4 ms·

>Come up with a way for me to support fighting injustice that cannot and will not be turned around to argue that riots fix injustice, One way to fix that is fa

>Come up with a way for me to support fighting injustice that cannot and will not be turned around to argue that riots fix injustice, One way to fix that is fair governance, or you know, work to stop injustice before anyone riots. One thing that's pretty clear now is that the government can treat groups of people pretty badly and for a long while before anyone will lift a finger. >I'll be there with bells on. No, sadly it was predictable that people would not tolerate endless systemic corruption and injustice, yet very few people were working to change it, or in most cases even aware of it before the "riots". It sounds almost like you want obvious injustice to be allowed to continue just to spite the relatively small number of violent protesters; lest people might be encouraged to use violence to gain attention for their political ends. The answer to injustice is when it becomes apparent to end it, full stop. It doesn't require you to endorse rioting, either.

Kalium 11y ago
You're asking me to take actions that can be reasonably portrayed as riots garnering political support. It's abundantly clear that riots are commonly portrayed as yielding this positive effect. You can see it right here in this discussion. Why would I want to encourage this by taking actions entirely consistent with it? You aren't asking me to endorse rioting. You are asking me to act in a way externally indistinguishable from rewarding rioting. That, I've found, is a thing easily rationalized from a distance.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  No, you're made aware of injustice, you take action to stop injustice. It's as simple as that. Assuming for a moment that protesters == rioters I hope you don't think that people who are desperate enough to riot for social justice would riot less if they didn't get it.
  - Kalium 11y ago
    I think there's a meme that riots yield political concessions. I also think that acting in a way that suggests this meme is true is unlikely to have the effect of discouraging riots as a means of gaining political concessions. I think that in an environment where peaceful protest is perceived as without value and riots are perceived as efficacious, people will tend to make the rational choice. Is that a sufficiently clear statement of my position? Perhaps I should say that I view riots as a form of injustice unto themselves. I am attempting to take action to stop injustice by demonstrating the scope and negative impact of injustice.
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      >I think there's a meme that riots yield political concessions. I think that unfortunately it may be correct. >I think that in an environment where peaceful protest is perceived as without value and riots are perceived as efficacious, people will tend to make the rational choice. I think that's a pretty obvious and logical path of escalation, but I still do not believe that most people would begin a protest with the intent that it become violent, nor that most people would rationalize the use of violence in that manner. If they are so rational, they surely would not choose the police or potentially the nat'l guard as opponents in a brawl. >Perhaps I should say that I view riots as a form of injustice unto themselves. Agreed. >I am attempting to take action to stop injustice by demonstrating the scope and negative impact of injustice. And demonstrating a marked lack of sympathy for others in doing so. You are not particularly concerned with injustice or violence as long as you remain personally unaffected.
      - Kalium 11y ago
        For starters, the meme is demonstrably incorrect. Here's an article that discusses this: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/new-study-shows-riots-make-america-conservative.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/new-study-shows... Here is the study in question: http://www.omarwasow.com/Protests_on_Voting.pdf http://www.omarwasow.com/Protests_on_Voting.pdf Personally, I believe the meme to be a case of people choosing their beliefs for the purpose of emotional satisfaction rather than truth value. > And demonstrating a marked lack of sympathy for others in doing so. You are not particularly concerned with injustice or violence as long as you remain personally unaffected. Would you be more willing to listen if I had written a teeth-gnashing litany about how much I sympathize with the grievance(s) in question first? I suspect most would not. The prevailing thought is that in such a scenario as this, I should subordinate my grievances to those of others. You can see this on display when others tell me "get over yourself". In other words, I am to disregard one injustice in the supposed interests of addressing another injustice. I am concerned with injustice and violence. I am also concerned with not perpetuating them in an effort to address them. I do not consider making the problem worse to be an acceptable manner of attempting to solve the problem. I also wrote this: > And the riots have put me in an awkward position. I can say I don't support the rioters while still supporting and pushing for what the rioters want. However, if I do this, any successes can and will be treated as successes by the rioters. The predictable result will be more riots, because people will conclude that riots get them what they want. Alternately, I can refuse to advocate for policies called for by rioters, because under no circumstances do I want to encourage riots. > That's the bind I'm in. I'm erring on the side of personal safety, because I'm not real interested in having my face smashed in with a crowbar for the cause of today's riot. Perhaps that's not considered sympathy. I should think it makes clear where my personal sympathies lie. Perhaps a more strident declaration of loyalty to The Cause is required? That said, I'm also bothered by the idea that I have to express sympathy before being permitted to be displeased with an injustice. Can I criticize attempting to assassinate the POTUS without commenting on the cause of independence for Puerto Rice?

Kalium 11y ago

You're asking me to take actions that can be reasonably portrayed as riots garnering political support. It's abundantly clear that riots are commonly portrayed as yielding this positive effect. You can see it right here in this discussion. Why would I want to encourage this by taking actions entirely consistent with it? You aren't asking me to endorse rioting. You are asking me to act in a way externally indistinguishable from rewarding rioting. That, I've found, is a thing easily rationalized from a distance.

fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
No, you're made aware of injustice, you take action to stop injustice. It's as simple as that. Assuming for a moment that protesters == rioters I hope you don't think that people who are desperate enough to riot for social justice would riot less if they didn't get it.
- Kalium 11y ago
  I think there's a meme that riots yield political concessions. I also think that acting in a way that suggests this meme is true is unlikely to have the effect of discouraging riots as a means of gaining political concessions. I think that in an environment where peaceful protest is perceived as without value and riots are perceived as efficacious, people will tend to make the rational choice. Is that a sufficiently clear statement of my position? Perhaps I should say that I view riots as a form of injustice unto themselves. I am attempting to take action to stop injustice by demonstrating the scope and negative impact of injustice.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    >I think there's a meme that riots yield political concessions. I think that unfortunately it may be correct. >I think that in an environment where peaceful protest is perceived as without value and riots are perceived as efficacious, people will tend to make the rational choice. I think that's a pretty obvious and logical path of escalation, but I still do not believe that most people would begin a protest with the intent that it become violent, nor that most people would rationalize the use of violence in that manner. If they are so rational, they surely would not choose the police or potentially the nat'l guard as opponents in a brawl. >Perhaps I should say that I view riots as a form of injustice unto themselves. Agreed. >I am attempting to take action to stop injustice by demonstrating the scope and negative impact of injustice. And demonstrating a marked lack of sympathy for others in doing so. You are not particularly concerned with injustice or violence as long as you remain personally unaffected.
    - Kalium 11y ago
      For starters, the meme is demonstrably incorrect. Here's an article that discusses this: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/new-study-shows-riots-make-america-conservative.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/new-study-shows... Here is the study in question: http://www.omarwasow.com/Protests_on_Voting.pdf http://www.omarwasow.com/Protests_on_Voting.pdf Personally, I believe the meme to be a case of people choosing their beliefs for the purpose of emotional satisfaction rather than truth value. > And demonstrating a marked lack of sympathy for others in doing so. You are not particularly concerned with injustice or violence as long as you remain personally unaffected. Would you be more willing to listen if I had written a teeth-gnashing litany about how much I sympathize with the grievance(s) in question first? I suspect most would not. The prevailing thought is that in such a scenario as this, I should subordinate my grievances to those of others. You can see this on display when others tell me "get over yourself". In other words, I am to disregard one injustice in the supposed interests of addressing another injustice. I am concerned with injustice and violence. I am also concerned with not perpetuating them in an effort to address them. I do not consider making the problem worse to be an acceptable manner of attempting to solve the problem. I also wrote this: > And the riots have put me in an awkward position. I can say I don't support the rioters while still supporting and pushing for what the rioters want. However, if I do this, any successes can and will be treated as successes by the rioters. The predictable result will be more riots, because people will conclude that riots get them what they want. Alternately, I can refuse to advocate for policies called for by rioters, because under no circumstances do I want to encourage riots. > That's the bind I'm in. I'm erring on the side of personal safety, because I'm not real interested in having my face smashed in with a crowbar for the cause of today's riot. Perhaps that's not considered sympathy. I should think it makes clear where my personal sympathies lie. Perhaps a more strident declaration of loyalty to The Cause is required? That said, I'm also bothered by the idea that I have to express sympathy before being permitted to be displeased with an injustice. Can I criticize attempting to assassinate the POTUS without commenting on the cause of independence for Puerto Rice?