This may overlap with comments from others as I'm not currently going to choose to read the entirety of this thread and if so my apologies however my first thought regarding this was was psychological assessment via bodycam footage and situational awareness and response retraining for all extreme or unusually/excessively violent responses within the work structured realm of duty. With the potential to work their way through the environmental structure of the force. This would be a mamoth task. I'm no professional but what this would seem to say about the internal structure of the police force is not pretty. This doesn't even count the fact that people attracted to certain types of power frequently gravitate towards professions that enable it.

If you were genuinely interested and not just throwing out bad faith objections, maybe you could educate yourself even minimally. — StreetlightX

You can't help yourself, can you? Disagreement doesn't mean bad faith. Unless you're an extremist.

But thanks for the videos, I haven't watched them yet.

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.

By "the law" do you mean the institution of law enforcement or the written law? Regardless, I don't see how local businesses - even powerful ones like Wal-Mart - have anything to do with what Chauvin did to Floyd.

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.

Ok, so how many Targets and sporting good stores and bars do we need to destroy before we've attained systemic change? Maybe I should be doing some looting! Apparently I would just be assisting racial equality and combating systemic injustice.

And you can make an inferential argument that draws a chain of causation from injury to powerful interests to political change.

Is this change going to go in your direction or will it cause a conservative backlash? All I know is that the rioters have turned a substantial portion of the country less sympathetic to the movement and more concerned with personal safety from rioters.

You can't help yourself, can you? Disagreement doesn't mean bad faith. — Marchesk

It does with you. You never follow up your objections. You simply throw out new ones if the last one didn't work. It's rubbish.

It does with you. You never follow up your objections. you simply throw out new ones if the last one didn't work. It's rubbish. — StreetlightX

That's bullshit. You just don't like people who disagree with you.

All I know is that the rioters have turned a substantial portion of the country less sympathetic to the movement and more concerned with personal safety from rioters. — BitconnectCarlos

Maybe it's because of people like you, who, instead of highlighting police violence against protests, the arresting of journalists, the inflammatory language used by a certain fuckwit President and so on, the first thing you post about is fucking Target. You're part of the very problem you've identified.

No it's exactly how you post.

Maybe it's because of people like you, who, instead of highlighting police violence against protests, the arresting of journalists, the inflammatory language used by a certain fuckwit President and so on, the first thing you post about is fucking Target. You're part of the very problem you've identified.

If the forum was 100% pro-cop I'd be challenging them. I'm challenging you - and people like you who support the rioting - because you're insane. I ended our conversation because I can't really reason with someone who supports complete anarchy and burning everything down and doesn't care about the people harmed. It's about making a statement, I get it.

o it's exactly how you post. — StreetlightX

And you can't tolerate dissent.

But okay, if that is a poor arguing technique on my own, I should work on it. However, fuck you for accusing me of bad faith. I argue what I think, right or wrong.

You're an extremist.

I ended our conversation because I can't really reason with someone who supports complete anarchy and burning everything down and doesn't care about the people harmed. — BitconnectCarlos

Well that's fine because I guess I can't really reason with someone who walks into a thread on systemic racism and then defends Target as an opening post and top priority - in the name of bloody neutrality. That's insanity.

Read my first post in the thread. I said that there's blame on both sides. The reason I focused on the looting is, well, because much of the commentary here is actually pro-looting. I've already been over this with you, Streetlight.

By "the law" do you mean the institution of law enforcement or the written law? Regardless, I don't see how local businesses - even powerful ones like Wal-Mart - have anything to do with what Chauvin did to Floyd.

That’s the irony of it. If we are to blame institutions, it was the State that murdered Floyd, not the private citizen. Yet here we have people destroying the property and livelihoods of fellow Americans.

Nah, your concerns lie exactly where you've spent hundreds of words talking about - defending MNCs and the rights of property, and then saying otherwise. Not interested in your revisionism.

That’s the irony of it. If we are to blame institutions, it was the State that murdered Floyd, not the private citizen. Yet here we have people destroying the property and livelihoods of fellow Americans.

NOS, by burning down a TGI Fridays you're fighting capitalism which in turn helps dismantle systemic racism. It's a nuanced argument - you need a college degree to understand.

Tay Anderson wants the white rioters to stop.

Tay Anderson wanted Friday's protest against police brutality in Denver to be peaceful.

"We asked people throughout the day, please do not deface property, please do not destroy stuff, because we're not asking you to do that," Anderson, a Denver school board director and activist, told BuzzFeed News.

https://www.newsbreak.com/news/0PCUzvHy/black-protesters-who-want-to-demonstrate-peacefully-are-calling-out-white-people-who-instigate-violence]

NOS, by burning down a TGI Fridays you're fighting capitalism which in turn helps dismantle systemic racism. It's a nuanced argument - — BitconnectCarlos

It is. And apparently if you don't understand that nuance, then you're supporting police violence.

Very nuanced indeed. Also extremist rhetoric.

NOS, by burning down a TGI Fridays you're fighting capitalism which in turn helps dismantle systemic racism. It's a nuanced argument - you need a college degree to understand.

It’s simple perversion. You can justify violence, destruction of property, and making a mockery of a valid protest by invoking some abstract idea from the recesses of your skull.

"Valid protest" = "Protest which doesn't inconvenience anyone".

No one's there for your aesthetic pleasure.

You can justify violence, destruction of property, — NOS4A2

More than that, in this thread anyway. People dying and starving to overturn the system. And doing whatever you want since the social contract is voided.

Hopefully, this is a very minority opinion. I don't believe most protesters support it. They just want to see police held accountable, so they stop murdering people.

People talk about the protest being coopted by violence.

But the only thing worse is liberal shittards who coopt that violence in turn to shift all discussion away from the injustice and violence which birthed it. Protest which doesn't pass their ivory tower purity test.

Parasite gatekeepers of 'legitimate' and 'illegitimate' protest. It's PC, whitewashed protest they want.

I'm challenging you - and people like you who support the rioting - because you're insane. — BitconnectCarlos

The updated version of drapetomania. Some people regard accusations of insanity with suspicion, when it meshes with politics. It's an extreme ingratitude for the countless benefits of Western Civilisation. Like the Boston tea party - pointless destruction by opponents of the rule of law.

Like the Boston tea party - pointless destruction by opponents of the rule of law. — unenlightened

Arguably, it was. And for all the great principles the US espoused as part of that revolution, America's history is more violent than Canada's. Violence begets more violence, and even when you win, it sets more precedence for violent solutions in the future.

And doing whatever you want since the social contract is voided.

I’ve never believed in the social contract theory. I don’t think the State came about as larger groups of people naturally agreed to subordinate their private interests for the common good. I believe states were born of conquest and coercion of one group over another. In that sense, I can sympathize with the anger, but violence will will lead to the same outcome: conquest and coercion of one group over another.

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:

They're doing your work for you, huh? :razz:

I can sympathize with the anger, but violence will will lead to the same outcome: conquest and coercion of one group over another. — NOS4A2

That's often what happens. And you run the risk of some general taking over and becoming dictator.

In this case, an actual revolution has the cops start using real ammunition with the military enforcing martial law. I don't care how many guns Americans own, it won't be enough against the military. Plus the fact that the group with the most guns isn't on the left.

That and most of us don't want a bloody revolution. We don't want to see cities bombed, people shot, and food supplies being disrupted. Nor do we want a communist system replacing the current one. That's a fantasy.

I think protesters should assert their rights, and not deny them of fellows. Americans have the unique right to march down the street fully armed as a display of power and force, and they can keep the state in check without destroying their own property and livelihoods.

If I'm reading you right you're comparing the riots today to the Boston tea party? This is a bad comparison for many reasons but before I go into them I just want to make sure that I'm understanding you right.

It doesn't make sense to me how people can support destroying businesses which had nothing to do with Floyd's death or mistreatment towards blacks by police in general.



It’s simple perversion. You can justify violence, destruction of property, and making a mockery of a valid protest by invoking some abstract idea from the recesses of your skull.

I'm sympathetic to calls for more transparency among police or addressing racial issues and how police interact with a certain community. I'm fine with abstract ideas; abstract ideas can be discussed and they can be fun to discuss.

Nor do we want a communist system replacing the current one. That's a fantasy.

Hell no.