No.5308[Last 50 Posts]
File: 1590831213171.jpg (17.09 KB, 326x287, 326:287, 1563467981513.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
You can discuss what you want in this thread, but the main purpose of this thread is for support and love, because what's going on right now is awful.
I don't want to put it on /pony/ because I know it will turn political, so please just keep the main purpose of the thread in mind while you post here.
One of my online friends had to evacuate their home. They live in Minneapolis. In the state next to my own, in a town I have actually drove through a few times, there are riots. In big cities in my own states, there are riots and vandalizing.
Personally, I never liked the "at least we're not them" arguments.
Yeah, the cop who murdered that guy is a scumbag, and should be punished. Yeah, the guys who stood by and allowed him to do that are also scumbags, and should be punished. Yeah, the state that allowed a guy to continue to work despite his multiple instances of brutality should be punished.
But so should the people burning, smashing, and looting stores.
Wrong is wrong. If they burned down the murderer's house, or even went out and hung him from a tree old west style, I'd understand.
My problem here is, they're hurting innocent people. That isn't justice. That isn't a statement. That's just thuggery.
File: 1590869160680.png (165.5 KB, 492x697, 12:17, 1590765696931_waifu2x_art_….png) ImgOps Google
>>5313>My problem here is, they're hurting innocent people. That isn't justice. That isn't a statement. That's just thuggery.^this
Peaceful protesting is one thing. Looting, vandalizing, and committing arson are criminal acts and those who engage in them should thrown in prison. Especially when committed against completely innocent parties.
So far there hasn't been any violence where I live. But I feel safer now that I have a home-defense PCC with a red dot.
It's not the criminal acts I have a problem with. Sometimes, it is necessary to break the law.
To quote Thomas Jefferson; "When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty".
The problem is when it's targeted at innocent people. Fellow citizens who didn't get a say in whether or not that guy should be murdered, or whether or not the murderer should be punished.
Target the government, not local shops. >>5316
Looting, I'd disagree with. I do not consider theft to be a legitimate form of protest.
Rioting, I can agree with. But, only so long as that riot is directed at those who actually harmed you, not just private citizens who are ultimately innocent.
The videos my friend sent me are awful. It looks like a war zone or an apocalyptic scenario in Minneapolis. Everything's just on fire, and their not sure if they are going to have a home to come back to.
And then another friend said one of their friends in in the hospital from some riaters/looters.
Will throw in, there's a fair bit of information at this point to suggest some people [whether that be police or other political agitators] are trying to stir up the more violent rioting and general thuggery.
Should go without saying, but, don't fall for their bait. https://twitter.com/ali/status/1266622746571800576
File: 1590872882478.jpg (46.21 KB, 720x720, 1:1, 100714487_1015796092595651….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
These were all big businesses that are insured. They do not matter more than human lives, is the point.
This didn't just break out all of a sudden, despite how it may look that way to the privileged. This is something that has been threatening to boil over for years.
When people tried to peacefully protest, they were dismissed, insulted, vilified. It was pushed to this point and now it is unavoidable that we finally, seriously talk about the issues that have caused this.
Even if that were true [it's not] that's a completely garbage excuse.
These businesses are not who murdered this guy. They didn't do anything to you.
And, as to insurance, those fucks never pay out. Especially not now, thanks to the whole Corona thing.>This didn't just break out all of a sudden, despite how it may look that way to the privileged. This is something that has been threatening to boil over for years.
So, just because I happen to believe you shouldn't attack innocent people, I'm "privileged"?
I didn't think having basic human decency meant you're "privileged".>When people tried to peacefully protest, they were dismissed, insulted, vilified. It was pushed to this point and now it is unavoidable that we finally, seriously talk about the issues that have caused this.
And I can understand that. As I just said, in the same post you're quoting, "When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty".
So if you want to burn the courhouses and the police stations, you want to hang the murderer from a tree, you want to shoot the cops who defend him, I'd understand.
It's when you attack innocent people that I have an issue.https://thewashingtonsentinel.com/black-business-owner-sobs-as-his-business-is-burned-to-the-ground-by-minneapolis-rioters/
File: 1590873718917.jpg (66.95 KB, 621x634, 621:634, 1473668691261.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
How is stealing a big-screen TV for yourself a form of protest??? Seems more like a selfishly taking things that don't belong to you.
And what about the arsonists?>>5317>The problem is when it's targeted at innocent people. ...>Target the government, not local shops.
Oh yeah, I agree with that.>>5320>They do not matter more than human lives, is the point.
How is that related to anything? And I don't see these protesters practicing social distancing, so you can just as well say that they aren't valuing human lives.
I never actually said you were part of "privileged" people. If you understand that this did not break out suddenly without warning, then you are not part of the group based on what I said. I apologize for not making that clear.
It's not exactly like capitalist society isn't part of this system, though. It's not directly part of the problems with the justice system, but it is part of the larger overall systemic issues. >>5322
It's protesting income inequality, if anything. If cannot afford a TV despite working fulltime, then there's an issue with the system. Arson too is a protest against the system, depending on what you burn.
>>5323>It's not exactly like capitalist society isn't part of this system, though. It's not directly part of the problems with the justice system, but it is part of the larger overall systemic issues.
Like you say, it isn't directly a part of the problem here, so I can't help but find it a dirty justification.
I understand you
think it's an aspect of larger systemic issues, and therefor a legitimate target. But, nonetheless, given they weren't the ones who did any of this, and don't even support it near as I can tell, it's still hurting people who didn't do anything to you.
Kind of reminds me the arguments we heard from time to time in regards to 9/11 and similar events, honestly. Didn't agree with it then, certainly don't agree with it now.
>>5324>it's still hurting people who didn't do anything
Oh, I was only referring to the looting of businesses
. Any people actually physically injured by the riots are not justified and that is an unfortunate case. But as far as I can tell injuries to people have all been accidental or inflicted by law enforcement. I hope they recover soon.
I consider the theft of property to be harm.
Those are, after all, people's livelihoods.
I have to expect you'd probably agree if someone came and stole your computer or car or phone.
Target was not the only place effected.
I do not get why so many people trying to defend this stuff say this as though it is... It's really weird.
Anyway; Insurance companies hate paying out. Especially now, thanks to the Corona situation.
"Target" is just being used as a short-hand for all corporations that are not people. Because we have footage of Target being... targeted. But it applies to all businesses the same. They too, are not people.
Whether or not insurance companies don't like paying out is irrelevant. They should as this is just the type of situation those corporations were paying insurance fees for, and if they refuse then that's been the corporation and the insurance company. Insurance companies being shady is no reason to let them off the hook for not doing the one thing they are being paid to do.
Okay, but you are aware not every single business, certainly not every single one destroyed, is a corporation owned, yes?
It should surely not come as a shock to you that individuals
also own businesses, right?
>>5323>Arson too is a protest against the system, depending on what you burn.
So, to hell with anyone unfortunate enough to be burned alive in the buildings? Is that really your attitude?>>5325
So, you're fine with what happened to this small-business owner? https://thewashingtonsentinel.com/black-business-owner-sobs-as-his-business-is-burned-to-the-ground-by-minneapolis-rioters/
1. Not all of them will have insurance that covers something like riots.
2. Insurance companies have NEVER wanted to pay out, regardless of if it's big, small, individual, corporate, auto, disaster, or otherwise.
I can tell you as someone who has
had to go through that trouble, it was an exceptionally stressful experience, I got less than I needed, and I got it ages after I needed it.
Insurance companies are some of the worst companies in the world, frankly.
So, yeah, I think someone looking at completely unnecessarily smashed and destroyed property and says "Yeah, that's fine. Nobody's actually hurt by that", is a very callous individual.
File: 1590876135633.png (258.65 KB, 540x360, 3:2, rooftop-koreans-crop.png) ImgOps Google
Not all insurance covers rioters burning down your business. And if you get get fully or partially reimbursed, you still suffer for the opportunity costs of lost business. Not to mention that some business owners will lawfully defend themselves with deadly force against violent criminals who break into their business.
As they should. There is no justification for destroying the livelihood of someone who has not harmed you.
>>5334>So, to hell with anyone unfortunate enough to be burned alive in the buildings?
That's why I said "depending". No, any loss of life is a tragedy. But is there any reports of anyone dying in the fires? If there isn't, this is a non-sequitur. >>5336>>5335
It is unfortunate that things have come to this. But peaceful protests were ignored and vilified, leaving this as the only option. Anyone business will hopefully be able to be rebuilt, but this sends a clear, unavoidable message that things cannot continue they way they have.
There is absolutely no situation whatsoever that ever justifies attacking innocent people. At all. Period.
You want to say peaceful options were tried and did not work? Fine. I'll agree.
But that does not
mean you start attacking innocent people. That just makes you a thug.
Shoot the cops if you want. Hang the guy from a tree if you want. Burn down the police stations, the court houses, the government offices.
Don't start smashing and looting innocent people's stuff. That does not send a 'clear and unavoidable message' beyond "Hey, we're criminals who don't actually give a fuck about justice".
Which sure as hell will turn people against you.
File: 1590876691780.png (249.17 KB, 675x683, 675:683, 1456910454539.png) ImgOps Google
>>5339>But is there any reports of anyone dying in the fires? If there isn't, this is a non-sequitur.
I think it's like drunk driving -- even if you don't actually crash and kill anyone, there risk was still there. Arson always has the risk of killing someone unless you've thoroughly ensured that the building is empty, which these rioters haven't. >>5337>people causing fires, look like anarchists that are from out of state.
Hopefully the police will catch them and put in prison for a long time.>They said their own community was coming together this morning and helping to sweep up the streets, and their own house hasn't been destroyed
That's good to hear!
The reason they evacuated was because the building right next to their house, and one on the other side, got set on fire :/
Was scary shit; really reminded me of the CA fires. Broke my heart when they said they weren't sure if they would have a house to come back to in the morning.
File: 1590879434689.jpg (75.87 KB, 680x510, 4:3, 99084773_661719334392850_2….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
OP said things are getting too heated, so I'm not going to keep going in circles on this conversation.
I do hope that no people are physically hurt during all this.
Personally, I'd take a fist to the face or a broken arm over the loss of my livelihood and years of work any day of the week.
Wounds can heal, after all.
Hopefully, these riots do not go for much longer, so that heartless and cruel destruction of so much people've worked towards doesn't go on further.
File: 1590883155400.jpg (328.72 KB, 1280x675, 256:135, fs.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I live in Minneapolis (well, technically an adjacent city). Curfew starts soon, no one is allowed out (with some exceptions). My roommate tried to go shopping a few days ago, about everything was closed. I work overnight. We barricaded the entrances through the night shift, just in case. It was quiet, though -- I'm a few miles from the center of activity. I think the worst is over, although it might be moving to other cities.
File: 1590883178449.jpg (138.79 KB, 600x900, 2:3, warcraft_blood_elf_by_lena….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5339>But peaceful protests were ignored and vilified, leaving this as the only option.... this sends a clear, unavoidable message that things cannot continue they way they have.
Eh, I'd say that the looting and arson of innocent private businesses just diverts attention away from the police brutality. Like, before these riots, my outrage was focused on the police. Now, my outrage is also at the arsonists and thieves. It is unfortunate that the peaceful protesters don't try to stop the thieves and arsonists or even verbally condemn them. I suspect there are also agents provocateur
at play. Some people are even speculating that the police are in on it to make the protesters look bad.
God I'm sorry. Even though your not in the direct middle of it, it still fucking sucks that you guys are going through that.
My heart is going out to the people who feel empasioned about this, and I really hope that something good can come out of all this.
File: 1590889080822.jpg (30.94 KB, 640x480, 4:3, baby-snek-hatching.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
There was a peaceful [protest] in my city, until violence erupted. Some people set fire to a police car. The city Dept of Public Safety tweeted the following:
>today’s violence was committed by outsiders
>“It's a damn shame they took advantage of the death of George Floyd. This was a peaceful protest hijacked by a small group.”
>looting and rioting continue Downtown. For your safety, avoid the area.... Situation is still very dangerous.
The city has enacted a curfew from 20:30 to 06:00 this weekend. I was planning to go food shopping and go to the range tomorrow, but now I'm a bit scared. Maybe I'll just stay home. Maybe I'll start carrying when I go outside.
But it wasn't peaceful. That police officer has been reported for brutality numerous times before this.
Maybe we should appreciate that this didn't come out of nowhere.>>5350
If your outrage is focused on the protesters, it is misplaced. They are destroying things, not lives. The police are still far worse and who we should be blaming for this. This wasn't a one-off incident that exploded into violence suddenly. It's been here. It's been an issue. >>5346> so that heartless and cruel destruction of...
Merchandise. Possessions. Things. Stuff. All of which can be replaced. Lost lives cannot.
And that justifies it? Things are not free. They cannot simply be replaced in a day if you've not got the funds for it. I've worked my rear off to get what I have, and am working hard still in the hopes of getting to where I can operate my own shop.
I would be set back a good eight years at least if I lost what I've struggled so long for.
And for what?
To show how angry you are at someone else
? Because someone else
killed another person that I have no relation to?
You're going to hurt innocent people just because of something the government's done. You're going to attack people who've done nothing to you. Why?
The way it looks to me, the "why" is you don't give a damn about justice, and you're too cowardly to attack the people who actually wronged you. Just want to vent and rob from anyone who you can get your hands on, while pretending it's for a good cause.
>>5354>To show how angry you are at someone else?
Not a person
, a system
.>Because someone else killed another person
Because a police officer
used his position of power to murder a helpless black person. And it keeps happening
. And when we tried to protest peacefully, people dismissed us, vilified us, accused of us hating America. >You're going to hurt innocent people
Target isn't a person.
>>5355>Not a person, a system.
Then attack that government, instead of people merely living in it who've done nothing to you.
Don't torch someone's livelihood, someone's life's work, just because you're upset at something so vague as a "system".>Because it keeps happening. And when we tried to protest peacefully, people dismissed us, vilified us, accused of us hating America.
And so now, you give them reason to vilify you. You give them evidence to show you're a thug.
What logic is that?
If you can't be peaceful, I understand. If you want to string up the guy, you want to burn the police stations or courthouses, you want to fight back against the government, I'd get it. I'd have no complaints.
But, no, instead you attack innocent people. You avoid doing anything that'd bring about real change. No, no, better to make us go further
into a police state, where government is given reason to smash down on usurpers, and worse still the populace will cheer them on against you, as you've attacked that populace.>Target isn't a person.
And as already mentioned but so quickly ignored because of how inconvenient for you it is, Target was not the only place smashed.
>>5356>Then attack that government
They did. The police station was also destroyed. >If you want to string up the guy
It's not just about one guy.>you want to burn the police stations or courthouses
They did.>you want to fight back against the governmentThis is how you do that.>Target was not the only place smashed.Businesses
aren't people. Merchandise is not a person.
>>5358>They did. The police station was also destroyed.
Good on them, then. Stick with that stuff, instead of attacking innocent people.>It's not just about one guy.
Then string up the people who've wronged you, not innocent people.>They did.
Then, again, keep doing that shit, and stay away from innocent people>This is how you do that.
You're right. Attacking innocent people is cowardly, it is not how you fight back against a government. You attack the government instead.>Businesses aren't people. Merchandise is not a person.
So? They're owned by people, and as you said earlier, you'd be upset if you got your stuff robbed.
Is that where the line for empathy ends for you?
Do you only care if it's you, or people you support being hurt?
Do you just not care when it's someone else who's never wronged you?
>>5359>Then string up the people who've wronged you, not innocent people.
It's not about the individual people! It's about the system that empowers them! What, do you want us to kill every cop in the country? I know you'd be complaining about that if we did, but If the broken system is still in place, then they will be replaced with new cops and nothing would change. What you propose helps no one and only means protesting in a way thats easier for your to ignore.>Attacking innocent people is cowardly
Businesses aren't people. >Do you only care if it's you, or people you support being hurt?
I would care if police were consistently executing people of any color. Black people aren't the only people affected by police corruption. Hispanic people and other groups are as well.
What I'm NOT going to do is feel more empathy for a toaster or TV or any merchandise in a store than people being murdered.
That's a ridiculous idea I'm not even going to entertain.
>>5360>It's not about the people! It's about the system that empowers them!
And so you'll attack people who haven't
done shit to you, destroy the livelihoods of people who don't
do anything to you, and only give ammunition and support to that flawed system as they look for someone to protect them from you.> I know you'd be complaining about that if we did, but If the broken system is still in place, then they will be replaced with new cops and nothing would change.
If you think I'd be complaining about that, you know very little about me. I've always been a firm believer in the idea that the only way the government respects your right is if they fear
But, yeah. You're right. They'll replace them with new cops. New cops who are afraid
of overstepping their bounds.
New cops who know
if they get caught murdering someone like that, they'll
be the ones dead. Not just put on paid time off, not just put in prison even. Dead.
You think it's "easier to ignore" because you've not thought it through. People don't want to die. People don't want to put themselves at risk.
Take the fight to the people in charge, the people enforcing things, and suddenly a badge means jack shit. It won't protect them. They're able to be killed for the wrongs they commit. That'll change people far more readily than smashing up the property of innocents, and making those innocent people seek the protection of those in power.>Businesses aren't people.
Businesses are owned by people. Those are their livelihoods. You're looking at years of work. I'd rather lose my right arm than get set back ten odd years of my life due to the actions of some assholes.>I would care if police were consistently executing people of any color. Black people aren't the only people affected by police corruption. Hispanic people and other groups are as well.
And white people, yes. This is a problem. This is why I'm more than happy to say if you want to shoot the cops until the system changes, go for it.
Smashing the property of innocent people doesn't do jack shit to help.>What I'm NOT going to do is feel more empathy for a toaster or TV or any merchandise in a store than people being murdered. That's a ridiculous idea I'm not even going to entertain.
Yeah, this might come as a shocker to you, but, YOU CAN HAVE BOTH
You can say both
of them are scumbags.
The thugs looting and burning were not murdered. They sure as hell weren't murdered by the businesses they're destroying.
I don't have to have sympathy for them, to have sympathy for people who are actually
victims. Be they murdered by a corrupt cop, or someone who's had their life work destroyed by scumbags happy to stand on corpses to be able to steal and rob to their hearts' content.
File: 1590896515014.jpg (82.04 KB, 921x744, 307:248, 2c36fd66489a84b6745e4dc653….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5353>But it wasn't peaceful.
I accidentally a word. I meant to say "There was a peaceful protest
in my city, until violence erupted.">>5353>If your outrage is focused on the protesters, it is misplaced.
It's focused on the thieves among the protesters. Many of the protesters are law-abiding or only target the police. Those who criminally injure innocent people (either financially or physically) are a rightful target of outrage.>They are destroying things, not lives.
For various purposes (e.g., cost of highway safety improvements), the value of a human life is assigned a value of around $5 million, give or take a few million. Very roughly speaking, each $5 million worth of the damage that the rioters do is equivalent to one lost human life.
That's irrelevant. You could prevent someone from dying by buying them $20 worth of groceries.
The point is, a human life cannot be replaced, so it's pointless to try and put a dollar amount on it. Merchandise and property CAN be replaced.
Not without a supply of hard work. That's the trouble.
You're having thugs destroy people's livelihoods because they're mad at a "system" that those people are no more a part of than any other citizen. Than the protesters themselves.
But, it's okay to hurt people, as long as it isn't your team.
File: 1590900941933.png (70.96 KB, 1200x1659, 400:553, 1590624149599.png) ImgOps Google
>>5365>The point is, a human life cannot be replaced, so it's pointless to try and put a dollar amount on it.
It's not pointless. The government and health insurers set a limit on how much money they're willing to spend to save 1 human life.>Merchandise and property CAN be replaced.
So what? If I come to your home and steal all your stuff, is it okay just because it is property that can be replaced? Of course it's not okay. Please try to have some empathy for people who are victims of these violent thugs.
And apparently protesters are not content with property damage anymore. Now they're beating people almost to death:
(content warning: graphic violence) https://twitter.com/LibertyHangout/status/1266926402269523969
File: 1590902123833.jpg (192.21 KB, 970x598, 485:299, 1519746177660.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
What difference does that make? Business are ultimately owned by people. Stealing from the business is stealing from the owners of the business.
And many businesses are sole proprietorships. Stealing from the business is stealing from the human being who owns the business.
This guy did a pretty good breakdown on how I feel. Little more leaning towards legality that I don't care about so much in so far as government targets are concerned, but, other than that, pretty solid.>>5369
So, if I start selling things I make online, is my property suddenly forfeit? People are allowed to just rob me, and me saying that's wrong isn't allowed any more?
File: 1590910684643.jpg (380.11 KB, 1440x810, 16:9, bostonteaparty.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
America is a direct product of violent protest and calculated destruction of property. No tears shed for the innocent British merchants who had their merchandise destroyed?
As I understand it, the tea's a bit different, as that's effectively state-owned due to the way things worked at that time as far as shipping products like tea went.
This said, as it pertains to other shopkeeps and general dissidents towards the idea of revolution, or otherwise peaceful crown loyalists, the attacks against them were completely unjustified and thuggish behavior. The people who did it should have been punished, and the shopkeeps would've been well within their rights to shoot those who'd destroy their livelihoods dead for it.
Oh, also, something being done a long time ago isn't really a good argument for it being done again. I mean, slavery was practiced in the past, after all.
File: 1590930535911.png (246.51 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, fs3.png) ImgOps Google
Oh, thanks. With 4,000 national guard troops enforcing curfew, it was a quiet night in Minneapolis. (although that it takes such a force, I don't know what that means). At work although few employees showed up to work, nobody encroached through the night (except police poking around at one point).
I find I keep telling people I bet the worst is over, and am met with doubt.
Posting stuff like this because I have nowhere else to post it:https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/gu5yru/us_security_forces_hunt_down_journalists_covering/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Reporter getting maced and ushered away. They're not allowing press to cover what they're doing right now.
From what I've seen, a lot of the 'outside instigators' are antifa types.
I've yet to see any evidence that white supremacists are doing it. But, besides that, there's quite clearly plenty of black people joining in regardless through many videos of the situation.
If nothing else, they need to better police their own, and take their riots to government targets as opposed to marching through commercial areas.
>>5378> The initial destruction of an Autozone came from someone who's been identified as a cop.
Are you referring to this https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/officer-jacob-pederson-protests/
Yeah, that's the bit that's been floating around. It's admittedly unproven, but I don't know if there's any way to get more evidence on that outside of the guy coming forward, which he has no reason to do.
There's enough suspicion around it that I'm taking it at face value, though. The police saying "No, it wasn't us." is kind of expected regardless. If they actually give out more information and identify the guy, maybe I'll change my mind.
File: 1591032931070.jpg (70.59 KB, 600x591, 200:197, 1435275209734.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Nobody is claiming that businesses are people. Would you be fine if looters went to your home and stole all your furniture, because items of furniture aren't people? People own businesses just like they own furniture.
What they said.
It doesn't justify it. It differentiates it.
Stealing a TV from a store is bad. Stealing a TV from a home is worse. You seem to be arguing as if they're the same, but they're not.
What justifies theft of a store's property is that it's probably the only way to make things happen. The people in Minneapolis who burned the police station...there's NO WAY they could have done that as their first move. Looting and burning stores (whether disguised cops started it or not doesn't matter) showed the police they were serious, and intimidated and confused the police. It also showed fellow prospective protestors they were serious, drumming up momentum.
If they went straight for the police station, they would have been too predictable, so the police would be more willing to fight and arrest instead of abandoning the station. And they would never get an opportunity to show how serious they were without, like, trying to charge into the station and just getting killed.
Stealing from businesses may be bad, but it's justified when less severe actions will get you ignored and more severe actions will get you killed.
>>5391>Nobody is claiming that businesses are people.
But then:>>5321>So, just because I happen to believe you shouldn't attack innocent people, I'm "privileged"?>>5324>it's still hurting people who didn't do anything to you.>>5340>There is absolutely no situation whatsoever that ever justifies attacking innocent people. >>5354>You're going to attack people who've done nothing to you. Why?>>5356>hen attack that government, instead of people merely living in it who've done nothing to you.>>5356>But, no, instead you attack innocent people. >>5359>Good on them, then. Stick with that stuff, instead of attacking innocent people.>>5359>You're right. Attacking innocent people is cowardly, >>5361>And so you'll attack people who haven't done shit to you>>5366>But, it's okay to hurt people, as long as it isn't your team.>>5386>All the more reason to target them instead of innocent people.
You and other people in this thread keep talking about the looting and destroying of businesses
as if they were people. No matter how many times I point out that businesses are, in fact, NOT people.
File: 1591037484321.jpg (104.03 KB, 800x1066, 400:533, 1428998570205.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5395>Stealing a TV from a store is bad.
OK, good, I'm glad you've finally admitted that.>>5395> Stealing a TV from a home is worse.
Yes, I agree with that. >You seem to be arguing as if they're the same
No, I was just arguing that stealing a TV from a store is bad in an absolute sense, not that it has the same badness as stealing from a home.>>5395> it's probably the only way to make things happen. The people in Minneapolis who burned the police station...there's NO WAY they could have done that as their first move
I disagree on that. And maybe that is the main source of our disagreement on the looting. In war, sometimes collateral damage is inevitable. If you think the people injured by the looting are collateral damage that is inevitable, I guess that explains your attitude. But I think that the looting is not only unnecessary but counterproductive.
I'm not other people. That was my second post. (This is my third.)>If you think the people injured by the looting are collateral damage that is inevitable, I guess that explains your attitude.
What I think is that if a riot in my city got my own front window broken but also got a violent cop prosecuted, I'd be happy with that trade; and that I'd hesitate to trade away the windows of all the homes on my street, but I wouldn't hesitate to trade away the windows of every Target in my city.
Collateral damage has gotten super messy though. I saw a homeless guy in Dallas get his mattress burned. The guys who did it didn't look like disguised cops the way the AutoZone guy did. THAT is a completely unjustified act. BUUUT, I wouldn't want the crowd losing any energy over worrying about it. Two guys were responsible, and the other dozens or hundreds should not feel guilty just for being in the same crowd.
File: 1591042183044.jpg (101.46 KB, 1024x683, 1024:683, hedgehog_148287840.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5398>I'm not other people. That was my second post. (This is my third.)
Oh sorry, I absentmindedly thought you were the same poster as Courteous Dove.>>5394
So, Courteous Dove, do you agree with us that it is bad to steal TVs from stores (even though not as bad as stealing from homes)?>>5398>What I think is that if a riot in my city got my own front window broken but also got a violent cop prosecuted, I'd be happy with that trade; and that I'd hesitate to trade away the windows of all the homes on my street, but I wouldn't hesitate to trade away the windows of every Target in my city.
I guess I just don't see how that trade would happen. In terms of public support, I'd say that looting and vandalism of innocent parties decreases
public support.> I wouldn't want the crowd losing any energy over worrying about it.
If I were organizing a protest, I'd try to put a good amount of effort toward arresting any bad eggs and agents provocateur
who commit crimes against innocent parties. It is unfortunate, but they really do draw a lot of public attention away from the message of the peaceful protesters.
Sure, I'd say it's worse to steal a TV from the home of an individual than from a big, insure corporation.
I never said looting wasn't morally bad. Just that it can be justified as a form of protest.
>>5399>I'd try to put a good amount of effort toward arresting any bad eggs and agents provocateur who commit crimes against innocent parties.
That's a fast way to shut the whole thing down. There's no way for the protestors to have complete ideological unity. When someone joins a protest, they see a lot of strangers whom they expect to be on the same side despite their differences. If they see protestors stopping another protestor, most people are going to see that as protestors turning against each other, even if they weren't planning on doing anything like the "disapproved" action.
It's not about the specific rules, it's about a sense of stability. People joining protests already feel unsafe from the cops. They absolutely cannot afford to also feel unsafe from their fellow protestors.
I saw a video of a guy who looked a little suspicious, who pulled out like a hammer and chisel or something, and started breaking up a curb. The protestors grabbed him, yelled "ARREST HIM", and threw him at the cops. If I were there, I would have thought he kind of maybe looked like a cop, but I would not have handed him over to the cops, because if he turns out not to be a cop, then he is going to SUFFER, greatly, for a bit of property damage.
Destroying the property and livelihood of innocent people hurts innocent people, yes.
If I went to your house and torched all of your stuff, would you not be harmed by it?
File: 1591047111739.png (383.09 KB, 586x1000, 293:500, 1537564689771.png) ImgOps Google
>>5402>There's no way for the protestors to have complete ideological unity.
Yes, but ideological unity isn't needed. If a protest is set up as a peaceful protest without any property damage or other unlawful violence, I don't think it's too much to ask that people follow those basic ground rules.>a guy ... who pulled out like a hammer and chisel or something, and started breaking up a curb
People like him are the main reason why I don't join protests. Many protests are peaceful and unmolested by the police until people start vandalizing property. I'd like to show my support for stopping police brutality, but I don't feel safe joining a protest knowing that it is likely to turn violent.
They're owned by people. Destroying the property of innocent people hurts them. Shouldn't be done.>>5395
I disagree. I think stealing a TV from a home is just as bad as stealing it from a business.
These are people's hard-earned property, after all. >What justifies theft of a store's property is that it's probably the only way to make things happen.
Leaving aside the morality of it, and how destroying innocent people's property doesn't do a damn thing to avenge Floyd's death, there are flatly more of you than there are the police and the police are ultimately going to look pretty shitty if they start opening up lethals on a crowd of protesters.>. It also showed fellow prospective protestors they were serious, drumming up momentum.
It also showed people not part of the protests or whom had property at risk of being destroyed that these riots are a direct danger to them.
Suddenly you had bystanders and supporters from the side change tune, and say while George Floyd's murder was bad, they need police to end these riots before their life's work is destroyed.
What you've accomplished here was not to gain support or do anything that changes the world.
What you've done was give the police
support to crack down on you.
You've made people who are at risk of your actions, who never touched you before and were completely innocent, now have to beg for police action to save what they've worked so hard to get.>Stealing from businesses may be bad, but it's justified when less severe actions will get you ignored and more severe actions will get you killed.
Guarantee you if everyone showed up with a rifle in their hands and marched on that station, the police'd run away.
Given you have that option, none of the actions are justified, even slightly.
What I think is that if a riot in my city got my own front window broken, I'd be afraid, and actively calling for the police to crack down on the riots, if not taking up arms to protect my property myself.
This is the problem.
If you wanted to shoot at the police, burn down the police stations, trash the government offices, even loot the courthouses, I'd understand. I might have a few critiques, but I wouldn't have moral opposition to it.
The problem is right now, what they're doing is directly immoral
The ends do not justify the means. Attacking innocent people is flatly unjust.
It demonstrates that you do not care about justice at all.>>5400
Not all the places looted or destroyed were corporations.
I don't get why so many people assume that is the case.
Like, you guys are aware private businesses exist, right? And even a lot of corporations are owned by franchisees.
I could see looting as a legitimate form of protest if the individuals you were looting from directly harmed you. But, as far as I can see, most if not all the places targeted were completely innocent.
That guy wouldn't put you in danger. The people who grabbed him would put you in danger.>>5405>the police are ultimately going to look pretty shitty if they start opening up lethals on a crowd of protesters.
Well fuckin forgive these people for not wanting to die. My whole point is that they're doing everything they can to attract attention without having to die.>Guarantee you if everyone showed up with a rifle in their hands and marched on that station, the police'd run away.
Maybe. But that wasn't even considered, it seems. Maybe not enough people have them. I'm against gun control, but if the guns are already too scarce then they're already too scarce.
>>5406>I could see looting as a legitimate form of protest if the individuals you were looting from directly harmed you.
Capitalist society and what it has wrought HAS directly harmed them. These are the poor and disenfranchised that the system has ignored at best and disposed of at worst.
Private businesses and franchises are still insured.
File: 1591047936658.png (248.77 KB, 700x850, 14:17, farmer-girl.png) ImgOps Google
>>5405>I disagree. I think stealing a TV from a home is just as bad as stealing it from a business.
Stealing a TV from a business deprives the owners of the business of the fair-market value (FMV) of the TV.
Stealing a TV from a home deprives the owners of the FMV of the TV plus
it deprives them of the utility that would receive from watching the TV plus
it violates the sacredness of one's home ("a man's home is his castle").
So I'd say that stealing a TV from a home is worse in magnitude.
If I saw protesters stopping the looters and vandals, I'd be more likely to join them.
As is, I do not see it as a legitimate protest. I see it as people taking advantage of the situation to give way to greed and desires for violence.
I think the guys grabbing the pavement breaker were doing the right thing. I think the movement needs more of that. Then, maybe we'd actually see resistance to the police push in a lot of these areas.
Maybe we'd actually see people rising up when police go through neighborhoods and shoot paintballs at people on their porches, instead of so many people saying that's necessary because otherwise the rioters'll burn down the entire town.>>5407>Well fuckin forgive these people for not wanting to die. My whole point is that they're doing everything they can to attract attention without having to die.
Okay. I understand. They're cowards, then.
I'm not going to support cowards who choose to attack innocent people instead of the guys who wronged them because they're too afraid. That makes them just look worse.>Maybe. But that wasn't even considered, it seems. Maybe not enough people have them. I'm against gun control, but if the guns are already too scarce then they're already too scarce.
There's always today.
I don't think guns are particularly scarce. And so long as you've not got a felony record, it should be no problem getting one.
Government only respects your rights when they fear you.>>5408
I disagree, and I think standing on the death of an innocent man by police brutality to try to push a communist narrative is exceptionally scummy.
Especially considering that kind of mindset is definitely going to make nothing change.
That kind of mindset's going to force people to choose between a system that's done pretty well, and a system that's failed every single time it's ever been tried to brutal, disastrous effect, with a particularly harsh set of unjust treatment in each regime no less.
I think you'll find the majority of Americans are ultimately capitalists, and are not inclined to suddenly turn towards abandoning that because some violent thugs are attacking them.
File: 1591048028565.jpg (44.07 KB, 680x507, 680:507, e9f86ce04f3006cd4a5e170aaa….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5407>That guy wouldn't put you in danger.
Not directly. But people like him are what cause the cops to use force to break up the protest.
I would disagree.
To start with, I tend to dictate morality based on flat principle, not value. Stealing itself is wrong.
But, besides that, it's not just the 'fair market value" lost. It's the investment.
A private citizen just living in his home does not buy a TV with the expectation of it recouping his costs.
He buys it with the expectation that it will be a part of his home for his entertainment.
It is not his work, it is not his job, it is not what he relies on to make his money.
This is not the same for a business. That TV stolen was the means by which that business survives. By which it makes its money. By which the owner pays his rent and buys his needed supplies.
From a value argument like that, stealing a TV from a business is worse
. The homeowner relies on the TV only for entertainment. The business owner relies on the TV for his income.
>>5410>I'm not going to support cowards who choose to attack innocent people instead of the guys who wronged them because they're too afraid.
Then you're asking them to lay down their lives to protect buildings. >Government only respects your rights when they fear you.
Why don't you understand that the government fears looters?>>5411
Is that what made the cops shoot a marking round at some white people on their front porch in Minneapolis? Or smash milk and steal water at a completely un-destroyed park in Louisville?
>>5413>Then you're asking them to lay down their lives to protect buildings.
I'm asking them to lay down their lives for justice.
Attacking innocent people is the opposite of justice.>Why don't you understand that the government fears looters?
Because I do not believe they do.
I do not believe the government cares ultimately about the fate of private citizens. This is why police only bother protecting their own in times like these, while telling shopkeepers 'tough luck'.
Besides that, government directly benefits from looting, as people suddenly beg for help, and they can go about exercising far more severe powers that would've been unacceptable before.
Looting puts people on the side of the government against the people who are hurting them.
File: 1591048662115.png (452.35 KB, 1056x1486, 528:743, 1484529212101.png) ImgOps Google
>>5410>And so long as you've not got a felony record, it should be no problem getting one.
Unfortunately there are many other potential disqualifiers under 18 U.S. Code § 922. E.g., use of medical marijuana, even in compliance with state law, also makes one a prohibited person. It would be nice if the Supreme Court strikes down § 922 as unconstitutional, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.
>>5413>Is that what made the cops shoot a marking round at some white people on their front porch in Minneapolis? Or smash milk and steal water at a completely un-destroyed park in Louisville?
This is what I mean.
If the protesters only went out after government targets, this would be horrifically
But because people are worried about rioters destroying their stuff and physically attacking them, they're giving government a pass to do shit like this.
Government attacking you for being on your own private property should be unacceptable. It should be grounds for revolution.
Instead, because people would rather smash up shops and stealing themselves a TV, you're making people say that's necessary.>>5415
The supreme court isn't exactly reliable on these things, sadly.
The whole drug war thing should've never happened in the first place. It's covered head to toe in unconstitutionality. But, here we are.
You have some good points. But if I owned a TV store, I'd much rather that someone stole one
TV from my store than stealing my one
home TV. On the other hand, I'd rather have my home TV stolen than lose my store's entire inventory
A TV stolen from my home doesn't put me at risk of being unable to pay for my necessities.
I'll grant that's unlikely with only one
TV. But, it still sets me back further than something I can replace at any time when it's comfortable to do so.
I don't need
a TV at home, after all.
>>5413>Is that what made the cops shoot a marking round at some white people on their front porch in Minneapolis?
Yes! Not directly, by via a chain of causation, as Courteous Squid alluded to in >>5410
:>Maybe we'd actually see people rising up when police go through neighborhoods and shoot paintballs at people on their porches, instead of so many people saying that's necessary because otherwise the rioters'll burn down the entire town.
File: 1591049890588.jpg (45.82 KB, 598x424, 299:212, Chess_Cat.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5413>smash milk and steal water at a completely un-destroyed park in Louisville?
I just read about that now. The protesters would have been within their rights to arrest the police involved for destroying their private property. This brings up an interesting question: What do you when the municipal police officers are
the criminals? I guess try to turn them over to the county sheriff or the feds?
There's unfortuantely a large pile of legal protections for police, between legislation making them essentially immune from lawsuits, to unions putting pressures on departments to avoid prosecution, to the simple way the other police treat their own.
It's something that needs to be changed. As to what to do now, I'm afraid I don't know if there is anything.
My recommendation is drive them off, with arms if you have to.
>>5414>I'm asking them to lay down their lives for justice.
I understand that. But given a choice between one action that could risk lives and one that probably won't, if they're both for the same cause and I don't believe the latter will be totally useless, I'll go for the latter.
In fact, I don't even want the cops to get killed. If protestors showed up armed with lethal ammunition, then if just one person fired a shot no matter which side, people on both sides would die. Instead, looting and burning shops has led to people burning police stations and cop cars without bloodshed, and I think that's fantastic.>I do not believe the government cares ultimately about the fate of private citizens.
Well, I believe the government is owned by rich private citizens. I'm anticapitalist but you don't have to be anticapitalist to agree.>>5416
I think there are a lot of people who think shooting people on their own front porch, ripping off a mask to spray someone more effectively, and smashing milk and stealing water, are unacceptable no matter how bad the looting is.
I think there are a lot of people who think those things are to be celebrated no matter how peaceful the protest is.
And perhaps there's a third group who thinks those things are bad when it's peaceful but necessary when it's looty.
The first group is being swayed right now, because they didn't think the cops would do it but they're seeing that they totally would.
The third group might have been swayed better if the looting wasn't as bad, but at the cost of making the signal quieter for the first group.
I can understand the cold rationality of that choice, but if you do make that choice, and claim to be fighting for justice, I'm going to call you a liar, as what you're doing to achieve your justice is inherently unjust.>In fact, I don't even want the cops to get killed. If protestors showed up armed with lethal ammunition, then if just one person fired a shot no matter which side, people on both sides would die. Instead, looting and burning shops has led to people burning police stations and cop cars without bloodshed, and I think that's fantastic.
I'm very much the reverse.
If those who are not innocent get hurt or killed in the process of fighting for justice, that's still miles better than innocent people getting hurt.>Well, I believe the government is owned by rich private citizens. I'm anticapitalist but you don't have to be anticapitalist to agree.
It is, to a degree. But I'd remind you, those rich guys are not the kind to be running shops.
Shops are hardly the target at that point.
Go for the traders and the bankers if you want to make that case. Target doesn't really have much power.>I think there are a lot of people who think shooting people on their own front porch, ripping off a mask to spray someone more effectively, and smashing milk and stealing water, are unacceptable no matter how bad the looting is.
I agree. I'm one of them.>The third group might have been swayed better if the looting wasn't as bad, but at the cost of making the signal quieter for the first group.
There's more of the third group.
And as to the first, many of them are people like myself, who are also saying the looting is unacceptable.
You say it makes the "signal quieter" for the first group there, but it doesn't just do that.
Those people are people with morals and principles, after all.
I hardly think they're going to look kindly to thugs and brutes running around hurting innocent people, regardless of if they're police or rioters.
The only group you really appease is the guys who praise rioting and wanton violence of innocent people, and those guys are frankly bad people.
I understand. I disagree, and I know people who suffer from their actions as well as justice-minded folk will also be unhappy with it. Especially given how unnecessary it is.
People die all the time.
People die from fatty foods or dangerous hobbies.
That's not wrong. That's their choice.
What matters is the how. It's the actions that are a problem. George was murdered. If he died in his home of a heart attack, nobody would care.
File: 1591060112137.png (187.22 KB, 350x450, 7:9, Sad shy 4.png) ImgOps Google
when peaceful protest becomes impossible, violent protest becomes inevitable.
i do not support the riots, but i understand where they come from. when anger boils over, it boils over. i have been in on the ground floor, i am watching this happen all around me. i have been targeted for police before, for no good reason. i have had police lie in court, under oath, and then blush and shrug when caught.
Let me tell you something about peaceful protests. i am watching, in broad daylight, peaceful protesters and news media personnel beaten with sticks and shields, knocked violently to the floor, shot with rubber and paint bullets, and run over by vehicles
Looting is selfish, sure. But riots? Riots will happen when there the public feels there is no recourse for reform but revolution.
You want peaceful protests? Stop shooting people walking in the street, or drive by gassing people with pepper spray. And if you do that? Expect riots - that's what happens. It's not a matter of these selfish rioters - it's a call and response. The instigator must get the blame, and must bear the responsibility, especially when that instigator is the one with the keys of power, like the police.
i have friends in the Bronx and Brooklyn who cannot even go to get their groceries right now, some having been smacked around for no good reason by police - they aren't even protesters, and this is broad daylight.
We can condemn the riots and the looters, but to call the looting the primary issue is silly. Until we see real police accountability, this will continue
Maybe we could all just sit around in a park, and be quiet, and call that a protest. But how many of those have there been? there was a very big one today, apparently, that nobody heard about. How little has changed? i cannot support violent protesters, but i can sympathize with them, in a way that i absolutely cannot for the police, who have acted like barbarians for far too long, without accountability.
File: 1591060136698.png (127.97 KB, 634x356, 317:178, Cute Fluttershy Smile.png) ImgOps Google
also hehe, i get to be lackadaisical pegasus. that is me.
Rioting distracts from the issue and gives police the support of people who are not a part of those riots. That is the trouble.
You would not have as much public support for police cracking down on these riots if they only ever targeted the police and the government.
But, right now, people are afraid of their stuff getting destroyed. Of their livelihood and life's work being ruined.
If you want to create change, doing it this way is foolish. It's short-sighted, and only serves to make the situation worse for you.
Attack the guilty, not the innocent.
枪杆子里面出政权 - political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
When all reasonable means are tried, what recourse is there left? If change were possible any other way, it would necessarily have been taken before risking lives in violent conflict.
If your life depends on the creation of change, but peaceful protest and movements cannot create change, then to save yourself, what recourse remains?
Is it short-sighted? Foolish, even? Maybe.
Perhaps we aren't talking about the same thing. If we are condemning the looters, then yes, we agree. Looting is merely those taking advantage of chaos for personal gain.
But rioting? Rioting, in my mind, is distinct, and different. It is important to me not to condone violence, and yet, we must understand where it comes from - it comes from a sense of powerlessness in the face of oppression.
Restore accountability, provide justice, return power to the people, and the riots shall subside.
Demand the perverted status quo, in the face of riots, and suppress violently, and you shall breed either even greater violence, or move towards violent extermination of protesters, as in Tienanmen Square
This has always been the way of things.
How many times have i heard people tell me that they'd take up arms to defend their family? Their people? Their way of life? When the shoe is on the other foot though, and someone else takes up arms to defend their family, their people, their way of life, suddenly the empathy is gone.
...i'd like to see an end to this violence. An amicable resolution. It begins with understanding where the violence comes from. When we understand one another, we can come to the table, and have peace.
i apologize if this response is a big tangent from your post, squid. it comes impassioned as much from the heart as from the mind, and not all parts of it will be relevant to you.
i wish the sound of helicopters flying around would stop.
I'm pretty sure that Squid is fine with rioting, as long as it is directed against the police, as opposed to directed against innocent third parties.
burning down innocent small-business owner's shop = bad
burning down corrupt police precinct building = good
>>5429> political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
I don't disagree. That is why the 2nd ammendment is vital, why the black community needs to arm themselves, and why likewise shopkeeps need to start protecting their property themselves.>When all reasonable means are tried, what recourse is there left? If change were possible any other way, it would necessarily have been taken before risking lives in violent conflict.
So target the government.
Target the law enforcement who've wronged you.
Innocent people who've not done anything to you should not be targeted. >Perhaps we aren't talking about the same thing. If we are condemning the looters, then yes, we agree. Looting is merely those taking advantage of chaos for personal gain.
Not just looters. Honestly, I wouldn't even care about the looters, if they were robbing from the government offices.
The trouble is attacking and destroying the property of innocent people.
Smashing stores that have not hurt you. Burning down buildings belonging to people who are not against you.
This is wrong.>Restore accountability, provide justice, return power to the people, and the riots shall subside.
Accountability and justice will ultimately require that rioters who've destroyed the property of innocent people to be punished as well.
I agree with restoring power to the people. People need to be more self reliant. Start taking up arms for their own protection. Would help a lot of this.>When the shoe is on the other foot though, and someone else takes up arms to defend their family, their people, their way of life, suddenly the empathy is gone.
No, it is not.
The trouble is when you attack innocent people.
I've maintained throughout this thread, if you want to march on the station, shoot at the police, and string the murderer from a tree, that may well be the just outcome. I certainly thing it's justified, if nothing else.
But when you attack innocent people, you're not interested in justice.
You're just being cruel.
I have no empathy for people who attack innocents. Be they police or otherwise.>i apologize if this response is a big tangent from your post, squid. it comes impassioned as much from the heart as from the mind, and not all parts of it will be relevant to you.
I understand your feelings. It's not too different from my own in a lot of ways.
The trouble is, I think we're drawing a line on two different marks.
I cannot accept unjust treatment of innocent people. Be this at the hands of the police, or the molotovs of rioters.>>5430
It's certainly not going to get as many people begging the government to crack down on the rioters who are threatening their livelihoods.
Here is the thing though - when someone attacks a local business, it is nearly always looting.
When people smash bricks out of the sidewalk, it is for the purpose of armament against the authority they protest
i see some rioters targeting those who they are as sympathizers, as well. And yet others just looking to take their anger out on whatever exists
Reading your words, in this sense, i feel we fundamentally agree - senseless violence, to quell one's own anger, is just that - senseless
I don't know if that's true. I've seen a lot of these businesses just having windows and property smashed, without anything stolen.
Most the time it looks like it's just wanton destruction for the sake of destruction. But, I suppose it's hard to know for sure.>When people smash bricks out of the sidewalk, it is for the purpose of armament against the authority they protest
A gun works better. It's what the 2nd amendment exists for.
Wanton senseless destruction does exist, for sure. i do not mean to imply that it doesn't
That said, from an observer on the ground floor here, i do not get the sense that it is widespread - rather, the senseless destruction seems uncommon, and not the norm, if not a rarity altogether - when a shop window gets broken, 90% of the time, it's for someone to loot thereafter, or because a brick missed
i know not which city you are in - in your city, it may be the case that the rioters you are looking at in person may behave differently
in any case, i seem to have misrepresented your views in my initial answer, and for that, i must apologize too>>5433
i have no comment as to the second amendment in particular due to the nature of the times... but i will say, i am a very staunch advocate of each and every right we are afforded by the Constitution, without exclusion.
For me it's more looking at the footage of stuff as it happens. Though, it also comes in to play with prior riots of similar nature, especially involving groups like Antifa.
I suppose this could be a bit of a class difference, though.
If we're condemning the attacking of innocents, in any case, that's good enough for me. The particular details don't matter that much outside there.
Repeat of the same tactics by largely the same types of people, largely white upper middle class, coming in from out of town to stir up trouble and burn down communities that they have no investment in.
It's something we've seen fairly often.https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1266798202185043970https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1267163040233000969
Well that's not even possible because "Antifa" isn't actually an organized group. It's just the name used to describe a wide collection of different groups with different motivations and goals who all share an anti-fascism sentiment.
The right likes to pretend "Antifa" is an organization like Al-Queda or something because it helps their narrative. It gives a centralized boogieman for their base to fear and villianize.
There is plenty of organization within Antifa. While you're right there isn't one single leader, or single group, or anything like that, that's true for most organizations involved in ideology. Many in the exact same way hold differing motivations or beliefs, but fly the same ultimate banner. ISIS is probably the best example of this. The reality of the situation was, there was no cohesive "This is ISIS". It was an organization, but not so cut-and-dry as, say, a corporation.
As is usually, again, the case.
The left likes to pretend "antifa" has no organization or something because it helps their narrative.
It gives an easy out when you point out that they're supporting people who have a penchant for violence in the name of their ideology with a bad habbit of labeling both anyone who disagrees with them as well as anyone who disapproves of their methods a "fascist".
Helps them spread fear and villainization without having to deal with the consequences of their actions or address the inherent injustice of what Antifa does.
Well there's for sure people coming in from out of town, and they're also very white and very destructive. But I don't think there's much evidence that it's all Antifa, or that there's anything here you could call a conspiracy theory to begin with. The fact that out of towners are showing up to cause destruction in the first place moves it outside the realm of "theory". None of the organizations any of them might belong to are formal, and that's assuming they've ever associated with one to begin with. The only thing we have to go on as to who these people associate with are their own claims about their idealogy. This is a level of vetting on par with a teenager telling a porn website "Yes, I'm 18."
So on that note I don't think there's much real evidence for saying any of these poeple belong to Antifa, or to flip it around, any evidence that they belong to something like the KKK. And people lying about who they are isn't a conspiracy theory so much as like a basic plan for what you would do if you drove cross country to smash someone's windows and steal a TV.
I mostly brought up Antifa because Dove was suggesting in >>5443
that it's some kind of presumably right wing plot to make black protesters look bad and paint them as violent.
I do not think there's evidence for this. Certainly, I've yet to see any. It looks to me like exactly what we've seen many times prior, with Antifa going out to riot and smash things, dressing in the exact same way, using the exact same tactics.
Certainly, it appears far more likely that people would co-opt a political movement for what they view as, to quote Dove here, a "deeply intertwined" issue.
Gotta say as well, though, considering how much a defense Dove has been giving towards looters and violent rioters, I find it rather funny he wants to shift it on to some conspiracy.
I thought you were saying violent rioting and looting was fine, earlier? That it was all part of a legitimate political message as the voice of the unheard?
If that's the case, why would it matter? If they are justified to do so as you suggest, then someone trying to frame them for acts you consider to be just would be useless.
>>5454>I thought you were saying violent rioting and looting was fine, earlier? That it was all part of a legitimate political message as the voice of the unheard? If that's the case, why would it matter? If they are justified to do so as you suggest, then someone trying to frame them for acts you consider to be just would be useless.
Because what I think isn't what other people think. There's clearly a really large group that absolutely condemns the rioting and looting, and that's not entirely unfair. It's not good, and especially when it involves unrelated businesses it seems misplaced. But also I won't condemn people with grievances to perform those actions, because I think the reason they're doing it at all is more important than the fact that they're doing it. People can be trying to frame the protestors in order to sway other people's opinions that have different lens than I do, even if I think the rioting and looting is the result of a problem that needs to be fixed.
Further, the majority isn't an attempt to frame the protestors, but people using the protests to veil their actions. They showed up for the looting and violence, not for the protests, but can try to shift blame off of themselves using the protests.
Now, the police inciting the riots and participating to destroy things? That's a conspiracy theory. Their motives are clear, given the union president's statement from earlier. He wants more money, it's the most straightforward reason for conspiracy you can think of. He asks a year ago for more funding and they decide he doesn't need it, so he tries to make it look like he needs it. Motive and opportunity don't incriminate people, obviously, but I definitely find it suspicious.
That was directed at Dove, there. Sorry if that wasn't clear.> They showed up for the looting and violence, not for the protests, but can try to shift blame off of themselves using the protests.
There's definitely some of those, for sure. I can agree there.
People using the protest as justification to vent or just going out for greed. That's certainly present.
File: 1591105675960.jpeg (69.51 KB, 885x748, 885:748, A03A638B-ABD3-4DBC-94E3-D….jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>5429>When the shoe is on the other foot though, and someone else takes up arms to defend their family, their people, their way of life, suddenly the empathy is gone.
If White people in Europe protested and rioted against the Muslim rape gangs would you show those people half as much as empathy as you are showing Black people? If White people started burning down mosques or targeting Muslims in the same way that Blacks are burning down police stations and targeting Whites would you cry for the poor victimised White people who had no choice but to riot? Keeping in mind that many Whites have been imprisoned for talking out against rape gangs, so you could legitimately say that violence is their only out, because they’re fined and imprisoned for their speech.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
Black people make up about 13% of the population, about 50% of killers, 34% of cop killers, and only 29% of people killed by cops. If anything you would expect that more Black people would be killed by cops, because they commit a disproportionate amount of murders, both cop and non-cop related.
Also I’m not racist, and I don’t personally think that anyone should be killed by the police, I’m just pointing out a bais. Every person, Black or White murdered by the police is a tragedy, I acknowledge that, but lets not pretend that the rioters are any better, okay? Neither deserve your sympathy.
Who said anything about race? Would you like a field of wheat to go with your strawman?
Here's what is going down - police are terrorizing innocents, without accountability. Police are the authority figures. They protect each other when they commit atrocities. They are seldom held accountable.
i'm angry too, as i have been impacted by this. i have personally been accosted by police, several times, for no reason. The police are grotesque in this country, and forty years of peaceful protests have changed nothing.
i am not about to go out and riot, but if not for the virus, i'd be protesting for sure.
you are so concerned about crime, pleasant lion. i admire that. you state unequivocally that you are not a racist. OK.
again, i never said anything about race. If you care about your civil liberties though, and this isn't bluster, then there is a clear right and wrong side here, i think. And i sympathize with the side in the right, though we can disagree with their tactics.
i would say, peaceful, albeit angry, protesters compared to rioters on the ground here are maybe literally 1,000 to 1. Anyone saying otherwise to you, be it media or talking heads, is not being truthful - i can see it, here, with my own eyes. >>5454
i have never seen this so called "Antifa" out here in New York, and again, i'm on the ground
what i do see, constantly, are bad police
And, frankly speaking, we have far more problems with white supremacists out here, than any anti fascist group.
i do feel like antifa is a made up boogieman, used to deflect negative attention and play whataboutism in bad faith. Everyone and anyone can be called "antifa" without any kind of evidence. And yet, even in what should be antifa hotspots, i, as a person who MUST interact with the criminal justice system all day long, have NEVER encountered a so-called "antifa." Smoke and mirrors, i say.
And right now, quite frankly, we could use anti-fascists, yes? The president was suggesting martial law yesterday.
Where are the libertarians now? The free rights, no big government people? States rights people? Constitutional maximalists?
Government is wholesale manipulating the market, sending in the federal military to crack down on peaceful protests in states, and violently attacking and arresting members of the press.
And 'lo, it's antifa that's the problem. This rhetoric works against your best interest, and undermines your rights, too.
i apologize for my tone, now that i read through the post again. i leave it up for posterity, but recognize i have been aggressive in my posturing, and that's unfair to you all
it just hits really close to home, you know? we have curfew now, imposed on the city from 8 PM to 5 AM.
i am sorry
File: 1591117389139.jpeg (45.95 KB, 1024x576, 16:9, 4B5A2756-43EE-44F0-B4DB-5….jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>5460>Who said anything about race?
The vast majority of the rioters are Black, and they’re protesting so called institutionalised racism in the police. It’s explicitly racial.
As I said, I’m not racist, I’m just stating what happened. I think it’s important to educate the Black community about the actual facts and statistics to stop things like this from happening in future. I understand why they’re angry, and why they’re doing what they’re doing, and I empathise with that, but I think they’re being lied to and mislead.
It’s okay for them to be angry and protest what’s happening, but violence is too far. No other group does this or gets away with it. I just think everyone should be held to the same standard. If Black people riot I’ll go after them and try to point out why they’re wrong, but I’d do the same thing for any other group. I’m not doing it because they’re Black, if they were White or some other race I’d be saying the exact same thing. As I said, I think it’s important that everyone is held to the same account.
When you try to coddle people and set a special standard just for them you’re lowering the bar, and that’s going to lead to them thinking less of themselves or that they can get away for certain things that others can’t. It’s the same with every other group. It’s just circumstance.>police are terrorizing innocents, without accountability
During or before the riots? Because it seems like police are mostly standing by, playing it safe, while gangs of violent looters go around burning down buildings, stealing, and attacking people.
As I said, I’m against police violence, and violence in general.>there is a clear right and wrong side here
Which is the people propagating violence, regardless of if they are police and protesters.>>5461
That’s okay, maybe my post was a bit aggressive as well. I just hope you understand where I’m coming from.
>>5460>Who said anything about race? ... police are terrorizing innocents, without accountability. Police ... protect each other when they commit atrocities. They are seldom held accountable. ^this
I don't see clear evidence of racism, but I do
see very clear evidence of police atrocities. It's about time that we, the people, rein in the jack-booted thugs.>>5462>they’re protesting so called institutionalised racism in the police. It’s explicitly racial.
It's not merely racism that they're protesting. We wouldn't be seeing these riots over the police being racially biased in giving speeding tickets. >>5462>During or before the riots?
Both. A cop murdered George Floyd before the riots, and then, after the riots, they're shooting paint-ball rounds at people who are peaceably standing on the their own porch. https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/05/30/light-em-up-video-appears-to-show-law-enforcement-shooting-paint-rounds-at-citizens-on-their-porch/
This is one of the things that scares me. Bad people are going to use this to argue their points and get what they want, but things like this should still not be ignored.
I wish I would see the good cops taking up signs and protesting alongside their citizens in their off time.
>>5459>I’m not racist, >>5462> I’m not racist..
You know, the more you insist you are not racist, the less genuine it appears.
But ok, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt when you say you do not consider yourself racist, but the statistics you are using in >>5459
are often biased and do not take into account other social and economical factors that could contribute to these skewed numbers besides race or genetics. Also, by using these statistics, you are implying that police brutality is or at least can be justified because black people commit more crimes. This is not something a "not racist" person should be entertaining. The issue is black people being executed by the police without trial or going through the legal system and the police officers doing this face no penalty. The instance that started this whole situation clearly shows this happening. and this is just one instance caught on camera. It is happening, consistently, all over the country in instances that are not being filmed.
Also, even if you aren't "racist" you are clearly islamaphobic and are judging a large group of people based on the bad actions of a few. That's still wrong, even when not applied along the lines of race. "Muslims" is nearly a billion people. The vast. vast majority of which are not part of "rape gangs".
I'd hate to be rude, but to be quite frank, I don't believe you.
Either you're turning a blind eye to it, or you've just not bothered to look in to the lot.
As to "antifa" being "anti fascists", well, the trouble there is that they have a nasty habbit of calling everyone fascists. And, frankly, engaging in rather fascistic tactics of their own very reminiscent of the brownshirts.
Towards martial law and constitutionalism, I will say again as I have said prior, it'd be a lot easier to oppose that were it not for the rioters actively destroying cities.
I'll certainly say it shouldn't be done. But, unfortunately, there's a whole lot of people who're in the brunt of it right now saying it has
to be done because of what's happening. This is the consequence of causing innocent people to fear you. They'll turn to the state and beg for their help.
Personally, I've always found the people most eager to cry racist to others are the biggest bigots themselves.>social and economical factors that could contribute to these skewed numbers besides race or genetics.
Isn't that the point?
Black communities are heavily policed because of the social and economic factors that result in a higher rate of crime.
It doesn't have to be racial. As I understand it, it's fairly typical of a group of people of any race with issues of low wealth and fatherlessness.>you are implying that police brutality is or at least can be justified because black people commit more crimes.
Alternatively, if you actually give people the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming the absolute worst of them at every single opportunity, he could simply be saying that this police brutality issue is not a racial one as so many want to say.
I'm inclined to agree with him.
Police are not accountable when they murder a white person, either. The unions and various immunities put into law protect them. It's not a matter of racism, but of police not being held up to the standard that they should.
Why don't you believe me? it is likely, you know me at least a little. i am on the ground, i am an eyewitness, with no grand political agenda to feed you, no carefully woven narrative to convince you of. i am not funded by any billionaires. i have nothing to prove to you. No desire to do anything to you but help and be a friend.
i'll say it again - i have never seen this so called antifa in New York. And i am constantly interacting with the criminal justice system.
maybe they exist, small numbers of disenfranchised college students, or frustrated teens. As always have existed, all throughout history.
This is the ghost you fear, the one built for you to loath by people in power who want something from you. That you pray hellfire upon, and wish for martial law to resolve. a handful of disenfranchised youths in bandannas who cannot even afford masks.
>>5470>Personally, I've always found the people most eager to cry racist to others are the biggest bigots themselves.
Only if you've got a skewed definition of what racism and bigotry is so that it includes everyone you dislike but doesn't include yourself. >>5470>it's fairly typical of a group of people of any race with issues of low wealth and fatherlessness.
"I'm not racist, but black people are poor and don't take care of their kids."
Ok, so you see why you aren't sounding genuine here? Also, it's comically missing the point. You have it backward. The more policed an area is, the more crime gets reported. People assume black areas have more crime, so they get assigned more police officers. Which in turn, raises the crime rate statistics. It's a vicious cycle. But again, the issue ISN'T the policing rate, but the fact that police are abusing their power and brutalizing and executing black people. >>5470>he could simply be saying that this police brutality issue is not a racial one as so many want to say.
Ok, show me the videos of white people being murdered by cops. Show me 3, because I could easily give you 4 videos of the same happening to black people. I'm sure it happens. All cops are bastards. But it's happening to people of color at a much higher rate, and when it happens to them, nothing ever happens to those cops. Whereas it's a bigger deal when a cop kills a white person.
Because Antifa's been something well documented at this point, well recorded and well established.
It's not something that, as you seem to suggest, came out of nowhere. It's certainly not some right-wing conspiracy to deceive people.
To claim that they do not exist as you do is simply ignorant of reality, as I see it. Again; They're well documented. Frankly, well before the MSM ever gave a damn, as they tend to ignore sadly left-wing violence by large I find.>That you pray hellfire upon, and wish for martial law to resolve.
If you bothered to read anything I've said at all throughout this thread, you'd know that to be complete nonsense.
I've maintained throughout this thread that targeting the police would be justified. That there is a justified argument to string the murderer of George by the neck from a tree, if it was so desired. That government will not respect your rights unless they fear you.
I've preached resistance of the government over destruction of innocent people's property this whole time.
I do not wish martial law. I just know, people who are watching their livelihoods being destroyed, people who are worried about the future that was already looking horribly uncertain, people who've already lost so much due to the corona virus and now are watching everything they've labored for be destroyed, will beg for the government to save them.
They will not think of the consequences in the future, only that they have to do something or everything they've strived for until this point will be lost.
>>5472>Only if you've got a skewed definition of what racism and bigotry is so that it includes everyone you dislike but doesn't include yourself.
Funny, I'd turn that around on you.
If someone says they aren't racist, and they've not shown themselves to be, I have no cause to believe they're racist.>"I'm not racist, but black people are poor and don't take care of their kids."
And case and point, here. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, as funny as it is given the circumstance.
No, black people don't have an issue with fatherless because they are black. That would be incredibly stupid.
Especially considering there's plenty of black family men around the world.>Ok, so you see why you aren't sounding genuine here?
I see why I don't sound genuine to you. I just do not think you're being reasonable here.>You have it backward. The more policed an area is, the more crime gets reported.
If that were the case, why did those same communities have such a lower crime rate in the 50s when racial discrimination was even higher as was poverty as I understand it?
Those areas were certainly policed then. And with a heafty dose of extreme and in-law discrimination, no less. > But again, the issue ISN'T the policing rate, but the fact that police are abusing their power and brutalizing and executing black people.
The trouble I have is the framing.
It shouldn't be "black people". It should just be people.
It's unacceptable when police abuse their authority to execute or otherwise harm any innocent person, whatsoever. If they pose no threat to you, kneeling on their neck until they either choke to death or suffer a heart attack from the sheer panic is flatly wrong.
This is true for any
race. Because we're all people.>But it's happening to people of color at a much higher rate, and when it happens to them, nothing ever happens to those cops. Whereas it's a bigger deal when a cop kills a white person.
Funny, I find the opposite is true.
Nobody gives a fuck, at least as far as the MSM is concerned, when a white person is killed.
When it's a black person, it gets plastered all over the news. Even when it's a justified event, in some cases, as we saw with the Zimmerman trial.
Nothing ever happens to the cops, that's true. But that's the case for any abuse of power by police. They're heavily protected. This is why I do not like the racial framing. I think it distracts from the issue that all people, universally, regardless of skin color or even wealth, should take issue with.
Claiming that being anti-facism is only used by "the left" to label people who disagrees with them is to also say that facist ideologies and groups do not actually exist. Which isn't true.
I see nothing wrong with being anti-facism. It's kind of surprising to see so many people openly claim "I'm anti-anti-facism". Isn't that, you know, fascism?
>>5474>If someone says they aren't racist, and they've not shown themselves to be
But that's the difference. What "showing themselves to be racist" means is vastly different from person to person, because people contrive different meaning for what "racism" is to exclude themselves from that group. For some people, anything short of lynching a black man isn't "racism", so not hiring him and excluding him from your restaurant or hotel based on his skin color is not showing yourself to be a racist. Because you did not lynch him. >No, black people don't have an issue with fatherless because they are black. That would be incredibly stupid.
Then why bring it up?>Funny, I find the opposite is true. Nobody gives a fuck, at least as far as the MSM is concerned, when a white person is killed.
Ok, i'll humor you. Show me some reports of white people who were unfairly killed by the cops that you feel went under-reported on by the media. Show me 3.
No, it's not. You can't just make claims like this. It's frankly an incredibly dishonest tactic, as you're trying to make me argue for something I've never once said and do not believe because you've decided to tie it to something completely unrelated.
Fascists ideologues do exist, yes. They're exceptionally rare and tend to make their beliefs clear when they crop up.
Saying that Antifa uses the label of "fascist" against political enemies regardless of if they are or are not a fascist does not discount this.
It is not to "also say that". There is no connection whatsoever to those two things.>I see nothing wrong with being anti-facism.
Nor do I.
I am opposed to fascism.
I'm also opposed to communism.
I don't tend to use those labels to justify violence on people who aren't even of those groups, however.> It's kind of surprising to see so many people openly claim "I'm anti-anti-facism". Isn't that, you know, fascism?
"Antifa" does not have a monopoly on anti-fascism.
Moreover, the idea that opposing a bunch of thugs who have a penchant for violent attacks on anyone who disagrees with them makes you supportive of fascism is just insane,.
>>5476>But that's the difference. What "showing themselves to be racist" means is vastly different from person to person, because people contrive different meaning for what "racism" is to exclude themselves from that group.
That is true. "Prejudice + power" is a bullshit definition.
I tend to go with the standard definition of just "prejudice based on race".https://www.wordnik.com/words/racismnoun Prejudice or discrimination based upon race.>For some people, anything short of lynching a black man isn't "racism", so not hiring him and excluding him from your restaurant or hotel based on his skin color is not showing yourself to be a racist. Because you did not lynch him.
Those people would be wrong given the definition of the term.
Just like the people who say racism is "Prejudice + power".>Then why bring it up?
Because I believe fatherlessness is the primary contributing factor to any community's issues of crime and a general lack of climbing forward on the social ladder either by education or investment.
One thing to keep in mind, even if nothing else is done a 2nd person in the household doubles the income of that household. This can be a significant boost. And this leaves aside how important father figures are to growing up. >Ok, i'll humor you. Show me some reports of white people who were unfairly killed by the cops that you feel went under-reported.
"Show me a report of the thing you think is not reported".
...well documented? antifascist action has a history, sure, dating back to... well, the antifascist movement in Nazi Germany.
Ignorant of reality, you accuse me of being. again, i live here. my job requires me to work within the criminal justice system. i don't need the media you accuse of bias, to show me what i can see with my own eyes. All i have is reality.
let me ask you, how do you know of antifa, if not for media? biased, agenda based media?
i don't need that - i can tell you, i don't see them here. it's not what you want to hear, but it's true, squid.
well documented... again, so few instances of their actions that the tiny few things that have happened have to be paraded out and grandstanded to puff up the fear factor >>5475
i'm not a member of an "antifa" organization
but i sure am an anti-fascist. And by God, who but fascists wouldn't be anti-fascist, in the broad sense? of that, i do not understand.
>>5478>"Prejudice + power" is a bullshit definition.
Then clearly you've been misinformed about what it actually means. What I said was meant to apply to privledged people who insist they are not racist and move the goalpost of what racism is so they do not have to examine their own behavior or views.>>5478>Just like the people who say racism is "Prejudice + power".
Only those in power have the means to ACT on their racism in a large scale systemic way. >"Show me a report of the thing you think is not reported".
There would still be police reports. Or there could be a small number of reports on something that was largely ignored.
I asked you for reports on something you believe is under-reported on by the so called "main-stream media" as you called it. Show me some non-mainstream sources.
>>5479>let me ask you, how do you know of antifa, if not for media? biased, agenda based media?
Videos of the events.
I do not tend to watch the news. I find it generally worthless. I tend to watch people on the ground with actual cameras.
If you're telling me you're in the justice system and it doesn't come up, alright. I find that strange, but, hey, maybe that's a side effect of rich upper-middle-class white kids often coming from out of state. >well documented... again, so few instances of their actions that the tiny few things that have happened have to be paraded out and grandstanded to puff up the fear factor
I suppose it depends on where you look. I see them in most every major riot or conflict. Between Berkley, the G20 riots, the inauguration day riots, Portland, Charlottesville, and of course these riots here.
Again, same tactics, same uniform, often waving the same flag.
Hell, they've even attacked individuals in some cases, just giving as lecture. Even brought their flag.
It seems crazy to me that you could ignore all this.
Who do you think those people were? Do you think it was right wingers in disguise, waving around their logos, and attacking other right wingers to make the left look bad?
I get if you have most your information coming from the MSM, it's easy to miss all this stuff. But, these events are recorded. You can find plenty of livestreams of the stuff as they happened.
I was being coy. I know what you were getting at. The definition of racism, however, only requires prejudice. Or, well, discrimination, but that comes as a result of prejudice anyway.
"Prejudice + power" is a bullshit definition used to excuse racism. >Only those in power have the means to ACT on their racism in a large scale systemic way.
Maybe so, but racism on its own is bad. And prejudice + power is not required for racism. Racism is only prejudice.
We should combat racism wherever we find it.>There would still be police reports. Or there could be a small number of reports on something that was largely ignored.
I mean, you could look at the statistics of police shootings of white people, then.
Here is one I managed to find, mostly from memory of another case I was trying to search for that I couldn't get where police shot a man's girlfriend who was just sitting at a couch as I recall.https://reason.com/2020/03/16/maryland-man-killed-in-no-knock-swat-raid-was-shot-while-asleep-family-says/
Getting caught up on incidential, personal racism is kind of silly when systemic racism is a much larger issue. When a black guy is racist against a white guy, that's between the two of them. When a white guy is racist against black people, that has much wider reaching implications because that guy is the CEO a huge company and guys just like him run every company in the country. Even if the racism of the guy in scenario 1 is just as a wrong as the racism of the guy in scenario 2, the guy in scenario 2 has much more POWER to act on his racism. It does not erase the racism of scenario 1, but scenario 1 is small and inconsequential compared to scenario 2. Why get hung up on it when solving scenario 2 is a much bigger deal? Choosing to combat scenario 1 is losing site of the bigger issues and choosing a ridiculous hill to die on that only makes you look like you don't care about how scenario 2 affects many more people.
Ok, you found one example. His death is tragic and uncalled for, I agree. Police brutality is terrible no matter who it happens to. But... why do you care about proving it happens to whites? Combating police brutality of blacks isn't going to suddenly make the police be like "OK, black people are off limits, only kill white people now!" Ending it will also help any white people being brutalized by the police. You're nitpicking the racial aspect when there is literally no need. Help stop police brutality and it raises all ships.
I am of the belief actions are flatly wrong, and you should not limit yourself in the condemnation of wrong, regardless on how 'large' you think it is.
Your attention is not so limited that you can only combat wrong one at a time, I'd say.
It's the same as in these riots. I have no trouble whatsoever condemning both the rioters, and the police. The police are worse, sure, but that does not mean the rioters aren't bad.> But... why do you care about proving it happens to whites?
Because there's this unfortunate distraction, I feel, to the larger problem of police brutality as though it is something that only happens because of racism.
I think police brutality is the default of our current system.
I do not think it is exclusive to black people. It seems to me that the problem isn't racism, it's authoritarianism that has granted police too much power and too little accountability.
Police should be held to a higher standard than regular citizens. They should not be getting any immunities, whether granted from unions or simple law makers.>Combating police brutality of blacks isn't going to suddenly make the police be like "OK, black people are off limits, only kill white people now!"
No, but my worry is "OK, we've put all our police through extensive sensitivity training, but they're still abusing our power, and nothing's really changed"
but that's not a video of the event, that's a clip of an event, from an agenda based media source.
i.e., the media. And as i've said, tiny individualized event, has to be used because there exactly isn't widespread action. No endless court cases against so-called antifa. Not many police reports either, in spite of how allegedly widespread these extremists are supposed to be.
you find it strange, because you haven't seen what i've seen, only what others have told you is true
you watch, are not involved in any of these things, have no context outside what you are told to believe and given to look at, and then you speak. don't watch, -see-. if you can point at media and call it biased, and then look at this and tell me this isn't worthless biased news, i have not much i can offer to you, squid
i already told you who i think these people are. a handful of disenfranchised young adults. conflating this misguided band of ragtags to a terrorist group is downright silly. this is a fake enemy, meant to give you fear: fear that is used to exert control over you.
in any case, i digress, i am derailing the thread.
i will not continue this tangent, but if you'd like to have the last word, neither shall i stop you.
Yes, it is a clip of the moment that Antifa came in during a speaking event.
What kind of context are you expecting? The video there does show them coming in after all. Pretty much had the whole thing. What do you want? Should I post the entire lecture?>. if you can point at media and call it biased, and then look at this and tell me this isn't worthless biased news
It is quite literally the event as it happens.
should I now dismiss of the murder of George Floyd, because it too is a recording of events as it happened? Should I declare the murder of George Floyd as biased media?
That's absurd. I could say that I have never personally seen police abuse their power, let alone murder a black man in cold blood
So, should I dismiss these events has nothing never happened? Should I then say "this is part of a biased media campaign to create an enemy"?
More or less, yes.
I find it very strange that they would say it does not exist when there's been plenty of videos of them in action.
But apparently video evidence is biased propaganda, so what do I know.
I'm kinda perusing this thread. I should be going to work, I guess this pattern of argument stands out.>>5459>If White people...rioted...would you show those people half as much as empathy as you are showing Black people?>Black people make up about 13% of the population, about 50% of killers, 34% of cop killers, and only 29% of people killed by cops.
Just, I guess, I see these kinds of things over and over again, around social media.
Basically saying, 'What about white people?!' (why are they being oppressed?) and 'Blacks behave badly, what do you expect?' (although we're not quite sure we can give a reason why).
Not really going to try to argue against, or anything.
>>5492>I guess basically, 'What about white people?!' (why are they being oppressed)
I would say the reason that is brought up so much is that nobody really seems to care when it happens to White people.
Add to that, and the proposed solutions being heavily influenced by the idea of racism do little to nothing to address the problem.
One that bothered me the most was suggesting we should have these communities only policed by minorities of those communities. I think that ignores the issue. The trouble here is police misconduct. And that is because of how little they are held to account, regardless call their race.>Blacks behave badly, what do you expect?' (although we're not quite sure we can give a reason why).
>>5494>Isn't that directly made worse by police killing black men
The percentage of black men killed by police is so small that is negligible as a cause of fatherlessness.>and the prison system incarcerating so many?
Hmm, I'm not sure which would be worse: growing up with no father around, or growing up with a father who is a criminal.
>>5495>The percentage of black men killed by police is so small that is negligible as a cause of fatherlessness.
Fair. The roughly 300 a year killed by police is still awful, because it should probably be zero, but statistically speaking 300 wouldn't have a major impact.>>5495>Hmm, I'm not sure which would be worse: growing up with no father around, or growing up with a father who is a criminal.
Growing up without a father would definitely be worse. Especially given what the state considers criminal.
To some degree, yes, though I would say it's not quite so significant as to be the primary driver. >>5495
I would personally think no father.
That is because those folk are more likely to know the consequences, to some degree.
My experience with criminals is that most of them regret starting crime, but find themselves effectively stuck in it.
Truthfully, I think they're is argument we me for forbidding companies from running back from checks on employees. Makes it exceptionally hard to find a job after you've been convicted. Even minor ones will see you booted
You mean the police killings of white people don't produce as large or prolonged unrest. I think that's accurate.>Fatherlessness
I'm aware of research that children raised by single-parents tend to do less well. Obviously there's a lot of implicits in that, and potential correlations, as families are not randomly assigned one or two parents.
File: 1591145000921.jpg (62.11 KB, 500x750, 2:3, bb6408a7549b75341baae2c895….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5496>Especially given what the state considers criminal.
OK, I'll agree with you there. Victimless """crimes""" like growing marijuana or manufacturing an unregistered NFA item shouldn't be punished by imprisonment.
More or less, yeah. I suspect it's because you can't really call it racism, so it holds less an emotional impact.
Big thing with fatherlessness two keep in mind is that even with nothing else, it lowers the household income. And that matters a whole lot.
I suppose I'm as guilty as anyone, but people respond more easily to what confirms their view, and there exists a view that mainstream systems of power in America are racially biased, and only racial equality is justice. Or at least, when some actions of injustice intersect more ideological triggers than others, they get more attention.>household income
Oh, sure. Probably there are studies that also look at outcomes versus household income. I doubt one parent who makes twice as much is equal to two parents with half as much income (each), but I'm sure money is a big part.
>>5493> is that nobody really seems to care when it happens to White people.
That is literally the only time people seem to care. This happens so often and so casually to black people that it has to be filmed and made undeniable for anyone to even recognize it as a crime. Just because you don't experience something doesn't mean it does not happen. >Fatherlessness
Ok, I want the statistics that show that black people experience more fatherlessness than other groups of people and that fatherlessness has a direct link to to criminal behavior.
I'm not so convinced. It seems to me the opposite is true.
But we've gone over that.
>>5502>Ok, I want the statistics that show that black people experience more fatherlessness than other groups of people
What search terms did you use that you were unable to find this information? I googled "fatherlessness statistics and race" and the first result (http://fathers.com/statistics-and-research/the-extent-of-fatherlessness/
) gave the following:>57.6% of black children, 31.2% of Hispanic children, and 20.7% of white children are living absent their biological fathers.>Source: Family Structure and Children’s Living Arrangements 2012. Current Population Report. U.S. Census Bureau July 1, 2012.
From what I have stated prior.
When it comes to the mainstream media, they do not seem to care when it is a white victim. Meanwhile, even in an instance of the justified shooting of a black person, they plaster it everywhere.
I disagree, as every bit of evidence I've seen coming out of that particular case suggests it was completely justified. Going well beyond the standard we require no less.
I would suggest that your own bigotry is at play here, if you would deny that evidence.
File: 1591148913896.jpg (84.95 KB, 736x986, 368:493, 8f7374eee7c309f1eb10fe3d93….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5507>If you think Zimmerman was justified in shooting down an unarmed teenager,
You forgot the part about the 'unarmed teenager' bashing Zimmerman's head against the pavement.
So you think it was justified and that (after coming after Martin in the night after being told not to do so) he unfortunately had to take the life of an innocent person in self defense. Any normal person would be racked with guilt over having to kill someone like that, and wouldn't Oh, try to sell the weapon they used to do it on a white supremacist website as a trophy for thousands of dollars. (https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/18/us/george-zimmerman-gun-auction/index.html
) He sounds so upset he regrettably had to take a life there.
Also, don't accuse people of "bigotry". I didn't not accuses you of being a bigot. I accused you of having bias against black victims.
Which you clearly do. Which is why you think the news only cares when it's a black victim. But you haven't provided any evidence of this. >>5509
Please stop defending this guy.
I would personally feel no guilt whatsoever for killing the person attempting to bash my head into concrete.
And that's far as I am aware, Zimmerman followed the instructions of the 911 dispatcher. I will see if I can hunt down the image I had with a number of this stuff as well as sources when I get home, but as I recall Trayvon approached him, and as far as can be told initiated physical conflict.>I accused you of having bias against black victims.
that is called bigotry. More over, you insist further that I have bigotry, and am not simply convinced of the evidence by logical rationality.
you could disagree with my interpretation of the evidence without insisting that I am a bigot. But, seeing as you have no desire to, I have absolutely no issue whatsoever responding in kind of to you.
if it is acceptable for you to do it to me, it is acceptable for me to do it to you.
Otherwise you'd be a hypocrite.
After YOU came after him in the dark for no reason when he was doing nothing. You are purposefully ignoring the point of view of the executed person here because it does not fit your narrative.
Zimmerman was told not to follow Martin, he ignored that instruction.
Honestly, seeing how you view this incident, I'm wondering if you somehow find a way to contrive all instances of black people being murdered as justified. Tell me, do you think the murder of George Floyd was justified?
I do not believe following somebody justifies bashing their head against concrete.
I'm surprised you think otherwise.>You are purposefully ignoring the point of view of the executed person here because it does not fit your narrative.
And you are ignoring the fact that he best Zimmerman head into the concrete.
I don't know why you seem so keen on ignoring this. you would think having your head bashed into concrete would be reason enough do desire to defend yourself.>Zimmerman was told not to follow Martin, he ignored that instruction.
I do not believe this is true, as last I recall, you could hear him stop in the call. I'll get back to you when I get home with the nice photo that had a lot of this.
It would not change the fact that he had his head bashed into concrete by Trayvon though>Tell me, do you think the murder of George Floyd was justified?
Obviously fucking not, and is this would be something you would know if you bother to you read anything I said throughout this entire thread.
But I guess honesty like that would hurt your narrative, wouldn't it?
If someone threatened me in the dark when I was walking home from buying candy, and I choose to defend myself from that person, it's good to know people like you think it's justifiable that the person who threatened me has the right to murder me in cold blood and face no penalty. It means that I should avoid a person like you at all costs because you think my life has no value. >I do not believe this is true,
Then prove it. >Obviously fucking not,
It's not obvious given your bias against black victims and your belief that white people somehow have it worse off when it comes to police brutality and that there is some sort of conspiracy to keep that "fact" secret. But it's good to know you can recognize murder when you see it and it's impossible for you to deny or skew the facts. If only someone had been there to record Martin's death, then you wouldn't be defending monsters.
If your response to someone following you is to bash their head against the concrete, I'd say the problem is you, not the person who had to defend themself from you.>Then prove it.>>5287
Here we go. Just remembered it was posted in the other thread.
Something to note is not it is not required to prove ones innocence. You are supposed to prove guilt. you were the one claiming that Zimmerman follow him when he wasn't supposed to, but you never bothered to prove that.
I guess it is a classic case of rules for thee but not for me.>and your belief that white people somehow have it worse off when it comes to police brutality
If I recall correctly, what I said was that nobody cares when it happens to White people. Not that it's worse. I stand by that claim. That's certainly seems to be my experience. You can disagree if you like, but I would appreciate it if you don't just assumed racism because I have the audacity to say that I never hear about cases on the mainstream news when it is a white person.>and that there is some sort of conspiracy to keep that "fact" secret.
I don't believe I ever said anything about a conspiracy. but I appreciate you fabricating my arguments for me. Totally an honest way to conduct yourself. Not at all scummy behavior.>If only someone had been there to record Martin's death, then you wouldn't be defending monsters.
I would say the fact that only one shot was fired, and Zimmerman sustain wounds sometime before that would be evidence enough.
But, I guess he's not black enough to be innocent, right?
File: 1591151461067.jpg (1.37 MB, 1869x3900, 623:1300, 1590613037542.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5513> I'll get back to you when I get home with the nice photo that had a lot of this.
This one? http://ponyville.us/townhall/src/1590613037542.jpg
File: 1591161972607.jpg (88.02 KB, 900x506, 450:253, 379665_2.1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I'm going to take this as a lesson learned on my part that I cannot trust people to keep the spirit of a thread in mind while talking to one another.
I also recognize that I should have been more clear and concise in what I wanted out of the thread. I will have to be more careful with my wording when, or if, I made another thread.
That being said, I am pretty goddamn disappointed and angry in what this thread has become.
I asked for this thread to be about support and love. What it has turned into is people using it like their own personal stand to debate and argue with. This makes me very angry and disappointed, and unless by some miracle this thread does a 180 by the time I get up tomorrow morning, I'm going to request a lock and possibly just delete the fucking thing.
All I wanted out of this thread was to show a little love and support for the victims (the side nor political agenda should not fucking matter) who are being affected by all this. I just wanted to show them that despite all these awful things going on, whether or not anyone believes it is necessary or inevitable, we are here for you and keeping you in our thoughts.
I just wanted to show them some support.
I won't go on, because anything past this point is me talking from anger.
I'd hate to say it, but I think you missed the point of this board. It's a debate/discussion board, not a support board.
If your desire is just to support those who are struggling due to these events, which is completely commendable don't get me wrong, I think the best option is to make it on /pony/ and tell everyone to take the political aspect to /townhall/ and leave that thread for support.
Think it'd go smoother.
The natural flow of conversation often takes a thread off its originally plotted course. And, tbh, the type of thread you had in mind would have been better suited for /pony/ than /townhall/, which is de facto
a board on which to "debate and argue".
The very nature of the support needed here would make it impossible to put on pony without it turning political, and though this board can be for politics and debate, that is not it's main nor only function. Besides this, though, anyone posting in a thread should respect the ops wishes as best they can.
It's very clear to me that has not happened here, and I'm not even sure if an attempt was made.
Like I said, I am speaking from anger now.
File: 1591163363326.jpg (26.82 KB, 400x517, 400:517, 1396220945233.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5527>The very nature of the support needed here would make it impossible to put on pony without it turning political,
If you expected it to turn to political debate on /pony/, then how did you expect it not
to turn political debate on /townhall/, the one board with the greatest amount of political debate?
I didn't expect it not to turn political. What I expected was for people to keep the spirit of the thread in mind and try to have more patience with each other, and to show support and love
for people being affected by all of it, no matter who it was or what side they were on.
I feel like there were plenty of points where people could have looked at what was being posted and stepped back for a minute.
Edit:sorry, I know it's supposed to be an anonymous board
That's the only thing that bugs me.
I wouldn't have even been bothered by people argueing their points if the thread just gave even 50% of what I originally asked for.
Eh, I think I'd disagree. At least given how /townhall/ is explained in the sticky.>Welcome to /townhall/! This is an anonymous-only board for debates, dialectics, and discussions of a serious nature.
Support isn't really discussion, dialectic, or debate, after all.>>5529
The topic is unfortunately very divisive and emotionally charged, it seems.
Then im probably wrong for putting it on the wrong board, but with /pony/s history of political discussions getting out of hand, I really didn't want to do it there.
Maybe after i've calmed down a bit I will give it a try.
I still feel very upset, though, by the way this thread turned out. I feel as if it turned unnecessarily heated.
Im sorry, I'm still trying to rein in my emotions, but does it have to be a 200+ post thread?
I don't know. I'll think about putting the thread on pony, but I'm very hesitant.