Riots, looting, vandalism, etc.

Did you see the video?
Click to expand...
Nope. I was commenting on these phenomena in general.

If protesters are looting, burning cars, and vandalising property, that's obviously not okay.
 
Distracted1 said:
What does it being "not" acceptable entail?
Letting it proceed, or stopping it?
Click to expand...

Strangely enough, the cities that didn't take an iron fist approach to breaches of public order have been the most successful in keeping things peaceful.

Many major cities in the US had outbreaks of protests that turned into riots in the immediate aftermath of the George Floyd murder.

Now, only a select few are still having ongoing, if not escalating, bouts of public disorder and opportunistic looting. It should be noted that these cities have also seen some of the most robust police responses since day 1.

Doing nothing, or using a very light touch, is often the best tactic if the goal is reducing violence or property damage. Sending out the riot cops to gas and beat crowds practically guarantees continued unrest.

Portland has had 50+ days of continuous unrest in the streets. The cops are out in full force, using everything short of just opening fire with lethal weapons into the crowd. It's a real-time natural experiment in the effectiveness of jack-boot tactics to quell riots and is failing miserably.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
No, that's not what "acceptable" means.
Click to expand...
what does not accepting it look like?

ac·cept·a·ble
/əkˈseptəb(ə)l/

1.
able to be agreed on; suitable.
"has tried to find a solution acceptable to everyone"
2.
able to be tolerated or allowed.
"pollution in the city had reached four times the acceptable level"
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Who said it's acceptable?
Click to expand...
Here is the NYT arguing for a diversity of tactics:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/16/us/politics/us-protests-history-george-floyd.html

"What emerges is not only an antiseptic image of individual activists, but an oversimplified division between “right” and “wrong” ways to protest that historians and social scientists say impedes understanding of how movements achieve their goals."

They say that “That’s not necessarily the same thing as condoning setting buildings on fire, but it’s certainly not the case that plain civility is something that would ever work.” Saying it's not necessarily the same things as condoning arson is pretty hedging language for the NYT.

"Social movements are almost always messy — and that’s part of what can make them effective, historians say."

"In terms of plain effectiveness, apart from moral and philosophical considerations, it is not always the case that peaceful protest helps a movement achieve its goals and violent protest hurts it."

"Most often, historians say, social movements succeed in the vast space between riots and “civility.”"
 
Distracted1 said:
what does not accepting it look like?

ac·cept·a·ble
/əkˈseptəb(ə)l/

1.
able to be agreed on; suitable.
"has tried to find a solution acceptable to everyone"
2.
able to be tolerated or allowed.
"pollution in the city had reached four times the acceptable level"
Click to expand...

See definition (1)? It's entirely a matter of opinion.
 
Distracted1 said:
Okay.
What does not finding it acceptable (able to be agreed upon, suitable) look like?
Click to expand...

Saying that it's not acceptable. Conversely, finding it acceptable would entail people saying so.

Are we done with the English language classes? Shouldn't the OP demonstrate his claims instead?
 
Belz... said:
Saying that it's not acceptable. Conversely, finding it acceptable would entail people saying so.

Are we done with the English language classes? Shouldn't the OP demonstrate his claims instead?
Click to expand...
I think the words used to describe things are important (I am not suggesting that you do not).
Allowing something to proceed unchecked is tacitly finding it acceptable, even if one proclaims that it is not. That was the thrust of my point- sorry if it seemed like an unwanted English language discussion.
 
Distracted1 said:
I think the words used to describe things are important (I am not suggesting that you do not).
Allowing something to proceed unchecked is tacitly finding it acceptable, even if one proclaims that it is not. That was the thrust of my point- sorry if it seemed like an unwanted English language discussion.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying your point was worthless, only that I think you're using too narrow a definition. I can find things completely unacceptable but do nothing about it. e.g. the massacre in Rwanda.
 
Belz... said:
I'm not saying your point was worthless, only that I think you're using too narrow a definition. I can find things completely unacceptable but do nothing about it. e.g. the massacre in Rwanda.
Click to expand...

I feel this conversation is a personal victory even if I'm not part of it.
 
Belz... said:
I'm not saying your point was worthless, only that I think you're using too narrow a definition. I can find things completely unacceptable but do nothing about it. e.g. the massacre in Rwanda.
Click to expand...
I hear you.
In order to not accept the Rwandan genocide, however, the means to stop it would need to be available to you.
Seattles' city government has those means. They are Democratically controlled. It is logical to say that they accepted the behavior.
 
Distracted1 said:
I hear you.
In order to not accept the Rwandan genocide, however, the means to stop it would need to be available to you.
Seattles' city government has those means. They are Democratically controlled. It is logical to say that they accepted the behavior.
Click to expand...

You don't know if they have those means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom