"Poverty is the worst form of violence" Gandhi I believe

There's nothing cynical about this suggestion at all. The fact is that certain social policies have, and remain, in place in order to keep blacks poor and destitute, and are very much contributory to the issues we're seeing now. I mentioned earlier the massive rise of carceral prevalence, which overwhelmingly and disproportionally affects blacks; the practise of redlining is yet another. Economics and race are inseparable.

^Prothero said it exactly right.

"Riots do not develop out of thin air" "Riots are the language of the unheard" MLK Jr.
The anger and frustration are the result of decades of inequality and injustice. Riots will recur until such inequities are addressed.
"Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention" MLK Jr.

Or to put it differently: the production of "bad actors" is a production and reflection of the social reality that birthed them. The attempt to separate those actors into little packets of 'good and bad' is an attempt to deny the reality that produced them. — StreetlightX

The way you put it, it makes a lot more sense. I do agree with that analysis. When I read the phrase "outside agitators" I did not take it to mean opportunistic looting, but rather people intentionally instigating violence in order to use that violence to justify repressing the protests.

As for the opportunistic looting, I agree it's part of the same, or at least similar, socio-economic pressures. But I don't think it follows that a movement, whatever it ends up being, needs to accept every behaviour. Treating people as merely driven by outside circumstance is taking away their agency.

The apathetic narcissistic people who paves the way for fascism, deserves the fate that fascism deserves. Act and do something or consequences will unfold, not as punishment, but as a deterministic force to balance out the inbalance. — Christoffer

Good post. I agree with your analysis for the most part. I do see a problem though: If we're going to treat violent protests as a "deterministic force", isn't the same true of the appeasement? In this mode of analysis, aren't appeasement and inaction just as predetermined. In fact, aren't even the oppressors merely a deterministic force?

Socio-economic analysis doesn't directly translate into moral judgements. It cannot, because the analysis presupposes determinism, where morality presupposes freedom. There is a difference, therefore, between understanding something as a phenomenon and justifying it. Now, most of your reasoning works for the latter, and I do agree that inaction is morally wrong. But of course, there are plenty complications. Most poor people (in the US and elsewhere) barely have any practical representation. You're probably aware of the studies regarding how much policy preferences of different groups actually determine outcomes. And the people worst hit are probably the ones who are already on the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder.

That doesn't mean violence cannot be justified. It does mean it's a pretty damn difficult topic though.

I don’t want to position myself on the side of people who care more about the riots than the systemic injustices the riots are about, but since this is a philosophy forum I do think it’s appropriate to be pedantic and technically correct in all the little details. Poverty can be violence, yes, but what is poverty but lack of property? So destroying property can create poverty. I’m not going to cry for the sake of specifically Target or other huge conglomerates who can afford the losses, but attacking property in general does hurt whoever’s property that is, in precisely the way that poverty hurts. If the victim is big enough to take it, shrug... we don’t need to worry about an adult who got punched by a toddler, he can take it, but that doesn’t make punching in general harmless.

we don’t need to worry about an adult who got punched by a toddler, he can take it, but that doesn’t make punching in general harmless. — Pfhorrest

Good. No one cares about harmless protests.

But I don't think it follows that a movement, whatever it ends up being, needs to accept every behaviour. Treating people as merely driven by outside circumstance is taking away their agency. — Echarmion

No one's asking anyone to accept anything. Only that protestors don't have to keep qualifying their protests at every juncture to make people like you feel good. These protests are not about what you fucking deign to 'accept' or not. It's a fucking energy sink, and its fucking tiring to have to append a 'protests in the mirror may be more violent than you're willing to allow' to every fucking statement. Don't accept it. Accept it. Who the fuck are you.

Here's an example of a homeless man's property being tossed into a fire.



But hey, it's just property, right?

No one's asking anyone to accept anything. Only that protestors don't have to keep qualifying their protests at every juncture to make people like you feel good. — StreetlightX

True. I agree with that. I was thinking the piece you linked was more aimed at the people doing the protesting, not some guy on an internet forum.

A rational discussion HERE is possible - not only that I believe that is the point of this kind of forum. I don’t think anyone commenting here is looking the other way (I think it’s pretty hard to look the other way considering how this has spilled across international news headlines).

The question is then how to use this opportunity to better the US for the people living in the US. Small steps can build momentum. I think a lot of the peaceful protesters should give serious consideration, and active encouragement from the community, to join the police force themselves.

In terms of surveillance there is something there too. I think without video footage the situation in the US would be much worse. It’s horrific to see and hear about the string if cases like this one, but equally such horror is better seen in the cold light of day than hidden. People can cover up their views well enough most of the time, but under surveillance it’s almost impossible. For that reason open public access to police operations - to some larger degree - would be an area worthy of consideration (as is already happening and as has been happening as practically everyone has a live streaming handheld device now).

Police body cameras are another useful device and often helpful to the position of the police as well. Documentation is helpful to all the involved parties.

Y'know the more I think about it the more I reckon the overwhelming anxiety from well-meaning but utterly shit liberals over protestor violence is born from desperate need for self-assurance that they're only supporting 'good causes' and not 'bad causes'. As if they would taint themselves somehow if they were to just fully commit themselves to supporting the biggest social movement I don't know when. Like 'yes yes I know that there's structural violence and that a man was executed in broad daylight on video, but...". It's the same 'but' in 'I'm not racist but...'. It's the only way to explain the fact that all these people drop-in outta nowhere and uniformly - as if following a script - kick conversation off with some lip service to supporting the protests before vomiting out a paragraph or two about the violence despite having said jack shit about anything else.

At least people like NOS are shameless about being shit human beings. Liberals just want to feel good and have their egos stroked by being offered assurance that the Cause is good enough for them. Worse than useless.

Good. No one cares about harmless protests.

Man, those local business owners must have really, really had it coming. I never realized you hated small business owners so much.

^ Look an on-script one note liberal, right on cue.

A rational discussion HERE is possible - not only that I believe that is the point of this kind of forum.

While there may be some sort of rational discussion to be found here in this thread, I don't think it can be had with those who for no serious reason support destroying local businesses and in turn the communities that house these businesses. It's just destruction for the sake of destruction. Simply having righteous anger doesn't entitle one to a blank cheque when it comes to violence and no one can seriously entertain this viewpoint intellectually speaking.

Look we get it, the protests are not up to your standard of purity, and the real issue is definitely not a trail of dead, state-murdered black men and everything that lead to that, but your discomfort. Tell us more about how these protests make you feel. How can they accomodate your all important, make-or-break judgement better? However can they make it up to you in order to gain your Very Important Support?

Do you think the nonviolence of MLK Jr. and Gandhi were the reason for their success or the violence that surrounded their efforts?

I'm a socialist/anarchist, as you've hopefully noted, and, just speaking for myself, the only reason I've commented here at all, and only on the topic of the riots, is because I have nothing new to add about the systemic injustice of police or the murder of George Floyd. That's an obviously horrible thing and I haven't seen anyone saying otherwise in a place or way that I would have something useful to say in response. (Admittedly I haven't been reading this thread very closely... way too much too fast to keep up). If anyone was, and especially if nobody else was refuting them, then I would say something. As it is though, I have nothing useful to say. But then I see people like you, who obviously have the right sentiments at heart, saying things that I have little technical disagreements about, so that's a thing there's reason for me to comment on.

I've long had a suspicion that a pattern like this is behind a lot of arguments over outrageous topics (in the literal sense, of topics that provoke outrage):

Say someone stomps a kitten's skull on video, and that provokes a bunch of (righteous) outrage, and lots of people are shouting "kitten stomping is wrong!" That's a pretty obvious truth that I think almost everybody is going to agree with, and when everyone else is already shouting it, a lot of people won't feel any need to say anything more about it themselves.

But then someone outraged about the kitten stomping does something a little over the line to express that outrage. Someone who had nothing useful to add about kitten stomping being wrong (because it obviously is, what more is there to say) might speak up about that reaction being over the line, not to defend kitten-stompers, but just as a matter of principle.

While that outrage is completely justified, and some people overreacting is understandable, it's also good that some people with more emotional distance from the situation keep level heads and watch that things don't get too out of hand. But then some people spin that level-headedness as not being outraged enough about the kitten-stomping, and consequently as defending the kitten stompers.

That in turn provokes other people to defend the level-headed people and their right to not be outraged, and so the conversation ends up circling around that topic, instead of the original kitten-stomping.

All because there isn't really anything to add to "kitten stomping is bad", not because anybody disagrees with that. If people did disagree, then there would be more discussion about that, and not about overreactions to it. The only reason the conversation keeps circling around the reactions to the original offense is because everybody agrees that the original offense was wrong, but some people contend that the reactions are all perfectly justified, and conversation centers around wherever there is disagreement.

TL;DR: You defending the overreactions to the original crime is why everyone is arguing with you about that, and not talking about the original crime. Everyone agrees the original crime was wrong, so there's nothing more to say about that.

Neither MLK nor Gandhi worked in a vacuum. Their principled non-violence was immersed in environments which were bloody, in which people died, were hurt, and where misery was (is?) the rule and not the exception. Non-violence has a part, and an important part to play. It should be encouraged where possible, and praised where successful. But it has always been one part of a tapestry of moving historical pieces of which people like MLK and Gandhi were fragments.

TL;DR: You defending the overreactions to the original crime is why everyone is arguing with you about that, and not talking about the original crime. Everyone agrees the original crime was wrong, so there's nothing more to say about that. — Pfhorrest

Precisely. Once the discussion got more level headed, agreement re-emerged.

It's important to keep in mind that you can accept the protests, with the rioting, as legitimate, while also saying that rioting shouldn't be encouraged, for whatever reason.

I think "violence begets violence" and "an eye for an eye, leaves the world blind" but violence does beget change sometimes as well, although directed violence against the source of oppression seems more useful than random violence.

It's important to keep in mind that you can accept the protests, with the rioting, as legitimate, while also saying that rioting shouldn't be encouraged, for whatever reason. — Echarmion

WOW Well done you did it! You said the Important Definitely-Not-Trivial Thing To Say. I wish all the protestors had your courage!

Good post.

Everyone agrees the original crime was wrong, so there's nothing more to say about that. — Pfhorrest

Unfortunately, this is not true. It may be true for anyone who reads this topic but it's definitely not true everywhere. Also, claiming an "overreaction" means that you evaluate the riots to be worse than the original crime and everything it stands for. Many would see that as outrageous.

I don’t think anyone commenting here is looking the other way — I like sushi

I don't think I know how to respond to that. When I say looking the other way, I mean this:-

Man, those local business owners must have really, really had it coming. — BitconnectCarlos

Here, quite explicitly, it is the destruction of property - and worse of the sacred 'business' that is the problem. Not the destruction of a black man.

What's the problem? Either it's the destruction by the mob, or it's the destruction by the cops. Each is the problem to the other and you have to look one way or the other, and not both. Trying to look both ways just gets you reviled and killed.


Obviously, State troopers and more deaths of black men is the solution to the riots. Press down hard on the feelings of outrage, and try and turn them inwards. And obviously it is not the solution to the other problem, of extra-judicial racist murders by cops. So what you gonna rationalise?

WOW Well done you did it! You said the Important Definitely-Not-Trivial Thing To Say. I wish all the protestors had your courage! — StreetlightX

As trivial as it is, probably half this thread is people mistaking one thing for the other.

Everyone agrees the original crime was wrong, so there's nothing more to say about that. — Pfhorrest

Yes there is definitely Nothing more to say about the structural violence that led to yet another black man being murdered in broad daylight and the links between capital, policing, poverty, crime, and a hundred other social factors and the REAL takeaway is 'don't be bad, be good'. Very good. Nice analysis. Excellent takeaway. Glad it only took 22 pages to get there. So Powerful. So Wise.

Tell me More of your Wisdom.

While there may be some sort of rational discussion to be found here in this thread, I don't think it can be had with those who for no serious reason support destroying local businesses and in turn the communities that house these businesses. It's just destruction for the sake of destruction. Simply having righteous anger doesn't entitle one to a blank cheque when it comes to violence and no one can seriously entertain this viewpoint intellectually speaking.

It's because they do not live there. They need not worry about their jobs, their grocery stores, their homes, nor think about anyone these riots might affect. What's left but to bleat from the ivory tower?

Why, you already have all the wisdom, don't you? You're the ultra woke communist revolutionary, the one who will single handedly stick it to the man. You don't need us, or the protest, your sheer ideological rigor shall bring down capitalism and injustice.