4 ms·

I'm ok with throwing a molotov cocktail at corporate/police property as a response to police killing people and getting away with it. There are few "reasonable

by pydry 5y ago

I'm ok with throwing a molotov cocktail at corporate/police property as a response to police killing people and getting away with it. There are few "reasonable" options for redress or protest when the system itself is guilty and successfully sweeping nonviolent protest under the rug. Those who feel more instinctive revulsion to intentional property damage than to injustice against human lives are part of the problem and must change. Property is never more important than human life.

CodeGlitch 5y ago
I'm not. I don't want mob rule or anarchy. There are plenty of examples of people bringing about social changes through peaceful protests and other means.
- pydry 5y ago
  If the police exist to steal your money, beat and kill you with impunity the mob rule is already here it just isnt evenly distributed. The molotov cocktails are a trailing indicator. Violent protest paired with nonviolent (e.g. Malcolm X + MLK/ireland/india) has a better track record of success at bringing about change. The Iraq war protests serve as an example of the failure of nonviolent only (and those protests were huge). For the white liberal living in safety you can condemn the burned out police station and dead body equally. That's definitely your prerogative.
throw_m239339 5y ago
> I'm ok with throwing a molotov cocktail at corporate/police property as a response to police killing people and getting away with it. You're OK with someone setting a precinct on fire at the risk of actually killing people inside or in the surroundings? People that might have had nothing to do with whatever crime the police got away with at first place? You're not seeking justice, you're seeking vendetta, so why are you acting like justice has not been served at first place? You don't believe in Justice anyway.
- pydry 5y ago
  No, Im not okay with risking killing people. I was clear that i believe human life > property. Im ok with damaging empty police stations though. >You're not seeking justice You're placing a higher value on property than on human (black) life.
  - throw_m239339 5y ago
    > No, Im not okay with risking killing people. I was clear that i believe human life > property. Im ok with damaging empty police stations though. No you don't, you are okay with risking killing people. How did these protester know the police station was empty? They didn't. You condone violence. > You're placing a higher value on property than on human (black) life. Liar, these molotov cocktails were not thrown at buildings ,in a attempt at arson, for the sake of black people. And don't make it about black people, like all that violence was for the sake of black people, it wasn't, it was for the sake of violent individuals who clearly didn't care about the consequences of their actions, actions you condone. Don't use black people as a shield for your violent ideology.
    - pydry 5y ago
      >No you don't, you are okay with risking killing people This is literally and precisely what I am against. >And don't make it about black people It is about the correct response to people who get away with literal murder. >like all that violence was for the sake of black people Or for murdered people who did not receive justice. >clearly didn't care about the consequences of their actions, actions you condone. This is precisely the problem. What are the consequences if a cop murders someone and gets off? If the state does not ensure consequences for the guilty then is the state not guilty? And if the state is guilty, what should its punishment be?
pstuart 5y ago
I stand in support of BLM, as in its core tenet, but I don't support that violence. In fact I think much of the violence associated with these protests are the work of agents provocateur working to delegitimize the movement. And it seems to be highly effective. A sampling of such here: https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/08/protests-provocateurs-infiltrators-are-disrupting-blm-protests/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/08/protests-provocateur... This isn't to say that some "real" protesters might not get caught up in the melee once it starts, but it's clear that outside agitators are actively working to destroy it.
- pydry 5y ago
  It's interesting the number of people who state that they generically "don't support violence" as if there were no meaningful distinction between violence against a person and violence against a window. Is it that you see an attack on a person as equivalent to an attack on a window? Or if not, why blur the distinction? I think that the peaceful anti-Iraq war protests of 2002 serves as a poignant example of what happens when you have a large and entirely peaceful protest. No windows got smashed in London. Only in Baghdad. I actually dont think I can think of a protest that was that large and failed so utterly in what it set out to do.
  - pstuart 5y ago
    I'm not blurring anything. I'm stating that some of the violence associated with BLM is coming from people actively trying to discredit the movement. My gut tells me that it's a significant amount. What I find more interesting is that people who make a point about the violence categorically seem to to ignore this aspect of the matter. Are you willing to consider that this is happening, and if so, that perhaps that should bother you more?
    - pydry 5y ago
      No, I know some of it is police instigators but i dont think it's done to "discredit" the movement but to rile up and then entrap the peaceful protestors who can then be detained and prosecuted. It bothers me but I consider it a separate issue.

by pydry 5y ago

CodeGlitch 5y ago

I'm not. I don't want mob rule or anarchy. There are plenty of examples of people bringing about social changes through peaceful protests and other means.

pydry 5y ago
If the police exist to steal your money, beat and kill you with impunity the mob rule is already here it just isnt evenly distributed. The molotov cocktails are a trailing indicator. Violent protest paired with nonviolent (e.g. Malcolm X + MLK/ireland/india) has a better track record of success at bringing about change. The Iraq war protests serve as an example of the failure of nonviolent only (and those protests were huge). For the white liberal living in safety you can condemn the burned out police station and dead body equally. That's definitely your prerogative.

throw_m239339 5y ago

> I'm ok with throwing a molotov cocktail at corporate/police property as a response to police killing people and getting away with it. You're OK with someone setting a precinct on fire at the risk of actually killing people inside or in the surroundings? People that might have had nothing to do with whatever crime the police got away with at first place? You're not seeking justice, you're seeking vendetta, so why are you acting like justice has not been served at first place? You don't believe in Justice anyway.

pydry 5y ago
No, Im not okay with risking killing people. I was clear that i believe human life > property. Im ok with damaging empty police stations though. >You're not seeking justice You're placing a higher value on property than on human (black) life.
- throw_m239339 5y ago
  > No, Im not okay with risking killing people. I was clear that i believe human life > property. Im ok with damaging empty police stations though. No you don't, you are okay with risking killing people. How did these protester know the police station was empty? They didn't. You condone violence. > You're placing a higher value on property than on human (black) life. Liar, these molotov cocktails were not thrown at buildings ,in a attempt at arson, for the sake of black people. And don't make it about black people, like all that violence was for the sake of black people, it wasn't, it was for the sake of violent individuals who clearly didn't care about the consequences of their actions, actions you condone. Don't use black people as a shield for your violent ideology.
  - pydry 5y ago
    >No you don't, you are okay with risking killing people This is literally and precisely what I am against. >And don't make it about black people It is about the correct response to people who get away with literal murder. >like all that violence was for the sake of black people Or for murdered people who did not receive justice. >clearly didn't care about the consequences of their actions, actions you condone. This is precisely the problem. What are the consequences if a cop murders someone and gets off? If the state does not ensure consequences for the guilty then is the state not guilty? And if the state is guilty, what should its punishment be?

pstuart 5y ago

I stand in support of BLM, as in its core tenet, but I don't support that violence. In fact I think much of the violence associated with these protests are the work of agents provocateur working to delegitimize the movement. And it seems to be highly effective. A sampling of such here: https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/08/protests-provocateurs-infiltrators-are-disrupting-blm-protests/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/08/protests-provocateur... This isn't to say that some "real" protesters might not get caught up in the melee once it starts, but it's clear that outside agitators are actively working to destroy it.

pydry 5y ago
It's interesting the number of people who state that they generically "don't support violence" as if there were no meaningful distinction between violence against a person and violence against a window. Is it that you see an attack on a person as equivalent to an attack on a window? Or if not, why blur the distinction? I think that the peaceful anti-Iraq war protests of 2002 serves as a poignant example of what happens when you have a large and entirely peaceful protest. No windows got smashed in London. Only in Baghdad. I actually dont think I can think of a protest that was that large and failed so utterly in what it set out to do.
- pstuart 5y ago
  I'm not blurring anything. I'm stating that some of the violence associated with BLM is coming from people actively trying to discredit the movement. My gut tells me that it's a significant amount. What I find more interesting is that people who make a point about the violence categorically seem to to ignore this aspect of the matter. Are you willing to consider that this is happening, and if so, that perhaps that should bother you more?
  - pydry 5y ago
    No, I know some of it is police instigators but i dont think it's done to "discredit" the movement but to rile up and then entrap the peaceful protestors who can then be detained and prosecuted. It bothers me but I consider it a separate issue.