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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So things like traveling from a universe to another or even create universes, understand the infinite and live forever are simply ''a dog bark'' for a super-evolved being? — Eugen

Possibly. But the "dog/human" analogy is flawed, because dogs don't have abstract reasoning, but humans do. A super-intelligence might be incomprehensible to us, but probably not in the same way a human is incomprehensible to a dog. We'd understand that it reasons, at least.

So our brains are not capable to comprehend everything that is comprehensible yet? — Eugen

What isn't "everything thats comprehensible" the same as "everything a human can comprehend"? I don't know what else it would mean.

Possible? — Eugen

I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. Though of course the notion of "us" being turned into "something else" is problematic, because at that point it isn't "us" anymore. Could humanity be replaced by a different civilization that is to modern humans as modern humans are to dogs? I think so. Not sure how likely it is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The myth of “outside agitators” is being simultaneously weaponized by conservatives and liberals to demean and intimidate protesters. — Jacobin - Don’t Fall for the Myth of the “Outside Agitator” in Racial Justice Protests

How would that work? What's demeaning or intimidating about outside agitators? Also is Jacobin telling us that asking the question "are there outside agitators" is off-limits?

If society ignores or is indifferent to suffering and problems in a part of their community, then they have no right to condemn the violence and destruction erupting. — Christoffer

I agree with the sentiment. Though I wonder what exactly the relation between systemic injustice and individual morality is. It strikes me that while your argument sounds true, there seems to be an element of collective punishment. It doesn't matter who, specifically, the violence hits so long as they share collective guild as part of some group. Do you think that's a problem?

The question was "when has rioting ever been effective?" Plenty examples throughout history of rioting achieving a political goal. Of course, the goal can change; that rioting was effective part of fighting a literal war of secession against the British today does not mean that fighting a war of secession against the British is the only available purpose of rioting. — boethius

I think it's very difficult to assess the value of the rioting if what followed was organised armed violence, i.e. war. Unless we're in a position where we intend to follow the rioting up with outright war, if necessary, the example has a flaw.

Peaceful civic disobedience has a good track record in the 20th century. The civil rights movement, several Eastern block countries like east Germany.

To clarify, I understand rioting, property damage and looting as an immediate reaction to injustice. That's not something I criticize, it wouldn't make sense anyways. At some point, the immediate reaction must turn into something more goal oriented though.

The argument that it's preferable to provoke a military coup in the first place (if someone was motivated by political strategy, not just immediate anger, or hunger, or basic economic survival in a depression), and to risk a totalitarian military takeover instead of a benevolent one, is that, after centuries of oppression, you may as well flip that coin. — boethius

My take on history is that revolutions always eat their children. The only reason the American experience was different is because the loosers of the struggle were conveniently located behind an ocean.

I'm not convinced we are in any position to critique tactics. As I mentioned way back in the fog of this thread, it's presumptuous to tell people who have tried every other avenue of protest that what they are doing does not meet some ideological purity test and 'doesn't seem to be very effective' - per the conversion that is happening right now around this post — StreetlightX

I get where you are coming from with this, but I can't quite agree. Isn't that gatekeeping discussion? Kinda feels like "you're either with us or against us" thinking.

I don't believe I've accused you of anything. It's a disagreement over values and framing. — StreetlightX

Fair enough. I get your point, even. I am just not sure how to balance supporting their grievances and criticising their tactics.

I wrote the example of the violent riots, looting and then revolution against the British, seemed to be enough. — boethius

Fighting a literal war of secession is a patently absurd suggestion.

Indeed, most political changes against a government no longer viewed as legitimate are violent. I owe the freedoms I enjoy right now to lot's and lot's of violence in the past.

The point of democracy is to avoid the need of such violence. My point here is that this is what's under consideration; you can argue the state is legitimate, democratic processes are working as intended, any grievances should be pursued primarily through existing state processes. However, if you concede the point that the state no longer functions correctly, then the idea that "regardless of the issue, property riots and looting must be condemned" is no longer based on anything. — boethius

I am not saying they must be condemned because they are violent. I am saying they are likely to be ineffective. Waxing poetically about their "right to be angry" doesn't change the facts on the ground.

Agents of the state and their real masters loot the treasury, people on the street loot Nike and Starbucks; there's no longer democracy, only who's side are you on will determine "who is in the wrong". — boethius

You can loot Nike and Starbucks all you want, the "real masters" will just laugh at you.

Yes, yes, just like how the majority of the media is 'just commenting' on all the awful 'violence' of these very unaesthetic black people being inappropriately angry just because a cop killed one of them in public again. Uncouth. — StreetlightX

What is it you're accusing me of, exactly? Being an agent of Bloomberg or Murdoch?

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. — Baden

Has anyone disagreed with that specific point? I know all I have been doing is questioning the strategic value of what is happening. So have others in this thread. Since I joined, I haven't seen a single poster say that property damage is impermissible no matter what.

idk maybe you can call the cops on me or something for not being productive enough for you. — StreetlightX

I don't entertain the notion that anything written in this thread materially affects the outcomes for oppressed communities in the US.

I am just commenting on what, to me, looks like bad reasoning. Perhaps you find opposition useful to develop your ideas. Perhaps you don't. Accusing me (or anyone else who disagrees with you) of fifth columnism seems pretty absurd given the circumstances.

I'm here to try and make sure the discourse around legitimate protests don't get co-opted by pearl clutching liberals who couldn't give a rats ass about systemic injustice while pretending they give a shit about violence against property. — StreetlightX

And that is a useful way to spend your time?

So, which peaceful protests have actually succeeded in the past in an American context? — boethius

Which violent protests have? Just saying what doesn't work isn't enough.

And can we not forget that giant retailers like Target almost always destroy local independent shops by way of displacing them? They're a market ecosystem killer, like a pesticide. Targets monopolize and offer poverty wages in retrun - they ruin, not nourish, local economies. — StreetlightX

I don't care about Target loosing money. I doubt they do, though, they probably have insurance. I don't se any evidence that what's happening is hurting the capitalists in any way. From where I sit, they stand to gain from more violence and more division.

None of these last-minute parachuters here to virtue signal their "care" and "concern" give a shit insofar as this is the only thing they can't shut up about. — StreetlightX

And do you really care about the outcome, or are you just here to signal your revolutionary credentials?

I'm for protesters arming themselves for the same reason I'm for them using video cameras; it forces a lethally armed police force with a history of brutality against minorities in situations like these to be able to be held accountable. Cops are not minority communities' friends, they show up in force whenever those communities start looking like they're trying to gain more political autonomy. — fdrake

How does that work in practical terms? Do the affected communities hold their own trials by force?

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. — Baden

That was a literal war for independence though. Are PoC going to secede from the US? Regardless, if you had advocated shooting the Koch Brothers, Jeff Bezos etc. my reaction would have been more amicable. But in our hypothetical armed struggle, the people that die will not be the people who control the system. It's going to be the poor, again.

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 wanting to harm them has obvious deterrent potential. — Baden

Also obvious civil war potential.

Your tone was hysterical not your content. — Baden

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

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. — Baden

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.

Everyone protected
their right to free speech — fdrake

What's the alternative?

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

Aren't those communities already armed? Has there been some kind of systemic disparity in the availablity of guns?


I entirely agree with that quote, but I think it also intentionally refrains from calling out rioting as a viable strategy to actually change anything. Do you think I am wrong about that assessment?

Would the police have acted the way they did with Floyd if the members of that community were walking around armed with guns? I’m not sure they would have. — NOS4A2

I am not sure either, but I think it's likely that for everyone of these highly publicised cases, there are 10 that get swept under the rug. And in those 10, more guns means even more reasons to kill a bunch of "suspects".

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. — Baden

And the only "controversial" thing I have said is that I don't think stocking up on weapons to defend against corrupt policemen is going to work. What's hysterical about that?

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. — Baden

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.

While the police are armed and dangerous and the racists are literally hunting down black joggers then that does not apply. — Baden

I am sceptical of the added protection of a gun. As I said before, unless you want to pull your gun on anyone who might possibly threaten you, you'll always be disadvantaged anyways. Being the second person to draw their gun seems like a good way to get shot.

The consequences just seem somewhat obvious to me: everyone trusts each other less, is quicker to draw their gun, and quicker to get shot. Isnt a big part of the reason the police get away with killing people because they can always leverage the "he may have had a gun" defense?

Maybe we should run an experiment and see. — 180 Proof

Haven't the US been running that experiment for decades now? In all other contexts, people agree that less guns usually leads to a better society. But now suddenly that's supposed to be false?

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

If that's all you have to say in response, so be it.

I just wonder what it is about this topic that has everyone collectively loosing their minds? We usually agree, and even if we don't we usually disagree amicably.

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. — Baden

Who am I denying any right? Am I saying they shouldn't be allowed to arm themselves? No? Then don't insinuate that I do. You can hold your own in a rational argument, no need to twist my words.

My argument is simple: If black people arm themselves and start responding to suspected murders with deadly force, then yet more of these suspected murderers will shoot first and ask questions later. The ordinary citizens will always loose that fight.

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?? — Baden

Because the guns don't help. They may save you that one time someone is killed, in broad daylight, while a camera is running. They won't help you the 99 other times where there isn't anyone around to help, where you don't have warning and where you don't have time.

Guns aren't an effective defense for citizens. They aren't for school teachers, and they aren't for oppressed minorities.

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. — Baden

You aren't this stupid, what the hell is wrong with you? Have we not had threads on gun control on this forum? Doesn't everyone with 2 braincells agree that introducing yet more guns into a volatile situation is fucking stupid? Were you of the opinion that we should arm teachers after Sandy Hook? You talk like the NRA fuckwits who claim that we need more "good guys with a gun".

As for sides, yours is clear and that explains your predictable position. — Baden

Go on then, spit it out. What's your ad-hominem attack on my character?

So why's the army there then? — unenlightened

To protect the locals. That's their job, after all.

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

More shooting means more people getting killed. Do you want to bet more people die on the "right" side?

Maybe we should ask the people who lead the civil rights movement (those who are still alive) how they did it? Or were they less oppressed?

The protests were never going to be peaceful, and it is naivety and bad strategy to use that as some kind of standard for discussion. As I said, there have been two movements of co-opting here: one by violent protestors, and one of violent protestors. The latter - happening in this thread and elsewhere in the media - is infinitely, incalculably worse than the former. — StreetlightX

And any violence was always going to be used to deligitimize the protests. Where does that leave us, strategy wise? Is there any strategy?

Are you telling me the riots are the start of the glorious revolution?

If this passes, then anything passes. So I am going to throw all my toys out of the pram, and all your toys out of your pram, and every other bugger's toys out of their prams, until everyone altogether decides that this will not pass. This is war. Don't act surprised when Poland gets invaded. — unenlightened

A bunch of random property damage scares no-one except some small business owners. If you want to keep Poland from being invaded, you don't send a bunch of volunteers with sticks, you send the army.

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. — Baden

That's a great way to get a whole bunch of people killed. Not sure why the Koch brothers would care though.

And if the protests had been peaceful to begin with, that entire argument wouldn't have happened.

Perhaps the reason we're arguing about the violence is because "is the violence justified or useful" is the much more difficult question which requires a lot more debate. We could of course instead all circlejerk about how bad the systemic violence in the US is, but who would that help? I'd rather torch a Walmart.

Those Asian countries are completely different to Western ones...their populations tend to be easy to control...as we are seeing in the States right now Westerners don't always obey their governments...which can be a good thing. — Chester

If you don't institute any measures - like the US and the UK, there is nothing to obey in the first place. It's not like everyone did the same thing and the different races populations simply reacted differently due to their biological cultural differences. Some governments took the problem seriously and reacted effectively. Some didn't take it seriously and reacted inefficiently. Some claimed there wasn't a problem, then claimed the problem was under control, and then reacted way too late.

Another thing, who is to say that what looks like failure now may be good in the long run...herd immunity if there is a second wave...the Norwegians seem to think lock down may have been a mistake. — Chester

Whether or not the lockdown was a mistake is irrelevant unless we're looking at a country like Sweden that intentionally did not lock down, rather than dithering for weeks before doing the same thing anyone else did.

I think it's pretty disingenous to suggest that is the sentiment. The sentiment, well ingrained into our culture, is that protest ought to be peaceful, and peaceful protest, if done right, can bring about systemic change.

You might disagree and argue that under certain conditions, violence is necessary, but arguing against straw men doesn't help your case.

Obviously the violence is very helpful for political actors to use to shift blame and attention away from the actual systemic injustice. That's a pretty significant argument against any violence, regardless of it's other benefits.

Yeah, it's not like South Korea was the worst affected country after China at the start of the pandemic...

South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand?

You're missing the point. All, the important countries , barring Germany, have higher death rates than the US. Malta may have a lower death rate I'll give you that. — Chester

Right. So the only important countries in the world are the USA, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Sweden, Ireland and Denmark.

I guess Asia doesn't exist?

7 EU countries plus the UK have a higher death rate per million than the US...so you are admitting that most of the EU have done a terrible job too...that Trump has done better than most Western EU countries? — Chester

How many member states does the EU have again?

Can you think of an example of this, where an absurd result from a thought experiment has been a red flag in this sense. I'm not entirely sure what you mean and I think an example might help. — Isaac

The "lying is always wrong" example Marchesk brought up is commonly used in this way. Let's assume you have a deontological moral philosophy that argues that certain acts are immoral regardless of their consequences, and an example is lying. Then someone brings up the Nazis searching for a Jew hiding in your house example. Many people will find the conclusion that you have to tell the truth to the Nazis, because lying is wrong, absurd.

Faced with this result, you'd have to either figure out why the initial reaction of "that's absurd" is false, or revise your answer.

For example, if one is unwilling to lie to protect someone from being murdered, because lying is always bad. — Marchesk

Exactly, though that particular example is also a cautionary tale about how easy it is to misunderstand a philosophy if you only look at a thought experiment.

:up: good post.

Since these are the meat of most moral questions I'm not sure what value that could possibly have. — Isaac

The way I see it, that kind of thought experiment is more a tool to check how the moving parts of a philosophy work in extremis. If the result is absurd, that's good cause to check where that absurdity comes from.

And by the way I notice you called me a racist, you wouldn't do that to my face so play nice keyboard warrior. — Chester

I didn't. Though your blustering is amusing.

You leftists have a strange relationship with truth, often you argue against a truth which normal people can see obviously and instantly. I think that often it is because your ilk believes itself to be cleverer than you are — Chester

So when you said you liked arguing, what you meant was you like to insult people?

Only a moron would believe that there is no corruption involved in postal votes. When a system is easy to corrupt it will be corrupted...there's a basic fact for you. — Chester

What does that have to do with my initial question about ideas?

I never said I had the truth. Read more carefully if understanding is a goal of yours. — boethius

This is a case in point, isn't it? If your goal is to offer harsh criticism, what may end up happening is that in your efforts, you misunderstand. And then all you have done is waste time.

My goal in the post you quoted was not to understand, but to reflect your own approach back at you.

But, when I have the luxury to check if what I believe is true, then harsh criticism is the only method I have found that yields any advancement. — boethius

This, being an anecdotal claim, is difficult to engage with. Have you found any specific value in being harsh?

I am curious, however, would you say Kant's criticism I cited wasn't harsh? But that he puts on the kitten gloves; please point out where? If he is harsh, and right, why not emulate him? If he's wrong, where is he wrong? — boethius

Arguably, it is harsh. The style is very much in line with the social norms of the time though. It'd be a mistake to assume Kant was intentionally being harsh because he presents his critique in an uncompromising way. That's simply how things were done in the 18th century. Reasoning along the lines of "Kant, a great philosopher, used harsh criticism in his text, therefore to be a great philosopher, one needs to criticize harshly" is obviously faulty. Kant's harshness may be entirely unrelated to the quality of his philosophy.

Let's say that a common sense idea is that postal voting is easy to manipulate , easy to corrupt. To attempt to destroy that concept leftists say not having postal votes is racist... but in no way address the point of postal voting corruption. — Chester

But leftists don't say that you're not allowed to think about postal voting corruption. They're saying there is no postal voting corruption, which is a factual claim. They then go on to say that the real reason you're against it is because you're a racist who doesn't want black people to vote. Which is another factual claim.

Nothing about this could conceivably "destroy" the idea that postal voting may be corrupt.

Talk about ego. This reads very much like self-aggrandizement, displaying yourself as some paragon of truth and reason because you're harsh.

What you are missing is that you may not, in fact have the truth. No single person may have it. It may be that it requires a collaborative effort. And that requires that we extend a measure of friendliness, of benefit of the doubt.

If all you care about is yourself and your advancement, you'll miss out on what others can offer. If you elevate harshness to some kind of independent virtue, you are only stroking your own ego.

The issue I see with your line of reasoning is that it seems to me that if someone is hell bent on torturing you for eternity, and has the means to do so, your choice doesn't necessarily factor into it.

Which is to say: if you can choose immortality for yourself, someone else can presumably also force it in you.

The same general line of argument works for some kind of disaster. If we're going to be imagining very specific disasters that do everything except killing you, we might as well also assume they somehow prevent you from dying naturally. In which case again your choice is irrelevant anyways.