[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[aelf]

There will always be crazies, and focusing attention on them is a favourite reactionary tactic.

 

[Crezth]

Well if they don't start acting clear-headed then everyone and everyone's mother will reject them and their movement. Then their movement will die.

I don't think that's how it works. The movement doesn't require the support of people sitting at home. People are in the streets because they're unemployed and angry. They're getting shot at by the police for peacefully protesting, too, so it's not hard to see how this has radicalized the movement.

I think you're assuming too much restitutive influence on the part of propriety to return things to normal. There will never be a return to pre-Floyd. That cat's out of the bag.

 

[Joij21]

I don't think that's how it works. The movement doesn't require the support of people sitting at home. People are in the streets because they're unemployed and angry. They're getting shot at by the police for peacefully protesting, too, so it's not hard to see how this has radicalized the movement.

I think you're assuming too much restitutive influence on the part of propriety to return things to normal. There will never be a return to pre-Floyd. That cat's out of the bag.

The people at home will likely be more willing to vote for Trump which would put an end to all hopes of reform at the federal level. Them getting radicalized isn't going to do much for the movement except attract more weirdos into it. Once to many weirdos get in their numbers will decline as many won't want to be associated with them.

Mass shootings have been going on for years and the public has essentially become desensitized to the issue. The post-Floyd era will be no different. The cat came out of the bag years ago and police shootings kept happening. Mark my words another black guy will most likely be killed by police next month, then the month after that, and the month after that, and so on. Nothings going to change.

 

[Gorbles]

Anyone who is still willing to vote for Trump at this point, if we're going to make assumptions like this, are realistically never going to vote for anyone else. The "swing voter" was a mostly-mythical concept in 2016, and we're four years into Trump's administration. Anybody who sees what's going on and is still considering voting Trump is so unaffected by any of the goings-on, or has been duped by the blame of minorities / Demoncrats / Hillary / whoever Fox News is railing against this week and is therefore a moot statistic anyway.

This isn't people deliberating over their favourite bread, or even a more efficient type of tax return. This is people getting shot in the street by police for doing literally nothing. For credentialled members of the press, at range, being fired upon by police. Again, for doing nothing.

If "people being mad as a response" makes someone more willing to vote for Trump, but the initial literal unprovoked shooting of peaceful people did not move the needle the other way, that vote was never in question in the first place.

 

[Crezth]

The people at home will likely be more willing to vote for Trump which would put an end to all hopes of reform at the federal level. Them getting radicalized isn't going to do much for the movement except attract more weirdos into it. Once to many weirdos get in their numbers will decline as many won't want to be associated with them.

Mass shootings have been going on for years and the public has essentially become desensitized to the issue. The post-Floyd era will be no different. The cat came out of the bag years ago and police shootings kept happening. Mark my words another black guy will most likely be killed by police next month, then the month after that, and the month after that, and so on. Nothings going to change.

And that's why the protests will continue to increase in intensity and ferocity, especially as the economy continues teetering, until something breaks. Both Trump and Biden have the same chance of effecting real reform, in my view: none whatsoever. "Best case" scenario Biden puts makeup on a hog, but the underlying damage is already done.

If people are really desensitized, that would seem to imply that BLM would lose momentum, not gain it. However the trend since Ferguson has been for the movement to acquire more momentum, not less. In my view this is because the failing real economy and BLM awareness are dovetailing. What makes this current round of protests significant is:

1. Duration (several weeks, unbroken),
2. Reach (the entire country),
3. Participation (uncounted with over 10,000 jailed),
4. Overwhelming evidence of violent suppression of peaceful protest,
5. Evidence of the success of mass action in forcing government concessions.

This is all to say that I'm not sure public opinion is as fickle or precious as you seem to. This protest power is self-sustaining. In the 1960's, the civil rights movement was wildly unpopular. MLK was hated. Most thought the riots were bad. But that's not why the black liberation movement was happening: it was a response to an intolerable condition. The same is true now.

 

[Zardnaar]

And that's why the protests will continue to increase in intensity and ferocity, especially as the economy continues teetering, until something breaks. Both Trump and Biden have the same chance of effecting real reform, in my view: none whatsoever. "Best case" scenario Biden puts makeup on a hog, but the underlying damage is already done.

If people are really desensitized, that would seem to imply that BLM would lose momentum, not gain it. However the trend since Ferguson has been for the movement to acquire more momentum, not less. In my view this is because the failing real economy and BLM awareness are dovetailing. What makes this current round of protests significant is:

1. Duration (several weeks, unbroken),
2. Reach (the entire country),
3. Participation (uncounted with over 10,000 jailed),
4. Overwhelming evidence of violent suppression of peaceful protest,
5. Evidence of the success of mass action in forcing government concessions.

This is all to say that I'm not sure public opinion is as fickle or precious as you seem to. This protest power is self-sustaining. In the 1960's, the civil rights movement was wildly unpopular. MLK was hated. Most thought the riots were bad. But that's not why the black liberation movement was happening: it was a response to an intolerable condition. The same is true now.

The liberals got decimated and there was no progress president for 40 years.

Crazies scared middle America and they flicked to GoP.

 

[AmazonQueen]

The liberals got decimated and there was no progress president for 40 years.

Crazies scared middle America and they flicked to GoP.

Well apart from Jimmy Carter.
Majority of US citizens support police reform and disapprove of Trump's handling of the issue, in '68 the majority didn't support Civil Rights.

 

[Crezth]

The liberals got decimated and there was no progress president for 40 years.

Crazies scared middle America and they flicked to GoP.

I think it's more accurate to say blacks scared white America and they flicked to GOP. The racism question is cast now into sharper relief than ever before. Greater understanding abounds as to its true nature. People must now ask, where before they assumed: did the 60's solve anything? Where do we go now?

Not to mention the economy is more collapsed now than it's ever been. Unemployment has never been seen at this scale since the great depression, even while the stock market - defying all reason - continues to surge. I hold that this cannot maintain.

 

[gay_Aleks]

As the poem goes - "the center cannot hold.".

For the record, one may have noticed the fact that, in the past month or so, we have seen far more action on part of the institutions following the protests and/or riots, than probably in the past decade. Perhaps this is hyperbolic. But the people are seeing that this is how you get your supposed representatives' attention. Peacefully voting and continuing as all's good...does not. So, I think we're at the very beginning of a new stage of struggle.

 

[Joij21]

Evidence of the success of mass action in forcing government concessions.

And how long will it be until local, state, and the federal governments view further demands for concessions to no longer be reasonable? By which I mean calls to defund the police or to outright ban them. Governments will only reform the police, not get rid of them. To many of the protesters reform is just makeup on a hog as you put it.

Majority of US citizens support police reform

Which further proves my point that the majority of citizens at home only view reform as reasonable, not defunding or getting rid of the police. Hence why the movement will be opposed more the further they keep pushing for such radical ideas.

 

[Crezth]

And how long will it be until local, state, and the federal governments view further demands for concessions to no longer be reasonable? By which I mean calls to defund the police or to outright ban them. Governments will only reform the police, not get rid of them. To many of the protesters reform is just makeup on a hog as you put it.

Which further proves my point that the majority of citizens at home only view reform as reasonable, not defunding or getting rid of the police. Hence why the movement will be opposed more the further they keep pushing for such radical ideas.

Yet police reform was a dead-letter until these protests. Now people are speaking openly of it, and defunding and abolition are on the table. Even "defund" is not altogether too radical, especially considering the US material situation, which has slashed every item on the budget - including education, healthcare, and lunch for children - for the past 30 years relentlessly.

But this does get to the heart of the matter, which you seem also to acknowledge, that the government ultimately won't stand for these protests. The harder they crack down, the more the situation will spiral out of their control. There is no doubt in my mind that by declaring early curfews and sending the cops out with tear gas and rubberized bullets to disperse peaceful gatherings, they tilted the public sentiment far away from them, lit a fire under the protesters, and thus have sown seeds they will reap when they're left with no choice but to use live ammo.

 

[Estebonrober]

I don't think that's how it works. The movement doesn't require the support of people sitting at home. People are in the streets because they're unemployed and angry. They're getting shot at by the police for peacefully protesting, too, so it's not hard to see how this has radicalized the movement.

I think you're assuming too much restitutive influence on the part of propriety to return things to normal. There will never be a return to pre-Floyd. That cat's out of the bag.

This is definitely true. Do not under estimate the unemployment factor in this calculation as well. There is a reason this falls along such clear demographic lines and unemployment is one of those reasons. Among many others.

The people at home will likely be more willing to vote for Trump which would put an end to all hopes of reform at the federal level. Them getting radicalized isn't going to do much for the movement except attract more weirdos into it. Once to many weirdos get in their numbers will decline as many won't want to be associated with them.

Mass shootings have been going on for years and the public has essentially become desensitized to the issue. The post-Floyd era will be no different. The cat came out of the bag years ago and police shootings kept happening. Mark my words another black guy will most likely be killed by police next month, then the month after that, and the month after that, and so on. Nothings going to change.

You might be right here and considering current power structures your point should be well taken but. . .

And how long will it be until local, state, and the federal governments view further demands for concessions to no longer be reasonable? By which I mean calls to defund the police or to outright ban them. Governments will only reform the police, not get rid of them. To many of the protesters reform is just makeup on a hog as you put it.



Which further proves my point that the majority of citizens at home only view reform as reasonable, not defunding or getting rid of the police. Hence why the movement will be opposed more the further they keep pushing for such radical ideas.

so far no one except the city of Minneapolis has done anything. GOP on judiciary committee want review boards to go over what’s going on. So yea nothing has happened yet. Nothing. No concessions. No reform. Nothing.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think it's more accurate to say blacks scared white America and they flicked to GOP. The racism question is cast now into sharper relief than ever before. Greater understanding abounds as to its true nature. People must now ask, where before they assumed: did the 60's solve anything? Where do we go now?

Not to mention the economy is more collapsed now than it's ever been. Unemployment has never been seen at this scale since the great depression, even while the stock market - defying all reason - continues to surge. I hold that this cannot maintain.

I don't think that's sustainable either.

Trump's so toxic for now. People don't mind the problem statues being toppled but if the crazies start trashing everything Biden can also run on restoring law and order.

Popular support will turn against "the mob".

 

[Zardnaar]

Yet police reform was a dead-letter until these protests. Now people are speaking openly of it, and defunding and abolition are on the table. Even "defund" is not altogether too radical, especially considering the US material situation, which has slashed every item on the budget - including education, healthcare, and lunch for children - for the past 30 years relentlessly.

But this does get to the heart of the matter, which you seem also to acknowledge, that the government ultimately won't stand for these protests. The harder they crack down, the more the situation will spiral out of their control. There is no doubt in my mind that by declaring early curfews and sending the cops out with tear gas and rubberized bullets to disperse peaceful gatherings, they tilted the public sentiment far away from them, lit a fire under the protesters, and thus have sown seeds they will reap when they're left with no choice but to use live ammo.

And if it gets that far a whole heap of people gonna get killed.

People won't care to much because the narrative will be the protesters started using violence etc.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Anyone who is still willing to vote for Trump at this point, if we're going to make assumptions like this, are realistically never going to vote for anyone else. The "swing voter" was a mostly-mythical concept in 2016, and we're four years into Trump's administration. Anybody who sees what's going on and is still considering voting Trump is so unaffected by any of the goings-on, or has been duped by the blame of minorities / Demoncrats / Hillary / whoever Fox News is railing against this week and is therefore a moot statistic anyway.

This isn't people deliberating over their favourite bread, or even a more efficient type of tax return. This is people getting shot in the street by police for doing literally nothing. For credentialled members of the press, at range, being fired upon by police. Again, for doing nothing.

If "people being mad as a response" makes someone more willing to vote for Trump, but the initial literal unprovoked shooting of peaceful people did not move the needle the other way, that vote was never in question in the first place.

There does seem an odd tendency to blame anything that happens during the "reign" of the incumbent president (or prime minister or whatever) directly on that president (or prime minister or whatever). But what is the direct link here? Is the assertion that Trump himself is directly ordering the police, who were presumably entirely peaceful and lovable pre-2016, to go out there and start shooting? Would he even be able to make that happen if they were all lovely and peaceful pre-2016? I thought the problems with the American police were meant to stretch back decades, or even longer? But if that's so, then why would "don't vote for Trump again" be the go-to response for dealing with that?

 

[Crezth]

And if it gets that far a whole heap of people gonna get killed.

People won't care to much because the narrative will be the protesters started using violence etc.

Narratives cease to have the same meaning when the economy is ruined and the streets are running with blood. I have no doubt people can adapt to new normals: martial law, summary executions in the streets, military checkpoints.

The "crazies" may be a problem for some people, but... the government will be a problem for everyone else.

 

[Estebonrober]

There does seem an odd tendency to blame anything that happens during the "reign" of the incumbent president (or prime minister or whatever) directly on that president (or prime minister or whatever). But what is the direct link here? Is the assertion that Trump himself is directly ordering the police, who were presumably entirely peaceful and lovable pre-2016, to go out there and start shooting? Would he even be able to make that happen if they were all lovely and peaceful pre-2016? I thought the problems with the American police were meant to stretch back decades, or even longer? But if that's so, then why would "don't vote for Trump again" be the go-to response for dealing with that?

I mean if you weren’t political and spend so much time on forums such as this I’d take this point sincerely. Instead I know you know about Trumps repeated escalation of violent rhetoric explicitly when it come to police cracking skulls. So take this kite and go fly it in friendlier neighborhoods.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

There does seem an odd tendency to blame anything that happens during the "reign" of the incumbent president (or prime minister or whatever) directly on that president (or prime minister or whatever). But what is the direct link here? Is the assertion that Trump himself is directly ordering the police, who were presumably entirely peaceful and lovable pre-2016, to go out there and start shooting? Would he even be able to make that happen if they were all lovely and peaceful pre-2016? I thought the problems with the American police were meant to stretch back decades, or even longer? But if that's so, then why would "don't vote for Trump again" be the go-to response for dealing with that?

Trump has literally advocated for the continued escalation of police brutality and violence, so when you say stuff like this it kind of leads me to believe you aren't posting in good faith.

 

[Estebonrober]

And if it gets that far a whole heap of people gonna get killed.

People won't care to much because the narrative will be the protesters started using violence etc.

Im beginning to believe this is inevitable and that the left needs to start arming up for it. I mean **** we’ve got trump people running 14 word ads 88 times with blatant Nazi Extermination warning signs built into the ads.

it’s time to consider this is heading for a Krystallnacht type situation and if you know Murica the way I do you should be really nervous about what that means for the rest of the planet.

 

[Zardnaar]

Narratives cease to have the same meaning when the economy is ruined and the streets are running with blood. I have no doubt people can adapt to new normals: martial law, summary executions in the streets, military checkpoints.

The "crazies" may be a problem for some people, but... the government will be a problem for everyone else.

Streets aren't running with blood.

Hitler assumed power because people supported the Nazis because the commies tried overthrowing the government.

The US army that bastion of liberal ideals won't want to mow down peaceful protesters. They might have no problem kicking far left revolutionary types violent though.