[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[Joij21]

I will say this about a revolt in the 21st century. It is a whole lot easier for the government to win than it was in the 18th. Drone strikes, apache helicopters, mechanized infantry, armored divisions, plus the fact that anyone who plots rebellion is tracked by the NSA, CIA, FBI, and Homeland Security. Then you also have the fact that large corporate platforms where most people communicate are in cahoots with the government to supply intelligence, and can at anytime censor you if your deemed a security threat to the United States. Think your safe talking at a bar or someplace in the real world? Wrong! There are security cameras on every street, undercover police, and even if you manage to find someplace away from prying eyes then there is still no way any of your buddies might talk on their cellphones, which surprise! Are also able to be hacked into by intelligence agencies or even have your cell phone provider be complicit in handing over the information anyway. As a matter of fact I wouldn't be surprised if the United States government isn't already tracking what we are saying here right now on this website! And just a simple declaration of martial law or sweeping new security actions done in the name of a "national emergency" are all they need to shut down this site on the grounds that it is fostering "domestic insurrection" . Hell the government could even say those of us here that are not from the U.S. are foreign agents trying to "sway the public perception into accepting violent acts".

Don't believe me? I've already heard that the national intelligence is already looking into how this will impact U.S. intervention abroad. They know that taking actions against Iran and China for their own handling of protests is making them look weak. They also know other adversarial powers might take advantage of this to separate us from our allies and push de-legitimacy into any actions taken by the U.S. to interfere into other nations affairs. This is enough for the powers that be to view us the people to be a national security threat and cause them to also be suspect of possible foreign interference. I have even heard they are already scouring the web for any "bad powers at play". This should concern us!

 

[Ajidica]

Don't believe me? I've already heard that the national intelligence is already looking into how this will impact U.S. intervention abroad. They know that taking actions against Iran and China for their own handling of protests is making them look weak. They also know other adversarial powers might take advantage of this to separate us from our allies and push de-legitimacy into any actions taken by the U.S. to interfere into other nations affairs. This is enough for the powers that be to view us the people to be a national security threat and cause them to also be suspect of possible foreign interference. I have even heard they are already scouring the web for any "bad powers at play". This should concern us!

The impact of civil rights protests on US foreign policy is nothing new. One of the dirty secrets of the Kennedy administration was that his interest in civil rights was basically to stop them "making America look bad" when we were fighting for influence in Africa during decolonization. A strong part of the US civil rights movement was linking civil rights and black culture at home to black independence abroad.
In a relatively well known anecdote -thought unfortunately probably apocryphal- when Nixon was VP he was sent to Ghana as part of their independence celebrations. While there, Nixon asked a man "How does it feel to be free". The man responded by saying "Sir, I am not free, I am from Alabama".

Strikes home how little has changed in many respects in the last 60 years.

 

[Joij21]

The impact of civil rights protests on US foreign policy is nothing new. One of the dirty secrets of the Kennedy administration was that his interest in civil rights was basically to stop them "making America look bad" when we were fighting for influence in Africa during decolonization. A strong part of the US civil rights movement was linking civil rights and black culture at home to black independence abroad.
In a relatively well known anecdote -thought unfortunately probably apocryphal- when Nixon was VP he was sent to Ghana as part of their independence celebrations. While there, Nixon asked a man "How does it feel to be free". The man responded by saying "Sir, I am not free, I am from Alabama".

Strikes home how little has changed in many respects in the last 60 years.

Exactly my point! The Empire only cares about the protests of it's own people when it's territorial acquisition is impeded by the negative image such protests create. All of which prevents the enrichment of the imperial noble class, the sultanate of the media, the caliphs of corporatocracy, and the retainment of her vassals.

 

[caketastydelish]

If that is what I said, i'd agree with you. But that's not what I said. I believe I said (and feel free to go back and look) was that it was due to theft and vandalism making it a sub optimal investment.

I, like you, don’t have particularly left wing views (especially compared to CFC at large) but people have explained this to you pretty clearly.

Peaceful protests have already been tried for this problem, time and time again, year after year, with absolutely nothing to show for it.

They’ve already everything else, and plenty of times, at that.

“Insanity is doing the same thing multiple times and expecting different results”.

The only way the police will act accordingly is if they fear the consequences if they don’t. There haven’t been consequences, and they have made it abundantly clear that they’re not going to change unless there are.

And the law does everything they can to protect their own. The consequences aren’t coming from the legal system itself.

 

[Commodore]

I will say this about a revolt in the 21st century. It is a whole lot easier for the government to win than it was in the 18th. Drone strikes, apache helicopters, mechanized infantry, armored divisions

The Taliban has been successfully fighting against all of that from not just the US, but the entirety of NATO since 2001. Some would say that's because they are fighting on their home turf, and the US putting down a domestic revolt would be different from fighting a foreign insurgency. I agree that it would be different, but I disagree that the difference would be to the advantage of the government. Fighting against its own people would force the government to put even more restrictions on what the military could do. Order them to be too heavy-handed and not only will more and more public support shift towards the rebels, but you run the risk of mass defections from the military themselves. How many soldiers are going to continue to fight for the government when they see that their home town is being bombed or shelled into oblivion because it's a rebel stronghold? Or that their dear ol' grandma was "collateral damage" in one of those drone strikes?

There's also the aspect of foreign intervention. The US has made a lot of enemies over the years and those enemies would gladly provide support to any serious rebellion in the US. I've made it clear that I can't stand the current Chinese government, but you better believe I'll take any help they offer if I'm forced to fight against my government.

plus the fact that anyone who plots rebellion is tracked by the NSA, CIA, FBI, and Homeland Security

All of those agencies actually have a pretty terrible track record when it comes to stopping anything domestically. Hell, look at how many school shooters have pretty much laid out their plans on social media and still weren't stopped.

Think your safe talking at a bar or someplace in the real world? Wrong! There are security cameras on every street, undercover police, and even if you manage to find someplace away from prying eyes then there is still no way any of your buddies might talk on their cellphones, which surprise! Are also able to be hacked into by intelligence agencies or even have your cell phone provider be complicit in handing over the information anyway

You attribute too much omnipotence and omniscience to the government. If what you were saying were true, then no crime would go unsolved. Yet in Chicago they only manage to solve something like 7% of all murder cases.

The problem the government has is manpower. They may have the tools to monitor the populace, but they don't have the people to investigate every little thing that triggers their monitoring software. That lack of manpower leaves blindspots. Things that should be investigated fall through those blindspots and get forgotten about. Trust me, as someone who used to be a part of the intelligence community, there's a lot they don't know and a lot that slips past their gaze. The intelligence community is nothing like what you see in the movies.

 

[cardgame]

You attribute too much omnipotence and omniscience to the government. If what you were saying were true, then no crime would go unsolved. Yet in Chicago they only manage to solve something like 7% of all murder cases.

The problem the government has is manpower. They may have the tools to monitor the populace, but they don't have the people to investigate every little thing that triggers their monitoring software. That lack of manpower leaves blindspots. Things that should be investigated fall through those blindspots and get forgotten about. Trust me, as someone who used to be a part of the intelligence community, there's a lot they don't know and a lot that slips past their gaze. The intelligence community is nothing like what you see in the movies.

That said, we do have proof that they track this forum.

 

[Arwon]

The thing that "government could crush them" take misses is that yes, the tools of a full surveillance state, fully lethal security crackdown, and ongoing political despotism, absolutely do exist. But, getting the pure force in place to go down that path in any country is still a matter of the political will and political capacity of key people and institutions to carry it out. There's still a big gap between heavy handed response to civil unrest and the full, broad-based, semi permanent authoritarian crackdown required to use the surveillance state to maintain political power and the current political order against a determined revolt.

That will, and even desire no doubt exists in some in the US, including probably the president. But even now I'm not sure the US is really in a place where a critical mass of the military, the civil service, the security forces and the police are on board with consciously and deliberately committing to the surveillance-based domestic occupation and disenfranchisement of all their major cities.

There is ample space to push the US state past the point it's willing to do what it would need to do, in the way of violence and political repression, to suppress all this defiance and anger.

 

[Hrothbern]

That said, we do have proof that they track this forum.

Another empty tick off on a too big list ?

Actionism of bosses keeping civil servants busy ?

 

[Kaitzilla]

I will say this about a revolt in the 21st century. It is a whole lot easier for the government to win than it was in the 18th. Drone strikes, apache helicopters, mechanized infantry, armored divisions, plus the fact that anyone who plots rebellion is tracked by the NSA, CIA, FBI, and Homeland Security. Then you also have the fact that large corporate platforms where most people communicate are in cahoots with the government to supply intelligence, and can at anytime censor you if your deemed a security threat to the United States. Think your safe talking at a bar or someplace in the real world? Wrong! There are security cameras on every street, undercover police, and even if you manage to find someplace away from prying eyes then there is still no way any of your buddies might talk on their cellphones, which surprise! Are also able to be hacked into by intelligence agencies or even have your cell phone provider be complicit in handing over the information anyway. As a matter of fact I wouldn't be surprised if the United States government isn't already tracking what we are saying here right now on this website! And just a simple declaration of martial law or sweeping new security actions done in the name of a "national emergency" are all they need to shut down this site on the grounds that it is fostering "domestic insurrection" . Hell the government could even say those of us here that are not from the U.S. are foreign agents trying to "sway the public perception into accepting violent acts".

Don't believe me? I've already heard that the national intelligence is already looking into how this will impact U.S. intervention abroad. They know that taking actions against Iran and China for their own handling of protests is making them look weak. They also know other adversarial powers might take advantage of this to separate us from our allies and push de-legitimacy into any actions taken by the U.S. to interfere into other nations affairs. This is enough for the powers that be to view us the people to be a national security threat and cause them to also be suspect of possible foreign interference. I have even heard they are already scouring the web for any "bad powers at play". This should concern us!

I've got an old smartphone so I can take the battery out when I don't want to be spied on.
But all the new-finagled ones with permanent batteries just keep on spying non-stop.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ion-tweet-a9541306.html?utm_source=reddit.com

“The United States of America will be designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organisation,” he said in a series of tweets on Sunday blaming violent outbursts and rioting at police brutality protests across America over the weekend on the group and other “Radical Left” elements.

I mean the open complicity with extremist right wing groups is ******* hard to swallow here.

Has there been any real evidence of Antifa mobilizing ?

Domestic Terrorists!

That means the government can freeze their assets at the drop of a hat without any due process.
Then they can take them to court, and since they have no money for a lawyer, permanently take everything they own after a few months.
They are not allowed a free public servant to defend them either.

Domestic terrorism is the fastest path to poverty.
https://www.aclu.org/other/how-usa-patriot-act-redefines-domestic-terrorism

 

[Joij21]

Trust me, as someone who used to be a part of the intelligence community

Were you kicked out by Trump? For the whole "shadow government" thing?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Peaceful protest has gotten us nowhere, it's gotten us people promising to enact change but delaying/stymying it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Peaceful protest has gotten us nowhere, it's gotten us people promising to enact change but delaying/stymying it.

I don't actually remember peaceful protests even getting promises of change. My memory is that promises of change are the fodder that stops riots. Just a "yeah we hear you but go ahead and keep protesting if you still feel the need" is all I remember coming from peaceful protests.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I don't actually remember peaceful protests even getting promises of change. My memory is that promises of change are the fodder that stops riots. Just a "yeah we hear you but go ahead and keep protesting if you still feel the need" is all I remember coming from peaceful protests.

The cops are so sick, so ill that they'll mace children, such is their perverse lust for inflicting harm on others they view with contempt

 

[Gorbles]

Twitter thread detailing what does and doesn't work in mitigating and preventing violence caused by police officers. I recommend folks read it, especially anyone that is interested in asking about solutions.

 

[Berzerker]

Rosa Parks and the freedom riders fade from memory

 

[EnglishEdward]

Burning small bookstores.

The store, Uncle Hugo's, was a genuinely neat bookstore specializing in sci-fi and fantasy books with a collection stretching back decades - many of the books were effectively irreplaceable. I've been there a number of times and the owner is a nice guy who I spent easily an hour with talking about Poul Anderson's historical novels and the short stories of Fritz Leiber.

Both splendid authors.

You have my sympathies.

I'd hate if if arsonists and looters took advantage of protests to trash my neighbourhood

 

[Commodore]

Were you kicked out by Trump? For the whole "shadow government" thing?

No, I was US Army Intelligence and got out due to a knee injury back in 2011, long before Trump.

 

[Gorbles]

Another example of police attacking credentialled members of the press (Twitter, from someone belonging to BBC North).

 

[Colon]

I'm reading the text:

Spoiler :

FOR SEVERAL days, Americans have awakened to searing images. A police station in Minneapolis engulfed in flames. A police truck in New York driving into a sea of protesters. Scores of riot policemen, unidentifiable behind their helmets and face shields, storming down a residential street in Minneapolis, and firing paint rounds at people who did not run inside quickly enough. Joyce Beatty, an African-American congresswoman from Ohio, pepper-sprayed by police while trying to quell a confrontation. Police in multiple cities appeared to deliberately target journalists with rubber bullets and tear-gas canisters.

The proximate cause for the protests was the killing of George Floyd, who died on May 25th after Derek Chauvin, then an officer with the Minneapolis Police Department, pressed his knee into Mr Floyd’s neck for nearly nine minutes—almost three of them after police failed to detect Mr Floyd’s pulse. On May 29th Mr Chauvin was arrested and charged with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. Mr Chauvin is expected to appear in court today. Protesters in Minneapolis had been clamouring for his arrest for three days, since mobile-phone footage of Mr Floyd’s death went viral. But his arrest did not quell the demonstrations that Mr Floyd’s death sparked. Over the weekend, they spread. America is now wracked by the most widespread, sustained unrest it has seen in more than 50 years.
Rallies that began peacefully during the day have turned violent at night. At least 75 cities across America have seen protests over the past several days. Governors in at least 11 states have called up the National Guard, and dozens of mayors declared curfews. These measures may calm things down, but they may not: protests following the death of Freddie Grey at the hands of police officers in Baltimore, and Michael Brown, killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, lasted for weeks—and those were not nearly as widespread.

That is in part because the current outcry is about more than just Mr Floyd. Protesters in Georgia commemorated Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old black man killed while jogging by two white men who chased him in a truck and shot him to death, claiming they believed, without evidence, that he was a burglar. It took weeks before local officials charged the father and son who chased and killed Mr Arbury.

In Louisville, Kentucky, protesters marched in memory of Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old African-American emergency-room technician whom police officers killed while executing a “no-knock” warrant at her apartment (police claim they identified themselves; the family disputes this). Crowds across America have chanted “Hands up, don’t shoot”, a slogan used to draw attention to the abnormally high number of police killings in America—1,099 people last year—particularly of African-Americans, who are three times more likely than white people to be killed by police.

Precisely who is responsible for the protests’ more destructive aspects remains unclear—but those aspects have been widespread, and risk undermining support for essential reforms to American policing. Vice News has reported that far-right groups have infiltrated demonstrations, intending to spark racial violence. Tim Walz, Minnesota’s governor, blamed white supremacists, and said he has seen “evidence of some pretty sophisticated attempts to cause problems”. Police across America have often appeared far more eager to escalate than de-escalate violent confrontations.
When racial unrest spread across American cities in 1967, then-president Lyndon Johnson formed a commission to investigate its causes. “We seek more than the uneasy calm of martial law,” he said, in a nationally televised speech. “We seek peace that is based on one man’s respect for another man...We seek a public order that is built on steady progress in meeting the needs of all of our people.”

America’s current president has made no such address. Although Donald Trump called Mr Floyd’s death “a grave tragedy” and has said that “healing not hatred, justice not chaos, are the mission at hand”, he has also suggested that looters should be shot without trial. “When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” he tweeted on May 29th, echoing a phrase used by Miami’s white police chief in 1967, who boasted, “We don’t mind being accused of police brutality.” He has warned of “vicious dogs, and most ominous weapons” being turned against protesters outside the White House, and of unleashing “the unlimited power of our military”.

Coming from Mr Trump—who has pardoned Edward Gallagher, a Navy SEAL convicted of posing with a corpse, whom fellow officers accused of shooting Iraqi civilians; as well as Joe Arpaio, a police sheriff convicted of contempt of court for failing to stop his department’s racial profiling—this rhetoric is unsurprising. And while one might imagine that a violent summer during a pandemic and a period of mass unemployment might dent a sitting president’s chances of re-election, widespread revulsion at civic unrest helped put Richard Nixon into the White House in 1968. Mr Trump no doubt hopes for the same effect this year.

1) In Minnesota, a black CNN journalist was arrested together with his crew while they were broadcasting live. He has a Spanish surname to boot.
2) As I posted in another thread, I just heard Monty Burns' voice saying ‘release the hounds’ when I first read that.

It's getting surreal.

I listed a few other cases earlier in the thread. Apparently, there was another incident in which a Vice reporter was beaten up by several cops and getting sprayed in the face while shouting s/he was press.

The section about violence against journalists (by police) in the Wikipedia article about the protests is getting pretty extensive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests#Violence_against_journalists
There's already been too many cases in which cops clearly deliberately targeted clearly identifiable journalists to assume others may have been a mistake. And they don't even give a damn they're being seen to do so. This is really disconcerting.

[edit] See post above.

 

[cardgame]

Ok I got your point. It's better for me not to discuss violent and revolutionary scenarios on public forum, much less encourage them.

"interference from Russia" hahahaha

I listed a few other cases earlier in the thread. Apparently, there was another incident in which a Vice reporter was beaten up by several cops and getting sprayed in the face while shouting s/he was press.

The section about violence against journalists (by police) in the Wikipedia article about the protests is getting pretty extensive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests#Violence_against_journalists
There's already been too many cases in which cops clearly deliberately targeted clearly identifiable journalists to assume others may have been a mistake. And they don't even give a damn they're being seen to do so. This is really disconcerting.

What do you do with a drunken sailor rabid dog?