5 ms·

I think the problem with these narratives is that "protester" and "groups that threaten the racial status hierarchy" get casually mixed in with people who burn

I think the problem with these narratives is that "protester" and "groups that threaten the racial status hierarchy" get casually mixed in with people who burn down buildings, loot businesses, and otherwise destroy cities. The former need to be protected by the police so that they can express their views. The latter need to be apprehended, charged, and tried. In order to have a rational discussion, these classes of people need to be separated in the discussion. The implication is that the police are out to get the former. But what portion of the police's motivation is driven by the latter?

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago
What's being burned down as of late in the last month? Nothing, but these surveillance programs persist. Everyone complains about the riots but never the systems that bring them about. And they never explain that if riots are counterproductive, how come the problem persisted when there were no riots? As a wise man once said, people always seem to be more devoted to "order" than justice and prefer a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.
- mbostleman 5y ago
  To be clear, I am not defending the action of the police, only the logic of the implication that the police are unjustly conspiring to limit free speech and otherwise peaceful protest. >>What's being burned down as of late in the last month?>> I would suggest that that is pretty much the definition of being proactive. There was violence in the past, quite a bit, and maybe now actions are being taken to head it off in the future. >>Nothing, but these surveillance programs persist.>> Yes because it happened in the past. >>Everyone complains about the riots but never the systems that bring them about.>> "the systems that bring them about"? This is vague. What systems? Assuming we could parse out exactly what you're talking about, are you suggesting that the violence and destruction of private and public property is justified because the "the systems" have a problem?
  - vkou 5y ago
    > What systems? Unaccountable police that can get away with murder unless the entire country starts rioting for two months. Those systems. The systems that let an officer strangle a man to death, while all his peers stand by and watch it happen, and then they all file a police report of 'we responded to a medical emergency, patient died on the scene'. Nothing about these systems has changed since 2020. The police are above the law, and they act to take full advantage of it. That's what people have been protesting about. Most police departments responded to the protests by... Continuing to do the same things that are being protested.
    - pstuart 5y ago
      And of course when the talk of violence comes up in regards to protest, it's important to recognize that in many cases that violence is instigated by agents provocateur in order to delegitimize said protest. Case in point: https://minnesotareformer.com/2021/06/02/whats-up-with-umbrella-man/ https://minnesotareformer.com/2021/06/02/whats-up-with-umbre...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - toofy 5y ago
    Currently two posts above this, the person says: > To paraphrase MLK, riots are the voice of the unheard. When we, as a society, fail to listen to the plight of our neighbors, violence is the result. And now the post im replying to asserts that the systemic claims are too vague. Asserts this despite the decades and decades worth of detailed discussions on this exact topic. Asserts it’s too vague despite thousands of songs from every musical genre. Many of them absolute household known top of the chart hits. Hundreds of plays, series, and movies on the topic. Despite the libraries worth of books which have been written on the topic—nope, too vague. Somehow this poster still asserts the problem is too vague for them. MLK indeed: > Riots are the language of the unheard.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Hearing is easy enough, if you can be bothered at all. That would be legitimate prevention.
- fundad 5y ago
  Can't upvote hard enough
- meatsauce 5y ago
  "What's being burned down as of late in the last month" Give it time. The election isn't until November. If the democrats get the predicted boot, expect the widespread lawlessness to reach "mostly peaceful" 2020 race riot levels.
alistairSH 5y ago
To paraphrase MLK, riots are the voice of the unheard. When we, as a society, fail to listen to the plight of our neighbors, violence is the result. We can beef up our policing and surveillance operations in a futile attempt to lessen the impact of violent riots. Or, we can spend that effort or listening and making changes to the systems that cause these riots in the first place. Yes, rioting is illegal and should remain so. But arresting rioters is treating a symptom, not the disease.
- floor2 5y ago
  If you re-read your own post, but this time think about the Jan 6th violence at the Capital or the 2014 Bundy standoff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff) do you feel the same? The "voice of the unheard" argument is a nice rationalization when we sympathize and agree with the violent actors, but, at least for me, it doesn't seem to resonate much when I don't. I can listen to the Jan 6 people say the election was fraudulent or I can listen to Bundy say he should be able to graze his cattle on public land for free... but after listening to their plight I still disagree and I still hold them responsible for their violent actions. Personally, I'd rather we accept that large groups shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of a few affiliated people, while holding individuals responsible for their own actions.
  - alistairSH 5y ago
    I still disagree and I still hold them responsible for their violent actions. We're in agreement there. I didn't say we should drop all policing related to violent political protest. I said we need to realize increased policing isn't a solution to violent political protest. WRT Jan 6, the root cause is complicated (understatement of the year). But, stagnating wages, continued urbanization and globalization, and an out of touch political class all contribute. Those things (plus others) need fixed or we'll get a repeat of Jan 6 next election cycle.
  - ear7h 5y ago
    I think you're proving [my interpretation of the] "unheard voice" argument. You're saying that that the rioting/violence is not what makes Jan 6/Bundy or their respective groups bad, it's their "unheard voice". I don't think MLK meant that violence is always okay, rather that we should think about the demands/motivation for the violence when assessing the groups that cause it.
woodruffw 5y ago
My understanding is that retrospectives on the 2020 civil unrest have found limited, if any, connections between the protestors and damage to businesses. At least in NYC, the majority of the looting (which was, in fact, minimal!) and business damage was done by opportunists[1]. Indeed, the NYPD spent nearly all of its time surveilling and cracking down on peaceful marchers, rather than responding to looting incidents[2]. A conspiratorially minded person might think that the police believe looting to be in their political interest. [1]: https://citylimits.org/2020/06/09/how-widespread-was-violence-on-new-yorks-nights-of-unrest/ https://citylimits.org/2020/06/09/how-widespread-was-violenc... [2]: https://theintercept.com/2021/06/01/nypd-looting-violence-protest/ https://theintercept.com/2021/06/01/nypd-looting-violence-pr...
- ncmncm 5y ago
  It doesn't take conspiracy-mindedness. Just observation.

x86_64Ubuntu 5y ago

What's being burned down as of late in the last month? Nothing, but these surveillance programs persist. Everyone complains about the riots but never the systems that bring them about. And they never explain that if riots are counterproductive, how come the problem persisted when there were no riots? As a wise man once said, people always seem to be more devoted to "order" than justice and prefer a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.

mbostleman 5y ago
To be clear, I am not defending the action of the police, only the logic of the implication that the police are unjustly conspiring to limit free speech and otherwise peaceful protest. >>What's being burned down as of late in the last month?>> I would suggest that that is pretty much the definition of being proactive. There was violence in the past, quite a bit, and maybe now actions are being taken to head it off in the future. >>Nothing, but these surveillance programs persist.>> Yes because it happened in the past. >>Everyone complains about the riots but never the systems that bring them about.>> "the systems that bring them about"? This is vague. What systems? Assuming we could parse out exactly what you're talking about, are you suggesting that the violence and destruction of private and public property is justified because the "the systems" have a problem?
- vkou 5y ago
  > What systems? Unaccountable police that can get away with murder unless the entire country starts rioting for two months. Those systems. The systems that let an officer strangle a man to death, while all his peers stand by and watch it happen, and then they all file a police report of 'we responded to a medical emergency, patient died on the scene'. Nothing about these systems has changed since 2020. The police are above the law, and they act to take full advantage of it. That's what people have been protesting about. Most police departments responded to the protests by... Continuing to do the same things that are being protested.
  - pstuart 5y ago
    And of course when the talk of violence comes up in regards to protest, it's important to recognize that in many cases that violence is instigated by agents provocateur in order to delegitimize said protest. Case in point: https://minnesotareformer.com/2021/06/02/whats-up-with-umbrella-man/ https://minnesotareformer.com/2021/06/02/whats-up-with-umbre...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- toofy 5y ago
  Currently two posts above this, the person says: > To paraphrase MLK, riots are the voice of the unheard. When we, as a society, fail to listen to the plight of our neighbors, violence is the result. And now the post im replying to asserts that the systemic claims are too vague. Asserts this despite the decades and decades worth of detailed discussions on this exact topic. Asserts it’s too vague despite thousands of songs from every musical genre. Many of them absolute household known top of the chart hits. Hundreds of plays, series, and movies on the topic. Despite the libraries worth of books which have been written on the topic—nope, too vague. Somehow this poster still asserts the problem is too vague for them. MLK indeed: > Riots are the language of the unheard.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Hearing is easy enough, if you can be bothered at all. That would be legitimate prevention.
fundad 5y ago
Can't upvote hard enough
meatsauce 5y ago
"What's being burned down as of late in the last month" Give it time. The election isn't until November. If the democrats get the predicted boot, expect the widespread lawlessness to reach "mostly peaceful" 2020 race riot levels.

alistairSH 5y ago

To paraphrase MLK, riots are the voice of the unheard. When we, as a society, fail to listen to the plight of our neighbors, violence is the result. We can beef up our policing and surveillance operations in a futile attempt to lessen the impact of violent riots. Or, we can spend that effort or listening and making changes to the systems that cause these riots in the first place. Yes, rioting is illegal and should remain so. But arresting rioters is treating a symptom, not the disease.

floor2 5y ago
If you re-read your own post, but this time think about the Jan 6th violence at the Capital or the 2014 Bundy standoff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff) do you feel the same? The "voice of the unheard" argument is a nice rationalization when we sympathize and agree with the violent actors, but, at least for me, it doesn't seem to resonate much when I don't. I can listen to the Jan 6 people say the election was fraudulent or I can listen to Bundy say he should be able to graze his cattle on public land for free... but after listening to their plight I still disagree and I still hold them responsible for their violent actions. Personally, I'd rather we accept that large groups shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of a few affiliated people, while holding individuals responsible for their own actions.
- alistairSH 5y ago
  I still disagree and I still hold them responsible for their violent actions. We're in agreement there. I didn't say we should drop all policing related to violent political protest. I said we need to realize increased policing isn't a solution to violent political protest. WRT Jan 6, the root cause is complicated (understatement of the year). But, stagnating wages, continued urbanization and globalization, and an out of touch political class all contribute. Those things (plus others) need fixed or we'll get a repeat of Jan 6 next election cycle.
- ear7h 5y ago
  I think you're proving [my interpretation of the] "unheard voice" argument. You're saying that that the rioting/violence is not what makes Jan 6/Bundy or their respective groups bad, it's their "unheard voice". I don't think MLK meant that violence is always okay, rather that we should think about the demands/motivation for the violence when assessing the groups that cause it.

woodruffw 5y ago

My understanding is that retrospectives on the 2020 civil unrest have found limited, if any, connections between the protestors and damage to businesses. At least in NYC, the majority of the looting (which was, in fact, minimal!) and business damage was done by opportunists[1]. Indeed, the NYPD spent nearly all of its time surveilling and cracking down on peaceful marchers, rather than responding to looting incidents[2]. A conspiratorially minded person might think that the police believe looting to be in their political interest. [1]: https://citylimits.org/2020/06/09/how-widespread-was-violence-on-new-yorks-nights-of-unrest/ https://citylimits.org/2020/06/09/how-widespread-was-violenc... [2]: https://theintercept.com/2021/06/01/nypd-looting-violence-protest/ https://theintercept.com/2021/06/01/nypd-looting-violence-pr...

ncmncm 5y ago
It doesn't take conspiracy-mindedness. Just observation.