"White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Monday pressed the notion that the far-left “antifa” movement is largely behind the violence that has emerged in protests around the nation and said President Trump is “committed to acting on this.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/01/george-floyd-protests-live-updates/

You have to laugh at the level of idiocy of this administration, tragic as it is.

Yes, the "returning fire" excuse doesn't hold much water if they decided to shoot randomly at protesters, which is what I suspect happened as they would have likely said otherwise if not. Of course, the double-speak and excuse-making will start now in that case. There's video going to come out anyhow so a clearer picture of what actually happened will emerge soon, I guess. E.g. if protesters or provocateurs did fire on police for no other reason than them clearing the crowds, they're going to be primarily responsible for whoever died.

Your high-level English reasoning has this poor Paddy confused. What I would do if I had a gun in my own house determines what people in America think the police should do to protesters looting Target. Therefore, Trump will be elected. Wow, teach me more of your Anglo wisdom, sir.

Yes — Chester

Show me the evidence you have, the polls and such, that the majority of Americans support the idea that looters should be shot.

If someone was in my property looting it and I had a gun I wouldn't hesitate. — Chester

What you would or would not do is not evidence for anything to do with reelecting Trump.

but many people — Chester

Your argument concerned the "majority". Not "many". Because it aimed to support the idea that Trump will be re-elected. So, do you think the majority of people support the shooting of looters? Yes or no?

To make it clear, @Hanover. I said this re the specifics of looting etc.

And that doesn't yet mean that burning down Target stores is justified or effective, it only means we've got to the point where it's not necessarily unjustified or at least not any worse than what's been done to the people who are doing it.

Well, peacefully appealing to the moral sentiments of the ruling aristocracy who have made America a systematically racist shithole clearly isn't going to work. How to effectively apply other forms of pressure is an extremely difficult question.

Yes, some of the localised violence is uncalled for and counterproductive and even carried out for completely the wrong reasons.

I don't personally feel that random destruction of property is justified and I sympathize with any innocent small business owner who got caught up in this.

But the main point is the problem with legitimacy, which hasn't been taken up much because the focus is just on saying this or that action is wrong, period. That's an impoverished level of analysis is what I'm saying.

You responded with this:

So you encourage looting liquor and TVs from stores? But for the distance, you'd be in the streets burning cars? Why do you sit idly behind your computer when your morals demand throwing rocks at police and stealing from stores? — Hanover

How is what you said a reasonable interpretation of what I said? How is it anything but a random expression of your emotional state?

I also said this:

Just to reiterate, we reject the framing that this is just a "bad apple" event or, if systemic, one that the authorities are willing and able without strong coercion to solve. We reject the framing that there is an equitable foundation of law on which to make neutral moral judgements concerning breaches of law. We reject the framing that legitimizes the use of force only for those who control the channels of visibility for grievances. So, if you want to argue with us, argue on the level of whether or not such rejections are justifiable not through the very framing we've already rejected. — Baden

Again, just quote my words, tell me what you think they mean and we'll go from there. Otherwise, we'll be talking past each other.

objections to your nonsense — Hanover

Here's an opportunity. Which specific claim, quote it, is nonsense and why?

And do you think the majority of people want black people shot for stealing TVs?

Again, try quoting my position. That usually works if done with context and demonstrates a minimum of comprehension.

Nah, you haven't bothered to read my posts and are completely lost.

Yes, you said that several times. Any evidence for it?

I'm not so sure it's just the rich, that seems a bit of an exacerbation. I think even poor people do want police to perform well. — ssu

Point taken though that's not exactly what I meant. @StreetlightX gave a far better answer than that anyway.

For the rest, pretty much, you've seen that in this thread. I would argue conservatives are wrong here in the framing but we'll never get to that if the debate doesn't switch focus.

You poor sad little man. It really is all you have, isn't it? Bless your silly little soul. Anyway, the topic is Trump so back to making a clown of yourself on that.



:lol: Who knows what @Chester is on about, but the idea anyone cares continues to be funny.

Is that really all you have? No intelligence, no wit, no real humor, just sloppy attempts at ethnic insults that for some reason you think embarrass anyone other than yourself. Sad.

I think... — Chester

What you think doesn't matter because, as is evident from your post history, you have nothing remotely intelligent to say. Nothing that couldn't be burped up by some drunken geezer in a sports bar. You can clown around for a while if you like but the idea that what you think matters is the only truly funny thing you've come up with here.

Say no violence" the moment one needs to actually contemplate that privilege being taken away, is an not simply an empty platitude but completely absurd line of reasoning if one benefits from, much less, promotes the right of state violence. At least say "I like the current violence situation the way it is", — boethius

:up:

The interesting question is why the US simply is unable to truly reform it's police? — ssu

I think it's because the ideological discourse is so skewed. Cops protect scared rich white people from their worst nightmares. In return, scared rich white people make them virtually untouchable.

Just to reiterate, we reject the framing that this is just a "bad apple" event or, if systemic, one that the authorities are willing and able without strong coercion to solve. We reject the framing that there is an equitable foundation of law on which to make neutral moral judgements concerning breaches of law. We reject the framing that legitimizes the use of force only for those who control the channels of visibility for grievances. So, if you want to argue with us, argue on the level of whether or not such rejections are justifiable not through the very framing we've already rejected.

The president's expressed wish for all of them to be shot isn't weighing heavily on people's minds, but a Target store being attacked is. — fdrake

This is very salient. In what ethical universe is a call for shooting people for looting—which they began as a result of a situation where a member of their community was tortured to death and the perp not charged—not only less objectionable than the theft involved but actually a laudable response to it?

The ideological fog obscures the fact that an official call for killing members of a community who are protesting being murdered is considered by many to be acceptable discourse, but any talk about violence against property isn't. Everyone should let that sink in. It highlights how the whole debate is so perversely framed. Take away the fact that the ones who are calling for the shooting are the powerful and the ones doing the looting are the powerless and you've got a disgusting upending of priorities where property is more important than life. Because it's their property and your life.

And this is not just about Trump's stupid tweets, that's just a particularly egregious example, the whole of the official discourse devalues the interests and concerns of those who lack the social and material capital to make them visible and elevates the concerns and interests of those who control the channels of visibility. Any analysis of important social events must recognize and deal with that reality to be worth anything at all.

Just rehashing what you said really. But it's so important to recognize. Those surfing on the moral waves of the dominant discourse need constantly to be knocked into the cold water until they learn to swim for themselves to the shore.

:clap:

:lol: I worked in a supermarket once. The manager got pissed off at me because I called in sick and went to the pub. Typical frigging capitalist.

I mean burn down the local WalMart. :fire: :cheer:

It's a disagreement over values and framing. — StreetlightX

Exactly. What it's not is "stealing TVs is good!" vs. "stealing TVs is not good!". If we can't get past that I'm going to punch me a @#$*ing wall somewhere.

I've assaulted two previous bosses... — Chester

I can just see you now swinging your beer belly at them like an obese Bruce Lee with tats.

'Parently so. Joining antifa now. As I don't live in a ridiculous country where fighting fascism is terrorism. The negative consequences to that will equal zero.

(OK, not really joining antifa. The point remains though.)

Being actively against fascism is terrorism now, apparently. So being for fascism is what?

I thought I made that clear previously, but apparently not — Baden

Actually, looking back I did.

And that doesn't yet mean that burning down Target stores is justified or effective, it only means we've got to the point where it's not necessarily unjustified or at least not any worse than what's been done to the people who are doing it. — Baden

Well, peacefully appealing to the moral sentiments of the ruling aristocracy who have made America a systematically racist shithole clearly isn't going to work. How to effectively apply other forms of pressure is an extremely difficult question. — Baden

Yes, some of the localised violence is uncalled for and counterproductive and even carried out for completely the wrong reasons — Baden

I don't personally feel that random destruction of property is justified and I sympathize with any innocent small business owner who got caught up in this. — Baden

But the main point is the problem with legitimacy, which hasn't been taken up much because the focus is just on saying this or that action is wrong, period. That's an impoverished level of analysis is what I'm saying.

Since I joined, I haven't seen a single poster say that property damage is impermissible no matter what. — Echarmion

I hope we all agree on that re this situation. I doubt it though.

Thanks @boethius for helping to clarify some of what I said. When there's a problem about the legitimacy of the state, there's a problem with the legitimacy of the state apparatus, including the law and its enforcement, which equates to a problem with the social contract. That doesn't mean "anything goes" and it doesn't mean I'm encouraging or supporting every illegal action possible or everything every protester is doing (I thought I made that clear previously, but apparently not). What it does mean though is that you can't argue morally from the perspective of the social contract holding as normal. There is the possibility that actions that are not normally justifiable become justifiable. And if you're going to have the debate, you have to be willing to contemplate a different ethical playing field than normally holds.

So you encourage looting liquor and TVs from stores? But for the distance, you'd be in the streets burning cars? Why do you sit idly behind your computer when your morals demand throwing rocks at police and stealing from stores? — Hanover

Stupid. Quote me where I said I "encourage" looting liquor and TVs from stores or where my morals "demand" stealing from stores. Tired of people who can't read responding to my posts with caricatures and missing the substance. If you can't read, go away. If you can, try again.

No it doesn't. — frank

Yes, it does and it's also trolling. So, let me make it very clear. If you want to respond to anyone's posts here, you're going to need to read them first. Otherwise, stay out of the conversation. Trolling posts will be deleted.

Next time you don't read something, don't call it bullshit, makes you look like an idiot.

The entire tone in this thread is histerical IMO, some of your comments included. — Echarmion

Honestly, if you look at my posts as a whole, I've made only a couple of rhetorically loaded points and have stuck mostly to a fairly sober line. It actually took considerable effort. :razz:

And how did that work out for the people that armed themselves? Not a rhetorical question, I'd like to know if you think the counter-violence was worth it. — Echarmion

Re the most recent armed struggle, that's too long a question to answer here and I think we'll never know for sure. It's complicated too by the fact that several unjustifiable atrocities were carried out by the Republican side as well as the British. During the previous struggle for independence from 1919-1921 though (which independence was won only for the South), what did demonstrably and unequivocally work was organized targeted violence against elite figures in the British army (with operations led primarily by the revolutionary leader, Michael Collins). When the big boys couldn't sleep soundly in their beds, they came to the table. Cut the snake off at the head and it shall slither to you.

Also obvious civil war potential. — Echarmion

Let's not revert to hysterics, eh? :wink:

It's fair to point out that the "elite" or "powerful" are not such an easily definable group, but, no, I don't mean the middle class. The middle class eventually needs to be won over not attacked. Might say more on this later.

And, by the way, you can attack elites through general strikes, boycotts, rent strikes etc. as well as some forms of violence against their material interests. All I'm saying is there is no moral obligation for an oppressed and cheated group to play by rules set by (and to the advantage of) those oppressing and cheating them. Again, seems obvious to me.

You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you? Go look through my recent posts to see what more specifically I'm suggesting.

You keep saying that but you have demonstrated no ability to quote me and argue against the points I've made, whereas others have and though I don't necessarily agree with them I can respect that. Anyway, I think I've made plenty of sense and I've already challenged you to show me where I'm wrong re this post you called "bullshit".

"The two groups I'm talking about are the elites, i.e. politicians, the donors who buy policy from them, and their apparatchiks in local administrations vs. the poor and minorities. Now we both already know, unless we live on different planets, that the more powered group are utterly self-interested both economically and politically and this leads to systemic discrimination and injustice, which is a form of violence against the less powered one. So, what's utterly horrible is to expect the poor to play Jesus while the rich and powerful are the only ones allowed to be Machiavellian. I mean, just to give one recent example, it was the poor who lost their houses and the rich whose investments were bailed out after the '08 crisis. The state (controlled by group 1) could have bailed out homeowners but it didn't and preferred to inflict the violence of depriving them of a place to live rather than risk hurting group 1's interests (even though group 1 would have hurt a lot less). That's vicious self-interested violence at work (your house is taken from you, your business is burned down, what's the difference?). And the fact that its obfuscated by layers of ideological bullshit only makes it more, not less, pernicious. So, again, the moral foundation your argument rests on is nothing but politically-loaded quicksand and there is no reason for anyone not sharing your skewed perspective to accept it. If you don't make an effort to see past it, we'll go nowhere. And that doesn't yet mean that burning down Target stores is justified or effective, it only means we've got to the point where it's not necessarily unjustified or at least not any worse than what's been done to the people who are doing it. From there, we move on to tactics. Could it work?"


You ran away then so here's my challenge again. Tell me why that's bullshit and I'm not trying to make sense or just admit that your comment was just more empty rhetoric.



:lol:

Yes, and not every one of them needs to be armed. But having organized armed groups to protect them in the face of other organized armed groups (like the police) wanting to harm them has obvious deterrent potential.

Now, the same people are boggling at suggestions for minority communities to arm themselves in the face of the criminal justice system failing them, again — fdrake

It's good that there is so much shock and awe that minority communities might organize and defend themselves against being treated like punching bags by racists in the security forces and elsewhere. It shows the tactic might actually work.

Why don't you just read what I wrote. Then quote and comment. It's quicker.

It was like 2 weeks ago that a bunch of conservatives in the US took heavy weaponry to a political building. The president approved, everyone defended their right to bear arms. The cops did nothing to stop them. The threats they saw to society were vague, nebulous, undefined. Everyone protected
their right to free speech. Then everyone forgot. — fdrake

Yes, I remember asking what would happen if a black group did that and the response I got was "just the same thing". Sick joke then and even sicker now.

Where I live, the police have guns and most of the rest of us doesn't, and that usually works out fine. I think it's a better society than the US at least. Of course it's also more homogeneous, so I may be biased. — Echarmion

Yep.

What's hysterical about that? — Echarmion

Your tone was hysterical not your content. I get the opposing argument. But I know if I were living in 1960s-70s Ireland where systemic discrimination was similarly rife, I would have wanted to arm myself as some did. The British and their bigoted police never respected anything but force.