Thank you for your well-versed and detailed response.

Seeing protest as an attempt to exercise power leads to the questions of how and why that power is being wielded. It is a colloquialism but nevertheless accurate, that power is not made to change unless it is made uncomfortable. Effective dissent and protest makes uncomfortable those in power. Protest that brings no discomfort to those in power but only discomfort those out of power, is ineffectual and unethical. That is my primary point in this article.

You bring up the role of police actions against protestors, I believe in a broader sense, not limited to actions at demonstrations. I do not agree with Ranciere's definition and use of "police," but I do agree that the power structure maintains order through threats of an actual use of multiple forms of violence. I do not subscribe to either extreme on the question of the legitimacy of power--that the possession of power legitimizes that power or that all power is inherently illegitimate--so I cannot and will not make broad judgments about legitimate uses of force. Such judgments can only be made relative to the situation. And most people lack the courage to delve that deeply.

Since you are obviously well-versed in some areas of political philosophy and theory, I am rather puzzled that you accuse this article of being totalizing. Surely you are not objecting to the suggestion of basic ethical obligations to other people, are you? It's puzzling because in no way does the article suggest that one is "morally compromised" to choose to focus on particular injustices. There is no rejection of targeted protests. In fact, the article calls for targeted protests and is against untargeted protest that seeks only to cause general inconvenience to bystanders. Is "don't cause more damage than good" a totalizing aspect that is somehow wrong?