6 ms·

This principle incriminates the protesters just as much. There is widespread rationalization and support for the "few bad apples" perpetrating violence/looting

This principle incriminates the protesters just as much. There is widespread rationalization and support for the "few bad apples" perpetrating violence/looting/burning/rioting. There is very little condemnation. Lots of quoting MLK Jr. "rioting is the voice of the unheard" and yet MLK Jr. certainly did not practice or advocate violence. If the protesters can't regulate their own bad apples then how can they judge police for not being able to? Currently, this is two groups of unethical idiots fighting with each other. With each group's extremists serving to justify the other's extremists. The outcome is easily predicted. Either the protesters take the ethical high ground or they lose.

bradleybuda 6y ago
Because one of those groups has a legal monopoly on violence, de facto power, budgets, training, and an incredibly loud political voice.
alexilliamson 6y ago
With great power comes great responsibility. The protesters, even the bad ones, don't have tanks and near-universal legal immunity.
bcrosby95 6y ago
I choose to not care about the looters because I know that if they get caught, we won't be giving them a paid vacation then clear them of all wrongdoing.
lm28469 6y ago
> This principle incriminates the protesters just as much. Yeah but you know, one group _took oath to protect and serve_ and the other didn't. It's like when Trump say some racist shit VS when your drunk uncle says the same thing, you can't put both sides to the same standards. Everybody condemn rioters, but for some reasons a lot of people, including the president and many officials, manage to rationalise police brutality and if you don't see that as the obvious main issue you're most likely in the wrong. > The outcome is easily predicted. Either the protesters take the ethical high ground or they lose. This is the kind of thoughts I had when I was 15, I don't even know what to reply to that anymore. ______ Also, why do people keep creating new accounts to post these very poorly thought comments ? Don't you have the balls to attach your speech to your semi public internet presence or are you just trolling ?
- nitrogen 6y ago
  Also, why do people keep creating new accounts to post these very poorly thought comments ? Don't you have the balls to attach your speech to your semi public internet presence or are you just trolling ? I think it's fair for someone on the fence, or visiting the conversation from the other side, to comment on the crimes of both sides without fear of being personally insulted on HN. We can condemn the police and hold them to the much higher bar they should be held to, and also condemn whatever looting and vandalism is occurring. "Two wrongs" etc.
  - anigbrowl 6y ago
    If someone creates a new account in order to make one post based on a screamingly obvious fallacy they deserve what they get.
    - anticonformist 6y ago
      Just because you claim it to be false does not make it false. You could be wrong. So what exactly does someone "deserve" for expressing a contrary opinion?
      - anigbrowl 6y ago
        I claimed it to be fallacious, not false. Your trolling game is laughably weak.
  - lm28469 6y ago
    >We can condemn the police and hold them to the much higher bar they should be held to, and also condemn whatever looting and vandalism is occurring. "Two wrongs" etc. I do condemn both, but you have to remember that one caused the other and one is a matter of your country becoming an authoritarian police state, not the other. I'd take temporary riots over permanent US style law enforcement abuse. In a perfect world I'd be happy with none of the two but were not in a perfect world.
- anticonformist 6y ago
lexicality 6y ago
Unless you're one of those people with interesting beliefs about George Soros, no one is hiring, training and arming the protesters. Anyone can become a protester by showing up with a mask and a brick in a sock, while the police force is an actual organisation with rules and plans. Your comparison is very flawed.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
smileysteve 6y ago
> If the protesters can't regulate their own bad apples then how can they judge police for not being able to? Police are hired by a system, trained on constitutional law, trained in law enforcement technique, take an oath to enforce the law (including the constitution and the public trust), are paid money for their on duty actions, and have a system of discipline and internal review. What the protestors have in common right now is that people showed up at a place and at a time. Protestors have a right to assemble, they inherently have little right to inhibit an anarchist from protesting at the same location without breaking laws or even a holier than thou ethics. That the press have captured intentional subversion by white supremacists, boogaloos, and even police furthers this false dichotomy.
- anticonformist 6y ago
  It's not a false dichotomy. It's an ethical double standard. If you don't live by your own ethics, how can you judge someone else for not living up to them as well? Police are just people. Protesters are just people. Every one of them has to decide what they will and will not abide. It's not a matter of protesters not being able to stop the extremists among them. They're not even trying. They don't even want to. The problem is that most people (including here in these comments) are rationalizing the actions of these extremists, hence the misapplied MLK Jr. quote. This is an implicit endorsement. A black police officer was killed by extremists. There is serious violence and burning by extremists. These acts are being implicitly endorsed. In the same way Trump implicitly endorses the behavior of his movement's extremists, by not vehemently denouncing it and distancing himself from it. It doesn't require training or an oath to condemn extremists and seek to exclude them from your movement. It just requires principle.
anigbrowl 6y ago
One group is organized hierarchically, very well funded by the state, socially lionized to an extreme degree, invested with enormous legal powers, and provided with a vast array of paramilitary equipment including armored vehicles and helicopters. The other is a loosely networked group of malcontents and opportunists with a relatively low regard for commercial property rights and capitalism. It's disingenuous to equate them, and something tells me you know this and set up a throwaway account to protect your main from the entirely predictable barrage of criticism.
- anticonformist 6y ago
  The ethics are the issue. If protesters were unable to stop the extremists, that would be one thing. They're unwilling and uninterested in stopping them, and that is the ethical issue. This is exactly the same reason police officers are ethically in the wrong. They could decide that "enough is enough" and push out the "bad apples" among them. Instead, they do nothing. That is their ethical failing. The protesters (and their supporters) are doing the exact same thing, ethically. They refuse to even attempt to push out the extremists, as evidenced by the widespread rationalization and minimization of their actions. These are very basic ethical dilemmas. Do you or don't you call out and punish bad actors among your group? Ancient tribes were generally okay with anyone of their tribe committing any atrocity as long as it was against a member of a foreign tribe. Civilized people condemn and punish even members of their own tribe and do it even when the victim is a member of a foreign tribe.
scarface74 6y ago
There is very little condemnation. Lots of quoting MLK Jr. "rioting is the voice of the unheard" and yet MLK Jr. certainly did not practice or advocate violence. And they beat him, demonized him and arrested him. More recently the President and his supporters called Kaepernick “a son of a bitch” when he was peacefully protesting and the wider society just yawned. It’s kind of hypocritical for the country with the largest military in the world to say that violence doesn’t achieve anything. Peaceful protest and singing Kum Bah Yah didn’t work. The US doesn’t mind collateral damage to achieve its goals as long as the damage is in a foreign country.

bradleybuda 6y ago

Because one of those groups has a legal monopoly on violence, de facto power, budgets, training, and an incredibly loud political voice.

alexilliamson 6y ago

With great power comes great responsibility. The protesters, even the bad ones, don't have tanks and near-universal legal immunity.

bcrosby95 6y ago

I choose to not care about the looters because I know that if they get caught, we won't be giving them a paid vacation then clear them of all wrongdoing.

lm28469 6y ago

> This principle incriminates the protesters just as much. Yeah but you know, one group _took oath to protect and serve_ and the other didn't. It's like when Trump say some racist shit VS when your drunk uncle says the same thing, you can't put both sides to the same standards. Everybody condemn rioters, but for some reasons a lot of people, including the president and many officials, manage to rationalise police brutality and if you don't see that as the obvious main issue you're most likely in the wrong. > The outcome is easily predicted. Either the protesters take the ethical high ground or they lose. This is the kind of thoughts I had when I was 15, I don't even know what to reply to that anymore. ______ Also, why do people keep creating new accounts to post these very poorly thought comments ? Don't you have the balls to attach your speech to your semi public internet presence or are you just trolling ?

nitrogen 6y ago
Also, why do people keep creating new accounts to post these very poorly thought comments ? Don't you have the balls to attach your speech to your semi public internet presence or are you just trolling ? I think it's fair for someone on the fence, or visiting the conversation from the other side, to comment on the crimes of both sides without fear of being personally insulted on HN. We can condemn the police and hold them to the much higher bar they should be held to, and also condemn whatever looting and vandalism is occurring. "Two wrongs" etc.
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  If someone creates a new account in order to make one post based on a screamingly obvious fallacy they deserve what they get.
  - anticonformist 6y ago
    Just because you claim it to be false does not make it false. You could be wrong. So what exactly does someone "deserve" for expressing a contrary opinion?
    - anigbrowl 6y ago
      I claimed it to be fallacious, not false. Your trolling game is laughably weak.
- lm28469 6y ago
  >We can condemn the police and hold them to the much higher bar they should be held to, and also condemn whatever looting and vandalism is occurring. "Two wrongs" etc. I do condemn both, but you have to remember that one caused the other and one is a matter of your country becoming an authoritarian police state, not the other. I'd take temporary riots over permanent US style law enforcement abuse. In a perfect world I'd be happy with none of the two but were not in a perfect world.
anticonformist 6y ago

lexicality 6y ago

Unless you're one of those people with interesting beliefs about George Soros, no one is hiring, training and arming the protesters. Anyone can become a protester by showing up with a mask and a brick in a sock, while the police force is an actual organisation with rules and plans. Your comparison is very flawed.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

smileysteve 6y ago

> If the protesters can't regulate their own bad apples then how can they judge police for not being able to? Police are hired by a system, trained on constitutional law, trained in law enforcement technique, take an oath to enforce the law (including the constitution and the public trust), are paid money for their on duty actions, and have a system of discipline and internal review. What the protestors have in common right now is that people showed up at a place and at a time. Protestors have a right to assemble, they inherently have little right to inhibit an anarchist from protesting at the same location without breaking laws or even a holier than thou ethics. That the press have captured intentional subversion by white supremacists, boogaloos, and even police furthers this false dichotomy.

anticonformist 6y ago
It's not a false dichotomy. It's an ethical double standard. If you don't live by your own ethics, how can you judge someone else for not living up to them as well? Police are just people. Protesters are just people. Every one of them has to decide what they will and will not abide. It's not a matter of protesters not being able to stop the extremists among them. They're not even trying. They don't even want to. The problem is that most people (including here in these comments) are rationalizing the actions of these extremists, hence the misapplied MLK Jr. quote. This is an implicit endorsement. A black police officer was killed by extremists. There is serious violence and burning by extremists. These acts are being implicitly endorsed. In the same way Trump implicitly endorses the behavior of his movement's extremists, by not vehemently denouncing it and distancing himself from it. It doesn't require training or an oath to condemn extremists and seek to exclude them from your movement. It just requires principle.

anigbrowl 6y ago

One group is organized hierarchically, very well funded by the state, socially lionized to an extreme degree, invested with enormous legal powers, and provided with a vast array of paramilitary equipment including armored vehicles and helicopters. The other is a loosely networked group of malcontents and opportunists with a relatively low regard for commercial property rights and capitalism. It's disingenuous to equate them, and something tells me you know this and set up a throwaway account to protect your main from the entirely predictable barrage of criticism.

anticonformist 6y ago
The ethics are the issue. If protesters were unable to stop the extremists, that would be one thing. They're unwilling and uninterested in stopping them, and that is the ethical issue. This is exactly the same reason police officers are ethically in the wrong. They could decide that "enough is enough" and push out the "bad apples" among them. Instead, they do nothing. That is their ethical failing. The protesters (and their supporters) are doing the exact same thing, ethically. They refuse to even attempt to push out the extremists, as evidenced by the widespread rationalization and minimization of their actions. These are very basic ethical dilemmas. Do you or don't you call out and punish bad actors among your group? Ancient tribes were generally okay with anyone of their tribe committing any atrocity as long as it was against a member of a foreign tribe. Civilized people condemn and punish even members of their own tribe and do it even when the victim is a member of a foreign tribe.

scarface74 6y ago

There is very little condemnation. Lots of quoting MLK Jr. "rioting is the voice of the unheard" and yet MLK Jr. certainly did not practice or advocate violence. And they beat him, demonized him and arrested him. More recently the President and his supporters called Kaepernick “a son of a bitch” when he was peacefully protesting and the wider society just yawned. It’s kind of hypocritical for the country with the largest military in the world to say that violence doesn’t achieve anything. Peaceful protest and singing Kum Bah Yah didn’t work. The US doesn’t mind collateral damage to achieve its goals as long as the damage is in a foreign country.