5 ms·

> doesn't care if there's a pandemic or not There are many people that don't care if there is a pandemic of not. They were forcibly kept away from their jobs a

> doesn't care if there's a pandemic or not There are many people that don't care if there is a pandemic of not. They were forcibly kept away from their jobs and families for three months.

jolmg 6y ago
I think the point is that addressing police brutality is more important than stopping COVID-19 spread which is more important than going to work and visiting families.
- war1025 6y ago
  And that's a value judgement they can make. The issue is that ordering was different for millions of people and they didn't get a choice in the matter.
  - jolmg 6y ago
    > issue is that ordering was different No, it's not. The ones that are protesting are also being ordered to disperse and go back home. The reason they're not is because they're disobeying. For those that aren't explicitly ordered, it's because it's pointless, given that civil disobedience is in the nature of protests.
    - war1025 6y ago
      Good luck disobeying if you are small business owner who was told you can no longer legally do business. On a more personal note, my 98 year old Grandma has been confined to her room at the nursing home for three months. Good luck to her civil disobeying orders.
      - jolmg 6y ago
        > Good luck disobeying if you are small business owner who was told you can no longer legally do business. Exactly. The fact that you can't effectively do a sizeable protest around that so goes to show how the population in general prioritizes these issues. > On a more personal note, my 98 year old Grandma has been confined to her room at the nursing home for three months. Good luck to her civil disobeying orders. Yeah, public support for your grandma risking getting sick is going to be even less.
- mc32 6y ago
  You can’t protest if you’re sick though. So I get it it’s a short term push to get recognition but if the pandemic is as bad as they say it means many people will be hospitalized or worse. Of course it’s a devils bargain, damnned if you do, damnned if you don’t, but it’s still present.
  - jolmg 6y ago
    > You can’t protest if you’re sick though. I'm not sure if you mean "they can't join the protests when sick" or "they can't protest getting sick from doing this". For the former, I imagine those that are technically can if they really want to. For the latter, those that aren't are seemingly willing to take the risk of getting sick in order to help address this. > it means many people will be hospitalized or worse. Yes, they seem willing to risk that consequence.
- agensaequivocum 6y ago
  Except you're still killing grandma which is just as bad as police brutality.
  - jolmg 6y ago
    The ones that agree with you would not support the protests, while the ones that disagree would.
    - agensaequivocum 6y ago
      Actually, in general we support the protest insofar as we agree that there are problems with certain police incentive structures. We heavily disagree with the rioting and looting. Where we disagree with some people is the generalized notion that the principles of America are inherently evil and racist and that Americans society now in general is racist.
      - jolmg 6y ago
        I thought news outlets had established that the looting was done by opportunists that are independent of the protesters. The rioting might also be independent of the protesters, perhaps to distract enforcement units away from the looting. Some of the looting does seem to be organized to a degree.
        agensaequivocum 6y ago
        > looting was done by opportunists that are independent of the protesters That seems right, although I think there is probably a small degree of overlap. Unfortunately, I'm still seeing multitudes of people online defending the rioting and looting.
  - alpha_squared 6y ago
    Is the argument, then, that protestors should wait until police brutality results in another death when it is more convenient to protest?
JadeNB 6y ago
I think that 'forcibly' is a bad choice of words for a legal order that people could, and some did, ignore without serious consequence, and definitely without response by force—witness the 'liberate' protests—when compared to the literal and illegal use of force that the current protests are addressing, which have themselves been met in many places with force (as, for example, this very article discusses).
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Businesses were shut down, by law. Some that stayed open in defiance of the law were fined and shuttered by the government. It most certainly was not optional.
  - alpha_squared 6y ago
    And the defiance cost them fines, sometimes, not their lives. The protests are addressing compliance resulting in death for a select portion of the population that has been systematically singled out for centuries because of the pigment of their skin.
anigbrowl 6y ago
Forcibly is being used rather hyperbolically here, don't you think? Some business owners that opened in defiance of local public health orders received fines or license suspensions, that's not equivalent.
- xwowsersx 6y ago
  It's hyperbolic in one sense, but not in another. Consider the fact that every law is backed by an implicit threat of force. For example, it's easy to say "I'm just asking for everyone to pay their fair share" when referring to taxes. But what happens when you don't pay your taxes? You can be arrested and jailed. That is underlying threat of force. Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    An implicit threat of force is very different from an explicit application of it. Feeling disgruntled (perhaps by proxy) over a small fine is not the same as being actually beaten, gassed, or jailed. You're not teaching me anything I don't already know, so what point are you attempting to make here?
    - xwowsersx 6y ago
      They are different, but it's not clear to me that the distinction is significant in the context of OP I was addressing which is the exact point I was making. Not every difference is relevant in every context. As for me not teaching you anything you don't already know, I can't possibly have any idea what you do or don't already know and I think it'd be more productive to leave that kind of snark out of the discussion here.
      - anigbrowl 6y ago
        Of course you can have such an idea, by thinking about the context of the thread in which this discussion is taking place and the fact that I acknowledged two examples of state-imposed sanctions that business owners might have been pissed off about. Offering explanations of elementary concepts in the middle of a more advanced discussion is patronizing and unhelpful. Your point that the distinction is not significant speaks to a lack of experience on your part so I will assume your behavior was unintentional.
rhacker 6y ago
That's my theory too. Floyd was a catalyst but not the full reason for the riots. Total aside: Also what's our country's obsession with masks that are designed to make people look creepy - like a dead skeleton. And same truck window art, like skulls with bullets for teeth or something. I don't understand are these people just murdering thousands of people daily or something?
- stronglikedan 6y ago
  Some people just like to use non-verbal queues to keep others at arm's length.
ineedasername 6y ago
Not caring if there is a pandemic does not absolve people of actions they take that endanger others as a result of their disregard for the situation.

> doesn't care if there's a pandemic or not There are many people that don't care if there is a pandemic of not. They were forcibly kept away from their jobs and families for three months.

jolmg 6y ago

I think the point is that addressing police brutality is more important than stopping COVID-19 spread which is more important than going to work and visiting families.

war1025 6y ago
And that's a value judgement they can make. The issue is that ordering was different for millions of people and they didn't get a choice in the matter.
- jolmg 6y ago
  > issue is that ordering was different No, it's not. The ones that are protesting are also being ordered to disperse and go back home. The reason they're not is because they're disobeying. For those that aren't explicitly ordered, it's because it's pointless, given that civil disobedience is in the nature of protests.
  - war1025 6y ago
    Good luck disobeying if you are small business owner who was told you can no longer legally do business. On a more personal note, my 98 year old Grandma has been confined to her room at the nursing home for three months. Good luck to her civil disobeying orders.
    - jolmg 6y ago
      > Good luck disobeying if you are small business owner who was told you can no longer legally do business. Exactly. The fact that you can't effectively do a sizeable protest around that so goes to show how the population in general prioritizes these issues. > On a more personal note, my 98 year old Grandma has been confined to her room at the nursing home for three months. Good luck to her civil disobeying orders. Yeah, public support for your grandma risking getting sick is going to be even less.
mc32 6y ago
You can’t protest if you’re sick though. So I get it it’s a short term push to get recognition but if the pandemic is as bad as they say it means many people will be hospitalized or worse. Of course it’s a devils bargain, damnned if you do, damnned if you don’t, but it’s still present.
- jolmg 6y ago
  > You can’t protest if you’re sick though. I'm not sure if you mean "they can't join the protests when sick" or "they can't protest getting sick from doing this". For the former, I imagine those that are technically can if they really want to. For the latter, those that aren't are seemingly willing to take the risk of getting sick in order to help address this. > it means many people will be hospitalized or worse. Yes, they seem willing to risk that consequence.
agensaequivocum 6y ago
Except you're still killing grandma which is just as bad as police brutality.
- jolmg 6y ago
  The ones that agree with you would not support the protests, while the ones that disagree would.
  - agensaequivocum 6y ago
    Actually, in general we support the protest insofar as we agree that there are problems with certain police incentive structures. We heavily disagree with the rioting and looting. Where we disagree with some people is the generalized notion that the principles of America are inherently evil and racist and that Americans society now in general is racist.
    - jolmg 6y ago
      I thought news outlets had established that the looting was done by opportunists that are independent of the protesters. The rioting might also be independent of the protesters, perhaps to distract enforcement units away from the looting. Some of the looting does seem to be organized to a degree.
      - agensaequivocum 6y ago
        > looting was done by opportunists that are independent of the protesters That seems right, although I think there is probably a small degree of overlap. Unfortunately, I'm still seeing multitudes of people online defending the rioting and looting.
- alpha_squared 6y ago
  Is the argument, then, that protestors should wait until police brutality results in another death when it is more convenient to protest?

JadeNB 6y ago

I think that 'forcibly' is a bad choice of words for a legal order that people could, and some did, ignore without serious consequence, and definitely without response by force—witness the 'liberate' protests—when compared to the literal and illegal use of force that the current protests are addressing, which have themselves been met in many places with force (as, for example, this very article discusses).

koheripbal 6y ago
Businesses were shut down, by law. Some that stayed open in defiance of the law were fined and shuttered by the government. It most certainly was not optional.
- alpha_squared 6y ago
  And the defiance cost them fines, sometimes, not their lives. The protests are addressing compliance resulting in death for a select portion of the population that has been systematically singled out for centuries because of the pigment of their skin.

anigbrowl 6y ago

Forcibly is being used rather hyperbolically here, don't you think? Some business owners that opened in defiance of local public health orders received fines or license suspensions, that's not equivalent.

xwowsersx 6y ago
It's hyperbolic in one sense, but not in another. Consider the fact that every law is backed by an implicit threat of force. For example, it's easy to say "I'm just asking for everyone to pay their fair share" when referring to taxes. But what happens when you don't pay your taxes? You can be arrested and jailed. That is underlying threat of force. Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  An implicit threat of force is very different from an explicit application of it. Feeling disgruntled (perhaps by proxy) over a small fine is not the same as being actually beaten, gassed, or jailed. You're not teaching me anything I don't already know, so what point are you attempting to make here?
  - xwowsersx 6y ago
    They are different, but it's not clear to me that the distinction is significant in the context of OP I was addressing which is the exact point I was making. Not every difference is relevant in every context. As for me not teaching you anything you don't already know, I can't possibly have any idea what you do or don't already know and I think it'd be more productive to leave that kind of snark out of the discussion here.
    - anigbrowl 6y ago
      Of course you can have such an idea, by thinking about the context of the thread in which this discussion is taking place and the fact that I acknowledged two examples of state-imposed sanctions that business owners might have been pissed off about. Offering explanations of elementary concepts in the middle of a more advanced discussion is patronizing and unhelpful. Your point that the distinction is not significant speaks to a lack of experience on your part so I will assume your behavior was unintentional.

rhacker 6y ago

That's my theory too. Floyd was a catalyst but not the full reason for the riots. Total aside: Also what's our country's obsession with masks that are designed to make people look creepy - like a dead skeleton. And same truck window art, like skulls with bullets for teeth or something. I don't understand are these people just murdering thousands of people daily or something?

stronglikedan 6y ago
Some people just like to use non-verbal queues to keep others at arm's length.

ineedasername 6y ago

Not caring if there is a pandemic does not absolve people of actions they take that endanger others as a result of their disregard for the situation.