I've only posted like 10 different black people asking for peaceful protests.

Dennis Rodman wants the destruction to stop in favor of peaceful protest. But by all means, ignore what black people want.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-dennis-rodman-george-floyd-20200601-strsfxqpkzgbvmcfww5bjponjm-story.html

Latin Kings and two other gangs are protecting business in Chicago from looters. Even texted the police to tell them no need to come there.

That's so awesome!

Black Chicago reporter: don't loot.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1267334057488195585

Supposedly they were shot at. But who knows. And yeah, Trump is very bad for this situation. Good things he's incompetent.

Shit, National Guard shot someone in Louisville. That's not good.

Charlotte black clergy understand anger about George Floyd, but preach peace and solidarity:

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article243136806.html

That is a fascist poster boy if there ever was one and he had it coming, he had it coming for years. — Christoffer

Well yeah, it was also really stupid. What did he think would happen?

I'm not going to condemn the violence of the protestors. — Christoffer

Not even the ones trying to turn this into their own revolution? Fuck them. I hope they all get arrested. I hope the legitimate protesters continue kicking them out and turning them in.

Ultimately, the black protestors should be the ones setting the terms of the protests, not the white ones. So if a majority of black protestors want a peaceful protest, then white ones need to fucking fall in line and respect that.

And the people in this thread need to respect that as well.

Do you hold the same opinion about the US military? — boethius

Yes, except for homeland defense.

A lot of people died so that I enjoy freedoms in my country today; a lot of people died defending the freedoms you enjoy today — boethius

Yeah, did they have to? Should they have? It sets the precedent for future violence.

there's no use pretending there's some pacifist belief about all violence; it's just silly if you have no track record of radical pacifism. — boethius

I don't know that radical pacifism is realistic, but it's a goal the world should work toward. It disturbs me that you think it's justified people, perhaps a whole lot will, die. And that could mean anyone, potentially.

It's also disturbing that you're willing to justify this on a coin-flip's chance that it might end up with a better result.

I find your reasoning horrific. Most protesters do not want that.

Done okay in terms of not having killed millions, installed a dictatorship or become an imperialist power. There are still other issues. Societies have problems. Some are better than others. Maybe your socialist ideal can fix human beings.

You're right. Not a good example.

French revolution was misplaced because it destroyed order? US independence the same? — Benkei

Because people die, and not just those in power. And the result is often times worse. The US revolution was a better result, but not the French. The Asian communist revolutions were terrible. Many African revolutions result in a corrupt authoritarian regime.

Speaking of Street's pic he posted while I'm typing, the German revolution was terrible as well.

Canada and Australia didn't need to revolt, and they seemed to have done okay.

Yes, you have been for some time. — StreetlightX

So you approve of the peaceful protests. Cool.

Right. So despotism, feudalism, oligarchies and communism, are all fine and dandy because they provide order? — Benkei

No, but they're generally better than no order. Unfortunately, none of the systems are fine. Some are less worse.

What, a thumbs up? I'm confused.

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

No, because a lot of people will die, regardless of the outcome.

I am just not sure how to balance supporting their grievances and criticising their tactics. — Echarmion

Is it even the tactics of BLM or most other black groups to be violent? We've said a lot about the violence, but a majority of the protestors are peaceful and wish to keep that way. But it's a volatile situation that sometimes gets out of hand.

The anarchists and white supremacists trying to turn this into something else aren't supporting their cause.

Order is better for whom? — Benkei

Everyone who isn't a warlord, ultimately.

I'll take it! Kinda. Probably more Maoist. State's are a bit meh. — StreetlightX

China sure turned out to be a shining socialist example. Both authoritarian and capitalist!

These armchair warriors like talking up violence but they would shit themselves if confronted by it. — Chester

I don't know. I'm just shocked and disgusted that they're okay with people being harmed as long as it wrecks the system, for those who seem to want that.

There were the LA riots in 1992 after the acquittal of the officers who beat Rodney King. — Michael

The context was large scale peaceful protests being unsuccessful the past 50 years.

What's politics for? — Benkei

For people to figure out how to divide up power.

.

Violence is the continuation of politics but other means.

But for what end? Who wins?

The peaceful protest that has everyone's backing has made no progress in 50 years. That is a fact. — unenlightened

When has there been such a thing on this scale since the 60s? You could rightfully argue there should have been one before this.

But we'll see what the rioting accomplishes.

What does it require? the campaign has been going a long time, now. What would work? — unenlightened

The ongoing peaceful protest, which had everyone's backing, with a few exceptions like understandably torching the police precinct after the cops vacated.

Yes, I'm an antifascist. — StreetlightX

I'd think you'd make a really good fascist, given a chance.

A step in the right direction would be to stop the extra-judicial killings; suggesting it would be a good idea is just more bull. — unenlightened

I agree with that. Doesn't require looting and burning.

white middle class people without meaning in their lives — Chester

It's the violent white protesters destroying and instigating shit that really make me angry. Right, left or just spoiling for a fight, doesn't matter.

Literally no one but you has even mentioned the word 'revolution' you insufferable two-bit dolt — StreetlightX

As if using a specific word is the only way to to discuss an idea, you dumb shit. And it's not even literally true. I went back and checked.

They were probably undercover cops...who knows? — Chester

Possibly. Likely several different groups trying to infiltrate.

I love how the protestors stopped that dude from trying to turn things violent. Handing him over the the police is hilarious!

I was watching a live stream in Minny where protesters they escorted another Antifa looking dude out. They didn't want to have anything to do with him.

Also, Minny citizens are reporting people plotting violence to the authorities.

VoTe BlUe No MaTtEr WhO — StreetlightX

aRe yOu FoUrTeEn?

But, regardless of Baden, I did not mention the word capitalism in my analysis. — boethius

That's a separate argument with other posters in this thread who want an actual revolution because they view capitalism as the root of all the injustice in the world, or much of it anyway.

at the conclusion that the state has lost legitimacy and that people have good reason to pursue their own idea of justice rather than participate in the common idea of justice that is (well enough) expressed through the state intellectual structure and it's agents. — boethius

But again, what is the ultimate goal of the looting and burning? How is it going to reform the police?

The protests are directed at police injustice. The violence though is more random, and at least some of the time, it appears there are people started it with their own agenda.

I'm here to try and make sure the discourse around legitimate protests doesn't get co-opted — StreetlightX

LOL!

I'm not quite sure where I differ in my analysis, but please point it out — boethius

I don't fully agree with Baden (or yourself), but he wasn't turning this into a revolution against capitalism. Nor did he make an argument that anything goes. Or that people dying and starving would be justifiable.

. MLK's logic was that segregation civil disobedience (which is not peaceful protesting) forces the state to do it's violence in broad daylight for all to see. — boethius

Right, but civili disobedience is different than destroying people's property and work places. And it was well organized. People can use civil disobedience against the police. The issue is with the police, not some random business.

What's changed, the understanding of politics or simply who's side is using violence to pursue their idea of justice and legitimate state power? — boethius

I don't see what burning or looting accomplishes other than to upset a lot of people.

If the mechanisms by which peaceful protesting was effective in the past, which is debatable as otherwise why would society come to such a point, then peaceful protesters are less laudible than the looters and indeed the police; for at least the looters and police have some sort of realistic political understanding. — boethius

So what is the outcome of all this? It might force political reform. But it could have the opposite effect of crackdowns and more support for Trump's reelection as a backlash. Just about everyone in America had the protest's back at first. But a lot of people don't like seeing cities burnt.

And someone could send the situation into a deadly spiral, with a bunch of people dying.

Is the violence organize in a way to achieve some end? Will it force police unions and mayors to the table to accept some terms? Just burning and looting does what in the end other than get on the news?