Conflicting Thought Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 13 minutes ago, Week said: Focusing a lot of energy and air on something that is not widespread, coordinated, or common within a discussion about the widespread, coordinated, and common abuse by police of all people and disproportionately black people. It's a canard. I think you are right, i do belive that violence is sometimes necessary, and i think rioting and looting are too sometimes necessary. But, by focusing on this, we are doing a diservice to the movement happening right now, and falling for the fascist and the mainstream media propaganda that want to distract us from the REAL problem. I would like to talk about it, but maybe in a different thread?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight Of Winter Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 8 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said: I just happen to be watching a black man on TV being tasered by a white cop because he was having a medical emergency. Then the cop put his knee on the man's neck. Fuck concern trolling over property rights. Again, how does undeniably police brutality (which is a huge problem which everyone, myself included, agree on) justify what one part of protesters is doing? These two phenomenons - police brutality and looting - are unrelated and cannot be used to explain or justify one another. 11 minutes ago, Week said: Focusing a lot of energy and air on something that is not widespread, coordinated, or common within a discussion about the widespread, coordinated, and common abuse by police of all people and disproportionately black people. It's a canard. Oh, please. You just want to turn this thread into a even more of a echo-chamber than it already is, where everyone parrots exactly the same sentiments and any voice of dissent is met with a priori distrust. I don't feel the need to virtue signal myself and repeat ad nauseam how unjust and horrible officers' action were. It's obvious to any person with an ounce of humanity in them. However, this thread also featured a number of posts justifying what is, IMO, destructive and injust behaviour. So I reacted to it and tried to enter a reasonable debate about it. That's what public forums are: for debating and discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 1 minute ago, Fury Resurrected said: The civil rights act came after riots at the assassination of MLK. You are mistaken on this point. Dr. King was there at the signing by LBJ. I think the connections between violent riots and looting with advancements in society is fairly questionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conflicting Thought Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said: Again, how does undeniably police brutality (which is a huge problem which everyone, myself included, agree on) justify what one part of protesters is doing? These two phenomenons - police brutality and looting - are unrelated and cannot be used to explain or justify one another. Oh, please. You just want to turn this thread into a even more of a echo-chamber than it already is, where everyone parrots exactly the same sentiments and any voice of dissent is met with a priori distrust. I don't feel the need to virtue signal myself and repeat ad nauseam how unjust and horrible officers' action were. It's obvious to any person with an ounce of humanity in them. However, this thread also featured a number of posts justifying what is, IMO, destructive and injust behaviour. So I reacted to it and tried to enter a reasonable debate about it. That's what public forums are: for debating and discussing. Ugh, so now saying that the police is horrible and discussing that is virtue signaling?, thank god you are here to be the hero we need and destroy our opressive and toxic echo chamber. All of this in a thread ABOUT police brutality (state brutality), and you want us to focus on the looting and rioting? I see now, why it was a mistake in my part to engage in a discussion about this. Its strange to me that you found rioting and looting sooo unjust that you needed to speak up about it but, where are your posts discussing the very real and pressing issue of police and state burtality and opression. Why focus on that, when we (you, cuz im not from america, but we share the same struggle) have soo many more important issues that should be discussed on threads like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said: True indeed. But also whataboutism. Law enforcement brutality doesn't justify protesters' wanton property destruction. Disagree, to put it as one protester did, and I'll see if I can find the video of it cause the emotion in it is really poignant, they broke the social contract, who cares about property after that? If the police aren't gonna follow the rules, why should any of us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 23 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said: These two phenomenons - police brutality and looting - are unrelated and cannot be used to explain or justify one another. Of course they are. The causality is obvious and one can also use contractualism (as Trevor Noah did) or socio-economics to find deeper explanations. OTOH trying to disconnect the two is basically the same as demanding "law and order," even in the face of systemic socio-economic inequality, to expect the downtrodden to abide by the rules even when they don't work for them. It is a far more biased perspective on events than any one explanation linking the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 41 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said: Women’s suffrage came from rioting. The civil rights act came after riots at the assassination of MLK. Labor laws came from labor riots. It is entirely naive and not based in history to say that peaceful marches are anywhere near as effective as riots because they are not. Huh? This is flagrantly inaccurate. The most obvious - the CRM achieved the most significant goals years before MLK's assassination. The latter did not help the movement, as he at the time was trying to focus on trying to fix systemic poverty. I wish it evoked a call for change in that regard, but it didn't. Two, women's suffrage was a near-century-long struggle. Suffragettes weren't "rioting," and frankly it's offensive to say so. My mom helped organize the refurbishment of the Susan B. Anthony house. Ain't nothing in there about "rioting," or looting, or burning buildings down. That's not what civil disobedience emanates from since the existentialists. Thoreau was an abolitionist, but he didn't fight the cops when they put him in debtors' jail. Three, organized labor earned their rights (which have unfortunately largely been curtailed) through rather conventional means. Macro-level circumstances are why that happened, not any labor riots. The suggestion it's being "naive" and ignorant of history to think nonviolent civil disobedience is preferable to more aggressive/escalating forms of protest is, well, naive and ignorant of history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prue Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 Peaceful protests can be successful, but often only if the government you protest against doesn't want to use violence because they want to stick to their noble principles/ rule of law, or if they are afraid of public opinion worldwide turning against them and that this would cause economic harm. They are only afraid of public opinion of course if there is a functioning press or many people who successfully manage to post videos they took with their smartphones. In the case of the successful peaceful revolution in East Germany for example, people were incredibly lucky that Gorbachev was in power in the USSR and decided not to crush the revolution with tanks. The Czechs were not so lucky in the 1960s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight Of Winter Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 11 minutes ago, TrueMetis said: Disagree, to put it as one protester did, and I'll see if I can find the video of it cause the emotion in it is really poignant, they broke the social contract, who cares about property after that? If the police aren't gonna follow the rules, why should any of us? One argument might be that, when social contract is broken, choosing to further break might not be the best way to improve the situation. This is not a universal claim - sometimes it's true, other times it isn't. In this specific case, I think it's the former. Okay, so: what do protesters want? For one - justice for Floyd and other victims and for two, for such murders not to take place in the future. The question they should be asking themselves is: how do we conduct in such a way in order to best achieve our goals? Is property destruction the best answer to such a question - I don't think it is. Second argument is more universal - breaking social contract occurs not on people who originally broke it (police) but on innocent companies whose property the damaged. Now, once these companies have social contract broken upon them, should they instead try to...I don't know, burglarize the retirement homes? But what do retirement homes have to do with it? Nothing, no more than these companies do. That's why I repeatedly said that protesters anger is directed at the wrong targets. If they instead fought the police, burned down police stations, ordered assassinations of guilty officers in question etc. - I'd get it. It would still not be the best way to approach the problem - but it would at least make sense. Call it a karmic justice if you will. But no, they instead chose to mete their frustration on those completely unrelated to Floyd's murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said: That's why I repeatedly said that protesters anger is directed at the wrong targets. If they instead fought the police, burned down police stations, ordered assassinations of guilty officers in question etc. - I'd get it. It would still not be the best way to approach the problem - but it would at least make sense. Call it a karmic justice if you will. But no, they instead chose to mete their frustration on those completely unrelated to Floyd's murder. Maybe -just maybe- they'd rather not get killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 52 minutes ago, Ran said: You are mistaken on this point. Dr. King was there at the signing by LBJ. I think the connections between violent riots and looting with advancements in society is fairly questionable. Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed during the riots over MLK's death. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 14 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said: One argument might be that, when social contract is broken, choosing to further break might not be the best way to improve the situation. This is not a universal claim - sometimes it's true, other times it isn't. In this specific case, I think it's the former. More has been done in the last two week than in the last decade. Minneapolis is looking to abolish their police force. This is working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 10 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said: But no, they instead chose to mete their frustration on those completely unrelated to Floyd's murder. How many people are they? Few dozen? Couple hundred? What percentage of folks out there protesting do you think this represents that then justifies you impugning the protests writ large? Do we think that percentage is even comparable to the number of police meting out violence on non-violent protesters, priests, journalists, medics, ACLU observers, and essential workers after curfew.? What does THAT frustration and violence say to non-police? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Reptitious Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 38 minutes ago, TrueMetis said: Disagree, to put it as one protester did, and I'll see if I can find the video of it cause the emotion in it is really poignant, they broke the social contract, who cares about property after that? If the police aren't gonna follow the rules, why should any of us? I think you might be referencing the Trevor Noah video I posted at the beginning of this thread (post #5)? He addresses that very issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 9 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed during the riots over MLK's death. The 68 CRA was in the hopper long before King's assassination. The latter may have expedited the process, yes, but it was gonna get passed regardless. More importantly, it is not as nearly as significant as the 64 CRA or the 65 VRA insomuch as it was essentially an amendment to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 7 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said: I think you might be referencing the Trevor Noah video I posted at the beginning of this thread (post #5)? He addresses that very issue. No, it was of a women at a protest, though as I recall she referenced Trevor Noah during it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 Just now, DMC said: The 68 CRA was in the hopper long before King's assassination. The latter may have expedited the process, yes, but it was gonna get passed regardless. More importantly, it is not as nearly as significant as the 64 CRA or the 65 VRA insomuch as it was essentially an amendment to them. Yes, all that, but still, the point is taken that Fury was referring to that one and not the 64 bill. I mostly think about the 68 bill for the Fair Housing Act... although reading up on it again, I see its title X is a thing that could be revived to prosecute some of the anarchists and so on coming from out of state to agitate at the protests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted June 7, 2020 Share Posted June 7, 2020 1 minute ago, Ran said: I mostly think about the 68 bill for the Fair Housing Act Right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.