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

The only extreme? Like there is no worse way for society to go?

Well shit, let's burn it all to the ground and start over.

:up:

Well shit, let's burn it all to the ground and start over. — Marchesk

Now you're getting it.

I want to open by saying that my biggest concern in this story in Minneapolis is the murderous police, not the riots, but I don’t have anything novel or interesting to add to the conversation about the police, while I have a curiosity about the riots.

Imagining myself in the place of someone in a situation like this, imagining my local police had brutally murdered someone here, I find no motive in myself to go target some random business in town. Targeting the police somehow, if there’s any way I can, absolutely. Just randomly punching some nearby wall out of anger, quite probably. I just don’t understand what’s going on in the minds of people who attack local businesses etc that have nothing to do with the events they’re angry about. Are they also attacking local homes? I can’t see any motivation that I can morally sympathize with, only possibilities like opportunism that normally wouldn’t even cross my mind.

Non sequitur. What else is a public official supposed to say? Make pronouncements against her office's interests? :roll: — 180 Proof

I think as a black Democrat female mayor and mother, she had full license to speak freely without real fear of political repercussion regardless of what she said. And your non-sequitur objection was incorrect, as her comments went directly to yours. Instead of responding to her comments, you hand waved them away, suggesting without any evidence whatsoever that her political bias forced her to take an impassioned position she entirely disagreed with.

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

That justification is absurd from a certain perspective. But that perspective is skewed as I said. 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 I also don't feel that in a situation where the law itself is corrupted that tactical violence against powerful interests, including corporate interests, is necessarily unjustified. 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).

Now you're getting it. — StreetlightX

How many people are you willing to have die and starve for that to happen?

Unless you have evidence for that, we'll consider it just random speculation.

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

Is it not possible to object to both the unjust murder and the riots? Why must we choose only one injustice to notice?

Trevor Noah bloody gets it.

8m 34s: "Ask yourself when you watch those people [who loot] - what vested interest do they have in maintain the (current social) contract? Why don't we all loot? Why doesn't everybody take? Because we've agreed on things. There are so many people starving out there, who don't have ... But still, think about how many people who don't have - the have-nots - say: you know what, I'm still going to play by the rules even though I have nothing, because I still wish for the society to work and exist. And then - some members of that society, namely black American people, watch time and time again how the contract that they have signed with society is not being honored by the society that has forced them to sign it with them. ...

And alot of people say: 'what good does it do? What good does it do to loot Target, how does it help you to loot Target?"; Yeah but what good doesn't it do? That's the question people don't ask the other way around. How does it help you to not loot Target? Answer that question. 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".

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

I can agree with that, but only if it's effective and doesn't hurt people in the community who need to work and shop there, beyond an inconvenience. Like impoverishing the community if businesses move away and the local economy can't replace it.

Here’s a great paper on the subject.

http://omarwasow.com/APSR_protests3_1.pdf

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

They've worked before. They might work again. Didn't America's war of independence stem from riots?

Given that the current system is killing and starving countless many - whatever's less than that would be a start.

I'm not going to read a paper you randomly chose from the internet without even reading yourself (unless you're a far quicker reader and a far more honest contributor than experience suggests). At least summarize your argument.

Your 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).

I read it back in 2015. Plenty of articles were written on it at the time. It’s probably been updated since then.

Is it not possible to object to both the unjust murder and the riots? Why must we choose only one injustice to notice? — Hanover

It's possible to do anything you want.

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

Also because I think it's wrong. But let's replace looting Target with looting X, or committing crime Y against target X. So if the social contract is voided, why not just do whatever?

OK, what does it say then? What's the argument? At least provide some of the evidence herein. I'm not here to argue with the authors of the paper.

It's possible to do anything you want. — StreetlightX

Or argue for it.

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

Speaking of speculating...

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.

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.

How many people are you willing to have die and starve for [substantive change] to happen? — Marchesk

Enough. "By any means necessary." It's up to you, the status quo.

It's possible to do anything you want. — StreetlightX

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

Enough. — 180 Proof

So you're willing to have people die and starve. Does it mater who they are?

So if the social contract is voided, why not just do whatever? — Marchesk

Why not indeed? Defending an unjust, broken social contract on the basis of it supposedly being better than there being a void one is stupid.

Your side lost the moral argument.

It matters more to me who's been dying & starving since 1619 in contrast to who's benefitted most, almost exclusively, these last four centuries.

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