4 ms·

violence speaks the language of the non-educated in the short term, but it does more damage in the long run.

Avicebron 6y ago
On the other hand, the french revolution, the american revolution, and the civil war could be argued to be violent protests for reform that did some good. I think slow erosion of rights and safety nets through quiet periods of apathy does more harm to more people, and becomes harder to reverse in the long run.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Can we not make comparisons between revolutions against oppressive monarchies for the right to representation and opportunistic looting and rioting? People's homes and livelihoods are literally going up in smoke and these riots aren't even over yet--can we hold off on the vague defenses of political violence?
  - testbot123 6y ago
    "Political violence" is when police murder unarmed American citizens without due process. Property damage is not violence.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      Burning and looting homes and businesses is absolutely violence, but there are plenty of assaults and murders if you're not convinced. This is an abhorrent take.
      - testbot123 6y ago
        > Burning and looting homes I need evidence here. > and businesses Businesses like Target, who come into small communities, push out the mom-and-pops, then raise prices? > there are plenty of assaults and murders if you're not convinced I'm not convinced, and I need evidence that a) the shootings that you're about to link to are in fact linked to the protests (because in one case it seems like a drive-by) and b) the assaults were not self-defense from e.g., someone pointing a weapon at a crowd of people or e.g., a truck driver attempting to plow through a crowd of peaceful protestors.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        throwaway894345 6y ago
        Do your own homework. It's been going off 24/7 for days on social media or on the news station of your preference. We're talking about the mom and pop shops, not the big chains, but I'm sure you know that already.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      No, that's just violence. Political violence is when someone is murdered - by police or otherwise - for political reasons. And, property damage can be violence. Arson, in particular, has a non-zero chance of killing someone. And property damage - especially if it's to a home - can cause trauma to people. It's not just some innocent form of public expression.
      - testbot123 6y ago
        Is it not political violence when a black man is killed in the street without due process, treated differently than a white person would be? I still haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that any homes have been looted or burned by protestors, or that anyone has been killed by protestors. Only "what if"s, like "what if the fire killed someone?" It didn't, but we have a very real case of a police officer killing someone -- shouldn't that be the most important thing we're focusing on here?
        AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        No, that's racist violence, not political violence. It doesn't have to be burning homes for arson to have potential to kill. Burning a Target can easily kill someone too. And, "it hasn't kill anyone yet" is a pretty weak counter to the claim that arson can be violence. In fact, people do die from arson. The fact that nobody has - yet - in these protests does not change that whatsoever.
        testbot123 6y ago
        Racist violence is political violence. It is agents of the state enforcing a racial order which is inextricable from (and perpetuated by) the politics of the state. > And, "it hasn't kill anyone yet" is a pretty weak counter to the claim that arson can be violence. In fact, people do die from arson. The fact that nobody has - yet - in these protests does not change that whatsoever. Okay, but then people are more likely to be killed by a police officer than by arson. So why don't we focus on the actual violent catalyst for all the protesting (and the ones playing out all over the country), which actually happened? Why are we so focused on the potential of the protestors to accidentally kill someone, rather than the very real threat of police actually killing unarmed US citizens? One of these types of supposed violence is actually much more deadly than the other, with ample evidence.
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    The American Revolution certainly included a good share of looting. Wealthy local townspeople who were viewed as sympathetic to Britain were brutally driven out of their homes, and whatever possessions they could not take with them as they fled to Canada or the Caribbean were plundered by the revolutionaries. While the ideologues of the American Revolution were arguing for lofty Enlightenment-era ideals, on the ground things were much more opportunistic, with people joining the secessionist movement in order to plunder those Tory households, or to earn some money as a soldier or mercenary.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      No doubt, but I don't see what this has to do with anything. The fact that opportunistic looting took place doesn't refute the fact that the American Revolution was overwhelmingly about independence and representative government.
      - majormajor 6y ago
        "Protests of non-responsive oppressive governments and their agents that get accompanied by opportunistic looting" sounds like this last week to me.
        throwaway894345 6y ago
        Our government isn’t oppressive. There are actual oppressive governments. We have some bad police and a law that protects them too often. Mostly things are as good as they’ve ever been and getting better all the time. Everything else is the media money machine going brrrr.
        wan23 6y ago
        If things are as good as they've ever been then how come on one side of the political spectrum there's a broad movement to "make America great again" and on the other there's a mass movement taking to the streets? Does anyone think things are as good as they have ever been besides the bankers?

On the other hand, the french revolution, the american revolution, and the civil war could be argued to be violent protests for reform that did some good. I think slow erosion of rights and safety nets through quiet periods of apathy does more harm to more people, and becomes harder to reverse in the long run.

throwaway894345 6y ago
Can we not make comparisons between revolutions against oppressive monarchies for the right to representation and opportunistic looting and rioting? People's homes and livelihoods are literally going up in smoke and these riots aren't even over yet--can we hold off on the vague defenses of political violence?
- testbot123 6y ago
  "Political violence" is when police murder unarmed American citizens without due process. Property damage is not violence.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    Burning and looting homes and businesses is absolutely violence, but there are plenty of assaults and murders if you're not convinced. This is an abhorrent take.
    - testbot123 6y ago
      > Burning and looting homes I need evidence here. > and businesses Businesses like Target, who come into small communities, push out the mom-and-pops, then raise prices? > there are plenty of assaults and murders if you're not convinced I'm not convinced, and I need evidence that a) the shootings that you're about to link to are in fact linked to the protests (because in one case it seems like a drive-by) and b) the assaults were not self-defense from e.g., someone pointing a weapon at a crowd of people or e.g., a truck driver attempting to plow through a crowd of peaceful protestors.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        Do your own homework. It's been going off 24/7 for days on social media or on the news station of your preference. We're talking about the mom and pop shops, not the big chains, but I'm sure you know that already.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    No, that's just violence. Political violence is when someone is murdered - by police or otherwise - for political reasons. And, property damage can be violence. Arson, in particular, has a non-zero chance of killing someone. And property damage - especially if it's to a home - can cause trauma to people. It's not just some innocent form of public expression.
    - testbot123 6y ago
      Is it not political violence when a black man is killed in the street without due process, treated differently than a white person would be? I still haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that any homes have been looted or burned by protestors, or that anyone has been killed by protestors. Only "what if"s, like "what if the fire killed someone?" It didn't, but we have a very real case of a police officer killing someone -- shouldn't that be the most important thing we're focusing on here?
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        No, that's racist violence, not political violence. It doesn't have to be burning homes for arson to have potential to kill. Burning a Target can easily kill someone too. And, "it hasn't kill anyone yet" is a pretty weak counter to the claim that arson can be violence. In fact, people do die from arson. The fact that nobody has - yet - in these protests does not change that whatsoever.
        testbot123 6y ago
        Racist violence is political violence. It is agents of the state enforcing a racial order which is inextricable from (and perpetuated by) the politics of the state. > And, "it hasn't kill anyone yet" is a pretty weak counter to the claim that arson can be violence. In fact, people do die from arson. The fact that nobody has - yet - in these protests does not change that whatsoever. Okay, but then people are more likely to be killed by a police officer than by arson. So why don't we focus on the actual violent catalyst for all the protesting (and the ones playing out all over the country), which actually happened? Why are we so focused on the potential of the protestors to accidentally kill someone, rather than the very real threat of police actually killing unarmed US citizens? One of these types of supposed violence is actually much more deadly than the other, with ample evidence.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  The American Revolution certainly included a good share of looting. Wealthy local townspeople who were viewed as sympathetic to Britain were brutally driven out of their homes, and whatever possessions they could not take with them as they fled to Canada or the Caribbean were plundered by the revolutionaries. While the ideologues of the American Revolution were arguing for lofty Enlightenment-era ideals, on the ground things were much more opportunistic, with people joining the secessionist movement in order to plunder those Tory households, or to earn some money as a soldier or mercenary.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    No doubt, but I don't see what this has to do with anything. The fact that opportunistic looting took place doesn't refute the fact that the American Revolution was overwhelmingly about independence and representative government.
    - majormajor 6y ago
      "Protests of non-responsive oppressive governments and their agents that get accompanied by opportunistic looting" sounds like this last week to me.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        Our government isn’t oppressive. There are actual oppressive governments. We have some bad police and a law that protects them too often. Mostly things are as good as they’ve ever been and getting better all the time. Everything else is the media money machine going brrrr.
        wan23 6y ago
        If things are as good as they've ever been then how come on one side of the political spectrum there's a broad movement to "make America great again" and on the other there's a mass movement taking to the streets? Does anyone think things are as good as they have ever been besides the bankers?