6 ms·

While I can see your point you have to really see this in context. Imagine a black community that largely feels (and by data proven to be) oppressed. Now that

by jmathai 12y ago

While I can see your point you have to really see this in context. Imagine a black community that largely feels (and by data proven to be) oppressed. Now that community has one of its children murdered by the police. When they want to take a stand they are confronted by a wall of heavily armed police that look like they could be fighting a war in Iraq (but as many have said they're even better armed). What possible reaction do you envision the black community having? I applaud them for keeping their composure as well as they have. I could not do that.

bayesianhorse 12y ago
As callous as it sounds: Responding with violence is not going to change a thing. Also, telling such a community that their anger isn't helping, also helps nobody. Peaceful, non-violent resistance might work.
- onli 12y ago
  Citation needed. Really. There were peaceful protests that were successful. But there were also many violent ones. Violence can and has changed many things. I don't like violence, but I like those wrong etaist pacifist statements even less. Edit: Or are you talking only about this specific situation and this is your opinion? Then nevermind, could very well be true here.
  - bayesianhorse 12y ago
    You can research Gandhi's non-violence principles. In essence violence justifies counter-violence. The more the angry protesters threaten or attack the police, the less "wrong" the current response looks. Non-violence tries to starve the legitimization of excessive force. This militarization is not a good idea and should be limited or abandoned. But "riots" are hardly making a point against military gear.
    - th0br0 12y ago
      By your logic, assuming that violence justifies counter-violence, the arms upgrades etc. that the police have received in the past could be portrayed as a form of violence. (If not physical, then at least psychological as a form of intimidation or similar) Therefore, the violent reactions are justified, also if they are more violent than past ones.
      - bayesianhorse 12y ago
        No, I am not implying "ultimate" justification, but yes, it goes both ways. Look at the comments in this discussion to view evidence of how people are sympathizing with a rioting mob which destroyed or harmed the businesses, property and person of totally innocent third parties. In the near east there is a similar problem. There is so much violence going on from both sides, that people can sympathize with cruelties from both sides.
    - stefan_kendall3 12y ago
      Gandhi had no real impact on the world. The American Revolution did. Colonists had to murder plenty of police and military.
      - secstate 12y ago
        I'm sorry. But Gandhi is just one of many who practised non-violence. Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me the MLK, Jr. had no real impact on the world either? I'll just go ahead and leave this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy's_speech_on_the_assassination_of_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#Earlier_that_day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy's_speech_on_t... The legacy of people who believed that violence is never justified, never necessary and can be overcome with compassion.

by jmathai 12y ago

bayesianhorse 12y ago

As callous as it sounds: Responding with violence is not going to change a thing. Also, telling such a community that their anger isn't helping, also helps nobody. Peaceful, non-violent resistance might work.

onli 12y ago
Citation needed. Really. There were peaceful protests that were successful. But there were also many violent ones. Violence can and has changed many things. I don't like violence, but I like those wrong etaist pacifist statements even less. Edit: Or are you talking only about this specific situation and this is your opinion? Then nevermind, could very well be true here.
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  You can research Gandhi's non-violence principles. In essence violence justifies counter-violence. The more the angry protesters threaten or attack the police, the less "wrong" the current response looks. Non-violence tries to starve the legitimization of excessive force. This militarization is not a good idea and should be limited or abandoned. But "riots" are hardly making a point against military gear.
  - th0br0 12y ago
    By your logic, assuming that violence justifies counter-violence, the arms upgrades etc. that the police have received in the past could be portrayed as a form of violence. (If not physical, then at least psychological as a form of intimidation or similar) Therefore, the violent reactions are justified, also if they are more violent than past ones.
    - bayesianhorse 12y ago
      No, I am not implying "ultimate" justification, but yes, it goes both ways. Look at the comments in this discussion to view evidence of how people are sympathizing with a rioting mob which destroyed or harmed the businesses, property and person of totally innocent third parties. In the near east there is a similar problem. There is so much violence going on from both sides, that people can sympathize with cruelties from both sides.
  - stefan_kendall3 12y ago
    Gandhi had no real impact on the world. The American Revolution did. Colonists had to murder plenty of police and military.
    - secstate 12y ago
      I'm sorry. But Gandhi is just one of many who practised non-violence. Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me the MLK, Jr. had no real impact on the world either? I'll just go ahead and leave this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy's_speech_on_the_assassination_of_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#Earlier_that_day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy's_speech_on_t... The legacy of people who believed that violence is never justified, never necessary and can be overcome with compassion.