I'll take it! Kinda. Probably more Maoist. State's are a bit meh. — StreetlightX

China sure turned out to be a shining socialist example. Both authoritarian and capitalist!

Caught me dead to rights!

Order is better for whom?

The majority.

I don't believe I've accused you of anything. It's a disagreement over values and framing. — StreetlightX

Fair enough. I get your point, even. I am just not sure how to balance supporting their grievances and criticising their tactics.

Order is better for whom? — Benkei

Everyone who isn't a warlord, ultimately.

I've assaulted two previous bosses... — Chester

I can just see you now swinging your beer belly at them like an obese Bruce Lee with tats.

I am just not sure how to balance supporting their grievances and criticising their tactics. — Echarmion

Is it even the tactics of BLM or most other black groups to be violent? We've said a lot about the violence, but a majority of the protestors are peaceful and wish to keep that way. But it's a volatile situation that sometimes gets out of hand.

The anarchists and white supremacists trying to turn this into something else aren't supporting their cause.

↪Benkei Order is better than total anarchy...everyone knows that. — Chester

If it was true for everyone, if everyone knew it, there would be order. But there is not order. Extra-judicial killings are disorder. Slavery is disorder. Oppression is disorder. Look at the source of the disorder, not the manifestation. It is the knee on the neck that lights the fire.

It's a disagreement over values and framing. — StreetlightX

Exactly. What it's not is "stealing TVs is good!" vs. "stealing TVs is not good!". If we can't get past that I'm going to punch me a @#$*ing wall somewhere.

I mean burn down the local WalMart. :fire: :cheer:

Fighting a literal war of secession is a patently absurd suggestion. — Echarmion

The question was "when has rioting ever been effective?" Plenty examples throughout history of rioting achieving a political goal. Of course, the goal can change; that rioting was effective part of fighting a literal war of secession against the British today does not mean that fighting a war of secession against the British is the only available purpose of rioting.

I am not saying they must be condemned because they are violent. I am saying they are likely to be ineffective. Waxing poetically about their "right to be angry" doesn't change the facts on the ground. — Echarmion

I'm not arguing against this point; you maybe right that rioting is not effective. Perhaps nothing can be effective, or perhaps there's more effective options available. I am open to hear answers to "well, what would change things?" as many are open, including national news broadcasters.

But, insofar as there's riots now, we will see how the "facts on the ground" develop.

The argument that rioting will provoke a military coup of one form or another (as generally happens in third world countries in this sort of situation), is that this time there is a pandemic and a great depression and, as I argue in the other thread, serious risk of hyper inflation. There's also a federal government unable to fix any problem at all, but makes all problems worse; so, all these things will get more unstable, not less unstable.

People will not only riot because they are fedup with double standards of justice, but because they are hungry, because they are homeless, because they are bankrupt, because they have no visible future ("that the child who is not warmed by the village will burn it down to feel the warmth of the fire"); and centrists clutching their pearls today, aghast and disoriented by the scenes they are watching on the television, will be clutching for looting as soon as those pearls are taken away (i.e. as more and more people drop out of the middle class, the ranks of the rioting class are replenished, and the strategy of mass arrests does not work in with the expected attrition).

The argument that it's preferable to provoke a military coup in the first place (if someone was motivated by political strategy, not just immediate anger, or hunger, or basic economic survival in a depression), and to risk a totalitarian military takeover instead of a benevolent one, is that, after centuries of oppression, you may as well flip that coin.

I used to work in the UK subsidiary, and I discovered how many managers it takes to change a light bulb. It was six, and a mechanical lifting platform, and of course a warehouse operative to actually change the bulb.

and to risk a totalitarian military takeover instead of a benevolent one, is that, after centuries of oppression, you may as well flip that coin. — boethius

No, because a lot of people will die, regardless of the outcome.

:lol: I worked in a supermarket once. The manager got pissed off at me because I called in sick and went to the pub. Typical frigging capitalist.

:up:

What, a thumbs up? I'm confused.

The context was large scale peaceful protests being unsuccessful the past 50 years. — Marchesk

My mistake.

Well, there were the Hong Kong protests that started peacefully but were ignored, hence the escalation.

So despotism, feudalism, oligarchies and communism, are all fine and dandy because they provide order?

Right. So despotism, feudalism, oligarchies and communism, are all fine and dandy because they provide order? — Benkei

No, but they're generally better than no order. Unfortunately, none of the systems are fine. Some are less worse.

I am just not sure how to balance supporting their grievances and criticising their tactics. — Echarmion

I'm not convinced we are in any position to critique tactics. As I mentioned way back in the fog of this thread, it's presumptuous to tell people who have tried every other avenue of protest that what they are doing does not meet some ideological purity test and 'doesn't seem to be very effective' - per the conversion that is happening right now around this post. On this score I think you're right - what is said here won't particularly have any material effect on the ground, so the rarefied tut-tuting only serves to shore up those for whom the only takeway is 'angry rioters bad, black people not being very dignified/helpful' and nothing else.

Yes, you have been for some time.

Yes, you have been for some time. — StreetlightX

So you approve of the peaceful protests. Cool.

Of course I do, and nothing I've said would indicate otherwise.

Those guys said the "cops can't reach where they are"; they're not going to stop any police violence that way.

Was it racism? I don't know. I do know that racism is generated by it though. — frank

Where there are cops who are racist, they need to be weeded out. The notion that they're all racist is ridiculous.

I think you are thinking of racism as an individual attitude. Like it's held by a few bad eggs. A bunch of cops being violent racists ultimately isn't the problem in my book; though it certainly doesn't help. The problem (well, part of it) is that being a violent racist as a cop is not heavily disincentivised by the justice system. Formally? Yes it is disincentivised. Functionally? What legal disincentives there are are undermined.

If as a society you're in a place where people are formally equal under the law, but those formalities are mere formalities in function, that indicates that something big has to change.

The notion that no progress can be made within the US system is wrong and it's a damaging idea. — frank

I believe progress can be made on some things through socially acceptable channels. I think it's incredibly unlikely that without agitation like this (and subsequent organising) you'll ever see new laws implemented, organisational structures regarding justice administration changed. How long do you expect these people to endure?

Your state of powerlessness is actually pretty analogous to theirs, right? You have no idea how you can go about changing things. If you needed to try and change something, you're about as alienated from social capital as they are; you have the same choices they have. Do fuck all, or do something that at least increases visibility and registers intent. You're advocating waiting and keeping the faith in the socially acceptable means of expression; you're in the same position as them, but not the same community.

You can endure for longer because you're not in the community. You aren't on the receiving end of how things are; but you're still living in a country where cops are assaulting journalists and peaceful protesters and in all likelihood they will not be punished. The cops aren't there to protect the protesters, they're there to quell what's seen as a threat to private property and national security. That their fellow cops turn a blind eye to a few bad eggs assaulting journalists is indicative of their interests; it benefits their disciplinary function if no one can provide evidence to hold them to account.

If the American state saw the immediate need expressed by the protesters as valid; there would already be talk of reforms, there would have been actual reforms years ago. What actually happens is that cops show up to impede a vital function of democracy, a media narrative calling these protesters looters, savages, selfish shows up, and this creates a public consensus of issue framing that displaces attention from the substantive injustices the protests are trying to address. The same thing happened in Ferguson, which I'm sure was an isolated incident and a few bad eggs, who should've been doing the moral thing and enduring their pain forever in silence.

The consensus legitimises; by sweeping under the rug, as you're seeing live happening in your own thoughts; the institutionally sanctioned violence against these protesters (and now journalists!) by comparing it to their own community crime problems. The president's expressed wish for all of them to be shot isn't weighing heavily on people's minds, but a Target store being attacked is. It's been "a few bad eggs" forever, it's been "condemn violent protesters" forever; and the police keep killing and the things that keep the protesters' problems going are never addressed.

It's a double standard. All the things which vindicate the protesters' concerns are managed out of the media attention economy quickly, all the things which condemn the protesters but "formally support their right to protest peacefully" are emphasised. This is part of how the double standard functions. It will never be stated, as part of the justification narrative against the legitimate concerns and democratic expression of the protesters it functions in the background. This is what a disciplinary mechanism on the level of ideology looks like; it manages attention away from the concerns of protesters. Part of its function is that it can be immediately disavowed if pointed out; it is not designed to hold together rationally; it's been generated as a counterpoint, someone who raises it can disavow using it because their discussion partner failed to understand, it's working as intended.

How long would you wait and pray in these conditions? It's only been about 400 years.

Order that metastatises injustice is preferable above no order? I think that really depends on who you're asking and who's losing from that injustice.

French revolution was misplaced because it destroyed order? US independence the same?

Order is preferable above anarchy only If that order is conducive to justice and fairness. If it's not, it needs to be changed. Possibly through violent anarchy is other tactics don't work.

Love me a good bit of order.

Look at them clean lines.

Not an anarchist in sight, just people living in the moment.

Hope no one murders every single last one of them. That would be upsetting and disorderly. Very unhelpful.

:clap:

HELLO!

Is there a chance of a discussion about where this may lead the state of US politics in the near/far future?

It looks like the general public are doing as much as they can about this at the moment. What is the end goal? How do we get there? What steps/measures need to be put into place?

In an age of surveillance, both public and private, it has got harder and harder for crimes to go unnoticed. In there some manner in which this can be further implemented to protect the innocent? Clearly without such technology it’s likely no one would’ve believed/cared. Seeing is believing so this is probably the most striking weapon in combating injustices.

What dangers await and what cautionary measures need to be considered?