4 ms·

I don't understand why people are defending property destruction and looting. The whole point of a democracy is disagreements are solved peacefully without reso

I don't understand why people are defending property destruction and looting. The whole point of a democracy is disagreements are solved peacefully without resorting to violence. Intellectually defending this behaviour is helping to encourage it and the people defending this behaviour should be ashamed.

barrkel 12y ago
The risk of riots is a reason for not using the machinery of a non-representative democracy as a velvet glove for enforcing the will of a privileged elite. There's a more detailed explanation of this viewpoint here: http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/5911.html http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/5911.html You should look at this from the same perspective as irrational rage, or nuclear war. The risk of a destructive conflagration even when it is also harmful to the people who start the destruction is an impetus to solve disputes peacefully and fairly, and to not push structural power imbalances too far to gain an advantage.
- sktrdie 12y ago
  Here in Italy riots usually happen directly against the institutions. In Baltimore it was pretty much black people throwing stuff at everyday white people. The difference in race allows for a stronger generalization by both parties. Similar to when we attack institutions, we just go against all politicians. We fail to understand that many of them are not corrupt and are on our side. Generalization is a scary thing.
  - kajecounterhack 12y ago
    > In Baltimore it was pretty much black people throwing stuff at everyday white people. Citation needed. Lots of white people are protesting along with blacks. The protests in general are against law enforcement. > We fail to understand that many of them are not corrupt and are on our side. This doesn't seem relevant, the protests are not happening against "white people at large." Law enforcement is not on the side of the oppressed in this case. The corruption is systemic.
  - cpursley 12y ago
    This is the best comment in here, thanks.
davidgerard 12y ago
> I don't understand why people are defending property destruction and looting. You literally don't comprehend that the rioters weigh up property damage versus the danger of being randomly murdered by police, and don't give a hoot? OK. People who have hope, don't riot.
- kajecounterhack 12y ago
  > People who have hope, don't riot. This. Riots happen because the system is broken and can't be reasonably changed. (Or at least that is the perception.)
  - lclarkmichalek 12y ago
    "A riot is the language of the unheard".
  - thaumasiotes 12y ago
    How do you feel about sports fans rioting because their team won?
    - kajecounterhack 12y ago
      I acknowledge they happen, I think they are horrible. I don't think assholes rioting over sports are equivalent to savagely oppressed rioting for their livelihoods and for their suffering to be heard.
matthewmacleod 12y ago
It's a little bit more nuanced than that. It's easy to argue that 'democracy is the answer' when you are comfortable and enfranchised. But flip that around – put yourself in the place of someone who is poor, continually subject to discrimination, and does not have the same influence on democracy. The natural response of people in that situation is to say "fuck it". From their view, what's the point of engaging with a system that is comprehensively biased against them? Now, I won't defend property destruction and looting. But I do understand how it can happen. If you feel completely alienated from society, then the advice to 'solve problem peacefully using democracy' is less than useless.
- kajecounterhack 12y ago
  Yes. Democracy is also just a decision-making mechanism, the spirit of which is a hope: that by giving everyone voice, we can grant everyone their deserved human rights and dignity. Democracy fails when it is manipulated for abuse and harm.
_pmf_ 12y ago
> The whole point of a democracy is disagreements are solved peacefully without resorting to violence. Your little country would still be a British colony of peasants and slave holders.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - pjc50 12y ago
    Would they ever have done so?
  - InclinedPlane 12y ago
    I highly doubt it would have happened. The British government abolished slavery when it was easy to do so, but they looked the other way in regard to slavery routinely. And they actively maintained the nearly equally horrific caste and zamindar system in India. With money rolling in from plantations it's highly questionable whether the UK would have abolished slavery until perhaps the 20th century.
  - kajecounterhack 12y ago
    Slave holders or not seems entirely moot: racism and oppression of colored folk exists RIGHT NOW. The civil rights movement was and continues to be violent, because it needs to be. Yes, all of this happened in a democracy. Yes troops had to help desegregate schools, and we're not even talking about slavery anymore.
  - barry-cotter 12y ago
    You don't need to ask a historian. Any knowledge of how the slave trade ended will do. The British Empire ended the slave trade everywhere they could reach at the point of a gun. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline > 1807, 25 March: Abolition of the Slave Trade Act abolishes slave trading in British Empire. Captains fined £120 per slave transported. 1807, 22 July: The constitution of the Duchy of Warsaw abolishes serfdom.[41] 1807: The British begin patrols of African coast to arrest slaving vessels. The West Africa Squadron (Royal Navy) is established to suppress slave trading; by 1865, nearly 150,000 people freed by anti-slavery operations. 1811: Slave trading made a felony in the British Empire, punishable by transportation for British subjects and foreigners. 1815: British pay Portugal £750,000 to cease their trade north of the Equator. 1817: Spain paid £400,000 by British to cease trade to Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Santo Domingo.[45] 1817: New York State sets a date of 4 July 1827 to free all its ex-slaves from indenture.[46] 1818: Treaty between Britain and Spain to abolish slave trade.[47] 1818: Treaty between Britain and Portugal to abolish slave trade.[47] 1818: France abolishes slave trading. 1818: Treaty between Britain and the Netherlands taking additional measures to enforce the 1814 ban on slave trading. 1827: Treaty between Britain and Sweden to abolish slave trade.[ 1834: The British Slavery Abolition Act comes into force, abolishing slavery throughout most of the British Empire. Legally frees 700,000 in West Indies, 20,000 in Mauritius, and 40,000 in South Africa. The exceptions, territories controlled by the East India Company and Ceylon, were liberated in 1843 when they became part of the British Empire. 1835: Treaty between Britain and France to abolish slave trade. 1835: Treaty between Britain and Denmark to abolish slave trade. 1838, 1 August: Enslaved men, women, and children in the British Empire finally became fully free after a period of forced apprenticeship following the passing of the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. 1839: British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society founded as a successor to the Anti-Slavery Society. (The British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society exists today as Anti-Slavery International.)
JulianMorrison 12y ago
HAHAHAHAHA No wait, perhaps you meant "without resorting to violence" to affluent, white people? Because it's clear that state sanctioned violence against black people is A-okay with you.
- nhayden 12y ago
  This is a really unproductive way to respond to someone and is discouraged on HN.
smtddr 12y ago
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviole...
david_b 12y ago
You may want to read this: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviole... and then this as background infomation: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/04/29/david-simon-on-baltimore-s-anguish https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/04/29/david-simon-on...
calibraxis 12y ago
The US isn't a democracy. It was never one, and its "Founding Fathers" were explicitly against it. Because they wanted to protect the minority — and the minority they had in mind was the wealthy. (Obviously not their slaves, nor women who were pretty much property. After all, they were savage European immigrants who genocided the real "Americans".) Given a regime which imprisons the most people in the world, strangles black people to death on camera in broad daylight, shoots black children dead... And given a regime which sends "uniformed killers" (as Mark Twain put it) across the world, and cheers/supports Ukrainians to lob petrol bombs at THEIR police... Then yeah, what kind of halfway ethical person gives a fuck all about "property destruction and looting"? When whites go rioting because some sports team... well, I don't actually know what goes on in their savage minds... it's not an emergency. But when black people decide maybe they should not get slaughtered and humiliated, it threatens the white way of life and must be eliminated.

barrkel 12y ago

The risk of riots is a reason for not using the machinery of a non-representative democracy as a velvet glove for enforcing the will of a privileged elite. There's a more detailed explanation of this viewpoint here: http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/5911.html http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/5911.html You should look at this from the same perspective as irrational rage, or nuclear war. The risk of a destructive conflagration even when it is also harmful to the people who start the destruction is an impetus to solve disputes peacefully and fairly, and to not push structural power imbalances too far to gain an advantage.

sktrdie 12y ago
Here in Italy riots usually happen directly against the institutions. In Baltimore it was pretty much black people throwing stuff at everyday white people. The difference in race allows for a stronger generalization by both parties. Similar to when we attack institutions, we just go against all politicians. We fail to understand that many of them are not corrupt and are on our side. Generalization is a scary thing.
- kajecounterhack 12y ago
  > In Baltimore it was pretty much black people throwing stuff at everyday white people. Citation needed. Lots of white people are protesting along with blacks. The protests in general are against law enforcement. > We fail to understand that many of them are not corrupt and are on our side. This doesn't seem relevant, the protests are not happening against "white people at large." Law enforcement is not on the side of the oppressed in this case. The corruption is systemic.
- cpursley 12y ago
  This is the best comment in here, thanks.

davidgerard 12y ago

> I don't understand why people are defending property destruction and looting. You literally don't comprehend that the rioters weigh up property damage versus the danger of being randomly murdered by police, and don't give a hoot? OK. People who have hope, don't riot.

kajecounterhack 12y ago
> People who have hope, don't riot. This. Riots happen because the system is broken and can't be reasonably changed. (Or at least that is the perception.)
- lclarkmichalek 12y ago
  "A riot is the language of the unheard".
- thaumasiotes 12y ago
  How do you feel about sports fans rioting because their team won?
  - kajecounterhack 12y ago
    I acknowledge they happen, I think they are horrible. I don't think assholes rioting over sports are equivalent to savagely oppressed rioting for their livelihoods and for their suffering to be heard.

matthewmacleod 12y ago

It's a little bit more nuanced than that. It's easy to argue that 'democracy is the answer' when you are comfortable and enfranchised. But flip that around – put yourself in the place of someone who is poor, continually subject to discrimination, and does not have the same influence on democracy. The natural response of people in that situation is to say "fuck it". From their view, what's the point of engaging with a system that is comprehensively biased against them? Now, I won't defend property destruction and looting. But I do understand how it can happen. If you feel completely alienated from society, then the advice to 'solve problem peacefully using democracy' is less than useless.

kajecounterhack 12y ago
Yes. Democracy is also just a decision-making mechanism, the spirit of which is a hope: that by giving everyone voice, we can grant everyone their deserved human rights and dignity. Democracy fails when it is manipulated for abuse and harm.

_pmf_ 12y ago

> The whole point of a democracy is disagreements are solved peacefully without resorting to violence. Your little country would still be a British colony of peasants and slave holders.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- pjc50 12y ago
  Would they ever have done so?
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  I highly doubt it would have happened. The British government abolished slavery when it was easy to do so, but they looked the other way in regard to slavery routinely. And they actively maintained the nearly equally horrific caste and zamindar system in India. With money rolling in from plantations it's highly questionable whether the UK would have abolished slavery until perhaps the 20th century.
- kajecounterhack 12y ago
  Slave holders or not seems entirely moot: racism and oppression of colored folk exists RIGHT NOW. The civil rights movement was and continues to be violent, because it needs to be. Yes, all of this happened in a democracy. Yes troops had to help desegregate schools, and we're not even talking about slavery anymore.
- barry-cotter 12y ago
  You don't need to ask a historian. Any knowledge of how the slave trade ended will do. The British Empire ended the slave trade everywhere they could reach at the point of a gun. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline > 1807, 25 March: Abolition of the Slave Trade Act abolishes slave trading in British Empire. Captains fined £120 per slave transported. 1807, 22 July: The constitution of the Duchy of Warsaw abolishes serfdom.[41] 1807: The British begin patrols of African coast to arrest slaving vessels. The West Africa Squadron (Royal Navy) is established to suppress slave trading; by 1865, nearly 150,000 people freed by anti-slavery operations. 1811: Slave trading made a felony in the British Empire, punishable by transportation for British subjects and foreigners. 1815: British pay Portugal £750,000 to cease their trade north of the Equator. 1817: Spain paid £400,000 by British to cease trade to Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Santo Domingo.[45] 1817: New York State sets a date of 4 July 1827 to free all its ex-slaves from indenture.[46] 1818: Treaty between Britain and Spain to abolish slave trade.[47] 1818: Treaty between Britain and Portugal to abolish slave trade.[47] 1818: France abolishes slave trading. 1818: Treaty between Britain and the Netherlands taking additional measures to enforce the 1814 ban on slave trading. 1827: Treaty between Britain and Sweden to abolish slave trade.[ 1834: The British Slavery Abolition Act comes into force, abolishing slavery throughout most of the British Empire. Legally frees 700,000 in West Indies, 20,000 in Mauritius, and 40,000 in South Africa. The exceptions, territories controlled by the East India Company and Ceylon, were liberated in 1843 when they became part of the British Empire. 1835: Treaty between Britain and France to abolish slave trade. 1835: Treaty between Britain and Denmark to abolish slave trade. 1838, 1 August: Enslaved men, women, and children in the British Empire finally became fully free after a period of forced apprenticeship following the passing of the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. 1839: British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society founded as a successor to the Anti-Slavery Society. (The British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society exists today as Anti-Slavery International.)

JulianMorrison 12y ago

HAHAHAHAHA No wait, perhaps you meant "without resorting to violence" to affluent, white people? Because it's clear that state sanctioned violence against black people is A-okay with you.

nhayden 12y ago
This is a really unproductive way to respond to someone and is discouraged on HN.

smtddr 12y ago

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviole...

david_b 12y ago

You may want to read this: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviole... and then this as background infomation: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/04/29/david-simon-on-baltimore-s-anguish https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/04/29/david-simon-on...

calibraxis 12y ago

The US isn't a democracy. It was never one, and its "Founding Fathers" were explicitly against it. Because they wanted to protect the minority — and the minority they had in mind was the wealthy. (Obviously not their slaves, nor women who were pretty much property. After all, they were savage European immigrants who genocided the real "Americans".) Given a regime which imprisons the most people in the world, strangles black people to death on camera in broad daylight, shoots black children dead... And given a regime which sends "uniformed killers" (as Mark Twain put it) across the world, and cheers/supports Ukrainians to lob petrol bombs at THEIR police... Then yeah, what kind of halfway ethical person gives a fuck all about "property destruction and looting"? When whites go rioting because some sports team... well, I don't actually know what goes on in their savage minds... it's not an emergency. But when black people decide maybe they should not get slaughtered and humiliated, it threatens the white way of life and must be eliminated.