About the current riots

[Taleweaver]

Well yeah, sure. If we were to put away all our kitchen knives (and cut our balls while we are at it) we would experience less violence. If a rapists rapes your family member, you can also avoid any trouble by just letting it happen.
Please imagine you are a robber: would you rob a place which can defend itself rather than one that can´t? that´s why force is neccessary. it is a deterrence.

I'll take my chances of no rapists being anywhere near my neighborhood, let alone being interested in what money can buy him for far less hassle, struggle or problems.

Okay, I imagine being a robber. no problem. Again with the European mindset, though. No household can defend itself from me, which nullifies the reason of any house to defend itself. Which nullifies my reason to bring a weapon of any kind.
Oh, right...perhaps a given for you, but we've got a wealthfare system around here. That means that even if I don't have a job, I've got enough to eat and pay the rent (though the quality obviously would be less). So why am I risking that for a few trinkets I don't really need?

Yeah, and if there is no win-win situation due to high risks, there will be no investment.

True. But that doesn't invalidate my point in any way. In fact, it has nothing to do with my point in the first place.

The looters seem to be well-fed, especially the women. Being on food stamps in America far outcompetes being a rural person in China (of which there are still hundreds of millions). Yet, we don´t see looting as a mass sports in China. The culture is different and there is nobody willing to be blamed.

I wasn't talking about literal famine. They aren't heard. And more importantly: they don't feel like they matter.
I won't deny yer average Chinese guy isn't heard from either, and might be well below him. But I bet that if Jinping publicly speaks out against his people in the same way Trump does, there'll be rioting pretty soon as well (prime example would obviously be the Hong Kong situation)

Protesters can be pissed off. But destruction and looting cannot be excused.

Let me respond by saying this: the acts of destruction and looting shouldn't be the excuse to silence the voice of the people.

The far majority don't want to be out on the streets. They don't want to break social distancing, break curfew or raise a ruckus. They just want the behavior to change. And instead of addressing the nation, making promises of improvement, unitying the country and anything else that should be within the basic task package of a leader, Trump goes exactly in the opposite way, calling the protesters all sorts of names, hides from the people who got him elected and now threatens to bring in the army. That is NOT what the people want from him. And until he backs down, things will escalate. No matter what your or mine opinion is about it.

It is ironic that my view would be considered racist even though you are the one speaking of Untermenschen.

Hmm...I haven't read all the replies, so I'll just address the one I replied to again. I don't think it was racist but plain dumb. You think nazism and racism will soon lose their meaning, but my opinion is that fascist ideology is alive and kicking. Just because they don't use nazism phrases anymore (like 'untermensch') doesn't mean it's somehow not true or even that different.

Your approach is that of a caring mother who lets her child do anything, even when he destroys her home. It might be ok until a certain age. But there needs to be discipline at one point. I assume you see yourself as an "ally" (I love the word, reminds me of videogames). I suggest you watch the video about what happens to allies who give thumbs up to looters: they get their windows smashed in.

I read all sorts of stories of protesters. Cops who join the protest because they disagree with the situation. White women shielding black people from cops. Protesters who stop others from vandalizing. It's not the first protest march where a minority tries to steal the attention by breaking properties, and it won't be the last one. I would suggest you to watch similar video's, as I fear you see the entire protest movement as just an excuse to break stuff rather than send the message that this behavior of the cops (well...and I guess Trump's behavior in extension) simply will not fly.

 

[notimp]

No. Hell no. That is the reason the backward yokel police keep getting itself in this mess.

What is crowd mentality? "We feel strong, because we are many." Although most of it is psychological (crowd psychology), its physiological as well. Hormones are produced, its a high. A crowd wants to grow, nothing increases the crowds high more, than if it gets bigger. Out of this feeling of "we are stong", also grows behavior like rioting. People testing out borders, when rule of law temporary cant be enforced. Its fun. (Not for all people, but for some.) Its even a draw ('uh stuff is burning, lets go watch!), not for all, but for some. The crowd acknowledges that (fun), and doesnt stop this behavior from happening. Because the crowd wants to grow.

And the only ways you stop it, are:

1. You stop it from growing and let the emotionality 'discharge'. Hopefully without much damage to property (which is why you try to limit a mob to a certain area, and dont let it 'roam free').

2. You beat it down.

There is no "you talk to it, and convince it to go home", people in the crowd will literally rebell against the high ending.

Issue: As long as it is growing, the crowd feels as close to invincible as one can. And usually 'feels and acts as one'.

Compare it to some of the dynamics you see/feel at every popular concert in an arena, and extrapolate from there. (There people are mostly in it to feel a soft 'high' from 'we are one' - when you have rage discharging, emotional forces are a little stronger.. Protests have escalated past 'peaceful demonstrations' already, so now you are dealing with containment efforts.

Its the same everywhere in the world, for virtually any issue. That the police is seen as the opponent here, doesnt help, but its seldomly different regardless of why a crowd has stepped over to rioting. People want it to grow to feel better, and they decide anyone who tries to prevent that is the enemy in an instance. Its just how this pans out.)

Says that guy:

 

[smf]

2. You beat it down.

Again, completely the wrong attitude which will have the opposite effect & the dumb reasoning that got you into this mess. You can only talk people down from this, trying to apply pressure will keep it going.

All you're doing is trying to create a narrative of them deserving to be treated badly because of how they are reacting to you treating them badly.

There will be collateral damage, the "innocent" bystanders should reflect on how their behavior led to George Floyds death & therefore these riots. Maybe they could have done more to eradicate racism.

 

[notimp]

@smf
Yes. We agree on that point. You shouldnt beat it down. (Much too messy.. )

But here is the thing, the vietnam protests toppled over to popular movements, as you gave the movement their martyrs, which became vessels for popular stories, that told everyone 'now they are coming for our children, this is wrong, they (in power) are wrong'. From that point onward it was over.

The social movement won.

So, one has to acknowledge, that every social movement, experiencing itself in protest, also seeks out those 'public stories', to be effective.

("Girl was only going out to buy groceries, hit with rubber bullet, bleeding profusely, here is her image on twitter, its so wrong.")

So even your opponents would agree on not giving you more opportunities to collect those stories.

At least the educated ones. With Trump I'm not so sure. But we've established in here, that even the far right seems to have some intelligent people working for them, when it comes to twitter PR..

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Let my simply respond this statement:
"the acts of destruction and looting shouldn't be the excuse to silence the voice of the people."

They absolutely should be. If I see unacceptable behavior in my community (I am also part of a minority group) I will call it out and not join them if they continue. It is a civic duty. If your side plunders and destroys, and you join them anyway, you are part of it.
Anjem Choudary refused to denounce acts of terrorism, a female HK leader said the same to the face of a British reporter. Both cases are disgusting.

 

[notimp]

They absolutely should be. If I see unacceptable behavior in my community (I am also part of a minority group) I will call it out and...

Here is the thing though. This is how crowds behave, past a certain point of 'we all acknowledge, to meet and then disperse out of free will'. Its not people failing a morals check individually. It is that crowd thing. It always goes that way. (Even down to the point, where several people decide, that with no immediate consequences to fear, looting might be a thing to consider.)

So 'I'm shocked', also isnt quite the correct response. You see people that are 'free'ed' from their individual fears and social constraints (temporarily). They do what seems fun to them (or conducive to their emotional state), or what benefits them, or what attracts more people.

 

[Hanafuda]

Here is the thing though. This is how crowds behave, past a certain point of 'we all acknowledge, to meet and then disperse out of free will'. Its not people failing a morals check individually. It is that crowd thing. It always goes that way. (Even down to the point, where several people decide, that with no immediate consequences to fear, looting might be a thing to consider.)

So 'I'm shocked', also isnt quite the correct response. You see people that are 'free'ed' from their individual fears and social constraints (temporarily). They do what seems fun to them (or conducive to their emotional state), or what benefits them, or what attracts more people.

Not when they keep coming back to re-commit more violence, thieving, and destruction, on the 2nd and 3rd and 4th night and 5th night, etc. Then it is individual culpability. You went home, you slept, you came back for more. Even those who might claim they're only taking part in a 'protest' and ostensibly disavow any wrongdoing knew after that first night that they're helping to perpetuate a cover for the violence, thieving, and destruction.

 

[smf]

But here is the thing, the vietnam protests toppled over to popular movements,

Because of the way they handled it, which if Trump is anything to go by then nobody has learned anything.

If Trump turned round and said sorry and he would personally make sure racism was ended & made some big gestures, then it would disperse pretty darn quick. I don't expect that to happen though.

He's too busy stoking up hatred to improve his rating.

Meanwhile the police in the UK have been approaching the demonstrations with much greater tact, even though technically at least they are illegal under the current law that prevents more than six people meeting in one place. We had riots the last time the police shot an unarmed black man, racism is everywhere. How you deal with it makes a huge difference.

 

[notimp]

Not when they keep coming back to re-commit more violence, thieving, and destruction, on the 2nd and 3rd and 4th night and 5th night, etc. Then it is individual culpability. You went home, you slept, you came back for more. Even those who might claim they're only taking part in a 'protest' and ostensibly disavow any wrongdoing knew after that first night that they're helping to perpetuate a cover for the violence, thieving, and destruction.

Sure, but how do you differentiate (opportunity vs premeditated)?

Also to be clear, I dont say that its excusable - just that it is nothing to be extremely surprised about. If the enforcement would be working those people still have to be tried and face the consequences. Its just, that when it isnt working (and having mass protests in the streets means it isnt working (not enough police in town, no access to certain areas, ...)), that stuff kind of starts happening. First as an 'act of opportunity' maybe, from someone that just 'tried it', next you have people copying the behavior, and as you said, maybe people that come back for multiple nights in a row ("how much stuff is there still left on day three?" ).

So its not the specific protests fault.

Maybe it is individual morals failing, though. So you are right, and I am wrong on that one.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Because of the way they handled it, which if Trump is anything to go by then nobody has learned anything.

If Trump turned round and said sorry and he would personally make sure racism was ended & made some big gestures, then it would disperse pretty darn quick. I don't expect that to happen though.

He's too busy stoking up hatred to improve his rating.

Totally agree on him handling it like a moron.

Here is his alleged thought process, as far as people are leaking it through the grapewine. He banks on a public pushback, once the protests continue on for too long. It worked for Nixon.

Washington post says, it will not work for him this time:
https://outline.com/PvjVJh

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/02/law-order-wont-help-trump-win-reelection/

Current polling numbers are as follows:
Reuters/Ipsos-poll: A majority of 64 percent of US citizens are sympathizing with the protesters. More than 55 percent say that they are disapproving with how Trump tackles the situation. 40 percent of that strongly. A third of people polled still stands behind Trumps actions.

edit: Hey, police _are_ using them horsies.

 

[DripDrop]

You didn't find any because this is a Gaming Community website. There's no need or want for politics here. Take your arguments to Twitter, we don't want to see them.

 

[smf]

Not when they keep coming back to re-commit more violence, thieving, and destruction, on the 2nd and 3rd and 4th night and 5th night, etc. Then it is individual culpability. You went home, you slept, you came back for more. Even those who might claim they're only taking part in a 'protest' and ostensibly disavow any wrongdoing knew after that first night that they're helping to perpetuate a cover for the violence, thieving, and destruction.

Black people are no different to any other opportunistic people of any other color. So it's no surprise that crime increases during times of instability. Which is why you shouldn't give anyone a cause.

If you didn't do everything you could to stamp out racism then you're responsible for this.

This is why you need to end injustice & help people of all colors and walks of life, enjoy the same benefits you enjoy.

 

[FAST6191]

I guess I should say if people are going to be leaving building supplies around the place then barring any evidence gathering concerns I will volunteer to come along in the van and collect them. Could use a new patio in front of my shed.


Re: Robbers.

If you are scared enough that someone is going to kick down your door as you sleep and steal your TV and lady friend's valuables then I guess you can account for that the same way someone normally accounts for ninjas or whatever.
If you actually want to protect your stuff then watch the above as that is pretty much the case for every insurance report I have ever read or gone in to clear up after.

If you didn't do everything you could to stamp out racism then you're responsible for this.

This is why you need to end injustice & help people of all colors and walks of life, enjoy the same benefits you enjoy.

No u in colour? Though if the statement as a whole can be said as a rising tide lifts all ships then OK, and not everything has the same solution.

Anyway the first statement there is one I am going to have to disagree with.
There are any number of things one can do in society to. Sometimes it will conflict with basic principles, other times there is a line for how far you reasonably can be expected to take it.
Likewise 100% purity, coverage or removal or anything is rather difficult in whatever field you are in. Why not be satisfied with 95% gone, leave some to stand guard and go with the rest can linger on or die off but not really cause any great harm?

 

[notimp]

Ah, I see now, where the 'defund the police' demands come from.


They are really making up a dichotomy (one or the other), over social project spending and police spending. For whatever reason. (You can have both, you know?)

At least they are not dumb enough to demand 'community policing'. But this 'defund the police, and give the money to local community projects' thing is a nationwide talking point amongst activist movements.

I still maintain that that is 'designed to fail' as a demand. (You cant make one dependent on the other.)

 

[smf]

There are any number of things one can do in society to. Sometimes it will conflict with basic principles, other times there is a line for how far you reasonably can be expected to take it.

America doesn't come anywhere close to being reasonable.

Why not be satisfied with 95% gone, leave some to stand guard and go with the rest can linger on or die off but not really cause any great harm?

Don't complain when it does cause great harm then, you know the risks.

 

[notimp]

Ah, I see now, where the 'defund the police' demands come from.


They are really making up a dichotomy (one or the other), over social project spending and police spending. For whatever reason. (You can have both, you know?)

At least they are not dumb enough to demand 'community policing'. But this 'defund the police, and give the money to local community projects' thing is a nationwide talking point amongst activist movements.

I still maintain that that is 'designed to fail' as a demand. (You cant make one dependent on the other.)

Looked into who made up the dichotomy. Chomsky says the financial and political elites in the 40s. Faced with having to admit, that free market economies dont work without being subsidized/regulated, the US was confronted with two possible paths to take to prep up the system it promoted.

First one was social spending. Which had the negative side effects of boosting democracy (quote: people cared where the next hospital would be built) and direct participation.

Second one was military spending, where state subsidies, would flow directly into industry and no one cared about oversight (if sufficiently afraid).

So military spending as an option to 'redistribute' the right way (upwards, as Washington consensus (think Thatcher, worldwide) followed Bretton Woods) was chosen.

So military spending isnt equal to police spending, but then I presume, similar effects where in place there as well..

This I'm not sure about, since its new to me, but it sounds plausible enough.

src:

edit: According to Chomsky, same with computer technology, in the 50s about 85% of spending on computer development and lasers 'n stuff was subsidized through public spending. (Again, direct to private businesses, with the public not caring or wanting to get involved how it would be distributed.)

Same with the aeronautic industry, same with automation, the containerization (of trade?), machine tools, energy industry, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, tourism (as one of the few state subsidized service industries), ...

 

[FAST6191]

America doesn't come anywhere close to being reasonable.



Don't complain when it does cause great harm then, you know the risks.

What else is there required to reach reasonable in your estimation?

I do not desire harm. However I like to believe I know the practical realities of achieving harm reduction. If percentages are low then that is down to individuals and small groups, which are generally limited in scope.

 

[Pacheko17]

Please fuck off, leave our gaming forums out of this bullshit.
Also

Fuck all police.

Next time you're getting gangbanged or robbed, try calling batman since "MUH POLICE BAD"
Fucking ass. My family's best friend is a police officer and he'd do anything to save your life, I don't know how shitty american police is, but you're a fucking asshole.

 

[smf]

What else is there required to reach reasonable in your estimation?

What "else"? You sound like you're assuming you've even started.

The police force needs a complete overhaul. Too many of them escalate situations because they are too scared to deal with the situation. The institutional racism is clear.

You need to deal with the institutional racism in the mortgage lending industry, where black people are turned down for loans because they are trying to buy in white areas. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12552-019-09276-x

That is basic stuff, before we get into expecting people from deprived backgrounds to be able to compete in the work place.

You've fucked most of these people over before they were even born.

 

[SG854]

How is looting bringing justice for George Floyd and for Black people?

How is shooting and killing cops who might not even be racist bringing justice for black people?

How is killing Black people bringing justice to Black people?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/ktla.c...rge-floyd-many-of-them-african-americans/amp/

People say the riots are necessary to bring light to this issue. So how is rioters killing over a dozen people many of them Black will stop violence against black people?

They turned one single death, George Floyds and turn it into dozens of deaths. Isn't the point of protest and supposedly rioting to stop black people from being killed, so why are rioters killing innocent black people?

Is that how they send a message to stop killing black people by killing black people themselves? And protesters stopping firetrucks from reaching burning buildings they themselves set on fire, prevent help from reaching people in need killing innocent people in those fires.

What the fuck are the rioters setting buildings on fire and stealing electronics have anything to do with george floyd?

 

[smf]

How is looting bringing justice for George Floyd and for Black people?

It's not. But the looting will happen when people are protesting and people need to protest because how they've been treated.

It would be nice if looting didn't happen, but think of it as payback because you didn't do shit when you should.

Not all police are bad, protesters aren't bad. Looters are bad.