Fear works, antagonism works, discord is wildly productive. — StreetlightX

Well you're all worked up!

If it works so well, when are people going to start killing each other there? Oh right, it will be put into a different category.

Why is hypothetical unsourced harm more important to you than real harm done on a daily basis? Why does it weigh heavier in your considerations regarding the protests than the lived reality?

By the same token, you can think of all the hypothetical instances of police brutality agitating against police brutality and for police reform would do.

In my discussion with Baden he asked me a question: Why don't disabled people riot? We (I say "we" because I mentioned I have a disability earlier) haven't rioted, so the situation is hypothetical. If we were to riot there would actually be harm.

If you're asking me about real riots which ended up destroying real black-owned businesses then that harm has been very much documented. That harm is very much real and will likely persist for years to come.

If you're asking me about real riots which ended up destroying real black-owned businesses then that harm has been very much documented. That harm is very much real and will likely persist for years to come. — BitconnectCarlos

And the oodles of evidence for systemic racism?

Some of the most haunting images that came out of the civil rights movement are those of of civil rights activists training for sit-ins. They expected to be cajoled, hurt, and assaulted, and they prepared themselves for it, because they knew what they are doing would upset people enough that they might be harmed for it:





This is the kind of shit that doesn't get told when white liberal story-telling remakes the civil rights movement into a bunch of kum-bai-yah shit sprouted by MLK holding hands on a nice long walk somewhere. The activists above knew very well that this is what it would take - and what it did take - to effect change.

There already have been people killed in the protests - almost all of them by police and by white supremacists. But the fucktards blubbering about 'violence' are silent as a fucking grave about it.

If you're asking me about real riots which ended up destroying real black-owned businesses then that harm has been very much documented. That harm is very much real and will likely persist for years to come. — BitconnectCarlos

I think that this is the reason just why nothing dramatic that would change the underlying reasons will happen.

The excessive stupidity just takes over.

Nobody will say: "Ok, we got the reforms we wanted." Nobody will be happy about the majority of people being against police brutality. Nope, it will go to a level of stupidity where some will see everywhere traces of systemic racism and will attack this systemic racism. So I guess soon burning the US Flag will be an act of protest against systemic racism and then flying the US flag will become a microaggression and racist.

The bottom line. Things will get even more stupid.

So I guess soon burning the US Flag will be an act of protest against systemic racism and then flying the US flag will become a microaggression and racist. — ssu

Don't threaten me with a good time.

Perhaps more organized force is required for enduring change on the level rightly desired by the movement. — fdrake

When one aspect of systemic racism is disproportionate levels of violent state oppression against a given community then, failing other methods, more organized force can be justified in my view. The level of violent force justified being proportionate to the level of oppression and the accuracy of the targets. In the most extreme case, for example, with the Jews in the 1930s, not only imo would have they been justified in assassinating leading Nazis (if they had the capacity) but inflicting civilian casualties too if strategically beneficial. A less extreme case would be the Republican struggle in Northern Ireland where Catholics weren't under genocidal threat, but were, similarly to blacks in America, denied fundamental fairness re jobs, housing, and political franchise and were being murdered on the street by British armed forces. Here, targeted violence against occupying security forces and officials was justified in my view, but not attacks on civilian targets. I won't comment on the present situation in these terms in case I'm accused of some form of incitement, but I'll say this if, when getting down on a knee, you are not only ignored but treated with contempt, you take it to the next level and if that's ignored you keep going to the limit of what can be justified in context and nothing is a priori ruled out.

There already have been people killed in the protests - almost all of them by police and by white supremacists. But the fucktards blubbering about 'violence' are silent as a fucking grave about it. — StreetlightX

At least I have said that the response from the right should be noticed. Fox News is in full swing of the culture war, that's their shtick. The rigth-wing extremists do have their proven tactics: lone gunmen actors who buy that self loading rifle etc. When they don't be members of some movement, there's no movement to be put on the FBI terrorist list.

You do have record breaking number of fire arms being bought just now.

So if you think violence works... well, there is a negative aspect of that. Just saying that countries can always disappoint you.

Getting back to the example of the Jews, why shouldn't they have rioted? I think your position is extreme here. Their very existence was under threat. I would say their scope for justified counter-action was wide open. For me, based on a straightforward utilitarian and consequentialist position, pretty much everything was permissible for the Jews if, of course, it would have contributed to their safety as individuals and as a people. So, strategy aside, on what ethical basis, if any, are you objecting here? Why is it wrong? You have a dominant party aimed at destroying an oppressed minority. If anything they have an obligation to do everything possible to defend themselves, right? — Baden

Yes, their obligation is to defend themselves, and their existence is threatened. The Jews are very much at war here. There is, however, a just war tradition both in Judaism and Christianity which speaks to the necessity of differentiating between valid and invalid targets.

Don't get me wrong, there's an argument that everyone and everything on the opposing side is a valid, legitimate target. Lets imagine a 10 year old German boy in 1940 who goes to a corner store and buys a pair of shoes. Maybe the tax goes to to the war industry. Maybe even in 4-5 years that boy could be fighting in a Nazi uniform. There's a case to be made here for killing him if we're going by purely utilitarian grounds.

Still, the cost for indulging in this 'total war' or 'win by all costs' scenario is that you turn into the ******* devil. This kind of thing happens in war, but at the end of the day that 10 year German boy is really no different from a 10 year old Jewish one. When it comes to rioting, simply the fact that a German business exists doesn't provide grounds to destroy it. Destroying businesses can leave people homeless or unable to afford food or crucial medication. I can condone the destruction of certain German businesses but there needs to be sufficient reason.

American symbols like the flag or anthem don't have a sacred right to survive in perpetuity. They either represent Americans as a whole or they don't. And that's up to Americans and the various communities among them to decide. It's not long ago that the confederate battle flag was not seen as racist enough to be removed from Government buildings, but now it largely is. Shit changes.

Just saying that countries can always disappoint you. — ssu

If you're not prepared to be disappointed, and if you're not prepared for a massive reaction by Fox news-types, then you don't understand anything about anything.

American symbols like the flag or anthem don't have a sacred right to survive in perpetuity. They either represent Americans as a whole or they don't. And that's up to Americans and the various communities among them to decide. — Baden

So you think Americans will be divided by the use of flag? Putting the flag up on your home is a sign that one accepts systemic racism?

If you think burning a shitty piece of fabric is more important than the deaths of black people then you're well and truly fucked. Have you considered that what has 'divided Americans' is people dying and not some magic cloth? Or have you so throughly bought into Fox news propaganda that you have a genuine concern for that trash?

And the oodles of evidence for systemic racism?

I'm fine having a discussion about that, but what we're talking about now is the rioters and their own personal moral responsibility.

I said this earlier with Baden: Even Jews in 1935-1936 wouldn't have been justified in destroying local German businesses (ones unconnected with Nazism) because even in war there are valid and invalid targets.

Nobody will say: "Ok, we got the reforms we wanted." Nobody will be happy about the majority of people being against police brutality. Nope, it will go to a level of stupidity where some will see everywhere traces of systemic racism and will attack this systemic racism. So I guess soon burning the US Flag will be an act of protest against systemic racism and then flying the US flag will become a microaggression and racist. — ssu

I can see this being the case. Honestly, my point was that even if the rioters concerns are valid - and I have no problem with body cameras or better training for police or independent commissions going over police reports - there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to go about trying to achieve reforms. Even if the rioters consider this a war there are still valid and invalid targets in war.

If you think burning a shitty piece of fabric is more important than the deaths of black people then you're well and truly fucked — StreetlightX

Oh that's how you see it? Did I say that? You genuinely think that?

(Again, great moderation...)

I will respond to you: No, I don't think any piece of material, or statue or holy place is worth one single human life. Yet I do think we can value things what are our heritage. But that you juxtapose it so is a bit odd.

I said this earlier with Baden: Even Jews in 1935-1936 wouldn't have been justified in destroying local German businesses (ones unconnected with Nazism) because even in war there are valid and invalid targets. — BitconnectCarlos

Watch out that you don't get banned.

Watch out that you don't get banned. — ssu

I'd like to see them ban me for that I'm Ashkenazi Jewish with family killed in the Holocaust.

I can see this being the case. Honestly, my point was that even if the rioters concerns are valid - and I have no problem with body cameras or better training for police or independent commissions going over police reports - there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to go about trying to achieve reforms. Even if the rioters consider this a war there are still valid and invalid targets in war. — BitconnectCarlos

Humanity is something we can easily forget. We adapt perhaps too easily to things we shouldn't.

Perhaps more organized force is required for enduring change on the level rightly desired by the movement. — fdrake

How many years of merely symbolic protest must be endured? All it creates is minor collateral damage, leaving the conscience of every oppressor fundamentally unswayed. — fdrake

It is possible to radicalize your position as not sufficiently left.
Most of the existing political forces, leaders, big corporations, and the media have embraced the notion of systemic racism. Likely, they are not going to bring the necessary change in the American state. And, they won’t tolerate the emergence of the independent political force.

I'd like to see them ban me for that I'm Ashkenazi Jewish with family killed in the Holocaust. — BitconnectCarlos

That was a bad joke from me. They won't ban you. I trust in these guys.

Anyway, I'm off for now.

I said this earlier with Baden: Even Jews in 1935-1936 wouldn't have been justified in destroying local German businesses (ones unconnected with Nazism) because even in war there are valid and invalid targets. — BitconnectCarlos

And in 1939, 1942 or 1944? When exactly was it justified for them to attack the society murdering them with impunity?

Presumably, since you'd blame yourself if you destroyed and looted a local business then we can draw the conclusion that the rioters are also at fault. — BitconnectCarlos

No, I don't think so. Me blaming myself and us (as a society, or community) blaming others are two different things. Once we act as a community (you said 'we') we have to accept that we're as much part of the problem as the rest, because we're judging it at a community level. They can all blame themselves, and I bet plenty of them are doing so, but the only thing for 'us' to do as a community is ask "how the hell did we let things get like this?".

So you think Americans will be divided by the use of flag? — ssu

I don't know. It's possible. You'd have to ask them. But to me any flag is only as important and valuable as it's recognized as being so across different sectors of society as well as within them. If there's a schism on that then, yes, they'll be divided.

I'm Ashkenazi Jewish with family killed in the Holocaust. — BitconnectCarlos

I know you said you're Jewish, but even if you weren't I think I would see the general point of principle even though I thoroughly disagree with it.

And in 1939, 1942 or 1944? When exactly was it justified for them to attack the society murdering them with impunity? — Benkei

Was it the society or was the Nazi regime that was murdering them with impunity? If it's the entire society you should have no problem carpet bombing German cities which had no connection to the war effort. If you believe it's the Nazi regime you'd probably discriminate a little more and we can have a conversation over what constitutes a valid target.

I know you said you're Jewish, but even if you weren't I think I would see the general point of principle even though I thoroughly disagree with it. — Baden

Do you take the consequentialist view then?

Pretty much. I don't accept that targets like property or even civilians are absolutely out-of-bounds in a conflict situation, especially the one described where an entire people is under threat of being exterminated. The severity of the possible consequences justifies a proportionately severe response. But I'm not against certain rules applying to conflict per se.

E.g. on this:

If it's the entire society you should have no problem carpet bombing German cities which had no connection to the war effort. — BitconnectCarlos

If that would have stopped (or contributed to stopping) the holocaust, I would have been all for it. Done purely for punitive reasons, no.

And how are those means and capabilities comparable? We're talking not about foreign powers clashing but citizens being murdered by the society that's supposed to protect them. The ius in bello calculus becomes totally different. So yes, terrorist acts by Jews causing mass casualties among citizens who do nothing as their fellow countrymen are slaughtered would've been totally justified by the time they started the concentration camps.

I don't accept that targets like property or even civilians are absolutely out-of-bounds in a conflict situation — Baden

Just to be clear I'm not saying this either. I am saying that intentionally targeting civilians is wrong. Industries directly contributing to the war effort are valid targets. Civilians will always be killed in war.

If that would have stopped the holocaust, I would have been all for it. Done purely for punitive reasons, no. — Baden

If I can recall the bombings were done to destroy the morale of the population and to cower the enemy into surrender. Who knows maybe it helped in some marginal way by removing tax payers.

So yes, terrorist acts by Jews causing mass casualties among citizens who do nothing as their fellow countrymen are slaughtered would've been totally justified by the time they started the concentration camps. — Benkei

When I was younger I agreed with this, but in reality it would have just likely driven the German population closer to the Nazis and the Nazis would have heavily publicized it and used it as proof that the Jews were intent on destroying the German people.

From a moral angle I find pretty bad. It's not a crime to be a German civilian in 1942/1943. There's just such a large scale of guilt here ranging from babies and children up to the planners of the final solution and indiscriminate bombings of civilians group essentially don't acknowledge this scale of guilt. If we wish to apply morality to war at all that project should begin with the distinction between civilians and combatants - valid targets and invalid targets. Otherwise war is just murder and soldiers are just murderers.

I'm sure we agree on the egregious nature of racism, but if we don't agree on standard terms, we're just going to end up talking past each other. I can't force you to use the term in the standard sense, but it's going to be a mess of confusion otherwise. Your call. — Baden

I suggest that you guys look into it a bit closer...

I'm saying that racist belief is necessary, and is always an element within systemic racism, or institutional racism if you prefer. Isaac is disagreeing, and you seem to be in agreement with his take...

Do some homework.

It's important to keep what I'm saying in mind because doing so is necessary for changing some people's minds about it, and understanding others. Put it this way...

The breadth of the scope of diversity; the cross cultural teamwork; the many different united under one cause - to rid the nation of racism - did not come about from violence alone. Could not ever have done so. Rather, it came about as a result of shared belief. A shared rejection of devaluing another because they are black, of believing that it's ok to do so...

Yeah, you guys have fun... you're the boss here. I'm out.

I'm living it. I'm changing racist minds, and have been throughout my life. I've got a very good handle on the way things are and they way things work. I've helped by broadening the coalition in everyday real life... You guys do not even live in the States, so for all I know Street has some ulterior motive for wishing America to implode. Certainly fits what he's advocating here...

I've got better things to do, and will...

Thanks for the writing space, and you're welcome(assuming someone actually figures out what all I've done here). It's all yours... but it's really not.