1/ Portland's violence is not the result of BLM aggression. It's the result of police cozying up for years to the Proud Boys & other MAGA folks, encouraging attacks by the latter, which then results in an escalation cycle. And it's calculated as a no-lose for the cops...

2/ If things remain peaceful, they can take credit for their "heavy presence" and if violence happens they can say, "see, you NEED us...we're the only thing to protect against danger." At this point, it's a game they and the MAGAts are winning, sadly...

3/ Mostly because they thrive on the chaos, and chaos always reinforces authoritarian tendencies in majorities of the public. Always. There are no exceptions. In any society. Which is why it's a dangerous game to play, however one might be able to justify it on other grounds...

4/ At this point it isn't enough to just note who's to blame (it's the right and its fascist designs), or to point out the moral righteousness of a given tactic. The only thing that matters right now is what works and what doesn't. Everything else is self-indulgent nihilism...

5/ Every tactical choice from simple protest to nonviolent civil disobedience to property destruction to street brawling w/fascists to voting to whatever -- all of it -- needs to be filtered through a lens of efficacy...and I don't claim to know what such analysis would reveal...

6/ But I do know that strategy matters more than people's feelings OR our politics OR the need for release in isolation. Some will act on impulse and there is no need to shame anyone, whether they break a window OR limit their politic to traditional campaign work or whatever...

7/ But when the dust settles from every action and tactic chosen -- again all of them, not just the ones you or I approve or disapprove of in a given moment -- strategic discussions have to happen. Otherwise, resistance becomes cosplay...

8/ Thinking strategically is not tone policing. Or if it is, that's still not an argument for not doing it. Everything is tone policing to some extent: not telling your boss to fuck off when you're angry with them, not screaming at your teacher even when you want to...

9/ We think about how to say or do things because we want to be heard, be effective, etc. Telling people either to be less OR more radical and militant, less OR more confrontational -- all of that is a kind of tone policing: get louder or dial it back. Both are about tone...

10/ And I don't like either one when applied as a kind of pre-emptive act -- i.e., telling people how they must behave, protest, act, engage, etc. before they do it. But once a choice is made, and plays out, it would be movement suicide NOT to assess the costs and benefits...

11/ So wherever you come down on the way resistance is proceeding, and whether you're someone who thinks "voting is the answer," or "revolution is the answer," or fall in-between (as I suspect most do), we all have an obligation to make the case based on evidence....

12/ Our comfort level with any particular tactic is about US, not what works...Our feelings (however justified) about tactics are not evidence. Our skittishness (however justified) about a particular tactic is not evidence. Our rage (however justified) is not evidence...

13/ And unless we can point to an example (and we can't) where the forces of human liberation triumphed based on feelings OR skittishness OR rage alone -- w/o strategic analysis of the evidence at hand -- however much some might dismiss this point, the evidence will remain.