Is it really important to know who lit up what building or is it important to understand the social and civil unrest leading up to these sorts of disturbances? I'm in favour of the latter.

I don't understand why it's an "either/or" scenario... why can't we find both important? I understand you might not care about a building being set on fire but you'd probably care if it was your workplace.

Second, I'm not convinced a hard distinction can be made between protesters and rioters, which makes the effort futile - leading to endless discussions. — Benkei

The rioters are the violent ones. It's concerning that you don't seem to draw much of a distinction between people who peacefully protest and those who destroy and loot local businesses.

Protests and riots are symptoms, say, emergent properties of the system. — Benkei

That's fine and we can discuss that, but we shouldn't ignore the other side of the coin which is that people are moral agents who are capable of making decisions and possess moral autonomy. People are ultimately responsible for their actions even if the cards have never been in their favor.

I don't understand why it's an "either/or" scenario... why can't we find both important? — BitconnectCarlos

Because one of them is a distraction for the other. It's good that you and I can deal with both of them as separate things and maybe not have our opinion of the goals of the protests be affected by the consequences of the disturbances but most people can't. Why do you think the first thing the government did is denounce the protesters as rioters? Not for a wish to deal with both subjects in a fair and balanced way. So it's tactical to ignore one of them because of the importance of the other in light of the tactics of the other side.

The rioters are the violent ones. It's concerning that you don't seem to draw much of a distinction between people who peacefully protest and those who destroy and loot local businesses. — BitconnectCarlos

OK. Why is that a problem in your view?

That's fine and we can discuss that, but we shouldn't ignore the other side of the coin which is that people are moral agents who are capable of making decisions and possess moral autonomy. People are ultimately responsible for their actions even if the cards have never been in their favor. — BitconnectCarlos

I guess I'm more forgiving and much more of a collectivist than you to subscribe to "ultimately". What if I poke you every second all the time? Are you ultimately responsible for hitting me in the face or did I have it coming? The US had it coming especially after voting in a racist like Trump. In that respect I consider the restraint of the black community this time around rather legendary, when compared to the reaction to the ludicrous judgment in the Rodney King case in 1992.

...it doesn't require a racist belief system to generate systemic racism. — Isaac

From whence systemic racism come if not from systems put in place by racists?

Firstly it doesn't require a racist belief system to generate systemic racism. It only requires systems which do not account for, nor rectify, previous racially motivated policies. — Isaac

Upon a second reading, I realized that this is incoherent. Racially motivated policies are required. Here, you said as much yourself. So, either racist beliefs are not required for racially motivated policies, particularly ones that need corrected(so were unacceptable to begin with) or you're right.

Clearly, you are wrong on this matter. I chalk it up to the physicalist notion of belief that you work from and/or advocate. That's another matter altogether though. You're aware of this, I'm sure.

You've offered bald assertions. Here's a bit of common sense...

Wherever there have never been racist beliefs, there could not have ever been unacceptable racially motivated policies. Hence...

From whence systemic racism come if not from systems put in place by racists? — creativesoul

From racist outcomes. A system in which more black people are disporportionally murdered by the state is so regardless if every single government officer was an avowed anti-racist. What matters is results, not (just) intention.

A system in which more black people are disporportionally murdered by the state is so regardless if every single government officer was an avowed anti-racist. What matters is results, not intention. — StreetlightX

I think, reading this thread, it is apparent that people honestly take up positions that they honestly believe are not racist but which have prejudicial results. And I think @creativesoul has identified the space of contention.

Identity politics is the appropriate term, although it is used as a term of abuse. Look at the medalI posted above. A white angel subdues the black beast. Of course we want to be on the side of the angels; we identify as angels. The great and the good are wearing it with pride and being awarded it for services to the nation. These people do not think they are racist. The people on this thread do not think they are racist, they think they are philosophical angels subduing the beast of error and confusion.

One's beliefs conform to one's identity. I identify as British, I identify Britain as a good country. It follows that problems must be caused by what is non British, and anything that is not like me is non-British. Anyone who criticises what is good is non- British, a traitor, and a devil. I am British, therefore I am good, therefore I am not racist. Therefore, if black people get badly treated, they must deserve it.

Things about one's identity: it doesn't have to be true, it hurts psychologically when it is attacked or undermined, it is the belief that must be defended at all costs. I am rational, therefore this makes sense, and my identity is true. Devils rarely self-identify as devils, but more usually as misunderstood angels.

If you want to propose something extreme such as that the destruction of resources will likely produce a better future for humanity than refraining from such destruction, then of course the onus would be on you to make a convincing argument for that. — Janus

Fair enough. I really don't think a couple of storefronts are that important that their destruction has to accompanied by a detailed and watertight argument. Although I'm probably at the extreme end of advocating property damage, I think what seems to get everybody on this side of the debate frustrated is the disparity in concern. Even if we just take the US right now. 2000 (mostly) young black men are being killed by their police forces every year, thousands more are being criminalised by stress-policing methods and live in conditions we should find appalling given the wealth of the nation as a whole. A group, frustrated by the continuation of this situation, despite several decades of so-called progressive attitudes, come up with a plan to tell the country just how angry they are. And Instead of think "my God, these people have been seriously mistreated", commentary is deflected into criticism of their tactics. I'm not suggesting that such discussion should be off-limits, but I do want to put questions of onus into perspective. Given the deplorable situation that's being protested, no-one is under any particular obligation to submit a full justification for their protest methods so long as they fall within the very broadest parameters - show people that there's some human beings they share a country with who have been made really angry by these unjust circumstances. Anything that might achieve that goal is de facto a reasonable course of action, given the deplorable situation they're trying to resolve.

None of the rest of what you say constitutes any argument to support the notion that destruction of resources is likely to lead to better outcomes. It just looks like a "I've read more than you have, so there". Give an argument in your own words for a plausible mechanism for how violence or destruction of resources could lead to positive social change, and I'll give it due consideration and critique. — Janus

I have given an argument in my own words. I've just supported it with evidence from social science. I'm trying to avoid the 'just so' storytelling that seems to pervade many of the posts here. "X leads to Y which leads to Z", presented as if it were just a fact of the world. We're not the first people to give this any thought. There are people out there who have investigated, analysed, sought out controls, and then gathered all that work together and compared each to he other to identify common themes. I realise it's not physics or chemistry, but it's a damn sight better than just 'reckoning' some stuff, so I'll make no apology for trying source my arguments in the literature.

Help me out and outline one, even if it is merely hypothetical (which of course it would be anyway) if you can.

So, it's obvious how peaceful protest and rational discussion and agreement (however difficult it might be to achieve them) could work, just outline some ways in which you think violence, looting and destructive behavior might help. — Janus

Since my last attempt obviously failed, I'll have another go.

Trying to persuade people of a position held by a minority which goes against the majority interest is not the same as trying to persuade people of a position which is (or could look like it is) held by a majority and coincides with (or could look like it coincides with) majority interests. The peaceful protests or rational debates you see having successes in policy terms are of that second nature. The issue with victims of stress policing is of the first nature. People have a strong tendency to be influenced by the apparent behaviour of the majority of people in the social group to which they aspire to belong, so persuading them to behave in some way where it can be made to appear that their social group all behave this way is fairly easy (even if their social group do not in fact all behave that way - it can easily be made to appear that they do). People are very rarely convinced of anything by rational arguments. Again, literally hundreds of studies have been done on this, dozens of textbooks written about it. You don't have to believe it (there are a few radical theorists who disagree), but it's not a matter of plausibility.

So, given that there's a task of persuading people about this minority issue, and given that presenting a rational argument isn't going to cut it, and neither is presenting a new model behaviour for the social group (very few people aspire to belong to the social group represented by those affect by this issue). There has to be a third tactic. One thing which does encourage rational consideration of the arguments is dissent from social norms, it's like the shock of a cold shower waking you up, it shakes the mind out of it's routine and forces the consideration of a new norm. A very large protest might do it, a riot definitely does. Yes there's a backlash without doubt (and studies have shown that when the message coincides with majority interests, the backlash is worse than the attention it gained - the plan backfires), but at least people are talking about the issue, and doing so outside of the scripted cliches they're used to using - because something dramatic has happened outside of the experience those scripts were designed to deal with. Basically, once everyone has stopped being faux-offended at the property damage, they'll still be an issue to answer.

So having established the action needs to be visceral and dissenting, why McDonalds and Target...

This is why the systemic nature of the oppression matters. McDonalds are not innocent bystanders, Target are not innocent bystanders. They're part of a system which, by it's very nature, creates and oppresses the class of people protesting, it creates the very conditions responsible for all those deaths. It's not that all the protestors are dedicated Marxist theorists, but that they see wealth and privilege on one side of the street, and none on theirs, in a united nation, that's just default wrong. The privileged have automatically dome something wrong, just by still being privileged.

One thing people don't like is being identified as the 'bad guys'. One of the problems with protest on a purely party political scale is it maintains the illusion (seen here writ large on this very thread) that the only bad guys are the politicians, that they're entirely responsible for everything being the way it is and everyone else are just meat puppets doing their jobs. Protests without threat of violence or property damage become just a part of the system. The wealthy oppress, the poor protest about it, nothing happens, it becomes like the wallpaper, the normal backdrop of daily life. Something has to present a real threat to even make it to the discussion table.

Presenting strong emotional behaviour encourages empathy (not in the sense the term is usually used - often confused with sympathy) we literally feel their anger just because we see how angry they are. It's conflicting to feel the subject of that anger as well as the anger itself. It's why it's necessary to dehumanise the enemy in times of war, and dehumanisation is definitely one of the responses violent riots risk, but it's only a risk, not a certainty. If it is done right, there will be the dissonance sufficient to stimulate re-evaluation, but not sufficient to encourage dehumanisation. This is why I mentioned commitment and consistency. They both not only encourage rational consideration, but they work against any attempt to dehumanise.

To summarise, with messages affecting only minority interests it is necessary to perform some dissenting threatening action to stimulate rational consideration of the argument. This dissenting action often has a backlash, but in many cases the backlash is less harmful than the subsequent consideration of the position. The targets of this dissenting action need to be within the community of people who need to consider the arguments, not some distant authority, otherwise they remain irrelevant issues. Defacing statues is ideal, putting the odd brick through a window, a bit of fisticuffs...burning down a whole store is bordeline...any more than that and you'll end up being too easy to dehumanise, or face a backlash bigger than the value of the issue being discussed, but to draw the line at any property damage whatsoever, has no net value.

From whence systemic racism come if not from systems put in place by racists? — creativesoul

Systems put in place by people wanting to justify the economic disenfranchisement of a social class. Race only became the tool-de-jour because of the economic value of slavery and colonial expansion.

Upon a second reading, I realized that this is incoherent. Racially motivated policies are required. Here, you said as much yourself. So, either racist beliefs are not required for racially motivated policies, particularly ones that need corrected(so were unacceptable to begin with) or you're right. — creativesoul

I didn't specify the origin of the racially motivated policies. It is without doubt that living in a systemically racist society promotes actual racism (the belief that one race can exercise power over another on the grounds of some perceived superiority). So a systemically racists society will have actual racists in it, and they will bring into law actually racist policy. If left un-rectified, these policies will perpetuate systemic racism even in a completely non-racist society. None of this argument has any bearing on the issue of how the systemic racism got started in the first place.

Notwithstanding, the above is just an historical issue. The more important issue here is that actual racist beliefs are not currently required to perpetuate systemic racism. That's important because policy at the moment erroneously focusses on education as if we could re-educate (or otherwise eradicate) the 'nasty racists' and the problem would magically go away. It won't.

Yet, this seems like something that you're no proud of... as if it is something that you do not want to perpetuate. — creativesoul

Yes, for more reasons than I can list here. But to be direct, my parents never raised me to be racist nor a bigot, and that humanity is the species to which I belong. However, given the racism my parents have experienced they’ve instilled the thought in me that regardless of my own beliefs I will not always be treated as an American and much less as a human being by every white person. Due to my own personal experiences with racism it has validated that and because of that, I fear passing this on to my children.

It is an undeniable sign of the times. We are all fed up with it. It has no place in a society built upon the founding principles of a representative form of government.
3d — creativesoul

Indeed.

It's good that you and I can deal with both of them as separate things and maybe not have our opinion of the goals of the protests be affected by the consequences of the disturbances but most people can't.

Then that's their problem. Those people are just bad at thinking. I think it's imperative that we deal with them as separate things. No problem at all with sympathizing or supporting the protests and the message, while condemning the rioting.

So it's tactical to ignore one of them because of the importance of the other in light of the tactics of the other side.

I understand - in the media or just in everyday life if someone is paying an enormous amount of attention to only one side of the coin it's really suspect. That person probably has an agenda. I figure since we're on a philosophy forum we should be able to call a spade a spade.

OK. Why is that a problem in your view?

Because a position which doesn't distinguish between protesters and rioters places itself in the same camp as authoritarians. The US Constitution guarantees the right to protest peacefully, but authoritarians regard all challenges to the state under one banner. Protesting - in and of itself - is as American as apple pie, but rioting can be incredibly destructive and often just ends up hurting those who are most already most vulnerable.

I guess I'm more forgiving and much more of a collectivist than you to subscribe to "ultimately". What if I poke you every second all the time? Are you ultimately responsible for hitting me in the face or did I have it coming? The US had it coming especially after voting in a racist like Trump. In that respect I consider the restraint of the black community this time around rather legendary, when compared to the reaction to the ludicrous judgment in the Rodney King case in 1992.

I feel like a more apt comparison would be if you kept poking me and then I eventually lashed out and punched Baden. Destroying a mom & pop corner shop or a sporting goods store is not "punching up" or "fighting the system" - if anything, it emboldens the far right and worries the centrists. Take to the polls or raise money for your candidates. Talk to local community leaders who have connections with the police force. By destroying local communities the riots are placing more people in poverty and it takes years for a community to recover.

On the subject of responsibility I just think its important for someone to take ownership of themselves and their actions. If we deny this we basically take away their personhood. In other words, in my mind you're basically treating them like a child who is not responsible for his actions. I understand that there's plenty of injustice that goes around and everyone's been damaged or hurt, but how the individual handles this is a direct reflection on their character and maturity. In fact, I'd say how a person deals with injustice/pain is probably the most defining aspect of their character.

Take to the polls or raise money for your candidates. Talk to local community leaders who have connections with the police force. — BitconnectCarlos

Do you seriously think this hadn't been tried already at various points in last five years during which police brutality has just been getting worse?

Burn more shit, it works.

I was one of the ones who started the peaceful protests … the first seven days, when it was fine and dandy. I walked about 101 miles in peace. But if you protest peacefully, they don't give a shit." — William Stewart, Baltimore resident after the 2015 Riots

.

This was after media coverage, two lawsuits, a series of police complaints, letters to the mayor and weeks of peaceful protest. All with absolutely no effect at all.

A few days of rioting and they had the US Department of Justice look into Baltimore policing practices and publish a report which completely upheld the protesters complaints.

Same in the 60s with the Kerner commission, same with the 1992 Los Angeles riots after which police reforms took their satisfaction rating from 40 to 77 percent.

Anyone who thinks that a stiff letter is all that's needed only has to think if they're aware of what the ghetto-like neighbourhoods are like. Those in power all know they're shit places to live, they know exactly what is happening because they've been told for years. They don't need anyone to tell them again, they need people to shake them into doing something about it.

Do you seriously think this hadn't been tried already at various points in last five years during which police brutality has just been getting worse?

Ok we're gonna break more windows and burn stuff down that'll get America on our side.

In any case, don't do evil so that good may come.

don't do evil so that good may come. — BitconnectCarlos

OK so peaceful protests don't work, political lobbying doesn't work, but they're not allowed to 'do evil' either. So the choice left to them is...

You can't just say that political lobbying doesn't work. I'm not a police expert by any means, but I know in Camden they did some reforms or in other parts of the country there have been more community-oriented approaches which were achieved through other means besides violent rioting.

And it is evil. Many Americans live paycheck to paycheck and when you destroy and loot their places of work you are effectively cutting off their livelihood.

Imagine thinking political lobbying works and is not completely useless :rofl:

You can't just say that political lobbying doesn't work. I'm not a police expert by any means, but I know in Camden they did some reforms or in other parts of the country there have been more community-oriented approaches which were achieved through other means besides violent rioting. — BitconnectCarlos

Right, I'm not familiar with the history there, but presuming you're right, at the very least we can say that sometimes peaceful means work and sometimes they don't. The question is what to do when they don't.

And it is evil. Many Americans live paycheck to paycheck and when you destroy and loot their places of work you are effectively cutting off their livelihood. — BitconnectCarlos

Causing people some financial hardship is 'evil' is it? So the entire global industrial and banking system is evil, right? Because it undoubtedly causes some people financial hardship, by the million. Its like discussing the harm caused by poor food safety standards in 1970s Cambodia.

Target took millions of dollars more from their employees in illegally low wages, lack of sick pay and unrealistic working hours than anyone lost from the place being burnt down. They're better off without it, maybe there's a chance it'll be replaced by something with a shred of respect for basic human decency.

OK so peaceful protests don't work, political lobbying doesn't work, but they're not allowed to 'do evil' either. So the choice left to them is...

If every protestor concerned about police brutality joined the force, they can essentially trade current police behavior with their own. So why don’t they just do that? Because begging or threatening leadership is easier than becoming leadership. That’s a painful irony for these protesters. They are begging others for change, or committing violence against the innocent in order to threaten to change, but never do they become the change.

Right, I'm not familiar with the history there, but presuming you're right, at the very least we can say that sometimes peaceful means work and sometimes they don't. The question is what to do when they don't. — Isaac

All you can say is that peaceful means have have not worked so far. What are even the demands exactly? I have no idea what dismantling systemic racism in the entire US actually means. Give us concrete proposals.

Causing people some financial hardship is 'evil' is it? — Isaac

No, that's not what I said. A boycott is not inherently evil. I'm saying arbitrarily destroying local businesses that have done nothing wrong is evil. If there's just cause for the financial penalty we can have a discussion about that.

If every protestor concerned about police brutality joined the force, they can essentially trade current police behavior with their own. So why don’t they just do that? — NOS4A2

I expect it'd be because police admissions wouldn't allow it (Minneapolis police psychological testing actually dismisses a disproportionate number of minority applicants), not everyone is suited to it, there aren't anywhere near enough vacancies and... Oh yeah, they might not want to. I can't believe I even wasted the time answering such a stupid question.

They are begging others for change, or committing violence against the innocent in order to threaten to change, but never do they become the change. — NOS4A2

Apart from your brilliant 'all join the police force (despite there not actually being any vacancies to fill)' idea, any other great moves they've missed to 'become the change'? Do you do motivational lectures by any chance?

All you can say is that peaceful means have have not worked so far. — BitconnectCarlos

One can always use 'so far' as an excuse. It's a non sequitur because it's unfalsifiable.

What are even the demands exactly? I have no idea what dismantling systemic racism in the entire US actually means. Give us concrete proposals. — BitconnectCarlos

I've already linked the BLM demands. Here's a link. And here's an interview with nine criminal justice experts outlining the best practice steps.

I'm saying arbitrarily destroying local businesses that have done nothing wrong is evil. — BitconnectCarlos

I've literally just detailed exactly what they've done wrong, it's several thousand times greater loss of legally owed earnings than burning down the store lost.

@StreetlightX - Where's that visualisation you posted about proportions of wage theft vs larsony etc?

I expect it'd be because police admissions wouldn't allow it (Minneapolis police psychological testing actually dismisses a disproportionate number of minority applicants), not everyone is suited to it, there aren't anywhere near enough vacancies and... Oh yeah, they might not want to. I can't believe I even wasted the time answering such a stupid question.

It’s less stupid than suggesting violence and vandalism against the innocent, which isn’t only stupid and counterproductive, but perverse and dangerous.

They want others to do it. They cannot be bothered to do it themselves. This is the going rate of activists.

American citizens are entitled not to have a systemically racist and regularly brutal police force. The US is supposed to be a modern democracy not an authoritarian state. So, the protestors shouldn't have to lift a finger, and the fact that they do is an indictment of the system not of them.

That much I agree with, save for the systemically racist part. Unfortunately I don’t think it is as simple as everyone is making it out to be. None of it takes into account the countless, unique interactions between police and citizens.

One unfortunate result of denying systemic racism in policing is it puts the blame solely on individual police officers rather than on processes over which most of them have little or no individual control, including training, police culture, policing of the police etc. This speaks to the perversity of the accusation that those who point to systemic racism do so with the intention of labeling all cops as racist. If you take the systemic racism out of the equation, all the racism we point to in the system must fall on the cops, making them more not less culpable.

Im curious if you would agree with this amendment to your last sentence:
If we take systemic racism out of the equation, all the racism we point to must fall on the racist cops and those who know about them and do nothing.

One unfortunate result of denying systemic racism in policing is it puts the blame solely on individual police officers rather than on processes over which most of them have little or no individual control, including training, police culture, policing of the police etc. This speaks to the perversity of the accusation that those who point to systemic racism do so with the intention of labeling all cops as racist. If you take the systemic racism out of the equation, all the racism we point to in the system must fall on the cops, making them more not less culpable.

The problem is we can make that accusation with any given statistical outcome. Most people who are shot by cops are men, therefor the system is systemically sexist against men. I don’t think we can make that claim without knowing whether the police in fact shoot men for sexist reasons, rather than for some other reason. So I believe we do have to find which police are racist and operate on racial motivations, or to tackle the actual reasons why such and such a group are overrepresented in this or that statistical outcome.

or to tackle the actual reasons why such and such a group are overrepresented in this or that statistical outcome. — NOS4A2

Great, you finally get it.