11 ms·

That's an easy one, no need to get philosophical or long-winded about it: because most riots target the businesses and homes of random citizens/companies. If an

That's an easy one, no need to get philosophical or long-winded about it: because most riots target the businesses and homes of random citizens/companies. If anti-police riots solely targeted police stations, city offices, and other related government buildings and infrastructure then a much larger percentage of the populace would see them as just/justified. Samsung TVs on sale at 100% off at your local Target doesn't have the same moral weight to it.

colpabar 5y ago
I agree 100%. It was so disappointing to see all the damage done to private businesses during the summer of 2020. Why not go after government buildings? Isn't that who funds all the things that were being protested? How does destroying a target store help anything??
- ixtli 5y ago
  I agree with you that no one should ever like seeing damage to a community. Two things come to mind in response to your comment: 1. it is important to differentiate between violence done towards individuals and damage caused to private property. i am not accusing you of conflating the two but i just feel it necessary to be explicit in these discussions because people often try to slyly discuss one as if it was the other. 2. I think a compelling argument in defense of the demonstrators in 2020, target isn't a part of the community. It pays minimum wage, makes it difficult for small business owned by the community to compete, and most importantly extracts the wealth and moves it away from the community. I am not saying there weren't better targets. I'm not saying we shouldn't (necessarily) go after government buildings if those are you grievances. I'm just saying that there is reasoning behind this even if its blunt. (Also worth noting i read an interview with a restaurant owner near the target whos restaurant was burned down that effectivly said "yeah this really really sucks, but at the same time i understand the wider context." That's what happens when you're actually a member of the community and get caught up the fallout from these things.)
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    Many would argue that the destruction of their livelihood does much more long-lasting harm than suffering physical violence. Many a small business owner would rather catch a beating than see their business burnt to the ground.
    - djbusby 5y ago
      Lol. Rather get beaten half to death (and pay for it because America!) than replace a building with insurance money?? Wrong. Plus, it's traumatic for your family to watch you get beat down - more traumatic than watching you cry at a replaceable loss.
      - zdragnar 5y ago
        Many of the destroyed businesses weren't insured, they were POC owned small businesses that were part of the community and barely afloat. Many did not return. If you think there are no long lasting health effects from that kind of emotional and financial stress, think again.
        mbg721 5y ago
        Even for those who were insured, having to file claims for this sort of destruction is a good way to make your premiums --and those of nearby businesses that may have been spared direct damage--skyrocket to unaffordability.
      - ixtli 5y ago
        I tried pretty hard to specify this bit in my comment: violence towards people IS NOT damage to property. Hard thing for people to engage with earnestly though :( I think its because to them, damage to private property makes life to varying degrees more difficult for the owner of the property. I know from growing up in the middle class suburbs that it is difficult for many people to tell the difference between that difficulty and violence done directly or indirectly to you by a power structure.
- ss108 5y ago
  I don't think going after government buildings would have been justified either; those buildings are all of our buildings. We paid (and pay) for them, and they provide services to the community. I am all for widespread recognition of the horrible state of American policing, including the fact that a lot of (but not all, and I do not think I am prepared to say "most" either) of the people who go into it are clearly bad people. I am also into significantly modifying or abolishing qualified immunity, a move which I think most Americans, of all political persuasions, would favor if they read some of the caselaw and came to understand how much police officers have gotten away with under current law. In addition to having an obvious direct negative impact on our economy and the victims of such riots, lawless, destructive riots only damage both of those causes.
  - hcurtiss 5y ago
    I just want to put a pitch in here that I am related to several LEOs, and I can assure you that the number of "bad people," are a tiny minority. And I am also STRONGLY opposed to this idea that it's OK to attack government buildings, and I don't think I'm alone. If 2020 riots happen again, I think you can expect all out war.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > How does destroying a target store help anything? If only someone had just won a prize for a fifteen page theory of how riots can be justified.
bryanrasmussen 5y ago
that would be the reason why there are few or no just riots, not why there is no theory of a just riot. Most wars are not just, but there is a theory of just war.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  Riots are indiscriminate almost by definition. Has there ever been a riot whose targeted damage outpaced its collateral damage? We can imagine such a thing, but if it's not practically likely to ever occur I don't know what the point would be of developing theories about it. On the other hand it's very straightforward to locate some justified wars in history. In fact I would say that most wars have a side that has a just cause, which is typically the defender.
  - noah_buddy 5y ago
    > I don't know what the point would be of developing theories about it. Easy, the same reason most contrarian theories are developed: grant money and academic prestige. Most theories like this are woefully at odds with what the majority of society believes. If you asked most Americans whether or not they wanted a riot, just or not, in their neighborhood, you know what they would answer.
  - nuclearnice1 5y ago
    You used two different standards for riots and wars. For riots you judged damage. For war you judged motivation. Most wars fail your targeted vs collateral damage test. Maybe the US drone war from 2001 to present as an exception. Although we don’t really have the full picture to say.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      Hrm, neither of motivation nor damage are sufficient alone. It's something like the product of the two. For an action to be justified it must both have a just motivation and a reasonably predicted just outcome proportional to the motivation. If either of those two requirements are not met, then the action is not just. Happy to go into examples if it would help clarify what I'm thinking. Feel free to ask if you want me to, but I think you might already understand my pov from what I've said above. To be clear, I am not arguing that my point of view is or should be universal. I'm only sharing my own thoughts on the issue.
rajin444 5y ago
The US had a riot on Jan 6th 2021 and it’s been portrayed as a crisis on the scale of 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. Millions of Americans think it was an insurrection. I don’t know if your theory holds up.
- eganist 5y ago
  > The US had a riot on Jan 6th 2021 and it’s been portrayed as a crisis on the scale of 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. Millions of Americans think it was an insurrection. I don’t know if your theory holds up. To be clear, there was a riot, but said riot was also allegedly used as cover for (and was also allegedly an outcome of) sedition - https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-oath-keepers-and-10-other-individuals-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy-and https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-oath-keepers-and-10-ot... The vast majority of Jan 6 charges were riot-related, but that there are any insurrection-related charges at all is what's branding the event as an attempted insurrection against the United States Government.
  - AcerbicZero 5y ago
    - eganist 5y ago
      > To be more clear, no charges of sedition were filed until nearly a year after the "riot" had been branded an "insurrection". The branding of the riot to insurrection occured about 45 minutes after someone sat in Pelosi's chair. Investigations are a thing that take place, and exceptional charges tend to be distant followers of actual events, especially when cases need to be airtight. There's no conspiracy with the way the charges were handled; there's simply evidence-gathering.
    - kadoban 5y ago
      Serious charges, in general, take longer to investigate and charge.
    - bakuninsbart 5y ago
flareback 5y ago
Came here to say this but you already said it
bluedino 5y ago
> If anti-police riots solely targeted police stations, city offices, and other related government buildings Rioters/protestors burned down the third precinct police station in Minneapolis. Also in May, protesters smashed a window and defaced the Veterans Affairs headquarters building, and smashed the doors and windows at the National Treasury Employees Union headquarters. The National Park Service reported vandalized monuments on the National Mall. Edit: downvotes but no explanation?
- zepto 5y ago
  “solely” is the word you are missing.
jchook 5y ago
MLK addresses looting. > Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking. But most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights. Also, throughout its history, many US agencies astroturf “fake” riots to discredit their targets. The CIA did it in Iran in 1953 for example. Many LEO plants were identified in 2020, smashing glass, planting bricks, etc.
- titzer 5y ago
  Wow, that MLK quote cuts deep. It should also come with context as to what MLK was doing. He wasn't apologizing, rationalizing it, or supporting it. He was explaining why it happens. He continually called for non-violence and civil disobedience, not rioting. In many ways, he was calling to the black community to stop doing these things and up-level protests to effective means from ineffective means.
  - bennysomething 5y ago
    Sorry, from my perspective he's talking utter shite. I knew people in northern Ireland who rioted. They were young angry stupid men who didn't give a fuck who's lives they were making a misery. It was a form of collective punishment on people whose only crime was having a business or a car that idiots enjoyed smashing up
    - titzer 5y ago
      > people in northern Ireland who rioted Yeah, these are not equivalent scenarios.
      - 5y ago
adamrezich 5y ago
tsol 5y ago
So any one individual could corrupt a just riot by targeting a citizen or home. Seems this theory is severely lacking, then, if it basically means no real sporadic action can take place unless every single individual involved must be on the same page and avoid committing any mistakes. In war where every soldier is trained on rules of combat, when some break the rules and do unjust things they are seen simply as "lone wolves breaking the rules". In riots, people rarely offer the same reasoning that those who commit crimes against citizens are simply "lone wolves breaking the rules" detracting from the larger movement. The lone wolves actions are taken to represent the entire movement as a whole. There is a huge unexplained distance between those two. Why is it that state powers can make mistakes but sporadic grassroots movements cannot?
- zepto 5y ago
  No, it just means we don’t have to make excuses for riots, and the protestors could leave the area where riots are happening, to make their intentions clear. If riots are a “mistake”, then protestors should be admitting that, rather than attempting to excuse them.
  - tsol 5y ago
    >and the protestors could leave the area where riots are happening, to make their intentions clear. Since when are protectors a monolithic entity that can sense when a single individual is doing something unjust? I can show up to a riot and break into a house, and the other rioters will continue doing what they were doing totally unaware of my actions. But this also means if people are justly rioting all it takes is a single bad actor to throw a brick through a window in order to force everyone else to leave. Otherwise it would mean everyone else is being unjust. Again, a single cop beating protesters is seen as doing wrong, and a single soldier raping a foreign citizen is seen as a lone violator. Seems like a double standard. With this standard, America's founding was closer to terrorism than revolution. People threw hot tar and feathers on innocent tax collectors. Rather than apologize, they armed themselves. America couldn't exist if the world followed these ridiculous rules
    - 5y ago
tshaddox 5y ago
Don’t lots of supposed just wars cause massive amounts of damage to civilian lives and property?
- naasking 5y ago
  Civilians are never targeted deliberately except in extreme circumstances, like the World Wars.
  - pasabagi 5y ago
    Really? I don't know of a single war off the top of my head that didn't have many high-profile incidents of militaries targeting civilian infrastructure (with people inside).
    - naasking 5y ago
      Collateral damage is not deliberate targeting. Targeting civilians that are not participating in the conflict is against the Geneva Conventions: https://guides.lib.unc.edu/militarylaw/armedconflict https://guides.lib.unc.edu/militarylaw/armedconflict
      - pasabagi 5y ago
        Yeah, I know the 'rule'. The least messy war that comes to mind is the first gulf war, and that had loads of direct targeting of civilians[0]. Most wars (second gulf, various israeli wars, etc) are way worse. I cannot in fact think of a single example of the rule being followed, can you? If you consider a really bloody war, like the korean war, they killed a fifth of the population of north korea, and destroyed basically every single piece of civilian infrastructure. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign
tryitnow 5y ago
There are plenty of theories that justify collateral damage in war. There are even theories that justify war crimes (e.g. have to break a few eggs to make an omelette). The main difference here is between state actors and non-state actors. And it's bizarre to say that you don't need to get "philosophical or long-winded" about it, when it's a link to the British Academy Brian Barry Price essay. I mean "philosophical and long-winded" is exactly what their looking for here. BTW, I agree with your normative assessment I am just saying your comment makes no sense in the context of this article.
nradov 5y ago
Anti-government riots that damage businesses in communist countries are just because all of the businesses are owned by an illegitimate state.
curun1r 5y ago
> Samsung TVs on sale at 100% off at your local Target doesn't have the same moral weight to it I kinda disagree with this. If it were a local retailer run by your neighbors, you’d be absolutely correct. But if you’re talking about Target, you’re now in the territory of a system of economic oppression where money is siphoned out of local communities by large multinational corporations and the actual residents have no ownership over anything. During the 2020 riots, there were definitely some people trying to make the point, “we have no ownership of our own neighborhoods.” I can see many people, especially black Americans, feeling all but imprisoned by the fact that they can’t afford to own property, can’t run the businesses that serve their community and are at the mercy of white people who move in and gentrify the neighborhoods forcing them to find new, less desirable places to live. The police who are the immediate focus of protests become merely the jailers in a systemic prison of which Target and other large retailers play a huge part.
- justanother 5y ago
  I'm probably going too far from the original point since Target was only cited as a hypothetical example, but Target has some of the country's largest and most capable crime labs. I mention this as an example of how large corporate entities can be enthusiastic participants in the police state.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  > But if you’re talking about Target, you’re now in the territory of a system of economic oppression where money is siphoned out of local communities by large multinational corporations and the actual residents have no ownership over anything. Wow, are you using loaded language. Say the Target wasn't there. The people of the neighborhood are still going to want to buy things. Without the Target, there might be locally-owned mom-and-pop businesses. Target takes the profits out of the neighborhood. All that is true. But Target drove those businesses out by selling stuff for less money. So your solution is that the people of the neighborhood have to spend more in order that some people of the neighborhood can have the profits. And you call Target a system of economic oppression and a money siphon. Yeah, I'm not buying it.
  - 5y ago
__MatrixMan__ 5y ago
Often it's not a specific agency or policy that's being protested. They're involved, sure, but the protest is about the brokenness of the social contract more generally--which means that working towards fixing it is everybody's problem. A targeted strike on a police station wouldn't do much to engage anybody who is neither police nor protestor. There are obviously better ways to drive change than destroying whatever's around you, but much like you'd protest a too-low speed limit by speeding, it's not insane to protest a broken social contract than violating it at scale.
anonymouswacker 5y ago
In that case, the "Capitol Riot" was probably the most justified riot of 2021 in the US, yet the media (state-sponsored and affiliated) would disagree. Operation Mockingbird [1], anyone? [1]-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
posterboy 5y ago
The article talks about riots across history, not the American experience. I doubt it means looting to the exclusion of civil unrest, upheaval. Inter Arma Sine Legis, ergo looting is a probable side effect.
RickJWagner 5y ago
The righteousness of a riot (or 'civil protest') is as described by the storyteller. If the media decides it's a 'mostly peaceful' protest, then acts of violence are not emphasized. Participation is not demonized. But if the describer calls it 'an insurrection' or 'riot', then acts of violence are magnified. Being present, even without participation, is demonized. The real truth is that no act of violence is acceptable.
scollet 5y ago
You managed to confuse an entire comment tree by ignoring the article and presenting fallacious, anti-American rhetoric. Congrats. Minority groups have been dealing with systemic and deliberate murder as part of their daily lives for 400 years and you're worried about... a reconcilable loss of an inanimate object? Oddisee and Shabazz Palaces can say it better than I can. > I got a cuz that’ll be your doctor after a test that I hope he’ll pass Isn’t that what you fear most? But fear don’t trump your needs Our pros do trump our cons though. And cons don’t trump your greed And monsters’ what you make of us and we make you succeed And that’s what makes this country great, it’s built by those who bleed It’s built by those who came on boats, it’s built by those who flee And you forgot your family tree and we’re just all your leaves So if you just try to chop us down you only hurt your knees > That's how we start the show Eagles soar and oil flows You didn't decide what you chose We will pay back what they owe Yeah you say its so I got mines now you get yours Crime depends from who you stole Rich is good, black is no

colpabar 5y ago

I agree 100%. It was so disappointing to see all the damage done to private businesses during the summer of 2020. Why not go after government buildings? Isn't that who funds all the things that were being protested? How does destroying a target store help anything??

ixtli 5y ago
I agree with you that no one should ever like seeing damage to a community. Two things come to mind in response to your comment: 1. it is important to differentiate between violence done towards individuals and damage caused to private property. i am not accusing you of conflating the two but i just feel it necessary to be explicit in these discussions because people often try to slyly discuss one as if it was the other. 2. I think a compelling argument in defense of the demonstrators in 2020, target isn't a part of the community. It pays minimum wage, makes it difficult for small business owned by the community to compete, and most importantly extracts the wealth and moves it away from the community. I am not saying there weren't better targets. I'm not saying we shouldn't (necessarily) go after government buildings if those are you grievances. I'm just saying that there is reasoning behind this even if its blunt. (Also worth noting i read an interview with a restaurant owner near the target whos restaurant was burned down that effectivly said "yeah this really really sucks, but at the same time i understand the wider context." That's what happens when you're actually a member of the community and get caught up the fallout from these things.)
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  Many would argue that the destruction of their livelihood does much more long-lasting harm than suffering physical violence. Many a small business owner would rather catch a beating than see their business burnt to the ground.
  - djbusby 5y ago
    Lol. Rather get beaten half to death (and pay for it because America!) than replace a building with insurance money?? Wrong. Plus, it's traumatic for your family to watch you get beat down - more traumatic than watching you cry at a replaceable loss.
    - zdragnar 5y ago
      Many of the destroyed businesses weren't insured, they were POC owned small businesses that were part of the community and barely afloat. Many did not return. If you think there are no long lasting health effects from that kind of emotional and financial stress, think again.
      - mbg721 5y ago
        Even for those who were insured, having to file claims for this sort of destruction is a good way to make your premiums --and those of nearby businesses that may have been spared direct damage--skyrocket to unaffordability.
    - ixtli 5y ago
      I tried pretty hard to specify this bit in my comment: violence towards people IS NOT damage to property. Hard thing for people to engage with earnestly though :( I think its because to them, damage to private property makes life to varying degrees more difficult for the owner of the property. I know from growing up in the middle class suburbs that it is difficult for many people to tell the difference between that difficulty and violence done directly or indirectly to you by a power structure.
ss108 5y ago
I don't think going after government buildings would have been justified either; those buildings are all of our buildings. We paid (and pay) for them, and they provide services to the community. I am all for widespread recognition of the horrible state of American policing, including the fact that a lot of (but not all, and I do not think I am prepared to say "most" either) of the people who go into it are clearly bad people. I am also into significantly modifying or abolishing qualified immunity, a move which I think most Americans, of all political persuasions, would favor if they read some of the caselaw and came to understand how much police officers have gotten away with under current law. In addition to having an obvious direct negative impact on our economy and the victims of such riots, lawless, destructive riots only damage both of those causes.
- hcurtiss 5y ago
  I just want to put a pitch in here that I am related to several LEOs, and I can assure you that the number of "bad people," are a tiny minority. And I am also STRONGLY opposed to this idea that it's OK to attack government buildings, and I don't think I'm alone. If 2020 riots happen again, I think you can expect all out war.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
HWR_14 5y ago
> How does destroying a target store help anything? If only someone had just won a prize for a fifteen page theory of how riots can be justified.

bryanrasmussen 5y ago

that would be the reason why there are few or no just riots, not why there is no theory of a just riot. Most wars are not just, but there is a theory of just war.

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
Riots are indiscriminate almost by definition. Has there ever been a riot whose targeted damage outpaced its collateral damage? We can imagine such a thing, but if it's not practically likely to ever occur I don't know what the point would be of developing theories about it. On the other hand it's very straightforward to locate some justified wars in history. In fact I would say that most wars have a side that has a just cause, which is typically the defender.
- noah_buddy 5y ago
  > I don't know what the point would be of developing theories about it. Easy, the same reason most contrarian theories are developed: grant money and academic prestige. Most theories like this are woefully at odds with what the majority of society believes. If you asked most Americans whether or not they wanted a riot, just or not, in their neighborhood, you know what they would answer.
- nuclearnice1 5y ago
  You used two different standards for riots and wars. For riots you judged damage. For war you judged motivation. Most wars fail your targeted vs collateral damage test. Maybe the US drone war from 2001 to present as an exception. Although we don’t really have the full picture to say.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    Hrm, neither of motivation nor damage are sufficient alone. It's something like the product of the two. For an action to be justified it must both have a just motivation and a reasonably predicted just outcome proportional to the motivation. If either of those two requirements are not met, then the action is not just. Happy to go into examples if it would help clarify what I'm thinking. Feel free to ask if you want me to, but I think you might already understand my pov from what I've said above. To be clear, I am not arguing that my point of view is or should be universal. I'm only sharing my own thoughts on the issue.

rajin444 5y ago

The US had a riot on Jan 6th 2021 and it’s been portrayed as a crisis on the scale of 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. Millions of Americans think it was an insurrection. I don’t know if your theory holds up.

eganist 5y ago
> The US had a riot on Jan 6th 2021 and it’s been portrayed as a crisis on the scale of 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. Millions of Americans think it was an insurrection. I don’t know if your theory holds up. To be clear, there was a riot, but said riot was also allegedly used as cover for (and was also allegedly an outcome of) sedition - https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-oath-keepers-and-10-other-individuals-indicted-federal-court-seditious-conspiracy-and https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-oath-keepers-and-10-ot... The vast majority of Jan 6 charges were riot-related, but that there are any insurrection-related charges at all is what's branding the event as an attempted insurrection against the United States Government.
- AcerbicZero 5y ago
  - eganist 5y ago
    > To be more clear, no charges of sedition were filed until nearly a year after the "riot" had been branded an "insurrection". The branding of the riot to insurrection occured about 45 minutes after someone sat in Pelosi's chair. Investigations are a thing that take place, and exceptional charges tend to be distant followers of actual events, especially when cases need to be airtight. There's no conspiracy with the way the charges were handled; there's simply evidence-gathering.
  - kadoban 5y ago
    Serious charges, in general, take longer to investigate and charge.
  - bakuninsbart 5y ago

flareback 5y ago

Came here to say this but you already said it

bluedino 5y ago

> If anti-police riots solely targeted police stations, city offices, and other related government buildings Rioters/protestors burned down the third precinct police station in Minneapolis. Also in May, protesters smashed a window and defaced the Veterans Affairs headquarters building, and smashed the doors and windows at the National Treasury Employees Union headquarters. The National Park Service reported vandalized monuments on the National Mall. Edit: downvotes but no explanation?

zepto 5y ago
“solely” is the word you are missing.

jchook 5y ago

MLK addresses looting. > Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking. But most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights. Also, throughout its history, many US agencies astroturf “fake” riots to discredit their targets. The CIA did it in Iran in 1953 for example. Many LEO plants were identified in 2020, smashing glass, planting bricks, etc.

titzer 5y ago
Wow, that MLK quote cuts deep. It should also come with context as to what MLK was doing. He wasn't apologizing, rationalizing it, or supporting it. He was explaining why it happens. He continually called for non-violence and civil disobedience, not rioting. In many ways, he was calling to the black community to stop doing these things and up-level protests to effective means from ineffective means.
- bennysomething 5y ago
  Sorry, from my perspective he's talking utter shite. I knew people in northern Ireland who rioted. They were young angry stupid men who didn't give a fuck who's lives they were making a misery. It was a form of collective punishment on people whose only crime was having a business or a car that idiots enjoyed smashing up
  - titzer 5y ago
    > people in northern Ireland who rioted Yeah, these are not equivalent scenarios.
    - 5y ago

adamrezich 5y ago

tsol 5y ago

So any one individual could corrupt a just riot by targeting a citizen or home. Seems this theory is severely lacking, then, if it basically means no real sporadic action can take place unless every single individual involved must be on the same page and avoid committing any mistakes. In war where every soldier is trained on rules of combat, when some break the rules and do unjust things they are seen simply as "lone wolves breaking the rules". In riots, people rarely offer the same reasoning that those who commit crimes against citizens are simply "lone wolves breaking the rules" detracting from the larger movement. The lone wolves actions are taken to represent the entire movement as a whole. There is a huge unexplained distance between those two. Why is it that state powers can make mistakes but sporadic grassroots movements cannot?

zepto 5y ago
No, it just means we don’t have to make excuses for riots, and the protestors could leave the area where riots are happening, to make their intentions clear. If riots are a “mistake”, then protestors should be admitting that, rather than attempting to excuse them.
- tsol 5y ago
  >and the protestors could leave the area where riots are happening, to make their intentions clear. Since when are protectors a monolithic entity that can sense when a single individual is doing something unjust? I can show up to a riot and break into a house, and the other rioters will continue doing what they were doing totally unaware of my actions. But this also means if people are justly rioting all it takes is a single bad actor to throw a brick through a window in order to force everyone else to leave. Otherwise it would mean everyone else is being unjust. Again, a single cop beating protesters is seen as doing wrong, and a single soldier raping a foreign citizen is seen as a lone violator. Seems like a double standard. With this standard, America's founding was closer to terrorism than revolution. People threw hot tar and feathers on innocent tax collectors. Rather than apologize, they armed themselves. America couldn't exist if the world followed these ridiculous rules
  - 5y ago

tshaddox 5y ago

Don’t lots of supposed just wars cause massive amounts of damage to civilian lives and property?

naasking 5y ago
Civilians are never targeted deliberately except in extreme circumstances, like the World Wars.
- pasabagi 5y ago
  Really? I don't know of a single war off the top of my head that didn't have many high-profile incidents of militaries targeting civilian infrastructure (with people inside).
  - naasking 5y ago
    Collateral damage is not deliberate targeting. Targeting civilians that are not participating in the conflict is against the Geneva Conventions: https://guides.lib.unc.edu/militarylaw/armedconflict https://guides.lib.unc.edu/militarylaw/armedconflict
    - pasabagi 5y ago
      Yeah, I know the 'rule'. The least messy war that comes to mind is the first gulf war, and that had loads of direct targeting of civilians[0]. Most wars (second gulf, various israeli wars, etc) are way worse. I cannot in fact think of a single example of the rule being followed, can you? If you consider a really bloody war, like the korean war, they killed a fifth of the population of north korea, and destroyed basically every single piece of civilian infrastructure. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign

tryitnow 5y ago

There are plenty of theories that justify collateral damage in war. There are even theories that justify war crimes (e.g. have to break a few eggs to make an omelette). The main difference here is between state actors and non-state actors. And it's bizarre to say that you don't need to get "philosophical or long-winded" about it, when it's a link to the British Academy Brian Barry Price essay. I mean "philosophical and long-winded" is exactly what their looking for here. BTW, I agree with your normative assessment I am just saying your comment makes no sense in the context of this article.

nradov 5y ago

Anti-government riots that damage businesses in communist countries are just because all of the businesses are owned by an illegitimate state.

curun1r 5y ago

> Samsung TVs on sale at 100% off at your local Target doesn't have the same moral weight to it I kinda disagree with this. If it were a local retailer run by your neighbors, you’d be absolutely correct. But if you’re talking about Target, you’re now in the territory of a system of economic oppression where money is siphoned out of local communities by large multinational corporations and the actual residents have no ownership over anything. During the 2020 riots, there were definitely some people trying to make the point, “we have no ownership of our own neighborhoods.” I can see many people, especially black Americans, feeling all but imprisoned by the fact that they can’t afford to own property, can’t run the businesses that serve their community and are at the mercy of white people who move in and gentrify the neighborhoods forcing them to find new, less desirable places to live. The police who are the immediate focus of protests become merely the jailers in a systemic prison of which Target and other large retailers play a huge part.

justanother 5y ago
I'm probably going too far from the original point since Target was only cited as a hypothetical example, but Target has some of the country's largest and most capable crime labs. I mention this as an example of how large corporate entities can be enthusiastic participants in the police state.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
> But if you’re talking about Target, you’re now in the territory of a system of economic oppression where money is siphoned out of local communities by large multinational corporations and the actual residents have no ownership over anything. Wow, are you using loaded language. Say the Target wasn't there. The people of the neighborhood are still going to want to buy things. Without the Target, there might be locally-owned mom-and-pop businesses. Target takes the profits out of the neighborhood. All that is true. But Target drove those businesses out by selling stuff for less money. So your solution is that the people of the neighborhood have to spend more in order that some people of the neighborhood can have the profits. And you call Target a system of economic oppression and a money siphon. Yeah, I'm not buying it.
- 5y ago

__MatrixMan__ 5y ago

Often it's not a specific agency or policy that's being protested. They're involved, sure, but the protest is about the brokenness of the social contract more generally--which means that working towards fixing it is everybody's problem. A targeted strike on a police station wouldn't do much to engage anybody who is neither police nor protestor. There are obviously better ways to drive change than destroying whatever's around you, but much like you'd protest a too-low speed limit by speeding, it's not insane to protest a broken social contract than violating it at scale.

anonymouswacker 5y ago

In that case, the "Capitol Riot" was probably the most justified riot of 2021 in the US, yet the media (state-sponsored and affiliated) would disagree. Operation Mockingbird [1], anyone? [1]-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

posterboy 5y ago

The article talks about riots across history, not the American experience. I doubt it means looting to the exclusion of civil unrest, upheaval. Inter Arma Sine Legis, ergo looting is a probable side effect.

RickJWagner 5y ago

The righteousness of a riot (or 'civil protest') is as described by the storyteller. If the media decides it's a 'mostly peaceful' protest, then acts of violence are not emphasized. Participation is not demonized. But if the describer calls it 'an insurrection' or 'riot', then acts of violence are magnified. Being present, even without participation, is demonized. The real truth is that no act of violence is acceptable.

scollet 5y ago

You managed to confuse an entire comment tree by ignoring the article and presenting fallacious, anti-American rhetoric. Congrats. Minority groups have been dealing with systemic and deliberate murder as part of their daily lives for 400 years and you're worried about... a reconcilable loss of an inanimate object? Oddisee and Shabazz Palaces can say it better than I can. > I got a cuz that’ll be your doctor after a test that I hope he’ll pass Isn’t that what you fear most? But fear don’t trump your needs Our pros do trump our cons though. And cons don’t trump your greed And monsters’ what you make of us and we make you succeed And that’s what makes this country great, it’s built by those who bleed It’s built by those who came on boats, it’s built by those who flee And you forgot your family tree and we’re just all your leaves So if you just try to chop us down you only hurt your knees > That's how we start the show Eagles soar and oil flows You didn't decide what you chose We will pay back what they owe Yeah you say its so I got mines now you get yours Crime depends from who you stole Rich is good, black is no