Protesters Shout "Fuck You" and "You're All Racists" as Council Members Move Ahead With New Police Station


Cue the Stormfront crew below
Better than sports fans, unless someone's not reporting misogynist name-calling.
are they protesting because they don't like cops? yes. does north Seattle need more cops? yes.

I don't know if this will result in that, but it can't hurt.

Have you walked around lately? One thing this city certainly doesn't need is less policing.
Maybe that new "community oversight" committee can assist!
Is 'civility' now a racist word?
@6 The root of "civility" comes from L. "cives," meaning "citizen." If these people are acting uncivil, perhaps it's because they don't feel they live in a city.
If they scrap the paramilitary design and make a deep cut to the price tag, the sane majority of Seattle lefties will come around, I'm sure.

But there's a very loud and very tiny minority in our local protest scene that wants to get rid of prisons and policemen completely. Making concessions but still building the thing will just make them angrier. Everything makes them angrier, really.
What I'd like to know is just what it is that protesters are trying to accomplish here.

If it's a simple matter of announcing to the world that they are angry, then OK. Mission accomplished.

If it's a matter of building out their coalition and convincing people on the sidelines that they have something important to say (and incidentally, I do think they have something important to say), then perhaps "F--- you" isn't the best argument to be deploying.

If it's a matter of representing community interests to the city council and working to amend policing, then perhaps "F--- you" isn't the best argument to be deploying.

To an outsider, this looks like the left's take on Tea Party politics. Angry, uncompromising, destructive. And ultimately completely ineffective and self-defeating. You have potential allies, both on the council and in the community who see behavior like this and conclude that it's impossible to work with you.

And they are absolutely right.
@9 gets it.
The protesters are trying to get concessions, such as a lowered price tag and removal of the bomb proofing. You don't see those concerns being voiced in a clear fashion because the media refuses to publicly interview the leaders of the group. But if you go on Twitter, you'll see exactly what they want by simply reading the tweets.

Your comparison to the Tea Party is apt; small movement of angry, disenfranchised voters wanting to overthrow corporate-led government. And like the Tea Party, corporate-controlled politicians will attempt to subvert the movement into a false flag, such as when Clinton's operatives lied to BLM mothers so that they would publicly appear at her campaign rallies.

If we can all agree that protesters have a valid point, then why do we care so much about the way they deliver their message? Donald Trump is a human fire hose of offensive speech that spirals into incoherence if he speaks for too long, yet somehow he walked away with the Republican nomination. I don't fear the possibility of some random protester getting access to nuclear launch codes, so it probably wouldn't hurt to give them the opportunity to speak, even if they aren't the best at articulating themselves.
@9 & @10, exactly.

Did anyone listen to last week's "Revisionist History" podcast, where Malcolm Gladwell digressed from talking about the Mennonites to touch on protests at Princeton over buildings being named after rich white guys? He hit it on the head about the *way* those protests went down (regardless of how right the protesters were on the topic). He said they showed no appreciation for the system and institution they were trying to change, and of course that won no hearts and minds to their cause. And that seems to be what's happening in Seattle, too. Extreme self-righteousness leading to entitlement and incivility. The behavior Eli describes at the City Council meeting is like a cartoon version of the SJWs conservatives rail against on the Internet. It's not their political position that troubles me; it's their lack of *self-awareness* and impulse control.
these people are worthless to their own cause
Any riot/protest/civil unrest in history can get labeled as disorganized or disrespectful, depending on who you ask. The Civil Rights movement in the 1960s was pretty violent at times, and several leaders of the movement died before Congress was able to pass the Civil Rights Act. Did the violence invalidate the goals of the Civil Rights movement back then? If not, then why is today any different?

How many individual protesters did the TV and print media interview? What were their names? What were they asking for? These questions will never be answered because that doesn't fit with the disorganized protest narrative.

Remember that Reagan did away with the fairness doctrine decades ago, so the media is not required to give the protesters a voice anymore. The only way to get both sides of the story is to watch both old and new forms of media, because internet/social media is where journalists gather when they get snubbed by corporate media outlets for not following the script.
@earlyberd, Did you even read what Heidi reported?! (I don't know whether you consider her "mainstream media" and I don't care). It's like you're waving your hands around and doing the distraction dance. Civil rights protesters in the mid-20th Century may have occasionally been violent, but when they were Yes, in fact, that *did* invalidate their message; in the face of systematic oppression, the majority of civil rights protesters were.... Civil. And you want to convince us, intelligent "Stranger" readers, that today's protesters shouldn't be held to that standard?!
@14, What ultimately got a majority of white voters, voters whose support was absolutely essential to its successful passage, comfortable with the Civil Rights Act? Was it "F--- you!" or "I have a dream"?

This is how politics is played. You find consensus, sometimes even strange bedfellows Has anyone in Black Lives Matter ever considered reaching out to fiscal conservatives about approaching over policing as a waste of taxpayer money? Or libertarians opposed to big government? Probably not—they're too busy calling absolutely everyone who isn't completely ideologically pure racists.

You don't get your policies achieved by acting like a dick and then throwing a tantrum.
@14 False comparisons.

Seriously. Are you comparing the KKK, church bombings, lynchings and the murder of civil rights workers to the construction of a police precinct? Albeit a ridiculously expensive one.

Look. No new police precincts is a non-starter. The community needs police. Do we need this particular luxury bunker design? No. But let's not go off the deep end here with the melodrama and hyperbole.
Why were a bunch of posts just deleted? Including mine? None we're trolls as far as I could tell. Mine was simply addressing #14 and said nothing untoward. That seems rather... strange.

@14 This is a false comparison.

You're comparing the KKK, church burnings, the murder of little girls and civil rights workers with the construction of a police precinct. Albeit a ridiculously expensive police precinct.

Violence and disruption is not remotely necessary in this case.

We need police. We need new police precincts. We don't need expensive bunkers. But we need a new police precinct. It's not like Selma or Montgomery or even Ferguson. And those comparisons are just hyperbole that lead to needless melodrama.
What the what? Um. Suddenly all those posts re-appeared. Sorry for the double.
@19, I've noticed sometimes they appear briefly, then disappear for a while (presumably so an intern can review and approve them; I hope the actual reporters aren't given that heinous task).
@9, 16, 17: This.

Frankly, the most vocal endmembers of BLM are often pretty serious assholes. They excoriate anyone who disagrees with them (however slightly) on any issue as unapologetically racist, excuse and attempt to justify racism and bigotry against groups who aren't their preferred minority, use their victim status as a cudgel to cut off all debate on controversial issues, and demand that everyone obey their decrees without question. Some that I've spoken to have explicitly stated that they're not interested in reaching out to people different from them, who proclaim that they have no duty to change people's hearts and minds, and that they'll simply enact their preferred changes over the objections of people who aren't onboard with their movement.
Well, good luck with that, I say. That's not how any civil rights movement has attained its goals, and it's not how American democracy works. A revolutionary council handing down unquestionable diktat to the unenlightened masses? No thank you.
Private parking, private gym, private . . . . playground? I'm not even sure what you're supposed to call that indoor urban warfare training area, but given how much cops seem to enjoy shooting, tackling, kicking, beating, and curbstomping ordinary, unarmed citizens, I guess playground will have to do.

The building is designed so that the cops have everything they need without ever having to leave unless they are on a call. THAT is the ultimate problem. It's the opposite of increased foot patrols, community based policing, and decentralization. Instead, it allows self selection of interaction to create a very skewed bubble of information and experience.

This bunker/luxury precint/Amazon campus style deal is going to make police more paranoid, more insular, and ultimately more prone to escalating situations and using violence. The city council knows exactly what they're doing, just like they know who they really answer to. Maybe if they ask really nicely, the cops will be allowed inside Jeff B's giant balls. I didn't see a private indoor forest anywhere in the precinct plans.

Wait, was I supposed to care more about who is on what side, how they choose to express themselves, and what team I personally identify with more than the actual issue?