Full tweets with context: https://xcancel.com/hasanthehun/status/1932168427470516520
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2025
220 points (81.2% liked)
Progressive Politics
2791 readers
355 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This isn't at all the gotcha this person thinks it is.
Martin Luther King Jr. called for nonviolent resistance. The people resisted nonviolently, including Bernie Sanders. The media lied and called them violent, but MLK Jr. continued to call for nonviolent resistance in the face of that, and it worked.
Here, Bernie Sanders is doing the exact same thing. He's not suggesting that the protestors are violent any more than Dr. King was, as satirized by the propaganda cartoon. He's just doing the exact same thing - call for nonviolent resistance. No more, no less.
I know nuance is dead, but it is just insane to think this is a "gotcha." This person is the one "leaning into the hysteria" by assuming a call for action by itself is actually a condemnation of the protests.
See if you can spot the difference between Bernie's statement and MLK's:
I don't think it's at all unreasonable to criticize Bernie for leaving that second part unsaid. Not to mention the point Hasan was making, which was picking this moment to talk about nonviolence - at a time when Trump is preemptively painting the protests as violent and insurrectionist - affirms Trump's framing and justifies police escalation.
I'm with Hasan here, this was tone-deaf of Bernie, if not completely hypocritical.
Bonus MLK quote:
MLK Jr.'s speech on riots being the voice of the unheard was powerful, and stabbed at the heart of a complex issue.
But a year before that speech, here's what he had to say about the Watts riots:
Uhhh, yes, he did say that.... While addressing black americans living in the slums of Chicago, pleading with them not to "strike out with revenge against white people for the many wrongs perpetrated against you and yours".
I don't really think there's any comparison between the Watts riots and the nature of the LA protests, not even close.
I didn't compare them. You did.
MLK wasn't discussing Watts in that quote, he was speaking very broadly about placing emphasis on the conditions that lead to riots instead of the riots themselves, and specifically on how much condemnation to place on them vs the conditions that lead to them.
In yours, he's speaking directly to people who are living in a slum where violent retribution was a commonly understood feeling, and who had every reason to feel justified in lashing out in revenge. He specifically uses Watts as an example of an extreme expression of that revenge.
The LA protestors are not lashing out in revenge - I don't think that quote, in the context in which it was given, applies to the protestors in LA. And I don't think MLK's thoughts on Watts in particular have any applicability to what's happening in LA, but I do think it's worthwhile for Sanders to take a lesson from MLK on where to place his condemnations.
Didn't MLK also work because the Black Panthers were lurking in the background? Either the establishment dealt with MLK or they dealt with the Panthers.
They actually dealt with both unfortunately
Nuance was never alive.
No, Bernie is implying that the protesters are currently protesting violently.
He's literally calling for discipline, not to stop protesting. A small minority of people were being violent. I think you're looking for things to be upset about.
No he is implying that the protests are violent and amplifying a false narratieve.
I don't read it that way
So why is he calling for non violence at non violent protests?
To remind people to not be violent when they protest.
And because the government is trying to provoke them into violence. It's the hardest thing in the world to resist the urge to respond in kind.
Is he saying they are currently not violent?
He's not saying anything about the current situation, he is just reminding people to pursue a non-violent strategy in the face of violent oppression.
YOU have a bias that you want to confirm, and nobody is going along with your propaganda.
Is he saying they currently are violent?
You're so happy to imply one side but not imply the other. That's a you problem.
Why would the other side need to be implied?
You should not swear at people. It does not help in discussions.
"we need to succeed" does not imply previous failure or success. You're assuming it implies failure. That's a choice of translation that you're making and I disagree with it.
It does when the current argument of the other side is that the protests. Bernie is not saying that there is no violencde but we should look out for it. He is explicitly denouncing violence playing right into the accusations.
I understand that you're concerned about the optics. But the people who think there's violence wont listen to Bernie anyway. That was a message for us.
The average Benie fan these days is the generic Liberal.
What in the actual fuck are you talking about?
Go away.
Where is the swearing?
I didn't say he was swearing, why would you think that?
I simply advised him and said that swearing is not good in conversations because it does not help his cause.
I think because there are calls for violent resistance too and even if it is non violent now he is reminding people to keep their chill in the future when things can get more heated
It's amazing how much time some people spend worrying about the exact wording used by the small handful of influential people who seem to agree with them on an issue.
That statement could be written by any generic person with D in front of their name.
Then why isn't it being written by generic Democrats?
It is.
From what I have read, it is a simple fact that a nonzero number of people in LA have been protesting violently (or call it rioting). It’s even possible, but certainly not proven, these are Proud Boy agitators.
His comment may be based on the possibility they were not. It’s still a bit demoralizing when you and your thousand-strong hold back from violence, and your leaders still rebuke you for one person’s action.