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.

Those things are not justifiable . Most black people in America get on with their lives with no more problems than white people. It may be the case that black people are more likely to engage in illegal activity and that is why the police have more "run-ins" with them. I also notice, from the UK, that many US cops are black... — Chester

Yes, you can argue that systemic "racism" isn't really a thing, but I believe the OP states that's not the subject here.

What do you leftists think of the fact that the assault happened in a city run by a leftist Mayor and a leftist governor?

From that great Conservative thinker Von Clausowitz that those on the right seem to forget:

Violence is the continuation of politics by other means.

↪unenlightened If I disagree with you do I have a right to come around your house and smash the fuck out of it? — Chester

Well let me see, is my knee on your neck? I think it would be an over-reaction to my failure to die of covid. I have had a brick through the window, and I wasn't happy about it, but what is your point? We are not talking about disagreement, we are talking about extra-judicial killing and widespread oppression of a community.

Violence is the continuation of politics but other means.

But for what end? Who wins?

What's politics for?

But don't forget, you could be on the receiving end...

When has there been such a thing on this scale since the 60s? — Marchesk

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

So a cop kills a man in the US and a protester punches a cop in the UK? That's legit is it?

What's politics for? — Benkei

For people to figure out how to divide up power.

.

I don't live with that fear because I support virtue and justice but I can understand a xenophobic right winger like you gets worried.

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.

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

Actually I can be quite violent when required...but I'm not the one praising it up here am I.

Right. So the political praxis and rules made blacks powerless. Violence to demonstrate they actually do have power (massive disruption of society, capital costs) is a good methodology to enforce change.

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

In style more than in substance. Street would make a better Leninist, I think. Hang the bloodsucking kulaks, that kind of thing.

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.

oooh... Big boy. I'm not praising violence, I'm praising righteous violence. There's a big difference.

Who gets to decide "righteous", you?

We are not talking about disagreement, we are talking about extra-judicial killing and widespread oppression of a community. — unenlightened

This is really important - I think part of the problem here is that certain people cannot even begin to fathom any notion of conflict which is not modeled on 'disagreement'. Like the cop's boot had a 'disagreement' with George Floyd's neck. And the protestors have a 'disagreement' with the public execution of yet another black man. These pearl clutchers cannot even imagine conflict beyond disagreement - which is why anything beyond that is deemed 'violent' and beyond the pale. Despite the fact that what is being responded to is anything but disagreement, but systemic violence in its own right.

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? — Marchesk

There have been peaceful protests all that time that you know about and have been supporting because everyone has. There hasn't been violence on this scale in that time, and evidently, no progress has been made because we are still suggesting that police officers who support extra-judicial racist killings ought not to be police officers, but clearly they are, and they are not all going to retire because one chief says so.

Now we are talking. Now there is some consideration being given. But people have been shouting loudly and peacefully that black lives matter for a while now, and nothing changed. Nothing has changed in 50 years of peace. "All we are saying, is give riot a chance." It might wake people up. It might get complacent white people to think for a moment about what supports their peaceful lives. It seems to have woken you up.

LOL, honestly I've assaulted two previous bosses...does that make me a fighter for worker's rights ?

Certainly. It's not hard to see with respect to the US. But I understand you're more a "befehl ist befehl" kind of guy.

In style more than in substance. Street would make a better Leninist, I think. Hang the bloodsucking kulaks, that kind of thing. — jamalrob

I'll take it! Kinda. Probably more Maoist. States are a bit meh.

Order is better than total anarchy...everyone knows that.

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?

I can't see how you're gonna string 'em up with your skinny arms...

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

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

I'll take it! — StreetlightX

I knew you'd say that.