The reality is complex, but your answers are simple and arbitrary. — ssu

A very complex way to exonerate immoral activity is dealt with best in the simplest terms possible. , while being a participant with whom I've been at odds with a number of times concerning thought and belief(cognition if you prefer), is acting admirably as far as I can see.

:100:

Not a football game, but worthy of cheerful support nonetheless!

:100:

Not a football game, but worthy of cheerful support nonetheless! — creativesoul

Yeees! 1-1. Come on you reds!

How is 40% ethical sources arbitrary? — Isaac

When there isn't any real transparency, when things depends quite on the specific information you have or if you believe what companies say or not, it is quite arbitrary as does the "Fairphone" provider example tell. I believe their quite honest when the say they don't know anything about the 60% of the materials they use. That was my point.

Tell how choosing a political representative is a way of bringing about positive change but choosing a phone is complex and arbitrary? — Isaac

You opting NOT to buy certain things starting from let's say leopard skins and rhino horns is a peaceful, effective way to influence things. A great way to influence people. That wasn't the issue, it was about getting media attention by breaking the law.

The issue was if it's OK to burn people's homes who have the wrong cell phone. Or it's OK to burn workplaces of people that the franchising company behind them (which the entrepreneur and workers have no control over) has been accused (twenty years ago) of using a subcontractor that uses child labor. With the latter you were totally fine with and think the workers are complicit and deserve it, whereas the cell phone owner isn't.

I'm not so sure how complicit the low paid worker in a fast food restaurant trying to make a living is in this case. I think the worker didn't make a political statement by choosing the workplace. Besides, what many will see is just leftist vandals burning their favorite symbol of globalization and capitalism. Doesn't look smart, doesn't help. But you get a kick out of it, I guess.

Why would you think that continuing to support exploitative labour practices is the only way to help the poorest people in the world? — Isaac

Did I say that? No. Do you think that improving artisanal and small scale mining is similar to supporting exploitative labour?? Yeah, let's ban ASM and have Chinese companies using minimal chinese labour and robots do the mining.

You should ask yourself how child labour stopped being a problem in your country? Did it come become rich woke foreigners protested about it in their own country? Or perhaps did it end because the society became more wealthy and an effort was made to educate children?

That children are put to school and don't have to work or beg for the family is an indication that there isn't absolute povetry in the society. As long as there is widespread absolute povetry, it's a no brainer that people living from hand to mouth will use children to work. It's one of the basic reasons people get lots of children in the first place. As income and wealth increases, the amount of children decreases. The real solution is for the countries to truly develop and get more wealthy so they can tackle these societal problems.

When there isn't any real transparency, when things depends quite on the specific information you have or if you believe what companies say or not, it is quite arbitrary as does the "Fairphone" provider example tell. I believe their quite honest when the say they don't know anything about the 60% of the materials they use. That was my point. — ssu

Yes, but that's no different with any other company. So you've got a company which is opaque, and doesn't know (or doesn't tell) about 100% of its sources verses one which is opaque, and doesn't know (or doesn't tell) about 60% of its sources. That's still not arbitrary, it's clear that the latter is an improvement.

The issue was if it's OK to burn people's homes who have the wrong cell phone. Or it's OK to burn workplaces of people that the franchising company behind them (which the entrepreneur and workers have no control over) has been accused (twenty years ago) of using a subcontractor that uses child labor. With the latter you were totally fine with and think the workers are complicit and deserve it, whereas the cell phone owner isn't. — ssu

It's still a choice. You're saying that choosing to protest in those ways doesn't take account of the fact that the world is complex (and is arbitrary), but choosing to protest by means of political campaign, or letter to the paper, does take account of the fact that the world is complex (and is not arbitrary).

I'm asking how the complexity of the world leads us to one choice rather than another. It seems irrelevant to me. The world is complex so we can't clearly see the long-term consequences of our actions. That goes exactly the same for either choice, so it can't be used as an argument in favour of one over the other.

I'm not so sure how complicit the low paid worker in a fast food restaurant trying to make a living is in this case. I think the worker didn't make a political statement by choosing the workplace. — ssu

I gather that, but you're not the one considering destroying his place of work, so that's OK. I am sure how complicit they are, so I don't object to the place of work being destroyed. I wouldn't advocate it (partly for the reason you later give), but I'm not opposed to it either. You can't expect other people to act on the basis of your beliefs can you?

Doesn't look smart, doesn't help. But you get a kick out of it, I guess. — ssu

Again, you're not the one considering it, so whether you think it helps is irrelevant. If you want to make an argument that no one should think it helps, then you'd need to present some evidence to that effect. Something like a series of campaigns which failed to progress in their objectives because of a use of law-breaking forms of protest, but in someoother country succeeded when using legal tactics.

What's offensive to many (myself included) about this attitude that we should be in the least bit concerned about the employee's wage packet, is that it shows a deep disparity in concern.

You cite the 'complexity of the world' in questioning how we should handle the issue of child labour in the DRC.

"Maybe we should boycott, maybe that won't work, maybe a political solution, maybe a legal one, who knows, it's all so complex... "

Meanwhile children as young as six are dying down mines.

But when it comes to someone's idea of what to do about it (burn down the Apple Store, for example), suddenly all the complexity is gone, there's no uncertainty allowed about whether it might work, no leeway. All of a sudden the fact that some white college kid might lose their job becomes an unacceptable risk. We can't even try that strategy, it's too risky.

Where's the unaccepability of the Congolese children's plight? Why aren't we immediately putting a stop to that. You're prepared to stamp out law-breaking protests (despite not having clear evidence of their failure to work) just because the risk to the college kid's wage packet is too great. Why aren't you extending the same principle to the Congolese children. Yes, carrying on as things are might well be better for their country in the long run (the world is complex after all) but surely it's obvious to anyone with a shred of compassion that the risk is too great.

I gather that, but you're not the one considering destroying his place of work, so that's OK. I am sure how complicit they are, so I don't object to the place of work being destroyed. I wouldn't advocate it (partly for the reason you later give), but I'm not opposed to it either. — Isaac

This is where I really disagree.

You cite the 'complexity of the world' in questioning how we should handle the issue of child labour in the DRC.

"Maybe we should boycott, maybe that won't work, maybe a political solution, maybe a legal one, who knows, it's all so complex... "

Meanwhile children as young as six are dying down mines. — Isaac

Yeah. you didn't get my point.

Where's the unaccepability of the Congolese children's plight? Why aren't we immediately putting a stop to that. — Isaac

Because going to some other one's country and telling them as a woke foreigner what they should do isn't the best way around. Oh yes: STOP BEING POOR!!! Arrogant righteous hubris.

You're prepared to stamp out law-breaking protests — Isaac

I'm so evil.

Why aren't you extending the same principle to the Congolese children. — Isaac

What on Earth are you blabbering about?

Yes, carrying on as things are might well be better for their country in the long run (the world is complex after all) but surely it's obvious to anyone with a shred of compassion that the risk is too great. — Isaac

Improvements happen from inside and from within the society. Those are the things we can hopefully assist.

This is where I really disagree. — ssu

Disagree with what, with the fact that I am sure, or the fact that I don't object, or the fact that I wouldn't advocate it. Because all I've given by way of propositions in that quoted section are three statements about my state of mind. I'm not sure how you might disagree with them.

Yeah. you didn't get my point. — ssu

Well, try again then.

Because going to some other one's country and telling them as a woke foreigner what they should do isn't the best way around. Oh yes: STOP BEING POOR!!! Arrogant righteous hubris. — ssu

We're always going to someone else's country and encouraging some way of doing things. There's no naturally occurring form of trade, it's all made up. The rules of the world bank, trade deals, tariffs, UN legislation, consumer choices. Whatever we do encourages some behaviours and discourages others. The only alternative whereby we stop interfering in foreign countries is to have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with them, no trade, no tourism, no contact. Anything else will have the effect of interfering with their autonomy in some way. It's a myth of the Conservative that the status quo is some naturally occurring default position.

What on Earth are you blabbering about? — ssu

Let me try it this way. Here's two possible solutions to the problem of Congolese slaves.

1. Carry on buying phones as usual so that they eventually get richer and make their own laws banning the practice. Theory - industry leads to development and development leads to better living conditions. Disadvantage if theory is wrong - lots of children suffer and die.

2. Set fire to an Apple Store. Theory - the protest shows how angry people are about Apple's supply chain choices, and media spotlight embarrasses people into changing phones, Apple eventually backs better working conditions. Disadvantage if theory is wrong - an entrepreneur loses their businesses and some workers have to find another job or go on benefits.

You cannot prove either theory right or wrong, the world, as you so rightly say, is complex and difficult to predict, so they are both a risk. Both benefit the prosperity of the Congolese if they work, so they're the same in that regard. One risks the livelihoods of a couple of westerners if it's theory is wrong. You seem terribly concerned about this risk. The other risks the lives of thousands of African children if the the theory is wrong. You seem quite happy to go with a hunch on that one.

Topic is systemic racism... while capitalism overlaps with racist issues, it's coincidental.

while capitalism overlaps with racist issues, it's coincidental. — creativesoul

That's a legitimate point of view, but many authors disagree, so whilst it might be a valid point to argue for within the thread, it's not anywhere near agreed upon enough to render talk of the effects of capitalism off-topic. They absolutely unequivocally affect minority ethnic groups disproportionately compared to white Europeans. You could make an argument that this is nothing but coincidence, but as a state of affairs to be answered for, its pretty much the textbook definition of systemic racism.

Topic is systemic racism... while capitalism overlaps with racist issues, it's coincidental. — creativesoul

If systemic racism didn't work through economic means, you would not expect minorities to be economically disadvantaged. The current economic system over the world is capitalism; so studying how capitalist economies deploy or manifest racism is necessary intellectual labour here.

I'd like to see how the legalization of outsourcing from places with illegal(in the States) labor practices ties into the systemic racism in the US government.

I'd like to see how the legalization of outsourcing from places with illegal(in the States) labor practices ties into the systemic racism in the US government. — creativesoul

Wrote something related to it here. The history of systemic racism is colonial history; and the majority of current systemic racism is done through international business.

We're always going to someone else's country and encouraging some way of doing things. — Isaac

Yet there's a huge difference if that encouragement is optional or if it is implemented by force. If it's optional for the country itself to choose what it wants, then we are on the right track.

Just like in the case of this thread, which about systematic racism in THE US (which this discussion with you has strayed off), it is honestly and genuinely A JOB FOR CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES to get their shit together. It's simply limited what foreigners really can do. My setting ablaze the store of a Harley Davidson or a Chrysler importer really isn't the best option to tackle systemic racism in the US.

Let me try it this way. Here's two possible solutions to the problem of Congolese slaves.

1. Carry on buying phones as usual so that they eventually get richer and make their own laws banning the practice. Theory - industry leads to development and development leads to better living conditions. Disadvantage if theory is wrong - lots of children suffer and die.

2. Set fire to an Apple Store. Theory - the protest shows how angry people are about Apple's supply chain choices, and media spotlight embarrasses people into changing phones, Apple eventually backs better working conditions. Disadvantage if theory is wrong - an entrepreneur loses their businesses and some workers have to find another job or go on benefits. — Isaac

That makes absolutely so sense at all. First of all, neither is really a solution.

Second, how setting fire to an Apple Store magically saves children in Congo? No, the disadvantages are:

1) Lots of children suffer and die.
2) Lots of children suffer and die AND an entrepreneur loses their businesses and some workers have to find another job.

Of course option 2) might also be:

2) Lots of children suffer and die AND an entrepreneur loses their businesses and some workers have to find another job AND people vote "Law & Order" Trump to office for four more years because they are fed up with their fast food restaurants being set on fire by vandals (or this image is successfully fed to them by Fox News).

So keep playing to the tune which Trump wants to hear from you.

I don't mean to pick you out, but this has getting my goat for some time. This is supposed to be a discussion forum, it's not a fucking football match. What exactly is this cheer-leading supposed to achieve? — Isaac

It's my first response in this thread. It signals my agreement with @ssu that you are offering overly simplistic responses to an overwhelmingly complex situation.

I could have simply said "I totally agree"; what would your response have been then?

The current economic system over the world is capitalism; so studying how capitalist economies deploy or manifest racism is necessary intellectual labour here. — fdrake

What other economic system could there be, given that money, which is essential to any complex economy, in the absence of strict central control, by accumulation necessarily gives rise to capital. If there is strict central control there will be, due to the corruptible nature of human beings, an exploitative economic elite in any case, as history has clearly shown.

If you want to argue against the existence and growth of the purely financial sectors and their associated non-productive practices of "money-spinning" I would lend a sympathetic ear. Such practices ideally ought to be regulated out of existence in my view, but in a complex productive economy there is no alternative to money that I can imagine, and since it is not in the interest of the financial elites to promote such regulation of the financial sector it is vanishingly unlikely to happen.

Destroying property and resources achieves nothing; it really just amounts to the mindless destruction of property and resources. Nothing will happen without the enlightenment of the masses, and a collective will to coordinated action against the financial elites. But this seems almost impossible given that the masses mostly have no desire to be educated, and people's capacity to genuinely care about others usually extends only to a relative small number of family and friends.

Yet there's a huge difference if that encouragement is optional or if it is implemented by force. If it's optional for the country itself to choose what it wants, then we are on the right track. — ssu

Who's said anything about force? I never even mentioned it.

it is honestly and genuinely A JOB FOR CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES to get their shit together. It's simply limited what foreigners really can do. — ssu

Why? I get that in conservative ideology the arbitrary geographic lines we draw around groups of people become really hyper-important for some reason, but why would it be limited what foreigners can do (in theory). America relies quite heavily of trade and that is vulnerable to foreign political viewpoints.

First of all, neither is really a solution. — ssu

Just saying so doesn't make it the case. We're not canvassing opinion here, we're discussing ideas. If you think they're not solutions you need to explain why otherwise it's pointless us having this discussion. I already know you disagree with me, I don't need that further pointed out. I want to know why - how you arrived at your views.

Second, how setting fire to an Apple Store magically saves children in Congo? — ssu

I explained the theory. It's right next to the bold word 'Theory'. I thought that might be a clue. If you disagree with the theory, then again, the idea of this discussion is that I can find out why you disagree. I prefer you provide academic sources (even if only my name), but even if you can't at least some chain of reasoning would be nice.

Why is it that when conservatives are faced with policies for economic change they opine about how complex the world is, yet when faced with a social movement that's already happening, suddenly the consequences of it become crystal clear to them?

I could have simply said "I totally agree"; what would your response have been then? — Janus

Well nothing, that's rather the point of my consternation. Are we discussing ideas or canvassing opinions? Why would I (or anyone) be the least bit interested in whether you agree with ssu or not? That's the bit I don't understand. You're not a noted expert in the field, ideas don't become more true the more people agree with them (not on the scale of an internet forum anyway), so I get that it was signalling your agreement, I just don't get what the aim of such a signal was.

Destroying property and resources achieves nothing; it really just amounts to the mindless destruction of property and resources. Nothing will happen without the enlightenment of the masses, and a collective will to coordinated action against the financial elites. — Janus

This is a perfectly legitimate position to hold, but as I was trying to explain to ssu, it your opinion, not established fact. Its' neither reasonable (nor possible) for you to expect other people to act on the basis of your beliefs, they act on the basis of their beliefs. Think of it the other way round. a religious zealot thinks you should blow yourself up for the glory of Allah, would you be persuaded by the argument that they really, really believe you should?

If you want to change people's beliefs you have to, at the very least, appeal to their reasoning (and almost certainly a bunch of other stuff too). Simply telling us/them that you believe "Destroying property and resources achieves nothing" is irrelevant. If you believe that, then don't destroy property and resources. Other people believe it will achieve something, so they continue to destroy property and resources in the hope that it achieves their goals. If you want to change their belief you need to present some chain of reasoning which demonstrates how destroying property achieves nothing. It needs to be either pretty much irrefutable or it needs to come along with an alternative which will certainly change something, otherwise it's not going to have any persuasive power.

Destroying property and resources achieves nothing; it really just amounts to the mindless destruction of property and resources. — Janus

If only that were true we wouldn't have (civil) wars.

Not specifically to you but an observation of the US political landscape : I find it rather amusing how off limits violence all of a sudden is in the face of actual injustice and how happy they always are to bomb the shit out of other countries for "regime change" or based on trumped up lies.

From now on, every time a hawk proposes to go to war somewhere we should insist they should peacefully protest against that other country instead of resorting to violence.

From now on, every time a hawk proposes to go to war somewhere we should insist they should peacefully protest against that other country instead of resorting to violence. — Benkei

Indeed. And if where such hawks claim life and liberty are equally important, then it follows they should insist that city authorities resolve criminal activity without resorting to life-threatening violence and incarceration... Oh wait, isn't someone already suggesting that....

Rayshard Brooks, d. 27 — 180 Proof

Mr. Brooks' killer charged with felony murder and 10 other charges 5 days after the incident which is unprecidentedly swift for a local DA anywhere in the US.

Mr. Brook's killer charged with felony murder and 11 other charges 5 days after the incident which is unprecidentedly swift for a local DA anywhere in the US. — 180 Proof

Happened a bit quicker than the charges against the other police officers in the George Floyd case.

Good things might come out of this, even if real change will take time.

Who's said anything about force? I never even mentioned it. — Isaac

Embargoes are a show of force, mind you.

Why? I get that in conservative ideology the arbitrary geographic lines we draw around groups of people become really hyper-important for some reason, but why would it be limited what foreigners can do (in theory). — Isaac

"Arbitrary things" like the ATLANTIC OCEAN separates me from Americans so yeah, there indeed are issues that limit what I can do. :snicker:

I explained the theory. It's right next to the bold word 'Theory'. I thought that might be a clue. If you disagree with the theory, — Isaac

Umm...I really don't understand what you are saying at all, sorry. So if you burn Apple shops, children survive, but if you don't... nevermind.

I get that in conservative ideology — Isaac

Why is it that when conservatives are faced with policies — Isaac

And this is the dog whistle you hear if I talk. Rather irrelevant to say that I'm simply against violence WHEN non-violent methods do work and do work even better. I'm no pacifist, but I do think a democracy can work well enough for us if we make a concerted effort in upholding it.

Let's see how outraged you are when some right-wing extremists use similar tactics to further their dubious agenda. :roll: Because you would. It comes clear from an earlier discussion sometime with VagabondSpectre on this Forum.

If alt-rioters shut down an event you that happened to be attending and support, I'm guessing you would object to their use of force against you and yours, right? — VagabondSpectre

And your reply:

Yes. That's the point of having a feeling about how our society should be. I would object to the alt-right using any means at all to shut down an event I approved of because I'd believe them to be wrong. You can't remove the judgement of what's right and what's wrong from this. The debating arena itself is constructed and maintained by people. People who all have a view of what's right and what's wrong. It infuses every action they take. Denying a platform, allowing a platform, ignoring a platform...everything is infused with our moral sensibilities, we cannot 'step outside of them' to create a fair debating space. — Isaac

So you don't believe in a fair debating space, or that laws are tried to be made or can be made for the common good. Again a quote from the earlier discussion:

We have laws protecting individual rights (such as property rights) because if we allow ourselves to act fast and loosely according to our felt connections, we're not guaranteed to behave any better than an angry mob, and we just wind up creating more problems for ourselves and everyone else. — VagabondSpectre

Look to your history books. If you can detail me a single instance of a law protecting property coming about after a community-wide discussion about the anarchistic ramifications if we don't, I'd be fascinated to see it. All I've found so far is laws put in place by wealthy landowners in order to apply the force of the army to back up their claim to land. — Isaac

So no wonder, as laws about property are according to you "put in place by wealthy landowners in order to apply the force of the army", property might be called theft as the old slogan from Proudhon goes. Needless to say that the lack of those individual property rights of the poor is one of the basic problems in Third World countries.

I'll think I'll end this discussion for a while to enjoy a lovely Midsummer here.

Other people believe it will achieve something, so they continue to destroy property and resources in the hope that it achieves their goals. If you want to change their belief you need to present some chain of reasoning which demonstrates how destroying property achieves nothing. It needs to be either pretty much irrefutable or it needs to come along with an alternative which will certainly change something, otherwise it's not going to have any persuasive power. — Isaac

There would seem to be little or no reason to believe that looting and burning will achieve anything positive. So the onus would be on those who think it is a good strategy to show that it will, or that we have plausible reasons to believe it will, have positive results.

The only way to reliably change anything for the better is through reasoned discussion and agreement. Destruction of property and resources is inherently irrational, negative and divisive. This is so whether it were done by right wing or left wing idealogues.

I don't believe it is done for strategic reasons, in any case; it seems far more likely to me that it is simply a mindless expression of mob anger.

Fair enough I suppose. The point was that I was signalling agreement with his arguments, though, not merely with his opinions, but I didn't see the point of repeating arguments he had already made.

I find it rather amusing how off limits violence all of a sudden is in the face of actual injustice and how happy they always are to bomb the shit out of other countries for "regime change" or based on trumped up lies. — Benkei

Violence in war, though, is designed to facilitate the conquering of territory or the subjugation of the enemy (neither of which I am arguing is justified by the way). I don't see how that applies with looting and burning, which I think is simply mindless mob behavior.

More concretely; questions of systemic discrimination are also questions of resource distribution and social planning. To the extent those things are affected by economy managing policies, those impact systemic racism. To the extent economy managing policies are affected by the constraints imposed by current economic structure, it impacts systemic racism.

The same would be true of any economic system with systemic racism, just happens this one is capitalist and the current form is very finance skewed.

Destroying property and resources achieves nothing; it really just amounts to the mindless destruction of property and resources. Nothing will happen without the enlightenment of the masses, and a collective will to coordinated action against the financial elites. But this seems almost impossible given that the masses mostly have no desire to be educated, and people's capacity to genuinely care about others usually extends only to a relative small number of family and friends. — Janus

What stops you from reading all the collective knowledge gained through the protests as education?

What stops you from reading all the collective knowledge gained through the protests as education? — fdrake

Sure, I'm not for a moment objecting to protest; I just think it is mostly self-defeating when mob emotion turns peaceful protest into violence and destruction of resources, though. I remain unconvinced that it can plausibly be seen as in any way a good strategy, or even that it is often, or even ever, motivated by strategic considerations.

I really hope the masses can be educated, that they can come to desire education, that they can come together and expel the elites forever; I would love to see that. I hate that we are all, to varying degrees, being milked by these psychopathic parasites!

But I don't expect that is the way things will turn out. Still the old chestnut " Hope for the best and prepare for the worst" remains apposite, I think. :smile:

That's a legitimate point of view, but many authors disagree, so whilst it might be a valid point to argue for within the thread, it's not anywhere near agreed upon enough to render talk of the effects of capitalism off-topic. They absolutely unequivocally affect minority ethnic groups disproportionately compared to white Europeans. You could make an argument that this is nothing but coincidence, but as a state of affairs to be answered for, its pretty much the textbook definition of systemic racism. — Isaac

I am working from a notion of systemic racism that is all about the American government, and the racist belief systems underwriting it. Many of those remain prevalent to this day.

That said, capitalism is a method for providing goods and services to a community/nation of people. Any and all methodology is only as successful as it's implementation, as most socialists/marxists will attest. So, if we have a capitalist based economic system that has racist people making the rules, then you will have systemic racism.

However, the same would hold good of a socialist system. So...

I am more than interested at getting to the facts of the matter at hand regarding systemic racism in American government... at all levels. However, to broaden the scope beyond the shores of the nation diverts the discussion to situations that are not as much under our control, so to speak. I'll say this...

If those in power regarding the rules for global markets(the head of states, and/or the actual authors of legislation regarding trade policy) are operating under a racist belief system, or continuing to implement an inherited racist based system, then we would certainly have a world-wide systemic form of racism.

However, and this is my basic point here, due to the nature of sovereign nations, it is not in my purview to tell them what to do. It is in my purview to demand of my government to act solely as a means to increase the quality of all American lives, or as many as possible, whenever it is possible. It is in my purview to demand a correction of clearly racist belief based policies and practices in the US.

The overlap here between capitalism and racism involves trade policies with nations who treat their own people in ways that are illegal in this nation. This would include, but is not limited to, labor laws, worker and consumer protections laws, and fair trade practices. Those are human rights issues, as are racist issues, but not all humans rights issues share the same 'contours' as the racist issues pervading the US.

A bit more of the overlap...

The historical trend is publicly available. American leaders have allowed foreign governments/businesses to offer goods and services in the American marketplace despite the fact that many of those nations treat their people in ways that are completely impermissible/illegal in the US. This is not a recent event, nor has it been partisan politics. Rather, it has been happening under each and every administration since Nixon, especially since Reagan.

Setting aside the shoddy products widely available with no legal recourse for the consumer, another result has been demonstrably and quantifiably harmful to all American citizens who could have otherwise been comfortably and gainfully employed in the manufacturing sector. Black people have always had a very hard time securing good jobs. Of that, there can be no doubt. However, many Americans have had the very best opportunity available for them removed at the hands of those politicians legalizing these trade policies.

Fast forward to today...

There is a growing movement in the sheer strength of numbers and ethic diversity of Americans who are fed up with the racism still pervading this country. That is getting better and it's doing so at an exponential rate. However, even when and if we ever get to the place where there are no racist beliefs in power, even then, poor blacks will still - just like everyone else who could be quite content holding a gainfully employed stable position for their entire lives - be faced with near impossible odds at finding one. This, of course, focuses on the plight of poor blacks as being a part of a larger group of poor Americans, and is not meant to supplant the current focus upon the much needed reform of our criminal justice system as a means for ending systemic racism. Rather, it's meant to accompany and/or broaden the scope a bit beyond that... into the not so distant future after the necessary reforms in criminal justice and policing are made. For then, we will still have the problem of economic mobility and/or earnings potential. There will still be fewer and fewer good quality American jobs available to those from unfortunate backgrounds/circumstances so long as these trade policies are not addressed; so long as corporations are glorified for turning a blind eye the human tragedy required for them to get their products to market. So long as the American government, and the corporate world remains chock full of hypocrites and those who just do not give a fuck regarding acceptable/unacceptable treatment of people/workers/citizens.

When profit is the sole motive, to hell with what's good, right, moral, and/or in the best interest of the American people. Unfortunately, that is the case. Profit is driving policy making. This is blatantly obvious when we look at the fiasco surrounding the ppe and covid19, as well as the push to 'reopen' despite our not having met the necessary preconditions for doing so that was and is still currently being set out by the foremost knowledgable experts in/from the very beginning.

Being born black in this country, is one of those aforementioned unfortunate circumstances, and will continue to be as long as the racist beliefs are allowed to remain influential in American government. However, social mobility will not be corrected by the current focus upon criminal justice and/or policing reforms.

Oops. Sorry about the length of that post. I got on a roll I suppose...

:mask:

There would seem to be little or no reason to believe that looting and burning will achieve anything positive. So the onus would be on those who think it is a good strategy to show that it will, or that we have plausible reasons to believe it will, have positive results. — Janus

Wow, is that how the assignment of onus works? Based on which argument you personally find initially most plausible. You must be kept very busy indeed. Is there a phone number people have to ring to find out, or do you have a web service?

Personally, I'd have thought the onus is pragmatically an on anyone wishing to make a point to be able to support it on request, simple because that's how discussion moves forward, but OK...

The benckmark work on persuasion is by Mackie and he argues for what we might expect about majority influence (after Asch) and mood effects on persuasiveness of the message. However, that work only covers messages where persuasion was likely in the first place. So people like Martin, Hewstone and Nemeth (among others) started looking at persuasion by minority groups they found that when successfully persuaded by a minority group, that shift in view was more resistant to later reversion that persuasion by majority groups. The trouble is, with minority groups you often have the negative effect of relevance within the majority group. Petty studied the effect of persuasiveness to non-relevant populations. What he found was that whilst under conditions of high relevance arguments were assessed by their reasonableness, under conditions of low relevance, they were not. Extraneous factors played a greater role in the persuasiveness of the message.

So groups wishing to sell a message which could potentially be seen as a majority message (the 'silent majority' tag) and whose message is relevant to large portions of society are best doing so without any dissenting activity - The recent Women's March or the MeToo movement is a prime example of a success in this regard. This tactic, however, cannot work for a minority group message which conflicts with the interests of a majority group. The message will remain unpersuasive, or if it has persuasive power, the effect will be short-lived.

These groups (according to a 1994 meta study by Wood) have to show consistency, and commitment and to take swift and short-lived actions to immediately make their issues relevant to a majority interest (long-term actions breed resentment, but short-term ones increased receptivity to the message, Nemeth 2010). A single act of dissent (law-breaking) on a target significant to a majority interest (like a brand name or statue) is an effective means of engaging this relevancy.

---More important than all of this though was consistency. It came out as the single most important factor in persuasiveness of minority positions in all the studies involved. That's why I started talking about the issues with people taking part in riots against systemic racism whilst wearing, or using , products involved in systemic racism abroad. It really matters that the message is consistent.---

I don't believe it is done for strategic reasons, in any case; it seems far more likely to me that it is simply a mindless expression of mob anger. — Janus

Research by Clifford Scott and John Dury on the 2011 riots here in the UK, plus work done on the 1960s on the Ghetto riots both show that the average rioter was not mindless, nor motivated by criminal activity. For the 60s ghetto riots, the average rioter was more likely to be of higher educational attainment than the populace in the area, less likely to have an existing criminal record and more likely to me a member of a local social-benefit organisation. In 2011, typical mob behaviour models were shown to be inadequate to explain the pattern of criminal activity in the typically small groups of well-known individuals that made up these riots (and those in Minneapolis).

None of this is to say that there's not opportunistic criminal activity, nor that violent protests always work, but that the pattern is complicated.

---Most references I only have as paper copies, or citations in textbooks. If you want to follow any up I can give you the full titles, but a quick google scholar search will find just as many articles opposing this view as supporting it. the point was not to claim that it's somehow the 'scientific' opinion that law-breaking protests work, merely to point out that it's not as obviously wrong as you make out.