And being a cop is attractive to bullies. They need to be screened out of the hiring process. So does anyone with ties to racist groups. — Marchesk

Yep. How much of it comes from the tone set by their leaders? They're chosen by local governments. It comes back to local elections.

t 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

Agreed with this, but sanctioned by the local government.

:clap: :100:

Or millions currently out of work in the U.S.
— 180 Proof

The pandemic is the fault of the greedy rich? — Marchesk

Never said or implied that. Strawman.

What was the unemployment rate before Covid in the US?

Non sequitur. 40m+ jobs lost in 88 days - what's the unemployment rate NOW, friend? And more significantly, WHICH income quintiles make up the overwhelming majority of pandemic-driven business closures & layoffs?

Now I don’t know which of those killings were or were not justified, 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

Honestly, drive by shootings are more common. Let the Black Panthers deal with that.

Yep. How much of it comes from the tone set by their leaders? — frank

You mean like the being tough on crime or the war on drugs? Yeah, that's an issue. Problem is then with he voters liking that sort of thing. At least the drug war is losing some steam.

Honestly, drive by shootings are more common. Let the Black Panthers deal with that. — frank

Yeah, maybe let black people police their communities so at least you remove the racial factor. It needs to be coordinated and supported by the city. Give them the resources they need.

You mean like the being tough on crime or the war on drugs? Yeah, that's an issue. Problem is then with he voters liking that sort of thing. At least the drug war is losing some steam. — Marchesk

Where being "tough in crime" is a dog whistle for racism, yes.

Yes, I can see that. If it was about one man being killed, I would agree with you. But it isn't. One man is killed by another while other police look on impassively and the whole thing is on video, and no one is arrested. 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.

Chauvin was arrested. He will likely go to jail. I know the other officers were fired and there may be other charges; we'll see. Honestly, if Chauvin gets off then I'd join in some of the riots. Not against private businesses though.

We can throw toys out of the pram, I don't care. What I do care about is people and children going hungry because their jobs were lost because their workplaces were destroyed.

Honestly, if Chauvin gets off then I'd join in some of the riots. Not against private businesses though. — BitconnectCarlos

Thing is that a jury gets to decide that unless they convince him to plead guilty for the good of the country. So you never know.

Should we riot over a jury decision? It's one thing not to prosecute cops, but it's another when they have their day in court. As long as the prosecution and judge do their jobs.

A jury decision is a citizenry thing. It's different if a judge gives the cop a BS light sentence.

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?

What I do care about is people and children going hungry because their jobs were lost because their workplaces were destroyed. — BitconnectCarlos

Do you? Really? What do you do about it?

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.

Chauvin was arrested. — BitconnectCarlos

When? About five minutes ago. After big trouble not before it.

This is the right way:



Places were police join the peaceful protesters, listen to what they have to say, instead of spoiling for a fight.

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 — Baden

Fair enough, but the Tulsa riot started over what the white people saw as a black uprising because of a shootout when armed black folk came to protect a black man arrested from a lynching. Which was good, until shots were fired.

Just saying it's dicey. Maybe it would work today. It's better if the city arms them.

Thing is that a jury gets to decide that unless they convince him to plead guilty for the good of the country. So you never know.

Should we riot over a jury decision? It's one thing not to prosecute cops, but it's another when they have their day in court. As long as the prosecution and judge do their jobs.

A jury decision is a citizenry thing. It's different if a judge gives the cop a BS light sentence.

This is 100% spot on. In reality I couldn't actually riot regardless since... I'm a state employee but I was just conveying my dismay. But yeah - it is a jury decision and while unfortunate.... I wouldn't actually riot.

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.

Do you? Really? What do you do about it?

Well, I don't destroy their places of work for one. I feel like this is becoming more about me than anything ideas-based so I don't see how it's too relevant. Nonetheless, I'm a pretty generous tipper and I'm happy to give personal financial advise/help people figure out a budget.

A bunch of random property damage scares no-one except some small business owners. — Echarmion

So why's the army there then?

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?

Well, I don't destroy their places of work for one. I feel like this is becoming more about me than anything ideas-based so I don't see how it's too relevant. Nonetheless, I'm a pretty generous tipper and I'm happy to give personal financial advise/help people figure out a budget. — BitconnectCarlos

I didn't make it about you, you did. See I don't claim to care too much about strangers' economic situations, so I don't have to defend it. Stick to abstracts like 'justice' is my advice. You know - ideas.

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?

I think I'm done with this farrago of apologetics for a racist, fascist, and collapsing state.Keep up the good work chaps, no need to change direction.

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.

Are you really saying this in regard to my opinion that one shouldn't go around setting fire to businesses and now possibly homes? Is that what you're saying?

From there, we move on to tactics. Could it work?

Even on this front it fails. Does burning down target lead to ending systemic justice? No. When I asked you for an explanation you conveniently didn't address this.

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.

So burn down their businesses. Stick it to the man, you think the CEO of Wal-Mart or Target will be visiting the local homeless shelter or food bank? No, who gets hurt is disporportionately those on the lower end of the totem pole of the company that they're working for; in other words, those more likely to be living paycheck to paycheck. Even socialist states or communists states have their own elite; and in the off chance you were able to somehow re-set society and turn everything back to 0 you'd just get another class of elites developing, so...

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.

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 didn't make it about you, you did. See I don't claim to care too much about strangers' economic situations, so I don't have to defend it. Stick to abstracts like 'justice' is my advice. You know - ideas.

...You asked me what I personally do about hunger, so I took that as a personal question.

Yeah, it helps when you don't care about strangers' economic situations when you're advocating or condoning burning down their businesses and destroying their jobs. Nice little mental buffer you've got there - leave the problem of how to get food on their table or their bills paid without their source of income to them. Sure, we're philosophers why bother with economics?

and collapsing state — unenlightened

Sorry to disappoint you, but the state won't collapse.

It seems to me you've been trying to draw (or at least entertain) some sort of connection between destroying businesses/rioting to ending systemic racism and I'm just not seeing it.

We both agree that no one should looting private businesses so... It's possible I misunderstood you I've got a lot of responses to get to here.