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

Because people die, and not just those in power. And the result is often times worse. The US revolution was a better result, but not the French. The Asian communist revolutions were terrible. Many African revolutions result in a corrupt authoritarian regime.

Speaking of Street's pic he posted while I'm typing, the German revolution was terrible as well.

Canada and Australia didn't need to revolt, and they seemed to have done okay.

the German revolution was terrible as well. — Marchesk

Notably, Germany did not undergo a revolution. It was taken over by means of a constitutionally sanctioned exception clause. Entirely legal.

You're right. Not a good example.

Canada and Australia didn't need to revolt, and they seemed to have done okay. — Marchesk

Ohhh no. Oh no no no no.

https://www.mamamia.com.au/aboriginal-deaths-in-custody/

"[There have been] more than 400 Indigenous Australians who’ve died in custody since the end of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody in 1991. In that time, close to 30 years, there have been zero convictions as a result of these deaths."

Fuck this place too.

--

I'm unfamiliar with the Canadian situation, but by all hearsay accounts, their first-nations people are treated like shit too.

Done okay in terms of not having killed millions, installed a dictatorship or become an imperialist power. There are still other issues. Societies have problems. Some are better than others. Maybe your socialist ideal can fix human beings.

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. — fdrake

Highlighting for visibility.

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. — fdrake

This is very salient. In what ethical universe is a call for shooting people for looting—which they began as a result of a situation where a member of their community was tortured to death and the perp not charged—not only less objectionable than the theft involved but actually a laudable response to it?

The ideological fog obscures the fact that an official call for killing members of a community who are protesting being murdered is considered by many to be acceptable discourse, but any talk about violence against property isn't. Everyone should let that sink in. It highlights how the whole debate is so perversely framed. Take away the fact that the ones who are calling for the shooting are the powerful and the ones doing the looting are the powerless and you've got a disgusting upending of priorities where property is more important than life. Because it's their property and your life.

And this is not just about Trump's stupid tweets, that's just a particularly egregious example, the whole of the official discourse devalues the interests and concerns of those who lack the social and material capital to make them visible and elevates the concerns and interests of those who control the channels of visibility. Any analysis of important social events must recognize and deal with that reality to be worth anything at all.

Just rehashing what you said really. But it's so important to recognize. Those surfing on the moral waves of the dominant discourse need constantly to be knocked into the cold water until they learn to swim for themselves to the shore.

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

The same can be said for most creation events of legitimate government.

A lot of people died so that I enjoy freedoms in my country today; a lot of people died defending the freedoms you enjoy today. It is simply hypocritical to tell non-free people "the historical time of winning freedom has past, if you didn't win it then don't try it now, it is now the time of politeness and freedom is taking no further orders".

Either explain to them they are free or explain how more effective ways exist to gain their freedom. To point out people die in the game of politics so you shouldn't play is simply patronizing.

Do you hold the same opinion about the US military? Any war to accomplish a political objective will result in a process where "a lot of people will die, regardless of the outcome" therefore there shouldn't be a US military, and all US soldiers are criminal thugs?

The privileged saying "say no violence" at only the moment they need to actually contemplate that privilege being taken away, is not simply an empty platitude but completely absurd line of reasoning if one benefits from, much less promotes, the right of state violence. At least say "I like the current violence situation the way it is"; there's no use pretending there's some pacifist belief about all violence; it's just silly if you have no track record of radical pacifism.

The interesting question is why the US simply is unable to truly reform it's police? In fact the police has started to imitate the military more and more.

As we have seen from US history, these killings create demonstrations and riots... and then things go back to normal with only perhaps the worst hit cities ending up in a downward economic spiral. Otherwise life goes back to normal. Nothing changes.

The only "improvement" is that usually less people are killed in the riots by the police and the national guard as before. So...that's a start???

Just to reiterate, we reject the framing that this is just a "bad apple" event or, if systemic, one that the authorities are willing and able without strong coercion to solve. We reject the framing that there is an equitable foundation of law on which to make neutral moral judgements concerning breaches of law. We reject the framing that legitimizes the use of force only for those who control the channels of visibility for grievances. So, if you want to argue with us, argue on the level of whether or not such rejections are justifiable not through the very framing we've already rejected.

The interesting question is why the US simply is unable to truly reform it's police? — ssu

I think it's because the ideological discourse is so skewed. Cops protect scared rich white people from their worst nightmares. In return, scared rich white people make them virtually untouchable.

Do you hold the same opinion about the US military? — boethius

Yes, except for homeland defense.

A lot of people died so that I enjoy freedoms in my country today; a lot of people died defending the freedoms you enjoy today — boethius

Yeah, did they have to? Should they have? It sets the precedent for future violence.

there's no use pretending there's some pacifist belief about all violence; it's just silly if you have no track record of radical pacifism. — boethius

I don't know that radical pacifism is realistic, but it's a goal the world should work toward. It disturbs me that you think it's justified people, perhaps a whole lot will, die. And that could mean anyone, potentially.

It's also disturbing that you're willing to justify this on a coin-flip's chance that it might end up with a better result.

I find your reasoning horrific. Most protesters do not want that.

The interesting question is why the US simply is unable to truly reform it's police? — ssu

The sociological answer is this: the role of the police in American capitalism is specifically engineered to be an alternative to social provision. In other words: no need to provide for society when you can lock them up and cower them into terror. Via the sociologist Loïc Wacquant:

"The explosive growth of the scope and intensity of punishment — in the United States over the past thirty years and in Western Europe on a smaller scale over the past dozen — fulfills three interrelated functions, each corresponding broadly to a “level” in the new class structure polarized by economic deregulation. At the lowest rung of the social ladder, incarceration serves to physically neutralize and warehouse the supernumerary fractions of the working class and in particular the dispossessed members of stigmatized groups who persist in entering into 'open rebellion against their social environment' - ”—to recall the provocative definition of crime proposed a century ago by W. E. B. Du Bois in The Philadelphia Negro.

One step higher, the rolling out of the police, judicial, and correctional net of the state fulfills the function, inseparably economic and moral, of imposing the discipline of desocialized wage work among the established fractions of the proletariat and the declining and insecure strata of the middle class, in particular by raising the cost of strategies of escape or resistance that drive young men from the lower class into the illegal sectors of the street economy. Lastly and above all, for the upper class as well as the society as a whole, the endless and boundless activism of the penal institution serves the symbolic mission of reaffirming the authority of the state and the newfound will of political elites to emphasize and enforce the sacred border between commendable citizens and deviant categories, the “deserving” and the “undeserving” poor, those who merit being salvaged and “inserted” (through a mix of sanctions and incentives on both the welfare and crime fronts) into the circuit of unstable wage labor and those who must henceforth be durably blacklisted and banished" (Wacquant, Punishing the Poor).

Police terror is an economic-political strategy, not an accidental feature of current social reality. None of what has been happening can be understood in isolation of these factors. The last of the factors mentioned here - the need to separate the 'deserving' from the 'undeserving poor' is yet another reason to resist the bourgeois attempt to parse out 'rioters' from 'protesters'. Grievance comes as a package, and it affects not only 'deserving' grievers, but those - especially those - who have been so destitute that looting becomes a viable strategy of response.

Race, class, and institutional terror are inseparably bound. Those who want to package it up into little digestible pieces do nothing but help enforce injustice.

Say no violence" the moment one needs to actually contemplate that privilege being taken away, is an not simply an empty platitude but completely absurd line of reasoning if one benefits from, much less, promotes the right of state violence. At least say "I like the current violence situation the way it is", — boethius

:up:

Has the situation at least improved in part over the past few decades?

I don’t buy into the idea that these are isolated instances. If we see one horrendous act in full public view it is silly to assume the same or worse never happens out of public view.

The ability for the public to document what happens live is a great boon. Camera footage is mandatory for police in the US, right? If not maybe installing such technology would mitigate some of the potential threats from within the institution that is meant to uphold the law rather than act as if they are above it.

One thing is pretty clear. Justice for one man’s murder is NOT justice for previous victims of police corruption. A clear plan set out by protesters would be a great thing! Asking for justice for this one incident clearly needs to take its momentum into some kind of protest backed movement that DEMANDS changes to how law enforcement functions.

I do think psychological screening is a VERY tricky matter too. We’re talking about a very high stressed job where violence and poor human behavior is seen in a daily basis. My friend was a policeman for a few years and he saw some quite crazy things - I imagine in the US (in certain areas) the dangers police face are enough to push anyone over the edge of reason.

Perhaps the peaceful protesters could be actively encouraged to join the police? That would seem to be a VERY good idea don’t you think? Often enough the people nest equipped for a job can be the very people who are loath to do it (from my friend’s perspective I know for a fact he joined the police because of an incident he was involved in personally - he was angry and scared, and honed that into responsible action by joining up).

Really though, this goes deeper than a law enforcement issue ... economic investments into schooling for poorer communities would be a good longterm plan, but the immediate problems are much tougher to handle on top of the current climate.

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? — I like sushi

Hello. I think some people are glad to have got your attention. By 'you' I mean anyone who has not been paying very much attention to the BLM campaign. This is the first step, to notice the problem.

Now I suggest you take the next step of realising that this problem is not new. Here is some evidence that I repeat for emphasis.

Let me say as I've always said, and I will always continue to say, that riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. ... But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. — Martin Luther King

A man of peace, famously, so pay attention when he points to "large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity." We have seen some of that here.

And this is from a long time ago, but it could have been written today about the present. So we know that the problem is intractable. I myself have seen and heard it all before, and so I am somewhat skeptical that it will lead anywhere this time. The goal is justice. Peace only counts as peace if there is justice. If rebellion is suppressed by fear, that is not peace, that is violent oppression. What has been manifested in a few days is a violence that has been there all along, the violence of oppression.

Books have been written on the measures needed to dismantle and combat systemic racism. do you want a book-list?

Edit: It's got to start with education. Here's an ignorant white Brit's introductory reading suggestions.

Franz Fanon: The Wretched of the Earth.
Paulo Friere: The pedagogy of the Oppressed.
James Baldwin: The Fire Next Time.
Audre Lorde: Sister Outsider.
Richard Wright: Black Boy.
Malorie Blackman Noughts and Crosses.
Zora Neale Hurston. Their Eyes Were Watching God.
Maya Angelou I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings.

I could go on.

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. — boethius

I think it's very difficult to assess the value of the rioting if what followed was organised armed violence, i.e. war. Unless we're in a position where we intend to follow the rioting up with outright war, if necessary, the example has a flaw.

Peaceful civic disobedience has a good track record in the 20th century. The civil rights movement, several Eastern block countries like east Germany.

To clarify, I understand rioting, property damage and looting as an immediate reaction to injustice. That's not something I criticize, it wouldn't make sense anyways. At some point, the immediate reaction must turn into something more goal oriented though.

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. — boethius

My take on history is that revolutions always eat their children. The only reason the American experience was different is because the loosers of the struggle were conveniently located behind an ocean.

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 — StreetlightX

I get where you are coming from with this, but I can't quite agree. Isn't that gatekeeping discussion? Kinda feels like "you're either with us or against us" thinking.

I think it's because the ideological discourse is so skewed. Cops protect scared rich white people from their worst nightmares. In return, scared rich white people make them virtually untouchable. — Baden

I'm not so sure it's just the rich, that seems a bit of an exacerbation. I think even poor people do want police to perform well.

Yet were you hit the nail here in linking this to an ideological discourse. It's a perverse ideological discourse that engulfs the whole society into inaction and it keeps nothing happening. It is actually the discourse. The discourse keeps Americans from doing something about it.

The simple fact is that when looting starts (and of course, for Americans property is far more important than lives) there simply comes this point where conservatives rally with the police, want to take a hard line against looting, theft and rioting. The leftists still remember the issue what caused the riots and hence don't take the similar stance to conservative America. In fact, both sides, the leftists and the conservatives simply dig further to their trenches and those actions, either reforms to policing or taking a tougher stance on rioting start to seem as a let down of either sides objectives.

So yes, the real reason is the discourse itself. It is poisoned far before the topic of actual police conduct and training is discussed. Far before that the opposing sides have retreated to their ideological castles and see each other in a worse light than before. And then ANY kind of understanding of the other sides view becomes a "surrender" of the values your side has taken itself to defend.

That's why nothing happens.

I'm not so sure it's just the rich, that seems a bit of an exacerbation. I think even poor people do want police to perform well. — ssu

Point taken though that's not exactly what I meant. @StreetlightX gave a far better answer than that anyway.

For the rest, pretty much, you've seen that in this thread. I would argue conservatives are wrong here in the framing but we'll never get to that if the debate doesn't switch focus.

So yes, the real reason is the discourse itself. It is poisoned far before the topic of actual police conduct and training is discussed. Far before that the opposing sides have retreated to their ideological castles and see each other in a worse light than before. And then ANY kind of understanding of the other sides view becomes a "surrender" of the values your side has taken itself to defend. — ssu

There is always the question of who has power to shape discourse and who doesn't. This follows degrees; if I started ranting my posts in the streets, everyone would see me as a crazy street ranter. Eventually the police would show up because I don't have a performance permit.

If you're a media institution, you have much more influence over the shape of discourse. You can select stories to publish, you receive donations from interested parties, you've got a major incentive not to bite the hand that feeds. As a media institution, you have major influence over the framing issues you're criticising. As a media institution funder, you have major influence over their decisions.

The playing field isn't equal. There are media components that work against the interest of protesters, and it is always leftists who work against them.

Police terror is an economic-political strategy, not an accidental feature of current social reality. None of what has been happening can be understood in isolation of these factors. The last of the factors mentioned here - the need to separate the 'deserving' from the 'undeserving poor' is yet another reason to resist the bourgeois attempt to parse out 'rioters' from 'protesters'. Grievance comes as a package, and it affects not only 'deserving' grievers, but those - especially those - who have been so destitute that looting becomes a viable strategy of response.

Race, class, and institutional terror are inseparably bound. Those who want to package it up into little digestible pieces do nothing but help enforce injustice. — StreetlightX

Thanks for a long interesting answer.

Yet I feel that now you put the US to be quite different from other countries. Wouldn't there be some general factors in the civil/police relations that are factors here?

Or do you think that the police in the UK, Germany, France, Netherlands or Finland abide this kind of similar agenda and structure in the society? Or is your answer that the American situation is totally different?

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. — Baden

Your position is that the violence serves a useful purpose. I'm describing what that violence actually is. If you envision a better form of violence to bring about positive change, describe it.

I've presented no caricature, but stated reality. If you can't defend your position, change it, but this complaining you're misunderstood and saying objections to your nonsense is stupid, is itself a waste of space.

There are riots whose behavior is far removed from any civil rights meaning. You refuse to condemn them but instead try to argue they have some positive value and then tell others to get lost when they disagree.

Nah, you haven't bothered to read my posts and are completely lost.

Again, try quoting my position. That usually works if done with context and demonstrates a minimum of comprehension.

The playing field isn't equal. There are media components that work against the interest of protesters, and it is always leftists who work against them. — fdrake

Not only that, but your politicians are basically prisoners of this stated discourse. It truly strangles genuine discussion.

Watched a short clip of Ted Cruz being interviewed by Fox News on the riots. The fact was the senator's comments were totally reasonable and he condemned the actions well, but the Fox News commentator started with this bizarre point of "do we know actually what was the cause of death?" Cruz could sideline this stupid question, but it tells how the separated media works.

Worst of all is Trump, that only makes the public discourse become worse.

Worst of all is Trump, that only makes the public discourse become worse. — ssu

I think in terms of media influence Trump's a much smaller issue than Murdoch and the Koch Brothers. Trump's pretty much a pustule, he's not the infection. He itches and bursts and it's satisfying to squeeze him.

Not only that, but your politicians are basically prisoners of this stated discourse. It truly strangles genuine discussion. — ssu

Not actually living in America, I grew up in the UK and moved to Norway a few years ago. The UK's much closer to America than here, and has much the same issues, but the police are less militarised in the UK so there are less hospitalisations and deaths despite performing the same societal function. They still do shit like kettling and illegally detaining peaceful protesters (like with London's extinction rebellion), and illegally detaining activists under anti-terror laws... But at least Brits can expect police not to shoot them if they shout too loud, most of the time.

They also do predictive policing bollocks (that just concentrates police effort disproportionately in the poorest areas over time), the British state is even more of an overt surveillance state than America (the police film the public in London and put them through machine learning algorithms for facial recognition, there was a case where a guy stole a crate of beer and was watched continuously by surveillance for a 200 mile journey..)

To make it clear, @Hanover. I said this re the specifics of looting etc.

And that doesn't yet mean that burning down Target stores is justified or effective, it only means we've got to the point where it's not necessarily unjustified or at least not any worse than what's been done to the people who are doing it.

Well, peacefully appealing to the moral sentiments of the ruling aristocracy who have made America a systematically racist shithole clearly isn't going to work. How to effectively apply other forms of pressure is an extremely difficult question.

Yes, some of the localised violence is uncalled for and counterproductive and even carried out for completely the wrong reasons.

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 the main point is the problem with legitimacy, which hasn't been taken up much because the focus is just on saying this or that action is wrong, period. That's an impoverished level of analysis is what I'm saying.

You responded with this:

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

How is what you said a reasonable interpretation of what I said? How is it anything but a random expression of your emotional state?

I also said this:

Just to reiterate, we reject the framing that this is just a "bad apple" event or, if systemic, one that the authorities are willing and able without strong coercion to solve. We reject the framing that there is an equitable foundation of law on which to make neutral moral judgements concerning breaches of law. We reject the framing that legitimizes the use of force only for those who control the channels of visibility for grievances. So, if you want to argue with us, argue on the level of whether or not such rejections are justifiable not through the very framing we've already rejected. — Baden

Again, just quote my words, tell me what you think they mean and we'll go from there. Otherwise, we'll be talking past each other.

objections to your nonsense — Hanover

Here's an opportunity. Which specific claim, quote it, is nonsense and why?

I think it's very difficult to assess the value of the rioting if what followed was organised armed violence, i.e. war. Unless we're in a position where we intend to follow the rioting up with outright war, if necessary, the example has a flaw. — Echarmion

I completely agree it is very difficult to assess.

Definitely most riots throughout most of history were mostly irrelevant in terms of political change.

But most means not all, so the question is if this is in the "few exceptions category". Certainly the case can plausibly be made.

However, viewed as a political tool (which most rioters won't likely have any clear idea of, other than the intuitive expression of rejection of state legitimacy and "things be like this now"), the purpose of rioting is for the legitimate components of the state to overthrow the illegitimate components and leadership. The situation in the US is not a colonial occupation that would, as you suggest, require the organized armed violence followup. The "riot bet" is that agents of the state will be unwilling to fire on their own people at a scale large enough to restore order (the only surefire way to regain control once riots are at this scale); which is of course not an issue in
a foreign occupation context. If there's no political solution in sight, then the "good cops / soldiers" turn on their superiors rather than follow orders to shoot their fellow citizens (if things go well of course, and the revolution succeeds). This is the template of an effective riot based political change and there are lot's of historical examples of exactly this playing out.

Of course, that's not the only potential outcome.

A political solution is possible, or then the military and police could effectively end the riots through sustained mass arrests in a way that "good cops and soldiers" can live with (the status quo is maintained; not "enough" shots needed to be fired), or then a tyrannical government emerges with agents willing to "do what it takes" to maintain control.

These "good cops and soldiers" are, in an illegitimate state, carefully selected to be noble and competent enough to find murderers of the privileged class, protect property with their lives and track down thieves, and to carry out wars with discipline and courage ... but not have so much nobleness and competence as to be a "trouble maker" willing to make a principled stand (why oligarchs would say "well, I don't like Trump, but he has no principles! He's not so bad, we can deal with him" whereas Bernie was truly "unacceptable"). History shows that sometimes these "goodish" agents of the state act to reestablish plausible state legitimacy when it is clear their entire identity is not plausible without it, and the state is not plausibly legitimate. Sometimes they don't and after they are sufficiently purged and/or managed just go "oh, phooey, now things are even worse; I liked the old democracy days". In terms of political strategy of rioting, the hope is that riots get large enough to force political leaders to order the shooting of citizens, and in that moment "good state agents" stage an effective coup.

Definitely not a guaranteed outcome, but that's the idea.

I dwell on this option to make clear what the political idea behind rioting would be from a historical perspective, as a counterpoint to the idea rioting "cannot be effective".

The other options, political solutions, tyranny, botched coups, status quo maintained despite sustained civil unrest over a long duration (the riots don't get "big enough" but never really go away, transitioning to de facto gang rule in many areas, as we see in Mexican), can all be analysed as well.

Only "political solution" lacks an obvious meaning of what that would look like.

The current situation is bad, in particular, because the only leader with widespread legitimacy to (at least not be corrupt) is Bernie Sanders, but the Democratic party not only defeated him but made him bend then knee in a humiliating way that essentially disposed of his legitimacy (why no one cares what Bernie is saying about the situation today). However, "unhumiliating" Bernie (which would require making him the Democratic leader) would be the first easiest step to some sort of effective dialogue to reach a political solution. The police state and white supremacists have maintained a policy (whether centrally planned or just intuitively executed) of simply killing black, union and socialist leaders; the problem with this policy is that when people are pushed to the brink there's no leadership (people adapt by creating leaderless movements) with widespread legitimacy that can negotiate a settlement with the state. We can verify this to be the case in that there simply is no person we can name who could go to the white house and talk on behalf of the black and poor communities that anyone would give a damn about (Oprah? Will Smith? Obamas? Snoop Dog?). There is no MLK today that can intermediate between the oppressor and the oppressed. Bernie is, in my view, the closest to a legitimate representative that has widespread legitimacy (a big maybe though), and complete enough understanding of politics, although pathetically naive in implementation, to "achieve" something politically (if the state was willing to negotiate ... which is equally unlikely). So, it's very unclear what politically could happen that's relevant, partly because the Democrats already threw Bernie under the bus not realizing he is the useful idiot smart enough to be useful in the situation; that as problems get worse one needs smarter useful idiots to deal with them (i.e. Bernie is the idiot America needs, rather than the idiot America deserves, which is Trump), and it's equally unclear that even if Bernie or someone "crafted demands to end systemic racism " that Trump would agree to them; so, no one's even talking about some sort of political process at the moment other than "vote for Biden in November".

I think in terms of media influence Trump's a much smaller issue than Murdoch and the Koch Brothers. — fdrake

Murdoch, Koch Brothers or George Soros, there will be allways these rich men who get a micro-orgasm when the US president calls to them (or they can call him whenever they like).

Yet these fat cats would be happy with politicians that are normal and don't make a mess of everything.

Not actually living in America, I grew up in the UK and moved to Norway a few years ago. — fdrake

Norway!? Well, then you know first hand what Nordic socialism is like.

The UK's much closer to America than here, and has much the same issues, but the police are less militarised in the UK so there are less hospitalisations and deaths despite performing the same societal function. — fdrake

Yet it's telling that the country you live in and which was described by Michael Moore to be an utopia experienced one of the worst right wing terrorist attacks anywhere in the World with quite a deliberate agenda (attacking social democrat party youths). And Norway did (in my view) the correct thing: it prevented any messages or proclamations spreading in media from the lone terrorist (which prevented copy cats). The terrorist Breivik was given a special form of a prison sentence that can be extended indefinitely, so he is not walking out with the typical maximum sentence under Norwegian law.

Even if the above isn't related to the subject, I just try to show that other countries do have similar problems and do sometimes take drastic measures, yet the way the police is perceived there surely isn't as in the US. But the generally they (the police) are doing the same thing. Above all, the police are part of the society in every country and there are minorities in every country.

So what is so different in

Norway:


the Netherlands:


Finland:

Ultimately, the black protestors should be the ones setting the terms of the protests, not the white ones. So if a majority of black protestors want a peaceful protest, then white ones need to fucking fall in line and respect that.

And the people in this thread need to respect that as well.