You haven't bothered to read and understand Baden or @StreetlightX. — boethius

Or I don't agree with what Street and a couple other socialists have said. Baden was making a more reasonable argument.

If you just want to shout and insult, you can do that in youtube comments. — boethius

Nah, I'll do it here.

he peaceful protesters are laudible only insofar as their belief in peaceful protesting ability to influence a fair (enough) political process is actually true. — boethius

They have been successful before. That doesn't mean everything can be fixed at once. So more are needed.

American's today do not condemn the Boston riots and looting that birthed America, but the privileged classes that owned the tea did so at the time; so, from a moral perspective, this maybe all that we are seeing, and nothing else. — boethius

Except for the local people who have their livelihoods destroyed and people hurt during the protests. There's been a few deaths now.

This is what a proper headline looks like:



https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/george-floyd-protests-police-violence.html

And can we not forget that giant retailers like Target almost always destroy local independent shops by way of displacing them? They're a market ecosystem killer, like a pesticide. Targets monopolize and offer poverty wages in retrun - they ruin, not nourish, local economies. — StreetlightX

I don't care about Target loosing money. I doubt they do, though, they probably have insurance. I don't se any evidence that what's happening is hurting the capitalists in any way. From where I sit, they stand to gain from more violence and more division.

None of these last-minute parachuters here to virtue signal their "care" and "concern" give a shit insofar as this is the only thing they can't shut up about. — StreetlightX

And do you really care about the outcome, or are you just here to signal your revolutionary credentials?

If the mechanisms by which peaceful protesting was effective in the past, which is debatable as otherwise why would society come to such a point, then peaceful protesters are less laudible than the looters and indeed the police; for at least the looters and police have some sort of realistic political understanding. — boethius

So what is the outcome of all this? It might force political reform. But it could have the opposite effect of crackdowns and more support for Trump's reelection as a backlash. Just about everyone in America had the protest's back at first. But a lot of people don't like seeing cities burnt.

And someone could send the situation into a deadly spiral, with a bunch of people dying.

Is the violence organize in a way to achieve some end? Will it force police unions and mayors to the table to accept some terms? Just burning and looting does what in the end other than get on the news?

Baden was making a more reasonable argument. — Marchesk

Ok, so you agree with this analysis:

That sums it up for me and why most of the objections to what's happening are ill-founded. In a situation where there is no justice, there can be no legitimate appeal to some neutral foundation of law. The law itself and its enforcers are agents of violence, both overt and systemic. The system that allows Target to exploit workers by paying them less than a living wage (half the minimum wage of most western European countries) is far more nefarious than anything a few rioters can do to their physical property. In fact, there is a good argument to be made that looting such businesses is fair reappropriation if not full recompense for the looting they've done of the labour of those under their control. (And with no good alternative options provided so will it remain).

So, regardless of specific rights and wrongs, the imposition of a skewed perspective that makes the perpetrators of major systemic violence into victims where only minor instances of localised violence forms the 'crime' against them turns the conversation into a worthless back and forth where the forest is missed for the trees. Yes, some of the localised violence is uncalled for and counterproductive and even carried out for completely the wrong reasons but that does not negate the justification for fighting back and fighting back hard against a system that wants its victims forever on their knees feeding its greed and cruelty. — Baden

I'm not quite sure where I differ in my analysis, but please point it out.

They have been successful before. That doesn't mean everything can be fixed at once. So more are needed. — Marchesk

This is debatable interpretation of history.

The justification of MLK's non-violent resistance (which is not peaceful protesting) was a strategic observation that violent resistance, alone (though justifiable), is not effective. MLK's logic was that civil disobedience (which is not peaceful protesting) forces the state to do it's violence in broad daylight for all to see. The goal was to get most white people to snap out of the denialism of state violence against black people. Whereas attacking the police, though justified, would strengthen white resolve to "win".

So, it was not peaceful protesting to begin with, and the reasoning is not applicable today because we can just see video of the police violence MLK was trying to bring to light, and most white people in America today really do condemn the police violence, but they are as unable to do anything about it as the black people due to political processes that are fairly easy to conclude are no longer legitimate (the democratic process is not working).

The idea that MLK was about "peaceful protesting" is simply delusions of the privileged class. For, obviously, if systemic injustice and corruption really is the case, and recourse through the justice and political system is not actually an effective option, then "peaceful protesting" is not a political threat; let them walk around with signs, who cares. Therefore, the idea that peaceful protesting is the "moral high ground" is simply propaganda meant to uphold the power of the privileged class; it is not good faith advice as to how politics works.

So, which peaceful protests have actually succeeded in the past in an American context? In particular, about issues of justice and state powers. Just weeks ago, many on the right were praising the heros violently threatening their politicians and fellow citizens with a show of arms inside government buildings; the same people arguing that "only peaceful protests" isn't sufficient are now arguing "woe, woe, peaceful protest, peaceful protest". What's changed, the understanding of politics or simply who's side is using violence to pursue their idea of justice and legitimate state power?

And do you really care about the outcome, or are you just here to signal your revolutionary credentials? — Echarmion

I'm here to try and make sure the discourse around legitimate protests doesn't get co-opted by pearl clutching liberals who couldn't give a rats ass about systemic injustice while pretending they give a shit about violence against property (always last minute, parachuting in with only one thing to say).

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.

I'm not quite sure where I differ in my analysis, but please point it out — boethius

I don't fully agree with Baden (or yourself), but he wasn't turning this into a revolution against capitalism. Nor did he make an argument that anything goes. Or that people dying and starving would be justifiable.

. MLK's logic was that segregation civil disobedience (which is not peaceful protesting) forces the state to do it's violence in broad daylight for all to see. — boethius

Right, but civili disobedience is different than destroying people's property and work places. And it was well organized. People can use civil disobedience against the police. The issue is with the police, not some random business.

What's changed, the understanding of politics or simply who's side is using violence to pursue their idea of justice and legitimate state power? — boethius

I don't see what burning or looting accomplishes other than to upset a lot of people.

I'm here to try and make sure the discourse around legitimate protests don't get co-opted by pearl clutching liberals who couldn't give a rats ass about systemic injustice while pretending they give a shit about violence against property. — StreetlightX

And that is a useful way to spend your time?

So, which peaceful protests have actually succeeded in the past in an American context? — boethius

Which violent protests have? Just saying what doesn't work isn't enough.

And that is a useful way to spend your time? — Echarmion

idk maybe you can call the cops on me or something for not being productive enough for you.

I'm here to try and make sure the discourse around legitimate protests doesn't get co-opted — StreetlightX

LOL!

It will be interesting to see the msm links to antifa when they are made a terrorist organisation. We may well see a drop off in support from the msm for antifa as the rats jump a sinking ship. Hopefully the UK will do the same and proscribe the filth that is antifa...fingers crossed.

Will any of you charming chaps be getting arrested lol?

I don't fully agree with Baden (or yourself), but he wasn't turning this into a revolution against capitalism. — Marchesk

Is this true @Baden?

But, regardless of @Baden's view of capitalism's roll in this, I did not mention the word capitalism in my analysis.

The question, in the context of riots, is about state legitimacy.

You can have a legitimate state that we could agree is an example of "capitalism". Ok, maybe I don't like it and you do; but insofar as the state is legitimate in terms of genuine democratic standard of fair laws and effective political process, there's no need to riot. If people were looting where I live, I would indeed view it as a crime; the difference is that where I live in Northern Europe I simply can't arrive, from any direction I take it, at the conclusion that the state has lost legitimacy and that people have good reason to pursue their own idea of justice rather than participate in the common idea of justice that is (well enough) expressed through the state intellectual structure and it's agents. I live here precisely because nothing the state does inspires within me any desire for my own re-appropriation of violence I, at the moment, entrust to state agents; and as a conscript I am also an agent of the state.

I am not a "statist" but I am willing to live in a state based society insofar as it genuinely reflects what its people think a state should be; ok, people here don't agree with my stateless dream right now, my task is to talk about it because if I can convince them then I'm confident the laws would change according to this new, and in my view better, understanding.

Twitter has just suspended antifa's US account lol...you leftists still love Twitter now?

Twitter has just suspended antifa's US account lol...you leftists still love Twitter now? — Chester

We're not having this discussion on Twitter, maybe pause for thought a moment and wonder why is that?

BuT DeStRoYiNg TaRgEt WiLl HuRt ThE LoCaL CoMmUnItY!

WhAt DoEs CaPiTaLiSm HaVe tO dO wItH iT?

But, regardless of Baden, I did not mention the word capitalism in my analysis. — boethius

That's a separate argument with other posters in this thread who want an actual revolution because they view capitalism as the root of all the injustice in the world, or much of it anyway.

at the conclusion that the state has lost legitimacy and that people have good reason to pursue their own idea of justice rather than participate in the common idea of justice that is (well enough) expressed through the state intellectual structure and it's agents. — boethius

But again, what is the ultimate goal of the looting and burning? How is it going to reform the police?

The protests are directed at police injustice. The violence though is more random, and at least some of the time, it appears there are people started it with their own agenda.

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.

idk maybe you can call the cops on me or something for not being productive enough for you. — StreetlightX

I don't entertain the notion that anything written in this thread materially affects the outcomes for oppressed communities in the US.

I am just commenting on what, to me, looks like bad reasoning. Perhaps you find opposition useful to develop your ideas. Perhaps you don't. Accusing me (or anyone else who disagrees with you) of fifth columnism seems pretty absurd given the circumstances.

VoTe BlUe No MaTtEr WhO — StreetlightX

aRe yOu FoUrTeEn?

Haha, I was hoping this was you lol...

Streetlight getting arrested?

Ah yes, citing a racist fucktard like Katie Hopkins is exactly the place to go to for reliable news right now.

Which violent protests have? Just saying what doesn't work isn't enough. — Echarmion

I wrote the example of the violent riots, looting and then revolution against the British, seemed to be enough.

Indeed, most political changes against a government no longer viewed as legitimate are violent. I owe the freedoms I enjoy right now to lot's and lot's of violence in the past.

The point of democracy is to avoid the need of such violence. My point here is that this is what's under consideration; you can argue the state is legitimate, democratic processes are working as intended, any grievances should be pursued primarily through existing state processes. However, if you concede the point that the state no longer functions correctly, then the idea that "regardless of the issue, property riots and looting must be condemned" is no longer based on anything. Agents of the state and their real masters loot the treasury, people on the street loot Nike and Starbucks; there's no longer democracy, only who's side are you on will determine "who is in the wrong" as in any battle history has observed.

If there still is legitimate democracy in the US, I'm all ears to hear the case be made.

The video is good though lol...don't shoot the messenger!

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. — Baden

Has anyone disagreed with that specific point? I know all I have been doing is questioning the strategic value of what is happening. So have others in this thread. Since I joined, I haven't seen a single poster say that property damage is impermissible no matter what.

I love how the protestors stopped that dude from trying to turn things violent. Handing him over the the police is hilarious!

I was watching a live stream in Minny where protesters they escorted another Antifa looking dude out. They didn't want to have anything to do with him.

Also, Minny citizens are reporting people plotting violence to the authorities.

What you're missing is the fact that such uprisings need public support...most normal people think these rioters are cunts. Your revolution ain't going to work.

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.

They were probably undercover cops...who knows?

That's a separate argument with other posters in this thread who want an actual revolution because they view capitalism as the root of all the injustice in the world, or much of it anyway. — Marchesk

Literally no one but you has even mentioned the word 'revolution' you insufferable two-bit dolt.