6 ms·

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 differen

• 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.
      • egg1 5y ago
        Have you considered it's because you've grown up in a middle class suburb, isolated from all the depravity and violence that goes on in these inner city neighborhoods, that you can afford to daydream about "power structures" and dismiss these losses as mere property damage? Do you know how many of these businesses are owned by poor minority and/or immigrant families, who have taken out loans and spent every last penny they had to open up shop? The enshrinement and protection of private property rights is one of the core principles that separate developed nations from third-world banana republics. If property is worth that little to you, perhaps you should start by offering up your own, and move to one of these places.
        • sohdas 5y ago
          This is a pretty big overreaction to a statement no-one should have any issue with accepting. It's manifestly obvious that property damage is not the same as violence against humans. It's something which is reflected in our laws. You can believe that property damage is bad and still accept this as clearly true.
          • thegrimmest 5y ago
            Yes, they're clearly not the same thing, which is why we have different words for them. I would however disagree that any violence is worse than all property damage, which is what seems to be implied. Would you rather be slapped in the face or have your house burnt down?
        • ixtli 5y ago
  • FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
    When, on the flip side, the violence is administered by the State, this comes close to the argument of In Defense of Flogging. Like, "just give me a spanking and get it over with". (Though, that book is also about the cruelty and dysfunction of the "justice" system.) This also shows up in personal relationships. If you had the choice between transitory physical abuse, and permanent wage garnishment, which would you choose? Only one of these is considered legitimate, and yet if people could freely choose I think they'd accept beatings a lot of the time. In a way, this is what everyone who chooses a physically dangerous or even painful job is doing: "Pain ends. Money, and thus private property, I get to keep." The question is how much permanent injury you suffer.
• colpabar 5y ago
  I mentioned target because it was a very visible event; I think a lot of people saw that one picture of the self checkout machine being smashed with a hammer. What people don't seem to know or remember is that a lot of small, local businesses were also damaged. Even black owned ones! https://www.npr.org/2020/08/12/901859883/riots-that-followed-anti-racism-protests-come-at-great-cost-to-black-owned-busin https://www.npr.org/2020/08/12/901859883/riots-that-followed... It's just really hard to reconcile all this damage/looting with the notion that all of it was in protest. To me it seems like a lot of people just wanted some free stuff.
• noah_buddy 5y ago
  If you destroy someone's livelihood and make them and theirs go hungry, are you not committing violence against them? If you destroy cars people need to reach work and earn their keep, are you not doing violence against them? If you burn down a church, are you not stripping someone else of their civil rights? Many leftists will argue that sanctions are inherently violent and murderous because they often push people on the precipice over the edge and kill them from malnutrition or lack of medical access. Yet when rioters do essentially the same, destroy property in already precarious communities, this argument is made that it's not violence, it is a noble political demonstration. I for one do not buy it and find it hard to believe that your anecdotal business owner is representative of the wider economic and individual impact riots have. The truth of the matter is that riots are a symptom. There is nothing noble about a riot and they are inherently violent, even if only property is destroyed. In the same way that those capital rioters deserve prison, so too do other rioters. That does not mean the conditions that caused the riots are just or proper but neither are the rioters righteous.
  • ixtli 5y ago
    Leftists will also correctly say that when the state murders you extrajudicially there is only one way to respond. What you're saying is that unless you can somehow guarantee that property wont be damaged you can never attack those who are doing violence to you. Unfortunately, the position that many poor people are in doesn't afford them the luxury of being concerned with other peoples private property and, personally, i am of the mind that they shouldn't have to be.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • HideousKojima 5y ago
      >What you're saying is that unless you can somehow guarantee that property wont be damaged you can never attack those who are doing violence to you. Nonsense. If rioters burned down a police station and the fire spread to some neighboring buildings it would be unfortunate (and would probably hurt public opinion about the riot to some extent). But it's not even remotely comparable to a riot that doesn't even try to target the sources of its grievances and directly and intentionally harms civilians instead
• zdragnar 5y ago
  This is an incredibly rosey take on what happened. One guy was okay with his restaurant burned down, probably because he had insurance. Many of the businesses affected (thinking lake street in minneapolis and kenosha) were POC owned small businesses. Many were permanently closed because the owners lost everything and didn't have insurance to cover it. > it is important to differentiate between violence done towards individuals and damage caused to private property Tell that to the people who put blood, sweat and tears into getting where they are. You think the emotional, mental and financial pain didnt do any damage? > target isn't a part of the community What about the cub foods that was totally trashed? Empty shelves, aisles flooded with broken containers. The community didn't deserve that. Nobody benefitted from it. Nobody saw that and thought to themselves "Yeah, go protesters!" It took 8 months to reopen after all of the damage and unrest.
  • ixtli 5y ago
    Absolutely fair argument. I don't live there so im not gonna comment to deeply here, but one thing i know to be true is that by and large the people who were participating in the demonstration were also members of the community. This doesn't necessarily justify harm done but it makes their view just as relevant as someone who is more successful than they are. (Though notably it wasn't just the poor demonstrating.)
    • colpabar 5y ago
      Usually the term "demonstration" refers to something like a march, sit-in, or some other form of non-violent protest. We're not talking about that, we're talking about people destroying private property. > by and large the people who were participating in the demonstration were also members of the community Does that make it okay? Just because someone lives close to a business doesn't give them the right to destroy it. It seems that you would be ok with it happening to your business, but I bet 99% of small business owners would not.
      • ixtli 5y ago
        The supposition that demonstration doesn’t include obstructing or destroying property is relatively new. When I say demonstration I mean it to include everything from drum circles in zucotti park to the 60s civil rights demonstrations which locked down cities and towns to the events which triggered the Bolshevik and Cultural revolutions and the de-colonization of India. To think that change happens without damage to property or obstruction of daily life is historically inaccurate and myopic.
• ImprobableTruth 5y ago
  A lot of people depend on corporations for employment and the services they provide. So if a large store gets burned down and doesn't reopen that will likely just lead to decay and harm the community, especially if it's in a low-income area where sources of fresh food are already generally rare. >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 No, what this means is that this owner is privileged enough that this isn't life ruining to them. A lot of small business owners in poor areas have partial coverage at best and will never recover, having their store burned down is having their livelihood burned down.
  • nervlord 5y ago
• everdrive 5y ago
  > it is important to differentiate between violence done towards individuals and damage caused to private property. It’s important to note that when your property is being looted, you can’t actually know for sure whether the mob is going to turn violent. In this case, fleeing to safety and leaving your home or business burned to the ground may be the only legally safe response. (ie, it is usually not To be clear, I would never sympathize with the political cause of those who would violently destroy the interests of my friends and neighbors. I also don’t believe that violence against people is acceptable simply because they can be considered separate from a community.