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

A little bit of hyperbole. And probably it would mean a few broken windows and a dumpster fire here or there, and the occasional scuffle with police. People getting a little bit worked up at night is different than the systematic looting. But mostly not anything destroyed. The Minny police precinct and some squad cars was understandable at the time, long as nobody was inside.

Trying to be a reasonable about people being understandably pissed off. And sure a Target might get looted in a couple places. But keep the local stuff safe. Beyond that, yeah peaceful, no destruction. It seems like there are elements looking for an excuse to break shit on a much bigger level. That's where it crosses a line.

Random question that I'm not sure is related to the thread:

What's worse:

Someone who breaks into your house with the motivation of stealing your television?

OR

Someone who breaks into your house with the intention of killing your dog?

---

Protesting: good

Looting: bad

Behavior and culture of American police: worse

No-one came out and drew any lines as to where justified protest ends, in this case or generally. — Echarmion

I think there are pretty clear lines where lawful police force ends and brutality begins. There are also legal lines that appear to be designed to sustain an underclass in our society. Is anyone saying that's okay?

Trump praising Tiananmen Square is the worst possible thing to say. How can he be so monumentally bad at leading? No way he survives to another term.

Protesting: good

Looting: bad

Behavior and culture of American police: worse — VagabondSpectre

It's not the police. It's the culture of disregard combined with a bloody history. I think the fix will come in the form of an economic depression. The economy is still reeling from the virus, and now retail outlets are closing down all over the place because they're getting bomb threats and now daytime vandalism and looting.

By the way, the American revolution started with something kind of like this in Boston. It became a thing: somebody would start a fire and that was a sign for everyone to get drunk and go burn down the Governor's mansion. The Boston Tea Party was part of that. Nobody calculated the morality of it.

But the revolution would have been a failure if the French Navy hadn't decided to help. There's no French Navy coming to help this time. It will burn out. Most people will forget about it. As the recession deepens, who suffers the most? The people at the bottom, as always.

Take a broad view and it doesn't look like anything is different for the last 5000 years. Less CO2 output during the recession, though. Yay!

It's not about what they're doing. It's about you. Who you are. Right?

He's down by 10 pts in the polls.

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. — praxis

Because "overreaction" doesn't mean "worse than what it's a reaction to".

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? — praxis

Maybe it's been a miscommunication (like this "overreaction" confusion you and I are having), but it's sure sounded like some people mean that, including you when talking to me just now. "This is not an overreaction" sounds to me like "this is the appropriate, just, and fully warranted response", in other words "it's perfectly okay". I gather now, if you're agreeing that it's not perfectly okay, that you take "this is not an overreaction" to mean "this isn't worse than what it's a reaction to". And I agree with that, if that's what you mean -- it's not worse -- but that's not what those words would sound like to me without all this extensive clarification. They sound like "this is perfectly okay".

So since no one wants to say the obvious.

It's the nature of the human animal. The human condition. Everyone. everyone. is biologically predisposed to favor similarity and familiarity over anything else. Google "babies are racist". Something is familiar or comfortable it's likely to be safer. Otherwise, it may not be. Example, living in a grassy plain for hundreds of generations. You know it's safe, you travel far enough to see the terrain change, some will instinctively stick to what they know, some will venture outward. Perhaps beyond that plain lies danger and those inclined to venture never make it back. So, those who instinctively stick to what they know, live, survive, and reproduce. Just biology.

When you have an open society with no religious mandate in education or morality, as such defines "freedom" apparently.. you're subject to society and biology. Which if you Google'd what I mentioned, would not be unexpected. Aside from that the media, not news media but movies, TV, and music. People don't like watching happy and fulfilling things when theres more emotionally thrilling options. They find it boring and dull. When I was growing up kids didn't want to play crash bandicoot they wanted to play grand theft auto. If you didn't play it and couldn't relate to what they were talking about you were an outsider to the group. A lame-o. Many don't outgrow this mindset even in old age.

That's the why. As for the solution. Well. State churches were abolished. One pivotal one has just been burned. Otherwise. Good luck.

If you're truly concerned about the why and the solution. You have to look in other countries were whites are the minority and non-whites are the majority. Are things any different? They might be. If they're a statistical minority yet remain an influential functional majority. If so obviously the concept is not effectively present.

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.
— praxis

Because "overreaction" doesn't mean "worse than what it's a reaction to". — Pfhorrest

If we must consult the dictionary, it means a more emotional or forcible response than is justified. Justified means having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.

What you're calling an overreaction is "far less bad" than what it's a reaction to but is nevertheless an overreaction because it's unjustified. Unjustified means not shown to be right or reasonable. Reasonable means having sound judgment; fair and sensible.

I think we can all agree that violent rioting is not fair or sensible, but then we can also agree that murder by police is not fair or sensible and that systematic racism is not fair or sensible. So maybe we can stop talking about fairness and sensibility and start talking about the emotional response.

You think that the emotional response is an overreaction. Okay, but you must be able to see how others may not see it that way.

"This is not an overreaction" sounds to me like "this is the appropriate, just, and fully warranted response", in other words, "it's perfectly okay". — Pfhorrest

I have no words...

You have all of the power.

We are not safe.

You have (almost) everything to lose.

We have (next to) nothing to lose.

So, in fact, You are not safe; and you will not ever be safe until you share power in an effective way that makes both of us safe.

Since 1619 ... 1776 ...1877 ... 1921 ... 1954 ... 1963 ... 1968 ... 1980 ... 1992 ... We still can't fuckin' breathe, America. :fire:

THE WORLD IS WATCHING YOU.

HISTORY IS WRITING YOUR EPITAPH.

@Pfhorrest -

"Overraction" to regimes of Reaction is like going insane in a "catch-22", meat-grinding, warzone (e.g. Korea '50s, Vietnam '60s-'70s, Afghanistan '00s-'10s): existentially appropriate.

If we must consult the dictionary, it means a more emotional or forcible response than is justified. Justified means having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.

What you're calling an overreaction is "far less bad" than what it's a reaction to but is nevertheless an overreaction because it's unjustified. Unjustified means not shown to be right or reasonable. Reasonable means having sound judgment; fair and sensible. — praxis

I agree with all of that. That's basically what I've been trying to say to you all day.

I think we can all agree that violent rioting is not fair or sensible, but then we can also agree that murder by police is not fair or sensible and that systematic racism is not fair or sensible. So maybe we can stop talking about fairness and sensibility and start talking about the emotional response. — praxis

Yes, all of that is not fair or sensible, I'm glad you agree. But none of what I've said is meant to judge the emotional response as not fair or sensible. I think I've been careful to distinguish between the emotions and the actions. The kind of anger that the actions express is absolutely justified. But it sounds like at least you and I now agree that that justified anger doesn't in turn justify any and all actions. I wouldn't be talking about any of this if people light StreetlightX hadn't seemed to be trying to defend the actions, not the emotions.

If the conversation had just been like this...

"Murder is bad."
"Yeah, it really is. Looting and vandalism isn't okay either though."
"No, of course not. Not as bad as murder though."
"Oh definitely not."
"And people are justifiably angry."
"Yeah, but that doesn't excuse any and all behavior."
"No, but it's understandable why people feel like acting out."
"Of course. I understand, even if I don't approve."
"Reasonably. Anyway, about those awful murders..."

...then we could have avoided this whole long tangent.

"This is not an overreaction" sounds to me like "this is the appropriate, just, and fully warranted response", in other words, "it's perfectly okay". — Pfhorrest

I have no words... — praxis

Your own dictionary quotes above are all the words you need, as this is saying the same thing as that.

Who are you addressing? All I have to lose is this trailer. Which is "everything" to me, having spent 20 years clawing my way up to it from the tool shed I started out in. But I don't even have a couch I could share with someone, or floor space enough to sleep on.

Who are you addressing? — Pfhorrest

Whomever has power and (almost) everything to lose - and, by implication, their Stockholm Syndrome-d functionaries & apologists. Are you one of them? :roll:

The CEO of Ford says we have to endow workers with ownership of our industries.

I think Mcconnell would rather see the country go down in flames than endorse that, therefore conservatives of his stripe have nothing to lose. They won't abandon their principles no matter what. Their lives would become meaningless.

If people in this thread spent even a quarter of their energy discussing the sources of why this all happened rather than pouring time into the question of 'looting' maybe it'd be a sign that things might actually get better in the future. As it stands, people like Marches are so fucking obsessed with treating this like an intellectual game that the entire question of the injustices that govern the protests have been wholly ignored.

StreetlightX hadn't seemed to be trying to defend the actions, not the emotions. — Pfhorrest

Maybe had you had half the fucking brains to realize that I have not been defending looters but trying to actually pull this thread away from the energy sink of 'lets seperate good protestors from bad protestors' you might have had more to say than the fortune cookie bullshit that you and every other media duped liberal have been spouting. Anyone who has spent more than 100 words sweating over looting and not - I dunno - the fact that someone got murdered in broad daylight, can all go to hell. I don't give a shit about justifying or not justifting looting. The very fact that anyone is having that conversation at all - ad fucking nauseam - is the problem. You all may as well be Fox news anchors for all the airtime you give it.

I say all this in the full realization that almost no one is equiped with the conceptual resources to carry out any other kind of conversation because people's political eductation has been absolutely stunted at every turn. I get it - it's the primal ape rection to spectacle - "wow fire! broken windows!". I just thought people here had evolved somewhat.

And even that isn't an excuse to actively contribute to a god damn energy sink that perpetuates the kind of discussion that ensures no one talks about the things that matter. If you have nothing to say other than 'but looting!' then maybe just link to a Murdoch or Koch financed newspaper and be done with it - they're having that discussion much more vigourously and with very little opposition. You can join your circle-jerk of patting yourselves on the back and agreeing that looting is bad with your neo-fascist brothers-in-unarms there.

I have a solution to the problem.

A lot of law enforcement across the country is (and this is rather unique) publicly and overtly stating that they believe that Chauvin murdered Floyd.

I think most of us in this nation can agree that when law enforcement doesn't obey the rule of law, and engages in extrajudicial killing, there ceases to be any meaningful rule of law, and we are then prone to descend into this sort of chaos.

In order to restore the rule of law, fair restitution needs to be made. This, I think, would suffice:

Members of law enforcement should take Chauvin, and the other 3 cops complicit in the murder of Floyd, into their custody. They should then go on social media and national TV and state that they recognize that in order to restore the rule of law restitution must be made, and then they should publicly lynch those 4 police officers. They should then state that the law enforcement community, nationally, promises to carry out the same punishment on any officers who in the future commit acts of extrajudicial killing.

I believe this would end 97% of the rioting.

true.

They should then state that the law enforcement community, nationally, promises to carry out the same punishment on any officers who in the future commit acts of extrajudicial killing. — Old Master

But then they'd be no cops left. Which is a most agreeable situation.

Seen in the wild:

"5 demands, not one less.

1. ⁠Establish an independent inspector body that investigates misconduct or criminal allegations and controls evidence like body camera video. This body will be at the state level, have the ability to investigate and arrest other law enforcement officers (LEOs), and investigate law enforcement agencies.

2. Create a requirement for states to establish board certification with minimum education and training requirements to provide licensing for police. In order to be a LEO, you must possess that license. The inspector body in #1 can revoke the license.

3. Refocus police resources on training & de-escalation instead of purchasing military equipment and require LEOs to be from the community they police.

4. ⁠Adopt the “absolute necessity” doctrine for lethal force as implemented in other states.

5. Codify into law the requirement for police to have positive control over the evidence chain of custody. If the chain of custody is lost for evidence, the investigative body in #1 can hold the LEO/LE liable".

Would probably add something about gutting funding to police unions too.

Good list of demands. Imagine if Trump had started this out leading with this as an offer and expressing solidarity.

Of course he can't do that sort of thing.

It should be absolutely infuriating to people that actual talk of instituional reform of even the speculative kind involved in demands like the above is simply nowhere to be found among American leadership. Their priority is literally to send more cops out, engage in more cop - and now possibly military - violence, and - what? Begin the cycle anew?

The previous president would have. So would Hillary. Unfortunately, we don't have either. There's some mayors talking about reform.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden's policy suggestion is to shoot people in the leg instead.

Biden is hardly ideal. He's just not the inflammatory, race-baiting fool that the alt-right loves.

Another really dumb thing Trump is doing is making enemies out of governors and mayors.

Anyone who has spent more than 100 words sweating over looting and not - I dunno - the fact that someone got murdered in broad daylight, can all go to hell. — StreetlightX

I remember learning that around three million children die of malnutrition each year and thinking, ‘how did I not know that? how does everyone not know that?’ No good answers but apparently we can all live with it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/louisville-police-chief-fired-after-officer-bodycams-found-be-during-n1221351?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma

"Louisville, Kentucky, Metro Police Chief Steve Conrad has been relieved of duty after it was revealed that the officers involved in a shooting that killed a local business owner early Monday did not activate their body cameras.

Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer announced the decision to relieve Conrad on Monday afternoon during a news conference, where the deceased was identified as David McAtee. Conrad had been set to retire later this month."

We're all complict. The only question is how to be a little less complicit, in whatever small or big ways we can. Adorno's ethical question comes to mind: how can one live a good life in a bad life?

Another really dumb thing Trump is doing is making enemies out of governors and mayors. — Marchesk

The dumb thing that Trump is doing is breathing.

Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer announced the decision to relieve Conrad on Monday afternoon during a news conference, where the deceased was identified as David McAtee. Conrad had been set to retire later this month." — StreetlightX

That's good news. Needs to be an independent investigation into what happened. And yeah, I noticed it was a black business owner.