Destroying someone’s workplace can leave them homeless and destitute almost as easily as destroying their home can, so if empathy prevents the latter it seems it should also prevent the former. — Pfhorrest

Again, this is arguing against something which is, by using the disadvantages of something which might be. Having a street protest might well delay an ambulance and so lead to great harm, should we ban them too? Hell, just driving to work is dangerous enough.

The whole point here is that people have been beaten and murdered by the hundreds. The only compassionate response to the anger that provokes is sympathy. If that anger leads to bad decisions, we sympathise. If that anger actually ends up making someone temporarily homeless, we sympathise. If that anger backfires and make people vote more right-wing, we sympathise.

At no point do we start laying into the rioters for not having the stoicism to suffer in silence whist the people who actually caused the whole situation remain unassailed.

Sure, and what if they wanted to destroy and loot your house after? I mean it's just the voice of the under-privileged, who are you to object? — BitconnectCarlos

Why would they? They're angry, it doesn't mean they've somehow turned into unfeeling sociopaths. Where is this slippery slope fallacy going? Maybe we should band shouting because shouting often leads to fighting, and fighting leads to brawls...and before you know it, nuclear armaggedon. That's why they call it a fallacy. You can't argue against this action by pointing to the disadvantages of some other action without sound justification for believing one will lead to the other.

Surely those small business owners who had their livelihoods destroyed and the businesses that they built up over the years have no valid claim against the voice of the under-class, though. — BitconnectCarlos

If it's expected of the oppressed group that they suppress their anger, that they keep cool heads at all times and consider the inconvenience their actions might cause - if we're going to demand that level of compassion and moral fortitude - then we would surely ask no less of the small business owner... to say "I understand why you burnt my shop down, you were justifiably very angry and we don't always make perfect decisions in those situations, hey, it's only a shop, it can be fixed, there's more important problems to deal with".

I think you're seeing this too much as a tactical decision made in real time. The fact that riots work and the deliberate tactical choice to riot are two different things. The community rioted because they were angry, they looted because they wanted stuff, and had no reason at all to uphold the law. In amongst all that, there may have been some tactical decisions to damage particular properties, but maybe none at all.

So there's two issues here. Is property damage ever a good tactical decision in a protest? Is it fair to reprimand protestors for the damage they caused? To conflate the two assumes that tactical success is the only justification.

plenty of people think the tax code is unfair are we going to throw rocks through windows and assault business owners until that's fixed? — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, maybe. If other methods don't work. It depends how unfair I think it is and how many people suffer as a consequence. Just because I'm arguing against "never riot", doesn't mean I'm arguing in favour of "always riot".

I don't think I do need to look it up, because it's probably Latin.


It's basically a conclusion which doesn't logically follow from the premises. — BitconnectCarlos

I know, it was a joke (not a very good one apparently). The conclusion that I don't need to look it up doesn't follow from the premises that it's probably Latin. You had to be there.

It amazes me how destroying someone's livelihood and in some cases personal business that they've saved up for their entire life is "trivial." — BitconnectCarlos

The triviality or otherwise of any issue is relative. The whereabouts of my rattle was the least trivial issue around when I was 2. Compared to the issue being protested, financial set-back of a handful of individuals is trivial.

Just because I'm angry doesn't condone me punching you or destroying your business. Honestly, you learn this at like 5 years old. — BitconnectCarlos

We don't learn it when we're five, it's an enforced law to maintain discipline. Adults, of course, when they're angry with their kids can take a belt to them with impunity (or at least they could in my day). Are you suggesting that violence is never ever appropriate? Because of not, I'd can't think of a much more justifiable instigator than having members of your community murdered. If someone threatened to murder you would you ensure, in all circumstances, that you stuck to a non-violent response?

If you had your own business in one of those streets would you be okay with people destroying it? Honest question - they're just angry about racial injustice, who are you to deny them that expression? — BitconnectCarlos

I'd be pretty pissed off I should think. I don't see why how I'd feel about it should come above how the community feel about their plight. Why should I ask a group of underprivileged, down-beaten protestors who've just had one of their community murdered to give a shit about my feelings here?

the system itself is existentially dependent upon racist belief, as I've argued from/for common sense regarding this already. — creativesoul

You mean...

Here's a bit of common sense...

Wherever there have never been racist beliefs, there could not have ever been unacceptable racially motivated policies. — creativesoul

That's what you call an argument is it?

I think you need to look up the meaning of non-sequitur. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't think I do need to look it up, because it's probably Latin.

Either way, you inferred that one should not make a negative judgement about a tactic simply on the grounds that it hadn't worked 'so far'. It does not follow from the fact that a tactic hasn't worked 'so far' that one should suspend judgement on it because this would lead to suspending judgement infinitely as it will be in a permanent state of only having failed 'so far'. Thus you render judgement of a tactic obsolete. Do you I to look up ad absurdum too?

there already have been these transitions and reforms without massive riots so the idea that peaceful means don't accomplish anything is just wrong. — BitconnectCarlos

Yep, we've already established that in some cases some types of reform can be achieved through peaceful means, we're talking about the cases and reform types where peaceful means seem to have failed in a timescale those suffering from the injustice feel is no longer reasonable to ask them to wait.

you're sidetracking the argument. You asked me what my position was and I basically said "X" - now you're like "Well what about A-Z? — BitconnectCarlos

No, it's not about sidetracking to some other issue. It's fundamental to your argument that the properties and livelihoods being damaged in the riots are both innocent and a net loss to the community. I'm presenting data which contradicts that notion. Companies like Target are both fully complicit in creating the circumstances of injustice being protested against, and they cause more financial hardship directly by their employment practices than the total amount of financial hardship putting them out of business causes. The amount of wages and benefits workers lose by losing their jobs there is less than the amount of legally entitled wages and benefits they lose by being employed there.

If you want to extend things even further boycotts are a legitimate method. There are steps between peaceful, non-violent protest and indiscriminate destruction of local businesses. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes. Again, no one here is denying that alternative methods exist and in some cases, for some reforms, those alternatives might work.

What's being argued here is not that no form of protest works other than rioting. What's being argued here is that rioting is one form of protest which can work and - given the scale of the suffering these people are under - the consequences of rioting are either trivial (in the case of a bit of bystander property damage), or actually legitimate (in the case of damage to the property of those partly responsible for, or complicit in, the situation).

There is a situation which causes the deaths of thousands of people a year, and causes ten times that amount to suffer injustices (this much is basically indisputable). Some of those people think they have a way of telling those in power how they feel, and maybe getting them to do something about it - they're perfectly justified in their belief that this way might work (there's good examples of it having done so), and they're angry, so they really want to let their oppressor know just how angry they are. And they're damn right to be angry because the scale of injustice is huge. You're wanting to take that away from them on the ground that a few people might have to find another job.

You're asking a whole population who've been serially murdered, abused and downtrodden, when considering tactics against their oppressors, to have as their primary consideration, the job security of a handful of workers.

or to tackle the actual reasons why such and such a group are overrepresented in this or that statistical outcome. — NOS4A2

Great, you finally get it.

All you can say is that peaceful means have have not worked so far. — BitconnectCarlos

One can always use 'so far' as an excuse. It's a non sequitur because it's unfalsifiable.

What are even the demands exactly? I have no idea what dismantling systemic racism in the entire US actually means. Give us concrete proposals. — BitconnectCarlos

I've already linked the BLM demands. Here's a link. And here's an interview with nine criminal justice experts outlining the best practice steps.

I'm saying arbitrarily destroying local businesses that have done nothing wrong is evil. — BitconnectCarlos

I've literally just detailed exactly what they've done wrong, it's several thousand times greater loss of legally owed earnings than burning down the store lost.

@StreetlightX - Where's that visualisation you posted about proportions of wage theft vs larsony etc?

If every protestor concerned about police brutality joined the force, they can essentially trade current police behavior with their own. So why don’t they just do that? — NOS4A2

I expect it'd be because police admissions wouldn't allow it (Minneapolis police psychological testing actually dismisses a disproportionate number of minority applicants), not everyone is suited to it, there aren't anywhere near enough vacancies and... Oh yeah, they might not want to. I can't believe I even wasted the time answering such a stupid question.

They are begging others for change, or committing violence against the innocent in order to threaten to change, but never do they become the change. — NOS4A2

Apart from your brilliant 'all join the police force (despite there not actually being any vacancies to fill)' idea, any other great moves they've missed to 'become the change'? Do you do motivational lectures by any chance?

You can't just say that political lobbying doesn't work. I'm not a police expert by any means, but I know in Camden they did some reforms or in other parts of the country there have been more community-oriented approaches which were achieved through other means besides violent rioting. — BitconnectCarlos

Right, I'm not familiar with the history there, but presuming you're right, at the very least we can say that sometimes peaceful means work and sometimes they don't. The question is what to do when they don't.

And it is evil. Many Americans live paycheck to paycheck and when you destroy and loot their places of work you are effectively cutting off their livelihood. — BitconnectCarlos

Causing people some financial hardship is 'evil' is it? So the entire global industrial and banking system is evil, right? Because it undoubtedly causes some people financial hardship, by the million. Its like discussing the harm caused by poor food safety standards in 1970s Cambodia.

Target took millions of dollars more from their employees in illegally low wages, lack of sick pay and unrealistic working hours than anyone lost from the place being burnt down. They're better off without it, maybe there's a chance it'll be replaced by something with a shred of respect for basic human decency.

don't do evil so that good may come. — BitconnectCarlos

OK so peaceful protests don't work, political lobbying doesn't work, but they're not allowed to 'do evil' either. So the choice left to them is...

I was one of the ones who started the peaceful protests … the first seven days, when it was fine and dandy. I walked about 101 miles in peace. But if you protest peacefully, they don't give a shit." — William Stewart, Baltimore resident after the 2015 Riots

.

This was after media coverage, two lawsuits, a series of police complaints, letters to the mayor and weeks of peaceful protest. All with absolutely no effect at all.

A few days of rioting and they had the US Department of Justice look into Baltimore policing practices and publish a report which completely upheld the protesters complaints.

Same in the 60s with the Kerner commission, same with the 1992 Los Angeles riots after which police reforms took their satisfaction rating from 40 to 77 percent.

Anyone who thinks that a stiff letter is all that's needed only has to think if they're aware of what the ghetto-like neighbourhoods are like. Those in power all know they're shit places to live, they know exactly what is happening because they've been told for years. They don't need anyone to tell them again, they need people to shake them into doing something about it.

Take to the polls or raise money for your candidates. Talk to local community leaders who have connections with the police force. — BitconnectCarlos

Do you seriously think this hadn't been tried already at various points in last five years during which police brutality has just been getting worse?

Seeing implies looking, looking implies someone who looks, and that person is never part of the picture. — Wayfarer

Thinking implies someone who thinks and that someone is never part of the thought.

You haven't improved matters by taking questions into the realm of metaphysics.

it’s the only kind of question a lot of people will think is meaningful. — Wayfarer

That's because for a lot of people, a meaningful question (in a social environment) is one which has an answer in a social environment, and as I've just explained above nothing even get close to sensory data when it comes to mutual social experience of references that can be used to arbitrate disputes.

So, a question is meaningless (to many) if there's no meaningful answer. An answer (for many) is not meaningful as such if it is indistinguishable from a non-answer (or wrong answer).

Consider 1+1=?. The answer 2 is only meaningful if 3 is not also an answer (or 4, or 5 etc). So we have to have some socially mutual means of arbitrating possible answers in order to make the question meaningful.

There's simply no socially mutual means of arbitration anywhere near as useful as sensory data, so questions posed which are not answered using a method which is arbitrated by sensory data is going to be meaningless to many people. Their not wrong about that, they have a perfectly legitimate set of reasons.

As I said, it's not the only socially mutual means of arbitration. There's really widely accepted rules too, like maths, the rules of chess, even basic moves in logic are quite widely experienced in the same way. But beyond that there's nothing to arbitrate between possible answers, so the questions become meaningless.

You make it sound like appeal to data was just an arbitrary add-on in materialist methodology, like its a choice as trivial as what colour hat to wear.

The appeal to sensorially derived data is simply to garner some source of valid authority for mutual agreement.

As Peter Van Inwagen said of most philosophy, it is ultimately boils down to claims about the way the world is. If God exists, then that's the way the world is. If 'exist' is not a material existence but some other kind, then that too is some way the world is. If there is no one way the world is, then that too is still some way the world is... And so on.

If I come up with some entirely personal idea about the way the world is, like a belief in aliens, it makes no difference to anyone how I arrived at or justify that idea, but if I want to say to some others that they are wrong, I need to appeal to some authority external to (or mutual to) us both. Otherwise we just disagree about that instead. Sensorially derived data has proven to be the most useful mutual authority, it's the one with the widest base of agreement. We all have a very broad trust that the things we see, hear and feel are mutually seen, heard and felt. Blind people are missing something, it's not that sighted people are making stuff up.

There's no doubt in my mind (nor, I think in most serious materialist) that what we see, hear and feel is not unencumbered, not a pure reflection of the way the world is. Its value is not in the accuracy of the reflection, its in the mutuality of the experience.

No alternative method of investigation can replicate that. Talk of the spiritual leaves many completely cold - it's not even close to being a mutual experience. Rationality is just the same (one person's 'rational' argument is another's nonsense) there's no mutual experience of what is 'rational'.

We can come close if we culturally invest heavily in set rules (like basic maths, or language) where there's a mutuality born out of the fact that we all know the rules, but this doesn't tell us anything about the way the world is, it just tells us what the rules are.

So when we want to know something about the way the world is, as a social endeavour, we look to some method arbitrated by widely shared mutual experience. That's materialism, nothing else even comes close.

Upon a second reading, I realized that this is incoherent. Racially motivated policies are required. Here, you said as much yourself. So, either racist beliefs are not required for racially motivated policies, particularly ones that need corrected(so were unacceptable to begin with) or you're right. — creativesoul

I didn't specify the origin of the racially motivated policies. It is without doubt that living in a systemically racist society promotes actual racism (the belief that one race can exercise power over another on the grounds of some perceived superiority). So a systemically racists society will have actual racists in it, and they will bring into law actually racist policy. If left un-rectified, these policies will perpetuate systemic racism even in a completely non-racist society. None of this argument has any bearing on the issue of how the systemic racism got started in the first place.

Notwithstanding, the above is just an historical issue. The more important issue here is that actual racist beliefs are not currently required to perpetuate systemic racism. That's important because policy at the moment erroneously focusses on education as if we could re-educate (or otherwise eradicate) the 'nasty racists' and the problem would magically go away. It won't.

From whence systemic racism come if not from systems put in place by racists? — creativesoul

Systems put in place by people wanting to justify the economic disenfranchisement of a social class. Race only became the tool-de-jour because of the economic value of slavery and colonial expansion.

If you want to propose something extreme such as that the destruction of resources will likely produce a better future for humanity than refraining from such destruction, then of course the onus would be on you to make a convincing argument for that. — Janus

Fair enough. I really don't think a couple of storefronts are that important that their destruction has to accompanied by a detailed and watertight argument. Although I'm probably at the extreme end of advocating property damage, I think what seems to get everybody on this side of the debate frustrated is the disparity in concern. Even if we just take the US right now. 2000 (mostly) young black men are being killed by their police forces every year, thousands more are being criminalised by stress-policing methods and live in conditions we should find appalling given the wealth of the nation as a whole. A group, frustrated by the continuation of this situation, despite several decades of so-called progressive attitudes, come up with a plan to tell the country just how angry they are. And Instead of think "my God, these people have been seriously mistreated", commentary is deflected into criticism of their tactics. I'm not suggesting that such discussion should be off-limits, but I do want to put questions of onus into perspective. Given the deplorable situation that's being protested, no-one is under any particular obligation to submit a full justification for their protest methods so long as they fall within the very broadest parameters - show people that there's some human beings they share a country with who have been made really angry by these unjust circumstances. Anything that might achieve that goal is de facto a reasonable course of action, given the deplorable situation they're trying to resolve.

None of the rest of what you say constitutes any argument to support the notion that destruction of resources is likely to lead to better outcomes. It just looks like a "I've read more than you have, so there". Give an argument in your own words for a plausible mechanism for how violence or destruction of resources could lead to positive social change, and I'll give it due consideration and critique. — Janus

I have given an argument in my own words. I've just supported it with evidence from social science. I'm trying to avoid the 'just so' storytelling that seems to pervade many of the posts here. "X leads to Y which leads to Z", presented as if it were just a fact of the world. We're not the first people to give this any thought. There are people out there who have investigated, analysed, sought out controls, and then gathered all that work together and compared each to he other to identify common themes. I realise it's not physics or chemistry, but it's a damn sight better than just 'reckoning' some stuff, so I'll make no apology for trying source my arguments in the literature.

Help me out and outline one, even if it is merely hypothetical (which of course it would be anyway) if you can.

So, it's obvious how peaceful protest and rational discussion and agreement (however difficult it might be to achieve them) could work, just outline some ways in which you think violence, looting and destructive behavior might help. — Janus

Since my last attempt obviously failed, I'll have another go.

Trying to persuade people of a position held by a minority which goes against the majority interest is not the same as trying to persuade people of a position which is (or could look like it is) held by a majority and coincides with (or could look like it coincides with) majority interests. The peaceful protests or rational debates you see having successes in policy terms are of that second nature. The issue with victims of stress policing is of the first nature. People have a strong tendency to be influenced by the apparent behaviour of the majority of people in the social group to which they aspire to belong, so persuading them to behave in some way where it can be made to appear that their social group all behave this way is fairly easy (even if their social group do not in fact all behave that way - it can easily be made to appear that they do). People are very rarely convinced of anything by rational arguments. Again, literally hundreds of studies have been done on this, dozens of textbooks written about it. You don't have to believe it (there are a few radical theorists who disagree), but it's not a matter of plausibility.

So, given that there's a task of persuading people about this minority issue, and given that presenting a rational argument isn't going to cut it, and neither is presenting a new model behaviour for the social group (very few people aspire to belong to the social group represented by those affect by this issue). There has to be a third tactic. One thing which does encourage rational consideration of the arguments is dissent from social norms, it's like the shock of a cold shower waking you up, it shakes the mind out of it's routine and forces the consideration of a new norm. A very large protest might do it, a riot definitely does. Yes there's a backlash without doubt (and studies have shown that when the message coincides with majority interests, the backlash is worse than the attention it gained - the plan backfires), but at least people are talking about the issue, and doing so outside of the scripted cliches they're used to using - because something dramatic has happened outside of the experience those scripts were designed to deal with. Basically, once everyone has stopped being faux-offended at the property damage, they'll still be an issue to answer.

So having established the action needs to be visceral and dissenting, why McDonalds and Target...

This is why the systemic nature of the oppression matters. McDonalds are not innocent bystanders, Target are not innocent bystanders. They're part of a system which, by it's very nature, creates and oppresses the class of people protesting, it creates the very conditions responsible for all those deaths. It's not that all the protestors are dedicated Marxist theorists, but that they see wealth and privilege on one side of the street, and none on theirs, in a united nation, that's just default wrong. The privileged have automatically dome something wrong, just by still being privileged.

One thing people don't like is being identified as the 'bad guys'. One of the problems with protest on a purely party political scale is it maintains the illusion (seen here writ large on this very thread) that the only bad guys are the politicians, that they're entirely responsible for everything being the way it is and everyone else are just meat puppets doing their jobs. Protests without threat of violence or property damage become just a part of the system. The wealthy oppress, the poor protest about it, nothing happens, it becomes like the wallpaper, the normal backdrop of daily life. Something has to present a real threat to even make it to the discussion table.

Presenting strong emotional behaviour encourages empathy (not in the sense the term is usually used - often confused with sympathy) we literally feel their anger just because we see how angry they are. It's conflicting to feel the subject of that anger as well as the anger itself. It's why it's necessary to dehumanise the enemy in times of war, and dehumanisation is definitely one of the responses violent riots risk, but it's only a risk, not a certainty. If it is done right, there will be the dissonance sufficient to stimulate re-evaluation, but not sufficient to encourage dehumanisation. This is why I mentioned commitment and consistency. They both not only encourage rational consideration, but they work against any attempt to dehumanise.

To summarise, with messages affecting only minority interests it is necessary to perform some dissenting threatening action to stimulate rational consideration of the argument. This dissenting action often has a backlash, but in many cases the backlash is less harmful than the subsequent consideration of the position. The targets of this dissenting action need to be within the community of people who need to consider the arguments, not some distant authority, otherwise they remain irrelevant issues. Defacing statues is ideal, putting the odd brick through a window, a bit of fisticuffs...burning down a whole store is bordeline...any more than that and you'll end up being too easy to dehumanise, or face a backlash bigger than the value of the issue being discussed, but to draw the line at any property damage whatsoever, has no net value.

Gosh you expend an awful lot of text explaining an argument that I neither misunderstood, nor contradicted. We can just leave out the entire chunk where you talk about how systemic racism results in racist beliefs because at this stage no one is denying that, so there's no need to waste your time trying to explain it. The issue is whether racist beliefs in turn are a necessary cause of systemic racism.

If, at one point in a culture, all people over six foot were given a million pounds. A hundred years later, there would be a systemic favouring of people over six foot. Their descendents would have had a better chance in life, they would more likely hold positions of power and probably gather geographically. The current culture might (perhaps because all children are brought up elsewhere) be completely ambivalent about height, it wouldn't mean that short people aren't still the victims of systemic heightism.

This is really important to stress because the idea that systemic racism is caused by racist attitudes turns what is a massive structural problem into trivial issue about education. As if we could solve the problem in a stroke by giving white kids more books with black kids in. It trivialises the effects of a system which mandates an underprivileged underclass.

So...

You mean to say that a belief that invents a categorization of different people and the devaluation of people with dark skin isn't a racist belief? — Christoffer

Yes, I mean to say exactly that. It isn't a belief at all. Inventing a categorization of different people and the devaluation of people with dark skin is a strategy, not a belief. One could invent such a system for any purpose at all, racism needn't be it.

Rambly and really unhelpful at making explicit what he's talking about. — StreetlightX

I do my best... Oh... You were talking about Reed.

I see. Did you read the articles StreetlightX posted earlier by any chance? I think they detail the issue better than I have, but it's primarily about distraction, so I guess I just disagree that lack of emphasis on the post-colonial international aspects doesn't undermine the real chances of domestic gains. I think a failure to address issues in a united and consistent manner does impact on success.

Maybe it's a different approach to localisation, but imagine if, in the middle of the BLM movement, the newspapers were full of a campaign to help give social support to the elderly, and stopped reporting on the protests. A perfectly worthy campaign, but would a part of you not feel like the wind had been taken out of the sails a bit? Would no small part of you question the paper's motives, no matter how worthy the alternate cause?

That's basically how I feel about single issue protests which don't express sufficient solidarity with the wider structural problems of they are one part.

But again, I'm open to the possibility that you think such solidarity has been adequately expressed, and maybe our difference is not one of principle but one of judgement?

It starts with a racist belief, systemic racism is the cause of that belief being put into the status quo of society. — Christoffer

What makes you think a racist belief is necessary to start it?

Then when the common status quo narrative of racism is deleted from society as a norm, systemic racism still exists and program people into racist beliefs. — Christoffer

Right. Which would support my claim. Still not seeing the psychological effect you think I'm missing. Is there any chance you could just name it, for clarity?

I pointed out how systemic racism form from a starting personal belief, then the system itself form new personal beliefs. That it's impossible to separate systemic racism with individual racist beliefs, they inform and sustain each other. — Christoffer

Yes, I got that. I'm moving on to the next bit of the discussion where I ask you why you believe that, you hinted at some well known psychological principle I'm missing, but your links were to cognitive dissonance. I don't see how the existence of cognitive dissonance means that racist beliefs must have initiated systemic racism.

As they are inseparable, you cannot have one without the other. — Christoffer

I don'tsee what that's got to do with causation. Every time it rains the grass gets wet, you can't have rain without the grass getting wet, and you can't (ordinarily) have wet grass without it having just rained. This doesn't in any sense mean that wet grass causes rain. The fact that you can't have one without the other doesn't, on its own, imply mutual causality.

I don't think it would be or should be repurposed towards addressing international systemic racism/colonialism, I simply hope that the movement gathers enough momentum and scope to "Yes, and" the international stuff — fdrake

But surely hope isn't enough in the face of almost complete failure to progress at anything like the speed we'd like. I don't think it's sufficient just to hope. To me, the risk of one detracting from (or worse, even contradicting) the other is too great, given the stakes. I think we'd be remiss not to explore those possibilities. But maybe you consider them sufficiently explored and satisfactorily put to bed already. Certainly I feel like I'm repeating myself a bit, so maybe there's not much more fruit to be had from this branch.

I'm not sure how any of what you've just said relates to the position in your first comment to me, nor answers my question.

I claimed that racist beliefs were not necessary to either cause or sustain systemic racism. Meaning that if you educated people to the extent that they no longer held racist beliefs, there would still be systemic racism.

You seemed to suggest that such a position left some acknowledged psychological feature unexplained. I'm asking what that feature is and how such a principle as the one I outlined above leaves it unexplained.

Your last post basically outlines a common theory of racist belief propagation and perpetuation, but my point was not about the causes of racist belief, it was about the causes of systemic racism, so I'm not sure how you're relating the two issues.

I'm not sure if I understand the question, but if you're asking what I think you're asking, then that would be a question about whether there exist racist belief, not whether they are necessary to explain the existence of systemic racism.

If those in power regarding the rules for global markets(the head of states, and/or the actual authors of legislation regarding trade policy) are operating under a racist belief system, or continuing to implement an inherited racist based system, then we would certainly have a world-wide systemic form of racism.

However, and this is my basic point here, due to the nature of sovereign nations, it is not in my purview to tell them what to do. — creativesoul

I think this is wrong on both claims.

Firstly it doesn't require a racist belief system to generate systemic racism. It only requires systems which do not account for, nor rectify, previous racially motivated policies. Even then race can be a convenient tool for suppressing working class power structures so I don't agree that racist beliefs are necessary at any stage, certainly not now.

Secondly, I disagree that it is not within your purview to influence sovereign nations. We influence sovereign nations all the time. Our tourism, our trade, our development aid, our charitable interventions, our membership of global organisations (UN, World Bank, IMF). The idea that sovereign governments are the ones in charge of how their countries develop is limited even with HDEs, its bordering ridiculous with LDEs.

There will still be fewer and fewer good quality American jobs available to those from unfortunate backgrounds/circumstances so long as these trade policies are not addressed — creativesoul

Again, I don't think this is true. Capitalist economic structures rely on an underemployed underclass to keep wages low. They then need to police this underclass, for whom criminality is pretty much the only option. Exploitation of cheap workers abroad, doesn't somehow 'rob' locals of work that they would otherwise have had because to give them that work would be to reduce wage pressure. Its possible to exploit lower paid workers abroad, so systems are set up to do so. It doesn't automatically follow that taking that possibility away will create better systems in the home country.

Being born black in this country, is one of those aforementioned unfortunate circumstances, and will continue to be as long as the racist beliefs are allowed to remain influential in American government. — creativesoul

I disagree. I think the disadvantages of being born black in America are far more influenced by historical effects which place blacks disproportionately in the lower classes. Making it an issue of racist beliefs just offers a convenient way to maintain neo-liberal ideas of ignoring class struggle by deflecting the issue. As if re-education of some erroneous belief was all that was needed. It will achieve as much as changing the curtains in the oval office. If it's not blacks being disproportionately effected, it'll be women, or red-heads, or goodness knows what - because the main problem has not been addressed, which is that some underpaid underclass are a necessary component of the system. We don't solve the problem by ensuring that this underprivileged class is made up equally of blacks and whites. We solve it by removing the need for such an underclass at all.

There would seem to be little or no reason to believe that looting and burning will achieve anything positive. So the onus would be on those who think it is a good strategy to show that it will, or that we have plausible reasons to believe it will, have positive results. — Janus

Wow, is that how the assignment of onus works? Based on which argument you personally find initially most plausible. You must be kept very busy indeed. Is there a phone number people have to ring to find out, or do you have a web service?

Personally, I'd have thought the onus is pragmatically an on anyone wishing to make a point to be able to support it on request, simple because that's how discussion moves forward, but OK...

The benckmark work on persuasion is by Mackie and he argues for what we might expect about majority influence (after Asch) and mood effects on persuasiveness of the message. However, that work only covers messages where persuasion was likely in the first place. So people like Martin, Hewstone and Nemeth (among others) started looking at persuasion by minority groups they found that when successfully persuaded by a minority group, that shift in view was more resistant to later reversion that persuasion by majority groups. The trouble is, with minority groups you often have the negative effect of relevance within the majority group. Petty studied the effect of persuasiveness to non-relevant populations. What he found was that whilst under conditions of high relevance arguments were assessed by their reasonableness, under conditions of low relevance, they were not. Extraneous factors played a greater role in the persuasiveness of the message.

So groups wishing to sell a message which could potentially be seen as a majority message (the 'silent majority' tag) and whose message is relevant to large portions of society are best doing so without any dissenting activity - The recent Women's March or the MeToo movement is a prime example of a success in this regard. This tactic, however, cannot work for a minority group message which conflicts with the interests of a majority group. The message will remain unpersuasive, or if it has persuasive power, the effect will be short-lived.

These groups (according to a 1994 meta study by Wood) have to show consistency, and commitment and to take swift and short-lived actions to immediately make their issues relevant to a majority interest (long-term actions breed resentment, but short-term ones increased receptivity to the message, Nemeth 2010). A single act of dissent (law-breaking) on a target significant to a majority interest (like a brand name or statue) is an effective means of engaging this relevancy.

---More important than all of this though was consistency. It came out as the single most important factor in persuasiveness of minority positions in all the studies involved. That's why I started talking about the issues with people taking part in riots against systemic racism whilst wearing, or using , products involved in systemic racism abroad. It really matters that the message is consistent.---

I don't believe it is done for strategic reasons, in any case; it seems far more likely to me that it is simply a mindless expression of mob anger. — Janus

Research by Clifford Scott and John Dury on the 2011 riots here in the UK, plus work done on the 1960s on the Ghetto riots both show that the average rioter was not mindless, nor motivated by criminal activity. For the 60s ghetto riots, the average rioter was more likely to be of higher educational attainment than the populace in the area, less likely to have an existing criminal record and more likely to me a member of a local social-benefit organisation. In 2011, typical mob behaviour models were shown to be inadequate to explain the pattern of criminal activity in the typically small groups of well-known individuals that made up these riots (and those in Minneapolis).

None of this is to say that there's not opportunistic criminal activity, nor that violent protests always work, but that the pattern is complicated.

---Most references I only have as paper copies, or citations in textbooks. If you want to follow any up I can give you the full titles, but a quick google scholar search will find just as many articles opposing this view as supporting it. the point was not to claim that it's somehow the 'scientific' opinion that law-breaking protests work, merely to point out that it's not as obviously wrong as you make out.

Again, I'm not asking for a reiteration of your position. I know you think the first three are correct. I know you think the last one cannot be inferred. I'm asking you why, not for a restatement of the fact that you believe it to be the case. Why do you believe it to be the case?

All four are facts about reason - properties of reason. You're not explaining how the fact that "It belongs to a completely different ontological level - the symbolic level" prevents neuroscience from accounting for it. Simply declaring it to be the case isn't sufficient. When pressed on the matter you said something about the circularity of using reason to infer facts about reason. Hence my question about how the fourth inference differs from the others.

I addressed your points with reference to a textbook example. — Wayfarer

No you didn't. My question was quite clear. Of the four properties of the faculty 'reason' which I gave, your claim is that three of them can be inferred using reason, but the fourth cannot. The question has a simple answer that is not contained (or even referenced) in the text excerpt you quoted. Why can we infer three properties of reason, using reason, but you deny we can use reason to infer the fourth. I want to know what you think the crucial difference is. All your texts and replies so far have done is repeat the view that we cannot infer the fourth property in my list. I'm already very aware that this is your view. I'm asking how it differs from the other three properties I mentioned, because you seem to think we can infer those using reason.

The problem is that if you own something under the current law, then any future expropriation can be seen as theft, or else the abiding law must be seen as merely arbitrary and the whole concept of property, whether communal or private, becomes ultimately arbitrary. — Janus

True. I think talk of 'theft' is unhelpful here because it implies some law. The law (at least in my country) allows for the recovery of the proceeds of crime, but only where the law made the act criminal at the time it was committed.

Where the problem arises though is when this Wendell-Holmes-ian concept of pragmatic law is treated differently when it comes to collective ownership movements. Often I've heard the argument that the original acquisition of land (say from native tribes) was not theft because no laws against it existed at the time, held by the same people who argue against things like public ownership of utilities as if they were illegitimate government intervention in rightfully owned property. It obviously can't be both. Either property (and theft) are inalienable rights (in which case the original acquisition of land was almost certainly theft), or property (and theft) are just pragmatic legal definitions of the current community, in which case a government stepping in to change them is nothing bu democracy in action and should be supported.

And that is the point that I am disagreeing with. It is only valid in a communist or fantasy world. Not one that I inhabit. — A Seagull

This seems like an odd point to disagree on. Unless you have some odd definition of 'belong' that you're not sharing, it's almost universally agreed on that the land 'belonged' to indigenous tribal communities initially. No areas (that I know of) were settled by modern societies (ones with a legal concept of ownership) from virgin, unoccupied land.

From now on, every time a hawk proposes to go to war somewhere we should insist they should peacefully protest against that other country instead of resorting to violence. — Benkei

Indeed. And if where such hawks claim life and liberty are equally important, then it follows they should insist that city authorities resolve criminal activity without resorting to life-threatening violence and incarceration... Oh wait, isn't someone already suggesting that....

You've just repeated your argument again without addressing any of the points I raised. If you're just going to ignore me there's not much point in me being on the other end of this conversation, is there?

I think all that is good, as with any set of customs, so long as you don’t wall off what’s outside it out of fear. — csalisbury

Yeah, I'd agree that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with merely having a set of metaphysical mantras which one uses as a tonic, to calm the nerves. The problem arises when there's any concerted attempt to either (a) use those metaphysical sentences to claim knowledge (and therefore power) over other people, or (b) try to use 'authorities' on these sentences to undermine the social act of creating them.

When 'science' is pilfered for a deck of 'science-against-science' cards (quotes),it calls to mind someone in fear of a conquering civilization who believes what they hold dear can only be saved so long as members of that civilization reveal their angelic aspect and swoop down (condescend) to save. Tales of such salvific miracles (ala the 'good samaritan') are sought out, and then held dearly, as one collects stories of the saints, or centurions with a heart of gold. But the backdrop is always the conquering nation one has to stand firm against, relying on the strength of defectors from its ranks (strength derived from the conquering nation.) — csalisbury

Yes, this is a nice example. I think of why things like Bohr's speeches and Schrodinger's work on 'life' are treated with such reverence among the metaphysical crowd. An odd kind of circularity "science doesn't have the answers, scientists have only a limited body of knowledge" to "Oh look, look, a scientist said it, it must be true". Or how science is dismissed as having nothing to say about matters of mind, consciousness and free will... until quantum physics hints at something weird enough to crowbar in a metaphysical theory, then they're treated like saints, with 'salvific miracles' as you put it.

Destroying property and resources achieves nothing; it really just amounts to the mindless destruction of property and resources. Nothing will happen without the enlightenment of the masses, and a collective will to coordinated action against the financial elites. — Janus

This is a perfectly legitimate position to hold, but as I was trying to explain to ssu, it your opinion, not established fact. Its' neither reasonable (nor possible) for you to expect other people to act on the basis of your beliefs, they act on the basis of their beliefs. Think of it the other way round. a religious zealot thinks you should blow yourself up for the glory of Allah, would you be persuaded by the argument that they really, really believe you should?

If you want to change people's beliefs you have to, at the very least, appeal to their reasoning (and almost certainly a bunch of other stuff too). Simply telling us/them that you believe "Destroying property and resources achieves nothing" is irrelevant. If you believe that, then don't destroy property and resources. Other people believe it will achieve something, so they continue to destroy property and resources in the hope that it achieves their goals. If you want to change their belief you need to present some chain of reasoning which demonstrates how destroying property achieves nothing. It needs to be either pretty much irrefutable or it needs to come along with an alternative which will certainly change something, otherwise it's not going to have any persuasive power.

I could have simply said "I totally agree"; what would your response have been then? — Janus

Well nothing, that's rather the point of my consternation. Are we discussing ideas or canvassing opinions? Why would I (or anyone) be the least bit interested in whether you agree with ssu or not? That's the bit I don't understand. You're not a noted expert in the field, ideas don't become more true the more people agree with them (not on the scale of an internet forum anyway), so I get that it was signalling your agreement, I just don't get what the aim of such a signal was.

Yet there's a huge difference if that encouragement is optional or if it is implemented by force. If it's optional for the country itself to choose what it wants, then we are on the right track. — ssu

Who's said anything about force? I never even mentioned it.

it is honestly and genuinely A JOB FOR CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES to get their shit together. It's simply limited what foreigners really can do. — ssu

Why? I get that in conservative ideology the arbitrary geographic lines we draw around groups of people become really hyper-important for some reason, but why would it be limited what foreigners can do (in theory). America relies quite heavily of trade and that is vulnerable to foreign political viewpoints.

First of all, neither is really a solution. — ssu

Just saying so doesn't make it the case. We're not canvassing opinion here, we're discussing ideas. If you think they're not solutions you need to explain why otherwise it's pointless us having this discussion. I already know you disagree with me, I don't need that further pointed out. I want to know why - how you arrived at your views.

Second, how setting fire to an Apple Store magically saves children in Congo? — ssu

I explained the theory. It's right next to the bold word 'Theory'. I thought that might be a clue. If you disagree with the theory, then again, the idea of this discussion is that I can find out why you disagree. I prefer you provide academic sources (even if only my name), but even if you can't at least some chain of reasoning would be nice.

Why is it that when conservatives are faced with policies for economic change they opine about how complex the world is, yet when faced with a social movement that's already happening, suddenly the consequences of it become crystal clear to them?

while capitalism overlaps with racist issues, it's coincidental. — creativesoul

That's a legitimate point of view, but many authors disagree, so whilst it might be a valid point to argue for within the thread, it's not anywhere near agreed upon enough to render talk of the effects of capitalism off-topic. They absolutely unequivocally affect minority ethnic groups disproportionately compared to white Europeans. You could make an argument that this is nothing but coincidence, but as a state of affairs to be answered for, its pretty much the textbook definition of systemic racism.

This is where I really disagree. — ssu

Disagree with what, with the fact that I am sure, or the fact that I don't object, or the fact that I wouldn't advocate it. Because all I've given by way of propositions in that quoted section are three statements about my state of mind. I'm not sure how you might disagree with them.

Yeah. you didn't get my point. — ssu

Well, try again then.

Because going to some other one's country and telling them as a woke foreigner what they should do isn't the best way around. Oh yes: STOP BEING POOR!!! Arrogant righteous hubris. — ssu

We're always going to someone else's country and encouraging some way of doing things. There's no naturally occurring form of trade, it's all made up. The rules of the world bank, trade deals, tariffs, UN legislation, consumer choices. Whatever we do encourages some behaviours and discourages others. The only alternative whereby we stop interfering in foreign countries is to have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with them, no trade, no tourism, no contact. Anything else will have the effect of interfering with their autonomy in some way. It's a myth of the Conservative that the status quo is some naturally occurring default position.

What on Earth are you blabbering about? — ssu

Let me try it this way. Here's two possible solutions to the problem of Congolese slaves.

1. Carry on buying phones as usual so that they eventually get richer and make their own laws banning the practice. Theory - industry leads to development and development leads to better living conditions. Disadvantage if theory is wrong - lots of children suffer and die.

2. Set fire to an Apple Store. Theory - the protest shows how angry people are about Apple's supply chain choices, and media spotlight embarrasses people into changing phones, Apple eventually backs better working conditions. Disadvantage if theory is wrong - an entrepreneur loses their businesses and some workers have to find another job or go on benefits.

You cannot prove either theory right or wrong, the world, as you so rightly say, is complex and difficult to predict, so they are both a risk. Both benefit the prosperity of the Congolese if they work, so they're the same in that regard. One risks the livelihoods of a couple of westerners if it's theory is wrong. You seem terribly concerned about this risk. The other risks the lives of thousands of African children if the the theory is wrong. You seem quite happy to go with a hunch on that one.

When there isn't any real transparency, when things depends quite on the specific information you have or if you believe what companies say or not, it is quite arbitrary as does the "Fairphone" provider example tell. I believe their quite honest when the say they don't know anything about the 60% of the materials they use. That was my point. — ssu

Yes, but that's no different with any other company. So you've got a company which is opaque, and doesn't know (or doesn't tell) about 100% of its sources verses one which is opaque, and doesn't know (or doesn't tell) about 60% of its sources. That's still not arbitrary, it's clear that the latter is an improvement.

The issue was if it's OK to burn people's homes who have the wrong cell phone. Or it's OK to burn workplaces of people that the franchising company behind them (which the entrepreneur and workers have no control over) has been accused (twenty years ago) of using a subcontractor that uses child labor. With the latter you were totally fine with and think the workers are complicit and deserve it, whereas the cell phone owner isn't. — ssu

It's still a choice. You're saying that choosing to protest in those ways doesn't take account of the fact that the world is complex (and is arbitrary), but choosing to protest by means of political campaign, or letter to the paper, does take account of the fact that the world is complex (and is not arbitrary).

I'm asking how the complexity of the world leads us to one choice rather than another. It seems irrelevant to me. The world is complex so we can't clearly see the long-term consequences of our actions. That goes exactly the same for either choice, so it can't be used as an argument in favour of one over the other.

I'm not so sure how complicit the low paid worker in a fast food restaurant trying to make a living is in this case. I think the worker didn't make a political statement by choosing the workplace. — ssu

I gather that, but you're not the one considering destroying his place of work, so that's OK. I am sure how complicit they are, so I don't object to the place of work being destroyed. I wouldn't advocate it (partly for the reason you later give), but I'm not opposed to it either. You can't expect other people to act on the basis of your beliefs can you?

Doesn't look smart, doesn't help. But you get a kick out of it, I guess. — ssu

Again, you're not the one considering it, so whether you think it helps is irrelevant. If you want to make an argument that no one should think it helps, then you'd need to present some evidence to that effect. Something like a series of campaigns which failed to progress in their objectives because of a use of law-breaking forms of protest, but in someoother country succeeded when using legal tactics.

What's offensive to many (myself included) about this attitude that we should be in the least bit concerned about the employee's wage packet, is that it shows a deep disparity in concern.

You cite the 'complexity of the world' in questioning how we should handle the issue of child labour in the DRC.

"Maybe we should boycott, maybe that won't work, maybe a political solution, maybe a legal one, who knows, it's all so complex... "

Meanwhile children as young as six are dying down mines.

But when it comes to someone's idea of what to do about it (burn down the Apple Store, for example), suddenly all the complexity is gone, there's no uncertainty allowed about whether it might work, no leeway. All of a sudden the fact that some white college kid might lose their job becomes an unacceptable risk. We can't even try that strategy, it's too risky.

Where's the unaccepability of the Congolese children's plight? Why aren't we immediately putting a stop to that. You're prepared to stamp out law-breaking protests (despite not having clear evidence of their failure to work) just because the risk to the college kid's wage packet is too great. Why aren't you extending the same principle to the Congolese children. Yes, carrying on as things are might well be better for their country in the long run (the world is complex after all) but surely it's obvious to anyone with a shred of compassion that the risk is too great.