The only thing extreme is the utter shitness of the a society in which George Floyds happen regularly and when all people like you can moan about are property. — StreetlightX
Well shit, let's burn it all to the ground and start over. — Marchesk
Non sequitur. What else is a public official supposed to say? Make pronouncements against her office's interests? :roll: — 180 Proof
I'm interested in both sides of the problem but in this thread you're like 100% on one side here with many commentators actually supporting the destruction of property and assault of business owners. It's completely absurd. — BitconnectCarlos
Now you're getting it. — StreetlightX
only thing extreme is the utter shitness of the a society in which George Floyds happen regularly and when all people like you can moan about are property. — StreetlightX
That's to say, I don't think considerations of corporate finances outweigh those of social justice. (And by the way, none of this argument relies on the idea of the overthrow of capitalism). — Baden
The riots are self-defeating, which is a shame. Whatever was gained by peaceful protests is lost and unravelled with riots. There is likely to be a rightward shift in voting if more innocent people and property are damaged, or worse, a violent reactionary backlash. — NOS4A2
Is it not possible to object to both the unjust murder and the riots? Why must we choose only one injustice to notice? — Hanover
Because the only reason to not loot Target before was because you were upholding society's contract. [But] there is no contract if law and people in power don't uphold their end of it". — StreetlightX
You can make a utilitarian argument that weighs the material loss of large companies (like Target) against the gain of systemic change that reduces levels of violence by security forces against minorities. And you can make an inferential argument that draws a chain of causation from injury to powerful interests to political change. Now you can attack this attempted justification for some level of material violence by pointing to more effective less violent means of change, but I don't think you can attack it ethically if you accept its effectiveness. That's to say, I don't think considerations of corporate finances outweigh those of social justice. (And by the way, none of this argument relies on the idea of the overthrow of capitalism). — Baden
How do stigmatized minorities advance agendas when confronted with hostile ma- jorities? Elite theories of influence posit marginal groups exert little power. I propose the concept of agenda seeding to describe how activists use methods like disruption to capture the attention of media and overcome political asymmetries. Further, I hypothesize protest tactics influence how news organizations frame demands. Evaluating black-led protests between 1960 and 1972, I find nonviolent activism, particularly when met with state or vigilante repression, drove media coverage, framing, Congressional speech and public opinion on civil rights. Counties proximate to nonviolent protests saw presidential Democratic vote share among whites increase 1.3-1.6%. Protester-initiated violence, by contrast, helped move news agendas, frames, elite discourse and public concern toward
“social control.” In 1968, using rainfall as an instrument, I find violent protests likely caused a 1.6-7.9% shift among whites towards Republicans and tipped the election. Elites may dominate political communication but hold no monopoly.
It's possible to do anything you want. — StreetlightX
So if the social contract is voided, why not just do whatever? — Marchesk
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.