protest is one way to make the world understand your experience. 

Ta-Nehisi Coates has written a lot about this. It's easy to say people do not have the right to violence when you benefit from the very system people are protesting against.

"When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself."

Some of the biggest civil rights and political reforms came about afterviolent protests. You can't neglect an entire community and then raise your nose when that resentment boils over.

Matt Lubchansky's cartoon from "The Nib" perfectly illustrates the farce of saying only peaceful protests bring about change.