So fix that with more dying and starving?

Maybe there's a better way.

Your side lost the moral argument. — Marchesk

I think when people are faced with injustice, winning the moral argument is the least of their concern. What they want is to not be killed by the police.

Then why criticize those who criticize the riots as not being critics of the murder? — Hanover

Come back to me when they do the latter. So far neither Bitwhatsheface nor Marches seem to give shit other than to suck the balls of Target. Would hate for you to join in.

I don't know what the fuck side you're talking about. — StreetlightX

The one that wants to burn society to the ground versus the one that doesn't.

↪180 Proof So fix that with more dying and starving?

Maybe there's a better way. — Marchesk

Maybe. We've suggested the status quo concedes the moral-juridical argument and yields to social justice demands for political-economic change now. Otherwise: Do tell ... :chin:

Society was already burning, you're just too blind to see it.

What will happen is that the American capitalist machinery will continue operating as before other than the now vacant, burned, and uninsurable buildings in the already struggling part of town.

Those like our good mayor will move forward making sure such murders happen with lesser frequency in the future, and the rioters efforts will have added nothing positive to the mix. — Hanover

Maybe, but you haven't given us much reason to believe this. For example, charges were only made after the rioting began and, in general, it seems without pressure of whatever sort, cops are rarely prosecuted. To change that, systemic adjustments will have to be made. Your mayor on her own isn't going to be able to implement that outside Atlanta. What would the impetus be for such major change if there were no trouble?

I think when people are faced with injustice, winning the moral argument is the least of their concern. — Michael

And that's how all kinds of bad shit gets justified during a revolution.

What they want is to not be killed by the police. — Michael

How does arguing on here for a socialist revolution do that?

Society was already burning, you're just too blind to see it. — StreetlightX

You mean you're itching for the greedy, evil capitalistic system to burn. The thing that's the cause of all evil in the world.

use (weaponizing spin) of her comments is the non sequitur. I'm handwaving away your comments, man. As a fellow Georgia resident, you know (or should recognize) as well as I do that that tRump-stooge Kemp has a proverbial gun to any mayor in Georgia's head. Using her official statements in an attempt to invalidate the protests is simply disingenuous (at best). — 180 Proof

Kemp beat Abrams (a black female) by a very small amount. He's far from safe and this is far from Trump country.

Anyway, I take Bottoms at her word that she meant what she said. She's in zero danger of losing in Atlanta due to Kemp or Trump influence.. Her threat would come from someone left of her. Atlanta is far more diverse and Democrat than the state as a whole.

Does a bear shit in the woods?

So far neither Bitwhatsheface nor Marches seem to give shit other than to suck the balls of Target. Would seem to be joining in. — StreetlightX

Sounds like a logical fallacy.

Does a bear shit in the woods? — StreetlightX

I don't know comrade. Tell me.

You mean you're itching for the greedy, evil capitalistic system to burn. — Marchesk

In a nutshell: When the RICH steal everything, all that's left for THE REST OF US to eat is the RICH.

or more prosaically (re: 'violent' protests):

The child who does not feel the warmth of the village will burn down the village to feel the warmth of the fire. — Yoruba proverb

How does arguing on here for a socialist revolution do that? — Marchesk

I wasn't talking about people arguing on here for a socialist revolution, I was talking about people who are actively protesting. They're not doing it to win the moral argument, they're doing it to stop the police killing them. It's not just about some abstract principle of justice, it's about the reality of applied injustice.

In a nutshell: When the RICH steal everything, all that's left for THE REST OF US to eat is the RICH.

Wealth isn’t a zero-sum game. There is no fixed amount of wealth in the world. Wealth is created and constantly expands.

They're not doing it to win the moral argument, they're doing it to stop the police killing them — Michael

I agree with that. It's the looting and burning and things spiraling out of control with people getting hurt. That's on the police as well as the rioters.

My comment was directed at those in this thread, not protesters.

I wasn't talking about people arguing on here for a socialist revolution, I was talking about people who are actively protesting. They're not doing it to win the moral argument, they're doing it to stop the police killing them. It's not just about some abstract principle of justice, it's about the reality of applied injustice. — Michael

:up:

Wealth isn’t a zero-sum game. Wealth is created and constantly expands. — NOS4A2

i don't think socialists understand that.

It’s a common bias, not limited to socialists per say.

Wealth isn’t a zero-sum game. There is no fixed amount of wealth in the world. Wealth is created and constantly expands. — NOS4A2

This is true, with the caveat that the game is rigged so that all the expanding wealth gets sucked upwards while those without are made to be entrenched in that position. As they say: money makes money, and being poor is extremely expensive.

Wealth isn’t a zero-sum game. Wealth is created and constantly expands. — NOS4A2

i don't think socialists understand that. — Marchesk

They do. Their problem is that it's expanding upwards, not downwards. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Tell that to the billions who live on less than $2 USD per day. Or millions currently out of work in the U.S. Spit out that old mouthwash, neolib.

So why not more progressive taxation and larger inheritance taxes with better safety nets? No reason to throw out the baby that's raised the standard of living an incredible amount over the past several centuries for a system that has failed to prove itself.

They do. The problem is that it's expanding upwards, not downwards. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. — Michael

That is a problem, but the standard of living also goes up across the board over time. Capitalism's excesses need to be corrected for.

Extreme poverty has been declining exponentially over the last two centuries.

The available long-run evidence shows that in the past, only a small elite enjoyed living conditions that would not be described as ‘extreme poverty’ today. But with the onset of industrialization and rising productivity, the share of people living in extreme poverty started to decrease. Accordingly, the share of people in extreme poverty has decreased continuously over the course of the last two centuries. This is surely one of the most remarkable achievements of humankind

https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty

Tell that the billions who live on less the $2 USD per day. — 180 Proof

They will do better as they have more access to jobs and global markets. The trend in global poverty is going down. There's also a lot of factors at play across the globe. Sometimes those have been failed communist states or bloody civil wars where the winner installs their own greedy regime.

@StreetlightX Yes, society can get much more extreme.

Or millions currently out of work in the U.S. — 180 Proof

The pandemic is the fault of the greedy rich? What was the unemployment rate before Covid in the US?

So why not more progressive taxation and larger inheritance taxes with better safety nets? — Marchesk

We can start with that sure. But you're going to have to reverse a 50 year trend. And besides, I made a whole thread on this with some very educational videos. If you were genuinely interested and not just throwing out bad faith objections, maybe you could educate yourself even minimally.

That is a problem, but the standard of living also goes up across the board over time. Capitalisms excesses need to be corrected for. — Marchesk

That's why I'm more partial to something like Rawls' maximin. If the worst off are better off in a society with wealth inequality than that's better than wealth equality.