Apparently the people who do live there don't live up to your rigorous standards either. Which leaves... ah. Got it.

Also, claiming an "overreaction" means that you evaluate the riots to be worse than the original crime and everything it stands for. — praxis

I don't think that's true at all. That kind of thinking implies "an eye for eye" sense of justice: that any reaction is justified up to the level of harm of the original offense, and only when you do something worse in response is it an overreaction. Justice isn't arithmetic like that. The right response to a crime should not be something exactly equally wrong as the crime but "in the opposite direction" or something; it should be constructive, something to remedy the harm done and prevent future harm, not just return harm upon its original perpetrator.

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 — StreetlightX

I can only speak for myself, but I personally don't have anything more to say about that than has already been said well by lots of other people here, like you. You and others have already said all I would have to say, so what more can I say about it?

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. — Pfhorrest

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

The right response to a crime should not be something exactly equally wrong as the crime but "in the opposite direction" or something; it should be constructive, something to remedy the harm done and prevent future harm, not just return harm upon its original perpetrator. — Pfhorrest

I'm gonna hang these on the wall of a kindergarden somewhere. The kids will appreciate these pearls of generic, completely unspecific, utterly dime-a-dozen words of wisdom that Definitely have Everything to do with Systematic Racism in the US and Totally Contribute to the Discussion in a Non-Trivial way. Just gonna have to read them back in the voice of Mr. Rogers or something. It's gonna be a treat. I hope everyone is Very Proud of the Hard Work they've put in today, and hopefully the Angry Black Protesters can all learn something Very Important.

You’re just embarrassing yourself. Don’t you see?

You are a mod, feel free to split this conversation about conversations about tragedies into a different thread if you want to keep it out of this one. Like I said, I'm only talking about this topic (the meta-topic of where the conversation is focusing) because you are.

I believe that people riot to demand justice, not to dispense it.

Justice isn't arithmetic like that. — Pfhorrest

You're the one claiming an "overreaction." This means that you believe the rioting is unjustified or is worse than the original crime and the systematic racism that it stands for. You can see how others might disagree, yes?

This means that you believe the rioting is unjustified or is worse than the original crime and the systematic racism that it stands for. — praxis

The point of the post you're responding to is to argue that "unjustified" doesn't equal "worse that the original crime". (To be clear, I don't think the rioting is worse than the original crime. But I think some specific acts of the rioters are unjustified).

You can respond to harm with lesser harm and still be unjustified. It's not the amount of harm dispensed by whom that constitutes justice.

Well, I can rant as well. Bear with me. Or don't and pass on.

I find it odd that as I grow older, I become less and less conservative. Politically, in any case.

For good or ill, I've spent most of my life in the practice of law in these United States of America. I'm an old, tired and jaded practitioner. Not as old as some, perhaps; though some of them should be put out to pasture, or put in the cornfield as a charming Twilight Zone put it. But more tired and jaded than most I suspect. I have no illusions regarding the law, I think, but have for the most part always thought that the rule of law is something to be honored and sustained.

There's problem with this conceit. The rule of law in its most significant respects is often ignored or perverted in our Glorious Union, and in lesser respects has become little more than a complex and sometimes mystifying mechanism by which the interests of a small group of people are maintained and furthered. I've quoted Bastiat in another thread and for another purpose, but the quote is one which comes to my mind more and more these days as characteristic of America and some other nations as well:

“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.”

Certain kinds of looting, sanctioned by the law and our morality, are not just tolerated but encouraged in our Glorious Republic. The immensely wealthy are admired in our society and have been for many years, instead of being seen as the equivalents of gluttons and hoarders they are.

The ingenious, and shrewd, great landowners, merchants and lawyers who created the U.S. took pains to protect certain civil liberties and restrict the power of government. I thought this generally wise and valuable. But I doubt even those worldly men could have imagined the extent to which wealth and the wealthy would come to control everything and everyone here. Our politicians are bought and sold many times over. It's the nature of our politics that large sums of money are required by any successful politician, and so those who govern us are mere shills for those who support them as candidates or incumbents. The idea of plunder has become such a part of our legal system that our Supreme Court has decided that money is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment.

This will only continue in the absence of dramatic change. As they see reason, the wealthy, individuals and corporations, have no reason whatsoever to change the system by which they've profited. They're unwittingly supported by many of the less well-off who continue to believe in the American Dream of which they've been deprived who so fear socialism--or whatever it is they consider that to be-- that they're quite willing for the rich to get richer and the poor get poorer, even if it means they grow poorer and less powerful themselves.

Sometimes my fondest hope is merely to be left alone in the mess that is now and will be. Perhaps that's the new American Dream. I hope I can do better.

This means that you believe the rioting is unjustified or is worse than the original crime and the systematic racism that it stands for.
— praxis

The point of the post you're responding to is to argue that "unjustified" doesn't equal "worse that the original crime".

You can respond to harm with lesser harm and still be unjustified. It's not the amount of harm dispensed by whom that constitutes justice. — Pfhorrest

There are reactions and there is justice. Yes, they should not get confused. Maybe it would simplify things if you explain what you mean by the riots being an overreaction. It seems to be an evaluation of some kind.

The ingenious, and shrewd, great landowners, merchants and lawyers who created the U.S. took pains to protect certain civil liberties and restrict the power of government. I thought this generally wise and valuable. But I doubt even those worldly men could have imagined the extent to which wealth and the wealthy would come to control everything and everyone here. Our politicians are bought and sold many times over. It's the nature of our politics that large sums of money are required by any successful politician, and so those who govern us are mere shills for those who support them as candidates or incumbents. The idea of plunder has become such a part of our legal system that our Supreme Court has decided that money is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. — Ciceronianus the White

But why won't the protestors just be Nice? That's clearly the Most Important Thing that must Take up 23 Pages of Discussion.

--

But seriously, yes, the fact that people are so single-mindedly obsessed over low level looting and are apparently stuck dumb when it comes to the issues that you refer to - which perpetuate and sustain the current state of affairs - is a total indictment on most of the discussion in this thread. It is embarrassing and shameful, but not for reasons mentioned elsewhere. Instead we are treated with discussions of kittens and fortune cookie moralisms that are supposed to constitute substantial discussion. A few more posts like yours and this thread may actually turn out half decent.

Bear with me. Or don't and pass on. — Ciceronianus the White

The bear gets my vote.

Certain kinds of looting, sanctioned by the law and our morality, are not just tolerated but encouraged in our Glorious Republic. — Ciceronianus the White

Not to worry, it will trickle down to the lower classes like rain from heaven.

There are reactions and there is justice. Yes, they should not get confused. — praxis

Justice is a topic that applies to the reactions as much as anything else. Reactions can be just or unjust. You mentioned justification. Justice and justification are closely related. Doing something unjustified is unjust, even if it's in reaction to something also (or even much more) unjust.

Maybe it would simplify things if you explain what you mean by the riots being an overreaction. It seems to be an evaluation of some kind.

I don't think the riots as a whole are an overreaction. Angry people taking to the streets loudly and visibly complaining about the murder of George Floyd and the systemic problems that underlie it is a perfectly justified reaction. Some property violence, like overturning and burning police cars, I could also see as a justified reaction. Destruction of unrelated storefronts, including ones owned by people who are struggling to make ends meet themselves, or especially (in that video posted earlier) some homeless guy's mattress, is not justified. None of that is as bad as the brutal murder of a human being, but "not as bad" isn't the same thing as "perfectly okay" either.

And I wouldn't even be talking about this if it weren't for people saying or implying that it is perfectly okay, because it's not as bad as what it's in response to.

Destruction of unrelated storefronts, including ones owned by people who are struggling to make ends meet themselves, or especially (in that video posted earlier) some homeless guy's mattress, is not justified. — Pfhorrest

You evaluate that this is worse (an unjustified reaction) than the years of systematic racism and the incalculable suffering that it has caused now symbolized by the George Floyd murder?

You evaluate that this is worse (an unjustified reaction) — praxis

You keep repeating this "unjustified = worse" things despite repeated, IMO very clear, disambiguation of them. In fact the very next sentence after the bit you quoted began:

"None of that is as bad as the brutal murder of a human being,"

...but, as that sentenced ended, "not as bad" isn't the same thing as "perfectly okay" either. And "justified", or "just", implies it's okay, or even good.

Poor wording on my part. Please allow me to rephrase.

Destruction of unrelated storefronts, including ones owned by people who are struggling to make ends meet themselves, or especially (in that video posted earlier) some homeless guy's mattress, is not justified. — Pfhorrest

You appear to evaluate this to be an overreaction to the incalculable suffering caused by systematic racism that is now symbolized by the George Floyd murder.

Fuck it, I lied because I had to come back and start reading again. Glutton for punishment.

So the narrative is that arguing against the destructive part of the protest is to not care about addressing systematic racism. It's to be a worthless liberal, god forbid.

So what do our burn-the-shit down socialists have to say when black people are condemning the violence and advocating for peaceful protest?



So what is it? Is it just some worthless liberals in this thread focusing on the wrong thing?

We're not going to take it. We're not going to be repetitious. In every case of police brutality, the same thing has been happing. Y'all protest, y'alll destory stuff and they don't move. You know why they don't move? Because it's our stuff not their stuff. So they want us to destroy our stuff. They'e not going to move. So let's do this another way. — George Floyd

Then he goes on to talk about voting for change, like Obama did, who also said:

Let's not excuse violence, or rationalize it, or participate in it. If we want our criminal justice system, and American society at large, to operate on a higher ethical code, then we have to model that code ourselves.

The bottom line is this: if we want to bring about real change, then the choice isn't between protest and politics. We have to do both. We have to mobilize to raise awareness, and we have to organize and cast our ballots to make sure that we elect candidates who will act on reform." — Obama

So there you go. An argument for peaceful protest from the people being oppressed.

Thanks for trying to rephrase, but that sounds to my ear like it still means the same thing. You seem to use "overreaction" to mean "reaction worse than what it's reacting to", whereas I use it to mean "reaction that is unjustified", where as previously elaborated "unjustified" doesn't mean "worse".

That stuff you quoted is not perfectly okay. It's far less bad than, as you say, the incalculable suffering caused by systematic racism that is now symbolized by the George Floyd murder. But just being less bad than that doesn't make it perfectly okay. There's a lot of stuff less bad than that that's also not okay.

Let's look at it this way: the Holocaust was maybe the worst thing that's ever happened. Would a hypothetical systemic discrimination against German people up to and including state actors murdering innocent Germans in cold blood (basically the situation we're talking about here, but directed at Germans instead of African Americans) have been "not an overreaction", or "justified", or "okay", because it's not as bad as the Holocaust that it's in response to? (Or conversely, if African Americans had done a genocide, would that make what's happening to them now okay, because it's not as bad?)

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoo on her disgust at violent protestors:

I'm hear to call you out for your recklessness and for your obscene disrespect to a righteous cause that you are trying to hijack. When you or anyone behaves in this way, we all lose. By giving the vary same forces of oppression we fight against the false validation that they crave. — Lori Lightfoo

Columbia South Carolina mayor on setting a curfew because some people turned the protests violent:



He discussion upcoming police reforms. This can happen within the system. And then he concludes with:

For those of you not from our city, I want you take your asses home right now! — Stephen K. Benjamin

I guess the mayor has some reason for believing in those mythical outside agitators.

Anyway, fuck you for wanting to see my country burn because of your ideology. Support the majority peaceful protest.

It's far less bad than, as you say, the incalculable suffering caused by systematic racism that is now symbolized by the George Floyd murder. — Pfhorrest

I don't see how it can be said to be an overreaction then. Particularly since the situation doesn't seem to be improving. In fact, we seem to be sliding backward of late.

But just being less bad than that doesn't make it perfectly okay. — Pfhorrest

What is this either/or? has anyone actually said it was okay?

Anyway, Godwin's law says it's time for me to bail.

But to the main issue, maybe some of the people who shouldn't be police are getting exposed right now. There's been a few firings so far. Needs to be more. Maybe a lot more.

Anyone kneeling someone's neck has to go. Are you kidding me? Pushing a reporter into a fire, macing a kid? That shit has to stop.

Also any cop targeting a reporter. And the Louisville shooting, which is real suspect. No body cams were on, some black guy gets shot.

Also good to see there's a list of demands for police reform protestors are coming up with. Some good ideas.

update:

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is being seriously discussed ... Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. :yikes: :point: :fire:

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is being seriously discussed . — 180 Proof

We'll see how that goes down.

One lat video form a black man disgusted at looters in long beach who he says had nothing to do with the protest at 0:49.

They weren't trying to send a message about Mr. Floyd ... This doesn't send a message. It doesn't say let's get socially involved.

But to the main issue, maybe some of the people who shouldn't be police are getting exposed right now. There's been a few firings so far. Needs to be more. Maybe a lot more.

The police have utterly failed. The murderers within their ranks have been exposed, and now the cowards. They have refused to protect and serve, sheepishly standing around as communities are razed to the ground.

From previous experience we know what happen when the police run away during a riot: Roof Koreans. People will plea, flee, or finally stand up to protect their communities and neighborhoods. There are clearly instances of that already.

They have refused to protect and serve, sheepishly standing around as communities are razed to the ground. — NOS4A2

They have to follow orders from higher up, but yeah it seems they weren't doing much to stop the actual looters and fire starters. Just standing around provoking the protesters. I've seen it suggested that if they joined the peaceful protesters and stopped the looting, they would have been helped by the protesters to identify bad actors. The peaceful protestors don't want everything destroyed.

The peaceful protestors don't want everything destroyed. — Marchesk

What?! Come on man. I'm sorry. Surely you meant they don't want anything destroyed. Right?

What is this either/or? has anyone actually said it was okay? — praxis

Sorta, kinda, maybe? It's difficult to tell what people actually think. Several people have been accused of openly calling for riots and destruction. Several others of devaluing the protest by focusing on some inconsequential property damage. No-one came out and drew any lines as to where justified protest ends, in this case or generally.