Riots, looting, vandalism, etc.

acbytesla said:
Because it can. The simple fact is the vast majority of calls that police respond to are not criminal in nature. And people are fed up with the police out of control. We've seen police gun down innocent people in broad daylight. We've seen police officers acting like out of control linebackers which resulted in brain damage and the need for full time care fo the rest of a young man's life. We saw a police officer punch a 16 year old girl. We saw an off duty officer pull s gun on a motorcyclist and not fired.

How else are they to be held accountable?
Click to expand...

These are anecdotes. The more violence and criminality you have in society, inevitably, and the more people armed with firearms, the more violent encounters you will have with police. The police are not generally speaking out of control, the media focuses on rare incidents where race is a factor and ignores others. The media provides a distorted view by choosing what to cover and what not to cover.

You know the name George Floyd, but do you know who Tony Timpa is? In a country of over 300 million people there will occasionally be incidents like this. It doesn't mean they are the norm, but if the media focuses only on these incidents and ignores others, sooner or later people's perception of reality will be distorted.
 
fishbob said:
Correlation vs causation error.
Click to expand...

Did I say the decrease in complaints caused the murder rate to jump? Or that the murder rate increase caused the complaints to drop? Either would indeed be erroneous. Now suppose instead that a third factor caused both effects, and suppose that factor was that Baltimore police got a lot more casual about doing their job. Could that cause the murder rate to jump? Not hard to imagine that. Could that cause the number of complaints about police brutality to drop? It seems almost axiomatic.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
TL;DR riots are a problem, but if you're getting riots, you've got bigger problems.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Recognising this fact, containing the situation while trying to identify and address the problem, doing this openly, and engaging with genuine actvists is not to find it "acceptable".


The Puppycow position is that this is unacceptable and must be stopped now, in the most expeditious way. Anything else constitutes acceptance. On this logic the British Government sent the Paras into Northern Ireland to police a Civil Rights march, and we know what happened after that.
 
Puppycow said:
Yes. There are people taking that position.

https://news.yahoo.com/black-lives-matter-movement-must-164500490.html
Click to expand...

It seems like a play on language going on a bit here. When they talk about 'violent protests', they seem to be talking about violent revolutions. Do you think this is deliberate? It does seem like an incremental escalation to what people will accept based on what I feel is misrepresenting peaceful protests themselves. This is also terribly viewed from those on the right from what I have seen in regards to what they expect from peaceful protests, ie - 'They have the right to protest and they should but why are they blocking traffic? They should do it where it doesn't bother anyone!' Which is dumb.

But it feels like it is becoming the same thing when reference peaceful protests and accepting at a minimum or advocating to an extent for more extreme measures. You can peacefully protest and disrupt to a huge extent. Constant, disruptive protests can inconvenience people without physically harming them. You can disrupt normal life, causing people to not only be aware of but have to address your complaints. I guess they are trying to speed up the process through escalation, but that can definitely backfire.
 
Ulf Nereng said:
I seem to recall from history class that some American protesters became rather rowdy in the year 1775.
Click to expand...
Simply unacceptable.


Perhaps the government at the time would have profited from a more lenient approach than the one they chose?
Click to expand...
In the long-term, I think not. Hindsight's a great thing. The course chosen was, of course, a disastrous one in its own terms. It failed to achieve the objective, and yet the logic underlying it is still being trotted out by the likes of Puppycow, who back in the day would have been writing letters to the Times about this behaviour being absolutely unacceptable!
 
rdwight said:
It seems like a play on language going on a bit here. When they talk about 'violent protests', they seem to be talking about violent revolutions. Do you think this is deliberate?
Click to expand...
To me these quotes (and I've not looked any deeper into them) are historians setting the current protests in a historical context. In the past violence has contributed to what are now generally regarded as desirable and progressive changes in society. They didn't happen without it. Violence has also contributed to reactionary forces. The way this works out is beyond the range of hindsight.


Kellie Carter Jackson says :
A revolution in today’s terms would mean that these nationwide rebellions lead to black people being able to access and exercise the fullness of their freedom and humanity.”
Click to expand...
which sets out the terms of a win in this case. The Civil War is regarded as a win (by force against violent extremist insurrectionaries) but not in those terms. In terms of preventing the spread of slavery into new territory it was a win fair and square. Jim Crow and penal labour let the virus survive, but it was isolated so it was acceptable.



Will the violence in this case make a difference? I think not. I'm old enough to remember coverage of the Watts riots and not even Fox can conjure up anything on that scale.



What might make a difference is the footage from Selma in the same era, prompted by the death of the esteemed John Lewis at an age which would have been a very long-odds bet at the time. To a lot of people it's a revelation, to others it's a reminder, to Trump and his cult it's "That's what I'm talking about!"
 
Minoosh said:
I'd like to know who these people are too, but I wouldn't rush to assume anything. There was a peaceful group and then there was the not-peaceful group. I'd be interested in reading more about the people who were arrested.
Click to expand...
If charges are laid "antifa" will not feature in the indictments. That's a banker's bet.
 
Puppycow said:
https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1284988892471599104

I'm a loyal Democrat but I don't understand why some people on the left seem to think that this sort of thing is acceptable. Nor why local politicians like mayors would allow their cities to be destroyed like this.

This is obviously not a "peaceful protest". :mad:

It's not "political speech" it's a crime.
Click to expand...

Maybe they weren't 'people on the left'.

Witnesses saw people on motorcycles with OR plates who came in swinging the bats.

:popcorn1
 
rdwight said:
It seems like a play on language going on a bit here. When they talk about 'violent protests', they seem to be talking about violent revolutions. Do you think this is deliberate? It does seem like an incremental escalation to what people will accept based on what I feel is misrepresenting peaceful protests themselves. This is also terribly viewed from those on the right from what I have seen in regards to what they expect from peaceful protests, ie - 'They have the right to protest and they should but why are they blocking traffic? They should do it where it doesn't bother anyone!' Which is dumb.

But it feels like it is becoming the same thing when reference peaceful protests and accepting at a minimum or advocating to an extent for more extreme measures. You can peacefully protest and disrupt to a huge extent. Constant, disruptive protests can inconvenience people without physically harming them. You can disrupt normal life, causing people to not only be aware of but have to address your complaints. I guess they are trying to speed up the process through escalation, but that can definitely backfire.
Click to expand...

Trump continually conflates peaceful protests with violence, anarchy and looting. That is a purposeful propaganda campaign.
 
CapelDodger said:
To me these quotes (and I've not looked any deeper into them) are historians setting the current protests in a historical context. In the past violence has contributed to what are now generally regarded as desirable and progressive changes in society. They didn't happen without it. Violence has also contributed to reactionary forces. The way this works out is beyond the range of hindsight.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that violence is a great catalyst for change. It is important to keep that in context however. As I questioned, are they and you replacing violent protest with violent revolution? You can't use those interchangeably. No one would look at any of those actions as equal, or the means that those end results required as anything but extreme beyond anything anyone is actually acknowledging.

When you reference a protest or a riot as necessary for change while comparing them with things like the Civil War, American Revolution etc, it is ludicrous. To me it seems a basis to normalize the escalation, while not acknowledging the direction that people are being led.
 
rdwight said:
There is no doubt that violence is a great catalyst for change. It is important to keep that in context however. As I questioned, are they and you replacing violent protest with violent revolution?
Click to expand...
I'm doing nothing of the sort, nor is anybody that I can see. Very few violent protests lead to violent revolution, and Jackson doesn't even mention "violent revolution". As we know from well-attested history, violent protests can be the harbingers of violent revolution, but the two are not the same.


You can't use those interchangeably.
Click to expand...
I never would. It's simply not in me to do so.


No one would look at any of those actions as equal, or the means that those end results required as anything but extreme beyond anything anyone is actually acknowledging
Click to expand...
I've tried, but can make no sense of that.


When you reference a protest or a riot as necessary for change ...
Click to expand...
I will specify the protest or riot, it's context, and the change.[/quote]





... while comparing them with things like the Civil War, American Revolution etc, it is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
I don't think the crurent troubles are comparable to the Watts Riots of my youth.


To me it seems a basis to normalize the escalation, while not acknowledging the direction that people are being led.
Click to expand...
Ah, the "leaders" leading people to loot free stuff when they get the chance
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Trump continually conflates peaceful protests with violence, anarchy and looting. That is a purposeful propaganda campaign.
Click to expand...
Which, of course, is why it usually serves the reactionary cause. It can be used to conjure up the likes of "antifa" which stands against all that is good and righteous and exists in the Cloud, which is really scary. You can't overthrow the system by violence without a confluence of many enabling factors. You can, though, have the time of your life when the thin veneer of civilisation is worn away, however briefly.
 
CapelDodger said:
I said antifa. Why do you say BLM?
Click to expand...

Because at least one of them was carrying a Black Lives Matter sign. Is there not overlap? I'm trying to understand what point you were making earlier.

Some have suggested right-wingers may be responsible for what happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom