4 ms·

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 r

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
      This is a wild overreach. It seems to presume that because I grew up there that I was middle class. I am now but believe me I was not always. I still do now own where I live and it’ll take me to the end of my thirties before I can, reasonably. If you consider analysis of power structures “daydreaming” I’m not sure what to say. There is a manifest difference between two random people slapping each other in an argument and a cop slapping a civilian. Every single interaction which has ever occurred between humans has a power dynamic. It’s the furthest thing from “academic” “philosophical” or “theoretical.”
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.

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
    This is a wild overreach. It seems to presume that because I grew up there that I was middle class. I am now but believe me I was not always. I still do now own where I live and it’ll take me to the end of my thirties before I can, reasonably. If you consider analysis of power structures “daydreaming” I’m not sure what to say. There is a manifest difference between two random people slapping each other in an argument and a cop slapping a civilian. Every single interaction which has ever occurred between humans has a power dynamic. It’s the furthest thing from “academic” “philosophical” or “theoretical.”

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.