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.

Hell no. — NOS4A2

It's absurd that the socialists in this thread thinks there's a chance in hell of that.

It is absolutely the sentiment. Last 5 pages+ have been spent arguing about 'violence' in protests, and barely a peep about the actual issues. You being yet another.

about the actual issues. — StreetlightX

Capitaliism?

In your frame in which the rule of law and private property rights are inviolable or where the system responds effectively to appeals to its collective conscience, of course, your interlocutors seem insane. But your interlocutors reject that frame, they say there is no absolute legitimacy to the rule of law when the law itself is used as the cudgel of a dominant group against a dominated group. To them, it then becomes more a question of what tactics advance each group's interests than what are "acceptable"/lawful. From there, violence is an obvious option (which is not to say it's always justified, just that it's not by definition ruled out/insane). So, your cartoonish rendering of your opponent's position is imo a function of your inability to see their perspective not any inherent absurdity of the perspective itself. I mean, I can see things from the perspective of the status quo, so I can see how you would take the position you do. But what any reasonable person in search of real answers needs to do to contribute here is to take a more meta-view and ask themselves who, in this society, is doing more harm to who? Who is benefitting and who is being harmed on the macro-scale? And then, what's justified in redressing that harm becomes broader in scope. Fine, if you don't want to go there, but those of us who don't see a level playing field to begin with are not insane in not seeing what you're seeing as a means to reset it. I don't think you're insane either btw, just looking out for your own interests by getting behind an ideological position you see as protective of them. That's OK, but don't pretend to be the sole voice of reason here. We have thought this through.

Anger is energy. It has to go somewhere.

The largest minority and most vulnerable people in the US aren't black, theyre Latino. What we do to protect black people protects them as well.

This crowd (on this forum) will move on to the next echo chamber pretty quickly. People who actually care will be out making sure people know how to vote and know what the candidates stand for.

It's absurd that the socialists in this thread thinks there's a chance in hell of that.

The irony is they can only rail against the system while living in free and open societies, upon gadgets that no other system has given them.

They don't have mobile phones in China? Woah...

The largest minority and most vulnerable people in the US aren't black, theyre Latino. What we do to protect black people protects them as well.

This crowd (on this forum) will move on to the next echo chamber pretty quickly. People who actually care will be out making sure people know how to vote and know what the candidates stand for.

I’m going to refrain from grouping people according to some abstract demarcation such as race, but tyranny is tyranny and injustice is injustice. The greatest minority is the individual, and if we stand for one we stand for them all.

China's economic system is capitalist now. And they have a large middle class because they switched.

BTW, this thread is not about whether capitalism is better than socialism or not. If all you have is to throw around the communism bogeyman, you're off-topic. Go do that in the ABCs of socialism thread.

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.

I was talking about the "free and open" bit. China operates a hybrid system which I'm rather familiar with, having lived there for several years.

Because of one phony American shill prick who knew exactly what he was doing and what it would cause long beforehand? Bet he had a terminal condition or some kind of debt that's suddenly paid off. Or family or associates that are no longer in the country. Story is beyond rotten. Cops make little money. Dude has three houses that we even know about. Married a supermodel. Worked together with the victim at the same club, which doesnt actually prove anything. Mugshot looks completely different from video stills. Everything about this is unusual and makes no sense

I agree there is something rotten in the Alamo here. All that's been proven is to not only anguish minorities but effectively puppeteer them into an army that steals, kills, and destroys their own community, causing immense damage to infrastructure, businesses, property values, and investor presence let alone confidence that will go unrepaired for generations to come ... is turn a low paid cop, often one with a debt or chronic condition, into a patsy. A 7 minute incident has turned into a 700 million dollar international crisis. Between damage, insurance, death, armed force deployments, lawsuits. Probably even more than that. Because of ONE man who KNEW very well what he was doing and what it would cause. White supremacists are probably laughing their ass off and high fiving eachother right now while minorities continue to march around and get arrested instead of furthering their education and becoming that cop.. that politician.. that professor.. that prosecutor.. whatever position it is that inequality resides in.

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

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.

The latter - happening in this thread and elsewhere in the media - is infinitely worse than the former. — StreetlightX

Infinitely worse than destroying things that have nothing to do with the police? What kind of moral argument is that? Do you not see just how extreme your position is?

Infinitely worse than destroying things that have nothing to do with the police? — Marchesk

Insofar as it aims to delegitimize protest and deflect from the systemic injustices and in fact restore and prop them up - feeding into the very cycles the brought it all about - yes, infinitely worse. Orders of magnitude worse.

I’m going to refrain from grouping people according to some abstract demarcation such as race, but tyranny is tyranny and injustice is injustice. The greatest minority is the individual, and if we stand for one we stand for them all. — NOS4A2

Sounds good in principle. In practice, it would help if people would wake up to truths that hurt.

I think in the coming centuries most Americans will look like Latinos, they'll be dealing with the effects of global warming and the era of globalization will come to an end (for a millennia, maybe).

That's how the problem will be solved. In the meantime, let's talk about victims and how to increase votership in the age if Corona.

Conservatives and "libertarians" like to blabber on about the left's propensity to gatekeep and engage in 'purity testing' over matters of speech and identity. Yet when it comes to one of the biggest social and political movements of the current day - people in the streets, black men murdered in broad daylight - suddenly they become purity freaks.

Because of ONE man who KNEW very well what he was doing and what it would cause. White supremacists are probably laughing their ass off and high fiving eachother right now while minorities continue to march around and get arrested instead of furthering their education and becoming that cop.. that politician.. that professor.. that prosecutor.. whatever position it is that inequality resides in. — Outlander

Are you suggesting Derek Chauvin was maybe part of a plot to start off a race war? I have heard that some of the rioters are also alt-right, looking to delegitimize the protests.

Sounds like a plot from the Watchmen tv show that came out in the fall.

Bystanders said George Floyd was struggling to breathe before he was pinned to the ground. He then complained of stomach and neck pain. The man was having a heart attack.

The cop was just a stupid bully. He didnt mean to kill Floyd.

Maybe he was maybe he wasn't. That doesnt matter now because look what's happening. Domestic unrest. National guard/military police being deployed into states.

You want to destabilize a nation you exploit a vulnerable social tension. It just so happened to be race. Maybe not. I've discussed this with friends often. Maybe it was just a snapshot of current affairs and their problems and it all happened "organically" so to speak. I don't know. I do know it could have been and there are many people who stand to benefit from such a move.

they say there is no absolute legitimacy to the rule of law when the law itself is used as the cudgel of a dominant group against a dominated group.

I don't believe the rule of law is absolute and inviolable. After all, the holocaust was legal.

To them, it then becomes more a question of what tactics advance each group's interests than what are "acceptable"/lawful.

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 racial/ethnic community and I couldn't give a **** what happens to anyone else" I absolutely wouldn't engage in dialogue with this person. Even if a poor person came up to me and claimed he only cared about poor people.... that's not how society works.

So, your cartoonish rendering of your opponent's position is imo a function of your inability to see their perspective not any inherent absurdity of the perspective itself.

Please enlighten me as to how destroying a TGI Fridays helps dismantle systemic racism. It's completely nonsensical as far as I'm concerned and I haven't heard of any remotely reasonable connection between destroying local businesses and establishing racial justice/racial equality.

Fine, if you don't want to go there, but those of us who don't see a level playing field to begin with are not insane in not seeing what you're seeing as a means to reset it.

For one, I don't see a level playing field. I think it's a straw man often attributed to conservatives that they see a "level playing field" for everyone out there. Absolutely not the case. I'd be happy to address these issues but through a different format than destroying local communities and wreaking havoc on already oppressed class (i.e. the entry level or low wage worker.)

Gotta fight that good fight.

The cop was just a stupid bully. He didnt mean to kill Floyd. — frank

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.

Police shootings disproportionately affect people of a certain skin tone.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

I’m not sure about non-shootings such as choking, but it’s clear they do happen.

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.

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. — BitconnectCarlos

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.

No, you have to keep your toys in the pram, so I can steal them and call it 'the American Dream'. Rock-a-bye baby...

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

Now you're talking. :up:

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

Everyone might end up on deciding they don't want you throwing their toys out the pram. It's a good way to create a backlash.