I have made it clear with several posts, including this one, in June, and this one, in October, that I yield to no one in my contempt for the “screaming at the sky” “No Kings” demonstrations. From the June post:
We don’t have a king, and Donald Trump doesn’t act like one. If he did (or could), all the obstructionist, partisan judges we have seen over-reaching to block his legitimate policies would be in prison, without heads, or on the lam. The anti-democratic citizens (and illegals) demonstrating yesterday are not the supporters of our elected President and our system that elected him, but those who still refuse to accept that election (or his first one, for that matter).
Nevertheless, a lot of my good friends, formerly thoughtful, rational people, are either participating in the latest iteration of this…well, let me hand over the floor to Otter for a moment…
A futile and stupid gesture! But three of them (or is it four)? I have measured these protests against the Ethics Alarms Protest Ethics Checklist and found the “No Kings” tantrums to be 0 for 12:
1. Is this protest just and necessary?
2. Is the primary motive for the protest unclear, personal, selfish, too broad, or narrow?
3. Is the means of protest appropriate to the objective?
4. Is there a significant chance that it will achieve an ethical objective or contribute to doing so?
5. What will this protest cost, and who will have to pay the bill?
6. Will the individuals or organizations that are the targets of the protest also be the ones who will most powerfully feel its effects?
7. Will innocent people be adversely affected by this action? (If so, how many?)
8. Is there a significant possibility that anyone will be hurt or harmed? (if so, how seriously? How many people?)
9. Are the protesters prepared to take full responsibility for the consequences of the protest?
10. Would an objective person feel that the protest is fair, reasonable, and proportional to its goal?
11. What is the likelihood that the protest will be remembered as important, coherent, useful, effective and influential?
12. Could the same resources, energy and time be more productively used toward achieving the same goals, or better ones?
However, I am considering whether the checklist is missing a possible redeeming feature of not only these protests but other protests as well. There is the possible #13:
Ethics Alarms 
#4 Does any rational person give a flying F!
I received an invitation to particiapte in one from a now demented friend (she use to be sane). The invitation uses not tonly the word KING, but Nazi, Hitler, Fascist, fall of democracy, inmoral, pedophilic, draft dodger.
I pointed out that such vocabulary is inidicative of ad hominum, appeal to emotion, After poitning out that these are classical logic fallacies in philosophy. She responded these claims are not philosophical claims but real.
There is no help for these folks.
I could see adding this rule for certain narrow-issue groups, like PETA, for instance.
The problem with the No Kings crowd, I suspect there is significant overlap in the attendees at this rally and the “mostly peaceful rioters.”
-Jut
In other words – do the queries about costs or injury to others outweigh any benefit from #13
Number 13 is worth adding. Part of personal growth is changing one’s mind, developing nuance, etc.
Aristotle said, methinks, that “Excellence is a habit.” Doing anything is a habit, not simply an ability. Being generous, exercising patience, speaking a foreign language, etc.
Perhaps there are people who only know how to protest because they do it periodically. We could argue the case. Even if the particular protest seems ill-conceived.
Thanks for reading!
charles w abbott
rochester NY
P.S.: yes, we have the protests here, and no I’m not going. What to say to the people who go to such protests? It beats me.
P.P.S.: some people find their romantic interest or even their spouse-to-be at the protest. Everyone knows it’s a good opportunity to survey the dating pool.
leave it out. The list is a framework for both evaluating protest movements that don’t use it, and hopefully adopted by movements that will going forward. A self-deprecating statement will be off-putting to organizers rather than reflective.
A framework for identifying and expelling the black shirt anarchists that infiltrate protests would be better–those that started the (literal) Rittenhouse dumpster fire, those that beached the January 6th Capital barriers (especially the Ashley Babbitt window… Watch how they suddenly retreat as soon as the glass is down) and those that break the windows to facilitate looting.
Wouldn’t 13 justify any protest?