Since I joined, I haven't seen a single poster say that property damage is impermissible no matter what. — Echarmion

I hope we all agree on that re this situation. I doubt it though.

Thanks @boethius for helping to clarify some of what I said. When there's a problem about the legitimacy of the state, there's a problem with the legitimacy of the state apparatus, including the law and its enforcement, which equates to a problem with the social contract. That doesn't mean "anything goes" and it doesn't mean I'm encouraging or supporting every illegal action possible or everything every protester is doing (I thought I made that clear previously, but apparently not). What it does mean though is that you can't argue morally from the perspective of the social contract holding as normal. There is the possibility that actions that are not normally justifiable become justifiable. And if you're going to have the debate, you have to be willing to contemplate a different ethical playing field than normally holds.

So you encourage looting liquor and TVs from stores? But for the distance, you'd be in the streets burning cars? Why do you sit idly behind your computer when your morals demand throwing rocks at police and stealing from stores? — Hanover

Stupid. Quote me where I said I "encourage" looting liquor and TVs from stores or where my morals "demand" stealing from stores. Tired of people who can't read responding to my posts with caricatures and missing the substance. If you can't read, go away. If you can, try again.

No it doesn't. — frank

Yes, it does and it's also trolling. So, let me make it very clear. If you want to respond to anyone's posts here, you're going to need to read them first. Otherwise, stay out of the conversation. Trolling posts will be deleted.

Next time you don't read something, don't call it bullshit, makes you look like an idiot.

The entire tone in this thread is histerical IMO, some of your comments included. — Echarmion

Honestly, if you look at my posts as a whole, I've made only a couple of rhetorically loaded points and have stuck mostly to a fairly sober line. It actually took considerable effort. :razz:

And how did that work out for the people that armed themselves? Not a rhetorical question, I'd like to know if you think the counter-violence was worth it. — Echarmion

Re the most recent armed struggle, that's too long a question to answer here and I think we'll never know for sure. It's complicated too by the fact that several unjustifiable atrocities were carried out by the Republican side as well as the British. During the previous struggle for independence from 1919-1921 though (which independence was won only for the South), what did demonstrably and unequivocally work was organized targeted violence against elite figures in the British army (with operations led primarily by the revolutionary leader, Michael Collins). When the big boys couldn't sleep soundly in their beds, they came to the table. Cut the snake off at the head and it shall slither to you.

Also obvious civil war potential. — Echarmion

Let's not revert to hysterics, eh? :wink:

It's fair to point out that the "elite" or "powerful" are not such an easily definable group, but, no, I don't mean the middle class. The middle class eventually needs to be won over not attacked. Might say more on this later.

And, by the way, you can attack elites through general strikes, boycotts, rent strikes etc. as well as some forms of violence against their material interests. All I'm saying is there is no moral obligation for an oppressed and cheated group to play by rules set by (and to the advantage of) those oppressing and cheating them. Again, seems obvious to me.

You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you? Go look through my recent posts to see what more specifically I'm suggesting.

You keep saying that but you have demonstrated no ability to quote me and argue against the points I've made, whereas others have and though I don't necessarily agree with them I can respect that. Anyway, I think I've made plenty of sense and I've already challenged you to show me where I'm wrong re this post you called "bullshit".

"The two groups I'm talking about are the elites, i.e. politicians, the donors who buy policy from them, and their apparatchiks in local administrations vs. the poor and minorities. Now we both already know, unless we live on different planets, that the more powered group are utterly self-interested both economically and politically and this leads to systemic discrimination and injustice, which is a form of violence against the less powered one. So, what's utterly horrible is to expect the poor to play Jesus while the rich and powerful are the only ones allowed to be Machiavellian. I mean, just to give one recent example, it was the poor who lost their houses and the rich whose investments were bailed out after the '08 crisis. The state (controlled by group 1) could have bailed out homeowners but it didn't and preferred to inflict the violence of depriving them of a place to live rather than risk hurting group 1's interests (even though group 1 would have hurt a lot less). That's vicious self-interested violence at work (your house is taken from you, your business is burned down, what's the difference?). And the fact that its obfuscated by layers of ideological bullshit only makes it more, not less, pernicious. So, again, the moral foundation your argument rests on is nothing but politically-loaded quicksand and there is no reason for anyone not sharing your skewed perspective to accept it. If you don't make an effort to see past it, we'll go nowhere. And that doesn't yet mean that burning down Target stores is justified or effective, it only means we've got to the point where it's not necessarily unjustified or at least not any worse than what's been done to the people who are doing it. From there, we move on to tactics. Could it work?"


You ran away then so here's my challenge again. Tell me why that's bullshit and I'm not trying to make sense or just admit that your comment was just more empty rhetoric.



:lol:

Yes, and not every one of them needs to be armed. But having organized armed groups to protect them in the face of other organized armed groups (like the police) wanting to harm them has obvious deterrent potential.

Now, the same people are boggling at suggestions for minority communities to arm themselves in the face of the criminal justice system failing them, again — fdrake

It's good that there is so much shock and awe that minority communities might organize and defend themselves against being treated like punching bags by racists in the security forces and elsewhere. It shows the tactic might actually work.

Why don't you just read what I wrote. Then quote and comment. It's quicker.

It was like 2 weeks ago that a bunch of conservatives in the US took heavy weaponry to a political building. The president approved, everyone defended their right to bear arms. The cops did nothing to stop them. The threats they saw to society were vague, nebulous, undefined. Everyone protected
their right to free speech. Then everyone forgot. — fdrake

Yes, I remember asking what would happen if a black group did that and the response I got was "just the same thing". Sick joke then and even sicker now.

Where I live, the police have guns and most of the rest of us doesn't, and that usually works out fine. I think it's a better society than the US at least. Of course it's also more homogeneous, so I may be biased. — Echarmion

Yep.

What's hysterical about that? — Echarmion

Your tone was hysterical not your content. I get the opposing argument. But I know if I were living in 1960s-70s Ireland where systemic discrimination was similarly rife, I would have wanted to arm myself as some did. The British and their bigoted police never respected anything but force.

I think conceiving of politics as a war of one group against another or how to elevate my group above others is essentially toxic. — BitconnectCarlos

Well, if conceiving reality is toxic then so be it because this is the way the powerful act as though they conceive. I think you are not so naive as to not know that.



Apparently, it's a crazy idea the way I phrased it.

In all other contexts, people agree that less guns usually leads to a better society. — Echarmion

Less guns for everyone would. If they took the guns off the police and the liberty freaks / racists then they could take them off everyone and it would be a better society. While the police are armed and dangerous to minority communities and the racists are literally hunting down black joggers then that does not apply.

I don't think I'm losing my mind at all. Read through my posts. The only "controversial" thing I've said is that the black community should have a right to defend itself with every legal means possible where and while it's under threat. But the responses to that and other very qualified suggestions regarding the possibility of violence as a tactic to achieve social justice have been received rather hysterically.

Guns aren't an effective defense... and they aren't for oppressed minorities. — Echarmion

Twisting your words? I'm just going to leave this here. Your words.

to kill a cop murderer. :up: — frank

There. Fixed it for you.

No, you didn't, frank. That would require more effort. Seriously, try taking it line by line. Tell me what you disagree with. Show me you understand what I actually said. Quote me. It's that easy. It's called dialogue. If you're not interested in that, just put a sock in it.

Yes, I'd love if dumb racist white guys weren't allowed to have guns to hunt down black joggers and that cops weren't torturing black suspects to death in broad daylight. But until I have my wish and nobody is allowed a gun then I advocate that black people arm themselves and defend themselves and others in their communities being victimized. It's utterly bizarre that you would try to deny them that right. And it has nothing to do with being against guns. I want the guns taken off everyone not just black people. Why on earth should they unilaterally disarm??

Are you even reading my posts? You keep responding to some caricature of everything I say as if you don't have the intelligence to understand what I actually wrote. Do you really not understand it? If so, I'll just stop now because I don't know how I could have put things more clearly.

I want murderers to be stopped with deadly force if necessary. When they get the message that instead of a promotion, their reward is a bullet in the head, they might think twice. As for sides, yours is clear and that explains your predictable position.

That's a great way to get a whole bunch of people killed. — Echarmion

No, it's a great way to stop their people getting killed. You have a right to protect yourselves from murderers, yes?

Yep. Good for him. It's a pity he's in a minority.

Black people need to arm themselves with the most powerful weapons legally available and when they see a cop trying to murder one of their community, make a citizen's execution arrest.

This to me just sounds Machiavellian and kind of evil to me to be honest. I'm fine with someone being self-interested in their personal or economic reality but for the political process... or when it comes to violence this is obviously horrible. I know you understand this so I don't know why you're presenting a view that you've probably rejected.

Honestly, if a black man or a white man came up to me and told me "ya know, I'm really only interested in my own community and I couldn't give a **** what happens to anyone else" I absolutely wouldn't engage in dialogue with this person. — BitconnectCarlos

The two groups I'm talking about are the elites, i.e. politicians, the donors who buy policy from them, and their apparatchiks in local administrations vs. the poor and minorities. Now we both already know, unless we live on different planets, that the more powered group are utterly self-interested both economically and politically and this leads to systemic discrimination and injustice, which is a form of violence against the less powered one. So, what's utterly horrible is to expect the poor to play Jesus while the rich and powerful are the only ones allowed to be Machiavellian. I mean, just to give one recent example, it was the poor who lost their houses and the rich whose investments were bailed out after the '08 crisis. The state (controlled by group 1) could have bailed out homeowners but it didn't and preferred to inflict the violence of depriving them of a place to live rather than risk hurting group 1's interests (even though group 1 would have hurt a lot less). That's vicious self-interested violence at work (your house is taken from you, your business is burned down, what's the difference?). And the fact that its obfuscated by layers of ideological bullshit only makes it more, not less, pernicious. So, again, the moral foundation your argument rests on is nothing but politically-loaded quicksand and there is no reason for anyone not sharing your skewed perspective to accept it. If you don't make an effort to see past it, we'll go nowhere. And that doesn't yet mean that burning down Target stores is justified or effective, it only means we've got to the point where it's not necessarily unjustified or at least not any worse than what's been done to the people who are doing it. From there, we move on to tactics. Could it work?

but I think a citizen force or militia like the Black Panther Party might be a good idea to keep a watchful eye on the interactions between the state and their community. — NOS4A2

Now you're talking. :up:

No, you have to keep your toys in the pram, so I can steal them and call it 'the American Dream'. Rock-a-bye baby...

It's OK, I already know it's the devil because some conservative dickwad on Fox told me so. :lol: :fire:

I was talking about the "free and open" bit. China operates a hybrid system which I'm rather familiar with, having lived there for several years.

BTW, this thread is not about whether capitalism is better than socialism or not. If all you have is to throw around the communism bogeyman, you're off-topic. Go do that in the ABCs of socialism thread.

They don't have mobile phones in China? Woah...

In your frame in which the rule of law and private property rights are inviolable or where the system responds effectively to appeals to its collective conscience, of course, your interlocutors seem insane. But your interlocutors reject that frame, they say there is no absolute legitimacy to the rule of law when the law itself is used as the cudgel of a dominant group against a dominated group. To them, it then becomes more a question of what tactics advance each group's interests than what are "acceptable"/lawful. From there, violence is an obvious option (which is not to say it's always justified, just that it's not by definition ruled out/insane). So, your cartoonish rendering of your opponent's position is imo a function of your inability to see their perspective not any inherent absurdity of the perspective itself. I mean, I can see things from the perspective of the status quo, so I can see how you would take the position you do. But what any reasonable person in search of real answers needs to do to contribute here is to take a more meta-view and ask themselves who, in this society, is doing more harm to who? Who is benefitting and who is being harmed on the macro-scale? And then, what's justified in redressing that harm becomes broader in scope. Fine, if you don't want to go there, but those of us who don't see a level playing field to begin with are not insane in not seeing what you're seeing as a means to reset it. I don't think you're insane either btw, just looking out for your own interests by getting behind an ideological position you see as protective of them. That's OK, but don't pretend to be the sole voice of reason here. We have thought this through.

In a nutshell: When the RICH steal everything, all that's left for THE REST OF US to eat is the RICH. — 180 Proof

:100:

What will happen is that the American capitalist machinery will continue operating as before other than the now vacant, burned, and uninsurable buildings in the already struggling part of town.

Those like our good mayor will move forward making sure such murders happen with lesser frequency in the future, and the rioters efforts will have added nothing positive to the mix. — Hanover

Maybe, but you haven't given us much reason to believe this. For example, charges were only made after the rioting began and, in general, it seems without pressure of whatever sort, cops are rarely prosecuted. To change that, systemic adjustments will have to be made. Your mayor on her own isn't going to be able to implement that outside Atlanta. What would the impetus be for such major change if there were no trouble?

OK, what does it say then? What's the argument? At least provide some of the evidence herein. I'm not here to argue with the authors of the paper.

I'm not going to read a paper you randomly chose from the internet without even reading yourself (unless you're a far quicker reader and a far more honest contributor than experience suggests). At least summarize your argument.

Unless you have evidence for that, we'll consider it just random speculation.

I'm interested in both sides of the problem but in this thread you're like 100% on one side here with many commentators actually supporting the destruction of property and assault of business owners. It's completely absurd. — BitconnectCarlos

That justification is absurd from a certain perspective. But that perspective is skewed as I said. I don't personally feel that random destruction of property is justified and I sympathize with any innocent small business owner who got caught up in this. But I also don't feel that in a situation where the law itself is corrupted that tactical violence against powerful interests, including corporate interests, is necessarily unjustified. You can make a utilitarian argument that weighs the material loss of large companies (like Target) against the gain of systemic change that reduces levels of violence by security forces against minorities. And you can make an inferential argument that draws a chain of causation from injury to powerful interests to political change. Now you can attack this attempted justification for some level of material violence by pointing to more effective less violent means of change, but I don't think you can attack it ethically if you accept its effectiveness. That's to say, I don't think considerations of corporate finances outweigh those of social justice. (And by the way, none of this argument relies on the idea of the overthrow of capitalism).