5 ms·

> I also truly don't understand how you can allow politics to be so deeply embedded in your work. The president of the United States is threatening military vi

by waon 6y ago

> I also truly don't understand how you can allow politics to be so deeply embedded in your work. The president of the United States is threatening military violence against its own citizens and you criticize people for being "political"? Seriously?

0xy 6y ago
Your comment removes so much context that it's nearly deceptive. He threatened military violence against rioting and looting, driven by terrorism. Some of these rioters set fire to occupied buildings with children inside and prevented emergency services from accessing the location. In other words, property destruction and attempted murder. Do you propose this behavior should be met with praise and not violence?
- tomnipotent 6y ago
  > met with praise and not violence? Yes. Do you have ANY examples in history where protests were met with violence didn't end poorly? Hell, America celebrates the Boston Tea Party in school. Civil disobedience is an American obligation.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  Property destruction should absolutely not be met with violence, no. Things can be replaced. People cannot.
  - gnaritas 6y ago
    > Property destruction should absolutely not be met with violence, no. Things can be replaced. People cannot. Um, no. I value my property more than I value your life, the law happens to agree with me, deadly force can be used to defend my property. Property destruction should be, and is, met with deadly violence; your right to life does not outrank my right to my property.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    That's a weird stance. Law enforcement is always based on the credible threat of violence. You can comply peacefully with everything they ask of you. That's because of the threat of violence. "No, we can't make this person come with us to present them to a judge, if they don't want to, they must be let go. No Violence!" sounds crazy. "No violence, ever" just means "property should not exist as a concept".
  - 0xy 6y ago
    You carefully cherry picked one aspect of my argument and didn't address the arson of occupied buildings with children inside. That's one example, there's also kidnapping, rape and serious assault with deadly weapons to point at. Someone was nearly stoned to death on the street with bricks by rioters for protecting a business.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      I didn’t cherry pick, I’m simply not defending assaults on people. Any violence by protesters against humans (other than in self defense) is not okay. That said, violence by police against civilians is far worse. It shouldn’t happen in response to property damage, but it especially shouldn’t happen unprovoked — and we’ve been seeing a lot more of that than violence from protesters.
      - 0xy 6y ago
        Do you believe in an "eye for an eye"? If not, how could you say that there's been more violence from police than protesters? By my count, more people have died in the resulting riots than the initial incident. That doesn't mean police are "less bad". It means they fucked up badly, and then rioters and looters are responding badly to a bad situation (including with attempted murder, rape, assault, property destruction, arson, etc). In fact, numerous businesses owned by black people were unfortunately torched during the rioting. What part of that is justice? Further, what good does it do to black neighborhoods to have their houses burnt down, critical supplies interrupted in the middle of a pandemic and other such egregious behaviour? Anarchists are using this situation to cause chaos and destruction.
        jakelazaroff 6y ago
        There are a lot of layers here; I’ll do my best to unpack things as I see them. First, violence by police is always worse than violence by civilians, full stop. They took an oath to protect and serve their communities in a job they knew could be dangerous, so they are obligated to go above and beyond in preventing violence and deescalating conflict. If necessary, they must be willing to suffer physical trauma in order for civilians to be safe. This is an axiomatic belief for me; if you can’t meet me on it, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I think everyone recognizes that the protests have caused far more violence than the murder of George Floyd alone. But the best way to prevent further violence would have been to immediately arrest the officers (as any civilian would have been) and hold them accountable. As it stands now, the other three officers who helped restrain him and prevent bystander intervention have not even been arrested. It seems to me that police and politicians across the country are willing to accept thousands of arrests, thousands more injuries and millions of dollars worth of property damage all to protect four officers who should absolutely face trial. That brings me to “acceptable” and “unacceptable” rioting. There are no doubt people using the protests as cover to sow chaos, or to do “riot tourism” — we’ve all seen videos of that. That is not okay. But plenty of rioting is happening because a group of people have been crying out in every which way that they are drowning and nothing seems to help. I’ve seen even staunch conservatives acknowledge that Floyd’s death was beyond the pale. And it’s not just him: it’s Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and so many others. And those are just the deaths that make the news — that’s a small subset of all the times when someone was “just” beat up, or profiled, or arrested for no good reason. Plenty of black people feel that society is not honoring its contract with them; given that, can we really blame those protesting for feeling that they don’t need to honor their contract with society?
- kevinh 6y ago
  These are protests against actual murders and property damage. Should the standards you're applying to the protesters be applied to the police?
  - 0xy 6y ago
    Of course, the police are guilty of some despicable behavior when responding to the unrest. As an example, firing rubber bullets at innocent people causing harm and arresting journalists. That doesn't mean it's justified to burn down an occupied building with children inside and prevent fire crews from accessing it. That's diabolical.
- onion2k 6y ago
  It shouldn't be met with more violence.
- waon 6y ago
  > Your comment removes so much context that it's nearly deceptive. How much more "context" do you need? You don't go around dispatching the military to shoot at your own citizens, not in a state governed by the rule of law. No amount of civil unrest will let an accountable government get away with that. > Do you propose this behavior should be met with praise and not violence? Please don't put words in my mouth.
  - 0xy 6y ago
    >Please don't put words in my mouth. It's a simple question, and I never implied your response either way. Do you think violence by police or military is justified when individuals are setting fire to occupied buildings?
    - waon 6y ago
      It's the job of the police to de-escalate. Sometimes, this may fail and some harm might be done in the hands of the police. However, being a police officer should never be a free ticket to inflict violence with impunity, and this is what people are advocating for. As for the military, it simply isn't their job to police their own citizens. Frankly, I don't know why I'm having to say this. I'm just stating the obvious here.
      - 0xy 6y ago
        How do you de-escalate an occupied building on fire with violent protestors preventing emergency services from saving children? The police are obviously totally overwhelmed, and like it or not the military has the legal authority to operate domestically and without them being there more people could've died. I don't understand your position. There's an occupied building on fire, with children inside. Protesters are attacking fire crews. What is the ideal outcome? I didn't see a fireman with his knee on anyone's neck. Why attack them, if not to cause destruction and murder people? Arson against residential buildings is terrorism. That's it.
        waon 6y ago

by waon 6y ago

0xy 6y ago

Your comment removes so much context that it's nearly deceptive. He threatened military violence against rioting and looting, driven by terrorism. Some of these rioters set fire to occupied buildings with children inside and prevented emergency services from accessing the location. In other words, property destruction and attempted murder. Do you propose this behavior should be met with praise and not violence?

tomnipotent 6y ago
> met with praise and not violence? Yes. Do you have ANY examples in history where protests were met with violence didn't end poorly? Hell, America celebrates the Boston Tea Party in school. Civil disobedience is an American obligation.
jakelazaroff 6y ago
Property destruction should absolutely not be met with violence, no. Things can be replaced. People cannot.
- gnaritas 6y ago
  > Property destruction should absolutely not be met with violence, no. Things can be replaced. People cannot. Um, no. I value my property more than I value your life, the law happens to agree with me, deadly force can be used to defend my property. Property destruction should be, and is, met with deadly violence; your right to life does not outrank my right to my property.
- luckylion 6y ago
  That's a weird stance. Law enforcement is always based on the credible threat of violence. You can comply peacefully with everything they ask of you. That's because of the threat of violence. "No, we can't make this person come with us to present them to a judge, if they don't want to, they must be let go. No Violence!" sounds crazy. "No violence, ever" just means "property should not exist as a concept".
- 0xy 6y ago
  You carefully cherry picked one aspect of my argument and didn't address the arson of occupied buildings with children inside. That's one example, there's also kidnapping, rape and serious assault with deadly weapons to point at. Someone was nearly stoned to death on the street with bricks by rioters for protecting a business.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    I didn’t cherry pick, I’m simply not defending assaults on people. Any violence by protesters against humans (other than in self defense) is not okay. That said, violence by police against civilians is far worse. It shouldn’t happen in response to property damage, but it especially shouldn’t happen unprovoked — and we’ve been seeing a lot more of that than violence from protesters.
    - 0xy 6y ago
      Do you believe in an "eye for an eye"? If not, how could you say that there's been more violence from police than protesters? By my count, more people have died in the resulting riots than the initial incident. That doesn't mean police are "less bad". It means they fucked up badly, and then rioters and looters are responding badly to a bad situation (including with attempted murder, rape, assault, property destruction, arson, etc). In fact, numerous businesses owned by black people were unfortunately torched during the rioting. What part of that is justice? Further, what good does it do to black neighborhoods to have their houses burnt down, critical supplies interrupted in the middle of a pandemic and other such egregious behaviour? Anarchists are using this situation to cause chaos and destruction.
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        There are a lot of layers here; I’ll do my best to unpack things as I see them. First, violence by police is always worse than violence by civilians, full stop. They took an oath to protect and serve their communities in a job they knew could be dangerous, so they are obligated to go above and beyond in preventing violence and deescalating conflict. If necessary, they must be willing to suffer physical trauma in order for civilians to be safe. This is an axiomatic belief for me; if you can’t meet me on it, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I think everyone recognizes that the protests have caused far more violence than the murder of George Floyd alone. But the best way to prevent further violence would have been to immediately arrest the officers (as any civilian would have been) and hold them accountable. As it stands now, the other three officers who helped restrain him and prevent bystander intervention have not even been arrested. It seems to me that police and politicians across the country are willing to accept thousands of arrests, thousands more injuries and millions of dollars worth of property damage all to protect four officers who should absolutely face trial. That brings me to “acceptable” and “unacceptable” rioting. There are no doubt people using the protests as cover to sow chaos, or to do “riot tourism” — we’ve all seen videos of that. That is not okay. But plenty of rioting is happening because a group of people have been crying out in every which way that they are drowning and nothing seems to help. I’ve seen even staunch conservatives acknowledge that Floyd’s death was beyond the pale. And it’s not just him: it’s Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and so many others. And those are just the deaths that make the news — that’s a small subset of all the times when someone was “just” beat up, or profiled, or arrested for no good reason. Plenty of black people feel that society is not honoring its contract with them; given that, can we really blame those protesting for feeling that they don’t need to honor their contract with society?
kevinh 6y ago
These are protests against actual murders and property damage. Should the standards you're applying to the protesters be applied to the police?
- 0xy 6y ago
  Of course, the police are guilty of some despicable behavior when responding to the unrest. As an example, firing rubber bullets at innocent people causing harm and arresting journalists. That doesn't mean it's justified to burn down an occupied building with children inside and prevent fire crews from accessing it. That's diabolical.
onion2k 6y ago
It shouldn't be met with more violence.
waon 6y ago
> Your comment removes so much context that it's nearly deceptive. How much more "context" do you need? You don't go around dispatching the military to shoot at your own citizens, not in a state governed by the rule of law. No amount of civil unrest will let an accountable government get away with that. > Do you propose this behavior should be met with praise and not violence? Please don't put words in my mouth.
- 0xy 6y ago
  >Please don't put words in my mouth. It's a simple question, and I never implied your response either way. Do you think violence by police or military is justified when individuals are setting fire to occupied buildings?
  - waon 6y ago
    It's the job of the police to de-escalate. Sometimes, this may fail and some harm might be done in the hands of the police. However, being a police officer should never be a free ticket to inflict violence with impunity, and this is what people are advocating for. As for the military, it simply isn't their job to police their own citizens. Frankly, I don't know why I'm having to say this. I'm just stating the obvious here.
    - 0xy 6y ago
      How do you de-escalate an occupied building on fire with violent protestors preventing emergency services from saving children? The police are obviously totally overwhelmed, and like it or not the military has the legal authority to operate domestically and without them being there more people could've died. I don't understand your position. There's an occupied building on fire, with children inside. Protesters are attacking fire crews. What is the ideal outcome? I didn't see a fireman with his knee on anyone's neck. Why attack them, if not to cause destruction and murder people? Arson against residential buildings is terrorism. That's it.
      - waon 6y ago