No that's the motherland, who taught us Aussies everything we know about subjugating an indigenous population.

Ah, Australia. A country with a colonial past also. OK.

Yep, we've already established that in some cases some types of reform can be achieved through peaceful means, we're talking about the cases and reform types where peaceful means seem to have failed in a timescale those suffering from the injustice feel is no longer reasonable to ask them to wait. — Isaac

I'm sure there's more you'd like to change about the US outside the scope of BLM. Hell, plenty of people think the tax code is unfair are we going to throw rocks through windows and assault business owners until that's fixed? Also, what is an appropriate timescale? If everyone followed your idea, we'd just be in a constant state of rioting because everyone has complaints about the law and the government.

No, it's not about sidetracking to some other issue. It's fundamental to your argument that the properties and livelihoods being damaged in the riots are both innocent and a net loss to the community. — Isaac

Lets back track.

I presented a claim which was something along the lines of 'Intentionally destroying innocent local businesses is evil.' I didn't present much of an argument for it... I was just asking you whether you agree or disagree. Lets just start there. You sometimes argue against points which I haven't really made.

I don't think I do need to look it up, because it's probably Latin.

It's basically a conclusion which doesn't logically follow from the premises.

the consequences of rioting are either trivial (in the case of a bit of bystander property damage)

It amazes me how destroying someone's livelihood and in some cases personal business that they've saved up for their entire life is "trivial." It's only trivial to you because you have no skin in the game. If it was your business it probably wouldn't be trivial.

You're wanting to take that away from them on the ground that a few people might have to find another job. — Isaac

You can be as angry as you want, it's fine. Just because I'm angry doesn't condone me punching you or destroying your business. Honestly, you learn this at like 5 years old. If you had your own business in one of those streets would you be okay with people destroying it? Honest question - they're just angry about racial injustice, who are you to deny them that expression? Would you let them destroy your home? It's just property, you can get a new one... maybe.

I don't mean to pick you out, but this has getting my goat for some time. This is supposed to be a discussion forum, it's not a fucking football match. What exactly is this cheer-leading supposed to achieve? — Isaac

Personally, I find it encouraging when people respond with positive approval as well, instead of saying nothing when they agree and only speaking up to disagree. Those little emojis are a simple quick way of expressing support even when you have nothing more to add. It lets people know that someone liked what they said, even if all the substantive replies are disagreement.

You're a bit confused, my man, missing the forest for the trees: in a nutshell - why no one should buy this used roll of toilet paper Bolton's selling. — 180 Proof

This from the site you referenced:
"The Room Where It Happened is laden with proximity and credibility, which makes it a book to be believed."

The reviewer, then, is of the opinion that Bolton's book is one "to be believed." Now it's also pretty clear that the reviewer, like some folks here, has a low opinion of Bolton the man. But what does that have to do with the book itself? Herman Melville Bolton isn't. All he's got to sell is first-hand-knowledge, and on this, he is "to be believed."

Did you read the review?

You can read the damn book, just don't buy it. Pirate it. Borrow it from the library. Steal a copy.

What other economic system could there be, given that money, which is essential to any complex economy, in the absence of strict central control, by accumulation necessarily gives rise to capital. — Janus

It is not the absence of strict central control, but the strict enforcement of things like rent and interest (never mind property itself, but I’m not arguing against that) that leads to accumulation of wealth in few hands. In absence of those kinds of laws, having more wealth does not give you leverage to extract further wealth from those less wealthy. (And in absence of property laws at all, wealth is only ever of a community as a whole, since everyone is free to use anything as they please).

plenty of people think the tax code is unfair are we going to throw rocks through windows and assault business owners until that's fixed? — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, maybe. If other methods don't work. It depends how unfair I think it is and how many people suffer as a consequence. Just because I'm arguing against "never riot", doesn't mean I'm arguing in favour of "always riot".

I don't think I do need to look it up, because it's probably Latin.


It's basically a conclusion which doesn't logically follow from the premises. — BitconnectCarlos

I know, it was a joke (not a very good one apparently). The conclusion that I don't need to look it up doesn't follow from the premises that it's probably Latin. You had to be there.

It amazes me how destroying someone's livelihood and in some cases personal business that they've saved up for their entire life is "trivial." — BitconnectCarlos

The triviality or otherwise of any issue is relative. The whereabouts of my rattle was the least trivial issue around when I was 2. Compared to the issue being protested, financial set-back of a handful of individuals is trivial.

Just because I'm angry doesn't condone me punching you or destroying your business. Honestly, you learn this at like 5 years old. — BitconnectCarlos

We don't learn it when we're five, it's an enforced law to maintain discipline. Adults, of course, when they're angry with their kids can take a belt to them with impunity (or at least they could in my day). Are you suggesting that violence is never ever appropriate? Because of not, I'd can't think of a much more justifiable instigator than having members of your community murdered. If someone threatened to murder you would you ensure, in all circumstances, that you stuck to a non-violent response?

If you had your own business in one of those streets would you be okay with people destroying it? Honest question - they're just angry about racial injustice, who are you to deny them that expression? — BitconnectCarlos

I'd be pretty pissed off I should think. I don't see why how I'd feel about it should come above how the community feel about their plight. Why should I ask a group of underprivileged, down-beaten protestors who've just had one of their community murdered to give a shit about my feelings here?

Who are the guilty?

Those who commit violence against the innocent. The rioting and vandalism is often aimed towards people and things that had nothing to do with George Floyd in particular, nor police violence in general. This is why the riots are unjust and unjustified. It is simply thuggery.

Burn more shit, it works. — StreetlightX

Burn cop cars, smash racist statues, do symbolic violence against symbols of violence, yes. But wanton violence against random places that just happen to be nearby? No.

I asked earlier and don’t think I got any response: is anyone burning and looting the houses of the cops or other known racists? Or the houses of rich people generally? Or just random houses? Why is a small local business a more appropriate target than any of those? Not that I think those are all appropriate targets either, but at the very least the home of a cop or known racist seems a less inappropriate target than some random business.

I think you're seeing this too much as a tactical decision made in real time. The fact that riots work and the deliberate tactical choice to riot are two different things. The community rioted because they were angry, they looted because they wanted stuff, and had no reason at all to uphold the law. In amongst all that, there may have been some tactical decisions to damage particular properties, but maybe none at all.

So there's two issues here. Is property damage ever a good tactical decision in a protest? Is it fair to reprimand protestors for the damage they caused? To conflate the two assumes that tactical success is the only justification.

But wanton violence against random places that just happen to be nearby? No. — Pfhorrest

There is wanton violence against blacks who sleep in their own home, who just happen to be driving a car that one day, who just happen to be in the path of a cop with impunity. The whole fucking system is a system of wanton violence, perpetuated primarily by those with power - and people want to moralize about the powerless engaging in over-represented, media-spotlighted instances of violence against property? I guess you simply have to be the right color to perpetuate violence otherwise you get tut-tut'd by the sanctimonious who only like it if their blacks protest in just so a manner, amenable to nanny's dinner time etiquette.

Is property damage ever a good tactical decision in a protest? — Isaac

There's a difference between a peaceful protest and a riot.

Property damage is indeed a tactic, but for something else than just a "protest". If you want to instill fear, escalate tensions or get the authorities to respond by violence, then destroying property is a great tactic. Yet then you aren't just talking about "protests".

Any protest worth its name is disruptive and upsets people, otherwise it doesn't deserve to be called protest. Not necessarily violence, but it should definitely make at least some people mad, and others afraid.

"Anytime you live in a society supposedly based upon law and it doesn’t enforce its own laws because the color of a man’s skin happens to be wrong, then I say those people are justified to resort to any means necessary to bring about justice when the government can’t give them justice." - Malcolm X, Oxford Union Speech.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000kbk6 If you can, do. If you can't, complain about discrimination. A nostalgia fest for us ancients. Mr Baldwin is someone to reckon with.

:fire: :eyes:

"Can't waste a day
when the night brings a hearse
So make a move and plead the fifth
'cause ya can't plead the first

Fuck tha G-ride
I want the machines that are makin' em"

~RATM, "Down Rodeo"

https://youtu.be/IKyVYdIkwOQ

:death: :flower:

Worth also noting that Martin "peaceful" Luther "protest" King had disapproval ratings at levels far worse than current day BLM throughout most of his activist life up to his murder - which tells us that either BLM is not going far enough in stoking antagonism and sowing division, or that all those whining about BLM will be one day similarly viewed as the already-dead historical artifiacts that they are - the kind we will study in history books henceforth while aweing at how it is that such putrid, shit people still existed 'in this modern age'.

"Our bodies were loot. The forced extraction of our labor was loot. A system of governance that suppressed our wages, relieved us of property and excluded black people from equal schools and public accommodations is a form of looting. We can speak of the looting of black property through redlining, slum clearance and more recently predatory lending. Police departments and municipal courts engage in their own form of looting by issuing and collecting excessive fines and fees from vulnerable communities.

...The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. understood the vexed relationship between black people and property. While his phrase that riots are the “language of the unheard” is always trotted out in times like these, he made a more powerful statement in an address to the American Psychological Association about a month after the Detroit rebellion in 1967.

“Alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, [the looter] is shocking it by abusing property rights,” he said. The real provocateur of the riots, he argued, was white supremacy. Racism is responsible for the slum conditions that were the breeding grounds of rebellion. He added, “if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the lawbreaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man.” What to do? Dr. King was unequivocal: full employment and decent housing, paid for by defunding the war in Vietnam."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/opinion/george-floyd-protests-looting.html

Contemporaneous revision: gtfo of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'd be pretty pissed off I should think. I don't see why how I'd feel about it should come above how the community feel about their plight. Why should I ask a group of underprivileged, down-beaten protestors who've just had one of their community murdered to give a shit about my feelings here? — Isaac

Sure, and what if they wanted to destroy and loot your house after? I mean it's just the voice of the under-privileged, who are you to object?

Surely those small business owners who had their livelihoods destroyed and the businesses that they built up over the years have no valid claim against the voice of the under-class, though.

Sure, and what if they wanted to destroy and loot your house after? I mean it's just the voice of the under-privileged, who are you to object? — BitconnectCarlos

Why would they? They're angry, it doesn't mean they've somehow turned into unfeeling sociopaths. Where is this slippery slope fallacy going? Maybe we should band shouting because shouting often leads to fighting, and fighting leads to brawls...and before you know it, nuclear armaggedon. That's why they call it a fallacy. You can't argue against this action by pointing to the disadvantages of some other action without sound justification for believing one will lead to the other.

Surely those small business owners who had their livelihoods destroyed and the businesses that they built up over the years have no valid claim against the voice of the under-class, though. — BitconnectCarlos

If it's expected of the oppressed group that they suppress their anger, that they keep cool heads at all times and consider the inconvenience their actions might cause - if we're going to demand that level of compassion and moral fortitude - then we would surely ask no less of the small business owner... to say "I understand why you burnt my shop down, you were justifiably very angry and we don't always make perfect decisions in those situations, hey, it's only a shop, it can be fixed, there's more important problems to deal with".

Why would they? They're angry, it doesn't mean they've somehow turned into unfeeling sociopaths. — Isaac

Destroying someone’s workplace can leave them homeless and destitute almost as easily as destroying their home can, so if empathy prevents the latter it seems it should also prevent the former.

Destroying someone’s workplace can leave them homeless and destitute almost as easily as destroying their home can, so if empathy prevents the latter it seems it should also prevent the former. — Pfhorrest

Again, this is arguing against something which is, by using the disadvantages of something which might be. Having a street protest might well delay an ambulance and so lead to great harm, should we ban them too? Hell, just driving to work is dangerous enough.

The whole point here is that people have been beaten and murdered by the hundreds. The only compassionate response to the anger that provokes is sympathy. If that anger leads to bad decisions, we sympathise. If that anger actually ends up making someone temporarily homeless, we sympathise. If that anger backfires and make people vote more right-wing, we sympathise.

At no point do we start laying into the rioters for not having the stoicism to suffer in silence whist the people who actually caused the whole situation remain unassailed.

At no point do we start laying into the rioters for not having the stoicism to suffer in silence whist the people who actually caused the whole situation remain unassailed. — Isaac

I’m not, and so far as I can see here nobody else is either. They’re just asking for sympathy for the innocents wrongly caught up in that angry reaction, in addition to sympathy for the righteously angry people.

The point of bringing up wrecking and looting someone’s house is that we all probably agree that that crosses a line and isn’t an okay expression of anger, even if the anger itself is well-justified. You yourself suggested that only a sociopath would do that. I pointed out that destroying someone’s workplace has pretty much the same effect. (Most people live check to check and rent their homes, so losing their job and losing their home are about the same thing.) So are the people doing that sociopaths too? And isn’t that a problem if so?

I said earlier: it seems to me like wrecking a racist cop’s home is more justified than wrecking a random local shop.

Worth also noting that Martin "peaceful" Luther "protest" King had disapproval ratings at levels far worse than current day BLM — StreetlightX

Worth noting how different the US was back then too in general, btw.

MLK might be publicly and officially revered now, but are the Black Panthers too?

I’m not, and so far as I can see here nobody else is either. They’re just asking for sympathy for the innocents wrongly caught up in that angry reaction, in addition to sympathy for the righteously angry people. — Pfhorrest

Fair enough, but that's not the impression I've got from any of the arguments here. The focus on the protestors is out of place. The established political and economic system is to blame for the deaths that started all this, and they are to blame for the damage caused by making an entire community so furious and desperate that they resort to rioting. Absolutely none of the posts asking for sympathy for those who've lost businesses are laying the blame with those who caused the problem, none of them are understanding of the kind of degrading treatment that leads to such acts of violence. So no, I don't share your assessment of the motives of those seeking to raise sympathy for the businesses lost.

and they are to blame for the damage caused by making an entire community so furious and desperate that they resort to rioting. — Isaac

An entire community so furious - so even the rich white kids who decide to go into a mall in an urban area and vandalize it during the riots are just....the fault of the government. People apparently don't have agency, they're just little wind-up toys to be wound up and released and whatever damage they cause is clearly on whoever wound them up. I swear you could come across a man beating a pregnant woman and you'd be thinking "god, how could the evil forces of systemic racism/classism/capitalism/etc be doing this to her!"

Serious question though: Do you apply these standards/this account to yourself. If you were to destroy a local business, would you blame yourself or something else? Plenty of these rioters are not from the community being vandalized, they're from outside.

The 'law and order' approach, usually meant to counter protesters, falls flat on it's face as soon as someone points out the fact that blacks are protesting for law and order, not against it.

More specifically, equal protection and treatment under the law.

Sigh...

:roll:

We're on the same side, you know?

I mean, I presume we want the same outcomes. Here, it would benefit us to recognize that our differences seem to be on a ontological/metaphysical level, which amounts - in some ways - to the linguistic framework we're using to account for racism and/or racist belief. Well, and we also differ in what we espouse to be the necessary method for realizing the changes needed... for making them happen!

you surprised me with what seemed to be a rejection of the need for a knowledge of the history underwriting today's situations...

Who are the guilty?

Those who commit violence against the innocent. — NOS4A2

Who are the innocent?