About the current riots

[Waygeek]

Well, I lie. I did actually expect a thread, trying to pin the violence purely on antifa or something. But instead to see the topic ignored completely despite several US cities being in flames and multiple other related protests happening right now across the world sure is something.

I'll start I guess.

Spoiler: Graphic images

Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1267021883938988038

Shooting bystanders now. Shooting press. Fuck all police.

 

[leon315]

You mean American Civil war 2020?

 

[Waygeek]

It sure is looking that bad. Aren't their guns there to prevent tyranny? Well, I can say that what I'm seeing from the police very much looks like tyranny to me, maybe it's time citizens started firing back otherwise why have this legislature that has killed so many children.

 

[Hanafuda]

Pin the violence purely on antifa?? No, not purely.

 

[Fugelmir]

I saw the Chinese propaganda teasing the US about taking action against rioters while criticizing HK protests.

American folks need to train themselves be strong when conscription starts

 

[notimp]

Well, I lie. I did actually expect a thread, trying to pin the violence purely on antifa or something. But instead to see the topic ignored completely despite

I did make a thread about it earlier though.

We can go with yours though.

This forum in general is pretty 'so, so' when it comes to following recent political events. I've complained about it in the past as well. The general mode in here seems to be anything with Trump in it (or blatantly controversial), gets megathreads with 15+ pages, and on anything else - not so much.

But people in here are young, so thats not necessarily a negative. (Don't hold it against them. )

 

[izy]

meh politics and social unrest drama is everywhere not like a thread is needed

 

[leon315]

I saw the Chinese propaganda teasing the US about taking action against rioters while criticizing HK protests.

American folks need to train themselves be strong when conscription starts

I saw the USA propaganda teasing the China about taking action against rioters while criticizing USA protests.

Chinese folks need to train themselves be strong when conscription starts

Dude, see how It fits incredibly well, cauz it's the exact same things both gov did last week. lol

 

[LightBeam]

Reminds me of what happened in France, seeing that happening in the US also horrifies me, I see that a lot on Twitter. Tho imo people in the US are responding with more violence and I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.
And now I see people coming up to me and saying "what? You mean violence is normal?" Well yeah, the police act violently, people respond, I find it totally normal and understandable, I would even say inevitable. In France, the media hasn't stopped trying to make us believe that "violence isn't a solution, we're going to ban demonstrations because there are thugs, we have to go back to the democratic and republican debate" whereas as soon as people speak out in the street, boom in your face. There was once a grandmother who died while she was just looking out her window at the protest, because a cop shot her. When is that excusable? To shoot a grandmother who was watching what was going on outside her apartment? Do some people really expect that this won't lead to more violence?
Of course not, EVERYONE knows that people will want to become more violent after that, but it's just so they can say "ah but you're the one who came to hit me, so you can see we can't talk to you".
The more time goes by, the more I tell myself that this kind of bullshit can never be resolved without really, really going off the deep end. In the US it's always going faster than here, but if it's really going further in the US in terms of anti-police sentiment and revolts, it's going to go much faster in France too.

And there will always be people to say that if you have nothing to blame yourself for, you don't have to be afraid of the police, but if only that were true, then it wouldn't go that far...

 

[Fugelmir]

I did make a thread about it earlier though.

Dude see how it fits incredibly well?)

Chinese conscription never stopped.

 

[weatMod]

Well, I lie. I did actually expect a thread, trying to pin the violence purely on antifa or something. But instead to see the topic ignored completely despite several US cities being in flames and multiple other related protests happening right now across the world sure is something.

I'll start I guess.

https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1267021883938988038

Shooting bystanders now. Shooting press. Fuck all police.

press deserves to be shot though

 

[Taleweaver]

Erm... I'll play the cynic here : the police shooting black people, uproar about it and a president who stirs things up even is what I've come to expect from the USA.

Here's the news for the upcoming days on your local propaganda channel :
'the police acts in good faith'
'gun restriction is not the answer'
'the protesters are the reason our corona infection rate is so high'

 

[notimp]

press deserves to be shot though

Without press you get no 'impartial' coverage. Only pictures on twitter telling you the police shot a girl.

If thats what should drive societal change (pure emotionality condensed down to a subjective view, an image and 450 characters), we'd be changing very often..

Impartial doesnt mean 'always so', or that they have no opinion or bias, it just means, that they arent affiliated with the protesters, or police. And still report on stuff, because its their job - and not because, of a citizens duty, or something even more morally driven.

So no, press doesnt deserve to be shot. Its part of why protests even make sense. Otherwise no one would believe what the other side was asserting.


On rubber bullet to the head - if you compare that with police (= state) reaction to Vietnam protests in the 60s ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings ), democracies have come a long way.

Condensed: Mass behavior in crowds is not rational. Cant be reasoned with, stopped by arguing... So some element of 'force' is always needed if your sides job is to contain (different from supressing) it. In western europe police usually doesnt shoot, but uses human chains (signaling 'we are many as well'), transparent shields (circle in protest masses then push them back), teargas, and watercannons instead. No blood, same principle.

 

[JuanMena]

Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/i/status/1266917228752056320

Spoiler: Off Topic Dyslexia thingy

My fucking dyslexia is making me read OP's user name as GayWeek

 

[weatMod]

Without press you get no 'impartial' coverage. Only pictures on twitter telling you the police shot a girl.

If thats what should drive societal change (pure emotionality condensed down to a subjective view, an image and 450 characters), we'd be changing very often..

Impartial doesnt mean 'always so', or that they have no opinion or bias, it just means, that they arent affiliated with the protesters, or police. And still report on stuff, because its their job - and not because, of a citizens duty, or something even more morally driven.

So no, press doesnt deserve to be shot. Its part of why protests even make sense. Otherwise no one would believe what the other side was asserting.


On rubber bullet to the head - if you compare that with police (= state) reaction to Vietnam protests in the 60s ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings ), democracies have come a long way.

Condensed: Mass behavior in crowds is not rational. Cant be reasoned with, stopped by arguing... So some element of 'force' is always needed if your sides job is to contain (different from supressing) it. In western europe police usually doesnt shoot, but uses human chains (signaling 'we are many as well'), transparent shields (circle in protest masses then push them back), teargas, and watercannons instead. No blood, same principle.

MSM is nothing but lies and propaganda, ,in the age of live streaming we don't need them
the heads of the social media companies that keep deleting and censoring deserve to be shot too though

imagine a society with out police without BLM/antifa/sgitators and without the lying agitating media, i hope they all kill each other

 

[notimp]

Whos is this serving?
Who is this protecting?
https://twitter.com/i/status/1266917228752056320

As just stated, the polices job is not to protect in this case, but to assert coordinated 'counter pressure'.

Reasoning roughly goes, you dont want a mob 'ruling' parts of a town, or changing political structures. Really you dont.

But masses draw more masses, so letting that happen is important - because that - very strongly - signals to politicians, and other citizens, that 'something is wrong'.

Which is also why at some point, political leadership tries to 'dissolve' those mass events. But its too early for that at this stage. We should still be at 'containment' level strategies, which is fine. (Most mass events dissolve on their own once emotions could be discharged. People in power know that. Activists try everything on their side as well, to try to prolong the mass event (the longer it lasts, the more important it becomes) - "police so unfair, shooting at people buying groceries" is part of that narrative.

Thruth more often than not is - 'those situations get out of control - and when they do, even police stops acting rationally'.

Still most citizens would prefer, that there is some sort of police action. (vs. rioting, looting, ..)

 

[notimp]

MSM is nothing but lies and propaganda, ,in the age of live streaming we don't need them

You need impartiality. Streams will be edited down. Footage will be selectively selected and repackaged, then reshared via social media.

(No one in the end watched the entire live stream.)

You need someone whos job it is to do that without 'being for or against' something (per definition).

Media is corrupt and not needed is a simplification and overexagerration, that serves people that usually dont pay for media (cable TV doesnt count), so it works with them especially well - as its telling them, no - what you do is perfect and the right thing. You were right all along, dont change a thing.

Its not the tool (live streaming, ..) thats important here, its that you have 'someone' whos job it is to report 'impartially' (at least in their self image (code of conduct)). And its important that people believe in that as well (otherwise you have everlasting turf wars).

"You can believe what you see in a live stream, or on social media, or what feels right/true", is the more problematic notion.

Because people usually cant differentiate between PR and not-PR (even I have problems sometimes), and on social media, 'sensationalism' is the currency. Thats what gets you clicks, thats what gets you paid. With newspapers, there is at least a fraction of them (those that arent called yellow press or tabloids), that gets financing from readers wanting actual reporting and not just emotionality.

Democracy doesnt work without 'informed discussion' - and you need time for the 'informed' part to happen (everyone forming their opinion based on trying to deliberate whats best or true for them). Social media is almost the entire opposite. There you most often have 'how you should feel' in the title.

("Girl going shopping almost lost an eye.")

Thats not a replacement for media (process of trying to stay impartial and report on facts, as their job - if some outlet fails, and people notice, you have others, but at least the code of conduct needs to be there.)

 

[CMDreamer]

This site is not the place to discuss this matters, as doing it will not get us to a point where our comments will decide on it (sadly).
There are many other better places to do so, that would allow for a better and more productive interchange of thinking and ideas.

And no, I'm not saying that what is happening should be banned and ignored everywhere and that common justice shouldn't be the main goal of this all, but this place is not about political, social, commercial things, even though sometimes the subject appears here and there, the logs would show us that we got nowhere on those threads, but most of the time to a non healty discussion and some others even to the point where offending comments are made to hide ignorance and/or rage.

Even so, we must not become part of the problem just by writing/hiding behind our computer screens, we must be an active part of this justice-seeking-movement, that would for sure mean something more tangible and valuable than our typing fingers.

 

[weatMod]

You need impartiality. Streams will be edited down. Footage will be selectively selected and repackaged, then reshared via social media.

(No one in the end watched the entire live stream.)

You need someone whos job it is to do that without 'being for or against' something (per definition).

Media is corrupt and not needed is a simplification and overexagerration, that serves people that usually dont pay for media (cable TV doesnt count), so it works with them especially well - as its telling them, no - what you do is perfect and the right thing. You were right all along, dont change a thing.

Its not the tool (live streaming, ..) thats important here, its that you have 'someone' whos job it is to report 'impartially' (at least in their self image (code of conduct)). And its important that people believe in that as well (otherwise you have everlasting turf wars).

"You can believe what you see in a live stream, or on social media, or what feels right/true", is the more problematic notion.

Because people usually cant differentiate between PR and not-PR (even I have problems sometimes), and on social media, 'sensationalism' is the currency. Thats what gets you clicks, thats what gets you paid. With newspapers, there is at least a fraction of them (those that arent called yellow press or tabloids), that gets financing from readers wanting actual reporting and not just emotionality.

Democracy doesnt work without 'informed discussion' - and you need time for the 'informed' part to happen (everyone forming their opinion based on trying to deliberate whats best or true for them). Social media is almost the entire opposite. There you most often have 'how you should feel' in the title.

("Girl going shopping almost lost an eye.")

Thats not a replacement for media (process of trying to stay impartial and report on facts, as their job - if some outlet fails, and people notice, you have others, but at least the code of conduct needs to be there.)

"You need impartiality. Streams will be edited down. Footage will be selectively selected and repackaged, then reshared via social media."
this is exactly what the MSM does too thoug

 

[notimp]

"You need impartiality. Streams will be edited down. Footage will be selectively selected and repackaged, then reshared via social media."
this is exactly what the MSM does too thoug

Yes. Because people want the 3 minute version. (Thats what sells.)

Whats important is, that you have "someone that gets paid to do that, without being part of one side or the other" and that at least has a self image of "we are impartial (independent, ...)". And them openly saying so, and many people paying them for doing that, as a job.

Its not expected to always work. ("That is the paper (/online source) you can trust in".) So you need to have many of them. But all with this notion, that they will report impartially.

Or at least most.

If you're only making money on what gets most clicks - your reporting (and editing style.. ) will change. Which is why people giving money for the bundled 'service' (newspaper) is preferable over financed via an advertising model, or 'per story'. (Allows you to also report on things that arent popular.)


If one media outlet becomes "too popular", it gets more and more access to f.e. political power structures (think Marques Brownlee getting invited to industry events, and getting 'exclusives' before anyone else), which has an impact on their reporting (they dont want to loose that), you balance that out, by having many media outlets, not by calling them corrupt.

Issue - with craigslist having made those types of adverts free, and Google and Facebook hogging mosts advertising spending, newspapers are a dying breed. And with them dies (at least self asserted) impartiality.

Short: Its about the process. (Self image, having editors (multiple people that read a story for plausability, fact check)...), not about the tool, or if the end product is a 3 min video or not. (There are 3min videos, and 3min videos (quality).)